From Monday's Globe and Mail (*)
The Falkland Islands, a windswept archipelago in the South Atlantic Ocean, are a British Overseas Territory, and have been since 1833. The 3,000 inhabitants of this Island are proud to be British subjects, and no amount of Argentine huffing or puffing will change that. Read full article
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!
Who in their right mind would want to join with a country of 40 million liars?Dec 26th, 2011 - 05:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Thirty years they've been lying about the Royal Navy.
Hopefully the whole world will now see them for what they are. Dishonest no-hopers with delusions.
The Globe and Mail newspaper......anybody hear of them before ?? who they are ???Dec 26th, 2011 - 05:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Let´s see what other important acredible and reliable newspapers say about Malvinas issue:
1) The Guardian:
The Guardian: “Britain is asleep over Argentina and the Falklands”
“South America is growing in strength and increasingly united. Britain must wake up to this new reality”
“..common sense would suggest that the two countries should meet to negotiate a solution, and that is exactly what Argentina's president, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, has often suggested..”
It's time to talk about the Falklands: Britain should stop behaving like a 19th-century colonial power and start discussing Falkland sovereignty with Argentina
Ditch the Falklands: ..It makes no economic or political sense to hang on to the Falklands, but no one will face the truth...
Time for Falklands co-operation: Both the UK and Argentina could benefit from diplomatic negotiations over the exploitation of natural Falklands resources
2) The Independent:
“Time to talk about the Falklands”
suggests the time might have come to defuse the situation in the South Atlantic and take up last year’s offer from US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to broker between Britain and Argentina.....
But simply ignoring Buenos Aires' claims of sovereignty will not make them go away.
How self-righteous how magnanimous of Canada to hold such a view....shame it doesn't apply the same attitude to it's own indigenous people which it first near exterminated then ghettoised and even today subjects to an institutional process of subjugation and suppression through denial of the indigenous people's claim to self-determination through the reclaimation of their land.Dec 26th, 2011 - 05:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Could it be that canadians shape their opinions on racial identity?
Its admirably independent neighbour?Dec 26th, 2011 - 06:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
23.—(1) There shall be a Governor of the Falkland Islands who shall be appointed by Her Majesty by Commission under Her Sign Manual and Signet and shall hold office during Her Majesty’s pleasure.
Defence and internal security
25. The Governor shall consult with the Commander British Forces before exercising any function which appears to the Governor to relate to defence or internal security (with the exception of the police) and shall act in accordance with the advice which the Commander British Forces
then tenders to him or her; and the Governor shall likewise act in accordance with the advice of the Commander British Forces on any matter on which the Commander British Forces considers it necessary in the interests of defence or internal security (with the exception of the police) to give advice to the Governor.
neither do we want them them to join usDec 26th, 2011 - 06:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
So what do you want, Malen?Dec 26th, 2011 - 06:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
let's hear what you have in mind for all of us Falkland Islanders, the 9th generation islanders; the 1st generation immigrants, the islanders of St Helenian, Scottish, Chilean, Russian, Scandinavian origin, and every combination in between.
What's your plan?
“Falkland Islands don’t want to join Argentina”Dec 26th, 2011 - 06:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Surprise... The Malvinas are already a part of Argentina.
-- Malvinas don't want to join to Argentina -- ?Dec 26th, 2011 - 06:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
This is just English Press thought .
but,maybe Islanders do want to join to Uruguay --- .!
No, they want things to remain as they are, which means you sad fcukers will get a hot lead surprise if you ever land there uninvited.Dec 26th, 2011 - 07:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Come on if you're hard enough, but don't think you'll be buried at Darwin this time around, you'll all be dumped at sea as unwanted waste, at an undisclosed location, along with everyone currently buried at Darwin.
I do hope ALL the Malvinists are the first to attempt a landing, we need a turkey shoot.
Darwin ? Charles Darwin ?Dec 26th, 2011 - 07:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
that was fake scientist & Royal Navy Intelligence employee.
Well you at least recognise people with intelligence, its a pity you're a retard and unable to process basic information regarding where all your unknown buddies are buried.Dec 26th, 2011 - 07:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
But don't worry, you'll be sinking to the same resting place in the same general area of the South Atlantic, just make sure you're one of the first to attempt a landing, we need to see whether you actually fight as good as you talk, and there's some lead we'd like to introduce you to.
edDec 26th, 2011 - 08:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Just what the fcuk are you on: crack, triple strength ganja, but to say Darwin was RNI is ludicrous.
Just because he could not say the Argies are descended from humans is not a reason to berate him :o)
(#) 11 , (#) 12 AmigosDec 26th, 2011 - 08:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Could you say to us what was the name of C.Darwin's close friend( and also his nickname ?) during the journeys of South America ?
What does a monkey want to know about the grown ups World, look it up yourself, if you can read.Dec 26th, 2011 - 08:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
i asked C.Darwin's friend name.?Dec 26th, 2011 - 08:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
you can not find him internet .
We arrived early in the morning at Port Louis, the most Eastern point of the Falkland Islands: The first news we received was to our astonishment, that England had taken possession of the Falklands islands & that the Flag was now flying.Dec 26th, 2011 - 08:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
These islands have been for some time uninhabited, untill the Buenos Ayres Government, a few years since claimed them & sent some colonists. Our government remonstrated against this, & last month the Clio arrived here with orders to take possession of the place. A Buenos ayrean man of war was here, at the time, with some fresh colonists. Both they & the vessel returned to the Rio Plata.
The present inhabitants consist of one Englishman, who has resided here for some years, & has now the charge of the British flag, 20 Spaniards & three women, two of whom are negresses. The island is abundantly stocked with animals. There are about 5000 wild oxen, many horses, & pigs. Wild fowl, rabbits, & fish in the greatest plenty. Europaean vegetables will grow. And as there is an abundance of water & good anchorage; it is most surprising that it has not been long ago colonized, in order to afford provisions for Ships going round the Horn. At present it is only frequented by Whalers, one of which is here now.
By Charles Darwin on March 1, 1833
(#) 16 AmigoDec 26th, 2011 - 08:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
I just asked C.Darwin' close friend's name( also his nickname).
I didn't say do copy anythings from internet and write them here.
How do you know he had a friend if you can't find his name or his nickname anywhere?Dec 26th, 2011 - 08:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
You aren't making any sense.
(#) 18 AmigoDec 26th, 2011 - 09:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Monty is a cut name of Monteneros ?
You should know every kinds of knowledges can not be found in eveywhere
The Falklanders shall decide there own Destiny and that is there right!!!Dec 26th, 2011 - 09:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
argentina can keep dreaming of someting they will NEVER POSSESS!
Long Live the Fallands.
(#) 20 AmigoDec 26th, 2011 - 09:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Long Live the Falllands ?
These islands are falling ? ( from British hands )
edDec 26th, 2011 - 09:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
What has all this got to do with the topic?
of course you don´t want to join Argentina. this is because you are not Argentine, you usurped our landDec 26th, 2011 - 09:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
@23 CeroDec 26th, 2011 - 09:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
The Falklands have always been British and NEVER argentine, and that will always be the case !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Long Live the Falklands
The first news we received was to our astonishment, that England had taken possession of the Falklands islands & that the Flag was now flying.Dec 26th, 2011 - 09:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Speaking of Darwin: himself was surprised to find the English flag.
Very suggestive truth?. Not for us, we know, the Argentines that the Malvinas are Argentine.
In all their colonial episodes the English where it was possible moved in planters who have invariably bitterly opposed the native peoples rights.However when it is deemed neccesary either a clearly superior force in opposition or faced with the impossibility of maintaining the territory the planters are discarded because all they are is the rabble utilized by the city.Dec 26th, 2011 - 09:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
They will quietly be given the opportunity to return to some God forsaken part of the main island or paid to stay on but the reality is they are expendable props nothing more
@26 OgaraDec 26th, 2011 - 10:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Where do you source the DRIVELL that you posted!!! I reckon that you just make it up as you go along!!!!
Long Live the Falklands.
25 Malvinense 1833Dec 26th, 2011 - 10:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
The odd thing is, Darwin didn't mention Argentina or Argentine people at all. Whatever he was expecting to see there, it wasn't that!
27 lets look at any colony you want to where they could possible influence the demographics.The City invented ethnic cleansingDec 26th, 2011 - 10:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Ogogobo! Never ever heard of a plantrer here in the history - quite a few stockmen yes. What did these planters plant? - was it what you must smoke going by the drivel you dribble?Dec 26th, 2011 - 10:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
As for Guardian and Independent - they view of just 2 writers in 2 small politically correct leftwing papers.
To correct the Guardian bloke - the oil industry has made it CLEAR - they would NOT need Argenitina during development and extraction - yes it would be helpfull if she was firendly - but is NOT essential.
To correct the Independent bloke- he makes no mention(as he is naively unaware) that the only solution Arg can accept is a full 100% Colonial takeover!
Now you get me ALL UK papers saying its time to sit and negotiate with CFK - and ALL saying it frequently - then you will have a point. But until that happens - stop kidding yourselves!
why darwin saw gauchos in the malvinas?Dec 26th, 2011 - 10:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
ohhh what a mistery
why the falklanders say che when they speak? c'mon lads why so bitter about being argentineans , you're just the same people that lives in the patagonia, mainly ethnic british argentineans...never heard about welsh-argentineans? don'te be so sellfish and quit the nonsense.
@ 28 Hello Monty: The funny thing is that Darwin mentions Argentina and South America:Dec 26th, 2011 - 11:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
I guess the occupation of this place has hardly been reported in British newspapers, but we hear that all the southern part of America is boiling for it.
According to the terrible language of Buenos Aires, one might assume that this great republic intends to declare war on England.
By Charles Darwin on March 1 - 1833
Obviously the british do not have the full story.
Regards my friend.
Which only goes to show that Darwin was an expert in evolution and not politics. The point, of course, is that darwin's diary proves the myth of the 'Expulsion'. The settlers, and no they weren't all from what was then BA, had British permission given in 1828. Darwin was unaware of this.Dec 26th, 2011 - 11:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
But its good to see you getting to grips with a few facts.
Read and learn - http://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/
31 southerncrossDec 26th, 2011 - 11:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
You seem to be at odds with other of our Argentine friends who say we are the same as ''UK British''.
You are more right than they are; we do say 'chay', and various other South American words and expressions.
Unfortunately for you, that doesn't make us Argentine, sorry. I have heard about the 'welsh-argentineans'- they can keep their Welsh teas and male voice choirs. That kind of sad half- existence is not for us thanks.
We will go our own way, and it is not yours. It would be better if we could all be friends, but that is up to you.
Mal, I'm still not seeing anything about Argentina- maybe Darwin had never heard of it.
Okay, but you can not deny the capacity of observation of Darwin.Dec 26th, 2011 - 11:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Also, if there was no expulsion of inhabitants, how is it possible that Darwin mentions the possibility of a war?
How do you explain the harsh reaction of the press in Argentina?
How do you explain the Argentine Government's protest?
In addition, the permanence of some people does not mean that there was no expulsion and usurpation.
Canejos!!!! arakalanaca .... without Cameron, The Queen, Thatcher, any bastard of this peanats bullshits rock of the Europe....the Malvinas (with or without Kelpers) will be part of Argentina. Perhaps, no longer ... In the line my friends. The world is changing and the empires are broken.Dec 27th, 2011 - 12:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0
Darwins powers of observation were excellent. But there was no possibility of war. If you read it again, he is being dramatic, one might assume !Dec 27th, 2011 - 12:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0
And we are not dealing with Argentina, we are dealing with BA. The various provinces were hardly united. The reason that BA and its press were up in arms is because they just thought that they'd won in the diplomatic spat with the Americans. They did not think that the Americans would interfere again (they were wrong - the Lexington was readying to return to the islands). And they were not expecting the British, although they had been warned in 1829.
An emotional response by a peoples almost constantly at war with themselves, suddenly finding another target of their ire.
The protest was a natural response. Originally the protest demanded the return of the whole archipelago, but after Palmerston's reply in 1834, this was changed just to a demand by Moreno for East Falkland.
Palmerston's letter makes it quite clear that the British never considered that BA had any claim at all.
Argentina's Expulsion Myth has it that all were removed and the settlement destroyed. This mixes up the Lexington raid with the British arrival. In any case it is wrong on both counts. The Lexington did not raze the settlement nor remove all the inhabitants.
The British only threw off the trespassing garrison, and Vernet's settlers, who already had British permission, stayed with 4 exceptions. Those 4 were not expelled, but left for their own reasons.
Usurpation is the taking from a previous owner. We were the previous owner!
The Falkland Islands, a windswept archipelago in the South Atlantic Ocean...Dec 27th, 2011 - 01:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0
and I say:
Malvinas Islands, an archipelago in the Argentinian seaside, placed at the submarine Argentinian platform...
#28 Monty as usual you are completly wrong.....Dec 27th, 2011 - 02:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0
you say Darwin didn't mention Argentina or Argentine people at all..
Darwin DID mention Buenos Aires goverment and people living there by years in peace.....
Darwin also said the islands belonged to whom and for what purpose had.....
“After the possession of these miserable islands had been contested by France Spain, and England, they were left uninhabited. The government of Buenos Ayres then sold them to a private individual, but likewise used them, as old Spain had done before for a penal settlement” “England claimed her right an seized them”
Remmber Darwin was there just 2 month after England seized the islands by force !!
Who inhabited the islands? i mean...who were the legal owners and settlers of the islands by then ???
“The absence of any species whatever in the whole class of Reptiles, is a marked feature in the zoology of this country, as well as in that of the Falkland Islands. I do not ground this statement merely on my own observation, but I heard it from the Spanish inhabitants of the latter place”
34 monty69Dec 27th, 2011 - 02:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0
so if you heard about the welsh, you'll know that argentina is an inmigrant country
a lot of comunnitys have chosen to liven by their own way and they never been subject to an argentinization or else, in fact they contribute to the shape of modern argentinean society.
if you have seen the welsh towns in chubut, you can travel a little bit down to see the afrikaans village of sarmiento in santa cruz ,founded by the boers refugees fleein' the second anglo-boer war, travel north and drink beer in the 15 volga german villages of santa fe or cross the river to entre rios and see the jewish gauchos . all of these people still speak their lenguage . and of course , my fellow islander as all falklanders know there a lot of these kind of examples across the Argentina .
the british inmigrants descendents in argentina are the most numerous in an no former british colony, almost 1 millon, half of them irish, mostly scottish, being the english the less, as in the malvinas no, mate?
c'mon, we're grown up people, it's obvius that the style of life of the falklanders will not change in a minimun , knowing argentinean goverment, even they will kept driving to the left.
surely you have been in patagonia, how much difference it's ?
best wishes and a great 2012
38 ferminDec 27th, 2011 - 02:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0
You can say what you like. Even if it's all true, it doesn't affect our rights or our sovereignty in any way.
However, I just had a look in my atlas and couldn't find any of those places.
ps are you a sock puppet or just an admirer of Think's distinctive debating style?
Sadly you children just don’t understand what your glorious deluded leader is doing,Dec 27th, 2011 - 02:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0
You wanna play games,
ludo chess draughts ping pong perhaps, you children think this is a game,
Very soon you find out, that this little game comes with death and destruction,
And your leaders decisions has consequences,
And it may well be , your sons or daughters that will be sent to defend, not Argentina, but her delusional dream s,
Peace my friends, peace,
As you don’t want the alternative, neither does the free world at this point in time, want a deluded
Ambitious , obsessed past her best date, woman on the war path.
Only you can make the peace,
WELL SAID FALKLANDERS! NOTHING CFK AND HER ALLIES CAN DO WILL CHANGE THAT. DON'T LET THE FALKLANDERS BE PART OF THIS COUNTRY, BECAUSE VERMINS LIKE CFK WOULD RUIN THEIR LIVES. DON'T EVER BELIEVE THAT CFK AND HER ALLIES HAVE GOOD INTENTIONS, DON'T EVER TRUST THEM!Dec 27th, 2011 - 02:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0
@ 38 NO IT'S NOT, IT DOES NOT BELONG TO ARGENTINA. AFRICA, IF YOU LOOK CLOSELY IS ALSO PLACED AT THE SUBMARICE ARGENTINIAN PLATFORM. IF WHAT YOU SAY WAS TRUE, CFK WOULD NOT BE TALKING ABOUT DIALOGUE, SHE'S TALKING ABOUT DIALOGUE BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING ELSE SHE CAN DO, THE UNITED NATIONS WILL NOT ACCEPT NOTHING MORE THAN THAT, JUST BECAUSE THE ISLANDS ARE NOT ARGENTINIAN. IF YOU SAY THE ISLANDS ARE ARGENTINIAN THEN PROVE IT. THIS COUNTRY HAS A GREAT CHANCE TO BE A REALLY WONDERFUL PLACE, BUT IT'S PLANTED WITH YOU WHO ARE WORTHLESS, THAT'S WHAT WE GOT! YOU!
40 southerncrossDec 27th, 2011 - 02:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0
I know all that. I have been to Patagonia- quite a lot of it was settled by Falkland Islanders so I'm not surprised it looks similar.
You're missing the point. All those people chose to go to Argentina and settle there. Nobody made them- they knew what they were getting and they just went.
We prefer what we have. We have either been born and brought up here or we have chosen it because of the way it is. You can't make us become Argentines. We would have to choose that, and I can't see it happening.
As for driving on the left, that's not how things turned out in 1982. And anyway, we wil never, ever be in the position where we have to have the permission of the Argentine government to run our country the way we like. Sorry, it's just not going to happen.
I say: The Malvinas were administered from BA and B.A. representing the other provinces in foreign policy.Dec 27th, 2011 - 02:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0
Does not change the equation.
The government and the media protested the British usurpation, as they had done earlier against the abuse of Lexignton.
In the British intransigence and looking for a solution, Moreno offered an island for everyone. Trying to leave the door open to negotiation.
Palmerston and Cameron say the same verse, have to lie to justify the usurpation.
They do not say that the possession of Port Egmont does not was neither undisputed nor peaceful.
Invasion of property? Explain: How it may not expelled the Spanish garrison occupying British territory since 1767 according to you?
Usurpation is the taking from a previous owner. We were the previous owner no my friend .... and have been since 1833....the paragraph is clear.. of course after the usurpation.
