MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
February 1833: Parallel truths in parallel universes: can that be the only explanation?
By John Fowler - According to the Argentine view of things, the Falkland Islands are Las Islas Malvinas and the capital city is not Stanley, which was founded in 1844, but Ushuaia in Tierra del Fuego, which did not really begin to be a town till 1881 with the establishment of a penal colony there. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesWhen the truth comes up against propoganda the truth will always prevail.
Feb 15th, 2013 - 08:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0According to the DoD view of things, Las Islas Malvinas are the Falkland Islands and the capital city is not Stanley, which was founded in 1844, but London in England, which did not really begin to be a town until AD 43 with the establishment of a Roman colony there.
Feb 15th, 2013 - 08:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Excellent. A contemporaneous account, for once, and a fine piece of piece of troll-busting. But note that the official line seems to have changed. The pamphlet produced for the London Timerman show talks only of the expulsion of the “argentine authorities” and their families. Which curiously enough, corresponds to the British version and all the available evidence, including this.
Feb 15th, 2013 - 08:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://apoyoamalvinas.cancilleria.gob.ar/page/2
Well that's new information.
Feb 15th, 2013 - 08:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I knew that the Spanish was using the Falklands as a penal colony, but I was unaware that the troops that arrived with José Francisco Mestivier were:
“made up of deportees, criminals, and vagabonds who had been condemned to serve in the military; this being the first rehearsal for forming a southern penal colony.” (Integrada por deportados, criminales y vagabundos condenados a servir como uniformados; siendo este el primer ensayo de colonia penal austral).
This explains a lot.
They put thieves and murderers in uniform, handed them a gun and then sent them somewhere they did not want to be - without any female companions.
No wonder that they resented the person in charge of them, raped his wide, murdered him by shooting, bayoneting him and then jumping up and down on his corpse.
Thank God that the British arrived when they did. HMS Clio probably saved the other Vernet Colonists from the same fate as Mestivier & his wife.
I knew that Captain Onslow was under strict orders to encourage the Vernet settlers to stay. His cordiality towards Pinedo was only to be expected. Neither Captain wanted blood shed and accepting Pinedo's protest was the logical way to record Pinedo's complaint honourably without having to resort to violence.
You learn something new every day.
So DOD...what is the capital city of Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Isle of Man, Jersey, Guernsey, St Helena, Bermuda.....etc etc...
Feb 15th, 2013 - 08:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0All “British” but all have seats of government in their own capital cities....
@5 Is this a Friday Night Quiz? What fun. Is the answer there isn't just one and some don't have any cities at all?
Feb 15th, 2013 - 08:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@6
Feb 15th, 2013 - 08:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nope.
@6
Feb 15th, 2013 - 08:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nope...the answer is that your comment @2 was stupid. But then, nearly all your comments are.
dont bother even talking to DoverOverDover... its a confirmed sock-puppet account. pretends to be british... proven to be entirely made-up (shot himself in the foot claiming to attend certain functions which never occurred).
Feb 15th, 2013 - 09:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 08 & 9
Feb 15th, 2013 - 09:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0LOL!
That group Mestivier brought to the Islands sound quite dreadful.
Feb 15th, 2013 - 09:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The sort of people who ate with their mouths open I should think.
@9 Anbar: DoD also claimed to be looking out of his window in Dover at a ship that was proved to not be there. He had been using duff internet info.
Feb 15th, 2013 - 09:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 012
Feb 15th, 2013 - 09:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0LOL!
@12
Feb 15th, 2013 - 09:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You mean he might be an Argentinian who doesn't always tell the truth....goodness....!!
2 Doveoverdover
Feb 15th, 2013 - 09:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That's a bit convoluted even for you. The fact that we are a colony doesn't mean that we can't have our own capital city, as the experience of many other colonies testifies. Or are we not a colony any more? Perhaps a suburb of Dover?
As the man said, 'parallel truths in parallel universes.'
Cmdr. McDod
Feb 15th, 2013 - 09:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Discipline on the lower decks is breaking down and the crew is telling porkies.
Be harsh!
Don’t commit the same mistake as Captain Bligh ;-)
Vernet had permission from UK to be there and UK had agreed to not overrun or take spanish colonies. But I guess the british trade agreements are writen in toilet paper, now that I know british history I support a nuclear defense program 100% made in Argentina, that's all there is to it, we demand the end of the illegal occupation of Islas Malvinas Argentina and the end of the militarization of Antartica or let's all bring our nuclear defense program to date.
