MercoPress, en Español
Get our news on your inbox! Suscribe x
Montevideo, September 23rd 2023 - 07:53 UTC
Rockhopper Exploration PLC reported a “fantastic result” as its third discovery in the North Falkland basin encountered oil and-or wet gas in four hydrocarbon-bearing target zones, said the company on a Tuesday release in London. Read full article
hope this news gives our argies some wet gas :-)))))))
Time to send in a destroyer or two just in case the Argies get it into their head to try any monkey business.
I think a destroyer would be too much considering the best the Argies could send would be a man in a canoe with Tourette's syndrome to shout some offensive works in the general direction of the FI.
Ignore them, they are merely a bad smell.
What a fantastic result for the Falklands (there are no Malvinas)!
#2 SamSalzman What would they use?
Mirage 3s & 5s that are so badly fatigued they fall out of the sky and kill their pilots?
A bunch of rowing boats?
They have no operational submarines and if they try a land assault using their heavy lift planes the 4 Tyhoons would make mincemeat out of them once they breached the radar fence.
Thinking about it they would be better off using monkeys for any monkey business, they probably outrank the Argie grunts in the army hierarchy anyway.
We will send piqueteros on boats to blockade any attemp of shipping that oil.
When they stop fighting each other :-)))))))
piqueteros duros or piqueteros blandos
@ 4 your comment so full of excitement just made me cum!
@5 You have NOTHING. Try it and you will be CRUSHED. I want to see you CRUSHED.
Here' a tip. The Gurkhas, the Marines and the Paras will all be coming to see you. None of them like you. I hope your piqueteros can swim. Not that I really care. If 40 million Argies die, that will be a GOOD thing!
Please send as many piqueteros as you can.
I am in favour of the Roman ceremony of having a foreign leader dragged to our capital and ritually strangled. Over several days. Together with close associates. I think Timerman should have the top of his head sliced off with a machete. Arguello? It would be reasonable to approach this with removal of his tongue. By pulling on it until it rips away. Then removal of the nose. Then they ears. And, finally, the eyes. Any resistance to the UK should be met the same way. Then the land can be given back to its owners. Administered by the Falkland Islands.
First, it seems you have no idea of what piqueteros are. For you is a funny Spanish word that could be whatever.
That is a group of piqueteros. They are very disturbing and annoying rioters who cut the street and very difficult to move cause they threaten you with a stick and at the same time have their own children to use as a shield. Also, they burn car tyres to use its smelly smoke as a shield. This guys are the most experienced and formidable rioters the world had ever seen.
By the way, the intention of the comment was not aggresive, just FYI.
Second to that, you are sick, really sick. Here you are promoting ethnic cleasing and cruel murden, something you are supposed to be against.
(#) 5 Amigo
Don't open your mouth in vain to British faces .
Let's give them a piece of land to make a country inside or shore
of North - South - Middle America , Africa, Asia,Europe,.,., but
They can nothing , Why ? becouse they are colonialist - island people,
this is their history -culture and their brains' thought style .
They can never structure- run a country who has many land borders.
All in life pays back.
We allowed the military coup of the 70s to happen and the society and the country paid the price. Now we are again being peaceful and progressing without forgetting our roots and our past.
Now that they keep in their stubborn shout, the future will proove that they were wrong. Perhaps not this year, nor in the next 50 years, but believe it will happen. You know the say about Con paciencia y con aguante, la hormiga se cojio al elefante.
Apart from that, I came with a question. Do you people in the Islands pay for the British garrison? And if you do, do you pay the same as any British do or you pay more as you are more protected per capita?
9 JuanStanic (#)
”This (sic) guys are the most experienced and formidable rioters the world had ever seen.#
Bunch of wussies! Use their CHILDREN as a barrier: COWARDS.
Threaten you with a stick That's OK, I can cut their throats on the fly with my razor sharp flick-knife. And it will be back in my pocket before they have finished dying and anyone knows who has done it.
See how they like that?
(#) 11 Amigo
Do you really believe Las Malvinas has any people settled there ?
