MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Britain had nothing to do with the proposal to hold a Falklands’ referendum
By Robin Goodwin - It appears that Argentina would have the world believe that it is Great Britain who has proposed that we hold a referendum next year. This could not be further from the truth. Britain has supported our desire to have such a referendum. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesPlease copy/paste and send to that moron Puricelli.
Sep 05th, 2012 - 07:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0Quite right too, Mr Goodwin.
Sep 05th, 2012 - 07:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentine government - stick it up your junta!
Anyone got Kretina's email address? She should get a copy too.
Sep 05th, 2012 - 07:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0Nice one Robin. Spot on. The Argies are complaining that this is a parody but they didn't say that their ambassador in Washington's comments about us being held hostage by the MOD was a parody.
Sep 05th, 2012 - 07:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0Your CommentI was puzzled by Puricelli's comments about “lacking imagination”. What would his imaginative approach have been? One assumes it would be to accept Argentine sovereignty. If he has no suggestions then it was simply a meaningless soundbite.
Sep 05th, 2012 - 07:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0The bottom line is that Argentina doesn't want this vote to take place. They only seem to approve of democracy when it suits their own agenda.
If only the Argie press or indeed any mainland newspaper in SA would print this...
Sep 05th, 2012 - 07:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina does not understand the point of the referendum as it represents the falkland islanders wishes and their democratic rights, something often not present in Argentina.
Sep 05th, 2012 - 08:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0This is much like their complaints of militarisation of the South Atlantic, and yet their warships threaten and hassle hard working licenced fishermen in their own waters.
Its about time something was done internationally about Argentina. Obama should stop trying to get the south american vote, look after his allies or get out and let Mit Romney in.
Also, the EU should play the same games at the Merscur pact and look at Sanctions.
Finally, we should get our money back from the Argentines who have defaulted on loans, and indeed ensure no more money is given to them either directly or indirectly through international aid
One thing I have noticed (im not 100% sure but i think i am corrrect), is that when ever the RG's or their little buddies mention the falklands, they only ever do so when given the “chair”! They never do it in a debate style environment! They are also the ones who start the fight! I havent read an article on here or in the SA press where the RG's have had to respond to Falklands or British pro-falklands rhetoric! It is always the other way round!
Sep 05th, 2012 - 08:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0Fair point @8. Which raises the question what negotiations or discussions about the Falklands would consist of. Something like this:
Sep 05th, 2012 - 08:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina: Give us the Malvinas back
UK: Firstly, they were never 'yours', secondly the Islanders must decide, thirdly let's discuss mutual co-operation between the Falkland Islanders and yourselves on matters of common interest.
Argentina: UK says no! Colonialists don't want to discuss! Wah mummy!
@9: they always say “negotiate sovereignty” but never state what they would give in return.
Sep 05th, 2012 - 09:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0Tough cheese, Argentina.
Sep 05th, 2012 - 09:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0Don't cry! ha ha ha
The usual islander doublespeak nonsense. Let's examine:
Sep 05th, 2012 - 09:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0“The inhabitants of the Islands through their elected Councillors have made this request to once and for all show the world that we have the right to determine our own future”
So, according to islander logic, the way to convince the world that a territory under sovereignty dispute should rightfully belong to them is to...
...confirm to the world that this is their desire?
Sounds like my 4-year-old at the toy aisle.
“Daddy I want that game”
“You already have 3 just like it, why do you think you should have it?”
“BECAUSE I WANT IT!!!”
Way to state your case. On to #2...
“we ask the rest of the world to recognise that fact.”
Which one? The fact you demonstrated by...asking for it to be so?
Well why didn't I think of that??!!
I must write to the national academy of science immediately to ask that from now on, the moon be referred to by its true name: ZBEGLARD. Surely, they will accept this to be a fact, as evidenced and supported by my entirely rational request!!
Save yourselves the trouble dear neighbors, and the trees, for the results of that ridiculous exercise will not be worth the paper it'll be printed on. If you're going to hold a referendum, the least you could do is track down the descendants of the Argentines forced to depart ILLEGALLY in 1833 and let them participate just as fully as the descendants of those who did the crime itself.
You can't sugarcoat thievery, and you won't convince the world. The UN does not recognize you as a “people” collective such that your mere presence merits self-determination. Maybe if you were independent...but you're not.
Despite your usual rhetoric, where you may present yourselves as either a “country” or a “territory”, depending on which suits you best at the time, the world is not fooled. You people are BRITISH - your self-determination is that same one held by your people, the BRITISH.
The islands, however, are another matter entirely.
Argentina does not recognise the word negotiate. In their language it means 'demand with no compromise'.
Sep 05th, 2012 - 09:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Argentine's pathetic attempts to decry a democratic vote, instead of getting their asses to the Falklands to join the debate and convince the islanders WHY they should be Argentine, shows that the referendum result will be a vital weapon for the Falklands everytime that tinpot collection of corrupt nations forming the C24 start ass licking to Argentina (against the UN's preferred outcome of de-colonisation which is Independence, stated on every resolution which asks the UK and Argentina to talk about the Falklands).
@13 “..instead of getting their asses to the Falklands to join the debate and convince the islanders WHY they should be Argentine,..”
Sep 05th, 2012 - 09:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0Agreed but in the mad Doublethink world that is Argentine politics that would imply that they respect the referendum and the wishes of the Islanders.
I wonder what Argentine attitudes would be if native Patagonians began reclaiming land title from Argentina (had they not all been murdered of course)
Sep 05th, 2012 - 09:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0@12 Why do you keep on harking back to the “illegal” expulsion of 1833. The only people who were expelled were Argentine military who were there illegally in the first place as we had claimed the islands many years previous to that. Frankly I couldn't give a toss about anything that happened in 1833 as this is now 2012 - just get over it and stop acting like a spoilt child. We are where we are and we live in the here and now.
Sep 05th, 2012 - 09:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0Please quote me the binding resolutions (ie not the crap that emanates from C24) that deny the Falklanders rights to exist as a “people”. I find it mighty strange that the UN was set up to represent the rights of all the World's population - except for the Falkland Islanders.
It is bullshit!!and nothing more than that
Sep 05th, 2012 - 09:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0@12 The 4-year-old's argument is much closer to Argentina's position. Other than 'It's right in front of me and I want it!', what other claim does Argentina have to the islands, on which live descendants of a population that have been there since before Argentina even existed? We know you've been brainwashed since an early age with the false Falklands history so I don't blame you too much, but why not give it up because the Islands don't belong to Argentina and they are never going to be handed over.
Sep 05th, 2012 - 09:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0Also, why not read up on what constitutes a population, such as a defined territory, distinctive characteristics, elected representatives etc. All of which apply in the Falklands. Then look at what the UN guarantees about the rights of populations and self determination. And hey presto! The vote is valid and after the result you can look for something else to bleat about. Such as inflation, economic downturn, increasing dictatorship, currency, travel and shopping restrictions, wall to wall live tv broadcasts from el presidente and so on.
@17 Would you care to elaborate your statement? All that we know so far is that you're not happy about something.
Sep 05th, 2012 - 10:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0Why so sad?
@17
Sep 05th, 2012 - 10:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0What is bullshit?
And feel free to explain exactly why ( if you are capable of doing so).
@12 MalvinaArgentinas
Sep 05th, 2012 - 10:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0> “ the least you could do is track down the descendants of the Argentines forced to depart ILLEGALLY in 1833”
Now that would be really interesting. I just wonder how come Argentina has never managed to do this?
@21 We could hold a seance and try and contact the spirits of the “illegally deported” from 1833. If our efforts prove unsuccessful, it's QED as far as I'm concerned ;-)
Sep 05th, 2012 - 10:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0@22
Sep 05th, 2012 - 11:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0That seems to be the only way. They seem to have vanished without trace, almost as if they'd been thrown out of the back of a plane over the River Plate estuary.
The Argies get a little grumpy when they lose don't they! In 1833 the Argies were invading for the first time when we managed to get rid of the horrid little monsters, I wonder what you have to do to make them understand the real truth. I guess while they teach lies about how we belong to them in all their schools it will never change. Imagine if in Britain they taught that Argentina belonged to Britain, we would not have a problem now.
Sep 05th, 2012 - 11:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0I think a seance is a great idea. We could contact Rivero so that the world can see who he really was rather than the mythology that's built him into an valiant freedom fighter. I see no holes in that plan at all!?!?
Sep 05th, 2012 - 11:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0@12
Sep 05th, 2012 - 11:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0“So, according to islander logic, the way to convince the world that a territory under sovereignty dispute should rightfully belong to them is to...
...confirm to the world that this is their desire?”
It is called democracy. The people express their wish. Such as Scotland's referendum. Argentina doesn't seem to have a problem with Scotland going through the motions of choosing its political status, so why not allow the Falkland Islanders? Oh, that's right, it doesn't give Argentina what it wants. Shame.
They have been in the falklands for over a 150 years.
Sep 05th, 2012 - 11:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0The argentines only restarted there claim during ww2.
Its further than 200 miles from argentina.
11....Nice examination Columbo
Sep 05th, 2012 - 11:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0Bad mouthing the Islanders wont stop the fact that its a democratic UN observed referendum on the islanders future.
Again the rest of the worlds history books read slightly different , Vernet asked British permission to establish a settlement, he then reported to a Mr Parish who was British. Use your detective skills to read proper History and not the Le Campora or the lies that they teach RG kids at school.
Don't the descendants of that “illegally expelled” settlement lie in the cemetary at Stanley?
Sep 05th, 2012 - 11:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Great Britain have always said that they would respect the wishes of the Falkland Island People to determine their own future and that they would not change those wishes unless the islanders wanted it.”
Sep 05th, 2012 - 11:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0Great Britain have not always respected our right to self determination, just since '82. As for the rest of it....what are you saying? that Britian has the power to change what we wish for but only if we want them to? maybe that's not what you meant Robin but that's how it appears.
Morning happy democracies!!
Sep 05th, 2012 - 11:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0another day, another attempt by Argtards to rubbish The Falklands basic Human rights under the UN charter and their desire to chose their own destiny......
@12 firstly, not a dispute and certainly never a valid claim, more of a argentine jealous rant :) as their arguement is based on fabled history and made up geography with a taint of expansionism all completely irrelevant but that is all the simple creatures have, in their crusade for resource and land grab.
secondly, to confirm to the world that it is The Falklands democratic right under the basic UN human rights charter, of SELF-DETERMINATION to chose their own path, Yes that is the general idea, i see you can understand this, its a pity argentina will not, not the behaviour one would expect from a democracy more fitting that of a dictatorship??
Argentinas game has been over ever since The Falklands announced the democratic referendum and argentina knows it,
so lets all sit back and enjoy as the argtard dribble flows, knowing full well come march all their incoherent grunts would have been a complete waste of their lives!.
SELF DETERMINATION!!!!! DEMOCRACY!!!! ITS ALL GOOD!!! :)))
I wonder how the rest of the Democratic world will view Argentinas peronist tendancies, i guess the old habits of the 70s and 80s die hard, Argtards need to dribble harder or they too will be on the next “ La Campora” death flight out, destination unknown!! :)))
It may take a lot longer but one day Argentina will eventually start to grow up and then the South Atlantic Region will be a far better place to live. Not quite sure yet what or when that day will be but it will come.
Sep 05th, 2012 - 11:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0Since their existance Argentines have tried to dominate Latin America and this is clearly seen today as all close neighbours except the Falkland Islands are to scared to stand up and be counted. But that too will one day change. Remember the one who reaches the top of the ladder usually takes the hardest fall and it is getting close to Argentinas turn to fall.
Their people are again unrested and recent pols show two thirds no longer support CFK . Finally people are starting to see just what their leaders are doing to their existance. Poverty , Risk of having your business taken from you, Debt defaults are just some reasons why people are getting worried. The Falkland islands on the other hand are rock solid and a thriving Country even though Argentina continues to blocade us.
It proves to the world of our self determination to succeed no matter what is thrown at us.
What I believe is causing Argentina so much grief is that just 3,000 people are standing up against them and have been succeeding for more than 150 years. Ouch that must hurt some considering bigger neighbours have been subdued to their pressure but not us.
@12
Sep 05th, 2012 - 11:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0The other great merit of the referendum is that it publicly and comically exposes Argentine hypocrisy in denying the islanders a voice, while complaining about colonialism. Even the UN will cotton on to that one.
One should not pamper up to the Argies on your referendum vote,
Sep 05th, 2012 - 11:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0It has nothing to do with Argentina,
It’s your country, and your decision,
But in a dangerous and uncompromising world, one should not be to keen to isolate yourselves with independence,
Sometimes jumping ahead of the gun, can result in shooting your self in the foot,
Just an interesting thought.
.
Britain's role is merely to ensure that the Islanders wishes are respected.
Sep 05th, 2012 - 11:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0In the event that the Islanders reject Argentina and vote to remain British, then that is an end to the matter. If this leads to another war with Argentina, then so be it. Nobody in the UK wants to go to war but this time, unlike 1982, UK forces will be ready and in good shape to inflict heavy casualties on the Argentine aggressor.
@34 let the argies jump ahead of the gun, they are doing a great job at the moment.
Sep 05th, 2012 - 11:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Falklands could become a proctorate of the UK. Or as I hope wish to stay British.
Sep 05th, 2012 - 12:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Apparently French Guinana isnt a colony because its a metropolitan region of france (yep i know thats handy isnt it) Couldnt the Falklands become a county of the UK.
they get so confused about 1833 and that that somehow gives them rights.
Sep 05th, 2012 - 12:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In 1833 some dodgy squatters, after being informed not to set up a colony on British Sovereign land, set up a prison colony.
Within that colony many of the evil people killed each other.
The British expelled the rest.
So thats their claim? A claim of squatters and murders. Mind you, isn't that how Argentina has been created. Just look at the Peronist party, supporters of the Nazi regime, offering safe haven after the war, the list goes on.
Maybe its time to educate the Country in how to behave or be punished
Of course it's your home and will remain so, BUT UNDER OUR FLAG!! Greetings and you are welcome to be part of Argentina.
Sep 05th, 2012 - 12:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 039 gustbury. You (Argentina) have very little to offer the falklanders, why would anyone want to be ruled by a foreign country when they already have more freedom then most?
Sep 05th, 2012 - 12:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There is an old saying. “you can't teach an old dog new tricks” However there is another saying “ But you can teach their puppies”. That may be where the answer lays. Since 1982 more Argentines have been standing up to be counted and many more have began to realise just how corrupt their Country has become. They are starting to admit that they only know what they have been taught by their leaders. The world and Argentina is changing because what was once denied to most has now been made available through the world wide web.
Sep 05th, 2012 - 12:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That maybe is where our strength lays. Use it to educate people the truth and expose lies and corruption of others.
I know already many thousand of Argentine people whish for democracy and envy what we have on the Falkland Islands, problem is that for most they are fearful of their lives to actually stand up and say so. Looking at the recent Argentine pol possibly two thirds want change.
CFK you better take note your political control may soon be history.
The Falkland Islanders put forward their position in a clear well understood manner which will be appreciated by anyone with an iota of common sense and decency. The Argentines are victims of a propaganda machine and believe what they are taught in schools and read in the paper. Perhaps it might help if the Islanders could present their position in Spanish?
Sep 05th, 2012 - 12:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The thing is they keep ignoring the fact that they had to ask Britain's permission to be on the Falklands which is British territory in 1832-33, then they sneak that horrible blue and white tea towel up a mast and pretend the Falklands is theirs. And now they claim a murderer is the hero that almost got the Falklands, so as history shows the first instigator was a murderer and the second in 82 Galtieri was a murderer also.
Sep 05th, 2012 - 12:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@39 thats dictatorship, wheres the freedom of choice, wheres the human right of SELF-DETERMINATION, what makes you think they want to be a part of Argentina?? to you that does not matter, you are not doing argentinas cause any good, a little tip for you you need to suck up to the Falklanders not impose YOUR will on them, thats how wars start :)))
Sep 05th, 2012 - 12:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0it shows what type of country arg is when they arrested Galtieri everyone thought he was arrested for all the crimes on humanity he committed for years, but no it was because he failed getting the Falklands, if that's how they think across the water, I don't want any part of it.
Sep 05th, 2012 - 12:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0People now are other times, other opportunities for you and us!!
Sep 05th, 2012 - 12:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well done Mr Goodwin. Masters of your own destiny.
Sep 05th, 2012 - 12:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“ It appears that Argentina would have the world believe that it is Great Britain who has proposed that we hold a referendum next year. This could not be further from the truth”.
Sep 05th, 2012 - 01:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes it could, Britain could have advised against it or even objected to the holding of a referendum but the islanders could have decided to go ahead with it anyway. To begin with an hyperbolic inexactitude is not an confidence inspiring start to any article.
48 Doveoverdover (#) Yes and the Islanders would have acepted their decision either way because that is what democracy is all about.
Sep 05th, 2012 - 01:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The real issue here is that for obvious reasons there are some who do not want to see in black and white how Islanders truly feel. Up to this point in time everything the Islanders say or do is read with the view that is is instigated by Great Britain. The Falkland islanders have always been freely allowed to run their own Country. We look to Great Britain as our protectorate of its people and that applies to wherever you live in the British owned territories. Britain also looks after her nationals in foriegn countries. I suspect if it got to a point that Argentina were to crumble through it's own stupidity most if not all British people living there would be granted safe return to UK.
That is why Britain is such a great Country because she looks after her people no matter where they are. Can't say the same for Argentina though. They quite happily sent their conscripts to their deaths and have shown those suffering families little or no remorse.
So my thinking is that Britain would never have minipulated what we are planning to do but would simply respect our rights to decide our own future. That is how that Great Nation works. It also shows to the world that we are a forward thinking people who do not dwell on th epast but want to progress into the future in the way we choose to.
@49 well said, can't think of anything to add to that!
Sep 05th, 2012 - 01:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@46 gustbury
Sep 05th, 2012 - 01:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If I understand your mail that's pretty much what we've been saying.
Forget 1833 and all that - it's a dead argument (also trumped by the 1850 treaty) - it's about the here and now
Everyone who currently lives on the islands (including the Argentines, Chileans, Saints etc) will also have a say in the referendum.
If people move on and start being good neighbours rather than give the Islanders endless grief then the World will be a sweeter place.
@49 Kelper -I hope what you meant to say there was that you believe (as I do)the UK would have accepted the Islanders decision either way, even if the UK were advising against or objecting to the Islanders decision to hold the referendum. (What you actually wrote was that the Islanders would have accepted the UK's decision and cancelled the referendum if the UK had objected)
Sep 05th, 2012 - 02:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The UK demographic control on the islands excludes any possibility of argentines settling there. Meanwhile, any British citizen afer a few years on the islands can vote. Mmm... suspicious!
Sep 05th, 2012 - 02:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Self-governing, independent territory? Flreely elected government? WHAT!?!? You are a COLONY!
- The executive administration is headed by non-elected governor designated by the Crown. There are other non-elected two government officials.
- Lesilative Assembly: 47% are designated by the non-elected governor. 8 out of 13 members were born in the UK!
MALVINAS ISLANDERS DO NOT GOVERN THE ISLANDS. CITIZENS OF THE UK LOCATED IN THE ISLANDS GOVERN THEM!
The islanders are no considered a “people” with the right of self-determination.
Self determination is for those peoples enslaved, attacked, colonized and subjugated by a foreign power. In Malvinas the attacked and expelled people is the argentine!
The UN has multiple resolutions regarding the Malvinas question is which it has never ever referred to the islanders as “people” but as “inhabitants”. The UN only keeps into account the interests and well being of the inhabitants. It does not even mention their “wishes”. Nevermind self-determination.
Self-determination? Referendum? YOU ARE A JOKE!
@48
Sep 05th, 2012 - 02:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0To begin with an hyperbolic inexactitude regarding the opening statement of the article is not an confidence inspiring start to your argument.
Or in other words, you haven't said anything that contradicts the opening statement, which is about what actually happened, rather than what hypothetically might have happened.
you will see who is the joke, and it won't be the islanders! And by the way, the spanish name for the Falklands was Mal u inas, not spelt with a V, so even your spelling is a false claim ha ha ha :))
Sep 05th, 2012 - 02:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@53 Oops, a little basic education required. Self determination and referendum are not jokes. A joke would be more like:
Sep 05th, 2012 - 02:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0'How do you make a quick profit? Buy an Argentinean for what he's worth and sell him for what he thinks he's worth.'
Actually on second thought that sounds more like a business plan than a joke.
@53 - you still haven't clarified which UN resolutions you are referring to. Please can you do so.
Sep 05th, 2012 - 02:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As I understand it the referendum is for people who reside in the Falklands - this will include people born in the UK as well as those born in other countries such as Argentina. These would be the people who would be most affected if there was to be a (very hypothetical!!!) change from a UK BOT to a de facto Argentine colony.
How many Argentinians (ie those living on the SA mainland) would be *personally* adversely affected by this referendum?
Poor Islas Malvinas, Must be killing him to see whats happening. After years of being feed Argentine government propaganda claiming the islanders have no rights then to see the UN officially recognizing the rights of self-determination for the islanders must be heart breaking.
Sep 05th, 2012 - 02:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@53 “The UK demographic control on the islands excludes any possibility of argentines settling there.”
Sep 05th, 2012 - 02:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well that is just a flat out lie as I know Argentines that have settled recently
Meanwhile, any British citizen afer a few years on the islands can vote. Mmm... suspicious!
Citizens moving there from anywhere in the world get the vote after the same ammount of time whether they are British, Filipeno or Argentine.
@53 Islas Malvinas The UK demographic control on the islands excludes any possibility of argentines settling there. Meanwhile, any British citizen afer a few years on the islands can vote. Mmm... suspicious!
Sep 05th, 2012 - 02:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ok you uneducated moron, I know of at least 20 Argentines living here, most are ok, but some i would not trust, but all the same we allow them here the same as we would allow any nation. Now if it were the other way around, i bet you would not let a nation that threats yours into your country to live.. So the moral to this story is, you don't have any idea what you are talking about so don't bother posting here.
@60 Your intemperate post invites a robust response, but let me gently point out that the official Argentinian position is that a significant part of their territory is under foreign control against their wishes and held by force. Nevertheless, British citizens regularly take up residence in Argentina to live and work. No doubt most of them are OK but some are not trustworthy either.
Sep 05th, 2012 - 03:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Falkland Island residence, British citizenship and Falkland Island status are not well understood and interrelated terms. No wonder non-residents find them difficult to grasp, morons or not.
@61 DoD
Sep 05th, 2012 - 03:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That statement would only make sense if there were Argentine families who were being held hostage (ie couldn't leave). As far as I am aware, those who are there are there because they choose to be.
If they are held hostage, the only reason is that Aerolineas Argentinas restrict flights in and out.
The supposition also assumes that the Argentine claims have some real merit. Before people ask that question they should start with SG and SSI and work backwards.
52 mollymauk (#) sorry for the confusion the line “Yes and the Islanders would have acepted their decision either way because that is what democracy is all about.”
Sep 05th, 2012 - 03:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Meant that Britain chose to accept our right to determine out own future which ever way we chose to go.
Hope that clears up that one.
60 Falkland Islands They have let Islanders go live with them but if I am right they were either married to Argentines or defected from the Islands. But you are basicaly right in what you say.
@62 Sorry I meant the Argentine government restricting the LAN Chile flight. As far as I know Aerolinas Argentinas don't have a flight to the FI
Sep 05th, 2012 - 03:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@54 he does that alot doesnt he?
Sep 05th, 2012 - 03:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@Malvinistas
You have had 200 years -----200 YEARS!!!!----- to take control of and/or settle the Islands.... but you havent. Even though the proximity factor which you keep going on about should give you an overwhelming advantage.
What does that say to you? That Argentina is inherently inept and weak? Or that perhaps Argentina hasnt cared as much about the Islands as your Peron inspired nationalism would have you believe?
Either way 200 years is a very long time and the world is now a very different place. Or not?!
Your country is one of the most beautiful resource rich countries in the world and yet you pine after these small Islands hundreds of miles from your coast...because someone told you to. Inflation matters, crime matters, lack of work matters, lack of freedom matters.... The FI DONT matter to you.
Grow up you ingrates and focus on your own shit.
@63 and 64. I'm more confused after the clarifications than I was before them.
Sep 05th, 2012 - 03:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Britain had nothing to do with the proposal to hold a Falklands’ referendum”
Sep 05th, 2012 - 03:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Someones nose is getting longer.
@65 TobersYour country is one of the most beautiful resource rich countries in the world and yet you pine after these small Islands hundreds of miles from your coast...because someone told you to. Inflation matters, crime matters, lack of work matters, lack of freedom matters.... The FI DONT matter to you.
Sep 05th, 2012 - 03:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You would think not would you, but the FI do matter a lot, because if you look at the map on the link below it all makes sense. I have always had this theory that if the British were not here then the Argentines would have full control of SW Atlantic, Controlling shipping, airspace. and also it gives them the upper hand in occupying the Antarctic Peninsular. Britain, China, Chile, Russia and many more would have trouble reaching their bases because they would have to travel through Argentine Air or sea Space! Just take a look at what they are after on the map, the territorial waters would be huge.
http://en.mercopress.com/2012/08/14/falklands-included-in-argentina-s-un-continental-shelf-committee-presentation
@67 ... and it`s not Pinocchio`s.
Sep 05th, 2012 - 03:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@68
Sep 05th, 2012 - 03:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I see your point. But thats only when one considers Argentina having an expansionist agenda. That couldnt possible be the case could it?
67 ProRG_American “Britain had nothing to do with the proposal to hold a Falklands’ referendum”
Sep 05th, 2012 - 03:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Someones nose is getting longer.
They endorsed our proposals thats all.
66
Sep 05th, 2012 - 04:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Understandable. Is it his right hand? Is it his left hand? Why are his palms warm? Why hasn't he cut his nails? Your Argentinian Arse must be really sore.
What a glove puppet.
Chuckle chuckle
@67 & @69
Sep 05th, 2012 - 04:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Unlike Argentina the British respect the Falkland Islanders. If the Falkland Islanders voted to become Argentinian then the British would respect their wishes. If they chose to become Chilean then we would respect that too.
If they choose to remain British we respect that, and if they choose to become independent we would respect that too.
Argentina doesn't respect ANYONE and therefore does not deserve respect.
In March the UN will officially tell the world what the Falkland Islanders want, and you Malvinistas will continue to cry and continue to be IMPOTENT.
JAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJA!!!
Malvinistas - you are all so pathetic. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! A nation of 40,000,000 frightened by the freedom of 3,000 people. Malvinista = equals frightened, impotent dictators!
@53 IM
Sep 05th, 2012 - 04:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have provided you with facts regarding the Governor and the eight elected officials. Instead you have ignored me and continued with your crazed theories.
The Governor is there as an adviser, he holds no votes. The eight elected Members all are Falklands Residents, these are the people who make policy, laws, set taxes, approve resource licences etc.. Some were born in the Falklands, other werent. But those who werent born in the islands through immigration and their stay in the Islands, they have been afforded Falklands status. This immigration policy is universal the world. If you spend five years in Britain, you can apply to become British! Wow, what a concept. Very difficult to understand.
But that doesn;t just include British people becoming Falkland Islanders. I know Argentines who have successfully become Falkland Islanders. Chileans too! Lots of wonderful different nationalities, including Russians, Georgians, Americans, Austalians, etc. etc.
Keep up with your factually incorrect statements. You only fool yourself.
53 Islas Malvinas
Sep 05th, 2012 - 04:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0''The islanders are no considered a “people” with the right of self-determination.
Self determination is for those peoples enslaved, attacked, colonized and subjugated by a foreign power.''
Interesting. That is exactly what you did to Falkland Islanders in 1982. It is what you would have to do again if you wanted the Falkland Islands; you would have to subjugate us by force. Would we then have the right to self determination? Did we have that right in 1982, when we invited Britain to liberate us from our oppressors?
Or do different rules apply to you because you are Argentines and special, remember 1833 etc etc?
What about all the Commonwealth countries in the Caribbean area which also are members of the Organisation of American States and of ALBA, Hugo Chávez's favourite “toy”? One supposes that they will be supporting the efforts of the Falkland Islands to demonstrate their independence from Britain in the matter of the proposed referendum. Is there a way we can obtain this information?
Sep 05th, 2012 - 04:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(67) ProRG_American
Sep 05th, 2012 - 04:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Britain had nothing to do with the proposal to hold a Falklands’ referendum. (Someone’s nose is getting longer.)” you say…..
I say:
If Britain (or any Briton) says they had nothing to do with the proposal, then they had nothing to do with the proposal.
When did you EVER hear a Briton lie ???
You ungrateful colonial rebel ;-)))
But, at least, the glorious United Kingdom has, in their immeasurable bounteousness, graciously agreed to………. how did they put it….:
Let their BRITISH Electoral Commission, (an ”Independent” body, set up by the United Kingdom Parliament) assist with developing the form and the wording of the question and give a bespoke advisory service including providing guidance………
Yesssss……; much better to let the Mommyland assist them simple Kelpers with…: ”Developing the Form and the Wording of the Question and give them Bespoke Advisory Service including Guidance”………
That way we all can be sure that the ”Little People” from them Islands won’t make any ”unwanted mistakes”…….
Chuckle chuckle©
(69) Islas Malvinas
it`s definitely NOT Pinocchio`s. ;-)))
(71) kelperabout
You say:
”They endorsed our proposals thats all…..”
I say:
You Kelpers can’t even get permission to write the question to be asked at that ”Referendum”, laddie….
Wake up and smell the coffe……
@12 Please allow us to follow through on your comments.
Sep 05th, 2012 - 04:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“So, according to islander logic, the way to convince the world that a territory under sovereignty dispute should rightfully belong to them is to...
...confirm to the world that this is their desire?”
And the argie method is...?
“If you're going to hold a referendum, the least you could do is track down the descendants of the Argentines forced to depart ILLEGALLY in 1833 and let them participate just as fully as the descendants of those who did the crime itself.”
Unfortunately for your argument, the only individuals REQUIRED to depart were the members of the ILLEGAL UPRP garrison. FOUR others chose to depart. Their names are a matter of record. Do you have a list of other names together with PROOF that they were FORCED to leave the Falkland Islands? Naturally you don't. Because it DIDN'T HAPPEN!