5 STUPID WOMAN, PIGGY! THEN WHAT DO YOU WANT? YOU'VE SAID MANY TIMES THAT YOU WERE SO HAPPY BECAUSE THAT ISLANDERS BECOMES AN ARGENTINE, BECAUSE YOU REALLY FEEL THAT THE ISLANDERS ARE YOUR BROTHERS, AND NOW YOU SAY THAT YOU DON'T WANT THEM. YOU ARE STUPID!Dec 27th, 2011 - 02:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0
@ 45 LIES MORE LIES MORE LIES. ALL THESE YEARS TELLING LIES. BORING, THE SAME AS THOSE STUPID VETERANS WHO THINK THAT I HAVE TO LIVE IN 1982 BECAUSE THEY WERE SENT TO WAR, AND THAT IS MY FAULT SO I HAVE TO LIVE UNDER THEIR FEET? FREEDOM, THAT'S ALL THAT MATTERS. WHAT USURPATION? WHAT ARE YOU TALING ABOUT? TAKE YOUR CRAPPY NATIONALISM AND SHOVE IT.
@ 46 The truth hurts, it's hard to hear other arguments.Dec 27th, 2011 - 03:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0
#31 Mr southerncross........you made an interesting question:Dec 27th, 2011 - 03:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0
why darwin saw gauchos in the malvinas ?
paraphasing an old post....
“Charles Darwin reported that the gauchos with whom he made some excursions around the Islands told him....”
In his book “The Voyage to Beagle” Charles Darwin tells us a story that occurred in the Malvinas in 1833 (just 2 months after possession by force by english officer) where several gauchos were shown as how they hunted with “boleadoras” and also prepared “carne con cuero” (argentinean “asado”)
Everything is typically Argentine food and also described in details by his spanish name with many “gauchos” helping them in their work in Malvinas.....
a) I wonder today still exist Argentinenan Gauchos in Malvinas and his tipical customs ?
b) If the answer is no ..... which may be the cause? someone had removed ?
Many sources say that in 1833 lived in Malvinas Islands around 40 people ... no more, and most of them were the Gauchos who were doing the hard work ....
Assuming that the Gauchos at the time were about 50% of the population and continuing with the present growth rate of the islands ... means that today the 3000 Falklands kelpers ........today 1500 should be Gauchos ? is logical ?
c) WHERE ARE THESE GAUCHOS ?????
d) WHAT HAPPENED THEM ???
The Spanish garrison was removed in 1811. By then of course it was administered from Montevideo, NOT BA.Dec 27th, 2011 - 03:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0
The British claim goes back to 1765. That is a fact. Neither relinquished nor abandoned. Re-established 1833.
The Spanish claim goes back to 1767, when they took East Falkland over from the French. Neither relinquished nor abandoned until 1863, when the British authorities received a diplomatic visit.
No usurpation, because there was no legal claimant there to usurp in 1833. BA never established a legal claim. They were just squatters who were asked, politely, to leave.
The truth !
Sorry if it causes you pain.
all right Red...now convince the complete world with your evidences because all them are wrong and they are supporting Argentina...LOL..what a clown you are old chap.Dec 27th, 2011 - 03:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0
The world is already convinced Sofa - which is why, after 179 years of (seriously) unchallenged possession, the Falkland Islands are still British.Dec 27th, 2011 - 05:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0
Allow me to wish you a happy 179th Anniversary in advance :-)
@40 Lord Ton: in 1833 the islands were seized by British forces, and settlers sent out in a crude act of imperial aggression.Dec 27th, 2011 - 06:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0
and about your words: They were just squatters who were asked, politely, to leave Yeah SURE!
If your version of a polite imperial power like the UK is true, I wonder how can the UK have changed its foreign policy so fast, some years before, in 1806, for example, the British Army was invading Buenos Aires and raising the british flag in the city for 45 days, they were expulsed by the locals later.
SINCE WHEN do Imperial Powers ask permission when they want to grab natural resources??
Politely asking squatters to move is perfectly reasonable behaviour for an Imperial Power, provided of course that said squatters do in fact - leave!Dec 27th, 2011 - 06:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0
Pinedo did. His folded flag was returned with a nice little note saying that it had been found in the territory of His Britannic Majesty, and the British probably even gave him a cheery little wave as he left.
All very - civilised.
So yes - I'm sure :-)
@Lord Ton: This version of politeness and civilized methods sounds too gay for a country that does not permit same-sex marriages in the year 2011 ;)Dec 27th, 2011 - 07:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0
Didn't know you were looking for one!Dec 27th, 2011 - 10:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0
@48 so_far,Dec 27th, 2011 - 10:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0
The blood of those Gauchos runs through the veins of the present Falkland lslanders, although much diluted by later British & other emigrants.
This is from the population that you say was expelled! No ,no their descendents are still there. That is why there are so many Spanish words in their English. And guess what?
They don't want to become Argentines.
So you see, they have a perfect right to their country.
Give it away, mate. You have been lied to, by successive Argentine governments. And you all believe them without doing any research.
l'm glad you're not the Police in my town!
Now if you don't believe this then do some research.
The truth is waiting for you.
48 so_farDec 27th, 2011 - 10:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0
I can answer your question.
There are a great many Falkland Islanders wo are descended from gauchos. This was a long time ago so there is no Argentinian gaucho culture any more, but there are words and customs in Falkland Island culture that come from there.
There are words in common usage from gaucho culture, mainly to do with horses; gear, colours of horses etc. If you went to Stanley Races today you would see this in action for yourself.
There are other words commonly used that are about geographical features- arroyo, rincon, etc, even the Camp, used every day. Children in the Camp still hunt geese with bolas and you still hang beef on a 'plinky'.
I hope this helps and I'm glad you asked the question. Always nice to be able to point out some of the distinct features of Falkland Islands culture.
@54 fermin:Dec 27th, 2011 - 11:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0
Do try to keep up. Same-sex civil parnerships have been legal thoughout the UK since 2005.
If the British are all so gay, then it means that Argentina's manly and extremely heterosexual troops got beaten by a bunch of gays in 1982.
#56, #57...very polite ladies.....a bit naive for my taste, anyway .......your response are so .......so.......british. (arrrrggghhhh)Dec 27th, 2011 - 11:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0
Happy New Year Malvinas
We are wasting our time, Monty69.Dec 27th, 2011 - 12:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
so_far clearly doesn't believe us. What a melon head.
@48 and others. I'll try to answer. The reason for the presence of gauchos at the time is quite simple. I refer you to the commercial venture operated by one Luis Vernet, with the permission of the British Consul, to use the feral cattle on the Islands for the purpose of providing fresh supplies to shipping. Thus the gauchos. Unfortunately for them, when Vernet and six of his criminal chums were arrested by the Americans for piracy and taken to Montevideo, the gauchos were abandoned, although thew wished to return to the mainland. Fortunately for them, when the British arrived in 1833 to recover their territory, the British paid them, in silver, and persuaded them to stay. Supplies to shipping were still important.Dec 27th, 2011 - 12:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Argentina is not mentioned because, of course, it did not exist. If that country existed it did so as the United Provinces. But only with territory from the south bank of the River Plate and to the north. Most of the territory south of the River Plate still belonged to the indigenous people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mapa_rio_de_la_plata_1816.jpg
The attacks in 1806/1807 were ill-prepared attacks against a colony of the Spanish Empire, with which Britain was at war.
And Lord Ton is quite right. When HMS Clio and HMS Tyne arrived in the Falklands on 2 January 1833, Pinedo was requested, by letter, to remove his force and his flag. British forces landed on 3 January. When they found the United Provinces flag still flying, they took it down, replaced it with the Union flag and returned the UP flag to Pinedo. As it happens, 80% of Pinedo's forces were British mercenaries who would not fight against their compatriots. Pinedo sailed on 5 January. End of illegal South American occupation of British territory until 1982.
Only 3.000 inhabitants? ONLY 3000?Dec 27th, 2011 - 01:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Looks like nobody wants to live there, my neighbourhood is greater than that population.... LOL
Capital of the Falklands, Puerto Argentino (Stanley)Dec 27th, 2011 - 02:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Distance between London and Puerto Argentino (Stanley): 12,700 Kilometers / 8000 Miles
Distance between Rio Grande, Argentina and Puerto Argentino (Stanley): 800 Kilometers / 500 Miles
Rio Grande is the nearest town to the Islands, and Argentina, the closest nation. Within a radius of 800 kilometers (500 miles) Stanley (Stanley) will find nothing but water and Argentine mainland and island. The Falkland Islands belong geographically to the South American continent, and for this reason are a natural part of Argentine territorial domain, in whose presence they are.The Sea Convention is a comprehensive document produced in the field of United Nations in 1982, dedicated to legislate and define the jurisdictions in the waters and seabed.
The seabed is a natural extension of the landmasses and integrate so-called continental margins, now covered by the sea. The Sea Convention has established a complex procedure for claiming those countries with sea coasts. It has been estimated that the territories that belong to Argentina in this condition have an extension of 2,500,000 square kilometers, and in this case, and according to the provisions of the Convention, over ocean areas belonging to the so-called exclusive economic zone.
The oceanic dry land portion are obviously islands. In the case of Argentina is the Islas Malvinas, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands, in addition to other children. They are continental islands because in all cases emerge from platforms or continental margins.
The islands have been usurped by the United Kingdom. The seabed and ocean masses are subject to the provisions of the Sea Convention The Islas Malvinas are geologically related to the Patagonia.
@55Dec 27th, 2011 - 02:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Red, did you change your name? New year's resolution? :-)
Distance is irrelevant.Dec 27th, 2011 - 02:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Geography is irrelevant.
Continental shalf is irrelevant.
Spain may have had East Falkland usurped. Argentina suffered no loss, as it owned none of the islands in the archipelago. Spain didn't complain.
Nothing to do with Argentina !
Personally I try to avoid unnecessary relations :-)
yes Red...you forgot other stament...Dec 27th, 2011 - 02:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Saint Claus exist...he´s british
Art - a little consolidation. After all, I outed myself :-)Dec 27th, 2011 - 02:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Hope you had a good Christmas - You'll have to excuse Sofa, he/she/it is confused, Santa is obviously American. They do it so much better!
This historical narrative is true, accepted by both Argentina and the UK. The latter argues for dismissal that it is past history and has lost its forceDec 27th, 2011 - 02:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
The discovery of the Malvinas has been alleged by several sailors before the 17th century.
The oldest islands occupation was hispanic. The British, during the 18th century, explored the Patagonian coast looking for points of supply for their whaling ships. Spain instituted the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata (1776).
After the Declaration of Independence (July 9, 1816), much of the territory of the Viceroyalty became part of Argentina, including the Malvinas, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands.
In 1833, the islands were usurped during the term of then President of the Republic, Balcarce.
There were attempts to occupation of the Islands prior to 1833, by the UK, France and North America, but they all stopped by the Spanish claims.
Balcarce had appointed a new commander of the Malvinas and sent the schooner Sarandi, led by Pinedo.
The English flag frigate Clio, appeared on December 20, 1832, and after the raid in the vicinity of Port Egmont, was presented in front of Puerto Soledad (1833). Pinedo sent 2 officers on board the Clio to require the English captain the reason for their presence. This is not slow to go personally to the board imposed the head Sarandi where Argentine tenor of his instructions for the disposal of SMB had orders to take the Malvinas and granted 24 hs to haul down the flag Pinedo Argentina and proceed with the evacuation.
The head of the Sarandi believe that resistance would be futile and just let a settler as interim commander. The Argentine flag was not lowered. An English officer was in charge of it, then forward them on board the Sarandi, where Pineda had embarked all his might.
On January 3, the British took possession of Puerto Soledad. But the English corvette not extend much his stay in the islands. Orders of the Admiralty left to a British subject, the Irish steward Dickson
@67Dec 27th, 2011 - 03:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
I did indeed ! wish you and your family the best for next Year!
..., as custodian of the British flag.Dec 27th, 2011 - 03:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
The possession of the archipelago by the UK is the product of an encroachment made in 1833, with the use of force.
I am closing the year with the following statement, the Brits in the 1800 were like the BORG (Star Trek )Dec 27th, 2011 - 03:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Resistance is futile, You will be assimilated !! :-)))
Simon Jenkins is currently one of the most respected political analysts and influential in the UK, with a career that includes several years as editor of national newspaper Evening Standard and The Times, as well as the prestigious magazine The Economist. His work has not gone unnoticed by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), which in 1988 he was elected Best Journalist of the Year, nor to the organizers and participants of the contest British Press Awards, which, in 1993, consecrated Best Columnist of the Year.Dec 27th, 2011 - 03:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
But in the eyes Argentine, none of these achievements and distinctions Catching it as its position on the always thorny issue of sovereignty over the Falkland islands to the English journalist should be administered by Argentina.
In January 1998, from his widely read political column in The Times, Jenkins had called on the then government of Tony Blair thriving consider the British possession of the Falklands because, among other reasons, Britain could not continue to spend the ridiculous amount of $ 114 million a year to maintain a garrison of 2000 men. (Webmaster's note: More than 4000 men)
Today, in an exclusive interview with The Nation a few days of a new anniversary of the conflict, Jenkins said his view has not changed.
I always believed that the administration of the islands by Argentina is the best solution for everyone, but with the current situation I'm afraid not going to get me to see life, he says.
- How do you perceive the position of the UK on this subject?
'I think the government (Tony) Blair Falklands could not care less, and certainly do not have the slightest interest in re-install the theme. It is something that is outdated.
- Is it a difficult issue to deal with British leaders, even after winning the war?
-Yes ... is something that is traumatic for many Britons, especially for politicians who lived through the conflict and are still active, even those who do not want to think again on the islands. And this
Rio Grande is the nearest town to the Islands, and Argentina, the closest nation. Dec 27th, 2011 - 03:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
The nearest town to the islands is the one sitting ON the islands. The one the islanders live in. Proximity is not a valid argument. Paris is closer to London than Stanley is to Buenos Aries. This is the same all over the world. If the worlds borders were all arranged on proximity the would would be a different place.
The Sea Convention is a comprehensive document produced in the field of United Nations in 1982, dedicated to legislate and define the jurisdictions in the waters and seabed.
The sea convention does NOT in any way shape or form give Argentina sovereignty over the islands. The convention of the sea in fact(if you read it) states that a nations water territory only goes out a few miles. Significantly short of the hundreds of miles the islands sit out.
In your logi c- because our seabed extents to france, and france extends to europe, and then beyond that russia, china and the middle east. The UK is able to claim half the world. Because we share a seabed.
It's a stupid idea.
... is another reason why I can not imagine that the Falklands could be transferred to Argentina in the short or medium term.Dec 27th, 2011 - 03:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
- Why do you think the UK should give up its sovereignty over the islands?
-Just because they can not be ruled Falklands from the UK forever. Undoubtedly, the economy of the islands should be integrated into South America, if they care to continue to grow.
- Do you think that the Islanders would support this idea?
'I think the young people there should link with the mainland. It is an obsolete idea to go ahead with things as they are now, as this type of colonialism is totally anachronistic.
- War of 1982 was a step backwards for Argentina?
Yes, and more than a step back was a disaster. If the invasion had not occurred, today Argentina surely would have at least shared sovereignty of the islands. But the war has not only reinforced the British military presence, but also became unthinkable hope of partial sale of all or part of the English government, and approach by the islanders.
- Do you agree with Margaret Thatcher on the idea that Argentina regained democracy thanks to defeat in the conflict?
Yes, I think definitely so, and this is obvious, as is also true that the war contributed to his re-election gain Thatcher as leader of this country.
- Do you agree with those who hold to the former prime minister a war criminal for having ordered the sinking of the cruiser General Belgrano?
-Not at all. She was very worried, and rightly, that there was a huge boat in the vicinity of the British fleet moved toward the conflict zone. I think its sinking was an entirely military, as the General Belgrano sunk British ships would also have had the opportunity
- How do you evaluate the performance of diplomacy Argentina after the war?
'I think salvageable so-called political seduction, which both gave the talk of the nineties. It's a good idea, although I think the problem will be solved now, but for the next generation of Argentine, Bri
British go home!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Pirates!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! These Islands do not belong to you! Malvinas=Argentina!Dec 27th, 2011 - 03:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
I would like to wacht some photos of the islands. Would you please send me some?Dec 27th, 2011 - 05:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
My email is firstname.lastname@example.org
If you are interested i will send you mine.
Comment removed by the editor.Dec 27th, 2011 - 06:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
@77Dec 27th, 2011 - 06:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Happy new year to you too !!
#1 Conquerflop: Who in their right mind would want to stay under the foot of a country of 61,3 million liars?Dec 27th, 2011 - 06:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
BRITISH GO HOME, YOU DO NOT BELONG HERE, INVADERS, USURPERS, THIEVESDec 27th, 2011 - 07:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
@77 There will be no photos to enable you to determine British defences.Dec 27th, 2011 - 07:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Pirats Go Home
59 so_farDec 27th, 2011 - 07:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
You've lost patience pretty quickly. What did you think would happen- that we'd all be so amazed and convinced by your insights that we'd decide we didn't want our home any more?
It's a little known fact that I am descended from the pirate Hawkins, no really, so I'm not fussed by pirate as a label. I quite like it actually.
Is that the best you can all do? Your insults are very boring and repetitive. Can I direct you to this for some new ideas:
Falkland Islands don't want to join to Argentina ??Dec 27th, 2011 - 07:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
this is very very normal also logical.
Islas Malvinas could want to join to Argentina ...!!
Monty , you should change the 69 to a 66 or 99 ... I'm just saying , to make it OK for under age kids. :-) !!Dec 27th, 2011 - 07:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
We, the representatives of the people of the Argentine Nation, gathered in General Constituent Assembly .........., in order to form a national union, guarantee justice, secure domestic peace, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves, to our posterity, and to ALL MEN OF THE WORLD WHO WISH TO DWELL ON ARGENTINE SOIL: invoking the protection of God, source of all reason and justice: do ordain, decree, and establish this Constitution for the Argentine Nation.Dec 27th, 2011 - 07:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
PREAMBLE - CONSTITUTION OF THE ARGENTINE NATION
Unfortunately friends....Malvinas islands is inhabited by many people who have neither the willingness nor the height of these circumstances of this moment in Latin America which requires greatness, honor and dignity for act with justice and repair an historical damage to a young nation .... for them there is only one way...go home bad people, UK is wating you.