British are not very stupid to locate any civilians there. Probably
that they are using this oil drilling tactic tool to obtain some interests
from Mercosur under the bargaining methods.These kinds of similar
tactics were used in many times in their history had gained sometimes.
We don't pay directly. It was suggested (by us) but it seems that the British Army are not for hire.
The idea of paying 'per capita' is a nonsense. Your threats to us are not our fault and we don't deserve to be bankrupted by them.
We can't pay through taxation because we don't pay taxes to the UK. We have our own tax system.
Instead, we find ways to pay in kind, for example by buying and erecting buildings at MPC.
When oil revenues begin to flow, I have every confidence that a formula will be found by which we can pay the UK for our defence.
Here are two questions on Malvinas
1 ) What is the meaning of this phrase is used generally there
phrase is -- Casa Grande -- ?
2 ) There is a light green building in Stanley , used what for ?
There is a light green building in Stanley , used what for
Dont you know nuffing? its the pithead of the treacle mine
(#) 16 Amigo
Are you certain beet and tropic reed are grown at Malvinas ?
Anyone, it was a joke. I really hate this guys and they make quite some annoying riots in the big cities. I really hoped they were sent there to either see how you react and to get free of them at the same time.
They are people anyway, I respect their right to live in and love the place where they were born. What is I'm against is of them thinking the way their ancestors settled there is rightful and of them believing that the lands were they were born are not Argentineans.
Thanks for the info. Many would find it suspicious that the UK don't let you pay for your protection.
And about the military garrison and it's size per capita, you say that we represent a risk. With what do we risk you I may ask?
We barely have a military. They have poor salaries, all rusty and old equipment. In Ushuaia operates one of the more important naval bases in my country. The most the military do(and it's quite a good thing) is to give us free hot chocolate and tortas fritas during national holidays, and to guard the schools durign elections.
What are we going to attack you with? With tortas fritas?
Argentina is peaceful now, you are failing to see that.
About oil revenues, remember oil is quite a dangerous thing and an accident can happen at any time. It would be a shame if something like the British Pretoleum scandal happen. I say it because I love Patagonia and if one day I saw oil in the water and in the coasts, the only ones to blame would be you.
Anyway, business is business and Im happy I bought Rockhopper shares for about 2500 dollars last week. Anyway, I find it hard that this will even compare to when my father bought in 1999 15.000 dollars of Petrobras shares.
We were never teached none of those two. I was born 6 years after the war. But I would like you to tell me what they mean.
Your military might be useless, but they still find the energy to probe our air defences every few weeks and hassle our fishing boats if they get the chance.
If we had no defences, I think there might come a point where they fancied their chances. The British military presence here is just to stop you being tempted to do anything foolish.
As for oil revenues, we need them. We might not if you hadn't tried to put the squeeze on us in other ways. We know the dangers better than you do.
Oooh who's been looking on Google Earth then?
1) If you mean 'big house', it refers to the house of a manager of a big farm before the farms were subdivided.
2) I could tell you... but then I'd have to shoot you. Actually, you'll have to be more specific. Lat. and Long. will do.
This year is the last year our Mirages are going to even be able to fly. Since next year we only have some outdated American aircraft and some training Pucarás.
Again, you are misunderstanding the situation. It's not that this goverment doesn't care for the military. The military was humilliated and lost a lot of prestige because of the Dirty War and the uprisings in Alfonsin's goverment. They are underpaid and live poorly. Any goverment who gave importance to the military for taking the Malvinas will loose a lot of image.
For the fact that you claim to have nothing,
In some ways, it make you even more of a danger,
And never to be trusted,
politicians start wars, not the military
the military fights the wars, not the politician,
And its the same corrupt politicians that settle the dam, things,
And the military that loses lives,
politicians are not armed, they have no weapons except their mouths,
And we all know what ya mouth can get you into,
What is I'm against is of them thinking the way their ancestors settled there is rightful and of them believing that the lands were they were born are not Argentineans.
I can see you've got some learning to do Satanic.
It is Argentina that has no rights !
We all know that, it were the politiced militars who started the war.
