MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Peruvian group in support and solidarity with Argentine Falklands/Malvinas Islands
Peruvian diplomats, jurists and academia presented the Argentine ambassador in Lima Dario D’Alessandro a document formalizing the Peruvian Group in Support and Solidarity with Argentine Sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesYawn !
Dec 09th, 2011 - 06:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0Peru - didn't they supply aircraft to Argentina in 1982 - at the same time as pushing a peace proposal through the UN ??
Not an important nation I beleve !
@ 1 be careful, you may poison yourself lol keep saying not important not importan and the UK plans in Latin America are being just that, nothing mmore than plans. Keep living in Thailand, or was it Disneyland? Enjoy it Redhoyt :)
Dec 09th, 2011 - 07:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSUPaTF-wN8
I am.
Dec 09th, 2011 - 09:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0Latin America + plans - nah! They couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery :-)
Thank you Peru!
Dec 09th, 2011 - 09:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0Occupation will be over soon!
1 Redhoyt
Dec 09th, 2011 - 11:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0you said... Not an important nation I beleve Probably Peru it is not so strong country but is CELAC group, man!!! do no forget this, 33 countries incluyed and ex coloniessssss!!
CELAC ?? Who??
Dec 09th, 2011 - 11:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0Another insignificant old boys club for south Cone diplomats !!
Irrelevant !
To you argentina muppets, this a group of civilians not peru goverment representatives. Its is basically meaningless and not only that read the bit where it says “overcoming the colonial vestige in the framework of obligations born out of the United Nations charter.” Now the UN Charter grants the islanders rights to self determination, so although they support your claim for sovereingty, they are also saying that you must respect the priniciples of the UN Charter and therefore respect the islanders right to self determination as you simply can not pick bits out of the Charter that suits you and then ignore the rest. God some of your argentines really need to learn to red between the lines lol
Dec 09th, 2011 - 11:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0All words and no action as usual, when will argentina realise that words and talk are cheap (even free) and it will NEVER get Britain to the table why should it as the argie cronies keep hoping britain is under NO PRESSURE!!!!!!!!!!
Dec 09th, 2011 - 12:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Long Live the Falklands.
@7 to you second class english (and thus empoverished) muppet: Peruvian official position is in full support of our legitimate sovereignty rights over Malvinas, South Georgias and South Sandwich islands. The same btw as rhe rest of the refion including Commonwealth and former UK (true) colonies in the Caribbbean, nit your case guys! EXCELLENT job Argentina. Once again.
Dec 09th, 2011 - 01:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Peru? Wasn't she Luke's Aunt? Taken by the Sandpeople wasn't she?
Dec 09th, 2011 - 03:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I do love this MercoPress site.
Dec 09th, 2011 - 03:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Where else could we get a laugh a day at the likes of xbollox, Pratt-Junta, Yuleno, Malcontent (1 or is it 2 - who cares) and all the other state indoctrinated, intellectually challenged wannabee thugs?
Talk about Pavlovian conditioning! Mention the Falklands, together with 'there are no Malvinas' and out they rush with the same old drivel to 'TELL THE TRUTH'! Truth, they wouldn't know it if it hit them across the face with a non-existent squid (exterminated by the Argie over-fishing).
The peaceful people of the Falklands have nothing to worry about as long as these no-hopers are all the Argies have got.
@9 “Second class english” Err no i am dsylexic hence my spelling and grammar mistakes, i have made that clear on here many times you ignorant prat. Perhaps you might want to learn to spell and learn some grammar yourself as yours is hardly even third rate english.
Dec 09th, 2011 - 03:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”(and thus empoverished) muppet:“ - Ohhh god do not make me laugh my sides are hurting so much - ohh am sorry did you mean impoverished? Well i am hardly imporerished when i am the managinf director and sole owner of my own limited multimillion pound company you idiot. You can only dream of having the money and luxuries that come with such wealth. Hell i could probably buy your house 1,000's of times over and still have enough millions in the bank to buy a yacht or 2.
Please before taking the mick out of other peoples spelling, especially when that person has made it clear a number of times that they're dsylexic, i would suggest you check your own crappy spelling and grammar first, as your poor spelling and grammar hardly puts you in a position to criticise mine. Nor are you in a position to accuse me of being impoverished, when it is clear even if i was an everyday employee on minimum wage i would still be earning 2 x 3 times more than you earn in a month you dumb idiot.
Oh and by the way, those same commonwealth and former colonies also happened to be the ones that gave full support to the falkland islands not more than a month ago. And i geus you just ignored the bit i put about ”“overcoming the colonial vestige in the framework of obligations born out of the United Nations charter.” making it clear they only support argentina if the UN charter is fully respected, you dumb arse argentinian hypocrite.
Thank you Peru!
Dec 09th, 2011 - 04:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0more rubbish from more children,
Dec 09th, 2011 - 06:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0back it up, or it will prove your just all mouth and no trousers .
@13 Your right marcos argentina will never get the Falklands no matter how many countries you claim to have on your side !!!!
Dec 09th, 2011 - 06:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Britain is under NO PRESSURE and argentina does not possess the clout to force the UK to negotiate.
Long Live the Falklands.
My brother is a mining engineer in Peru & he has told me that most of the people that he has come into contact with have no idea where the Falklands are don't know anything about them & care even less.
