MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Falklands’ economy “booming” in spite of Argentina’s efforts of a blockade
Despite desperate attempts from Argentina to deter potential investors and increased interference in Falkland Islands’ activities the objective of an economic blockade has not been achieved, said Governor Nigel Haywood on Wednesday in his ‘state of the nation’ annual speech to the Legislative Assembly. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesLet's see your numbers on !
May 23rd, 2012 - 07:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The argentine case looks Weaker as time rolls on.
May 23rd, 2012 - 07:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Good clear policies on the Falklands which is something argentina should learn from, rather than there Childish attempts of running there own country!!!!
Long Live the Falklands.
@1 Why? You don't have enough brain to comprehend 1+1!
May 23rd, 2012 - 08:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“We have the full backing of international law” ?????????????????
May 23rd, 2012 - 08:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You have full backing of UK´s weapons and nuclear submarines. That´s all and sadly enought...
& 3
May 23rd, 2012 - 08:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0the unruly conquerror
for all we know the Economy is a science of based on numbers, discernment,reasoning,judgment......not on babbling.
i can^t comment before seeing the numbers.
@ #4.
May 23rd, 2012 - 08:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“”You have full backing of UK´s weapons and nuclear submarines. That´s all and sadly enought.“”
Really? Do you have something to back that claim up with? International law is on the Falklands side whether you like it or not. Britain has not attacked Argentina or threatened Argentina. So what is the basis of your statement?
4 Islas Malvinas (#)
May 23rd, 2012 - 08:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“We have the full backing of international law” ??
[Toilet paper more like]
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Falklands’ economy “booming” in spite of Argentina’s efforts of a blockade
Blockade, what blockade,
If you look on google earth, the Argentina navy,
Is blockading an invisible piece of land called Malvinas?,3,000 miles north of the British Falklands .
Or is that just an excuse to keep the mighty argie navy , well out of harms way, in the middle of nowhere, blockading nothing .
Ha ha .
.
@2 Papamoa(#)
May 23rd, 2012 - 08:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0189 years and no a 5 stars Luciana Palazzo Hotel like in Comodor0 Rivadavia?
189 years and no an University like in Comodoro Rivadavia?
189 years depending on argentine ports?
189 years and no US $80,000 or US $200,000 apartments like found in my Comodoro Rivadavia?
Keep the islands you know where......
yes, 300 miles in british teritory .
May 23rd, 2012 - 08:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@6
May 23rd, 2012 - 08:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“ International law is on the Falklands side”: Yeah, that´s why the international community keeps supporting Argentina on its claim. Argentina has nothing to claim. Sure.
“Britain has not attacked Argentina or threatened Argentina”: You surprisingly ignore the history of argentinian-british relations.
@8 (SussieUs) The people on the islands seem to be happy with their lives and appear to be on a sustainable route with money in the bank. Let’s face it; they are doing well for their families. Good for them I say.
May 23rd, 2012 - 08:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0They probably aren't thinking about Comodoro Rivadavia as it has no relevance. Does it???
@ 10
May 23rd, 2012 - 08:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What international community is supporting Argentina?
10 ... what international law is on your side? Please quote
May 23rd, 2012 - 08:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@ 10. What relations are you talking about?
May 23rd, 2012 - 08:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina's claim is irrelevant so long as the Falkland islanders have the right of self determination
May 23rd, 2012 - 08:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0your not going to find facts about history in Argentina, though im sure you produce some lovely fiction books about a certain mystical island with powerful magic and fountains of eternal youth doted in the non-fiction department called “ Islas Malvinas”
it has always been the job of the sword to protect the weak and innocent from vile acts of aggression and bullying
pre 1970s is now irrelevant the past stays in the past, simples
10 What, are you talking about?
May 23rd, 2012 - 08:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0UN resolutions like 1514 , passed in 1960 that granted independence to colonized countries and peoples....
May 23rd, 2012 - 08:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0UN general assembly passed the resolution 2065 in 1965 which specifically acknowledged the conflict over the Islands and called upon the both sides to “” proceed without delay“” in negotiations and to refrain from talking unilateral decisions and actions .........
@10
May 23rd, 2012 - 08:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If Argentinas case is so 'legal' then why don't they take the UK to the ICJ?
Oh that's right, used toilet-paper doesn't make for a particularly good basis to prove you're right.
17 Max
May 23rd, 2012 - 09:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What international law?
“” proceed without delay“” in negotiations and to refrain from talking unilateral decisions and actions .........“”
May 23rd, 2012 - 09:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What did Argentina do in 1982? It did what the UN asked to avoid. Also, 2065 doesn't mention sovereignty.
@ 12 & 13:
May 23rd, 2012 - 09:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What international community? Earth´s.
What relations? Nevermind...
@10 The people of the Falklands have broken no international laws, just because some countries may agree with the Argentine Gov's position DOES NOT mean laws have been broken.
May 23rd, 2012 - 09:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Let me help with some FACTS-
EU on the British position
Commonwealth on the British position
Peru, Brazil, Chile and Mexico officially DO support the Argentine claim over the Falklands and the South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands.
The vast majority of countries are neutral.
@21. Name these countries please. You claim the international community supports you, then at least do the honest and decent thing and back that statement up with verifiable evidence.
May 23rd, 2012 - 09:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And I'm still curious to what these relations you mentioned are.
@17 - I laugh everytime that resolution from 1965 which Argentina violated is quoted.
May 23rd, 2012 - 09:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why keep talking about a non-binding resolution your own country violated?
And if that wasn't enough your very country violated UN resolutions when it illegally invaded the Falkland Island's.
It's bizarre in the extreme to try to quote the UN resolutions which no longer exist and which your own country violated.
The UN does not allow for war, it does allow for self defense. it expects all members to come to peaceful arrangements.
May 23rd, 2012 - 09:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0from a British stand point there is noting to talk about argentina only allows for one way it can end
Argentina continues to poison the minds of there children
Argentina please get your finger of the self-destruct button and please stop jabbing at it and teasing it like its a little toy
kids and there toys cant leave them alone for 5 min :)
& 19
May 23rd, 2012 - 09:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The International Law ?....What is it ?
(Iraq...Afghanistan..Libya ... operations ? )
There are “” The Law of Power “” not “” The Power of Law “” in the world.
And quite often, the power of law simply doesn't work.
May 23rd, 2012 - 09:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Bosnia ring any bells?
Afghanistan?
or how about the Falklands in 1982, resolution 502, the BINDING resolution that was ignored.
Now who was it that ignored 502?
& 27
May 23rd, 2012 - 09:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The conflict over the Falklands streches further back than and far beyond the war in 1982 and involves an endless list of UN Resolutions (issued and ignored),sovereignty claims , bilateral talks and unilateral actions.
There are “ the law of power” not “ the power of law” in the world.
Yet More excellent new from The Falklands, well done to them, still the negativity from the Argenswine posts, cant you be happy for these peaceful people or is it still beneath you?
May 23rd, 2012 - 09:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why would the Falklanders wish to become part of Argenweener when they have such a great outlook a complete contrast to Argenswines economy.
Read them and WEEP...........
No it does not. That is pure fabrication. Not 1 single shot had been fired over the Falklands before 2nd April 1982. Guess who fired those shots in 1982?
May 23rd, 2012 - 09:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And as I said before, the power of law doesn't always work.
28 try the right of self determination! why do you think Argentina didn't accept the offer of taking it to the ICJ? unless they dont believe the islands are theirs?
May 23rd, 2012 - 09:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What UN resolution says Britain has to discuss sovereignty with Argentina?
May 23rd, 2012 - 09:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0how about the one Argentina just made up?.... lol
May 23rd, 2012 - 09:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'm guessing they are now away reading through every resolution in the UN library.
May 23rd, 2012 - 09:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Isn't it funny that there is a “certain group” who believe that:
May 23rd, 2012 - 09:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 01) a civilian Argentine population was evicted from the Falklands in 1833
2) that the UN supports the Argentine sovereignty claim
3) that the islanders have no right to self determination
All three “facts” are wrong.
1) no civilian population has ever been expelled from the islands
2) the UN encourages negotiation rather than violence, only Argetina has ever ignored this
3) the principle of self determination is enshrined in the UN charters for non-governing territories.
& 31
May 23rd, 2012 - 10:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0None of colonies can has “ self determination rights” in practice
don^t bring here many samples from Pasific area where have their original peoples...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
& 32
comment (17) says it .......
So Max tell us if that is true regarding self determination and Argentina has a solid case why it rejects the ICJ and continues to refuse to take it to the highest legal body?
May 23rd, 2012 - 10:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Just answer that one question as opposed to going off on a odd tangent.
@36. What is the reference to Argentina, Britain or the Falklands in resolution 1514? None of those places are mentioned in it.
May 23rd, 2012 - 10:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It is funny that all of the Argentines didn't scream the whole militarisation until their own government started peddling it out. So for the last 29 years as Britain maintain a defence to ensure Argentina couldn't invade again, and all of a sudden, out of no where, it is militarising the South Atlantic. And add the claim of weapons of mass destruction! It is truly laughable how incompetent Argentina and its people truly are.
May 23rd, 2012 - 10:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why does Argentina have a Navy? Or Brazil? Or Uruguay? Are they not militarising the South Atlantic. Why in the hell would Britain want to try and attack South America. Only Argentina could truly make this kind of thing up. Laughable again.
And Max. Check this link out. It states explicitly that all 16 non-governing territories have the right of self-determination. And look who says it. Can you deny this now?
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2012/sgsm14122.doc.htm
@36 Well, seeing as the Falklands are not a colony, but rather a territory, as a colony implies that an indigenous population was displaced, which is not the case, the Falklanders DO get Self-determination rights. The vast majority of the islanders were born on the Falklands, and therefore have the right to decide who rules it. It's called democracy. I know that this is a recent thing in Argentina so the concept may not have fully sunk in yet, but it will in time. The Falklanders are your neighbours - you should be happy for them. Let them live in peace, and drop your claim. Then most of (it would be wrong to completely remove it) the British garrison can leave and everything will be happy again, and there need no longer be more animosity between our countries. Sadly, your government is so hell bent on using the Falklands to cover up national problems that it is unlikely that such a thing will ever come to pass...
May 23rd, 2012 - 10:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0the right of self determination is a right of every man woman and child. to determine there own future. Falkland islanders have the same right as any other person in the world unless you can prove some people are lesser then others? in the normal sence
May 23rd, 2012 - 10:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Argentine claim to the Falkland Islands is a fairy tale invented by Perón in 1941 when he believed that Britain would lose WWII.
May 23rd, 2012 - 11:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It was the first claim made by Argentina since 1850.
So for 91 years Argentina didn't think about the Islands except as a source of colonists for the Territory of Santa Cruz in 1877 when Governor Moyano asked various FI famillies to take up land in Santa Cruz to start the sheep farming business. He also married the FI Governor's niece.
Malvinistas take time to read our own history, the real history not the peronist invention which has been used to indoctorinate 3 generations of Argenines.