But you're wrong. As much as a blind can't see, without a military you can't attack.
First of all, I find insulting the way you wrote my surname. I hope it's a typo, and you didn't really intend it.
Then, the who needs to do some learning is you. It's very easy to give a timeline which obviously favours you. I say this cause I took the chance to take a read to some parts and it ignores some known facts that happened in the country. I know it will be as difficult to find them in English as it is being to me to find in Spanish what the timeline says. So I ask you if you can read Spanish so I can look for some sources for you.
Show me where I'm wrong and I'll change it Satanic (so I can't type !?). But you'll have to provide some evidence. Source material please ! And I do chcek spanish sources whenever I can find them. Too many that only consist of opinions and do not cite their sources.
Nobody has managed a serious challenge to my history as yet (not even Zonamilitar) - but hey, maybe you'll be the first.
Updated PDF out in a few weeks - twice the words - twice the facts !
And all the references.
It's STANIC. Croatin surname. I'm not aware of ever being called Satanic in an English board up to now, you were the first one, so I supposed it was your mistake.
I was not refering to Spanish sources. I am refering to sources written in Spanish language. Please confirm that you can read in Spanish. I'm sure I have a few books on the subject. One written by David Rock. If it happens to also be written in English, give me a way of informing you, and also if I get any trustable source in English, to send it you.
Rotted(Redhoyt) Why don't you tell him that you write that blog yourself from far away Thailand?
Lord Tonto 1955. :-)))
@ 22 is that your blog? don't you feel mentally retarded? you are! hahaha
A dyslexic typer Satanic !
Don't give me books, they are mere opinions. Give me sources, original documents, historical records. Something that can be checked.
Let me have the spanish, I'll cope. If not - I have an ex :-)
MoreCrap & ExBrain - two living examples of the dangers of close family relationships ! With sheep !!
I'm telling you Redhoyt. Insult me another time and I won't take again the time to answer you, I will just report. It's STANIC. Even if I disagree with you I don't call you Redshit. It's called good behavior.
Your timeline is also opinion. The author chose the documents he wanted, wrote in the way he wanted, and most importantly, wrote what he wanted. There's not such things as objective information, humans always put an intention to what they say, and there it ends objectivity. Not even historical documents are. All are influenced by their authors.
Anything you say Stan - :-)
“After the Roca-Runciman treaty, a profusion of new nationalist writers and factions began to appear. For a time the nationalist movement was largely dominated by historians who sought to fuel the campaign against the British. These historical revisionists'' began to re-examine the 19th century and .. Britain's imperialist encroachments: the British invasions of 1806-1807, Britain's role in the foundation of Uruguay in the late 1820s, its seizure of the Falkland Islands in 1833, the blockades under Rosas ... Propaganda of this kind made a deepening imprint on public opinion and helped sustain nationalist sentiments ...” - Argentina, 1516-1987: From Spanish Colonialism to Alfonsin, David Rock 1987
He's a Professor in California - writes in English too :-))
He is not denying the events.
And yes revisionism is a strong historical movement here. I don't see any a problem with it. If anything it means we don't forget our past, which is imporantant.
Bef0re this, Argentines were as bad in history as Americans are in Geography.
Argentines are still bad at history - attaching themselves to a distorted view of it doesn't help.
I don't deny the events, but no event can be taken out of context and each needs to be looked at as part of the wider world. In the case of the Falklands there are also legal issue that need to be considered too.
Argentina's claim for an inheritance for instance. Nothing more than a political agreement reached at Lima in 1848, Argentina didn't even sign up for it as Rosas still had hopes of his own empire. The political agreement was then disguised as a legal one with a bit of Latin and backdated to the appropriate independence declaration of each signatory.
Argentina's own independence was 1816, but then they tried to backdate that to 1810 by blaming Ferdinand VII.
No inheritance, Argentina as she was then was just another revolting colony which could claim de facto rights to what she was physically capable of holding onto. Nothing more. De jure rights did not come from Spain till 1863 and then only to what Argentina held - and she did not hold the Falklands.
That was a trick she never managed between 1816 and 1833 - but blame the Yanks for that!
