MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
UK expects Argentina to honour accords and refers any flights’ discussions to the Falklands’ government
The UK expects Argentina to honour its commitments under the 1999 agreement allowing for flights to the Falkland Islands from Chile and insisted that any discussions on flights were a matter for the Falkland Islands government. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesPlease refer her to FIG for negotiations over the 1999 agreement. Gilbert House would be keen to talk to her.
Mar 01st, 2012 - 10:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It would be the icing on the cake too see Argentine officials fly into Stanley and meet with the FIG.
Mar 01st, 2012 - 11:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Not on a charter flight though. They are not permitted since 2003.
Mar 01st, 2012 - 11:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Casa Rosada meet your new neighbour, Gilbert House. Gilbert House meet your new neighbour, Casa Rosada.”
Mar 01st, 2012 - 11:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This is never likely to happen. She'll be barking on at the den of iniquity that is the C24 claiming that having flights landing is like owning a place.
There is something underhand afoot here.
I know it won't happen and that she is just making her next desperate move aimed at setting some sort of trap in motion. It won't work for her though. She is out of her league.
Mar 01st, 2012 - 11:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@5 things we know:
Mar 01st, 2012 - 11:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentinian negotiations involve demands, they don't negotiate with anything and expect to get everything.
ARG.gov seem like a bunch of amateurs.
KFC is unhinged and mercurial, and rarely does anything 'nice' unless there is something in it for her, or cover for some secondary strategy.
C24 meeting is coming up, and she's going.
UK was clearly going to say 'Talk to the FIG' i.e. no to sovereignty chat.
Things we don't know:
What are the Argentinians actually getting from this? (forget the flights)
Has this got something to do with her attending the C24, claiming victim-hood yet again?
Has this got to do with her wanting to control or profit from the flights?
Hmm...
REnegotiation ?? She's abandoned all the other agreements under the 1999 accord.
Mar 01st, 2012 - 11:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 06 Greek
Mar 01st, 2012 - 11:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I don't think profit or the lives of Patagonians who rely on cruise ship business or the lives of the Argentine war dead NOK , etc, mean a thing to her. They are all just political pawns that she thinks she can move around for her own survival. She is scrabbling at anything she can think of now. The UK Gov has been dealing with amateurs like her for hundreds and hundreds of years.
@6 I agree. I'm sure UK.gov have a name for this strategy.
Mar 01st, 2012 - 11:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@7 I just read the 1999 accord and was feeling something similar. Then I read the Sovereignty Umbrella... wondering if that's what she's going after.
just so she can claim another victory, perhaps,
Mar 01st, 2012 - 11:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0but the islanders should be weary of letting a fox into the hen house.
@10 The key there is ... don't ever let the fox into the hen house.
Mar 01st, 2012 - 11:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 011 GreekYoghurt
Mar 01st, 2012 - 11:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I've just been looking at comments on Gavin Short's fb status; it's quite clear that 100% of Falkland Islanders would rather boil their own heads than allow that particular fox a sniff of the hen house.
I don't know why the government insist on treating this “people” as people! LAN flights should be cut right now!!!
Mar 01st, 2012 - 11:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 013 Jorge
Mar 01st, 2012 - 11:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You're forgetting that Argentina is a peaceful nation that means us no harm! Remember, that is your fancy dress costume at the moment. Keep with the act.
LOL!
13 JORGE1982
Mar 01st, 2012 - 11:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Then do it, you boring arrogant posturing fools, and stop talking about it.
http://en.mercopress.com/2006/06/25/argentina-targets-falklands-sovereignty-umbrella
Mar 01st, 2012 - 11:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Apparently regarding the Malvinas Islands claim there are two main lines of thinking in Argentine politics: one which favours a low key, silent approach and another high key and ”noisy“, which was chosen by President Kirchner or at least the line is ”keep talking about the issue”.
@13 I think the fact you Argentinians don't see them as people is part of the issue.
Mar 01st, 2012 - 11:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@15 If I were in office, I would do it. You can bet on it!
Mar 01st, 2012 - 11:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0once again Kirchner is the clever one - she knows that the Islands are under great pressure now and if they lose the lan chile flight life will become very difficult for the islanders in that they will be effectively cut-off from the rest of the world except via the MOD connection - which is also under review.
Mar 01st, 2012 - 11:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Very bad situation indeed but Kirchner knows it and is again testing the waters by dangling a carrot in front of the islanders with a tri-weekly probably subsidised service to BA -
Once again - Very clever
@18/19. Why is the Argentinian government only doing this now? She assumed office in 2007 - is she not very good and indeed very slow at her job or is she doing it to distract the average Argentinian from the economic, corrupt and crime-ridden situation?
Mar 01st, 2012 - 11:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@19 She's just following an old strategy. There is nothing clever about it. As has been said, this has all been done before and the reaction was the same. The only question is why would she do it again.
Mar 01st, 2012 - 11:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@17
Mar 01st, 2012 - 11:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Proove that. Most of us see them as people. Not as a separate people but as British people.
18 Jorge
Mar 01st, 2012 - 11:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are not very bright are you. Everyone knows why CFK won't stop LAN without some other link to SA in place first. If she did we would feel some pain for a while but we'd be forced to put our alternative into action and that would mean no more link with SA at all. No need to deal with SA at all and no way for Argentine war dead NOK to visit and no more card up the sleeve for CFK.
Erm. Am I being thick in thinking this might be her plan to insert Argentine special forces?
Mar 01st, 2012 - 11:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I admit I am a bear of very little brain but considering her actions so far, if she is on a bipolar downer at the minute she might be capable of dreaming anything up.
I'm just being silly aren't I?
But as you are not, then it is just a fantasy, is it not,
Mar 01st, 2012 - 11:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Besides, if you’re glorious leader cant get anywhere,
Then its just a matter of time,
Besides,
We have all the time in the world,
She on the other hand does not lol.
The interesting thing here is the UK has out-maneuvered Argentina again because if Argentina wants this to go ahead they will have to negotiate with the Falklands government which in turns mean they have to recognise them.
Mar 01st, 2012 - 11:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Very, very smart move UK government.
@23 No-one in their right mind would accept this saccharine-covered poison of an offer. However, if the LAN flight is completely canned, what happens then? What options are available to the FIslanders? Are you self sufficient yet? Surely you have lots of lamb, squid and fish right?
Mar 01st, 2012 - 11:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0i.e. when are you building your permanent docks and food processing facilities?
@23 You are the one not very bright! The natural link for the islands is South America. You can get a flight from China if you want, but that won't be the same! Cost will rise!
Mar 01st, 2012 - 11:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@ greek yoghurt
Mar 01st, 2012 - 11:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0President Kirchner is probing and prodding.
She knows that the Islands Islands' population is close to over 60% recent immigrants and temporary residents (post 1982) and are a mix of british ex-patriot, saint helenians and south americans with a few asians thrown in - and they will not tolerate being stranded on the Islands as they have homes and lives eleswhere - the majority of the british ex-patriot residents have homes in the uk and europe and many must really be considered only seasonally resident in the islands - so will they tolerate the kind of isolation that the real Islanders were once used to? - and I say 'once used to' because the islanders themselves are regular commuters from and to the islands.
@22 - yes, who wish to remain British not live under a corrupt and hopeless government such as yours.
Mar 01st, 2012 - 11:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina has been trying to get control in earnest since 1948 - 64 years - and has got nowhere. Indeed they are even further away from any sort of influence over the islands than they were 64 years ago.
You would think by now they would get the message. This just isn't going to happen for them.
The sooner the rigs go up the better.
Looks like JORGE1982 & Dreyfoss can't answer my previous question directed to them! Perhaps they can't answer it?
Mar 01st, 2012 - 11:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@23 - So what if the cost rises? The UK spends over 65 Billion on defense even if it cost 100m which of course it would not, it would still be a very, very minor cost to the British.
Mar 01st, 2012 - 11:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If you think you can bully the islanders with one airplane flight you must be crazy, the UK always finds a way to defeat Argentine aggression and all it does is make the British people and Falkland islanders more resolute in their desire to shirk Argentina.
@24 I also had this thought. What if they sent in a plane rammed full of special forces who then got off and started causing havoc. That's why I thought Stanley airport would be better. But it's a terrible strategy because it's not like they can get reinforcements and any further planes coming in would just be knocked out of the sky like pheasants.
Mar 01st, 2012 - 11:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 019 Dreyfoss
Mar 01st, 2012 - 11:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sorry but you are wrong on 2 counts.
1. The MOD service is not in doubt or under any review. The current contract will soon be up but it is never a long-term contract anyway. The RAF will be resuming the service as the actual operators shortly under the operation of Air Tanker Services with their new fleet of A300 aircraft.
2. The MOD service is not the only other service other than LAN that is serving the islands.
A few months ago you were trying to have us believe that you had high level contact within Stanley and Mt Pleasant. I think it's more likely you're a Sodexho dishwasher in one of the messes.