The islands are filled mouth talking about “the invasion of 82 in Argentina,” while in silence gratefully acknowledge the war as their situation changes completely, I've heard from their own mouths. Fill their mouths talking about “selfdetermination”, when the government is sent from England and recently living in the Malvinas Islands. Malvinas Islands in search of Independence is just a “mask” for that Argentina not disturb never about just claim islands. That self-determination are talking about? if the islanders are stooges Britain and they love it. for example, find a utopia, if tomorrow Britain says that “the islands remain under the sovereignty of Argentina” has no choice but to obey what q says England, I remember a statement from an islander on the situation in 1980, the UK they said, “if they invade, we will not go to rescue, stick to the consequences,” which means that even though the mouth be filled with talk of “selfdetermination” (status quo armed for England, not even armed by the Islanders, also the same that is used to Gibraltar), the head of the Kelpers is England, you know. Of course in 1982 the situation changed since Margaret Thatcher realized that going to war would mean a victory of political will and therefore, “went to his rescue.”
May 24th, 2012 - 12:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0When England said “should be consulted about the islanders if they agree with the flights,” logically and from England came into contact with the islands for them to say no and so with everything. They try to keep this trap and was discovered years ago that is why Argentina never recognized third party to the dialogue. Why would want an “independence” similar to that of Puerto Rico? Logicamnete so that Argentina can no longer claim and England continue to make their own quietly in the islands under the false “independence.” Of course England knows he can not do, that is why they advocate continuing the “satuo quo” current. The action appears the economic void left no vessels enter malvinas false flag, since the
What a surprise ?
May 24th, 2012 - 01:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://falklandsnews.wordpress.com/2012/05/24/argentina-accuses-britain-of-provocation/
@10 do you mean when Britain was at war with Spain and attacked the Spanish Colony of Buenos Aires?
May 24th, 2012 - 01:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0(42) Simon68
May 24th, 2012 - 03:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0You repeat the fallacy….:
”The Argentine claim to the Falkland Islands is a fairy tale invented by Perón in 1941 when he believed that Britain would lose WWII.”
I say:
Why don’t you read the history of your own Country instead of repeating the lies of its Opponents?
Ever heard about Luciano Palacios the first Socialist parlamentarian democratically elected in the whole of South America?
Educate yourself……………:
“El derecho de nuestra Argentina a la soberanía de las Malvinas es innegable. A pesar de ello, una de las naciones más poderosas del mundo, abusando de la fuerza, las mantiene en su poder. Es imperioso que el pueblo conozca su derecho. Los argentinos no hemos reverenciado nunca a la fuerza y a la riqueza, sino a la justicia. La justicia fue nuestra empresa. Nuestro país está destinado a iniciar una nueva orientación en la evolución social, que se fundamente en la colaboración y en la solidaridad para superar la competencia que muchas veces tiene carácter brutal; también en la exaltación de los valores humanos para lograr que se sobrepongan al poderío de las cosas. Se ha dicho que las naciones, como entes de razón, sólo se mueven a impulsos de intereses o de conveniencias nacionales: les falta el órgano del corazón y les sobra el instrumento del cálculo. Hay, sin embargo, una excepción en la historia. Es la Argentina.”
Fuente: Alfredo Palacios, Las Islas Malvinas, Buenos Aires, Editorial Claridad, 1934.
http://www.elhistoriador.com.ar/frases/miscelaneas/alfredo_palacios_sobre_la_soberania_de_las_islas_malvinas.php
Malvinas economy “booming” says Mr Haywood. Wasn't him the same person in charge of the “reconstruction” of Basra, Iraq? Where did all that money go Niguel? Are you going to blame “Ali Baba and the 40 thieves” like you said?
May 24th, 2012 - 04:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/media/41738/100107am-haywoodmackiggan.pdf
@43 Marcio
May 24th, 2012 - 04:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0Garbage! Your translator is spewing out a lot of the aforementioned.Your post does not make sense.
@46 Stink
Typical Argie rewriting of history and building more fantasies on top of the original fantasy history. As a previous poster has discovered Obama is in fact the rightful King of Argentina and should be in the Casa Rosada not the usurper who occupies it now.
For anybody who wants to read how seriously Argentina's claim to the Falklands is taken by it's 'sister nations' in Latin America there is a good article in the current Buenos Aires Herald by Carolina Barros ;A Rock and ghost ships.A precis of this is that they take it as seriously as Argentina took the posession of YPF by Repsol.The way she puts it is so funny it had me in stitches.It is the funniest article I have read in a long time.
I hope KFC reads it over her breakfast.
@43 I bet you would want your right of self determination to be expressed if a hostile country tried to annex your home town.............................
May 24th, 2012 - 05:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0I don't know why it is deemed necessary to respond to the immature and provocative remarks from the Argentine “malvinistas” who flock to Mercopress just to post their frustrations. They have been brainwashed and indoctrinated since birth to believe “Las Malvinas son argentinas” and that is their motive for being here. They are like children whose toys have been taken away from them.
May 24th, 2012 - 07:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0The best thing is just to ignore them!
More good news about the progress being made in the Falklands. It's economy has a very sound footing and is well governed. That good governance also says a lot about its people, who like their British forebears understand the importance of law and order and a good work ethic in achieving a good standard of living.
May 24th, 2012 - 08:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0As for Nigel Haywood, the Falklands Governor, he seems to be a very calm and competent administrator. In fact, Haywood is someone Argentina could do with these days, instead of La Campora's darling, Kristina Kirchner, who lives a deluded life, supported by deluded people.
The RG gov aren't going to like this news. I'd expect them to ramp up their aggression. As their crazy ambassador Castro threatened a few days ago when she 'demanded' Britain hand over the Falkland Islands under thinly veiled threats of “conflict” and “dangers” if we don't do what they 'demand'.
May 24th, 2012 - 09:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina is getting extremely irritating. When they do finally push too far, and somebody gets hurt, we should retaliate wholly disproportionately and end this once and for all.
The question remains: if they want negotiations, what are they offering? We should give them the islands in exchange for...what, exactly?
May 24th, 2012 - 09:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0They want that toy( Falkland islands) and there going to keep throwing there bottle out the pram till they get it lol
May 24th, 2012 - 10:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0Marci0- you are incorrect in a lot of your thoughts! Flights for example- Arg is asking the WRONG Country! - If Arg wants to establich flights with the Islands then they need to ask the FALKAND ISLANDS Govt Department of Civil Aviation - this is the organisation responsible for such matters.
May 24th, 2012 - 10:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0But - yes - you have a problem I think! - Arg says this organisation does not exist!! So I guess there will never be flights then.
I'm with @53 Boovis. What exactly is it that Argentina is offering in negotiation?
May 24th, 2012 - 11:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0I should mention that we have medical care and education covered, thank you and Argentine control of air access will not appeal to us.
@55 Malvinas is not a country. It´s a COLONY. So, Argentina needs to deal with Longon.
May 24th, 2012 - 11:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0If Argentinas case is so 'legal' then why don't they take the UK to the ICJ?
May 24th, 2012 - 11:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0This brits here are mentally retards!
uk WILL NOT GO to the ICJ,for conflicts prior to 1974...
BTW,why uk declined to go to a court of justice:in 1884 and 5 times after,when invited by Argentina???
ICJ is part of the UN..
10 UNGA res favoring the Argentine case.....30 C-24.....
uk IS FINISHED,rogue nation...
@57 Falkland Islands
May 24th, 2012 - 12:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Falkland Islands are not a colony but Argentina would like to make it one.
@57 Malvinas is not a country. It´s a COLONY. So, Argentina needs to deal with Longon.
May 24th, 2012 - 12:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's not a colony it's a protectorate that wouldn't need protecting if it wasn't for argentina.
My family has lived in the Falkland Islands for 172 years, we didn't displace an indigenous population and yet Argentina says we have no rights when it comes to deciding our future.
@58 the UNGA only called for both parties to talk, and they were requests, not demands or orders. Please post links to actual resolutions, to my mind there are none after 1982...?
May 24th, 2012 - 12:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The problem is that Argentina will only be satisfied with full sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, they are not prepared to accept anything less.
May 24th, 2012 - 12:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Dear Falkland Islanders and people of the United Kingdom,
May 24th, 2012 - 12:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We've looked again at our claim to the Falkland Islands and have decided that we have been a bit silly, to say the least. Clearly claiming British territory that has been occupied by generations for hundreds of years is not acceptable behaviour from a civilised nation in the 21st century.
Claiming land we have never owned on the basis of a Papal decree from 1494 which divided the Southern hemisphere up between Spain and Portugal, and to which Britain was never a signatory, was very stupid of us.
Regarding the pirate Luis Vernet who was operating from the Falkland Islands before his and his gang's expulsion in 1833. Clearly this does not give us any serious legal or moral claim to ownership of those islands. What were we thinking?
The fact that the Falkland Islands are nearer to us than they are to London is plainly a ridiculous point to make, and to be honest we are quite embarrassed that we even mentioned this in the first place.
We unreservedly apologise for our harassment of the Falkland Islanders, our aggressive actions and attempted blockades. We are particularly sorry for our sneak invasion in 1982 and for the deaths that occurred as a result.
We will make no further claims on any British territories including the Falkland Islands. We will immediately remove all claims to these Islands from our Constitution and all references to the fictitious 'Islas Malvinas' from our school reference books, and we will stop indoctrinating our children.
We know we made a similar agreement in 1850, but when it looked like Britain might be defeated by the Nazis in 1941 this seemed like a good time to tear up the agreement and have another grab. We got a bit enthusiastic about the initial success of the Nazis and decided to take advantage of the situation, that was very wrong of us, sorry.
Obviously we are a very poor nation, so we cannot hope to repay the United Kingdom for the losses of life and property we
...continue:
May 24th, 2012 - 12:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Obviously we are a very poor nation, so we cannot hope to repay the United Kingdom for the losses of life and property we caused, instead we would like to offer the Royal Navy port facilities in Argentina and free bio-diesel in perpetuity as a mark of our sincerity in this matter.
May 24th, 2012 - 12:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Love and kisses
CFK
P.P. Argentina
I cant for the life of me understand why the Falklanders dont want to be part of the Argentine “economic miracle”
May 24th, 2012 - 12:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/101675/war-against-the-blue-greenback-
...and don't forget what an area of peace it is: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-latin-america-re-arms-air-combat-fleets-369929/
May 24th, 2012 - 01:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@58 - Britain is a rogue nation?
May 24th, 2012 - 01:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have never laughed so hard in my life. Yes, Britain is a rogue nation, it is in the same category as North Korea, Iran and Venezuela. You have to love how the Argentines just discredit themselves.
63 Alexei
May 24th, 2012 - 01:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0please copy and send to CFK ,
and please [if you are still ablt to]
let us know her reply, please .
Can one of you Argentine “Malvinas” supporters tell me if there was an indigenous population living in the Falklands when the English “took over”? My understanding is that there were no human inhabitants, i.e., indigenous people on the islands. If this is true, I don't understand the Argentines' continuous argument and implication that the English usurped, ejected, etc. a population that had previously existed there.
May 24th, 2012 - 01:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@58 - Malverino - you're are really funny and also make quite stupid remarks.
May 24th, 2012 - 01:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina didn't ask for any arbitration over the Falkland Islands between 1850 and 1941. In 1941, Peron invented the myth of the Falkland Islands belonging to Argentina, to divert gullible people such as yourself from the fact that he was robbing you all blind.
The UK has on 3 seperate occasions offered to take the sovereignty issue of the Falklands to the International Court of Justice, and 3 times Argentina has refused.
