MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Falklands’ dispute controversy reaches The Washington Post
The Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute has reached the US capital triggering an interesting exchange in the Washington Post, involving the newspaper and the ambassadors from Argentina and the UK. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesI wonder what element of Argentina's trade blockades of the islands or refusal to discuss anything with the islanders is part of their respecting of interests? Also, as the islanders voted to stay related to the UK, how is Argentina respecting the islanders by writing in their own constitution that no goal other than complete sovereignty can be considered? Jorge talks out of his ambassadorial behind.
Apr 19th, 2012 - 05:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0How can The Post argue that an illegal occupation of ARGENTINA has become a legal possession because it has persisted for four centuries, by force, with inhabitants “established” by the usurper country?
Apr 19th, 2012 - 05:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0Has the United Nations been mistaken in its many resolutions over decades calling for Argentina and Britain to negotiate on their dispute over the Malvinas?---as OPPOSED to ANOTHER INVASION
It is Argentina that respects the interests of the inhabitants of the Malvinas...as shown in 1982, and again today but trying to enforce a sovereignty on them that they don't want.
What a Nutter...!!!
As ever their argument lacks any consistency, dignity, logic, truth or respect.
Apr 19th, 2012 - 06:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0Its for this reason Argentina is not taken seriously by anyone.
At this point I don't think that the Argentinian's would know“The Truth” if it sat on their faces and wiggled. They are so blinded by greed that they only believe their own lies.
Apr 19th, 2012 - 06:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0“We were there first” no, we were there over 40 years before you. “You kicked out all the settlers in 1833” no, there's well documented evidence many civilians stayed on the islands and only the military elements and prisoners were sent away. “you abandoned the islands” no, we never withdrew our claim, and we left a plaque behind stating this. “a plaque does not mean anything” if that's the case, then Spain's claim that was left as a plaque means nothing, and therefore you can't inherit anything. “we inherited the islands from Spain” Spain didn't even recognise your existence until the late 19th century, by which time the British settlement had been well established. and so no, and so on, and so on....
Apr 19th, 2012 - 07:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0@2: MonkeyMagic
Apr 19th, 2012 - 08:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0I think you are trying to support the Argentinian position but you are making absolutely no sense...even less than the Argentinian position in general.
Please can you at least try to make some sense, or at least make it clearer that you intentionally are trying to satirise the Argentinian position in the style of the funkiest monkey that ever popped...
@5 True. Ship's manifest debunks the Argtard theory that any settlers were removed, in fact they were encouraged to stay (discussed with manifests presented here: http://www.flickr.com/groups/malvinas/discuss/72157626157758043/). The list in the manifest mentions only 4 civilians: Joaquín Acuña and his partner Juana, Mateo González and his partner Marica.
Apr 19th, 2012 - 08:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0So 4 people left, and they weren't asked to leave, they just chose to.
The RGs have no case, & they know it.
Apr 19th, 2012 - 08:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0But they do want the oil & they do want to salve their injured macho-pride.
Tough bananas, RGs.
Diego Garcia ....???
Apr 19th, 2012 - 09:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0in 2002 ..The British Government announced that the results of a study
indicated that the resettlement was indusputably--infeasible--.This report claimed that any human interference with the Chagos Islands is likely to exacerbate stress on the marine and terrestial environment and will accelerate the effects on global warming ....so on...
Thas just the Justice Overruled !..not anything else..
but these are just wellknown English................
Laughing is free......................
Laugher...............Laugher...............DGPMR
Tipsy, if you want to compare other cases to this one, then how about we argue that the people of Argentina have no right to be in Argentina? The only thing you have is that time and circumstance obtained you international recognition at a time when other people were just as colonialist as you were being. In purely moral terms, you have no right being in South America. I'm not talking legally, just morally, so until Argentina can argue their presence from a moral point of view, I think it's better they shut up about the moral levels of any other country and just concentrate on the topic in hand: the Falklands.
Apr 19th, 2012 - 09:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0@6
Apr 19th, 2012 - 09:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0Satire..
I think the satire was lost on everyone there. I was scratching my head
Apr 19th, 2012 - 09:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0( 10 )
Apr 19th, 2012 - 10:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0These kind of discussion can bring nothing
then I have a right to ask as --...You have no right being in South Atlantic...--
You try to make illogical, obtuse discussions here .....
If I were English I would feel me small have backing corrupt-tired-finished-bruised-rotten-outmoded UK...!
@11
Apr 19th, 2012 - 10:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0Dammit...that was a good impression of the semi-random, factually inaccurate and internally incoherent sophistry put forward by the Argentine ambassador.
You may have proved the argument impossible to satirise...
@6 If you actually read it, you would find that the first two paragraphs plus the first part of the next sentence are copied direct from Arguello's letter. Monkeymagic's contribution is “as shown in 1982, and again today but trying to enforce a sovereignty on them that they don't want.
Apr 19th, 2012 - 10:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0What a Nutter...!!!”
Get it now?
I suppose Arguello must be forgiven for being a mouthpiece. After he's AN AMBASSADOR. The fact that he's also a liar and a prat is purely fortuitous. Let's take a look at what he says. “The conflict only postponed the inevitable fall of the dictatorship.” The truth of this statement is clearly demonstrated in this video where a tiny gathering were clearly demonstrating against the junta. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xqwNsmzCbM Ho ho ho!
“the political conditions to peacefully discuss the sovereignty dispute over the islands.” Except that there is no sovereignty dispute. The Falklanders say the islands belong to them. Not unreasonable since they and their predecessors have been living there for at least 247 years. Britain agrees. The only fly in the ointment is a “claim” by argieland based on an improperly used legal principle and a short period of trespassing.
“How can The Post argue that an illegal occupation of the Malvinas Islands has become a legal possession because it has persisted for two centuries, by force, with inhabitants “established” by the usurper country?” Largely by using the proper name of the territory and the truth.
In his penultimate paragraph he refers to the hackneyed Diego Garcia. Conveniently forgetting to mention that the “inhabitants” had been first slaves and then employees. They didn't own the place. Not even one grain of sand. And it was the French that took the slaves there!
But his best bit was right at the end. “Today, only the truth should be told.” That's fair. When is he going to start? There doesn't seem to be any in his letter!
British possession of the Falklands began in 1765 and led to the establishment of settlements over the next half-century before the state of Argentina even existed. The only Argentine presence was a brief military occupation in 1832, which British forces removed the following year. No civilians were expelled, and the population of 30 or so civilians chose to stay under British rule. In 1850, Britain and Argentina signed an agreement settling their
Apr 19th, 2012 - 10:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0WHAT A LIAR these brits,my God! No wonder why half of the world hates them!
13) not at all. you claim proximity as a reason for posession, but cant use that as a reason to claim argentina as settlers there, it's nowhere near italy, germany, spain... you claim you were in the falklands first as a reason, well people were in argentina before you too so that's not relevant either. You claim inherited possession, well there is no inherited possession for argentina. you say we stole land, you stole argentina too. there is not one single argument you have for claiming the islands that you can use to also justify your presence in south america.
Apr 19th, 2012 - 10:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0Let's put the Chgos Island clause to bed shall we. Britain was wrong to do what they did to the inhabitants of Diego Garcia. Now just because they did the wrong thing then you Argies that they should also do the wrong thing by us...why? Everyone makes mistakes, even nations, but there is no sense at all in repeating those mistakes. They are RIGHT to protect us from Argentine colonialism, don't see why that's so hard to gat through your thick, Argie skulls.
Apr 19th, 2012 - 10:58 am - Link - Report abuse 016: liars how? go to google, look up “José María Pinedo, passenger list 1833”, read the document, then go away and read the 1850 settlement of differences between london and buenos aires, then come back to us and not until then.
Apr 19th, 2012 - 11:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0@19 The 1850 Settlement of Differences is to the Argtards what a crucifix is to a vampire. Oh, they hate the fact they signed that document because it clearly says all differences were settled, but sadly Argtards don't have a drop of honour in their blood, so they feel quite happy to just ignore it, just like they feel happy to just take a company because they feel like it.
Apr 19th, 2012 - 11:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Argtard Ambassador is knowingly speaking untruths here. They started the Falklands war, rather than negotiate peacefully, and under the international law recognised principle of 'uti possidetis', the victorious keeps possession of any lands gained during the conflict [this is how all Latin American countries settled their boundaries]. So, under international law, the UK has every right to the Falkland Islands, legally and morally.
@9 actually the inhabitants of diego garcia were planted workers of mauritian origin to work in plantations by the mauritians, and was handsomely compensated to move back to mauritius by the UK, when we legally bought the islands from mauritius, they were not indigenous peoples so there is no illegal act.
Apr 19th, 2012 - 11:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0@20 Remember the Argentines have been told that they were tricked into signing that document. I pushed and pushed for any evidence of that being true -despite the fact that it makes no difference to the validity of the document - and none could be offered. Some vague rambling about trickery and stolen documents seems to have been inculcated into the poor and under-educated who vote for CFKC.