Dec 09th, 2011 - 09:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0They don't particulary like the Argentines, it's just that they have a common bogeyman in Chile.
l think the Argentines are clutching at straws again.
11 ChrisR (#) Dec 09th, 2011 -
Dec 09th, 2011 - 09:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I do love this MercoPress site.
me too. It's great. I'm recomending it to my friends now.
.Where we brits spend days putting the Argies right in their misconceptions of the true world,
Dec 09th, 2011 - 09:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Poor indocronoughts,
Isolde, “have no idea where the Falklands are”
Dec 09th, 2011 - 09:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Perhaps because our Peruvians neighbors call them Malvinas Argentinas as the rest of the world.
What argentina need is a nuclear defence program for south America we can't have pirats come to Argentina or anywhere in south America and theft the gold and resources. Peru knows about gold theft most of their gold is in europe's museums, when are they thieves from Europe going to return Peru's gold ??? doesn't IMF count their gold when they give loans to Peru ????? Islas Malvinas Argentina are part of our people and for ever part of south America.
Dec 10th, 2011 - 12:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0wrong way round old chap
Dec 10th, 2011 - 12:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0not nuclear ,but unclear defence program
#19 Morcocs anyone
Dec 10th, 2011 - 03:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0Isolde, “have no idea where the Falklands are”
Read a geographic book from the 21st century (many only have pictures for you).
Welcome
Dec 10th, 2011 - 10:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0Falkland Islands Company owes its origins to a contract signed by Alexander Ross Lafone in 1846 for the right to kill and tame wild cattle in the Southern part of East Falkland.
www.the-falkland-islands-co.com/index.php?section=0
Falkland Islands venture
In 1823, the United Provinces of the River Plate granted fishing rights to Jorge Pacheco and Luis Vernet. Travelling to the islands in 1824, the first expedition failed almost as soon as it landed, and Pacheco chose not to continue with the venture. Vernet persisted, but the second attempt, delayed until Winter 1826 by a Brazilian blockade, was also unsuccessful. The expedition intended to exploit the feral cattle on the islands but the boggy conditions meant the Gauchos could not catch cattle in their traditional way. Vernet was by now aware of conflicting British claims to the islands and sought permission from the British consulate before departing for the islands.
Vernet was the first Argentine appointed as Governor of Puerto Luis by the Government of Buenos Aires (his appointment was in the name of the Republic of Buenos Aires). A proclamation naming Vernet as Governor was issued by the Government in Buenos Aires in 1829.
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Vernet
@23 All that You quoted was written as a joke to distract argentines from there crumbling economy and corrupt politicians, the Falklands have always been British and if it was not for argentine threats they would be independent by now!
Dec 10th, 2011 - 12:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Long Live the Falklands.
thank you Chile...the logistic support in 1982 was very important
Dec 10th, 2011 - 04:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 023 Pirat-Hunter
Dec 10th, 2011 - 10:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Again wrong,
Sadly there are two history books, there should be only one, but sadly there are two,
1, the history of the world, by Argentina.
2 the history of the world, according to facts and historical events,
Please read the correct book.
Thank you
.
#23 Prat - did you know that Lafone had a verbal contract with one Luis Vernet ?
Dec 11th, 2011 - 06:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0As far as your history is concerned you are quite correct. Vernet was unsuccesful in establishing a colony of the Islands.
Therefore Argentina has no rights on the islands.
The British were rather better at it and DID manage to establish a successful colony.
Therefore the Falklands are British !
Easy ain't it :-)
http://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/1823-1832/
http://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/1823-1832/
Teaboy you are the wonderful one the owner of the multi million pound company.Let us all genuflect before your magnificence.We are all suitably humbled to be in the presence of such greatness and one who can boast of living in such opulence.I have to apolgise for doubting your genius in
Dec 11th, 2011 - 06:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0the past Que boludo sos
Breaking News the FALKLANDS are still a British overseas territory always has been and always will be, and nice to see O'gara has changed over to the Falklands well done for seeing the light!!!
Dec 11th, 2011 - 08:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Long Live the Falklands.
#24 #26 I should of stated that the comment I made are a copy and paste from from the links I poste, I guess the people working for them are lairs too, I find that really interesting because one of them is the fakland island company themselves stating it on their front page.
Dec 12th, 2011 - 03:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0”Welcome
Falkland Islands Company owes its origins to a contract signed by Alexander Ross Lafone in 1846 for the right to kill and tame wild cattle in the Southern part of East Falkland.
www.the-falkland-islands-co.com/index.php?section=0
Falkland Islands venture
In 1823, the United Provinces of the River Plate granted fishing rights to Jorge Pacheco and Luis Vernet. Travelling to the islands in 1824, the first expedition failed almost as soon as it landed, and Pacheco chose not to continue with the venture. Vernet persisted, but the second attempt, delayed until Winter 1826 by a Brazilian blockade, was also unsuccessful. The expedition intended to exploit the feral cattle on the islands but the boggy conditions meant the Gauchos could not catch cattle in their traditional way. Vernet was by now aware of conflicting British claims to the islands and sought permission from the British consulate before departing for the islands.
Vernet was the first Argentine appointed as Governor of Puerto Luis by the Government of Buenos Aires (his appointment was in the name of the Republic of Buenos Aires). A proclamation naming Vernet as Governor was issued by the Government in Buenos Aires in 1829.
