MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Don’t cry for Argentina
By Ronald Sanders - The national and regional interests of Commonwealth Caribbean countries would hardly be served by backing Argentina in its long-running dispute with Britain over the Falkland Islands. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesDon't cry for England
Feb 14th, 2012 - 06:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0Friday 10 February 2012
“Britain's military is depleted by cuts – so childish insults and occasional royal dispatches will have to suffice as foreign policy”
'In which case – and I don't want to lapse too far into impenetrable diplomatese – why are we being such plonkers(UK)?”
Marina Hyde
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/10/falklands-fuss-petty-british-william-waving?intcmp=239
What an original title! Surely no one has used that one before...
Feb 14th, 2012 - 07:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0FFS *facepalm*
Even the usual compliant. City money laundering outlets in the Carribean are going against the City.No wonder the empire supporters are getting worried.
Feb 14th, 2012 - 07:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0Excellent article, and of course all small country's have a vital interest in the preservation of their own integrity, their property, way of life, and the freedom to pursue their own path. Without the prospect of the regional bully raging and threatening when they don't roll over and die.
Feb 14th, 2012 - 08:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0The whole world knows that Argentina's record is nothing to be proud of. Heavens, they have treated their own people abominably. Aggression, and absorption of neighbouring country's and their resources, is not the civilised way of avoiding economic disaster caused by profligate fascist incompetence.
Haha @ Marcus.
Feb 14th, 2012 - 08:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0Who cares about the military cuts, the UK's forces are still about 50 times more capable than Argentina's.
The UK spends 60bn each year and Argentina spends 3bn, I wonder which one is more capable lol......
I am all for peaceful negotiations it’s quite easy to have them you just sit around a table shake a few hands and start to talk.
Feb 14th, 2012 - 08:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0Me. Now what's all this about your claim over the Falkland's Christine.
Christine. Well they are ours and we would like them back.
Me. Well Christine who told you that they belong to your country?
Christine. When I was at school, they taught me that they belonged to my country.
Me. No Christine that's called propaganda, they actually British and have been since we populated them many years before your country was even thought of. France, Spain has a better claim than your country.
Christine But, But, But.
Me. Now then, Christine no more but, buts, you know I am right, would you like a cup of tea my dear.
Christine. NO I DON'T YOU ENGLISH PIG.
Me now, now Christine don’t get those fancy knickers of yours in a twist, would you like sugar in your tea.
Christine. BASTARD.
Me. That's a no then you don’t want sugar with you tea.
Christine. THEY ARE OURS AND I WANT THEM BACK.
Me. Calm down dear calm down, the people living on those islands find it repulsive that you want to turn each one of them in to Argentine citizens, are you sure you don’t want a cup of tea.
Christine. No, I fucking don’t want a cup of tea . What's with you English bastards and tea.
Me. Well Christine tea is quite essential when negotiating anything. To put it in a nutshell my dear it’s a British thing, just like the Falkland’s is a British thing.
Christine. BASTARD. I WISH WE HAD BETTER SHIPS AND AIRCRAFT AND BETTER SOLDIERS AND A BETTER ECONOMY WE WOULD SHOW YOU ALL. COME ON YOU LOT LETS GO BACK.
Me. Well that went well then, pass the teapot over and the sugar bowl Sebastian seems the Falkland's are staying British after all.
@Britishbulldog
Feb 14th, 2012 - 08:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Me. Well Christine tea is quite essential when negotiating anything. To put it in a nutshell my dear it’s a British thing, just like the Falkland’s is a British thing.”
And then Cristina would say, tea is an Asian plant from China called “Camellia Sinensis” Dear Brutish bobby and also grow so well in Argentina. Can you show me any tea plantation in Britain? No Plant at all?
So can I have my Islands back please?
@7
Feb 14th, 2012 - 08:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0Shall we have a chorizo sandwich with the tea?
if so fuck off back to Spain
The Falkland Islands are British and beautiful, the periodic outbursts of hysteria from argentina do not change that fact.
Feb 14th, 2012 - 09:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0Why should the British or Falkland Islandeers trust argentinta after the way they have behaved?
Just in :-)
Feb 14th, 2012 - 09:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://falklandsnews.wordpress.com/2012/02/14/argentinas-dock-workers-ban-british-shipping/
@7 Dany
Feb 14th, 2012 - 09:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.tregothnanshop.co.uk/default.asp
Tea from Cornwall. So, no, you can't have their islands.
@Rufus
Feb 14th, 2012 - 10:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0Where TF@k is Cornwall to start with? India?
@marcus ”“Britain's military is depleted by cuts – so childish insults and occasional royal dispatches will have to suffice as foreign policy”
Feb 14th, 2012 - 10:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0Care to test that Marcus? If aour military is so depleted then why complain about us militarising the south atlantice with 1 of 6 of our brand new TYPE 45's that is replacing older frigate. Pot calling the kettle black eh marcus. You can not have it both ways, as we can not have a depleted military and still be militarising the south atlantic and the same time.
Good and thoughtful article from the Caribbean....and another expose of the inability of Timmerman to stop telling lies. Sr T says they all agreed to ban Falklands shipping, they say they didn't. Guess which is right !!
Feb 14th, 2012 - 11:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0Small correction for Ronald Sanders. Argieland, in the person of Arthritic Putrid Jelly the argie defence minister, has already threatened war.
Feb 14th, 2012 - 11:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/300965/We-re-ready-for-Falklands-war-says-Argentina
This is what argieland means by peaceful, democratic and diplomatic means. Hypocrites!
There are 2 separate issues here. First, the people (the citizens) of Argentina are intelligent, hardworking, and actually very resourceful. Second, the government of Argentina is one of the most corrupt and disastrous governments to ever have existed. Here are some facts: they opress their own citizens, tax you to death, do nothing to protect the people of their country, crime, drug trafficking, protests, economic disasters every few years, devaluations, lies on a daily basis, constant contamination of natural resources, a system of bribes and blackmailing, many government employees placed in high level positions by family members and friends (nepotism), goverment employees who collect large salaries without ever going to work, dirty broken streets, sidewalks, godforsaken public hospitals, shortages of everything, worthless currency, should I go on? Why would ANYONE want to be part of the Argentine government. Putting anything in the hands of the government of Argentina is only a licence for them to steal from everyone, they will never do anything for their citizens except exploit and steal from them, and then the government of Argentina calls other countries “Pirates”?? Argentina is nothing but a huge FAILURE and until they get rid of their corrupt government the country will continue to be a FAILURE, CORRUPT and a DISASTER that the entire world laughs at! Cristina Kirchner and her children Florencia and Maximo are millionaires, their personal wealth has increased to more than $8o million US dollars while the Kirchners have been in office by selling public lands and keeping the profits, they are CORRUPT people CORRUPT and keep them away from everything they only steal and destroy!
Feb 14th, 2012 - 11:16 am - Link - Report abuse 07 DanyBerger----- Tea my dear Danyberger is a drink that we British love to drink we get it from India, and China. The tea that you are talking about is a tea infusion Mate and Lapacho and no self-respecting British person would dream of making a nice cup of tea using those leafs, although I believe it is exported to North America and they make ice tea out of it. We British have been enjoying tea for over 350 years. Your other tea that you cultivate is used primarily for blending purposes.
Feb 14th, 2012 - 11:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0And we also grow tea now as 11 Rufus has shown you http://www.bookofjoe.com/2005/12/tea_time_in_eng.html
And no, the islands were never yours to begin with no matter what your propaganda machine tells you so how can we give back something that never belonged to you?
Moreover, Cornwall my dear Dany is in England I find it hard to believe you don't know where Cornwall is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QDIDYXj3Qc
Feb 14th, 2012 - 11:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0and Argentina is colonialist? FFS *facepalm*
All your press are belong to us (http://news.investors.com/Article/595871/201112231844/argentina-newsprint-nationalization-hurts-freedom.htm)
Feb 14th, 2012 - 11:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0@18Helber,
Feb 14th, 2012 - 11:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0lts a film, Helber. She obviously needed a man.
lts set over 70 years ago.
Do you Argentines believe EVERY film that you watch?
What about Star Wars?
But this is 2012 & Argentina IS acting like a colonialist nation.
You want to take over a land that is NOT YOURS & incorporate it into your nation, AGAINST the wishes of the legal & lawful inhabitants.
To me, that is colonialism. That's the truth.
Too bad if you don't like it.
@ Isolde,
Feb 14th, 2012 - 11:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0so it's a film, right? It's all fiction? No reality or facts inform it? Is it a Sci-Fi film?