Apr 19th, 2012 - 11:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0The CFKC voting demographic appear to swallow any old tripe as true. I might have some fun the next time I am down there and start a few myths of my own. I can make false, impassioned speeches littered with nationalistic speak. : )
@22 It seems they were tricked into signing everything ever, in the existence of the Nation, except for when it serves them. Were they tricked into signing the surrender in 1982? Argtards and Argtardia clearly have not a drop of honour amongst them and are no better than verminous Machiavellian rodents. Saying that, at least mice have a nose for good wine and cheese, and wash occasionally.
Apr 19th, 2012 - 11:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0Let us now let the Argtards rest upon their bed of lies.
16 Malvinero1
Apr 19th, 2012 - 11:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0Up to your usual standards, mavli-baby...............
Well I really LIKED the WSJ editorial, it was a well researched and written piece.
Apr 19th, 2012 - 11:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0The so called 'Ambassador' (who has probably clapped his hands in joy because this was an opportunity to get noticed in Washington) is just pushing the Argentinian position.
The fact that it has been clearly blown away by the editiorial seems to have got past him (as usual).
BUT we all know that the Falklands (there are no Malvinas) will never be resolved while the Argies Constitution is what it is and the Mad Bitch or FatBoy or some other Peronista lunatic is still in power.
That needs to be resolved before Argentina has even a glimmer of a chance of FIG oil: because that is what it is all about.
@25 FYI. Fatty McLard is due to be voted into power next, so it's not going to be resolved for another 40 years.
Apr 19th, 2012 - 11:59 am - Link - Report abuse 016: liars how? go to google, look up “José María Pinedo, passenger list 1833”, read the document, then go away and read the 1850 settlement of differences between london and buenos aires, then come back to us and not until then
Apr 19th, 2012 - 12:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Really bovis? Tis argument had been demolished in other forum
http://www.topix.com/forum/world/falkland-islands/TR0KI67QOU0O96MB3/p4
Pinedo..hmm Did he leave MAlvinas willingly or forced? Did Argentines were allowed to continue speaking Spanish,buy land and settled in MAlvinas? NOOOO! So they force them to leave,against their will...Just poor argument by the hated british imperialist....
@15 See 16 for why I mistook satirical gibberish for plain old gibberish. My bad...sorry.
Apr 19th, 2012 - 12:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But why even respond on Diego Garcia? It is completely irrelevant to the Falklands...it is a diversion. The only reason people use diversions is when they are losing the argument, to try to change the basis of the argument to one that that they could win. The Argentinian ambassador is being particulalry dumb in this case because the audience is the US...and with the diversion he has chosen US interests are more closely aligned with UK interests than the Falklands issue. Doh!
@ 16
Of the 7 facts you've quoted which exactly is a lie? Or are you just making a vague generalised slander in the hope that mud sticks...
Exactly which half of the world “hates” the UK over the Falklands? I'll give you a start with Cuba, Venezuela and Iran...but I start to struggle there. Not just vague neighbourly support to get Argentina to shut up/stop blocking other discussions....let's have you show actual evidence of genuine strong feeling that is backed up by real action (not change the flag and we'll look the other way stuff) or strong, unprompted criticism. Bet you can't get much beyond those three...but do try to get anywhere near your half the world by number of countries, GDP, population...any measure you like...you'll fail.
Let's also in contrast look at countries taking genuine action against or making unprompted criticism of Argentina's recent economic policy activity. USA, Chile, Italy, Spain, Australia, Israel, Japan, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Switzerland, Chinese Taipei, Thailand, Turkey, Columbia, Chile, Peru, China, Hong Kong and Malaysia. Guess what...that's not a complete list and just the last 2 weeks...
Ah, if Argentina is so, so concerned about the inhabitants of Diego Garcia Island, the least thing it should do is donating to them Martin Garcia Island?
Apr 19th, 2012 - 12:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Philippe
@27 I cannot read spanish, because I'm not poor. Besides it doesn't look like that link demolishes any argument, it's just poor people ranting in poorese. Now to your questions:
Apr 19th, 2012 - 12:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Q. Did he leave Malvinas willingly or forced?
A. Whether Pinedo et al. were forced to leave or not matters not. What mattered were that a huge majority stayed debunking your myth about some British depopulation of the islands.
Q. Did Argentines were allowed to continue speaking Spanish? I don't see any decree declaring that they stop speaking poorese [Spanish] but living under British legalities would make it easier for them to speak English after N hundred years. It's quite likely to have been their choice, but history tells us they adopted the British culture.
Q. buy land and settled in MAlvinas?
A. Yes, their ancestors bought land and settled in the Falkland Islands [malvinas is a hypothetical entity that hasn't been proven to exist].
Q. So they force them to leave,against their will?
A. There is no evidence to support the depopulation, but a huge amount of evidence, such as ships manifests to support the British encouraging them to stay to breed animals to sell to passing shipping vessels.
Basically the Argtard myth-engine isn't very good.
Let's also in contrast look at countries taking genuine action against or making unprompted criticism of Argentina's recent economic policy activity. USA, Chile, Italy, Spain, Australia, Israel, Japan, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Switzerland, Chinese Taipei, Thailand, Turkey, Columbia, Chile, Peru, China, Hong Kong and Malaysia. Guess what...that's not a complete list and just the last 2 weeks
Apr 19th, 2012 - 12:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Really? Are the Argentines people beign affected by them?Are they taking Argentina to court? NOOOO So what is the problem.China? I have bussiness friends working in China.They keep asking Argentina to supply product to them,long list.....YPF issue? Well Argentina can take them to court for breaching the contract.
TOTAl Oil CO,want to invest more in Argentina...Really the world is upset with Argentina??
Ejecutivos de la petrolera Total se reunirán con los interventores
http://www.infobae.com/notas/643042-Ejecutivos-de-la-petrolera-Total-se-reuniran-con-los-interventores.html
AHAHAHA poor deluded brits....Argentina is doing fine,althoughI did not vote for Mrs Kirchner,nor I do like her and I hope she sinks!
“Pinedo..hmm Did he leave MAlvinas willingly or forced? Did Argentines were allowed to continue speaking Spanish,buy land and settled in MAlvinas? NOOOO! So they force them to leave,against their will...Just poor argument by the hated british imperialist....”
Apr 19th, 2012 - 12:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The military garrison and the prisoners were told to leave, the SETTLERS were allowed to stay and did indeed continue speaking their own language, there is no evidence at all to say otherwise. Also, if you read Charles Darwin's diaries post-1833 when he visited the islands, he details meeting the Hispanic settlers that, indeed were NOT told to leave. The ambassador claims the settlers were told to leave they were not. Why is this difficult to understand? I've provided documented evidence from both Argentinian and British sides and you still don't believe it, why not? If you still choose to argue, then please provide DOCUMENTED evidence, not opinions or heresay, if you can't, then please acknowledge that you base your opinions and beliefs on no evidence.
Malvinero- If you live in Argentina please go and vist and research in your own National Archives - there you will finf the following facts written down:
Apr 19th, 2012 - 12:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The River Plate(today,s Argentina) Militia were the ONLY peopple ordered out of the Islands by the British in January 1833.
Naturally their wives/parters etc went with them also.
The ONLY civilian (not militia family/etc) people who decided to leave were TWO couples:
One Uruguyan and One Brazilian
ALL the the elected to stay and accept British Rule
You will find those documented FACTS in the Archives in Buenos Aires. Or if you leve nearer Europe you will also finf smae facts in the British National Archives of that time in London.
The presecence of these people was agin noted by naturalist Charles Darwin when he visted the Islands around 1840s I think.
One of the early English settlers - by the name of Perry - subsequently married one of those ladies who elected to stay in 1833 - that bloodline still exists in some Islanders today down the generations- Islanders who want nothing to do with Argentine Colonial claims.
The last of those from 1833 died in Staley in the 1860s and her grave is here in the town cemetery.
Can you tell my why Lies and Distortions of Historical Facts are practised by your For Minister and your Washington Ambassador?
@32 He'll now tell you that Darwin was deluded and the Argentinian captain was tricked into not taking all the settlers.
Apr 19th, 2012 - 12:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I believe there is a famous painting of Falklands Hispanics having tea which was painted in the 1850s. It's called 'tea with gauchos' or similar, and clearly shows some spanish looking people quite happily having a cuppa in the falklands after 1833 and no sign of them being depopulated.
Argtard myth engine is rubbish.
16 Malvinero1 - no wonder everyone hates the brits? funny, your countries claim to the FAULKLANDS is utter rubbish, your country should be worrying about its high inflation, poverty and all the other economic mess your in. Your president accused britain of militirisiang the south atlantic... is your president that much of an air head that she forgot brazil are making 4 nucleur powered submarines. Hmmm. You cant make british people argentinian. Its like us brits saying argentina should be british. Doesnt make sense and its extemely unfair that your president wants to take that choice away from them, just typical of argentinian history only this time you cant afford an army good enough to defeat us. Yawn argentina, you bore teh hole world!!!
