MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
C24 chair calls Falklands’ referendum ‘political ploy’; praises Argentine president
The chair of the UN Decolonisation Committee Ecuadorian ambassador Diego Morejón Pazmiño described the UK announcement of a referendum in the Malvinas Islands as a “political ploy”, insisting that the Falkland Islanders can not appeal to the right of self determination. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesEcuador ?? Remind me, is that a tinpot dictatorship or a banana Respublic ??
Jun 16th, 2012 - 05:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0Oh what a surprise! the c24 is now officially ruling against the very principle and UN resolution (not to mention UN charter law) it was founded on. Again. Mr Ban Ki moon must be amused by this development, especially since this committee has been leeching UN funds to do so with nothing to show for it.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 05:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0Still, on the other hand the c24 has been a powerless joke for decades even in comparison to other UN bodies. The clown chairing the committee even admitted it has zero power to change the UK's mind.
(Plus on the subject of “territorial integration” didn't Spain have separate governors for it's claim over argentina and it's claim over the Falklands, thus making them separate territories and thus non integrated?)
TWIMC
Jun 16th, 2012 - 05:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0Guess who said the following (with a smug smile adorning his face :-) …. :
“The problem with the British,” He began slowly to be sure all, even the foreigners present, would understand him, “is that they run around the world leaving their waste on everyone’s doorstep and then they ridicule us for complaining about having to clean up their mess.”
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/july122010/malvinas-history-ez.php
(I would recommend the British Turnips and the Malvinas Whenies to read the above article to understand the profound interaction between the Malvinas Islands and the Argentinean mainland ……)
Saludos
El Think
Chubut, Patagonia, Argentina
I thought this nonentity was part of the unofficial Argentine delegation on top of the 96 who came with KFC. All the news channels that I have seen covering the C24 charade are taking the mickey out of the size of the Argie delegation. One of the best is Matt Frei of Channel 4 News.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 06:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0A lot of western taxpayers are going to be saying 'is this what we get for our money?'.
http://falklandsnews.wordpress.com/2012/06/16/the-falklands-have-a-future-but-does-the-decolonization-committee/
Jun 16th, 2012 - 06:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0The problem with the Argies is that they invade the Falkland Islands and leave their human waste on the floor of the post office. After leaving the Islanders to clean up their mess they wonder why the Islanders don't want anything to do with them.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 06:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0Nice impartiallity shown by the chair.
R.I.P C24
Jun 16th, 2012 - 06:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0And as we all know, the opinion of the C24 and the C24 chair are wholly irrelevant and carry no weight with either the UN or the wider international community ... and since the fat fascist tosser who chairs the C24 is so intellectually challenged doesn't even know the difference between England and the United Kingdom, there is no prospect of that situation changing any time soon.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 06:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0#1 Neither, its a left wing democracy =)
Jun 16th, 2012 - 06:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0However he also admitted that until the United Kingdom does not modify its position “no negotiation is possible”.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 06:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0The UK position is that above all is the Islanders’ right to self determination and as long as they wish to remain British and hold no discussions with Argentina on sovereignty, that is and will be the case.
BK - actually it is not a full democracy. It is a hybrid regime.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 06:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0C24 shows unequivocal impartial support for Argentina but quietly accepts that this is NOT a decolonisation issue.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 07:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0For the Malvinistas is is a matter of gardening, bird migration and poliltical distraction. A viewpoint which the C24 supports with all due neutrality.
For the UK it is a matter of upholding the cornerstone of the UN Charter. The right of self determination for the people who live there. A position which the C24 rejects again with all due neutrality.
The main point is they recognise that as much as they would love to order a nuclear strike against London they are toothless and anachronistic. The best that they can do for Argentina is cheer them on from the sidelines. With great sadness they have to accept that this is not a part of their remit.
As usual the British will ignore them.
Remember the UN C24 should be professional. The chairman should be impartial and not bias, any statement the he makes should have been vetted for errors.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 07:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0'The referendum is a political ploy from the English government '
English government ? not heard of Britain?
'the UK is the “occupying power” since 1833'
He is actually making a judgement on sovereignty, with this statement. Backing Argentina, this is not his nor the C24's job.
TWIMC
Jun 16th, 2012 - 07:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0Once again, I must thank one of the few intelligent British interlocutors in here (Mr. DoveOverDover) for having made a Pro forma capitalistic shareholderout of me by having bought 50£ worth of Borders & Southern Petroleum shares on my behalf...................
As such; I can hardly wait for Stebbing to reach its cretaceous TD………
Chuckle chuckle©…..
Will you sell when you have a ten bagger Think?
Jun 16th, 2012 - 07:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0@Think, Falkland sheep eat trees then?
Jun 16th, 2012 - 07:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0In 1914, Argentina was estimated to have more than 106 million hectares of native forests; by 1996, when a national action programme against desertification began, only 36 million hectares remained. Today, the country's forests are vanishing at a rate of more than 829,000 hectares a year, mainly where agriculture is pushing into native forests.
I actually think this is excellent news.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 07:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0It proves that the C24 is not an impartial body working on the founding principles of the UN but is in fact an outdated, irrelevant club of third rate countries pandering to the whim of a nation with colonial ambitions. The very thing it was set up to deal with.
The British (not the English!) Government should now use this opportunity to demand (Argentina's favourite pastime) the C24 is disbanded or reorganised to reflect the fact the world has moved on since 1965. At the very least the chair must be removed as he has irrevocably compromised his position by stating his unconditional support for the policies of Cristina Fernandez.
Political ploy???? Who asked for the commitee to meet on the anniversay of the falklands war????? Kfc....... He will be getting a nice little financial gift for that one i am sure. Anyway still doesnt change anything.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 07:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0(15) Beef
Jun 16th, 2012 - 08:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0That's totally up to my British stock broker: Mr. DoveOverDover; and officer and a Gentleman…….
Until now he has managed to lose me about 20% :-)))
@17 Lou Spoo (#)
Jun 16th, 2012 - 08:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0Jun 16th, 2012 - 07:52 am
I would hope that the UK government withdraws financial support for C24 but I wouldn't want them to waste any time trying to get them disbanded. They are not worth the effort.
Think
Jun 16th, 2012 - 08:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0What did you do with your YPF stock?
@17 agreed.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 08:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0Think about this.
If all the British Overseas Territories agreed to boycott this committee, it would render it obsolete. I'm pretty sure the US and French territories would follow their lead.
(21) Leiard
Jun 16th, 2012 - 08:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0You say:
”Think…..What did you do with your YPF stock?”
I say:
I have repeatedly on these pages said that I don’t do “Capitalism”…..
I’m a sparingly educated, poor as a church mouse, blue collared old socialist geezer…..
But I would certainly recommend YPF’s shares as a STRONG BUY to anyone out there……
STRONG BUY
what do you expect for a tin pot dictatorship when you have a whole continent of them there bound to support each other
Jun 16th, 2012 - 08:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0perhaps its time for the Falklands and government in large to boycott any future meetings end all relations with Argentina and any firebrand supporters and just ignore them till the end of time
@24 Tabutos (#)
Jun 16th, 2012 - 08:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0Jun 16th, 2012 - 08:29 am
Because we have to be realistic. I would never expect Argentina to give up her claim but I don't expect them to continue being as vindictive as the KFC government is being right now. What the Malvinistas want is not realistic and neither is cutting off all relations.
Best to let them do it and watch them cry to the world how the British cut off all relations. That is their way.
@23 Think
Jun 16th, 2012 - 08:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0You repeatedly say all sorts of things on these pages, but it is always the demented shit of an imbecile, so no-one ever takes any of it seriously.
The Uk will continue to support the falklands.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 09:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0argentina will continue to whine.
You'd really have to be Argentinian, or the cousin of a mate-swilling sheep-shagging Pategonian cretin, to fall for the ridiculous 'territorial integrity' argument.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 09:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0Paraguay, Brazil, Bolivia, Uruguay and Chile are all territorially contiguous with Argentina; yet no-one other than a tosspot (which coincidentally covers 79.2% of the population of Argentina) would ever think that made any of them a part of Argentina.
Clueless tossers.
Can't the head of the UN see how corrupt this committee is. Its purpose is being abused and needs to be sorted as it is a poor reflection on the whole UN.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 09:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0I agree with @22, pull out and leave them to their ramblings.
@19 I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave earlier. Nothing is lost until they are sold. Stebbing, condensate analysis and more rumours still to come. I would have commented earlier but I've been too busy seeking some sort of profundity in the article from Salem news. I've given up now.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 09:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0I think we need some strong statements from Cameron about what a shower of sh!t this sub committee is.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 09:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0Truly disgraceful that member countries money is being used in this way for such and obviously rigged committee
When the Syrians start talking about “human rights”, you realise that black is white and white is black in the strange world of C24 and truth is exchanged for a lie
' It does not administrate a colony that can be claimed as independent'
Jun 16th, 2012 - 09:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0I'm not sure if its just the wording, or how he has quoted it, or my interpretation of it.
He seems to suggest that the FI could NOT become an independent nation! Can others please advise...
Which is what a lot of experts have said will be the future solution. Meaning that only a solution that includes Argentine sovereignty will be acceptable?
How much power and influence does the C24 have exactly?
They still can go to the ICJ.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 09:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0Standing granted for both.
Binding resolution.
Not a chance to claim self-determination, since there is a non-division principle (that would prevent you to place Mexicans in Manhattan and then claim for self deter.) also in the same paragraph.
and the judges will adjudicate the island to Argentina, since they are 15 and from all over.
But, remember, binding but organ in charge of compliance is the Security Council, LOL
In the other hand, a basic negotiation is faster but it will need to give Argentina at least half of the area, which will have not effect in the 99% of the islanders.
I guess your may understand that is better go to court than negotiate!!even if Britain lose!
Now, lets suppose that with that ICJ decision, Argentina go again to court...in London!!!!
Strange? Not really, Us court ruled against US gov based in a prior decision of the ICJ two years before.
But, still a solution, since this will be the exactly same case, Britain can claim res judicata, with means already decided, (even if there is not compliance) and we al go happy back to home.
@29 The head of the UN? The UN is a club of nations. Important though he is, the Secretary General is the servant of the members. The committee has a small secretariat of three or four but is otherwise funded by its members meeting their own costs. Membership of the committee and attendance is open to any member state and any state can apply to provide the Chair and officers of the committee. Hardly surprising then that those states with an interest in sniping at the UK and the “west” in general use the rules of consensus to prolong this forum long after it's true aims have been achieved. Argentina is simply making use of this forum by perpetuating the debate on this “special and particular” concern of its own. UK and US withdrew from the committee years ago but it still remains, in it own small way, effective as a means to keep this dispute in the public eye.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 09:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0(30) Cmd McDod
Jun 16th, 2012 - 09:51 am - Link - Report abuse 01) Let’s call it a “preliminary paper loss” then………
Just anticipating the adrenalin rush of losing 100% of my investment on this modern “Mississippi Bubble” scheme ….
Easy comes…
Easy goes………….
2) C’mon!
That Salem News article is quite good……
Quite a lot of original, attention-grabbing info there for you….
@35 Interesting yes but falling just short of profound. Not being a socialist myself, I warmed to those old time entrepreneurs (fine English word that) who got out with their fortunes before the bubble burst. We must try to emulate them. The football fan at the end was wrong though. When the oil or gas shows signs of running out our attention will turn to British Antarctic and SGSSI Territories. You and I won't see it though.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 10:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0@32 The only reason why the FI couldn't currently become independent is the threat from Argentina
Jun 16th, 2012 - 10:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0Otherwise, I see no issue with it. It can carry on as a “de facto” independent country
@35 Yes but the shares are traded in Pounds so even a 20% loss would be better than holding shares in pesos - even if they traded at a modest profit
(36) Cmd McDod
Jun 16th, 2012 - 10:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0”Interesting yes but falling just short of profound” .... You say?..........
On the contrary, lad……..
This article elucidates perfectly the profound insight the British behavior in Patagonia gave us, Patagonians, about ........... British behavior in general.
Just a little didactic video for you….
Mr. Brit & Mr. Argie……
Guess Who’s Who?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjN8q5rwLoo
Ecuador ?? Remind me, is that a tinpot dictatorship or a banana Respublic ??
Jun 16th, 2012 - 10:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0uk? remind me of an imperial,nazi,nation.
Didn't uk sold drugs,killed and deprived millions of people for their freedom?
It wasn;t uk a nation that signed a treaty of commerce and friendship with Argentina without making any reservation for MAlvinas and then kicked out a peacefull popolation?
Let see,the countries that supports uk on MALvinas: Sierra leone...AHAHAHAH
lordtrash,uk is FINISHED!
COuntries that supports Argentina: Rusis,China,Chile,Brazil,USA...
Poor deluded ex empire!
The decolonisation commitee is no different than the eurovision song contest totally pointless, full of second rate clowns and an unbelievably biased farce.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 10:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0(36) Cmd McDod
Jun 16th, 2012 - 10:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0Speaking about Bird & Fortune…
Just for you Cmd…….......................………:-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2jhQflPFnA&feature=related
@37 To be truly independent a country needs to be recognised as such by other states. The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is a good example of what would happen if the Falkland Islands were to declare itself independent under current political conditions. It would not be recognised by most of the UN member states as anything other than what it is already seen to be, a British Overseas Territory and a colony by another name.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 10:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0And before I get panned again, there is nothing wrong with having overseas territories in this era of economic and political globalisation as in previous eras. Moral accusations tend only to mask envy and jealousy. States need growth not austerity so our socialist friends tell us. Overseas territories are a good way to achieve this as British companies win contracts to provide the infrastructure we all know is needed.
@All Malvinistas.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 10:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0I truly am trying to see your point of view but I can't stick my head that far up my arse.
It is very interesting, and important to note, just how worried and, frankly, scared, that the Falklands Islander's referendum makes Argentina and its cohorts in the C24.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 10:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0An open, democratic and legitimate referendum shows the world that the peoples of the Flaklands do have human rights, should not be ignored, and are not willing to be hidden from the debate on their own future.
The C24 has no power to enforce any decision, which is good because it has clearly and wantonly gone against both its own forming directions and the fundamental charter of the UN.
I wonder if the C24 representitives realise how badly their actions and bias reflect upon the UN as a whole?
C24 is corrupt from top to bottom, we should simply ignore them. I think their moral compass has been dropped and trodden on.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 10:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0@Malvinero1 (39)
Jun 16th, 2012 - 10:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0You should read up about Godwins Law.
@34 thanks for that clarification of the Gen Secretary's role. So does that mean that there is nobody steering this UN ship ? that all these committees are in effect self perpetuating and no one can say enough is enough. Every day I look at this site, I never fail to discover how weird the world is out there. No wonder we no longer participate in this nonsense.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 10:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0Something I fail to understand, but you all seem to accept as normal, is why all these SA countries are so supportive of Argentina, when Argentina would be the first to stab any of them in the back.
So now all the long anticipated excitement of the C24 has fizzled into nothing, anyone one know what CFK will try next ?
@40 liked the analogy
@47 That is exactly what it means. It's a private members club run by the members according to rules that have been collectively agreed and by custom and practice, just like NATO, the OSCE, the OAS, the AU, ECOWAS, the G20, the G7 etc etc. We participate fully and to good advantage, just not in the C24 which, being powerless but a vehicle for anti British sentiment, we just have to live with.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 11:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0@UncleTed(47)
Jun 16th, 2012 - 11:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0The SA countries are only supportive over certain issues, Brazil, f.ex, are exceptionally annoyed with Argentina over the “non-nuclear” approach...mostly because Brazil is building 9 nuclear-powered submarines of its own.
The “united front” picture portrayed commonly against the Faklands people is, in truth, laced with all sorts of politicla back-dealings and mutual mistrust. The only real power in SA is Brazil, everybody else is 4th division in comparison...and Brazil deeply mistrusts MBW and the argentine government.
The decolonisation commitee is no different than the eurovision song contest totally pointless, full of second rate clowns and an unbelievably biased farce.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 11:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0Still you lost.
And the C24 is part of the UN.
uk got 10 UNGA resolutions,endorsing the Argentine position.
ICJ is part of the UN...
and uk is losing,everytime at the UN.
uk is FINISHED,economically and morally!
@Think(3)
Jun 16th, 2012 - 11:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0That was an 'interesting' article at salem news, although I am not sure how it relates to current affairs.
In particular it was obvious that the parties behind and most responsible for the debacle were called Menendez, Braun and Nogeira.
I did not recognise any of those names as being typically British.
@32 I disagree. I think independence would eventually end the debate, the way things are going there will be another war. The FI would be much safer Independent, as no country could justify an invasion against an independent nation, the international community would not stand for it. Britain would still maintain the military base.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 11:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0Does anyone know if independence is option in the referendum?
Unfortunately this is what happens when you allow countries like Equador, Bolivia, Cuba, Syria and co to have some power - they totally abuse it. they ask to be treated like equals and then when they are given some responsibility they blow it spectacularly.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 11:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0Frankly this is an outrageous statement by this person and the UN must be cringing. The Decolonisation committee is now a hispanic forum that has the power to jump up every so often and punch the gringos on the nose.
what must be infuriating for these countries, who yield little political influence in the world, is that the 16 so called UK colonies have no interest in being decolonised. They are quite happy to stay with the gringos.
RG claims are based on a myth. The south american nations know this but that isnt the issue at hand. the issue is that they would all absolutely love too see a first world power being fucked over by the hispanics. They would celebrate it for decades.
This isnt how politics works in the real world and it will now be interesting too see if the UK makes moves behind the scenes to have the Decolonisation committee fundamentally re-organised.
On 11th June 2012 Diego Morejon-Pazmiño said “”Well, that is the Argentine narrative. Let me put forward what I think is a much more accurate, contemporary narrative, which is that there is a G20 country, at the top table of world affairs, one would imagine keen to be responsible on the world stage, with a population of about 40 million people, seeking to put an economic blockade in place – in tangible terms the ambition of that is to impoverish an isolated community with about 3,000 people.”
Jun 16th, 2012 - 11:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0Does change his tune, doesn't he? Wonder how much he cost?
I'm inclined to the view that Britain should now step up to the rostrum in the General Assembly and state that it does not recognise the De-Colonisation Committee or its remit. This should be followed, at every C24 seminar and meeting, by public statements from the Heads of Government of every BOT that they decline to attend due to the Committee's incompetence and partiality. They should also make it clear that they reject the Committee's ”deliberations” or its right to determine their status or future.
As a final step, each inhabited BOT should be declared independent but having defence treaties with Britain. They would all provide military bases and host British armed forces.
#39
Jun 16th, 2012 - 11:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0The USA supports Argentina - explain !!
China - about to annexe the sea bed off the Phillipines. Invaded Tibet and stole the land from the inhabitants
Russia. Still trying by force to control parts of the ex Soviet Union who wish to cecede. Of course they are going to agree - they don't want there own crimes scrutinised.
Basically the C24 is just a mutual masturbation society.
@54 Careful, or we may have country after country stepping up to the podium and saying it doesn't recognise UK as a permanent member of the Security Council.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 11:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0Like a lot of things when the talking ends it comes down to force.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 11:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0the British can and will defend the falklands.
If they needed volunteers I like a lot of ex servicemen would go dig in eat compo whinge and shiver and know I could hold a defensive postion in the falklands for years:(
Think- can you offer an explanation on the origen of all the turds left inside civilian,s and childrens beds - cupboards - post boxes - around drinking water supply sources etc in Stanley in June 1982?
Jun 16th, 2012 - 11:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0@55 Clyde15 (#)
Jun 16th, 2012 - 11:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0Jun 16th, 2012 - 11:28 am
Dutch rudder club?
@56
Jun 16th, 2012 - 11:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0for that matter we could have Russia stepping up to the stage and saying that they dont recognise the USA as a permanent member of the security council. we could have nation after nation telling the Un to fuckoff. We could go on and on like that.
your example isnt the same as the conquerers. Nations are signed up to the UN and abide by their resoutions when they are binding - the Falklands isnt a member of the UN because it isnt an independent state (yet). Neither i assume are the other 15 BOT's - just as say sussex isnt an independent nation.
however what would clearly happen here if the 16 BOTS declared independence is that the RG's would not recognise the Falklands as an independent state, due to their total intransigence on this issue and therefore the issue would not be solved. the issue can never be solved as the only outcome the RG's recognise is sovereignty over the falkland islands - which will never happen.
Argentine poll.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 11:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0Do you think that England finally bow to international pressure and negotiate from Falkland?
To this question, 25% said yes while 75% said No.
http://www.elintransigente.com/notas/2012/6/16/resultados-encuesta-cree-finalmente-inglaterra-cedera-presion-internacional-negociara-malvinas-135439.asp
@61
Jun 16th, 2012 - 11:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0Looks like the majority of Argentines' aren't fools. They know fine well that its a lost cause. The Falklands will never be Argentine.
@41 Thank you again, old boy, for using British comedy programmes to support your case or to highlight the cynicism of mine. I do hope royalties are being paid.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 12:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@38
Jun 16th, 2012 - 12:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“This article elucidates perfectly the profound insight the British behavior in Patagonia gave us, Patagonians, about ........... British behavior in general.”
Indeed. It highlights perfectly your ability to draw the wrong conclusion from a heady mixture of Argentine corruption and unsubstantiated conspiracy theory.
I wouldn't be smug about that myself.
COME ON PEOPLE, LET´S GO TO EUROPE! ROBBERS, KILLERS, PIRATES (IT IS YOUR BLOOD). THE UN SAID, U DONT HAVE ANY SELF DETTERMINATION!!!! CAN U UNDERSTAND?
Jun 16th, 2012 - 12:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@64 Hans.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 12:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0from time to time think will gives us a laugh by directing us to some great conspiracy type sites.
Eddie Zawaski is known for his great imagination and story telling especially when he can include the Falklands Islands in his tall tales.
http://kanan48.wordpress.com/2010/06/19/bp-and-falklands-oil-row/
(58) Islander1
Jun 16th, 2012 - 12:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0OMG………..
You Islander1’s seem to suffer of some severe scat-fixation………
You poor little sausages….. That must have been absolutely dreadful for you……
Anyhow……….
That was the eighties…. Our Argentinean Dogos were not as well housebroken under the dictatorship as they are today…:
http://mama2point0.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/dog_cleans_up_his_own_poop.jpg
I suggest you take with humor and do as they do in the USA…..:
http://mama2point0.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/dog_cleans_up_his_own_poop.jpg
Or you could even “step on it” to shed some light on the subject…..:
http://mama2point0.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/dog_cleans_up_his_own_poop.jpg
Do however yourself a favor…………..
Stop whining about some 30 years old turds and get a life!
(63) Cmd McDod
You re welcome………
I always considered British comedy to be the closest thing to British reality…………..