According to Argsoc nationlised press statutes, the Lord of the Rings is actually fact. Gandalf the Grey is a Falklands Island sympathiser trying to overthrow KFC, who is busy buying Louboutin shoes and Hermes handbags in Mount Doom, Patagonia.
Feb 14th, 2012 - 11:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0Apologies for re-posting this comment, but it was in a previous discussion and Helber still has not responded - maybe because he has no answer!
Feb 14th, 2012 - 12:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Helber, while I do not agree at all with your interpretation of the Argentine claim to our islands, you do seem to at least study the issues (unlike Fillipo, who is clearly deranged - I presume you would not support his views in any way). I would be interested to read your views on how the 1849 convention of settlement can be interpreted any other way than to totally end any claim that Argentina had to the Islands. It clearly states that with the signing of the treaty “perfect relations of friendship” are re-established and existing differences settled. From the ratification in 1850, there was no further official statements on the issue until around 1940. In 1869 your president Sarmiento's message to congress stated “The state of our foreign re lations fulfils the aspirations of the country. Nothing is claimed from us by
other nations; we have nothing to ask of them except that they will persevere in manifesting their
sympathies”
My source is Pepper and Pascoe, who no doubt you disagree with, but they seem to have done proper academic research, and to convince me (or any international court of law) otherwise, you need to come up with a valid argument why this does not overrule any previous disagreements.
@23
Feb 14th, 2012 - 12:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes, I am aware of that convention but Malvinas (at least by name) is not named in it.
In any event, I would be the first to admit that both the UK and Argentina have some claim to the islands. I know Argentina's claim is stronger (in terms of int'l law). This does not mean the UK doesn't have robust arguments. As a result, I advocate for a negotiated outcome. By negotiated I mean no one fully obtains what is their understanding of what should occur and both have to concede to some degree.
That is why I support CFK request to sit down and negotiate. By it, she means this process of meeting half way.
1 Marcos Alejandro
Feb 14th, 2012 - 12:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Marina Hyde knows nothing about the Falklands dispute. In the UK it doesn't even make the news.
Had she tried visiting the islands or Argentina in the past 30 years it would hit her like a brick bat!
She knows still less about defence.
As for the deployment of Prince William, he is a SAR pilot, he gets posted, where his unit gets posted. Just as his uncle was sent before him to the Falklands in 1982 because he was pilot on Invincible, just as his brother was sent to Afghanistan.
Britain hardly makes a whimper on the subject of the Falklands. The childish insults are left to the Argentine government and their brainwashed sycophantic child like nationalist masses, like yourself Marcos.
Most Argentines don't even know where the Falklands are either. They think somewhere off the coast of Buenos Aires.
Time to grow up fascists.
Helber I'm interested, if Argentina's claim is stronger in terms of international law why does Argentina keep refusing to go to the ICJ when the UK offers it?
Feb 14th, 2012 - 12:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0For me that would say Argentina's claim is very weak if the UK keeps encouraging Argentina to take the case to the highest court of law.
It will be interesting to know your thoughts on why Argentina is refusing to go to the ICJ?
They won't go to the ICJ because they would lose and because they know they would lose. If they had a strong legal claim they'd have been banging at the doors of the ICJ quicker than a rat up a drainpipe.
Feb 14th, 2012 - 12:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 017 britishbulldog. im cornish so do say cornwalls part of england . but as your teaching the german geography ill let you off :p
Feb 14th, 2012 - 12:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Helter - how do you know that Argentina's claim is stronger in international law ? Its never been tested !
Feb 14th, 2012 - 01:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0CRY FOR THE PARTIAL TRUTHES THAT THEY ISLANDERS BUY FROM THE SOME POLTICIANS.
Feb 14th, 2012 - 01:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Firstly, it was obvious that former british colonies which join the commenwealth now, wouden't support our claim, it doesn't sorprise anyone.
On the other hand, somebody should tell mr ronald sanders about how missinformed he is, it's lamentable that a former diplomatic handles such partial information. I agree absolutly, when he expresses that the dispute should be taken to the i. c. j, in fact i have said it in most comments that i published in this web site. However what mr sanders omits, is that in 1884 our government had proposed to take the case to the arbitration, and the u. k, rejected it, and in 1947 the u. k. proposed argentina to take the case of the dependencies from the islands (south georgia and sandwich) to the i. c. j, but it didn't include the malvinas-falkland islands in the proposal, anyway that idea was rejected by juan peron's government, after that year, none of the two parts proposed again to take the question to the court. So, guys, maybe none of the two nations is sure that it can win the case, per haps that's reason why nor arg nor the u. k. suggest to take the dispute to the i. c. j., and this is something that we must recognize, beyond the hate that maybe some of you feel for us and for our government, we must avoid to buy the partial truthes and the lies from the politicians, no matter if they say what we like to heard, we must be more intelligent than them.
On the other hand, it's true that the right to self determination is included in the charter of the u. n, and in resolution 1514, but both dont let any colonial situation to break the territorial integrity of any country, read resolution 2353 which reffers the gibraltar question, and you'll see in one the paragraphs what's the thought of the charter of the u. n. that you love to invoke all the time, respecting the relevancy of territorial integrity. The bast that we can do, is to invetigate.
Sir Ronald Sanders quotes 1765 as the year since when Great Britain has exercised sovereignty over the Falklands, a patent absurdity.
Feb 14th, 2012 - 01:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Clearly he is out of touch with the recent drift of events. On 23 February 2010 Latin American leaders convening in Mexico founded the organization of 33 Latin American and Caribbean states as a weapon against imperialism.
The aim was summed up by Bolivian president Evo Morales: “It is necessary to create a regional body that excludes the US and Canada. Where there are US military bases that do not respect democracy, where there is a political empire with its blackmailers and constraints there is no development for that country, and especially there is no social peace, and therefore it is the best time for the presidents of Latin America and the Caribbean to gestate this great new organization without the United States to free our peoples in Latin American and the Caribbean.”
From the military point of view, and irrespective of the benefits which might exist by reversing the CELAC policy, because Britain is the leading ally of the United States and Israel, and because there is a military base on the Falklands, the Falklands as a British colony represents a threat to the bloc.
This is really very obvious to a total outsider. The government of CFK is using the Faulklands to distract Argentina from its real problems. All one need do is to look at the economic statistics to see it is in collapse. If Argentina really wanted to settle this, they would indeed go to the ICJ and make their case, period.
Feb 14th, 2012 - 01:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Seems to me, Argentina has much bigger problems that need to be addressed. Why expend so much energy on this? Yes, I know, you have your honor to defend. Well, that and $5 will get you a cup of coffee.
24 Helber Galarga
Feb 14th, 2012 - 01:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0'I know Argentina's claim is stronger (in terms of int'l law).'
Which law would that be?
Same old rubbish from Axel -
Feb 14th, 2012 - 01:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 01884 - May 30th, Fransisco Ortiz, in a conversation with British Ambassador Edmund Monson, suggests that, “now the country was consolidated and rounding off its territory,” the Falklands should be handed over, “by reason of their geographical position.”
Monson reports to Earl Granville; “In the interests of civilisation they may have been justified in dividing with Chile the unexplored Pampas, hitherto only populated by nomad indians. The pretext does not serve with regard to the Falklands which have by English occupation been converted into a peaceable and prosperous settlement.”
So - no invitation to arbitration there Axel - unless you can show some real documentary evidence to the contrary.
1885 – January 2nd, in a response to the British protest, Foreign Minister Ortiz suggests that, “ ... the postponed discussion be reopened again… and resolved by the friendly means and law that today civilized nations adopt to solve questions of this type .. ”
Well, it's a bit vague, but perhaps that is what you mean. But then, your diplomats needed to be rather more specific. A formal invitation to dance, for example.
As for the dependencies, no the Flklands were not included in our invitation, but then there was nothing stopping Argentina putting in a counter-invitation was there !
Axel, you also know that after the Kosovo decision, self-determination beats territorial integrity, even provided that you can prove that you ever had territorial integrity, which Argentina can't.
1765 was Byron's claim, followed up with the necessary settlement in 1766. So Sanders is correct !
Live and learn eh !
http://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/
In terms of international law, the ICJ would appropriately ask what the local population want. The response would be “UK Overseas Territory”, then the Argies would present a dreadfully vacuous powerpoint in an amateurish style. Then the ICJ would declare the Falklands to be a “UK Overseas Territory” and then the Argentinian Fingermen would shoot some of their indigenous population in retaliation and Minitru would try to rewrite history... again.
