MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Argentina praises ‘immediate support’ from the region in the Falklands’ dispute
Argentina’s acting president and Vice-President Amado Boudou praised the immediate support expressed by several countries in the region in the bilateral conflict between Argentina and the United Kingdom over the Falklands/Malvinas Islands sovereignty. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesOh, please Boudou. This begging for pity on the sails of some colonialism... how banana-politic. Pathetic.
Jan 20th, 2012 - 12:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0Uruguayan support is only from its government, not from the people. We don´t support CFK`s politicians
Jan 20th, 2012 - 12:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0BooBoo- I thought you had brain- until now! our Rgeional “support” - just meaningless words really - yes great verbal rhetoric from Mercosur a few weeks I agree - then within 24hrs Countiries specify that anf Islands vessel is welcome in under the british Merchant Marine Red Ensign- they of course know that any Islands registered vessel is also thus on the wider British Merchant Marine regisatry- thus legally entitled to fly the Red Ensign.
Jan 20th, 2012 - 01:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0Result ZERO impact in the Islands - all ships now need to do is swap flags just outside territorial waters! Thus Nil Points to Agfrentina!
Further more the 3 principle nations we have linkls with
also categorically stated they would NOT be party to any form of economic or commercial blockade!
Nil points to Argentina again!
We will not allow British warships in they tell you - well Protector may be painted red and yes she does survey work etc - BUT she carries armed marines, has light Armaments of her own, is HMS - on the fleet list, visits and is happily received in Rio and Montevideo!! Ooops!!
And BooBoo - you call that “support”?????
the only real support argentina will truthfully
Jan 20th, 2012 - 01:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0is more than likly to be a bra support,
but hey, support , is support, as they say .
@Islander
Jan 20th, 2012 - 03:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0Then playing Devil's advocate, why all the fuss about Argentina?? If there is no effect on the islands, which is what I have been saying all along, why did the UK blow this measure up so much?
Also, originally the problem before the lasest brouhaha was Argentina not allowing ships from the Falklands to dock in argentine ports. If the Falklands want nothing to do with Argentina, why get upset then if Argentina refuses to permit ships from the island in her ports? They can go to Chile, Uruguay, Brazil, or South Africa.
(1) Tobias
Jan 20th, 2012 - 05:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0You have amply proven to be an intelligent interlocutor….......
That's why I ask you; could you please tell me how we can stop Great Britain from aggressively grabbing about 12.000.000 square km of our nearest South Atlantic seabed for hydrocarbon exploitation + the whole Antarctic sector claimed both by Chile and Argentina if not by the current strategy?
I’n certain that you are more than aware of Argentina’s past strategies (the good and the bad ones) and what they led too…........................
The current one IS WORKING better than I ever could imagine and the effects are clear for anyone.
Regards
El Think
The Falklands have virtually no correlation with Antarctica and any future situation there. Britain holding jurisdiction in a South American archipelago has no bearing on the Antarctic question, since the fundamental premise of the Antarctic Treaty is stressing the “unique” status of Antarctica and any future discussions there DETATCHED from all other geopolitical realities in populated continents.
Jan 20th, 2012 - 05:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0For the UK to, in the future, use the Falklands as somehow some sort of springboard for Antarctic hegemony would not only be a sacred violation of a treaty they signed abjuring such actions, but also immediately be seen by the entire world as an about-face to the UK's decade's long defense of the Falklands itself as a Self-determination issue, and be regarded as nothing short of having been a shameless cover for expansionist policies in the pole.
It would be a complete catastrophe for UK standing and diplomacy in two issues, and with a single bullet. It would be geopolitically suicidal.
Instead of wasting all our diplomatic bridges on the Falklands, we should make decisive moves to be the country with the overwhelming population in the Antarctic and also the logistical pivot to the region.
“please tell me how we can stop Great Britain from aggressively grabbing about 12.000.000 square km of our nearest South Atlantic seabed for hydrocarbon exploitation”
Jan 20th, 2012 - 08:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0What, so that Argentina can turn it all into nature reserve?