Apr 19th, 2012 - 12:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Do you really have a business, Malvin? or is that another fantasy like your precious malvinas?(that don't exist).
Apr 19th, 2012 - 12:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We own the Falklands, Malvin.
NOT Argentina.
We have the oil, not you.
You could have had a share, but your lunatic former leader, Nestor, tore up the agreement.
Now that wan't very smart, was it?
Now you get nothing.
Sad.
@36 Isolde
Apr 19th, 2012 - 12:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have a brilliant idea. Instead of responding to Malvin's madness, responses which he will simply refute with a barrage of 'deluded brits', 'britain is FINISHED' and 'AHAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH', why don't we just ignore him? I mean, it's not as though he contributes anything useful or sensible to the conversation is it?
Just a thought...
@37 I do that and it worked on a few other loonies that have disappeared now. I think they just want attention rather than to debate anything.
Apr 19th, 2012 - 01:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@31.
Apr 19th, 2012 - 01:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So based on your response @27 your “lies” statement was based on the fact that the military garrison were asked to leave...read the British Ambassador's letter above and you'll see that is exactly what he says. The link you posted above seems to point to the middle of a long discussion, towards the end of which an Islander provides evidence that the civilian population remained on the Island, and that several current families are descended from them. It sounds as though the British also freed the slaves remaining on the island - a good thing as I'm sure you'll agree.
I guess you too can't really think of anybody else to add to my list of three countries that have strongly supported Argentina in hating the UK on the Falklands issue. You'll agree Cuba, Venezuela and Iran “quite” make up half the world...
You're right, there will have been no impact yet on the economy issues...I don't think anybody would expect there to be: these things take a little time. Hopefully it will get sorted out diplomatically rather than through sanctions etc as it's the normal people that suffer. Unfortunately I'm not sure the evidence is there that your president is very good at reading international opinion, or very good at compromise.
On that matter good choice politically on not voting for CFK: it must be horrible to feel obliged to stand up for her. Personally I'd never vote for a relative of a previous head of state OR any party that tries to combine nationalism and socialism. I'm really glad that after years of military dictatorship Argentinians have the right to vote and determine the future of the country that they and their ancestors have lived in, even if I don't necessarily agree with the outcome. I'm sure that you agree that this is a fundamental human right.
I just also think it is contradictory not to support those same rights of self determination for Falkland Islanders whose families, as we have just established, have lived on the Islands since before 1833.
Ambassidor Arguello is just spouting the usual spin about Argentina's spurious claims to the South Atlantic; the same lies used by the Argentine Politburo. The Argentinians govern by heading off one crisis with another in order to keep their unwary population away from the real economics of Argentina which is fast heading for the doldrums as the latest YPF fiasco demonstrates. Because of this investors will avoid Argentina because it rearly honours agreements - just like 1850 again.
Apr 19th, 2012 - 01:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@23 Please do not dignify argieland with the word “nation”. They are a bunch of miscellaneous, mendacious, thieving, psychopathic, genocidal war criminals. The best thing is to refer to them, at best, as a cuntry. (And yes, I do know how to spell “country”.)
Apr 19th, 2012 - 02:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@28 What are you saying? That argieland has an economic POLICY? It's not just CFK's reactions to her imaginary menstrual cramps? Or fear that her face is going to fall off?
@36 You misunderstand what the drongo's saying. HE doesn't have a business. There are people that he knows that are in business. He's either a member of one of the current argie government-funded hit squads or a Ministry of Disinformation operative. Or possibly a university “student”. They get more brain-washing than most. Just check out the amount of time he spends on here. He couldn't do that and run a business, or even hold down a proper job!
I totally agree with the comment @37. Whilst the winding-up can be hilarious, it actually gets in the way of discussions between intelligent people. We need a way to “mark” argie trolls. And not only argies.
( 18 )
Apr 19th, 2012 - 02:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0in 2004 ..two -- Orders in Council--were secretly signed amidst the flurry of Europen Election Day activity..such --Orders-are essentially legislative matters that circumvent Parliament and proceed to the Queen for authorisation.As a power its rarely used but for the Chagos case its purpose was clear: to prevent any Chagossians from ever setting foot on the Chagos Islands...What does this mean ?...In other words that
-- no person has the right of abode in the territory or has unrestricted access to any part of it ..--
That is English and England.....simply....
It is funny to see you trembling in fear, because you don't know what's really going on, some comments are really funny, like you're fearing something is going to change and you can do nothing to stop it.
Apr 19th, 2012 - 02:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I cant hear your opinions here ...@41 = @ 43 and others
Apr 19th, 2012 - 02:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0For 10 bottles beers sake...
@41 You're right...it's the wrong word. Policy implies planned. thought through and likely to succeed. Totally wrong.
Apr 19th, 2012 - 02:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Economic mischief? Economic incompetence? Economic illiteracy? All better...
@43 projecting again?
Apr 19th, 2012 - 02:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@42 Chagos Islands again? WTF? Funny how you have nothing to say about the Falklands or your own overstayed welcome on someone else's land.
Oh I like that “The conflict only postponed the inevitable fall of the dictatorship”. What rubbish... had Argentina won, then the Junta would still be in power now! Britain's success in the Falklands no doubt saved many more lives than were lost.
Apr 19th, 2012 - 02:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Post 'did not say it was an illegal occupation'... only Jorge did, in his letter and we all know it is totally untrue and we have absolute proof of this.
So Christina was 'not commemorating' in her own words. Well we all know she used her spot on the plinth to rouse her flag burning patriots and even now uses the theft of the Spanish oil company to deflect the dismal failure of her Falklands campaign.
Diego Garcia, was primarily home to imported workers from the Seychelles and Mauritians. Not a single inhabitant owned property there but none the lest the whole thing is going through UK courts at the moment regarding 200+ islanders, and I hope they win. And so, Jorge two wrongs don't make a right!
Well done to our man in Washington, stating historical truths and using careful diplomatic language and for pointing out that this is the time for commemorating and for looking forward to a future of friendship! Job done!
( 46 )
Apr 19th, 2012 - 02:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0for 5 bottles beers sake...........
YoghurtGarlic !
What is your problem with Argentina.?
Tell us these cursed islands let's learn somethings..
This is so funny, everybody is kung fu fighting lol
Apr 19th, 2012 - 02:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0( 47 )
Apr 19th, 2012 - 02:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your third paragraph ...! are you certain ?
What is this ?
[ UK Foreign Office had paid Mauritius for £ 650.000 in 1973..for the benefits of the islanders and had put £ 4 millions in a Chagossians Fund in 1982....]
It doesn't matter who was right historically about the Islands; all this to-and-fro argument... The issue is not archaic: the Islanders want their sovereignty protected; their right to self-determination. That's all there is to it.
Apr 19th, 2012 - 03:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ask them, not others.
Current situation is what counts.
If one wants history, there are many nations who were formally controlled other than by themselves, who now are self -determined governed people. Funny how some of us have to keep reminding ourselves of that fact.
Most of you guys know all this anyway. It's those who still live in colonial educations that continue to exercise blogging ignorance as a virtue.
It isn't all of Argentina that wants the Islands returned. It is the whipping-up by their present government that keeps the pot boiling; desperate to avoid internal investigations into their past and present corruption and the consequences that may ensue: they can't extricate themselves, so they must continue to agitate elsewhere, or they are lost.
Mind you, I cannot think of any world leader who speaks out for self-determination in a way that catches universal acclimation.... Hence the UN is always a poor excuse for its existence.
Certainly, those that once quoted their United States' Constitution on the freedoms of peoples do not emphasise it enough. And they are the leaders at present.
Anyway, it depends on which side of the fence you choose.
( 49 )
Apr 19th, 2012 - 03:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Not Kung Fu fighting ...
They want to try to Thailand Boxing in the limited islands ring..
@31 - Argentinian RETARD. It's clear you cannot argue a point, so you look like a jackass. I'm convinced you're working for the Kirchner government along with Helber Gagme, and McDick. You're wrong. You have no support. Get over it
Apr 19th, 2012 - 04:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0| 53 |
Apr 19th, 2012 - 05:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yoghurt ... McClick is my other name...not others.
Mercopress says: ....... offer our readers the three positions (in chronological order)?
Apr 19th, 2012 - 05:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Mercopress confuses readers!!!
In the dispute over the Malvinas Islands, there is no third parties. It is only between Argentina and the UK. It is a sovereignty dispute. No self-determination. British Islanders can not be judges and parties at the same time.
In its resolution 2065 (XX) of 1965, United Nations and Decolonization Committee of United Nations, ratified by later resolutions 1973 (3160, XXVIII) 1976 (31/49), 1982 (37/9), 1983 ( 38/12), 1984 (39/6), 1985 (40/21), 1986 (41/40), 1987 (42/19) and 1988 (43/25). They all declare the existence of a sovereignty dispute. No self-determination.