For the rest......people of good will that actually inhabit the islands, welcome to the vibrant Latin American brotherhood and in particular one of the most beautiful countries on earth ..... Argentina.
** 84 artilloDec 27th, 2011 - 07:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
you forgot 96 ...!!Dec 27th, 2011 - 07:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
PETER PRESTON, THE GUARDIAN, UK: “IT MAKES NO ECONOMIC OR POLITICAL SENSE TO HANG ON TO THE FALKLANDS, BUT NO ONE WILL FACE THE TRUTH”Dec 27th, 2011 - 08:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
@87Dec 27th, 2011 - 08:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
** 88 ceroDec 27th, 2011 - 08:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
obviously that one of this article's commentators who Helen Wilson MK
is the sister of Redhoyt ...??!!
85 so_farDec 27th, 2011 - 08:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Very nice, but we already have our own constitution, and we don't want to live on Argentine soil, and you don't have anything to say about women, so on the whole, I don't think I need to pay any attention.
the other commentator Handand Shrimp could be RedhoytDec 27th, 2011 - 08:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
stubborned boy he copied Salvador Dalis's picture.....!!
Is Geo the old Yul ??Dec 27th, 2011 - 08:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
#91 Dear Monty....you say ..we don't want to live on Argentine soil..Dec 27th, 2011 - 08:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
All of you DO live in Argentine soil, thats the big problem and the only one reason we're in dis-agreement since 1833.
Is time to listen not only UN or international comunity or LatAm......is time of common sense.
** 93 artilloDec 27th, 2011 - 08:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
ask to Yuleno ...not to me !!
Yul , was German , Yuleno is from Argentina and Geo is from??Dec 27th, 2011 - 08:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
94 so_farDec 27th, 2011 - 08:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
You think it's Argentine soil. Your saying it doesn't make it true.
Personally, I would be quite happy for there to be negotiations. But only if Falkland Islanders were able to be a part of it. We could turn up, say our bit, and go away again. Unfortunately, I don't think you woud like what we would have to say, and as your government doesn't recognise ours, it will never happen.
You can start showing some common sense if you want progress.
You can stop all that pompous rubbish about Islanders interests for a start. Our wishes and our interests are the same thing.
You can take the piece about your right to the islands out of your constitution; the islands will never be handed over to you.
You can stop blockading the islands and behave like decent human beings.
If all that happens then there might be a basis for talks about areas of mutual interest. Otherwise...well, you're just neo-colonialist bullies aren't you?
#94: All of you DO live in Argentine soil, ...Dec 27th, 2011 - 09:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
If you are so certain, then it shouldn't be too hard to prove. Put together a good case and take it to the ICJ rather than just telling everyone ad nauseum that that Islands belong to Argentina. Otherwise, absolutely nothing will happen and things will just stay exactly as they are. Simply moaning constantly to your neighbours and friends isn't going to get you anywhere.
Cero's a Guardian article showed us the comments how can be written by real English people ., almost all of them are very stronger than here...interesting comments written by real English. We need theDec 27th, 2011 - 09:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
posters like them for here to discuss deeply on ................. !!
@97Dec 27th, 2011 - 09:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
You can start showing some common sense if you want progress..... was that the case before 82? Just a question
** Artillo !!Dec 27th, 2011 - 09:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
where do you live in Texas ?
What? Do you want my address?? last time I gave my email, my computer was hacked 20 times !!Dec 27th, 2011 - 09:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
2 hours from Austin
artilloDec 27th, 2011 - 09:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
sorry i didn't see your email...
i didn't want your address, just asked your living town/city name...
I knowDec 27th, 2011 - 09:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
thanks artillo ....!!Dec 27th, 2011 - 09:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Anytime !Dec 27th, 2011 - 09:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
97@ Monty69Dec 27th, 2011 - 10:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
We show you our common sense before 1982-
You have it: AA, Correo, Lade Office, Gas del Estado office, medical support in the continent, free education, etc-
Why doing this you think we should be differents results... no no no...es tiempo de hacer lo que nunca hicimos, mostrarles que somos un pias libre, que podemos ejercer nuestros derechos en lo que entendemos es nuestro territorio-
Uds. son los descendientes de gente que usurpo las islas: entendemos que no son los mismos, y que tal vez no tengan la culpa.
Pero nuestro derecho es inclaudicable-
Así que nada de favoritismos, ejerceremos nuestro peso como nacion para que sientan nuestras ganas de que vuelvan nuestras islas, y de que Uds. puedan vivir en ellas ó mudarse a donde quieran ir-
Voy a brindar por Uds. a fin de año, y le pedire a Dios que los ayude a conseguir una buena cantidad de psicologos porque los necesitaran, creanlo, very soon ;)
God I love my new name !!!Dec 27th, 2011 - 10:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Ceerial - Guardian - what can I say ? http://falklandsnews.wordpress.com/2011/12/26/gott-the-guardian-and-unrepresentative-opinions/Dec 27th, 2011 - 11:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Oh, and the United Provinces in 1816 were a collection of small areas around the River Plate that inherited nothing from Spain. If you actually check history you'll find that Spain still claimed East Falkland until 1863.
When people come to the Falklands they are normally surprised...at how british the islands and it's people are. We do not want to be part of argentina, if we did we would say, but as the message from here is loud and clear that we dont, so why is it still going on? Argentina, leave us alone to live our life in peaceDec 28th, 2011 - 01:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0
No, Falklander, you need to understand and so do your fellow residents:Dec 28th, 2011 - 02:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0
WE HAVE UNFINISHED BUSINESS WITH YOU AND THIS WILL NOT GO AWAY UNTIL YOU DECIDE TO SETTLE IT LIKE CIVILIZED PEOPLE.
If you actually check history you'll find that Spain still claimed East Falkland until 1863, and guess what else they also claimed until 1863? All of the United Provinces! You know why spain dropped its claim to the islands in 1863? Because that's the year it dropped its claim of the United Provinces, because the islands WERE PART OF THE UNITED PROVINCES!
Why else would they pick the same year? Spain, in 1863, recognized the 1816 declaration of independence and the fact that all the former vireynato territories were independent as of that declaration. Islands and all. This is why our claim is valid.
And do you know why yours is not? Because Spain only claimed part of the territory, because Britain still had a claim on Egmont.
So, someone explain to me how the very partial and specifically treaty-demarcated limitation of restored port and fort of Egmont becomes, after 40 years of British absence, a valid claim over the whole archipelago.
You can't explain it. Because you simply took it by show of force in 1833. And now you say whether or not you took it legally is irrelevant, you've had it so long it might as well be yours. Well we call BS and we have since the 19th century. If you want to ignore this go ahead. It still happened. You can't convince any other country on earth that this didn't happen. You can only deceive yourselves, and thankfully not every British person as there are decent upstanding people like Mr. Gott who are willing to speak out the truth although it may be unpopular.
You have self-determination whether you are a colony of Britian or of Argentina. It makes no difference. No one wants to impose or restrict the freedom of your political future; this is about your political past and wronging a right as unrecognized & real as Armenian genocide.
We see the violins are out for the Argies,Dec 28th, 2011 - 02:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0
You can tell they are losing the argument, when the insults start flying,
Pirates being the best,
But the fact remains, that we have, what you cannot have
Honour dignity truth .
So please, carry on your threats, the defeated always do .
an small exercise for readers who enjoy the truth and specially knowing from where the information come from as well his author...Dec 28th, 2011 - 02:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0
Lord Ton vs Richard Gott
1) Actual profession
Richard Gott: He has written extensively on Latin America. A former Latin America correspondent and features editor for the British newspaper The Guardian as a leader-writer plus foreign correspondent (millons of readers and followers worlwide).
Lord Ton: he´s retired and spend hours as hobby on Internet, Falklands fan and responsible of his blog Lord Ton (9 followers).
2) Academic Credentials
Richard Gott: , Former journalist, writer and historian. He studied history at Oxford University and worked at the Royal Institute of International Affairs.
Lord Ton: verifiable. Ex-cop in UK
3) Books and academic work
- Cuba: A New History (2004) Yale University Press, New Haven.
- In the Shadow of the Liberator: The Impact of Hugo Chávez on Venezuela and Latin America (2001)
- The Appeasers (2000, with Martin Gilbert) Phoenix Press.
- Guerrilla movements in Latin America (1970), Thomas Nelson
- A Future for the United Nations CND Pamphlet. Not dated, circa 1968
- Hugo Chávez and the Bolivarian Revolution (2005),
Lord Ton: nothing known......he said that now is preparing a paper (gettingright version 2 perhaps ?).
Richard Gott: Currently an honorary research fellow at the Institute for the Study of the Americas at the University of London.
Lord Ton: he loves prepare mojito cocktails in Thailand´s beaches where he live.
@ Red, Please, when America declared its independence, was not recognized by Britain.Dec 28th, 2011 - 02:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0
The same happened with Argentina and Spain.
Great Britain recognized the independence of Argentina with the treaties of 1823 and 1825.
Argentina took possession of the islands in 1820 and it became known in Britain. There was no protest.
There were no objections from Great Britain when Argentina took possession in 1820. There was not protest in the moment the signing of the treaties mentioned.
You will of course say no. But I understand, there are many points against UK.
That is a very good point, a lot of british people cite the treaty of 1850 with Rosas as an example that argentina dropped its sovereignty case by signing the treaty without citing a sovereignty complaint; by that same logic it would seem to support a vice-versa issue is settled event as Britain dropping its sovereignty claim by signing a pre-1833 treaty of perfect peace/friendship, making no sovereignty complaint while there was a Buenos Aires-sent authority on the islands.Dec 28th, 2011 - 03:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0
For the British argument to make any sense, the double standards are too great to enumerate.
# Herpes - actually the diplomatic visit in 1863 took place BEFORE the Treaty of recognition was signed, and no - the Treaty doesn't mention the Falkland Islands.Dec 28th, 2011 - 04:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0
And absence is neither relinquishment nor abandonment - if fact, absence makes the heart grow fonder :-)
Sofa- your ability to do research is quite appalling. Half a brain, and you would have discovered rather more about me, including my legal qualification, my research qualification and my previous publications. But even if I had nothing, you cannot refute Gott's credentials - left-wing, revolutionary/terrorist loving, KGB associated, out-of-touch journalist.
Marv33 - what Treaty of 1823 ? The Treaty of 1825 was a commercial job and did not recognise any borders. Having said that Ambassador Nunez accompanied the Treaty with a book describing his country - it makes no mention of the Falkland Islands. And no- you did nothing in 1820. No objection, because there was nothing to object to. You are in fact an idiot - because these FACTS have been pointed out to you before. Which is why you know what the response will be! They are all easily checked. You cannot escape the TRUTH.
Herpes - same reasoning, the UP did not possess the Islands in 1825 so there was nothing to recognise. The 1849 Treaty settled ALL differences - it says so. But then Argentina has never been very good at keeping its word - has it!
@58 crackpot: Hey I was not being sarcastic or trying to use the gay thing in an offensive way, and sexuality does not have a nationality. In fact I fancy gays!Dec 28th, 2011 - 05:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0
And you please Do try to keep up. Same-sex civil parnerships are nit the same as sane-sex marriages, this means that homosexual couples do not have the same wrights as heterosexual ones. The UK does not allow same-sex marriages, anyway I do not blame them so much, only a fee countries in the world allow it, I was just trying to bring this as a second topic when I was reffering to the 1833 british invasion on the islands.
Well anyway this was not the subject of this article so I do not want to interrupt the important comments flow here.
@111Hermes,Dec 28th, 2011 - 08:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0
lndeed we do have unfinished business, señor. Would you like to start the ball rolling?
How about an application by your side to the ICJ?
That would stop your ridiculous performance dead in it's tracks.
Then:- Game Over.
But of course by your rules, well....the Falklands should own the United Provinces. lt works both ways, no?
Richard Gott is a communist. What else is there to be said? l trust him even less than l trust you.♥
@116 Lord Ton,
Says it all, nothing to add.
Happy new year, Red.
We are not unlikely to change our minds, WE WILL NEVER CHANGE OUR MINDS. WE ARE PROUD TO BE BRITISH & WILL ALWAYS BE BRITISH.Dec 28th, 2011 - 11:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0
#117 ferminDec 28th, 2011 - 12:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Well, you definitely used the term gay in a derogatory manner, whether that was your intention or not.
And, you need to keep up. Civil partnerships in the UK give couples exactly the same legal status as heterosexual married couples. It's really only opposition from the church that forbids the use of the term marriage in these cases, as they consider marriage to refer specifically to heterosexual couples. The UK also recognises civil partnerships from other countries.
There are plenty of points we can pick on to slag off each others countries and the debate always seems to stoop to that level at some point. I'm perfectly happy with the UK as it stands (just as I'm sure that you are happy with your country), in spite of its idiosyncrasies. I've just returned from living in Spain for many years and would never consider going back. If you think that the UK is messed up, you should try going there. Much as I love Spain, it is seriously messed up by corruption and the economy is totally screwed.
Long Live Scotland -- Long Live RepublicDec 28th, 2011 - 02:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
@99 You do realise that the Guardian is, in the UK, considered to be a joke, don't you? A newspaper where all the journalists are considered to be lunatics. And the same goes for those loons who comment. But it's called freedom of speech. You may have heard of it. It's something that Britain has. But, now that CFK can limit access to supplies of newsprint, Argentina doesn't.Dec 28th, 2011 - 04:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
# 116 Dear LordTon buddyDec 28th, 2011 - 05:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Aka Roger Lorton
i did made my homework....and honestly i only find this book your write in 2001 related with your last job and profession...you´re a an ex - COP...remember ??
The book name is A-Z of Policing Law (Point of law)
cost 0.77 Euro
Of course i didn´t include that books in your profile becasue is not related with international affairs or Latin America subject....isn´t ??
You can´t even compare yourself with Richard Gott....
- You say he´s left-wing----and ??? your point is ????
- You say he´s evolutionary/terrorist loving......do you have probes ?? The Guardian where he works promote terrorism then ?? becasue he is leader write there....., hmm..no sense.
- You say he´s KGB associated--------------don´t be ignorant, KGB doesn´t exist anymore.
- You say he´s out-of-touch journalist---------well he´s in activity and he´s a REAL journalist-----...you´re the only one retired and out-of-touch.
please mate, just enjoy your place at Nongsprue, Thailand with the few pounds monthly your receive for keep writing your CRAP that even the islanders knows it is.
Sure, I'll start the ball rolling. Let's go to ICJ!Dec 28th, 2011 - 07:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Oh wait, Britain only recognizes compulsory ICJ jurisdiction for disputes arising before 1974! Ours arose in 1833! And we don't fit into any of the three exceptions that Britain lists: www.icj-cij.org/jurisdiction/index.php?p1=5&p2=1&p3=3&code=GB
So Britain won't accept compulsory jurisdiction in the case, and Argentina doesn't fit into any of its three exceptions. Britain conditions and limits the scope of its participation in ICJ, creating conditions which exclude Britain's acceptance of ICJ jurisdiction in the form of a conditional, post-1974 compulsory jurisdiction - effectively eliminating any claim arising in the 19-th century and then further conditioning an ICJ jurisdiction acceptable to Britain through the placement of 3 litmus test policy roadblocks, qualifications which plantiffs are to meet before Britain even agrees that ICJ should have jurisdiction, and all of which definitively exclude Argentina.
It is BRITAIN that doesn't want this to go to ICJ, not Argentina.
Just like it is BRITAIN that refuses to enter discussions.
Just like it is BRITAIN that forbids the FIG from handling their own international affairs instead of having the foreign office do it for them.
Do you know why Mercosur voted the way it did? Because no one believes you anymore; they see the conditions that you put on ICJ jurisdiction, they see the fact that you're in the security council, they see that you aren't willing to discuss like civilized people, and they also see how you behave toward the Chagossians with tyrannical decrees from your monarch invalidating the findings in the Chagossians' favor from a unanimous opinion of seven other judges.
And they also see that when the case came before the house of lords, they upheld Royal Prerogative - IN THE 21ST CENTURY - ruling against the Chagossians.
And you know what? Suddenly they start thinking you'd do the same to them.
111 Herpes -Dec 28th, 2011 - 08:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Righting wrongs in the past, where does the conquest of the desert fit in all that.
Bit selective about wrongs.
I condone neither. I believe two wrongs don't make a right. I would consider options of restitution to native american tribes within the domestic framework of large-scale constitutional reform, and would probably favor a measure that grants rights and protections beyond what even the US and Brazil extend to their native american tribes.Dec 28th, 2011 - 08:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
We wronged them and it is up to us to make restitution. By the same token you wronged us and it is up to you to make it right with us. Until then we have every right to take whatever action needed to protect ourselves from what we justifiably see as the unjust and illegal usurpation of territories and natural resources in dispute. Now you might argue, as a people perhaps we are not worthy of receiving restitution if we ourselves don't grant it, and as a moral or philosophical question on our character I would accept that and be even inclined to agree that it might be a stain on our character.
But the stain of which the British are accused of, that of colonial imperialism, is a much greater one. Up until recently it was scoffed at as a neo-romanticist stereotype of Britain as some sort of a boogeyman imperial colonial power. Then along came the Chagossian case, the royal decree of 2004, and well, just for a second there Britain showed the world what the union jack represents at its core.
So, all things being equal, I take our moral standing as a nation...we are not unstained, but our stains are certainly not as...extensive.
The 2nd comment of this thread quotes The Guardian, as if we are supposed to be impressed. But here's the quote,Dec 28th, 2011 - 09:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
“South America is growing in strength and increasingly united. Britain must wake up to this new reality”
SA is not and never will be unified. Sorry Guardian, Politics can not do away what culture doesn't want to change and what genes can't.
The Guardian is totally committed to an old-fashioned, fundamentalist ideology.
Left-Right makes no difference. Ideology is about to go the direction of Theology.
Politics will become what Religion is now. Regressive, Fundamentalist, Old-Fashioned, Moldy, etc.
It's already there intellectually. But it's a big change, the biggest mankind will have experience thus far since the Paleolithic age.