@30
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 12:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0So? We know you are people. We don't deny that. We know what you want. We disagree and were are against it.
We got the message. Be nice and that leads no where. Do war and that leads no where. Then try another approach is the message.
Oil won't last forever.
@ 27 greek yoghurt
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 12:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0“when are you building your permanent docks and food processing facilities? ”
LOL - the Islanders will never allow such construction because it will mean an inflow of migrants. Even if oil is found the Islanders will resist any kind of permanent land based infrastructure in support of it.
The islanders will do what they did in 1984 when it was suggested to them by the British MP Eric Varley that they build fish processing and packing facilities on-shore and invite the -at that time redundant british fishing industry down to the Islands to develop it.
The Islanders raised their hands in horror at the very thought of it.
@31 I answered you in the other article. You are in economic and social problems. Your problems are worse than ours right now. Cameron is distracting idiot british people with all this stupidity of sending subs and the royal moron!
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 12:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0@29 - do you just make this up?
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 12:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0How do you know they have homes in the UK and Europe? Seasonally resident on the islands ?(LOL)
sounds like you may have this ray gun that you foreign minister has to tell when nuclear subs are present, where people live, the thoughts of the MOD etc.
You're full of crap.
@37. The Falklands situation is hardly making the news in the UK.
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 12:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0You are obviously being brainwashed by your dear leader. She must have been taking noted from Jong-Un and Mugabe regimes.
@37 - Are you serious? I mean really?
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 12:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina is suffering 25% inflation and clearly in collapse but the UK has more problems? Astonishing.
How do you explain the UK having the highest credit rating dictated by international bodies but Argentina has a junk grade rating then?
35 Juan
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 12:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0Your attempt at being nice failed because it was a thinly veiled act and your war failed because your military was grossly incompetent and your ranks filled with school boys. How do you think this latest shower of shit will end?
@37 this really isn't getting any press in the UK. It was only today when i saw it in the daily mail and express and it made me laugh. The only newspapers it's getting into are argentinian, and they were super happy about it finally being mentioned in the daily-mail.
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 12:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0@36 Eric Varley was quite right then. The islanders need to accept that for them to survive there needs to be change and maybe some immigration. They're sat on a gold-mine with their fishing industry and unpolluted lamb, so I guess it's time they got real and started developing quick sharp. That'll help keep the Argies at bay.
@40. They can't admit what the inflation as they can only claim what is reported by the Reich.
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 12:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0They will soon be carrying their money around in wheelbarrows like the Weimar Republic. No wonder Argentinians are off to Chile to buy consumer goods!
I'm in Europe at the moment so it is way past my bed time. Good night.
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 12:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0@ 38 the cestrian
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 12:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yes I am sorry to disappoint you but it is a fact - over 60% of the islands' population arrived in the Islands in the post 1982 period and the majority of those residents really d0 have homes and property outside the Islands, to which most eventually retire to,
You have to remember that the average per capita income for Islanders is one of the highest in the world - circa £29,000 per annum, with at least 35% of Islanders earning a lot more than this so uit is natural to assume that they diversify their investments overseas.
It's a simple fact that no islander will deny.
29 dreyfoss
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 12:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0You are completely underestimating us, and so is the Princess of Peace.
The MOD flight is not under review. And what do you imagine we've been saving our oil revenue surplus for? Winter holiday in Florida, anybody?
The rest of your post is made-up nonsense. Most people don't have a second home somewhere else, and most are not 'commuters' in any sense.
We would endure almost unimaginable extremes of isolation rather that giving an inch to your colonial ambitions. This issue will be referred to FIG, already has been in fact, and FIG will give you the finger, because that is what the people wish. Sorry.
@39 @40 Me brainwashed? That was you in 1982 with tatcher and since then. She needed to get out of economic problems at the time just like the dictatorship here. I read UK newspapers and see how their coverage is. You cannot fool me since I understand English. They talk about this, Penn, Waters, etc and distract you from your very high unemployment. You have a debt crisis right now. Your economic growth does not exist. Your situation isn't our. We have a lot of problems, but we are growing, very low unemployment and salaries are rising. All the opposite in UK.
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 12:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0So, who is in worst situation?
@46
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 12:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0This issue will be referred to FIG, already has been in fact, and FIG will give you the finger, because that is what the people wish. Sorry.
LOL.
Remember [snakes on a plane]
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 12:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0[just thinking aloud] mm
.
@47 “They talk about this, Penn, Waters, etc and distract you from your very high unemployment.” Seriously, are you having a stroke?
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 12:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0@48 Don't the FIG have to wait for the Argentinians to dignify you with their application for flights first?
@50 You have no argument at all.
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 12:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0@51 no argument is better than telling people in the UK that they should care about what 'Penn' and 'Waters' think,.
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 12:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0@greek yoghurt
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 12:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yes - you're right about the meat. The Islanders have an incredible opportunity to develop a meat exporting industry and the demand for their products in europe would be insatiable.
I mentioned the Islamic market in europe which is gigantic,now that europe has a population of something like 20 million Muslims with britain having about 3.5 million and one of the staple meats for Muslims is Mutton and Lamb - even quite old Mutton is very acceptable in islamic cuisine and the Islands cull at least 50,000 older sheep every year which could of course instead go to export.
@47
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 12:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0No one trusts your made up figures.
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20120207-713795.html
Your country is almost bust. you are resorting to stealing other companies, ridding your central bank of its independence. your infrastructure is crumbling, your teachers are on strike, the tube shut down. Youve introduced protectionism, put up trade barriers with your neighbours, you owe the US and other countries billions, you cant get a loan and if you can the US is fast trying to close that loophole. you have fallen out with Paraguay, are in dispute with Uruguay, have territorial disputes with chile and your best friend is hugo chavez, the syrians and the cubans.
...and of course you are an international embarrassment over the FI issue, an issue that you will never win - ever.
what a mess.
@41
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 12:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0We were nice almost 40 years. It didn't work. War didn't either, even if we didn't want it.
I'm not refering to this strategy in particular. I'm just refering that an approach different from cooperation and war is worth trying.
But one thing is certain. There are three approachs we won't ever take. 1) The one from 1940-1982. 2) The one from 1982. 3) Resigning our claim.
@47. I wasn't around in 1982. Yes, the media in the UK covers the story but it really is back page news. There are far more important things that interest us, rather than news of a pathetic little banana-republic stamping their feet over lies!
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 12:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0Penn supported Saddam Hussein. He obviously was a guy that Penn could relate to, just like CFK. Waters is a dead-beat celebrity with a higher fan-base in South America compared to the UK, so he is only doing it for the money.
You have an inflation crisis (that is nearly comparable to Zimbabwe) that you are in denial about. Yes, we have a debt problem. Most of Europe is far worse-off!
How can you claim the UK is in a terrible situation when the UK, by IMF figures, is in 6th place for GDP, whilst Argentina is in 28th place?
Argentina still hasn't developed on enough from the days of military rule to be taken seriously anyway. You are like Spain was just after Franco died.
@55
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 12:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0you have no claim.
@53 I know you're desperate to mention your fave topic of muslims in europe. But you forgot to say you could just sell them to Turkey, it's full of muslims. You also forgot to mention fish to india and squid to china.
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 12:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0That should keep the Argies out.
”A Falklands government official said islanders were deeply skeptical. Legislative chairman Roger Edwards said direct flights from Argentina’s capital are “about as likely as the Falklands Air Service landing flights on the moon.”
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 12:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/argentina-president-fernandez-hopes-to-start-new-flights-from-buenos-aires-to-falklands/2012/03/01/gIQArIpvkR_story.html
@52 I've never said you should care that. You are talking bullshit. I said that your press is talking about that, and you cannot deny it since it's obvious for anyone to see.
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 12:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0@54 You can read a lot of articles from UN, CEPAL and others saying all the opposite!
@56 If you didn't care you wouldn't be here discussing with me!
I care that's why I am discussing it. Not everyone in the UK feel that it should be at the top of their interests when not much is happening. If their was another invasion like 1982 (haha), then it would get most people's attention and would become more important to them.
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 12:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0@60
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 12:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0You're an economic basket case. A nation of nutters.
Why do you think your president - Madame Botox - has raised the issue of the Falklands now? Its because you are totally and utterly economically knackered. you are right on the edge of yet another financial catastrophe.
no one will lend you money and you are living hand to mouth. As each day goes by she thinks up another crackpot scheme to tide her over for another month.
you like the idea of rules and democracy but you are simply incapable of playing by the rules.
If your government wants something to get them out of a financial hole they have a golden rule - take it and fuck the consequences.
the world is laughing at you. Your south american “friends” agree with you to placate you. As long as you are warbling on about the FI then you are leaving them alone.
the Argentines are the butt of everyone's jokes.
@62. They won't admit that they are being distracted by it. They are saying the UK is. It is total madness!