This is of course the key to the whole thing in the future.Brasil knows that when Argentina gets back control of the Malvinas the biggest winner w ill be Petrobras.The city over the next few years knows with north sea oil or scotland running out,its real economy fu...d it desperately needs whatever natural resources it can find.Brasil cant allow its companies move in to the South Atlantic when its so close to Argentina so the solution is but one BRITS OUT.
Jan 20th, 2012 - 09:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0I love how he claims regional support in the face of PM Camerons comments, especially when i have not seen a single article from showing official government response to camerons comments from any other south american country.
Jan 20th, 2012 - 09:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0@6 Think,
Jan 20th, 2012 - 10:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0So you “only” claim 12,000,000km2 of seabed?
You greedy little man.
Keep deluding yourself that your machinations are working.
lf it keeps you happy.
@9
Jan 20th, 2012 - 11:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0Brazil could of course do business with the Oil companys already on the Falklands and cutting out argentina! Job done...
If argentina is so Upset by colonialism Why is it trying to do the same to the Falklands!!!!!
No negotiations are needed as there is NOTHING to negotiate, the Falklanders are VERY HAPPY the way they are!!!
Long Live the Falklands.
Petrobras is more than welcome to get involved now O'Gara. Nothing to stop them...
Jan 20th, 2012 - 01:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I find this pretending to be insulted by DC's colonialism quote highly amusing, of especially since 90% of Argentines are of European heritage (some of them even Irish, although that's highly unlikely in O'Gara's case), most of them exclusively so and the vast majority only in their 3rd or possibly 4th generation in Argentina. All at the expense of the indigenous South Americans who were there before, very few of which remain because they were wiped out by the effects of, you guessed it, colonialism.
aggressively grabbing about 12.000.000 square km of our nearest South Atlantic seabed for hydrocarbon exploitation
Jan 20th, 2012 - 01:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0From little acorns, think admitting there is oil down there :-))))))
http://en.mercopress.com/2012/01/19/the-white-settlers-dilemma argies getting upset by the word colonial... if only there were some indigenous argies to get upset by it ;)
Jan 20th, 2012 - 02:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0British got Falklands BEFORE Argentine was a Country
Jan 20th, 2012 - 03:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(7) Tobias
Jan 20th, 2012 - 04:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Allow me to disagree…………….
1) The Malvinas are not only a “Stepping Stone” but also what the British regard as their “Perfect Excuse” to be were they shouldn’t be……..
2) The Brits don’t care at all about any …….: ”Sacred violation of a treaty they signed abjuring such actions”, or to.....: ”Be seen by the entire world as an about-face to the UK's decade's long defense of the Falklands itself as a Self-determination issue, and be regarded as nothing short of having been a shameless cover for expansionist policies in the pole”. as you so nicely put it............
All they care about is MONEY and it is precisely there where we have to hit them if we want to protect our territories.
3) We ARE making decisive moves in regard to populating Antarctica and becoming pivotal for its future.………. Not just as a Country but as a united Continent.
Haven’t you been following the Antarctic news and developments for the last decade or so?
In this regard, the proverbial past, present and future “British Colonial Haughtiness” is proving to be an invaluable tool to amalgamate the Region against that foreign nuisance………
Regards
El Think
@7 tobias
Jan 20th, 2012 - 06:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I beg to differ, if you look at what is happening in the Artic (the only precedent we have) Denmark is a big player because of its sovereignty over Greenland, which is a democratic parlimentry dependency the same as the Falklands.
As and when Antarctic development does happen, which inevitably it must we can only hope it is done in a sane manner, who owns what nearby is going to be very important.
Even without the Falklands the British still have South Georgia.
If you believe thinks thinking, you will still be listening till dooms day, but what better way to encourage the locals , than to remind them all is well, and the pirates are going home,
Jan 20th, 2012 - 07:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Rise my fellow comrades, the British are finished and argentines time as a future empire has arisen,
And the book of fools reads on and on and on,
A bit like an ariston washing machine,
The Falklands are British, until the islanders say other wise,
The British will defend these islands as long as they wish to remain British,
If anyone tells you different, they are either a fool, or a lie,
Each man believes what each man believes,
And any aggression on the part of Argentina, besides using the ICJ
Will carry consequences.