No only that, but when Argentina has gone to arbitration over other disputes (i.e. the Beagle Channel dispute with Chile), you refuse to abide by the findings of the court, stating that their rulings aren't applicable in Argentina. This is despite Argentina signing up to the UN charter, which makes ICJ rulings binding on members.
Now I know that things are rough in Argentina, that your money is practically worthless, that there are strikes almost daily, that inflation is going through the roof, and there are power cuts and food shortages, but that's the fault of YOUR government.
The Falkland Islands Government is a successful government who is increasing the wealth of their nation with their innovative and 'inclusive' economic policies.
If they keep growing like this, and getting richer, it won't be too long before the have the ability to become a completely independant nation in their own right, should they wish to do so. I mean, people will emigrate to where the money is. You'll have oil workers, business executives and their families moving there, some of whom will no doubt decide to stay.
So the Falklands will end up having an emigration boom, increasing their population, which in turn will increase their economy and improve their society, to include things like hospitals, college's and a university, and encourage foreign companies to invest there.
Poor Argentina will be left out in the cold because like most bullies you can't play nice.
http://www.mediafire.com/view/?c4mn3cd8sb4mc1i
May 24th, 2012 - 01:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Trolls please read this document.
They think we kicked out their settlers even though only 4 settlers left, the rest stayed, the others booted out were a military force and a penal colony. Ambassador Castro apparently thinks this was a “thriving and vibrant community”.
May 24th, 2012 - 01:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0they only THINK,
May 24th, 2012 - 01:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0on the other hand we KNOW they killed and slaughtered to original inhabitents of south america,
but hold on,,its not there fault, it was the spoannish .
@74
May 24th, 2012 - 02:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And there was me thinking it was the Brits - after all we are responsible for everything else
why are they so important to Argentina anyway? least the brits have 3000 reasons
May 24th, 2012 - 03:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@73 Boovis. I think you have got to the root of the problem. Argentines do think a Thriving and Vibrant Community is made up of convicts. What else could explain their comments and worse their behaviour.
May 24th, 2012 - 03:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@77: Fast forward to the Olympics: When that hockey captain gets arrested at British customs for visa violation and desecrating a war memorial, maybe he can enjoy the thriving and vibrant population at Belmarsh.
May 24th, 2012 - 03:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@76 -Tabutos. Good post.
May 24th, 2012 - 03:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The truth is that most of the Argentines who post on here don't understand that you can't put a price on liberty and freedom. Britain surely must have some other reason for protecting the Falklands?
They believe that the only interest the UK has in the islands is the oil. They can't connect the fact that 30yrs ago no one knew about the oil and Britain still liberated the islands, despite the fact that there was no financial gain. So in their twisted conspiracy theory minds they believe we knew about the oil all along (ever since 1833 - before petroleum had become a world must energy source) and that's why we want the islands and e erythronium since then has been a waiting game until we had the technology to extract the oil.
Some of the Argie trolls on here have amusing beliefs, but with rather dark undertones. When it was mentioned to one of them that there had been no native inhabitants of the Falklands and that in comparison Argentina had 'ethnically cleansed' the native population of Argentina, they replied with 'well it was only 300,000 of them! Plus these natives had fought against the Argentines who were stealing their land and thus deserved to be exterminated!
It really does beggar belief! But should be taken at face value. The Argentines refuse to accept that the ethnic cleansing was wrong or even happened (in some cases), documents found after the liberation showed us exactly what the Argentines planned to do to the Falkland Islanders (ethnically cleanse them), which shows that they can't be trusted - EVER.
They have no respect for human life, no respect for human rights and no respect for international law!
@Britton
May 24th, 2012 - 03:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You see, only 300 miles away from my Patagonia and this islanders prefers to live a primitive life, no monies, no class. They don't have the intellegency to develop their own land. Yaaaaaak!.....
@11 V for Victory(#)
Not revelance? Most people I know wants the best land development regardless of the location.
In the year 2012, modernization is a must to enjoy the best of life: the best education, the best medical facilities, the best transportation, the best food markets, the best clothes, the best hotels, the best airlines services,etc.
Only slow minded people likes to remain in the same primitive lands.
Most Patagonians like me like to see modern development which favors the real estate prices. The price of a 13 rooms house in San Martin de los Andes worth US$3,500,000. Most of all Patagonian land and buildings worth millons of dollars.
@74Briton(#)
You Jack the Ripper accusing others of “killing”?
Get lost coward! You are Skare of saying your real name.
Susana Brown
And, anyway, la Confederación Argentina clearly forfeited any rights it MIGHT have had upon signing the Arana-Southern Treaty in 1850 -“the treaty of perfect friendship”. This treaty clearly states that the two parties each had no claim on the other and thus the claim for the Falklands/Malvinas was extinguished.
May 24th, 2012 - 03:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@76 Tabutos
May 24th, 2012 - 04:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It is the same behaviour of bullies everywhere. Whenever they see someone with something better than what they have, they always want to take it from them.
@80 - SussieUS, thank you for confirming my post.
May 24th, 2012 - 04:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0All Argentinians are interested is 'how much' something is costing, and 'how much' they can get for it.
SussieUS if the Falklands really are that primitive why is Argentina SO desperate to gain control over them? I'll tell you why, it's because they see the islands as a cash cow, something that will keep giving money.
Brag all you want about Patagonia, but the Argentine economy is teetering on the edge, and will one day, very soon tip into the abyss of financial oblivion, leaving you money worthless, people starving on the streets, with no jobs, no power and no hope.
Meanwhile 300 miles away, the Falkland Islanders will be cracking open the Champagne and celebrating their liberty, freedom, right to determine their own future and their new found wealth.
Their economy is not booming is fuming.
May 24th, 2012 - 04:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Telegraph
24 May 2012
“Britain's recession is deeper than previously thought..”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/9286929/UK-economy-shrinks-more-than-expected-on-fall-in-construction-output.html
we will survive as always! can the same be said for Argentina?
May 24th, 2012 - 04:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 084: yeah...that's not about the Falklands is it...
May 24th, 2012 - 04:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 081 Gordo1
May 24th, 2012 - 04:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Dear Chanchi
Mr Eduardo explained that to you already, you can read it below again.
I know you make treats to him after you read it because you couldn't handle the truth.
“This “1850 Convention of Settlement” so often mentioned in here.A little
”detail” jumps in front of my eyes...Is it not true that between 1845 and
1849 Britain and France, the two greatest superpowers of the world at the time,
blockaded, attacked and tried to topple the Argentinean government and invaded
Uruguay?At least that is what your own “Westminster Review”
says:“For nearly four years we kept a squadron there, seldom consisting of
less than a dozen ships, to cooperate with the similar force mantained by the
French; yet, after all our trouble and lavish expenditure, we concluded a treaty
in 1849, which was only a diplomatic avowal of the failure of our intervention.”
Westmister review, page 165”
http://www.mediafire.com/view/?c4mn3cd8sb4mc1i
May 24th, 2012 - 04:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 087 - Have a butchers at the above link, will explain why RG's wont take this to court.
Reason, because they are telling fibs, big fat ones like Maximos @ss.
No claim on the islands as we have all been saying.
87 Marcos Alejandro (#)
May 24th, 2012 - 04:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0May 24th, 2012 - 04:29 pm
That comment was totally irrelevant. The Arana-Southern Settlement was signed to terminate the hostilities between Argentina and Britain. The fact is that the Treaty settled all outstanding problems between Argentina and Britain, which is why it was called “The Treaty of Perfect Friendship.”
The Westminster Review was a quarterly British publication. Established in 1823 as the official organ of the Philosophical Radicals, it was published from 1824 to 1914. James Mill was one of the driving forces behind the liberal journal until 1828.
May 24th, 2012 - 04:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 089 Simon68 Didn't you tell us to inform ourselves Brit “wannabe”?
May 24th, 2012 - 04:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Isn't the “Westminster Review” good enough for you?
Educate yourself.
@83 LePREcon(#)
May 24th, 2012 - 04:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why are you so Skare in not saying your name?
I don't have nothing to hide.
My Argentina is not “desperate” for the islands.
Most of all former and future argentine presidents have the rights to claim the islands if they want. Take it or live it.
I don't want the islands and I don't want to see any english citizen residing in my country.
Where is you PM Cameron? The diplomatic relationship between the 2 countries are broken.
The abusive words made by the Penguin News against the argentinian leader and the abusive words made by several viewers against the argentine president cannot be excused. The argentine goverment also follows all comments posted in the internet.
Nobody scare this argentinian.
Say you name and location is you are really brave.
Susana Brown
@91 MA
May 24th, 2012 - 05:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I think you need to educate yourself. The Westminster Journal was a periodical, you know, A MAGAZINE. If you had been around then, you could have published a letter in it. You are not mixing up your Westminsters are you?
@8 189 years and no argies! We win.
May 24th, 2012 - 05:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@10 The international community does nothing of the sort. Just your imagination. List the occasions when Britain has attacked argieland.
@17 For about the 5,000th time, UNGA resolutions are NON-BINDING!
@28 There is NOTHING in the last 247 years that gives argieland any rights in respect of the Falkland Islands!
@36 Drivel!
@43 Illiterate drivel!
@50 No. It's always nice winding them up. Occasionally, we get to remind them who the big boys are.
@57 There's nowhere called “Malvinas”. And there's no place called “Longon” either.
@58 But isn't this “conflict” current? UK didn't decline to go to a court of justice in 1884. It declined to submit to the arbitration of an argie stooge. And you can shove your NON-BINDING UN resolutions through your rectum.
Now here is a thought for all intelligent people. (Max, Islas Malvinas, SussieUS, marcio, Think, Marcos Alejandro - this is not for you.)
I have had a horrifying thought. Like the majority of the population of this planet, I have no idea whether there is intelligent life somewhere else in the Universe. But I think it inconceivable that we should be the only ones. Suppose they're on their way? There always seems to be a perception of them landing on the White House lawn. Suppose they landed in South America? Suppose they landed in argieland? What would their impression be of the human race? Surely this means that the world must unite to get the argies under control? Should they be dispersed? Committed to mental institutions? Perhaps we should deprive them of all post-18th century technology? Who has reasonable solutions?
80 SussieUS
May 24th, 2012 - 05:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well done: ”You Jack the Ripper accusing others of “killing”?
This time you managed NOT to confuse it with Raspberry Ripple. BTW that is an ice cream!
And of course Briton is Jack the Ripper, he is at least (20 + 2012 - 1888 = 144) years old.
He Briton, we can have your 145 th Birthday Party next year. :o)
There you are SussieUS, who says that Brits can't be as stupid as you? The only problem is we have to work at it. LOL
Whoops, Freudian slip, that should read, the Westminster Review was a periodical.
May 24th, 2012 - 05:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Prime Minister Wellington, UK., the British general who defeated Napoleon and was twice British prime minister
May 24th, 2012 - 05:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0” It is not clear to me that we have ever possessed the sovereignty of all these islands. The convention certainly goes no farther than to restore to us Port [Egmont], which we abandoned nearly sixty years ago. If our right to the Falkland Islands had been undisputed at that time and indisputable, I confess that I should doubt the expediency of now taking possession of them. We have possession of nearly every valuable post and colony in the world and I confess that I am anxious to avoid to excite the attention and jealousy of other powers by extending our possessions and setting the example of the gratification of a desire to seize upon new territories”
SussieUS - no nos interesan las opiniones de una nueva rica así que ¡calla!