The specificity of the Malvinas question is that the United Kingdom occupied the islands by force in 1833, expelled the original population and did not allow their return, thus violating the territorial integrity of Argentina. Therefore, the possibility is to apply the principle of self-determination, as its exercise by the inhabitants of the islands would cause the “disruption of national unity and territorial integrity” of Argentina. In this regard it should be noted that resolution 1514 (XV) “Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples” in the sixth paragraph states that “Any attempt aimed at partial or total disruption of national unity and territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter. ”In the Malvinas Question General Assembly of the United Nations included this doctrine - the principle of territorial integrity taking into account the interests and NOT the wishes of the people of the Islands. . Since 2004 the Argentine government to the Malvinas Islands Question to appear on the permanent agenda and in the paper by the Bureau of the General Assembly.
Raul, we've provided documented evidence above that the settlers were not forcibly removed and the majority chose to stay on the islands, the military garrison was told to leave as a perceived occupying foreign force, and also the prisoners they held were told to go with them. All settlers were given the option to stay, of which only 4 chose not to.
Apr 19th, 2012 - 06:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@55 “It is a sovereignty dispute. No self-determination. British Islanders can not be judges and parties at the same time.” You're a retard. In 2008 the UN refused to accept your attempt to make sovereignty disputes a clause to take precedent over Self-determination. Self-determination is relevant in this case.
Apr 19th, 2012 - 06:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The judges and juries are the Falkland Islanders because they, under self-determination, are the ones who have to decided whether or not they want to be a part of a country where nearly 3000 children starve to death every year, and corruption is rife.
None of the UN resolutions are relevant any more, because those before 1982 don't take into account the Argentinians causing a war which they lost, and under the principle of uti possidetis the islands belong to the UK under international law. The resolutions after 1982 do not call for sovereignty discussions.
The decolonisation committee exists to decolonise territories, not to put them under the influence of despotic dictatorships where mad-men rule by decree ignoring even the constitution, as shown by this YPF issue.
You cannot even get the Malvinas question on the Summit of Americas agenda, you clowns, so how do you expect the UN to care?
Argtards gonna tard.
| 56 |
Apr 19th, 2012 - 06:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your document's date and content record please ?
Do English use any record codes to documents ?
Max:www.flickr.com/groups/malvinas/discuss/72157626157758043/
Apr 19th, 2012 - 06:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Here we go again. Your right though there is no third party, the dispute is between Argentine and the rightful inhabitants of the Islands, the Falkland Islanders. The UK is simply upholding their rights, by providing the defence against a neighbouring colonial aggressor.
Apr 19th, 2012 - 06:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I don't really want to go around on the 'cognitively-challenged argies don't read the evidence presented to them the first time' merry-go-round again.
Apr 19th, 2012 - 06:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argtards gonna tard.
| 59 |
Apr 19th, 2012 - 06:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ernesto's book contains some reports not proofs/documents..
My thought is that Neither Argentina nor Britain can reveal own documents...under the risks of knowing secret interviews..negotiations along up to date ....
There is a central point that we have interpretation from UN
which is ...{{ UN Charter, Chapter 11 “” Declaration Regarding Non Self Governing Territories “” Article 73 }}
An Argy ambassador in a US newspaper saying:
Apr 19th, 2012 - 06:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“How can The Post argue that an illegal occupation”, “has become a legal possession because it has persisted for two centuries, by force, with inhabitants “established” by the usurper country?”
How does that translate into Gurani or Navajo, because they must really piss themselves laughing when they read this sort of thing.
@16 & 27 Malvinero1
Get used to it Malv, this is what your going to be hearing from now on.
This is what the world is going to be hearing, and this is what can be proved.
As for being hated in the world!
We were simply not in your league before your recent dramatic improvement in form, I frankly doubt we ever will be, or even anywhere close.
@ 55 Raul
“Britain looks forward to doing so with Argentina in a dialogue that accepts the facts of history and acknowledges the express will of the Falkland Islanders.”
This is the only possible way forward.
You argument apart from being factually incorrect and not supported by the historical evidence, is morally bankrupt in a modern world.
All of which the rest of the world can see, hence your lack of any real support in the world, even in S America.
62: I meant this one, I'd copied from the wrong place: http://www.flickr.com/photos/52978952@N04/5533643350/
Apr 19th, 2012 - 06:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0| 64 |
Apr 19th, 2012 - 06:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your link not in service..
@62 Chapter 11 Article 73 “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”
Apr 19th, 2012 - 07:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Can't be any clearer than that about not letting a sh!t country annex them.
This will all end with Cristina shooting herself in her Führerbunker
Apr 19th, 2012 - 07:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@58
Apr 19th, 2012 - 07:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As further evidence you could consider the Beagle diary of Charles Darwin: the 1st March 1833 entry contains:
“The present inhabitants consist of one Englishman, who has resided here for some years, & has now the charge of the British flag, 20 Spaniards & three women, two of whom are negresses. ”
You can see for yourself at http://darwin-online.org.uk . The original manuscripts are in the University Library in Cambridge.
You might also consider as evidence of the continuation of the Vernet settlement the Port Louis murders. The report (text here, I think the original is in the archives in Stanley?) documents the inhabitants on 26th August 1833. The text can be found:
http://darwin-online.org.uk
So these three pieces of historic evidence pointed to by Boovis & myself appear to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the UK did not expel all the original all the original population and did not allow their return...
Is there any evidence at all that the opposite happened?
55 Raul
Apr 19th, 2012 - 07:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Christ Raul, you're a boring git. Do you have anything else to say or is that it?
You post the same tedious crap every time, and every time someone points out that no, you were not the 'original population', the french, spanish and British were all there before you.
And then they point out that the Falklands never were an integral part of your territory.
And then they point out that the UN has us named on its list of 16 territories still to exercise its right to self determination and become decolonised. That's what it says in the decolonisation committee's press release. You know it does. There's nothing there about us becoming part of Argentina.
Every time you cut and past the same worthless shite, I'm going to post the above. Let's see who gets bored first.
@68 If we're on the merry-go-round they will now repeat some list of UN resolutions through the ages which are pretty much all negated by the fact they started a war and from this international law deems the islands to be British.
Apr 19th, 2012 - 07:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 034 GreekYoghurt (#) The water colour you refer to was painted by William Pownall Dale in 1852 when he was working at Hope Place. We have all the originals and I will be putting them on the Internet once my nephew has removed the “foxing” on some of them with Photo Shop. You can see the picture you refer to on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lafonia
Apr 19th, 2012 - 07:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@71 I didn't know they have foxes in the Falklands. I also didn't know of William Pownall Dale.
Apr 19th, 2012 - 07:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I think the fact someone bothered to render the equivalent of a photograph with no apparent biases, of two hispanic chaps having a cup of tea on the islands, when backed up by Darwin's description of the continuity of the supposedly expelled population after 1833, is more than enough evidence against Argtard myth number 142.
I'd hold onto those pictures if I was you, as the Falkland National Museum and Gallery will be wanting them at some point in the coming future.
@70
Apr 19th, 2012 - 08:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You're right of course...it is satisfying watching them go quiet for bit when the old cognitive dissonance brain cramps kick in as they subconsciously realise what they are saying is wrong...
Poor Argentina, poor argie bloggers, always the victim,, never the aggressor,
Apr 19th, 2012 - 08:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Always the victim=never the burglar
Always the attract= never the attacker
Always the hostage, never the kidnapper,
Always in the right-never in the wrong
Always asleep- never awake
Always dreaming- never reality
Always liars– never tells the truth,
Always now, disgraced,- and never proud,
Grow up and leave the islanders alone .
.
Much ado about nothing. Just two ambassadors saying what they're instructed to. But good for the Washington Post. I thought their article was objective and fair, and now a good many Americans who hadn't heard about Argentina's latest weeping & stealing episodes know all about them.
Apr 19th, 2012 - 08:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0its funny how the 7-8 odd years that vernet's brittish colony was in existence is considered an argy colony by the argtards therefore “malvinas son argentinas”
Apr 19th, 2012 - 08:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0its mental
stupid argies
@76 Argtards gonna tard.
Apr 19th, 2012 - 08:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 072 GreekYoghurt (#) Foxing is the age marks on old paper. see the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxing. I hope I have been able to add a word into your dictionary.
Apr 19th, 2012 - 10:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The museum in Stanley does have copies which my father sent to them, and the two fellows in the painting are drinking mate and not tea. See the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxing.
Frankly I can't stand the stuff though I have worked harvesting it. Ironically William P Dale was riding in a cart drinking mate when the spout rammed into the roof of his mouth going over a bump and the injury developed into cancer from which he died. 25 years younger than his wife - Harriet Lafone, sister to Sammy Fisher Lafone - and he died first!!! Plenty of links on Samuel Fisher Lafone.