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Vernet”
#27 Vernet had 2 years or something to that effect to create a colony and the contract was for him to not to be taxed, not to keep the Malvinas, in any case there nothing stipulating the means to form the colony only that one would be formed, and it was, as you stated, it is also interesting to know that Vernet himself was at the british council or embassy in Bs. As. and nothing was dictated to him at the time, only when he was already in Malvinas.
I suspect that you are confused lad.
Dec 12th, 2011 - 05:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0Your entry entitled 'Falkland Islands Venture' is quite correct, other than Vernet's appointment was as the Civil and Military Commander and not Governor. And of course you fail to mention that the Command, and Vernet, were appointed by the ILLEGAL Government of Gen, Lavalle.
You also seem to be unaware that your quote does nothing to support Argentina's case!
Vernet failed, to a large degree because of the Americans.
Hey, blame them, not us :-)
BA failed to establish a claim to sovereignty between 1816 and 1829.
The Lexington thwarted the new attempt, and the islands were declared terra nulius.
Britain arrived and successfully took over.
Job done !
#30
Dec 12th, 2011 - 12:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“it is also interesting to know that Vernet himself was at the british council or embassy in Bs. As. and nothing was dictated to him at the time, only when he was already in Malvinas. ”
Nope thats incorrect, Vernet sought permission from the British consulate BEFORE setting out. He also provided regular progress reports and asked for a British garrison.
At one point Vernet was seriously considered for a position as a British governor, then he became linked to Moreno's protests and was blocked.
Did you know that?
Justin - you got any sources for that - please :-)
Dec 12th, 2011 - 01:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0peruvians hoping for favours from Argentines... the classic one.
Dec 12th, 2011 - 01:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Reminds me to Mono Mario and his excursion to Peru with his little peruvian “servant”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXmXiO_8D-g
Mary Cawkell, The Falkland Islands
Dec 12th, 2011 - 02:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It will be another Happy Christmas in the Falklands safe in the knowledge that there right of choice will be preserved to be British for as long as they want it!
Dec 12th, 2011 - 04:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Long Live the Falklands.
And no presents .
Dec 12th, 2011 - 10:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@Redhoyt
Dec 12th, 2011 - 10:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0P.51 in Mary Cawkell's book and...
Peter Pepper, Graham Pascoe (1 June 2008). “Luis Vernet”. In David Tatham. The Dictionary of Falklands Biography (Including South Georgia): From Discovery Up to 1981. D. Tatham. pp. 541–544. ISBN 978-0-9558985-0-1.
Thanks Justine - I'll take a look. Struggling to find a good source for Vernet's 'banishment', even PP couldn't provide any original correspondence.
Dec 12th, 2011 - 11:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I was hoping that Vernet's submission for compensation would say something but the Archives seem to be having a problem finding it.
Cawkell's book is out of print sadly - does she give her source ??
38 and 39 get a life please.
Dec 13th, 2011 - 04:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Woooooww! I'm so scared. A whole army of a hundred million is coming to invade the Falklands.
Dec 13th, 2011 - 06:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oh wait, computer error. Actually is's just a load of civilian Peruvians.
#38 & #39
Dec 13th, 2011 - 06:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Watch out guys, you're getting to Marcos by the look of it!
Perhaps with the help and guidance of the argie bloggers,
Dec 14th, 2011 - 12:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0The argentine navy will row their rowing boats all the way Great Britain, and invade it,
If they can use navigation,[that’s NAVIGATION]
.
Well maybe we row its true I won't deny CFK has gutted our military, then again at least they're our boats as opposed to having to “share” like you do wiht the french.
Dec 15th, 2011 - 04:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0That is assuming they'll make the trip without having to call anywhere near SA, no one will let your baots into port as all of latin america is well aware of your ongoing and century-long usurpation, they are not fooled and neither are we.
You expect us to believe we imagine the whole thing, that Argentina's claim was simply made up, that it has no basis in fact? Latinos might be born in third world countries but it wasnt yesterday. If British were honest and islanders also they would be all too happy to enter discussions so they can, publicly and infront of the whole world watching, defend their claim using they brightest academic minds. Someone accuse you of theft and you're honest person you RUN don't walk RUN to disprove the allegations - but what the British do instead?
Unilateral disengage - nothing to discuss - of couse, why thief need to discuss when they have guns? They just rob you, if you like it or not they don't care because that is what a thief does, he has nothing to discuss and neither do you.
And of course last thing a thief want is to go to court, that's why britain doesn't accept ICJ jurisdiction for malvinas. No discussion, no law bodies, just gunships.
And who loses? Islanders. What else do you expect, when you wont talk, you won't go to court, you militarize region, you don't give even give kelpoer government authority to settle issues with us??
We don't like islanders caught in crossfire but what recourse we have left then??
Of course Argentina will align with other countries to prevent your gunships, to prevent your extracting oil, your illegal fishing, because you bring nothing to show the legality of your posesion or activities other than weapons of war. So we hit you economically and diplomaticaly and with budget.
Only because of british intransigence...a shame.
@44Hermes1967,
Dec 15th, 2011 - 09:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0What a complete load of garbage!
Did you make all that up or did you copy it from an Argentine schoolbook?