The Islands are, of course, BRITISH. Because the British were amongst the first to land on them. Because Britain was the first to claim them. Because Britain NEVER renounced sovereignty. Which makes you lot greedy, corrupt, lying, failed trespassing thieves!
@17 Yes you are!
@32 I think not. It's beyond them. What you need is an exterminator!
@39 Who'd want live under a dishrag?
@53 You poor deluded moron. Is that what CFK told you to say? The system in the Falklands is no different to that in any other BOT. It's certainly a lot better than the long-running argie electoral fraud. Is it not the case that CFK got 54.1% of the less than 40% that voted?
It's true that the UN has multiple resolutions. But only ONE that was BINDING on all UN members. And argieland IGNORED it! The JOKE is YOU and your cesspit.
@61 Regrettably, the “official Argentine position” is a lie. Surprising? No. One of the few things that argies do well is lie. There's also cheat and steal. Or at least attempt to steal.
@66 You should get a brain. There must be someone you can steal one from.
@67, 69 Sh*te stinks. So does argieland. Connection?
@77 think you think we are simple kelpers, ha ha if that is the case what are you worried about? Well for simple people we are not doing a bad job of keeping you argietards out of our islands. :)
Sep 05th, 2012 - 04:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The following Commonwealth countries are members of the OAS - Canada, Barbados, Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica, Grenada, Dominica, Saint Lucia, Antigua & Barbuda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, the Bahamas, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Belize and Guyana. Dominica, Antigua and Barbuda and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines are also members of ALBA.
Sep 05th, 2012 - 04:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0One hopes that those countries which are members of the Commonwealth are working hard to convince those countries which need to be convinced that the referendum will be a genuine decision.
@53 diddums islas, you havent understood i will put it simpler for you.
Sep 05th, 2012 - 04:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0SELF-DETERMINATION!! REFERENDUM!! DEMOCRACY!!
you are already unfairly dismissing the result of a fair and free Democratic referendum and you call yourselves a Democracy?? cant wait to hear the official Argtard statement if it ever materializes.
nobody questions YOUR existence yet you have the nerve to say that THE FALKLANDS People are not worthy of basic human rights, is that the official argentine sweetner??
i have up-to-date news for you Dictator,nobody is excluded from HUMAN RIGHTS not even you, and im so glad The Falklands are ramming this REFERENDUM so far up archaic despot worshippers just like you, that you can taste it. mmmm tastes real good doesnt it?? :))))
remember “ALL PEOPLE HAVE HUMAN RIGHTS” ,you fukin relic!
comprehendi??
one last thing dribbler! have i mentioned........
SELF-DETERMINATION & REFERENDUM & DEMOCRACY :)))))
61 Doveoverdover
Sep 05th, 2012 - 04:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“but let me gently point out that the official Argentinian position is that a significant part of their territory is under foreign control against their wishes and held by force”
I am as confused by the above claim as I was by your worry about your pension being paid if the Falklands were somehow 'given' to the islanders, YET you posted to 'I don't Think' aka The Turnip In Chief 'that you could obviously afford' whatever it was under discussion.
The above claim has the term “significant part of their territory”. What do you consider to be significant? 50%? 25%? 10%?
The ACTUAL percentage of the ratio of the Falklands to the area of Argentina is ZERO period FOUR, FOUR % or 0.44%.
Given that it is less than one half or one percent would you like to amend the 'significant' to INSIGNIFICANT by ant chance?
And why is it held by force? I am sure you already know that answer, given your military and CT experience. :o)
Ok in reply to Think, how many time have the argentine gov lied? hmmm..
Sep 05th, 2012 - 05:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0KFC at the UN
Timmerman at the UN
Think on mercopress :)
(do feel free to add some more)
@77 Think
Sep 05th, 2012 - 05:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Electoral Commission is an “independent body set up by the UK Parliament” (see http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/about-us ) and is a body that advises on electoral matters and procedure. Its remit is to “support healthy democracy”
Mrs U is a presiding officer at UK elections and, believe me, there are plenty of things that can go wrong - and her “patch” is a small Buckinghamshire village with about 120 people.
HMG is responsible for providing Good Governance (which translates as “technical advice”) to the BOTs and the way we run elections in the UK is well respected around the World.
There have, of course, been instances of electoral fraud (eg personation and postal vote irregularities) but the procedure, as supervised by the Electoral Commission, has generally spotted these and they are normally perpetrated by unscrupulous elements within political parties - normally at a very local level.
I honestly think the UK system is as good as it can be and one of which we should be proud.
( 84) Steveu
Sep 05th, 2012 - 05:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You say:
“ I honestly think the UK system is as good as it can be and one of which we should be proud.”
I say:
“ I honestly ”Think” the UK system is a good system with room for improvment.....and one of which you can be proud of.
Having said that............; keep your anachronical Colonial ambitions out of the South Atlantic and everything will be fine between the (Still) United Kingdom and Southamerica.
Think- hate to spoil it but the advice on wording of the referendum will be also taken from the UN and other such open and unbiased organisations such as the Commonwealth Institute.
Sep 05th, 2012 - 05:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What is clear though is that porovisions will be made in the pre-voting day period for Argentina to come and put their case in a free and democratic way(wonder if they will?) - the whole thing-campaigning and voting will be open with impartial International observers. - IslasMalvinas we certainly expect you to come and campaign - or shutup
@85 Think
Sep 05th, 2012 - 05:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Of course there is always room for improvement
On to your second point, there seems to be this completely strange idea that SA is this kind of exclusive club which us nasty Europeans should stay out of. If you guys were all Amerindians, then we might listen but the Falklanders have been there at least as long as most SA European settlers and how they choose to be governed is completely up to them.
As another poster noted, the RG claim is less about the Falklands but more to have unchallenged access to Cape Horn and Antarctica. Sorry to spoil your party!
(86) Islander1
Sep 05th, 2012 - 05:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You say:
“Think- hate to spoil it but the advice on wording of the referendum will be also taken from the UN and other such open and unbiased organisations such as the Commonwealth Institute.”
I say:
Any links to that “information” or do I have to take your British word?
You say further:
”What is clear though is that provisions will be made in the pre-voting days period for Argentina to come and put their case in a free and democratic way (wonder if they will?) ”
I say:
I wouldn't hold my breath on that......
@88 Think
Sep 05th, 2012 - 06:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Look at http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/117126/Corporate-plan-2012-13-to-2016-17.pdf Page 7 gives a kind of mission statement
I think there will be no issue about canvassing by the Arg government - the Islanders have nothing to fear hearing the opposing view. Sadly, I think the Arg government will choose not to exercise this right as they will see this as giving the referendum legitimacy in their eyes.
Think - CFK should make a plea to the Islanders about an option for the Islanders to opt for joint soverignty or Argentine soverignty. She has nothing to lose after all. We had a politician just like her in the UK by the name of David Edward Sutch. Perhaps she could even set up a specfic arm of her party in memory of the late Lord Sutch to deal with this campaign?
Sep 05th, 2012 - 06:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(87) Steveu
Sep 05th, 2012 - 06:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Let me paraphrase your own words…..:
….. there seems to be this completely strange idea that Europe is this kind of exclusive club which us nasty South-Americans should stay out of. If you guys were all Pure Celtic and Germanic tribes, then we might listen but hundred thousands, if not millions of South-American immigrants have lived there for generations…..So, how they choose to be governed is completely up to them.
Can you spotthe incongruence and haughtiness in the above words?
@90...but Lord Sutch's policies were sensible by comparison to CFK
Sep 05th, 2012 - 06:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I particularly liked his manifesto commitment to raise the school leaving age to 90
I actually met him about three weeks before he died (the two events aren't hopefully connected) and he gave me a Loonyland Pound note which had Maggie Thatcher as the figurehead instead of HMQ
> Can you spotthe incongruence and haughtiness in the above words?
Sep 05th, 2012 - 06:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I, for one, cannot. Unless you're still at the pretense that your own origins are non-European and qualitatively different from those of the islanders.
@82 The significance is that it gives a width to Argentina that will help justify their slice of Antarctica.
Sep 05th, 2012 - 06:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@91
Sep 05th, 2012 - 06:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It is always hard to find an exact juxtaposition but just imagine that the British Isles are a little Celtic enclave and those nasty Vikings come and settle on a small island North West of Scotland - for the purpose of this hypothetical illustration we will call it the Faroe Islands
Would it bother us - not in the slightest!
What the hell is think talking about, he is deluded.
Sep 05th, 2012 - 06:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(95) Steveu
Sep 05th, 2012 - 06:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It is always hard to find an exact juxtaposition but just imagine the British Isles as a little Germanic Angel-Sächsich enclave and some nasty couple of million Pakis come and settle all over the place... for the purpose of this hypothetical illustration we will say that they wish to take political and economical control over the areas where they represent a majority, they want to live under their Sharia law and their political and economical allegiance lies 100% with Pakistan.......
Would it bother you?
Once again Dumb and Dumber have attempted to skew, distort and distract people away from the story.
Sep 05th, 2012 - 06:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Bring on the referendum and if it means nothing Argentina, you have nothing to worry about.
@97 ha ha, that's already happened, no news there. ;))
Sep 05th, 2012 - 07:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@97 I notice you've now turned an island into an “enclave”.
Sep 05th, 2012 - 07:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If we keep to the original script as an island, if they didn't bother us, we wouldn't bother them. Simples!
The political effectiveness of this referendum is shown best by the lack of any sensible, never mind effective counterargument by the Malvinista cause.
Sep 05th, 2012 - 07:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Proving to be a problem even to those who routinely distort or completely misrepresent the truth.
No amount of irrelevancies can distract from the central message the world will hear from this, real time not historical.
@85 But what “you say” is irrelevant. Do you not understand that? “You” are a failing pigsty of genocidal murderers. The Falkland Islands are a successful BRITISH Overseas Territory. “You” have no valid claim, influence or “rights”. A straightforward proposal. PROVE otherwise. A start would be forensically-proven documents. How about the agreement issued by Spain ceding territory to argieland? Perhaps you could provide a list of the non-military personnel transported to the Islands in 1832? And a list of the non-military personnel who left the Islands in 1833? And EVIDENCE that all four of them were FORCIBLY evicted? But you can't, can you? Because you're a cheating, lying, thieving argie.
Sep 05th, 2012 - 07:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@88 Of course you wouldn't hold your breath. Why would you want to die whilst proving that your entire country is composed of scum. Do stand up and proclaim how scummy you are. Are you not proud? Other countries can claim to be dictatorships, despots, terrorists, rogues, incompetent, crooked. But surely only argieland can “honestly” claim to be scum!
Here's a thought. Sh*te stinks. So does argieland. Is there a connection?
Why can't you tosspots do the entire world a favour and DIE?
The world has no need for gender-bending faggots.
Think, if this thing was reversed how would you feel if we taught our children a load of crap about your country, that our goal was to someday take this land regardless of the people living there because they are not a people and they should all go back to Italy, Spain etc. I bet you would enjoy that!
Sep 05th, 2012 - 07:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Other Argentine Dictocratic news:
Sep 05th, 2012 - 07:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0* Argentina fell nine places in the global competitiveness index for 85 to 94.
* Argentines claim food inflation exceeds 40%
* CFK says “No” to police monitoring her movements.
* National Deputy Elisa Carrio “Argentines are prisoners and the guards are thieves,”
* Argentina's currency is devaluing in neighboring countries
* Union boss “ CFK believes shes a goddess before which we must kneel”
* Gov't calls off telcom bidding, and grants contract to state-run company
* Gov’t rules no limits on credit card tax charges on purchases abroad as
tracking begins
* CGT Boss “CFK is acting like a mythomaniac ”
http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/south-america/item/12708-argentinas-government-clamps-down-on-credit-card-use
Hands up who wants to be Argentine??
however back on topic:
SELF DETERMINATION * REFERENDUM * DEMOCRACY
(103) Falkland Islands
Sep 05th, 2012 - 07:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I normally try to avoid any interaction with Turnips and, in your previous posts on this thread, you have certainly shown to be one....
But I will make an exception with you because you are a Kelper and I have a soft spot for you people.....
1) You teach your children a load of crap about my Country…….
2) Your goal is to control 12,000,000 km2 of South-Atlantic and the Anctartic for the sole benefit of Great Britain regardless of the 60,000,000 (Chileans & Argentineans) people living in the immediate vicinity…….
3) I bet you would enjoy that…….!
I am so glad that I am a kelper and have a right to free speech within a democracy. I pity all those people in arg who are kept gaged and bound by the wicked witch in the pink pig house. She is probably right now got her head in the malvinas spell book. :)
Sep 05th, 2012 - 07:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Colouring in the pictures no doubt.
Sep 05th, 2012 - 07:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I bet she forgets to colour in the red bit in our flag ;)
Sep 05th, 2012 - 07:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0103 Falkland Islands .
Sep 05th, 2012 - 07:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sadley that is what those morons did when they murdered the indigenous people. They decided to simply put their own kind in and educate them that one day they will take over the world. That was untill their counter part in Germany lost both world wars. They will never change their ways untill we actually do educate the next generation. It will take some doing mind but with the help of the world wide web and their current dictator ways we are already starting down that road. Nearly 2 thirds are ready to be re-educated so it seems according to the pols.
Education exactly, well said.
Sep 05th, 2012 - 07:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0105...
Sep 05th, 2012 - 07:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0British school children are lucky to learn the very basics of world history and the Falklands is certainly not on the sylabus. unlike the well documented brainwashing with lies of the RG youth but you are aware of this and are purely baiting.
The only militarised base on the Antarctic is ...you guessed it the RG base, desparate to exploit the natural resources, although they can't even manage to extract enough from their own lands due to inefficient companies and corruption.
back to the referendum...can't wait for the democratic system to endorse the wishes of the islanders.
Argentina has a military base actually on Antartica!!!
110 Falkland Islands
Sep 05th, 2012 - 07:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If you are looking for an informed debate on this issue then I'm afraid that you have picked the wrong person to have it with.
“Think” is so called because he doesn't. In the same way that perants will name their daughter “Angel” You can bet that the little darling won't be!!
And so to our friend “Think”. As his last post will graphically illustrate, he has had his head blown.
Rather than “Think” for himself, he prefers to Regurgitate state misinformation and Propaganda.
They are also the only nation to have opened fire on another nation in Antarctica!
Sep 05th, 2012 - 07:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0113... As del boy would say quel surpriseee
Sep 05th, 2012 - 07:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@95, the Faroe Islands is a great example to showcase Malvinistard logic really.
Sep 05th, 2012 - 07:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's a mostly self-governing territory which delegates defense and foreign policy to Denmark. Sound vaguely familiar?
Now let's just say for the sake of hilarity that Britain wanted to claim it.
We're a lot closer to the Faroes than the danes are, so naturally it makes NO sense that they have sovereignty over it, as we're closer it's obviously ours right? Look, we've even drawn a silly map where we've arbitrarily extended our continental shelf to include it (and iceland and greenland, about which more later), not really but it's easy enough to do in MSPaint.
To top things off, we even occupied the islands by force in 1940 (after Denmark fell to the nazis), so there's a definite historical precedent for it.
So as things are shaping up, we have a pretty solid case for ownership of the Faroes. We just need to send an ambassador to the UN to spread bald-faced lies about a mythical expelled colony in the 14th century, then we can send demands to Copenhagen that they let us annex the islands. The Faroese themselves don't even matter, basic human rights can be suspended as inconvenient nonsense.
And of course, once we get hold of the Faroes, it follows naturally that Iceland is also ours, and then greenland with all its potential mineral wealth. But it's more about “territorial integrity” than resources really.
Ha ha I like that one:)
Sep 05th, 2012 - 07:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@115 that's why I chose it - but your extrapolation was beautiful
Sep 05th, 2012 - 08:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0115 malicious bloke
Sep 05th, 2012 - 08:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Were you in Came-moron's reshuffle? If you weren't then you should have been!!
Think
Sep 05th, 2012 - 08:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”2) Your goal is to control 12,000,000 km2 of South-Atlantic and the Anctartic for the sole benefit of Great Britain regardless of the 60,000,000 (Chileans & Argentineans) people living in the immediate vicinity…….”
I think it would be nice and generous to set up something like the Falklands Islands Fund for Dispossessed Amerindians. That would clear that one up.
67 ”ProRG_American “Britain had nothing to do with the proposal to hold a Falklands’ referendum”
Sep 05th, 2012 - 09:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0HaHaHa. You should put on a comedy show in Vegas, you would be a smashing hit.
@120
Sep 05th, 2012 - 09:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“a smashing hit”, huh?
(120) :-)
Sep 05th, 2012 - 09:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Think-86- no links as such but it has been stated time and time again by our elected Councillors and by top local Govt officials as the reason why it cannot be done quickly and I think I saw just recently that money has now been approved within our current year for the costs which includes a figure for the observers costs.
Sep 05th, 2012 - 09:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So yes it will happen indeed the referendum would be of no real value unless it can be verified as free and fair etc by these folks.
As to who will comne and put the Arg case - i am inclined to agree - am watching the space as well! As an Islander though I hope they do- and that they are given a fair and civilized hearing by all of us.
105 Think
Sep 05th, 2012 - 10:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We don't teach our children anything about your country, Except that it is there. And that it wants to take over our country. And that it invaded us in 1982. And that it is responsible for the minefields.
No. No crap there.
I wouldn't make a point of teaching any of those things, but they do come up in conversation sometimes. Sometimes followed by 'will they ever come back?'and 'will I be a prisoner if they come back?'.
It would be quite hard to make you look appealing.
75 The problem you dont want to see is UK is the opressor country since 1833 and in keeping land by force, not letting argies to go to live there for more than 200 years, and in introducing a militarbase in a peaceful region, and in stealing resources that are in dispute, and in not going through negotiations estipulated by the UN, etc
Sep 05th, 2012 - 10:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(123) Islander1
Sep 05th, 2012 - 10:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sooo.... No links.....
Hope you are satisfied with the info+link I provided you about the King penguins breeding colony in Tierra del Fuego which existence you so much doubted ........
(124) Monty96
It is quite hard to make you look appealing to our kids too.
For the record Argentines have been living here since the rest of us and some generations can trace their ancestory right back to those individuals who chose to stay and be a part of this great little group of Islands. They had no hatred only respect for a well organised British system. A system that paid them fairly and yes allowed them to have land. So to all you uneducated Argentines who refuse to look at even your own history next time you start lipping about never allowing Argentines to live here think again. They are here right now. Yes some recent ones may be ore undesirable but you get that in any society.
Sep 05th, 2012 - 10:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This argument will likely go on forever untill all the old regime has passed on and the new ones who we are prepared give all the help they need in educating them will be a people that one day the rest of the world will look up to and say we have all this to thank the Falkland Islanders who tought us the truth about where we came from.
Now would that not be a nice piece of future history to read 200 years from now.
125 malen
Sep 05th, 2012 - 11:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Pull the other one, it's got bells on ;-)
I've been to Punta. It's not a peaceful region. It's always bristling with military chaps. They don't trust you either.
You can come and live here. Download the Penguin News, find a job, apply for it, get appointed and move. Simple.
126 Think
I'm sure that's true. The problem for you is that you need us to choose you in our referendum.
Is it easier to convince the entire world that Argentina *deserves* the Falklands, or convince
Sep 05th, 2012 - 11:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0your concept of peaceful region must be Lybia or Afghanistán or Iraq may be...
Sep 05th, 2012 - 11:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0obviously in Punta or in Mar del Plata you will find the militars, buy I dont see them declaring a liberated flying zone to protect civilians, with nuclear subs, or prooving missiles and they are part of a common defense concept in SAm
and Im sure I wouldnt be approved to go to live there... besides, only 25 argies are
130 malen
Sep 05th, 2012 - 11:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You don't have to be approved. You have to be employed. That is, you have to have a job, and you will only get a work permit if you can show that no Falkland Islander can or will do the job. Where you come from is not relevant.
Interesting comments made by all, except the usual brutes of course.
Sep 06th, 2012 - 01:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0The thing that most Argentines react to insofar as the referendum is concerned is that it belies the point of a dispute taking place, and I agree with that. Democratic (though non-binding) institutions are being utilized in an entirely unilateral fashion. Clearly, this referendum:
1. ignores the other side of the dispute (thus not likely to convince any nations)
2. misleadingly implies authority of law (under British law the referendum is non-binding)
3. seeks supplant a UN-sponsored conflict resolution venue with a popular expression billed as legitimate on the basis of the UN charter (a hypocritical and self-contradictory)
For these three reasons, a neutral, rational observer could do nothing but believe the referendum is absolutely ridiculous! Indeed, an act as void of significance or political value as a referendum put to the people of Argentina on the question of whether to continue efforts to recover the territories illegally usurped by Britain.
There is a reason why anyone can accurately predict the answer to either of these two unilateral referendums would be a resounding yes, and a relatively few nays. It amazes me to see that islanders have chosen to ignore the fact that such predictability negates the very intended and desired effect, especially given that the desired audience is an external one (the international community).
What it clearly does is betray the islander narrative strategy, which by its very nature must seek to separate the political status of the land from the political status of the inhabitants. The true question is not whether islanders are British, as they clearly are.
The question is whether the islands are legitimately British, and ought to remain in association with Britain. If the islands were independent, this referendum would have a very profound impact indeed. But the islands are not a country, even under the British system.
“Ridiculous”.
“Britain had nothing to do with the proposal to hold a Falklands’ referendum”
Sep 06th, 2012 - 01:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0Britain had nothing to do with the WMD fiasco in Iraq.
Britain had nothing to do with the forced expulsion of the Chagossians.
Britain had nothing to do with the invasions and blockade of Buenos Aires.
Britain had nothing to do with the concentration camps in South Africa.
Britain had nothing to do with the millions of dead in Ireland, India.
Britain had nothing to do with the three millions africans sent to the Americas as slaves.
Why nobody believes this wonderful country?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8e/English_imperialism_octopus.jpg
Marcos simian, you do talk a load of tripe! You never answered my previous questions regarding your worm farm!!!! Hows it doing?
Sep 06th, 2012 - 02:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0Back to the topic at hand..... Why, if the Rg claim is so strong, that they have still ( after so long) still not managed to do anything about it???? Clearly it isnt all in your favour which means 1) you must try harder 2) do so in a positive, not arrogant, way 3) stop bleeding whinging about it 4) and put marcos somewhere he belongs, like a chimps kindergarten
Because to do something about it would means to go to war, and Argentine society opposes war overwhelmingly. It would mean conquering you, kicking you out, repatriating you in Britain, by implied or used force without mercy, just as Britain did to us in 1833.
Sep 06th, 2012 - 03:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0So, we don't do something about it because we refuse to stoop down to your level. Or else, we would be as bad as you, and lose our moral standing from our international allies. That would be stupid.
I've read a number of comments to the effect of there being 20 or so Argentines living on the islands, or that they know Argentines who've settled there recently. Others have stated they know of Argentines who've acquired FI status. I find this hard to believe - islander businesses giving jobs to Argentines? 3000-ish of them for 5 years and your majority is gone. I don't think islanders would let that happen, but will give the benefit of the doubt: let's have some names! Nothing too personal, such that it would violate their privacy - but with the issue being as contentious as it is, you'd think you'd have heard from these people, for example: Who are they? What do they do for a living and for who? How long have they been there? Are they there by themselves or with their family? Is their family Argentine or British? Etc etc. I've searched and seen ZERO data on demographics of islander residents who are Argentine. Also, what about procedural steps to actually do this? FIG website sorely lacks information. What forms do you have to fill out? What fees if any are paid? Who approves or gives authorization? What are the applicable laws or governing regulations, and where might I read them? If the islands immigration policy is as liberal as claimed by some editors, you'd think all this information would be openly available as it would serve to counter Argentine claims to the tune of “you won't let any Argentine people in”. Odd that such a powerful rebuttal tool remains unsuported by actual, verifiable data...
135: again you try to claim this story of forced ejection of people from the islands in 1833 with no evidence. Plenty of posters have provided actual evidence that this did not take place, or at least not in the way Argies claim, but you and other posters who claim the ejection took place never, ever provide evidence. Are you honestly believing this story just because someone told you it, and are happy to have received no evidence of it? Please, PLEASE provide evidence or, for the lat time, please shut the hell up because this reported ejection story is becoming increasingly boring.
Sep 06th, 2012 - 05:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0@132 Hermes1967
Sep 06th, 2012 - 06:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0You are taking the position that the Argentine claims have some merit.
As I have posted earlier the main thrust of the Argentine claim is what might or might not have happened in 1833 plus some kind of “continental shelf” and uti posedis juris (an unrecognised concept outside of S America - in any case Spain expressly later recognised UK sovereignty) type arguments. Unless you get this resolved at the ICJ there is not really a lot we can do.
The Falklands are no different from any other New World territory - most have had their borders drawn by power and conquest - Argentina is certainly no exception and many indigenous peoples were wiped out as part of the process of emblanqueamiente (but indigenous people don't seem to count in these kinds of debates). Ironically the Falklands has had a relatively bloodless history so why the British exercising its right to remove an illegal garrison (whilst inviting any civilians to remain) is such a huge issue is beyond me.
In a cynical way it serves the current Argentine government's interest to have things as they are. Most of the recent stunts pulled by CFK and her cronies are ways maintaining her popularity with her power base - the lower classes (whilst quite happily shafting the middle classes - as most governments inevitably do)
No no no we've been over this before. Don't act like you don't know it. My only proof is history and can be summarized in 3 simple brief chronological points:
Sep 06th, 2012 - 06:52 am - Link - Report abuse 01. Britain's settlement is evicted from the islands by Spain, after which
2. Spain agrees to reinstate all British property which in the text is only listed as the “port and fort of egmont”, allowing Britain to return briefly and then abandon while leaving a plaque to reserve their rights over said “Egmont” property; followed by
3. Britain returning in 1833 claiming the whole archipelago, not just Egmont, was their property - an act of illegal usurpation.
As for the settlers who weren't “forced” to leave...
...what would you call it if following a sucessful invasion, and a war that lays waste to stanley, we told you that you may stay as long as you swear loyalty to us or leave voluntarily with the royal navy (and forefitting all property)??
Would you do nonchalantly label that outrage an “invitation” from us??
Or would you say to the world that you were EXPELLED???
BECAUSE THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT ONSLOW DID TO OUR CITIZENS.
Would some FIDF decide to stay clandestinely? Wait a while then try to kill RG authorities on the islands? OF COURSE THEY WOULD - and that's what we did. Let's reverse roles again in this analogy; Argentina calls YOUR people “murderers”, despite the fact they're sent to trial and acquitted just like the so-called “gaucho murderers”.
Wouldn't it add insult to injury that first we “invite” you to leave this now isolated wasteland, having destroyed most infrastructure present such that you'd be crazy not to even if we lose everything, and then when your people try to take back control we brand them murderers even if a judge sets them free??
How long would if take for you NOT to be pissed at Argentina following that chain of events?
Would the passage of 200 years quell your anger?
No? 300 then?
1000?
At what point would your descendants decide not to call for justice?
Right.
@Islas Malvinas
Sep 06th, 2012 - 06:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0You are the ones screaming “daddy I want it”.
We settled the islands before you.
The people who live their have built a community over a long period of time, longer than your country has occupied it's present borders.
The only illegal thing in 1833 was the Argentine garrison and the claim to soverignty by the United Provinces. Vernet's colony was established with permission of HMG.
Claiming the FI inevitably means kicking out or forcibly occupying someone elses land, as long as the inhabitants don't wish your presence.
You have form for it - 1771 - The Spanish invasion of the British settlement (which pre-dates your own claims).
1833 - installing the aforementioned garrison and claiming sole soverignty over the FI, disputed by HMG at the time and dealt with....
1982 - yet another Argentine invasion.
When you add the constant harrasment of the FI since 1982 by your govt - you maight want to consider why the Falklanders are'nt so keen on your country.
RG trolls cant provide evidence they just change the subject of forum, distract and move on.
Sep 06th, 2012 - 07:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0If you knew anything about what we actually claim, instead of what you've been indoctrinated to believe we claim, you would know that our pisition is that the argentine claim and the Spanish claim were one and the same.
Sep 06th, 2012 - 07:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0In any case, you are all getting off topic. I asked a serious question before in response to all these claims about argentine people living on the islands (and the process by which that is supposedly allowed) and I've heard nothing in response.
Don't go on a tangent about history, answer the questions (or admit this is simply more islander bollox).
Ok smart arse, lets accept your flimsy claims for arguments sake but now please please please explain your legit claim over south georgian and sandwich islands..... Spain were never there and neither any indig. Population or any RGs .......... Please enlighten us all as u seem to be clever that u should clearly be running for world leader
Sep 06th, 2012 - 07:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0@141
Sep 06th, 2012 - 08:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.falklands.gov.fk/Employment_&_Taxation.html
Prospective immigrants to the Falkland Islands must have either work permits, residence permits or permanent residence permits granted prior to their arrival. Applications should be made to the Customs & Immigration Dept, 3 H Jones Road on the appropriate form obtainable using the contacts at the top of this page. Work permit applications should be accompanied by sponsorship and a form of bond signed by the applicants prospective employer in the Falklands, and a criminal record check containing details of all, including spent, offences (other than minor motoring offences).
Residence permit applications (both temporary & permanent) should include details of financial resources. All applicants must show that they have secure accommodation arrangements.
All applicants may be required to undergo a medical examination and provide evidence that they have not been convicted of a serious criminal offence.
So, nothing in there about nationality, citizenship or status.
@141
Sep 06th, 2012 - 08:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0I think we do all know the position that Argentine inherited the Spanish claim. There are just a couple of problems with that :
- the Spanish claim was never adjudicated in favour of the Spanish in the first place
- the Spanish never left the claim to you anyway
- there is no generally accepted legal doctrine supporting your contention
- after 200 years and a failed invasion, it's all irrelevant anyway.
@138
We have been through the Port Egmont theory already, and the basic problem remains that the Treaty does not say what you say it says.