Feb 14th, 2012 - 02:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That's is a FACT.
@30 axel:
Feb 14th, 2012 - 02:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It is indeed true that territorial integrity is mentioned in resolutions on Gibraltar. The UN clearly thinks that it MIGHT be an issue in that case. After all, Gibraltar was once formally part of Spanish territory for about 250 years (after they kicked the Moors out, who had been there for 750 years!).
However, territorial integrity is not mentioned in any resolutions regarding the Falkland Islands. Ergo, the UN does not think that it is relevent in this case. But, then of course, why would it be an issue in this case? The Islands have never formally been part of Argentinian territory. The concept of territorial integrity has been developed to prevent seccession of regions from current established states, and not as a vehicle to allow a nation to integretate other territories into theirs.
If you are talking about the territorial integrity of Argentina (more accurately, its precursor) in 1833, then you have to ask yourself what that means, as it was very poorly defined and was derived form artificial colonial boundaries of conquered territories and indeed territories that had not yet been conquered (eg, Patagonia).
Always nice to hear from the Flat Earth Society HQ in Argentina!
Feb 14th, 2012 - 02:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The argies may have wrongly assumed the rest of the world supports them...but never mind they still have Sean Penn LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL and LOOOOOOOOOOL
Feb 14th, 2012 - 02:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Interesting article from Russia Today written by an Argentine:
Feb 14th, 2012 - 03:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://rt.com/news/british-laughter-falkland-islands-979/
Lol self determination ?? UK should let their colony have self determinationa and stop dictating what other have to do. Argentina will also like to have self determination and will like the illegal british occupation and militarization of Islas Malvinas Argentina to be over, we don't feel safe with a british nuclear submarine in our country and desperately demand our politicians to promote and build a nuclear defence program to rid Argentina from british nuclear armed occupation and end the theft of resources by UK pirates. or else we Argentine's reserve the right to occupy, theft and execute all other terrorists supporting UK's interests in South America. barrick gold here we go“Argentina has information that within the framework of the recent British deployment in the Malvinas Islands they sent a nuclear submarine ... to transport nuclear weapons to the South Atlantic,” said Timerman.”
Feb 14th, 2012 - 03:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Read more:
www.latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2012/02/11/argentina-uk-sent-nuclear-sub-to-falklands/#ixzz1mMwoO5F7
British illegal aliens never had a visa to come to Argentina and should be deported as a matter of fact the brits are in violation of international laws by illegally squatting in Malvinas Argentina, I wish Argentina had self determination as well but for that to happen the illegal occupation of islas Malvinas Argentina must end and Argentines should do to british corporation as fakland island company did in Malvinas Argentina, Argentine's must occupy every british corporate including the UK embassy in Bs. As. as british occupyed the Libyan embassy in UK to support the theft of Libya's resources. and the murder of Libyans we Argentines should return UK the favor, because our ocean will be the next victim to british theft.
@30 I thought you were supposed to be a teacher. Albeit at elementary level. Let's see whether you can follow this. It is true that UNGA resolution 2353 included mention of territorial integrity. However, you would need to begin by demonstrating that the Falkland Islands have ever been an integral part of Argentina. They haven't. The Falkland Islands have been under British sovereignty continuously from 1765 until the present day. To deal with specifics, Britain has never relinquished sovereignty. Britain may have evacuated its settlement in 1776 but that does not relinquish sovereignty. Notably, Luis Vernet approached the British for permission to begin a commercial venture on the Islands, thus confirming British sovereignty. The actions of the rebel government in Buenos Aires are irrelevant. The principles of uti possidetis and uti possidetis juris are only that, principles. They are not law. The Buenos Aires rebels might equally have claimed Madrid. The fact is that both Spain and Britain still claimed sovereignty. There is no lawful provision for a rebel colony to claim all the territory over which the nation it is rebelling against claimed sovereignty. So territorial integrity did not exist in the first place. However, the decision of the ICJ in respect of Kosovo makes it clear that, whilst another State may be prohibited from declaring part of State separate, there is no such provision in respect of the people. Thus, Kosovo declared itself independent and the ICJ supported that irrespective of the views or wishes of Serbia. Therefore, argieland has no grounds. The Falklands have never legally been part of argieland. Goodbye territorial integrity. ALL peoples have the right to self-determination. The Falkland Islanders have determined that they wish to be British. You really must try to use that stuff between your ears. If you have any.
Feb 14th, 2012 - 03:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@40 You poor deluded tosser. Define the borders of argieland. Add 12 miles from coast. That's your jurisdiction. No more.
40 Pirat-Hunter (#)
Feb 14th, 2012 - 04:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's laughable to suggest that Timerman has any knowledge of the location of British Vanguard submarines. Everyone at the UN knew he was making that up.
LORD TON. CRACKPOT.
Feb 14th, 2012 - 04:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0LORD TON: I dont consider your arguments as rubbish, i respect your opinion, but i dont agree on the interpretation that you do about some historic issues, anyway, the big difference betwen you and i, is that unless i recognize and criticise the weak aspects of our claim, however you dont criticise anything of your side, and you know perfectly that it has weak aspects too. I give you an example, if none of the two parts proposed to include the dispute for the islands in 1947, per haps it was due to nor argentina, nor the u. k. were sure that they could win the case, ¿dont you think?, I RECOGNIZE IT, i'm not nor miopic nor idiot, i would like to know, what do you think about why the two parts didn't include the malvinas in the proposal of 1947. On the other hand, i read declaration by chancellour timerman where he said that our country would accept any proposal by the u. k., in order to find a solution for this conflict, maybe it's the best moment to take the question to the i. c. j. respecting the kosovo case, you all like to compare it with the our cause, but the court clarified about the exceptionality of the case, so, dont compare it with the malvinas-fakland dispute.
Respecting territorial integrity, read again my survey, and you'll see why i think that before 1833, our nation was starting the excercise our derived rights betwen 1820 and 1833, when there where diferent intents of occupation by the united provinces, and the commanders who were designed as authorities of the islands. Since 1833, we have a partial destruction of our territorial integrity, i mention also, the soposed rights that the u. k had in that year.
You live and learn too.
CRACKPOT. I would like to send you my investigation, where i explain why i hold my arguments respecting territorial integrity, if you want, in my next comment, i type my i mail adress, and i'll send you my work, i included also the british arguments, and the occupation of patagonia.
@43 I think what you're forgetting is that you simply didn't own the Falkland islands when you decided to rock up there in 1800s. You still didn't own the islands in 1833 when you were kicked off them.
Feb 14th, 2012 - 04:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In international law, opportunistic squatting is not the same as sovereignty or owning, regardless of how much you petulantly sulk. I can also guarantee that the ICJ will see it as such.
See you at the ICJ, faggots.
@43 Read your survey? Are you kidding? The day I take the time to read the garbled irrelevancies issuing from a failed argie elementary teacher with delusions is the day I go see the doctor. See whether you can understand this. You claim the Falklanders cannot have self-determination because of the territorial integrity of argieland. Except that the Falklands have never been part oa argieland. Then you claim they cannot have self-determination because they are not “original” inhabitants. But then neither are you. They arrived about the same time you did. Why do you get it but they don't?
Feb 14th, 2012 - 04:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0YOU DON'T HAVE ANY DERIVED RIGHTS. You cannot derive any rights from Spain because Spain never gave you any. Jewett couldn't operate any rights because he was a PIRATE. Vernet was on the Islands only with Britain's permission to conduct a commercial venture. His appointment as governor by Buenos Aires was illegal because Britain still had sovereignty. Do you get the general idea? Most of what argieland does, and has done in the past, is or was illegal, fraudulent and criminal.
our nation was starting the excercise our derived rights betwen 1820 and 1833,
Feb 14th, 2012 - 04:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What derived rights, Axel? Spain had not relinquished any of its own rights during this period, so you can't have derived any rights from Spain. What Argentina did between 1820 and 1833 were actions of a new claimant, not the continuation of an existing one
25 AndyMac
Feb 14th, 2012 - 05:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You wrote:
Marcos Alejandro
“Marina Hyde knows nothing about the Falklands dispute. In the UK it doesn't even make the news”
Andy, would you like to know which article was the most viewed in The Telegraph today?