May 24th, 2012 - 05:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 098 Gordo1
May 24th, 2012 - 05:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Dear Chanchi
Did you forget English?
The real Brits in here don't like nor understand that evil language.
97: opinions and not facts, please post facts (I know you hate that, but humour me...).
May 24th, 2012 - 05:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0100 So you don't believe your own PM Duke of Wellington?
May 24th, 2012 - 05:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You can't handle the truth.
Boovis: I will post a fact:
May 24th, 2012 - 05:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Before the war, kelpers were very poor and discriminated from Britain. After the war, all of them became full british citizens.
The Dispute is between Argentina and Britain. How can british people (falkland islanders) support the right of Self-determination????? Self determination applies to native population. NOT YOU, KELPERS!
@101 MA
May 24th, 2012 - 06:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I think you are trapped in a time warp. He is not our own PM. Camron is our PM. Wellington was Primeminster 200 years ago!!!!!!
He was the greatest general of is age.
In 1818, Wellington was given a post in Lord Liverpool's Tory government. In 1827, he became commander in chief of the British army, but in 1828 reluctantly accepted the post of prime minister. He believed in strong, authoritative government and an isolationist policy, although he antagonised sections of his party by forcing through the Catholic Emancipation Act (1829). His opposition to parliamentary reform made him unpopular, and he earned the nickname of the 'Iron Duke' when he erected iron shutters on the windows of his London home, Apsley House, to prevent them being smashed by angry crowds.
His political career however, was not has distinguished as his military career.
103
May 24th, 2012 - 06:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Duke of Wellington
” It is not clear to me that we have ever possessed the sovereignty of all these islands. The convention certainly goes no farther than to restore to us Port [Egmont], which we abandoned nearly sixty years ago”
“I don't want the islands and I don't want to see any english citizen residing in my country.”
May 24th, 2012 - 06:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hahahaha from someone with a english name “Susana Brown” sounds retard!,
Marcos you really aren't listening, Wellington was giving his opinion, that isn't a fact of law, it's just the way he felt about something do you understand?!
May 24th, 2012 - 06:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@104MA
May 24th, 2012 - 06:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If you are going to quote primeministers, I prefer this extract of a speech from a more contemporary UK Primeminister.
I must tell the House that the Falkland Islands and their dependencies remain British territory. No aggression and no invasion can alter that simple fact. It is the Government's objective to see that the islands are freed from occupation and are returned to British administration at the earliest possible moment.
Margaret THATCHER. Speech to the House of Commons.
Saturday 3rd of April, 1982.
Should I believe the facts expressed by the same British general who defeated Napoleon and was twice British prime minister or should I believe an unknown Brit named “Boovis”?
May 24th, 2012 - 06:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@95 Christ R (#)
May 24th, 2012 - 06:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I saying that I am brave argentinian.
What are your trying to say?
Or should we believe some ex-brit traitor called .......
May 24th, 2012 - 06:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Try believing the facts expressed by a British Priminister who is still living and not one who left office in 1833, what significant about that date? rings a bell for some reason. 1833 now what happened in 1833? No, it's no good, can not place it. Come to me later I expect.
May 24th, 2012 - 06:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 080 SussieUS
May 24th, 2012 - 06:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Once again you insult,
Are you so badly educated that you have to deride poor old jack,
As this jack, much have saved your life, so you can start the game again, only this time 4,000 miles west.
And 144 years later,
If that is the level of vocabulary, then I would rather talk to a corps,
avows young avows .
@112 briton (#)
May 24th, 2012 - 06:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The fact is you are bloody rubbish english person. Can you tell me how many years and who start it calling you old bloody rubbish english people... Here in the US I hear it all the time...
I can't wait till the next UN C24 meeting :) should be the funnished thing to watch, since timmerman's go at the UN. Beat the retarded botox one (aka KFC) will storm out when the falkland islanders get up to speak!.
May 24th, 2012 - 06:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0KFC: mine, mine, mine all mine
UN spokesman: please be quite now
KFC: No! its mine, all mine, i wants it my precious. wants it i do!
UN spokesman: Can anyone find her bi-polar medicine & why is she foaming at the mouth?
113 SussieUS
May 24th, 2012 - 06:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0this is an english only site,
speak in english, or dont post
english only .
Here is another extract from a speech made by a contemporary British
May 24th, 2012 - 06:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Primeminister.
“Early this morning in Port Stanley, 74 days after the Falkland Islands were invaded, General Moore accepted from General Menendez the surrender of all the Argentine forces in East and West Falkland together with their
arms and equipment. In a message to the Commander-in-Chief Fleet, General Moore reported:
”The Falkland Islands are once more under the Government desired by their inhabitants. God Save the Queen.”
Margaret THATCHER Speech to the House of Commons.
14th June, 1982
Thank god for the british,
May 24th, 2012 - 06:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0at least some bits of the world are still civilised .
@92 - SussieUS. You have me confused with someone else, I don't know who Skare is, but he usually posts common sense posts. I don't have to reveal my name on the Internet, any more than anyone on this site has to.
May 24th, 2012 - 07:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As for the rest of your post it's utter bollocks.. You are saying that Argentina has the right to steal someone else's property, on the basis of a bunch of lies, that don't hold water anywhere in the world except in your deluded minds.
Argentina can certainly try to take the Falkland Islands by force, just like you did in 1982, but I wouldn't expect a happy ending if I were you.
You are the worst kind of person, SussieUS. You spit on the country in which you currently reside and whose freedoms you enjoy, while at the same time you extols the virtues of a de facto dictatorship that's on the brink of economic ruin where you don't reside, and therefore don't have to face the consequences of Argentina's economic problems.
As for the Americans hating the English, some do, most don't. I have travelled extensively in the US and never found anyone who was less than welcoming, if act most seemed genuinely pleased to talk with someone from the UK. I have served along side US marines and soldiers, and I have found them to be brave and friendly souls, with no animosity towards the UK.
No doubt, you and the rest of the 'English' haters huddle together to talk about your 'hatred', then after the English you talk about the evil Imperialist American pigs dogs, who you also hate, but rely on for your civil rights.
You are a hypocrite.
Comment removed by the editor.
May 24th, 2012 - 07:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@119 - El Gaucho Rivero.
May 24th, 2012 - 07:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Whose sending a nuclear sub? The British government neither denies or confirms this story published in 'the Sun', a newspaper that is usually as accurate as the President of Argentina. LOL
If a nuclear powered sub is on the way to the South Atlantic it will only be in response to the continuing harassment and growing aggression coming out of the mouths of your politicians.
Your politicians are getting very desperate now, and may try something supremely stupid to divert you all from the fact that Argentina is going to hell in a hand basket. If the threat that a nuclear powered sub may or may not be in the area stops your government sacrificing your young men in a suicidal (and illegal) attack, then all the better.
However, good news for the Falklands economy. Keep it up! :0)
109
May 24th, 2012 - 08:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I saying that I am brave argentinian.
Brave how?
Are you perhaps in the military, allowing youre kin people to sleep safe in there beds at night?
Perhaps a firefighter rushing into burning buildings to snatch a babie from its cot and getting out the door just as the building explodes?
Maybe a police officer fighting criminals on every street corner so that people can go about there there business freely.
If i havent guessed correctly perhaps you would be so good to tell me why youre so brave?
@Marcos Alejandro
May 24th, 2012 - 08:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why do you believe anything Wellington said. He was just a lying pirate. Everyone knows Napolean was victorious at Waterloo and the Argies have a legitimate claim to the Falklands.
Comment removed by the editor.
May 24th, 2012 - 08:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0119 El Gaucho Rivero
May 24th, 2012 - 08:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Canny read da ling old boy,
Sorry,
123 SuzzіeUS
Sorry miss, but we cant understand you,
Hang on a mo, I will ask,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
HELP PLEASE can some one interpret what this little girl is saying, she obviously can’t speak English, has anyone got any ideas as to what she is saying,
I can only pick up bits like,
Suzy Wong/love you long time / 2 dollar,
Can anyone know what she is saying?
Poor child, it cant be easy, not speaking English .
.
@123 - SussieUS. Having lost the argument you fall back on old reliable - insulting and ranting at random targets.
May 24th, 2012 - 08:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Here's something that might help you. Put aside your stupid racist stereotypes. Then try to act like an adult.
You obviously miss your home in Patagonia, so why no move back there? Return to the fold, where you will be poorer, but infinitely a happier person.
You see, all your rage directed at the 'English' (I wonder why you don't have a problem with Wales or Scotland, since both the Welsh and Scots Guards were involved in the liberation of the islands - the Irish Guards were upset they missed all the action), and the rage you direct against the USA, is all because of your guilt feelings of abandoning your home country.
I'm sure they're willing to greet you with open arms, and special dogs, who will sniff out all your hard earned greenbacks, to go into Cristina's, er I meant, governments coffers.
You're jealousy of the success of the Falklanders compared to the train wreck that is Argentina is blatantly obvious.
Remember that envy is one of the 7 deadly sins, along with greed (gluttony).
116 reality check
May 24th, 2012 - 09:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Here is another extract from a speech made by a contemporary British
Primeminister”
PM Tony Blair
“Saddam Hussein's regime is despicable, he is developing weapons of mass destruction, and we cannot leave him doing so unchecked. He is a threat to his own people and to the region and, if allowed to develop these weapons, a threat to us also.”
In the Commons, April 2002.
Tony Blair, the man
“I think most people who have dealt with me, think I'm a pretty straight sort of guy, and I am.”
PM Cameron
“If a confusing picture has emerged over the last few days, I am very sorry about that. I think my staff have had to answer a lot of questions about horses.”
WTF! Sorry but I rather read that old PM quote instead
Duke of Wellington
” It is not clear to me that we have ever possessed the sovereignty of all these islands. The convention certainly goes no farther than to restore to us Port [Egmont], which we abandoned nearly sixty years ago”
125 LEPRecon :) thank you i was thinking the same thing. The South america bloggers always say “english”. I am not “english”, bloody well British tho (to anyone from a different country anyway).
May 24th, 2012 - 09:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@92 You do realise that you have an English name, don't you?
May 24th, 2012 - 09:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@99 It's not a language. Pig grunts.
@101 Not my PM. He died in 1852. Remember how argies tell us that that invasion and war in 1982 was nothing to do with them. It was “the Junta”. The Duke of Wellington has nothing to do with me. He's been dead for 160 years.
@102 Peronist garbage!
@109 There is no such thing as a “brave” argentinean. Did you notice that 11,313 of your “brave” compatriots surrendered to less than half that number of British soldiers in 1982?
@113 But then you're a sh*te argie. Here in the UK that's all we hear “Sh*te argies”. Now tell us more about yourself. Pole dancer, lap dancer or just on street corners?
@119 We're very sorry about the nuclear submarine. Unfortunately, we don't have any other type. All our submarines are nuclear-powered. You may find that the United States (proper Americans, not second-class gutter-lickers) has a similar situation. We have progressed beyond the early 20th-century technology you are still using.