As for your Rivero thesis, it's pure conjecture which is not just unsupported by any credible source, it is flatly contradicted by those that do exist.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Thomas_Helsby%27s_Account_of_the_Port_Louis_Murders
Indeed from a purely common sense point of view, it is difficult to see how a guerilla revolution could have been taking place against the usurping British authorities, when the only “British” “authority” on the islands at the time of the murders was Vernet's Irish storekeeper.
Nor is there even consensus on the Rivero question among the Argentine Malvinista community. Contention over the issue even led to the dissolution of the Instituto Nacional de las Islas Malvinas y Adyacencias in 1967.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Thomas_Helsby%27s_Account_of_the_Port_Louis_Murders
and
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Thomas_Helsby%27s_Account_of_the_Port_Louis_Murders
“The Argentine National Academy of History considered in 1966 that Rivero and his followers were common criminals driven by no patriotic feeling”
@132
The referendum exposes the basic contradiction in the Argentine position, namely that you are attempting to deny the islanders a voice in their own future, while complaining about colonization. This could pull the whole UN rug out from underneath you. No wonder the Malvinistas are so pissed.
The malvinistas are becoming frantic now that a referendum will show the world that we want nothing to do with Argentina.
Sep 06th, 2012 - 09:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0l see our old friend hermes is back, spouting his usual doublespeak lies.
Hermes, we do not care if you believe or not about Argentine settlers on these lslands & we are certainly not going to give you any names.
And as for haughty Chief Squatting Turnip(Think),
so what if we want the Antarctic, it certainly does not belong to Argentina.
You are johny-come-latelys.
Concetrate on your own country(which you stole from the Amerindians, after you'd murdered them).
@145 - “after you'd murdered them”
Sep 06th, 2012 - 09:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0That is only half right. Genetics show that the policy was “Kill the savage and rape the savagess”.
@138 I think your first point has already been answered
Sep 06th, 2012 - 09:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0How long do you want us to indulge your national self-pity? We lost Calais back in the reign of Queen Mary I (actually no great loss if you've ever been there ;-) ) and we lost most of North America but you don't see us bang on about it. We are where we are - none of us are personally affected.
There seems to be this threat to Argentine “manhood” regarding territory (you are quite happy to steal it from your neighbours or indigenous peoples on the other hand)
In 1833 you were evicted from an illegal occupation or defeated militarily - choose your choice of phrase. I can't sugar coat it for you
@Hermes1967: ”As for the settlers who weren't “forced” to leave...
Sep 06th, 2012 - 09:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0...what would you call it if following a sucessful invasion, and a war that lays waste to stanley, we told you that you may stay as long as you swear loyalty to us or leave voluntarily with the royal navy (and forefitting all property)??
Would you do nonchalantly label that outrage an “invitation” from us??
Or would you say to the world that you were EXPELLED???
BECAUSE THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT ONSLOW DID TO OUR CITIZENS.”
Provide proof or shut up.
@148 or imagine
Sep 06th, 2012 - 09:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0“You can stay here and cause mayhem - we don't mind”
“Swearing loyalty” basically means that you won't cause trouble.
We could have chosen to have solved the problem Argentine-style but aircraft hadn't been invented in 1833
The thing that goes with democracy,
Sep 06th, 2012 - 10:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0Is that some people truly object to freedom of choice, while claiming [freedom of choice]
Some claim democracy, while objection to [democracy]
Some even claim freedom of speech, yet object to others,
If the Falklands freely choose to be aligned to another country this is her choice,
Argentina is a great mass of land, with great wealth under her soil,
Why then does this nation wish to deprive a tiny island the same rights,
You either believe in democracy , freedom of choice and freedom of speech, or you believe in dictatorship,
You can’t have it both ways,
[unless one is indoctrinated] and thus believe that only your way, is the only way,
Just a thought .
.
143 Doveoverdover (#)
Sep 06th, 2012 - 10:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0@141
www.falklands.gov.fk/Employment_&_Taxation.html
the document clearly states that to come live and work in the islands one has to have no criminal record.
Guess that rules out the vast majority of Argentines who seem to be of a long line of murderers and dictators. Not the kind of people we need to run this efficient Country we have developed.
“Because to do something about it would means to go to war, and Argentine society opposes war overwhelmingly”
Sep 06th, 2012 - 11:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0So you effectively admit that all the Malvinistas' legal excuses pertaining to the sovereignty of the islands are so baseless that the ICJ would definitely rule in Britain's favour? If Argentina had anything to its case other than misinformation and outright lies the matter could have been settled by international adjudication long ago.
No need for (yet another) Argentine war of aggression against a defenceless populace.
Argentina by it's very existance was created through human greed by a people who could not get what they wanted in another part of the world so went of to steel from someone else. Saddly they learned nothing on the way because their attitude to everyone around them has not changed.
Sep 06th, 2012 - 11:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0Now is the time for all of those bordering neighbours to call the shots and tell CFK to back off. Surely these Countries must by now realise that the Argentines are only any good at spouting off hot air. Why they did not even have the will power to hold these Islands once Britain started to show its might. They had all the key positions and high ground then and lost it. They still hurt from that bloody nose but more than that the people in Argentina ( the genuine families) who lost loved ones through that Countries brutal History are now starting to stand up and be counted. It is those people who just like those in the middle East will one day be the people that change the whole thinking of South America.
Couple that with educational help from other democratic Countries and we will have a much more stable region in Latin America.
Those through these comments that simpley refuse to move on will themselves become victims because the world has changed and if they don't grasp it now they most deffinatly will be left out in the cold.
The world over, human greed has prevailed and where it has not there are some who try to make it sound like it is. The Falkland Islanders are a good example of a people that came here to settle a barron unpopulated place with no intention of imposing an act of greed. It would do the Argentines a lot of good to take a long hard look at just how succesful we have been in such a chaotic world.
141 MalvinasArgentinas “you would know that our pisition is that the argentine claim and the Spanish claim were one and the same”
Sep 06th, 2012 - 11:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0make up your mind it's either your claim or the spanish claim, you can't claim both, maybe we could claim from the spanish claim too. How can you claim from the spanish when it was them you waged war on to claim Argentina. You can't have it both ways. The spanish clung onto their claim of the Falklands long after your independence, they gave up their claim later which was left only with Britains claim, so Buzz off.
And the Malvinists go to school! We wont here from them till after the cartoons have finished
Sep 06th, 2012 - 11:54 am - Link - Report abuse 094 Doveoverdover
Sep 06th, 2012 - 12:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Perhaps, but I would have thought that Tierra Del Fuego had a stronger 'claim' to Antarctica, being closer than the Falklands after all.
No, I think it is the oil, and the frustration with Nestor's error in ripping up the agreement with the Falklanders that has screwed with what passes as a brain for TMBOA.
I sometime wonder what she would do if ever the islands passed into her domain. It would of course remove any chance to scweem and scweem about the (imagined) injustice of it all on the world stage and give the populace a chance to see for themselves the idiocy of their position.
@Englander
Sep 06th, 2012 - 01:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Nobody in the UK wants to go to war but this time, unlike 1982, UK forces will be ready and in good shape to inflict heavy casualties on the Argentine aggressor.”
I guess the Argies this time will sink your entire Royal Navy and will kill every body in the process.
So be sure to be well fit to don’t embarrass your self...
@157 well what can one say, you still act like you think you are better than you are, this is a big Argie fault. My advice is don't jump into the water until you have checked how deep it is!
Sep 06th, 2012 - 01:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You hit it in one @156 ChrisR (#) If the Islands were not rich in potential oil and Fish there is only one other reason this need for greed exists and that is thre Antartic area because if they had control of that who knows what they would do. We all know the huge resources in that area and given the stratagic position of the Falklands would have massive control of who could and could not get there.
Sep 06th, 2012 - 01:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0However we may not be a very big Country but we are here and it is comforting to know that Britain will defend our rights against agression. I also believe that those Countries on the Argentine borders should stand united in democtatic freedom and I am also sure that if they were to do so they would get the international support they are so afraid they won't get.
This is the 21st century and people are moving on from those dark ages just a pitty Argentina can't bring themselves to do the same.
To go right back to the start of this article. Falkland Islanders are doing everything politically correct and wether or not Argentina likes it the referendum will take place and those results will inform the entire world of our wishes once and for all.
@159 kelperabout, yes this is what I have been saying all along. Antarctica is their main goal, if they had the Falklands sg and ssi then their territorial rights would block most of the SW Atlantic. Also airspace is also controlled by them. This would mean Britain, Chile, Russia, China etc. would find it difficult to reach their bases on the Antarctic Peninsular if Argentina closed it's airspace and sea routes to them, this is another good reason for us to keep the Falklands British .
Sep 06th, 2012 - 02:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@105 You're a liar! Let me rephrase that: You're a misbegotten, poxy liar!
Sep 06th, 2012 - 02:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@120 Numpty! Do you need that translated?
@123 Very important to re-enact history. If any argies dare visit, EXPEL them once the referendum is over. By air? But only halfway. Let them swim the rest of the way. Carrying a gravestone each? And towing a bodybag!
@125 You brain-dead moron. Who has the UK oppressed? Not you. You have enough oppression of your own. No surprise that few argies are allowed in the Islands. Except for target practice. A military base only built because of a neighbouring cesspit. Resources? Argies contaminate air. Neither Britain nor the Falkland Islands recognise any dispute. And there is no binding UN resolution that says otherwise.
@132 1. There is no dispute. Argieland's claims are not valid.
2. Is it binding under Falklands law? The recognised legislature is the Falkland Islands Assembly.
3. There is no acceptable UN-sponsored conflict resolution venue. If you are referring to the C-24, Britain does not recognise its competency. Not surprising considering its biased membership.
And you are neither neutral nor rational.
@133 Shut up, you argie genocidal murderer!
@135 You “oppose” war for two reasons. You are cowards and you know you would be beaten, again. Argie residents of the Islands are none of your business. Can't take any chances that relatives that might be unfortunate enough to still live in argieland might be “punished”. Try giving us a list of the argies you say were expelled in 1833. How long would you like? A year? 5? 10?
@138 Sorry, you're wrong. Spain agreed to return all goods and chattels and pay compensation. And Britain returned in 1771. In 1833, there is no evidence of a “war”. A “war” perpetrated by ONE ship? Over 3 DAYS? Why don't you try something credible?
@141 Numpty! The Spanish claim and the argie claim are one and the same? In your deluded dreams. “You” have no legal right to “inherit” anything.
This referendum is a true democratic thing to do when issues like these arrive. Now for some strange reason it goes in favour of the argies I would not like it, but that is the way it is. I would have to bite my lip, sell my house and leave. As a man I feel I would honour the outcome. Let this be a lesson Argentina, act like an adult and Let it be!
Sep 06th, 2012 - 02:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0158
Sep 06th, 2012 - 04:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Good advice. Lets hope the lunatic fringe of Argentine society is kept in its box, here on Mercopress. Otherwise I can only see disaster and more humiliation for a Country that should be matching Australia in respect, success and prosperity.
Wow. All these responses and not a single one of you could answer my question. Dover at least tried but all he did was repost the link to the web page I saw earlier.
Sep 06th, 2012 - 04:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0WHO ARE THESE SUPPOSED 20 ARGENTINES LIVING ON THE ISLANDS???
How many of them have FI status?
How long have they been there?
Who do they work for?
Are they on FB?
What is the governing law or regulation for Argentines to live on the islands - and link?
Where are the forms? Etc etc etc...all your claims
...and after waiting 8 hours all I hear is CRICKETS.
“RGs living on the islands”...just another islander fantasy.
Ok idiot, here is one check the link, you will also find more about him on the web
Sep 06th, 2012 - 04:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0He makes no bones about who's side he is on, excuse the pun.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/argentine-war-cemetery-falklands-vandalized
Most Malvinista claimants have a problem - none of them seem to have a coordinated perception of the Argentine claim to sovereignty of the Falklands Islands, a self governing British territory in the South Atlantic. Each of them have a basic erroneous idea that in 1833 Britain expelled some citizens of the Provincias Unidas who were working on the Islands with the prior approval of the British Consul in Buenos Aires. In fact, these workers were asked if they wished to stay voluntarily and all but three stayed and those that left -VOLUNTARILY - requested to go to Montevideo, not to Buenos Aires.
Sep 06th, 2012 - 05:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Most of the rest of the Argentine claim, which is coordinated by nobody, is basically a fairy story with no foundation. Furthermore, when the Southern Arana Treaty, the “treaty of perfect friendship” between Argentina and Britain, was ratified in 1850 no mention was made of the Falklands/Malvinas. Had Rosas and his government really wished to continue with the spurious and valueless claim then this would have been mentioned in that treaty.
@164 well i tried, but now you are ignorant, so if you want more names find them yourself!
Sep 06th, 2012 - 05:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0164 MalvinasArgentinas (#)
Sep 06th, 2012 - 05:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I personally know four Argentine families living on the Islands but as for revealing their names their work and other criteria would not be the right thing to do.
However if you feel you are not getting enough information then why not call our local imigration office who I am sure would be more than happy to explain to you just how you can come and live here Argenine or not.
The only one stipulation made against any Argentine that I am aware of is that they are not allowed to purchase land . They may rent or lease but if I am correct our policy makers made this law imediatly after 1982 when your fellow Countrymen tried to steal our homeland.
Also you have to be someone who does not have a police record or deemed to be a risk to our national security. To answer that i believe from what you are already writing you personally would not qualify because you have so much hatred for Falkland islandsers as shown in your commen.
Bottom line is though there are quite a few Argentines living and working on the Islands wether you believe it or not does not matter. We know they are here and that is all that matters.
It has been voiced locally why we still let the Argentines come to live and work here because their Country has so much agro against us. But like it or not we acept the decissions made after all that is what democracy stands for. Something you obviously care litte about 164 MalvinasArgentinas (#)
MalvinasArgentinas
Sep 06th, 2012 - 06:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sorry , did you ask a question? I only heard ranting.
Are you wanting us to name every single Argentine living in the Falkland Islands? And give you their personal details? And Facebook profiles?
Are you insane?
One of them is a neighbour and good friend who is married to a Falkland Islander and has been for fifty years. I don't think she'd be too impressed if I gave out her details to a bunch of deranged borderline personality disorder cases.
MalvinasArgentinas (#) You seem to know rather a lot about things like FI status, if you are so wised up to these kind of issues then it does make me wonder just who you are. It would not surprise me to find out that you are already living on the Islands possibly one of the Argentines that we have reason to suspect is not all they are supposed to be.
Sep 06th, 2012 - 07:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Funny how during the 1982 conflict there was an Argentine living here who betrayed his very family then left to go live in Argentina. We even had our own disalusioned local who also chose to go live in Argentina at that time and as far as I am concerned he made a free choice to move. We have even had one local change nationality to become an Argentine again a free choice. Just by the same token some Argentines have chosen to come and settle here. The vast majority are here because it is so hard to live in Argentina. Some are here for possible devious reasons but that I am afraid is the nature of the world. So 164 MalvinasArgentinas (#) I do not think anyone in their right mind would divulge such information you request because it would put those people at risk. Chances are in your frame of mind you would vent your revenge on them for having accepted us for the people and Country we are.
Unless you start listening to us you are never going to know the truth are you. I believe that you are a suitable canditate for re- education .
Your proclaimed referendum would only say that you are british.
Sep 06th, 2012 - 08:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A status You did not decide on your own but was imposed by the british nationality act in late 1982 as a consequences of the Malvinas war.
There has been no proposal for to you to choose from, so..you will continue to hold what the monarchy that rules you has told you to be.
Blaming Argentina, for your illegal status is not but just a media scheme , the UN does not recognize you but as implanted population, based on historical facts that the world or better said: the other world in which you are being hosted,knows.
Your coming to the Islands back in 1833 was not peaceful at all. This mere fact will taint your living on stolen land forever. Do not blame me or Argentina for this, is just an historical fact. There is a saying for this, do not shoot the messenger..
The richness of the land does not belong to you. The acquiring of the land was not rightful.. ergo, You have no rights on it..furthermore..geographically the land you live on belongs to the continent as it is part of the continental platform..plenty of international legislation on the matter, signaling clearly that the rightful owner, is not You, but Argentina.
You may believe that holding a referendum is democratic..but the conditions you could exercise this act ..are not. You are subjects of a monarchy, this mere fact violate art 1 of the Human Chart of Rights. To live under a monarchy is not democratic, no matter how you want to see it. It is not, you do not have the right to choose the nobility that rules You.
In a way you are living in bondage, and the presence of the 1500 plus troops surrounding you clearly depicts that..moreover..the pedigree of those troops is brutality with the weak offshore and at the feud..8000 miles away.
I hope you understand that this referendum is imposed on to you..not to have a choice..of freedom..of the fifth economy of the world, Mercosur ..Unasur. UK has a crippling debt..that You as subjects..will pay.
Why should we listen to you when you won't listen to us?
Sep 06th, 2012 - 09:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why should anyone listen to you when you make up false historical conclusions and won't even acknowledge history the way Britain itself recorded it?
No....much easier to pick and choose your facts that support only your point of view. Much easier to ignore all events that demonstrate your indefensible usurpation of our national territory. Much easier to create propaganda to convince the international community that you should have the right to continue exploiting the national resources of a developing nation.
Your doublespeak is inventive, I'll give you that. You present yourselves as either “british” or your own “country”, based on how it suits you.
You'll quote the treaty of 1850 all day, one you made with a pro-british dictator that headed an inconstitutional government; but you'll ignore the treaty of peace of 1825 that you made with a democratic government at a time when there was an argentine garrison present in the islands.
You'll agree that all spanish viceroyalty lands became independent, except for that one archipelago which is arbitrarily and misteriously excluded from that independence even after britain made no objections as below.
You'll claim up and down that 1833 was a restoration of sovereignty but ignore Britain's recognition of our independence made at a time when there was argentine presence on the islands and NO BRITISH OBJECTION RAISED ABOUT IT.
You'll claim britain had complete uninterrupted sovereignty over the islands since the british discovery while ignoring that original documents exist of a spanish discovery a hundred years before the british, and a 1771 document listing the totality of british possessions on the islands as “egmont”, which the british did not object to.
The difference between argentines and islanders is that argentines back up their position with british historians, while islanders back their positions by ignoring british historians.
Please...
@172 Which British historians?
Sep 06th, 2012 - 09:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@169 yes monty I asked several questions. You can tell because in the English language, interrogatives will be followed by this funny little squiggly line with a dot below it...looks like this “?”
Sep 06th, 2012 - 09:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Of course - that's English! Given the propensity for islanders to change facts around as they see fit, who knows what kind of question mark you'll pull out of your arse. So it's understandable you'd confuse my questions for a rant.
@170 “It would not surprise me to find out that you are already living on the Islands...”
MAYBE I AM!!! Maybe I'm really a clandestine scout...(cue creepy twilight zone music). Maybe I'm that sketchy-looking RG bloke you run across every day on the way to the pub on philomel...you know, then one that looks at you funny but then acts all aloof.
Guess you'll never know...
@168 ok - can you ask them to post something without revealing personal info?
And why should I have to call the immigration office - don't they have a website? Don't they post the applicable laws and regulations that govern immigration, for all to clearly read and see, like every free and technologically modern nation in the world does?
They do have internet there, do they not?
Could they not post the governing law, or at least say what it is and where to read it? Could they not post their principal officers, and their responsibilities? Could they not post the exclusion policies?
Dont' they keep statistics and demographic information about who comes into the islands, from where, who they work for, how long they're there for, etc etc etc?
Can't they publish this data online for all to see?
I don't want to violate anyone's privacy - but how about a measly pie chart?
It seems quite obvious to me, the purpose of the referendum is one aimed at the international community, intended to convey and convince them regarding the claimed legitimacy of the FIG and of the right of self-determination which you claim.
What better way than to say “argentines voted as well”.
@172
Sep 06th, 2012 - 09:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You hardly need a vast army of historians, British or otherwise, to point out the faulty premises behind this argument :
> you'll ignore the treaty of peace of 1825 that you made with a democratic government at a time when there was an argentine garrison present in the islands.
There was no argentine garrison, there was a settlement authorised by the British authorities
> You'll agree that all spanish viceroyalty lands became independent, except for that one archipelago which is arbitrarily and misteriously excluded from that independence even after britain made no objections as below.
The one archipelago mysteriously excluded is the only one where the UK had its own sovereignity claim.
> You'll claim up and down that 1833 was a restoration of sovereignty but ignore Britain's recognition of our independence made at a time when there was argentine presence on the islands and NO BRITISH OBJECTION RAISED ABOUT IT.
Of course THERE WAS NO BRITSH OBJECTION raised as long as the presence was the one authorised. When squatters turned up, on the other hand ....
> You'll claim britain had complete uninterrupted sovereignty over the islands since the british discovery while ignoring that original documents exist of a spanish discovery a hundred years before the british, and a 1771 document listing the totality of british possessions on the islands as “egmont”, which the british did not object to.
The 1771 document does not limit the totality of British possessions in any way, and moreover and as intended, leaves the sovereignity question unresolved.
> The difference between argentines and islanders is that argentines back up their position with british historians
You've tried with historians, you've tried with military. Why not try lawyers?
Why not try lawyers?
Sep 06th, 2012 - 10:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We'd love to. We'd be happy to. Except the UK does not accept compulsory jurisdiction of ICJ in cases arising before 1974.
http://www.icj-cij.org/jurisdiction/index.php?p1=5&p2=1&p3=3&code=GB
Since the British action to which we object took place in 1833, that eliminates ICJ as a possible avenue of resolution. Only thieves are afraid of courts.
@173 “Which British historians?”
The arguments put forward in support of british sovereignty conflict with the (many, many) conclusions of the following british subject matter experts, all highly regarded in their fields - to name a few, Jeffrey Myhre, Peter Beck, Ronald Barston, Patricia Birnie...
...somewhat odd, especially coming from people who claim to have facts on their side - why would their ignore their own historians?
@177
Sep 06th, 2012 - 10:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0April 29, 1982
Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher addressing the House of Commons:
“ Although we have no doubt about our sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, South Georgia, South Sandwich or British Antarctic Territory, some of my right hon. and hon. Friends have suggested that we refer the matter to the International Court of Justice. Since Argentina does not accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the court, the issue cannot be referred for a binding decision without her agreement.
We have never sought a ruling on the Falkland Islands themselves from that court, but we have raised the question of the dependencies on three separate occasions—in 1947, 1949 and 1951. Each time Argentina refused to go to the court.
In 1955, the British Government applied unilaterally to the International Court of Justice against encroachments on British sovereignty in the dependencies by Argentina. Again, the court advised that it could not pursue the matter since it could act only if there was agreement between the parties recognising the court's jurisdiction.
In 1977, Argentina, having accepted the jurisdiction of an international court of arbitration on the Beagle Channel dispute with Chile, then refused to accept its results. It is difficult to believe in Argentina's good faith with that very recent example in mind.
There is no reason, given the history of this question, for Britain, which has sovereignty and is claiming nothing more, to make the first move. It is Argentina that is making a claim. If Argentina wanted to refer it to the International Court, we would consider the possibility very seriously. But in the light of past events it would be hard to have confidence that Argentina would respect a judgment that it did not like.”
Source: HC 22/980-85 Hansard
Not that I'm a big fan of Maggie or anything, but she's clearly left the door open for you. And as you say, “only thieves are afraid of courts”.
Ok Hans..
Sep 06th, 2012 - 10:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“There was no argentine garrison, there was a settlement authorised by the British authorities”
Wrong, there was a military garrison present, led by CDR Pablo Areguati.
“The one archipelago mysteriously excluded is the only one where the UK had its own sovereignity claim.”
Wrong again, britain had a RESERVATION of a sovereignty claim and NO PHYSICAL PRESENCE at the time.
“When squatters turned up, on the other hand ....”
3 for 3 - and BTW that's the point!! The rightful owners that you call “squatters” were already present, had a garrison posted, and not a peep in objection from London when it recognized our independence.
“The 1771 document does not limit the totality of British possessions in any way”
HA! Read it - of course it does. It specifically lists everything belonging to the british to be restored and the specific british territory to where it was to be restored.
There were no other british posessions at the time. Not to mention that prior to the inciident, standing orders from the FO were that any foreign presence on the island violated the king's sovereignty and was to be evicted.
This indicates a clear pre-incident british assertion of sovereignty over the whole archipelago, followed by a treaty with spain in which the british crown reverses itself and accepts both a legitimate spanish presence and a limitation upon its claim that leaves to britain only egmont. This is then followed by arguments at Commons where opposition MPs specifically complain that britain's sovereignty on the archipelago has been drastically limited.
All british sources, all of which who you conveniently ignore. The fact is, after 1771 your only posession was Egmont; when you left your plaque it reserved sovereignty for Egmont, and when you returned in 1833 the only sovereignty you could legitimately claim to re-establish was over egmont.
Instead, you implied the use of superior firepower and took the whole.
THEFT...plain and simple.
@176 Thanks for that
Sep 06th, 2012 - 10:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I searched the internet and came up with this publication by Barston/ Birnie (see http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0308597X8390057X ) but from what I can see (without stumping up $35 to download it) it deals with the concept of zones during the '82 conflict
Myhre's 1982 publication can be seen at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0308597X8390057X - I've had a quick scan of it and its an opinion as far as I can see. He is mainly in the uti posedis juris camp (although he does extrapolate on the basis of this not being the case) and he is a legal expert rather than a historian so I think he may be basing his judgement on the historical evidence that he had to hand. As Spain never formally renounced their claim until they transferred it to Britain (habitation does not relinquish a sovereignty claim - the SSI are mainly uninhabited and yet the UK asserts sovereignty ) then the Argentine claim is still very shaky IMO.
@178 Hermes
Sep 06th, 2012 - 11:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You're just hair-splitting. The Vernet settlement, Areguati included, was authorised and accepted by the Brits. (This turns out to have been a mistake, but there you go). This situation is qualitatively distinct from Pinedo's arrival with the intent of taking the whole place over
The Falklands were the only piece of territory where the Brits disputed Spanish sovereignity. The precise legal form of the claim is irrelevant. Your contention is that the Falklands case was not different from any other territory of the vice-royalty, so given that there was no other RESERVATION of sovereignity, thank you for clarifying that it was.
The 1771 Treaty simply restored the status quo ante prior to the Spanish destruction of the British settlement at Port Egmont.. If it only refers to that settlement, that's because it was only Port Egmont that was destroyed by the Spanish.
MalArg,
Sep 06th, 2012 - 11:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Maybe the Argentines are being held hostage, like us, by the military.!
Find out their names yourself,
None of your business anyway.
Hans, I'm not hair-splitting. I'm simply taking into account all the facts, while you choose to ignore some to favor your position. The precise legal form of the claim is absolutely relevant to those who consider facts to be relevant.
Sep 06th, 2012 - 11:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Vernet settlement applied for British authorization because there was work to be conducted by them at EGMONT. Vernet was aware of the british sovereignty reservation on Egmont and thus rightly sought permission. This is no way invalidates the Spanish Viceroyalry's reservation of sovereignty over the remainder of the archipelago, nor does it invalidate that territory's independence from the Spanish crown at the same time as the rest of the Viceroyalty's territories.
You're still arbitrarily excluding the islands from the act of independence and offering no proof to validate this view.
I never said there was no other reservation, you're putting words in my mouth. You're doing so only because you know your argument is weak and unfounded.
The 1771 Treaty entered upon by Britain alters the British view of the scope of its sovereignty heretofore. Hence the previous orders to evict any foreigners anywhere else on the archipelago. That changed to British acceptance of Spanish presence, very clearly acceptance of a limitation upon their previous claim of total sovereignty.
Peron didn't want to go to ICJ, you're right. Britain knew of his anti-imperialist positions and chose the time to make their ICJ offers wisely. Funny all three took place during Peron's administration, none before or since. Marketing, marketing...
In any case that was the view of ONE administration, a temporary policy. I've demonstrated a british LAW that mandates a british refusal to go to ICJ. There's no such law in argentina. The only party that TODAY doesn't want to go to ICJ is britain.
Your facts on chile are wrong - there was no ICJ ruling, but a treaty to continue bi-lateral discussions. More later...
@181 you know what isolde its YOUR claim, your silence only goes to prove you're full of shyte.
Sep 06th, 2012 - 11:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You said something - I said PROVE IT.....silence.....as usual, islander assertions backed by nothing but hot air.
@ Hans, continued:
Sep 06th, 2012 - 11:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What you mean is there's no STRATEGIC reason for Britain to make the first move. And that's true.
The enclave is well armed and heavily defended, yet even that fact works to undermine its claim to sovereignty. Certainly, latam nations on the rise like Brazil, after its newfound oil discovery, have and continued to recognize the folly of british sovereignty obtained at the point of a gun.
Frankly, no referendum could possibly be more impactful or representative of the british claim to latam nations than the british military presence, one far stronger than what the entire governments of most latam nations can muster at all. Even if only defensive in nature, its very goal is to hold a usurped territory and will thus be perceived offensively.
Lastly, consider the plight of the Chagossians - having obtained favorable judgements from even the highest british court, a simple “order in council” royal decree is used to invalidate that judicial review which, when challenged, is upheld by the house of lords - noblemen! This happened in the 21st century!!
Isn't it a royal decree, by another name? Are we lying in objecting to 19th C.-style colonialism??
You say “it would be hard to have confidence that Argentina would respect a judgment” well MY GOD what sort of confidence can the world have over britain's respect of an international court when britain won't even respect the decisions of its domestic legal system??
@179 Steve - ok, so when exactly did Spain formally renounce its claim and transferred it to Britain? I've seen no such document.
The only act of relinquishing possessions on the part of spain was in 1863 over its former territories under the Viceroyalty of the River Plate, including island territories, of which the Islas Malvinas were a part of.
To make that claim, you need to demonstrate the Spanish recognition of independence of that jurisdiction somehow excludes a part of that jurisdiction. So far I've seen no proof of this.
184 Hermes1967
Sep 06th, 2012 - 11:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What a shocking load of hypocritical drivel.
Our country was barely defended at all until you invaded in 1982, and decided to steal sovereignty 'at the point of a gun'.
You're wasting your breath anyway. No-one here cares about your treaties, or Port Egmont, or the Spanish. Blah Blah Blah. We all know what you were doing to the native inhabitants of your country at that time.