Talking of which; - nobody is as bad as the Yanks at Geography !
Nonono, the common Argentinean(at least down here) knows quite good our history. In fact, I can safely say that my generation knows better what happened before 1940 than the one of my parents.
Regarding our independence, we believe our self-identity was born in 1806, that we achieved self-determination in 1810, and that we expressed in 1816 to the world that from then on we were independent.
About the inheritance part, I can only say that in that case, it should be Spain who decides who the Islands owners are, because when they left, they didn't renounce their claim. At that time they were the owners and you had recognized so by treaty. You didn't had a claim, and when you took the Islands, didn't even ask from their recognition. Later, Spain recognized our rights to the Islands.
I really blame the Yanks for bothering where they aren't called.
Again about the rig. How are FOG shares doing? Should I buy?
You were indeed independant from 1816. What you believe before that date I leave to you, although declaring for Ferdinand VII in 1810 is hardly an act of an independent nation.
You are correct about Spain. We didn't relinquish our sovereignty in 1774. Spain didn't reliquish its sovereignty claim in 1811. The main difference was that when Spain left she only claimed East Falkland - “Esta isla con sus Puertos, Edificios, Dependencias y quanto contiene pertenece a la Soberanía del Sr. D. Fernando VII Rey de España y sus Indias, Soledad de Malvinas 7 de febrero de 1811 siendo gobernador Pablo Guillén.”
NB Isla not islas.
BUT, Spain did not register any protest in 1833. Nor has she done so since.
Britain NEVER recognised Spanish sovereignty, by Treaty or otherwise.
Spain did not recognise Argetina's claim to the Falklands in the Treaty of 1858 or the Treaty of 1863.
Spain did send a diplomatic mission to visit Port Stanley in 1863, saluted the British flag and exchanged gifts with the British governor.
Now do you see what I mean when I say that you have no great grasp of your own history ?
Shares? Beef's more in tune than I am, but you should have bought when they were 1.50, now they're 2.50+ (haven't checked today :-)
You left the Islands in 1774. In 1790 you signed the Nookta convention where you agreed to recognize the current(of that time) borders in South America as the rightful ones, and also agreed to not claim nor found any new settlement in the coasts of South America.
I know you left somekind of stone there with your claim, which was taken to Buenos Aires in 1780. Besides, when you signed the NC, you made these claims nulls.
Also, read again article 4 of 1863 treaty.
We really know our history. We know our version and you know yours.
I was going to buy shares before, but as no oil was coming and no money was avaible, no buying was done.
@ 35 You have to speculate to accumalate on money and all the signs now point to viable oil and gas deposits around the Falkland islands there is no point in waiting till they start pumping out these finds.
As for history the argentine government keeps using the Falklands to distract its own people from there Failing policies.
Long Live the Falklands.
1790 - Nootka - irrelevant.
a) it was between Britain and Spain NOT Argentina
b) the islands are not 'adjacent' - 300 miles is too far. try reading a 1790 dictionary.
c) Spain had no settlements opposite the islands on the mainland in 1790.
d) the secret clause approved Britain' action in 1833
e) Nootka was repudiated by Spain in 1795 and NOT fully reinstated in 1814.
Nootka gives Spain nothing ! Argentina even less !
1863 Treaty accepts what you have and what you will hold - nothing about what you'd like to hold - Article 1: Your Catholic Majesty recognises the Republic or Confederation of Argentina as a free, supreme and independent nation that consists of all the provinces mentioned in its present federal Constitution, and other legitimate territories that belong or could belong in the future. According to the Spanish Parliament Act of December 4th 1836, the kingdom renounces any rights and actions on the territory of the Republic.
You know too little Stan !
now that the english navy is training its men on computers because they have no ships perhaps you can send a cyber-destroyer .
Maybe Bill Gates will lend you the money for it.