@123 I knew it! The condom coast. You're a pro, aren't you? A hooker. A whore. A slag. Bet you can tuck your ankles behind your ears as well. Never know what the paying customers will want. How are you on “deep throat”? And your “apartment” is worth 3 million pesos. Who bought that for you? Special customer. Tell us about your “specials”. How many guys at a time? 3? 4? 6? Or do you operate by the hour? You are in illustrious company. CFK is a slag. How proud you must be to have such a role model. I've heard she does an incredible deep throat blow job and takes it in the butt as well. Do you do that? Is that how you got the 3 million pesos? But you can be honest on here. We are all your friends. It's actually 3 thousand pesos, isn't it? About £250. But don't let us keep you. Must be time to get out and turn a few tricks. Working girls, eh?
@126 But you're a brain-dead argie, aren't you? You should get together with Suzzie. Blow-job time! Chill!
@126 What about lying Argentine politicians? Resolution 2065 imitiated by lies...
May 25th, 2012 - 12:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0www.mediafire.com/view/?c4mn3cd8sb4mc1i
@129, Wow, Argentina had several opportunities to “have dialogue” and “negotiate” at the Internation Court of Jutice after 1946 and actually refused to go on several occasions!!!
May 25th, 2012 - 02:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0Also they signed an agreement in 1850 - Don't they remember this?
MA.
May 25th, 2012 - 04:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0It's obvious to me that your admiration for old nosey knows no bounds.
You may find some more articles about him in old issues of the the Westminster Review, which you could also put to good use. You might even find contributors to that august publication, that support Argentinas claim. Shame they have been dead for over a century.
You could always find an Argentinian Phsycic to communicate with him, I believe he had a knowledge of Spanish. You might aswell, you have used everything else to support your silly claim to the Islands.
@131 - RC.
May 25th, 2012 - 06:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0“ You could always find an Argentinian Phsycic to communicate with him, I believe he had a knowledge of Spanish. You might aswell, you have used everything else to support your silly claim to the Islands.”
Classic. :0)
The only thing the Argentine scumbags are any good at is crying and destroying their own economy. Contrary to what their own inflated egos tell them, economic warfare (in fact anything economic and anything warfare) is way beyond the skill-set at the disposal of any inhabitant of the turgid little hole they call Argentina.
May 25th, 2012 - 06:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0The RG's latin macho pride cannot accept that they were defeated in 1982.
May 25th, 2012 - 10:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0l say, bore it into them on every occasion that we can.
They want the Falklands because:-
1)they need to recover their pride(arrogance)from 1982.
2)the Oil.
3)the Falklands are a base to control the sea-route between South America & Antarctica.
4)the Falklands & South Georgia could be used as bases to exploit Antarctica(when the ice melts!).
5)the Falklands could be used to protect the Nazi base in Antarctica!
Only Joking with #5!
As they know that they will NEVER get the Falklands, the frustrations must be building up to boiling point!
However their “incursions” should be dealt with promptly.
Next time one of their military planes enters our airspace, it should be shot down.
Stop pussyfooting around with them.
@132LPERcon
May 25th, 2012 - 11:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0I would prefer to discuss the issue sensibly, however some people on here have a penchant for producing imbecilic arguements. What is relevant, about a Georgian periodical, or a long since dead Georgian politician, to todays issues.
This could all be settled if they abided by UN resolutions or took it to the International courts. They will not of course because they know that today, here in the 21C, they would lose. Every civilised member of the UN knows that the Right to Self Determination is enshrined in the UN Charter. If they do not like it, they should leave. They would not be missed.
Nice posting on the San Carlos Memorial story. Respectful and dignified.
@133
May 25th, 2012 - 11:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0there also good lying, believing their own lies, there good at trying to play the bully of SA too. oh and also brainwashing little children ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_of_the_Malvinas ) and that annoys me the most
@ 80 and 84. SussieUS you're unfavorably comparing our econemy to yours? The Falklands has the 7th highest GDP per capita in the world, Argentina has the 69th, more than 3 times the GDP of Argentina, and you say we have “no monies”. If this kind of economic insight is prevailent in Argentina then it is no wonder your economy is suffering at the moment.
May 25th, 2012 - 12:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0its all good for the falklands ,
May 25th, 2012 - 12:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0it all good for the british ,
and bad for CFK deluded indocrinoughts , it seems .
still it could be worse,
you could have had suzzy as your leader , lolol.
138 briton
May 25th, 2012 - 02:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have real doubts that SussieUS is in fact a woman. She writes like a black male who does that funy spinning on the floor and talking gibberish (gangsta is it?). The gangsters I know are very smartly dressed and have minions to do the 'work' for them, if you know what I mean.
“you are all bloody english rubbish init”
See what I mean.
Still you have to laugh, I think she is so funny. :o)
@135 - RC. I agree with you, some of the arguments put forth are so bizzare, these people should have Timerman's job. Could you imagine them spouting this rubbish to the UNGA? LOL
May 25th, 2012 - 02:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@136 - Tabutos. Bizarre song. What worries me most is the reference to the 'Fatherland' - definite Nazi overtones there.
It's strange that in the UK we have a 'motherland', a land that nurtures and encourages us. In comparision just what does a 'fatherland' teach? How to play ball? Certainly not in the case of Argentina - they never play by the rules and sulk when they lose.
It seems to me that 'motherlands' produce far more rational people than 'fatherlands' do. ;-)
@138 and 139, poor SuzzieUS suffer from masssive guilt for abandoning her beloved Patagonia for a life of luxury in the USA. This means that she overcompensates in her protection of the 'fatherland', and hits out randomly at British and Americans.
Poor thing should return to Patagonia, where she can be happy in her poverty as Argentina crumbles around her.
@123 An impersonator will not stop me for the next 4 years on this post to tell the UK to concentrate on the 189 years of poverty found in the islands.
May 25th, 2012 - 05:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@124 Briton
Why you like to hide your real name, location and telephone? Real men are not scare of women....
@125 LePrecon (#)
I do not see you donation to the islanders 189 years of poverty....
@139 ChristR (#)
There is no word in any language that will humilliate this argentinian.
The words expressed by haywood, destroy all the stupid lies that him and all the rest of the local government from the islands have been saying respecting what they call, a blockade. Beside, it was obvious that he wasn't going to recognize that his side is not acting correctly either.
May 25th, 2012 - 05:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0On the oher hand, i hope haywood told all the journalists who visited the islands in the last years, about the rejection of the u. k and the general assembly to resume the negotiations respecting the sovereignty of the islands, which is the main problem. At the same time that they reject to discuss about the sovereignty with arg., and claim for the application of the right to self determination for the islanders, the u. n has always cotinued considering the malvinas-falkland cause like a particular colonial sitation, and has never invoked the right to self detetermination for this case, like it did for others colonial situations. I hope heywood told the journalists about all these questions.
Anyway i dont deny that maybe the right to self determination is applicable for the islanders, but i have always thought too that the u. k, and the assembly from the islands make a wrong interpretation about the resolutions from the u. n. None resolution neather expressed that the sovereignty must be discussed only if the islanders wish it, nor asked the u. k to return the islands to arg., it means that if the islanders want to remain under british government, nobody change that, but it doesn't mean that we can't find a peaceful and fair solution for the sovereignty which is the main problem. Beside, the general assembly from the islands parrots that the only outcome for arg., is that the sovereignty is totally transfered to arg., but at the same time, they reject to dicuss about the sovereignty, and claim for the right to self detemination, so, they are doing exactly the same than what they criticise from the argentine posture.
The Argentines base their csovereignity claims on false information given to the UN in 1964. Because the Argentines lied to the UN, any forthcoming requests for the negotiatiion of soveriegnity are void. In any case The Argentines broke the 2065 resolution by invading the FI in 1982 and ignored subsequent UN resolutions to leave.
May 25th, 2012 - 07:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Such is the contempt that Argentina shows toward the UN.
Self-determination for Non-Governing nations (ie the encouragement of independence),was stated as recently as February 2012 by the UN Secretary General. I will find the link and copy it as it has been posted several times along with the inaccuracies in the Argentines presentation to the UN in 1964.
@142 axel arg
May 25th, 2012 - 08:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Axel, sweet,we have nothing to talk about.
We have a peaceful solution.
The Falklands are ours & they are NOT yours & NO, we ARE NOT going to talk about it.
lts just too bad for you that you don't like the truth.
Just go away, Axel & fix your own broken country & stop trying to steal ours.
Comment removed by the editor.
May 25th, 2012 - 09:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@Sussie,
May 26th, 2012 - 12:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0charming lady, such nice language, there are lots of Argentine girls like you working in the mining towns in northern Chile these days.
I could make some introductions for you.
@146 Condorito,
May 26th, 2012 - 04:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0Thank you for your support.
But it doesn't bother me what Susanah said.
l've heard that sort of bad language before & sometimes used it myself.
l understand her frustrations(mental, not physical!)
The malvinistas desperately want our lslands, especially now that there may be oil, but cannot see how they can get them.
Of course they never will!
@145 SussieUS,
What a load of incoherent drivel.
When you have no answer, out come the insults.
Don't warn me about anything or you may get burned.
We don't want your mismanaged shambolic country.
And you are the odious one.
l think l'm pretty well balanced & l don't think l'm crazy but l can be wild under the right circumstances.
l am not a slut but l can be one when my partner wants me to.
So you see, dear Soozy, your infantile insults count for nothing.
Hows your love life, madame? As full of frustrations as your country's colonialist ambitions?♥
Give SussieUS a break. As is so common with the whores from the Campo, she is riddled with neurosyphilis which has addled her brain.
May 26th, 2012 - 07:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0@axel. 1)What is the point of discussing the sovereignty of the Falklands/Malvinas with Argentina? Your constitution has already decided the outcome! 2) Any discussion must include the legitimate inhabitants of the islands. 3) The Argentine claims are false as there is no historic basis for their veracity - all “smoke and mirrors”, fairy tales and false assumptions.
May 26th, 2012 - 09:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0@145
May 26th, 2012 - 09:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0“”I warn you leave Argentina alone...argentinians do not need the UK. “”
I don't recall us bothering Argentina. Would you care to elaborate?
@145
May 26th, 2012 - 10:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0I am sure the Argentinians are not to keen on having you back!
139 ChrisR
May 26th, 2012 - 06:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I totally agree with you .
140 LEPRecon
She is but a child, and will be treated as such
. 141 SussieUS
Yes little one, yes we know,
Now of to bed little one .
142 axel arg
Come and get your little sister,
She is crying again .
Poor little one .
.
PETE BOG. GORDO1.
May 26th, 2012 - 06:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If you think that only argentina omits information or distorts historic facts, that shows that you are just buying your own mendacious propaganda. I have never believed in our official history, that's why i investigate, i made two exhaustive surveys about the historic and the legal aspects of the conflict, where i took into account the british arguments too. Like it or not, both parts tell only what is convenient for them, that's why we must investigate. Anyway, i have always thought that some of you aren't neather ignorant nor stupid, you are just hipocrite, and i'll explain why.
Firstly, beyond what the article of our constitution says respecting our claim, the u. n has never asked the u. k to return the islands to arg., all the resolutions just call the two parts of the conflict to resume the negotiations, and find a fair solution, it means that if the islanders want to remain under british government, we can't change that, but it doesn't mean that we can't find a fair solution for the sovereignty, which is the main problem. On the other hand, at the same time that you argue that the only one outcome for us is the transference of sovereignty to arg., since 1982 you have always said that you are dispossed to dicuss about different issues with arg., but not the sovereignty, and have always asked for the application of the right to self determination for the population from the islands, so, thats' the only one outcome that you would accept. So, you are doing exactly the same than what you criticise from the argentine posture. Regarding resolution 2065, despite the criminal war of 1982, which the genocide argentine dictatorship started, the u. n continued calling the two parts of the conflict to resume the negotiations and find a fair solution. Anyway, i dont deny that our country didn't act correctly some times after 1982, but if you reject to discuss about the sovereignty, which is the main problem, thats' not acting correctly either.