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 12:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0Jorge your talking crap - yes some articles appear in the paper but its only you thats jumping on them and making it sound like its a big deal when the rest of us don't give shit, as its not main stream news. Its always on, say, page 15 mixed in with storys of a woman that used to be a man admitting to to sleeping with 1,000 men or similar non news worthy articles lol.
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 12:42 am - Link - Report abuse 055 JuanStanic
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 12:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0There is a big gaping flaw in your reasoning. You are working on the assumption that there is an approach that will 'work'. There isn't.
If you persecute us, we do without. If you invade us, we resist. If you co-operate, we all prosper. That's it; you choose.
Nothing has changed and nothing will change. CFKC is mentally ill and in the raving stage. Ignore her and she will burn out, fall into deep depression and life can carry on as before.
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 12:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://falklandsnews.wordpress.com/2012/02/25/the-uk-answer-to-argentina-on-the-falklands/
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 12:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0more importantly if they get an Aerolineas Argentinas plane to land, the likelihood of it taking off again is pretty much zero.
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 12:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0Are they going to let Air Falklands planes land in Buenes Aires too?
@57
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 01:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0We have
@65
There is one approach which will work. There are many infact. The point is it has to be a win-win situation for both. For us the economic field is worthless. We have to win in pride. And getting the Islands is not the only way.
Recognition ??
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 01:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://falklandsnews.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/argentina-to-negotiate-with-the-falkland-islands-government/
6 GreekYoghurt
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 01:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0She's a woman (ok she looks like a transvestite and her face looks like its about to fall off but either way lets give her the benefit of the doubt) and as such her natural instinct is to nag. She quite obviously isn't very intelligent and no one seems to have told her that nagging isn't an effective means of international relations but in a domestic setting, it works.
It worked with Nester, she's now trying it with Britain.
She should stick to baking cakes.
It didn't work for Nestor... he used to bash her up for nagging.....
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 01:36 am - Link - Report abuse 069 JuanStanic
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 01:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0It's a zero sum game. Accept that and everything else becomes easier.
56 claudio_laplata
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 02:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0So if the UK change their constitution to include Argentina as part of the UK, we could do what we want with Argentina. Everything would be changed?
Let make castles in the sandpit.
Argentines don't realise how stupid they look. I guess brainwashing works. Sad.
@73
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 02:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0I know it's a zero sum game. And I accept it. The government doesn't seem to but that hasn't nothing to do with my statement.
It's obvious that we have things to win and loose and so do you. The matter is how much.
72 Frank
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 02:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yes and he was also involved in the Ezeiza massacre. Their entire government is made up of crooks and gangsters.
So the British government demands? well I I can comment that the British government, signed in 1790, according to Nootka, where he acknowledged that the Malvinas as Spanish property! Argentina is the heir of Spain thus complying with the signed!
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 02:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0Nope - the 1790 Nootka sound agreement did not include the falklands which are not adjacent to the coast of South America.
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 02:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0Nootka was between Spain and Britain - so nothing to do with Argentina.
Nootke was long dead by 1833.
And if it wasn't there was always the 'secret clause' which made Argentina a 3rd Party for its purposes.
Argentina is NOT the heir of Spain. Neevr has been. Spain didn't let go of its claims to any territory in the America's until after 1836.
Live and learn lad - http://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/
Argentina has the reason in its claims. It´s clear that these Islands Belong to Argentina. uk must negotiate now without spending more time according it has been requested by UN (and a lot of countries all South America, China, some countries of Europe, US, among others) since long time ago in a lot of Resolutions. In addition UN has told in a lot of opportunities that the self-determination can´t be applied in this case, however british people only repeat their partial view of this issue. But don´t worry there are a lot of people in the world that know this truth (I´m an example of them, I´m not from Argentina), a lot of people that know that uk is the most imperialist and colonialist country of the world. uk is a country who want to keep its economical and political power, to do this this country tries to maintain these ridiculous colonies, but it can´t avoid loosing this power in the last decades.
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 02:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0ohnfarrel2050 Thank you! is finally nice to read intelligent people on this site!
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 02:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0@79 But you are from Argentina. Why do you tell lies that are so obvious? If you're going to tell lies, at least mask them a little. And can you use less spanish english. Thanks.
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 02:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0yogurtu che (African right?), with which UK law took Argentine islands colonized by 150 unarmed civilians? They used the “right arms”? That is a right? This is a democracy??? I'm some territory in the world without looting? I get hurt!
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 02:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0@82 can you put those words together to make a sentence that we can understand. Thanks.
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 02:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0inglés
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 02:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0español
francés
As Argentine tell which is the trap, if not accept flights from Buenos Aires The Argentine government then tell you the Islanders are looking for provocative and confrontational, and then not accept the offer of three flights a week then they will have nothing ! Not a flight! Nothing! The Chilean residents no longer have grounds to claim his country flights. A fly “Santa Elena”. I you accept the offer, or to stay out of touch with civilization! haha! Just comes to play a “sudacas” underdeveloped and their neighbors! To mourn the church!
I recommend the new album by Roger Waters and MR Penn “The dark side of piracy” and “Morgan murderer of the 7 Seas”
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 02:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0@79
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 02:53 am - Link - Report abuse 01) It is not clear, otherwise it would already be resolved
2) No we dont have to negotiate regardless of countries who may agree with Argentinas claim as the Argentinians have non negoitiable terms - so not really a negotiation is it?
3) Lots of resolutions???? Identify please!
4) Here is a resolution for you! United Nations Security Council Resolution 502 - giving the UK the option to invoke Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, allowing it to claim the right of self-defence.
5) UK is not the most imperlistic country in the world - it used to be - but no longer.
6) Ridiculous colonies??? If so ridiculous why is Argentina so trumped up about them
John you deserve to join the chimps tea party with the rest of em'
#79 JF - Nope - not clear at all; Nope, the UK is under no obligation to negotiate over anything; Nope, the UN recognises that ALL the non-self-governing territories on its list have the right to self-determination; Nope, you don't appear to know the truth, but there's always hope :-)
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 03:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0#80 - you must be mad or desperate
#82 As Britain had owned the Falklands since 1766, no law was required. Besides the 30 settlers that were still there in 1833 had British permission after 1828.
#84 - it just rebounded, because Britain has said - sorry you'll have to negotiate with the Falklanders. Now let's see what Cristina does with that :-)
#85 - Whereas I suggest - http://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/ But then that'll give you an education, not impaired hearing !
79 johnfarrel2050:
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 03:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Argentina has the reason in its claims. It´s clear that these Islands Belong to Argentina”
Why has Argentina declined on many occasions to take their claim to the ICJ ? maybe they fear that the court will finally put this dispute to bed, against their claim and thus ending the debate.
It is crystal clear! The British stole the islands in 1833, so they broke the agreement they signed in 1790 Nootka! Typical colony of pirates and robbers! For the true lords British, should have been a good prison for his empire undesirable people right?
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 03:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0Are cooked, Cristina will redouble the bet and now I know where to run! For the first time in a long time the Islanders do not know that answer .. “Stanley” at this time smacks of funeral .. ja!
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 03:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0It is crystal clear ! Argentina attempted to steal the Falklands in 1832 and 1982. They broke the agreement signd in 1849. Typical of double-dyed Argie thieves.
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 03:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0The rest didn't make sense :-)
#90 - smacks of another diplomatic defeat for Argentina
89 claudio_laplata
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 03:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0so why not answer the question, If its crystal clear why do Argentina refuse to take the claim to the ICJ?
Claudio - I guess you are using google translator!!
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 03:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0You really should read your history. Nootka is not relative to the debate! It was between Spain and Britian. Argentina as a nation was only a glint in the eye of the postman.
Now shove the following summerised version of falklands History in your translator and shut up!
In 1764, French navigator and military commander Louis Antoine de Bougainville founded the first settlement on Berkeley Sound, in present-day Port Louis, East Falkland. In 1765, British captain John Byron explored and claimed Saunders Island on West Falkland, where he named the harbour Port Egmont and a settlement was constructed in 1766. Unaware of the French presence, Byron claimed the island group for King George III. Spain acquired the French colony in 1767 and placed it under a governor subordinate to the Buenos Aires colonial administration. In 1770, Spain attacked Port Egmont and expelled the British presence, bringing the two countries to the brink of war. War was avoided by a peace treaty and the British return to Port Egmont.
In 1774, economic pressures leading up to the American Revolutionary War forced Great Britain to withdraw from many overseas settlements. Upon withdrawal the British left behind a plaque asserting her continued claim. Spain maintained its governor until 1806 who, on his departure, left behind a plaque asserting Spanish claims. The remaining settlers were withdrawn by the United Provinces of the River Plate in 1811.