@39
Jun 16th, 2012 - 01:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No peaceful population was kicked off the Falkland Islands. In 1833 all the civilians were given a choice to stay as they were from Vernet's settlement which had permission from the British government to be there. Most of the civilians were from where Argentina is now. (There was no country called Argentina in 1833). Most of the military which were kicked off, these were not peaceful people, were British mercenaries who refused to fight Captain Onslow's men.(because they would not fight their own countrymen). So in reality all of the civilians who came from what is now Argentina, plus the other nationalities (only 2 were British), were allowed to stay and the military which were mainly composed of British mercenaries were expelled. This makes a mockery of the Argentinian claims on 1833.
This disproves the Argentine lies about the Falkland Islands being an implanted population, and that very few of the people officially brought from the UK government to the Islands actually stayed. Most of the people who colonised the Falklands csm of their own free will and many were not even British in origin.
However even though Argentina have access to these facts they ignore them as though they do not exist and instead make up stupid stories about migrating birds.
@68 Pete Bog (#)
Jun 16th, 2012 - 01:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Jun 16th, 2012 - 01:05 pm
Forget it Pete. C(Malvinista)24 are not listening. We are going to have to keep calm, carry on, dig in. It is now only a matter of time before C(M)24 show exactly what they mean by 'give peace a chance'.
It will be interesting to see how or if the UKG or the FIG respond to this blatant lack of impartiality.
The UN.C24 will never achieve anything, it is biased, outdated and has lost the plot completely.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 01:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The chair of the committee should not be making these comments, he should apologise and step down.
Who thinks the Chair of the C 24 is not entirely impartial ? Who thinks the Chair of the C 24 pays no attention whatsoever to the mandate of the C 24 ? Who thinks the Chair of the C 24 is in the pocket of the Republic of Argentina ? Who thinks the Chair of the C 24 will be more wealthy at the end of his term than when it began ? Who thinks Mr Ban Ki Moon should remove this man who clearly has no respect for his solemn duty and no respect for the Charter of the UN ?
Jun 16th, 2012 - 01:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hands up.
Do not cry for me Christine
Jun 16th, 2012 - 01:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.lavozdetandil.com.ar/ampliar_nota.php?id_n=38553
@67 By contrast, I can only imagine that Argentinian Tragedy is the closest thing to Argentinian reality. Anyway, enough of this. Even though the heavens are emptying over Kent, the dogs need walking.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 01:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Falkland Islands should continue move towards self-determination with referendum, supported by Britain. CFK's strategy of using this 30th anniversary year to ramp-up Nestors plan to cow the Falkands and Britain starts from the premise that this 30th anniversary of the Argentine Military Junta invasion is the most suitable anniversary, but that seems weird because in effect, CFK and her ilk appear to be supporting the Junta's 2 April invasion and criticizing 14 June liberation.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 01:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thus, by her criticizing Britain's commemoration of the liberation, she appears to be emphasizing that Argentina really hasn't moved beyond their potential for military action against the Falklands, especially out the other side of her mouth as she condemns British military presence in the South Atlantic when Argentina's military is (numerically at least) superior to that currently posted to the Falklands.
What has seemed to impress Chinese military analysts of the British management of the Falklands campaign was the ability to project power so far - something that appears to be useful for the Chinese to know about US military power-projection.
References:
Military stats: Argentina vs United Kingdom:
http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/Argentina/United-Kingdom/Military
China’s Falkland Islands Lesson:
http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/Argentina/United-Kingdom/Military
Ok so according to the chairman of the C24 territorial integretity takes precedence over self determination.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 02:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ok lets put the facts together using that basis.
Britian settled the islands in 1765 - 1770's and left a plague when they left claiming sovereignty. Argentina did not exist as a country then, plus most of the patagonia, the closes part of argentina to the falkland islands were native lands and unsettled and unclaimed till 1880's. In 1833 britian reenforced its sovereingty of the islands. As the islands where then settled by britian prior to argentina wiping out the natives in patagonia and claiming patagonia, that would mean the the falkland islanders, under territorial integrity, have a stronger claim to the southern area of patagonia than argentina has. So it should be the falklands claiming patagonia under territorial integrity not argentina claiming the falklands.
That aside, the chairman clearly is not aware of recent ICJ rulings that actually made it clear than self determination comes before territorial integrity - Kosvo, south sudan... Anyone!!
@74 JohnN
Jun 16th, 2012 - 02:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In your opinion..
Would Canada help liberate the Falkland Islanders if there was another Argentine invasion?
“Since the two combatants resumed diplomatic relations in 1992, Britain has refused to discuss these issues, preferring to rely on war rather than diplomacy as the solution to the problem.”
Jun 16th, 2012 - 02:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Erm.... wha?!
Did I miss a whole series of new wars, this time started by Britain rather than Argentina???!
lol
Steve. If there is another Argentine invasion there will be no task force to eject them. They know it we know it.this is all about defence and reinforcement. By claiming that the British are militarising the South Atlantic, Argentina hopes to get the British forces removed so that she can move what only needs to be a relatively small force of her own onto the islands working from the basis of the above assumption (that the UK could not mount another task force).
Jun 16th, 2012 - 02:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Any help that's we get would likely not be front line. It would be 'back fill'. To allow the UK to send more reinforcements south anybody prepared to lend us a hand would more than likely take over routine patrols for the duration. This would not please the troops taking up this role but service personnel are not paid to make those choices. In any case, I don't think any such help would be forth coming unless Argentina called in her mates and they reciprocated.
it would need Brazil to aid Argentina, otherwise its a non-starter.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 02:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Best method to capture the islands though would be to sequester special forces onto a civilian flight into the airport.... take & hold the airport and that's effectively the end....which is why i doubt the Falklands people will want a RG regular flight into the Islands.
What a surprise, this UN committee is biased. Absolute joke and an embarrassment of the UN once again.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 02:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This Ecudorian joker who heads the committee showed his cards some time back when he refused to visit the Falklands to more fairly judge their situation. He is attached to a left wing government which aligns itself with other so-called well functioning democracies such as Bolivia, Venezuela and Argentina. Also, one cannot ignore the other obvious fact that our Ecuadorian amigo sees himself firstly as a Latino and so therefore sees his main responsibility as supporting the interests of Latinos in such instances as these. The idea of impartiality is just a concept to people of that mentality....not something to be taken seriously.....like the idea of fair play....I am sure he's heard of it, but its a foreign concept, a British idea, which goes against the grain of many Latinos...i.e like the hand of God goal..do whatever it takes to win.
Also, isn't it interesting when you look at the nations to be de-colonised...they all seem to be British and American..I don't see any serious discussion about French Guiana on the South American continent or the two Spanish colonies on the Moroccan coast, Cueta and Mellila..again, what a surprise...the Latins lining themselves up with the Spanish and the French against all those big bad English speaking nations like Britain and America..simple jealousy and ignorance and of course a shared history drives this thinking at the diplomatic level in these Latin and Mediterranean countries.
Anyway, whatever the case, well done again to the Falklands delegation who presented their islands case in a dignified and intelligent way. To any fair minded person, with an open mind, they presented their case well and deserved more respect from this committee. Regrettably, this out-moded third world committee with its outdated prejudices and jealousies against a modern and very civilised British nation was incapable of such a task.
76 Steve-32-uk (#)
Jun 16th, 2012 - 02:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Would Canada help liberate the Falkland Islanders if there was another Argentine invasion?” would that be the British Protectorate of Canada ( KFC in her UN rant)?
@78 'It would be 'back fill'. To allow the UK to send more reinforcements south anybody prepared to lend us a hand would more than likely take over routine patrols for the duration.' .. as NZ did in '82
I've just checked the C24 membership against the 2011 Democracy Index, and apparently ten of them, yes ten, are what the Index calls Authoritarian Regimes. In other words, they're all tin-pot dictatorships. Should these people really be handling 'decolonisation' (though this is more like re-colonisation)? This is precisely why C24 is an absolute joke. If the Argentines really want to end this discussion then they should go to the ICJ... oh wait, they'd lose and have to drop their ridiculous claim.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 03:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@82 BritishguyfromLondon (#) Jun 16th, 2012 - 03:05 pm
Jun 16th, 2012 - 03:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Maybe the lack of oversight with regards to the members own countries political status and lack of impartiality might be evidence of how little power C(M)24 have. Maybe it is political and designed to make them feel important or some such.
@71. Me.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 03:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 076 Steve-32-uk (#): “Would Canada help liberate the Falkland Islanders if there was another Argentine invasion?”
Jun 16th, 2012 - 03:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- I'd certainly hope so - and demand that Canada do help liberate Falkland Islanders!
Photograph in the article says it all. Hardly what I woild call impartial. Actually she is not shaking his hand, she is passing him a brown envelope full of you know what$. Now that would be a funny joke, if it was not all that far from the truth.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 03:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It is interesting that the Bolivarian left wing countries of South America, Venezuela, Bolivia, Argentina, and of course Ecuador, should call themselves after this incredible man, Simón Bolivar who was a conservative.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 03:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0He was also a great fan of the USA and most importantly he was a DEMOCRAT who believed in the right of the people to decide their own future.
It seems as though the Bolivarian countries of South America are taking in vain the name of this great champion of freedom.
Especially shame on Ecuador for showing that its petty hate of first world countries is more important to it than the principles of its founding father.
@82 Why do you believe they would lose at the ICJ ?
Jun 16th, 2012 - 03:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If it is anything like the C24, Argentina would coast home comfortably. Justice does not seem to figure at the UN currently.
I've emailed the Un and await thier reply, i suggest you all do as well, time to let them know how shit they really are
Jun 16th, 2012 - 04:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@87
Jun 16th, 2012 - 04:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You display not a clue what you are writing about. Are you really in Argentina?
When has Argentina called itself “bolivarian”??
Did Bolivar even set foot in Argentina, ever? It was independent before his campaigns, anyway... so clearly, he was not our liberator. But a 3 year old would know that.
What is this obsession to peg on the United States the rubric of “democracy”? It is a disfunctional plutocracy frequently verging on zabernism.
The imminent collapse of Argentina will put the Falklands issue on the back burner. Bank deposits are fleeing (5% in 1 week!!), more clamps on purchasing U$, union strikes, 1000s of workers laid off from car mfg AND it is cold again in BA so nat gas will be gone shortly. THESE ARE ONLY THIS WEEKS HIGHLIGHTS!!
Jun 16th, 2012 - 04:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Devaluation..hyperinflation...collapse...quicker than you can imagine.
Bolivarian is the denomination the Kirchnerist Government seems to put on their administration, as it sucks up to the the fat clown of Venezuela.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 04:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@91. Sorry Yankeeboy, have to disagree with you there. The deeper into the brown stuff that the Argie economy get, the more shouting they will do. That is how they solve their economic problems - divert attention. You knew that though. :)
Jun 16th, 2012 - 04:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@92
Jun 16th, 2012 - 04:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The alternative is worse: Be friends of Europe and the USA. Kiss of death.
94 Truth_Telling_Troll
Jun 16th, 2012 - 04:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We don't have to be friends with anyone, what we don't want to be is anyone's enemy!!!
The special forces onto airport plan is the most stupid plan ever.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 04:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0MPA is a military base
Clearly aligning with Venezuela's dictator and Nazi Germany were brilliant decisions for the people of Argentina.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 04:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0hahaha
@91
Jun 16th, 2012 - 04:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I've got to agree, 25% inflation,capital flight,civil unrest,debt default, lack of foreign investment scared off by YPF, energy crisis,corruption,Boudou, pot banging protests,public sector strikes railway disasters,the public aren't fooled.
Lawsuits for protectionism by the WTO,USA,EEC,Japan,India,Spain (even Mercosur)
Its all going to happen very shortly,It will be interesting to watch from afar.
No doubt CFK will escape with her fortune.
How many of the C24 reps come from countries that are either trying to grab someone elses land either or come from dictatorships?
Jun 16th, 2012 - 04:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Antigua and Barbuda
Bolivia
Chile - war of the pacific, Bolivia and peru want their land back too.
China - still bleating about the opium wars, and by the way has started to threaten its neihghbours more overtly with its expanding military power - also like invading other peoples territory
Congo
Côte d'Ivoire
Cuba - castro bunch are stuck in the 1960s
Dominica
Ecuador - after support from argentina because they have a dispute with peru
Ethiopia
Fiji
Grenada
India
Indonesia - did'nt we defeat them in the Konfontasi - their own little land grab attempt agaisnt us, also has a history of attacking and annexing other peoples land
Iran -unstable religious regime with an axe to grind against the UK. Agressive anti western stance in general. Nuclear programme problems......
Iraq- riven with bloodletting between tribes - possibly a bit resentful about 2003, 1991 and 1941
Mali
Nicaragua
Papua New Guinea
Russia - Putin - lets see, want to go for cold war II because it thinks it will make Russia stronger - has people murdered in the streets of London if they are dissidents..........Chechen war, pressure on former soviet of Warpac states to tow Moscows line, threatned to attack poland if they let the USA base interceptor missiles. Views the UK as an enemy as we oppose Russian hegemony in europe.
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Sierra Leone
Syrian Arab Republic- murdering its own citizens to keep the blood stained Asad regime in power
Timor-Leste
Tunisia
Tanzania
Venezuela- a socialist bolivaran state run by a man who hates the UK, and stuck in a 1960s “isnt communism great” timewarp a destabilising influence on the area.
Only a partial overview but very enlightening
@95
Jun 16th, 2012 - 04:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The problem is that in order not become these people's “enemies”, they demand unwavering, truckling compliance in every solitary preoccupation. If they enter into war with Iraq, they demand you join or face consequences. If they impose sanctions on Iran, they demand you join or face consequences. If they decide broccoli is an illicit substance, they demand you join the iniative or face consequences.
The reason we are always seemingly enemies of the USA and Europe is because it is impossible to remain independent in thought or action, without these arrantly conceited nations taking alacritous umbrage, such is their collective insecurity/narcisism as societies. They do not even contemplate them being wrong on a particular course of action as a viable option.
Since Argentina historically stands up and refuses to go along if it believes it goes against our interests (WWII, Oceanographic Treaty, etc), it is a natural outcome that contention and conflict between us and them recur.
100. Yep all to your peril.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 05:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Back to our discussion about the economy over the last 75-100yrs. Have you found 1 country that has fallen faster and harder than Argentina in the last 75+ years?
I haven't help me out is there one or does you brilliantly run country have the dubious honor of being the economically worst run county in the last century?
@99
Jun 16th, 2012 - 05:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Imagine, the man in the house next door also wants your house, so he claims you stole it, but you are innocent. On your way to court you listen to the radio, you hear some of the man’s friends publicly stating you're guilt and demanding you give your house back to him. When you get to court to your dismay you realise the same people who publicly stated that you are guilty make up the Jury!!!
The C24 is not fit for purpose, if it is not going to cease, it needs big reforms. The non-self governing states should be united and demand that if they are to participate, only countries that are neutral should be on the committee.
Someone should start a campaign !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@101... Perhaps, perhaps.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 05:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But if the last 20 years have not taught Europe and the United States anything, then you deserve your ultimate fate.
With the increasing miniaturization of powerful weaponry, you will become more and more vulnerable to death from lone men or numerically insignificant bands of rogue avengers. The dreadnought American or European militaries have not (check 2001, 2004, 2005, etc) and will not serve you useful defense against it. It will only get exponentially even more minatory.
You already spend 2 trillion to retaliate on a 2 millon dollar operation.
They won. A couple of more such incidents, and they will bankrupt you.
@3 I don't Think, aka 'The Turnip in Chief'.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 05:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Bending the facts again I see? Can't stop doing it can you? You seem stuck in the past: is it that old French L26 watch (hacked by your friends the Russians into a 'Navigators watch') that has never been serviced since the 1950s and keeps perfect time twice a day that keeps you there?
Anyway, blame the Brits for millions of sheep destroying the natural habitat.
But, wait, what is this shown in the article:
“Patagonian sheep-farming began in 1877 when a Mr. Henry Reynard, an English trader in Punta Arenas, ferried a flock from the Falklands and set it to graze on Elizabeth Island in the strait. It multiplied prodigiously and other merchants took the hint. The leading entrepreneurs were a ruthless Asturian, Jose Menendez, and his amiable Jewish son-in-law Mortitz Braun.”
So it was the Argies that caused the problem! Well, isn't that an amazing surprise??
You can't even get it right when you try ,can you 'I don't Think'?
Turnip in Chief really fits you to a treat.
@102
Jun 16th, 2012 - 05:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Rule 1 for a UN chairman is IMPARTIALITY, otherwise it is a kangaroo court.
Time for the big boys to decide if C24 is fit for purpose.
I wonder if the closed minds of C24 will accept the Falklands offer of a fact finding visit, otherwise they are not acting in good faith.
103. 10-20 yrs compared to 250+ is a blip in the radar and nothing to worry about. All of the long term charts are all still heading up.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 05:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There are stark differences between the USA and EU. EU is a mess we are not you only think we are because you WANT TO BELIEVE it. Your hate for the USA is clouding your logic.
If you are talking about the USA spending 2T on Al Qaeda you do not know much about world politics or the military machine in the USA. I suggest you study a bit more so you don't look so foolish. As I have said before the majority of those funds have gone to training, salaries and AMAZING new equipment all needed every 20-30 yrs or so. You can't fight a battle with old equipment and un-trained soldiers now can you?
Back to Argentina...Are you the worse performing country in the last 100 yrs or not?
I have complained to UN ref above
Jun 16th, 2012 - 05:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The whole C24 thing is a farce.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 05:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A UN committee that is normally attended by petitioners from the colonised nations.
This committee then fawns over has the president of Argentina with a flock of 90 that fills one third of the committee room.
“The chair of the Decolonization Committee underlined the attendance of Argentine President Cristina Fernandez on Thursday because “it gives the UN system credibility and likewise to the task of this Committee as a negotiating body”.”
The above statement is only one of his statements that gives this UN committee LESS credibility.
@106
Jun 16th, 2012 - 05:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You merely have the capability to ratchet up the clamps, since you are not hindered by internal nationalism. Eventually you are headed in the same direction.
I wonder why it is that when I point out the transparent flaws, problems, and sins of the USA, Europe, UK, etc I am labelled as a hater? Yet all of you, who spend 24 hours of your internet days doing the very same about Argentina claim to be “objective” and detatched?
:)
@109 tobias
Jun 16th, 2012 - 05:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0please give painful the verbal nonsense a rest, it lends no weight to any point you wish to make, to have sift through “ratchet up the clamps” etc. is a waste of everyone's time.
The more people claim my vocabulary usage never makes any sense, the more I will forge ahead with it. Either because it means I must improve my usage, or because it irritates people here to no end (that is beyond a doubt given how virtually all of you have complained).
Jun 16th, 2012 - 05:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0For all the criticism that I misuse words, I really doubt any of you can even determine this, since you don't know the meaning of the terms to begin with!
@88 Ted, the ICJ has to be impartial, and look at the evidence carefully and objectively. Also, it's based in the Hague, and it has some reputable members, such as Britain, France, New Zealand, Japan and the United States, so Britain's case will at the very least get a fair hearing. If so, I really don't see how Argentina could win. This is in contrast to the C24 where anything Britain says is drowned out in a deluge of: MALVINAS ARGENTINAS!!!! ENGLISH PIRATES IMPERIALIST!!!! ... and so on and so forth. You get the idea. Argentina knows that it will get a very different reception if it goes to the ICJ, so it never will, even though it is the only organ of the United Nations which would actually be able to make Britain give them the Falklands if their case is good enough. Unfortunately for Argentina, Cristina knows that her argument extends little beyond sabre-rattling rhetoric.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 05:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The ICJ is the anglo version of the C24. Britain, New Zealand, United States, and the rest only care about the interest of other anglo nations, they will never side with a non-anglo nation, they don't have a sense of fairness. To the anglo nations the clan is more important than justice.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 05:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0TTT your a tit end of you spout off all the times about peoples rights yet STILL refuse people the right to choose. To quote Malvi ...NAZI, PIRATE etc etc, if your as young as you say you are, you have a lot to learn, quote as much crap as you like from RGenweeners tainted history but YOU are wrong and so it will be proved, why can't you understand the people of the Falkland Islands have a right to choose and any other outcome is nothing but unjust, at best. I for one will drink to Rgenweeners downfall not because I hate you, and believe me i have good reason to, or all decent rg's but because of CFK's relentless bullying and rhetoric. Oh by the way latest news the UN have suspended ops in Syria. Spineless bastards, we can't intervene because people like you condenm it, mind you you wouldn't put a peace keeping force forward anyway would you, no just stand back and watch whilst sabre rattling and looking after your own sorry arses whilst slagging off anyone who has the guts to do something about it, whilst calling them murderers and invaders, you are the lowest of the low, so slink back under your rock
Jun 16th, 2012 - 06:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0who would think that the Islas Malvinas are British? only to pirates
Jun 16th, 2012 - 06:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@Steve-32-uk
Jun 16th, 2012 - 06:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Great analogy! Just about sums what I was thginking.
@ guy from London - you hit the nail on the head too.
The C24 is made up of anti-western nations, or those with massive border problems of their own. They don't like the UK because we make them look corrupt and undemocratic in general, or they are grinding some sort of axe from the 19th century. Wake up people, it's 2012.
What the Argentinians don't like is the ICJ - an impartial oragnisation.
@113
Jun 16th, 2012 - 06:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The “anglo version of the C24”
http://www.icj-cij.org/court/index.php?p1=1&p2=2&p3=1
@114
Jun 16th, 2012 - 06:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Slink back under my rock? Woah, that is high-level and educated vocabulary there, “slink”. Well played, and meet usage for that word. But now you may be flayed by the high intellects here who find colorful vocabularies an affront to their self-esteem.
But apologies, I am neither a saxicolous dweller nor do I slulk.
There is nothing preventing the UK from declaring war on Syria today. You do not simply because you lack spine as much as the UN lacks it. You intervened in Libya as they did not possess the military capabilities the Syrians do. You well know that if you go in there you will suffer significant casualties and in fact may not win. The other reason: Russia.
The situation in Syria is European in origin: you created a nation-state that makes no ethnic or geographic sense.
Useful to see C-24 chair slobbered so effusively over CFK as it just makes C-24's tercermundista-slant all the more obvious to anybody watching. Well, to anybody watching who isn't part of CFK's merry band of pals.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 06:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Toby, All those words yet you can not answer 1 simple question, is Argentina the worse economically performing country for the last 70-100 yrs?
Jun 16th, 2012 - 06:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0BTW did you see the PREMIER UNIVERSITY IN ARGENTINA >>>UBA is no longer in the top 10 in Latin America? I'm assumingyou take online courses for that wonderful vocabulary you like to use so much are those UK or USA Universities?
@113 Truth_Telling_Troll (#) Jun 16th, 2012 - 05:59 pm
Jun 16th, 2012 - 06:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The ICJ is the 'anglo' equivalent of the C(M)24? What are you implying TIT? Did you not already say that C(M)24 really is impartial?