Once Genetics combines with Semiotics and both are popularized so that the general public can get their basic points they will run right over these crusty explanatory systems. The aptly named Guardian is part of a group of people who will do anything to stop that. They can't. The fact that they have been reduced to name-calling, to demonizing dissent and pathologizing opposition is symptomatic of their general corruption and failure.
So no wonder someone from Argentina quotes them. Don't get me wrong. I live here and love some of the people, not all. The dumb ones (read Guide to the Perfect Latin American Idiot) have long since killed the country.
Western European and North American and Chinese interests pretty much own the country today and the geographic change - mass immigration - will follow and cities like Buenos Aires and La Plata will be unrecognizable in 20 years.
The reasons this region will never be united are many.
1. Don't work well together.
3. Not capable of any kind of real learning and growth. Which explains why their problems are multi-generational.
4. Not capable of any significant innovation. Which explains their historic dependence on outside help.
SA is not and never will be unified.Dec 28th, 2011 - 10:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
I would have believed that if it was said during the 70s. Or the 80s. Or the 90s.
I would have believed that before Lula came to power. I would have believed that before the time of Chavez, or Evo. There used to be a world that was South America. A world of Pinochet, a world of Banzer, a world of Videla. It was a selfish world, with isolationist and self-centered politics swayed by extreme international pressures within the context of the cold war.
But that world is gone. If you want to continue to bury your head in the sand and pretend South American nations are still that way, you can do so. The reality is and will continue to be different, and South America is overall in a state of change, where culturally indigenous and historically underprivileged classes are electing populist governments which strongly favor cohesion along cultural and economic lines.
These nations are now aware of the vast natural resources which they possess; clearly also seeing the way Argentina's resources are so openly and egregiously violated by the United Kingdom. Especially when the few arguments Britain puts forth have gaping holes, and the government refuses to discuss them publicly, or defend them before the ICJ without condition.
As for the Guardian, what matters its political leanings? The article reported facts. That they commented on said facts is of no importance to the point I was trying to make, I was concerned with the facts they were reporting. Did the Queen issue an Order in Council overturning the opinions of 7 British judges? Fact: YES. Did the Lords of Law uphold the use of the Queen's Royal Prerogative in this manner? YES. Were the Chagos people barred from returning to their homeland? ABSOLUTELY, by the Queen.
BTW not capable of any significant innovation Better not ever get heart disease!
God forbid you ever need a bypass and have to - perish the thought - undergo that 'ghastly Argie butchering session.'
@124 Hermes1967,Dec 28th, 2011 - 10:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Simple, señor, start another dispute dated 2011 or 2012.
lf however you won't go to the ICJ & you say that you are peaceful(ha ha to that one!)so won't invade us again, then just what exactly are you going to do?
All l hear is hot air from you Argentines.
You got one thing right, we will NOT negotiate our sovereignty.
You'll just have to get over it & forget about us. We'll still be here when Argentina has imploded.
Oh right...simple, just throw out your entire argument out the window and start with a brand new claim that Argentina should pull out of its arse?Dec 28th, 2011 - 10:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
See I understand the British do that sort of thing. But Argentina is worried about facts, asks questions like what happened and when. You know, the kind of thing the British don't ever bother to provide about foreign territories they occupied.
Seems to me the only way we'd implode is if we followed your advice. No thanks. We'll just make you spend money until you're broke. We hate to be assholes to islanders...but since islanders are being such assholes to us...well, its kinda hard not to be an asshole to someone who's being a jerk. So, first order of business - a deep sea port. Very big investment!
#130: Oh right...simple, just throw out your entire argument out the window and start with a brand new claim that Argentina should pull out of its arse?Dec 28th, 2011 - 11:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Yes, that is absolutely what you need to do. You're certainly not getting anywhere with the current strategy.
Unfortunately, Argentina can't pull anything out of its arse at the moment, because it's too busy sitting on it (and doing nothing constructive whatsover apart from moaning to anyone who can be bothered to listen).
Well you think we are assholes & jerks, eh?Dec 28th, 2011 - 11:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Well l can live with that because l don't put too much value on what you Argentines think.
What was my advice that would make you implode? Oh l hope so. Please God.
Not much point in talking to you anymore.
#130Dec 28th, 2011 - 11:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Dear little hooligan isolde........is too much for you, better go to play with your sweet daughters. Dont waste your time.
Yes, that is absolutely what you need to do. You're certainly not getting anywhere with the current strategy.Dec 29th, 2011 - 12:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0
Sure that explains Mercosur's vote. You still don't get it!
It's not 1976 anymore. LatAm countries are aware of their resources and see how Britain behaves towards Argentina. They see the hypocrisy of the islanders, hurling epithets of delusional superiority at Argentina while claiming to be the victims of a heinous racist Argentine plot. Claiming in their communications to be a country when they know they are but a territory, and a colony in all but name. Britain can't seriously think any free nation on earth could accept this.
Especially any Mercosur nation. Not when Britain has completely failed – and islanders aided and applauded the measures and policies that led to Britain's failure – to convince Latin American nations of your claim to the archipelago. Mercosur’s nations understand Britain’s claim of acquisitive proscription. They know this is different than the historical claims with which Britain justified its 1833 return. Britain fails to satisfactorily explain why, if an original claim to recover territories over which there was supposed to be a reservation of earlier rights is truly and justly valid, Britain would choose to abandon it in favor of proscription.
Prescription in and of itself also states legal rights over territory can arise regardless of the lawfulness or lawlessness under which the territories were originally obtained. Britain fails to satisfactorily explain by what legal method or theory de jure rights arise through proscription, if there be none before, on the territories claimed.
Even if Britain were to explain both of the above, in order for Britain’s claim over the ENTIRE archipelago to be valid Britain would have to explain how their arrival in 1833 also gave them sovereignty over the whole archipelago, when at their departure 40 years earlier their possessions were limited to the “Port and Fort of Egmont”.
134 Hermes1967Dec 29th, 2011 - 12:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0
''hurling epithets of delusional superiority at Argentina'' ???
You can't blame us for feeling a tiny bit superior. It's because we just don't understand why you would want to be so mean to us.
We have grown up in a post- colonial era where subjugating and dominating people is considered to be bad form, and the idea of doing it on the basis of something that happened nearly 200 years ago seems preposterous.
I know we don't have the sacred Latin blood, and our obstinate Northern Europeanness might appear to make us fair game for inhumane treatment, but we just don't see it that way, and neither do we really understand why we should be punished for something that our distant ancestors may have done.
And we don't have an enormous chip on our shoulder about the British and how dreadful they are, because they haven't been dreadful to us.
And finally, we don't have any of that quite franky nauseating and repulsive nationalistic 'Viva la patria' rubbish, which seems to be an excuse for any kind of horrible behaviour. You might think that your national pride is the most important thing there is, but actually it isn't.
That's why Britain doesn't have to convince you or your Mercosur cronies about anything. You can't put right a 200 year wrong by visiting an injustice on us now. You just create a new wrong. That is the truth, and it remains so however many people say they agree with you.
Who in their right mind would want to join with a country of 40 million liars?Dec 29th, 2011 - 12:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0
Thirty years they've been lying about the Royal Navy.
Hopefully the whole world will now see them for what they are. Dishonest no-hopers with delusions.
buzz off conquered!
You are FINISHED like uk!!
Hermes 126 -Dec 29th, 2011 - 12:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0
I am glad to here you say some of those things. However the difference between the issues is your version of the history of the falklands, you must know is strongly disputed. Given that the British, when they made the history, documented it and these documents still exist, and can prove their version of history.
I ask, how sure are that imposing argentinian rule on unwilling Islanders today is correcting an injustice of the past, or creating a new one in the present.
@ 116 I never insult anyone this forum. I think. And you is angry for the responses.Dec 29th, 2011 - 12:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0
You does not knows the treaty of 1823? Should know.
The treaty of 1825 not only commercial, it is also treaty of friendship. True, no recognise any borders, but you can not ignore its importance. Only 4 years later protested the islands. Strange, no?
If there was no one. Why not send a garrison much earlier?
How could they have rights if they does not were there for 60 years !!!!?
British Lying is like a big colander, has big holes.
Hermes with his answer showed the British lies.
we just don't understand why you would want to be so mean to us. Dec 29th, 2011 - 01:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0
We don't want to. But you won't discuss the issue and you won't accept compulsory ICJ jurisdiction and you won't explain the gaping holes in your sovereignty case. And knowing there's a dispute you still take unilateral action to exploit resources. You give us little choice.
We have grown up in a post- colonial era where subjugating and dominating people is considered to be bad form,
We'd like to believe that. But Britain's actions towards us indicates otherwise, as do Britain's actions to the Chagos people. Mercosur nations take stock of every natural resource they have and it's only natural for them to ask themselves what is the likelihood of Britain or the US to take those resources under some vague pretense as Britain takes resources from Argentina.
and the idea of doing it on the basis of something that happened nearly 200 years ago seems preposterous
Yes, sure - until it happens to you. Put yourselves in our shoes, wouldn't you demand proof of what is being said, to be examined by the whole world in an open process of peaceful negotiation?
I know we don't have the sacred Latin blood, and our obstinate Northern Europeanness might appear to make us fair game for inhumane treatment
NOT AT ALL. Argentina has deep immigrant cultures, including Scottish and Irish roots in many parts of the country. Your cultural uniqueness would be welcome and respected.
neither do we really understand why we should be punished for something that our distant ancestors may have done.
Why do you see it as punishment to begin with? Our dispute involves the islands' political past, not its political future. That should be up to islanders. I'm sure there are several possible avenues of dispute resolution that satisfy the requirements of both islanders and Argentina. It's Britain that won't allow the discussion to take place - we deeply resent that.
You just create a new wrong.
139Dec 29th, 2011 - 01:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0
As far as the British are concerned the natural resources of the Islands (renewable and non renewable) belong to the Islanders, what is the argentinian position on this?
Punishment! You invade, blockade and threaten them at every chance.
Britain will not discuss the Islanders right to self determination, that much is true.
139 Hermes1967Dec 29th, 2011 - 01:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0
''It's Britain that won't allow the discussion to take place''
No it isn't, it's Falkland Islanders.
And that's because firstly, your constitution predetermines the outcome and secondly, your government doesn't acknowledge our right to be consulted. Both of these would have to change for any progress to happen.
I think you'd be surprised at how much humble pie we'd eat if it meant you'd leave us alone. If you carry on trying to isolate us, you'll never find out, will you.
Britain would cheerfully wash its hands of the Falkland Islands if we wished it.
@139 Great answer Hermes. I do not understand the refusal to find a final solution and achieve peace for all.Dec 29th, 2011 - 01:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0
To reach any solution all need to talk, without listening, does not we will get nowhere.
Quite wrong. Our constitution guarantees islanders' right to self-determination and specifically conditions and stipulates any instance of recuperation must not be in violation of international law. Our constitution further provides a method for any national territory to obtain its independence.Dec 29th, 2011 - 01:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0
As far as right to be consulted, the government simple states that the British government doesn't acknowledge the right of islanders to have a say. London handles everything international, that's what we're saying. It's not for us to allow or disallow you from having a say in the matter. Why do you take a restatement of British policy, one we disagree with, and assume we are its ideological source? Did we write your constitution? Did we approve it?
We would welcome islanders at any negotiating table, but the fact is the British have all the guns and they make all the deals. It would be disingenuous for a negotiation delegation to come from the islands if it doesn't have any power beyond mere non-binding referendum. It also strikes me as odd that, as important an issue as this is for your future, you'd be content to continue playing second chair.
We welcome islanders as a party to all discussions, not as a second chair but as a plenipotenciary representative of the FIG with full power to legally reach a compromise and act on it. The British have to give you that. If you want a voice in the discussions, you're going to have to ask the British for that, not us! The only reason our government doesn't acknowledge your right to be consulted is we don't want to just to consult, we want you to sit down with us and work together with us to reach a resolution that will put this issue to bed.
And no, it need not take the form of 100% transferred sovereignty. And if the settlement conforms to the Argentine constitution's stipulations, it will guarantee islanders' rights to self-determination, which is just as much a right under British administration as Argentina's
@134 Our constitution guarantees islanders' right to self-determination and specifically conditions and stipulates any instance of recuperation must not be in violation of international law. Our constitution further provides a method for any national territory to obtain its independence. Dec 29th, 2011 - 02:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0
So, you're bascially saying that you would be happy for the Falkland Islands to become fully indeendent, but only if sovereignty is transferrred to Argentina first. Why not just cut out the middleman and petition for the Islands to seek full independence now. Why does it need to go via Argentina?
Does Argentina really need to gain this egotistical face-saving victory first? It's pathetic really and unfortunately it won't happen, because I don't think that anyone would really trust Argentina to allow the Islands to become independent after any transfer of sovereingty. Unfortunately, the actions of 1982 put paid to that. You might say that 1982 was 30 years ago, and everything is different now, but the perception of Argentina is the same and 30 years is really not a long time in history. Argentina needs to do a lot more work to get any level of sufficient trust and their current actions are not doing them any favours.
@134: How exactly is the current stategy working? It will take more than a few meaningless declarations from Mercosur. Nothing whatsoever has changed and isn't likely to either. If you really have a probelm with the UK and not with the Islanders themselves, then why doesn't Mercosur ban all UK flagged vessels from their ports rather than FI flagged vessels (who can simply switch to being UK flagged anyway). That would certainly be interesting to watch being played out!
we want you to sit down with us and work together with us to reach a resolution that will put us in the driving seat, and the faklanders in the boot,Dec 29th, 2011 - 02:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0
you lost any rights and or claims, when you illigaly invaded the falklands islands,
no exuse under the sun, gave you the right to do what you did,
theirfore you cannot now demand talks, when you failed to get them by force,
so sod off, and carry on talking,
as long as thewir is a sun in the sky, their is only one sure way of getting them,
and we both know, you wont do that,
you just want to talk,
[so just talk] and let the islanders in peace.
BY God there's some rubbish from Herpes on this thread.Dec 29th, 2011 - 02:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0
Apparently it's Britain that doesn't want to go to the ICJ! Wow! We invited Argentina to go there in the 40's and 50's without success, even trying to force the issue by presenting the papers. Argentina refused to recognise the Court's jurisdiction. So to claim that it is Britain refusing to go to the ICJ is the usual Argie trick of trying to turn history on its head.
Not that Argentina are inclined to abide by arbitration decisions anyway!
As for the negotiating table, there is nothing to discuss. Argentina's Constitution will only accept one outcome, and it was that same attitude that killed off any meaningful discussions in the 70's.
Argentina has no claim, no rights, and there is no place at any negotiating table for such a worthless, lying, bullying country.
Britain deals with the Islands foreign affairs as it does with ALL the BOT's. This is because the BOT's have no individual standing as they are not independent nations. We look after their Foreign relations taking into account their wishes. Herpes will want the islanders to look after their own defence next.
Stuff what Argentina wants. They are of no importance. The Islanders have no wish to talk to them, and that really is the end of the matter!
Argentina needs to do a lot more work to get any level of sufficient trust and their current actions are not doing them any favours.Dec 29th, 2011 - 02:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0
Sure, granted. On the other hand, John Bull's not exactly easy to trust, especially given the lack of goodwill in the Chagossians' case. The civilized western world by and large repudiated the validity of Royal Prerogative a long time ago. No other western constitutional monarch would dare issue an order in council that overturns the opinions of seven British judges in favor of the petitioner tribes. To add insult to injury, the tyrannical deed was justified by the house of lords.
These are the bastards we're dealing with here. As islanders you're no strangers to the might of Britain's historical naval prowess - much of you and your history is permanently linked to this.
You know historically this is a foe to be reckoned with, and we interpret the 21st century royal decree against the Chagos as evidence that Britain will go so far as to openly defend its control of BOTs based on nothing more than the prerogative of a Monarch (in our case, proscription doctrine).
What then should our attitude be? A defensive one, as would you be in our place. We demand discussion because we demand all facts laid out in the open. Only Britain fears this.
If you really have a probelm with the UK and not with the Islanders themselves, then why doesn't Mercosur ban all UK flagged vessels from their ports
Agreed. But it is what it is, for now. I don't think islanders should get the shyte end of the stick. However, as the old adage goes, you catch more bees with honey than you do with vinegar.
you lost any rights and or claims, when you illigaly invaded the falklands islands
The criminals who committed those illegal acts are imprisoned for life. Their actions did not have force of law to legally affect the claim of the people of Argentina - the DEMOCRACY whose absence prevented Britian from handing over sovereignty in the 1970s.
#146 Seem to me or Roger change their tone ?? ......want more ?Dec 29th, 2011 - 02:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0
As usual buddy you speak with empty words......just like your book at 0.77 Euro.
Why are you telling me it's rubbish?Dec 29th, 2011 - 03:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0
Go and tell it to Brazil.
Go and tell it to Mujica.
See what they tell you. Islanders' ability to prosper is directly relational to the ease with which commerce to and from the Islands can access South American ports. Keep sticking your head in the sand as if it didn't matter if you wish, but don't blame us for taking action to protect what is rightly ours from the usurpation of a modern-day monarchy run amok.
# Hermes, they know that perfectly well.....they know the truth but they´re pervert by election and convenience ..... 500 years of imperialism shows the true british spirit as our friend Roger Lorton is showing us .... they do not change EVER, are evil by nature and by choice.Dec 29th, 2011 - 03:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0
Hermes1967,Dec 29th, 2011 - 11:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0
l said that it wasn't worth talking to you Malv Arg or Alex Argerich, or whatever you want to call yourself now, but why not.
You're more fun than idiots like cero, malvinero1 or so_far.
You're certainly a smooth talker.
But nearly all of what you say is rubbish.
l sense desperation in you.
Just what do you hope to achieve with all your talking?
Don't you understand that we DO NOT WANT TO TALK TO YOU?
GO AWAY, despite everything that you have been taught or believe in, the Falklands DO NOT belong to you.
l will never tire in saying this.
As Lord Ton pointed out, it is YOUR country that will not go to the ICJ,not ours as you said.
So where does that leave you? Do you think that your petty inconveniences, blockades & your countrymen's insults will cause us to just roll over & hand you the keys to the front door? Not one little bit.
Use your apparently boundless energy to fix your own broken country.