89 Claudio- Who stole what in 1833? Britain claimed the Islands in 1765!
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 03:27 am - Link - Report abuse 090Xav- Can you answer these questions- just supposing there were to be flights here from BA
1 Will AA communicate with - and thus recognise the existence of- the Falkland Islands Govt Dept of Civil Aviation?
2 Falkland Islands Govt Customs and Immigration Dept?
Will Arg. Customs communicate with- and thus recognise - Falkland Islands Customs dept - and use the word Islas Falklands on all standard international paperwork covering all cargo on the flight?
Will Arg Govt Agricultural Dept provide and complete the standard international Phytosanitary health certification to allow Arg produce to be exported from Arg to meet Falk Islands Agric Dept Import Regulations?
Will they?
Because if they dont then no flights could ever happen!
Your CFK is clutching at fantasy straws because Lan would not bow down to her request last month to stop flights this winter, and the big “militarization” claim fell flat in twitterman,s face when he spouted it at the UN.
The truth is that everybody knows that uk is the most imperialist and colonialist country and it has stolen a lot of territories around the world along the history and this behaviour of uk didn´t change. There are a lot of examples of territories stolen by uk, nobody can´t hide the history, you know, although the lies told by uk the sun is too big to be hidden! Some of this territories have been returned after a lot of years of claims of the the countries involved in these discussions. However there are still some territories that must be returned for example Gibraltar, Malvinas Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, among others. uk is now a country with a lot of political and economical problems and it wants to hide them, trying to maintain this ridiculous usurpation of these lands and seas areas. In addition this country is always stealing the resources of South America (fish, oil, among others). A lot a british people, with an impartial view about this issue, know this truth. I travelled to this country and I could see a lot of them were agreed with me.
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 03:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0@87 Lord Ton “As Britain had owned the Falklands since 1766”.
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 03:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0That’s a lie France owned the Falklands. France had the first colony. And Britain never had a colony or settlement on the Falklands, just on Saunders islet. And since France transferred the colony to Spain, and England signed the Nookta Convention, -which specifically talks about the Spanish colony “and nearby islands”-, Saunders islet was a nearby island the Spanish colony, so it ends any British claim.
None of Saunders or British “settlers” were present on 1833 Argentine colony (legally acquired, and non disputable).
@88 Mrlayback: Argentine declined because Britain proposed to be part AND JUDGE. Of course was declined. But later Argentina proposed a fair ICJ trial, and Britain refused.
Islanders agree with you, want nothing of the Argentina. Well, Argentina should have nothing to do with you. USA and wants no part of CUBA. It is our right to cut off any contact with you. My opinion is, prohibit the use of airspace and sea to any aircraft or vessel bound for the islands. Simple, we forget about us and you. Do whatever you want with the rest of the world but soil, air and water Argentina never again be used for any who wants to have something with you.
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 03:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0John, You keep whistling the same tune! Spain, the dutch, Germany, Portugal, France, etc were all doing the same, britain just did it better is so far we required more lands during the colonial years than the rest!
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 03:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0The colonial years which lastest centuries, is the reason why spanish/portugese?dutch/english/german and french are the main lanuages spoken in the americas! Spain & portugese stole most of south america from indians, Brits & french stole North america from local indian populations etc etc etc.
BTW where are you from? I am guessing from some european descendancy!
Islanders end up with that double standard, say they do not want anything from Argentina but want us to let them pass through our airspace, its ships sailing in our waters. When one is angry with his neighbor does not go asking for favors, so be consistent. Want no part of the Argentine as it does not expect anything in return.
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 03:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0XAVIERV
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 03:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yes Argentina does want something in return.......it wants the islands. that are the conditions from your Gov.
Give us the islands otherwise we will make life difficult for you! Your gov. is acting like the bully in the playground........“give me what i want or else!”
Pathetic!
Brit
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 03:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina is a free, could negotiate with anyone or not .. Just do not want to negotiate or know anything about you. There is something wrong with that? Do whatever you want with the rest of the world but do not try anything from us.
So, British, if you think that we are breaking any law by refusing boats and planes to use our territory, SUE US. We want it.
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 04:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0We will argue that the Falklands are our property, so we have any right to do and undo our internal laws. There is no international law at stake here.
If you think otherwise, you will need to probe it.
96 buxcador - regarding history read my previous post @93
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 04:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0Now to XAVIERV:
1)yes Agrotina is free - your point being?????????????
2)Do you read the articles????? Frau Kristina and the Agrotinian reich, do want to negotiate with the UK and have been asking to so quite a while now! but they only have one term, and the UK dont agree with it so......
THE END!
My whole issue of the Falklands and I have had enough, for me that we must stop pounding her to UK on this issue. Once and for all we cut all ties with the islands and the 3000 monkeys that live in them. Simply omitted, do not exist and we know nothing of you and no one that relates to you. Enough!
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 04:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0Great news Xav. I vote you for next argy president! you'll go down a storm with your policies!
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 04:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0103 brit abroad: Buenos Aires retired his settlers in 1811. So what?. No other country had a legal claim on the islands. Britain at best would have a claim on Saunders islet, not on the Falklands, and Nookta Treaty cancels that claim.
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 04:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0Retiring the settlers does not end sovereign rights. Declaring independence from Spain does not ends sovereign rights. Declaring independence from Spain do not gives England any rigth. Once Argenitna declared independency Spain had no property over the islands. Only Argentina. No deal between Britain and Spain, not even Nookta Treaty, gives Britain any right over Argentine territory. No Judge will give you the reason.
Buenos Aires colonized his legally owned, -and non disputed-, territory before British invasion on 1833. That was not necessary to base Argentine claims, but makes it stronger.
BRIT
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 04:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0I share your opinion, Argentina and must stop fucking with that topic. Simple, do not mess with us, do not expect anything from us. So we will continue to grow economically, socially developing ourselves, strengthen ties with other countries in South America and other countries of the world including UK. The only exception will be you. For me it is quite simple.
@106
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 04:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0My point was that your claim has as much foundation as anyone elses and that is why the dispute continues. If you are talking about treaties going back to 1790, then you are a sad man! If all the worlds nations had to stick to treaties made-up that long ago then, i think you would find the world a very very different place.
So i think it best to stick to more recent resolutions - such as the United Nations Security Council Resolution 502 - giving the UK the option to invoke Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, allowing it to claim the right of self-defence.
@108 brit abroad: A 1790 treaty is not less valid because it's old. Law is law, even if you like it or not.
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 04:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0International Court of Justice ruled in the 70's that the islands Picton, Nueva and Lennox belong to Chile and not to Argentina because the King of Spain gave it to Chile on the 1790's. That was before independence of Chile and Argentina, and is a legal precedent of the kind that makes law. It's exactly the same principle that gives Argentina the sovereign rigths over the Falklands: The rightful, undisputed owner: the King of Spain, gave the islands to Buenos Aires. It settles any dispute between Argentina and other state. The ICJ cannot rule one way against argentina, and other way also against Argentina.
Ad you know what? The Crown of England also was arbiter of the same dispute, and ruled exactly the same way, so the Crown of England settled a legal precedent that gives reason to Argentina. It makes the null British case even more null.
Argentina holds the property right. Britain is the 1833 invader, so Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, allows Argentina to claim the right of self-defence.
Otherwise probe it to a judge. If you can't probe, then Argentina is ruling his own territory. Flights to the Falklands are flights to Argentine territory.
As we 'retired' our settlers in 1774 ??
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 04:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0You need to catch up on your history Buxom - try this -
http://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/falklands-history5.pdf
Well… well…. well….
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 05:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0The squatters haven’t made their move yet, but all seems to indicate that they will not accept this new improved version of the Fernandez/Kirchner Gambit…..
A bit to advanced and tricky for them, I suppose………..
Baaad move fellas!
Mate in 11!
Chuckle chuckle©
New ? Improved ?? lol
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 05:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0Mate in 11?? so this didn't count as a 'move' then THink ?
No problem for the proposal - all BA has to do is recognise the FIG and sit down to negotiate :-)
BUX....REGARDLESS OF YOU CLAIMS AND THOSE THAT COUNTER THEM....THE FALKLANDS ARE NOT YOURS NOW!
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 05:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0SO....WHAT YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT? IF IT IS SO SIMPLE TAKE IT TO THE ICJ. OR USE YOUR SILLY ATTEMPT TO TRY AND TWIST ARTICLE 51 AND INVADE THE FALKLANDS NOW LEGALLY!!
BESIDES ALL THAT, I LOVE THE FACT YOU CALL THEM THE FALKLANDS RATHER THAN THE “M” WORD......HEHEHE
Your settlers on 1774? They were not on the Falklands islands. They were on Saunder Island.
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 05:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0It does not matter at all if you retired they or not. It was not on the Falklands. The French colony was on the Falklands.
France transferred the Falklands to Spain by signing the treaty of Ultrech, and Britain is signatory of that treaty, so:
France was first settler.
-France was the only settler on the Falklands. The only.
-Spain acquired the islands from France, and Britain SIGNED it.