To that end you imply by default that the ICJ is also impartial. Conversely if you are implying that the ICJ is not impartial then you imply that the C(M)24 isn't either.
Did you understand any of that or did the logic tie your poor little brain up in knots?
I never said the C24 is impartial.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 06:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You people need to get your antis straightned out. I know very well the C24 has an axe to grind. The ICJ is filled with individuals who believe in the superiority of European values, thus it is not an impartial outfit.
yankeeboy,
I will politely state your question has no bearing on the topic at hand.
Really TTT, more big words by the way, well done, who mentioned declaring war on syria you arse, we have more spine than you will ever have history proves that point. Libya asked for help lead by FRANCE. Russias reason for not endorsing the UN charter is all to do with being the main arms supplier to syria and nothing to do with the murder of women and children. By the way my education taught me to talk to an idiot like an idiot hence my vocabulary, my high intellect would blow you away, as i said i have forgotten more than you will ever know. Let me know when you've watched the news and don't condenm whats happening in Syria and what you should think should happen, perhaps an RG peace keeping force, Don't fookin think so
Jun 16th, 2012 - 06:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@122
Jun 16th, 2012 - 06:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0did you check the current members of the ICJ.?
http://www.icj-cij.org/court/index.php?p1=1&p2=2&p3=1
and your point is
Jun 16th, 2012 - 06:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The falkands is defended by Pirate Guardsmen :) that beats argy ninjas anyday.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 06:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What strange days
Jun 16th, 2012 - 06:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Islands' soldier families want to make referandum ?
@123
Jun 16th, 2012 - 06:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I don't formulate opinions on people's intellect. Consider yourself lucky if you scored a high intellect result. I very recently took 4 informal IQ tests for the first time in my life, and let's just say I'm no “profound genius”, but I was pleasantly surprised with the results. In any event, IQ is merely the ability to cope on your feet (extemporaneously) with surprising problems,and to a lesser extent to measure your cortical legerity. I learned to walk at 8 months and read at age 2-3, so I was always aware I had precocious tendencies which may hint at healthy and immanent congnitive talent.
The key is to couple “IQ” with a solid education, and more importantly yet, fastidious effort and persevearane. Finally, put all those things to practical use.
Then you will be a rounded individual with formidable potential to excel.
Your Syria philippic is touching, but two wrongs don't make a right.
@126 Hmm ninjas are supposed to be quiet, self-controlled and stealthy though. That doesn't exactly say Argie to me. How about Pirate Guardsmen Vs Yappy Chihuahuas?
Jun 16th, 2012 - 06:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@128 tobias
Jun 16th, 2012 - 06:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0did you check the current members of the ICJ ?
www.icj-cij.org/court/index.php?p1=1&p2=2&p3=1
your statement was “the ICJ is filled with individuals who believe in the superiority of European values, thus it is not an impartial outfit.”
@130
Jun 16th, 2012 - 06:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 07 of the 16 members are European or from Antipodes which fall within the European Sphere of values. Am I correct or am I wrong?
I invite you to count for yourself.
Compare to how many Arabs, Latin Americans, Asians, sub-saharan Africans, Polynesians, Micronesians, Native Americans, Persians... All with different standards to Europeans.
There a differance between IQ and surviving on your feet its called common sense which you seem to lack big style all your big words do nothing but make you sound more insecure than your arguements are. Anyone who try's to pretend theyr'e clever because the have a theasaures handy deserves nothing but contempt its like me saying i understand spanish when i can highlight spanish sentences right click and translate using bing, (yes it's that easy). Funny how you call whats happening in Syria touching, but as i said before I bet your goverment won't try do anything about it, instead you'll keep bleeting on about how you are being unfairly treated.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 06:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We said it once, and we will say it again, its run by dictators and CFK corruption,
Jun 16th, 2012 - 07:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The islanders DO NOT exist, as long as you remain BRITISH ,
You can be anything other than British,
The UN will eventually come down of CFK side, and demand you have no rights, you are argentine,
So what can you do,
Sadly at this point in time, not much, [honestly]
But what can Britain do,
We could list tons of things that Britain can do, and enforce it,
But at the end of the day, the choices are very limited,
1, shut up, and do as your told, [your argentine]
2, unite fully with the UK .
3, totally ignore them,
4, the British, supply all that is needed, including, transport planes ships, cargo,
And totally bypass South America all together,
5, or go to war, and fxck em all.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Simple really, is it not,
Now how about that cuppa tea .
.
@128
Jun 16th, 2012 - 07:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Where does the ability to recognize and question your own prejudices enter into your conception of the rounded individual with formidable potential to excel?
@131
Jun 16th, 2012 - 07:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So the European or Antipodes members form less then 40% of the ICJ membership.
and of course the members of the c24 are all neutral. do shut up, the Ecuardoran knob has just shot himself and the C24 in the foot with his statement. But of course thats ok. Fookin sort your lives out you are at best deluded and worst STUPID
Jun 16th, 2012 - 07:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@132
Jun 16th, 2012 - 07:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are much more likely to survive on your feet if your IQ is between the standard deviation point, that is the 50% of humans in the middle (between 85-115). Below 85 and it is proven fact people become more prone to dependence on others for successful interactions in society, and for self-sustaining activities (remunerative).
Common sense is almost entirely based on empiric learning building personal experience, and to some measure on imparting of foreknowledge by your parents, religion, culture (though as we all know, many times advice is not heeded, we must fall on our own). Children do not have common sense therefore are more likely to cross streets on a whim and put themselves at risk. Thus, they must by observation realize the derring-do nature of such act.
But far more important than IQ is effort, and tenaciousness. That reality is irrefragable.
Y0u may attack my arguments by questioning my word choice, it is in fact pellucid evidence that you take the path of least resistence, instead of the invious trail. That is partly why I use a high vocabulary, it allows me to judge people based on how they react to such use, how they interpret what I say, and if they usufruct this fact to call into question my soundness of argument or even my outright smarts.
Argentina can do nothing about Syria.
@Truth_Telling_Troll
Jun 16th, 2012 - 07:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You have as much right to post in here as anyone else and often make good points. But in almost every forum you post comments, you deviate from the main subject, thus swamping and diluting the forum with irrelevant information, I don't even recall you posting your opinions on this particular subject.
So my polite request is, that you at least give your views on the subject in question.
The C24 obviously is unaware of GA/SPD/406 issued by the general assembly in October 2008 in which the principle of self determination was upheld as a basic human right and still applied in cases of sovereignty dispute. Thereby indicating that self determination always holds precedence to sovereignty integrity. Thereby the resolution from the C24 and the statement of the chair is incompatible with the principles of the UN.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 07:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/gaspd406.doc.htm
@137 TTT/Tobias
Jun 16th, 2012 - 07:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If you think that all this verbal crap you are spouting is constructive then let it feed your ego but it is really all smoke and mirrors.
@134
Jun 16th, 2012 - 07:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It is up to you to decide whether to believe me or not, but I do have that ability, and I know very well how my statements here impress upon others.
The question then becomes do you accept what I have just told you. You may not... but then you may hae some insight on how I perceive your side from my particular end.
@135
Your implicit scenario as posed, though unexpressed, is this:
Since only about 35-30% of the ICJ is of a European background or raised within its milieu of mores, therefore the non-European component can effectively dominate.
You know that is nonsense. This is not an absolute majority vs absolute minority due to monolithic inclinations. The 40% that is of European origin is FAR more likely to agree customarily than the supposed “majority” that is non-European. Because the remaining 60% has just as many disparate views between each other... Or are you suggesting a Latin American, and Arab, and an indian-sucontinental espouse or share the same values or points of reference to adjudicate?
@138
I accept your criticism. I would merely raise as a retort the transparent fact that I am far from the only one engaging in such behavior. Given the majority of contributors here are from your end, it is natural to conclude that in fact this transgression is primarily commited by them. To speak ills of my nationality and country, to engage in personal attacks of myself, and to resort to fulminations of character or culture,do not advance the analysis of any of the news articles at Mercopress, yet that is the overarching leimotiv and none of you here can deny it. Argentina (not the goverment's Falklands policy), is the subject of gratuitous and continuous assail.
If I may propose to you, is such commentary relevant to any of the discussions?
And the chair of the C24 said to the president... ”we're having barbeque straight after this charade, bring your cozzi and a couple of friends'!
Jun 16th, 2012 - 07:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A disgraceful chair of a disgraceful committee that hasn't a clue as to their remit, haven't a clue as to the un charter, haven't a clue as to history. This committee has squandered the chance to do the right thing, it is certainly not a judgement panel for the sovereignty of anything anywhere. Since when did this committee become the ICJ.
A shocking attitude by a supposedly neutral United Nations, clearly a biased committee who are making a laughing stock of the UN?
Jun 16th, 2012 - 07:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Where's Banki Moon?
Obviously the self determination doesn´t apply in this case because the population of the Islands was implanted by the country who stole them only to defend this false argument. in addition, this same country apply a very restrictive inmigration policy to avoid changing this artificial scenary. The truth is that UK only want to steal this territory and its resources (oil, fish, among others), therefore to reach this objetive, every lie or false argument is very important for UK because they help to justify all its lies. The truth is that we have there a BRITISH PIRATE COLONY, which is only a little example of a lot of pirate british colonies, around the world imposed by UK, including Gibraltar, among others.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 07:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Errata:
Jun 16th, 2012 - 07:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0corrigendum (134) “The question then becomes do you accept what I have just told you. You may not... but then you may hae [have] some insight on how I perceive your side from my particular end”
corrigendum (135) “Or are you suggesting a Latin American, and Arab, and an indian-sucontinental [subcontinental] espouse or share the same values or points of reference to adjudicate?”
corrigendum (138) “To speak ills of my nationality and country, to engage in personal attacks of myself, and to resort to fulminations of character or culture, do not advance the analysis of any of the news articles at Mercopress, yet that is the overarching leimotiv [leitmotiv] and none of you here can deny it.”
#137
Jun 16th, 2012 - 07:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Were you a fan of “Yes Minister”. - highly popular BBC comedy program ?
In this the permanent Secy. uses the most obscure and verbose English to obfuscate his replies and recommendations to his minister who ends up baffled.
Words such as “ irrefragable” would not be used in English conversation -Try Irrefutable
Usufruct is not a term used in normal English parlance but more applicable to law
One bit of your posting I do not understand -What is “ my outright smarts”?
@138 Truth_Telling_Troll
Jun 16th, 2012 - 07:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Glad we are making progress.
Also can I request you drop the obscure words i.e. 'transgression', 'overarching', 'leimotiv', I'm not ashamed to say, I had to look up their meanings. There are better alternatives, to the obscure words.
take a look at
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100509050012AAbUQ8L
I beging to think Toby, TTT, Guzz are all created by our beloved Think.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 08:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have never met anyone who can write so much and say so little and be more boring with every post.
Hiding his poor education behind big words he learned here: http://www.universalclass.com/i/crn/31116.htm
becasue he has never left his backward province in his 3rd world country 13 hrs by plane from civilization.
Pity him...his country is falling apart quicker by the week. It takes him a week's worth of wages to pay for a decent meal in NYC, a place he will only ever dream of seeing.
@147
Jun 16th, 2012 - 08:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What progress? Your side will continue is Modus Operandi.
So to you progress is “the other side shuts up with their diversions and insults, so we can resume complete monopoly of diversions and insults”?
Sesquipedalianism is only a subset of verbosity...
Weal, wan, oaf, waif, wont... not often used monosyllabic words, but you can be just as obscure with them.
The wan and homeless oaf found a waif, and as homeless oafs are wont to do, kept it to boost his weal.
@143 Ban Ki Moon allegedly (according to many papers including the Korean press) does very little than just trying to think up new jobs to give to other Koreans. He clearly doesn't have control over his house.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 08:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The fact this guy is supposed to be an unbiased Chair of a committee that decolonises people and basically just ignores the people it's supposed to be decolonising, shows you how ridiculous it is. To be quite fair Ecuadorians wouldn't know democracy if it fell on them, they're just some tail for argentinians to wag. So what does anyone really expect?
P.S. No one engages with this committee, as it's just a bag of rubbish. It's pretty much time for the fledgling countries to stop engaging with it too.
@139EA
Jun 16th, 2012 - 08:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You would think that a diplomatic of any worth, chairing any committee involved in the subject, would appraise himself that wouldn't you. I did not know of the ruling, if that is the correct terminology. However we are talking about the UN here, and common sense certainly tells me, that a ruling on the Right to Self Determination, would have been made at some time. After all it is contained in the first article of their charter.
Does this mean that the chairs or the committees findings are therefore void, because they are quite clearly breaching the ruling. Can a sub/committee ignore or over rule the General Assembly? I think not. One wonders what? if any action will be taken to rectify this.
Btw, @147, there is nothing to be ashamed of. I worked hard, I studied very hard. I would have never learned those words from normal linguistic exposure. You must make a conscious effort to incorporate them into your education.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 08:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0yankeeboy,
Is there anything else in your arsenal but personal attacks? You claim I offer nothing here. What do you offer then? Anti-matter?
@144 johnfarrel2050
Jun 16th, 2012 - 08:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0An implanted colony! Do me a lemon, the falklands have legally existed longer than most South American countries. Check the history books.
Britain stole the Falklands from argentina did it? No, the place was vacant when we first landed on it, mapped it and claimed it, unlike most latam countries when the indigenous populations were slaughtered and even in the case of argentina, the government paid bounty hunters right into the 2oth century for each kill.
So, falklands have a restrictive immigration policy do they. I think you'll find you just can't move into any country you like. Australia has a points system, uk has similar, who knows the policies of other countries but it is not an open door to anyone anywhere policy. the falklands are free to let in whoever they choose.
No, johnfarrel, it is not islanders who are pirates and to use such wordings is a bit of a yawn.
I personally support the Falkland Islanders choice to determine their own future but as CFK has refused to talk directly with the islanders in front of a UN committee, it is just going to re-enforce the islanders belief that Arentine rule would bad for them.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 09:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As the C24 has shown itself to be biased in the extreme and are actually supporting colonisation and some posters believe that the ICJ is biased towards Europian interests, is there any organisation that can actually help resolve the dispute?
This is an open question to anyone with a serous suggestion, no British pirates go home comments please.
I can't see anyone sorting this to all party's satisfaction. The British won't talk without the islanders consent, the Argentine government won't talk directly to the islanders and even if talks start, the Argentine constition is about demands, not negotiations.
@154
Jun 16th, 2012 - 09:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And ensconced (or maybe not) underneath all that piffle, intransigence, mistrust, and self-serving theater, is the best solution available: no talks.
The islanders should not be forced to entertain talk about their own displacement or nationality, and Argentina should not be forced to consider any negotiated agreements regarding pelagic husbandry, maritime environment, or rules of engagement for foreign vessels in its ports.
Each their own way.
Toby, It is sad how jealous and insecure you are, for all of your bluster and mis-direction it is clear you have some serious psychological problems.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 09:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I really how you are playing a character and this is not how you really act in your life.
I do feel sorry for you.
@56 As I recall, the permanent members of the Security Council are stated in the UN Charter.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 09:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@60 Permanent members - see above. Please note that I referred to “inhabited BOTs”. Independence is a fact. There are 193 members of the UN. How many would “support” argieland against a newly-independent nation?
@65 He's back with his cakes.
@78 You need to remember that Britain's new MRTTs can each transport 380 troops and their equipment as well as refuelling, e.g. Typhoons, en-route and can reach the Falklands without any stopover. 4 MRTTs means over 1500 extra troops and 16 Typhoons.
@89 What email address did you use? I tried and got nothing.
@90 Not talking to you. This is NOT your concern. Butt out.
@95 I like being argieland's enemy. Actually, implacable enemy. The sh*tes, with certain exceptions, deserve it. TiT is a prime example.
@100 Four distinct lies. Keep going.
@103 You won't be alive to see it.
@109 Might it be because we're intelligent and you're not? That fits!
@111 So far beyond you, you are pond slime. However, I have consideration, whilst you are simply attempting obfuscation.
@113 You play your game. We'll play ours.
@118 Prefer to declare war on argieland!
@128 And do tell how you feel now that you're 5. Only a few more years and you'll be an adult. Do you understand my point, kiddie?
@131 Proving that Arabs, Latin Americans, Asians, sub-saharan Africans, Polynesians, Micronesians, Native Americans, Persians are incapable of understanding LAW. Since you're in there, you're NOT GOOD ENOUGH!
@141 Let's cut through your crap. Every “judge” at the ICJ does not adjudge every issue. Your assertions are crap.
@144 STFU and FO. Grown-ups are talking.
@152 You're an argie, aren't you? What would you know about work?
@153 Don't bother with him. He isn't worth a smelly fart.
@154 Simple answer. No. Britain is going to have to kill all argies. Only a fair result for genocides. Anyone who wants to join in and kill a few are welcome!
@154 Ahab
Jun 16th, 2012 - 09:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You have hit the nail on the head
You have to agree to disagree and take about co operation and being good neighbours and humanitarian assistance etc but CFK has poisoned the well for everyone and frankly there is no point in having any meaningful conversations until she goes. The Kirchners stopped co operation around 2005
@150 GreekYoghurt
Jun 16th, 2012 - 09:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I was wondering the same thing about Uncle Ban, WTF is he doing about the C24? Maybe he is just out of his depth?
@Truth_Telling_Troll
I believe for you to post 2 replies to my link @147 I must have upset you. I would like to apologise, I didn't fully read the content of the article I linked, it was not my intention.
Content of link in question pasted below...
'A word to describe someone, or the act of, using obscure words to replace common words, to appear intellectual?
You know, the kind of sad people who must go home and look up the dictionary for a replacement word for a perfectly acceptable plain english version just so they can use it at every opportunity and to excess, when in fact, they just sound ridiculous and pompous.'
Please drop the obscure words.
More personal attacks, what else is new?
Jun 16th, 2012 - 09:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I won't even reply in kind anymore. Your sympathetic claque here may do its best to back you, but any passive lurker with a fiber of detachment can easily determine all you “offer” to this forum is:
“I have never met anyone who can write so much and say so little and be more boring with every post.
Hiding his poor education behind big words he learned here: www.universalclass.com/i/crn/31116.htm”
Personal attacks.
“becasue he has never left his backward province in his 3rd world country 13 hrs by plane from civilization.”
Gratuitous derision and belittlement of geographic condition.
“Pity him...his country is falling apart quicker by the week.”
Insults based on nationality/ethnicity
“It takes him a week's worth of wages to pay for a decent meal in NYC, a place he will only ever dream of seeing.”
Economic/social status bias.
You do cover all possible social bases for verbal assault, don't you?
You are such a positive influence here, much to offer the world. Congratulations.
@155 I respect your view but even if we did that it would still wouldn't resolve the issue.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 09:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The issue of the Falklands has been festering in a sizeable percentage of the Argentine populous, only helped by successive Argentine governments through rallies, international campaigns and the education system.
Do you feel there is significant internal support within Argentina for your plan to convince the CFK government to stop the ongoing rhetoric offensive?
What amazes me is that he didn't get really really upset about Gibraltar discussing referenda, Tokelau's yearly referenda, and the fact that most of the countries observed by the C24 have regular referenda.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 09:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So it begs the question, why did he get really really upset about the Falklands referendum? Are there any irregular payments into his bank account?
Does Uncle Ban even care all this is happening under his nose?
@159
Jun 16th, 2012 - 09:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sorry to dissapoint you, I merely responded to you a “2nd time” simply to make a positive comment about you looking up the meaning of words (there is nothing to regret in that). The fact you interpreted this t as you upsetting me is quizzically odd.
@161
There is internal support to cease the rhetoric offensive. There is not enough support to engage in discussions with the Falklanders to surrender Argentine sovereingty to them. That will never happen again, which is why Argentina withdrew from the Fishing/Oil agreements. Putting to one side the people who intransigently believe the Falklands are Argentine, there is just as large a group who believes Argentine waters are, well, Argentine... and the Falklanders should have no say in what occurs within them. Spefically in the way of “fishery negotiations”, which are British code for crippling Argentina's fishing industry and gaining a territorial foothold (even as fishing is a negligible part of the economy). But what matters is the principle.
the “self-determination” is a trap. You do not even self-determine the curriculum of their children, which is sent from London along with teachers. His “self-determination” would not allow the Argentines stepped on the islands. But have no authority, is the United Kingdom to establish that the Argentines can go to the islands to visit the soldiers. If you were, and our soldiers had been thrown overboard, but having no power to self-determine NOTHING, can not.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 09:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The verse of “self-determination” is determined by just England, you do not, the “self-determination” is just a disguise so that Argentina can not go on claiming the islands is just to declare a false independence, it is no coincidence for example, looking for “independence” similar to that of Puerto Rico, this is simply to Argentina and not “bother” and so england can still quietly making the rounds on the islands.
From London to tell you “now you say that if Argentina does not change its constitution, there will be no negotiations,” an interesting point to note: the end of 2011 claimed they wanted to be independent, but happened to declare South America would not recognize the false flag of the islands “Falklands”. This was a slap to England, in the economic has no effect, worse in the political was effective, since any attempt to truncate England to declare false independence of the islands.
As is well aware that England can not take the islands, now holding the statuo quo, from London to the islands before being told “say they want to be independent,” not coincidentally, now say “we want to continue belonging to the United Kingdom”, london told them they began to say this, for england knows that he can not declare false“ independence, ”South America does not recognize the false flag“ the flaklands ”. 1982-2011 “we want to be independent.” 2012 - “we want to remain part of the united kingdom”
stop filling the mouth with the International Court of Justice, Let's go to the international court of justice in th
@163
Jun 16th, 2012 - 09:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Fish, of course, like migrating birds, are well known respecters of political boundaries, and no international cooperation is necessary to ensure their management.
@johnfarrel2050
Jun 16th, 2012 - 10:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Please have a look at...
http://falklandshistory.org/sites/default/files/false-falklands-history.pdf
or in Spanish...
http://falklandshistory.org/sites/default/files/false-falklands-history.pdf
Let me know what you think, considering that no-one alive knows the exact history.
@160 Truth_Telling_Troll
I like the balance you bring to these forums, also I think personal attacks are unfair and I request that all posters refrain from any personal attacks against others. But some advice TTT drop the obscure words.
concluding my comments....
Jun 16th, 2012 - 10:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0stop filling the mouth with the International Court of Justice, Let's go to the international court of justice in the utopian case that 10 of the 15 judges are from Latin America, then the UK will not accept the mediation of the court !.
@165
Jun 16th, 2012 - 10:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina will not negotiate the sovereignty of the resources lying, buried, or swimming within its commerial/territorial waters. The Falkland Islands (in my personal opinion, and hoping it one day is the government's policy), have full rights to their surrounding maritime zone.