And you want to turn the clock back to 1833? Really? Your borders exactly as they were in 1833? No, I thought not.
Get over it. You aren't going to get what you want. And believe me, you would actually want it anyway.
183.
Sep 06th, 2012 - 11:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If you google Falkland Islands Census 2006, you will see that there were 15 males and 14 females born in Argentina living on the Islands in 2006.
So it would seem through the recent exchanges that Britain Stole the land. My Goodness if that is not the Pot calling the Kettle black. Quite strange that Argentines stole every piece of land they have from the indigenous people wheras no people lived on the Islands. Given that these Islands were actually discovered in the first place according to documented history by an Englishman or if eventually proven possibly a Portugese sailer. However neither of these matter here but the fact that Argentina never discovered any land they simply took it from someone else. Yet these same uneducated people still believe they own the Falklands. Given the fact that before even spain laid claim to our land the French established a settlement here. Not once in that time did any Argentines have them because Argentina did not officially exist then.
Sep 07th, 2012 - 12:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0So it would seem that if I wish to make a claim for someone else's land I would have the right according to Argenitnes to do that.
I have a question for you smart ass Argentines commenting on here. I and most of my fellow countrymen and women were born on thes islands and by international law makes it our home. Home bieng your birth place. If you considder we have no right to a home than just what right do you have in Argentina given that you were also a supposed implanted species.? No lies please just honest answers and no twisting of the facts Do you considder the Falkland Islands your birth right or do you call your birth place Argentina. Either way you will begin to see that we are a people with human rights as well.
Does anyone know when the 2012 census figures will be online?
Sep 07th, 2012 - 12:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0Perhaps that will prove that more RG's are living on the islands than in 2006.
It may sound hypocritical to you, but this is how latam nations see british military presence - what to you was an aggressive act was to us a re-establishment of our sovereignty wrongly usurped by your earlier act of aggression.
Sep 07th, 2012 - 12:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0I'm less worried about what we were doing to the natives of our country at the time and more worried about what britain is doing to the natives of chagos TODAY. Because how britain deals with the weakest of those it takes advantage of is an indication of britain's character and how britain will deal with anyone else it wants to take things from by force.
YOU WON'T EVEN RESPECT YOUR OWN JUDICIARY, YOUR MONACH AND NOBILITY INTERVENES AND NOW YOU TRY TO CONVINCE THE WORLD OF YOUR SO-CALLED 'DEMOCRATIC VALUES' WITH THIS BS NON-BINDING REFERENDUM??? Ridiculous.
You people have ZERO moral standing to criticize us on our shortfalls in dealing with our natives when there are natives around the world who continue to be opressed TODAY under the banner of the union jack, i.e.
chagos, australia, etc...
...you want to talk about what we DID, i'm talking about what YOU'RE DOING NOW. More empty islander rhetoric, “do as I say not as I do” bollox. Sure to convince the world of the legitimacy of the rights you claim.
You want facts? The first discovery, landing and settlement was FRANCISCO DE RIBERA for SPAIN.
Spain recognized the independence of its former Viceroyalty territories. Islas Malvinas WAS A VICEROYALTY TERRITORY. The fact that YOU arbitrarily choose to separate a part of the viceroyalty's land from the whole when it comes to independence is YOUR FANTASY, nothing else.
The fact that you were born there only means your forefathers successfully stole the land and kept it.
If my grandfather stole your grandfather's car, and I inherit it, would your claim against me be just as real as your grandfather's?
Does the passage of time render the property any less stolen? Will you advocate not returning nazi-stolen art for that reason?
189 Hermes1967
Sep 07th, 2012 - 01:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0Is your post some kind of elaborate joke?
''The fact that you were born there only means your forefathers successfully stole the land and kept it.'' ?? Unless you are a pure blood Yaghan (which I sincerely doubt seeing as how your forefathers killed them all), then you are in no position to lecture us.
You don't care what you were doing to the natives at the time, and yet you do care very much about about what you think was done here in 1833 to your poxy military garrison. Why is that? It's sickening.
You can pipe down about the Chagossians too because it doesn't help your case. You want Britain to do exactly the came to us, only you think that it's OK in that case, just because you said so.
And I don't remember saying I wanted more 'facts'. I don't. I couldn't care less about your 'facts'.
You want to talk about what is happening now? Your morally bankrupt farce of an administration is trying to bully us into submission by threatening us, cutting off our communications and wrecking our fishery and yours. The only thing between us and the human rights abuse that you want for us is the protection of the British.
You're a disgrace and so is your government.
As for the Nazis.... I wouldn't go there if I were you. I imagine there's plenty of nazi- stolen art kicking around in Argentina.
Honest answer?
Sep 07th, 2012 - 01:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0I call my birth place Argentina. I also call your birth place Argentina. Your birthplace was Argentina when Argentina became independent and it continues to be Argentina despite a heinous act of british usurpation and continued exploitation.
FACT: Britain recognized our independence and signed a treaty of peace with our nascent government, at a time when we had a government and military presence on the islands, and made no objection to it whatsoever. This is reflected by British historical sources.
And it is the fly in your soup, one that no referendum will remove.
But that is not the same thing as saying the islands not your home.
And it is not the same as saying that you have no human rights.
But it IS saying that there is a discrepancy, a dispute, between two nations about the legitimacy of British control of the islands.
Mind you, not YOUR control of the islands, but BRITISH control. After all you are not a Commonwealth Republic, you are not a Commonwealth Realm, you are a BOT - which is really what this is all about. This is not a dispute about your rights, this is a dispute about the POLITICAL STATUS of the islands beneath your feet.
The rights you have, you may assert under any political framework. Argentine sovereignty with leaseback wouldn't affect your self-determination one iota, neither would autonomous or free-associated status with Argentina, or any number of options. The rights you have also allow you to declare independence and assert your own political framework, which Argentina would be forced to accept (after which you could even associate with the UK). There's a million possibilities under which territorial reintegration wouldn't negatively impact your freedom.
Instead, you choose to side with a usurping power - one who takes by force and doesn't negotiate, and who ignores its own judiciary; you ignore verifiable historical facts, or make up fantasies, to support your position.
That's indefensible.
Monty I can only say your ignorance is only matched by your hypocrisy.
Sep 07th, 2012 - 01:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0To begin with, as I said before, you people have Z-E-R-O moral standing on the issue of how anyone else treats natives - you are the WORST OFFENDER IN HISTORY, bar none.
Second, Argentina's campaigns against natives didn't begin until the 1870's. Not the 1830's as you claim.
Third, I'll remind you that the impulse for those campaigns were not only the selfish desires of an elite to enrich themselves, but the constant raids on farms and outposts on the Pampas.
Fourth, let me point out that after those families' menfolk were murdered, cattle stolen, and women and children abducted, the goods were marched over to Chile where they were sold to none other than....THE BRITISH!! Or traded for weapons, such as the remington rifles.
OH YES, REMINGTONS WERE USED BY BOTH SIDES, BRITAIN MADE SURE OF THAT.
It comes as no surprise to me that you don't want any more facts. In fact, you'd prefer it if there were not facts about the matter at all, which makes it all the easier to replace it with your fiction.
Get it through your head monty: the international community will never buy into your fiction, and it will never buy into your non-binding unilateral referendum either.
I want no human rights abuses for you. I only want the return of the territories that rightfully belong to my country. You islanders think we're such a disgrace yet it's you people who by and large sit
and watch the money from fisheries licenses rolling in, the only source of your “prosperity” being an Argentine resource. Those of you who aren't sheepherders...what exactly do you do for a living, other
than selling what's not yours?
In fact its you and your intransigence that guarantees continued hostility and diplomatic impasse. Were you to display an attitude amenable to dialogue and peaceful resolution, all that would go away in the blink of an eye. Yet you choose to hide behind british guns.
Thus, you wont convince anyone.
“If my grandfather stole your grandfather's car, and I inherit it, would your claim against me be just as real as your grandfather's?”
Sep 07th, 2012 - 01:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0Lol. Tired lies are still tired.
More accurately, “if your grandfather sat on the roof of my grandfather's car and claimed ownership but my grandfather booted him off, then your fat fascist father decided this was a valid claim to ownership of not just my grandfather's car, but also his lawnmower and wheelie-bin...
ARE YOU NOT TOTALLY JUSTIFIED IN CARJACKING ME AND NICKING ALL MY STUFF AND DISENFRANCHISING MY DESCENDANTS?!”
In 1833, a nascent Argtardia tried to steal a british colony and failed
In 1982, a violent Argtardia tried so subjugate a british colony and failed
In 1983, full british citizenship was granted to the colony so now until such time as they decide otherwise, now you either have to persuade them that the country that keeps trying to attack them is a more beneficial partner than britain OR come back for the hattrick and get yourselves another beatdown.
Hay malvinasargtard, before getting on ure high horse about people not answering ure question, why not answer some of mine!!!! Since i have started posting you and the other sad nationalist monkey marcos, have yet to answer with proof any of my questions! So be a good little boy and try! Or does your head hurt now??
Sep 07th, 2012 - 01:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0Ok Malicious Idiot, explain to me how an analogy is a lie to begin with.
Sep 07th, 2012 - 01:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0I love how your timeline only has two events! And also thank you for providing an EXCELLENT example of how much of a tosser you have to be in order to buy into the british sovereignty argument. You've bypassed or ignored every relevant historical fact pertaining to the issue with all the delicacy and finesse of a south london chav. Well done!
I only have one question for you - were you born such an inconspicuous wanker or did you have to work at it?
And in any case, what the hell are you doing on this site anyway? What bollox, talking shyte about nicking all your stuff, you're the kind of bloke who'd to up to someone and say “Oi mate, yer on me turf, see me pistol, now gives us your watch”...and his your watch magically “BECOMES” yours!
Just like the islands.
Malvinarg, i will repeat for u : lets accept your flimsy claims for arguments sake but now please please please explain your legit claim over south georgian and sandwich islands..... Spain were never there and neither any indig. Population or any RGs .......... Please enlighten us all!!!
Sep 07th, 2012 - 01:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0Does anyone feel like theyre talking to the gumbies (monty python) when discussing issues with malvinists???
Actually, I don't agree with those. Argentina explains those as stemming from commercial activity, something akin to what prior to the 20th century was viewed as a sovereignty-granting act through private enterprise. If it was done earlier...maybe, but after 1900 I can't abide by it.
Sep 07th, 2012 - 01:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0But as for me...I personally see no merits in Argentina's south georgia and sandwich claims. I think mostly it's about overkill or a bargaining chip, an approach conceived back in the early-mid 20th century where the prospect of a diplomatic solution was still viable. And now they're stuck with it, because backtracking on it can be used to call into question the main sovereignty question over Malvinas.
So now we are getting to the real issues of why the frustration over my homeland. From the debate it is ever more clear that the Argentines are so angry because we Falkland islanders have not only been accused of steeling their land but the actual wealth that goes with them. So this is not one of historical claim in fact that is just a cover for the real reason you war mongering lot want what we have. OIL, Fish and Tourism and of course the icing on the cake si that we also control the gateway to the Antartic which you also want to control.
Sep 07th, 2012 - 02:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0Oh and by the way I was not born on Argentine land I was born on the BRITISH Falkland Islands. You would do well to remember that . In fact none of you Argentines were born in Argrntina but born on land stolan from is indigenous people. No matter how hard you all seem to want to distort the facts the world knows what you did to get where you are. Liars, Murderers and cheats.
You have never even shown mercy to each other so why would we consider allowing you to control our very healthy lifestyle.
Oh and by the way how would you react if your neighbours were to tell you they want you to leave Argentina and give th eland back to it's rightful people. I know your answer. That was a long time ago and does not count. NEITHER DOES YOU CONTINUED claim to our home either.
Hooray for an honest clear answer!
Sep 07th, 2012 - 02:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0Applause! But was hoping to hear either Marcos or malvinarg try and answer!
Now all I am going to get is Marcos copying and pasting something completely irrelevant (mind u that would be his response to anything), and malvinnationlistargtard just agreeing with u to save his single brain cell from over heating!
Anyway, thanks all the same!
I would say so too, it was all based on the whaling. I hate whaling and can't conceive of a whaling station granting sovereignty, at least not in the XX century...
Sep 07th, 2012 - 02:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0“So this is not one of historical claim”
Sep 07th, 2012 - 02:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0No, it is about historical fact then EXACERBATED by your exploitation of resources. One is not a smokescreen for the other, we're complaining about both.
What you were born on is Argentine territory occupied illegally by british forces. Every nation in south america views it that way, which is why you are a regional pariah. You would do well to remember that.
Liars, murderers, and cheats - who can compare in these qualities than the british throughout history? Who has britain EVER shown mercy to? HA!
We never said you should leave. Just because we want to normalize the political and legal sovereignty situation does not mean you should leave. In 1974 Britain was preparing to negotiate the sovereignty, so tell me would you have been forced to leave if those negotiations were successful??
If a leaseback agreement is put in place and the FIG remains and is legitimized in the eyes of Argentina, how will your life change one little bit?
It doesn't matter if 1833 was a long time ago. What's wrong and wrong and we demand you right it. Ignore it to your own continued regional status as a foreign enclave who conquered by force – south america’s perpetual ostracized pariah.
Haha I knew you would follow suit! Your head hurting???? Unfortunately u don't get any kudos or dog biscuits!
Sep 07th, 2012 - 02:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0It's like knowing the sun will rise in the morning!
Yep - the argentine claim, ever present, like a sunrise every morning, the light that bathes the Malvinas is the light of the sun on the Argentine flag.
Sep 07th, 2012 - 02:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0UNTIL JUSTICE IS DONE, THIS CLAIM WILL BE PRESENT OVER THE ISLANDS - EVERY SINGLE DAY.
192 Hermes1967
Sep 07th, 2012 - 02:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0You can get it through your head that something doesn't become true just because you keep saying it.
''Poor little us.....big mean Britain.....stealing our territory....stealing our resources.....big meanies.'' Pathetic.
Our intransigence guarantees our freedom. There is nothing you can threaten us with that is worse than being subjugated by you.
Oh and I'm not going to to tell you what I do, because I am the only one here who does it. I can pretty much guarantee it's more worthwhile than anything you might do.
I'm not even going to dignify your justification of your extermination of the natives with an answer. So they didn't like being colonised did they? You might have remembered that when you marched into Stanley and were surprised that Falkland Islanders hated you.
@ 138 Hermes1967
Sep 07th, 2012 - 02:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0“1. Britain's settlement is evicted from the islands by Spain, after which
2. Spain agrees to reinstate all British property which in the text is only listed as the “port and fort of egmont”, allowing Britain to return briefly and then abandon while leaving a plaque to reserve their rights over said “Egmont” property”
You claim that the British settlement was limited to Port Egmont.
Let us for the sake of argument assume that this is correct.
In that context, what was the extent of the Spanish settlement?
Answer: Port Luis, and no more.
“Or would you say to the world that you were EXPELLED???”
expel: from Latin 'expellere' “drive out,” from ex- “out” + pellere “to drive”. Meaning “to eject from”, first recorded 1640s.
Thus the answer is No!
@ 172 Hermes1967
“the treaty of peace of 1825 that you made with a democratic government”
Juan Pedro Aguirre, 11 February 1820 – 16 February 1820, Dissolved the National Congress and endorsed the Buenos Aires Cabildo to choose a Governor for Buenos Aires Province.
Between 1820 and 1826 the Argentine Confederation functioned as a loose alliance of autonomous provinces, put together by pacts and treaties, but lacking an effective central government.
A new attempt to create a centralist constitution was enacted in 1826 and Bernardino Rivadavia was appointed the first President of Argentina. It was rejected by the provinces, forcing Rivadavia to resign and the 1826-constitution was repealed. The new governor of Buenos Aires, Manuel Dorrego (1827-1828), was deposed and murdered (1828) by General Juan Galo de Lavalle.
Democratic government?
Luis Vernet received his “authority” during the the “Revolutionary Government” of Juan Lavalle, who usurped the governorship of Buenos Aires 01 December 1828 (through 26 June 1829).
10 June 1829 the unconstitutional, illegal and murderous “government” of the Province of Buenos Aires announced Vernet the “Political and Military Commander of the Malvinas”.
I never justified it. I only said you have no moral standing to criticize on it given that you're the worst offenders in history in regards to natives.
Sep 07th, 2012 - 02:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0That's why you don't respond - because you have nothing to respond with, except nonsense.
The UN guarantees your freedom. Your intransigence is the greatest obstacle to its fullest expression. We seek justice, not your subjugation. We make no threats, we simply state facts.
And the fact is, as far as every nation in south america is concerned, your belligerence and your intransigence makes each and every one of you persona non grata, and this will continue to be the case until you choose to embrace a path of peaceful resolution through negotiation (which islanders should definitely be a part of, if the foreign office lets you).
Until that day - enjoy the solitude. You're lucky LAN is allowed to fly there, given your attitude I don't think you even deserve that much. Let British Airways provide your airbridge!
Haha I knew you would follow suit! Your head hurting???? Unfortunately u don't get any kudos or dog biscuits!
Sep 07th, 2012 - 02:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0It's like knowing the sun will rise in the morning!
Actually that's something I never understood - why rely so much on chile?
Sep 07th, 2012 - 02:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0I mean, why do you need lan? Why can't BA fly uk-montevideo-stanley? It's not that long a distance, I think, and should be economically feasible at similar intervals...
Hermes !
Sep 07th, 2012 - 03:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0My post re sunrising was aimed at Malvinargtard!
However, what i find amusing about your claim (or shall we call it whinging), is that it is no more than a claim! You havent done anything positive to change the current situation, and nothing will change! So here we all are, churning up the same drivel, and what you and your Malvinist buddies say here, or down the pub, does not have the slightest bit of worth! RGentina does not own the Falklands, and has no strategy to do so!
I repeat....NO STRATEGY!!!!
We all know your claims (whinging) are as as predictable as the sun rising, but unlike the sun, you claims have no benefit to anyone or thing!
So keep claiming (whinging) and wasting your time, i dont think the Falklanders give much of a toss, as this has been going on long enough, and theyve learnt to deal with it!
207 = 202...
Sep 07th, 2012 - 03:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0205...
1. Read the treaty text. The text lists british property. Not Spanish. If it did, then you could say “the only Spanish property is Louis”, but it doesn't. The treaty further stipulates no change to sovereignty as prior to the eviction event.
This leaves the question, what did the parties believe were the extent of their sovereignty? Both believed they had total sovereignty. Yet the treaty serves to limit only the extent of sovereignty of one party, by listing the mutually agreed upon territory of only one party.
Even if the extent of Spain's possessions were port louis, british acceptance of that presence by its very nature places limits on the previous british position of total sovereignty.
Both Spain and Britain had pre-existing claims. Only Britain's claims were reduced by the treaty. This is the reason why opposition MPs complained in commons sessions afterward, and for good reason, because it did limit British sovereignty, to Egmont - and nothing was restored britain by 1833 such that it could claim to re-establish that sovereignty it previously gave up by treaty.
2. I'm glad to see you can demonstrate the etymology of “expelled”. The narrative adaptation of the word for propaganda purposes is what I was referring to. Indeed, many posters here think Argentina wants to expel islanders.
3. 1825, not 1826. I understand the confederation was a very young and imperfect first attempt at a constitutional framework - but it was relatively democratic for its time and place, and it was agreed upon by all parties when Britain signed its treaty that failed to object to our garrison on the islands.
You're correct, Dorrego was the first dictator and illegal government. So was Rosas. Their every action is devoid of legal standing - including the 1850 treaty, which was broken in 1833 anyway.
The treaty was signed in 1825. Not 26, 28, or 29. And the confederacion was agreed upon in a democratic cabildo.
And so further to your essay?????????????????????? Do i hear the Falklanders suddenly cry “Oh yes, sorry guys, can you come over, rename the islands and stick your flag everywhere!””????? Do we see any changes??????? Nope!!!!!
Sep 07th, 2012 - 03:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0Still the same, so as i stated before, your posts are irrelevant to the actual situation! Unfortunately your claim is stuck in a very very sticky place, and clearly you have no idea on how to get it unstuck!
This is becoming a pointless exercise because no matter what we make either way Falkland islands people are here right now living and working THEIR land. We don't trust nor do we want to be governed by Argentina. We are more than capeable of governing ourselves. What ever Argentina proposes which sugests allowing us to have our land stolen from us and then be told we can carry on as if nothing is happening. One big problem there is that Argentina would be the power controling our every move. Rather stay with Britain if you don't mind thankyou very much. What your people did to us in 1982 was dispicable. You tore our Country apart for what, NOTHING and all because your then leader was making such a hogwash of trying to run Argentina he used the invasion to stave off what eventually happened to him. Typical Argies when they thought they had rescued a trapped people to realise we wanted nothing to do with you . Your own people turned against your leader and as they say the rest is history. Oh but i keep forgetting we should not go down the road of History because Argentina has not yet learned what it means.
Sep 07th, 2012 - 03:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0If anything that has already been voiced is something to go by I pitty anyone who has to live along side some of you warmongering rebels. No wonder Argentina is in such turmoil when their own kind rant and rage so much. Finally just heard that Spain is now in financial dire Straights wonder if good old Argentina will go to their rescue financially. Oh no I forgot again. Argentina has disowned spain and does not have any money either because the Islanders have stolen it all from them have't they.
It's not an essay. You're putting out erroneous facts. It's a response with real facts - a response to your fiction, that's all.
Sep 07th, 2012 - 03:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0@ 172 Hermes1967.1 “You'll quote the treaty of 1850 all day”
Sep 07th, 2012 - 03:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0You have been told very clearly, that one cannot reasonably isolate the 1850 peace treaty [1] from events before and after.
Yet you keep pretending the world was created 15 May 1850 morning and that it disappeared again 15 May 1850 evening.
1833-1849 December: Official Argentine protests against British sovereignity over the Falkland Islands.
1850-1941: No more official Argentine protests against British sovereignity over the Falkland Islands, except 1 (one) diplomatic letter 20 January 1888, addressed to the British Minister in Buenos Aires, Francis Packenham, in which Argentine Foreign Minister Norberto Quirno Costa protested to Britain against Britain’s possession of the Falkland.
1865 + 1869 + 1866: Presidents Mitre [2] and Sarmiento and vice-president Paz [3] declare that Argentina did not have any disputes with Britain, on the contrary everything was honkydory (one dispute over British merchants). According to Argentinas constitution of 1853 [4] ratification of treaties with other countries was a presidential prerogative. Mitre and Sarmiento could discard or endorse/authorise previous treaties, including the 1850 treaty - they did nothing of the kind.
One might argue that the second government of Juan Manuel de Rosas (1835-1852) was unconstitutional and illegal and thus could not sign a binding treaty with Britain.
Argentina was, however, raged by civil wars between the warlords (caudillos) of the three parties (unitaristas, federalistas and Buenos Aires federalistas), so Argentina did not have any constitutional and legal governments until until the battle of Pavón in 1869 (one might even set 1880 as the year of the first legal government, at the end of Buenos Aires Governor Carlos Tejedor's insurrection). “El período de las guerras civiles argentinas se extendió desde 1814 hasta 1880. La ambición de los caudillos provinciales era la principal causa de las guerras civiles.” [5]
(-> 2)
2?
Sep 07th, 2012 - 03:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0@ 172 Hermes1967.2
Sep 07th, 2012 - 03:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0The implications of this argument are easy to understand, because in that case an unconstitutional and illegal Argentine government protested in 1833 and until 1849 against the actions of Captain Onslow and British possession of the Falklands.
One might also argue that ceding the Falkland Islands to Britain was an oversight on behalf of Juan M. de Rosas's government/Argentina, but not only was the tiny island Martin Garcia specifically mentioned (as the only island) in the treaty, while the Falkland Islands were not, but what happened before and after the ratification in 1850 (before: protests, after: protests ceased) speaks for itself, and is of considerable importance to understand the implications of the treaty as regards the islands.
[1] http://tratados.cancilleria.gob.ar/tratado_archivo.php?id=4445&tipo=1
[2] Mitre's speech: http://tratados.cancilleria.gob.ar/tratado_archivo.php?id=4445&tipo=1
[3] Paz's speech: http://tratados.cancilleria.gob.ar/tratado_archivo.php?id=4445&tipo=1
[4] ”Artículo 86: (in the printed; 83 in the handwritten original) El Presidente de la Confederación tiene las siguientes atribuciones: 14. Concluye y firma tratados de paz, ...” http://tratados.cancilleria.gob.ar/tratado_archivo.php?id=4445&tipo=1 and http://tratados.cancilleria.gob.ar/tratado_archivo.php?id=4445&tipo=1 + File:Constitución_Nacional_Argentina_1853_-_página_1.jpeg (- 20).
[5] http://tratados.cancilleria.gob.ar/tratado_archivo.php?id=4445&tipo=1
Malvinargtard - fiction or fact, it doesnt change anything, and neither does anything you say! This is where i can laugh very loudly right in your face!!!! And if i could meet you I would do so, preferably about 1 inch away from you just to stress my point :-)
Sep 07th, 2012 - 03:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0@ 178 Hermes1967
Sep 07th, 2012 - 04:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Wrong, there was a military garrison present, led by CDR Pablo Areguati.”
Letter 18 December 1823 [6].
“Most Excellent Sirs,
... the expedition to Port Soledad ... being ready to depart, Pablo Areguati, Captain of Militia will accompany it, ... Therefore your Excellency will please to give to said Areguati the letter of Commander of the place without salary. ... And Areguati intends to form out of the labourers a company of militia with its corporals and sergeants, to give to this establishment all projects for representation to secure its fortification, taking with him the arms and ammunition at the expense of the expedition. And if your Excellency would be pleased to destine a few cannons for defence against pirates. ... I present this petition signed by my bondsman”
24 January 1824. Pablo Areguati arrives on East Falkland with 25 gauchos.
12 February 1824. Areguati writes, “We are without meat, without ship’s biscuits, and without gunpowder for
hunting. We support ourselves by chance captures of rabbits, since there is no fat meat since we cannot go out
to slaughter as there are no horses. I have resolved to tell you that we are perishing ...” [7]
7 June 1824. Areguati leaves East Falkland Island and returns to Buenos Aires in the 'Fenwick'. He leaves 8 gauchos behind, including the foreman Aniceto Oviedo.
24 July 1824. the remaining gauchos are rescued from East Falkland by the British sealer, Susannah Anne. On their arrival back in Buenos Aires they are paid off. [8]
The Argentine garrison 2 February 1825 consisted of who and how many ???
[6] Public Records Office, Foreign Office (PRO/FO) 6/499.
[7] “Estamos sin carne, sin galleta, y sin polvora pa cazar. Nos mantenemos de conejos azados pues no hay graza à causa de no poder salir à carnear por qe no hay caballos. Con decirle à V qe estamos pereciendo, he
concluido.” Archivo General de la Nación (AGN), Buenos Aires, Sala VII 129. Doc 51.
[8] AGN Sala VII legajo 127 Doc 33.
¿más?
Sep 07th, 2012 - 05:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0@ 172 Hermes1967
Sep 07th, 2012 - 05:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0“You'll claim up and down that 1833 was a restoration of sovereignty but ignore Britain's recognition of our independence made at a time when there was argentine presence on the islands and NO BRITISH OBJECTION RAISED ABOUT IT.”
1825 treaty [9]: http://en.mercopress.com/2012/09/05/britain-had-nothing-to-do-with-the-proposal-to-hold-a-falklands-referendum#comment161468 (post 218 )
1833: The Argentine presence was a military occupation of a British possession.
“You'll agree that all spanish viceroyalty lands became independent, except for that one archipelago which is arbitrarily and misteriously excluded from that independence even after britain made no objections as below.”
All of Spanish America REVOLTED against the rightful owner, the Spanish crown, and took his land by use of force.
“You'll claim britain had complete uninterrupted sovereignty over the islands since the british discovery while ignoring that original documents exist of a spanish discovery a hundred years before the british, and a 1771 document listing the totality of british possessions on the islands as ”egmont“, which the british did not object to.”
The Declaration of 22 January 1771 [10] from the Spanish king does mention East Falkland (Great Malouine) and “the port by them called Egmont”, but does NOT declare it to be 'the totality of British possession”.
You have been told before (HansNiesund [11]) that “You are confusing territory and settlement. Or are you seriously maintaining that every square inch of land without property erected on it cannot be part of a territorial claim?”
[9] http://en.mercopress.com/2012/09/05/britain-had-nothing-to-do-with-the-proposal-to-hold-a-falklands-referendum#comment161468
[10] http://en.mercopress.com/2012/09/05/britain-had-nothing-to-do-with-the-proposal-to-hold-a-falklands-referendum#comment161468 (p. 328ff, p. 342ff in the .pdf file)
[11] http://en.mercopress.com/2012/09/05/britain-had-nothing-to-do-with-the-proposal-to-hold-a-falklands-referendum#comment161468 (post 354)
@islas malvinas
Sep 07th, 2012 - 05:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0What? don't you like me pointing out that our claim pre-dates yours - or that the Spanish claim to the islands came after ours - and was then enforced at gunpoint (almost triggering a major war in the process).
Those Argentine claiming theft in 1833 had better take a good look at the earlier dispute.
Your claim is (as you say) based on Spains - so it likewise post dates ours. That is even if you can prove that you can inhereit a claim for islands from another country, particularly a disputed claim.
To correct you - we did'nt protest Vernet's colony - we disputed the latter claim of ownership of the islands and the appointment of Vernet as goverener for the UP, along with the establishment of a garrison.
You will never get us to hand the falklands and their inhabitants over to you. We will not sell out our people to occupation by Argentina. Your claim to the islands is flimsy and has been effectivley dead in the water for 180 odd years. Time for your country to go and find something better to do, like developing it's huge mainland surface area.
@ 135 MalvinasArgentinas
Sep 07th, 2012 - 05:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0“It would mean conquering you, kicking you out, repatriating you in Britain, by implied or used force without mercy, just as Britain did to us in 1833.”
Please provide proof.
So we can see for ourselves who were “kicked out”, I suggest you give us this link: http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5053/5533028871_5a2bfae23c_b.jpg
- - - - - -
@ 81 PirateLove
“i will put it simpler for you.