-Britain annulled his claim over Saunders island by signing the Nookta Convention. Britain null case over the Falklands turned even more null.
-Spain gave the islands to Buenos Aires before Buenos Aires independence.
-British rule as arbiter, and ICJ ruling recognized that Spain cession of islands before independence to Buenos Aires decide ownership over ex Spanish disputed islands on the region.
-Argentina holds the right of first settlement, transferred from France with the property, being the only country that actually settled on the Falklands.
- Argentina settled the Falklands as independent state, and put a governor.
Britain recognized Argentina independence before invading.
So in 1833 Argentina was the one and undisputed legal owner of the Falklands, over which Britain NEVER had a claim, and would not have even without Nookta Convention.
British invasion on 1833 was a criminal act. Gives no right to Britain, and does not cancel any Argentine sovereign right.
ICJ and British ruling recognized the validity of 1970's laws in the 70's. And they cannot rule against Argentina on Picton, Nueva nad Lennox islands, and rule exactly the opposite way against Argentina on the same kind of dispute over the Falklands.
Right of Self Determination does not give any property right. If the British citizens occupying the Falklands want to argue any property right they need to prove his ownership. Right of Self Determination is a personal right, not a property right. The persons are not disputed.
THE UK (in fact not all of it, but the right-wingers at the British Government today) expects Argentina, Brazil, the UN and all the people worried about security and Peace in this world DO NOTHING about a colonial power keeping its feet over a land that has been seized in 1833.
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 05:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0They want that nobody talks about this, they expect OSCURANTISM. They expect that everything goes back to silence so that they can have a base in this side of the world and go on taking CONTROL OF NATURAL RESOURCES, they want a big peace of the Antartic continent also, more than they already have.
These conservative people that decides EVERYTHING that happens in the Malvinas Islands want to go on with their business, a business that will never pay british public schools or hospitals, a business that leaves money for a few lazy financial speculators while they lie to their own Britsh Citizens throug the mass media corporations.
They need the excuse of a threatening Argentina to militarize everything. They loce complaining about Iran developing nuclear technology, but they do not accept to stop threatening the rest of the world with the few war machines that this empire in decadence has.
They talk about self-determination, using the few families living at the Malvinas (population that has been implanted there by them) as an excuse to go on with COLONIALISM, while the land is said to belong to its Magesty and they have removed populations a lot larger from its original land to put military bases or to take control of natural resources.
The UK shows no self-criticism nowadays, it is disgusting, as disgusting as the few argentinian military junta that decided to go into a war in 1982.
Appart from any nationalism, I am a citizen of the world before being Argentinian. And colonial, corrupted and corrupting powers like this, that express this dislike for the UN resolutions, that maintain this amtidemocratic veto power at the UN Security Council, all this is making the worl a more dangerous one.
@113 brit abroad: I use the word “Falklands”, because I'm writing in English. The Spanish name is “Malvinas”. I also would use “Japon” on Spanish and English, but “Nipon” on Japanese. Get it?
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 05:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0Buxom - your history is still awry. The French were on East Falkland, and sold their goods, nothing else.
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 05:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0Britain certainly never signed that agreement.
Nootka did not apply to the Falklands - please read above :-)
Spain certainly did NOT give the Falklands to BA at any time, their own claim ran till 1863
No idea about the ICJ ruling that you are talking about - are you on the correct dosage ?
France cannot transfer the 'right of first settlement' as you term it.
Argentina never put a Governor on the Islands. It tried to put a Civil and military Commander in 1829 but that was both protested - and, indeed, sorted
The rest is just rubbish - you really need to study more
Hope that helps :-)
@117 Lord Ton: Of course that Britain signet the Treaty of Ultrech. Britain signed the treaty that transferred the Falklands from France to Spain. The same treaty transferred Gibraltar from Spain to Britain.
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 05:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0So, Britain recognized Spanish ownership of the Falklands, ans cannot argue against his own signature. Britain occupation over Saunder islet means nothing over Falklands sovereignty.
And if that treaty were not valid, then Britain should return Gibraltar to Spain.
Cristina gesture is all over the news
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 05:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Argentine President Cristina Fernandez made a surprise conciliatory gesture Thursday by seeking negotiations with the United Kingdom to establish several weekly flights from Buenos Aires to the Falkland Islands”
“flights by state-owned Aerolineas Argentinas would show the world her country's aims are peaceful”
British response...well, the world knows who is the bad guy in this old dispute
“Legislative chairman Roger Edwards said direct flights from Argentina's capital are ”about as likely as the Falklands Air Service landing flights on the moon.”
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/argentine-president-seeks-flights-falklands-15828030
@117 Lord Ton “No idea about the ICJ ruling that you are talking about - are you on the correct dosage ?”
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 05:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0Read it:
http://untreaty.un.org/cod/riaa/cases/vol_XXI/53-264.pdf
Comment removed by the editor.
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 05:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0That's the Beagle Channel award - it did not reconise uti possidetis juris as anything other than a political arrangement -
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 05:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0February 18th, the Queen's arbitration panel, considering the Beagle Channel Case, gives its decision, in favour of Chile. On the issue of uti possidetis juris, the panel says;
” the Parties were agreed in principle that their rights in the matter of claims or title to territory were governed prima facie (and if no recognized basis of derogation existed) by the doctrine of the uti possidetis juris of 1810, This doctrine—possibly, at least at first, a political tenet rather than a true rule of law—is peculiar to the field of the Spanish-American States whose territories were formerly under the rule of the Spanish Crown, —and even if both the scope and applicability of the doctrine were somewhat uncertain, particularly in such far-distant regions of the continent as are those in issue in the present case, it undoubtedly constituted an important element in the inter-relationships of the continent. ”
So - only the parties to the dispute accepted Uti .... therefore it doesn't bind anyone else :-)
Sadly Argentina declined to accept the court's decision !
@121 xbarilox: I'm no peronist, by the way.
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 06:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0You are misinformed. Argentina is willing to solve Falklands conflict on the ICJ.
Argentina rejected older UK proposals about the ICK, because UK wanted to condition ICJ ruling by making Britain part and judge.
You are an idiota - the 1977 arbitration was NOT an ICJ case although judges from the ICJ sat on the panel set up under Queen Elizabeth II.
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 06:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0Both Chile and Argentina accepted uti possidetis juris as a guide to border disputes, so the court was able to use it.
It has no other effect.
The reason Argentina refused to abide by the decision was that it DIDN'T LIKE the decision which favoured Chile.
Argentina subsequently went on to refuse to accept the Pope's arbitration for the same reason, only, finally accepting it, after the 1982 war, following a referendum by the population.
Now go and read more - particularly about history !
BUX,
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 07:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0U ARE WAY WAY WAY OUT OF YOUR DEPTH!
You are misinformed. Argentina is willing to solve Falklands conflict on the ICJ
WELL FRIGGIN DO IT THEN....JEEEEEEEEEEEEZZZZZZZZZZUSSSS
@124,125 One goes to sleep, and one wakes up and checks the news over breakfast and what does one find... the same Argentinian Faggotry that one normally finds.
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 08:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0Seriously, do these people not know their history? Do they not know that the UK offered to take this all to the ICJ twice and Argentina said no. They even offered to talk about sovereignty once and argentina said no.
Like seriously, what's up with these people?
Seriously, do these people not know their history? Do they not know that the UK offered to take this all to the ICJ twice and Argentina said no. They even offered to talk about sovereignty once and argentina said no.
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 09:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0No uk NEVR Did,Yougurt: YOU ARE A LIAR,like lordtrash!
On the contray Argentina offered to take to court uk 6 times.uk declined.That little banana republic of uk....uk IS FINISHED!
The Argentine government is honouring its 1999 agreement and just making a proposal that can only be beneficial for the Islands population. The FO's answer is wrong on many grounds, first of all because it is not for Argentina to negotiate with anyone else but with the State that exercises control over the Islands. Even according to the UK, foreign affairs issues regarding the Islands are the resort of London. If the UK rejects to even discuss the Argentine proposal of having flights to BA, it will be clear who is “blockading” here.
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 10:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0@127 Hmm...pathological use of freudian distortion in order to present facts in a subjective manner, ended with an ad hominem attack. Always works for me.
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 10:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0@128 “Argentinians” and “honouring an agreement” are a contradiction in terms. As a lawyer you should understand the meaning of the word 'trust', now as you probably don't let's look at the meaning:
trust /trʌst/
noun
1. reliance on the integrity, strength, ability, surety, etc., of a person or thing; confidence.
2. confident expectation of something; hope.
3. confidence in the certainty of future payment for property or goods received; credit: to sell merchandise on trust.
4. a person on whom or thing on which one relies: God is my trust.
5. the condition of one to whom something has been entrusted.