Poor Argentina, poor argie bloggers, always the victim,, never the aggressor,
Apr 20th, 2012 - 02:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0Always the victim=never the burglar
Always the attract= never the attacker
Always the hostage, never the kidnapper,
Always in the right-never in the wrong
Always asleep- never awake
Always dreaming- never reality
Always liars– never tells the truth,
Always now, disgraced,- and never proud,
Grow up and leave the islanders alone .
HAHAHAAHAHA the brit chimp writes again....
Who cares about a banrupt,country living in the past.....poor deluded brits...They are finished...It soo irrelevant the material they post.....A sewer smell better than their brains,if any...
@79
Apr 20th, 2012 - 07:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0On the topic of relevant material...Boovis & I posted links to proof the civilians weren't expelled @64 and @68. You thought this was a lie earlier...Max went quiet when asked for evidence civilians were expelled...do you have anything relevant?
Any more thoughts on countries that hate the UK over the Falklands...I've given you Cuba, Venezuala & Iran. Go on...add to that list...I know you want to. Make sure you add relevant evidence though!
On living in the past...you're going to like this one as you didn't vote for CFK. Axel Kicillof, the chap they've just put in charge of YPF, did his Phd in Keynesian economics...in the 1990s! I mean wow. Keynes came to prominence in the 1920s...the UK abandoned Keynesian policies back in the 1979! Talk about living in the past...this is so far in the past we have cities named after him. It get's better...apparently he learnt German to read Marx...I mean really...Marx was actually alive in 1833! I bet you're really glad you didn't vote for CFK...because I'm sure you know what Keynesian policies did to countries that adopted them...
@80 Gordon Brown was a follower of Keynes. That's why he sold half of our gold reserves at next to no cost to the buyer and completely fooked the economy by borrowing money for programmes like the NHS IT fookshow.
Apr 20th, 2012 - 08:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0Better to avoid Keynes, if at all possible.
@81
Apr 20th, 2012 - 09:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0It's a bit more complicated than that...the gold sale was general screw up in the name of “diversification” of assets...by somebody who basically didn't understand the basics supply vs demand...
It is fair to say that Brown did invoke the name of Keynes in 2008/9 to justify fiscal stimulus/borrowing...but frankly his granting of independence of monetary policy to the Bank of England to address an inflation target is not Keynesian at all...in fact the opposite. Nor were his golden rules. I wouldn't class Brown as a follower of Keynes...but as somebody that had the experience of ending up the creek without a paddle and wasn't up to the job.
Don't get me wrong...every economist should know about Keynes, Marx & Smith because between them they came up with critical ideas in macroeconomics. It's just that .... well the link between inflation and employment has been shown to not always apply...capital markets are now international and the same controls that applied in the 1930's simply don't exist...and frankly in any discussion of Keynes you have to say “Greece”. Read Keynes but don't stop there...Hayek, Friedman, Schumpeter etc etc...don't become an expert in just Keynes or apply just Keynes.
What do you think Malvi?
@50
Apr 20th, 2012 - 09:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0Well I'm not sure that the atoll population is entirely imported for the purpose of work via short contracts but the island history is virtually non-existent and the UK simply the island. It's not comparable with the Falklands.
( 74 )
Apr 20th, 2012 - 10:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0We know that the English do drool on Argentina..
Lets give them Argentina...but...
I dont guess the English can actuate,operate,manage it.....
becouse the English are not vast land people dont know the extansive agriculture...dont know to manage the long land borders...dont know any admin regimes if dont have any autonomous ethnical regions...
@83 Musky,
Apr 20th, 2012 - 10:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0Agreed but you have to take into account, Argentine Logic..............!!!!!!!!!
@84 Tipsy Think,
We administrated lndia competently enough.
Argentina would present only one problem, Argentines!
@82 Fair comment. My knowledge of Economics is only that of a higher-novice, and so I will have to claim ignorance without having read several of the texts to which you refer.
Apr 20th, 2012 - 11:43 am - Link - Report abuse 079 Malvinero1
Apr 20th, 2012 - 11:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0the brit chimp writes again
And the argie gorilla answers again,
A sewer smell better than their brains,
Poor deluded Argies .
.
| 85 |
Apr 20th, 2012 - 01:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Where are the English in India today ................?
Where are the Indians in England today ..............?
@88
Apr 20th, 2012 - 01:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Q. Where are the English in India today?
A. Playing cricket.
Q. Where are the Indians in England today?
A. Playing cricket.
88
Apr 20th, 2012 - 02:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Where are the native americans in argentina today?
Ethnically cleansed
Where are the the african slaves in argentina today?
Ethnically cleansed
Where are the Nazi refugees in argentina today?
In power?
82 Richfe
Apr 20th, 2012 - 03:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“I wouldn't class Brown as a follower of Keynes...but as somebody that had the experience of ending up the creek without a paddle and wasn't up to the job.”
SPOT ON.
@88
Apr 20th, 2012 - 06:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Just been watching indian cricket all afternoon, broadcast on UK terrestrial channel (ITV4), as many brits in the league as indians (well almost). Indians live for cricket, worship cricket. My colleague at work is indian, a massive fan. If you visit Bangalore (not the best city in india) you'll find millions of english speakers, working on software, engineering, bloody everything. Plenty of cross fertilization going on! Britain's number one favourite meal.... Indian Curry!
90
Apr 20th, 2012 - 06:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I copied the following statement from this article. for you “Britain has controlled them since 1833...” Is this the reason why the Atlantic South belongs to UK? Somalian pirates use the same statements and they live in Africa. Where is UK?
You will NEVER GET IT. NEVER. The rest of the world does, not to worry.
By the way, when are you claiming Egypt?. UK has claimed so many things in our world( Tea, football, Ireland, etc. etc.) One thing is only yours : Chronic IGNORANCE AND ARROGANCE
????????????????????
Apr 20th, 2012 - 08:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 093
Apr 20th, 2012 - 08:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Barking mad. Poor chap.
The English can not whittle off Indians.
Apr 20th, 2012 - 09:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0whereas
The Indians can whittle off English.
@93,
Apr 20th, 2012 - 09:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Settle down my friend.
Have a big mug of coffee & a little sleep.
You'll feel better soon.
@96 the only person who can whittle is Ray Mears. He teaches aboriginals how to go walkabout he's that awesome.
Apr 20th, 2012 - 11:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But he doesn't drink his own sick, have a bag of piss for dinner and stay in a B&B quite like Bear Grylls.
The article is very interesting, but at the same time, it omits important information as usuall in both sides.
Apr 21st, 2012 - 03:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's true that britain had stablished a settlement in 1766, but the ambassador omits that it lasted only 8 years, beside the nation abandoned port egmont in 1766 and never returned untill 1833, along all those years, there were just sporadic settlements of british and american sailors in the archipelago, but for the international right, they didn't give any sovereign right to the u. k, because they weren't neather permanent nor were stablished in the name of the state, i have very important information in my investigation about all these questions which are based on the academic knowledge of argentine and british professors of international right. On the other hand, the agreement of 1850 didn't have anything to do with this cause, it was related to the rasing of the blockade, anyway if arg. had lost it's rights over the islands whn it signed that agreement in 1849, then why the u. k in 1968 and in 1980 tried to persuade the islanders in order to achieve that they accept to find a negotiated solution?. The case has strong and weak aspects for both countries, and we must investigate instead of buying so easily the so partial information that politicians from both sides give.
On the other hand, i dont deny that may be the right to self determination is applicable for the islanders, but the british ambassador omits that the u. n has never invoked that right for this cause, like it did for others colonial situations, in the same way that it never expressed that the sovereignty must be discussed only if the islanders wish it, he omist too that the decolonization committee has always considered this cause like a special and particular situation, and omist that the the u. k has rejected to discuss about the sovereignty, which is the main problem. Both sides omit information not only arg., there is a lot more to add, but i dont have enough characters.
utter wrong
Apr 21st, 2012 - 05:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0it was all settled in 1850,
get used to it,
97 lsolde
Apr 21st, 2012 - 07:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Shouldn't that be hot chocolate? we don't want him to be up all night, grinding his teeth together now do we? I think he is on the of a heart attack as it and should go to his happy place......there's a lamb.
99 axel arg (#) Wrong, read on:
Apr 22nd, 2012 - 03:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0On June 8, 1770 a Spanish fleet arrived at Port Egmont and the commander sent Captain Farmer this letter:
The Spanish Commodore John Ignacio Madariaga to Captain Farmer, dated in the Bay of Cruizada, June 8, 1770.
My Dear Sir,
Finding myself with incomparable superior forces of troops, train of artillery, utenfils, ammunition, and all the rest corresponding, for to reduce a regular fortification, with fourteen hundred men for disembarking, of which five hundred and twenty-fix are of choice regular troops, as you may see, I see myself in this case obliged to intimate to you, according to the orders of my Court, that you should quit that begun establishment: for if you don’t execute it amicably, I will oblige you by force, and you will be answerable for all the ill results of the action and measures I shall take. I am always at your service ; pray unto God to preserve you many years.
I kiss your hand, &c.
JOHN IGNACIO MADARIAGA.