Edward then - Not William !
now that the english navy is training its men on computers because they have no ships perhaps you can send a cyber-destroyer
When we have the arse hanging out of our navy like the Argies,then worry
38 High and dry: Cost-cutting Royal Navy forced to train new recruits on VIRTUAL ships
Rule the waves with cardboard ships? :-))))))
a) Right. UK agreed the Islands were Spanish, and that they had rights on them. In 1863 Spain ceded that rights. Article 4.
b)Please I would like your sources. RAE says nothing about such a thing in Spanish language.
c)Wrong. In 1790 the Fort at Puerto Deseado was reestablished.
d)For that to happen it would had to be a power both recognized as such. You recognized our independence. Spain did much later.
e) Sources please. If possible, in Spanish.
Artículo 4 La Confederación Argentina, considerando que así como adquiere los derechos y privilegios correspondientes a la Corona de España.
Among rights you can include their right to the Islands.
Anyway, our safe claim si to the Isla Soledad because of the Spanish stone left in place. Isla Gran Malvina is less clear. So lets just divide the islands. You get the West side, we get the East one.
Perhaps the iranians will give you back the rubber boats they took off you after jailng the crews and describing one of them as Mr.Bean.....then the royal navy will once again be invincible !
43 fantazum2011 //the royal navy will once again be invincible !
Marcos Alejandro // Britain is then truly great.
35 JuanStanic (#)
We really know our history.
And the British are great.
At last you finally agree, we are the best,
Long live great Britain .
Perhaps the iranians will give you back the rubber boats they took off you
And we might give you back your planes we took of you
After the Argentine surrender eleven Pucarás (four of them in flying condition) were captured by British forces. Six were taken back to the United Kingdom, as follows:
A-515 (ZD485) – Royal Air Force Museum Cosford.
A-517 – Privately owned. Possibly shipped to the Channel Islands.
A-522 (8768M) – North East Aircraft Museum (on loan from the Fleet Air Arm Museum, Yeovilton).
A-528 (8769M) – Norfolk and Suffolk Aviation Museum (on loan from Museum of Army Flying, Middle Wallop).
A-533 (ZD486) – Boscombe Down Aviation Collection (Cockpit Section only).
A-549 (ZD487) – Imperial War Museum Duxford.
Redhoyt.your knowledge of the history of the Malvinas is admirable.You need now,in order to breath life into your knowledge,to broaden the canvas a apply other disciplines to that knowledge
As you are most certainly aware,times have changed since the days to which you refer to in your history of the islands.Colonialisation is no longer acceptable,when it is against the wishes of the rightful inhabitants.
You need to add this political fact to your conclusion.It is repeatedly pointed out to you Brits that the world has changed,partly as a result of the loss of the British empire.The loss of the Inca empire in south America,also led to changes and their history has been reassessed,especially by Yanquis and european historians.Obivously you will agree that politically they have recovered and hopefully will continue to recover some of their stolen rights.One does not anticipate that their religious artefacts will be returned,nor any of their wealth.
You might equip yourself with some history of the slave trade,if you are not already equipped
Resolution2065 and accompanying resolutions to be used in interpreting it and the Malvinas situation is where we are at in today's world.Not 1833/34 I'm sure you agree.
So easy and inmature to take words from two different people(one intending it as a joke, which was pretty obvious. I could do the same and say you are in favor of us in the dispute.
a) Article 4 gives what Spain can give in 1863. I have not seen it read in that way. Is that the whole of Article 4?
b) adjacent, from 18th century dictionaries.
adjacent: lying near
adjacent: near or bordering upon
adjacent: near to, or bordering upon
Also - International law - ”.. it is evident that by no stretch of imagination can a point on the continental shelf situated say a hundred miles, or even much less, from a given coast, be regarded as “adjacent” to it' - North Sea Continental Shelf Cases, International Court of Justice, 1969.
c) still irrelevant. A Treaty only binds the parties - 'Pacta tertiis nec nocent nec prosunt'. Spain didn't complain.
d) same as above. If not one of the signatories then you are a 3rd party power (it did not say nation).
e) I thought this so well known that I didn't select any specific source. 1794 - Spain and Britain agree a mutual withdrawal from Nootka Sound. 1795 Spain repudiates the Treaty. 1796 Spain forms an alliance with France in the Treaty of IIdefonso III. 1814 (following the reinstatement of Ferdinand VII Nootka is reinstated UNTILL commercial Treaties can be negotiated.