“Sean Penn accuses Britain of 'colonialism' over Falklands”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/9080473/Sean-Penn-accuses-Britain-of-colonialism-over-Falklands.html
http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/92757/malvinas-soldiers-caught-in-violent-clashes-with-police-along-9-de-julio-ave
Feb 14th, 2012 - 05:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Malvinas soldiers caught in violent clashes with Police along 9 de Julio Ave
Got to have a laugh at the plastic soldiers wanting a piece of the pie
anyone like history? this is about south georgia in 82. in order to appreciate fully the subsequent events, it is important to understand the position in which captain trombetta & constantino davidoff had placed themselves. South georgia is recognised throughtout the world as being a british possesion. only argentina disputes this fact. every vessal calling at the island is obliged by law and by internationally accepted custom to report itself at king edward point, the official 'port of entry'. the purpose of this formality was to obtain permission to land, to explain the purpose of the visit, and to obtain customa & immigration clearance. Precisly the same requirements exist at every port in the world at which a ship might call, or where an indivdual might wish to enter the country for purpose of business or tourism. the circumstances prevailing on south georgia were no different in this respect to the normal practices at the port of new york or indeed at buenos aires. in the case of south georgia, where the magisratrate resides at king edward point, the correct course was to proceed in the first insance to the adjacent cove. to do otherwise , to anchor within the three-mile limit or to go ashore, without permission, was an ILLEGAL act. russian and polish trawlers always respected the laws of the falkland island dependencies, as did the various yachts which occasionally called while on passage between south africa and south america. only the almirante irizar, the first argentine ship to visit south georgia for several years, chose to flout the law. she did so despite the fact that trombetta was a seasoned professional south altantic traveller, despite the instructions given to davidoff by the british embassy in buenos aires, despite the requirements of his contract with salvesens, despite the fact that naval ships calling at foreign ports require additional diplomatic cleareance.
Feb 14th, 2012 - 05:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0who said argentina listens to internation law :p
48 stick up your junta
Feb 14th, 2012 - 05:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I was reading the story earlier. It's hilarious. If Ozzie troops acted like this they'd be considered a laughing stock. I mean could you imagine, “Yeah I was mobilised to during the Vietnam war and did latrine duty in Perth... but I was mobilised man!”
It reminds me of a story I was told by an Argie, he said ”we sent 10,00 troops to the Malvinas but 500,000 veterans came back. To be fair on them they are very child like in their emotions, war seems to appeal to them even if most would shit their pants if they ever had to go to war. Killing their own dissidents is about all they're good for. I bet they have a few medals for that!
Simply amazing: Argentine Falklands War vets clash with police over pension dispute.
Feb 14th, 2012 - 06:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.reuters.com/video/2012/02/14/argentine-falklands-war-vets-clash-with?videoId=230143686&videoChannel=1
Seems the real picture is getting clear about Argentina's recent diplomatic uproar over the Falklands: Cristina is trying to cover the financial fiasco ordinary Argentinians will be forced to deal in the coming future.
we are not idiots, go to the international court of justice when there is more latin American judges, not as now there is a judge of the United Kingdom and another from Australia. then the British will not want to accept the mediation of the court when 12 of the 15 members will be latin American for example.
Feb 14th, 2012 - 06:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 052 marcio
Feb 14th, 2012 - 06:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0you don't seem to know that much about international law :p
Assuming that the complaint of militarization reach a vote in the Security Council to set a UN resolution, these countries would vote (Council members): China, France, Russia, UK, USA, Germany, Azerbaijan, Colombia, Guatemala, India, Morocco, Pakistan, Portugal, South Africa and Togo. Assuming that the vote is favorable for Argentina, the UK would use its veto. But despite being able to veto the decision, it would still be a defeat for them. Also could set a precedent, as it would be incongruous for a part not only vote but also veto a decision that is contrary to their interests.
Feb 14th, 2012 - 06:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 054 You mean like Syria?
Feb 14th, 2012 - 06:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The veto power has always been used by the permanent members when it suited them.
Besides Argentina can't possibly have a successful outcome when the UK has NOT changed its military stance in the past 30 years so the claim can only be seen as fraudulent and a waste of the councils time. I'm half tempted to suggest Argentina should be punished for grandstanding and using the council in a way it was not designed.
It's really yet another embarrassing and shameless act by the Argentine government. I actually feel bad for the Argentine people to have be embarrassed by these people who see fit to lie and exaggerate the truth to further their own internal political goals.
The Argentine government bring a lot of shame on the good people of Argentina.
Young kelpers on Youtube:
Feb 14th, 2012 - 06:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCqaPnCq_BQ
I like this! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aawt06cJ5Pg I wonder if someday in Argentina and the UK succeed in resolving this conflict, if so desire to be of great benefit to all parties.
Feb 14th, 2012 - 06:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@51 I watched it on the news...police in full riot gear and firing water canons at the former conscripts. Who was on here who said that everyone is allowed to protest in BsAs?
Feb 14th, 2012 - 07:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0CFK will try to steal them; she really has no choice now does she,
Feb 14th, 2012 - 07:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0She has made her people promises that she cannot keep, at least in her lifetime,
Sooner or later, Argentina government will have to push it , just that little bit further,
Not to much, to make them guilty,
But far enough, to make them out to be the innocent victim,
But then like all curds, after they make a mess, they run and hide, in the gutter, CFK can go anywhere but the people stay put, and take the blame,
.
The issue I have with all this is actually the UN. If you look back 50 years ago Japan decided that based upon this new dangerous ambiguity around the UN principle of geographic proximity that it would take Korea and Manchuria as a part of its territories. Japan claimed to have historical reasoning because it owned the Gayan Confederacy and then just simply invaded, not considering one jot about the wishes of the peoples they were taking over, just thinking purely about the land and resources. This historical precedent has come back to revisit us, with Argentina claiming sovereignty over land that it once illegally squatted on.
Feb 14th, 2012 - 08:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0One would have thought that Ban Ki-moon as a Korean male who suffered as a consequence of the exact same disregard for self-determination, would have slammed his door shut to the attempts of this occurring in the modern age. In the same way wars were fought to prevent the Japanese empire's expansionism, one should also keep the Argentines in check. Quit with the ambiguity Uncle Ban.
Malvinas have been, are and will be Argentinean again. I feel pity for the kelpers who are been used by Great Britain to try to justify the unjustifiable. And because the British government knows that its position is unsustainable, they are now again trying to bully their way out militarizing the region. But the British attitude is nothing new, what is new is that South Americans are starting to realize that it’s time to recover what’s theirs. If kelpers were smart and have some dignity, they would learn from the Hong Kong and negotiate a special status.
Feb 14th, 2012 - 08:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@61 It's not yours. The same argument Argentina is using, Geographical proximity, is the same argument used by the Japanese Empire to annex Korea.
Feb 14th, 2012 - 09:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0South American countries are typically Authoritarian Nationalist Socialists, oh wait, that's the definition of Nazism. Yes, the British attitude to the spread of Nazism nothing new (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II)
what is new is that South Americans are starting to realize that it’s time to recover what’s theirs.
Feb 14th, 2012 - 10:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Whats the we shit white man :-)))))
FeFe
Feb 14th, 2012 - 11:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0if you truly belive that,,
then may i suggest you nick some persons posh house and just claim of for your self,
seems logicle does it not??
@61FeFe,
Feb 15th, 2012 - 09:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0The lslands are NOT yours & NEVER will be.
l don't care about all the lies that you were taught in school.
They have NEVER belonged to you, they are OURS.
& l don't feel pity for Argentine thieves.
GREEKYOGHURT. CONQUEROR. DABT16763. ELAINEB.
Feb 15th, 2012 - 01:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0ELAINEB: You are missinformed as usuall. If there isn'y any act of violence, the government doesn't repress the social protests, but if there is violence by the manifestants, it will use the water cannons. On the other hand, the people who were protesting yesterday didnt fight in the war of 1982, they were people who wwere transfered to the south of the country , but they never travelled to the islands finally.
COQUEROR, GREEKYOGHURT, DAB14763: If you want to see us in the i. c. j, then asnwer me, why none f the two countries included the dispute for the islands in the proposal of 1947?, why nor arg, nor the u. k proposed again to take the question to the court after 1947?. If you read my investigation, you'll know the bases of my arguments, beside, i included also the british fundaments, because i dont parrot any official propaganda, like some you do, i investigate, per haps that's the big difference betwen some of you and i. I recognize the weak aspects of our claim, but you never criticise any from your side, do you think you are always right?, if you have no capacity to realise that the history will always be submited to omitions, and if you dont see that the politicians from both sides, will always tell partial truthes, it's lamentable, because that shows what a mediocre thought you have, and how miopic you are.