You need to get out more.
Dont you just love it, when these fools seem to think, the only aggressor
Dec 15th, 2011 - 02:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Is the British, they demand you talk from the point of threats and intimidation,
Then blame us for not talking,
Perhaps they should re-look at what they did, and consider their actions, before demanding anything .
wow very specific tell me what exactly there is not true please??
Dec 15th, 2011 - 02:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0British won't discuss, not true?
British won't accept ICJ, not true?
British send gunships and weapons to the area, not true?
You live in fantasy and think we do, but we know history of the malvinas even if you want to ignore what happened. We demand talking long before any intimidation, that came after a century of ignoring civilized and friendly request for discussion to solve problem. Just like thief, unless you have barrel pointed at your face, is not an issue. Perhaps you should re-look at what YOU did, in treaties where british promised no new establishments on malvinas, and 1833 when you invade by force.
All your actions are like those of thieves and usurpers, as I say before - why thief need to discuss when they have guns? You send gunships and we are the ones who “intimidate”? Yes maybe economically because we will not stoop down to that level, still it is british who will not discuss like civilized people and send guns instead. It is british who will not accept ICJ. It is british who continue to behave like thugs; don't blame us for trying to defend ourselves from this in claiming what is righfully ours and has been since our independence.
Well lads (the British) I see we have another raving looney in Hermes1967.
Dec 15th, 2011 - 03:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Shoot your mouth off, don't bother reading the facts, about normal for an Argie.
I wonder which ICJ judgement the British did not accept. It cannot be one on the Malvinas because they don't exist. I wasn't aware of any ICJ going against the Falklands unless he is talking the usual made up rubbish in the school books.
Pathetic
Nice chris, usual british response: one asks for specifics, gets BS in return and then calls you names. Maybe you have problem concentrating so I repost what I said above:
Dec 15th, 2011 - 07:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“tell me what exactly there is not true please??
British won't discuss, not true?
British won't accept ICJ, not true?
British send gunships and weapons to the area, not true?”
Don't worry, i don't expect an honest answer from you since I know you don't have one.
And, you not aware of any ICJ going against you? That's right! You know why?
Because there is no ICJ case, because british won't accept ICJ regarding malvinas question in the first place.
As I say before, an honest person won't stand for being called a thief and challenges those acusations in public discourse. The guilty want to ignore calls for discourse and brush everything under the carpet - tell people lies to cover evidence they did a wrong. And a thief for certain does not want to go before a court; an honest one would welcome it.
SO, IF BRITISH CLAIM SO LEGAL AND GOOD, WHY NOT ACCEPT ICJ JURISDICCION?? What schoolbook of mine says so, please??
Not my schoolbooks. BRITAIN won't accept ICJ, and this not argentina's doing.
So tell me what I said that is incorrect - WHERE IS THE RUBBISH?? All you talk is bs, you have nothing to back it up with. You go read the facts, come on, tell me where it says I am wrong if you so right!!
http://www.icj-cij.org/jurisdiction/index.php?p1=5&p2=1&p3=3&code=GB
Only thieves don't want to go before a court. Only thieves have nothing to discuss because they have guns. You only fool yourself, no one else - THAT is the true pathetic of this situation.
bla bla bla .
Dec 15th, 2011 - 09:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@47 & 49 Hermes1967,
Dec 15th, 2011 - 09:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well lets answer your points one by one,eh:-
1)“British won't discuss”-you are correct. We will not discuss sovereignty because we own these lslands and you do not.
l know that you have been taught at school that the lslands are yours, BUT you have been taught lies. They are NOT yours & never will be.
2)“British won't accept ICJ”- Wrong, you are incorrect.
lt is Argentina that will not accept rulings from the ICJ.
lf your country believes so strongly that they own our lslands, ask yourself why your government will not take your case to the ICJ.
They will not, why?
3)“British send gunships & weapons to the area”-true, lt's our land so we will do what we like in OUR land.
The only reason that we have weapons & gunships here is to protect the Falklands against YOUR COUNTRY.
You also sent weapons & gunships to our land in 1982. Have you forgotten that?
You are the one who lives in a fantasy, so you DEMAND talking, do you.
The reason that you DEMAND talking is to get our country from us.
We will talk about anything except sovereignty.
So, what would you like to talk about? Well?
49 Hermes1967 (#)
Dec 15th, 2011 - 09:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What medication are you on becuase you to stop taking it. You are behaving like an absolute idiot.
SO, IF BRITISH CLAIM SO LEGAL AND GOOD, WHY NOT ACCEPT ICJ JURISDICCION??(sic)
We already have:
”Declarations Recognizing the Jurisdiction of the Court as Compulsory
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (5th July 2004)
1. The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland accept as compulsory ipso facto and without special convention, on condition of reciprocity, the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, in conformity with paragraph 2 of Article 36 of the Statute of the Court, until such time as notice may be given to terminate the acceptance, over all disputes arising after 1 January 1974, with regard to situations or facts subsequent to the same date, other than:”
There follows three exceptions of a technical nature, none of which refers or applies to Argentina.
SO WE HAVE SIGNED UP TO THE COURT.
There are no Malvinas. In the hilarious thought that Argentina would ever sign up to the ICJ, the name you need to quote is The Falklands, BOT.