@151 Isolde. Surely it is time for all Islanders, Britons and those with intelligence and goodwill to ignore Argentines and all other South American scumbag trash.Dec 29th, 2011 - 02:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
I realise that it is tempting to refute their lies at every turn, but surely it is inescapable that they are deluded psychotics? They are told the same things over and over again by different people but they still can't understand. They cannot grasp that British educational systems do not spend time explaining the UK sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. All they understand is that the Argentine educational system expends considerable resources to justify Argentina's claim. They don't seem to be able to understand that there is no need to teach, explain, justify something that is obvious.
I have also never seen any argie explain, or even try to explain, why Argentina doesn't take its claim to the ICJ. Britain has offered to do so and Argentina has refused. Why would that be?
Why would we waste our time talking to such unintelligent dross. But I do think that we should all agree. Then we could have intelligent discussions, including educated, sensible people from Chile, Uruguay and the like, about the articles and the general news.
It's not that I can't respond to their drivel or that I have a problem reporting their gibberish for removal, it's just that I believe standards could be so improved by ignoring the monkeys.
Think of the pleasure in just skipping over comments from the monkeys!
Argentina belongs to Spain!Dec 29th, 2011 - 05:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Hand it back and leave, you bloody foreigners.
Argentina belongs to Spain's Virreynato. It always did. If it was controlled from Madrid or Cadiz, you'd have a point. But it wasn't, so you don't. The Virreynato became independent in 1816. Spain recognized its independence.Dec 29th, 2011 - 06:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
The Malvinas were part of the Virreynato. They were property of Spain administered through Buenos Aires. When Buenos Aires became independent, all the territories controlled by Buenos Aires - even the islands - became independent with it. Britain was nowhere to be found; its last uncontested property on the islands was only limited to the port and fort of egmont, the rest of the Archipelago clearly belonged to Spain and contemporary British sources in the house of commons accept as much.
Britain has never explained how that limited, uncontested possession suddenly expanded to the whole Archipelago when you returned in 1833. Britain has never explained the reason why it completely changed the basis for its sovereignty in the 20th century. Britain has never explained how the doctrine of proscription grants lawful possession regardless of the illegality of the last acquisition. Britain has never explained any of these things because it has never sat down to discuss them. Instead, Britain offers doublespeak and militarizes the region.
Mercosur doesn't believe Britain anymore, the consequences are forthcoming and necessary to protect Merosur nations' resources against neo-imperialism, which is very much alive if the Chagossian people's plight against the crown is any measure of Britain's true character.
If you don't want to talk, then don't respond. We will never go away. Keep sticking your head in the sand about Britain not accepting ICJ compulsory jurisdiction in the case. Its just my word and the official British position as stated on the ICJ website, that's all.
I forgot, you choose to live in a world of fantasy, where stolen things become yours just by mere possession over time. We'll see who buys that going forward. Have fun!
You should know the British always denied the spanish claim to the islands, so argentina's claim to inherit the spanish claim, is fruit from the poisioned tree.Dec 29th, 2011 - 06:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
1741 - the British have the prior claim
@154:Dec 29th, 2011 - 07:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Was the Vivceroyalty ever an independent entity recognised by Spain? I know that most of it became the United Provinces, but that wasn't recognised by Spain until 1857, if I'm not mistaken. Argentina didn't really become a unifed country until the 1860s (and this still excluded most of the south of the current territory). My knowldege of the history of SA is somehwat limited, I have to admit, so you'll have to correct me on that, if I'm mistaken.
The concenpt of inheritance is pretty meaningless. Otherwise all the former parts of the Viceroyalty would now be part of Argentina. Many bits just went their separate ways (for various reasons) and the Falkland Islands is just one of those bits, I'm afraid. Buenos Aires only ever had intermittent (and very limited) control over the islands, at best, and certianly nothing outside of Puerto Luis (and why should Britain's claim be limited to Port Egemont, but BAs extended to the whole archipelago - that makes no sense). Double standards yet again, which seems to be the rule of thumb for most of the pro-Argentine posts on this site
The only fantasy at the moment is the idea that the Falkand Islands will EVER be recognised as part of Argentina while the Islanders don't want to. The FACT is that the Islanders are happy being a BOT and that is the way things will continue. There is abolutely nothing you can do about it, because their wishes trump ALL other factors. They should be admired for continuing to stick up for themselves and ignoring Argentina's bully-boy tactics.
Can the Argie posters answer these two questions?Dec 29th, 2011 - 07:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
If you have regional support then why are the two following events occurring?
1) There is an FI flagged vessel in Uruguay (I thought they were banned)
2) The Leiv Eiriksson drilling platform is steaming towards Brazil after leaving Cape Verde
Is this economic engagement with the FI the exact opposite of what you are being told by your leadership? The evidence is above if you care to take your head out of the sand.
You should know that Britain and Spain signed several treaties by which they mutually recognize and agree to take action regarding each other's claims, by which Argentina's claim to inherit is fruit from a very healthy tree.Dec 29th, 2011 - 07:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
And if the British have the prior claim, why switch the basis for the British Sovereignty case from that prior claim to acquisitive proscription, if it's so strong?
No need to fix what's not broken after all. Unless of course that claim was found indefensible, which is why it was changed in the first place.
@156 Your interpretation of certain facts are demonstrably arbitrary in view of your failure to apply such tenets universally. Examples:
Spain's recognition is a recognition of independence as declared, when declared. The UK eventually recognized the independence of the US long after the fact, yet as far as the UK is concerned, independence of the US took place in 1776. Same goes for the UP and Spain, the date of recognition came later but the recognition of factual independence is understood by Spain to have occurred in 1816. If Britain officially maintains recognition should not be back-dated to declaration date so to speak, it certainly fails to show that in the recognition of its own former colonies. Your interpretation appears to contradict British policy.
Secondly, you fail to understand that, much like the US, the UP declared its independence not as a singular federal authority, but as a joint declaration of distinct and independent provinces. Buenos Aires was such a province, the Malvinas were under its jurisdiction at the time of its declaration, which was recognized by Spain with effective date of its declaration. Many bits went their separate was. But you were always part of Buenos Aires, even under Spain. That's the primary reason why Britain fails to convince other nations of the validity they perceive over their claims.
Also, inheritance. So, by what method does the UK think the us gained its territory?...
These several anglo spanish treaties signed, are you sure they say, what you think they say.Dec 29th, 2011 - 07:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
What is the basis for argentina's claim on Patagonia, inheritance.
Yes I'm sure. Inheritance is not the basis for Argentina's claim on Patagonia. Although there were Spanish outposts in deep Patagonia.Dec 29th, 2011 - 08:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
I read the Torygraph on line. But one needs to have the Socialists' opinion at hand, and that's what the Guardian is for.Dec 29th, 2011 - 08:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Photos: There are excellent satellite pictures in high resolution of all places in South America (and the world) in the web, thanks to Google Earth, including the insular parts of the continent. So, defences in any one island can be watched, even if camouflaged.
By the way, it wasn't the English who expelled Argentina from Malvinas-Falklands in 1832, but the Americans, by the hand of USN Capt. Silas Duncan commanding US frigate USN Lexington which dedstryed installations and suk ships by accurate cannofire. The English only landed next year thanks to the fact that Rosas did not take the trouble of sending another Governor to the arcipelago to receive them as appropriately as they should have to be received, i.e. with discretional cannonfire.
Best wishes to all for 2K12!
And what were the treaties signed, if they are anglo-spanish they will be very easy to look up.Dec 29th, 2011 - 08:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
@152 Conqueror,Dec 29th, 2011 - 09:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Yes you are right, we should just ignore the fools.
But it is fun baiting them.
l think it really hurts their macho latin soul that they were defeated in 1982 & they can't have what they want.
Because they always just have to win. Well lifes not like that.
We've been defeated in battles in the past(but we've won a lot too), you just have to learn from your mistakes, get over it & move on.
l've seen it in supermarkets, children throwing tantrums because Mummy has said NO & its the same.
And they wonder why we want nothing to do with them!
#158:Dec 29th, 2011 - 10:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
The key thing about acquisitive proscription is that it becomes more and more significant as time passes (with th increasing length of time that a territory is under successful administration of one nation). So, it's hardly surprising that it has become more important to the British side over time. The many other components of the British case are still there, but their respective emphasis has been evolving.
The whole inheritance thing is just total bull. If am not mistaken, because of the revolution, the last Spanish governor of the Falkland Islands was dealing directly with the Spanish authorities in Montevideo and not Buenos Aires (even though all the relevant paperwork was still in Buenos Aires). So, if anything it should be Uruguay doing the inheriting.
You might say that recognition of independence get backdated to the time of declaration, but that is irrlevent. It does not mean that everything that occurred in the interim is null and void. By 1857 the whole status quo had changed and the British were in total control of the Islands, so there was nothing to inherit. By the same argument, as soon as Spain recognised the independence of the United Provinces in 1857, they should have also gone to independent Uruguay to demand their territory, purely because it used to be administered from Buenos Aires when Spain was in control.
Also, what territories did the US inherit from Britain? All of the 13 original states were actively involved in the revolution. All subsequent expansion has involved non-British territories.
By framing the issue in bellicose terms, you prove to be no smarter than the apes protagonizing the opening scenes of 2001:ASO. You think you're our Mummy now?Dec 29th, 2011 - 10:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
And then you cry oh woe is me why do the Argies hate us so?? Children throwing tantrums seems to be nothing more than a projection of your own self-doubts. After all, children DO throw tantrums...while adults solve problems by sitting down to TALK.
We can't make you behave in such a way that will honor the agents of your better nature instead of the inside chav. But we will say that what we are concerned about here is a matter of history, certainly your wanting to have to do with it or not, or ours with you for that matter, is irrelevant because you were BORN into it, I'm sorry I know it's a shitty deal but its the one you got and its the one I got too.
It's like saying you want nothing to do with the Solar System. A nice sentiment but in reality entirely out of your control or ours or Britain's for that matter. We have a dispute with you. Your arguments to dismiss the validity of that dispute are not believable. Not by us. Not by Brazil. Not by Uruguay. Not even by Chile. Your presence is perceived by the whole of South America to be hostile in nature, usurpative, militarized. Your unwillingness to discuss and resolve the issue in peace is apallingly sickening to any free and civilized mind, as evidenced by free thinkers even in Britain. Your heavy-handed dealings in other similar cases, like with the Chagos people, makes it impossible to trust that Britain will not use force in the 21st century to usurp the natural resources of nations it deems militarily inferior or aboriginal in nature. Consequently, your trade with South America will be negatively affected, as precaution/deterrent.
The only thing a truly free society can do is seek truth openly. Yours does not. But we will not cease our efforts until the wrongs done to our nation, illegally, by Britain, are righted by Britain.
The only thing a truly free society can do is seek truth openly. Yours does not. But we will not cease our efforts until the wrongs done to our nation, illegally, by Argentina , are righted by CFK.Dec 29th, 2011 - 10:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
@165 Hermes,Dec 29th, 2011 - 10:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Alejandro are you a Gemini, per chance?
And yet we are the ones calling for open discussion, while you continue to make efforts so that the issue remains in the darkness of complexity. If you are now being wronged, you should also understand that the entity taking action against you is every Mercosur nation - not just Argentina.Dec 29th, 2011 - 10:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
And if you believe you are being wronged, we reiterate our call for discussion so that you may openly prove to the world why this is the case. It is YOU who refuses to do so, not us.
It Britain were truly open, truly honest, and truly had no doubt regarding their sovereignty, Britain would send their smartest and sharpest minds to deal with the matter openly in front of all the nations of the world.
Have you even considered that if, for example, such a team were to meet with their Argentine and Islander counterparts, with all parties fully empowered to reach agreement on the basis of scientific analysis of the situation, to create a task force for just that purpose, that surprising facts might ensue?
Such a team could unilaterally declare a peer-review finding of sovereignty for one or another nation. Or for neither. Or that one of the nations' claims is not entirely without merit, while the other's is greater. They might find that both nations are right; they might find that both nations are wrong. They might find that both are simultaneously right about some things and wrong about others.
But no study can take place to defend your claims of being wronged if the facts are not established openly for all to see. This is why you can say Argentina or so and so is wronging you and no one will pay attention, while they pay attention to our claims of being wronged by you. We approach the issue with an attitude of rigorous academic and diplomatic discussion - you just bring more weapons to the area and do a little saber rattling.
Argentina will stay the course. Mercosur will stay the course. The level of British cooperation will decide the consequences for islanders.
Have you even considered that if, for example, such a team were to meet with their Argentine and Islander counterparts, with all parties fully empowered to reach agreement on the basis of scientific analysis of the situation, to create a task force for just that purpose, that surprising facts might ensue?Dec 29th, 2011 - 10:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
And if they agree that Patagonia comes back under British rule
You are ok with that,
They agree that the Falklands islands are made independent and Argentina drops all and every claim forever, and the British slowly withdraw,
[You are ok with this]
if so, then all in all a great discussion then .
An interesting gambit. Frankly it's the first I've heard of it. What do you have on a Patagonia claim?Dec 29th, 2011 - 11:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Yes I would go that far. I can't imagine a British claim on Patagonia being any more provable than one on the islands. I also understand that islanders would, if empowered, put up a significant amount on skin should they ever partake in negotiations so I recognize the need for Argentina to put more skin in the game.
To be honest I always thought this would be in the form of things like...abandoning claims on Georgia and Sandwich...agreeing on Antarctica borders with Chile...perhaps even recognizing British sovereignty over Egmont.
I never thought you'd have brought up a British claim on Patagonia. It sounds intriguingly and irresistibly ridiculous, I MUST KNOW MORE!!
(...and while we're on the topic of absurdity, let me guess, you're a lumberjack and you're ok, you sleep all night and you work all day..)
#168 clap clap....jako dobroDec 30th, 2011 - 12:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0
Hvala!Dec 30th, 2011 - 12:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0
Ok so I'm still trying to figure this whole British Patagonia thing. I've googled it and nothing comes up specifically. Are you talking about Welsh immigration to Patagonia? If so, how do you account immigrant action into Argentina to support a British sovereignty claim on Patagonia??? Doesn't make sense.
Oh wait I have GOOD NEWS and BAD NEWS.
The GOOD NEWS is I found a quote from a very prominent source that backs up a British sovereignty claim on Patagonia! Take a look:
The separated geographic location had as consequence that this part of the new world had not been incorporated to any civilized state up to the year 1881 even not by its nearest neighbour Chile and the Republic of Argentina.
Oh wait but then there's the BAD NEWS:
It's a quote from Jules Verne. If I'm not mistaken, he wrote a little fiction every now and again...
But then I shouldn't be surprised, everything else I've read about British sovereignty over the islands seems equally fictional, so I guess I can't truly be shocked.
:) LOL x 1000000Dec 30th, 2011 - 12:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0
Over 173 comments on this subject and we are still british. A billion comments won't change it either. 1000 years won't either. Get used to it Argentina we are Proud to be British and more proud to be Falkland Islanders living our dream in a democratic way we chose to live.Dec 30th, 2011 - 12:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0
You could not persuade us in 1982 what makes you think you can change our wish now.
Excellent explanation, Hermes It's everything we want. Start to speak freely as we do here. It's so hard???Dec 30th, 2011 - 12:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0
Hope you continue here, Hermes.
165 Hermes1967Dec 30th, 2011 - 12:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0
You just keep up the disgusting trolling.
'apes', 'children', 'chavs'??? You're a disgrace.
You're just digging a bigger hole for yourself and making it plain to the world why we can have nothing to do with you.
I agree with Malvinense 1833 , is a pleasure to read rationality...... is not common around here. stay on board Hermes :)Dec 30th, 2011 - 01:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0
Patagonia is attached to the Falkland Island continental shelf, proximity first. We will think of other reasons as we go along, as argentina has done about the Falklands.Dec 30th, 2011 - 01:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0
By the end of next week we will have a more convincing claim to patagonia that the Argy claim to the Falklands.
No word of truth in it, but hey never let the truth get in the way of a good story.
Hmm so when someone on your side says:Dec 30th, 2011 - 01:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0
l've seen it in supermarkets, children throwing tantrums because Mummy has said “NO” & its the same.
it's enlighted commentary.
But when I say 'apes', 'children', 'chavs', I'm trolling and a disgrace.
Show us Latin Americans some more of your wonderful judgment which is obviously completely devoid of double standards or tyrannical superiority complices.
(Hey, that's a nice word! Complices. I like to use obscure language. Something about the innate wonderfulness of making a few wankers who don't know what they're talking about suddenly go look up an English word they first heard of from some RG bloke.
Now why did I say that? Because if I'm going to be called a troll, I'M GOING TO DAMN WELL EARN IT. Aguante Mercosur. Porque adentro de cada isleño hay un Argentino tratando de escaparse!!)
Hermes1967:Dec 30th, 2011 - 01:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0
You say you are only concerned with history and righting the wrongs inflicted on Argentina. I am am only concerned with the present and the future, because that is what affects the lives of people on the ground. History only affects Argentina's pride and nothing more.
The dispute should have nothing whatsover to do with righting some pathetic slight on Argentina's pride that happened 200 years ago - the country really needs to grow up and get over it (and by country, I mean the minority who either have nothing better to do or simply use the situation for domestic political gain).
NiceDec 30th, 2011 - 01:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0
Aguante Mercosur, Aguante UNASUR, Aguante LatinoAmerica, Aguante Argentina Carajo !
@ 178 We take a portion of the British Isles. Lower the flag.Dec 30th, 2011 - 02:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0
We are here for a long time. Ninth generation.
We continue to be Argentine citizens.
We want self-determination.
Come to think of other reasons as we go, as it has UK over the Malvinas Islands.
At the end of next week we will have a more convincing claim to the British Isles Not a word of truth in it, but hey that never really in the way of a good story.
Well I suppose its always pathetic, until it happens to you. That's the way it always is, especially when you think everyone is pathetic except you.Dec 30th, 2011 - 02:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0
And you know what Mercosur says? You're right. You don't need our pathetic Mercosur ports or our pathetic Mercosur trade. You certainly don't need Mercosur's pathetic oil infrastructure, so pathetically close.
Well there you go mate. I wonder what other pathetic south american ties we'll find that you won't need. To be continued, surely...
It would be nice to have this issue put to rest from the Argentine side. I too am tired of governments who have nothing better to do but to use the situation for domestic political gain.