There isn't a single part of that definition that would apply to the FIslander's relationship with the Argentinians. So, bearing in mind the recent economic blockade and lack of recognition of the self-governing status provided by the FIG, they are well within their rights to reject the flights based upon a lack of trust, or goodwill on the part of the Argentinians. (i.e. they just tell lies, they're a moral vacuum and are incredibly Machiavellian, like lawyers)
There is nothing in international law that suggests that the British government, although responsible for foreign affairs, shouldn't consult or pass the responsibility onto the islanders in cases that they both see fit. Given the 'mature' relationship the UK.gov has with the FIG this is normal practice, and your argument has no merit.
Next poor argument please, Prof. Law.
There's not much of the 1999 accord left - Argentina has unilaterally walked away from most of it. But they've addressed the invite to talk to the wrong people. All invitations must now go to the Government in Stanley.
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 10:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0Do try and get it right.
128 Marcelo Kohen
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 10:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0''The Argentine government is honouring its 1999 agreement''? No it isn't; it has unilaterally withdrawn from almost every part of it. Are you planning to honour all the other parts of it?
''just making a proposal that can only be beneficial for the Islands population''? No.Being dependent on Argentina for communications can be very un- beneficial to the islands. You know this. That's why you are doing it.
''Even according to the UK, foreign affairs issues regarding the Islands are the resort of London'' Yes, but since when was a commercial decision about a commercial carrier's decision to fly into an airport 'foreign affairs'? There is absolutely no-one better placed to decide what kind of air link we need to develop our economy than us.
We need a second flight to Punta and our charter flights to anywhere. We don't need a poxy flight to nowheresville Argentina. If you would like us to tell you that via the FCO, then fine. The answer will still be the same.
If you want to debase yourself and abandon dignity and self- respect by perpetuating the charade that this is a marvellously generous gesture by Argentina, then fill your boots. We are not taken in.
2003 - November, the Argentine government withdraws permission for charter flights, to the Falklands, to over-fly Argentine airspace. Buenos Aires also demands that there should be negotiations on scheduled flights operating directly between Argentina and the Falklands, but state that they will not accept the presence of any Island representative to the talks.
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 11:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0Britain's response is brief: “The Falkland Islands Government is wholly opposed to any scheduled flights originating in Argentina or operated by Argentine carriers. The concern would be, based on past experience, that the Argentines could not be trusted not to heavily subsidise the flight, to such an extent that it made the LAN Chile flight no longer commercial and caused its withdrawal, following which we would have commercial scheduled flights only through Argentina. This of course is reminiscent of the situation in the 1970's and is unacceptable.”
Comment removed by the editor.
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 11:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0@133 Sorry Claudio, most of us in the room have a spine, so we don't understand your spanish, sorry.
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 11:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0@80 Don't be daft. jf is a certified imbecile lunatic.
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 02:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@84 Have you not noticed that it is the imprescriptible right of every country to decide what aircraft can land in its territory?
@89 Don't be so obviously stupid! British occupation started in 1690. Sovereignty was never relinquished, even when the settlement was temporarily evacuated. Nootka doesn't apply. argies, nee united provincials are the pirates and robbers. I assume that you are aware that the relevant punishments are (a) hanging and (b) hanging. It may take a while, but we CAN hang 40 million pirates and robbers!
@90 Buenos Aires smacks of LARGE crater!
@95 Oh, shut up, you dozy git! I'd be inclined to call you an ignorant, brainless t*rd. But t*rds have more intelligence.
@96 Stupid little child. The French had a settlement and never claimed the whole of the Falkland Islands. And France didn't “transfer” the colony, Spain reimbursed the French for the cost of the settlement. And no, the United Provinces didn't “legally” acquire anything. It's assertion that it “inherited” Spanish territory is not legally recognised. At best, it's a South American convenience.
@101 So shut up!
@102 Sorry to disappoint you, burdbrain. The UN recognises the UK as the legal Administering Authority for the Falkland Islands. Cess-pit land isn't mentioned.
@106 Go away, burdbrain. Doubtful if you even make sense in gibberish.
@109 Oh, goody. Produce the document.
@111 No, Twinky. Game's over. Next move is the Grand Slam. keep your head down, dearie. Not that it will help!
@114 Still gibberish!
@115 Dozy, unintelligible, ignorant git!
@118 Wrong!
@119 Argentina is welcome to despatch Aerolineas Argentinas aircraft full to the brim with argie nationals to the Falklands. Of course, as they cross into the Falklands EEZ, they become “targets”. How many airliners are you planning to send? We can dispose of a minimum of 8 at a time.
@123 Go on then. Dare you.
@128 Must disappoint. Landings are domestic.
What I don't understand is why the Falklands Islands is on the UN Decolonization list.
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 03:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_list_of_Non-Self-Governing_Territories
Surely if the 'Cook Islands' were removed with the following deal...
'New Zealand may act on behalf of the Cook Islands in foreign affairs and defence issues, but only when requested so by the Cook Islands Government and with its advice and consent.'
A similar deal can be done for the self sufficient Falklands?
This would stop Argentina's Colonial argument.
If the Falkland Island Government and I stress if! agree to this. There will be three flights a week as I understand it. Will those flights be commercial ie, food stuffs etc or would there be Argentines visiting the islands. If the latter, I suppose normal immigration laws apply? passport control and customs. Do Argentines need visas to visit the islands? if so where do they apply to, for that matter are they even permitted entry to the islands? I think KFC (a spicy bird best served hot) is up to something! lord alone knows what?
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 04:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@137. Some of us Argentines (vainly) expect that every person in our goverment will do its duty. The Plastic Queen and all her immediate advisors are dotal tickheads as would have been said in Ronnie Barker's lingo, so I don't believe there's anything rotten in Denmark, but just a makebelieve 'move' to induce us to think she's doeing her homework. I imagine that the islanders will again say 'no, thanks' and this will enrage Her Highness who would react against them and Britain and, with the turmoil this will bring to the newspapers, she will cheat us once again by throwing upon us a new smoke curtain to cover her and her goverment's intentions to deprive our Central Bank from all the reserves it still hoards, unbalacing even more the money supply/reserves ratio (currently @ 56.4%), leading to an outrageous inflation. Save this post. Read it again in 90 days, and only then answer it. Cheers!
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 05:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The only reason that there was a war in 1982 ( call it a conflict call it what you want but when soldiers of two countries engage in combat and kill each other, in my book, thats a war) was because Argentina invaded. No matter how much Argentines try to now disassociate themselfs from the actions of their then Government, at the time they were in full support of those actions. Several hundreds of Argentine troops, spearheaded by their special forces invaded and took on seventy four Royal Marines. Despite Argentine claims that they tried to seize the islands without causing casualties, those Special Forces opened up heavy fire on the marine barracks at Moody Brook. Trying to take out the enemy troops asleep in their barracks. An understandable military tactic when fighting third rate troops, but sheer folly when fighting one of the worlds premier marine units, forewarned of an enrmy attack. Those marine lightly armed put up a defence inflicting a fatality to the Argentine special forces, possibly their commander, Who in his defence, died bravely leading from the front, a trait that subsequent officers failed to display. When armoured units arrived and lacking the appropriate weapons to take on those units, acting on direct orders from the governor, the marines surrendered. The next thing we see is photos flashed around the world, of those marines made to lie on their stomaches, whilst vastly superior troops stand over them, like some white hunter with a trophy. Anyone who knows anything about the British could have foreseen the subsequent reaction of the British Government. It had nothing to do with Thatchers leadership at the time. Argentine caught us with a pants down and in the eyes of the world, thoroughly shamed us (despite our fantastic fighting marines).
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 06:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0To our Argentine bloggers I would remind you of a British saying, “Once caught, twice shy”. So do not be suprised if we are reluctant trust you.
@ 137 Argentines in possession of a valid passport can and do visit the Falklands as tourists. A group of around 50 arrived a couple of weeks ago and made a very bad impression by behaving aggressively in public. While Falkland Islanders know this group were not truly representative of Argentines as a whole, these are the type of Argentines who are stepping forward and representing their country to us.
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 06:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@140
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 06:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Forget my last blog, it was an effort to try and explain certain facts to our Argentine bloggers. Are you an islander? or are you repeating information you have heard? If you are an islander, what do you and the rest of people think about this latest developement. From my point of view, if I was an islander, I'd be happy at the change of stance, but very, very, very suspicious!