A year later an agreement was drawn up in Madrid returning the island to Britain.
“u. n has never invoked that right for this cause”
Apr 22nd, 2012 - 02:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The UN has invoked that right to every human being on earth.
It's a human right, it's mentioned in TWO of the three documents that make out the international bill of human rights.
Also, Your “investigation” was total utter rubbish with no facts at all apart from various opinions from people.
TIM. ZETHE. BRITON.
Apr 22nd, 2012 - 08:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0TIM: You are so wrong, what was returned to the u. k was port egmont, it's a small place located in the north of gran malvina island (west falkland), it had been occupied by the u. k in 1764, but when the spanish crown knew about this, it wanted to force the settlement to leave the island. Finally the problem was solved by mean diplomatic ways. Port Egomt was returned to the british crown, and spain continued in soledad island, (east falkland). If you want, i can send you my survey.
ZETHE: What you call utter rubish, is based on the cademic knowledge of professors of international right. On the other hand, i have always thought that the u. n resolutions should be more specific, they should affirm if that right is applicabe or not for this cause, accepted or not, the u. n has never applied that right for this dispute like it did for others colonial situations. We can debate as much as we like about human rights, however the u. n has never applied that principle for this dispute, and the decolonization committee has always considered this case like a particular colonial situation.
BRITON: If you weren't so injudicious, you could answer my question.
I insist, if the argentina had lost it's rights when it signed the agreement of 1850, then why did the u. k tried to persuade the islanders, in 1968 and in 1980, in order to achieve that they accept to negotiate a solution for the sovereign dispute?.
@104 Are you seriously still botting on about your historical not-facts that routinely get debunked by even the most green members of this discussion forum.
Apr 22nd, 2012 - 09:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What's the latest? You're breaking up the falklands into East and West Falklands to suggest Spanish Sovereignty over specific areas? Seriously dude, you need to get a girlfriend or a boyfriend and go out on a date.
The fact is, in 1850 you signed the treaty of friendship detailing the Falklands were British, then in 1982 you lost a war when we got them back from your dirty little hands. The rest is just hot air.
Now go to the pub and talk to real people for a while.
@104 Axel,
Apr 22nd, 2012 - 09:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0ln 1968 it was costing the UK money to keep the Falklands going.
Also, the UK wanted to increase trade with Argentina.
So some chinless wonder in the Foreign Office decided that as Argentina “claimed” the Falklands, it would be a good way of getting rid of them.
The British public at that time, mostly had no idea where the Falklands were.
lt would have succeded except the lslanders, the people WHO ACTUALLY LIVE HERE, didn't want to be ruled by a country that has nothing in common with them, indeed couldn't care less about them.
ln fact regarded them as “squatters” on their own land.
By 1980, the Junta was in full swing.
What person in their right mind would give up their freedom to be subjugated by an evil regime that murdered at least 30,000 of their own citizens?
You would have to be insane, Axel, to do that!
And today, while the Falklands are thriving, there is even less incentive to want to be part of a failed rogue state like Argentina.
So, my dear Axel,
there is no need for “negotiations” & in fact, there won't be any.
Get used to it.
Axel - I don't agree with your interpretaion of history, but respect thatyou at least try to argue your points.
Apr 22nd, 2012 - 10:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So - if Argentina did NOT lose its rights to the Falklands with the agreement of 1850, why did your official diplomatic protests then immediately stop for about 90 years, despite the growing British economic presence in the islands. Why did your President Sarmiento say to congress in 1869 that “the state of our foreign relations fulfils the aspirations of the country. Nothing is claimed from us by
other nations; we have nothing to ask of them.........” if there was still an outstanding dispute with Britain.
Do you think that you can turn the world map back to 1833 (or any other mythical date)??
If you have a great desire to come and live in the Falklands, you will find that there is no ban on you coming here, and you would have to meet exactly the same requirements as any other nationality. If you don't want to, how about leaving us in peace, and maybe benefiting from trade with us, once you have earned our trust (maybe a long time though.........)
104 axel arg (#) My last sentence was in error. Here is what happened:
Apr 22nd, 2012 - 11:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Spain did not make an express reservation of its sovereignty in the treaty of 22 January 1771 which ended the crisis caused by Spain's peacetime attack on Port Egmont in 1770. Both Britain and Spain reserved their sovereignty in that treaty.
An early draft version of the treaty read that “nothing can diminish the Spanish King's prior right of sovereignty” over the Falklands, but Britain would not accept that wording. The final text said that the return of Port Egmont to Britain: …cannot nor ought is any wise to affect the question of prior right of sovereignty of the Malouine Islands, otherwise called Falkland.'
That statement left the respective claims of both countries exactly as they had been before the Spanish seizure of Port Egmont. It did not specifically reserve Spanish rights, although many writers have wrongly asserted that it did.
A year later an agreement was drawn up in Madrid returning the island to Britain.
Apr 23rd, 2012 - 02:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0Well Tim,this topic had been covered before.
At the treaty of Nootka,uk RENOUNCE to MALVINAS....
1 Redhoyt (#)
Jul 27th, 2011 - 05:04 am
Report abuse
“ ... It’s time the UK abides UN General Assembly resolutions which every year call on both sides to sit and discuss the Falkland Islands question ...”
UNGA ? - What a liar!
None since 1988 and the C-24 is a discredited sub-committee, out-dated and biased with Argentina's cronies !
falklandsnews.wordpress.com/2 Beef (#)
Jul 27th, 2011 - 05:58 am
Report abuse
ArgentIna can be confident all it wants, but the problem with misplaced overc3 ElaineB (#)
Jul 27th, 2011 - 06:45 am
Report abuse
The Argentine government must be feeling a little unsettled after the election results in Santa Fe.4 Rob the argentine (#)
Jul 27th, 2011 - 06:50 am
Report abuse
It's time for Argentina and UK to get at the table to agree about Falklands. The only and best way they can do is accepting, and supporting in every international forum, the right to self determination of the islanders.
Kosovo and Gibraltar show it is the best, and every one (islanders too) will get benefits from there. The question is: ”are the governments (in UK and Argentina) ready for it?”.5 Beef (#)
Jul 27th, 2011 - 07:03 am
Report abuse
Rob - then acknowledge and talk to the FI gvt then.6 Redhoyt (#)
Jul 27th, 2011 - 07:06 am
Report abuse
“ ... ”The British Government’s relationship with its Overseas Territories is a modern one based on partnership, shared values and the right of each Territory to determine whether it wishes to stay linked to the UK or not. The UK has no intention of imposing independence against the will of the people
http://en.mercopress.com/2011/07/27/argentina-confident-negotiations-on-malvinas-question-will-take-place#comment59775
GREEK YOGHURT. ISOLDE. MOLLYMOUK. TIM.
Apr 23rd, 2012 - 02:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0GREEK: Beyond the pathetic and ignorant interpretation that you do of historic facts, answer my question please, if arg. had lost it's rights when it signed the agreement of 1850, then why did the u. k try to persuade the islanders in 1968 and in 1980 in order to achieve that they accept to find a negotiated solution?. Beside, during the interchanges of notes between arg. and the u. k between 1884 and 1888, the u. k didn't mention in absolut that treaty, i have a lot of information based on public documents in my survey, i can send it to you if you want. On the other hand, aren't you real people too?, we can debate, but i woudn't choose you as a boyfriend.
MOLLYMAUK-ISOLDE: The case has strong and week aspects for both nations. It's true that our clame wasn't continuous, but at the same time, the u. k has never mentioned the treaty of 1850. I read interchanges of notes between the two nations between 1884 and 1888, and the u. k doesn't mention that agreement, actually it was related to the rasing of the blockade, no more. Beside, in doesn't have any sense to invoke that treaty, if the the u. k tried to persuade the islanders twice in order to achieve that they accept to find a negotiated solution. Beside, the u. n has never said the u. k must return the islands to arg., it has only expressed that both nations should resume the negotiations and find a peaceful solution, it's not imposible to find fair solution for the sovereignty which is the main conflict for both people.
TIM: I think that if spain had rights on p. egmont, they were very arguable, because it governed only the soledad island, and we had right to occupy it, because our rights were based on the sussession of states, i have a lot of information about it in my survey, i can send it to you if you want. Anyway the u. k left the archipleago 8 years later, and never returned untill 1833.
What Arguello says, makes no sense ,he and his boss Timmerman are the worst representatives of argentina of the last decades.
Apr 23rd, 2012 - 05:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0110 axel arg
Apr 23rd, 2012 - 09:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So is this what you want,
The Falklands belong to you,
We have no rights to them, the islanders should not be there and be forced to become argentine whenever they like it or not, if they refuse, then just kick them all out,
As for the British, who the hell are we to demand something we have never owned, never run never administered,
Argentina has all the rights, and looked after and fully supported the islanders rights,
Argentina tried to rescue the islanders from the nasty brits in 1982,
But failed to save them, and now the islanders are being held hostage against their will,
DOES THIS SUIT YOU
It may well, but it does not suit the
Islanders or the British, or the UN or the rest of the free world,
But alas that the difference between you and us,
You think you own everything,
[We know you own nothing ]
why you write briton in verse??????