Conversely, so does Argentina. We should never restrict our quotas in order to permit economic resources to swim “zonifugal”.
Just as Argentina cannot bulldoze her will (realistically or morally), neither can the Falklanders demand their “neighbor” to change how it behaves within their own house. Tough luck.
@163 I was under the impression the negotiations on fisheries and oil were walked out of because Nestor tried to bring the Falklands sovereignty issues into the talks completely off subject. I have also read some stories that the Falklands fishing quotas are up due to their good management of the waters, please correct me if I am not quoting factual material.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 10:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It would seem the best thing would be a kind of detente. Agree to disagree on the ownership of the islands but get back to talks on the fisheries and oil for the benefit of both sides.
Problem is that the islanders have tried to make contact and are being ignored by the people that make the policies. I do hope CFK gets her marching orders shortly and a government with a little more sense gets voted in.
We feel sad UK doesn't let their own citizens return to UK.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 10:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@168 You cannot stop yourselves from chopping down all your trees or chopping down all of your natives, so how do you expect you to limit the fishing stocks within your own waters?
Jun 16th, 2012 - 10:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Be realistic, the Argentines are savages, and portraying them as some people who have a modicum of self-control is just nonsense.
@168
Jun 16th, 2012 - 10:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Even CFK at the UN recognized the archaic nature of this conception of sovereignity.
164
Jun 16th, 2012 - 10:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Wrong.
What you don't understand is that we, the Falkland Islanders, choose to be British and we choose to have a UK curriculum. We know and accept that, being a British OT, the UK carries out certain authoritive functions (the choice of education system is NOT one of them). We could just as easily choose not to be a British OT if we had such a problem with the UK involvement but we welcome it.
Anyway, what is your argument or point about this? Are you saying we ARE captive and dominated by the UK? If so, perhaps you are keen to see the results of our referendum. Perhaps we can't wait to free ourselves from these British military shackles.
Either that, or you know the result of the referendum will by 99% of the population in favour of British rule (only 99% because there's bound to be the odd half Chilean wannabe Argie amongst us who is scorned because he can't have his own free, pirated satellite TV or something), and therefore your argument that we are prisoners goes down the drain faster than an Argentine peso.
Chuckle chuckle.
@167M
Jun 16th, 2012 - 10:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A fundamental principle of most legal systems is that any judge hearing a case, is required to discharge him or herself, if they have an interest or a knowledge of the case they are hearing. Now you honestly tell me how many of those Latin American judges would do that? If the C24 is any kind of a yard stick, not a single one, that's how many!
@169
Jun 16th, 2012 - 10:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That would be rational in “normal” relationships, but not in UK-Argentina relationships. Any treaties on fisheries would be used by the UK as a territorial foothold in Argentine waters. For centuries the British have used treaties to later on justify territorial annexation or possession. It would be suicidal for Argentina to open that door again to such a country (witness Gibraltar, Hong Kong, Guyana, Bermuda, Diego Garcia, and yes, even the Falklands with the 1850 treaty).
Argentina will never again negotiate with the UK anything the ramotely abuts the realm of territorial integrity, with good reasons.
@164 Apart from foreign policy and defence the UK shares expertise with all it's Overseas Territories
Jun 16th, 2012 - 10:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This would include education and healthcare
Or are you suggesting that an Islander who required a heart transplant should only be operated upon by an Islander? Expertise also comes from other countries such as Chile and Argentina also probably benefits from some UK expertise in some way
@172
Jun 16th, 2012 - 10:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So hold on, you will dismiss everything CFK every has said because you believe she is dead wrong, but the one thing you may agree with her on, then you will hold all of Argentina accountable?
That is why one cannot treaty with the British. Imagine if Argentina did sign a fishery agreement with the UK. A few years later, the UK could easily invent some story about poor management, invoke the treaty, and either impose sanctions or even move in with their navy to “enforce” it.
No, Argentina has learn the lesson of history around the world. One NEVER gives the British government even a microscopic legal opportunity to purposefully reinterpret an accord.
@175
Jun 16th, 2012 - 10:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Argentina will never again negotiate with the UK anything the ramotely abuts the realm of territorial integrity, with good reasons.”
That's odd, because all we hear from your government is how keenly Argentina wants negotiations on just that issue. Could it be that they don't really want to negotiate at all? Surely not?
As for fisheries it seems that you have yet to grasp that indiscriminate plunder is not the foundation of economic well-being, despite the fact that it destroyed the Spanish empire and continues to cripple your own economic development.
@178
Jun 16th, 2012 - 10:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well, Argentina's government yearns for negotiations that would augment its territory, with no risk of loss. Argentina's government wants sovereignty of the Falklands (which we both know it ain't getting).
That is a completely different matter, unrelated to maritime agreements beyond the Falklands, which is what the FI and UK “demand”. See my specific reply to you.
Indiscriminate plunder is the unsubstantiated allegation the Falklanders make, while in the next sentence vaunt of bumper catches, including those of species which travel through our waters, which the Faklanders could never have caught it we were plundering these like mindless 15-19th century British sailors and hunters.
I would like some evidence for the accusation that Argentina is plundering resources in its own territory... All I read is vacuous words.
Greek,
A Briton whinging about deforestation... Now that is the pinnacle of chutzpah. 99% of the pristine forests of the British Isles? Hewn to sawdust (pun intended).
@175 Fair enough. I would point out the treaties would be determined by the Falklands government only but I understand if you feel the UK government would have influence over these treaties.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 10:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The problem is without contact of any kind, any unresolved problems can build in isolation and turn to violence. It actually makes me glad that the Falkands is such a good political tool for CFK. She would never risk starting a war as it would destroy all her political aspirations at home. Still, it's annoying her harping on about migrating birds and planting veg.
@172 Not whinging, just showing behavioural precedent. You say one thing, and then you cannot help it but do another.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 10:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Say you want to talk, then try not to talk.
Say you love democracy, then try to negate a referendum
Say you love human rights, and you don't support self-determination
Say you're environmental, and then you plunder your trees and fish
Say you love your natives and then let them starve to death.
Say you don't celebrate war, when you celebrated a war a few weeks before
Say you don't want to stop flights to chile, when you said to the UN you want to
.... etc etc
There isn't anything an Argentine says that it doesn't then renege on.
Get over it.
@177
Jun 16th, 2012 - 10:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Mostly I was just surprised to hear CFK say something that so undermined her own case, but it was rather characterististic of the logical inconsistency that surrounded the entire performance.
But that said, only a fool would deny the increasing interdependence between states and the need for international agreements to resolve international issues. Of which fisheries are a prime example. But only you seem to have peces argentinos.
@180
Jun 16th, 2012 - 10:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That is what happens there is rampant suspition and mistrust. Argentina has earned a bad reputation no doubt in terms of abiding by treaties, but Argentines know this, we are not benighted. The British trully believe others can trust them. They suffer amnesia of history, apparently, when they coax people to put faith in their word.
I'm afraid there will be no contact, or at least I am wishing for this. But at least the situation is such that the islanders have what is most fundamental to them.
@182 My favourite part was when a overt supporter of the military Junta spoke about the falklands being Argentinian, then she said 'the birds know the Malvinas are Argentian' and then the Syrian guy said Argentina had great a human rights record (pushing nuns out of planes).
Jun 16th, 2012 - 10:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It was like watching a car crash.
@181 and 184
Jun 16th, 2012 - 11:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So lets see “behavioral precedent” and “human rights record” (bringing up actions 40 years ago).
So in other words, any bad event or circumstance of Argentina's making during her past has no caducity for you to lay blame, but anything the UK has done in its past in terms of human rights or depredation of the enviroment is out of bounds... Who determines this oh so convenient statute of limitations? YOU? Such a dissinterested, judicious man?
You are my source for a pleasant and cathartic afternoon cachinnation.
@185 I'm talking here about something fundamental to human relationships called 'TRUST'.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 11:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0During your speech to the UN you categorically said that a treaty you signed was irrelevant, meaning that any treaties you sign can be irrelevant. During the 'taking' of YPF your president completely ignored your constitution, a treaty between the people and the government. She then said no one celebrates a war when she had done it a few weeks previously. She said do you think we're the junta, when every year a willing supporter of the Junta presents Argentina's views.
There is simply no trust in this relationship, and there cannot be a negotiation. How can you negotiate with someone you cannot trust to do what they say? How can you talk to someone who just ignores their own words? How can you even enter into a conversation with people who just tell shameless lies?
Seriously, what is that?
@184 That and the 96 accompanying yes-men flown in on Sunbed One, the readings from granny's diary, and the sympathy-seeking Quisling. But the scariest bit was that CFK seemed entirely and honestly convinced by what she was saying.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 11:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@186
Jun 16th, 2012 - 11:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Am I championing “negotiation”?
@188 I'm just helping you to understand why 'TRUST' is the fundamental factor in this whole situation. The Argentines have showed clear behavioural precedent of ignoring their own word. No one trust them to do what they say.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 11:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Trustless negotiations is simply oxymoron.
@185
Jun 16th, 2012 - 11:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Just out of interest, which countries in the world match your high ethical standards?
@182
Jun 16th, 2012 - 11:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There is no interdependence between Argentina, the Falklands, or the UK. No treaties are required. Our waters, your waters. Our fishies, your fishies.
Isn't it peculiar that the Falklanders expect us to refrain from catches to allow the sea creatures to arrive at the Falklands, so that they may then trammel as many as they wish? Great treaty for Argentina huh?
@189
You sound coherent and objective. Pleasantly refreshing.
Yes, good point.
LOL.
@191 No. Everyone expects the argentines to walk out of fishing negotiations and then catch the fish before they are ripe and then ruin the fish stocks.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 11:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Get it right.
@191 Fish, of course, swim in one direction only, from Argentine waters to Falklands waters. And in Argentine waters, only those with blue and white stripes are caught.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 11:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@190
Jun 16th, 2012 - 11:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You will need to elaborate slightly. First, what is the background of you posing this question (in other words, why are you asking this, at first glance it seems out of the blue), and second who is “you”, is that “me personally” or “Argentina” (and you asking me my opinion on whom the government may regard as “moral”)?
@194 struggling much.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 11:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@144
Jun 16th, 2012 - 11:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0'Obviously the self determination doesn´t apply in this case because the population of the Islands was implanted by the country who stole them only to defend this false argument.'
The population that was 'implanted' in 1833 was Vernets employees who stayed on under the British, they as you well know were not expelled. Most of these people were from what is now Argentina, some native Amerindian s from Uraguay, 2 British (yes 2 british), 2 germans some black slaves (freed under British rule), but no British people were landed from the British ships. as is claimed by Argentina. The UPotRP military that were expelled to South America in 1833 were 80% British Mercenaries. I can'y understand why Argentina complains when their transplanted population was made up of a majority of people who came from waht is now Argentina??????????????
Perhaps you would like to explain who you understand the implanted population were, giving names please.
@194 It's quite simple. You've been vocal in your criticism of the UK, and of Europe in general. I am just wondering who you think the good guys are.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 11:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@193
Jun 16th, 2012 - 11:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Believe it or not, and I'm only lay on the field and any further speculation would make me a sciolist, but that seems to be the case. Several of the species spawn in the warmer northern waters off Brazil and then travel (and grow) while traversing Argentine territorial waters. They arrive at the Falklands (and southern Argentine waters), to feed presumibly off the nutrient rich pelagic environment. They reach maturity at this time, therefore they can be caught without any risk to their genetic diversity. This is what I have been told, however.
@195
Not at all, I'm not afraid to ask when in need to ascertain what is meant. Only those who ask questions expand their horizons. Something for you to perpend upon...
@196 Verified objective historical facts matter not to argentines. What matters to them is migrating bird paths, and flora and fauna.
Jun 16th, 2012 - 11:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's setting the sovereignty bar for the 'our latin america' XXI century defined by twigs and owls.
@197
Jun 16th, 2012 - 11:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(see Greekyoghurt, his question had little to do with the fishery debate we are having, or even the prior ICJ discussion. He is asking about my views on something I heatedly discussed yesterday in other commentary sections).
The reason I am vocal, even obstreperous in criticizing the UK, Europe, and the United States, is because they engage in propaganda, and mendacious propaganda at that. They always claim to be the “good guys”. Based on what exactly? There is not a shread of evidence to suggest they behave better on the world stage than Russia, China, or the Middle East.
Notice I am saying “world stage”. Internally, you may well be more “enlightened” and progressive in social, economic, and political standards and touchstones, I won't dispute that. But in terms of your respect for other sovereign states, you are no better.
In short, there are no good guys in the world of Risk & Realpolitik.
@198
Jun 16th, 2012 - 11:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hang on a minute, these fish are coming from Brazil, but they are Argentinian fish? Do the Brazilians know this?
Or is it there some agreement that the nationality of a fish is judged by its intended destination rather than its point of origin?
@201
Jun 16th, 2012 - 11:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are now convoluting the issue for either flippant amusement, or simply for levity. It is not knotty whatsoever: when there are no treaties, then whatever you catch within your waters is yours.
There is no coordinated fishery management in the South Atlantic, the only ocean region in the world where this is the case. As such, no party is under any obligation to abide under any particular treaty. Each entity manages their maritime husbandry however they wish.
@201 You can read @201 as 'Argentina decimate all the fish stocks'.
Jun 17th, 2012 - 12:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0The issue with all this is that the Argentinians are not 'consistent', in fact they are the complete opposite. They are also shameless liars, even on TV and in international fora. So, believe TTT at your peril.
It's not 'our' propaganda if it's your president and her clap-a-crowd making your country look morally corrupt.
@202
Jun 17th, 2012 - 12:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0You call it flippant amusement, I call it reductio ad absurdum.
We already knew at the start that there is no treaty. The question is really whether your refusal to countenance one is a responsible position to adopt.
@204
Jun 17th, 2012 - 12:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0I already and eloquently responded to that: you cannot ask if it is the responsible thing for Argentina to do without slewing your binoculars to gain sight of the wider context in which this condition exists.
In most parts of the world, no it would not be responsible. In this part of the world, Argentina has no choice. And frankly, neither do the FI or the UK given that we don't have a recent track record of reliability in subscribing long term to agreements.
But look at history from our point of view, you cannot engage in treaties with the UK that may provide even a glimmer of legal grounds for territorial usurpation. That is what history clearly shows (Gibraltar, Hong Kong, Guyana, Diego Garcia, the Falklands). All of these began as negotiations, sometimes unrelated to actual territorial gain, yet all somehow ended with the UK legally having jurisdiction.
Argentina would be daft to dare history again.
HAHAHHAHAHA!!!!
Jun 17th, 2012 - 12:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0As Diego Armando Maradona would say.....
keep sucking on it
Just how many more politicians does this Barbie doll have in her draws..
Jun 17th, 2012 - 12:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0@205
Jun 17th, 2012 - 12:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0Gibraltar: ceded to Britain by Treaty. Where is the violation?
Hong Kong: leased, returned on expiry. Where is the violation?
Guyana: don't know about this one.
Diego Garcia: which treaty was broken here?
The Falklands: ditto.?
In fact, you are guilty yourself of not contextualizing, since most of your Anglophobia (Chagos admittedly excepted) seems to derive from the colonial era. At the same time your attempts to extend the notion of autarchy to such mobile assets as fish, are redolent of a world that disappeared 100 years ago. Really, you need to come forward about a century.
@200
“In short, there are no good guys in the world of Risk & Realpolitik.”
For sure, but this doesn't mean distinctions can't be drawn. It has been several hundred years since those dreadful Europeans in Norway, for example, caused much trouble to anybody. So who, in your view, are the least bad guys? How about the Transparency Index as a ranking?
Gibraltar and Hong Kong were ceded by treaties after prior treaties or engagements gave the UK a green light to encroach into the vicinity of these countries, fostering conflictive allegiances which eventually lead to an opportunity to divide and conquer.
Jun 17th, 2012 - 12:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0A fishing agreement with the Falklands, which would be enforced if violated by us not by the FI's since they would be powerless, but by the UK, would be exactly such a pathway for further impinging into Argentine territory and “confusing” things.
The Transparency index, if we accept it as unnassailable, is only an indication of internal respect for rules of conduct. While countries with bad internal transparency can be expected to display similar attitudes outward, that is not necessarily the case for the supposedly “transparent” ones.
Scandinavia and Japan may be “transparent” with each other, but have been known to be duplicitous when dealing with the outside world. Look at Japan and Norway in regards to whaling for example.
Gibraltar: ceded to Britain by Treaty
Jun 17th, 2012 - 12:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0[Argentina supports Spains claim, and the treaty should be revoked ...
Is it not thus true, that the agreement also made Spain give up, a couple of islands,
And Holland, and also brazil,
If this being the case, and the treaty is revoked, does this mean, that Spain, could / can , claim back to islands and Holland and even brazil.
And if she thus did this,
Would this not put argentina and brazil at logger heads .
As this would suggest that Argentina supports Spanish sovereignty over brazil.
Or am I just dreaming.
.
@210
Jun 17th, 2012 - 12:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0Your intricate syllogism may make charming after-table intellectual fodder, but your premise is flawed.
While I don't believe in Spain's claim to Gibraltar, what Spain (or Argentina) would “demand” is a NEW treaty. So there would be no formal revoking or of prior treaties. What would in fact be drafted is a new treaty which the facto would obrogate the prior one, and now a treaty that would abrogate the original (MAJOR difference between obrogate and abrogate). As a result, the remainder of your hypothetical becomes nugatory since no precedent of territorial treaties being revoked would be created.
Though it makes fascinating speculation, nontheless.
Besides, there is no logical point of having a new treaty,
Jun 17th, 2012 - 01:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0If that to , in the future was to be contested, would it,
Spain is just nick picking,
The UK is perceived as weak and none aggressive,
So why not push the point, to distract from home problems,
Is this not so,
So lets all hope then, that France does not decide to claim the Channel Islands,
Or Norway over Scotland, or even the Romans over Britannica .
How what a funny old world we all live in .
.
“Gibraltar and Hong Kong were ceded by treaties after prior treaties or engagements gave the UK a green light to encroach into the vicinity of these countries, fostering conflictive allegiances which eventually lead to an opportunity to divide and conquer. ”
Jun 17th, 2012 - 01:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yes. This kind of thing is called history, and was engaged in by all countries at one time or another. But your specific claim is that the UK used jiggery pokery with treaties to advance its interests, and then you cited a number of examples which do not support your argument.
And which Argentine territory exactly do you think the UK would use a fisheries agreement to encroach upon, and for what benefit? The present hoo-hah, if I am not mistaken, is about Argentina trying to take territory from the UK, rather than vice versa.
TTT, your usually impeccable logic and supposedly unprejudiced approach has failed you. You have not shown that the UK broke any treaties or used them to its advantage in any of those cases. Perhaps the treaties themselves were unfair, but I see no evidence of any having been broken or unfairly interpreted once they were put in place. I would argue that most countries are guilty of breaking treaties, Argentina included.
Jun 17th, 2012 - 01:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0You just cannot change treaties just because you change your mind,
Jun 17th, 2012 - 01:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0You cannot change treaties, because you do not like what your ancestors signed up to,
If the world today, was allowed to changed treaties, to suit themselves, the whole world would not only be in a mighty mess, but wars would break out all over the place.
,,,,,,
Gibraltar in fact, is no more part of Spanish mainland,
Than is Andorra Portugal or France,
Am i not correct .
My original statement, which was then paraphrased several times in subsquent replies and rejoinders by me:
Jun 17th, 2012 - 01:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0”That would be rational in “normal” relationships, but not in UK-Argentina relationships. Any treaties on fisheries would be used by the UK as a territorial foothold in Argentine waters. For centuries the British have used treaties to later on justify territorial annexation or possession. It would be suicidal for Argentina to open that door again to such a country (witness Gibraltar, Hong Kong, Guyana, Bermuda, Diego Garcia, and yes, even the Falklands with the 1850 treaty).
Argentina will never again negotiate with the UK anything the ramotely abuts the realm of territorial integrity, with good reasons.“
Notice I carefully selected my words, I did not insinuate or expressly state that the UK would break any treaty signed. I wrote that it may find openings, pathways, loopholes, and reasons to invoke the necessity of further involvement in the region, which over time may draw in other nations or interests, not all of which may have Argentina's best interest in mind. Eventually, and given enough time elapsing, it is conceivable that at some point in the future Argentina's territorial integrity would be compromised.
The UK is quite astute, I will accord you that. That is why Argentina should be beyond wary.
Steve, I have stated multiple times in the last hour Argentina has broken many treaties.
”Hans”, yes the Falklands is a case of Argentina coveting foreign land. But that was not what we all were discussing.
Any treaties on fisheries would be used by the UK as a territorial foothold in Argentine waters
Jun 17th, 2012 - 01:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0Can you actual prove the agreement that Argentina thus walked out on, was in fact encroaching on argentine waters.
.
164 marcio
Jun 17th, 2012 - 01:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0Can I just stop you making a tit of yourself?
The curriculum is not 'sent from London'; we are free to teach whatever we like. We follow a curriculum that is similar to the UK because our students go to the UK for A- levels and university. We also teach Falkland Islands history and geography.
The teachers are not 'sent from London'. They are recruited from all over the English- speaking world. We currently have teachers from Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the US.
'England' does not tell us what to do. The UK government asks us what we would like to do and respects our wishes.
Your entire post is brainwashed rubbish. Where did you get it from?
@217
Jun 17th, 2012 - 01:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0I can't prove what did not occur (or at least am aware that occured).
European nations (England, France, Spain, Netherlands, Portugal, Germany, Italy, Belgium) sign HUNDREDS of treaties with the native nations of the Americas, Asia, and Africa, when they first encountered them.
Do I have to remind all of you that the vast majority of such treaties were not worth the papyrus they were inked upon?? All of the European nations promptly reneged on those treaties and advanced on the native's lands, or merely used the treaties to temporize in order to finalize military preparations.
3 Think
Jun 17th, 2012 - 01:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0Great article!
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/july122010/malvinas-history-ez.php
According to Morejon Pazmiño(and most of the world) the Islanders can’t appeal to the right of self determination they claim, because in the Malvinas case “there is a principle of territorial integrity” from Argentina which is above other considerations and the UK is the “occupying power” since 1833”
Amen
are you english pirates taking spanish lessons ??? well... you should !!!
Jun 17th, 2012 - 01:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0Do I have to remind all of you that the vast majority of such treaties were not worth the papyrus they were inked upon
Jun 17th, 2012 - 01:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0You may well be correct,
But does that excuse modern countries from either walking out on them, or ignoring them,
Are you thus saying, [from a historical point of view?][or suggesting ]
That the agreements between argentina /Britain / and the islands, in the last 30 years are not worth the paper they are written on,
Or only the bits that CFK disagrees with.
Just a thought.
.
