MercoPress, en Español
Get our news on your inbox! Suscribe x
Montevideo, February 8th 2023 - 08:14 UTC
Argentina has no more claim to the Falklands than Canada does to Alaska Giving the Falkland Islands to Argentina makes as much sense as giving Alaska to Canada: none whatsoever, says George Grant. Read full article
Clear cut and to the Point, the Falklanders have the RIGHT to choose how to live there lives and they are definately not interested in being argentine!!!!
Long Live the Falklands.
let’s force Alaska to become a part of Canada.
Perhaps this suggestion sounds ridiculous?
My god, of course it is ridiculous and he knows that. This clown from the Henry Jackson tea drinking society (Portuguese should have never introduced tea to those ugly people) did not do his research well (or he did but spins it as usual, brits love to be in spinzone when they believe it's convienent for them) that Alaska was PURCHASED by the US government from the Russian government who needed money. Totally different issue and has nothing to do with location that Alaska is in the Americas and that it was far away or whatever, which isn't far away from Russia (Even clown Palin can see Russia from her house..she claims, but whatever). Anyway, the whole Falklands/Malvinas issue is totally different in story, history and so on and on.
Conclusion, Mr. Grant is comparing apples with oranges and makes a fool out of him self but as we all will read here, he's a HERO for the regular trolls/blowhards who never visited the Falklands/Malvinas and never will.
Russia sold Alaska to the Americans!
Dear Englishman George Grant:
“If you think education is expensive, try ignorance”
Well, you already did.
Where does he say that Alaska wasn't bought from the Russians? - or that it had been bought or preciously part of Canada? Nowhere. Quite simply you've misunderstood the point of the article. The fact Alaska was once part of Russia is irrelevant to the point he is making.
Alaska was bought from Russia with Gold and the USA has the receipt so there can be no dispute as to who owns it.
Interesting argument though - especially as George Grant expressed his support for the right of Israel to occupy land stolen from the Palestinian people .
Do as I say not as I do?
or that it had been bought or preciously part of Canada?
You don't make sense with this question. Canada never claimed official and the Russians never bought it from the Canadians.
Quite simply you've misunderstood the point of the article.
Nonsense, you try to spin yourself here as if he makes a point. What he's trying doesn't make sense, cause he's comparing apples with oranges and all what he does is making noise, because he knows what he says/blogged or whatever will get attention. It worked, though he's making a fool out of him self, but he doesn't care.
The fact Alaska was once part of Russia is irrelevant to the point he is making.
half true, the fact that Alaska was once part of Russia, is a fact and that they, Russia, sold it to the US, is a fact. Another fact is , it has nothing to do with the Malvinas/Falklands issue and is irrelevant to use as a comparison, because it doesn't make sense to use it as a comparison.
especially as George Grant expressed his support for the right of Israel to occupy land stolen from the Palestinian people .
Mr Grant is one of the many ideologues, and you can't change their mind.
Set West Doncaster free !
Of course it's the same!
Alaska has never been part of Canada = TRUE
Falklands have never been part of Argentina = TRUE
Alaskans don't want to be Canadian = TRUE
Falklanders don't want to be Argentine = TRUE
Actually a better case could be made that the French should give up the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon which sit in the middle of the Gulf of St. Lawrence surrounded by Canadian territory. However their inhabitants want to remain French and Canada has certainly never insisted they must become Canadian because they are too far away from France.
It's clear that the Argentine Government is making a land-grab of the Falklands.
Their claim to sovereignty is spurious and does not stand up to clear analysis.
1. Contiguity: The Falklands are closer to Argentina than the UK. Therefore Argentina has proximal rights.
Rubbish. if that were the case France would have to give up all its overseas departments even though they are an integral part of France.
2.Britain forcibly removed Argentine personnel.
that's because they invited them to stay in the first place and then abused and overstayed their welcome.