This is one of Dab's areas of expertise - you watching Dab?
Too late to divide them now - as Yukeno says - times have changed
New Treaty = UN CHARTER :-)
A)Not, it gives whatever right and obligations Spain had in the territory of the Viceroyalty that was either part of the an Intendencia or Governacion which later became provinces and joined the country, and also of those lands which depended directly from the Viceroy. Like Chaco as another example.
B) Okay, in English it's seen that way. I will try to find some sources in Spanish to see what the Spanish considered to be adjacent. But most importantly, it's use in Geography.
Regarding that North Atlantic thing, you can't use modern definitions for past ones. If the treaty and it's terminology meant that the Islas are included, the change in terminology does not mean that from now on they are excluded.
C)I mentioned cause you came with the thing of the settlement in the mainland. The Treaty of 1863 makes Argentina take the role of Spain as one of the involved parties(rights and obligations). Anyway, was does this have to do with the fact that Spain reestablished a Fort in Puerto Deseado?
D) In Spain eyes we were just rebels.
E) No, I couldn't find any online source for this in Spanish(repudation of the treaty).
It's never too late said an oldlady and she started primary school being 102 years old.
So easy and immature to take words from two different people(one intending it as a joke, which was pretty obvious
Very smart amigo, the only argentine that cant take a backfire joke;s
If it was intended, then it was taken as a joke,
So was mine,
But a smart mover all the same,
Very clever thought, well done.
''Colonialisation is no longer acceptable,when it is against the wishes of the rightful inhabitants.''
Thats right.We have no wish to be colonised by you. Unthinkable in this day and age. The world has indeed moved on since 1833.
Stan - I don't see that Article 4 could do that as the Argentine Republic in 1863 was not the same area as that of the Viceroyalty.
Do you have a link to the Treaty in Spanish ??
Nootka was deliberately written in vague terms. You have to remember that there were 3 Nootka Treaties and the 1st, which you refer to, was aimed at stopping hostilities rather than dealing with details. The vagueness has been a cause of dispute by both sides.
As a Treaty it was dead long before 1833. Overtaken by others.
And you have no choice but to use modern court cases. The international courts have made it very plain the ancient evidence is largely irrelevant. All cases must now be judged with modern conceptions in mind. The relevant cases are in my blog.
Settlements on the coast are used by Nootka to delineate its provisions. Vaguely written as I've said. ” .. October 28th, Britain and Spain sign the Nootka Sound Convention No.1 (The Treaty of San Lorenzo). Article VI provides that neither party may form new establishments on any of the islands ‘adjacent’ to the east and west coasts of South America then occupied by Spain.
'Then occupied Did you have anything opposite the Islands on the mainland ??
You were still a power for the secret clause. Actually irrelevant in my view obviously, because a) Nootka did not apply and b) by 1833 Nootka was long gone.
Start with Wikipedia and work from there. If you work with the bigger picture of what was happening between Spain and Britain (+ Napoleon) it would be surprising if the Treaty had survived in any form. I'll see what I can get in english.
One for Yuk - 2065 died. It was murdered whilst still on active service in 1982. Stabbed in the back. Argentina is suspected. In fact there are no current active UN GA Resolutions in force. The last, in 1988, was complied with by both sides :-)
So are you really saying, or insinuating, that technically, Argentina, should in theory, claim everything and anything that was part of the Spanish empire,
If you so wished it to be .
Or pick bits and pieces, and discards the rest.
Some interesting stuff here ( and the great god Wiki is only a starting point, before anyone makes a comment)-
I'm wondering whether the mutual abandonment of Nootka agreed in 1794 has been interpreted as a 'repudiation'. It was certainly gone before 1814, because it came up for discussion and partial reinstatement in that year, following Ferdinand's return.