@114 buxcador - It's our problem you have been so brainwashed you can only accept rewritten history
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 07:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This is the correct sequence of events in Falkland history:
1592 British make first siting of the islands
1690 British make first record of landing on islands
1764 French have first settlement on East Falkland
1765 British have first settlement on Saunders Island but also claims West Falkland as British
1770 Spanish Expel British
1771 Spanish agree that the expulsion was illegal and the British return
1776 French forced to sell to Spanish for £25,000
1776 British have to temporarily withdraw form islands but leave plaque of ownership there
1776 Sealers swat in British settlement and remove British plaque
1780 Spanish destroy settlement and evict swatters
1806 British take Montevideo disrupting supplies to Spanish on Falklands
1811 Spanish withdraw leaving the islands
1816 Rio de la Plata (Argentina) declares independence
1820 Argentina also makes claim of sovereignty re-naming islands ‘Las Malvinas’
1823 Argentina grants concession to Frenchman using Gauchos help to catch seals
1824 The Frenchman was unsuccessful and they have to withdraw
1828 Frenchman gets permission from both Argentina and Britain to return to the islands
1829 Frenchman made governor (without British permission) and arrests 3 US ships
1831 US destroys settlement and deports all there to Montevideo
1832 Argentinian governor is sent but is murdered by his own men, leaving the islands in anarchy
1832 British return to restore order and deport all those that wouldn’t accept British sovereignty.
1833 Creoles and gauchos murder the Frenchman’s company agent and other settlers
1834 British arrest culprits and send them for trail, restore order and re-establish settlements
1839 British pay compensation to Frenchman for loss of his horses etc.
1840 Islands made a British colony and start their development, remaining British since
the islanders do have the power, to arrest these yobs, and put them on the next plane back.
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 07:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Who cares about about dates? who cares about treaties and counter treaties. For every date they produce we produce another date, For every treaty they produce we produce another treaty and so it goes on and on and on! What matters is what happens today. I am no more responsile for what my grandfather did than I am responsible for what my greatgrand children do in the future. “Are we to settle the sins of the fathers on their sons.” Todays problems need to be sorted with todays solutions.
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 07:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@142 a suitable summary of falklands history at the required period to help the Argies remember the truth. I commend you for typing it.
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 08:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Argentinian airline is bankrupt and has the motto 'up high in the sky' or should this be 'pie in the sky'.
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 08:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@ 141 reality check
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 08:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0yes I am a Islander (and to correct claims by Argentine correspondents on other topics I, like the vast majority of us, live here full time, am not an 'artificial implant' and don't have second home somewhere warmer). Ref the lastest offer from Argentina, they could have offered a thrice weekly airlink any time they liked in the past 30 years. That is not to say we would have been interested but, if the offer had been extended at the right time and in a genuine and unencumbered attempt to restore peaceful co-operation and commerce, who knows what we ould have made of it. However this offer, at this time and in the present circumstances, is a further shameful episode in 'Cristina's very own soap opera'. I thank a recent visiting Argentine for that last quotation.
And ref 143 - yes, we do have the power to arrest yobs (we even have a gaol to put them in) and a good deal of discussion has been generated on how to handle any future incidents.
138 Argie
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 08:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Have you passed the Malvinistas' super clever and fool-proof Spanish proficiency test yet? You see they will assume that you are clearly British because you disagree with them. They'll ask you to post something in Spanish and if your grammar is incorrect they'll label you British. The last time the test was forced on someone the Malvinistas declared some guy to be British. It turns out he was actually an Argentine and not just any Argentine but a well known Argentine lawyer. Chuckle chuckle!
How does an Argentine commit suicide?
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 09:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- he climbs to the top of his ego and jumps off
In the beginning of this video, Morrissey talking about the islands:
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 09:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pNyFftD4TU
***
Nobles and honest ones... always against colonialism
Q: How many mulleted Argentinians does it take to change a light-bulb?
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 10:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A: Three, one to lie about changing the light-bulb, one with a gun saying 'give peace a chance' and one pushing non-white people under trains.
150 fermin
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 11:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Morrissey is gay, climb into bed with him if you want. No one likes his depressing music and no one cares what he thinks. He's probably that doped up, he doesn't know himself.
Honoria @147
Mar 02nd, 2012 - 11:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thanks for your reply, nice to hear from some one who matters in all this, seems like a lot of people have forgotten about your views. The sovereignty of the Falklands will be determined by the Falkland Islanders. Any British politician who forgets that, may as well take a knife and cut his or her (maggie) political throat.
The only Argentines that would have any inclination to visit the Falklands either reside in the deep south (Santa Cruz, Tierra del Fuego), or in Mar del Plata, Bahia Blanca, or Buenos Aires, localities where this otherwise inordinately lionized matter elicits ardent to perfervid sentiments in some denizens. So a large percentage of those who travel there will likely have more emotional investment in the issue.
Mar 03rd, 2012 - 12:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0Trust me when I tell you in Mendoza no one gives a hoot about the Falklands, and have neither vested connections nor much curiosity to learn about them. In fact, it's the Wine Festival tonight and tomorrow (with the world's largest), so the city is flooded with affable tourists from around the world; food & wine tastings (from cuisines from all major countries of the world), and concerts are to be found everywhere (including that dude Morrisey who is in town, amongst many others from Latin America and Europe).
So, time to fete the wine and celebrate the hard work and travail of the last year! Because Mendoza is the hardest working and most industrious province, as anyone who has visited the city can attest to: an oasis sorrounded by sere demesne, and where every solitary tree betokens a silent victory against the unforgiving desert. ;)
@154 Tobias
Mar 03rd, 2012 - 01:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0Take a closer look at your neighbours. Lots of Argentines visit the Falklands as tourists, very few from the Southern cone and plenty from Mendoza. My personal view is that it is an educational experience for them. They come here looking for the Malvinas and find it is a figment of their imagination. Instead they find the Falkland Islands, a very different and disconcerting reality.
I know of not one person who has visited there. Just my reality. And my position stands, the issue of the islands away from the coastline is of little consequence and many of us or tired of it. This observation is not just mine, it has been made by several contributors on the British side.
Mar 03rd, 2012 - 01:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0Trust me when I tell you many want our government to leave you alone. But then again, Mendoza is generally seen as different from the rest of the country in many ways. I could be suffering from a bubble effect.
156 Tobias
Mar 03rd, 2012 - 08:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0I have a friend from Mendoza who generally visits twice a year. He even has the Falklands crest on a piece of kit that he brings with him each time. He is a well known figure in certain circles in Mendoza and he loves his Argentine wine. Perhaps you bumped into him last night at the wine festival.
Which province is that hag from again?
Mar 03rd, 2012 - 10:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0@154 tobias
Mar 03rd, 2012 - 12:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Trust me when I tell you in Mendoza no one gives a hoot about the Falklands”
Then why do you spend so much TIME writing about the Falklands?
Have your wine festival and try to drown Argentina’s problems for a moment, trust is only achieved though deeds, never by worthless words
@153 reality check
“Any British politician who forgets that, may as well take a knife and cut his or her (maggie) political throat.”
I think you need a reality check, British politicians respond to British public opinion and they don’t trust Argentinians or their bullyboy tactics, I can’t believe you are an Islander, as most feel grateful to Maggie and wouldn’t use such terminology.
Your Comment
Mar 03rd, 2012 - 11:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why would Argentina talk to illegal aliens USA doesn't talk to Mexico about illegal aliens, in any case illegal aliens and pirats get sent to jail or deported, specially if they are armed by British terrorists. UK armed them, let UK deal with this pirats, sovereign deportation and targeted assassination coming right up for British pirates and illegal aliens.
Mar 04th, 2012 - 06:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@161 Pirat-Hunter
Mar 04th, 2012 - 08:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“USA doesn't talk to Mexico about illegal aliens, in any case illegal aliens and pirats get sent to jail or deported”
Even someone as mentally retarded as you, should be able to tell the difference between a people being somewhere for 180 years and the one million Mexicans that try to get into the USA every year. No? Well you are officially a moron.
p.s. I can also post the same thing on two different threads as you do
@152 Karl101: what does it have to do that Morrissey is Gay?¿? What are you suggesting, I wouldn't like to think you are discriminating... It seems you are...
Mar 04th, 2012 - 09:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I think your words reflect the conservatory, dishonest, double-moral and a bit fascist ideology that keeps people working to enrich monarchy, wright-wingers, petrol business addicted ones and a few bankers living of this anarchist type of capitalism imposed today.
@163 fermin
Mar 04th, 2012 - 10:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Because you are so bitter about having nothing, your answer is to have a left wing parasitical mentality so you can extrude bollocks like this:
“I think your words reflect the conservatory, dishonest, double-moral and a bit fascist ideology that keeps people working to enrich monarchy, wright-wingers, petrol business addicted ones and a few bankers living of this anarchist type of capitalism imposed today”.
It’s sad
163 fermin
Mar 05th, 2012 - 12:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0I agree, we should all be ganging up on the bankers, the thieving b******s. But the idea of Argentines teaching us how to get rid of capitalism, is as daft as the idea that Hitler could offer a solution to capitalism. Your country is dominated by corporations, most of them American. Keep moaning about the Falklands, it should keep you occupied while the bankers finish off whats left and it's sure to win your witless President more votes.
@165 jayD: Argentina of course is not an example of economic equity and social developement in a lot of areas. But GET REAL (this is not to you I am saying it to everybody). It is not politician's fault all the time. It is not CFK's fault all the time.