Just an honest opinion,
Poor argentina so much support and NO one will back you on argentinas colonialist ambitions to take over the Falklands, Uruaguay, Chile, Antartica!!
Jan 20th, 2012 - 08:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Long Live the Falklands.
@Think 17
Jan 20th, 2012 - 08:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well, if we assume you are right and England/UK has no honor and does use the Falklands as some sort of claim on the Antarctic, it will all be CLEARLY documented (unlike the early history of the Falklands, that is so disputed here), and again, I just don't see how any nation on Earth would support them after having lied for so long (if the self-determination issue was indeed a smoke-screen).
The UK has made self-determination the keystone and only plinth for defending the status of the Falklands. To turn right around tomorrow or in half a century and change the tune simply will not work.
Pugol-H
Again, the Antarctic Treaty prohibits using any precedent on populated lands as a precedent for claims on the continent!
IF the treaty expires, then the Falklands are of no consequence. Or at least, no more consequential than Argentina owning Tierra del Fuego (alongside Chile), which itself is an island, and a full province with it's own democratically elected government... in fact an island which is closer to Antarctica than the Falklands, and with a geological connection to the Antarctic peninsula via the Cordilleran undersea feature.
Argentina's “greenland” is Tierra del Fuego, same for Chile. I have no idea how you can honestly write the Falklands are such a keystone, yet Tierra del Fuego would be irrelevant. It is the exact same situation.
South Georgia is not populated, but even assuming it has some bearing, again, what's the difference getween it and the Falklands, and Tierra del Fuego.
There is none.
Well this is all dying down sooner than I thought it would. It was amusing for a couple of months but now it is boring and since Team CFK has already started to stall it has become like a broken record. I'll check all you Argentine ladies and gentlemen out in another year.
Jan 20th, 2012 - 09:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Happy 2012.
Oh by the way, did you read the Times editorial today? The opinion of the Times rather than of Mr Winchester?
(21) tobias
Jan 20th, 2012 - 09:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You say:
“The UK has made self-determination the keystone and only plinth for defending the status of the Falklands. To turn right around tomorrow or in half a century and change the tune simply will not work. ”
I say:
You are seriously underestimating our British “friends” capacity to abandon their “principles” and bend their own ”rules” when deemed “necessary”….
Some recent examples of British “respect” for the concept of ”self determination”:
Chagos Archipelago……1970’s
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depopulation_of_Diego_Garcia#Depopulation
Hong Kong……. 1990’s
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depopulation_of_Diego_Garcia#Depopulation
Palestina……….. 2010’s
Coming British UN vote against the Palestinian State…… (No link yet, for obvious reasons, but I’m sure you “get the meaning”)
Saludos
El Think
Mefisto.you are a very clever and interesting person.How do you know the people of Uruquay do not agree with Argentina's claim to sovereignty of the Malvinas,and if you are right,why don't they support Argentina ?
Jan 20th, 2012 - 09:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Amado Boudou..!!
Jan 20th, 2012 - 09:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0take care of “” CGT “” (General Confederation of Labour of the Argentina Republic ) problem not Malvinas problem........!!
Malvinas no exist,
Jan 20th, 2012 - 10:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Falklands are British,
So is South Georgia
You guys dream to much.
TWIMC
Jan 20th, 2012 - 11:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0USA latest comment about the Malvinas issue…..:
”We recognize de facto United Kingdom administration of the islands but take no position regarding sovereignty.”
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2012/01/182294.htm
Wait a minute……………. Did those Yanks really say “DE FACTO”?
DE FACTO …….. In law, it often means “in practice but not necessarily ordained by law” or “in practice or actuality, but not officially established.” It is commonly used in contrast to de jure (which means “concerning the law”) when referring to matters of law, governance, or technique …………..