@66 The reason you don't want to go to the ICJ is because you know they'll say “wait a minute, this geographic proximity and historically revisionism is exactly the same reasoning that the Japanese used in the Japan–Korea Annexation Treaty in 1910” and even your pet South American fasco-judges will have to agree. Then you'll go and rant and rave at the UN Colonisation Committee whose remit seems to be in support countries like Nazi-Argentina with their quest for neo-lebensraum.
Feb 15th, 2012 - 02:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If you want to talk about the legalities of some illegal-squatting you did there in the 1820s. Then I'm sure the ICJ will also be able to assist you in clarifying that.
GREEKYOGHURT.
Feb 15th, 2012 - 03:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You answer is just one more show of the mediocre thought that you have, let me remind you that NOR ARGENTINA NOR THE U. K. proposed to include the dispute for the islands, can you realise what it means?, i do, it means that both aren't sure that they can win the case, not only argentina, so, if they are not sure that they can win, the best that they can do, is to resume the negotiations and find a fair solution. Nor the u. n, nor the rest of the international comunity never asked the u. k. to transfer the sovereignty to argentina, if the islanders want to remain as british citizens, the government wont eliminate their british passports, but it's not imposible to find a solution that satisfies the two parts of the country, your problem, is that you dont want any fair solution. On the other hand, if you are happy buying the partial truthes and the offical propaganda of your country, that's your problem, i dont buy them, thats' why i investigate.
@68 axel: “Nor the u. n, nor the rest of the international comunity never asked the u. k. to transfer the sovereignty to argentina, if the islanders want to remain as british citizens, the government wont eliminate their british passports, but it's not imposible to find a solution that satisfies the two parts of the country, your problem, is that you dont want any fair solution”
Feb 15th, 2012 - 04:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'm intrigued axel. So, you're suggesting a “fair solution” that doesn't involve transfer of sovereignty to Argentina and also allows the islanders to remain British citizens. Please elaborate, because it sounds like you're suggesting leaving things are they are. I like that suggestion, because it really is the only “fair solution” - ie, letting the islanders decide on what they want. What does Argentina get out of it - a suitcase of cash under the table, maybe?
@68,69 Axel. Have you been reading any of these threads. Argentina never owned the Falklands. They were illegally squatting in the early 1800's and were expelled (Big sign saying 'this is british territory'), and then they invaded for more military illegal squatting in 1982 and were expelled. Your Argsoc official history books are unlikely to reflect the very simple fact that you never owned the islands.
Feb 15th, 2012 - 04:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If you choose to debate based on 'geographic proximity', then you're essentially agreeing with military expansionism. If you choose to debate based on historical ownership then you were illegally squatting. At no point do you even consider the fact that people have been living on these islands for hundreds of years. It's a travesty that the UN hasn't pointed all this out.
A 'fair solution' is that your country ceases its illegal constitutional enshrined policies, with a thinly veiled intent to ethnically cleanse the local populous.
As i said yesterday, the British government will decline the offer, and they have,
Feb 15th, 2012 - 06:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You cannot and will not talk about something you don’t own, and never have owned,
I have heard a quirk, that if Argentina is willing to talk about the transfer of sovereignty over Patagonia, then Britain is willing to talk,
Why does the “uruguayan” MercoPress always post articles against the argentine claim and at the same time ignores the hundred of them that are written everyday in favor of our position?
Feb 15th, 2012 - 08:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0because you speak wrongly,
Feb 15th, 2012 - 09:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0the islands are british, argentina is argentinian,
if you think the islands belong to you,
would you not then agree that argentina belongs to the islanders,
and thus, is british,
@72 If you actually read the articles, you'd see that they are typically neutral.
Feb 15th, 2012 - 11:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The issue you have is that of lack of objective facts. The Argentinian position is purely supported by objective feelings. You feel that you should own the Falklands, you feel that they're yours. However, this is simply Point of View (POV). The objective facts support the British view, and that's why you refuse to take this to the ICJ.
The world works on facts, not feelings. The sooner Argentina realises this, the sooner we can all move on.
@69 Crackpot,
Feb 16th, 2012 - 08:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0Don't try to reason with Axel.
He is an ldiot.
He says that he doesn't want sovereignty, but he does.
l've asked him what he does want & he rabbits on about a “fair solution” to both sides(there are three sides, Axel)but won't or can't say what that “fair solution” is.
He doesn't answer me antmore as l've exposed him for what he is:- a stupid malvinista with NO rights to OUR lslands.
CRACKPOT. GREEK YOGHURT.
Feb 16th, 2012 - 01:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0When i argue about a fair solution, i mean the fact that the islands can become into an autonomus argentine-british protectorate, and both nations would explote the natural recources of the archipelago, but the islanders will keep all their legal and economic policies, i read so much about sovereign disputes around the world, and there are diferent places places where there are shared admistrations, so, it's not imposible what i propose, i argued in diferent moments about this idea, but none of you toke it seriously, maybe there are better solutions than what i suggest, but if there is not any dialogue, like the u. n and the inetrnational comunity signalize, there wont be any solution.
Respecting the history, when i investigate, i dont take into account only the arguments of our history, because i dont believe so much on it, that's why i read so much about the british fundaments regarding the conflict for the islands, if you read my survey, you'll know the bases of my argumens, you'll be able to agree or not with my final analysis, but i dont tell just one part of the history, beside, some peole in this forum already has my work.
axel arg
Feb 16th, 2012 - 01:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0fairs fair, would you agree to Britain sharing parts of Argentina,, Patagonia for instance.
.
@76 Let's make it simple for you to understand with an analogy. If you're roaming around and you find a big diamond on common ground, common sense suggests it is finders-keepers. If someone turns up one day and steals your diamond (1820s) you typically go and get it back. Then if they turn up with a gun and steal your diamond (1982), and the Police (UN) say it's illegal for them to steal your diamond then you can go with a bigger gun, shoot them in the knee and get your diamond back. Then after 30 years, they go to the Police (UN) and demand that you negotiate over ownership of the diamond, because they stood near it and they think it's unfair for you to protect your diamond. Then how ridiculously illogical and pathetic do you think that looks?
Feb 16th, 2012 - 02:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@77 I think the prospect of sharing the mineral and oil resources in Patagonia sounds fantastic, maybe we should go to the UN Decolonisation Committee and demand that they negotiate sovereignty over the heads of the people who are living in Patagonia.
Anything they can do=
Feb 16th, 2012 - 02:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We can do better ?
.
Actually Mad -Dog Kirchner may be on to something. Because Britain beat the Spanish Armada, Britain may have good title to most of South and Central America. Should've paid more attention in 5th form.
Feb 16th, 2012 - 05:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@68and 76 axel arg (#)
Feb 16th, 2012 - 10:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0How can any outcome be fair if the Falklands become the property (or part property) of an aggressor, either by direct conquest or by political pressure.
The falkanders DON'T WANT to have anything to do with you.
The view that virtually every Argentine parrotts that the Falklanders should'nt have a say in what happens in their own land and to themselves is a fascist and imperialist view. It will not wash over here. It shows that you're lot really don't care about the falklanders and view them as some sort of untermensh to be trodden on in the path to Argentine glory.
There can be meaningful talks with your country as a result.
Where is your next territorial demand? or is the Falklands the last one( as A Hitler always used to say, before unrolling the map of his next victim). Perhaps after the Falklands you would return to the issue of the Beagle channel......
You have no claim to the islands except a rather nebulous claim to inheriting them from spain. Your colonial effort in the late 1820s and 1830s was an attempt to annex British territory by stealth, installing a militia and raising the United Provinces flag aginst the wish of HM govt. You got kicked out as a result.
The only reason CFK is trying it on is because the morons in charge of my country have gutted our navy. Just like any scavenger, Argentina can smell weakness and is circling around its' victim to see if it can take it down without getting hurt itself.
NO SURRENDER, NO NEGOTIATION.
@81 shb,
Feb 17th, 2012 - 09:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0Excellently put, shb.
l would have said like a jackal, aasvogel or hyena circling its victim.
They “claimed” Antarctica in 1942 when they thought that we would lose the war.
lf Britain ever became involved in another war & couldn't defend us, they would be here in the blinking of an eye.
Despicable people.
Thousands of words....and Timmerman still lied - again.
Feb 17th, 2012 - 12:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0GRREK-YOGHURT. BRITON. SHB.