SELF-DETERMINATION!! REFERENDUM!! DEMOCRACY!!”
How is that simpler?
The actual meaning of those words is imcomprehensible to a Malvinista, who knows that:
“Self-determination” means 'do as you are told'
“Referendum” means 'vote as you are paid for'
“Democracy” means 'obey the president'
Hermes,
Sep 07th, 2012 - 08:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0I see you're deploying your usual trick of shifting the grounds of the argument or simply reiterating your error whenever one of your points is refuted. St. John does a better job of dealing with your spurious history than I do, but just a couple more points :
@184 lords - noblemen! This happened in the 21st century!!
You misunderstand the British system. Senior law officers are members of te House of Lords because they are senior law officers. It's not that they are senior law officers because they are members of the House of Lords.
> I've demonstrated a british LAW that mandates a british refusal to go to ICJ. ... The only party that TODAY doesn't want to go to ICJ is britain.
No you haven't. But I have demonstrated a British Prime Minister, the Great Witch herself, in the immediate aftermath of the war you started, leaving the door open to you to go to the court. So just go ahead. It doesn't even need to actually reach the court. Imagine the propaganda coup if Argentina proposes the ICJ and Britain refuses! If you're so unshakably convinced of your own rectitude, legal and moral, what could you possibly have to lose.
Where you are undeniably right, I think, is in the Latam perception of the British presence. But this is just a reflection of the success of the Argentine propaganda and disinformation campaign, which has all the factual basis of the Reichstag fire. But this is one reason why the 1833 story is so important - it is about time this Great Lie was properly exposed, and I wish HMG and FIG would take a more robust attitude in that respect.
But that said, I think even the most obtuse can nonetheless recognise that the MPA garrison of 1500 is hardly the most powerful military force in Latin America, and that its presence is a direct consequence of the 1982 invasion. You do remember that, don't you? Only 1000 deaths, but what's that compared to a nit-picking extrapolation of what a treaty didn't say in 1771?
MalvinasArg & Hermes1967,
Sep 07th, 2012 - 09:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0Pray continue with your fairy tales.
We don't read too much of them anyway!
You are wasting your time with your lies.
But if it keeps you happy........................................
You still will never get the Falklands. lts NOT yours.
Savez?
@191
Sep 07th, 2012 - 10:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0So if Argentine sovereignity wouldn't actually change anything, what on earth is all the fuss about? Retribution for a perceived slight of 200 years ago? People got killed for this?
But thanks for such a clear statement of the psychological dimension of the Falklands conflict, it's time that was made more explicit.
206 Hermes1967
Sep 07th, 2012 - 10:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0You just can't see it can you? Everything about your attitude is wrong; it's condescending, patronising, bullying, hectoring colonialist crap. And it sends a very loud and clear message about what life would be like for us under Argentine rule.
''You're lucky LAN is allowed to fly there, given your attitude I don't think you even deserve that much.''?? You arrogant prat. LAN continues to fly here because you found you couldn't bully the Chileans (because we are not actually 'persona non grata anywhere).
And if you take it away, we'll put in an air link to Miami, because we have the cash to do it. Go ahead.
You're the ones who are becoming isolated. Your behaviour is doing it and you can't even see it.
Britain now has its own SIX PACK,
Sep 07th, 2012 - 11:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0And Duncan rides ahoy.
http://pinterest.com/royalnavy/duncan-starts-sea-trials/
Meanwhile the Argies grow frustrated,
For they watch in awe and envy,
And all they can do is talk,
Still,
Thinking abt it, talk is good for the throat,..
.
@ 176 Hermes1967 writes:
Sep 07th, 2012 - 11:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0”The arguments put forward in support of british sovereignty conflict with the (many, many) conclusions of the following british subject matter experts, all highly regarded in their fields - to name a few, Jeffrey Myhre [12], Peter Beck, Ronald Barston, Patricia Birnie...“
The ”highly regarded“ ”expert“ Jeffrey D. Myhre who ”support“ the Argentine claim was a research STUDENT in the International Relations Department at the London School of ECONOMICS, and his modest article does NOT support the Argentine claim. He concludes that ”Perhaps, the islands are British by prescription and self-determination. More likely, they belong to Argentina by uti posseditis acquisition of Spanish rights or by occupation of terra nullius. [12]
If the the best you can show is “perhaps” and “more likely”, you ain't got nothing.
Before I waste more time on your “highly regarded” “experts” who “support” you have to give title(s) + ISBN(s) or link(s) AND excerpts.
[12] Jeffrey D. Myhre: “Title to the Falklands-Malvinas Under International Law” (1983) http://mil.sagepub.com/content/12/1/25.full.pdf
2?
Sep 07th, 2012 - 01:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@ 210 Hermes1967.1
Sep 07th, 2012 - 01:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Read the treaty text. The text lists british property. Not Spanish. If it did, then you could say “the only Spanish property is Louis”, but it doesn't. The treaty further stipulates no change to sovereignty as prior to the eviction event.
This leaves the question, what did the parties believe were the extent of their sovereignty? Both believed they had total sovereignty. Yet the treaty serves to limit only the extent of sovereignty of one party, by listing the mutually agreed upon territory of only one party.”
The subject of the declaration (NOT treaty) is restoring destroyed property.
Are you suggesting that the Spanish destroyed their own property in Port Luis?
why else should the Declaration list SPANISH property?
“Even if the extent of Spain's possessions were port louis, british acceptance of that presence by its very nature places limits on the previous british position of total sovereignty.”
You have just answered that yourself above: “Both believed they had total sovereignty.” so why ask?
“Both Spain and Britain had pre-existing claims. Only Britain's claims were reduced by the treaty. This is the reason why opposition MPs complained in commons sessions afterward, and for good reason, because it did limit British sovereignty, to Egmont - and nothing was restored britain by 1833 such that it could claim to re-establish that sovereignty it previously gave up by treaty.”
No, the declaration limited British sovereignty to be one shared with Spain, thus the protests.
Quoting myself:
'Lord Camden wrote “... The question remains as it stood before the hostility; the King of Spain declaring only that he ought not to be precluded from his former claim ...””
Nothing in the two documents can reasonably be interpreted as other than the claims of both the Spanish crown and the British are upheld, but undecided upon, except that the Spanish king accepts British sovereignty over Port Egmont.'
3?
Sep 07th, 2012 - 01:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@ 210 Hermes1967.2
Sep 07th, 2012 - 01:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“1825, not 1826.” ???
If this addresses the period, when the Argentine Confederation functioned as a loose alliance of autonomous provinces, then you are all alone in dating it to 1825. Buenos Aires, 6 de febrero de 1826 se sancionó la ley de presidencia, creando un Ejecutivo Permanente Nacional, con el título de “Presidente de las Provincias Unidas del Río de la Plata”. [13]
“The treaty was signed in 1825. Not 26, 28, or 29. And the confederacion was agreed upon in a democratic cabildo.”
Yes, the treaty was signed 2 February 1825, one year and four days before Rivadavia became Presidente de las Provincias Unidas del Río de la Plata.
Juan Pedro Aguirre, 11 February 1820 – 16 February 1820, Dissolved the National Congress and endorsed the Buenos Aires Cabildo to choose a Governor for Buenos Aires Province.
Between 1820 and 1826 the Argentine Confederation functioned as a loose alliance of autonomous provinces, put together by pacts and treaties, but lacking an effective central government.
“when Britain signed its treaty that failed to object to our garrison on the islands.”
Why should Britain object to a garrison, which:
1. never existed
2. the islands were deserted when the treaty was signed.
Letter 18 December 1823 [6]: “And Areguati intends to form out of the labourers a company of militia with its corporals and sergeants ...” - not a garrison, a CIVIL home guard made up of their labourers.
24 July 1824. the remaining gauchos are rescued from East Falkland by the British sealer, Susannah Anne. On their arrival back in Buenos Aires they are paid off. [8]
“You're correct, Dorrego was the first dictator and illegal government. So was Rosas. Their every action is devoid of legal standing - including the 1850 treaty, which was broken in 1833 anyway.”
The 1850 treaty was broken 17 years before it was signed ??? how extraordinary!
[6] + [8] in 218 St.John above
[13] http://es.wikisource.org/wiki/Registro_Nacional:_Libro_II/025
4?
Sep 07th, 2012 - 01:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Argentines propagandisation of history and its geopolitical status in its education systems are main hindrances in their ability to engage in rational discussion with Britain over the islands”
Sep 07th, 2012 - 01:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Beck, Peter, The Falkland Islands As An International Problem, Rutledge, Chapman and Hall Inc., 1988. P76
No gracias, Don A.
Sep 07th, 2012 - 01:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0¿seguro?
Sep 07th, 2012 - 03:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@ 182 Hermes1967
Sep 07th, 2012 - 03:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“I've demonstrated a british LAW that mandates a british refusal to go to ICJ. There's no such law in argentina. The only party that TODAY doesn't want to go to ICJ is britain.
Your facts on chile are wrong - there was no ICJ ruling, but a treaty to continue bi-lateral discussions.”
It is correct that it wasn't ICJ as such. It was an agreed arbitration with 4 judges from ICJ.
” ... in accordance with the terms of the Pactos de Mayo, they [Salvador Allende and Alejandro Lanusse, the Presidents of Chile and Argentina] submitted the matter to arbitration by the British crown in 1971, with one alteration. By that time, Argentina was feeling less inclined to trust the impartiality of Britain, due to the increasing strain placed on their relationship by the Falklands/Malvinas dispute. Both countries consequently agreed for the judgment to be made by five jurists from the UN International Court of Justice (ICJ) who would form a special Court of Arbitration, with the British Queen only able to accept or reject their findings, but not modify them in any way.“[14] [15]
[14] Daniel G. Upp: ”Risky Invasions: Decisions Made by the Argentine Junta Regarding Disputed Islands, 1978–1982”, Naval Postgraduate School Monterey, California, U.S.A., September 2011 http://edocs.nps.edu/npspubs/scholarly/theses/2011/September/11Sep_Upp.pdf
[15] Child, Jack. 1985. Geopolitics and Conflict in South America: Quarrels Among Neighbors. N.Y: Praeger, p. 80.
-----------------------------------------
Addition to 218 St.John: @ 178 Hermes1967
Letter 18 December 1823 [6].
[6.1] Vernet Comandancia militar de las Islas Malvinas (Castellaño): http://edocs.nps.edu/npspubs/scholarly/theses/2011/September/11Sep_Upp.pdf
The problem is that those of you from Argentina making comments do not have the truth so it is obvious that because you have been taught so much rubbish you are naturally going to repeat it.
Sep 07th, 2012 - 04:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That in many parts of the world has been thre problem with conflicts. People acting ignorant start making it up as they go along. Before any of you come back and dictate that this applies to Britain too the real issue here is what actually happened when the islands were fiorst discovered then later settled. Like I have said before you do need the truth told in your schools.
I also challange any Argentine to prove historically and factually that South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands were ever owned or settled by any other Country Than Britain. I suspect the two were added because without them as well even in the worst case scenario we lost our islands it still would mean British people controlled the remainder of safe passage to the antartic and that I believe is what this whole issue is all about. a simple word POWER. That will never be an option for you because what once you may have had a chance sweet talking us Islanders all went down the pan the day you invaded us. You proved beyond all doubt that you would never allow us to live in peace on the Islands if you owned them otherwise why was there so many changes imposed on us during that time.
No I am afraid you blew it big time and we will never in a million years ever trust you again period.
If you ever tried to come back in force the islanders would not be so nice to you.
@ 238
Sep 07th, 2012 - 05:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You should stop blaming Argentina. What is found in the internet about the islands is so primitive and... boring !
@2012 and TTT
Sep 07th, 2012 - 06:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I know there is tit for tat rhetoric, but all I sense from you both is total and utter hatred of anything which is remotely British.
You dehumanise the Falkland islanders much like how Nazi Germany did the Jews. This was how they managed to wipe out so many Jews by classing them as non-human. Is this a precursor to your nation trying to invade the FI and eradicating the populous there?
Why can't you just be at peace and accept, but maybe not agree, the fact that the FI wish to remain British. Then maybe in the very distant future the FI, UK, and Argentina can resume some sensible diplomatic relations.
@239 Blaming Argentina!!!!!! you were the ones that invaded us twice, you are the ones who keep winging wining, we want the islands, if you don't let us have them we will sulk. GROW UP!!
Sep 07th, 2012 - 06:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@tonto
Sep 07th, 2012 - 07:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Why can't you just be at peace and accept, but maybe not agree, the fact that the FI wish to remain British”
And why you don’t accept, but maybe no agree, the fact that you are on Argentina soil?
You can remain British but the territory is Argentine.
I don’t see any difference with the inhabitant of Villa 31 that illegally took procession of Govt. lands to create shantytowns but that Speaks English.
And the respect of the rule of law “Villeros English Speakers”?
@242
Sep 07th, 2012 - 07:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But it's not Argentinian soil. It never was. You have dubious and fabricated history to substantiate your argument.
I'm not surprised you feel the way you do as you have been indoctrinated, and brainwashed, much like the Nazi Germans.
May I ask what your country intends to do about it's claim?
Last time I was checking i was standing on Falkland islands British soil. Funny how there is quick counter replies but never and I repeat Never answers to serious questions. I will ask this again Since when did Argentina have any claim whatsoever to SG and SSI. The reason no one can answer or does not want to is because there is no evidance of them ever setting foot on the place. The Falklands just so happened to be doing ok for themselves and the Argentines have saw an opertunity to latch on. Further we do not need to get any info frm the internet ref our claim as it is all very neatly documented and filed in secure vaults in the UK. That is why you Argies cannot actually answer questions because you simply do not know the facts. You keep coming back with stupid phrases that only suit your purpose like I am on Argentine Soil. Total Crap. Fact and you won.t admit it but Argentina in the true sene does not actually exist. It was created from mass murder and human greed. As a decendant of fellow Falkland islanders It is quite rewarding to be able to state without lies that my forefathers did not kill anyone to settle here. The only time anyone has been deliberatly killed is when Argentina invades us. I know that is not what you want to heasr but it is the truth unless of course you are able to find evidance in writing to prove otherwise. So sad that Argentines continue to act like spoilt children clearly they are a simple people and desperatly need help from somewhere.
Sep 07th, 2012 - 08:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I will ask again also what is so important to you to want my homland. Is it because it happens to be there or is it because you have already ruined your own or can't live with all those nasty europeans that first settled your illgotton gains.
@244 The twisted logic was (I think) that SG and the SSI were once administered as part of the Falklands
Sep 07th, 2012 - 10:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina claims the Falklands therefore it claims SG and SSI even though this was a UK-created administrative area.
In shor, they are mixing and matching to suit themselves. That and some kind of specious “continental shelf” argument.
That's my best guess.
Why is it perfectly ok
Sep 07th, 2012 - 10:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0For others to hold a referendum in there own country, without interference,
But not the Falklands islanders,
Without Argentina sticking its nose in,
Fair question ….
.
246 briton (# Because those nast little people that refer themselves as Argentines do not want the world to know our de. They are so used to squashing anykind of democracy in their own Country that it would be to much to let Falkland Islanders have a say which demonstrates just how ruthless they would be if , perrish the thought, they took control of our homeland. We would likely be silenced or become another set of dissapeared ones.
Sep 07th, 2012 - 11:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@tonto
Sep 07th, 2012 - 11:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ah! Mr. Tonto the all Villeros always say the same.
First they occupy the land by force and then after a while claim to be their land and settle little houses with tin roof material and wall in wood.
Then named the place/neighbourhood with names like Little Lima, Villa Paraguay, Villa la Paz, etc.
Does that sound familiar to you?
I guess you will name the place in the future Villa England, Villa Scotland or Villa Wales. No sure yet.
Are you going to put louder “cumbia villera” and “reggaeton” 24/7 or we can save our self from that stuff?
Well re thinking again I’m not sure if I prefer “Cumbia Villera” than Gay Friendly “candle in the win” from Elton John.
Come one here you can get a little bit of practice.
The “Villero” version of Happy Mondays. Ha ha and 100% Nigger at least is what is written in his t-shirt.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeFqnFHrRVA&feature=endscreen&NR=1
By the way “Mohammed” and “Villero ocupa” is not too much?
Argentina is a young country, you are actually younger than the Falklands, because the Falklands was British before you dagos colonized SA. End of story.
Sep 07th, 2012 - 11:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@danyberger!
Sep 08th, 2012 - 01:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0Let's say for arguments sake that the Falklands used to be RG soil (but u should read st johns earlier posts which gives a pretty clear account of why this claim is tripe, and unlike your troop of mavinists, has given documental eveidence to support his argument). However, they are not any longer! End of story!
So please continue whining, and crying about it! Call the Falklanders pirates, repeat your side of events, current or historic as many times as you like. Reality is , that unless you RGs come up with a strategy to regain them (which you are unable to do at present) then they will remain as they are, and that is that!
Nothing you or your godlike (purposely using the masculine here) president can do about it!
I repeat........ U, your malvinarg buddies, government or military have no clout to change the fact that the Falklanders will remain Falklanders and the islands will remain under the protection of Britain! Done and dusted!
OK - I RECEIVED EXTENSIVE REPLIES THAT SPAN MULTIPLE POSTS. IN ORDER TO REPLY WITH SOME DEGREE OF CONTINUITY I CREATED A SECOND ACCOUNT.
Sep 08th, 2012 - 02:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0ST JOHN...NICE TRY, BUT YOU ARE STILL VERY WRONG ON THE FACTS (EXCEPT ONE). I WILL GO TOPIC BY TOPIC.
1771 TREATY:
Clearly, the terms “joint declaration” and “treaty” are interchangeable. Both nations accept terms proposed by each other and whatever you call it, the document sets up a bilateral legal and diplomatic framework going forward. Don’t play the semantics game, it’s one you can’t win in this case.
On to the subject then: the text mentions Great Malouine followed by port Egmont, and if you look at the sentence structure that is to identify the location of Egmont without alluding the island was british property.
What is of note here is that, where both parties previously held each had a total claim on the archipelago, the text establishes both parties have a legitimate right to property on the archipelago. Note, however, that the Spanish declaration is the one that states the act of restoration, by Spain to Britain, can and ought not affect the question of prior sovereignty.
You ask, what was the british concept of its sovereignty prior to the incident?
1765, Britain orders any british personnel who encounters foreign subjects anywhere on the islands to “acquaint them that the said islands (plural) having been first discovered by the subjects of the crown of England, were sent out by the government thereof for that purpose’.
(1771 CONTINUED)
Sep 08th, 2012 - 02:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0Later in 28NOV1769, HMS Tamar’s skipper CPT Hunt requires a Spanish schooner to leave, “on examination found him belonging to a Spanish Settlement on the east part called port Soledad…I warned him to quit the islandS” (again, plural). When the Spanish voiced voiced their displeasure at his actions within Spanish dominion, Hunt responds:
“I have received your letter by the officer, acquainting me, that these islands, and coast thereof, belong to the King of Spain, your Master. In return, I am to acquaint you, that the said islands belong to his Britannick Majesty, my Master, by right of discovery, as well as settlement; and that the subjects of no other power whatever can have any right to be settled in the said islands, without leave from his Britannick Majesty”
So, CLEARLY, prior to 1771, the British believed and claimed they have SOLE AND TOTAL SOVEREIGNTY over the archipelago.
Contrary to this, in 1771, Britain expresses “satisfaction” at Spain’s restoration of its very clearly stated, enumerated and inventoried possessions – with no reciprocal statement for Spanish possessions – and in an about face to former british policy, makes NO PROTEST AND FREELY ACCEPTS a Spanish presence in territories that heretofore britain had claimed total sovereignty over.
This amounts to a british ACQUIESCENCE, accepting a limitation of their sovereignty, over which a number of MPs complained – rightfully – during commons sessions soon afterward.
How can you deny this, when the reciprocal british declaration merely declares “satisfaction for the injury done”, without outright mentioning any additional or separate reservation of british sovereignty, as Spain did?
It’s not that as you or Hans says, I’m confusing settlement for territory…
…It’s about the text of a treaty that Britian entered into upon of its own free volition!
(1771 CONTINUED)
Sep 08th, 2012 - 02:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0Both parties claimed total sovereignty before the treaty; afterwards, only one party’s sovereignty was curtailed, Britain, while the other party, Spain, inserted a stipulation of non-retroactivity of the RESTORATION upon Spain’s pre-existing claim on the whole archipelago.
Britain doesn’t complain; britain doesn’t object; britain doesn’t demand Spain enumerate its own possession such that there be parallel limiting language on the Spanish side. I’m not suggesting the Spanish destroyed their property, I’m suggesting the Spanish declaration lists British property and the British declaration lists no Spanish property, i.e. no reciprocity of the limitation. Absent such limiting language from the British text, one cannot equally conclude “the only Spanish property is Louis”.
In declaring its satisfaction, without listing Spanish property, and despite the Spanish clause of non-retroactivity to the sovereignty claim, Britain tacitly accepts the pre-existing Spanish claim of the whole archipelago should and does per the text remain unencumbered - but for the ‘port and fort Egmont’ and enumerated property restored to the British, and retaining the remainder of the archipelago to its own sovereignty.
Britain’s declaration simply does not retort, it does not complain, it does not list other reservations of sovereignty, it does not list Spanish territories or properties that would limit the Spanish claim…it simply declares the British crown is “satisfied” with the framework described in the Spanish declaration, “satisfied” with keeping sovereignty over Egmont, “satisfied” over acceptance of a Spanish presence in a place it previously claimed it owned.
Which means the only sovereignty the british could reserve upon their withdrawal is over Egmont, and the only sovereignty the british could re-establish when they return in 1833 was over Egmont.
(1771 CONTINUED, LAST)
Sep 08th, 2012 - 02:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0For indeed, if the Spanish king declares he ought not to be precluded from his former claim not specified in the document (and therefore in substance as previously stated by Spain), and the British king is SATISFIED with that and with the enumerated British property, britain’s declaration amounts to ACQUIESENCE of the Spanish king’s former claim – which is the whole archipelago – while accepting the British territory be reduced to “the port and fort of Egmont”.
Britain’s return action therefore exceeded the limits of its sovereignty, usurping territories to which it had given up claim nearly 60 years earlier, and pretending that never happened.
1825 TREATY AND BRITISH RECOGNITION:
Sep 08th, 2012 - 02:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0You are right, and I was wrong, so I will retract my statement that there was an argentine garrison presence in 1825. Upon further study, my source was wrong on that point and yours checks out. Go on, accuse me of being unreasonable!
However, that doesn’t address the fact that the argentine declaration of sovereignty was made in 1820, five years before the british signed the 1825 treaty of peace.
Moreover, the british were well aware of an argentine presence before Areguati’s departure, as evidenced by the notice being published in contemporary newspapers of note, and even the log book of the british vessel Adeona, which in April of 1824 noted the presence of the argentine garrison and threatened to denounce them as ‘pirates’. London knew of the argentine sovereignty claim and of our presence since 1820.
Why then, if britain always held the entire archipelago as its own territory, DOES BRITAIN WAIT UNTIL 1829 to levy a complaint about an argentine presence to the governor of buenos aires?
The fact still remains, that after a public declaration widely publicized and known to london, as well as british vessels who logged our presence and reported it after they returned home…
…not only did britain fail to raise ANY objection to the argentine presence on the islands…
…but went so far as to sign with argentina – KNOWING THE FULL MEASURE OF OUR TERRITORIAL CLAIMS FOLLOWING OUR INDEPENDENCE – signed a treaty of peace and commerce with Buenos Aires, which by its very nature is a tacit recognition of the independence of the United
Provinces as a state comprised of the former territories of the Spanish viceroyalty of the river plate, which included the islands as such a viceroyalty territory since the 1771 treaty with spain.
(1825 CONTINUED)
Sep 08th, 2012 - 02:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0It is an irrefutable historical fact, that prior to 1771 britain made a claim over the totality of the archipelago (as I demonstrated before with British sources); in signing the 1771 treaty britain ACQUIESCED and accepted a legitimate spanish viceroyalty presence on the island.
If britain recognizes a legitimate Spanish Viceroyalty presence on the islands prior to the viceroyalty becoming independent…
…and then recognizes the viceroyalty becoming independent…
…then britain in doing so automatically recognizes the sovereignty of the territories belonging to the former Spanish entity passing now to the independent latter.
Remember, Britain didn’t specify in its 1825 treaty which former viceroyalty territories are recognized by britain as independent, and which are not, or to be considered res nullis.
That is an unfounded distinction that you make, arbitrarily, and after the fact.
ARGENTINE CONFEREDATION:
Sep 08th, 2012 - 02:09 am - Link - Report abuse 01. The argentine confederation may have been a loose alliance, but an alliance nonetheless.
2. You may argue that the Cabildo constituted a weak democratic institution, but democratic nonetheless – and certainly no less democratic than a monarchy.
3. I never said the 1850 treaty was broken 17 years before it was signed.
4. I said Britain broke the 1825 treaty 8 years after it was signed. See how you like to distort facts?
(BTW Hans, if you're reading...
...please PLEASE continue to accuse me of shifting the grounds of the argument…clearly one of “my” tricks that no one else uses.
You want to talk about tricks?
Pre-empting your opponent’s argument by accusing him of doing something your mate is about to do is the oldest trick in the book, one that I can smell a mile away, so try again. Peter Black based a whole book on the concept!)
EXPERTS:
Sep 08th, 2012 - 02:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0Jeffrey Myhre is NOT a student, he holds a D.Phil from LSE and his dissertation dealt with the Antarctic Treaty System; he is no stranger to the complexities of the South Atlantic by any means, nor is your quote the only conclusion he has ever published.
Why don’t you bring something of substance? You’ll find you can’t cry ‘poppycock’ over Goebel so easily! I could ignore all other authors and use just him as a reference alone and still poke more holes in your theories than a wheel of swiss cheese.
In fact it is people who argue for British sovereignty who more often than not distort or ignore history, cherrypicking facts to include or ignore depending on how it benefits you, because the truth is not what you care about. It also shows you are not trustworthy, nor can your arguments be taken seriously, because you’re playing games and not being serious.
I said, 'you ignore even British historians when you see fit'. You asked “like who?”, and I named names.
I have no doubt that, if I had unlimited time at my disposal, it would be quite easily to debunk all the bollox “facts” you and your lot put forward to distort historical events - USING NOTHING BUT BRITISH HISTORIANS TO BACK ME.
Your side bashes our historians. We use yours to prove your deceit and expose your fantasies. That’s the difference between you and me – I seek TRUTH.
I’LL GO FURTHER: If you could show me conclusively, objectively, with proper primary and secondary sources, an uncontested first British discovery (prior to Ribera’s 1540), and a line of uninterrupted British sovereignty (with no other competing sovereignty) throughout the timeline, such that Argentina could inherit nothing because Spain had nothing, I would agree the archipelago rightly belongs to Britain.
WHAT’S MORE – I’LL PUBLICLY GO ON BLOGS LIKE THESE, IDENTIFY MYSELF AS ARGENTINE AND DEMAND MY COUNTRYMENT RESPECT IT.
But you can’t. If you could, you already would have.
(EXPERTS, continued, the rant portion so skip if you wish)
Sep 08th, 2012 - 02:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0All you can do is try these pointless little attacks…pretend uti de jure didn’t exist in the 18th century when it was applied in the 17th…argue about the meaning of the word “adjacent” in Nootka…showcase treaties you made with pro-british illegal dictators while ignoring earlier treaties you made with legal governments, which you then violated…denigrate our nascent government structures…extrapolate our acceptance of your usurpations despite repeated claims and diplomatic requests made by us throughout the 19th and 20th centuries…
…basically, you present the british sovereignty case as a “slam-dunk”, and all you have to offer for it is doublespeak and cherry-picking historical events to suit your narrative.
That’s why the truth is on OUR side, that’s why you denigrate our historians while we use yours – and that’s why your arguments are, in a word, pathetic.
The only reason I keep coming back is to see what new lunacy you’ll pull out of your arse next. They never fail to entertain, I’ll give you that!!
And now that I’ve debunked your points, I’ll make two of my own.
Brilliant!!!! I still dont see an RG flag dominating the falklands skyline hehe! So wheres ure next post?
Sep 08th, 2012 - 02:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0ON SUPPOSED ARGENTINE ‘HIPOCRISY’:
Sep 08th, 2012 - 02:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0It is true that all Spanish –held America revolted against Spanish rule, meaning ALL the viceroyalties, not just the viceroyalty of the river plate. You believe this makes the argentine position hypocritical on its face, because we are complaining about a british conquest through military action while our own nation was born out of military action.
But what you forget is that we are not hypocrites because this is not a question of opinion, it is a question of LAW. While in the 19th century there was no established, codified concept of international law comparable to what exists today, the concept of territorial sovereignty was a known concept in law throughout ancient and modern history – certainly known to british jurists of the 19th century.
Taking the most widely-held definitions of state sovereignty at the time, by contemporary measures based on the terms of the Peace of Westphalia nearly 200 years earlier, acquisition of territorial sovereignty through conquest was considered both legal and legitimate.
This is EXACTLY why the british invasion of 1833 and the war of independence against spain cannot be compared - your lack of context.
The war of independence of 1810-1816 was exactly that: a war, a bellicose action where forces faced each other, one won and the other lost.
The british invasion of 1833 was NOT a bellicose action – Onslow did not attack the argentine garrison, but only IMPLIED USE OF FORCE TO INTIMIDATE. Onslow’s claim, and his orders, were not of conquest, but of re-establishment of a pre-existing british sovereignty claim.
The argentine garrison was therefore not defeated, rather, withdrew under protest. No military action took place, therefore no conquest took place, which does not grant britain claim under right of conquest.
(HYPOCRISY, continued)
Sep 08th, 2012 - 02:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0Of course some may say “then the british 1982 victory settles the issue through conquest” – well not true, since acquisition of sovereignty by conquest became illegal as of the adaptation of the UN Charter. The status of the conflict, thus, still remains a territorial dispute, as recognized by Resolution 2065.