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2012/01/182294.htm
Just another nail in Britain’s diplomatic coffin in the South Atlantic……
Chuckle chuckle®
1)De Facto = ln Fact, in reality
Jan 21st, 2012 - 06:42 am - Link - Report abuse 02)De Facto = Actually existing
Latin, from “the fact”, MacQuarie Dictionary, 2nd edition 1994 p268.
And that's what it is, FACT. We own the Falklands, my dear Think, (A FACT) & you DO NOT(also a FACT). ♥ :-)))))
(28) Isolde
Jan 21st, 2012 - 09:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0Hereby, just for you, my dear Wiccian Squatterette, the literal meaning of the term - ”De Facto Administration” - as used by the USA on their last political statement about the ”Malvinas issue”.
“Politics:
A de facto government is a government wherein all the attributes of sovereignty have, by usurpation, been transferred from those who had been legally invested with them to others, who, sustained by a power above the forms of law..........”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto
@ 29 Think,
Jan 21st, 2012 - 10:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0Thats American wikipedia, a not all together reliable source.
l have found many of their definitions biased,
So my dear Squatting Think(do you deny that you are living on land stolen from the natives after they were killed?), l will stay with the definition that l found & reject yours.
lt doesn't matter anyway as this has nothing to do with the Americans.
So l don't agree
(28) and (30) Dear Isolde
Jan 21st, 2012 - 11:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0MacQuarie Online Dictionary, 21 of January 2012 11:15 gmt
”De Facto / adjective
1. In fact; in reality.
2. Actually existing, whether with or without right. Compare de jure. ”
http://www.macquariedictionary.com.au
Anyhow, I doubt wery much that the US State Department uses an Aussie dictionary :-)
Keep trying sister……………
My high school dictionary, Think.
Jan 21st, 2012 - 12:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And l am not your sister.
l don't care what the Americans, Argentines or you personally think.
This is NOT your land & NEVER has been.
Do you deny that you live on land that was stolen from the native peoples after they were murdered by Argentines?
Answer please.
(32) As one of my Sisters once wrote:
Jan 21st, 2012 - 01:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If you were serious with your questions my dear Squatterette Isolde, l would answer you.
But methinks you just gather evidence to mock & belittle.
l will say though, that l live in a complex place that l can not explain.
I’ll certainly will find out when I pass over & climb the Golden Staircase…
@21 tobias
Jan 21st, 2012 - 01:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The complete history of the falklands is clearly documented, in the British National Archive (amongst other places). This is in large part why Argentinian historical claims are regarded with such distain by the British.
Self determination is this issue in the Falklands (as far as the British are concerned) This however does not effect british Antarctic claims in anyway and never has.
The Antarctic treaty will expire one day, the arguments about what happens then is what you are seeing now.
I agree with you about Tierra del Fuego Argintina/Chile, what I am saying is the British are also there in equal measure.
The Falklands are not the only Keystone here, but they are one of them.
Especialy where Argentina's claims to Antartica are concerned. The British will (indeed already are) move from defending the Falkland to claiming part of the Antarctic and no one outside Argentina will bat an eyelid. Argentina moves from claiming the Malvinas to claiming part of Antarctica just the same.
With regard to geological features, Antarctica is on a different tectonic plate to SA with another plate in between. Mountains in the west of Scotland are geologicaly akin to those in eastern Canada, but the Atlantic is now between them. No basis for claiming Canada (again).
30 lsolde: I'd say it's pretty accurate if you quote the correct part.
Jan 21st, 2012 - 01:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“We recognize de facto United Kingdom administration of the islands”
“no position regarding sovereignty”
“The de facto boundaries of a country are defined by the area that its government is actually able to enforce its laws in, and to defend against encroachments by other countries that may also claim the same territory de jure.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto
Again:
“no position regarding sovereignty”
The US takes no position regarding sovereignty.
No position regarding sovereignty.
(32) Isolde
Jan 21st, 2012 - 02:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0MacQuarie, 2nd edition 1994…….; your high school dictionary.