Feb 17th, 2012 - 02:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why should be share the patagonia with you?, have you ever had any claim over that territory, i know that you like to make ignorant comparisons, respecting the occupation of patagonia, and the occupation of the islands in 1833. But what you ignore is that our country had right to occupy the patagonia, because it was part of argentina, and because it joined the spanish viceroalty, anyway the occupation didn't justify the genocide that the argentine state, and rich families from buenos aires made to the originary populations, but the huge diference with the occupation of the malvinas by the u. k. in 1833, is that the argentine state made some historic reparations for those populations, in fact our constitution signalizes that it's a duty of the congress to recognize the preexistence of the indigenous people, and protect their lands, beside, some lands have been already restored to them, anyway there is still a lot to do for those populations, because some of them are still victim of abuses by powerfull masters who speel them. Now my question is, when are you going to make a historic reparation for argentina, for having stolen the islands to us?, of course you wont never do it, because unfortunatelly, in some aspects, the u. k. still behaviours like a thief, it's really lamentable because it's a great nation. So, study deeply the question, intead of making ignorant comparisons. Your biggest problem is that you dont accept any other historic version, except the brith propaganda, in my case i investigate, because i dont believe in my history neather. Beside you are acting like if the u. n would have asked the u. k. to transfer the sovereignty of the islands to argentina, if both are called to negotiate a peacefull solution, it must be respected, if you dont like my idea, propose another, but please, dont make any idiot comparison.
@84 When we did or didn't occupy the Falklands is of no concern to you, because we always owned them, and you never owned them. In the 1800s you tried to establish a colony in the Falklands, initially you asked the British government for permission because you were clearly aware of our ownership and you were ejected for squatting. The second time you tried to create a penal colony with a garrison of troops, who were illegally squatting and ejected by the americans. At no point was any non-military person forcefully removed, in fact they were encouraged to remain regardless of their ancestry.
Feb 17th, 2012 - 04:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Reparations: Usually, reparations. compensation in money, material, labor, etc., payable by a defeated country to another country or to an individual for loss suffered during or as a result of war.” Given that you folks are the war-mongerers that Argentina should be giving the Falklands and UK reparations, given the definition of the word. Are you paying for HMS Sheffield?
There weren't any trees or indigenous people when we initially stepped on an declared ownership of the islands in 1690. Any peoples arrived there after British ownership began. Squatters were legally ejected.
The discussion of sovereignty is for the Islanders. The UN Special Committee on Decolonisation clearly says that non-self governing peoples should be decolonised, and at no place states sovereignty should be transferred to a third power thereby creating a new colony within the state of Argentina. If they happen to imply this, then this would contradict the UN Charter.
If you need legal clarification of the remit of the Special Committee on Decolonisation or the UN Charter's policy on self determination of colonised peoples, then I suggest you take your issue to the ICJ and get them to give a ruling.
84 axel arg
Feb 17th, 2012 - 06:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why should we share the Patagonia with you
Because its ours, and you stole it,
And we want it back
Now give it to us, otherwise we are going to blockade you,
Threaten you, intimidate you, harass you and tell bloody abhorrent lies abt you
Got it .
.
GREEK YOGHURT.
Feb 17th, 2012 - 06:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You can't be more missinformed, i confirm that you only buy the british propaganda respecting the history of the islands, and didn't do any exhaustive investigation, like i did, i suggest you again, to read my work, and after you can give me your opinion, i included also the british arguments. On the other hand, when i argued about the historic reparations, it was due to most you compare the malvinas-falkland cause, with the occupation of our patagonia by the argentine state, and i wanted you to know that you are making such an ignorant comparison.
Beside, when you say that the case should be taken to the i. c. j, we already discussed about it, if you dont want see that if none of both nations proposes to take the dispute to the court, it's because per harps the two parts aren't sure that they can win the case, then it's your problem, it's one more show of your intelectual miopy, it's kamentabe, but it's your choice.
On the other hand, you should know that none resolution from the u. n, never applied the right to self determination for the islanders, like it did with others colonial situations, beside none of them neather ague that the sovereignty must be discussed only if the islanders wish it, all the resolutions only call the two parts to resume the negotiations and find a fair solution, do you know a negotiation is? i do, it means that both will have to cede some aspects of their pretentions, even c. f. k said in diferent oportunities that islanders wont have to renounce to their british nationality, beside she also said that arg is not asking the u. k. to recognize that the islands are argentine, we are just asking them to dialogue and find a fair solution, so your anlysis are really nonesense. Beside resolution 2353 which reffers the gibraltar question, doesn't coincid with your thought, i suggest again to read it.
84 axel arg
Feb 17th, 2012 - 08:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why should we share the Patagonia with you
Because its ours, and you stole it,
And we want it back
Now give it to us, otherwise we are going to blockade you,
Threaten you, intimidate you, harass you and tell bloody abhorrent lies abt you
Got it.
84 axel arg
Feb 17th, 2012 - 08:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why should we share the Patagonia with you
Yes we want it back no if no buts its ours and if you lot of don’t give it back we will course you no end of trouble so give it back.
We will give you just a few hours to do this and then we will blockade your country making sure that no shipping comes into any ports, no shipping goes out of any ports, all Aircraft will be turned back by our Royal Air force and no aircraft will be allowed to land in any of your Airports.
We will also go to the UN and tell them that Patagonia has always belonged to us and we will keep on telling them that until we get what we need from them.
We will also reserve the right to invade whenever we see fit to get what we want, and our citizens will be encouraged in front of Television cameras and other media cameras to burn the Argentina flag so that the whole world sees that we are serious.
We are also going to rename our English national football stadium HMS Sheffield in memory of a great victory over Argentina.
So if you don’t want any of that happening cough up with what we want and be quick about it.
@87 Sorry to everyone for the copypasta, but you know how Argies had a fug of cognitive dissonance which prevents then reading anything.
Feb 17th, 2012 - 08:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0CHAPTER XI: DECLARATION REGARDING NON-SELF-GOVERNING TERRITORIES (http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter11.shtml)
Article 73
“Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories”
The UK government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount. Argentina does not, thereby it doesn't accept CHAPTER XI of the Charter of the UN. Ban Ki-moon should have them ejected, but we all know he has no balls.
Yes, Axel, lets have negotiations then hand over the Patagonia, NOW!
Feb 17th, 2012 - 09:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Respecting our position,
You must negotiate to find a fair solution to both of us
OR...........???????????????
We'll hit you in the face with a wet fish.
Squatters!♥
BRITON. BRITISHBULDOG. GREEK YOGHURT.
Feb 17th, 2012 - 10:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0BRITON, and BRITISHBULDOG: I really dont know if you are ignorant, or just rediculous people, if you want the patagonia, then answer me a couple of questions, when did you occupy that territory in the name of the british crown?, do you think that because there was a british colony in puerto deseado, you can claim sovereignty over that place?, it doesn't resist any debate.
GREEK YOGHURT: I know perfectly about what you typed, but my question is, if the right to self determination is really applicable for the islanders, then why the malvinas-falkland cause is still considered like a special colonial situation?, why none resolution never applied that principle for this case?.
In 1967 the u. k. made referendum in gibraltar, in order to ask the population what sovereignty they prefered, the spanish sovereignty, or the british one, but that cosultation was made with out spain's consentement, and the u. n recalled it, anyway the gibraltarins chose to remain british. However resolution 2353 clarified in one of it's paragraphs that none colonial situation can break the territorial integrity of any country, because it's against the principles of the charter of the u. n, and it applied article 6 of resolution 1514, for that resolution, you can conffirm it by your self, just search it.
Anyway i wont deny that maybe self determination is really applicable for this cause, but that only can be assured by a judgement of the i. c. j, and you already know very well what i think about why none of the two parts proposed again to give that after 1947.
On the other hand, argentina supported in diferent oportunities the right to self determination for colonial situations, but it did it only for all those cases where the principle is really applicable, the u. k. can't say the same.
@92 You'd have to be clearer about under what principles the Argentinian claim to the territory, henceforth territorial integrity was founded and claimed. You'd probably need a legal ruling in order to validate your claim, at something like the ICJ. If it was based upon objective historical fact, then it's quite clear that you never owned the Falkland islands and you were merely illegal squatters. If you want to claim it was your territory through 'You just want it' then I suggest you get an ICJ rulling on that. If you want to claim it was your territory through 'geographic proximity' then I'm sure that would be something that the ICJ would be interested in listening to.
Feb 17th, 2012 - 11:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The international community is well aware of countries such as Argentina that have adopted expansionist policies aligned with militiristic adventurism.
The people of Gibraltar enjoy self determination as a British protectorate, and this is also extended to the peoples of the Falkland islands. Spain is simply too busy warring with Morocco over the Perejil Islands to worry about territorial integrity or the geographic proximity of the Canary islands to Africa.