3. This is a Colonial problem: an example of UK imperialism.
No more colonial than the Argentines themselves in settling Argentina. Russia forcibly evicted Germans from Koenigsberg a blatant land grab now re-branded as the Kaliningrad enclave: an integral part of Russia!
SO: Where is there a legitimate argument for sovereignty from Argentina?
THERE IS NONE
George Grant ? How do you fit here? Are we going to talk about Canada now? I hope that England do not include Darwin, Dickens, nor Susan Boyle in this current issue. Please.
Henry Kissinger's boys invaded the Falklands likely because, having kidnapped children and thrown people out of planes, as well as raping and torturing, they were likely pretty emboldened.
The Junta was a US creation, and it did what all Juntas do; fight wars. Millitary dictatorships need wars to function.
@Fidi Dido - You are the only person making yourself look stupid here. Perhaps you didn't understand the point in the article? Let me explain:
He is saying that geographical location is not a good basis to claim land that belongs to someone else, especially when there are other people living there.
The countries mentioned were just used as an 'example', to demonstrate his point. This is quite a common thing to do when making a point - use another similar(not identical) situation to illustrate what you mean. We could say, it would be ridiculous for Britain to say it wants France, or Australia wants New Zealand, but the chosen places were Canada and Alaska.
Now do you understand? If you require further explanation, i'd suggest performing a google search on 'using examples to make a point'. Perhaps then, you will be able to discuss things without making a fool out of yourself.
I hope i helped!
Great article. What it boils down to is the fact that the world (with the exception of a few unstable banana republics like Venezuela, Peru etc ) believe in the principle of democracy and self determination. But even if we ignore that principle we had an earlier claim to them anyway so Kirchner can...
Who is this guy George Grant.What part of MI 6 does he work for
I think that article more or less sums it up..
@15 Who is this guy George Grant.What part of MI 6 does he work for
Hes a smarter twat then you O'gara and he works for The Henry Jackson Society in London - http://henryjacksonsociety.org/
On a seperate note, i find it funny how not a single argentine poster has actually provided us with anything to counter what George Grant said, they instead play the ignorant person(s) on the the canada and Alaska point that George mentioned as an example in the article, when they know full well the reason alaska is not part of canada is not because they were bought by the USA, but because since they were bought by the USA, thay have had no desire to be part of canada but to simply remain american.
Argentina simply has not legitimate claim, hence why not a single argentinian or irish wannabe here can actually come up with a legitimate reason, or perhaps they are awaiting orders from their puppet master CFK before they give us a proper response, which will likely have us aching from the sides with laughter, like always lol.
@15 O gara,
Don't think he works for MI6 unless he's new.
l 've never met him, when.........................oops :-)))))))
And this lad analysis of the issue is of such poverty that it is appalling.
First, he seems to assume that Argentina's claim to the Malvinas ONLY hinges on the geographical argument. What a dunce!
Second, the UK has INDEED been historically selective in its application of the principle of self-determination. For instance, in 1982, while that hag of Thatcher argued for the right of self-determination of 2000 (back then) islanders in Malvinas, AT THE SAME TIME, her government completely overlooked and ignored the desperate plea for self-determination of 700,000 Timorese. Talk about double standards!!
Third, although the principle of self-determination is an accomplished and acknowledge bedrock of international law nowhere is it stated that it trumps the territorial integrity of nations. The dunce seems to ignore this or, at least, cunningly omits underscoring it.
Fourth, it always amuses me to see the UK claiming Malvinas and arguing that that is so because they are inhabited by the descendants of a population originally from England. These are the same inhabitants who before 1982 DID NOT full British citizenship.
You're pretty good at lad analysis yourself Helber.
What does Timor have to do with anything? How could Thatcher's government have overlooked and ignored the Timorese?
It is stated in several ICJ rulings, most recently Kosovo that self determination trumps territorial integrity. There are other cases before that. Do you want a list?
Citizenship is irrelevant to self determination. What the hell do you think the citizenship was of all those peoples living in colonies which subsequently became independent? British subjects in Ghana before independence, Ghanaian citizens after independence. Every single colony which has become independent post 1948 proves your assertion wrong.