Satisfied now? No chance, you will go on crying and wingeing as usual.
And although I have diligently scanned the complete list of countries who HAVE, like Britain, signed up to the ICJ I cannot find Argentina.
WHAT A SUPRISE (not).
So get YOUR facts right before shooting your mouth off.
1. The “lies” we are taught at school happen to be based on historic events - do you know these things? that actually happen!! Now, just because you choose to ignore history events, does not mean what we are teaching in our schools are lies. In any case, you don't discuss so how would you know what we are teaching in the first place?? Kelper government, british government, could have academic forum outside sovereignty discussion to negotiate a bilateral resolution of historical events and timeline, even...but, no, you have nothing to discuss. If your historical claim is so strong then why britain change the sovereignty basis to aquisitive proscription??
Dec 15th, 2011 - 09:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Simple, because britain can't defend a historical claim. Same reason you won't discuss history, same reason you attack our education system for teaching all history events of both sides instead of ones that benefit your fantasies. If you think this is lies then COME AND DISCUSS AND PROVE IT, otherwise its all fluff and bs.
2.Don't you read english?? I gave the link, did you read it?? Did you see who signs this statement? READ IT:
“Emyr JONES PARRY
Permanent Representative
of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
to The United Nations.”
It is UK, not Argentina, that will not accept rulings from ICJ. Another fact you have to ignore for your view to make any sense, like with all british/kelper “facts”, the second one sees reality they fall apart into ridicule.
3. So you say “it's our land” but then you criticize when we have taken the same posture, cry oh poor poor islanders...please...if it was YOUR country you would be independent so from your position you are even wrong, it would not be“your” country it would be “britain”'s country. You are not a country within the british system, like canada, like australia, you are not “commonwealth republic” as they say, so the whole “it's our country” thing is complete rubbish & not our fault. If it is theirs, it is because they stole at point of gun.
@53Hermes,
Dec 15th, 2011 - 10:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0obviously you will never believe us, so it is pointless talking to you anymore.
We will never turn our country over to you, so you have only three options if you want it.
1) Try to make your country so good, that we want to join you(doubtful about that one!).
2)Court(ICJ).
3)War.
Your decision, make a choice.♥
well thats just it you see its not about me believing you or you believing me, its about facts: what happened and when, and what did not happen. this is not about opinion or who thinks what, your very own criticism indicates your agreement because you think argentine children are brainwashed in school - that to say, you question the facts that are presented to them.
Dec 15th, 2011 - 10:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And that's fine, every free society should question facts - but you offer nothing to back up what you say! Do you know why we teach argentine children history? So that when a gringo asks them why they think malvinas belongs to argentina then can say “because of A-B-C...” etc. You see? FACTS, that can be pointed out, questiond, verified or thrown out if they are incorrect.
This is completely the opposite of the kelper and british approach, which is to put a gun to somebody's face an say “this is the fact”. Then you say oh the poor poor islanders beign intimidated by argentina all the time, like we the bad guys.
Rubbish! We try for over 100 years dealing with you nice and look where it got us, nothing - then the worst elements of our society gain power and go to war with you...and you're the victims?? You had nothing to do with it??
What did you expect was going to happen, after the “civilized” approach was taken for so long and all the sensible people and academics are discredited. Then the hard boys come in because you didn't want to deal with the problem fairly and honestly like the civilized people wanted to. I think the war was illegal and unmitigated disaster for both sides and I don't want to see another in my lief.
Then again look at what your position is now and tell me you are not doing everything is possible to incite military action. We already at economic blocade, what next? Naval intercept fishing ships? Assault illegal oil platforms? These things are cyclical you know! If you read british history you would see that. You make it the only way to get your attention.
Hermes1967 (#)
Dec 16th, 2011 - 12:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0Are you for real or some government paid Troll? If your not a Troll then you are deluded and stupid. I too have seen first hand how the state teaches “the facts” so don't spout your bullshit to me! Tell Christina you need a pay increase.
53 Hermes1967
Dec 16th, 2011 - 12:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0You need to get something very straight.
[Get your self a new ruler] ?
.
As usual, heavy on BS, very light on specifics in your responses - why don't you try writing something with actual content for once?? You responded to me point by point and so did I, and then this above?
Dec 16th, 2011 - 12:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0Or is it that your position is just INDEFENSIBLE?? at least to anyone with rationality who puts facts above opinions...
why don't you try writing something with actual content
Dec 16th, 2011 - 01:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0What would you like
Lets start with the truth,
1, Argentina deliberately maliciously, and violently invaded an unarmed peaceful undefended little island without provocation,
And thus was directly guilty for the deaths of hundreds of innocent people,
For without this action, these who perished would be here today,
Is that good enough for you,
.
yes and britain had nothing to do in bringing about that situation?
Dec 16th, 2011 - 01:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0all is argentina's fault?
you never invaded in 1833 with ships of war? you never violated previous treaties in which you agreed to “no further settlements”?? And even if you still had valid claim, you didn't unilaterally and forcefully expand your dominion far beyond the limits of your original possesion of egmont in any case? you didn't arrest the gauchos who rose up, branded them “murderers” and took them in shackels to be tried in montevideo?? (where they were found innocent and set free by the way).
Most of all, you didn't ignore over a century of peaceful and civilized requests from peaceful minded argentineans??