153 axel arg
May 26th, 2012 - 07:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0At this moment it time, there is a more pressing argument and injustice that needs investigating,
You say
You investigate,
Then please will you investigate 145 SussieUS
Thank you.
.
@153-all the resolutions just call the two parts of the conflict to resume the negotiations, and find a fair solution, it means that if the islanders want to remain under british government, we can't change that, but it doesn't mean that we can't find a fair solution for the sovereignty, which is the main problem
May 26th, 2012 - 09:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It isn't a problem. The Falkland Islanders, (ie not The UK Government or Argentina), decide the sovereignity of their own country. If we are going to have this stupid assertion by the Argentines that they own the Islands then let's look at who first settled Ushaia (apologies for spelling)=the British. It was Falkland Islanders who settled in Patagonia before the Argentines did so perhaps the Falkland Islanders should put a counter claim (based on the same principles the Argentines use) for Patagonia?
Like this page to stop the blockade on the islands!
May 26th, 2012 - 11:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Boycott Argie Malbec
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Boycott-Argie-Malbec/369568409759454
@155 Pete Bog,
May 26th, 2012 - 11:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That should definitely be one of the bargaining chips that Argentina brings to the “negotiating” table(if we ever decide to “negotiate”!)
So, Argentina, in return for what you want, we want sovereignty over parts of Patagonia.
Mmmmmmmm Sta Cruz & Chubut wil do for a start.
Why not? We were there before you. You are implanted squatters.
157 lsolde (#)
May 27th, 2012 - 12:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0May 26th, 2012 - 11:17 pm
The first sheep farmers in the territory of Santa Cruz were Falkland Islanders brought over by Governor Moyano in 1877, most of those famillies are still in the Province today.
@134 lsolde (#)
May 27th, 2012 - 01:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“”5)the Falklands could be used to protect the Nazi base in Antarctica!
Only Joking with #5!“”
Gday Isolde... I've just got back from the bush where once again I only had the BBC african service for company....
However I did get 'Radio Exterior Argentino' or whatever they call it broadcasting in German.... and they were giving the weather for the Falklands..... must be for the Argie Nazis in New Swabia.....
BRITON. PETE BOG.
May 27th, 2012 - 08:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0BRITON: I dont know what you mean when you say that i should investigate about 145sussyus, explain me please.
PETE: You are just using the tipical ignorant comparison that is usually argued by planty of you, when you debate about our rights on the islands.
Firstly, our rights are no based only on the fact that the small garrison that there was in the islands, was expelled by john onslow when he took possession of the islands in the name of the british crown. Our rights are based also on the sussession of states, which is very complicated to explain it here, but the point is that the case has strong and weak aspects for both parts of the conflict, which must analysed deeply.
Respecting the occupation of patagonia, it's true that some of the first populators from puerto deseado (santa cruz), or gaiman (chubut) were british, but it's very ignorant to argue that the u. k might claim sovereign rights over those territories just because the first populators came from the u. k., because those settlements weren't made in the name of the british crown, they were just two of the planty settlements that we have around the country. But in the case of the garrison that was locatted in the islands in 1833, was made in the name of the state, in fact in 1829 our government had created the politic and militar command of the malvinas islands.
Respecting the sovereignty problem, every people have right to think whatever they want, but if we have unless one line of intellectual honesty, we can't ignore that the main problem is the sovereignty, which must be discussed. Beside, if you can reject the resolutions, it's not because you care so much about the right to self determination for the islanders, you can reject them because the u. k is one of the members of the security councill with right to veto, no more, if it was a periferic nation, it woudn't be able to do it. So, leave hipocresy behind please.
Wrong again, Axel.
May 28th, 2012 - 08:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0Sovereignty does NOT have to be discussed & it WILL NOT be!
l hope you're now clear on this point, Axel.
And you have NO RIGHTS in the Falklands
The rest of your post is just drivel.
160 - Axelarg.
May 28th, 2012 - 11:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0Your post, while interesting, is full of inaccuracies and assumptions.
In the 19th century whatever land you could take and hold, and other's couldn't defend was yours by right of conquest, especially uninhabited territory. This is why the Americas were settled. If the native inhabitants could have fought off all the colonists I'm sure they would have, and we wouldn't have South or North American countries.
The succession of states doesn't apply to the Falklands, as the Spanish had already dropped their claim to the islands around 1746 (ish), Argentina didn't exist for nearly 100 years following this date - so no right of 'succession of states apply. It's interesting that Argentina also believe that this 'succession of states' also includes large parts of Chile, Uruguay and Paraguay. Didn't these countries get anything in this succession since they were also Spanish colonies? Plus Argentina or rather the United Provinces, didn't receive formal recognition of independence until 1816.
So the rule of succession is a load of bollocks, and if you read the text, doesn't include the Falklands (under any name).
The UP tried its luck in 1832, by illegally setting up a penal colony. This colony failed within 3 months. The British had already sent a protest to the UP government telling them to remove the illegal garrison or face the consequences.
Those consequences were the removeal of the illegal colony - the legal colony set up by Vernet was allowed (even encouraged) to stay.
All you think you know about the Falklands issue is a pack of lies made up by Peron and his cronies, and constantly rehashed by subsequent inept Argentine governments.
But even if your version of 1833 were true, it still wouldn't hold up today, as the British would have won it through conquest (just like the Spanish won S America through conquest).
Sovereignty is not an issue - they're British territory for as long as the Islanders want to them to be. Endex.
LEPRecon. ISOLDE.
May 28th, 2012 - 04:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0LEPREcon: If you think that only our side omits information respecting the historic aspects of this dispute, it shows that you are just buying easily the mendacious propaganda of your country. I have never believed in our official history, that's why i investigate, in fact i made two exhastive investigations about the historic and the legal aspects of this conflict, where i included the british arguments too. Beside, like i said in my last comment, the case has strong and weak aspects for both countries, which must be analysed deeply. Your problem, is that most you think that only you are right, thats' why you argue all the time about the lies or the omissions of my country, and never make any critic for the lies, distortions and omissions that your side commits too.
Spain had governed the islands untill 1811, after that year it retired it forces, and never claimed for the archipelago again, untill 1816, the islands were submitted to the spanish viceroalty like all the rest of our country, but when spain left the archipelago it never clamed again for the islands. Our country made it's first act of occupation in 1820, it was published in the times in 1821, and the u. k didn't do any protests. The succession of states is applied to all the emancipated colonial territories. So, our coutry had right to occupy them. Anyway, according to a secret article that had been incorporated in the notka sound convention of 1790, let britain to stablish settlements when another power stablishes a settlement, so, if the U. P. had stablished a settlement, maybe the u. k had right to do it too. But it had no right to deprive our authorities from the archipelago. On the other hand, the u. k can't invoke the acquisitive prescription. There is a lot more to say, but i have no so much characters.
ISOLDE: It's just a waste of time to discuss with you about the sovereignty, you have such a closed mind, and won't never accept that you are not acting correctly either.
@163 -Axelarg.
May 28th, 2012 - 06:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The point is that is wasn't Spanish territory to cede to the UP (which they never did - Argentine lies). It was British territory.
And talking of a lapse in protests, why didn't Argentina protest British sovereignty in the intervening years between 1850 and 1941? That alone shows that Argentina accepted British Sovereignty for 90 years. So talking about lapsed claims that has to be the biggest evidence against Argentina.
But regardless of all the arguements, they're all irrelevant because the United Nations charter states that all people have the right to self determination, and since the people of the Falkland Islands have already made their feelings on sovereignty known, just what does Argentina hope to gain?
Self-determination - the right to choose your own destiny, and Argentina's claims are over a century old. No court of law in the world would back that claim given that the Falklanders have established their own community and culture, and have been in continuous residence of the Islands for 9 generations.
The people of the Falklands have their own government, culture, laws and economy. They are completely independent in everything except defence and foreign policy.
I foresee that they will one day be able to handle their own foreign policy matters and perhaps even their own defence. On that day they may choose full independence from Britain, but that won't mean that Argentina can automatically claim sovereignty, as they will be come the newest nation on earth.
Why does that bother you so much? Why do you wish to oppress these people against their will, depriving them of their liberty? And what is Argentina claim based upon? A 3 month illegal occupation by a failed penal colony. Pathetic.
Not only did Argentina (UP) lose possession in 1833 following it's illegal occupation, you also relost it in 1982 following that illegal occupation.
By international law that means that you have no claim.
“Plus Argentina or rather the United Provinces, didn't receive formal recognition of independence until 1816.”
May 28th, 2012 - 06:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Wrong. Not that this has any bearing on the Falklands, but 1816 is the official signing of independence by all the provinces, has nothing to do with anyone recognizing us... Which is irrelevant since we defeated both the Brits and Spanish in that 10 year span, so your recognition or lack of was of no consequence. Arms and battles decided that well before 1816 (1813 at San Lorenzo).
May 25h 1810 is our national holiday. You all need to get it through your thick neanderthal skulls.
There is a BIG difference from “el primer grito de independencia” and actually obtaining independence.
May 28th, 2012 - 06:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@166
May 28th, 2012 - 06:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You obtain independence by throwing off peacefully or violently your overlords. We did that by 1813.
There is no such thing as “grito de independencia” in Argentina, you are just a typical anglo that confuses and has coruscate ignorance of any other country outside the Anglosphere.
1810 was the beginning of self-government.
What you Brits, Americans or anyone else in the world says about what is our history is irrelevant. As we say, you are all zeroes to the left of 1.
Next.
@165 - Tobias
May 28th, 2012 - 06:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0My point is that the UP and Argentina both lost, after their illegal invasions.
More than 90 years passed, with Argentina never muttering a word about the Falklands, then suddenly in 1941 you decide that you now want them.
International law won't take Argentina's side in this matter as Argentina's claim is pure nonsense, made up using a supposed cessation by Spain to Argentina (and Spain couldn't cede the Falklands as they had already abandoned their claim in 1746), and a 3 month illegal occupation by a failed penal colony.
It's no longer the 19C but the 21c, where the rights of people take priority over a territorial claim over 150yrs old. The Falkland Islanders have continuously lived on the islands for 9 generations, this makes the land theirs and gives them the right to choose their own affiliations and loyalty.
Argentina needs to grow up, and get your own house in order, instead of trying to steal the land, resources and liberty of the Islanders.
I don't want to steal the Falklands, though I get your point. I want to annex Antarctica (not all of it, just our piece and not even all of it, Chile should get half of ours and heck even the UK), but the northern Antarctic peninsula is ours and should be colonized and made a province.
May 28th, 2012 - 06:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@169 - Tobias.
May 28th, 2012 - 08:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Antarctic treaty would prohibit this annexation, I'm afraid. The Antarctic is protected territory, and is to be free from colonisation and exploitation. No military or weapons are allowed there.
There are currently 7 countries in with claims to Antarctic territory, and they would all have to agree to this. None of them can just break this treaty without severe international repercussions.