The hypocrisy of your criticisms of Argentina in this matter are equally ridiculous as the criticisms you've made over Argentina's treatment of its natives, when you KNOW FOR A FACT THAT BRITAIN HAS BEEN THE WORST OPPRESSOR OF NATIVE PEOPLES IN EVERY CONTINENT THROUGHOUT HISTORY.
ON THE TRUSTWORTHINESS OF THE BRITISH:
Sep 08th, 2012 - 02:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0It is no surprise that even in the 21st century the british crown will ignore a judgment rendered by its highest court, continuing even today a long and well-documented tradition of brutal colonialism that drives peoples from their lands and replaces them with their own.
One of you went so far as to mention that you don’t want the british government to negotiate because you don’t want the same thing that happened to the chagossians to happen to you! Unbelievable.
Here’s a tip – if you want to compare the falklands situation to the chagos situation: YOU WOULDN’T BE THE CHAGGOSSIANS, YOU’D BE THE MILITARY THAT TOOK THEIR LAND.
YOU – YES, YOU – ARE THE “REPLACEMENT POPULATION”, NOT THE NATIVES THAT GOT KICKED OUT. The passage of time and the fact that you are descendants instead of 1st generation doesn't change that.
The british have done in chagos what they’ve done on Malvinas, what they’ve done in Gibraltar, and everywhere else they gained a bloody foothold. It’s therefore no surprise that Britain broke its 1825 agreement with Argentina, or its 1771 agreement with Spain, and that’s one of the main reasons why this referendum is so ridiculous – because it seeks to erase britain’s track record from the minds of the international community.
And, given the sheer amounts of duplicity employed by the pro-british argument supporters today, I’ll leave everyone here tonight with a choice british quote from their forefathers whom, I think we can all agree, are equally as trustworthy.
Bloody liars and thieves one and all – ENJOY!
“The Board of Admiralty having proposed to His Majesty some time ago the sending out two Frigates in order to make Discoveries in the American Seas, which might tend to the Improvement of Commerce and navigation in general, the King, …was graciously pleased to approve of their Intention...
…But as this scheme has been represented by major General Wall, to His Catholick Majesty's Minister at this Court, liable to so many Misrepresentations at the Court where you reside, and which might possibly tend towards creating an Uneasiness and Suspicion between His Majesty and the Catholick King, I am commanded to inclose to you, for your Information a Copy of the Earl of Sandwich's Letter to me, explaining the Design of the Board of Admiralty…
Sep 08th, 2012 - 02:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0...you will find that the full Discovery of Pepys's and Falkland's Islands, lying to the eastwards of Cape Blanco, was the first Object of this undertaking, which when completed, the Ships were to return to Brazil to refit refit, to proceed afterwards into the South Seas in order to make further Discoveries there.
As this latter part of the Scheme cannot be carried into Execution without wooding and watering at the Islands of Juan Fernandez, & possibly coming sometimes within sight of the Spanish Coasts of Chili and Peru, it is apprehended here that an Attempt of this Nature may alarm the Court of Madrid, and give them Suspicions...
....This having been represented to the King in the Light I have now stated it to you, he has been pleased to direct the Admiralty to proceed no further in the projected Discoveries, than what is contained in the first Part of the plan laid down, & to direct the Sloops to return Home, after they shall have searched sufficiently the Seas about Pepy's and Falkland's Islands.
THERE IS NO INTENTION OF MAKING SETTLEMENT IN EITHER OF THOSE ISLANDS, and as His Majesty's Sloops will neither touch upon, or even make any part of the Spanish Coast, the King can in no shape apprehend that this Design can give any Umbrage at Madrid, …”
John Russell, 4th Duke of Bedford, 24 April 1749
1749!!!! AFTER STRONG!!! And before the row with Spain - guess that's what the British word is worth.
Good night!
You need to get a job or some friends and BTW I still dont see an RG flag dominating the falklands skyline !!!!!
Sep 08th, 2012 - 02:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0I've responded with no more than what was written to me.
Sep 08th, 2012 - 02:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0You people are so boring sometimes...if you're going to employ double standards when arguing with us, can't you at least come up with some new ones??
Guess we are not going to get some real answers then argies. That was expected. But the upside to that is when one abstains one can sugest he may or may not agree. This case i guess it is in agreement with the belief that we really are a British Country.
Sep 08th, 2012 - 02:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0Tonight when I go to bed I will rest assured that we are living in a democraticaly free Country protected from Argentine threats by the worlds best British soldiers, sailors and airmen. God save the Queen and up yours CFK.
Country?
Sep 08th, 2012 - 03:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0When did you become a commonwealth republic?
Huh...must've missed that one.
All this historical stuff is of no consequence! We are living in the NOW! Not 17 or 18 hundreds! If going back 200+ years has anything to with it, then with regard to the rest of the world, what stops us going back further??? Does mongolia then get to claim the middle east and parts of hungary????
Sep 08th, 2012 - 03:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0I think we all agree that's retarded as is this historical rhetoric over the falklands!
Falklands are not Rg lands just as parts of the tip of chile is not RG lands!
Hermes u talk about people being boring!!!! The RG claim over the Falklands is boring!!!!
Very briefly (presently I havn't time to go through your posts now, guests staying for some days):
Sep 08th, 2012 - 04:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0In [12] (which 179 Steveu provided a link to) p. 12 it says: “Jeffrey D. Myhre is a research student in the International Relations Department at the London School of Economics”
As I previously wrote: you have to give exact title(s) and/or ISBN or link(s) AND excerpts - and not just come up with names.
I have previously made my own position clear, it is not far from the opinion (albeit more favorable for Britain) Roberto C. Laver's in ”The Falklands/Malvinas Case:Breaking the Deadlock in the Anglo-Argentine Sovereignty Dispute (Developments in International Law, V. 40)“, p. 65f.
”A survey of the literature shows that much of it is by Argentine scholars arguing the strength of the Argentine claim and the weakness of Britain's position. ... there is no way of predicting how an international tribunal would rule on this matter. Though many scholars may favor Argentina's side of the dispute, what is clear is that there are aspects of the case in which a tribunal might reach a surprising and unexpected result. And there is no way of qualifying theses risks. As many scholars point out, there has been no case quite like the Falklands/Malvinas dispute. Though there are prevailing opinions and bodies of doctrine on many of the issues involved, it is folish to pretend that these are categorical and clear-cut rules that could be applied to resolve each and every one.”
[16] http://books.google.com.ar/books?id=cNKtX4mYVZUC&pg=PA62&lpg=PA62&dq=%22vernet%22+%22Baylies%22+%22report%22&source=bl&ots=i9AihZNpu_&sig=jB5bONoheX75ejj13BCU8K_RGqM&hl=en&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22vernet%22%20%22Baylies%22%20%22report%22&f=false (p65f.)
(270) St.John
Sep 08th, 2012 - 06:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0Well….
This post seems to be miles away from your previous assessment that any ”Unbiased Court” would most probably rule 5 to 1 in favor of the UK…..
I’m not going to waste our valuable Scandinavian time in endless analysis of past and present legislations…..............but:
I just want to point out that there is a timeless conception called ”The Spirit of the Law”, juxtaposed/ opposed to ”The Letter of the Law”
That very concept favors greatly, in my humble opinion, the Argentinean position on the whole Malvinas issue.
As a Dane, you may be familiar with the above mentioned notion….
That’s why Mogens spend ~three years in Horserød…..
Hav en god Lørdag
El Think
Chubut, Argentina
@ 271 Think
Sep 08th, 2012 - 06:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0“This post seems to be miles away from your previous assessment that any ”Unbiased Court” would most probably rule 5 to 1 in favor of the UK…..”
Read http://en.mercopress.com/2012/06/20/argentina-s-diplomatic-circus#comment139620 where I gave a more or less similar opinion.
(Quoting myself): “Of course I use the expressions “implicitly” and “converges on”, because I don't claim to have THE solution to the Falklands/Malouines/Malvinas dispute, which is extremeley complicated.
It reminds me of the dispute over Slesvig and Holstein in the 1840-1860's, of which Lord Palmerston is roumoured to have said:
“In the whole world only three men have ever understood the full complexity of this case.
One was professor who was driven insane by it, another professor was who is dead, and me - and I have unfortunately forgotten it.” ”
As for odds 5:1 in favor of - actually not Britain, but the islanders - I stand by it, let's say 4:1 from ruling against the inhabitants' interests and wishes (UN Charter), add 1 = 5:1 for the 1850 peace treaty and Argentina's reactions before and after.
Kan du selv have en god weekend.
St.John
Bagsværd, Danmark
“Everything about your attitude is wrong; it's condescending, patronising, bullying, hectoring colonialist crap.”
Sep 08th, 2012 - 06:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0And I suppose everything islanders say to us is roses and peaches? I would describe your attitude the same way, adding only that subtle air of hubris and self-righteousness that so uniquely defines the British.
“You dehumanise the Falkland islanders much like how Nazi Germany did the Jews.”
Comparisons to nazism are always the sign of a weak and unsubstantiated argument. Do you know why despite all your maliciousness we never compare you islanders to nazis?
Because nazis are incomparable, and any reasonable individual knows the second you compare anyone to nazis, you lose credibility.
“Why can't you just be at peace and accept, but maybe not agree, the fact that the FI wish to remain British. Then maybe in the very distant future the FI, UK, and Argentina can resume some sensible diplomatic relations.”
You know what? That sounds great! Just start treating us like human beings and admit that we have rights, and we'll be happy to reciprocate.
After all you so want the international community to see you in that light, do you not? But yet you yourselves won't treat Argentines the same way, like human beings, respectful of their rights.
You'd have a lot more traction in SA and many more sympathetic ears if your message was “we acknowledge a wrong was committed 200 years ago - lets work together to make it right, but for the sake of our own humanity don't punish US for what happened back then!”
If that were your message - people will listen.
But that's not your message!!
Your message insists Argentina was not wronged in any way, and you deny or alter history as you please, as Hermes demonstrated above.
Your message demands respect for your human rights at the point of a gun, even while you happily ignore other peoples rights.
That hubris and self-righteousness I mentioned before? It's why you are the aggressor and not the victim.
(272) St.John
Sep 08th, 2012 - 07:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0You say:
”As for odds 5:1 in favor of - actually not Britain, but the islanders - I stand by it, let's say 4:1 from ruling against the inhabitants' interests and wishes (UN Charter), add 1 = 5:1 for the 1850 peace treaty and Argentina's reactions before and after.”
I say:
As for odds….............
Firstly, you are ignoring the fact of a previous treaty, singed VOLUNTARILY and FREELY by both parties some 25 years before….
Secondly, you are ignoring the fact that the ”Peace Treaty” of 1850 was signed under coercion, after a ~5 years British blockade and under threat of continuing the blockade indefinitely.
Thirdly, you are ignoring the fact that what you call “Islanders” are full blown BRITISH citizens.
British citizens that are the spearhead for the British geopolitical ambition of controlling 12,000,000 km2 of South Atlantic and Antarctic territory.
Nobody in the Southern hemisphere has any “Rights” in the Arctic….
Nobody in the Northern hemisphere should have any “Rights” in the Antarctic….
And that includes our beloved Norge…..
@ 274 Think
Sep 08th, 2012 - 07:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Firstly, you are ignoring the fact of a previous treaty, singed VOLUNTARILY and FREELY by both parties some 25 years before”
If you have two (opposing) treaties, one later than the other, which is valid?
“Secondly, you are ignoring the fact that the ”Peace Treaty” of 1850 was signed under coercion, after a ~5 years British blockade and under threat of continuing the blockade indefinitely.”
If you read the history of the negotiations of the 1850 treaty, before and after, you'l find that the British government was under severe pressure (expenses + merchants' protests) “Although the Anglo-French force defeated Argentine forces, the cost of victory proved excessive in light of the ferocious resistance from the Argentines. As a result, the British sought to exit from the confrontation. Negotiations to end the conflict took nearly two years from 1848 to 1849.”
while Rosas didn't feel the least under pressure, on the contrary.
”The treaty is viewed as a considerable triumph for the Argentine dictator General Rosas as it was the first time the emerging South American nations were able to impose their will on two European Empires (Britain and France).“
As for the treaty's impact on the Falklands dispute: ”A number of historians have commented on the relation of the Convention of Settlement to the Falklands dispute. The Mexican diplomat and historian Carlos Pereyra considers that General Rosas gave up the claim to the Falklands in order end Britain's involvement in the River Plate. Pereyra adds that the effect of the Convention was as if it had had an unwritten article stating that “Britain retained the Falkland Islands.” Pereyra’s book was reprinted in Buenos Aires in 1944, with the same statements.“ ”
Aren't you a bit xenophobic?
Nobody should have any rights outside their own baño :-D
@273, 248
Sep 08th, 2012 - 08:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0Your evidence regarding the Falklands being Argentinian are not very credible. It is irrelevant who was right or who was wrong back then but you think you are right because you are brainwashed at school like how the Nazi's did to their youth, and there is a great similarity with Argentina and Nazi Germany, as your country protected the Nazi's and fascists, and you have Nazism in your bloodline!
What matters is the here and now, and right now the way your government is postulating and making threats, is the reason why we are in this current position.
Your minister of defence just recently said that the British military is the only reason stopping you from going back to the Islands. You invaded the islands 30 years back and your attitude hasn't changed. It is YOU who should apologise for your wrong doing 30 years back. That has more realism than your stupid pathetic argument about what happened a squillion years back.
You rant is just based at pure hatred of anything British.
You need to change your attitudes and start moving forward because the way your are behaving at present all you are doing is taking 100 steps back.
(275) St.John
Sep 08th, 2012 - 08:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0You say:
”…..while Rosas didn't feel the least under pressure, on the contrary….”
”The treaty is viewed as a considerable triumph for the Argentine dictator General Rosas …..”
I say:
Well……
The “flimsiness” of your approach/argumentation about a central episode of Argentinean history is just flabbergasting.
Just a clue…..:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/Rosas_memorial.JPG
@Hermes
Sep 08th, 2012 - 10:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0There are only two problems with your interpretation of the 1771 agreement :
1) what the British declaration actually says is “ that all things shall be immediately restored to the precise situation in which they stood before the 10th of June, 1770”
It is stretching the text beyond breaking point to claim that this amounts to acquiescence in a Spanish claim which was not recognized at that date.
2) your interpretation - which was indeed argued by the British war party of the time - was explcitly rejected, at the time, by the British signatories.
So you might have an argument, but it is far from convincing. It's also rather depressing that you've chosen to support your undoubtedly impressive research skills with some kneejerk anglophobia straight from the standard curriculum.
But the fact remains that when all the sound and fury and historical nitpicking is stripped away, you are left with a legal claim based on a contested inheritance from Spain that was never explicitly left to you, and a moral claim based on a civilian expulsion which almost certainly never happened. You went to war over this once already and lost, and now you claim the right to deny the islanders a voice in their own future and call this decolonization.
It's only astonishing that you cannot see the sheer irrationality of this.
2nd go! what happened to my masterpiece, mercopress?
Sep 08th, 2012 - 10:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0Hermes1967,
you write a lot l'll say that for you.
Unfortunately its all bunkum.
No amount of your tirade will ever get you the Falklands. Peace♥
@245 Steveu,
l agree with poster#238 kelperabout.
l think the reason that Argentina claims SG & British Antarctica is:-
1) They can control the choke-point between South America & Antarctica.
2) They want the billions of megalitres of fresh water locked up in Antarctica.
3) They want ALL the fish in the South Atlantic.
4) They want any minerals from Antarctica(l've heard that both coal & copper have been found there)
5) Let's not forget OUR OIL(you know, the oil that Think says doesn't exist)
6) Their macho pride has been dented after what we did to them in 1982- they want revenge.
Mussolini told Peron that we were effete & could easily be stripped of our empire.
They thought we were finished in 1942 & the cowards wanted to help snap bits off the carcase.
Like a heyena stealing from the lions.
They have no rights & they know it.
They are getting increasingly desperate as we are their stumbling block in the way of an Argentine Empire.
They also want to consolidate their “claims” on Antarctica before the big players move in.
The way l feel now, if we can't have it l would assist nearly ANYONE else but Argentina.
Isolde
Sep 08th, 2012 - 11:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0Do not worry about losing the islands.
The cowardly Argentines will never get the best of any British forces, even if Dead Man Walking decided to chuck his lot in with them. That would undoubtedly bring the USA into play big time - think of all the oil in Venezuela.
No, the only thing that this bunch of wannabe gangsters can do is to whine and bleat just like they do now.
Once the referendum result is announced it will begin to change the stance of those countries that are wavering presently. It will never stop the pathetic bleating from TMBOA and her paid for cronies such as their biggest liar 'I don't Think', aka The Turnip In Chief.
Peace. :o)
@ 277 Think
Sep 08th, 2012 - 11:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0“The “flimsiness” of your approach/argumentation about a central episode of Argentinean history is just flabbergasting.”
Really?
Peace treaty of 1850:
Art. I. The Government of Her Britannic Majesty, ... raised the blockade ... binds itself ... to evacuate the Island of Martin Garcia; to return the Argentine vessels of war which are in its possession ... and to SALUTE THE FLAG OF THE ARGENTINE CONFEDERATION WITH 21 GUNS.
...
III. The auxiliary Argentine divisions existing in the Oriental State, shall return across the Uruguay ... Her Britannic Majesty's Government, in the event of its being necessary, OFFERS TO USE ITS GOOD OFFICES IN BRINGING ABOUT THESE OBJECTS, with its ally the French Republic.
IV. Her Britannic Majesty's Government RECOGNIZES THE NAVIGATION OF THE RIVER PARANA TO BE AN INLAND NAVIGATION OF THE ARGENTINE CONFEDERATION, AND SUBJECT SOLELY TO ITS LAWS AND REGULATIONS, in the same manner as that of the River Uruguay in common with the Oriental State.
There can be little doubt that Rosas had the upper hand in this.
Read it yourself.
(handwritten original in castellaño & English): http://tratados.cancilleria.gob.ar/tratado_archivo.php?id=3265&tipo=1
(Printed English text): http://tratados.cancilleria.gob.ar/tratado_archivo.php?id=3265&tipo=1
As for Rosas's modest cenotaph, compare with the huge monuments, you find in Argentina, e.g. in Cementerios de la Recoleta and de Chacarita, Buenos Aires and elsewhere.
http://tratados.cancilleria.gob.ar/tratado_archivo.php?id=3265&tipo=1
Mitre's: http://tratados.cancilleria.gob.ar/tratado_archivo.php?id=3265&tipo=1
Mausoleo de Eustoquio Díaz Vélez: http://tratados.cancilleria.gob.ar/tratado_archivo.php?id=3265&tipo=1
http://tratados.cancilleria.gob.ar/tratado_archivo.php?id=3265&tipo=1
(281) St.John
Sep 08th, 2012 - 12:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You insist with your simplistic views of an incredible complicated period of the Argentinean history...
Is like me saying that Cristian IV was the best king Denmark ever had because all those beautiful buildings, forgetting that he effectively destroyed the Danish Empire.....
The “clue” about Rosas tomb was not in its flashiness but in its location and inscription.
he effectively destroyed the Danish Empire.....
Sep 08th, 2012 - 02:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Was that a bad thing?
As for Cristian IV, you don't have to write his entire history to be able to say e.g. that he made a mess of his participation in the Thirty Years' War, and you don't have to post the entire complicated history of Rosas to say briefly: Rosas won the peace.
Sep 08th, 2012 - 02:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The “simplistic views” happens to be shared by most historians both inside and outside of Argentina.
“Rosas tomb was not in its flashiness but in its location and inscription.”
Yes, I know he fled to England and died there.
(284) St.John
Sep 08th, 2012 - 03:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Correct, he fled to England (and was “graciously”accepted) just two short years after, in your own words: ”This dictator considerable triumph over two European Empires (Britain and France).“
A perfect normal occurrence at that time?
Or at ANY time?
I “Think” not!
Think again after you have read the peace treaty and thought it over.
Sep 08th, 2012 - 03:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0José de San Martín was welcome in the United KINGDOM and later in Bruxelles in the KINGDOM of the Netherlands shortly after he had led a rebellion against a KING in South America. Perfectly normal.
It matters not what others believe our future to be. It is we the islanders that will decide it and next March 2013 will be the day of reckoning. No matter what the outcome we will have made a voice known again.
Sep 08th, 2012 - 05:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It was once carried out in 1986 when a referendum revealed 94.5 per cent wished for British rule then. below is a copy of extracts from that referendum
‘What kind of sovereignty do you want for the Falkland Islands?
Of the 1,033 questionnaires sent out, 920 copies were received back, a response of 89 per cent, one of the highest in Marplan’s experience.
The results were: British sovereignty – 94.5 % Independence – 1.5% Other solution not listed – 1.2% Two solutions selected 1.1 % Lease-back – 1.0% Argentine Sovereignty – 0.3% United Nations Trusteeship – 0.3%
Margaret Thatcher who commented: “As you know, the Government has never been in any doubt over the wish of the overwhelming majority of the Falkland Islanders to remain under British sovereignty: that wish is a key factor in our policy.” She also wrote: “we are committed to defending the right of the Falkland Islanders to live under British sovereignty. This is not negotiable.”
Read it carefully Argentina History could be about to repeat it’s self again
286 St.John
Sep 08th, 2012 - 05:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Venligst lade være med at spille dum........
San Martin would have been hanged if he turned up in Spain.....
Rudolf Hess was imprisoned for life after turning up in Scotland...
No Country gives sanctuary to leaders they just waged War against...
Rosas is, quite curiously, an odd exception............
Please support this page - Falkland Islands Desire The Right - dedicated to Falkland Islands current affairs, keeping the islands free and poking fun at the lunacy of the Argentine government and their various claims and winding up their Internet trolls - https://www.facebook.com/Britain1592
Sep 08th, 2012 - 06:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@ 288 Think
Sep 08th, 2012 - 06:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0jeg foreslår, at du lader være med at spille dum.
After the French revolution every and all insurgents were suspicious in a kingdom - but as a matter of fact, after the Napoleonic wars, nobody really cared, as long as they didn't make trouble.
- but it's a nice conspiracy theory, of the kind that is typical for Argentina - somebody else did it!
Who fought the war in 1982?
The evil dictatorship!
29 April 1982 Ernesto Sabato, a staunch opponent to the Junta wrote in the Argentine newspaper “La Nacion”:
“In Argentina it is not a military dictatorship that is fighting. It is the whole people, her women, her children, the old people, regardless of their political persuasion. Opponents to the regime like myself are fighting for our dignity, fighting to extricate the last vestiges of colonialism. Don't be mistaken, Europe, it is not a dictatorship that is fighting for the Malvinas; it is the whole nation.”.
http://www.nps.edu/Academics/centers/ccc/publications/OnlineJournal/2004/nov/mcclureNOV04.html
http://www.nps.edu/Academics/centers/ccc/publications/OnlineJournal/2004/nov/mcclureNOV04.html
In “The Question of Malvinas Islands and the Bicentennial of Argentina”, Federico Lorenz wrote:
“The disembarkation of April 2 [1982] was backed by several sectors of the Argentine society. Even many of the victims of the military dictatorship, in prison or in exile, agreed on the recovery, ...”
http://www.nps.edu/Academics/centers/ccc/publications/OnlineJournal/2004/nov/mcclureNOV04.html
Please support this page aimed at promoting Britain's Overseas Territories...
Sep 08th, 2012 - 06:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0https://www.facebook.com/BOTUK1
(290) St.John
Sep 08th, 2012 - 08:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You say:
“.....but it's a nice conspiracy theory, of the kind that is typical for Argentina - somebody else did it!”
I say:
Do you want me to believe that the world, past and present is a “Clean Cut” place without lies, deception and treason?
With good “Goodies” and bad “Baddies”?
Next you will tell me that you Danes where on the right side during WWII.
If it hadn’t been for the ethical conduct of some odd 300 communist’s resistance fighters in Denmark; Montgomery would have gladly declared you an enemy Country in 45 and given you to the Soviets.
Grow up, knægt!
Absolutely.
Sep 08th, 2012 - 08:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_resistance_movement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_resistance_movement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_resistance_movement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_resistance_movement
(293) St.John
Sep 08th, 2012 - 08:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well.....
Being so ignorant about your own Nation recent history certainly explains your greater ignorance about the whole Malvinas issue.
I will not bother you anymore with my comments....
Hav et godt liv.............
@294
Sep 08th, 2012 - 09:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Not quite sure how to characterise that departure. Slithering or scuttling?
@292 Think + 294 Think
Sep 08th, 2012 - 10:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0About 850 of those “... odd 300 communist’s resistance fighters in Denmark” you blabber about, were killed by the Germans, as documented.
Most of them must have been killed three times, if you are to be trusted.
/Sarcasm ON
Danmark is also extremely corrupt, together with New Zealand and Singapore, we are on top of the list:
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%8Dndice_de_Percepci%C3%B3n_de_Corrupci%C3%B3n#.C3.8Dndices_anuales
while Argentina has almost no curruption, indicated by its position as no. 105 - or do I miss something?
/Sarcasm OFF
@ 295 HansNiesund
A Danish adage says: “Man kan ikke se røven for bare fodsåler” ~ “you can't se his ars*, 'cause it is hidden by his soles”.
After that poor performance I know why he calls himself “Think” - because he obviously doesn't.
(296) St.John
Sep 09th, 2012 - 12:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0You say:
”About 850 of those “... odd 300 communist’s resistance fighters in Denmark” you blabber about, were killed by the Germans, as documented.”
I say:
Documented by whom?
As most of your writing, just personal opinions and ”Street Legends”.
Hereby a complete list of the Danish Resistance Fighters that were killed by the Germans.
More than half of them arrested and delivered to the Germans by the DANISH POLICE.
http://drabssageridanmark.beboer2650.dk/html/mindelunden_i_ryvangen.html
As you can see, not more than 200……
Compare the above number with the ~12,000 Danish WWII volunteers under German flag…
Compare that number with the ~4,000 Danish killed in action wearing a German uniform…
Denmark is a wonderful place today…. and the truth of what happened in 1939-1945 is readily available for any Dane that wants to find it.
A walk through Mindelunden would do you good....
Is not far from Bagsværd you know..
@St. John,
Sep 09th, 2012 - 12:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0I don’t see how the citation for Laver is relevant. The whole thing is conjecture about how ICJ might rule, never mind the fact that as stated (and linked to) before, the UK does not accept ICJ jurisdiction in cases arising before ’74.
(It's fun to note, the UK made only 3 exceptions to this policy, all 3 of course during the first Peron administration, whom they knew to be anti-UK in his positions and could reasonable expect to say “no”. A great little cookie to add to their sovereignty propaganda campaign, so they could claim henceforth “Argentina refuses to go to ICJ!!”)
RIGHT NOW, AT THIS MOMENT, the only party that refuses – by law – ICJ jurisdiction in this case is Britain.
@tontito
”What matters is the here and now”…
Spoken like a true islander – let’s ignore history and everything that led up to the here and now.
Who cares about what happened “a squillion years back”? All that history stuff is, like, all boring and shit (cue Beavis and Butthead laugh).
No, really, I understand why you feel that way - after all, it’s so much easier to pretend you didn’t screw anyone over if you forget it altogether!
(BTW good choice of screen name – VERY applicable)
I’ll make you a deal, tonto – we’ll apologize TOGETHER, you for what happened “a squillion years” ago, and me for what happened 30 years ago. To be fair, if we go by chronological order, you should go first – but I’m willing to extend an olive branch and do it simultaneously so you don’t lose face.
Oh wait that’s right I forgot, you believe in fake history so you have nothing to apologize for..
“You rant is just based at pure hatred of anything British.”
Well...I like Monty Python!
“You need to change your attitudes and start moving forward”
Ok tonto I’ll make you another deal:
We Argentines will change our attitude and start moving forward..
..when you islanders change your attitude and start looking backwards at RECORDED HISTORY (brit sources if you like).
No?
Typical.
@Hermes
Sep 09th, 2012 - 01:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0“the British declaration says 'that all things shall be immediately restored to the precise situation in which they stood before the 10th of June, 1770' It is stretching the text beyond breaking point to claim that this amounts to acquiescence”
SURE – when you pick out just that portion of the phrase and consider it outside of the statement’s context, it would be quite a stretch to say it amounts to acquiescence!
By itself, the word “things” means “the larger situation”...
...which in not specifying British property would prevent it from being diminished in the treaty, as this would mean the Brits are using a more broad subject reference that supersedes the enumerated British property listed in the Spanish declaration.
But when you look at the WHOLE phrase…
“His Catholick Majesty having authorized the Prince of Maserano…to offer, in his Majesty’s name, to the King of Great Britain, a satisfaction for the injury done…said Ambassador having this day signed a declaration, which he has just delivered to me, expressing therein that his Catholick Majesty…does disavow the expedition against Port Egmont, in which force has been used against his Britannick Majesty’s possessions, commander, and subjects (THAT WAS THE CONTEXT OF THE SENTENCE THAT FOLLOWS); and does also engage (THE KING OF SPAIN ENGAGES), that all things (“THINGS” AS DEFINED BY THE KING OF SPAIN’S DECLARATION) shall be immediately restored to the precise situation in which they stood before the 10th of June, 1770; and that his Catholick Majesty shall give orders, IN CONSEQUENCE (STILL TALKING ABOUT THE SPANISH DECLARATION, NOT PRESENTING THE SPANISH KING’S ORDERS TO RESTORE AS SEPARATE FROM RESTORING THE OVERALL SITUATION BACK TO WHAT IT WAS BEFORE)…and the said ambassador having moreover engaged…that what is contained in the said declaration shall be carried into effect…his said Brittanick Majesty…will look upon the said declaration..AS A SATISFACTION…”
CONTEXT changes everything.
@Hermes, continued
Sep 09th, 2012 - 01:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0The “Things” the British text refers to is not the general situation, “things” is the same “things” the Spanish King said in his declaration (mind you, just “things”, not “all things”) which were LIMITED in scope and location, as the Spanish said:
“in the Great Malouine, at the Port called Egmont” (NO OTHER PLACE) “precisely to the state in which they were”.
Also…to answer your other point:
“your interpretation - which was indeed argued by the British war party of the time - was explcitly rejected, at the time, by the British signatories.”