To say britain did nothing to bring the war about is the HIEGHT OF ARROGANCE. When the gorillas took over the country and then wanted to make war, why did you think they had such an easy task convincing all that it was the right thing to do?? it was over 100 years of british ignoring requests for peaceful dialogue that gave them the ammunition they needed to convince the people of argentina that the only dialogue you people understand is the sword and the bullet.
And like I say before, these things are cyclical, you incite hatred and military action by your unwillingess to behave like a civilized people.
And you can't even speak for yourselves, the british have to do it for you, by their law. And they wont accept ICJ jurisdiccion or speak in the first place. Result? Economic blockade today, HM ships of war no longer welcome in south america anywhere. Definition of stupidity is trying the same thing and expect different results.
If you were peaceful you would not behave like thieves do, running away from peaceful dialogue and the jurisdiction of international courts because its easier to hide behind a british weapon. Your description of yourselves as a people do not match your actions, which are not defensive but offensive in nature.
53 Hermes1967 (#)
Dec 16th, 2011 - 10:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0You have demonstrated what a completely indoctrinated bigot you are.
The UK HAVE signed up to the ICJ, you yourself list Parry's 'signature'. It is clear that you are incapable of understanding what is written on the ICJ Statement. It is now up to Argentina to sign the same statement to show the world that THEY, not the UK, will now agree to the judgement of the ICJ. Do you understand now?
Unless you can understand this simplest of explanations, there is no reason to carry on replying to your posts: it would be an exercise in futility.
60 Hermes1967
Dec 16th, 2011 - 12:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0All is Argentina’s fault [you said]
Yes it was 100% argentines fault.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
You never invaded in 1833// [absolutely nothing to do with your illegal invasion]
Stop changing the excuses
………. .
Most of all, you didn't ignore over a century of peaceful and civilized requests from peaceful minded Argentineans……….
[][see above] [no excuses]
To say Britain did nothing to bring the war about is the HIEGHT OF ARROGANCE.
[][the only indoctrinated brain washed fool IS YOU]
It does not excuse your illegal invasion [ever]
/////////////////////////////////////////////////
When the gorillas took over the country and then wanted to make war,
[][ if that how you see Argentinean soldiers [that’s your problem]
/////////////////////////////////////////////
You want the truth ???????????
[][ YOU CANT Handle the bloody truth [][
Go away, grow up, learn to read the real history, rather than your indoctrinated brain washing,
No excuses, illegal invasion , grow up .
.
“The UK HAVE signed up to the ICJ”
Dec 16th, 2011 - 07:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Chris, learn how to READ what you post, not just copy paste into text box like monkey. YOUR post #52:
“The Government of the United Kingdom...accept...the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice...over all disputes arising after 1 January 1974.”
AFTER 1974. So easy to call me a “completely indoctrinated bigot” without even reading what you yourself posted. Or maybe you are so badly informed that you do not know the dispute arose in the 19th century. Can you read?? Can you reason?? Bigotry would be hating because you are islander or because you are british. My problem is not with what you ARE, my problem is with what you DO. Are you not responsible for your actions?? No, you just cut and paste and call people names, don't even know what you are saying! Read the source: 1833 comes before 1974, so UK does NOT accept ICJ jurisdiccion in Malvinas dispute according to the ICJ page per Mr. Jones from FO. So tell me again about the school books that indoctrinated me when it's right on the ICJ page. Stop making fool of yourself Chris, slow down, READ what you post maybe then you make a little bit of sense.
@ Briton
“Yes it was 100% argentines fault.”
No personal responsibility for actions...no dialogue...illegal extraction of resources...this the islander ACTIONS, go with that to urugual and brazil and ask them pretty please can our ships dock in your countries, so that we grow island economy and in the future we screw you just like argentina...no no TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for your contributions to this negative situation, both sides made it and both sides must work together to fix it. So easy to put everything on the other guy..
“Stop changing the excuses/no excuses”
We NOT changing anything - we are consistent encompassing all historical events from 1833 to TODAY; you just choose to ignore ones you don't like then call us “indoctrinated”. You don't deceive us and you don't fool south america any more, only yourselves.
63 Hermes1967
Dec 16th, 2011 - 09:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So put a claim in NOW! 2011!
If the UK refuse to allow the ICJ to consider your claim YOU will then have every right to point this out to the world, and for once it will be the truth.
BUT BEWARE: if the ICJ come down in the UK's favour because of the lack of any credible evidence on the part of Argentina to the contrary (as the FI & the Brits claim on this site) THEN ARGENTINA WILL FAIL and everyone will know then for what we know them; a bunch of lying, devious bastards who cannot be trusted.
So have you got it yet? ICJ or STF up!
ive only one thing to say
Dec 16th, 2011 - 10:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0[one]
bye
so you are then saying argentina should file claim in a court that the UK does not recognize have jurisdiccional authority to judge the matter before them?
Dec 16th, 2011 - 10:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0where is the sense in that???
and how fair would a judicial proceeding be when the accused refuses to be a party to the proceedings, will not provide to the court its legal representatives to defend the claims being made against it???
and if argentina should prove a case, do you seriously expect ICJ to rule against britain in absentia??
come on listen what you are saying??? makes ZERO sense. If britain does not accept ICJ jurisdiccional authority, has no legal representation, and is ruled against, you would criticize the ruling left and right - and you would be CORRECT to do so, it would be an unfair judgment against britain.