Quite easy JA Roberts! I thought I made it clear in my post but I am happy to repost.
Thatcher argue in favour of the self determination of the islander yet AT THE SAME TIME, supported Indonesia rather than support the self-determination of Timorese. Why did her Gov't do that? double standards! I cannot find any other explanation but your are more than welcomed to provide us with one.
Regarding your comment on citizenship, I never stated that citizenship was relevant to self-determination! I merely highlighted the undeniable FACT that inhabitants of the Malvinas DID NOT ENJOY FULL BRITISH CITIZENSHIP UNTIL 1982. Or are you going to deny that now? I find this highly entertaining (and yet another example of UK's double standards) because at the time, the UK argued that the Malvinas were British territory given that they were populated by Brits yet at the same time, the UK did not grant them full British citizenship.
Do you understand it now, or would you like me to draw it for you?
West Timor was part of the Dutch East Indies, which went on to become Indonesia, whereas East Timor was Portugese, so after they both became independent and one invades the other it must logically be the fault of the UK?
Nope Rufus, wrong again!!
Thatcher did not support the self determination of the East Timorese despite them wanting to achieve independence. Instead, Thatcher supported the annexation of East Timor into Indonesia. however at the same time, the old hag argued for the self-determination of the islanders.
Classic UK double standards!
I can't find any evidence that Thatcher did not support the East Timorese. Perhaps you could provide some further support. An news report perhaps or some UN document to that effect?
Good, we agree that the right to self determination is independent of citizenship. Whether the Falkland Islanders were or were not British citizens before 1983 is therefore irrelevant.
You also stated that the UK claims the Falklands on the basis that the population is descended from people originating in England. This is completely false. The UK can't claim and does not claim the Falklands, because it already has them. It is impossible to claim something you already possess. And the Falkland Islanders came from many places, mostly from Scotland, not only England, but Scandinavia also. The UK does not base it's sovereignty on the origins of the Falkland Islanders. The UK retains sovereignty because that's what the Falkland Islanders want, and that is their right.
When the East Timorese issue was tabled at the UN (1983), the British abstained, thus allowing Indonesia to come out on top (ie. win). Thus, British rhetoric on self-determination apparently did not apply to East Timor. Of course, there were reasons. Since 1978, there has been a strong drive by the British to increase defense contracts with the Indonesian military. In '78 British Aerospace won a contract to supply Hawk ground attach aircraft to Indonesia's military. Economic contracts apparently trumped a peoples wish for self-determination.
Later in '84, the Thatcher Gov't continued to supply Indonesia with the very weapons used by the Suharto Gov't to pursue the brutal war against Timorese attempts at independence.
Fascinating story and a clear example of UK's double standards.
Never claimed any relationship between citizenship and self-determination. You construed that from my post but I never said that. WHAT I DID SAY IS THAT ISLANDERS DID NOT HAVE FULL BRITISH CITIZENSHIP BEFORE '82. And that, I do find surprising because the UK HAS USED the argument (among others) that the islands are British because they are inhabited by Brits.
I think I know a little more about this than you are willing to give me credit for. ;)
Interesting re East Timor, still it does not mean the Falkland Islanders do not have the right to self determination.
WHAT I DID SAY IS THAT ISLANDERS DID NOT HAVE FULL BRITISH CITIZENSHIP BEFORE '82. - YES, AND SO WHAT, IT IS IRRELEVANT.
The UK has never used the argument that the islands are British because they are inhabited by Brits.
Pathetic and Pitiful. (Embarrassing)
This man: George Grant is totally ignorant about the Falklands conflict.
Not that there is full UN Committee on Decolonization United Nations, OAS, CELAC, UNASUR and MERCOCUR and other multilateral agencies.
I bet Benny Hill knew more about the Falklands conflict this gentleman.