I understood what you said perfectly. You cited several examples but in none of those cases did the UK gain land by breaking treaties. It gained land by signing the treaties (somtimes under duress, admittedly), not by later manipulating them. Indeed, two of those examples are no longer British Territory. If the UK is such a serial manipulator, it is obviously not crafty enough to hold onto them or a large number of other now-independent lands.
Jun 17th, 2012 - 01:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0Allow me to use a couple of your quotes: “Any treaties on fisheries would be used by the UK as a territorial foothold in Argentine waters”
Followed by: “I did not insinuate or expressly state that the UK would break any treaty signed”
Take a close look at that photo in the header...she isn't passing a brown envelope.... she is begging for political asylum..... OK so a brown envelope may also be involved......
Jun 17th, 2012 - 01:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0A treaty is an official, express written agreement that states use to legally bind themselves.[2] A treaty is that official document which expresses that agreement in words; and it is also the objective outcome of a ceremonial occasion which acknowledges the parties and their defined relationships
Jun 17th, 2012 - 02:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0The language of treaties, like that of any law or contract, must be interpreted when the wording does not seem clear or it is not immediately apparent how it should be applied in a perhaps unforeseen circumstance. The Vienna Convention states that treaties are to be interpreted “in good faith” according to the “ordinary meaning given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose
One significant part of treaty making is that signing a treaty implies recognition that the other side is a sovereign state and that the agreement being considered is enforceable under international law.
Articles 46–53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties set out the only ways that treaties can be invalidated—considered unenforceable and void under international law
Treaties formed an important part of European colonization and, in many parts of the world, Europeans attempted to legitimize their sovereignty by signing treaties with indigenous peoples. In most cases these treaties were in extremely disadvantageous terms to the native people, who often did not appreciate the implications of what they were signing i.e. South America.;
night night lol.
what about your spanish lessons ?? you should start now !!!
Jun 17th, 2012 - 02:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0@223
Jun 17th, 2012 - 02:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0There is no inconsistency in my two quotes.
The first quote is perspicuous. If you want to quibble, perhaps I could have used “could” instead of “would”, but that is immaterial to the overall signification of my statement.
It is entirely within the realm of possibility that in a future time, the UK could/would find grounds, perhaps justifiably, to engage in further intervention in Argentina's vicinity. That could potentially create discord and contention between the two countries, perhaps even leading to the need for additional “treaties”, which would make the UK even more involved, perhaps creating further disputes beyond that, requiring further treaties and negotiations...
You see my point.
But in none of the above scenarios would the UK have violated any treaties.
Which makes my second quote of yours completely consistent.
hipolyte,
Jun 17th, 2012 - 02:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0It is my understanding that Spanish is taught in the Falklands to 12-16 year-olds. This has been the case for many years. Many islanders use their knowledege of Spanish to do business with Chile and Uruguay and also to communicate with the crews of Spanish fishing vessels.
KELPERS, INTO THE PLANET EARTH, YOU DON´T HAVE SELF DETTERMINATION TO BE A COUNTRY, MAY BE, I REACOMMEND YOU, YOU SHOULD INTENT IN JUPITER, SATURN OR IN ANOTHER GALAXY TO SHOW THAT YOU HAVE THE REASON FOR ROBERING, STOLLING RESOURCES (JUST THANKS FOR MILITAR POWER) AND LAND OF ANOTHER COUNTRY.
Jun 17th, 2012 - 02:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0Thanks Steve, that will be helpfull .
Jun 17th, 2012 - 02:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0What Briton quoted (I'm assuming it is not his writing):
Jun 17th, 2012 - 02:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Treaties formed an important part of European colonization and, in many parts of the world, Europeans attempted to legitimize their sovereignty by signing treaties with indigenous peoples. In most cases these treaties were in extremely disadvantageous terms to the native people, who often did not appreciate the implications of what they were signing i.e. South America.;
night night lol”
And you are proud of this history, Briton?
What I wrote:
”European nations (England, France, Spain, Netherlands, Portugal, Germany, Italy, Belgium) sign HUNDREDS of treaties with the native nations of the Americas, Asia, and Africa, when they first encountered them.
Do I have to remind all of you that the vast majority of such treaties were not worth the papyrus they were inked upon?? All of the European nations promptly reneged on those treaties and advanced on the native's lands, or merely used the treaties to temporize in order to finalize military preparations.”
Briton just confirmed what I state is indisputably true.
Why should we believe Europe has changed their ways since then? Sure they will not be so overt, but I think to be extremely cautious is more than a justified stance here.
And yes, as I have said before, it is not that Argentina is a trustworthy entity either. But we are not as oiled in our ability to squirm about treaties, Europe has a far longer history and experience to word treaties in a way that is covertly beneficial.
I “would” say there is a significant difference between “would” and “could”. Almost as much as between “abrogate” and “obrogate”.
Jun 17th, 2012 - 02:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0I do see your point. Yes, the UK could manipulate a treaty to gain a flipperhold in Argentinean water. But you have failed to show why you think this might be possible.
The UK has not used its treaty with Spain to take control of La Linea or any other part of Spain. It has not invaded Argentina based on its control of the Falklands, even though 1982 was as good an excuse to do so as any. The UK leased Hong Kong and did not claim any other part of China based on this. And Bermuda and Diego Garcia? Treaties? Guyana, I will have to investigate.
I am no apologist for the British. However, I can't help feeling that your conclusions are based more on an anti-British sentiment than on real examples.
The great thing about this website is that no one is ever wrong. Ever. I wish real life were more like that.
@232
Jun 17th, 2012 - 02:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0We'll have to agree to disagree on the minor verbal point. Whether would or could, it does not alter the postulation that any treaty can be kneaded towards one's own undue benefit, especially if shrewdly redacted.
The examples proffered by me are the END result of much longer and preceeding sequence of events. In many of those cases the UK became more inextricably involved in those areas in which, eventually, it managed to gain enclaves. It was not a straightforward process, in many cases involving many years and incidents.
All I am saying is that if Argentina becomes legally binded into some arrangement with the UK, it is possible that (again given enough time, events, circumstances, and twists of fate, fortuitous or aleatory), that in say 2100, there is UK suddendly “protects” some enclave near Mar del Plata. It may sound fanastical, but it is not impossible.
Given the past, one would be wise to be chary.
@ 113 Truth_Telling_Troll
Jun 17th, 2012 - 03:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0“The ICJ is the anglo version of the C24.”
A little research will show you that the judges come from all UN members, which have a functioning judical system.
Check the judges in a number of cases: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=2
e.g. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=2
“Swearing-in of Mr. Gaja and Ms Sebutinde, new Members of the Court”
or http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=2
President Owada; Vice-President Tomka; Judges Al-Khasawneh, Simma, Abraham, Keith, Sepúlveda-Amor, Bennouna, Skotnikov, Cançado Trindade, Yusuf, Greenwood; Judge ad hoc Mahiou; Judge ad hoc Mampuya;
CFK to the World: “Give us back the Malvinas.”
Jun 17th, 2012 - 05:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0Indigenous Indians of the region to CFK: “Give us back Argentina.”
http://falklandsnews.wordpress.com/2012/06/17/back-to-normal/
Jun 17th, 2012 - 05:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0same old, same old :-)
@ 113 Truth_Telling_Troll
Jun 17th, 2012 - 06:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0“The ICJ is the anglo version of the C24”
and @167 marcio
“Let's go to the international court of justice in the utopian case that 10 of the 15 judges are from Latin America, then the UK will not accept the mediation of the court !”
In 1954 Britain made further offers to take the sovereignity question to arbitration, either to the International Court of Justice *** or to a special tribunal*** but Argentina again rejected all these offers.
It seems that Argentina is refusing any kind of arbitration, and as we all realize, bilateral negociations will lead to nowhere.
http://falklandsnews.wordpress.com/2012/06/17/fernandez-twit-or-twitter/
Jun 17th, 2012 - 06:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0:-)
229
Jun 17th, 2012 - 06:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0google translate is fail!!!
mkay
@TTT
Jun 17th, 2012 - 08:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0Here is the ICJ- have a look at how “anglo” it is - dimwit.
Peter Tomka (Slovakia)
Vice-President
Bernardo Sepúlveda-Amor (Mexico)
Judges
Hisashi Owada (Japan)
Ronny Abraham (France)
Kenneth Keith (New Zealand)
Mohamed Bennouna (Morocco)
Leonid Skotnikov (Russian Federation)
Antônio Augusto Cançado Trindade (Brazil)
Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf (Somalia)
Christopher Greenwood (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland)
Xue Hanqin (China)
Joan E. Donoghue (United States of America)
Giorgio Gaja (Italy)
Julia Sebutinde (Uganda)
Dalveer Bhandari (India)
Registrar
Philippe Couvreur (Belgium)
Tit, likes to lord it up pretending he knows all, however is a wikipeadia and theasarus man, who is blinded by nationailsm, pride and absolute lack of grace to anyone else bar himself. In a nut, he spends way to much te on here pumping himself up due to lack of guts and most probably friends. He is the prize turnip of the veggie world....... :-)
Jun 17th, 2012 - 09:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0@233
Jun 17th, 2012 - 09:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0You've argued yourself up a gum tree again, but it's an interesting illustration of how 19th century your world view is. All you are saying, basically, is that states will attempt to promote their interests any way they can, and that treaties are merely part of this process. While there is certainly truth in this, what you don't seem to see is that most states in the 20th century have realised that their interests are essentially interdependent. Thus the growth of such international political and judicial structures as the UN, WTO, EU, Mercosur, etc, etc, etc, etc. Are you really saying that these structures are entirely irrelevant in the modern world?
Secondly, you seem to assume that poor Argentina is so incompetent at legal and international questions, it can only be outfoxed by the rascally Brits. This is a rare compliment indeed, coming from such inveterate treaty repudiators, but these days Britain does not make its living on the 19th century model which your example implies. The UK has no territorial ambitions in the River Plate.
In a similar vein, our approach to the fishing discussion suggests the same kind of beggar-my-neighbour plunder-based mentality as that which underlay the Spanish Empire in Latin America. That hasn't done you much good up until now.
241
Jun 17th, 2012 - 09:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0Agreed, he probably wont post in this thread again
as thats his usuall m.o. when anyone points out the glaring wholes in his argument!!!
Falklanders can not claim self determination, said Ambassador Morejon Pazmiño
Jun 17th, 2012 - 09:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0Is he high? or is he hoping to go to bed with KFC?
Between you and me, I don't think this guy is a proper ambassador, I think that he came to the C24 as part of KFC's hanger-oners.
'243
Jun 17th, 2012 - 10:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0Wholes means something completely different from holes. Which did you mean?
Does anyone really care what a anachronistic, powerless and blatantly corrupt committee thinks anyway?
Jun 17th, 2012 - 10:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0You see, powerless, impotent support is all that CFK and her cronies can ever hope for. No one with any clout in the world would support Argentina.
Perhaps if Argentina payed back ALL the monies it owes, including all the debt it defaulted on in the early naughties, then some actually powerful people and countries might consider listenting to them.
But Argentina, remember, that the time to pay the piper is getting closer and closer. And who will suffer? The ordinary 'little' people who the leaches, CFK and her cronies, have bled dry.
246 LEPRecon
Jun 17th, 2012 - 10:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0You are spot on. The position of power that she tries to mimic is tiring. You only have to look at the body language of the people in one of the photos to see how tired and bored most of the delegates look. Even the guy a few down from her in her row (I assume an Argentinean) is covering a yawn.
I hardly come on here anymore because it has become so boring and tiresome reading all of the views and counter-views which frankly make not an ounce of difference. The UK assures us that there will be no negotiation over our sovereignty unless we, the Falkland Islanders request it. End of discussion.
Chuckle chuckle.
Does anybody else have the same view as I do that the charade the other day had lots of the elements of a 'spaghetti western' about it.
Jun 17th, 2012 - 11:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0The nasty greasy hispanics are all there in overwhelming force ;the 96 plus their Latam supporters against the few Falklanders. Even the black widows outfit fitted the script.
The lean 'gringos' went into the 'baddies' den as cool as cucumbers and said their bit.Clint Eastwood could not have played Mike Summers role better.
The Argies went away thinking that they had scored a great victory but according to the press I have seen they have only shown themselves to be the bullying fools that those of us who have got to know them always thought.
As for negotiations with Britain they are further away than ever.The Argies are just too comedic as 'central casting' villains.
Nobody outside of Latam takes them seriously'
I was surprised that Indonesia supported the Argie territorial integrity argument but then I remembered that they own half of the island of Papua and are busy implanting settlers from the crowded main Indonesian islands and torturing and persecuting the Melanesians who live there. Maybe that fact was why Papua New Guinea was one of the two countries to support
the Falklanders right of self determination.
Instead of sorting out real colonial situations, as above, the UN C24 is making judgements ,against its own principles, on situations which are obviously not colonial. What a joke!
I feel that someone need to complain about it as it goes against some of the most important parts of the UN Beliefs. it is clear that they didn't stat in a medium position its started from an extreme pro Argentina stance
Jun 17th, 2012 - 11:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0Against how the UN is supposed to stand for
the UN better take a handle of this racism towards the British and british citizens right of self determination or it can look in to the future and and out of date organisation such as the league of nations became.
UN C24 = joke
UN (if it does not take matter more seriously) 2nd biggest joke. (1st is argentina)
@220 You must of missed by older post so I will post it again just for you.
Jun 17th, 2012 - 12:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Morejón Pazmiños statement which (as a UN commite head) must comply with the principles of the UN, his does not as he is obviously unaware (or conviently forgetting) of GA/SPD/406 issued by the general assembly in October 2008 in which the principle of self determination was upheld as a basic human right and still applied in cases of sovereignty dispute. Thereby indicating that self determination always holds precedence to sovereignty integrity. Thereby the resolution from the C24 and the statement of the chair is incompatible with the principles of the UN.
www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/gaspd406.doc.htm
This document was issued by the general council i.e. made up of far more members than the 24 which formulate the c24 therefore I would argue this is what the believes.
@163 On the matter of fishing. Were you there? What was being discussed? Might it have been how to back off fishing certain species to allow stocks to replenish? “Spefically in the way of “fishery negotiations”, which are British code for crippling Argentina's fishing industry and gaining a territorial foothold”. So what, precisely, was being discussed?
Jun 17th, 2012 - 12:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@164&167 I'll not bother with most of your comment since it is unintelligible. But on the last part, are you saying that you want a “court” at the ICJ to be composed of a majority of latin american judges? Do you understand the word “justice”? Do you know what it means and implies?
@168 Sticking to the fishing, it seems to me that argieland wants to exhaust fish stocks in its own waters on the basis that fish from Falklands waters will then swim into argie waters to be caught. Do you not consider this a trifle, cowardly, deceitful, underhand and thieving?
@175 Aaahh, good. As you (argieland) say that the Falklands is pertinent to your “territorial integrity”, you can't negotiate with the UK. You won't negotiate with the Falklands. Therefore, you have nothing to say to anyone who might help resolve the issue. Don't mention it again. But I bet YOU will!
@177 You're paranoid!
@200 Ahah! I get it now. You're complaining that we treat you as you treat others.
@202 That would be because argieland walked out of the South Atlantic Fisheries Commission!
@208 Guyana is an independent sovereign state.
@209 I get it. You're scared!
@227 Again, you're scared!
@229 More cakes, everyone. They may have fudge in them.
@233 Have you ever “bought” anything where a written contract was involved? In essence, that's all a treaty is.
@237 You forget that argieland has suggested “arbitration” before. Having picked the arbitrator and made sure of the judgement in advance, of course.
Let's face it, people, argieland is still a “young” place. It needs a minimum of a century to “grow up”.
I wonder if Toby really believes that the territory that UK holds around the world is held by force and not the will of the people? I think it is a feeble argument that is easily debunked in intelligent minds. In all the cases that he mentioned THE PEOPLE wish to remain part of UK usually proven through referendum.
Jun 17th, 2012 - 01:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As in most of the cases THE PEOPLE had a choice to join another place but instead chose the good governance of UK rather than join a failed and/or brutal state.
The argument Toby spews out is tired, illogical and doesn't hold up to simple logic. The amount of brainwashing that must go on from a very early age in Argentina is truly astonishing.
Good Article about the failing CFK administration:
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/06/16/2851968/argentinas-economic-fiesta-is.html
Does anyone believe that the CFK government will attempt a stunt at the g-20 meeting considering the British government will be attending ?
Jun 17th, 2012 - 01:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0253. Even she isn't that stupid, that would be the last Int'l forum she would be invited to...
Jun 17th, 2012 - 01:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0ARG G20 membership is pretty tenuous as it is, the US House and Senate just passed a resolution asking US State Prez to kick them out. It is just a matter of time now...
253 & 254
Jun 17th, 2012 - 02:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I think there is still a good chance. If not in the actual proceedings themselves at least on the fringes of them. It reminds me of Coyote vs. Roadrunner. Coyote is bigger and stronger but not as fast and not as smart.
CFK, I have only one thing to say to you: “meep meep!”
Our president should pay more attention to the problems here in Argentina instead of having this agressive policy to you in the FI. I think more and more people here are becoming aware of this and how this no- sense demagogic attitudes of CFK are leading to nowhere.
Jun 17th, 2012 - 02:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Another little note I read today...blackouts in (nice) parts of BA.
Jun 17th, 2012 - 02:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Every electricity company in Arg is bankrupt, they don' t think they can make payroll this month with gov't subsidies!
If there is a prolonged stretch of cold weather in BA they won't be able to keep the lights on!
Then you will see it all coming apart, it is just a matter of what happens first!
Devaluation is imminent, hyper inflation will follow, riots will start, CFK will be in Venezuela on the beach with her stolen millions ( billions?) while people stay in the dark and cold wondering how they can afford to eat.
Progressivism/Populism at its best!! PERON PERON PERON!!
@256 - Patagonico.
Jun 17th, 2012 - 02:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are right. The Argentine President has been wasting the Argentine taxpayers money by flogging this dead horse, instead of looking after her prize thorough-bread stallion, which has fallen very ill and is in dire need of treatment and care.
If she approached the actual problems that are plaguing Argentina, such as the economy, with the same verve that she has approached the non-issue of the Falklands, Argentina could be saved.
Unfortunately, CFKs answer to the economic problems I to bury her head in the sand, hopes it goes away, then blame the 'evil British and Falkland Islanders' or the 'evil World Bank and IMF' for all your woes.
Argentina is in serious trouble, it needs serious people willing to make unpopular policies to save it, unfortunately Argentina's current President is unfit for purpose and an Albatross around the neck of Argentina, pulling you all down into financial oblivion.
I actually think this is all really very good news for the UK, once again Argentina has embarrassed itself although with the C24 chair playing a supporting role.
Jun 17th, 2012 - 02:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We just want to discussions and dialogue so CFK crones for the millionth time and at the very same meeting refuses it with the Falklands Islander's. If she had played the diplomatic game more intelligently she would have accepted given to not accept is to destroy her own position she's been working hard to build.
And then the C24 chair completely and totally discredits the C24 as being impartial with his ridiculous ranting. Not to mention he seems to be busy trying to rewrite the UN charter and if that wasn't enough he then goes onto swooning over CFK. Hes just utterly proven how corrupted he is. This reminds me of good old Sepp Blatter at FIFA. Its a level of ridiculousness not often seen.
And mean while the UK gets to sit back and watch with amusement.
@234
Jun 17th, 2012 - 02:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As mentioned prior, almost 40% of the members of this court quite likely espouse a continental EUROPEAN worldwiew, and this inevitably suffuses their adjudications. It's a frame of reference nearer to the Anglo worldview than any of the others that may be represented there.
In any case before it, this 40% has a high probability of arriving at unanimous conclusions. The other 60%, hailing from multifarious origins may not so readily achieve concord on a given matter. The differences between eachothers' cultures are just as trenchant as between themselves and Europe.
If a case of an honor killing is presented to this court, where the father is charged with the murder of his daughter, what would you estimate the chances of an acquital to be if the court's make-up is:
a) 40% European (current fact)
b) 40% Middle eastern (contrary to current fact)
Most would naturally deduce, it would be more likely the man will be declared not guilty if the composition was closer to b). To deny the ICJ will trend to affinity with Euro-centric persuasions, by default more amenable to the Anglo frame of mind, is to bury logic into the sands of denial.
@240
Slovakia, France, New Zealand, United Kingdom, United States, Belgium, Italy will be univovally pro-British. In fact, having a UK judge on the bench produces a glaring conflict of interest. The New Zealand or American judges are honorary Brits; they will likely massage the deliberations towards your end. India and Uganda are potentially pro-British given certain influences. Japan tends to side with the Europeans. Russia may surprise you, in such situations they tend to be rather pro-West.
So right there, you have 7 that have no reason to go against you, 3 that would likely join the 7, and 1 that is 50-50. That leaves China, Somalia, Morroco, and Mexico as toss-ups (none have any special relationship with Argentina). Quite clear really.
@242
Your sole rebuttal to me has been: “Trust the UK, it has changed”.
Why should I?
@260 -Tobias
Jun 17th, 2012 - 03:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0'So right there, you have 7 that have no reason to go against you, 3 that would likely join the 7, and 1 that is 50-50. That leaves China, Somalia, Morroco, and Mexico as toss-ups (none have any special relationship with Argentina). Quite clear really.'
Yes and China, Somalia, Morroco and Mexico don't have 'special' relationships with the UK either, so they would have to judge the case purely on the evidence. Is that what bothers you the most? The fact that Argentina has NO evidence?
In regards to the other countries you mention, they would also judge the case of sovereignty based on the evidence, and of course taking into account the wishes of the 3rd party in all of this (the one Argentina says doesn't exist), the Falkland Islanders themselves. The ICJ has to do this, as it has to follow the articles set out in the UN charter.
@252
Jun 17th, 2012 - 03:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes, the people in those areas “choose” to remain associated with the UK. But again, it was encroachment of the UK into these areas over many years that eventually precipitated such state of affairs on the ground.
My point is valid: Argentina should never sign any treaties with the UK or the Falklands (since anything signed with them would be enforced by the UK), that even pries open our territorial waters or anything else remotely abutting the realm of sovereignty.
If they wish to discuss matters regarding the Falklands themselves and THEIR territorial waters, fine. I have a distinct suspicion they may not be eager to do so. For the FIs and UK to question why we would be equally reticent to talk, and reluctant to sign any piece of paper that involves the UK given its nefarious history of undermining the integrity of other sovereigns, borders on geopolitical gall.
Toby, If the ISJ, World Bank, IMF, IDB etc etc etc are all against Argentina why doesn't your country relinquish their memberships?
Jun 17th, 2012 - 03:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0They don't have to belong but if they do they are required to adhere to the rules and standards THEY HAVE ALREADY AGREED TO!
Your argument is so full of prejudicial nonsense it is laughable. Argentina has one of the most corrupt/crony court systems in the world!