Well…. That sorted out the question of your age ……. Kind of 35’ish……
Geeeeeeee…………….. You are much younger than you sound, Sister…..
Hope that doesn’t make me a ”Viejo Verde” :-)
I know about Uruguayan people opinion because I`m Uruguayan. Argentine is establishing an aggressive policy to this country affecting the whole economy. Read the article in Uy.press write by Pablo Mieres and you´ll have an idea about this
Jan 21st, 2012 - 02:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Silly islanders ! Why you dont whant to chage ? you are under the Kingdom of evil people, colonial regime. Argentina its ready to send you a Culture and a really good economy. We have a very good cientist, medicall staff, 5 novel prizes in all the story, good Army (not for the equipment, its good becouse always respect the human rights) we have a piqueteros, we change at least 10 times the money notes becouse the paper was enought to fit so many zeros, we have a the most violent football fans, we have the best traffic police (its totaly baned drive on the highway totaly drunk) we are very religious, we not accepted the abortion we respect the life even when its a rape act, we have a political agreement with ours neighboors than in europe but only work for fight about the taxes eachother, we have a very intresting history and you will never fell boring for example in the past alternated the expensives suites in expensives armies uniforms in the goverment house. Now we have a Morticia Addams in the goverment its fun !!!!. Without a doubt you need a some action in your life change now !
Jan 21st, 2012 - 04:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@38 hectortranquilo,
Jan 21st, 2012 - 10:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sounds like fun, Hector.
But l've had a very hectic life & now all l want is peace & quiet.
But thank you anyway♥
@36Think,
You are a sneaky little hombre aren't you?
l'm impressed.
Very close, bit lower.
And l like viejo verdes.
“ Why you dont whant to chage ? ”
Jan 22nd, 2012 - 01:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0Because it's there choice.
“ 5 novel prizes ”
UK has the second most amount of novel prizes in the world.
”good Army (not for the equipment, its good becouse always respect the human rights) ”
Your armed forces are pathetic. And they hardly have a good human rights record. At all.
After reading the rest, seems like a troll, to be honest.
Think,
Jan 22nd, 2012 - 09:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0l thought that l would give you time to think it over. Well times up.
You still have not answered the question.
Do you deny that you are living on land that was stolen from the native peoples after they were murdered by Argentines?
Now we don't need to blither or dither about.
All we need from you is a simple monosyllable of an answer:-
A yes, or
A no.
l would greatly appreciate a prompt reply♥
If one admitted that one was wrong
Jan 22nd, 2012 - 03:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Would it not blow his and everybody else’s
Theory out of the window,
CFK would probable string up that person,
Better to act as if nothing has happened,
And perhaps ones question would fade into history,
British it is then, British it will remain .
(41) lsolde
Jan 22nd, 2012 - 04:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You ask me:
”Do you deny that you are living on land that was stolen from the native peoples after they were murdered by……….?”
I answer thou:
What a Chavette question to ask ........ my dear Squatterette.
My educated guess would be that less than 50.000 souls on this planet could claim with any justice not to be “Living on land that was stolen from the native peoples after they were murdered by……….” somebody.
Most of those 50.000 are direct descendants of a mixed bunch of inbred outcasts, jailbirds, renegades and escapees from the old colonial empires, inhabiting the most remote, isolated and scummy parts of our earth as, for example, Pitcairn or Malvinas.
Hope that answers your question………..
Besides……….; you’re pissing up the wrong tree, Sister.........
El Tink; meek provider to http://www.mapuche.info/?us since waaaaay before 1996……….
41 lsolde
Jan 22nd, 2012 - 08:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0keep it up, your irritating him,
from scanti to anti ,
from no to yes,
keep it up, your doing a fine job .
Think, you are in the wrong line of work.
Jan 22nd, 2012 - 11:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You sound like a politician.
You did not give me a yay or a nay.
So you haven't answered satisfactory.
No Preambles in either the
Yes or No, Think.