There is a reason why those opposition MPs arrived at that interpretation, and that is that words arranged in sentences have certain meaning in the English language!
Actually, I’m REEEALLY glad you brought up Rochford’s rejection, because now we can examine just exactly what that rejection was based on.
Now, indeed Rochford tried – unsuccessfully – to quell their objections.
Yet even if you examine how this appeasement took place, one still can objectively conclude that given the established British view of total sovereignty prior to the incident was afterwards left drastically reduced, and that the British declaration amounted to acquiescence.
Indeed, the general contemporary interpretation in Britain was that ONLY THE SPANISH claim would not be altered by the declaration, as evidenced in an article published in “The Illustrated Magazine of Art”, Vol. 1 No. 1, which details the row in parliament.
(to be continued)
@Hermes, continued
Sep 09th, 2012 - 01:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0FURTHER - Rochford, in his effort to appease the opposition, reached out to the eminent Samuel Johnson, who in turn produced an official report, duly published under the auspices of the government of Britain, in which he states:
- That by the treaty His Majesty’s honor was adequately restored .
- That, upon examination of the existing evidence, the British claim of discovery and first settlement, and its subsequent claim of sovereignty, “was an assertion of more confidence than certainty”
- That Britain disavowed sovereignty of the Falkland Islands before:
“When once we had disowned all purpose of settling, it is apparent, that we could not defend the propriety of our expedition by arguments”
-That recognizes Spain exclusive right to navigation in the south seas:
“no man, not authorized by the king of Spain, can trade there but by force or stealth.”
Followed by my FAVORITE sentence:
“Whatever profit is obtained must be gained by the violence of rapine, or dexterity of fraud.”
And that fraud took place on January 3rd, 1833, and the man who perpetrated that fraud was Oslow, for there can be no doubt that after the 1771 treaty, the only British property on the archipelago was EGMONT, and the only sovereignty they could reserve upon departing was EGMONT, and the only sovereignty they could re-establish upon their return was EGMONT.
NOT THE WHOLE ARCHIPELAGO. JUST EGMONT.
What happened in 1833 was armed robbery, plain and simple. If we were dealing today with brits of Johnson's caliber, we'd have settled this LONG AGO. But alas, all we have left to deal with today are intransigent illiterate islander idiots.
“So you might have an argument, but it is far from convincing.”
Only if you ignore the facts!
Frankly, the number of mental hoops you have to jump through to negate the existence of those facts is the only astonishing thing I see here.
CAN'T YOU SEE THAT WHAT YOU’RE ALLEGING IS INSANE???
LAST POST FOR THE NIGHT...ON THE 1850 TREATY:
Sep 09th, 2012 - 01:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0As I stated before, the government of Rosas was an extra-constitutional, illegal government, as such its every action including the signing of the treaty is entirely devoid of force of law.
But even if it were a lawful agreement, I feel it necessary to point out the obvious:
-The 1850 treaty makes NO MENTION WHATSOEVER of the islands; it has no relation whatsoever to the islands, and it has no direct or indirect cause or origin, or any other relation whatsoever, to the islands. To consider that it does is to consider the treaty entirely outside of the context over which the treaty came about.
- Why are peace treaties signed? To put and end to periods of hostility. At which point did the British blockade of South America encircled the islands? None. At which point during the hostilities between Argentina and Britain was the British garrison removed from the islands? Never happened! In order for the Arana-Southern convention to have anything to do with the islands, the islands would have had to have taken some part, however small, in the hostilities. THEY NEVER DID.
- In 1849, while the conditions of the convention were still being negotiated between Buenos Aires and London, Moreno REPEATEDLY asked for negotiations and even lodged a formal protest over the sovereignty dispute.
YOU CANNOT OBJECTIVELY EXTRAPOLATE FROM THE 1850 CONVENTION ANY RELATION WHATSOEVER TO THE SOVEREIGNTY ISSUE – A SEPARATE, PREVIOUS AND PRECEDING CONFLICT, INDIVIDUAL, INDEPENDENT AND ENTIRELY AUTONOMOUS FROM THE SUBSEQUENT CONFLICT 12 YEARS LATER.
READ THE TREATY TEXT!!
The only thing it talks about is the British Blockade.
Linking the two conflicts is just another example of the simple-minded, “cut & paste” method of distorting history championed by islanders.
Go ahead islanders, keep ignoring and distorting history and pretend the referendum will make it all go away in the eyes of the international community...
298 Hermes1967
Sep 09th, 2012 - 01:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0I am just a simple retired business man but you see that the AG argument falls down badly when you think of the obvious: they invaded the islands AND then they couldn't hold them and had their arses kicked off!
Guess who holds them now? The real and original owners, so you lot have not a cat in hell's chance of ever convincing a neutral person that the islanders should give up their homes that many have had for many, many generations, unlike your bunch of colonialists.
Get it now, do we?
As I said before...“intransigent illiterate idiots”. I know you didn't read anything I wrote, given that you probably have the attention span of a walnut.
Sep 09th, 2012 - 01:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0In any case, thanks for proving my point.
@ 297 Think
Sep 09th, 2012 - 02:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0Documentation given as links in 293 St.John
As accurately as it can be calculated, the number of dead freedom fighters was 862.
Besættelsestidens døde (no. of dead during the [German] occupation:
Modstandsfolk (freedom fighters)
500 Dræbt i kamp, ved vådeskud etc. (killed in combat, friendly fire/accidental shot)
102 Henrettet efter krigsretsdom (executed following sentence in [German] court martial)
260 Døde i koncentrationslejr (died in concentration camp)
http://natmus.dk/besoeg-museerne/frihedsmuseet/faq/besaettelsestidens-doede/
The number of names in Mindelunden, which I have visited a number of times during the past 55 years, is 272, but that is only a part of the freedom fighters who died during the occupation.
The writer certainly has created some massive debate and from what has been written clearly shows that we Islanders have not deviated from our position and are never likely too. Argentina might just as well drop these stupid antiquated claims because if she ever did have any chance of making friends she blew it in 1982.
Sep 09th, 2012 - 03:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0The absolute filth they created in our homes was unbelievable and yet these same people keep telling us that they would let us live the way we are if we gave to them our homeland. This we know would never happen and we have seen how they treat their border neighbours so why in a million years should we trust them. Sorry Argentina you have had almost 200 years of whinging and you have gotton nowhere. Just do the most humanly respectable thing and admit to the world you tried to grab and control the gateway to the Antartic but realise that you made a big mistake.
Failing to do that I propose that we take this a stage further and deport all Argentines from our Country and with them re-patriate the dead they left behind in 82. They only left them here so that they could use them as a means to claim our land. It will not wash and unless you back off we Islanders will one day do just that and remove all possible connections with your country.need even the air link and your embargo has not worked. We still import and export the same or better than before.
We know also that you do not have the strength to start another fight with Britain and quite frankly you could not afford to because you know that if you try to steel our land again Britain will take the conflict right to your door. Who knows may even offer their spoils to islanders. Now that would be a movie wiorth making.
“Britain had nothing to do with the proposal to hold a Falklands’ referendum”
Sep 09th, 2012 - 04:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0Aye right...
I have fortunately some older stuff to keep you occupied:
Sep 09th, 2012 - 04:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0@ 178 Hermes1967
(175 HansNiesund): “The 1771 document does not limit the totality of British possessions in any way”
Hermes1967: “HA! Read it - of course it does. It specifically lists everything belonging to the british to be restored and the specific british territory to where it was to be restored.”
The declaration 1771 [10] says: “... to deliver ... the port and fort called Egmont, with all the artillery, stores, and effects of his Britannick Majesty, and his subjects, which were at that place the day above named, agreeable to the inventory which has been made of them.”
The Spanish restored what was destroyed or stolen. What else should they mention?
- everything which was NOT destroyed? - are you suggesting that the Spanish ought to have digged up the soil from the surface of the entire island and have thrown in into the ocean?
Hermes1967: “There were no other british posessions at the time. Not to mention that prior to the inciident, standing orders from the FO were that any foreign presence on the island violated the king's sovereignty and was to be evicted.
This indicates a clear pre-incident british assertion of sovereignty over the whole archipelago, followed by a treaty with spain in which the british crown reverses itself and accepts both a legitimate spanish presence and a limitation upon its claim that leaves to britain only egmont. This is then followed by arguments at Commons where opposition MPs specifically complain that britain's sovereignty on the archipelago has been drastically limited.
All british sources, all of which who you conveniently ignore. The fact is, after 1771 your only posession was Egmont; when you left your plaque it reserved sovereignty for Egmont, and when you returned in 1833 the only sovereignty you could legitimately claim to re-establish was over egmont.
Instead, you implied the use of superior firepower and took the whole.” - as did Argentina in 1810.
As I was called, when I lived in Argentina (should have been Don Juan Albert - but you can't win them all)
Sep 09th, 2012 - 04:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0Unfinished business 2
Sep 09th, 2012 - 04:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0@ 468 Hermes1967 http://en.mercopress.com/2012/06/20/argentina-s-diplomatic-circus#comment140880
“1. Britain signs a treaty in which it accepts to possess sovereignty over only part of the archipelago, reserves it upon withdrawal. Britain returns in 1833 claiming to re-establish a previous sovereignty, not over the part reserved but over the whole.” “-Two parties acknowledging each others' claims to the islands means one party can legally return and occupy the whole”
1.1. If this refers to the 22 January 1771 Declaration and the resulting letter of acceptance, then this is **not** a treaty but a **declaration** plus a letter accepting the Spanish apology.
“2. Britain signs an agreement of peace in 1825 with a legal, constitutional government - it doesn't count. Britain signs an agreement of peace in 1850 with an illegal, extra-constitutional government, it counts.” + “In 1825 Buenos Aires had no physical exercise of sovereignty over the island”
2.1. Formal British recognition of the 'United Provinces of the River Plate', 2 Februar 1825 [17].
This is the original handwritten document, which does NOT mention the extent of the 'United Provinces of the River Plate', but only talks about trade, commerce, tariffs, etc. and only mention territories in general terms of “the Territories of His Britannick Majesty” and “the Territories of The United Provinces of Rio de La Plata”
Unfinished business 3 to follow
-> 3
Sep 09th, 2012 - 04:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0Unfinished business 3
Sep 09th, 2012 - 04:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0One also have to consider how legal and constitutional the Argentine government was in 1825 - it was not. [18]
The Battle of Cepeda in 1820 brought the end of the centralized national authority and the country was split among caudillos. In 1826, AFTER the British recognition, a centralist constitution was instituted and Bernardino Rivadavia was appointed president, but the new constitution was rejected by the provinces, and Rivadavia had to resign. Not until 1853 did Argentina have a fully accepted constitution.
Observe that Hermes' main argument against the 1850 peace treaty is based precisely on its legality and constitutionality - in his own words: “a legal, constitutional government” - so the question is whether the British 1825 recognition is valid at all - according to Hermes' criteria.
Has Britain ever legally recognised Argentina?
Hermes-legally, the answer must be NO! - Britain has a dispute over sovereignity with a - according to the 'Hermes-criteria' - a rebelling colony or a Spanish province.
Unfinished business 4 to follow
¿4?
Sep 09th, 2012 - 04:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0Unfinished business 4
Sep 09th, 2012 - 04:15 am - Link - Report abuse 02.2 Vernet received his Authority during the the “Revolutionary Government” of General Juan Galo de Lavalle, who usurped the governorship of Buenos Aires 01 December 1828 (through 26 June 1829). Lavalle executed the incumbent governor of Buenos Aires, Manuel Dorrego on 13 December 1828.
10 June 1829 the unconstitutional and illegal government of the Province of Buenos Aires announced the “Political and Military Command of the Malvinas”.
Article 1: The Falkland Islands and adjacent to Cape Horn in the Atlantic Ocean, will be governed by a Political and Military Commander, appointed immediately by the Government of the Republic.
Article 2.- The residence of the political and military commander will be in the Isle of Solitude, and it will establish a battery under the flag of the Republic.
2.2.1. What kind of legal and constitutional governorship is that?
2.2.2. Does Vernet's appointment to whatever-his-title-may-have-been have any legal value at all?
Truth is that Vernet was appointed as 'Civil and Military Commandant of Puerto Luis' by a caudillo - a warlord and usurper.
[17] http://tratados.cancilleria.gob.ar/tratado_archivo.php?id=7728&tipo=1 ('Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores y Culto de La Republica Argentina', 'Biblioteca Digital de Tratados').
[18] http://tratados.cancilleria.gob.ar/tratado_archivo.php?id=7728&tipo=1 (following @ 172 Hermes1967)
Unfinished business 5 to follow
. . . 5 . . .
Sep 09th, 2012 - 04:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0Unfinished business 5
Sep 09th, 2012 - 04:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0468 Hermes1967 = http://en.mercopress.com/2012/06/20/argentina-s-diplomatic-circus#comment140880
470 Hermes1967 = http://en.mercopress.com/2012/06/20/argentina-s-diplomatic-circus#comment140880
468 Hermes1967:
3. “British diplomats statements specifically about the islands are supposedly invalid”
3.1. Anyone with even basic knowledge of source criticism can point to the most serious flaw in this argument, namely that all three base their assessments on *one single secondary source*, which was the memorandum (F.O. 881/9755) written in 1910 by a Gaston de Bernhardt, the Foreign Office’s Assistant Librarian, based on the primary sources he had at his disposal more than a one hundred years ago - we have no idea of which documents this memo is based on.
3.2. Add to this, that only *one* of them was a diplomat (no matter how much Hermes wants them to be “diplomats”), the other two were civil servants in FCO. This does not sum up to *diplomats* (plural).
468 Hermes1967:
4. “Argentine politicians' statements not mentioning the islands specifically but interpreted to apply to the islands are supposed to be valid.”
470 Hermes1967:
8. “-Implicit acknowledgement is the same as a formal presidential decree action”
This is a gross misrepresentation of what actually happened:
16 years of protests followed by a peace treaty followed by two PRESIDENTS' and a VICE-PRESIDENT's statements of no dispute followed by 37 years of no protest followed by ONE prostest in a diplomatic letter followed by 52 years of no protests.
Unfinished business 6 to follow
?6 es?
Sep 09th, 2012 - 04:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0Unfinished business 6
Sep 09th, 2012 - 04:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0447 Monkeymagic = http://en.mercopress.com/2012/06/20/argentina-s-diplomatic-circus#comment140329
468 Hermes1967:
“In addition, I note the following factual errors:”
5. “-Being governed or administered from Buenos Aires does not grant sovereignty to Buenos Aires”
Exactly, and definitively NOT a “factual error”.
As pointed out in 447 Monkeymagic (including examples), being administered at one time from an administration center does not imply sovereignity in the future.
455 St.John = http://en.mercopress.com/2012/06/20/argentina-s-diplomatic-circus#comment140329
468 Hermes1967:
6. “-David Jewett was not a commissioned officer & acted without orders”
No known documents assign authority - as governor or similar - to the American privateer Jewett.
In 455 St.John I asked: Which sources back these claims? - am still waiting for your references.
7. “-Britain didn't respond to Jewett's action for 9 years because it didn't know about Jewett's claim”
- neither did Buenos Aires.
Unfinished business 7 to follow
Unfinished business 7
Sep 09th, 2012 - 04:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0470 Hermes1967 = http://en.mercopress.com/2012/06/20/argentina-s-diplomatic-circus#comment140883
470 Hermes1967: ”I find it even more disappointing that, while my own claims were backed by British sources, not a single source was submitted to back any of the factual errors listed above (not even historians' opinions).“
The problem with historians' opinions is that they are as biased as anyone elses opinions and interpretations.
Here are some historians' opinions - and you won't like them:
Professor Rudolf Dolzer writes: ”no legally binding agreement was made“ in 1771. ”The Territorial Status of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas): Past and Present“, 1993 (Translated from the German original: ”Der völkerrechtliche Status der Falkland-Inseln (Malvinas) im Wandel der Zeit”, Heidelberg 1986), pp. 47 and 48.
Argentine historian Diego Luis Molinari writes: The British did say they would leave, but did not say so in a ministerial capacity (1771). “La Primera Unión del Sur, Orígenes de la Frontera Austral Argentino-Chilena Patagonia, Islas Malvinas y Antártida”, Buenos Aires, 1961, p. 67.
Mexican historian Carlos Pereyra wrote that the effect of the Convention of Settlement 1850 was as if it had had an unwritten article stating that “Britain retained the Falkland Islands. ”Rosas y Thiers. La Diplomacia Europea en el Río de la Plata 1838-1856“, Madrid 1919, pp. 202, 206 and reprinted in Buenos Aires, 1944. As I have previously pointed out: Only one island was mentioned in this treaty, namely Martin Garcia - the missing Falkland Islands stick out as a sore thumb.
Argentine historian Alfredo R. Burnet-Merlín, quotes Pereyra, and writes that the missing mention of the Falklands in the Convention of Settlement 1850 was ”a concession to Britain or a culpable oversight“ in ”Cuando Rosas quiso ser inglés”, Buenos Aires, 1974, reprinted 1976, pp. 20-22.
EOT
Unfinished business 1 - there was one more, actually no. 1
Sep 09th, 2012 - 04:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0@ 432 Hermes1967 http://en.mercopress.com/2012/06/20/argentina-s-diplomatic-circus#comment140186
“1820, look up ”David Jewett“.”
I did, what about him, except his piracy?
There are Argentine claims:
1. that Jewett was sent “with special instructions to acquire possession of the islands”
2. that David Jewett demanded United Provinces fishing regulations to apply to the Falklands in 1820
Which documents/gazette-declarations back these claims?
Jewett was an American privateer in the service of Argentina. After a complete failure as a privateer (except his first act of piracy against the Portuguese 'Carlota'), he set sail to the deserted Falklands. His ship was in a sad state when it arrived there on 27 October 1820 (check Jewett’s report of 1 February 1821 in 'Archivo General de la Nación', 'Marina Corsarios 1820-1831', 10-5-1-3.).
6 November 1820 Jewett made a proclamation according to which he took possession of the islands for Argentina, but no order for Jewett to take possession exists, and considering the prehistory of the islands, it was of little value.
Jewett gave the American captain William Orne a letter about the claim. After about half a year in Port Louis, Jewett seized a United States ship, the Rampart, which was loaded with cargo destined for Spain, as such committing his second act of piracy. Jewett's sent a report of 1 February 1821 to Buenos Aires, describing his voyage but the report does not mention one word about a claim of the Falklands.
The government of the United Provinces did not make any official announcement of Jewett's claim, simply because they had no knowledge of any such claim.
Not until Luis Vernet in 1832 gave a completely distorted version of Jewett's voyage in a report to Vicente de Maza, Foreign Minister of the United Provinces, did Buenos Aires hear about the alleged claim.
So what you're telling me is, you have no answer, therefore you repost a previous discussion thread.
Sep 09th, 2012 - 05:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0I've demonstrated though British sources I cited that Britain considered it had no claim and no intention of establishing a settlement at the beginning & mid of 18th century, then all of a sudden though other documented British sources in the latter 18th century reversed itself and believed it had total sovereignty.
You have no response.
I've demonstrated through British sources that the British contemporary interpretation of the 1771 treaty text implies a British acquiescence on its former position of “total sovereignty”, whereby this is only limited to the port and fort Egmont. This is the interpretation of BOTH opposition MPs who object to the treaty. Rochford responds by commissioning Samuel Johnson to draft a report, who backs Rochford saying the British crown was adequately defended due to the fact that the British claim is dubious at best.
You have no response.
Johnson goes further to say that only Spain has rights there. Your response? Silence, just repost old exchanges.
Arguably you're the best-informed proponent of British sovereignty on this forum, yet even you can't help but make it abundantly clear that the only way the British position makes any sense at all is if you ignore facts, like the ones I cited.
These are primary sources, not historians' interpretations like Goebel's “secret clause” conclusion. I didn't cite Goebels, my argument is sting enough not to need it - Johnson does the job far better.
You said before you researched the subject extensively and came to your own conclusions.
Honestly now, did Johnson's “no man, not authorized by the king of Spain, can trade there“ make it into you research?
Did you come across Bedford's ”no intention of making settlement” at all?
Methinks your pride doth get the better of you. Maybe it's time to re-examine those conclusions and admit Egmont was the only legitimate brit property ever.
Hey look I can repost too!!
Sep 09th, 2012 - 05:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0”(EXPERTS, continued, the rant portion so skip if you wish)
All you can do is try these pointless little attacks…pretend uti de jure didn’t exist in the 18th century when it was applied in the 17th…argue about the meaning of the word “adjacent” in Nootka…showcase treaties you made with pro-british illegal dictators while ignoring earlier treaties you made with legal governments, which you then violated…denigrate our nascent government structures…extrapolate our acceptance of your usurpations despite repeated claims and diplomatic requests made by us throughout the 19th and 20th centuries…
…basically, you present the british sovereignty case as a “slam-dunk”, and all you have to offer for it is doublespeak and cherry-picking historical events to suit your narrative.”
Even the best most thorough supporter of the British sovereignty case can't help but engage in such ridiculous fiction instead of giving a straight response. Understandable, given that the British case for sovereignty is complete bollox.
BRITISH SOVEREIGNTY IS A LIE TOLD AT THE POINT OF A GUN, NOTHING MORE.
Merco press 2000 chars for a forum is too little are you saving db space or what?
Sep 09th, 2012 - 05:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0Put a donate button in the page sure you will rise the money to move to a dedicate server for $120 greenbacks. So you can move from Godaddy crappy service.
After all the rich islanders and millionaire Yanks need to make hear their voice to the world. A couple of $$ will not harm they large pocket.
Am I wrong?
may be...
(305) St.John
Sep 09th, 2012 - 08:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0Kære John Albert……
One of the good things about Patagonia is that you don’t meet many people…..
Another good thing about Patagonia is that, when you meet someone, there is usually a remarkable story behind….
Patagonia is like a magnet for odd existences that dare and defy the “Official Stories”….
Conquista del Desierto, Armenian genocide, Patagonia trágica, WWI, Spanish Civil War, WWII, Shoah, Stalin’s pogroms, war criminals/war heroes.... even Viet-Nam and Iraq……….
You name it; we have them down here……
Much of my first hand historical information I have gotten from “them, me neighbors” narratives…..
One of “them neighbors” was Kaj,from Denmark…..
Arrested by Danish police in 42….., left for dead in a German KZ-lager in 45….., back in Denmark, he quickly found out that “everybody” had been a member of the Resistance…., even the policemen that arrested him….., he left and never returned…., his “good spirits” still roam the nearby fields here in Chubut……
I remember some of his stories, names and places and...., guess what..., I checked them on the Internet and they are absolutely veridical…..
Sometimes you have to dig a bit deeper than the “Official Story” my Danish friend……
Just to make my position absolutelyclear to you….:
I very much like Denmark….
Another Country in Europe that I like and respect is Austria… But…..
If you visit their “Official Story Sites”, you will quickly find out that they too, as little innocent Denmark, were on the “Goodies” side under WWII…..
Odd?
Isn’t it?
Historian Think,
Sep 09th, 2012 - 08:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0Under a brutal occupation, sometimes you may not think that you had a choice.
Lots of people hate Petain, but l think he thought that, under the circumstances, he was doing the best that he could for France.
l do not support what he, or the Danes(or others)did, but maybe they felt they were just trying to keep the Germans from further excesses.
You may remember that although the Jews were in revolt against Rome, the Jewish religeous establishment demanded that Jesus Christ be put to death.
l think that they didn't want to give the Romans any more reasons to oppress them.
Do you catch my drift, chiefy?
Many Dutch, Belgian, French, Poles, Czechs, Balts, Russian(l could go on)fought for the Germans also.
lf Britain had been overun then l've no doubt that we would have done so too.
Please concentrate on the matter in hand, o Chief Turnip.
You're straying from the topic, lol
Hermes
Sep 09th, 2012 - 09:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0Every castle you build is bult upon straw :
>Honestly now, did Johnson's “no man, not authorized by the king of Spain, can trade there“ make it into you research?
Johnson is reporting a Spanish claim, not acquiescing in it on behalf of a government which has given him no authority to do so.
> The “Things” the British text refers to is not the general situation, “things” is the same “things” the Spanish King said in his declaration (mind you, just “things”, not “all things”) .....
You seem to be having some difficulty with the word 'all'. If they didn't mean 'all', in the conventional sense which everybody but yourself seems to understand it, why didn't they qualify it, or say something else instead?
Likewise with the 1850 Treaty :
> “perfect friendship ..... is restored to its former state of good understanding and cordiality.
”perfect“ in this sense means ”unblemished“, ”with no exceptions”. If there is an exception, why didn't they say so?
Really, I am sure you would make an excellent lawyer able to argue anything, but to accept your argument, you have to accept that treaties don't say what they do say, and do say what they don't. You might be able to get away with this with maybe one treaty, but to do it with the central statement in every treaty just compounds the improbability.
And in any event, interesting though some of it may be, it makes no difference whatsoever to the issue as it stands today.
“lf Britain had been overun then l've no doubt that we would have done so too.”
Sep 09th, 2012 - 09:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0Possibly, but the government had contingency plans to assassinate collaborators and turn the south of england into a gigantic booby-trap.
It would have been interesting to see what happened if we lost in 1940, but tbh it was never seriously on the cards.
321 - MA
Sep 09th, 2012 - 09:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0All of Argentina's claims are based on half-truths and outright lies.
1. Argentina didn't inherit the Falklands from Spain. You see Spain dropped its Sovereignty claim in the 1840's leaving Britain the only valid claimant left. Spain didn't recognise Argentina as an independent country until the 1860's. So how could they have left Argentina something they had already relinquished?
2. Britain didn't force Argentine colonists to leave in 1833. Firstly Argentina didn't exist in 1833, it was the United Provinces. Secondly the only people forcibly removed were the mutinous UP troops who had already murdered their commanding officer and raped his wife. Two families left of their own accord, one from Uruguay, the other Brazilian.
3. The Falklands are not now nor have the ever been part of Argentine territorial integrity. In fact in 1833 the United Provines were over a thousand miles away.
4. In 1850 the Argentine government signed a treaty of friendship with Britain that stated they had no outstanding disputes. Indeed maps produced by the Argentine government clearly showed that they didn't believe that the Falklands belonged to them.
5. Argentina has not constantly protested the British presence on the Falklands. There was a whole 91 years were Argentina said nothing.
Answer me this though. If the UP really believed that the Falklands belonged to them, why didn't they send troops to retake them after the 1833 incident? I mean the British didn't leave a garrison behind. In fact, I believe that there was no British military presence on the islands until the 20th century, WW1.
The only thing that is relevant is 21st century law. That law clearly states that people have the right to self-determination. The Falklanders have been living continuously on the islands for nearly 200years. That makes the land theirs, not Argentinas, and not the UKs.
History doesn't matter anymore only the future. That future belongs to the Falkland Islanders.
@324
Sep 09th, 2012 - 09:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0So Think slithers back in after his announced departure to attempt the kind of diversionary mind games he tries whenever he learns something about a poster.
And so we are treated to the spectacle of an Argentine reproaching supposed Nazi sympathies in another country.
Let's not fall for it.
You can stop all the arguments - it's official. Argentina is a “colony” of the UK
Sep 09th, 2012 - 09:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0Apparently the (UK) Queen owns 11,000 acres of land in Patagonia (see http://www.businessinsider.com/worlds-biggest-landowners-2011-3?op=1 )
(325) lsolde…..
Sep 09th, 2012 - 10:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0I ”Think” we have established long ago that we ”catch each other’s drifts” on many diverse topics, haven’t we, my dear?……..
Be it Assange, Juju, Coffee or a Pragmatic/Papuan/Patagonian approach to life…..
The only minor discrepancy between us seems to be the matter in hand; the topic we can’t stray from…..
You Brits, greedily squatting 12,000,000 Km2 of my Country.
As the great NAS says….
Life's a bitch.......... and then you die.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnKUUBKLygE
@hermes (both incarnations)
Sep 09th, 2012 - 10:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0You are playing very loose with history in your various discussions. No where has the British govt explicitly stated that our claim was confined solely to Port Egmont, and by that standard the Argentine claim should be solely restricted to the site of Port Soledad.
Certainly we never were going to give Spain (a major rival at the time) sole dominion over the south atlantic - a major passageway to the Pacific. Where did you get that idea from?
You can't build a case for sole claim for the islands based on these rather specious arguments.
Would you also like to resurect the French claim while you are at it?
Hand your arguments over to the ICJ and see what they make of them....
By the way, the most important thing is the situation on the ground today. The Falklanders have run a viable, and increasingly wealthy society independent of rule from Argentina as part of the British Empire, and then a BOT since the 1830s.
They don't want anything to do with you.
If the UK kept trying to enforce a claim on somebody elses land, say Minorca, because we ran it some time ago and fancied making ourselves feel good about grabbing something, we would be rightly condemmend as imperialist aggressors.
You have zero chance to gain the islands - you can moan, shout, blockade all you like - all you are doing is making the Falklanders more determined to resist you and reinforcing the image over here of Argentina as a hostile, enemy, nation, a nation that most be detered.
#330 Interesting, wonder if the nationalisation people have noted that? Just saying....
Sep 09th, 2012 - 12:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@Hermes
Sep 09th, 2012 - 12:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There is no argument about the meaning of the word “adjacent”, now or then, fact.
Just as there is no mention of the Falklands in the Convention of Settlement 1850, fact.
The Islands were British long before Argentina ever existed, fact.
Argentina broke away from Spain by force of arms, you can no more claim to have inherited Spanish rights or title, than you can claim to have inherited Gibraltar, fact.
Argentina also quotes the treaty of Tordisilla in support of its claims to the Falklands, however this treaty put S Georgia/S Sandwich islands in Portuguese territory, or does that bit not apply, only the bits which support Argentina’s claims, eh.
Argentina’s claim is predicated on a version of history which is a complete fabrication, and that tries to argue black is white.
Maybe you can do this in Spanish and get away with it, I don’t know. But in English it sounds like something you’d expect from a 9yr old, or a halfwit.
@331Think,
Sep 09th, 2012 - 01:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ah but there's the rub my dear deluded Thinkus Horrobilus,
The 12 million Km2 do NOT belong to your country.
l take it you are talking about the islands(that WE own)& the seas that surround them(outside of the limits, it is lnternational waters).