Then again, Britain always needed Argentina to be embroiled in conflict, so I wouldn't expect that to be a reason to compel Britain to help settle the issue.
@183:Dec 30th, 2011 - 02:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0
I didn't say that any of those things were pathetic. What I did say was that trying to steal a group of Islands from a small defenceless group of 9th genertation inhabitants purely because of a 200 year old grudge is pathetic. The fact is that Britain managed to control the Islands and the precursor to Argentina didn't - just get over it. Look how many territories Britain has lost, given up or been beaten to over the years - and there are no grudges whatsoever. Britain's closest ally is the US and that territory was lost by force. I dread to think how Argentina would have coped with that one.
@ 184 Tell me, what was the control of Great Britain before 1833?Dec 30th, 2011 - 03:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0
trying to steal a group of Islands from a small defenceless group of 9th genertation inhabitants purely because of a 200 year old grudge is pathetic.Dec 30th, 2011 - 03:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0
Sure, that is pathetic. But we're not trying to steal anything. We regard that the group of islands have been stolen from us. Isn't that quite obvious?
This is not about a grudge. This is not about taking a single square meter. This is about the right of international property being upheld, the situation mutually recognized and peacefully rectified. Do you really expect us to lose interest and go away when our land has been seized upon by a foreign power that doesn't explain its actions because it refuses to dialogue?
Not bloody likely.
Nations historically have gone to war over territory. This is no exception. I don't want to live in a world like that anymore.
I don't want to follow the old rule that says the only way to settle disputes is with bellicose activity. I think there's a better way, a way of open discussion, a forum where both sides have an opportunity to behave in a civilized manner, right wrongs, make amends, mutual recognitions, reparations, restitutions, apologies, and God willing, joint statements and a roadmap to mutual respect and prosperity.
The fact is that Britain managed to control the islands WORSE than the precursor to Argentina, the Spanish viceroyalty, it administered the islands alone for 40 years before Argentina even came into existence. Do you know why there are no grudges with territories that Britain has lost or given up??
Because BRITAIN HAS LOST OR GIVEN THEM UP, is why. I guarantee you if British India were still around, the world would face be a completely new category of terrorism we haven't even heard of yet. The successful formula seems to be No Britain? No Grudge.
And I believe the reverse works as well, as I'm quite sure the exiled Chagos people are most certainly holding a grudge against Britain.
You want to live in a world of force? We don't.
@180 “I am am only concerned with the present and the future, because that is what affects the lives of people on the ground. History only affects Argentina's pride and nothing more.”Dec 30th, 2011 - 05:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0
I can’t believe you really think that, nobody has a future without his past; the past is what defines you.
Besides that, history affects Argentina’s territory and resources, no it’s pride… And, for Britain shame, it´s not some obscure thing that happened 180 years ago, it’s happening today. You can’t build future over injustices, sooner or later they come back.
It sounds pretty comic your advice of “get over it”. You know, not even a chance of that.
Hermes1967,Dec 30th, 2011 - 09:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0
Mummy says NO
You can't have OUR lslands.
& NO, We're NOT going to talk about it.
Can't be any clearer than that, can it?
l won't even try to stop your prolific postings, feel free to ramble on if it makes you feel better.
But of course, the answer is still NO.♥
Get over it mate, they're not your lslands. They are ours & we mean to keep them.♥
@185: Tell me, what was the control of Great Britain before 1833?Dec 30th, 2011 - 12:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Tell me, what was the control of Argentina before 1833. Jewett? - don't make me laugh. We all know that he was a privateer (and pirate) acting of his own volition when it can to the Islands. Vernet? - just a merchant adventurer, who didn't know who was in control, but eventually decided that he'd rather be associated with the British (and no, he wasn't the governor). Or maybe you mean the military garrison that got sent and then just as quickly got sent packing by the British
You talk a good talk, but unfortunately all your argument falls flat, because it is based on the fallacy that the Islands were stolen from Argentina - they weren't. No inheritance and no significant control over the Islands before 1833 = they weren't yours.
The fact is that Britain managed to control the islands WORSE than the precursor to Argentina, .the Spanish viceroyalty...
The UK has provide very stable administration of the Islands fro nearly 200 years. In what way is thay worse? (and I meant the UP as the precursor to Argentina, not Spain)
I said that Britain didn't have any grudges against anone else for having lost territories to them (eg, US) and not the other way way around. If other countries want to have grudges, then that is up to them.
@187: You can’t build future over injustices, sooner or later they come back.
No, you can't, which is why Argentina shouldn't have invaded in 1982.
”nobody has a future without his past; the past is what defines you.
True, and the Falkland Islands past is defined by 200 years of British administration and continuous inhabitiation by the Islanders. Arentina hardly figures in the history of the Islands at all (1982 is their most significant contribution).
And, I repeat - GET OVER IT. Otherwise, your just going to give yourself high blood pressure (which is a bit of a problem, so I understand, in Argentina [hence, the banning of salt from restaurant tables])
The Falklanders are quite Happy with their lot and have NO wish to be controlled by argentina who can barely manage its own country!!Dec 30th, 2011 - 12:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Long Live the Falklands.
of course you don't wish. but you are ussurpers. so i don' t care. byDec 30th, 2011 - 03:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
North America is attached to South America but that does not mean North America has any claim over Suuth America. Talk about some people making it up as they go along. If teritorial disputes were all agreed by attachment the world would be a very differant place. Argentina would likely be just plain old America.Dec 30th, 2011 - 03:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
But here is an interesting thought. Why not change the world order and have any land surrounded by an ocean become it's own Country while forcing all other land locked ones to become as one on each continent.
To me that is the equivalant of the current stupid argument the Argentines are trying to push down our throats.
Was not Chile and Brazil Countries before Argentina even came in to bieng.
No.Dec 30th, 2011 - 04:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Proof of how was where firstDec 30th, 2011 - 06:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Early history and colonization The Mapuche people were the original inhabitants of southern and central ChileAbout 10,000 years ago, migrating Native Americans settled in fertile valleys and coastal areas of what is present-day Chile. In 1520, while attempting to circumnavigate the earth, Ferdinand Magellan discovered the southern passage now named after him, the Strait of Magellan. The next Europeans to reach Chile were Diego de Almagro and his band of Spanish conquistadors, who came from Peru in 1535 seeking gold. one of Francisco Pizarro's lieutenants, who founded the city of Santiago on February 12, 1541. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chile#Early_history_and_colonization
The earliest evidence of humans in Argentina dates from 11,000 BC and was found in Patagonia (Piedra Museo, Santa Cruz).Sapa-Inca Pachacutec, invaded and conquered present-day north-western Argentina in 1480, a feat usually attributed to Túpac Inca Yupanqui. Argentina came from 3 different directions: from Paraguay, establishing the Governorate of the Río de la Plata, from Peru and from Chile.
@189 You did not answer my question: Tell me, what was the control of Great Britain before 1833?Dec 30th, 2011 - 07:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Define [Control of great britain]Dec 30th, 2011 - 08:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
179 Hermes1967Dec 30th, 2011 - 08:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
You are so right. We are all so in awe of your masterly command of the English language that I think it would be best if you would take over our country right away to give us poor benighted colonials the benefit of your obviously superior education system.
You would no doubt also be able to offer us roads, railways, the rule of law and the opportunity to learn another language, all of which would more than make up for the loss of our own culture. It would also recify the poor job we have been making of things for the past .......oh no, sorry we haven't. We've been doing very well, thanks.
Some people might argue that peppering your discourse with words that are not in common English usage just makes you look like a knob, but that would be quite mean. I prefer to think you must just be 15 years old.
Hermes..Dec 30th, 2011 - 09:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Let me guess, you're a lumberjack and you're ok, you sleep all night and you work all day..)
For only a mars bar, lets me work rest and play.
Im an nuclear scientist and physicists,
And a member of the Andromeda team.
Ah but would you believe that, or a lumberjack.
The only thing I can prove on here, is that I am alive,
Or at least I hope so,??
As for the Falklands, they will remain British, until they say otherwise,
Please Monty, it's time to use common sense and start talking.Dec 30th, 2011 - 09:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Argentina Constitution. Dialogue
International Court of Justice. Dialogue
To find a final solution: dialogue
Argentina Constitution. DialogueDec 30th, 2011 - 09:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
[only you can change]
International Court of Justice. Dialogue
[only you can go their]
[You lost that right by using violent means]
To find a final solution: dialogue
[we already have one]
1, you give up your false claim and go home
2, leave the Falklands alone forever
Malvinense 1833 [Define [Control of great britain ]
briton, @184 say: The fact is that Britain managed to control the Islands and the precursor to Argentina didn't.Dec 30th, 2011 - 10:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
I say: Tell me, what was the control of Great Britain before 1833?
ive now read his blogDec 30th, 2011 - 10:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
195 Malvinense 1833 You ask I think who controlled the Falklands befor 1833 rather than who controlled Britain. Well from all the evidance pointing to 1592 and a certain British Captain John Davies I suspect it was always rightfully coltrolled by Britain though there was a small period when the French thought they could start to settle our Islands without first checking who actually did control them. That little act statted what we know today as the Argentine claim. so it would appear that everyone once laid claim to us including Spain but reality is just like your country is now settled by tour lot ours is settled by Falkland Islands decendants running into nine generations so moraly the people of the Falkland Islands now rightfully own and control this land. If Argentina disputes that then she should also be called into question as to how she became in control of what is now Argentina.Dec 30th, 2011 - 10:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
But as we all know Argentines are small minded thugs by and large who do not believe in rights do they.
Briton is right, only WE can go to the ICJ because Britain won't accept compulsory jurisdiction over the case.Dec 30th, 2011 - 11:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
You lost that right by using violent means So let me get this straight, your reasoning is:
bellicose activities preclude the possibility for peaceful dialogue.
Nice world view you got there mate. I thought you Brits were supposed to be enlighted or something like that. But thanks for being honest at least, we in South America appreciate it for what it truly represents - a culture that cannot let go of a self-righteousness so deeply ingrained into their collective psyche that they cannot even take note of when they're being complete assholes.
Allow me to translate what your theory bellicose activities preclude the possibility for peaceful dialogue represents to people who are not psycopaths:
To your average South American person, it would say never a more tyrannical and backwardly-spirited sentiment could more adequately describe the essential beliefs of those who usurp our territory and survive by means of commercializing our national resources. It is a train of thought so desperately mad that, if followed to its logical conclusion, would indicate that achieving a significant measure of peace in the world is, on its face, a lost cause and a complete waste of time; that all conflicts, large or small, are always to some degree resolved by the use of force.
SOUTH AMERICA REJECTS THIS WORLD VIEW COMPLETELY, ABSOLUTELY, UNEQUIVOCALLY.
Your misconceptions of history are easily explained. Your illegal exploitative activities. plain as day for all to see, continue unexplained by their perpetrators as they refuse to enter dialogue. Your only power is to make all possible effort to frame the conflict in a bellicose or confrontational paradigm, and this you do well. But you know it's not a long-term solution.
Your mistake is confusing stubbornness for strength. That comes from the conviction of the righteousness of your cause, not of your selves.
@201: I say: Tell me, what was the control of Great Britain before 1833?Dec 31st, 2011 - 12:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0
Well, we all know that the first recorded sighting of the Falkland Islands was by Captain John Davis in 1592 and the first recorded landing was by Captain John Strong in 1690 (both Englishmen; I won't call them British, because this was before the Act of Union in 1707).
The islands were formally claimed by Britain in 1765 (the French had also been there since 1764) and Britain maintained a permanent presence in the Islands (at Port Egemont) from 1766 to 1774.
The Spanish maintained a presence in the Islands for from 1767-1811 (after forcing the handover of the French settlement) and both Spain and Britain agreed to respect the each others rights to control the Islands.
Right up until 1833, Britain mainatined its claim and British ships used the Islands at will and were ignored by the Spanish (who left in 1811). In fact the main language spoken in the islands throughout the entire period up until 1833 was English (due to the huge numbers of both British and American ships that came and went at will in the Islands). In fact, when Jewett turned up in 1820, he was helped by a British ship. By this time the Islands had no permanent population, but had a large floating British population
Vernet (supposedly the first Argentine governor...not) even recognised British authority in the Islands and asked their permission to be there and requested their protection.
Now, tell me what control did Argentina (or, more accurately, Buenos Aires) have over the islands before 1833?
If you look this forum you can se a lot of people fighting eachother like a rabid dogs. If is impossible get and agreement between a normal people will be impossible between a government$$$ they fight for resources not for the people, for me its the same thing if it raise a Falkland, British, Argentinean or a Sex Pistols flag anyway i will never gonna live there.....Dec 31st, 2011 - 12:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0
I like a John Lennon song Imagine but i see its a utopic dream. Peace mates ! we share the same world
@204: Except of course Hermes that Argentina used illegal violence to end the negotiations and to illegal hold the Falkland Islanders captive and under threat of execution in their own homes. It is because of these Argentine actions that the Falkland Islands now exercise their right to be decolonized according to their own wishes as guaranteed under UN Treaty Charter Articles 2, 73 and 74 and explicitly provided for under UN GA resolutions 1514(XV) and 2065(XX) , which Argentina voted for and agreed covered the case of the Falkland IslandsDec 31st, 2011 - 12:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0
Argentina's only legitimate course of action is to present its claims to the UN International Court of Justice where it's claim requires evidence subject to the burden of proof. From what you say, Argentina cannot lose. If Argentina presents its case, Argentina wins. If Great Britain refuses to go to the ICJ to make its counterclaim (e.g. Falkland Islanders rights under Article 73 and the Falkland Islanders freely expressed democratic choice) then Argentina wins a moral victory
Argentine acquiescence before international law is weakness. Argentina's avoidance of having its claims subject to the scrutiny of the UN ICJ appears to come from Argentina's lack of conviction of the righteousness of its cause
204 Hermes1967Dec 31st, 2011 - 12:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0
 hermes I know you did not misunderstand me, and you know fully well what I said, and stand by it,
But alas I think it is you that is confused, ,you cannot translate what is clearly stated, and every one reads it as such,
So lets go through you reply HONESTLY, and only my opinion,
Briton is right, only WE can go to the ICJ because Britain won't accept compulsory jurisdiction over the case.
[sadly not true, the british always inforce what the law demands,]
[the ICJ, only you can take us their, then you put your claim forward for the world to see,]  then the UK will reply and put her defence of her claims,, then after all sides have done what is required, the ICJ would make a decision]
1, Argentina gets them = the british would comply, we would not like it, but WE would comply.
2, Britain gets them, [would argentina comply] you anser that one .
“You lost that right by using violent means” So let me get this straight, your reasoning is: [“bellicose activities preclude the possibility for peaceful dialogue.”]
a culture that cannot let go of a self-righteousness so deeply ingrained into their collective psyche that they cannot even take note of when they're being complete assholes.////
[This sadly applies to Argentina, and not the UK, ] if the British did the same in reverse, your argument would look very silly [would it not]
To your average South American person, it would say never a more tyrannical and backwardly-spirited sentiment could more adequately describe the essential beliefs of those who usurp our territory and survive by means of commercialising our national resources ][
[now if they were your islands, you would have full rights]
But as they do not belong to you, and never have, then again you are arguing a possession and a corner, that you do not own, or likely to,…..
Your misconceptions of history are easily explained. Your illegal exploitative activities. plain as day for al
JAjajaja carefull british people ! Gomez its already dead but his wife Morticia Addams will be figth at the end !!!! now Uncle Fester Grandmama and The Thing also are comingDec 31st, 2011 - 12:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0
204 Hermes1967Dec 31st, 2011 - 12:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0
[all that is seen is your violent aggression, and because you lost, now come back with empty words of wisdom, that no longer apply,..
, Your mistake is confusing stubbornness for strength. That comes from the conviction of the righteousness of your cause,[
We are stubborn, but only because you tried to take by force, that you cannot now take from negotiations,,,
Just my opinion,
204 Hermes1967Dec 31st, 2011 - 01:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0
Your arguments would make sense if they were based on something that's true. Unfortunately for you, you are wrong about almost everything.
We are not 'Brits', we are Falkland Islanders with our own unique culture and history.
We are not 'stealing' your resources, we are managing them ourselves as Falkland Islanders.
We have a minimal defence provided by Britain, which is only necessary because you won't leave us alone. We would much prefer only to need the FIDF as our defence.
We are not psychopaths, tyrannical, backward spirited or assholes. For most of the last 200 years we have just been here getting on with things. You are the ones who have changed and we are not responsible for that. You have chosen the path of agression and persecution and you need to change for progress to happen.
I will confess to being self righteous; I think your country is doing mine a terrible wrong, and all the available evidence points to me being better than you. Sorry, your bad karma pal. I think you'll come back as a worm.
sadly not true, the british always inforce what the law demandsDec 31st, 2011 - 02:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0
Except for when it comes to giving back stolen archipelagos. Ask the Chagos people, 7 British judges ruled for what the law demands, only for the monarch to decree her order in council claiming royal prerogative to overrule judicial orders. And the house of lords ok'd it too. Britain enforces not what the law demands, but whatever it can by force serve itself, and this is happened even in the 21st century.
only you can take us their,
No, NO ONE can take you there, because you don't accept the ICJ's compulsory jurisdiction over any claim arising prior to 1974.
the british would comply oh sure. Well I'd feel a lot safer about Britain complying with an ICJ judgment to return an archipelago after it first COMPLIES WITH ITS OWN JUDGES ABOUT RETURNING DIEGO GARCIA. When you shyte on even your own justice system to keep an archipelago you obtained by nefarious means.....your goodwill credibility towards Argentina sort of goes right out the window. For Mercosur as well.
If Britian gets them, and both parties are there and accept jurisdiction and final judgment, Argentina would comply. I honestly believe you can't prove your case beyond sovereignty of Egmont, in the best of circumstances.
But as they do not belong to you, and never have.. Save the drama. No one believes you anymore. Have you got another record you want to play us? You can keep playing this one but as long as you don't give yourselves a chance to expand the details of your claim, aka discussing, there's really no point in your repeating it.
You are the ones who have changed and we are not responsible for that
So you're saying you haven't changed?? Look, the Mennenites haven't changed. The Amish haven't changed. The uncontacted tribes haven't changed.
YOU HAVE CHANGED, believe me. People who think evidence points to them being superior indicates psycopathic & narcissist personality disorders. Look it up.