Frankly the UK policy towards decolonisation is quite clear and once the UN agrees to your demands for national integrity to be decided by geographic proximity any discussion of sovereignty transfer with the newly decolonised falkland islands will have to occur after discussions about the transfer of Spanish sovereignty of the Canary islands to Western Sahara, because they, as a part of the African continent, are only 100 miles from Africa and 1000 miles from Spain.
We'll probably see how that ICJ ruling first.
Proximity
Feb 18th, 2012 - 12:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0Or on the same continental shelf,
If there are 5 continents, and Proximity
And on the same continental shelf
Was taken as paramount,
What would the world look like, would you just have 5 governments,
And more importantly, would Argentina exist today .??
.
@94 If we actually listened to anything that these Argies said, and acted upon any of it, the world would look like this (http://strangemaps.files.wordpress.com/2007/01/1984_fictious_world_map.png). Thankfully we don't live in a George Orwell novel like they do, and we use common sense and ask people what they want in a non-authoritarian style.
Feb 18th, 2012 - 12:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0and i bet they would belive that as well,
Feb 18th, 2012 - 12:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0mmm.
GRREK YOGHURT.
Feb 18th, 2012 - 03:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Some times your analysis are a litle rediculous and hipocrite. You say that the world is well aware of countries like argentina that have adopted expansionist policies aligned with militaristic adventurism, what can we say about the u. k. respecting this issues?, isn't the international comunity aware about the british colnizalism?. It really doesn't resist any debate to consider argentina as colonialist, like your prime minister argued a few weeks ago.
On the other hand, our claim is not based only in proximity, in fact i could know after my investigation that proximity is not such an important argument. Our claim is based on the exercise of our derived rights, let me tell you that my survey is based mostly in public documents, and i included also the british arguments, i didn't make any invention, when you read my work, you'll be able to take your conclutions.
Beside, you are making a wrong interpretation of the resolutions from the u. n, it never asked the u. k. about any transference of sovereignty to argentina, it only calls the two parts to find a negotiate and peacefull solution, the u. k. wont never have to transfer us the sovereignty, i already explained what a negotiation is, it's not imposible to find a fair solution for both, like what i proposed in others comments, if the islanders want to remain british, they will remain like that, even cristina affirmed it in diferent oportunities, but it doesn't mean that we can't find a fair solution for the sovereignty conflict, which satifies the sovereign rights of both, anyway like i said before, your problem is that you dont want any fair solution.
@97 The UK is well known for colonisation as we previously had the biggest empire the world has seen. I used the term 'previously' as this was in the past and since then we have become well known for 'decolonisation' insofar as we have decolonised more territories than any other country known to humanity. So, no, we're known for decolonisation. This is as compared to Argentina which is known for opportunistic land-grabbing (Falklands, War of Triple Alliance, Beagle Conflict) and genocide (Conquest of the Desert).
Feb 18th, 2012 - 05:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I don't even know what 'derived rights' means. Can you go into detail what specifically you are deriving your right to someone else's territory from?
The over-riding and most important agreement in the UN hierarchy is its Charter. This clearly states that self-determination of people is 'paramount'. Clearly you don't understand what paramount means, so here is the definition.
“Paramount
adjective
1. chief in importance or impact; supreme; preeminent: a point of paramount significance.
2. above others in rank or authority; superior in power or jurisdiction.”
The UK should not and cannot negotiate on sovereignty over the heads of the people of the Falkland Islands, because their self-determination is paramount, as enshrined in the UN charter.
So which part of this very very very simple sentence are you struggling with understanding? You should discuss 'fair solutions' with the Islanders.
GREEK YOGHURT.
Feb 18th, 2012 - 06:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I know what paramount means, and i included all your arguments in my work. What you say, is just one more partial truth, like many others that are expressed by the politicinas from both sides.
It's true that self determination is enshrined in the charter of the u. n, but what you omit, is that nor the charter of the u. n, nor the resolution 1514 dont let any colonial situation to break the territorial integrity of any cuntry, if there is not any other alternative than self determination for absoluty anyone, then how do you explain the paragraph that i argued about resolution 2353?, there it was perfectly clarified the thought of the u. n respecting the relevancy of territorial integrity, how do you explain that the malvinas-falkland cause is still considered like a special colonial situation?, how do you explain that in 1985, the u. k. tried to include twice references about self determination for this cause, and the international comunity voted by a landslide against that proposal?. I already explained these arguments to you and to many of your compatriots.
On the other hand, i can't explain all my arguments here, because we dont have so many characters, i suggest you AGAIN, to read my work, and after give me your opinion, i only can tell you that in 1833 our rights were based in the sussession of states, but it's very long and complicated to explain them here, because there are many aspects that we must take into account.
Beside, when you mention the conquest of the dessert, and the war of the tripple alliance, i already told you in another comment that the argentine state made diferent historic reparations for the indigenous populations, and respecting the war of the tripple alliance, per haps it's one the biggest shames that we have, and i think that arg, and uruguay should apologize paraguay for that, in the same way that i hope that some day, your country apologizes arg., for having deprived us from the islands, anyway i know it wont happen.
@99 axel
Feb 18th, 2012 - 07:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Please show me where “territorial integrity” in mentioned in any resolutions regarding the Falkland Islands. It's mentioned in resolutions regarding Gibraltar, so why not the Falkland Islands? I'll tell you why. A territory needs to have been part of your country in the first place for there to be any issue of your territorial integrity being disrupted. It seems that the UN doesn't think that the Falkland Islands were ever part of Argentine territory, otherwise the issue of territorial integrity would be included in the resolutions. It also seems that the UN doesn't think that there's anything to discuss over sovereignty any more, as the sovereignty dispute isn't even mentioned in the last three GA resolutions in 1984, 1987 and 1988. They just request that the UK and Argentina should resolve their problems.
@99 “i hope that some day, your country apologizes arg., for having deprived us from the islands, anyway i know it wont happen.” You know it won't happen, because it simply hasn't happened.
Feb 18th, 2012 - 07:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I want to see a list of amendments to the charter of the United Nations (not resolutions) that state that it has been updated to include specific references to cases, specific or otherwise, that make self-determination not paramount or something else paramount. Otherwise, you're just spouting opinion.
Is property law an inclusive part of Argentinian law? From the way you all talk it seems like you all just walk around going into banks and demanding that they negotiate the property rights of the gold in their safe, because of some manufactured historical event when you owned it or simply because you happened to be in the bank at some point.
What's worse, is the Argentinian opinion lacks any common sense or legality.
@100 “It also seems that the UN doesn't think that there's anything to discuss over sovereignty any more, as the sovereignty dispute isn't even mentioned in the last three GA resolutions in 1984, 1987 and 1988. They just request that the UK and Argentina should resolve their problems.”
I don't see any problems from where I'm stood.
only argentina sees problems .
Feb 18th, 2012 - 07:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@ Axel arg
Feb 18th, 2012 - 08:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You should apologise to us for the 82 invasion.
You should also apologise for your countries spiteful little campaign against the falklanders.
Then you can apologise for trying to occupy the islands in the 1820s-30s in such as way as to claim soverignty when in fact they were already claimed by us.
CRACKPOT. GREEK YOGHURT. SHB.
Feb 18th, 2012 - 10:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0CRACKPOT: I suggest AGAIN, to read my work, where i explain the rights of my country and britain's over the islands in 1833. You are right with what you express, but your problem is hat you are very missinformed, you only take into account the british fundaments, and you should know that the history is always submnited to omitions, that's why it's so important to investigate. On the other hand, you can't ignore that the main conflict is for the sovereignty, and it must be discussed, noone will force the islanders to accept only our sovereignty, because that's not what the u. n signalizes, they will remain british if they wish it, but it's not imposible to find a fair solution for both, whenever you want, i can tell you my i amil adress, and send my work to you, and after you can give me your opinion.
SHB: You are right, my country should apologize the islanders for the war of 1982, i had told you a few monthes ago that nestor kirchner had apologized the society in the name of the states, for the crimes of the dictatorship, but i dont know if that apologize includes the war, i should think deeply about it.
On the other hand, it was obvious that you were not going to make any critic to your country, because it seems that many of you are expert on playing the victim, and blaming others also. You have no idea about how missinformed you are, anyway it's your choice if you prefer to buy your mendacious propaganda. In my case, i'm glad that i dont buy the propaganda of my country, and investigate, that's the huge diference betwen most you and me.
GREEK YOGHURT: It's your choice if you prefer to keep in buying your mendacious propaganda, it's lamentable, but it's your choice, maybe some day, you decide to investgate like me, and you realise that the history is always submited to omitions, beside, you didnt answer my questions of my comment 99.