” .. July 5th, a Treaty of Friendship and Alliance is signed between Britain and Spain, reinstating all Treaties of commerce existent before 1796 but only until new negotiations take place.( The Articles were amended on August 28th. The Nootka Sound agreement was thus only partially reinstated; as, indeed, it was only partially concerned with commerce.)”
All academic from my point of view but interesting non the less. I'll try to find my original source - I have soo many!
@ 54 WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE A POINT!
@ 53 WHY NOT?
Wasn't talking to you ExBrain !
And why are you shouting ?
I admit Nootka is vaguely written. I will search for the Spanish interpretation.
About the adjacency, I not really convinced about the modern definitions stuff. Common sense tells me the opposite. For example, yesterday big cows were those weighting more than 300kg, hunting big cows(but not common ones) is illegal, and you hunted one. You can't say that because today big cows are those weighting more than 400 kgs and yesterday you hunted one of 350 kgs that what you've done it's not illegal. When you did so it was illegal.
Anyway, I have to get a hand at the 3 treaties of Argentina with Spain before the one of 1863, there facts are more explicit IIRC. So I'll have to go to library.
Do you need some glasses or just a basic course of reading comprehesion?
Spain recognized our rights to the lands of the Viceroyalty. For example in the War of Paraguay, Paraguay was seen in Argentina as a rebel province. i.e part of the country.
Thanks for the link. I also have -
1790 - December 3rd, the Convention is laid before Parliament; “ .. and became the subject of discussion in both Houses. By the friends of the ministry it was extolled and defended in general terms, as vindicating the honor of the nation, ... The opposition, on the other hand, contended ... that the rights of British subjects had been materially abridged ... They observed that, ... they were by this treaty prohibited from going nearer than thirty miles to a Spanish territory, ...”To remove all possibility,” said that gentleman (Mr. Fox), “of our ever forming a settlement to the south of her American colonies, was an object for which Spain would have been willing to pay a liberal price.” Of the truth of this assertion, there was sufficient proof in the efforts made by the Government of Spain to prevent other nations from planting colonies in the falkland Islands; from which islands, it may be remarked, both parties to the convention appear to have been excluded by the terms of the sixth article.” [ Memoir, historical and political, on the northwest coast of North America, and the adjacent territories, illustrated by a map and a geographical view of those countries – Robert Greenhow, United States. Dept. of State 1840 ]
1796 - certain benefits which had been conceded to England in the Nootka Sound convention; but it would be remembered that that convention was ended by the war of 1796.” [Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856.]
And - on old evidence -
1953 - November 17th, the Minquiers and Ecrehos case is adjudged by the ICJ. “Judge Alvarez, while also concurring in the decision of the Court, made a declaration expressing regret that the Parties had attributed excessive importance to mediæval evidence and had not sufficiently taken into account the state of international law or its present tendencies in regard to territorial sovereignty.”
(#) 58 Amigo
I have self determination rights but I am a citizen from a country.
The Islanders have self-determination rights - probably more than you because they are listed as a non self governing territory under the UN Charter.
55 xbarilox, no shout, silence please.
57 JuanStanic// @53
Do you need some glasses or just a basic course of
I don’t need em, and you did not answer the question, you give none info.
The islands are British, if you cannot understand that.
Then may I suggest that you may have a reading comprehension
Analysis - Costs, environmental risks may scupper Falklands oil
Companies looking at the Falklands in the grand scheme of things might just think the size of the prize isn't worth it given their wider interests, said Ruaraidh Montgomery, an analyst at Wood Mackenzie in London”
soo how many trillions of barrels has UK thefted from Islas Malvinas Argentina ???? taking a few of those pirat tankers might come in handy for Argentina, I don't think a pirat can ask a nations for their ships back, if I was Argentina's leader I would confiscate the tankers and jail the perpetrators, not before posting a warning on a british newpapers to give them sufficient time to comply with legal issues as Germany did in the 40's with US ships.
So Argentina is still taking the lead from a bunch of Nazi's eh?
Another example of Godwins Rule by an Argie.