@205 Davies?.Dec 31st, 2011 - 02:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0
1) The islands appear on Spanish maps long before Davies.
2) Davies was a pirate.
3) Davies do not have permission for discover.
4) Davies did not name the islands.
5) Your story is doubtful. Even Dr. Johnson questioned.
6) 177 years before Strong, the islands were included in the maps.
7) The discovery does not confer any rights. (English law)
8) ”The islands were formally claimed by Britain in 1765 (the French had also been there since 1764)”
So take away all rights to Britain for not being the first occupants.
9) France recognized the Spanish right and gave the islands.
Irrelavante forced or not, because the transfer of sovereignty took place. And you know something? Britain did not protest.
10) Britain since his retirement, he never kept his demand.
11) If the right to U.K. is held in a floating population and language, are in trouble friend.
You discredit the actions of Jewett and Vernet, but gives much importance to whalers and language. Incredible, no?
Still did not answer my question: what was the control of Great Britain before 1833?
@212: I honestly believe you can't prove your case beyond sovereignty of Egmont, in the best of circumstances.Dec 31st, 2011 - 02:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0
That's just ridiculous. In 1765, Britain's claim related to the whole archipelago, not just Port Egmont (and that was before Spain even got there).
If you really want to do it your way, then it would also mean that Argentina's claim would only pertain to Port Luis.
Those double standards keep turning up everywhere.
It's also interetsing that you should mention the Chagossians. I certainly agree (along with most people in the UK) that they should be allowed to return to the Islands, and I'm sure they will one day (maybe after the agreement with the US on Diego Garcia runs out in 2016 or 2036, if there is an extension). According to many Argentinian posters on this site, the Falkland Islanders have no rights of self-determination because they consider them to be an imported population. Well, exactly the same could be said of the Chagossians. The first inhabitants were slaves taken to the the islands (from Mauritius) by the French in 1786 and most of the rest were imported plantation workers who arrived during the 19th century.
So, do you think that the Chagossians have any rights of self-determination? I certainly do, just like I think the Falkland Islanders have that right. And let's not forget - self-determination trumps EVERYTHING when it comes to decolonisation.
Those double standards really do keep turning up everywhere.
If you really want to do it your way, then it would also mean that Argentina's claim would only pertain to Port Luis. Dec 31st, 2011 - 03:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0
No, I could live with that. My only pursuit is truth - if Egmont/Louis is the most provable claim, I can certainly live with that. Especially given the likelihood that such a settlement would appear to be unsatisfactory to both parties, a common sign of true compromise and most likely impulse for negotiation towards a truly happy middle. Or not. All I ask for is proof. No double standard here.
According to many Argentinian posters on this site, the Falkland Islanders have no rights of self-determination because they consider them to be an “imported” population.
I don't agree with that statement and believe it unnecessarily embraces a position more dangerous to Argentine recovery than understanding the issue of the right to self-determination as a separate dimension of complexity to what is a bilateral problem between Britain and Argentina.
Well, exactly the same could be said of the Chagossians.
True - and I would equally reject that interpretation on similar grounds. The Chagossians of course have rights of self-determination. The only difference is that the Chagossians are suing the British crown, not for independence, but for wrongful dispossession of territory through the use of intimidation and brutal violence. I doubt falklanders would ever bring such legal action against the crown.
Self determination does trump everything. The argentine constitution is clear on the FORM of recovery: it MUST conform to international law. Self-determination is such a law, islanders would not be any less entitled to the right of self-determination under Argentina's administration as they would under any other nation's. Self determination is a right of international law, not national law, meaning no one nation's law can supersede it.
Therefore the British claim that recuperation precludes/denies self-determination is complete bollocks.
@ 214 You forget one thing: if had any right, lost when retire and not continue with the claim.Dec 31st, 2011 - 03:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0
Spain ruled the islands and guarded so that no nation will attempt to return. And he did.
Argentina's claim to the islands is because Spain ruled and controlled the islands, in absolute solitude, without british protest until 1811.
When the British arrived in 1765, existed population. (France)
When the British withdrew in 1774, existed population. (Spanish)
When they returned in 1833, existed population (Argentina)
Only after the usurpation, for the first time they were alone on the islands.
sorry my poor english
@215: Therefore the British claim that recuperation precludes/denies self-determination is complete bollocks.Dec 31st, 2011 - 04:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0
No it's not. You're saying that you agree with the Islanders' right to self-determination (which is refreshing compared to some opposing views on this site), but only if it occurs under your terms. The only way it will work your way is if you convince the Islanders to exercise their right of self-determination by requesting Argentine administration. At the moment, they really aren't interested in that option.
“1) The islands appear on Spanish maps before Davies.”
But no sightings before Davis were recorded, so their inclusion on maps cannot be attributed to anyone.
“2) Davies was a pirate.” I think you’re confusing him Robert Searle (alias John Davis).
“3) Davies do not have permission for discover.” You don’t need permission to discover.
“4) Davies did not name the islands.” Relevance?
“5) Your story is doubtful. Even Dr. Johnson questioned.” I'm just quoting facts.
“6) 177 years before Strong, the islands were included in the maps.” See above.
”7) The discovery does not confer any rights. (English law).” I didn’t say it did, but it’s just another part of the UKs continual involvement in the islands since 1592.
“8) ”The islands were formally claimed by Britain in 1765 (the French had also been there since 1764)”
So take away the rights of Spain for not been the first occupants, and Argentina, as they were way down the list.
“9) France recognized the Spanish right and gave the islands.”
Spain and Britain respected each others rights in the Islands.
“10) Britain since his retirement, he never kept his demand.” ???
“11) If the right to U.K. is held in a floating population and language, are in trouble friend.”
This just one component and it shows that Britain is the only country with a continuous presence in the islands from the 1760s to 1833.
Yes, I do discredit Jewett, but I don't discredit Vernet (who recognised British authority).
”You're saying that you agree with the Islanders' right to self-determination (which is refreshing compared to some opposing views on this site), but only if it occurs under your terms.Dec 31st, 2011 - 05:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0
NO, not my terms. Or your terms for that matter, or anyone else's. ITS OWN terms. It is a right that stems from international law, as such it is above national jurisdictional interpretation or limitation. It is also completely separate from the sovereignty question, which is a question of a different kind of international right. The answer to the question of sovereignty, if reached by treaty or by international jurisdiction of ICJ would serve to CONDITION, NEVER DENY, the right of the people to self-determination.
When you say something like they really aren't interested in that option you fail to observe the very international law that grants you self-determination by thinking an international legal concept applies only in accordance with your consent.
In other words, your consent is not needed to determine whether you have a right to self-determination. It is granted in and of itself, with or without your approval, by international law, and you can no more give your consent to your having a right to self-determination than you could withhold such consent.
You can, of course, ignore it, but this wouldn't fly from an international perspective, and reject self-determination altogether. What you can't do is reject bits and pieces, say I claim self-determination” while you constrict that self-determination to be valid only when seen through the filter of any nation's interpretation of it, in your case Britain. It would be equally wrong to filter it through Argentina's.
The only conditioning action which the sovereignty issue should have on self-determination is defining which nation's administration a people's action must address in its own acts. If self-determination truly is a universal right of all peoples, it must remaim unhindered by national notions and disputes.
@214, 218. Agreement appears to have broken out.Dec 31st, 2011 - 07:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0
The question of administration of the self-determination of the Falkland Islanders has already been determined under international agreement: Great Britain is the Administering Country for the purposes of UN Charter Article 73 and UN GA resolution 1514(XV) and 1654(XVI) for the UN Decolonization Committee on the question of the non-self-governing territory of the Falkland Islands
There is no commonly understood concept such as conditional self-determination; to set conditions on self-determination removes it. An administrative framework to enable its implementation should not set conditions and the UN legal framework does not
The agreed text of Resolution 1514(XV) provides direction on the interpretation of the implementation of Article 73, whereby it declares concisely and clearly the unconditionality of self-determinisation:
Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.
There is no ambiguity here; yet Argentina seeks to obfuscate and prevent self-determination through its sovereignty claim and acts of repression against the Falkland Islanders.
The Falkland Islanders complaint is that Argentina's political executive seek to reverse their self-detemination process because they disagree with the out-come of the Falkland Islanders self-determination
If Argentina objects to Great Britain having been the Administrating Country in terms of Argentina's own claims of sovereignty then it should present its arguments to the UN ICJ & probably explain why Argentina wishes to change its vote; although it would not affect the majority outcome
The Falklanders will remain a British Overseas Territory for as long as they want!!!Dec 31st, 2011 - 01:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Long Live the Falklands.
@218:Dec 31st, 2011 - 01:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
The only conditioning action which the sovereignty issue should have on self-determination is defining which nation's administration a people's action must address in its own acts.
As things stand, the UK is recognised internationally as the ONLY country administering the Islands (I'm not including internal administration by the FIG, of course). It is up to Argentina to prove via an internationally recognised body (ie, the ICJ) that they have a legal greater right to do so. In the meantime, the Islanders can express their rights to self-determination in any way that they like and irrespective of what Argentina thinks. Nothing would stop them becoming fully independent within the current farework, if that is the course they decided to choose. If Argentina did oppose such a move, then I'm pretty sure they would be condemned by most countries (apart from a few SA cronies and probably China due to their own issues with Taiwan).
Do you think that Argentina would continue with it's claim if the Islands were recognised as a fully independent sovereign state?
As things stand, the UK is recognised internationally as the ONLY country administering the IslandsDec 31st, 2011 - 04:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Yes but it is not universally recognised to be doing so legally.
” It is up to Argentina to prove via an internationally recognised body (ie, the ICJ) that they have a legal greater right to do so.
The UK does not accept compulsory jurisdiction over the case by any internationally recognised body such as ICJ, nor do they accept multiple requests by the international community to enter into bilateral discussions. Instead it simply asserts rights it has no doubt about but never bothers to explain, and backs this with militarization policies.
Nothing would stop them becoming fully independent within the current farework, if that is the course they decided to choose”
Quite wrong. If islanders declared independence from Britain, they would be declaring independence from a nation whose rights are in question. Argentina, and South America, is unlikely to grant recognition unless the dispute is resolved first, or declaration is made for independence from Argentina, or from both Britain and Argentina which would effectively render the dispute null and void from the perspective of international law. I would also add that from that perspective, any declaration of independence would be devoid of legitimacy were it made in regards to independence from only either nation, while the existence of a dispute is internationally recognised. For a third party nation to recognize such a declaration it would have to regard the same as a declaration of independence from mars, it would be a legal non-sequitur.
I do believe, should islanders assert their right to self-determination and declare independence simultaneously from both Britain and Argentina, then neither country would likely have any cause...legal cause...to fail to give recognition. It would put Britain in a position where it would be forced to recognise, and meet Argentina's demand of sovereignty acknowledgement.
@222Hermes1967,Dec 31st, 2011 - 08:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Give it a rest, mate.
Are you trying to talk us to death?
You can't win & it's new year's eve. Haven't you got something more constructive to do?(like buying flowers & chocs for your missus?).
HIPOCRESY AND OMITIONS: MISINFORMATION.Dec 31st, 2011 - 08:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
This article can't be more rediculous, it compares the actual economic situation, with the situation of 1982, it's obvious tha it ignores that two monthes ego, cristina was reelected with the 54% of the votes, which became her into the most voted president since 1983, when we recovered the democracy, beside our economy is forescated to grow betwen 4,5% and 7%, tell me what was forecasted for europe and u. s. a, ¿do you really think now that we are going through a difficult moment?. Beyond the hate or the rejection that surelly many of you feel for our government, you can't buy this so partial and hipocrite analysis, we all must be more inteligent, and discern betwen a good information, from pathetic governments.
On the other hand, this article omits that in 1985 the u. k. tried to incluide twice references about self determination for this cause, and the international comunity voted by a landslide against that proposal, it omits that all the resolutions only call the two parts of the conflict to resume the negotiations, which is rejected by the u. k., it omits also that none resolution affirms that the sovereignty issue, which is the main problem, must be discussed only if the islanders wish it, it omits that the islandes and the u. k. have always rejected to discuss about the sovereignty. Anyway i accept some of the critics that you make to my country, because i dont ignore that surelly argentina made mistakes too, but you must realise also that as long as you insist on rejetcing the negotiations, we will continue having more problems.
you dont except what we say, but require us to except what you say,Dec 31st, 2011 - 09:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
and in the end, you still finnish with what you started, [sovereignty ]
and meeting your demands,
then thats really it then isnt it,
as you wont drop your demands, their is nothing to talk about, [full stop]
as the british goverment has stated, [without the islanders consent]
and as argentina is only prepeared to talk, and we are not,
the goverment has done nothing, as it is proberbly cheaper to say nothing, and let argentina get on with it,, unless you are prepeared to back it up,then the status quoe will remain, and this will most certainly still be the case, decades from now,
ect ect ect ect ect
unless you know different, or unless Argentina gets enough support from S/A to back this up, then 2300=still british.
@222Hermes1967:Dec 31st, 2011 - 09:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Let's just leave things as they are then, shall we. Nothing can change with that sort of attitude.
Also, newly independent sovereign nations don't need to be recognised by everyone - Taiwan, for example. If the Falkland Islands declared independence (irrespective of Argentina's sovereignty dispute), most of your argument would completely vanish, anyway, and your case would only be much weaker. Either way, you can't win.
I wish a Happy, Prosperous and Peaceful New Year to all the Falkland Islanders out there (my brother was there in 1982).
I also wish a Happy New Year to all the Argentinians out there (including the unreasonable ones), especially all my distant Argentinian cousins.
@224Axel,Jan 01st, 2012 - 06:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0
NO TALKS ON SOVEREIGNTY.
@222, 224. You require the Falkland Islanders and Great Britain's reasons. They have been quite clearly expressed many times and made public informationJan 01st, 2012 - 08:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0
The reason the Falkland Islanders instruct Great Britain's Foreign Office to refuse negotiations is because the Falkland Islanders freely & democratically chose their self-determined status to be a British Overseas Territory & therefore do not wish to negotiate any alternative proposed by Argentina
The reason the Falkland Islanders do not wish to listen to Argentine proposals is because Argentina illegally & systematically persecutes them politically and economically and in 1982 invaded them & coerced them to live under their military dictatorship by threat & in fear of violence, punishment & execution against theirs persons & their loved ones & friends. The Falkland Islanders reject Argentina for their nasty repressive acts against the Falkland Islanders
The reason why the Falkland Islanders chose to be a British Overseas Territory is because of their preference for their cultural & historical ties to Great Britain, their liberation by Great Britain in 1982 from a military dictatorship & similar favorable circumstances with other British Overseas Territories
The reason why Argentine seeks negotiations on sovereignty is because Argentina wishes to set-aside its UN Treaty obligations to the Falkland Islanders in favor of its own nationalist policies & place conditions on the Falkland Islanders' self-detemination
Axel, Hermes. UN Treaty Charter Article 73 stands & resolution 1514(XV) covers the case of the Falkland Islands. Agreement of this by all UN members has long been decided by unanimous democratic vote. It is recognized as legal
Great Britain's alleged position on the UN ICJ with respect to UN Charter Article 73 is required of Britain under its Article 73 obligations to the Falkland Islanders
If Argentina disputes, it is up to Argentina to seek advisory judgement by the UN ICJ without excuse
Happy New Year!!Jan 01st, 2012 - 12:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
I happen to agree with the Argentine posters about the Chagos islanders, and I hope they get to return home ASAP. It should never have been allowed to happen.
However, what happened to the chagosians is what we fear could happen to the Falklanders.
If Argentina regained control of the islands, the Falklanders would face a massive sense of loss of identity and culture. They could even feel as if they living under a new occupation.
What happens if they start a campaign of non-cooperation with the Argentine authorities or begin demonstrating against colonisation?
Do you arrest or deport the troublemakers? It could look pretty ugly to outside observors.
We don't want to put the Falklanders into a position where this could happen, it would be a craven betrayal of British people.
That is why we will not negotiate with you.
The people resident are British, they don't want to be ruled by Argentina and the more you threaten and pressurise them the more hostile to you they are going to get.
All negotiations can achieve is a total stalemate. We won't share, or surrender, you won't accept the status quo.
Here is my ideal world solution - Why does'nt Argentina try a different tack, like putting a permament end to threats and blockade, recognising the rights of the islanders to determine their own future. Drop your claim to the Islands, then negotiate a set of trade deal that will do everyone in the area a power of good, generating wealth and jobs for the whole area.
The only problem is I know you won't go for it.
DOMINGO.Jan 01st, 2012 - 09:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Firstly, it's really cheap and bad faith, to use the war, in order to reject the negotiations, i will always understand the desperation that islanders felt during the 76 days of the conflict, it's actually the same desperation that planty of our compatriots suffered during 7 years and a half, when their relatives were kidnapped and most them are still dissapeared, but since 7 years, all those sons of a bitch who destroyed my country are being judged and sentenced, as the criminals that they are, it was a dictatorship, not a democratic government, tha's why it's really cheap to recur to the war, in order to reject the negotiations, be aware that we suffered it much more than you.
On the other hand, no one persecutes the islanders in any way, that's actually part of hipocrite statement that you like to parrot all the time, however, if you have no capacity to realise that the so called blockade, is the result of intransigence of the islanders, we will have more problems in the future, you dont have to be so smart to realise of it. Your own arguments are very easy to destroy, when cristina speaks before the international comunity, she said more than once that argentina is not asking the u. k. to recognize that the malvinas are argentine, we are only asking it to comply with the resolutions which call the two parts of the conflict to resume the negotiations, it's not imposible to find a fair solution for all the parts, in the same way that the islanders deffend the right to self determination, we deffend our territorial integrity, that's why it's necesary a fair solution for both, anyway i recognize that surelly my country made mistakes too, i will study this question deeply.
@230Axel,Jan 01st, 2012 - 09:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
lf, as you say, Argentina is not asking the UK to recognise the Falklands as Argentine territory, then what do you want to negotiate?
Resolutions are voluntary, not binding, so we are completely within our rights to refuse to negotiate.
Because you cannot get what you want, you call us intransigent?
So, if we ask that you donate $100million to us & you say no,you are then intransigent???
Wake up, Axel. We don't need or want you but your country wants ours & has the gall to believe that somehow they have a right? You do not.