I don't doubt that there will be negotiations regarding the Antarctic in the future, but the environmentalist movement would block any attempt at exploitation.
As for colonisation, I think the environment is too harsh for a permanent colony. Even the scientists bug out in the winter, as conditions become too harsh.
@169' the northern Antarctic peninsula is ours and should be colonized'
May 28th, 2012 - 08:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Exactly. Argentina is a wannbe colonialist power. But you're not going to colonise the Falkland Isla nds as the UN want independence of dependent countries not transfer to acolonialist country. Belize worked quite well as it was protected by the UK after independence.
169 tobias
May 28th, 2012 - 09:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0After lambasting GB for colonising the Falklands (there are not Malvinas) you now write:“but the northern Antarctic peninsula is ours and should be colonized and made a province.”
Hypocrite or what?
@Tobias
May 28th, 2012 - 10:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The whole Antarctic peninsula is Chilean. If you want a fight over it, I don’t rate your chances ;)
Actually, our (Chile and Argentina’s) claims to the Antarctic are a farce.
Of all the nations that claim slices of the continent, we were about the last to claim and our claims not only overlap each other, but they overlapped existing claims.
The prior claims were made by countries that actually explored and mapped the continent. We on the other hand have no claim other than proximity.
Unfortunately Chile has gone down the road of lying to the population in order make its claim more relevant. Imported maps and globes are modified to show “our” slice of the continent.
On the nightly news, the national weather forecast even includes the peninsula. It is pathetic. This brainwashing has worked to the extent that the majority of my compatriots that I try to enlighten get very upset when I point out that we don’t own Antarctica. Most just don’t believe it. It is a pitiful policy that will only bring problems in the future.
The signees on the Antarctic treaty should extend the duration to “forever” so that we can all stop the silly posturing.
Mapping and exploration is completely and utterly irrelevant when it comes to a claim. 100% fact... anyone who says otherwise is artlessly ingenuous.
May 29th, 2012 - 06:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0Furthermore, Argentina does not recognize any of the other claims... which are only recognized between “anglo” nations (surprise surprise), and no one else.
To whom goes a territory is determined by population and/or warfare, not by “explorers”.
Otherwise the planet would be Dutch and Portuguese.
Who mapped or explored Antarctica is, sorry to say, absolutely useless.
I must say I disagree with all of you “claimers”. Stop claiming or stop having a go at eachother, for you are all the same. Mother Earth doesn't give a damn about your claims, and the rocks, waters, ice and soil will be there long after you claimers are gone, and new claimers will come, as fervant and firm in their beliefs that that soil belongs to them, as it once belonged to you...
May 29th, 2012 - 06:35 am - Link - Report abuse 01. Argentina has a strong political case because colonialism is indefensible in the 21st century. However, as the Falkland Islanders take on progressively more and more self-government, Argentina's political case weakens. On the other hand, Argentina's legal case is nonexistent for two reasons: First, because Argentina repudiated all their claims to the Falkland Islands when the ratified the Convention of Settlement with Britain in 1850. Second, the right of self-determination was recognized by the International Court of Justice as a peremptory norm (jus cogens) of international law with the East Timor case in 1995. That means that all other international law yields to the right of self-determination.
May 29th, 2012 - 06:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0UN General Assembly resolutions do not grant anything to anyone. They are not a form of international law. UN General Assembly resolutions are political statements and nothing more. The General Assembly is not a legislative body and has no power to make law.
176
May 29th, 2012 - 07:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0I agree with you, but I think we should adress the actual problems and then take on the future, possible problems. You can't defend a lost cause pointing fingers at what you define as a lost cause yourself. Two wrongs doesn't make a right.
@177:
May 29th, 2012 - 08:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0I don't believe I'm defending a lost cause. Did you interpret my words “colonialism is indefensible in the 21st century” as a defense of colonialism? Which lost cause do you think I'm defending?
In my opinion, the beginning of the way forward is for:
Argentina: pay for the removal of the tens of thousands of landmines that Argentina left on the Falklands during the occupation; drop the economic blockade including allowing flights _without conditions_ that are not applied to other routes, allowing Falkland Island flagged vessels to use Argentine ports under the same conditions as all other foreign vessels, and stop threatening companies doing business in the Falklands.
Britain: Adjust the message from saying that “the Falkland Islanders have the self-determination right to stay British as long as they want” to “the Falkland Islanders have the self-determination right to choose any political association they want whether that is staying British, becoming an independent state, or joining Argentina.”
Falkland Islands: A willingness to enshrine in their Constitution at least as much self-government as they now have in practice. In practice, every London-appointed Governor of the Falklands decides every question exactly as advised by the Falklands-elected Executive Committee of the Legislative Assembly. However, the Constitution still allows the Governor to veto a bill that unanimously passed the Legislative Assembly or even to enact a bill that was unanimously defeated in the Legislative Assembly -- on any matter, not just defense and foreign affairs. No Governor would ever exercise such powers in the 21st century, but such colonialist provisions need to be struck from the Constitution.
UN C24: treat the Falkland Islands exactly the same as all other non self-governing territories.
@178 mcarling,
May 29th, 2012 - 09:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0They need to drop their ridiculous claims & remove the offending clauses from their constitution also.
@163 Axel arg,
For once, l agree with you Axel.
When it comes to the Falklands & Argentina's ridiculous claims, l DO have a closed mind & you will NEVER convince me otherwise.
You have NO RIGHTS & NO VALID claims here & this is NOT your land.
@179 lsolde:
May 29th, 2012 - 09:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0Eventually, yes, but confidence building comes in incremental steps. The steps I suggested for Argentina can be done by the current administration. Those you suggested could happen only after an election.
It will be easier for the Falkland Islanders to fix the problems in their Constitution than for Argentina to fix the problems in theirs.
LEPREcon.
May 29th, 2012 - 12:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What you do is just repeat the lies that are argued all the time by your side, beside, you are very missinfomerd.
Respeting the situation of the islands in 1833, maybe the u. k had right to occupy the islands, in virtue of the secret article that had been included in nootka sound convention of 1790, anyway it's very arguable to invoke that treaty, because the first act of occupation happened in 1820, t was published in the times in 1821, and the u. k didn't do any protest. Regarding the rights of the u. p., you should know that the succession of states is applied to all the emancipated colonial territories which are sucesors of the rights of the metropoli, so, our country had right to occupy the islands in virtue of the succession of states, because the islands had been submitted to the jurisdiction of the viceroalty. If the u. k had any right on the islands in 1833, it should have negotiated a peaceful solution, or perhaps share the administration of the archipelago, because our cuntry had rights on the islands too, however the u. k decided to force our authorities to leave the malvinas. What really anoys me, is that none of you makes any critic to the weak aspects of your country, i recognize that our country commited mistakes in different oportunities, but what is amazing is that none of you criticises anything from your side. Respecting the silences of arg. between 1849 and 1884, you should know that the between 1884 and 1888, arg. suggested the u. k to take the question to the arbitration, and the u. k rejected that proposal. Beside, i think it doensn't have any sense to emphasize the silences of my country respecting it's claim, because in 1968 and in 1980, the u. k tried to get rid of the islands, and start negotiations with arg., anyway i recognize that perhaps the silences of my country might prejudice it's claim, but all these argumens show that the case has strong and weak aspects for both nations, i'll tell you more in last comment.
Please support our Keep the Falklands British page on fb, just sign in and click the like button to subscribe -
May 29th, 2012 - 12:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0https://www.facebook.com/pages/Keep-the-Falklands-British/123151384435619?sk=wall&filter=3
@181 axel arg:
May 29th, 2012 - 02:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Prior to 1946, taking territory by force was legal in international law.
Argentina did not occupy the Falklands in 1820. The (North) American pirate David Jewett did stop briefly to repair ship in the Falklands in 1820 and did raise an Argentine flag and declare the island the territory of Argentina, but he was not authorized by Argentina to do so and did not mention in his report to Argentina. Jewett did not try to enforce Argentine law in any way. His sole motivation was to secure the supplies from a recently wrecked French ship. The Pirate Code has never been recognized as a valid part of international law, so Jewett's unauthorized actions do not help the Argentine case at all.
The first time Argentina ever claimed the Falklands was in 1829 and the first time that they tried to administer them was at the end of 1832.
As for negotiating a peaceful settlement, Argentina and Britain did exactly that. They signed the Convention of Settlement in 1849 and ratified it in 1850. Britain recognized the navigation of the River Parana to be an inland navigation of Argentina and in exchange Argentina gave up their claims to the Falklands.
@124Briton @125 Jack the Ripper
May 29th, 2012 - 06:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Tell mercosur to publish this web page in Spanish. You dam whimp, why don't you tell your real name, location and phone number you dam whimp? I
@125 LepRecon Leprosy
Racist YES. Here is the US I don't get close to an african american, a mexican american, a jewish american or muslim american. They are worthless!...I am the first generation of spanish immigrants. I protect my race.
Islanders “success” of 189 years and still they don't know if they can build a % star hotel? I repeat the islands are yours kept it in you asshole.
@SussieUS
May 29th, 2012 - 06:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why are they wimps for not giving their personal details out???
This is a forum, phone numbers and addresses are irrelevant here.
Why are you so racist?
I have Mapuche, Spanish and British blood (that I know of).
Does that make me inferior to you because you are first generation Spanish?
The first generation of Spanish who showed up here in northern Chile, committed genocide on the local population (the Diaguitas). Then they brought slaves from the south to work on their estates. Not very nice.
@185 Condorito (#)
May 29th, 2012 - 07:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You have the choice to learn the facts on the internet about the consequences of mixing races. The US latest census states because of mixing the white race with african, jewish, asian and middle east people all found in the US, the health care cost is increasing. Mixing races bring deformities and illnesses.
Remember, races were not made to be mix. If you are a mix person is because your great granparents did not have the knowledge to avoid mixing the race.
I don't blame the Spanish for killing no one. The Spanish brought civilization to North, Central and South America. The natives american accepted christianity. Thanks to the Spain, I can reside in the US and Argentina and have all the fun I want. Thanks to Spain I eat the best prime rib, lobster, shrimp, wine, I buy my clothes at Macys, I reside in Los Angeles, CA, Las Vegas, Nevada, and Phoenix, Arizona. Thanks to Spain, these 3 states of the US southwest speak spanish and they are the most beautiful states in the whole US. Thanks to my spanish parents I am a beautfil 5'8'' 13o lbs woman with european looks. Here in the US people turn their heads to look at me. The US and Argentina owes to Spain for introducing the civilization we all are enjoying. That's why.
Is this all about Sussie forum!!!!
May 29th, 2012 - 08:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Please get over Yourself and your purist views of how great it is to be Spanish and everybody else are not worthy to clean Your shoes.
This is about the Fantastic strides the Falkland Islands have made against argentine isolationist policies!!!
Long Live the Falklands.
Thank you Sussie for helping me to understand why Argentina so recently advertised itself as “the only white country south of Canada” in order to attract tourists, immigrants, and investors.