(45) Isolde
Jan 23rd, 2012 - 05:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0The correct answer for you “very imprecise” question would be:
Yes...... (I deny that I'm living on land that was stolen from the native peoples after they were murdered by Argentines.)
Well l guess that answers that then.
Jan 23rd, 2012 - 06:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0l take it that your little piece of Paradise was uninhabited when you or your ancestors arrived there.
Or perhaps the natives said to you,“Think, old son, you're such a fine chap, so we're going to give all this land to you & of course to your Argentine neighbours” A likely story.
Probably going to say it wasn't him but the Spanish, genetically a completely different race you know. He is criollo not pensulari.
Jan 23rd, 2012 - 06:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(47) lsolde
Jan 23rd, 2012 - 09:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Correct Sister…....... And it has always been uninhabited….
Too high, to exposed, to rough, to unpractical a spot for any camp-wise Tehuelche or Mapuche to settle here.
Nearest (known) historical indigenous dwelling, about ~ 40 km.
Nearest inhabited indigenous settlement ~70 km.
And........., just for your info:
Friends at Ñuke Mapu tell me that the Malvinas Islands were NOT uninhabited in the XVII and XVIII centuries as you Squatters insist on repeating……
The Yaghans were definitely there……….. Who knows what happened to them……………
Maybe a case for Isolde to investigate?
my dau, thinks he looks like richard geer,
Jan 23rd, 2012 - 10:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0na, no chance .
Think,
Jan 24th, 2012 - 03:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0Artifacts were found, but no people.
Whoever they were, they had been & gone.
BUT, IF there were people here then maybe your heroic Argentine garrison killed them all.
Afterall, you are experts at that sort of thing.
Find your explanation very hard to believe as there were native peoples living at higher altitudes in Bolivia when the Spanish arrived.
You wouldn't be telling porky-pies, per chance, Squatter Think?
(51) Isolde
Jan 24th, 2012 - 06:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You say:
Artifacts were found, but no people….
I say:
They surely took the LAN flight back before the firs“White Men” arrived. How very convenient….
You say:
BUT, IF there were people here then maybe your heroic Argentine garrison killed them all….
I say:
As I wrote in my post (49): ”The Malvinas Islands were NOT uninhabited in the XVII and XVIII centuries”.
Those “Roman Numbers” above stand for the years 1600 to 1799.
Way before the first Argentinean civilian settlement, dearest ….
Most probably, the Yaghan population of the Islands was exterminated by one or more of the numerous Dutch, French, Spanish or British pirate, corsair or buccaneer ships that roamed the South Atlantic in those years.
You say:
Find your explanation very hard to believe as there were native peoples living at higher altitudes in Bolivia....
I say:
Do you know anything about the life cycle, cosmography or demographics of the Patagonian Indians...?
Please inform yourself .... and then tell me that you “find hard to believe” that some “miserable, degraded savages” (Charles Darwin own words about the Patagons) would prefer to live in a protected river valley with mild climate and abundant firewood, wildlife and fish instead of a windblown, rainy and unforgiving mountain valley inhabited by unamicable spirits….
I myself find “hard to believe” that “a person of your description” settles so easily for the “Official Story”.
Think.................
However you claim the Yaghan did prefer to live on treeless, windblown, rainy ,boggy, unforgiving, isolated Islands with no natural game or other food source unless you fancy fishing in the S Alantic in a canoe, rather than a nice protected Patagonian river valley with mild climate and abundant firewood, wildlife and fish.
Jan 24th, 2012 - 08:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You can tell us, they knew about the oil, didn't they!
(53) Pugol-H
Jan 24th, 2012 - 09:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I would really wish people would “Think” before embarrassing themselves…..
On my post to Isolde I was referring to my “local” Indians, the Tehuelches and Mapuches…Hunters and gatherers from the gentle Patagonian steppes. Their staple food consisted by and large of guanacos (Lama guanicoe), rheas (Rhea pennata) and maras (Dolichotis patagona).