Mr Grant is right to point out that soveriegnty isn't an inflexible notion when the people under it are happy to be that way, and don't want anyone to take it from them: that's what self-determination means and is a cornerstone of the UN Charter. Don't assume, either, that persons who agree with Mr Grant have to be residents or visitors to the Falklands to qualify for an educated opinion.
But for those that do confine themselves to this latter, dubious, only qualification for comment on that situation, some of us have not only visited the Falklands but have served there in other capacities. And South America all-over, too.
Incidentally, Argentina reserves the right, for itself, to self-determination , but discounts this for dictatorial purposes. That will someday come home to roost. It always does.
27 Raul /Pathetic and Pitiful. (Embarrassing
wait untill CFK gives her letter to the UN,
wait untill the UN directs her to the ICJ,
wait and watch what happens next,
they say the truth hurts,
Pathetic and Pitiful. (Embarrassing
from argentina will be even worse .
Very interesting re East Timor. We really didn't give Helber enough credit, but for what I'm not sure...
After a little time on the UN web pages I have established the following:
1. There was no UN vote on East Timor in 1983, either GA or SC.
2. There were GA votes covering East Timor in 1975, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81 and 1982. The UK abstained from all of them. Argentina abstained from the first five, but voted AGAINST in the last three. Yes, Argentina voted AGAINST East Timorese self determination three times in the General Assembly and Helber has a pop at the UK for abstaining in a vote which he made up. Double standards of the highest order, apparently.
3. We all know that GA resolutions don't count for much in international law, but Security Council Resolutions do. The UK has voted FOR every single Security Council Resolution covering East Timor, starting with the first one December 1975.
Oh and as for arms sales, welcome to the real world. Even the Argentines were using British-made kit against British forces in 1982. It's just the way of the world.
Those organisations that support Argentina do so because they want to trade with argetina, get at her resources etc. Its absolutely not about friendship or Argentina having right on her side.
Those that support Britain do so likewise. Britain is not perfect but neither is Argentina. And this issue of Las Malvinas for the Argentine leadership (whoever it may be in any given moment) is the most perfect of political tools.
Thats politics (economics). Its not about moral superiority.
There are no people wanting self-determination out of Argentina. Most countries have secessionist movements, Argentina does not. So there is nothing or no-one to self-determine.
Tobias: no choice, then.
This article is more and more words to desperately try to keep a military foot in the SouthAtlantic, and to go on GRABBING natural resources.
Prince William at the Malvinas and Harry about to go to Afghanistan, an incredible despotism. They are just flesh and bones that sold the people a tale where they are untouchable, where they do not care about democracy or people's claims.
They don't care about people living in the Malvinas, they just enjoy having them like they have a cat or a dog. But the habitants like thinking that they rule the land they are standing on...
Isn't that populism?
27 Raul (#)
No one likes Argentina Raul everyone I know in Latin America find you all to be boring.
poop everywhere. a world of poop.
No one likes Argentina Raul everyone I know in Latin America find you all to be boring.
@2 Fido Dido
Alaska was PURCHASED by the US government from the Russian government
You seem to forget Spain purchased its claim to the Falklands from the French.
Not nearly as ridiculous as it sounds.
never the lass Canada deports illegal aliens and puts natives in native reserves, I think british illegal aliens deserve the same treatment since they being allowed to live in Argentina up untill 1982 undisturbed, to slap the face of a welcoming nation should be enought reason to throw them out, I had a Canadian invade my home in Canada and i was taken to court you think this white trash racist bastards deserve any better??? he who thinks the constitutional rights are there to make justice prevail is living an illusion.
This article reminds me of that chapter in The Simpsons cartoon tv series, where that hilarious lawyer brings surprise witnesses that have nothing to do with the case hahaha.
It is not serious at all.
I only found it in spanish, sorry for the ones that doesn't speak, but the idea is clear anyway:
@2 Not so silly. After all, Spain purchased the French settlement of Port Saint Louis. And argieland still doesn't have a legitimate claim.