May 29th, 2012 - 09:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0187 Papamoa(#) 188 McCarling (#)
May 29th, 2012 - 09:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In my 2 countries, the US and Argentina most of the governors such as Jerry Brown of California, governor Jan Brewer of Arizona, governor Sandoval of Nevada, Governor Richardson of New Mexico has spent this weekend overseas seeking investors in this 4 states. The US suppossed to be the most “powerful developed country” in the world, but is not. Having 24 millons unemployed us citizens and 46 millons receiving goverment food stamps to survive force these governors to seek more investors from overseas to create jobs. The Argentine female leader has travel overseas to seek more investors because of the present economic crisis Argentina. But what I cannot understand is why in 189 years the islanders has not became independent from argentine ports. Let face it, only a few argentinians like assisting the islanders.
Sussie,
May 29th, 2012 - 11:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You obviously know little about the north African domination of Spain during centuries. Those north Africans (the Moors) brought a lot of learning and civilization to Spain.
If you can eat lobster in CA it is because the New Englanders kicked the New Spanish out otherwise California would still be in Mexico.
@190 Condorito:
May 30th, 2012 - 12:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0You're right. Mexico has a better claim to Sean Penn's mansion than Argentina has to the Falkland Islands.
You people love to feed the trolls don't ya...
May 30th, 2012 - 12:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0Even when you know they are trolls.
That's why I don't respect most of you and can't fully respect some of you who are good posters.
A child can see SussieUS is a troll pretending to be argie and talking crap. Most of you know it but connive.
tobias,
May 30th, 2012 - 12:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0I'm not sure. I don't know what she is other than generally derogatory to everyone. I was giving her the benefit of the doubt.
Tobias,
May 30th, 2012 - 01:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0Was the government of Argentina trolling when (during my teenage years) they were advertising Argentina as “the only white country south of Canada”? I don't see so much difference between that and what Sussie writes. Racists are racists.
Was Australia trolling when they had their White Australia policy?
May 30th, 2012 - 02:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0You seem to be Ok with Anglo racists, but object to Latin racists.
Btw, I never heard of what you are saying. Why don't you post some proof for a change?
I don't think either were trolling.
May 30th, 2012 - 03:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0Should a country not be able to manage immigration as it sees fit?
Discrimination is not racism in my book.
I think UK immigration is a shambles. I was just blabbing about it on another thread: http://en.mercopress.com/2012/05/29/dollar-restrictions-target-money-of-non-declared-origin-argues-argentine-senator
Sussie is just offensive and is the only poster who has directed racist abuse at me. I don't care if she is Anglo, Latina or Spanish.
Sussie, you are a racist, enough said.
May 30th, 2012 - 04:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0Comment removed by the editor.
May 30th, 2012 - 05:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0MCARLING.
May 31st, 2012 - 04:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are a little missionformed, beside, you are making a very partial anlysis.
The occupation made by jewett in 1820, was published in the times in august of 1821, it said that he had taken possession of the islands, in the name of the u. p (actual argentina), beside that occupation was celebrated by british sheps too, it was published in weddell's book, but i dont remeber the year exactly, i think it was 1825. Anyway the occupation wasn't easy, because our country was going through intern wars, and the jewett had to make front the scurvy and the different seditions.
Respecting what you say about the legality of the using of the force before 1946, you are right, but you can't claim the application of the acquisitive prescription for this cause, like the u. k tried to do in different moments. One of the reasons why you can't invoke that institution of international right, it's because the acquistive prescription doesn't allow the using of the force for the occupation of territories, i have a lot of information about this institution in my first investigation. The u. k in 1833 forced our authorities to leave the islands, so, it can't invoke it for this cause.
Regarding the convention of 1849, i recognize that maybe the silences of my country might prejudice it's claim, but i think that we must study deeply the context of that year, before giving any opinion. During most 19 century, and the half the 20 century, our economy was handled mostly by british interests, we were almost an english colony, so, we weren't in conditions to claim the u. k for the islands. On the other hand, if the u. k emphasizes the silences of arg., that might prejudices it's claim too, because despite the silneces of arg., the u. k tried to get rid of the islands in 1968 and in 1980, and started negotiations with our country. This shows that the case has strong and weak aspects for both nations, however that's some thing that you dont want to recognize, and blame only arg.
@199 axel arg:
May 31st, 2012 - 04:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I've read Weddell's 1825 book. British ships didn't celebrate Jewett's proclamation. They merely observed it. The 1821 Argentine news report of Jewett's proclamation was a report of a Spanish news report of a Gibraltar news report of an English news report of a US news report. Jewett never informed the government of Argentina. It is not mentioned in his long official trip report. No authorization or other mention of it is in the written instructions given to Jewett. It's well established that the proclamation was merely a rouse to get ahold of the supplies of a recent French shipwreck. Yet another one of Jewett's acts of piracy.
The British did not use force in 1833. Onslow made a demand and Pinedo complied peacefully. There was no resistance and no use of force.
Read the 2008 ICJ Pedra Branca (Singapore v. Malaysia) case. Argentina's silence from 1850 at least weakens and probably obliterates Argentina's case. In the Pedra Branca case, the ICJ said that Pedra Branca belonged without any doubt to Malaysia but was acquired by Singapore because of Malaysia's silence. In the Falkland Islands case, the best that Argentina could hope for would be for the ICJ to decide that sovereignty from 1833 to 1849 was uncertain. If the ICJ were to follow their own 2008 precedent, they would have to decide that Falklands became British through Argentina's long silence -- even if they were to decide that the Falklands had been Argentina's in 1849, even if they were to void the 1850 Convention of Settlement (on who knows what grounds). More likely, the ICJ would opine that sovereignty before 1850 was uncertain and decide UK got the Falklands in 1850 by treaty.
Yes, the UK wanted to be rid of the Falkland Islands in 1968 and 1980, but giving them to Argentina would have been a violation of international law if the Falkland Islanders were opposed. International law forced the British to stop negotiating sovereignty when the Falkland Islanders demanded it.
@Axel / mcarling
May 31st, 2012 - 06:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are both exceedingly well informed on this topic and thank you for rising above the noise to continue with an intelligent conversation. It is very interesting to learn about the pros and cons on both sides. My more simplistic take is that Argentina said goodbye to the islands with the unsuccessful invasion of 82, coupled with the Islanders right to self-determination.
Actually, if Argentina had had a legal case in 1981 (which they didn't; see below), the invasion would not have weakened it. The invasion did, obviously, set back Argentina's chance of convincing the Falkland Islanders to democratically choose to live under Argentine rule.
May 31st, 2012 - 07:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0During the 1820s (before Argentina first claimed the Falklands 10 June 1829, which claim Argentina rescinded later that same year), Britain and Spain each had fairly strong claims to what is now East Falkland. Spain never claimed any of the other among the Falkland Islands, so all the others were undisputedly British. At the time, international law would have recognized the sovereignty of whichever one of them was able to take and hold the islands (which from 3 January 1833 was Britain).
So, after 1833, Spain's never overwhelmingly strong claim was weakening every year. Argentina's claim of having inherited Spain's claim is very weak. First, the Falkland Islands are not part of the territory which Spain gave up in 1836. Second, Spain had managed their colony from Montevideo, so if anyone could have inherited East Falkland from Spain, it would have been Uruguay, not Argentina.
So, if Argentina had a claim in 1849, it was a very weak claim. If they had a claim in 1849, they certainly lost it in 1850 when they ratified the Convention Settlement acknowledging that they had no disputes with Britain. If Argentina had had any claim in 1851 (which they certainly didn't), then by 1940, having kept quiet since 1849 (expect one protest in 1888) any claim they might have had in 1851 would have been worthless in 1940.
Thank you, Gentlemen for an interesting debate.
Jun 01st, 2012 - 09:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0Axel, investigate as much as you like, but Argentina has NO RIGHTS in the Falklands as this is OUR LAND.
@203 lsolde:
Jun 01st, 2012 - 10:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0Right. In 1982, Britain might still have been able to make a claim independent of the Falkland Islanders' right of self-determination. But since the International Court of Justice recognized the right of self-determination as a peremptory norm of international law in 1995, nothing in international law could possibly overcome the right of the Falkland Islanders to choose their own destiny.
MCARLING.
Jun 01st, 2012 - 11:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0You are still missionformed, i read planty of public documents written between 1833 and 1888, were our government recognized the occupation made by jewett. Anyway, you are right when you say that the british ships just observed it, i hadn't expressed my self correctly in my last comment. On the other hand, it's amazing how you dont want to recognize the weak aspects that your country has too, respecting this cause, i dont understand how many of you can be so injudiocious.
The fact that when john onslow took possession of the islands didn't kill anybody, it doesn't mean that he didn't forced our authorities to lave the archipelago. I read many public documents were it's showed that he forced jose maria pinedo to lower the argentina flag anf take all the objects that were related to our government.
Beside, who told you that the int. law forced the u. k to stop negotiating with arg.?, in fact in 1980 nicholas ridley was sent to the malvinas to try to convince the islanders about a negotiated solution for the sovereignty. But because of the pressure of the lobby that represents the islands, the proposal was rejected at the british parliament. On the ether hand, the decolonization committee from the u. n has always considered this cause like a particular colonial situation, and never invoked the right to self determination like it did for others colonial situations. Anyway i dont deny that maybe that right is applicable for the islanders, but the u. n neather invoked that principle for this cause, nor said that the question should be discussed only if the islandes wish it, beside, it never asked the u. k to return the islands to arg. All the resolutions have called the two parts of the conflict to resume the negotiations only. It means that if the islanders want to remain british, we can't change that, but it doesn't mean that we can't find a fair solution for the sovereignty which is the main problem. However, thats' something that you dont want.
@205 axel arg:
Jun 01st, 2012 - 02:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Documents between 1833 and 1888 which tried to retroactively authorize Jewett's ceremony do not help Argentina's case. What you need is a document pre-dating his voyage which authorized him to enforce Argentine law in the Falklands. There is no such document because Jewett had no such authorization. The written instructions from the government of Argentina to Jewett do not mention the Falklands and did not empower Jewett to enforce Argentine law anywhere. His authorization was limited to acting as a privateer against Spanish shipping. He exceeded that authorization by committing piracy on the high seas against Portugal and the US (with whom Argentina was not at war) and by falsely claiming (backed up by a sham ceremony) to be acting on Argentine authority in claiming the supplies of a French shipwreck. Jewett never tried to enforce Argentine law in the Falklands, despite many false claims starting in 1964. Argentina never claimed the Falklands before 10 June 1829. Retroactive claims are not allowed, nor are unauthorized claims made by pirates for personal gain. I'm sorry, but the Pirate Code by which Jewett lived is not a recognized part of international law.
In 1980, the right of self-determination had not yet been recognized by the International Court of Justice as a peremptory norm (jus cogens). So the strength of the right of self-determination was still debated as was the wishes of the Falkland Islanders. Both are now clear.
What I want or don't want is irrelevant. Only the wishes of the Falkland Islanders are relevant. If Argentina wants the Falklands, then Argentina needs to convince the Falkland Islanders to freely choose to live under Argentine rule. I guess it will take a long period of reliable friendship to get past the atrocities of 1982 and the current bullying.
@205 “You are still missionformed, i read planty of public documents written between 1833 and 1888, were our government recognized the occupation made by jewett.”
Jun 01st, 2012 - 02:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So your government recognised the occupation after the fact 12+ years later after Britian had already reestablished a settlement. At the time he was acting as an individual with no authority to act on the U.P's behalf.
Comment removed by the editor.
Jun 01st, 2012 - 03:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!