The Yaghans where hunter and gatherer canooers from the windblown, rainy ,boggy, unforgiving, isolated Fuegian Islands and Fjords, some 2,000km from my place. Their staple food consisted by and large of sea lions, upland geese, penguins, whales, mussels, sea urchins and kelp.
Would any Kelper here be so kind to elucidate Mr. Pugol-H about the existence of sea lions, upland geese, penguins, whales mussels, sea urchins, kelp etc. on the Malvinas Islands?
What a Turnip………..
Think, dahling.
Jan 24th, 2012 - 10:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0l think(do you?) that you protesteth too much.
You know that you live on land stolen from a murdered people.
A land that was not yours. But now is???
Ergo, you are, in fact, a Squatter.
You may not have murdered these people but you condone it because you are still on their property.
Not only are you a Squatter but also a Hypocrite as you try to shift the spotlight onto us.
But thats normal for colonialist malvinistas, l guess.
Something for you to go to bed with Herr Think:-
There will be NO NEGOTIATIONS on Sovereignty.♥
(55) Isolde, sister..........
Jan 24th, 2012 - 10:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Evidence is mounting that you pirates first murdered the Yaghan population of Malvinas and afterwards stole the Islands from a weak, newborn Argentina.
Ergo, you are, in fact, Double Squatters.
Besides............
We are not trying to “shift the spotlight onto ye”.
The spotlight IS on ye.
And it's getting stronger by the day.
Sleep thight..........
Squatter Think,
Jan 25th, 2012 - 07:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0You are now descending from the sublime to the ridiculous.
What a stupid statement about killing the non-existing native Amerindians of the Falkland lsles.
But if it salves your hurt feelings & makes you all fuzzy inside.
Haven't had the spotlight on me since l danced the can can in Manila.
All expats. we brought the house down.
Bring on the world spotlight, we are in the right & you are very wrong.
l sleep very well, no coffee before bed,
You like that word, ergo? its yours.♥
Whatever the if;s and butt’s the islands are British, and will remain so,
Jan 25th, 2012 - 06:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 057 lsolde
The day Argentina ever gets its own way, will be the day, this planet does away with the rights of man and democracy and freedom.
And to be fair, CFK has more chance of defeating the USA than that ever happening
@54 Think
Jan 25th, 2012 - 07:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I presume the said Yaghans are now extinct, probably with no help from the Spanish or their decendants.
It would be very hard to build canoes and cook sea lion when you are 450 miles away from the nearest tree.
The point remains permanant habitation (hunting the Islands for short periods a different matter) is not really sustainable with out large and regular imports from SA.
you should use some common sense (remarkably uncommon in my experience) sometimes.
Muppet
(57) Double Squatterette Isolde
Jan 25th, 2012 - 07:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You say:
”What a stupid statement about killing the non-existing native Amerindians of the Falkland lsles.”
I say:
Stone artifacts, primitive inglenooks, small køkkenmøddinger and even some human remains from the Yaghans have been found on the Islands………….
Even so, you choose to disregard as “stupid” the theory that they were exterminated by the “white man”.
Why?
Only because the ones possibly committing the misdeed didn’t document it on paper?
Or because it better fits ye ethnocentric and haughty vision of the world?
How “inconvenient” it would be to have that Anti-British rabble telling ye........: “Yet another British genocide!”
Recycling your own words of post (55):
”l ”Think” (do you?) that you protesteth too much.
You know that you live on land stolen from a murdered people.”
Get used to it.
PS I:
With your ”just over 5 feet” Tolouse-Lautrecian height you surely where a success as Can Can devilette in Manila ;-)
PS II:
Mr. Pugol-H....
You say:
“It would be very hard to build canoes and cook sea lion when you are 450 miles away from the nearest tree.”
I say:
Why didn't I “Think” about that......
The “lack of trees / firewood” problem.....
Would you please do me the favor and inform the Inuits of Greeenland about that......
What a Turnip...........
Stone artefacts, primitive inglenooks, small køkkenmøddinger and even some human remains from the Yaghans have been found on the Islands………….