@19 No. We know that argieland claims the Falklands on the basis that they inherited the territory of the Spanish Empire. So why don't you go and claim Madrid? For the umpteenth time, there isn't, and never has been, any legal principle that says a revolting colony (words carefully chosen) can inherit territory. The territory can be under the control of or be ceded to the rebels. Argieland could not claim land still claimed by both Britain and Spain. Especially considering the speed of communications in the 18th and 19th centuries. Spain did not cede anything to argieland even when it finally recognised the rebel government. Britain never ceded anything. In any event, in 1850 Britain and Argentina signed and ratified a convention that settled all outstanding differences. The Falklands, under direct British control since 1833, weren't even mentioned. Face it. It's over. It's been over for 179 years.
@27 Was there some point in you quoting all those organisations? There isn't a single one of them that is relevant.
@34 Tell you what, vermin. You disband all your armed forces, destroy all your arms industries, guarantee to never even think about the Islands for the next thousand years on pain of nuclear obliteration and we'll think about withdrawing our forces.
@37 Look carefully. There are other letters on the keyboard. In your case, perhaps another 20. JAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJA!!!!!!
@39 Thanks, racist. You had a Canadian invade your home in Canada? So you were a squatter. And probably an illegal immigrant. In other words, a thieving, criminal, sanctimonious, belligerent, dishonest, illegitimate, mendacious, uncivilised, vicious, miscegenatious toe-rag. Kicked you out, did they? Why didn't they do the world a favour and shoot you?
I have a great idea, now with the british nuclear submarine threat in Islas Malvinas Argentina at the service of the british terrorist and illegal aliens Argentina should build a nuclear defence program or at the very least an H-bomb to test in Islas Malvinas Argentina, we can repopulate Malvinas with one trip, USA and UK killed thousands of Muslims including including women and children while UN didn't even care nobody but UK will care if this 3000 unruly terrorist and illegal aliens go missing in Islas Malvinas Argentina.
@30 JA Roberts:
First, unlike you who 'flicked' through the UN web page, I was writing simply from memory. So, so what if I got the year wrong by just one year? Without having to look at the webpage I was pretty damn close.
Second, I had already CONFIRMED in my earlier post that the UK had abstained therby not actively supporting the self-determination of East Timorese who were very interested in it. Not only did the UK not actively support them by voting in their favour, they then went on to sell weapons to those oppressing the Timorese (i.e Indonesia). All this occurred while at the same time, the UK Gov't was lobbying and arguing for the self-determination of 2000 islanders. Just for reference, 700,000 East Timorese were fighting for the same self-determination.
Third, yes, Argentina voted abstained or even voted against the resolutions. So what? Last time I checked, Argentina WAS NOT (unlike you ugly lot) arguing in favour of anyone's self-determination.
Therefore, what this historical episode shows is that the UK bluntly and unashamedly practiced it's typical doubles standards. Argentina did not.
Poor Argentina, again can do no wrong.
lts an ugly world, Helber & they're all being nasty to you
Far from the truth Isolde. Argentina does plenty of wrong.
Make no mistake about that.
However, the historical episode I brought to the fore is about the UK and its double standards or, if you like, its hypocrisy as so many times tobias has already highlighted.
@42 do you think for one second that we'd let your backwards unstable shithole of a country have nuclear weapons?
And your talk of illegal aliens... when are you going to give Argentina back to the native population?
42 go back to the asylum please, you are upsetting other argie bloggers,
concidering that argentina has more ships
and more planes
and more soldiers in the south atlantic, who then is militerising who .
Below is the Resolution which the UK did not vote favourably (they abstained) and which was tabled on behalf of Timor Leste. As you can see from its wording, the Timorese were requesting nothing else than SELF DETERMINATION. The UK deemed that 700,000 East Timorese were not worthy of it, yet, AT THE SAME TIME, the old hag went to war over the right of self-determination of 2,000 settlers in Malvinas!
This my friends is the UK's typical double standards practiced by that imperial country which the likes Lord Ton, Conqueror and JA Roberts keep ignoring.