This warped and sick view of the world must come from years of barianwashing by a corrupt and fetid government. I can't see any other possibility and it turns my stomach.
@258 LEPRecon
Jun 17th, 2012 - 03:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0One example of CFK absurd and hypocrital speech, at the UN she said that was asking you to sit to dialogue, while during these months, Macri, Buenos Aires mayor and main oppositor was asking her many times to sit and talk.
I think it is typical of the demagogic and populist style ( this aplies of course to the Peronismo) is the need of have an enemy or sbody to blame for the problems which helps to distract from domestic issues. In 2008 were the farmers, then came the leaders of the opposition, the media, now is England and the people in the Falkland Islands.
Unfortunately many people here are afraid to talk because of the increasing power.
You are right we need serious leaders to change this. One of the main problem we have is the lack of a strong opposition.
@263
Jun 17th, 2012 - 03:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I wish we didn't belong to those corrupt institutions and withdrew from them. Just as corrupt as the C24.
The difference is I have the discernment to acknowledge the C24 has an agenda. You either purposely deceive the world by claiming that farrago of acronyms are “fair and not tendencious entities” (presumably because the upright EU/USA administrate them, what a laugh), or simply are to crass or dull to realize it (I won't say stupid, that would insinuate congenital origins to your lack of understanding).
You are the most prejudicial “contributor” here. You incessant crude invectives at Argentina, argentines, and everything associated with us evince all kinds of prepossessions based on ethnicity, social class, culture, and nationality. When not engaging in blasting Argentina (read your last 3 replies at least), you will resile to personally attacking me and vilipending my intelligence, my education, my place of birth... you have even brought my mother to your litany of insults.
You are gutter-level in morals and in social respect for others here. End of story.
@260
Jun 17th, 2012 - 04:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0> Your sole rebuttal to me has been: “Trust the UK, it has changed”.
Not true at all. To paraphrase, what I said was you have a hopelessly archaic view of the world. Combined with your rampant euro- and anglo- phobia I think it prevents you from developing a reasoned understanding of history and international relations, but be my guest.
@266
Jun 17th, 2012 - 04:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are assuming my “euro/anglo/american” phobia (I'm making my own assumption here, I don't believe to have this “phobia”, unless all of you admit to having severe Argentophobia, or do you not read the things said about us here??), was fully in place before I learned the history and current events of these nations.
Turn the equation around: I learned the history and current event of these nations, then arrived at my conclusion.
My hopelessly archaic view of the world you depict is based on 300-400 of historical evidence. You may denounce my analysis of such evidence as flawed, but then again, Briton himself confirmed what I said yesterday: European nations have a long and dubious tradition of using treaties to further greater and often furtive aspirations.
I have seen nothing, other than your rather nebulous counter that “it is not the 19th century anymore”, that would decisively alter my views.
If I pilfered cookies from the jar for years, and then you lock that jar and I ask you to unlock it, would you? When you say “no”, I reply ”but it's not 2011 anymore...
Would that constitute conclusive evidence to unlock the jar?
The UK is not to be trusted on matters of territorial integrity, much less maritime concerns.
@267 - Tobias, you say:
Jun 17th, 2012 - 04:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0'The UK is not to be trusted on matters of territorial integrity, much less maritime concerns.'
Why not? The British willing dismantled the Empire, starting in 1947, in line with the UN charter. When have the British not abided by a treaty or agreement we have signed? When have we not paid back debts that we owe?
When have the British not abided by a decision by the ICJ or the European Court of Human Rights? When Tobias? Proof to back up your statement?
Argentina, on the other hand, constantly fails to honour treaties, ICJ rulings, international law, trade agreements etc...
So between Argentina and the UK, who is the most trustworthy?
@268
Jun 17th, 2012 - 05:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0For starters (assuming the entirety of your premise is correct, which I will dispute below), because 60 years of behavior Y should not and cannot efface 400 years of behavior X, when behavior X is in diametric contrast with Y.
Second, I dispute the British claim that they “willingly” let go of Empire. An overriding reason was you simply did not have the funds to keep it intact. After 1945 you were broke, as was France. The same reason Spain and Portugal 40 years before dispensed with their empires. They were no longer a contributor but rather a net drainage on the “home country” (with their increasing population growth, unrest against colonial rule, and as mentioned the condition of European nations in the early 20th century).
I'm not a historical expert in treaty violations, but for the umpteeth time, my premise is not the UK would violate treaties. My premise is the UK would find ways to use territorial treaties signed with Argentina to someday claim (because of either genuine violation on our part, or some concocted excuse backed by obscure loopoholes in the text of the agreement), there must be increased intervention of the UK in Argentina's vicinity... Impinging on our territory and possibly drawing in other states to the matter, and in short order creating such conflicts of interest and confusion that given enough time claims on our waters or territories could be made.
And suddedly, we may find ourselves demanding that Mar del Plata be returned to us.
laaady laady laa TTT the shit keeps coming
Jun 17th, 2012 - 05:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0265. But you do belong to all of those organization and have the obligation to abide by the treaties/established rules until you revoke them. Until then quit whining that everyone is agianst you, grow up and do the right and honorable thing or pay the price.
Jun 17th, 2012 - 05:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I think the national pastime for Argentinians is whining that they have been done wrong. It is very childish, boring but you are living right up to the rest of your country! Bravo!
Whine Whine Whine..Sheesh
Woe is me, ugh grow up the world is sick of hearing it.
Believe me, it would be a dream come true to withdraw from the UN, ICJ, OEA, World Bank etc. For all intents and purposes we aleady withdrew from the IMF and the International Hydrographic Organization.
Jun 17th, 2012 - 05:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The world got mad at Argentina for vetoing the creation of the “Southern Ocean”, out of the 28 major ocean nations 27 agreed and we rejected it. Another clear example of a land grab against Argentina. This time we saw through it.
This can't be plebiscite...
Jun 17th, 2012 - 06:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This can be pleb(eian)--biscuit...!
@272
Jun 17th, 2012 - 06:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Do give my regards to Kim Jong Un when your dream comes true. I am sure you will be able to have an interesting debate as to which one of you is the only one in step.
Hans, have you read the latest “comments” by Conqueror and Christ in the “FI dissapointed” article?
Jun 17th, 2012 - 06:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You called me anglo/europhobic... What do you conclude about them after reading what they said?
| 3 |
Jun 17th, 2012 - 06:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Did your intelligent owners forget to say what this Private Mercopress Blog is forbidden/can't be read in Argentina internet !
You internet varmint !
| 3 |
Jun 17th, 2012 - 06:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0by the way
Your implied guy (neither dead nor alive) doesn't live in Chubut !
273 McClick
Jun 17th, 2012 - 06:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0F**k off!! you pathetic excuse for a computer. Go and sh*g a ZX81 and grow a couple.
Didn't your intelligent owners get the message that you are not fooling anyone?
We all know you are a bot and your not even a good one either. ( I don't have to worry about hurting your feelings, because you haven't got any!! )
Your father was an abacus and your mother was an electronic dicionary!! now leave, depart this forum, or I will wee on your logic circuits and take an axe to your CPU!!
“Impinging on our territory and possibly drawing in other states to the matter, and in short order creating such conflicts of interest and confusion that given enough time claims on our waters or territories could be made.”
Jun 17th, 2012 - 06:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No-one wants your land. If the islanders weren't there we wouldn't even want the Falklands.
It's just a headache our government to be quite frank would not rather have to deal with but has to due to a(right) moral obligation to our citizens.
Also as a side point: The Empire was always a net drain on the UK, More money always went overseas than came in from overseas, quite a lot more.
267 Truth_Telling_Troll
Jun 17th, 2012 - 07:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The UK is not to be trusted on matters of territorial integrity, much less maritime concerns”
Another classic, sweeping, and entirely incorrect statement there.. Ok, just for the sake of argument, lets say that the UK is not to be trusted with matters of territorial integrity.
Who is? Argentina?? Is this the same Argentina who invaded the Falkland Islands in 1982???
The same Argentina who claims the whole of the South Atlantic as it's own territory?
The Same Argentina who is harassing Falkland Island fishing vessels?
That Argentina???
You are a joke, and so is your argument. Stop now before you embarass yourself any further.
@269 - Tobias.
Jun 17th, 2012 - 07:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You and other Argentine posters on this site are always saying that we shouldn't judge Argentina today by the actions of the Military Junta 30 years ago, so why do you constantly insist on bringing up Britains past? It's very hipocritical of you.
And the British Empire, for all its faults, wasn't all doom and gloom, it did some good things too.
Let's forget about the past, let's judge both Britain and Argentina since 1982.
Which country is more trustworthy?
Argentina:
1. defaults on its debts
2. political parties bribe people to vote for them
3. break trade agreements
4. belligerent to their neighbours
5. Lies about the state of its economy
Or Britain:
1. Does not default on debts
2. political parties don't bribe people to vote for them
3. Honour treaties
4. Is not belligerent to its neighbours
5. Tells the truth about the state of the economy
I'd just like to say “Nalbandian” :)) Now that's what I call a bad loser.
Jun 17th, 2012 - 07:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Surely an example to us all... well some of us.
@281
Jun 17th, 2012 - 07:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I did, but your side never desists to bring up our past. If you don't cease, why should we? Ever asked yourself that?
Since 1982
Argentina
1. Has settled all its land borders, only country in the Americas (check this yourself)
2. Has not militarily attacked any other nation
3. Increases rights to its citizens
4. Has won a football world cup
Britain
1. Still has plenty of border disputes within Europe (this does not include Gibraltar)
2. Has attacked other countries and invaded them against the UN charter
3. Has not increased rights to its citizens (gays, terminally ill patients)
4. Has not won a World Cup
283 Truth_Telling_Troll
Jun 17th, 2012 - 07:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I would reply to you, but I'm too busy wiping away the tears of hilarity to type straight............
Clearly this waste of our money, this ridiculous little committee needs to be disbanded as soon as possible. What a joke.
Jun 17th, 2012 - 07:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0They are all incontrovertible facts.
Jun 17th, 2012 - 07:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Has settled all its land borders, only country in the Americas (check this yourself)
Jun 17th, 2012 - 07:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The dispute is over 100 miles of contested land known as the Southern Icefields, which contain the second largest reserve of potable water in the world. The area was only one of two left with undetermined status during the demarcation of 24 disputed borders in 1990, and now remains the only contested area. Discussion regarding the land began again in 2006, when Argentina began creating maps to demarcate the icefields.
Has not militarily attacked any other nation
BUENOS AIRES, Argentina -- Argentina's government said Thursday that it would not take part militarily in any U.S.-led campaign against Iraq, adopting a stance that contrasts sharply with its forceful backing of the Americans in the Persian Gulf War. In 1991, then-President Carlos Menem, an unwavering ally of the United States, dispatched two warships to the Gulf as part of the coalition that turned back the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
Increases rights to its citizens
with a little help from the UK
http://ukinargentina.fco.gov.uk/en/about-us/working-with-argentina/human-rights-argentina/opcat-proj
GIVE YOU THE WORLD CUP
Good grief, are we still giving the little boy plenty of attention? You know he will say anything, but anything, just to get you to respond. He is a very lonely lad.
Jun 17th, 2012 - 08:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0His last post is pretty desperate. TTT, his ID should be ME, ME, ME.
If that is your finecky standard Lepricon, by all means...
Jun 17th, 2012 - 08:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 01. google “UK stealth default”
2. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-lords-bribery-peers-get-sixmonth-suspension-1685194.html
3. UK withdraws from European commitments to financial standards
4. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-lords-bribery-peers-get-sixmonth-suspension-1685194.html
5. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-lords-bribery-peers-get-sixmonth-suspension-1685194.html
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
WOW good one TTT
Jun 17th, 2012 - 08:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 01. Pure speculation, whereas you've been defaulting for years
2. They got a prison sentence albeit suspended. Dealt with.
3. We are not in the Euro so why should we pay. WE use the pound dickhead.
4. Have you ever been to Gibraltar, No the two beaches are about 100 yards apart, one in Gib one in Spain.
5.A spin on a document originally published in 2001.
FAIL TRY AGAIN
@ 256 Patagonico
Jun 17th, 2012 - 08:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0you hit the nail on the head.
Unfortunately the present government is incapable of solving Argentina's problems because la presidenta and her cronies expel the competent experts and ministers like Roberto Lavagna (minister of economy under Nestor Kirchner and considered the chief architect of the resurrection after 2001) in favor of Yes-men and flatterers.
@290
Jun 17th, 2012 - 08:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If all that makes you feel better, by all means.
What Lepricon replied to my list is laughable, not even worth replying to (OTOH).
@283 I think you mean 'stole' a world cup. Maradona might have been a good footballer but as far as I'm concerned he was a dirty no-good cheat. Anyway I fail to see how a World cup has any relevance at all to the question at hand. I'm also completely unaware of any inland border disputes that Britain has in Europe aside from Gibraltar, which was ceded to the UK via the Treaty of Utrecht. The vast majority of the people are natives and want to be British, so as far as I'm concerned there is no dispute there. The only country which Britain shares a land border with is the Republic of Ireland and they understand that the vast majority of Northern Irish like being British so they respect that. Therefore, there are no real or legitimate disputes that I can see. Britain has not invaded any countries without the approval of the UN. Besides, the Afghanistan government had sponsored the 9/11 attacks, which constituted a military attack on the United States, invoking Article 5 of the treaty stating that an attack on one is an attack on all. British forces had every right to invade Afghanistan alongside many other NATO countries. I'll admit, Iraq was a mistake - we should have investigated more thoroughly, but it was not Britain, rather our bootlicking Prime Minister Tony Blair who was responsible for that. Besides, as stick up your junta has already proved, Argentina took part in the Gulf War so this is all moot point. The reason why Britain hasn't done much to increase the rights of its citizens since 1982 is because unlike Argentina Britain already has rights. Even today, despite all of the improvement you claim, Britain is a full democracy while Argentina is a flawed democracy. Also, as far as I'm aware, Argentina has a long standing border dispute with Chile, so that's a load of rubbish too. Either you're stupid or desperate. Either way, they are not, as you claim, 'incontrovertible facts'.
Jun 17th, 2012 - 09:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0the point is TTT your not as clever as you think we can all use google and BIG WORDS but some of us deal in facts not what we think or wish should happen. Address your own problems before trying to pick holes in other countries. I bet if I googled rgenweener it would throw up all sorts of crap, whether I / you choose to believe it is up to the individual. A bit like wikipedia really anybody can edit it if you know how!
Jun 17th, 2012 - 09:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Who said I was being clever? I'm just presenting alternative points of view to your grand notions of country.
Jun 17th, 2012 - 09:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This all ensued simply because I stated the UK cannot be trusted when it comes to territorial agreeements, particularly maritime in nature.
None of you have presented any evidence to disprove my suspicions, which are grounded in your PAST track-record.
The only feckless counters have been:
BRIT: “well we are different now, not like in he past”
ME: “why?”
BRIT: “because we are saying so”.
ME: (in silence) “LOL”
Or to dredge up Argentina's failings to justify Britain's failings. In other words, ad hominems.
That's it, no logical retorts, no illative opinions, no objective analysis.
I would never sign any agreeement with the UK that even mentions waters or territory which is not theirs; we know how the British hold other nations to treaties for eternity... partly the reason they find ways to eventually gain a foothold on land.
tut tut TTT
Jun 17th, 2012 - 09:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0History is history,
If one does not ones history, then you can either go back in time and alter it, [as CFK would almost certainly do]
Or you can live with it .
All the rhetoric on here about treaties, is in fact irrelevant if it is either not acted upon or renegade on .
And as even you would have to agree, the point in question is the Falklands,
And as CFK or Argentina has no interest in the people,
And visa versa .
There is frankly nothing to talk about,
And we did not need a treaty to solve that one,, did we .
And as mr Cameron said, until or unless the islanders change there mind or request others wise, then talking at this point in time is irrelevant [is it not ]
So, she can either resign and we can try with another leader ,
Or she can do, what she is becoming world famous for,
[and that’s talking ,]
.
@296
Jun 17th, 2012 - 09:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'm glad we agree.
TTT Britain will never win a world cup, but England have won it, shall I explain why or can you GOOGLE it. Any evidence we present to you about the Falklands is always met with the same retort LIARS, so there is no point really, we might as well just spin a pile of shite to you because truth or lies your response will always be the same. Did you see they have found a massive oil field off South Georgia 60 billion barrels
Jun 17th, 2012 - 09:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@ 260 Truth_Telling_Troll
Jun 17th, 2012 - 09:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“As mentioned prior, almost 40% of the members of this court quite likely espouse a continental EUROPEAN worldwiew, and this inevitably suffuses their adjudications. It's a frame of reference nearer to the Anglo worldview than any of the others that may be represented there.”
In short:
1. You don't believe the judges have any personal integrity.
2. You don't believe that a special tribunal (as suggested by the British) with arbitrators selected 50/50 by Argentina and the UK can reach an unbiased ruling.
The whole world is biased against Argentina?
Even shorter: It everybody else's fault.
@299
Jun 17th, 2012 - 09:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If you believe in abortion and I do not, does that compromise your or my personal integrity?
Who determines personal integrity?
That's right, it is a construct. A construct dependent on culture, and culture is relative.
I don't believe in the ICJ, for any case at all, not just the Falklands which btw I would see no reason for the UK to even take it there.
[CFK]
Jun 17th, 2012 - 09:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Alas one cannot win against an un winnable situation.
Argentina should be totally ignored and by passed completely,
But our polite law abiding affectionate and too, caring prime minister, just wants to be friends with argentina,
[Now isn’t that a very nice man]
Considering his counterpart is nothing but a greedy self indulging evil witch.
Who makes pacts with the devil?
[Is it not true, that if you jump into bed with the devil]
Then you can expect a fork up ya arse.????????????
[TTT][Thank you]
.
why would the UK go to the ICJ we aren't the ones whinging
Jun 17th, 2012 - 09:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@ 298....
Jun 17th, 2012 - 09:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Liars? You want liars? here you go....
from the BA Herald...''Kirchnerites may swear they won’t change the electoral system, but they are liars,' UCR’s head says.
The head of the Radical Party (UCR), Mario Barletta, said his party will not support a government’s constitutional reform plan “not even if they [Kirchnerites] swear by all religions and saints of the world that they won’t modify the presidential electoral system to validate a second re-election.”
In that sense, Barletta said he has “no doubt that this government will try to attack the Republic, the institutions and the Constitution itself before 2013, after 2013, and always”, and concluded, “Not if they bring it written in stone, we do not believe them because they are all liars.”'
@301
Jun 17th, 2012 - 09:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Now you are deluded. Cameron friends with Argentina? He has seething hatred for the place, can't say it is completely unjustified. But you can see it in his demeanor (or does he always look like that, glowering of visage and acrimonious in rhetoric?)
No one can take you seriously with comments like the above... you live in a bubble of “British are always the nice ones” nimiety.
But TTT we are always nice and polite, it is possibly you that misunderstands us,
Jun 17th, 2012 - 09:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And eye only ever tell the truth, and of course his very own quotes,
And our prime minister and other members of the British government, are on public record, as saying that the British only wish to be friends with argentina, and the door is always open .
[so your ]
[No one can take you seriously with comments like the above ]]]
Rings false, for that is the truth,
and if one does not believe it, then we wonder why argentine is so brain washed .
So again eye state the British government is always polite in the first instance,
[Unless you can prove other wise ]
No one wants to be friends with rgenweener, why? because you prove over and over again you can't be trusted, your neighbours have jumped into bed with you for now just to shut turkey neck up, they like the rest of the world are bored with her constant rhetoric and lies. Britain might not be perfect but at least we put our hands in the air and admit it unlike you who live in a BUBBLE. Mr Camerons demeanor on the subject of the Falklands is because he's sick to death of CFK and her bullshit. Why should any of us have nothing less than a hatred of rgenweener, you constantly bully the Islanders either by threats of economic or military means, do you expect us to sit back and laugh it off. Grow up. By the way whats your view on Brazil building nuclear submarines and the non nuclear south atlantic treaty
Jun 17th, 2012 - 09:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hypothetical: France takes over the Isle of Wight this month by force. Over the next 20, 30 or more years, the population, coming from France, becomes entirely French speraking with ties to France. The UK keeps pressing for the return of the island, but France regularly sends warships to protect their island (now names île du fromage). When the UK wants to negotiate with France over the island, France refuses and says talk to the French people on the island directly. So all you UK supporters in this comment section would agree that the UK should talk directly to the French people on the Isle of Wight and not with the government of France? And when France conducts a poll, 95% of the population wants to be allied with France, not the UK - is that poll relevant at all? You promise that in this hypothetical you would support negotiating directly with the French speaking population of the Isle of Wight, and you would drop all claims to the island should they vote to be with France (after all it's about their human rights). Not to mention the French people in forums mention that the UK economy sucks, so all the more reason that the UK should drop their silly demands for the return of the Isle of Wight. (and you agree with that point, as well as many other comments about the UK prime minister having had plastic surgery...)
Jun 17th, 2012 - 10:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The UK stole the Falklands/Malvinas, they won't give it back. Too much time has passed. Period. But please smirk with discretion, high five in private, but enough with the hypocritical self righteous indignation. Please.
@305
Jun 17th, 2012 - 10:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I know that phantasmagoric game the British play. They like to throw mud but still have the suit kept impeccable after the slinging has concluded.
I said it before here, what the British announce in diplomacy is exactly the opposite of what they meant in truth. No one on Earth believes it, it is newspeak.
This is indisputably true. The Brits are the diplomatic version of me. While the Russians are direct, the Chinese equivocating, the French plain rude, and the Americans obnoxious, the British love using florid RP tinctured language... It is a British obsession to always appear as the measured member in a group.
That does not make it real.
#295
Jun 17th, 2012 - 10:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We have agreement again. You do not trust anything Britain says or proposes.
We trust the Argentinians even less. No point in talking to each other as this forum has just become “We hate the UK” and “We hate the Argies” point scoring match.
As to your point 4 in your posting. as has been said, the beaches are about 100 metres apart - if it was Eastern Beach next to the main runway in Gib.
If the Levanter was down then it's possible that you could not see more than about 50 metres - at least the Spanish took the sensible view as we are both NATO members.
When I was in Gib in 1962, visiting my brother serving in the RAF, this beach was not even in Spain. It was in No Man's Land between the main runway and the customs post leaving Gib. and the Spanish frontier at La Linea.
Sometime later, the Spanish Government decided to move into the area and build housing up to Gib's frontier and then close the border hoping stop all business and the supply of food. All that happened was that hundreds of Spanish workers were the denied a living and Gib. imported their food and workers from Morrocco. The Spanish Government later relented and opened the border again but memories are long so Gib. became even more fiercely independant. Similarities with the Falkland's dispute ?