Apr 23rd, 2012 - 09:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0this is not a poetic forum..............
I mean
en el cielo las estrellas,
en el campo las espinas,
y en el medio de mi pecho
una lata de sardinas. :))))
its not in verse, and no childish writting,
Apr 23rd, 2012 - 10:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0English only please .
in the sky, stars,
Apr 23rd, 2012 - 10:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0in the field, the thorns,
and in the middle of my chest,
a can of sardines.
for you briton enjoy poetry.
I always do enjoy nice things,
Apr 23rd, 2012 - 10:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0but at least you know some poetry,
unlike some,
nice verse .
you should learn spanish, briton.
Apr 23rd, 2012 - 10:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0you could make nice verses.
why would i wish to learn something i cannot understand,
Apr 23rd, 2012 - 10:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0when you already know English, that we can both understand,
besides poetry is like a nice cuppa,
hot , nice and sweet.
and best served in a mug, [not the poetry]
as burns once said, never compare toast with me,
its my fingers that hurt not the fork .?
110 axel arg (#) Correct! It would be interesting to see the full text of the treaty signed on 22nd Jan 1771. Unfortunately we can't turn events in history backwards, and neither can we expect the islanders to accept the rule of an ethnicity and culture totally alien to them; bad enough for us to have to put up with these crazy SOBs but don't land them on the islanders. There is an old saying in English “that possession is nine tenths of the law”
Apr 24th, 2012 - 03:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0Tipsy Think : I dont guess the English can actuate,operate,manage it.....
Apr 24th, 2012 - 08:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0becouse the English are not vast land people dont know the extansive agriculture...dont know to manage the long land borders...dont know any admin regimes if dont have any autonomous ethnical regions...
History lesson : Till the time of Rosas ( another dictator ) the pampas were vast tracts of nothing with wild cattle roaming that wrere killed for leather. The British turned up and ... Bingo !
Good cattle , barbed wire fencing , railways , ports , telegraphs , frigorificos . Argentina became one of the richest countries in the world.
Then the Italians turned up and mismanaged and stole it all and then try to convince the world it is the fault of the British .
The British administered 33% of the land mass of this planet .You will not hear Canadians , new Zealanders , australians or Indians bitching and complaining
Tipsy , have a mate and relax.. Oh no , you can't , there is a shortage .Oh well , have an asado for lunch ? Too expensive.. Ahhh .Go for a drive ? No fuel...And you are too poor to own a car ? You shouldn't be , your country is the land of milk and honey , robbed blind by the very people who pay you to blog on here . Chau.
@120 Usurping Pirate,
Apr 24th, 2012 - 10:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0Excellent post, says it all really.
BRITON. TIM.
Apr 24th, 2012 - 01:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0BRITON: The problem that you have, si that you always twist the questions and make very wrong interpretations.
Firstly, i have never said that the islands must be only under argentine sovereignty, i have said in all my comments that the u. n has never asked the u. k to return the islands to arg., in the same way that it neather invoked the right to self determination for the islanders, like it did for others colonial situations, nor expressed that the sovereignty must be discussed only if the islanders wish it, all the resolutions have called the two parts of the conflict to resume the negotiations and find a peaceful solution, no more. If the islanders want to remain british nobody can change that, but it doesn't mean that we can't find a peaceful and fair solution for the sovereignty which is the main conflict. Anyway, if you prefer to continue distorting the facts, in order to not to recognize that your side is not acting correctly eather, that's your problem, but it's pathetic. On the other hand, you didn't answer my comment 104 that i typed for you.
TIM: I have extracts of public documents and bibliographies, anyway i can send my work to you if you want. On the other hand, in the english saying that you typed, i can understand the reason why the u., k wont never accept to negotiate the sovereignty, and will continue using hipocrite arguments just to justify it's occupation in the islands.
104 axel arg
Apr 24th, 2012 - 09:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Question.
I insist, if the Argentina had lost it's rights when it signed the agreement of 1850, then why did the u. k tried to persuade the islanders, in 1968 and in 1980,
////////////////////////
Allow me and this is only my opinion,
The reason is simple, and it’s the same reason why the UK? gave back its empire and independence to those who anted it,
As with the islanders, after years of no trouble, the British probably thought that it may be better if the islanders got closer to the Argies, in trade commerce ect ect . So probably tried to arrange a leaseback or something of this nature, so the islanders could have their independence, and keep relations with the British, but be closer to Argentina,
But and I stress this, [as you cannot keep bringing up the past of WHAT IF ]
In 1982,for whatever reason they had, Argentina made the biggest misstate ever, it illegally and unwarranted invaded to unarmed and peacefully islands, thus causing THE FALKLANDS war, and thus being directly responsible for the deaths of over 800 innocent people, [military or not]
And thus dismissed their of, and any hope of ever getting rule over the Falklands,,
Does this answer your question?
.
Good answer, briton.
Apr 24th, 2012 - 09:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But don't expect a rational answer from Axel.
He believes that Argentina has “rights” in the Falklands!
Can you believe that?
How ridiculous!
Axel, you have NO RIGHTS here, NONE at all.
124 lsolde
Apr 24th, 2012 - 10:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are correct,
He keeps forgetting one very important little detail,
CFK does not want [A Bit] she wants it all, to give them even one little rock, [and you have abt 700]
She and her cohorts would take this as expectance of argie sovereignty, and thus demand the rest,
He must understand the whole basis of democracy and free speech with rights, whenever he or others like it or not, as long as the islanders freely and democratically vote to remain British, that is the end of it, final, caput.
Just the same, he and others must also except that if CFK got them through default, then, great Britain would have a claim over Patagonia, and by the same default get it,,,
And thus the islanders would go from the Falklands, to Patagonia, recall it Falkland, much bigger,
Mmmminteresting thought is it not .
.
122 axel arg (#) If you are within hail (Olivos) let's get together for a coffee and agree to disagree (with lots of humour). I get mails here: royalbritishlegion@gmail.com
Apr 25th, 2012 - 03:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0123 : To add to a very good reply : The British Foreign Office has always been staffed by neo liberals embarrased about Britain's colonial past who were cynically prepared to sign away the rights of the islanders without a second thought . The people of Rhodesia were treated in an equally shameful way , simply to placate oil rich Nigeria .
Apr 25th, 2012 - 09:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0However , they took too long over it , and the Junta thought they could get away with an invasion because they assumed GB was not interested in the region and that Margaret Thatcher was merely a weak woman who would do nothing about it.
The rest , as they say, is history .
British history : Task force sailed , recaptured islands , everyone happy.
Argie history : Despite heroic opposition our forces were defeated by the British Crown supported by the US , NATO , Chile , Brazil , Uruguay , the Masons , Illuminati , Italy, the Pope and lizards in spaceships ( I think they supplied the replacement carriers for the ones that the RG's repeatedly sank )
BRITON. TIM.
Apr 25th, 2012 - 01:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0BRITON: I knew about the arguments that you expressed in your comment, they are almost the same arguments that were expressed by norma edwards in her statement before the decolonization committee in june 24th 2010. I think you both are telling the truth, but you should recognize that the case has strong and week aspects for both countries. Argentina's claim wasn't continuous during some periods of time, i have an hipothesis about it, our country was almost a british colony during many years, we had a huge economic dependence with the u. k due to the loan that we got from it (baring brothers), which we had been paying for it for almost 100 years, beside most our economy was handled by british interests, this shows that arg. wasn't in conditions to claim to britain for the islands, beside, the u. k has never used the agreement that was signed in 1849 as a renounce of the argentine claim for the islands, i read interchanges of notes between both governments for my survey, and i could see that the u. k has never mentioned that treaty. I think it doesn't have anysense to invoke it, if the u. k tried to persuade the islanders twice, in order to achieve that they accept to find a negotiated solution, what we sould do, is to recognize once and for all that the case has strong ansd week aspects for both nations.
Respecting the events of 1982, despite that actions of the genocide dictatorship, which tried to use this cause, in order to perpetuate in the power, the u. n has always continued calling the two parts of the conflict to resume the negotiations and find a peaceful solution, but the u. k rejects to dicuss about the sovereignty which is the main conflict, that's not acting correctly eather. Finally, what you expressed in your comment 124 with isolde, shows that you continue distorting the true posture of my country, i already explained about it in planty of oportunities.
TIM: I'm going to send you i mails, so we can get together.
you go on about this sovereignty,
Apr 25th, 2012 - 06:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0tell me this,,,,and be honest,
1, what is sovereignty
2, who has this sovereignty
3 do the islanders have a right to this sovereignty
4, do we have the right to give away sovereignty that is not ours to give.
5 should argentina recieve this sovereignty that it has no rights to .
6, and finnaly, should we or argentina or the UN or the world have a right, to force free people to give up their loyalties and force them to give loyalalty to another country, against their free will ,
simple is it not .