(#) 60 Amigo
I am waiting you to -- American withdrawal from Iraq -- article .
don't be too late.
if you were leader,
Argentina today, would be greates country in the free world,
rich powerfull and a great militery power, a missive empire,
yes sir argentina would be the worlds greatest country, if you were leader, [but you aint]
(#) 66 Amigo
Please be relax, but you don't know who I am . Perhaps You know
my real name,perhaps You saw me but didn't meet in person before.
#52 resolution 2065 is not dead.You must not make wild statements.It hasn't been adhered to.The Palestinians know about resolutions not being adhered to.
It seems obvious to me that you wish such a resolution was dead as it recognises that there is an issue to be resolved.The UK recognised that it was in a weak position legally and so invented it's overseas territories framework.You can explain such a concept,no doubt.
51# You are correct of course,times have changed,the world has moved on.However the key word is 'rightful',which of course you agreed with.Yes the world has moved on and colonising a territory is now against human rights,but what hasn't changed,and here we are in Redhoyt's area of expertise,is the fact that in 1833, the UK illegally expelled the rightful people of the Malvinas.This is a historical fact.They were not occupiers of their own territory,but unfortunately the current people on the Malvinas are occupiers.Otherwise why is 1833 a significant date.
Oil finds do not change that.It might change other things but not the dispute on the status of the islands
You are correct Yuk - 2065 was written in 1965 and talked about negotiations which took place. Negotiations were still taking place when it was stabbed in the back by Argentina.
There are no live UN GA Resolutions concerning the Falklands. The ones after 1982 culminated with the one in 1988. That was followed by both parties.
So it died in its sleep, and took its predecessors with it.
In 1833 the British threw out a few trespassers who were hoping to become squatters. They hadn't been there long enough to establish a claim. But being thrown off shouldn't have been a problem, after all the yanks had thrown them off not long before. They should have been used to it.
Spain never let go of its claim until 1863. Spain has never complained. They even paid a diplomatic visit in 1863 and saluted the British flag. Nice of them I thought :-)
67 ed (#) Dec
(#) 66 Amigo
Please be relax, but you don't know who I am .
Well as you answered for the pirate hunter
Then you can assume his status then.
#69 only recently Blair visited Libya.How much do you read into that.Do you remember Chamberlain visiting Hitler.I wonder what the Spanish visited the Malvinas for,and what was discussed
The UN is wasting it's time if there is no issue on the 'falkland/Malvinas matter' and that is a waste of money,delegates attending such events,don't you think?
Blair was nothing but a puppet - so I never read anything into what he did!
The Spanish came to recognise British sovereignty - easy enough to work out !
And yes! The UN IS wasting its time ! Still, keeps those diplomats busy :-)
#72 exactly to form.Blair was a puppet so you want to gloss over it.But he was elected 3times wasn't here.By a free and democratic country.I can't comprehend that.Not in the UK.
The Spanish came to recognise UK sovereignty.Easy to work out.You mean you don't know but what else could it be.
Yes the UN is wasting it's time.I think you think they are but why are British people going to these events.You are wishing they were wasting their time but in fact they are mediating in a dispute.
Your response was what could have been expected.Bias to what you want reality to be,just like your history.
Didn't get my vote once !
Spain turned up and saluted the flag in 1863.
Britain does not officially attend the C24. The FIG goes, but that's up to them.
Your response was what could have been expected. Bias to what you want reality to be, just like your history.
Did you know, that Cristina is in fact helping the British economy?
[But she don’t realise it]
Every time she opens her trap , the sale of headache, pills go sky high.
Oh when the oil flows,
She will be having a fit .
The Queen of Plastic has got a few more problems coming before the oil flows, which it surely will, like March 2012 when the Unions are to start their wage negotiations.
Given her 'shot across the bows' of threats and intimidation towards unions and strikes in her Acceptance Speech and the government lies put out regarding inflation and the economy in general I imagine that riots in the streets will probably be the order of the day.
Not a word from supercilious Stink. The old git must have missed the nail and hammered her wrinkly hand instead.
Maybe not but rockhopper might have environmental problems beside other costs that it could do without.Still I suppose the oil price is on an upward trend
Commenting for this story is now closed.If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!
Get our news on your inbox!