And the [unproven]
Jun 17th, 2012 - 10:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Secret talks about brazil supplying argentina with one,
Or the hearsay, of Argentina sailors training on one,
If of course Brazil ever gets them,
Just a rumour we hear. Just a rumour
.
@303 Has Mario Barletta just woken up from a coma? Was he not there when they 'took' YPF against the constitution and KFC said it didn't matter, effectively saying that the contract the president has with the people is worthless.
Jun 17th, 2012 - 10:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The fact is people here have elaborated very well that there is absolutely no 'trust' between Argentinians and anyone else. You cannot even let them onto your islands without them making videos of then defacing rocks with plaques saying 'malvinas argentinas' or making propaganda about the ethnic cleansing of the islands. They rip up everything they sign and they cannot not tell lies in front of public bodies like the UN.
So, there is nothing left. They cannot be trusted and should be simply marginalised, just like they marginalised the Falklanders who were trying to ask them to sit down and have a discussion.
What horrid horrid people.
@307 doubt it they are a bunch of surrender monkeys like you, however not half as stupid. I suppose all the French overseas colonies are ok then are they, including one not far from you,or is it ok for them to have them but not Britian, trot on you idiot.
Jun 17th, 2012 - 10:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@309
Jun 17th, 2012 - 10:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Only difference is the Falklands do not border Argentina itself. Good for you, had you pulled an invasion of our territory like you did Spain, your marines would likely be dead or captured as the first maneuver in a declaration of war.
You well know Argentina, unlike Spain, would have taken full advantage of your “mistake”, since you would have been the undeniable aggresor. We would have been in all our right to take your men prisoner, and demanded terms for surrender. LOL
And again, that the british being polite
Jun 17th, 2012 - 10:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0chuckle chuckle .
No shit for brains Spain realised it was a genuine mistake, an invasion with one landing craft haha get a grip. Your right the Falklands dont border rgenweener so why do you keep saying they are rg territory. Taken advantage fook off you would have surrendered. This was all over the papers here and seen as a joke because we see the funny side in things like that it's called a sense of humour albeit embarrising to those concerned, if it had been rgenweener it would have been covered up, or you would have blamed the SAS for invading you
Jun 17th, 2012 - 10:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0313
Jun 17th, 2012 - 10:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Technically we think you are misplaced in your assumptions .
Allow me.
,,,,,,
Only difference is the Falklands do not border Argentina itself. Good for you, had you pulled an invasion of our territory like you did Spain
[Two totally different items, and we did not invade Argentina, you invaded the Falklands]
[So to change the imposition on an assumption is totally flawed and wrong
, your marines would likely be dead or captured as the first manoeuvre in a declaration of war.
[Again totally wrong] if you had not invaded the Falklands, we would not have kicked you out]
And, there was no reason to invade the mainland, and neither would we, without a very good and justified reason.]
You well know Argentina, unlike Spain, would have taken full advantage of your “mistake”, since you would have been the undeniable aggressor.
[][again presumption] you are /were the aggressor, not us .
You cannot pull the wool over our eyes, and think we are blind?? ]]
We would have been in all our right to take your men prisoner,
[and this is what the very nice and polite British did] [did they not]
Look on the bright side; you might come up against Chile next time,
And lose again.
Just a thought.
.
Good for Spain for their forbearance, good for you for being self-deprecatory.
Jun 17th, 2012 - 10:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But in Argentina that would have been seen for what it would be, an invasion, and an act of war as a result. Because in international law, it is.
We would have had total freedom to act accordingly, there would have been nothing illegal in capturing your troops. You know Argentina's government would have jumpted on the gravy.
you couldn't capture anything honestly TTT your arguements are getting worse by the minute, Spain acted accordingly as they realised it was a MISTAKE, we have no axe to grind with Spain in fact are good friends, regulary exercise together in Naval, Air Force and Army war games, in fact we've just given them billions in a bail out. Biggest population outwith Spanish, you guessed it British, we sold them the harrier and they still come to Plymouth to what's known as “work up” thier ships as it's the best in the world hence used by all the major players in the world, hence your never here.
Jun 17th, 2012 - 10:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Because in international law, it is
Jun 17th, 2012 - 10:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0only if we illigally invaded,, we did not .
,,,,,,,,,,,,,
You know Argentina's government would have jumpted on the gravy.
and most promptly drowned.
you are after something that may happen in any time the future holds,
but not the way CFK would like it,
for only a fool would take on something, everybody else knew was a lost caused,
like 1982 for example .
#309
Jun 17th, 2012 - 10:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This was invasion of Spain? A fellow NATO member. I hardly think so.
Neither did the Spanish.
Why would we want to invade a God forsaken country like Argentina ?
We have no particular interest in your land and are welcome to it.
If you did declare war then you would be up shit creek.
You needed overwhelming force with armoured vehicles to “defeat” the few RM's who were ordered by the Governor to surrender.
This was rather a bitter moment for the UK to watch the swaggering Argies take control.
However, they came back and asked your nice people if they would like to go back to the Argentine mainland. This they happily agreed to do. They even supplied them with free transport as their navy was in a blue funk tied up in port.
The last time I looked at a map, Argentina was no where near Spain so I don't think one of our small landing craft could have sailed all the way to the arse end of nowhere to indulge you in your hypothetical fantasies.
@318
Jun 17th, 2012 - 10:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We captured teh Falklands didn't we. So it is you who is lying in fact, when you say we can't capture anything, right? :)
It would be a piece of cake capturing a few marines on a ship, if they landed in Argentina. And in such a hypothetical, we would be in our right... Its funny how you brits can't admit that.
Anyway, it is just a postulation and not a real event, I was just trying to see if any of you would admit we would have the right to take you prisoner, but none of you can bring yourselves to. Pretty funny, actually.
307
Jun 17th, 2012 - 10:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Let's assume that the Isle of Wight is unpopulated and undiscovered. France and Germany are the first countries to put a civilian population there. Germany leaves and drops it's claim.
Holland arrive, nearly go to war with France but ultimately agree to share it.
Both Holland and France withdraw their populations. The islands have been populated now for best part of 100 years, and never by the UK.
A businessman sees the unpopulated island and appeals to France and the UK to set up business there. Both agree.
Three years later Britain sends a small military group to the islands to claim sovereignty. France complains immediately and dispatches a ship.
The British group murder their captain and rape his wife in front of his children, the French arrive and evict the British military but invite the business mans community to stay.
The French stay for 180 years in peace.
The IOW is French.
P.s. The isle of Wight is 6 miles from the UK coast, the Falklands are 300 from Argentina.
yeah 10000 against 75 woohoo get you, bet that makes you proud, look what happened when half the nunber you had on the islands turned up, need i say anymore. A piece of cake the SAS were in Rgenweener for weeks and you knew nothing about it
Jun 17th, 2012 - 10:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#307
Jun 17th, 2012 - 10:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Conveniently forgetting one or two little details: the IoW is heavily populated - and was in 1833 - and is just a mile or two off the mainland.
A more accurate simile would be Norway or Denmark taking over St Kilda, which in 1833 was populated by a small community and is now populated only by a small group of scientists and technicians, and is about 80 miles from the mainland.
If that had happened nearly two hundred years ago, I doubt if anyone in the UK would even remember it!
.321
Jun 17th, 2012 - 11:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We were not fooled ?
Besides if we have trouble patrolling the British islands,
You would have no hope of patrolling or defending fully, [Argentina]
You are so big, so long, mountains on one side,
A few men, could literally land anywhere,
The case would be,
Would we be unlucky, that night?
Or would you.
Still.
As fate would say
We will catch with you later .
322
just over a mile, i belive .
Las Malvinas son y serán Argentinas, no los isleños.
Jun 17th, 2012 - 11:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@323
Jun 17th, 2012 - 11:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There is no pride involved, just logic. It was just a scenario, forget it. I'm not interested in pursuing it further.
This is the only thing I find about the “SAS” (I just found out what this means), in the Falklands with regards to trying to enter Argentina:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mikado
@326 The Falkland Islands belong to the Falkland Islanders, there are no Malvinas signs in the Islands.
Jun 17th, 2012 - 11:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0326
Jun 17th, 2012 - 11:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Piny in the pony
The tail in the bum,
You cant have the islands,
So please don’t bother to cum ??
………………………………………………..
The SAS are your friends,
The marines are your friends
The parachute regiment are your friends
The commandos are you friends,
Even the SBS are your friends,
And the spooks,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
So who are your enemies then?
CFK perhaps .lol
.
As my turkish friend, must apha laugh said
its only a joka .
321
Jun 17th, 2012 - 11:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Of course you are right. If a landing craft of Royal Marines landed on the Argentine mainland, then you would be within your right to detain them.
Starting shooting is a bit severe, but OK, for the sake of argument it could be understood.
Conversely, if any Argentine forces, fishing boat crew or yachtsman landed on Falkland soil then the UK forces would be within their rights to kill them.
If you remember the last encounter, they were pretty good at it.
The fishing boat/yacht could be construed as spies and dealt with accordingly.
Yes you captured the Falklands for approx. 77 days but you could not hold them. It's an easy thing to stab someone in the back when they do not expect it - an Argie trait ?
@327 yeah like we're going to let you know, how do you think we knew exactly when the attacks were going to happen, i'll tell you because they were watching your aircraft taking off, not rocket science is it, in fact they are probably watching your naval bases and airports as we speak. Your inability to understand facts from someone who was there is laughable. PS anyone can update wikipedia as i've told you before.
Jun 17th, 2012 - 11:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 077 days
Jun 17th, 2012 - 11:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0to be fair, it should be at least 14 days less than that,
as it took time to get there.
.
still, later guys, im in the water at dawn,
back tomorrow,
no being nasty now .
@330
Jun 17th, 2012 - 11:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thank you for your honest response.
@331
I really doubt you are. You are really strapped for cash. Argentina has no airforce today, unlike 1982.
@295
Jun 17th, 2012 - 11:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“None of you have presented any evidence to disprove my suspicions, which are grounded in your PAST track-record.”
That's quite possibly because you've provided no evidence or valid examples of your suspicions, just your usual mealy-mouthed Anglophobia.
But maybe you could explain what your ethical standards actually are and who in the world meets them?
of course we are dont think a few SAS boys would break the defence budget do you. Check out our defence budget, now no deficite, both carriers will now come in to service, 12 new type 26 frigates and a 1billion pound contract for reactors for trident replacement. Anyway back to Spain your forefathers and biggest allies how do you feel about CFK stabbing them in the back in thier hour of need
Jun 17th, 2012 - 11:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@334
Jun 17th, 2012 - 11:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'm not going to play the game of being asked to present indisputable physical proof of HISTORY. Especially history which ocurred hundreds of years ago.
Sometimes you have to be satisfied with circumstantial evidence.
The evidence indicates the UK somehow ends up with enclaves in the most unlikely locals: Spain, China, the middle of the Indian Ocean. It is therefore logical to conclude there is a tendency there.
If Jupiter and Saturn do not orbit the Sun exactly as predicted, and you as an enlightened scientist doing the math can only reach a consistent explanation of this by adding two large planets beyond their orbits, just because you can't see them does not mean your math is wrong.
Circumstancial evidence, it even works to convit murderers.
@335
Congralutations. You reached no deficit by gutting all the infraestructure and services of the people. Such an advanced society, modern day Sparta you are!
Spain and Argentina were never allies. We don't have allies... Check WWII and how we stayed out. We don't need to be drawn to your petty euro-wars.
No you just provided an enclave for the nazis responsible for the murder of millions, you must be so proud. Petty euro wars , I thought it was a world war silly me. Defence has actually created more jobs, hence Rolls royce taking on more people, ship building on the clyde (maybe) but defenately other shipyards, new armoured vehicles for the army, do you think the armed forces build them themselves? The two carriers alone have provided 10,000 jobs in ship building yards alone, not to mention surrounding areas that provide food components etc for the guys who work there. WIN WIN for everybody, thats infrastructure not letting your economy go down the tubes by taxing farmers out of the market, limiting or taxing imports / exports to death and illegally taking over companys to line your own purse (turkey neck). I'm sorry TTT and it hates me to say it your country is going down the tubes at a rate of knots and all your posturing and sabre rattling cannot or will not hide that fact WAKE UP and do something about it, let your voice be heard instead of supporting an obvious deflection of whats going on ie FALKLAND ISLANDS. You are alienating yourselves from the world by listening to this woman same as you did with Peron, she will not be happy till you are on your knees meanwhile she will be offski with her billions
Jun 18th, 2012 - 12:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0307 physiwg
Jun 18th, 2012 - 12:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0Goodness, but you're very pleased with your own wit aren't you?
Only it wasn't 20 years ago was it? 180 years ago the motley crew of Spanish, Argentine, Uruguayan settlers couldn't wait to see the back of your garrison, accepted British rule, and their descendents live here to this day.
What you and most Argentinians fail to appreciate is that we mostly couldn't give a stuff what you think happened in 1833. It was a long time ago, and in the intervening years you have been busily stealing land from anyone you could, and exterminating the native population wherever you could.
What that means is that we don't have to listen to a damn word you have to say about who took what from whom back in 1833. You could fill a room with the s**ts I couldn't give.
TTT Spain stayed out of WW2 they were neutral, sound familiar .They only put troops in the pyrennes to dissuade the Germans. They did however provde materials for the axis powers because of Francos closeness to Musselini, however Spanish nationals fought on both side as did Argentinas look it up dickhead. FFS do some research on history. Your right though you have no allies no one likes you, because.............? You can't be trusted
Jun 18th, 2012 - 12:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0Petty euro wars...? You mean World War 2? The war which decided whether the world would live under Nazi tyranny? It was a war fought on every single continent except South America (although Brazil seemed to think it was important enough to help out - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_Expeditionary_Force, unlike Peronist Argentina which supported the Nazis). So you see, it was not a 'petty euro war'. It was a war which decided the fate of the world. Britain was playing a key part, with millions of British men and women fighting on the battlefields in Burma, North Africa (a theatre almost single-handedly won by Britain), France, the Low Countries, Germany, Italy and Greece. Where was Argentina? Oh now I remember, it was sitting down in South America while even their Brazilian brethren whom they claim to love so much were fighting to keep the world free. Petty euro war indeed...
Jun 18th, 2012 - 12:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0@ 300 Truth_Telling_Troll
Jun 18th, 2012 - 12:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0You somehow skipped item 2:
2. You don't believe that a special tribunal (as suggested by the British) with arbitrators selected 50/50 by Argentina and the UK can reach an unbiased ruling.
Why?
- - - - -
@ 307 physiwg
“The UK stole the Falklands/Malvinas,”
As has been pointed out time and again Argentina ceded any claim on the Falkland Islands in the peace treaty of 1850.
As has been pointed out time and again Argentine vice president Marcos Paz and later Argentine president Domingo Faustino Sarmiento confirmed it.
338 Monty69
Jun 18th, 2012 - 12:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0They have to hang on to 1833 because that's the most recent time in this argument where there is a small potential for debate. Very small and too long ago though.
Chuckle chuckle.
Well we will see apparantly David Cameron wants a word with turkey neck at g20, whats the bet she wont turn up or send tinman in instead, this is going to be funny to see. TTT you discust me my grandfather served on the Russian convoys to keep YOU free got sunk twice and still lived till he was 91. Oh I forgot your big mates with Russia now aren't you NOT, they don't trust you either.....wonder why
Jun 18th, 2012 - 12:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0These people think telling me Argentina has no allies or friends somehow injures me.
Jun 18th, 2012 - 12:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0I'm an isolationist. LOL!
I'm proud Argentina stayed out of WWII. It was not our war in any fashion or form. We had no obligation to go rescue England/France or Germany/Italy.
If you did not learn from 1500 years of post-Roman disunity and warfare, then you are morons and deserved your fate.
TTT good answer ................NOT you are out of your depth now so off to bed and let the big boys speak. If you didn't learn by slaughtering your indigenous people, throwing people out of a C130 into the south atlantic, well what can we say, except you reep what you sow, of course that wasn't your fault it was the fault of people you voted in to goverment
Jun 18th, 2012 - 01:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0@345
Jun 18th, 2012 - 01:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0I am providing dispassionate, cogent historical analysis, you are resiling to petty attacks.
You could have for example, provided in your response one good reason why we should have entered WWII. Remember, we were not attacked, we were not threatened (except by the USA, such noble people), we were not under any detente or formal alliance, and we were not even in any of the continents engulfed by the conflagration.
“then you are morons and deserved your fate.” This is not dispassionate analysis Tobi. For someone with such self-proclaimed intelligence, who gets pissy at the merest hint of a slight against Argentina, you really do have a knack for churning out some inflammatory bull.
Jun 18th, 2012 - 01:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0@347
Jun 18th, 2012 - 01:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0It was saucily put Britninja. But do I need to repeat that before WWII Europe had ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED YEARS to learn from war after war after war after war after war after war, and all the death and loss of treasure they caused?
What would you call me if I put my hand on the fire for 10 years without realizing it hurts because I'm burning it...
@348 Human nature is human nature - every generation has its saints and its power-mad psychopaths that need to be tackled. For every Aung San Suu Kyi there's a Cristina Fernandez De Kirchner :P They're in every time period and in every continent and country on Earth, unfortunately that's just the way it is. As you know yourself, your ancestors didn't magically turn over a new leaf when they emigrated and present the natives with gift baskets. Just in the 20th century alone:
Jun 18th, 2012 - 01:40 am - Link - Report abuse 01908: Dutch-Venezuela War, a dispute between Venezuela and the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
1912–1916: Contestado War, a rebellion in Brazil, fails.
1932–1933: Colombia-Peru War
1932–1935: The Chaco War between Bolivia and Paraguay is fought.
1941–1942: The Ecuadorian-Peruvian war occurs.
1947: The Colorado Party gains the upper hand in the Paraguayan Civil War.
1948: Costa Rican Civil War.
1948–1958: La Violencia in Colombia.
1964–present: the Colombian Armed Conflict between the government and guerrilla insurgencies devastates the country.
1976–1983: The Dirty War in Argentina.
1981: Ecuador and Peru clash again in the Paquisha Incident.
1980–present: The Peruvian Armed Conflict fought between the Shining Path insurgents and the Peruvian government.
1982: The Falklands War occurs.
1995: Ecuador and Peru dispute territory in the Cenepa War.
Let's just hope that some point in the future *everyone* will learn, accept what a shit sandwich war is and we can evolve past it.
@344 “I'm an isolationist. LOL!”
Jun 18th, 2012 - 07:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentine isolationism. Now there's an idea that could gain wide international support.
@346 “I am providing dispassionate, cogent historical analysis, you are resiling to petty attacks.”
No you're not. You're just showing your ignorance and venting your prejudices.
@336 “I'm not going to play the game of being asked to present indisputable physical proof of HISTORY.”
See what I mean?
Incidentally, you weren't asked for physical proof. You were asked for evidence or valid examples. Which you were unable to provide.
But let me give you a clue about dispassionate analysis of “HISTORY”: you have to understand was that the UK was not the only actor. That does make it awfully complicated, I know, but once you've grasped the overall context and the actions of all the actors, you might be in a position to make cogent statement.
“Falkland Islanders can not appeal to the right of self determination” says the chair of the commitee of the UN, what a joke! Have you read your own UN resolutions!
Jun 18th, 2012 - 09:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0Is this where you all spent your weekend? You should get out more.
Jun 18th, 2012 - 10:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0The C24 is starting to remind me of the senate in the new Star Wars series - it's about as credible too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=3GYEwTiuI7k&NR=1
Jun 18th, 2012 - 12:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Apparently
Jun 18th, 2012 - 01:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0CFK has already admitted privately that Argentina never had any rights or claims over the Falklands,
But it does her prestige and career no ends, to claim it,
Also if other South American countries are silly enough to believe everything she says,
It’s not her fault,
And if they are willing to fight for them, on argentines behalf,
That’s not her fault is it.
The world is full of fools,
She said ,
But no proof ,
But hey, when as proof ever bothered CFK …lol
.
That CFK privately admits Argentina has no legitimate claim on the Falklands is a rumour that should be spread widely.
Jun 18th, 2012 - 02:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Whether it is true or not is of absolutely no relevance - who cares. It is par for the course in the Falklands debate.
She might even own [talk talk]
Jun 18th, 2012 - 02:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If her liars are truthful
And the truth is a liar ,
How does she sleep at night .
,
@352 Thankfully they don't have a death-star... or a light-sabre.
Jun 18th, 2012 - 04:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0EARTHQUAKE!!!!!!
Jun 18th, 2012 - 04:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What Morejón Pazmiño is saying totally wrong.
Jun 18th, 2012 - 04:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Self-determination is applicable for the islanders and is above all other considerations. I think he is arguing that an 'occupying power' could not claim SD, for its own implanted population, which is true in some cases. But the UK is NOT an occupying power in this case, also their were no natives and no civilians removed, and the islanders have been there 180 years.
RESOLUTION 1514 (1960) explicitly set out the right of self-determination for all people, making clear that Charter principles trumped those in other texts, rendering Argentina’s declarations irrelevant under international law.
Anyway I think the next step after the C24 is the Fourth Committee.
@358 Did Maximo fall off the toilet again?
Jun 18th, 2012 - 05:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@360
Jun 18th, 2012 - 05:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Either that or Cameron staggering back to grab his kids again in some Mexican Cantina.
Welcome to CFK united
Jun 18th, 2012 - 08:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A new club, with out standing facilities,
Learn how?,,
How to lie, but convince others it’s the truth,
How to insult others, but claim to be the victim,
How to get men, to become one of her playthings ,
How to con others into thinking your right all the time,
How to convince others that dictatorship, is the new democracy,
How to fiddle, while Argentina sinks.
How to indoctrinate, and still smile .
How to convince your people your winning,
Without them seeing they are losing again.
CFK
The worlds greatest talker .
.
PM attacks Argentina 'colonialism'
Jun 18th, 2012 - 09:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5hlExqpx8ysMeJYhTh_GdzcKRWZdg?docId=N0362121340037761606A
How to nip it in the bud.
Jun 18th, 2012 - 09:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0David
“The message to Argentina is very clear - listen to what the people of the Falkland Islands want. We should all believe in this day and age in self-determination, not colonialism.”
Asked if he would pass this message directly to Ms Kirchner, Mr Cameron said: “Absolutely.”
CFK
The message to the evil British is clear, listen to what me and my people say,
We demand in this day and age, our Malvinas, and not your rights.
[Asked]
If she would give it to David personally,
She said, [no] im not on duty that night?? my tin man will give it to him.
.
1 - LORD TON:
Jun 18th, 2012 - 11:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0OH YEAH! IT´S A REPUBLIC! AND THEY ARE FREE!
SOMETHING YOU´LL NEVER BEEN!
Regards-
as the picture shows,
Jun 18th, 2012 - 11:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0look into my eyes,
sign the confession .
Is this the most commented on article in Mercopress history? I mean come on, this comment I'm making now is number 367. I've never seen one get this many before.