23 November 1982
Recognizing the inalienable right of all peoples to SELF-DETERMINATION and independence in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, contained in its resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, and other relevant United Nations resolutions,
Concerned at the humanitarian situation prevailing in the Territory and believing that all efforts should be made by the international community to improve the living conditions of the people of East Timor and to guarantee to those people the effective enjoyment of their fundamental human rights,
Requests the Secretary-General to initiate consultations with all parties directly concerned, with a view to exploring avenues for achieving a comprehensive settlement of the problem and to report thereon to the General Assembly at its thirty-eighth session;
Requests the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples to keep the situation in the Territory under active consideration and to render all assistance to the Secretary-General with a view to facilitating the implementation of the present resolution;
Decides to include in the provisional agenda of its thirty-eighth session the item entitled Question of East Timor.
So helber its ok for you to blame us for something a previous government did? which by the way, as they abstained they were neutral e.g. neither for or against east timors independance, its the same situation the USA is in now, neither supporting the falklands right to self determination but not against it either. Not only that the resolution was a general assembly resolution so would not have been legally binding and therefore pretty dam useless.
Yet it comes to the actions of your previous governments its, we didn't want war the junta did. What hypocricy, you will find the british people were in support of east timor even if our government did abstain.
Also thatcher, did not go to war over the islanders rights for self determination either. She went to war, as a result of an invasion on UK sovereign territory which we were perfectly entitled to go to war over. To use the fact that we did go to war after you argies invaded, and then use it against us because we abstained over east timor, is hypocritical, because what your saying is its ok for you to invade despite the islanders wishes to remain british but its not ok for us to defend our own people.
The resolution you include above was in 1982, not 1983 as you originally stated. It's best to check facts before making assertions. That's what really winds the Falkland Islanders up - that you claim their homeland based on some collective Argentine memory, and a very faulty one at that.
As I pointed out General Assembly resolutions do not have any value in international law, but Security Council resolutions do. In every SC resolution covering East Timor the UK voted FOR the rights of the East Timorese. Thus, your assertion that the UK did not actively support East Timorese self determination simply does not stand up to scrutiny.
That's a pretty lame excuse for Argentina voting against the right for self determination of the East Timorese Helber, and astounding really, especially since Argentina has ratified the UN Charter, the ICCPR and ICESCR. Perhaps you should examine your own double standards first before pointing out everyone else's
Look at the two muppets scramble and try and make the UK look good when it's blatantly obvious that they practiced double standards!
Tell us JA Roberts, if UNGA Resolutions 'don't have any value' (your words not mine although the correct wording would actually be that they are non-binding), why did the UK abstain? How was it possible that the old hag went to war to defend self-determination and then abstained when it was someone else's self determination?
Teaboy2: make no mistake! Thatcher went to war and she ALWAYS argued she was defending the islanders right to self-determination She obviously did not feel as strongly about others' right to self determination. Typical Enlgish hypocrisy at its best
35 against the fascist
Unfortunately I can not help you, if you want to remain fascist or Nazi, committing genocide, bombing civilian humanitarian, living of hatred and rancor is up to you.
Peace is something brave, cowardly war.
Learn from John Lennon and Perez Esquivel, Nobel Peace Prize.
Give up hatred and resentment toward Argentina and Latin America. This conflict is not resolved with resentment and revanchism. Resolved to peace and dialogue.
As Luther King said: There are no roads to peace, peace is the way. I think most of the English people have the same deep feeling. Peace, dialogue and Nonviolence.
John Lennon phrases that apply to British aggression and humanitarian bombing civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya and threats to Argentina and Iran.
Give peace a chance to ..... I can not believe I condecoren. I thought it was necessary to drive tanks and win wars. .... If we take the power, would have the task of cleaning the bourgeoisie and keeping people in a revolutionary state of mind.