Don't feel too bad about it though. You've got plenty of unused land!
@333 I'm sure they are aware
Sep 09th, 2012 - 02:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0One would assume that a country would be aware of who owns what inside its own borders.
TWIMC
Sep 09th, 2012 - 02:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I just want to make clear, before that turnipy comment from Mr. Steveu becomes a “Street Legend” in here at MercoPress and in Puerto Stanley, that the British Crown does NOT own any land in Continental Argentina........
There is, of course, the contentious issue of the Crown squattered territories on Insular Argentina and the Islas Malvinas, but that's being taken good care of.......
“but that's being taken good care of.......”
Sep 09th, 2012 - 05:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0clearly.
Lots of spineless bleating and no substantive progress. That's basically how Argentines have always “taken good care” of any problem they can't solve by the subjugation and genocide of defenceless populations :)
@ 321 MalvinasArgentinas
Sep 09th, 2012 - 06:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@ 322 HermesNumber2
Are you sure you know what “repost” means?
Except for 316 St.John, Where did I post those contributions previously?
Please provide links to prove your claims.
As I wrote in #270 “I havn't time to go through your posts now, guests staying for some days” so I resumed the older closed debate missing answers to Hermes1967.
2 322 HermesNumber2
“BRITISH SOVEREIGNTY IS A LIE TOLD AT THE POINT OF A GUN, NOTHING MORE.”
Writing in all caps doesn't prove anything.
As to gunpoint, how did Argentina gain its independence?
As far as I am informed through an armed rebellion - at gunpoint.
304 Hermes1967
Sep 09th, 2012 - 06:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Not really, but you don't believe anything that contradicts your fairy stories do you?
But the facts are as I wrote, are they not?
I notice you did not deny them. Even some AGs agree with the concept of they beat us, the islands are theirs, don't they?
But it matter not one jot: they will never be yours!
So coming to the Islands in 1982 under the force of a gun was should not have happened if comments are correct. But you can almost set your time on comments made by Argentina. They say what they sat if it suits nothing more .
Sep 09th, 2012 - 06:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We are British , wish to remain so. Will do so with or without Argentine bully boy tactics. We have been here a very long time and we are not going anywhere period.
“ Britain had nothing to do with referendum”
Sep 09th, 2012 - 07:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0jajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajaja
jajajajajajajjajajajajajajajajajajajajajajaja
good old English humour I love it....
@342
Sep 09th, 2012 - 08:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Who's side are you in here, Mr Aussie?
@343 Conor,
Sep 09th, 2012 - 09:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Aussie”sunshine is an Argentine troll.
He/she/it knows very little about Australia as l've proved in previous posts.
l call him/her/it, “argentine sunshine”
@ 324 Think
Sep 09th, 2012 - 10:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oh, I get it.
Of course a man named Kaj has a much better overview than the revisionist historians, who at first set the number of freedom fighter to “not more than 500”, until they dug deeper into the archives and found close to 4.000 active members of the Danish resistence. To that number one has to add the so-called “Ventegrupper” (waitin groups), who were training for the armed fight against the German troops in the final stages of the war. Some of these group as well as separate group members were active in sabotage.
http://modstand.natmus.dk/DiagramFordelingModstandstyper.aspxa
To the number of killed one also has to add “los desaparecidos” - “the disappeared” - number unknown.
Was Kaj an ex communist? i.e. a Red Nazi until June 1941 (the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact = 'Non-Aggression between Germany and the Soviet Union' 1939).
During WWII the communists were as loathed and hated in Denmark as the nazis because of their Moscow inspired co-operation with the Germans.
?
Sep 09th, 2012 - 10:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@ 257 Hermes1967
Sep 09th, 2012 - 10:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“3. I never said the 1850 treaty was broken 17 years before it was signed.
4. I said Britain broke the 1825 treaty 8 years after it was signed. See how you like to distort facts?”
In 210 Hermes1967 wrote:
“You're correct, Dorrego was the first dictator and illegal government. So was Rosas. Their every action is devoid of legal standing - including the 1850 treaty, which was broken in 1833 anyway.” http://en.mercopress.com/2012/09/05/britain-had-nothing-to-do-with-the-proposal-to-hold-a-falklands-referendum#comment161454
Who is distorting facts? am I or is Hermes 1967?
@344
Sep 09th, 2012 - 10:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oh I see so he's a lier as well as a fraud?
#344 Yes at times aussie sunshine sounds pretty anti-British (even in a way I, as a Brit and a patriot, never am myself) yet he has also said he is against negotiations with Argentina “under its current governmnet” and slagged off Cristina. He seems more against the British position on Gibralter actually, and has praised Spanish PP (conservative) politicians, so I guess he's Spanish or a Hispanophile rather than an Argie or Argophile...
Sep 09th, 2012 - 11:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#345 “During WWII the communists were as loathed and hated in Denmark as the nazis because of their Moscow inspired co-operation with the Germans”
That was indeed the lowest point for the world communist movement (or at least the official pro-Soviet part thereof), but from what Think is saying doesn't sound like it would have made them unpopular with ALL Danish sectors...
@ 349 British_Kirchnerist
Sep 10th, 2012 - 12:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0“but from what Think is saying doesn't sound like it would have made them unpopular with ALL Danish sectors...”
Certainly not. The communists loved them (themselves) an so did the nazis.
Even after they became active in the resistence, they were treated with suspicion by the great majority. At the first election after the war they received appr 10% of the votes. Around 1975 they were at a solid 0.9% of the votes.
British_Kirchnerist, Marcos Alejandro, TTT, Hermes1967 and other good folks….
Sep 10th, 2012 - 05:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0Good morning to you all
I’ll go walkabouting and fishing for a weeks time or so……
Leaving my Tab 10.1 at me shed…..
Would you be so kind to keep an eye on the turnip farm until my return?
Thanks in advance
El Think
@349B_K,
Sep 10th, 2012 - 08:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0On reflection, l think that you might be right.
“aussie”(lol)sunshine could well be Spanish.
He said that his wife was & he was defending the Spanish Blue Brigade who fought in Russia.
Who cares anyway. l know that hes not an Aussie.
@351Think,
Wear someting warm up in those (stolen)mountains, Cher Think & try not to fall in.♥
@351 Think
Sep 10th, 2012 - 10:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0Good luck with the fishing!
I caught my first conger over the weekend - they fight like f***
He's in my freezer now! They're very tasty
#352 “He said that his wife was & he was defending the Spanish Blue Brigade who fought in Russia”
Sep 10th, 2012 - 12:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I missed that one. They were Francoists who fought for Hitler, about as fascist as it gets, oh dear...
I wonder just how much of Argentina is actualy owned by outsiders. Maybe if the Queen does own land there she should declare the rest . But bieng a democratic believer that would not be the case because by the same token Argentines have likely purchased land in England.
Sep 10th, 2012 - 12:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What matters here is that we Islanders own not just the land but the right to live and work in our COUNTRY the FALKLAND ISLANDS and that right is upheld in international places which we will confirm next March again even though we do not need to because we Islanders already know what belongs to us legaly. This place is our home has been for a very long time. We did not steel it from anyone and likewise we will not let anyone steel it from us.
351 Think (#)
You are in the right business guess your patch must be relatives to you.
If “Think” is going fishing in Patagonia, he is a poacher. The continental fishing season in Patagonia begins on 1st. November, at this moment the trout and salmon are spawning and should not be disturbed.
Sep 10th, 2012 - 01:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Shame on you Think, I had assumed that at least you, as a Patagonian, would have some respect for the ecology of where you live!!!!!
Completly off topic so sorry!
Sep 10th, 2012 - 05:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I watched the Lord Mayors parade in London last night.
It combined the end of the Olympics with the hand-over to Brazil.
It was amazing, the best participants were the South Americans, with the Peruvians being the most colourful, how, just how, did they end up with such stunning costumes?! They seemed to wearing a juxtaposition of Spanish bull fighters and Flamenco dancer clothing: It was incredible and a joy to watch.
Our “neighbours” in the parade were a Mexicam couple and a bunch of Spanish lads, they loved it as well.
Thank you South America!
*349 Hi there!! anti British me?? no way Jose! I love everything British including fish and chips..just love it!! but that doesn´t mean that I cannot go against some government decisions because if I followed the government blindly that would be silly..wouldn´t it??
Sep 10th, 2012 - 07:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina and the Falklands/Malvinas : The current government of Argentina I do not like one bit. I believe that the Falkland Islanders have done no wrong just protected their way of life and families. Argentina lost it all with the invasion of the islands and now with the aggressive stand of the Argentine government against the Islanders. They should start from scratch and patch up the differences with the islanders.
Gibraltar: I do not believe that there should be ant colony in modern Europe. I believe that an agreement can be done if both sides wish it but a colony must not exist in modern Europe.How they do it is up to them but this silly situation at sea is becoming comical with the fishermen and the royal navy and the guardia civil. If Spain puts in the pressure the Gibraltans would loose out especially if the gates are closed. It would make it hard for the residence in Gibraltar and it is a move nobody wants.
Oh by the way:: I am conservative and a Monarchist but at the same time a republican when it comes to Australia. We need a president. NO ill will towards HM who is loved here in Australia but we are all grown up now and we need our independence. and Isode what have you been smoking my lad??!! hope its legal!! Me supporting the Blue Brigade was a reference of my dislike towards communism but facism and communism to me a both dictatorships which have no place in any society. AND ISODE REPEAT AFTER ME.. aussie sunshine is an aussie..aussie sunshine is an aussie..aussie sunshine is an aussie.LOL
@Aussie Sunshine
Sep 10th, 2012 - 07:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Are you serious about binning the Queen?
I look at Presidential systems around the world and they are abusers of power. At least with our titular monarch no politician can grab even more power than they dont deserve in the first place.
The highest criminal activity rate in the UK, by profession, is politicians.
I'd rather shoot them than give them even more power.
*359 I totally agree with you- We are slowly loosing faith in our politicians which is a shame really. Each day they govern the country worse and worse until it goes bust and the small battler has to pay for their incompentence .
Sep 10th, 2012 - 07:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@358 aussie sunshine
Sep 10th, 2012 - 08:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Gibraltar has its own elected government and MEPs, is part of mainland Europe and is in the EU treaties.
The claim of it being a colony is just not going to fly, especially from Spain with its two colonial enclaves in N. Africa.
Blockades in the EU attract fines and compensation claims, in this case ridiculously easy to collect, stop it out of the next loan.
The EU will not, cannot, allow any change of sovereignty without consent. Or Hungary could find itself fighting wars on three fronts by the end of the week, Germany on two.
Get the picture.
@ Pugol-H
Sep 10th, 2012 - 08:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Apparently Spain has never controlled Gibraltar: It simply didn't exist as a nation (in her modern form) back to when we had the war with them.
Saying that, I feel no affinity towards the Gibaltarians in the same way I do to the Falklanders. They live their own lives and are not bullied by Spain, as Spain, unlike Argentina, is an adult, not a child.
@Aussie Sunshine
Sad to hear you say that. Are your Politicians getting as bad as ours? I last spoke to an Aussie about 5 months ago and politics isn't really a pub chat.
I can't believe that the honest straightforward Aussies have ended up with a bunch of corrupt politicians like us lot are saddled with in the UK.
*361 Gibraltar is on the decolonisation list of the United Nations charter while The Spanish enclaves are not!! why?? do some research.
Sep 10th, 2012 - 09:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0*362 Spain was Spanish territory when the Dutch and British attacked it and expelled its population over the border.
@ Aussie Sunshine
Sep 10th, 2012 - 09:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What is this decolonisation list?
People have mentioned it on this board but who exactly are these people?
I'm sure that those who wanted freedom got it after the turning point in history of WW2 and none of us working-class British would ever support the UK government oppressing anyone from anywhere. It just aint on.
It sounds like an oddity. From times past.
Us lot support the right to be free born, and saw the USA war of Independence as a struggle for freedom, and one reason why on the 4th of July I always raise a glass to the Americans.
#358 “*349 Hi there!! anti British me?? no way Jose! I love everything British including fish and chips..just love it!! but that doesn´t mean that I cannot go against some government decisions because if I followed the government blindly that would be silly..wouldn´t it??”
Sep 11th, 2012 - 12:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0Thats my position entirely, and in my case from inside the country itself. I feel blessed overall to have been born here, but I don't see recent general election results as such a blessing! Sorry if I mischaracterised you, after all the stick I've got on here I should have given you the benefit of the doubt. And I have always believed you are an aussie, just one with views on international issues and some sympathy with other countries, as I am a Brit with such attributes myself. Pity you don't like the lovely Cristina though...
“Me supporting the Blue Brigade was a reference of my dislike towards communism but facism and communism to me a both dictatorships which have no place in any society”
But whatever you think of communism, the Nazi Germans who the Blue Brigade were fighting for were fighting for fascism of the most extreme kind, and persuing ethnic cleansing and genocide across the huge expanse of Russia that they controlled, surely if you are against fascism too that can't be supported. Thankfully the conservative Churchill, who was so right wing he wasn't even firmly against Franco in the Spanish Civil War, understood Hitler had to be stopped, even if that meant working with Stalin...
@365 BK
Sep 11th, 2012 - 02:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0and A.S.S.
What a pantomime! LOL
What a load of twaddle, too, you pair of trolls!!! LOL LOL LOL !!
“Aussie”sunshine,
Sep 11th, 2012 - 09:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0You certainly have changed your tune. Are you sure you haven't got someone else to post in your name?
And as for you being an Aussie, well you know little about Australia.
You couldn't answer ANY of the questions that l put to you.
You didn't know that Australia has a Governor-General.
You didn't get any of the slang that l & another poster put to you.
(l was educated & lived many years in Australia & l suspect that the other poster was too, although l don't know for sure).
You say that you come from Melbourne but you couldn't even tell me the name of the hot irritating wind that ALL Melbournites know(Think had to find out for you).
l told you of the school that l went to & the Victorian footy team that l supported & asked you the same question which you ignored.
No, cobber, l don't think you are an Aussie. Maybe a Spaniard who has spent some time there.
You'll have to prove before l'll believe.
And FYI, Monarchists way outnumber Republicans in Australia.
It is the uneducated just like you Argentines that are the ones who do all the crap comments on mercopress. No wonder your Country are still barbarians because you appear from your lack of knowledge to be still living in the caveman days.
Sep 11th, 2012 - 11:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0OR is it because all of you are so bloody jealous of just what we have in our Country. We are actually living in the present century with every bit of modern technology available to us. There are almost two cars per person. Everyone pretty much has mobile phones as well as access to the internet. We do not have unemp. We are rated as one of the top Countries in the world to visit , Argentina does not even come close to that . We don't trash each others homes as Argentines did when they so call came to liberate us in 1982. But above all we have a first class education system which is something Argentina has not otherwise we would not be seeing these deranged people putting such comments on any of the topics on Mercopress.
To sum it up That is why we are where we are today. Argentina is so backward it is trying to drag us down with it. Time now to start growing up and move forward with the succesfull ones Argentina. If your people spent as much effort in putting your own house in order as you do slagging the Islanders Argentina would be today a great Country. But untill you start changing you will stay the same. Stuck in your lost world.
@ 344 lsolde
Sep 11th, 2012 - 04:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0'“Aussie”sunshine is an Argentine troll.'
Absolutely. He forgot to be an Ozzy (either a Bruce' or a Sheila) and wrote in castellaño in #342
Does she/he pretend to be a Banana Bender, a Sandgroper, an Apple Eater, a Cockroach, a Crow Eater or perhaps a Bushie?
My guess is a busking lofty and curly Swagman :-D
@kelperabout
Sep 11th, 2012 - 04:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Post removed by the editor.
Oops!
*369 jejejejejejeje
Sep 11th, 2012 - 05:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0LOL LOL lol lol
jajajajajajajajaja
jijijijijijijijijijijiji
many ways of laughing my dear sweet troll......
@ 371
Sep 11th, 2012 - 06:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0sure but not in Oz.
What is a busking lofty and curly Swagman?
*367 Isolde. The only thing I know about Governors is the poster of Kerr
Sep 11th, 2012 - 06:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(remember him?) which the students in uni used as target practise with darts.
Footy: never liked aussie rules. I have always liked tennis.(by the way congrats to Murray).
aussie slang: We do not go around saying “ you are a busking lofty and curly Swagman” in our daily life. We speak HM English.
@363 A.S.S.
Sep 11th, 2012 - 07:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“ We do not go around saying “ you are a busking lofty and curly Swagman” in our daily life. ”
Yes, but you ducked the question:
What is a busking lofty and curly Swagman???
Please dispel any doubts for us.
@ 374 Troy Tempest
Sep 11th, 2012 - 11:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0a good guess is that an Argentino pretending to be an Ozzy is googling frantically? :-D
@375 SinJin
Sep 12th, 2012 - 12:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0Ha ha, poor troll... ;-)
@368
Sep 12th, 2012 - 02:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0is you the rubbish bloody english people that ruins everything!
Fuck yourself!
Why are Argentinians?????????
Sep 12th, 2012 - 02:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0Because....Introduction
The Falklands are the subject of dispute between two countries, England and Argentina. Both claim to have sovereignty over the islands for various reasons, but has not yet been agreed. Because of the war of 1982, Argentina lost its dominance in the islands justified against the British, who were awarded these territories. For them, this fact was crucial as having obtained weapons for the domain, thought to have gained sovereignty.
In this work we plan to establish the reason why the English have valid arguments while the Argentines can be applied perfectly. We will include a historical summary from the discovery of the islands to the current problems and arguments in the dispute of both countries to have a look at the problem from both points of view.
Theoretical Framework
The Falkland Islands since their discovery (We take the “discovery” of America from the arrival of Magellan to the Islands, as we understand that the term “discover” is linked to the idea of going public. Previous explorations of the islands are not taken into account as not conforming to our definition). Until the emancipation Argentina were Spanish. Since 1810 Spain ceased to have sovereignty over the islands and became Argentina along with the Sandwich Islands. The Englishmen who were settled there without authorization were removed and, despite having accepted that determination, years later the sovereign autodeterminándose invaded the islands.
The investigation shall be of the literature, since we will use documents written about this issue to reach our conclusions.
History of the Islands
In 1492 Columbus reached America in the sixteenth century becomes the century of exploration and colonization of America. The colonization of this new continent was a race between Spain and Portugal, who through various treaties and papal documents were able to divide the New World territories in two, the Portuguese and Span
@378 Vocal babble
Sep 12th, 2012 - 02:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0Is this your school report for Maxi 'mo?
I'm sure you'll get full marks - you've memorised it perfectly.
Yawn, wake me when you're done... :-)
@373“Aussie”(argentine/spanish/who knows)sunshine,
Sep 12th, 2012 - 09:04 am - Link - Report abuse 01) FYI, Sir John Kerr was the Governor-General in 1975, NOT a Governor.
2) You say you never liked Aussie Rules football.
Several months ago when l asked you something about Rugby Union, you said that you didn't know about it as you followed Aussie Rules.
What is it mate? Lively now, me lad.
Hmmmm, nothing from Argie Sunshine.
Sep 12th, 2012 - 06:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Still googling ... ???
LOL
I think as that if you do not occupy rapidly the backyard of your house, others can enter and take and say it that it is of them '??? I do not think this way, if you live in a territory, you are native of there, if you live in Argentina, are Argentine, if you live in Falklans are Argentine, thats the way.-
Sep 12th, 2012 - 08:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@vacuous bally-hoo
Sep 12th, 2012 - 09:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“ if you live in a territory, you are native of there, if you live in Argentina, are Argentine, if you live in Falklans are Argentine, thats the way.”
Vacuous, you must be new here - this so-called argument has been done to death and dismissed, ages ago.
Sorry, not even a good try - certainly not original LOL LOL
meanwhile, for your entertainment:
Sussie/2012 dresses like CFK on TV
#2 Check out this video on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIt1wWHDST8&feature=youtube_gdata_player
VIVA Sussie/CFK !!!
382 vicolibelula (#)
Sep 13th, 2012 - 01:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0“ I think as that if you do not occupy rapidly the backyard of your house, others can enter and take and say it that it is of them '??? I do not think this way, if you live in a territory, you are native of there, if you live in Argentina, are Argentine, if you live in Falklans are Argentine, thats the way.-”
What a load of utter rubish. The Falkland has never belonged to Argentina and never will get it. This is my home our Country called tha Falkland Islands who enjoys a dem0ratic free life style. Something Argentina cannot lay claim to.
@ 382 vicolibelula
Sep 13th, 2012 - 01:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0“I think as that if you do not occupy rapidly the backyard of your house, others can enter and take and say it that it is of them '???”
Spanish America, including what is today Argentina, belonged to Spain in 1810.
Why is that no longer so?
Did somebody sneak into Spain's backyard and take it?
Are you going to deliver Argentina back to Spain?
385 St.John
Sep 13th, 2012 - 03:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Spanish came to take possession of lands that were not of them, they belonged to our American Indians .-We the Argentinians, we have not taken foreign area, it is our territorio. - The kelppers came to live here, we do not take his area as the force like it they did the españoles.-
384 kelperabout: What bad in that Im new.- I am only and unrepeatable...
What about i am new????? I AM
@ 386 vicolibelula
Sep 13th, 2012 - 04:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0“they belonged to our American Indians”
What did the Argentinians do to the Amerindians - general Julio A. Roca in 1878-1879?
He who later was elected president, known as El Asesino.
You murdered “your American Indians”, as you call them, and stole their land.
The survivers were separated so they could not have children. Many of the men were sent to the island Martín García where most of them died from starvation and diseases and the women were kept as house slaves in Buenos Aires.
”En Julio de 1879 todo había terminado. Muchos aborígenes lograron huir hacia la Patagonia, y otros tantos lograron cruzarla. 14000 aborígenes fueron capturados, transladándolos a la fundación de alejadas colonias, incorporándolos a la Marina de guerra, tomándolos como sirvientes, destinándolos como trabajadores forzados a la Isla Martín García, a donde fueron a parar unos 800 ranqueles para picar adoquines para las calles de Buenos Aires. Por cierto, nada sabemos de la cantidad de indios que murieron en combate, fusilados, o muertos de hambre, o por alguna enfermedad mortal (cólera, fiebre amarilla o viruela). Los pocos que sobrevivieron, iniciaron una etapa nada feliz: la marginación. Y con ella comenzó no sólo su desaparición física, sino también su desaparición cultural.”
http://www.oni.escuelas.edu.ar/2002/buenos_aires/ultimo-malon/campania.htm
Argentina: “Para el Estado cuando un indígena muere es un problema menos”: http://www.oni.escuelas.edu.ar/2002/buenos_aires/ultimo-malon/campania.htm
Julio Argentino Roca - El gran genocida: http://www.oni.escuelas.edu.ar/2002/buenos_aires/ultimo-malon/campania.htm
@387 Sinjin
Sep 13th, 2012 - 06:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0With respect;
What is the gist of these genocide links?
As much as it is important to hammer home the atrocities in Spanish, to these murderers, It is important that all readers know the facts about Argie crimes.
We the Argentinians, we have not taken foreign area, it is our territorio.
Sep 13th, 2012 - 09:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0Vico,
This is false. La Pampa, Patagonia, and Tierra del Fuego were not Argentine territory at independence. They were annexed by Argentina after independence.
@St.John
Sep 13th, 2012 - 09:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0In English please...
386 vicolibelula (#)
Sep 13th, 2012 - 11:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0384 kelperabout: What bad in that Im new.- I am only and unrepeatable...
What about i am new????? I AM
So what is the differance . according to you you are new obviously meaning just as we are many generations on from our forefathers. It however proves that while Falkland islanders are moving on Argentina is still living in the past. Why can they not just stop dragging up history and start doing something positave in the 21st Century. If we so small can go forward so cn you.
@ 388 Troy Tempest & 390 DanyBerger
Sep 13th, 2012 - 05:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0the reason I quoted in Spanish is that vicolibelula is obviously using machine translation and the English -> Spanish translations in both google and babelfish are not up to scratch (I tested it).
In English:
”In July 1879 it was all over. Many of the indigenous people escaped to [the southernmost parts of] Patagonia, and many others were able to cross the Andes mountains into Chile. 14,000 Ameroindians were captured, transfered/abducted to establish remote settlements, or they were [involuntarily] recruited into the Navy, they were taken to be servants, sent as forced laborers to the Martin Garcia Island, where they preished. About 800 were used as forced labourers to pave the streets of Buenos Aires.
It is true that we know don't the [exact] number of Ameroindians who died in combat, were shot, or starved to death, or died from some deadly disease (cholera, yellow fever or smallpox). For the few survivors the future held only unhappiness: marginalization - not only a physical but also a cultural disappearance.“
Similarly in the Bayer7.htm link:
”The Ameroindians who survived the massacre were sent to work in the cane fields in the North, in absolute exploitation, or were to serve for six years in the army and navy. Indian women were divided among the aristocratic families as maids and children placed for adoption.
The newspaper “El Nacional” reported: “The Indian prisoners and their families arrive in Buenos Aires. The despair and crying has no end. Children are taken from their mother in her presence to be given away [for adoption - old habits don't die, do they? re. 1976-83], despite the Ameroindian women's cries, screams and pleas while they are kneeling arms raised towards heaven.
In a human gesture they cover their faces, others look down in resignation, the mother pressed against her child against her womb which is was born from, the father stands/moves in front of them to defend his family.”
In 392
Sep 13th, 2012 - 05:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0For “where they preished. ” read “where they perished. ”
@392 St. John
Sep 13th, 2012 - 07:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thanks for the translation, much appreciated.
Coincidentally, this morning, I was listening to CBC Radio about government programs to deliberately destroy indigenous culture.
As shameful as the Canadian Residential Schools were, they were saying Argentina was worse.
In Canada, aboriginal children were forced to attend the schools. It was a cruel existence. Many children were abused, many died.
Eventually, however, the children could return to their families.
The government finally abolished the schools and the program. The government has since attempted to prosecute offenders and make restitution.
It went on to say that the Argentinians destroyed the Amerindian culture by extermination, forced labour, and taking the children away permanently.
Later in the radio program, there was an interview with an Argentinian woman.
She had been a small child in 1976.
Her father, a well-respected doctor, had openly criticised the government.
One day, men in military uniforms in black Falcons arrived at their house and clinic.
The father was not there, but the lead officer forced the girl to help them search the house.
Then they stole everything of value, including the family's 2 cars.
After 4 hours, they left, taking the mother with them. The girl saw her mother taken away, wrapped in a blanket, in the officer's Falcon. He told the girl her mother had to go to the police station and sign some papers.
The mother was never seen again. The girl was left standing on the road.
The father was in hiding, but their family and life was destroyed.
Later, the girl saw a picture of the same officer in the newspaper, hailed as a 'hero of Argentina' during the Falklands war in 1982.
Canadians are becoming more aware of the character of Argentina and her governments.
All colonial powers and conquerors have commited atrocities against the indigenous peoples - human nature is too often cruel and the conquerers had a superiority complex, assuming ridiculously, grotesquely and insanely that their religion and culture were superior to the indigenous ditto - the Mexican Aztecs made human sacrifices vs. the catholic inquisition burned heretics and witches, the protestants “only” burned witches.
Sep 13th, 2012 - 09:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Much later their descendants have apologised and/or paid compensation for much of their ancesters' behavior, but in Argentina they proudly name streets after, and erect statues of, general Julius Argentino Roca (later an elected and popular president). My well educated and erudite Argentino friends refer to him as “El Asesino” (the murderer).
Many Argentinos, like vicolibelula, also happily refer to the murdered and repressed Ameroindians (today on average the poorest stratum of society) as “our American Indians”.
@395 St.John,
Sep 14th, 2012 - 07:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0Some malvinistas on here claim Amerindian blood, which l doubt very much.
lts just when it suits them.
@378 vicolibelula
Sep 14th, 2012 - 02:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Since 1810 Spain ceased to have sovereignty over the islands and became Argentina along with the Sandwich Islands.”
“Spain and Portugal, who through various treaties and papal documents were able to divide the New World territories in two, the Portuguese and Span”
The Sandwich Islands are well inside Portuguese territory.
What exactly is the basis of the Argentinian claim to S. Georgia/S. Sandwich Islands?
@ 378 vicolibelula
Sep 14th, 2012 - 03:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Until the emancipation Argentina were Spanish. Since 1810 Spain ceased to have sovereignty over the islands and became Argentina”
I suggest you get some knowledge of Argentine history, before you base anything on it.
Why is 9 July called 'Día de la Independencia'?
Which year did Argentina declare independence from Spain?
What was the name of the 1810-junta?
(Try “Junta Provisional Gubernativa de las Provincias del Río de la Plata a nombre del Señor Don Fernando VII” = “Provisional Governing Junta of the Provinces of Río de la Plata in the Name of Señor Don Ferdinand VII”)
When you have answered the above questions it seems to be a good idea to go on and read some real Argentine history, not the nationalistic nonsense you learned in school.
( http://translate.google.com/#en/es/ will give you an almost perfect Spanish translation of the above, I have tested it)
@394 Troy Tempest
Sep 14th, 2012 - 07:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Here in the USA home invasion, drive by shooting, rape, incest, robberies
and the famous “Baseline Road rapist” near Apache Boulevard, Tempe, Arizona takes the front pages of all USA newspapers....
I am not scare of anything that happens in the USA or Argentina.
By the way, I spent 2 years as a civilian in Nha-Trang and Saigon, Vietnam
Nothing scare this brave argentinian.
398 St.John (#) : I was never refered to the murdered and repressed Ameroindiansam in poor way, if you refer to the money . - You are the poor person of espíritu. - I respect and produce honor to OUR ABORIGENS.-
Sep 14th, 2012 - 08:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Julio Argentino Roca was a murderer, but y wasnt live in that time, I do not have the fault .- If you dont know, here the government studies the possibility of extracting his face of the money that his imagen.
In my country , people like you was called gorila.-
And tell you, i was studied history in school, in my dayli life, and you are not who said me what , where and when i must know about my BEAUTIFULL COUNTRY.-
Ahhhhhh I forgot, yes, i use the translator im not so good to write english like you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bye, kisses.-
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!