BRITON.
Apr 25th, 2012 - 07:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have always been honest, that's why i have never denied that may be self determination is applicable for the islanders, in the same way that i have always recognized that per haps our government didn't act correctly in some oportunities. The one who has never criticised anything from the british posture, is you, may be you should have enough intellectual honesty, and recognize once and for all that your side is not acting correctly eather. I respect your opinion, in fact all the opinions are respectable, but there is nothing more important than the resolutions fom the u. n. What you do once and gain, is to distort the resolutions and the posture of my country, i'm going to explain it to you one more time, and i hope you understand it. If the islanders want to remain british, nobody can change that, because the u. n has never asked the u. k to return the islands to arg., beside it neather invoked the right to self determination, like it did for others colonial situations, nor expressed that the sovereignty must be discussed only if the islanders wish it. All the resolutions have only called the two pars of the conflict to resume the negotiations and find a peaceful solution, it's not imposible to find a fair solution for both people, you are the one who should be honest, and recognize that you dont want any fair solution.
Regarding the posture of my country, i explained in diferent oportunities that even c. f. k manifested before the u. n and in others forums that arg. is not asking the u. k to recognize that the islands are argentine, it only asks the u. k to resume the negotiations and find a peaceful solution. However, if you, and some of your compatriots preffer to keep on distorting the posture of my country, and victimizing only the islanders, with out making any critic to the posture of the u. k, that shows that unfortunatelly you dont have any intellectual honesty.
130 axel arg
Apr 25th, 2012 - 10:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It must be you, that is misreading the items,
The one who has never criticised anything from the British posture, is you
[I have always had a go at my government when needed,] please read my bloggs and others will confirm this,
…………………………………………..
You should have enough i honesty, once and for all that your side is not acting correctly either
[Again not true, the British government has done nothing wrong]
but there is nothing more important than the resolutions from the u. n. you do once and gain, is to distort the resolutions and the posture of my country,
[Again not true,][ your country did all the bad things to innocent islanders, did they not ]]
u. n has never asked the u. k to return the islands nor expressed that the sovereignty must be discussed only if the islanders wish it.
[again you fail to understand things]
It is CFK and your constitution that demands sovereignty, and the islanders DON’T WANT IT,]],
victimizing only the islanders ect ect,
[we don’ t,,you do]
Im afraid we will just a have to agree to disagree]
And CFK will not get what is not ours to give,
This is the free choice of the islanders, and they wish to remain British, I just truly wish, that you would understand that, but that is the fundamental thing that you guys refused to do,
So we agree to disagree,
Thanks.
.
l'll ask you again, Axel.
Apr 26th, 2012 - 10:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0lf you don't want sovereignty but do want negotiations, then what do you want to “negotiate”?
What is your prefered outcome if ever we “negotiated”?
Don't say shared sovereignty either as that is out of the question.
So:-
1) No mention about Sovereignty,
2) No mention about Shared Sovereignty,
3) Negotiations(about what?).
Answer please, Axel.
BRITON. ISOLDE.
Apr 26th, 2012 - 01:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0ISOLDE: May be for the first time it's posible to have a mature debate with you. I already explained in planty of oportunities about what would be for me a fair solution for both people, i mean about sharing the sovereignty, in this way, it would be respected the wish of the islanders of being british, and it would be respected our rights over the islands, what i propose is not new, there are places around the world with shared administrations. Beside, i have never said that i dont want to discuss about the sovereignty, i have always said that it 's the main conflict which should be discussed, and find a fair solution for both people. If you dont like my proposal, then propose another idea, which respects the righst of both, i know that you think that we have no rights over the islands, all the opinions are respectable, but if he u. n calls the two parts of the conflict to resume the negotiations, it should be respected, we can't ignore that the sovereignty is the main problem, and it must be discussed. I understand that per haps c. f. k's words can sound contradictory, but i really think that what she tried to do, is to express that what your side says about posture is false, specially when you reffer our constitution, i alreday explained about it in planty of oportunities too, but unfortunatelly some people will keep on understanding just what they want.
BRITON: Unfortunatelly i wasn't wrong when i thought that debating with you was a waste of time, mediocre people like you will always blame on everybody else only, but wont never do any critic for their behaviour, thats' why you say the u. k didn't do anything wrong, and distort once and again the posture of my country. In my case i have never denied that per haps my country didn't act correctly in some oportunities, and committed a terrible and criminal mistake in 1982, because i'm not neather injudicious nor ignorant, may be that's the big diference between you and me.
Please join our Facebook PAGE https://www.facebook.com/pages/Keep-the-Falklands-British/123151384435619 KEEP THE FALKLANDS BRITISH press the LIKE button on the page to follow the news streams and spread the news to your friends and family.
Apr 26th, 2012 - 03:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are entitled to your opinion,
Apr 26th, 2012 - 05:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I think Great Britain should have shared sovereignty over Argentina,
The argentines can still be argentine if they wish, .
But I think its only fair that CFK sit down and talk to the British government over British argentine sovereignty,
Your opinion.
My opinion .
135 briton
Apr 26th, 2012 - 06:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes, but YOU know it makes sense! Britain could make Argentina GREAT again like it did when it put the trains in etc.
Aaah! Do we really want to help a bunch of rabid, thieving, wanabee ganster Malvanistas to be great again? Ha, ha, ha. :o)
we can, but as you say,
Apr 26th, 2012 - 08:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0why should we .lol.
@133 Axel,
Apr 27th, 2012 - 08:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0You had better read my post @ #132 again, dear Axel.
l said, no talks about sovereignty & no talks about shared sovereignty.
Then you imediately begin talking about shared sovereignty!
l'm flabbergasted. l really am.
l am beginning to completely agree with GreekYoghurt & even Conqueror with their opinion of Argentines.
Looks like we have no meeting ground, Axel.
We have nothing to “negotiate” with you.
lt cannot be done. C'est impossible!
briton is right.
We “DEMAND”(fav RG word)that you hand over Patagonia, imediately.
ISOLDE.
Apr 27th, 2012 - 12:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You demand that, because you are just ignorant people, who dont have any idea about what you say, and make ignorant comparisons all the time. Only miopic people like you can't recognize that the sovereignty is the main conflict, which must be discussed and find a fair solution for both, you only parrot histerically, no negotiations about sovereignty, but as long a you insist with that, we will keep on having more problems in the future.
Anyway, i'm going to ask you something, what are you going to demand from patagonia, if the u. k has never had any claim over that territory?. If you insist with argument that our state stole many of the lands that belonged to the originary populations, and killed many of them, let me remind you that our state made diferent historic reparations for those people, in fact their rights are included in article 17 of capter fourth of our constitution, which related to the duties of the congress, it affirms as a duty of it, to signalize their preexistence, to protect and restitute their lands etc etc, in fact some lands have been already restituted for them, on the other hand, our congress is going to discuss in a few monthes about the reform of the civil code, one of the projects aims to protect the comunitary lands of the originary populations. Now my question is, what kind of historic reperation did the u. k do for arg. for having deprived it from the islands in 1833?. At the same time, i recognize that my country has a moral doubt also with the islanders.
138 lsolde
Apr 27th, 2012 - 07:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0sadly he is past saving,
his indocrination is beyon repair,
sorry
Axel,
Apr 27th, 2012 - 09:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are the one who is an ignorant.
1) we did NOT deprive Argentina from OUR lalands,
we just evicted some illegal squatters from OUR(NOT YOURS)Land.
2) we settled Patagonia before you did, so we really own it.
we DEMAND that you allow us to “recover” OUR Patagonia.
Leave NOW, Axel or our government will be forced to make some hard decisions.
ISOLDE.
Apr 28th, 2012 - 03:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You can't be more ignorant and missinformed. Firstly, the british settlement that was stablished in puerto deseado (santa cruz), wasn't stablished in the name of the state, (which is the main condition in order to claim for a territory), it was just one more settlement like many others that we have around the country, beside in chubut there are planty of people who are of wolch origin. Whe diana spencer came to arg. in 1995, she went to drink the tea to a place which is something like a wolch colony, i would like to go there some day because the place is very beatiful.
Regarding our claim for the islands, in 1829 it was created the politic and civil command from the malvinas, and a few commanders were designed by our government, it means that the state did all it could, in a very difficult moment, with the purpose of trying to exercise our rights on the islands. Anyway i dont deny that there were some criminals between the populators, in fact one of the commanders was killed by them, but it doesn't have anything to do with the fact that our country started to exercise like it could, it's rights in the islands, which were based on the sussession of states.
So, you have nothing to claim over patagonia, anway you and a few of your compatriots can keep on making all the ignorant comparisons that you want, it only shows once and again that you have no idea about what you are saying. My arguments are based on the academic knowledge that i have in two investigations.
Wheels on the bus go round and round
Apr 28th, 2012 - 07:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0,,,round and round , round and round,
wheels break the axel and breaks down, all day long .
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!