Mar 05th, 2012 - 04:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0Corporations love to destroy politician's prestige, no matter they are right-wingers left-wingers, they need society blame them for everything, while resources are very often administrated not by Governments but by Corporations.
You are right that Argentina is dominated by Corporations a lot. I am not trying to show Argentina as an example of freedom. But Malvinas is not the main topic in Argentina, society is really discussing how to get rid of corporations in the last years and this Government has helped a lot.
I am also not putting our President or any of the ministers as gods, they are human, and they can be corrupted by corporations. But there has to be real facts to accuse them, not hilarious Headlines at corporate media.
When the ones attacking the Government ARE the corporations, then you realize what side are they.
And it doesn't matter what nationality people are, they can always teach you something. I do not blame all the british ones for the government they have today. And there is a lot Argentina can learn from the UK, but with honesty, and transparency. Not with lies, not putting a stigma at Latinamerican countries, while a lot of the sad things that happen in this continent have more to do with foreign corporations than to the local inhabitants. That is SADIST.
@164 Redcoat: “Because you are so bitter about having nothing”: I don't know how you imagine my life. You can be sure that I have problems, but you can be sure that I have a lot of things, material and not material. I consider myself really LUCKY. I have access to a very good social care system, I had access to public university, I work comfortably from home with my MacBook Pro, play with my iPhone and go on holidays abroad.
@166 Curious that you define yourself by the apple products and objects around you, and not the hobbies you do or even your career choice or even a personal quality such as 'being nice'.
Mar 05th, 2012 - 05:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We all need to get out of this ridiculous consumerism and hang around in beige clothes reading poetry to each other.
Why can't argies just realise they don't own the falklands, never did and then we can get back to being friends? I really don't get it.
I expect British illegal aliens, thieves and pirates to stay away from my country or face punishment, all British civilians should be considered persona non-grata in America.
Mar 05th, 2012 - 10:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0168
Mar 05th, 2012 - 10:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0coffin=stake=neck=blood=Dracula=hunter
removal of blood, stealer , pirate= you .
@168
Mar 05th, 2012 - 11:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You mean your corrupt cesshole part of the Americas. Wouldn't want to go there. As for punishment, come try take the islands. Have your backside handed to you again. You couldn't hunt your own dangler.
Pirat-Hunter
Mar 06th, 2012 - 07:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0Pirates are cool :).
I like punishment do you want me to tie myself up first?
@166 fermin
Mar 06th, 2012 - 12:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“I don't know how you imagine my life. You can be sure that I have problems, but you can be sure that I have a lot of things, material and not material. I consider myself really LUCKY. I have access to a very good social care system, I had access to public university, I work comfortably from home with my MacBook Pro, play with my iPhone and go on holidays abroad”.
I know enough about Argentina to know how deeply embarrassing it must be for you, and the fact write on this forum obviously means you are dissatisfied with your lot, whereas I waste my time with you, in defensive of the Islanders against thug Argentina.
@168 Pirat-Hunter
“I expect British illegal aliens, thieves and pirates to stay away from my country or face punishment, all British civilians should be considered persona non-grata in America.”
HA HA you can stay away from Canada then.
** 142 Redhoyt
Mar 06th, 2012 - 06:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 01831 ... the Brits uses US Warship to destroy the islands....NOT TRUE that all were deported to Montevideo...
1832 ... the Argentine Governor sent ,killed in mutiny organized by British Royal Intelligence Service ...NOT TRUE that killed by his own men..
1833 ... the British Forces to return to grab the islands...NOT TRUE that in the year of 1832....
BY THE WAY .....
you forgot to write (or you don't know !) the years of 1766/1767/1774
what that happened there...!!
obviously we need the real English to discuss somethings here ...not professsional posters..............!!
i'm just free man..
@173 geo
Mar 07th, 2012 - 04:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Are you on something, - ‘REdhoyt’ must be someone else
I’ve updated the list to answer your assertions:
1831 US destroys settlement and deports MOST there to Montevideo,
United States did not recognise the Falklands as Argentina so didn’t accept they had any authority whatever in the islands, so used their own warship Lexington, it was nothing to do with the British.
1832 Argentinian governor is sent but is murdered by his own men, leaving the islands in anarchy –Definitely TRUE - no such thing as the British Royal Intelligence Service in 1832
1832 British return to restore order and deport all those that wouldn’t accept British sovereignty.
OK it was 2nd January 1833 the British (HMS Clio) arrived, but had set sail in 1832
I’ve also added years of 1766/1767/1774 just for you.
1765 British settle on Saunders Island and formally claim all Falkland Islands as British
1766 French think they are naming Port Egmont but have in fact named Keppel Sound
1767 Spain claim Falklands in their sphere of influence and force the French to withdraw
1770 Spanish Expel British from the Falklands
1771 Spanish agree that the expulsion of British was illegal and the British return
1774 Most British troops in Falklands are redeployed to the North America colonies
1776 French forced to sell to Spanish for £25,000
1776 British withdraw temporarily form islands but leave plaque of ownership there
So my List looks like a professional poster does it and it’s in real English
“i'm just free man” - yes well wait till you are less ‘free’ before contributing.
** 174 Red
Mar 07th, 2012 - 07:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0your 1831 assertion is not convincing and also have contadictory with 1823 Monroe Doctrine.....
the same USA applied the Monroe Doctrine for the Republic of Texas in 1836 to resist of British alliance with it..
the same USA applied the Monroe Doctrine in 1842 for Hawai..told the British not to interfere there....
the same USA applied the Monroe Doctrine in 1895 for Venezuela...to kept the British away from there....
-------------------
1832:
the assasination of Argentine Governor organized by British Royal secret services....absolutely true.....!!
-------------
i am neither Argentine nor British.....................!!
from where...to where....what a recession...!!
Mar 07th, 2012 - 08:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0BY THE WAY
Britain can not use NATO means/value adds at anywhere in the world
for it's special interests...this is one of the basic NATO regulations...
the rest power which the British have to intervene for anywhere in the world by itself is almost nothing.....
@175/176 geo
Mar 07th, 2012 - 09:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You may not want to be convinced, but that is what the everybody’s (bar Argentina’s) records prove - SO where’s your PROOF?
It is YOU, contradicting yourself, on one hand you quote the ‘unilateral' Monroe Doctrine for European powers not to interfere in the new world and write it was the British who used US Warship to destroy the islands, when the Americans themselves say it was them, who did it
Try to Make sense
Where Hawaii wanted to be British to stop the US annexing them, as they had murdered Captain Cook, we declined their wish. It was nothing to do with the Monroe Doctrine.
As for Texas that may be true something in that as some Royalist went there.
Venezuela claims the British stole what is Guyana from them, well so what, does that prove anything?
“Argentine Governor organized by British Royal secret services....absolutely true”
NO it isn’t, where’s your PROOF
“Britain can not use NATO means/value adds at anywhere in the world for it's special interests...this is one of the basic NATO regulations..the rest power which the British have to intervene for anywhere in the world by itself is almost nothing”
This doesn’t make much sense, the UK on it's own is more than capable of defending the Falklands,
“i am neither Argentine nor British” – maybe, but you seem like a prick or drunk.
** 177 Red
Mar 07th, 2012 - 10:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0my asking is very simple that...
the USA applied own 1823 dated doctrine in the 1836/Texas...1842/Hawai....1895/Venezuela.... events
but
didn't applied it in the years between 1831--1833 at Malvinas..why ??
------------------------
1832/ as you know there are many agents notably around the high level officials in the history...
--------------------------
the UK on it's own is more capable of defending these islands...??
under the economic siege conditions...??
@178 geo
Mar 07th, 2012 - 11:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A very very simple answer :
in 1836/Texas...1842/Hawaii....1895/Venezuela, Britain didn't opposed it
In 1831 it was not issue, as the USA attacked the swatters themselves
On 2nd January 1833, the British ignored it and re-established themselves there. OK
” defending these islands... under the economic siege conditions ??
Yes of course we are not receiving any help at the moment so what's different?
** 179 Red
Mar 08th, 2012 - 10:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0your reply has not answered me yet .
i ask that why the USA connived the British movings on Malvinas during 1833/ 1982 ...contrary to Texas/Hawai/Venezuela/Cuba events.
@180 geo
Mar 08th, 2012 - 12:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The USA didn't convince the British to return to the Falklands , it was because they are British and the situation there ( anarchy) required law and order to be re-estabished.
Why what's your theory ?
** 181 Red
Mar 08th, 2012 - 03:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0this is just RealPolitics...
there could had been made some bargains on Caribbean Islands/Canada/Belize not only on Malvinas Islands..(also Guyanas)
@182 geo
Mar 08th, 2012 - 09:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It is possible on Belize, it is well known on Canada because of the stalemate of the 1812-14 war, but not on the Caribbean Islands as they were before the USA
Guyana I don't know, I seem to remember it was European powers taking advantage of Spainish / Portuguese disagreements
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!