Here, you have NO RIGHTS, no matter what you say.
A great pity that it had to come to this, but malvinistas, it's all your country's doing.
agreedJan 01st, 2012 - 09:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
@230. Axel, the issue of Argentina's illegal war is not a cheap shot; the war & its consequences has caused deep & long lasting offence to the Falkland Islanders & the British people. They consider it a cheap shot of an excuse for Argentines to scapegoat the past Junta for Argentina in order to deny its culpability & accountability & to go on to claim complete innocence due to being a democracy now when it was not opposed but rather celebrated - it is abundantly apparent to the Falkland Islanders & the British that the invasion & illegal occupation of the Falkland Islands had the full support of the vast majority of the Argentine people, irrespective of the form of government, they saw the true feelings of Argentines & the vitriol they perceived wasn't at all pleasantJan 01st, 2012 - 10:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
That conflict cost a lot of lives, crippled many British soldiers & sailors with awful disabilities & cose Great Britain an enormous sum of money & materiel; the British blame the Argentines directly for this & note that Argentina's democratic governments have never properly apologized to the Falkland Islanders or the British people for their illegal acts of war against them. Democratic Argentina has never offered reconciliation nor acts of friendship towards the Falkland Islanders nor the British
This is worth understanding; and until you do you will not understand anything about the wary opinion that the Falkland Islanders and the British hold about Argentina
It is indeed hypocrisy in its highest form for Argentina to blame the Falklanders for Argentina's own acts of repression against the Falklanders, such as Argentine efforts to blockade their legally registered shippingThe Falkland Islanders have UN Treaty defined rights to their Territorial Integrity as do the British
I only provided comment on reasons for declining Your argument itself is risible; that you espouse is sad
UN Article 73 & Falkland Islanders' choices prevail over invitations to negotiate - this is absolutely fair & just
Hi Axel.Jan 01st, 2012 - 11:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
You obviously love your country and want it to do well as a modern, democratic nation. I can also tell how disgusted you are with the Junta and what it did to your people.
However, I have to echo both what Domingo and Isolde have written.
Mentioning the war is not a cheap shot. I vividly remember it. I was appalled by the scenes of jubillation in Buenas Ares and by the way the Argentine soldiers trashed Port Stanley. I was also upset by the losses we took, watching the news I soon learned that war is not a game and that the good guys can get killed too. It made a lasting impression on the vast majority of people over here, and we now see you as a hostile and untrustworthy nation waiting to stab us in the back again as soon as you get the chance.
The constant stream of sabre rattling from your govt does not help your case, it just backs this view up.
What is their to negotiate if not a transfer of some sovereignty to you?
Blaming the Falkanders for the blockade over intransigence is exactly what Hitler did to many of his victims, in order to justify attacking them.
230 axel argJan 01st, 2012 - 11:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
You don't know what you think do you?
First you say that no- one is persecuting us. Then you say we deserve to be persecuted because of our intransigence.
The first is a lie and the second is your rather disgusting opinion. As is the idea that islanders should stop complaining about the conflict because you had it worse. Charming.
You need to understand that the conflict is a big part of the reason why islanders hate you. No-one is going to forget what happened because you're feeling sorry for yourself.
The other reason we can't abide you is because of what you are doing to us now. The more you do it, the more intransigent we get. Not what you had in mind, is it.
We are not impressed with your 'we will carry on having problems' threat. The reason for that is because the biggest problem we can imagine is you getting your hands on our home.
If the U.S had soverenty of the islands we would build malls, TGI Friday’s and McDonalds. We would teach you how to play real football not this sissy soccer thing you all play.Jan 02nd, 2012 - 03:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0
I don’t think Argentina would change the islands much I think it would be the same as today except maybe the signs might be in English and Spanish.
Go far, far away, Livingthedream. You have added absolutely nothing intelligent to this discussion.Jan 02nd, 2012 - 06:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0
We don't care what you think the Argentines would or would not do.
We know what they would do.
Have you ever played Rugby?, without all that sissy armour that your footballers wear.
Yea you say “go far away” but when the going gets tough you brits call the good U.S. of A to bail you out. There would still be an Arg flag still flying on them Islands if it weren’t for our help!Jan 02nd, 2012 - 02:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
And yes, Rugby is a good game but we don't watch much of it here.
LivingthedreamJan 02nd, 2012 - 02:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Don't forget that after 9/11 we came to help you. A lot our guys have died in Iraq and Afghanistan.
What makes it worse is the battlegroups we are still deploying to Helmand are the same ones we need to deter the Argentinians from invading the Falklands again. They can't be in 2 places at once.
We appreciate the help we got in both world wars, but it came at a high price, financially and politically.
It's easy to send cheap shots like yours over. You're country has'nt experienced modern warfare on it's own soil. My Granmother could see the red glow in the sky from Coventry burning after the Luftwaffe firestorm raid, and she lived 12 miles away.
If the USA had wanted to make a moral statement in ww2 it would have sided with us in sept 1939.
By the way I like american football, but I prefer rugby.
Rugby is a gentlemen's sport, I cannot say the same thing about American football.Jan 02nd, 2012 - 03:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
@ 230 shb Yes, A lot of people around the world are envious of the American way of life and that’s why they want to harm us. I didn’t mean to insult you all’s sports or good will. The UK has been a good partner in the war on terror.Jan 02nd, 2012 - 04:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
I highly respect the British Ya’ll are good people. Now I never had the need to wander outside of the U.S but was always was curious about visiting England and maybe having me some fish and chips and beer with ya’ll there one day.
Happy new year
No problem.Jan 02nd, 2012 - 05:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
I've liked all the yanks I've met in the past. Good folks. You're very welcome over this side of the pond any day. I think the USA does far more good in the world than it's given credit for.
I would'nt mind going stateside for a holiday either, all my mates who have been there enjoyed it.
Artillero 601 I look forward to our teams next meeting with each other.........
@242Jan 02nd, 2012 - 06:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Absolutely ! :-)
ISOLDE. BRITON. DOMINGO. MONTY69.Jan 02nd, 2012 - 08:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
I have always thought and siad, that the argentine society must do a critic for their behaviour during all the dictatorships, that we had during last centenary. If they lasted a couple of years, in some aspects, it was because of people's acquiescence, i can understand that maybe most them didn't do anything because they were affraid, or per haps there were others reasons, but the point is that there was acquiescence by the people.
Anyway when we talk about the behaviour of our people during the war, and all those people who were celebrating in plaza de mayo, you should know also, that in that time , all the media was in the hands of the junta, there was not any freedom of press, and finally planty of people believed that we had recovered the islands without any rencour, it had been signalized by galtieri, which was absolutly false.
Beside you should remember, that it was the government of your so loved baroness thatcher, the one that had sent nicholas readly to the islands, in 1980, in order to achieve that the islanders accept to negotiate a solution, ¿do you remember?, what a true democrat should have done, was to brake the relations with a dictatorship, however your so loved thatcher had decided to continue the relations with a criminal regimen.
On the other hand, this is evident that you dont understand when we talk about negotiations, we are just talking about respecting the resolutions from the u. n, no more, none resolution asks the u. k. to transfer the sovereignty to argentina, it's obvious that the islands wont never be only under argentine sovereignty, per haps we can share the administration with the u. k.. or find any other fair solution.
In my investigation i have much more arguments which hold what posture, if you want i can send it to you, i have no much more characters.
So lets get this correct,Jan 02nd, 2012 - 10:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
You are saying that because
baroness Thatcher, the one that had sent Nicholas readily to the islands, in 1980, in order to achieve that the islanders accept to negotiate a solution 
We are to blame for the Falklands war, because we was prepared to talk,
You are saying that because
The British went to Germany to talk,
We are to blame for WW2
Your conception falls flat on it face,
While Argentina sends a man to talk to the British,
The British then invades Patagonia, and its all your fault
[utter rubbish=total rubbish] [The facts are, ]]
Their [is] [was] no excuse what so ever or justification for Argentina, under any circumstances ,
To invade a totally unarmed and peaceful non aggressive little island , with intent to subjugate them to Argentinean rule,
And thus responsible for the deaths of hundreds of people,
[you don’t punch someone in the face] then expect THEM to say sorry to you,
Nothing to negotiate
No reason to negotiate
Don’t want to negotiate
[but you could at least try to pretend you are sorry,]
By being nice to them,
Rather than threaten them abuse them tell abhorrent lies about them,
Rather than give it all the large,
Why don’t you stop acting like the mafia, and be nice,
BE NICE, ITS COSTS YOU NOTHING
BRITON.Jan 02nd, 2012 - 11:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
When i mentioned about readley's mission, i did it because i wanted to show that the dictatorship and your baroness used this cause, to bost their miserable governments, if your prime minister really cared about protecting the islanders, what any democrat would have done, is to brake the relations with a criminal dictatorship, beside it cut the defence for the south atlantic, that shows how important the islanders were for her government.
What is really amazing is the terrible miopy that some of you have, i never denied the mistakes of my country, surelly argentina made mistakes when it recalled the agreements that it signed in the past with the u. k., however you never made any critic for your behavoiur, you only blame us, and it sopposes that you did everything right, please.
You have no capacity to realise that the hard decitions that our government took, are the result of the rejection of the islanders to resume the negotiations, like the u. n signalizes, and now you suggest me to stop acting like mafia, and be nice, ¿are you being nice?, maybe it costs you so much. I will repeat you one more time that we are not asking the u. k. to transfer the sovereignty to us, we are asking to respect the resolution from the u. n. and find a fair solution for you and us, that's all., and let me remind you that in none resolution the u. n affirms that the sovereignty must be discussed only if the islanders wish it, they only call to negotiate a peaceful solution, no more. ¿If it soposes that self determination is the only one aspects that matters, then why the international comunity voted by a lanslide against the british proposal of including references about self determination for this cause?, i investigate, i dont parrot propaganda like many of you.
Axel arg.Jan 03rd, 2012 - 12:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0
I agree that we should have done more to deter the Galtieri govt, and we certainly should'nt have help to arm them (those T42 Destroyers were a particularly bad shot in the foot).
We now realise that not backing the Falklanders whole heartedly helped encourage the Junta's invasion, along with the moronic cuts to the navy drawn up by Nott.
Thats why the current defence cuts have met with dismay amongst so many people over here. I for one believe it will encourage your lot to try some kind of military action again.
Our former attitude to the islands and their people has changed as well. The British public has hardened against negotiations and in favour of supporting the falklanders, no matter what happens. We simply don't trust you.
You'd get much further with us and the islanders by trying to normalise relations, apologising for the unprovoked aggresion of 1982, signing trade deals and allowing free passage of ships, people and goods between the mainland and the islands.
Again I ask you - what kind of agreement would you see as a result of negotiations in an ideal world?
Then what do you think would happen if we sat down at a table now - in a climate of British distrust, and Argentine sabre rattling and vocal threats?
@246 axelarg,Jan 03rd, 2012 - 08:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0
IF, we did sit down to talks, Axel & l'm saying only IF
What do you want? You say that Argentina doesn't want sovereignty.
OK, Then EXACTLY WHAT, do you want?
lf it was my decision l would not even consider talks of any kind.
As shb stated, we do not trust you. l, in particular, do not trust you one little piece.
But it won't be up to me.
This is no sovereignty or shared sovereignty of any type, Axel.
We do not HAVE to talk to you, the UN resolution is only a recomendation.
There is no use talking about Argentina's rights in the Falklands.
Here, you have no rights, despite what you say.
So, dear Axel,what do you WANT?
l was going to answer you but SBH @239 has said all that needs to be said.
l will add however that the 2 years that we were at war with Germany(big mistake) & ltaly, before you entered the war gave the US time to rearm & make a lot of money out of the UK.
We never fully recovered our pre-eminence after 1945.
@244Jan 03rd, 2012 - 03:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
and all those people who were celebrating in plaza de mayo, you should know also, that in that time , all the media was in the hands of the junta
No offense BUT that's a bunch of bullshit !! Football and Malvinas are National sentiments exploited by politicians all the time.
ISOLDE. SHB. ARTILLERO.Jan 03rd, 2012 - 09:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
My country already apologized for the crimes of the dictatorship in diferent oportunities, and it includes the war onbiously, because it was that criminal dictatorship the one that invaded the islands. ¿The trail against the militar junta, doesn't mean ahything to you, during raul alfonsin's government?, for me it worthes all my life. But unfortunatelly, hes government was pushed to declare shamefull amnesties for the torturers. Anyway in march 24th 2004, nestor kirchner apologized the whole nation, in the mame of the state, for the crimes of the dictatorship, and he did it at the esma (mechanic school of the army), which had been used as a centre of tortures, and confinment of people, and since 2003, all those sons of a bitch who joint a repressive statal organization, are being judged and sentenced, that's the only one way of apologizing, words are taken by the wind, the most important are the facts.
Respecting what you call recomendations, they muts be respected, i dont know what my country can cede in the negotiations, i' m not professor of international right, like us or not the negotiations must be resumed by the two parts, like the u. n signalizes.
On the other hand, the malvinas cause, is a policy of state, because it was incorporated in our constitution, and all the governments, no matter their politic extraction, will have to continue with our claim, like them or not, it's not just a sentiment which is used by the politicians, no offence, but that's a very mediocre thought.
is a policy of state, because it was incorporated in our constitution,Jan 04th, 2012 - 12:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0
[be fair here ] remove it from your constitution,
dear islandersJan 04th, 2012 - 02:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0
you are so Argentines as we are , beacuse you Were born in our land.
We want a constructive relationship with you, we want to join us, we are waiting you with open arms. Do not be fooled by the UK they only thing they want is to take advantage of you, they use you as puppets and you do not realize. If you join to form an unite nation, you can develop.
Think of your children, what future can have on a remote island with a monarchy that wants to use politically, and make money, in an atmosphere of political instability and fear of being constantly invaded.
You can not grow well in peace ever, that is not quality of life.
think about your future
@250 axel arg,Jan 04th, 2012 - 11:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0
You still didn't answer my question, Axel.
You say that you don't want sovereignty but that we must talk.
We don't have to must anything, but, what do you want to talk about?
Trade links, perhaps?
lsn't it just too simple? remove it from your constitution, but they won't.
You've made a slight mistake here.
We are not on Argentine land & we don't wish to become Argentines.
Thank you, hope this helps.
@250Jan 04th, 2012 - 02:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Kirchner, Garre, Abal Medina ... ex MONTONEROS apologizing for the crimes of the Dictatorship ? They started the war in the 70's, when are they going to apologize for the crimes they committed?
Axel, you need to read more Argentine history brother before you fight for Malvinas. :-)
@253Jan 04th, 2012 - 04:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
Those kids are awesome ! , and what's up with the prostitution question? what an idiot.
Malvinas are Argentine, but no usurper will ever face the truthJan 04th, 2012 - 04:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
The Falkands are British and no Malvinista will ever face the truth.Jan 04th, 2012 - 07:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
If they ever want to be independent we will support them in that too.
I don't see an Argentine flag ever flying over port Stanley except in your imagination.
just because their own country is falling apart, and father then repair it, they would father ruin other peoples country,Jan 04th, 2012 - 08:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
to lazy, to greedy, to obsesed,
leads to deluded dreams, lies , and indocrination .
BRITON. ISOLDE. ARTILLERO 601.Jan 04th, 2012 - 09:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
BRITON. ISOLDE: Of course we wont remove our claim from the constitution, this is evident that you have no idea about what you're saying.
Beside, i think you missunderstood me, i never said that we dont want to discuss about the sovereignty, i only said that cristina affirmed in diferent oportunities that argentina is not asking the u. k. to recognize that the islands are argentine, it only asks to reume the negotiatioons like the u. n signalizes, what she's trying to tell you, is that we dont accept as the only one outcome, the trasference of sovereignty to our country, like you parrot all the time, on the other hand, it's not what the resolutions ask, in the same way that none of them affirms that the sovereignty mut be discussed only if the islanders wish it, it's obvious that we want to discuss about the sovereignty, it's the main problem of this conflict.
ARTILLERO: I knew perfectly that you were going to answer me that. Firstly, you are missinformed, nestor kirchner and cristina, were not montoneros, they were leftist-peronist activists at the university, some of their friends were montoneros, but they were disident of the guerrilla, anyway the helpt one friend who was montonero, who finally dissaperaed.
Allthough i agree with the principles of equality, which the montoneros fought for, i dont deny that the guerrilla commited abuses also, but it if they were commiting delist, they should have been judged and sentenced, what was made by the dictatorship wont never be justified, unless not for me, anyway it's up on the ideology of each person.
On the other hand, i recognize that the only one way of fighting against dictatorships, was with the guerrillas, there is not any other way, but it doesn't justify neather the abuses that the guerrilleros commited, i have a lot more to say but i have no much more characters.
one way of fighting against dictatorships... this is when you are wrong. The guerrilla started first and a constitutional President Isabel Martinez de Peron , called the Armed Forces to destroy the terrorism, as a consequence of that we end up in a Dictatorship . Do you understand the time frame?Jan 04th, 2012 - 10:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
the K's are veletas , vuelan de acuerdo como sopla el viento !!
259 axel argJan 04th, 2012 - 10:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
We do understand, its just that you keep contradicting your self,
If you wont remove it,, ,then I take it you have no complaints if the Falklands puts something of that nature into their own constitution .
[i never said that we don’t want to discuss about the sovereignty, i only said that cristina affirmed in different opportunities that Argentina is not asking the u. k. to recognize that the islands are argentine, it only asks to resume the negotiations///
[ but this is totally false there is nothing to talk about, and Argentina has stated publicly that nothing short of total argentine sovereignty is required .//
[she's trying to tell you, is that we don’t accept as the only one outcome, the transference of sovereignty to our country ///[our country] again you presume that it is YOUR country, before any talking has even begun.
What, like you parrot all the time////
[ but we don’t parrot, Argentina does and you know it, ]
//., in the same way that none of them affirms that the sovereignty mut be discussed only if the islanders wish it///
But they no NOT wish it .
// it's obvious that we want to discuss about the sovereignty; it's the main problem of this conflict.
Their you go again DEMANDING sovereignty
YOU CANNOT and will not have it both ways, at the very least, Argentina should be helping them
Not blockading them, //encouraging them,, not telling abhorrent lies about them .