Of course ICJ would never even accept the case without both of the litigant states being properly represented, and you know this - so why you keep saying ICJ or SFT up? As if it was up to argentina. Argentina WANTS icj involvement, britiain by failing to recognize ICJ jurisdiction blocks the litigation. It is a british maneuver to prevent argentina from going to ICJ in the first place.
Of course in the twisted interpretation of your head this is somehow argentina's fault as well. You are absolutely right if ICJ came down in UK's favor then argentina will fail - well you know we HAVE our evidence, if britain so sure of it's evidence why hide from icj??
If you honest really then let it all come out into the open sunlight for the world to see. You think we lying devious bastards - ok, fair enough, so come to the table and look at the evidence and POINT OUT WHERE WE LIE. What you back your claims with? “Acquisitive proscription”=“guns”.
Only one side here wants to run away from icj; only one side wants the issue to stay in darkness; only one side wants no discussion; only one side offers nothing to the world to defend its claims except for military weapons: BRITISH.
Says a lot!
-you got that right, Hermes1967, lt was 100% Argentina's fault.
Dec 17th, 2011 - 10:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0This whole scenario of ridiculous claims is 100% your country's fault.
Bravo! encore
66 Hermes1967
Dec 17th, 2011 - 11:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0You clearly do not understand the politic reality which I pointed out to you but go on to rant and rave as usual.
You are typical of every level in your administration: Jugello @ Washington has tried this approach and is now the laughiing stock of the diplomatic community.
Why does Argentina not sign the declaration to the ICJ and then she would be able to accuse the UK of whatever she wished BUT (and there is always a but) she would then have to PROVE the claim to the review panel of Judges?
If the likes of you represented Argentina to the panel, with the attitude you have, they would be thrown out of the room before they could really present the 'evidence'.
Do you not see this is the case?
Isolde I know you know what I meant. The only ridiculous claims here are the british claims, which are backed up only by witty responses like that and no proof.
Dec 17th, 2011 - 04:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Chris, what politic reality did you point out? IN #61 you said UK accepts ICJ and argentina blocks it, I gave you like with UK statement that proves UK won't accept ICJ for any dispute arising before 1974. 1833 is before 1974 last time I checked. Where is your politic reality that you said??
The thought process that you people have, maybe when a fact comes into your head through your ear or eye it gets inverted to its opposite. How many times I ask you, can you read?? Can you reason?? I don't know, maybe not, but the ICJ page proves your conception of what is a “reality” is nothing more than a fantasy, which is - when you examine it closely - all the british claim is based on.
LOOK AT THE HISTORY!! and you will see the truth about it. You have no right, you usurp and take by force then try and play the victim. Do you know the words of Joseph O'Grady your “Falkland Islands Governor” in 1933 that said title based on britain's historical right would be weak, which is why they abandoned the indefensible historical claim for the current illegal basis for their 'sovereignty' which they call 'acquisitive proscription'?
All fantasy!! Something is truly, RIGHTLY yours - you dont just say: “oh yeah all those things we said for the last 100 years that we thought gave us the right to these islands, yeah forget about all that, just act like it never happened - oh by the way the islands have been on our hands for so long they might as well be ours”.
FANTASY. Wouldn't apply elsewhere - example: my grandfather steals your grandfather's car in 1910, passes it down to my dad, who passes it to me, and now it's worth a lot of money. You find out I have it and, rightly, want it back.
Instead of doing the right thing I say “well it's been in my family so long it might as well be mine”.
WOULD YOU ACCEPT THAT CRAP?
69 Hermes1967
Dec 17th, 2011 - 07:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It is very clear to me that you do not understand what comprises a claim to the ICJ OR you do and want to perpetuate the nonesense that Argentina is the victim here and not the perpetrator of lies and deceit.
I shall not be replying to any more of your posts. Goodbye.
only looser countries support Argentina ,
Dec 17th, 2011 - 08:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0thank you Chile for the support in 1982 !!!
Well it is very clear to me that when confronted with actual british statement on actual icj webpage your arguments disintegrate and you choose not to discuss.
Dec 17th, 2011 - 09:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Which in fact is a micro representation of the british position - claims of sovereignty based on absolutely no facts at all, much easier to hide behind weapons and not discuss to have to admit you dont have your facts straight.
Now I will admit not all british are like this. Some british have actually been very honest and open about the truth of malvinas. Prime example falklands governor O'Grady who I quoted above in 69, also british ambassador to buenos aires, Malcom Robinson, who said:
“I assumed that our right to the Falkland Islands was unassailable. This is very far from being the case”
Other british people who were HONEST:
”The difficulty of our position is that our seizure of the Falkland Islands in 1833 was so arbitrary a procedure as judged by the ideology of present day. It is therefore not easy to explain our possesion without showing ourselves up as international bandits.”
-John Troutbeck, in Foreign Office dispatch
“it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Argentine Goverment's attitude
is not altogether unjustified”
-Gerald Spicer, also Foreign Office
That takes COURAGE to say and admit one was wrong, a courage sorely lacking in britons and islanders today which if mustered up would lead to a peaceful and mutually beneficial resolution of the dispute and full restoration of friendly trilateral relations. For this very reason the british secretary of state for commonwealth affairs Michael Stewart, with ambassador McLaughlin, negotiated and drafted texts for both governments having reached an agreement.