Lennon returned his medal Member of the Order of the British Empire in September 1969, through a letter addressed to his own Queen of England and sent to St. James Palace in London. The musician took this decision by the UK involvement in the Biafran war of secession, by the British Government's support to the U.S. invasion of Vietnam and the censorship of his song 'Cold Turkey', because references to including drugs.
”Your Majesty, I am returning my MBE (acronym for which knows the logo) as a protest against Britain's involvement in the Nigeria-Biafra issue, against our support for the U.S. in Vietnam and against falling 'Cold Turkey' on the music charts. With love, John Lennon, ”reads the letter he wrote the music to the queen, as reported by 'Music News' collected by otr / press. Now, the Medal of the Order of the British Empire, could end up in a museum as fans demand musician.
There goes Helber again, desperate to emphasise the irrelevant. In the Security Council resolutions covering East Timor, the only resolutions which are enforceable and therefore do have value, the UK always voted for East Timorese self determination. Even Helber can't deny that fact, and trying to ignore it won't make it go away either.
@52 Argentina supported the Nazi's, Britain fought and helped defeat them. You should really shut your ignorant mouth.
and argentina harboured some of them after wards, did it not.
They have eyes and not see, have ears and do not want to hear. In 500 years old United Kingdom is the inventor of colonialism and imperialism. Automatically shown in the decolonization committee of the UN. Of 16 cases of colonialism that is trying the commission. 10 cases for the UK including the Falklands and Gibraltar among others ... Do not say anything about it? Becomes clear who the colonialist and imperialist ...
The genocide carried out by indigenous Julio Argentino Roca does not invalidate the just claims of sovereignty of Argentina. Evidenced by the broad global support that is making and is just the beginning.
On balance. England in the course of its history, only 500 years, has committed genocide in the five continents of the world and is currently making humanitarian bombing civilians in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.
It has nothing to envy to Nazi Germany and has far surpassed. Along with the U.S. are the shame of the world and Europe in crisis.
One last thing JA Roberts to help you get it right.
UNGA Resolutions DO HAVE VALUE! They might be non-binding but anyone who has studied International Public Law KNOWS they have value. A neophyte like yourself might ignore that, but I am forced to make this statement. Let's take a case in point:
The 1948 UN Declaration of Human Rights. This document was passed by the UN General Assembly and like a resolution was non-binding. However, that document gained momentum and eventually led to the drafting and adoption of the ICCPR and ICESCR. It is impossible to talk about or think about the aforementioned treaties without referring to the '48 UNGA Declaration.
Therefore, UNGA resolutions DO HAVE VALUE unlike what you would like us to believe. They might be non-binding but they do have value.
I hope this has helped to render you less of a brute.
lies upon lies,
ENGLAND has about 1,200 years of history,
if your going to lie in front of thousands reading these bloggs, at least try to make it look real.
Raul you clearly are an utter moron. If you've read any history at all then you'd know of the horrific crimes committed by the Nazi's. You'd then think very carefully before tarring another country with the same brush. It really is a bad thing to say to any country. I won't bother to try to converse with you anymore, you've shown your true colours. I'd suggest you try reading some books before commenting in future.
Raul, the face of peaceful Argentina.
Stop clutching at straws, Helber.
No matter how many crimes & supposed crimes you bring up that the British did,
lt doesn't change the facts one iota.
1) Argentina doesn't own the Falklands & never did.
2) Argentina's claims are spurious & without foundation.
3) lf Argentina believes that they have a case, then have you asked yourself, why don't we take it to the ICJ?
Helber, in your case try to focus on what's relevant and stop making assertions you are unable to back up with facts.
In your case JA Roberts, read a few chapters of International Public Law and the spew your rubbish but with at least some knowledge of what how it sits within the broader framework of Law.
yet despite going to the mighty UN what have you achieved,
what will you achieve
what can you achieve,
great britain has a veto,
and you wont fight, unless you get enough countries to fight for you,
and then what would you achieve,
even if we were forced to give them up,
you would achieve
about the only and last hope you have, is utterly destroy democracy,
because that is what it will take to get the islands,
and without democracy, what do you have,
Helber, The legal context is irrelevant if you cannot get basic facts correct, which is what you seem to struggle with.