Jan 25th, 2012 - 08:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Even so, you choose to disregard” the theory that they were exterminated by the “white man”.
Talking abt archaeology
The question would have to be
1, how old are they
2, was it carbon dated
As this would tell anyone what the chances are,
Of how they may have died, and from where they came.
Then theory may well become fact .
Just a thought .
.
@60
Jan 25th, 2012 - 08:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Greenland is the other end of the planet, do you have any evidence your brave Yaghans developed any similar technology, or are the Yaghans Inuits who went south for the winter. Also you did not say if they are now extinct or not.
I seem to recall (I could be wrong no doubt someone will correct me) some artifacts found were remains of canoes. Wood canoes by any chance. Did they ever use skin canoes in that part of SA? Before the Welsh arrived with their corricles that is.
You know that you live on land stolen from a murdered people.”
Get used to it. - Guess you must hear that a lot from your - “local” Indians, the Tehuelches and Mapuches…Hunters and gatherers from the gentle Patagonian steppes - they used to own.
Did I say muppet, I forgot you failed the entrance exam for muppetry.
Fraggel
(62) Pugol-H
Jan 25th, 2012 - 08:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your very first correct postulate:
“Greenland is the other end of the planet........”
As is Great Britain!
Please go away!
@63
Jan 25th, 2012 - 08:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We are away, 450 miles away in the South Atlantic British Territories, even you must have noticed its you Argies trying to come here. Not us trying to go there, you and the Yaghans (if they are not extinct of course), Mapuches and Tehuelches can have it, we dont want it.
Tell you what, you just stay on your side of the line and everything will be chipper and dandy. Cross it, and it wont be “test firing” of missiles.
Please stay away from our territory.
(64) Pugol-H
Jan 25th, 2012 - 09:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You say:
“We are away, 450 miles away in the South Atlantic.....”
I say:
Last time I checked, the Malvinas Islands were less than 195 miles from the nearest Argentinean coast.
Try Google Earth............................. if you know how to use it.
Have them Islands “drifted 250 miles away” during the last months or are you so insecure about your position that you have to lie about even the most banal details?
@ Squatter Think,
Jan 26th, 2012 - 09:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0Well, never heard that any natives Amerindians in the Falklands were killed by anyone.
That's your theory,Squatter Think & you're sticking to it.
l think that you're clutching at straws. You would LIKE this to have happened, o haughty one. But it didn't.
No one mentions anything like that.
Not like they do the genocide that you Argentines committed in your push into Patagonia. That is WELL documented, so yes haughty Squatter Think.
You ARE living on land stolen from a murdered people. That makes you, personally a Squatter(& maybe even a receiver of stolen goods).
Get used to it.
As for your post script, l take it you don't believe me? Well l don't care about that.
But FYI, it was an amateur show to raise money for charity.
There was some construction going on nearby & we got to know some of the expats there. The Filippino organiser asked us to participate.
We just added an exotic touch to an all Philippine show. They loved it♥
l don't care whether we are 195 miles or 195 mm from your sacred coast.
lt matters not a jot, my dear fellow. The Falklands DO NOT belong to you.
Suck it up Baby.♥
wikapedia has not a lot on them Indians,
Jan 26th, 2012 - 06:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A couple of them visited the UK,
But no mention of any bones or anything on the Falkland islands itself..
.
(66) Isolde
Jan 26th, 2012 - 06:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As a matter of fact I believe you......
I was just complimenting your wee stature!
Most appropriate for Filipinas..... Finally a white woman that didn’t stick out like a Giraffe among all those diminutive local girls.
@65 Think
Jan 26th, 2012 - 06:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I said “450 miles away in the South Atlantic British Territories”
Don't forget the “British territories” bit, most important that.
Don't recall saying anything about being in the Falklands, never been there.
You manage to get even the most banal details wrong.
By the way “ the nearest Argentinean coast” is actually British Patagonian Territory now, letters in the post you have 30 days to vacate, back to Spain for you Conquistador.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!