@104 I've investigated and would welcome it if you could outline what you feel is propaganda. I'd be interested in learning what the historical omissions are too.
Feb 18th, 2012 - 10:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0islands in 1833
Feb 18th, 2012 - 10:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0superseded by the 1850 treaty was it not,
.
@106 that it was.
Feb 18th, 2012 - 10:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0GREEK YOGHURT.
Feb 19th, 2012 - 07:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If you want to know about the omitions that i argue all the time, then i offer you AGAIN, to read my work, like i said before, the investigation is too long, an i can't explain most my arguments here, because we have no so many characters.
On the other hand, if you think that the treaty of 1850, which was signed by arg. and the u. k. signalized a drop in the argentine claim over the islands, is one the biggest falacies that i read in the last two years, i can imagen what you investigated.
Firstly, the treaty of 1850 didn't have anything to do with the dispute for the malvinas, the true motive of it, was the rasing of the blockade, you country has a huge experience on that issue. After that treaty, our country remained in silence respecting it's claim for 35 years, and in 1884, the argentine government suggested to take the question to the arbitration, which was rejected by the u. k. later. Betwen 1884 and 1888, there were diferent interchanges of notes betwen both governments, but in none of all thoses interchanges, was mentioned that treaty, in fact, the british government never used it as a drop of the argentie claim over the islands. Beside, i think it doesn't have any sense to invoke that treaty, because despite the silence of the argentine claim in diferent periods, in 1968 and in 1980, the british governments tried to persuade the islanders, in order to achieve that they accept to negotiate a solution for the sovereign conflict, it didn't care so much if we weren't continuous with our claim in the past.
On the other hand, what must be studied deeply, is the context, in 1850 my country was a poor nation which was handled mostly by british interests, our economy was linked with the u. k. for years, we were almost one more british colony like those that you call none self governing territories, so, argentina wasn't in conditions to claim, anyway, it never recognized the british sovereignty over the islands. There are much more arguments to explain.
@108 Sorry, it's legally binding. The signing of the Convention between Great Britain and the Argentine Confederation, for the Settlement of existing (READ EXISTING PLEASE) Differences and the re-establishment of Friendship, meant that you agreed to the settlement of the sovereignty of the islands, which was settled.
Feb 19th, 2012 - 08:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If you want to say it wasn't settled, then you were acting fraudulently. But the fact is, you signed it, it's legal... end of story.
And you honestly want britain to agree something, that argentina can and will just walk away from and ignore when it suits them,
Feb 19th, 2012 - 10:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0you are totaly deluded,
the fact is, argentina will not get them legaly
It's quite possible one day that the Mercosur nations invade the Falklands. Only time will tell
Feb 20th, 2012 - 01:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@111 I think you mean, 'it's quite likely' and 'it's only a matter of time'. One of them did it in 1982, I'm sure they're stupid enough to try again.
Feb 20th, 2012 - 02:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I hope they wait until we can try out the new F-35s.
GREEK YOGHURT.
Feb 20th, 2012 - 02:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I respect your opinion, but i dont agree with your thoght, if the treaty of 1850, signed by both nations, meant a drop of the argentine claim over the islands, then why it wasn't mentioned in none of the interchanges of notes by arg. and the u. k. during 1884 and 1888?, i read all those public doduments, and it was never mentioned, beside, i already said why i think that it doesn't have any sense to invoke tha treaty. I can be wrong with my thoughts per haps, but i have strong rasons to think what i express, because i made a very ample analysis, anyway it doesn't mean that everyone must agree with me. On the other hand, you still didn't answer my questions, of my comment 99. Finaly, i just want to tell you that only an ignorant can think that we are going to be so stupid in order to invade the islands again, this is evident that you dont interpret correctly the actual politic moment of our country, so, you can shove your new F-35s.
@axel arg
Feb 20th, 2012 - 05:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Do you really believe all that crap posted by the squatters???
F35???
1-US budget cuts on defense expending has put in danger the viability of the F35 program. And already has 4 years of delay from it original schedule.
2-One of its funding partners (Australia) already announced that will buy another plane (hornet) and pull out of the program is delay continues.
3- In any case if Lockheed one day goes with that plane into production the cost of each one will be over $250m. May be in 2020 you will see any flying.
4- Too much money for an air plane copy past project acquired by Lochheed from the Russians, same technical problem and issues. One engine powering a fun for VTOL.
Russian Yakovlev Yak-41 abandon the project in 1991 by budget problems and sell it to Martin L.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0p62WQZ3t10
5-With UK near to economy collapse and not being able to keep it current defense budget I really doubt they can pay for its. And to be honest who wants to be sitting on a JSF jet just with one engine and depending on a shaft-driven Lift Fan?
Anyway nothing that a SU35 cannot deal with I guess.
See table please.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0p62WQZ3t10
Oh dear still at it Mr delusional.
Feb 20th, 2012 - 11:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 01. F35 first test flight - Learn something about the subject first
http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-f35-fighter-jet-20120220,0,6408688.story
2. And?
3. See above muppet.
4. Oh man, did you really just say that?
5. UK economy near collapse, really? That is some odd parallel universe you live in. Now if the UK economy was running at over 25% inflation like the economy I'd agree but clearly it isn't and it still has the highest credit rating in the world and is 5-6th largest economy still in the world but in your fantasy world its somehow near collapse. Maybe you should learn something about economics before posting any further.
And for the last point you post a link to a widely discredited website not that it matters since Argentina has 0 of these and the Typhoon is more than a match for a su 35.
http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-f35-fighter-jet-20120220,0,6408688.story
@115 What is it with russian planes? they all seem to look the same. Except for Firefox of course, with clint eastwood flying.
Feb 20th, 2012 - 11:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Are Argentina getting SU35's that's nice. They should buy them from Russia on credit. Oh, and this is hilarious (http://www.ausairpower.net/JSF-vs-Su-35S-ACM.png) hahahahaah like what is that? haha, what is it?
@Xect & co
Feb 21st, 2012 - 07:24 am - Link - Report abuse 01-Since last year the project was in doubt to be completed.
http://www.economist.com/node/18958487
January 6, 2012 update from Pentagon
“... Pentagon anticipates the F-35 being combat-ready sometime in 2018.”
2.And? well the project is linked to already funding and orders from countries like Turkey, UK, Australia, etc. some announced to pull out the project for the delays. Like Australia. Do you get the point now? Not yet? Well some other countries can also get out of the project what will cause more uncertain the viability of the project. Plus electronic issues and manufacture problems that Lockheed had experienced with this plane.
3- “See above muppet”
Little affe this is a `prototype test flight like many other performed and what that has to do over going to full scale industrial production?? Are you ignorant or just idiot?.
4- Yes I said that because if you would be well informed Lockheed acquired the Russian Yak-141 in ‘90 because the Russians couldn’t rise funding for the project.
“Lockheed consulted with the Yakovlev Design Bureau, purchasing design data from their development of the Yakovlev Yak-141 ”Freestyle”
“The Yak-41 is a supersonic V/STOL (Vertical/Short Take-Off and Landing) naval fighter. Although it never entered operational service, some of it’s advanced technology will see application on Lockheed-Martin’s F-35 fighter.” http://www.economist.com/node/18958487
5-“5-6th largest economy” you have to update your info Its 9th today or 8 if you don’t count the EU as a whole http://www.economist.com/node/18958487
And falling faster...
Budget deficit -8.8% of GDP (2011 est.)
Public internal debt 1.8 trillions
External debt $9.836 trillion
Total debt 11.6 trillions and growing
Imports $654.9 billions Exports $495.4 billions = Deficit -159,5 and growing.
Do you want more bad news?
according to today’s news Britain is steering upwards, and will probably not enter recession,
Feb 21st, 2012 - 08:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And what is today's news re Argentina?
Feb 21st, 2012 - 10:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@briton
Feb 22nd, 2012 - 01:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0You are really funny UK is technically bankrupted and surviving like a patient on intensive care thanks to an iron lung machine (QE).
As IL machine deteriorates patient’s health in the long run if she/he does not recovers, the same is QE doing to UK now. UK soon or later will collapse and that much depends on Moody’s, S&P, Fitch, etc. goodwill.
A good war with Argentina or SA can also helps to hit you the floor faster.
So you have your options.
lgnore the idiot, briton.
Feb 22nd, 2012 - 11:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0Another deluded malvinista.
121 lsolde thank you, I will,
Feb 22nd, 2012 - 08:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I am well aware of Britain’s economic state .
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!