Oh, interesting how you mention the ICCPR and ICESCR. Both were ratified by Argentina, yet in spite of Article 1 of both conventions Argentina still will not accept Falkland Islander self determination.
JA Roberts that fact that you stated UN GA 'have now value” not once but twice and then went on to refer to two treaties (i.e. ICCPR and ICESCR) which were in turn heavily influence and which could not be though of without a UN GA declaration, highlights to what extent your grasp of international public law is weak.
You should really word your statements with the nuance they require. Otherwise, you set yourself for critique.
For all your fine words, Helber, you still will not go to the ICJ.
What are you afraid of?
That is indeed a good question Isolde!
I think Argentina is wishing to follow the UN advice and resolutions which request the parties to sit down and negotiate since '65 (believe)
their only chance is if enough countries declared war on us, then they could overwhelm the falklands defenses. then after murdering 3000+ people they could claim the falklands to be theirs.
nice peaceful thoughts.
As I'm sure you know Helber, the last resolution requesting the UK and Argentina to talk about their dispute was in 1988. The very next year the UK and Argentina arrived at an agreement in that respect. The UK has done what was asked of it. That Argentina has pulled out of that agreement and others which flowed from it is a matter for Argentina. The UK is in full compliance with all relevant resolutions.
You did a fairly good job of setting yourself up for critique by making assertions you could not back up with facts. No doubt you will continue to do this in your desperation to emphasise the irrelevant.
Helber, give it up as a bad job. Are you strong enough?
Put your boundless energy into developing Argentina.
You have everything, minerals, farmland, tourism. fresh water, oil.
All you need is willpower.
Roll up your sleeves & start to make Argentina the showcase of South America.
Who knows, if you were prosperous FRIENDLY neighbours, we might like to join you.
The present road that you are on goes nowhere.
The only reason we have law and order, judges and courts, is to stop countries like Argentina taking what is not theirs,
They pretend to the world, that it is theirs, but refuses point blank to take their claim and case to the courts,
So what does that tell you,
Guilty as charged your honour.
They won all their wars through evil. They are all evil. We must kill them. This is Argentine islands and Argentine oil, being drilled by colonial pirates, protect by pirate ships, sooner all destroyed better.
Clearly, Malvinas is Argentine, claim exist since before Argentina exist. This is well documented that we renounce claim in 1850 but claim was resurrected under Peron who traveled to Italy and adopted policies of Mussolini fascist party in order to make Argentina great nation that it became.
As part of expanded living space, we must continue this policy and we must take over Terra del Fuego and Beagle Channel and then Malvinas.
My grandfather while working for Intelligence visit Indonesia in 1976 to copy plans they used for invasion of Portuguese East Timor and removal of colonial population to be copied in invasion of Malvinas.
If we had copied these plans our invasion would be success and like East Timor is part of Indonesia, Malvinas would now be part of Argentina. World has very short memory.
In order to do good for our country we must do bad things. This is what my grandfather always says.
We know Malvinas never been under Argentine sovereignty but gifted to us by Papal Bull in 1496. No one can argue with Pope or God, that whole of South America given by him to Spain.
Go home colonial pirates w claim you land before our country exist, you can not argue with that. You live there almost 200 years illegally, you have no rights. We will own your homes, farms, businesses, oil and fish.
You will be made to speak Spanish, drive on right, obey our laws, live under our government and governor. In return we give you right to be reborn like our national hero James Peck.
James Peck is son of Malvinas War traitor Terry Peck, he was awarded MBE for helping British occupy our land. Unlike his father, James is brave, patriot, his father will be turning in his grave.
You can all be reborn like James Peck. Or you can die like Terry Peck!
Filippo, you are clearly in need of some medical help.
No one can argue with God
prove that he exists, and the brits will argue with this man.
prove he exists
or shove it lier
Commenting for this story is now closed.If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!
Get our news on your inbox!