Jun 19th, 2012 - 12:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0That's what happens when a personable individual with stimulating contributions and complaisant disposition to respond takes a weekend to educate benighted and hooliganistic foreigners about their enemy.
Jun 19th, 2012 - 01:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0And who might that be?
Jun 19th, 2012 - 07:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0@368 I see no person by that description here... oh, you're talking about yourself. Ha! dream on mate! Arrogant b***ard...
Jun 19th, 2012 - 09:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina's democracy is barely the timespan of a decent length mortgage in the Western world. It is not far enough away from the actions of the military junta and therefore still demonstrates what appears to be its innate resorting to aggression and force. Argentina's people did too little to oppose the military when they were in power and what was done by the military was done in their name whether or not they accept this. Argentina's behaviour is infantile in the World of democracy like a child throwing its toys out of the pram when it does not get what it wants. Mature democracies will not give in to this blackmail.
Jun 19th, 2012 - 11:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0Against this, the United Kingdom is a long-standing, never-conquered democracy, a powerful member of the United Nations, a permanent member of the security council, an EU member, a NATO member, a Commonwealth member and a respected member of the international community.
Despite many attacks on the UK by terrorists et al over the years, including the attempted assassination of the Prime Minister, the UK did not give in to terrorists and those using force to achieve their aims. We never give in and we never give up.
The Falkland Islands is an overseas territory of the UK, and this will remain so. Perhaps it is time to incorporate the Falklands into the United Kingdom itself (as an autonomous entity), and remove any doubt that Argentina may have as to our position, or that of our British Citizens in residence there.
One begins to experience serious fatigue listening to the 'macho-moaning' emanating from Queen Christina and Lapdog Timerman. It is only a matter of time before they fade into irrelevance with this broken record.
The wise thing to do (explains why they haven't done it!), would have been to woo the islanders ... but that would have required patience, something Argentina is short of, along with food, jobs, diplomacy, as well as foresight and hindsight.
Argentina is an aggressor. It knows no other way, and cannot demonstrate otherwise.
@368
Jun 19th, 2012 - 02:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's a tough job, I know, and a pretty thankless one at that. But I'm confident that with enough effort and application, you will get the hang of this thinking business yet.
#349 “For every Aung San Suu Kyi there's a Cristina Fernandez De Kirchner :P”
Jun 19th, 2012 - 03:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What a weird thing to say, when the two of them are so alike =)
#354 I think its unlikely Cristina believes Argentina has no case at all, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if she has little time personally for the kind of inane nationalism that the junta promoted. After all she's trying to solve the dispute through equity for all sides. The problem is Blair's and now Cameron's government is no partner for peace
#362 “How to get men, to become one of her playthings”
You keep talking about this, tell me are you “having feelings” for her yourself?!
“How to indoctrinate, and still smile”
Glad you admit she has a lovely smile =)
“CFK
The worlds greatest talker”
She might well be, as you say, the world's greatest orator. Castro, Chavez, Galloway are all pretty good too though and I'm sure there are some others =)
“Argentina's people did too little to oppose the military when they were in power and what was done by the military was done in their name whether or not they accept this.”
Jun 19th, 2012 - 05:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'm glad your analysis admits the people of the UK are to be held responsible for their history.
359- Steve:
Jun 19th, 2012 - 06:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Falklanders aren´t PEOPLE: they are POPULATION.
They have no rigth to self determination, because they are not from there-
If they do that, is better for us, because they DECLARE want to stay british, so they are-
Simply- Our problem whit UK is not the british people living in Malvinas, is the rights over the islands, we don´t care NOW what they want to do whit their lives, same as you in London-
They have rights to live there? yes they are-
They have rigth to keep their “british escencia”? yes they are.
They have rigth to be.... penguins if they want? Yes they are-
But Malvinas is our land. All southamericans countries say that-
Even Chile! when they say “Argentina has rigths on Malvinas” they not only support us, they are CUESTIONING the rigths of UK-
Regards!
#373
Jun 19th, 2012 - 07:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hitler was also a great orator.
(367) BritishguyfromLondon asks…:
Jun 19th, 2012 - 07:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”Is this the most commented on article in Mercopress history? ”
I say…:
Far from……
I got this one up to 545………… : -)
http://en.mercopress.com/2010/07/20/argentina-blockading-the-falklands-with-no-respect-for-islanders-human-rights
But nobody seemed to care about this darn cute little Kelper baby girl ….:-(
http://en.mercopress.com/2010/07/20/argentina-blockading-the-falklands-with-no-respect-for-islanders-human-rights
Chuckle chuckle©
Chuckle chuckle Think / Tobias
Jun 19th, 2012 - 09:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0British_Kirchnerist
Jun 19th, 2012 - 09:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No one in the world could love and obey CFK like you do.
that’s why when she finally flies,
We hope you will accompany her.
379=
@378
Jun 19th, 2012 - 11:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Chortle chortle (you're wrong Leiard).
http://en.mercopress.com/2012/06/16/c24-chair-calls-falklands-referendum-political-ploy-praises-argentine-president#comment137061: Considering that most of the comments are made by English skin heads on a Web site devoted to publishing Mercosur news the number is quite extraordinary. Yet another reason why it is necessary to get European powers out of America. And yet another reason they will be expelled.
Jun 19th, 2012 - 11:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@381
Jun 20th, 2012 - 12:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0I agree that all the European nations should be removed from South America. At least in terms of their diplomatic credentials, at least until they atone for their sins.
So when will you packing Mr TTT? No doubt that an honourable implanted Argentine Colonial like yourself will have no problem surrendering your home and lively hood to a native (if you can find one that is) I hear theres really cheap property in Spain now you could have and in Italy, Britain, Portugal etc. Pretty much every country that the vast majority of modern Argentines originate from.
Jun 20th, 2012 - 02:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0@381 You can count on my support if first you're successful with the French.
Jun 20th, 2012 - 08:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0@381 -Hepatia
Jun 20th, 2012 - 08:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0Good idea, I agree with you. All people who are not of South American native descent should leave South America and try and find a home in whichever country your ancestors came from, thus giving the land back to the natives.
This, of course, won't apply to the Falkland Islanders, as there were no native peoples living on the islands when they arrived.
These little children like to play games,
Jun 20th, 2012 - 11:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0hypercrit to the last,
All agreements and treaties, should be scrapped, if either they don’t like it now,
Or they just lose interest, or the British are involved,
Two faced or what,
CFK is a total disgrace and her bloggers are as bad,
Cheats liars and con merchants
And the biggest thing that gets right up there noses, is that they know the Falklands are not there’s
And they know, they will not get them,
So they are paid by CFKS people to come on here and wind the brits up,
And all we do is laugh at them,
[And they call this a victory]
,
@383
Jun 20th, 2012 - 05:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0My ancestors were not “implanted” Mr. Dunce. They had full act of volition. Try again.
@387
Jun 20th, 2012 - 05:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Really are you sure about that? Mr TTT You said you wanted all european influence removed, well that influence is Argentine and her european created sister nations of Latin America. All the buildings infrastructure, language, culture, people etc etc, will have to be packed up and taken back to Europe. You spout anti imperialism/colonialism yet you fail to realise that it created and represents 99% of your Life and every thing you do on a daily basis. Still want to remove true european influence?, or have you now realised that your existence comes to an end without it. Argentines existence comes to an end without it.
“Usted es el producto de la misma cosa que más odias.”
Volition? What kind of an excuse is that?
Why did you murder this man?
“I used the power of my own will”
@388
Jun 20th, 2012 - 05:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 099%? I thought the Arabs, Hindus, Chinese, Incas also had stuff to do with that little thing called “civilization”.
Last time I checked, my grandfather build his house with his own two hands. My ancestors chose who to marry and where to go.
I know you as a Brit has the hubris to believe to know my family better than myself, but that's something non-Brits expect. We just dismiss it and feel pity.
@389
Jun 20th, 2012 - 05:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0OK 99% is were Im wrong but believe my argument is correct, you failed to address that in your response. Mr TTT don’t get me wrong I have the most profound respect for your Knowledge and attention to detail, along with your use of language and writing structure which is something that is not exactly used on the wider scale of life anymore. But were you and I will come to loggerheads is your overbearing argument against Europe and its impact on the world. I could give you list’s of accumulated reasons not to hate Europe while you could give list’s of accumulated reasons to argue the opposite, however my point of an implanted European population in South America which has created your very existence and your ongoing life still stands. I’m afraid that you cannot counter attack my point as it is the primary reason for Argentine becoming a country once inhabited by Natives who were then slowly absorbed into the new European settlers or killed off/migrated away. if you take away “European influence,” from Latin America were do you think Argentine would have come from? The fairies?
Your ancestors chose who to marry/where to go? Mostly as a result of colonialism which without it would have changed your entire life, as regards European settlers marrying in to the small native population. “hubris to believe?” I thought you didn't like it when people insulted you identity so why are you doing it to me I have insulted, but merely pointed out Argentines primarily European created culture and country.
From my sights you appeared as attempting to asseverate specific insight into my personal background and milieu, merely on the basis of my nationality. My response was not intended as a personal insult, only as an inured expectation of mine, since said “hubris” suffuses many of the contributions by your fellow compatriots. Many do openly evince patronizing airs, either inborn or affected to rankle their opponents and mentally discompose or emotionally upset.
Jun 20th, 2012 - 07:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Colonialism is the imposition of one culture upon another, especially when the imposed are not accorded or even vouchsafed alternatives to such status. In fact, this is the exact definition many Brits would adduce to rebut the argument of the Falklands being a colony today, since they would aver to enjoy self-government and freedom of self-determination.
Similarly, the 7 million European immigrants which settled Argentina were not sent by a government or crown as pawns in any “grander” geopolitial scheme, they were not implanted by Argentina's government, and they were not coerced to stay. In fact a million or so quickly returned.
Thus, I oppugn your complaint of “implanted” and “colonialism”. Everyone had a choice, no one was ever forced to come to the country.
There is one very singular reason I am so harsh and contumelious on Europe: I have not seen a willingness to confront the wrongdoings of the past by any of the European nations, formally or otherwise, which is bitterly disappointing. As a result it is incumbent on people like myself, particularly when confronted with the excessive moral condescension against Argentina I have experienced here, to remind the people of the continent that the veritable looking-glass would be quite useful to reign in their galloping indulgence in condemning my country for recent transgressions.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/20/independence-for-falklands-could-end-standoff?newsfeed=true
Jun 20th, 2012 - 08:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“hubris” suffuses many of the contributions by your fellow compatriots.“ Well Im not like that.
Jun 20th, 2012 - 08:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”Similarly, the 7 million European immigrants which settled Argentina were not sent by a government or crown as pawns in any “grander” geopolitial scheme, they were not implanted by Argentina's government, and they were not coerced to stay. In fact a million or so quickly returned.“ It makes no difference wether they were an implanted people or were they came from originally, Spain was the first country to arrive and establish their way of life, any other settlers to modern day Argentine will have to adapt to the way of life originally established by the Spanish/European settlers, this explains why the high levels of German's, Italians, Arabs, Asians etc, have had minor impacts on Argentine's cultural but little to alter the Spanish speaking/behaving culture that was originally set up by us Europeans. You see my point, if you take away the colonialists and in particular the original settlers who were Spanish, modern Argentine simply wouldn't have been created.
”Thus, I oppugn your complaint of “implanted” and “colonialism”. Everyone had a choice, no one was ever forced to come to the country.“ Thus you should be thankful for these free minded colonialists for coming to LatAm and using their
”Volition“ to create your country.
”There is one very singular reason I am so harsh and contumelious on Europe: I have not seen a willingness to confront the wrongdoings of the past by any of the European nations, formally or otherwise, which is bitterly disappointing.“ Bearing in mind what I have just said, and have previously said ”if you take us evil, colonising, barbaric Europeans out of the mix Argentines existence would have been denied.
“Thus, I oppugn your complaint of “implanted” and “colonialism”. Everyone had a choice, no one was ever forced to come to the country.”
Jun 20th, 2012 - 09:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This notion of being “implanted” is an Argentine one typically directed at the falklanders, Would you care to explain how their situation is different from how you've described yours?
A very interesting notion of colonialism you have too. If one culture imposes itself upon another culture, that's colonialism. OK, I get that. But if one culture, to all intents and purposes, displaces or even exterminates another and occupies their former territory, that isn't?
“Implanted” and “colonialism”. Everyone had a choice; no one was ever forced to come to the country
Jun 20th, 2012 - 10:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Just out of interest [silly I know]
But if the statement is true,
Then does that mean argentina never had any slaves then ?
You guys must have been very lucky to avoid having slaves,
Who were implanted” by “colonialism greed and for money making.
Just an innocent thought.
.
TTT, what do you mean by “implanted”? Do you believe that the Falklanders' ancestors were forced to go to the islands? Do you think they were prevented from leaving? I'm just trying to get to the bottom of why you consider the islanders a different case to the majority of south Americans.
Jun 20th, 2012 - 10:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The very first Spanish and Portuguese inhabitants of south America were there to claim the land for Spain and occupied it. They were sent by a crown and appropriated land and resources accordingly. Later waves of immigration came and went of their own will. As I understand it, the same thing happened in the islands.
I am in the middle of producing a written tract, thus unable to elaborate on the specific points raised. I do feel the need to briefly adumbrate two particular points:
Jun 20th, 2012 - 11:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Most of you (the objective and common sense contributors), need to resile from the “extermination” accusation. First of all, because it is in fact innacurate (extermination implies the complete killing off of a group). The indigenous people were not exterminated, and you can manifestly see this in the facial complexion of at least a quarter of the citizens of Argentina today. Secondly, most of you fantastically overestimate the population of native peoples in Argentina, even before any European settlement. The natives of Argentina were hunter-gatherers (exception being the far northwest where Inca civilization influenced more advanced sedentary features including agriculture).
As a result, the local fauna supported only a small population, since Argentina lacked any large herbivores (such as bison:North America, buffalo:Africa, aurochs:Europe, yaks:Asia), or any other possible prey. Small game like rodents or tapirs are not sufficient to maintain even a large hunter-gatherer group, which in itself is much smaller compared to an agricultural society. Simply not enough meat. In conclusion, the population of natives at around 1550 was at best 100/200k. You then bring into the equation disease, and that decimated populations further. All in all, we are talking about a fraction of the population of areas further north, and no comparison can be drawn against the established, large-population civilization centers of Andean and Meso America.
Even North America supported a far higher indigenous population because of the availability of large game.
Finally, slavery was never firmly stablished in Argentina, the climate is too cold for sugarcane, the main source industry for slave labor. That and early abolition of slavery and ensuing manumission precluded a large-scale african population from taking root.
@387
Jun 20th, 2012 - 11:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Very well written Mr TTT but it dose not explain or present an argument that Argentine is exempted form being Branded a Colonialist Country.
398 Perhaps because we didn't do what this European country did all over the planet as shown in this 1800's old cartoon below.
Jun 21st, 2012 - 05:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8e/English_imperialism_octopus.jpg
@391
Jun 21st, 2012 - 08:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0It's a brave effort, but it's a futile one as long as your claim to the moral high ground is about as convincing as your claim to the Falklands.
@399
A good example. You aren't the beneficiaries of Spanish imperialism?
http://en.mercopress.com/2012/06/16/c24-chair-calls-falklands-referendum-political-ploy-praises-argentine-president#comment138143: You seem not to understand American history. Argentina threw off the yoke of Spanish imperialism. Now it is a matter of throwing off British imperialism. This will occur in due course and the Monroe Doctrine will be upheld.
Jun 21st, 2012 - 11:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0@401 - Hepatia.
Jun 21st, 2012 - 11:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0No it's about protecting people who have lived in the Falklands for 9 generations, longer than Argentina has existed, from Argentine colonial ambitions.
This is about upholding the UN charter. Remember we're in the 21st century now, not the 19th, and all Argentina's claims are either based on outright lies or preposterous prepositions such as proximity.
None of which can over-ride the founding principles of the UN charter, no matter how much crying Agntina does.
401 Hepatia
Jun 21st, 2012 - 11:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0we might well 'throw off British Imperialism' one day, but that will be for us to decide and not you.
For the moment, we seem to like it. It isn't a yoke. I know that's hard for you to understand, but you just need to suck it up and get on with it, because in the modern world there is no place and no mechanism for delivering an unwilling population into foreign domination and subjugation. It just isn't going to happen.
The more you turn up at international events asking for that to happen, the more you make youreslves look like.....well,whatever. You need to stop.
http://en.mercopress.com/2012/06/16/c24-chair-calls-falklands-referendum-political-ploy-praises-argentine-president#comment138194: America's future is for Americans to decide - not some foreign European power. If you cannot accept that you should leave. Otherwise you can stay.
Jun 21st, 2012 - 11:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0@404
Jun 21st, 2012 - 01:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Really? There were an awful lot of non-Americans in the C24. Syrians, Russians, .... I thought you'd already accepted that.
In any event, it's not at your instruction that anybody leaves or anybody stays. The future of the Falklands will be decided by the Islanders. If you cannot accept that, tough luck. If you can, you should modify your behaviour.
The C24 members ... are you kidding me?
Jun 21st, 2012 - 01:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Syria (serial killers), Iran (a mad religious fairytale), Cuba (destitute, but good cancer care for despots), Indonesia (even bans Lady GaGa concerts), Nicaragua (even worse than Argentina), Tunisia (NOW democratic for 242 days), and Venezuala, lots of oil but no electricity!!!
C stands for clown and 24 is how many they have hence why UK didnt have a government representative and also why CFK came lol !
Jun 21st, 2012 - 03:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@407
Jun 21st, 2012 - 03:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- I like that :)
Interesting that the chair was from Ecuador and now they have Assange in their embassy.
Jun 21st, 2012 - 03:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Will their efforts at the C24 sideshow be translated into action on the world stage?
@399
Jun 22nd, 2012 - 12:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0Mr Marcos you are a Moron. You just don't get it do you, You are an implanted people via colonialism you have no right to point fingers you fool.
Arg: “WE HATE COLONIALISM!!!!”
UK: You were created by it.
Arg: “THATS DIFFERENT!!!!!!”
@410
Jun 22nd, 2012 - 05:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0Mr Conor you are an ignorant. Many of our ancestors lived in this land before England existed.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8e/English_imperialism_octopus.jpg
@411 - Marcos Alejandro - that well known native South American name.
Jun 22nd, 2012 - 10:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0Face it Marcos, Spains colonial ambitions were every bit as wide spread as the English, but the Spanish were much more brutal towards native populations. The conquistadors wiped out entire civilizations in South America, and Argentina's founders committed acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing, which means that there are very few of your population with native blood, and most of those are mixed Native and European.
”Argentina's indigenous population in 2005 was about 600,329 (1.6% of total population); this figure includes 457,363 people who self-identified as belonging to an indigenous ethnic group, and the remaining 142,966 who recognized themselves as first-generation descendants of an indigenous people.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas#Argentina
So your argument is both inaccurate and lame.
Face it Marcos, Spains colonial ambitions were every bit as wide spread as the English, but the Spanish were much more brutal towards native populations. The conquistadors wiped out entire civilizations in South America, and Argentina's
Jun 22nd, 2012 - 11:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0Spain,they move out.THe brits pirates are finished.uk corrupt,decadent country...
@412 Its clear that some of the Argentine posters have created yet another myth to justify their claim that they are not colonists - only the evil anglos colonise of course.
Jun 22nd, 2012 - 11:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0Their argument is that they themselves are the indigenous population - all evidence to the contrary is therefore null and void.
Apparently less 700k people out of a 40 million plus population have any connection with the indigenous people. Nevertheless the 39 million plus who are not indigenous are I assume legitimate by association - not the decedents of colonists at all :P
Precious! Basically if their wildest claims are true and Britain stole the Falklands - so what.
They stole South America.
@413 - Malvinero1
Jun 22nd, 2012 - 01:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Spanish government moved out but the Spanish colonists didn't, did they? These Spanish colonists aggressively expanded their colony by murdering the indigenous people of South America and stealing their land.
Argentina, Always corrupt, always inept, always lying, always impotent.
Argentina is finished! 30 % inflation and rising, constant strikes, and nightly demonstrations in the streets. Poor Malv, what are you going to do when your beloved President has been lynched by the mob in the Plaza De Mayo?
@411
Jun 22nd, 2012 - 02:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Mr Marcos how many fucking times do I have to say it? I't doesn't matter if there were natives who survived the Spanish conquistadors. Were do you think your Spanish names, culture, language etc. came from did they perhaps fall out of the sky? Argentine= Country created by colonialism with a Spanish way of life. If you take away the invaders were in the name of god did Argentine come from? So I think you will find that you are ignorant, you colonial you.
@416
Jun 23rd, 2012 - 01:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0Mr Conor
Your ignorance has unfortunately shown in the highest of ways.
Actually Argentina was born when we kicked the Spaniards out 200 years ago, not only from my country but also from Chile and Peru.
@417
Jun 23rd, 2012 - 04:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0Once again you don't understand “we kicked the Spanish out” you are Spanish!!! You did not kick them out because they are still in LatAm, who are they? well there you!
As I said in the other comment you claim you got rid of the colonialists but you fail to realise that you are the colonialists! The true South Americans are all dead or subsumed into this modern Argentine culture that claims it severed all its colonial ties when it declared independence, yet you fail to realise that nothing has changed, the aborigines have lost everything!! And they will never get it back! How many times do I have to say it? Without the Spanish/Europeans, Argentine and you yourself Mr 'Marcos would not exist!
@417 - Marcos
Jun 23rd, 2012 - 08:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0Gosh Mr Marcos, you really are thick, aren't you?
As Conor says @418 - the Sapnish stayed in South America, you just broke away from the mother country, just as the USA broke away from Britain.
The Spanish colonists who broke away from Spain not only remained on the land stolen by Spain, but then set about an aggressive policy of colonising themselves, by invading, massacring and stealing the land from it's true owners, the native South Americans.
You invaded and stole land from your neighbours; Chile, Paraguay, Uruguay and Brazil; and you tried to steal land off the British by invading the Falklands. Only the British wouldn't let you, so turned up and kicked you out of our territory.
Look around Buenos Aires and other cities in Argentina and see the European nature of the buildings there, built by the colonists to remind them of home. Look at the ceremonial dress of your soldiers and see that they are based on Spanish uniforms. Listen to the language you speak and realise that it is a European language.
Your whole 'Argentinian' culture is based purely on previous Europe cultures, with nothing of the original inhabitants cultures.
If you want to fight for someone's rights, Marcos, fight for the rights of those few indigenous people who still live in Argentina, but are treated as second class citizens.
Argentina being on its high horse about colonialism is like Hitler getting on his high horse about defending Human rights - hipocritical to say the least.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8e/English_imperialism_octopus.jpg
Jun 23rd, 2012 - 04:30 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!