Look it up, it's letter A/9121 of 1973, the note was sent to the UN Secretary General pending ratification, where britain stated restitution of the archipelago by the UK to Argentina would be made concrete between 4 to 10 years of ratification. But this is argie lie too, right?
@72Hermes1967,
Dec 17th, 2011 - 09:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Have you got the COURAGE to admit that you are wrong & Argentina has no right to the Falklands?
As for your example of the stolen car, how's this?
We were in the Falkland in 1765, long before Argentina ever existed.
ln fact your embryonic state only covered land just south of Bs As.
We never gave up our claim & left for a number of years.
lf you have a house & you own it. You go away for a time BUT you do not give up your house. lt is still yours.
When you return, someone has moved into your house & says that it is theirs. Of course you eject them, like we ejected the Argentine garrison in 1833. They were still OUR lslands, not yours.
Now do you understand?
lt is still our house.
They are still our lslands.
Not yours.
Yes, I have a courage to admit anything the british can provide conclusive imperical proof of, sure!
Dec 17th, 2011 - 11:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 099,9% of argentine discussion request are brought up because this proof not been presented, and britain today acts like previous statements of the british government towards peaceful resolution never happen(?!). So, how we can admit or not admit anything that britain say when they even don't acknowledge own british statements' discrepancies? Lacks consistency.
As for 1765 yes but prior to argentina's independence you abandoned the islands for 40 years and signed treaty that agreed no further british settlements. Even if that stipulation was invalid because you 'never gave up', ok fine - BUT the only british posession was egmont - so, how do we go then from egmont to the entire archipelago?? Magic?? Seems a stretch.
As for young argentina covering land south of BA at independence, why you think this is relevant? The claim over argentine territory is based on war of independence from spanish virreynato...many modern day countries argentina, uruguay, bolivia, peru, paraguay and malvinas, all under spain jurisdiccion from buenos aires before 1816.
So, if spain administer malvinas directly from, say, Madrid, or Cadiz - ok, then you have a point say “you never had them”, but spanish malvinas always was subordinate to buenos aires.
So use your analogy - you didn't just leave your house: you left the house on spain's parcel of land, then your house (egmont) get demolished! Sure you retain SOME rights after you sign treaty not to build a new settlement on the parcel of land in return for limited rights to fish and erect temporary structure, but you gave up presence on that land.
Then what? Come back 40 years and magically not just where your house was but the whole parcel of land is yours? When did it belong to you when all you had before was the house?
Even we today could share, say “ok egmont is british”, but no...if no discussion, how can anyone agree??
You are still wrong, the land is ours. And always has been.
Dec 18th, 2011 - 11:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0We never abandoned it. And we claimed the whole archipelago.
l believe the treaty was for settlements on the mainland.
When the Falklands was ruled by Spain it was administrated from Montevideo not Bs As. lt was never “subordinate” to Bs As.
Even if you were right about leaving the house on “Spain's land”(you are not), that's Spain, not Argentina.
Oh & btw, you did NOT “inherit” anything from Spain. They did not even recognise your independence until the 1860's.
Of course your analogy is very wrong. You are trying to separate Pt Egmont from the rest of the land. Why don't you separate the engine from your mythical car?
Anyway, we have been here nearly 180 years & l can't see it changing in the near future.
l have asked a few other of your countrymen, now l'll ask you:-
1) What is the basis for Argentina's claims for South Georgia, the South Sandwich lslands & British Antarctica?
2) Bearing in mind that we found & claimed them long before Argentina existed & no Argentines have ever lived in any of these territories.
l would appreciate your honest answer.
I always try to answer honestly. The basis for the claims you ask is fundamented partly on a similar basis of the claim for malvinas, and partly on another, the two are 1. the geographic underwater continuation of the continental shelf off argentina's coast and continuation of the Andes mountain range under the ocean that encompasses only those islands, see illustration:
Dec 18th, 2011 - 04:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a1/Scotiazee_en_scotiarug.png/800px-Scotiazee_en_scotiarug.png
The second basis is 2. that an argentine company founded Grytviken and were the fist permanent settlers on the island, what it really tries to say that in 1904 britain had no population and didn't exercise effective control so they were terra nulis. That's the claim for georgia and sandwich.
Now, I don't think that second basis for claim over georgia and sandwich has much sense because it were actions from private company not the government nor a public company. Plus to employ the “no effective control” to determine terra nulis I think hurts our own malvinas claim because under that standard the same “terra nulis” could be said about malvinas between 1816 and 1820.
I don't really think the georgia and sandwich claims of argentina are valid, I think it was more a diplomatic negotiation move like a card to play as claim to be ceded or something; I think Cook's discovery/claim is valid.
I could see the antartic peninsula claim of argentina on the basis of austral projection on the geographical continuity, only because other nations' projections are seen as valid also so it's not like we're the only ones - but I think there is an argentine claim only to the extent that it borders up with chile's own projection on one side and britain's on the other. Don't forget chile claims both argentine and british antartica as well, the three claims overlap although I think a fair 3-way partition would easily solve that dispute.
I answer the other things you said later, I have no space left.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!