Feb 15th, 2013 - 09:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@17
Feb 15th, 2013 - 09:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yer consistant, aal gee ye that!
Pishinmasailheer.
@17
Feb 15th, 2013 - 09:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Militarization of Antarctica?
Just where the fuck do you dream up such bollocks?
Do you pass Radio Control Aeroplane Airfields around you, look at the scale warbirds with Northern Hemisphere markings, then go running towards the first trench screaming 'Air Red'?
Is the 'Action Man' toy doll too much of a threat for you?
Sheesh...
kebab
Feb 15th, 2013 - 09:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Please just ignore the Rg trolls, on 12th March they are dead in the water anyway. No one in the Falklands wants to be a Cartoneros living in a Villa Miseria so they are all totally stuffed. Self determination supported by the UN charter...!
Feb 15th, 2013 - 10:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@17 - PH
Feb 15th, 2013 - 10:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You know what Argentina needs, don't you?
A nuclear weapon 100% made in Argentina.
I'd get on that straight away if I were you. Perhaps the 'dear leader' CFK will put a few billion non-existent dollars aside for your project. :D
In the meantime, the truth regarding the Falklands is circulating around the world, and when the referendum occurs in March, Argentina's colonial ambitions to rule all of the South Atlantic, the Antarctic and all of South America will be ended.
CFK will be pulled from power, and the people of Argentina will suffer for her incompetence.
Aren't you glad you are safely away from all the consequences of CFK's incompetence and corruption?
@12 As opposed to you looking at a screen with AIS on it? I know who I trust and it isn't you.
Feb 15th, 2013 - 10:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.shipparade.com/az/Black_Watch/Black_Watch_2011-06-19.jpg
@17 Pirat-Hunter: 'Vernet had permission from UK to be there'
Feb 15th, 2013 - 10:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This has been pointed out enough times already, and the questions it raises are why does he need permission and what would happen if he moved his workforce onto the islands without the UK permission?
If Vernet move his workforce onto what he saw as UK controlled territory (even if the UK had no standing population) using deception, with the idea of declaring for Argentina once they had been there a while then you have to ask yourself who the thief is.
And CFK has already blown any idea that the United Provences really believed that they had a valid claim through Spain or Jewitt by quoting Vernet's diary at the UN c24. That leaves Argentina with nothing.
@15 Vote NO next month and give your neighbours the chance to become a part of the Dover and Deal Parliamentary Constituency. Or the Scilly Islands if they prefer.
Feb 15th, 2013 - 10:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Doveoverdover=Rg troll - Scilly Islands, whoever called the Scilly Isles that! Anyway they are called the Isles of Scilly...
Feb 15th, 2013 - 10:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Worry not, these Argentine trolls will hopefully be here telling us all soon what it's like being stuck on a sinking ship=ARGENTINA
Feb 15th, 2013 - 11:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Perhaps your new Iranian friends might help you
@17 PH
Feb 16th, 2013 - 12:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0What is the logic of a non-nuclear power threatening a nuclear power with nuclear weapons it doesn't yet have? Surely if the UK was certain that you would attack us once you got some then we could just fire ours now? Plus the fact that you are determined that they be 100% made in Argentina makes your threat even more comical. The best possible defence program for Argentina would be to stop acting like children and then no-one would want to slap you.
As silly as ever that author.
Feb 16th, 2013 - 12:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0To mean something for the illegal possession of the Malvinas by the fact that Britain British have settled in Argentine territory in Tierra del Fuego. There are many immigrants who came to our generous Patria.Y regarding the capital Ushuaia was indicated later, I want to say how important is it? Right now if I can find it necessary to change the capital of Argentina Buenos Aires to another city, I can do and what would be the problem? Brazil “manufactured” Brasilia for convenience, and????????
Argentina never lied or changed the discourse over the Malvinas Argentinas because he told the truth and facts of Mestivier never been denied. But these facts the author sees as diminishing the legitimate rights of Argentina to the Islands. How stupid.
The truth is that Argentina inherited the Malvinas Argentinas and its current territory and made all the administrative and ownership in that sense as well as create the Political and Military Command based in Puerto Soledad and appoint its governor.
The English, on the contrary to the contention of the author silly, recognizing Spanish sovereignty and treaty corresponding Masserano statement voluntarily, ie without war, made the bags and took the ship in 1774 .. .. until the spurious interests of the Crown and making the situation of the United Provinces of the River Plate, knowing that the islands did not belong at all, decided to usurp them and not Spain but the new nation.
“why is it so Difficult For Argentina's President and her Foreign Secretary to grasp?”
Better say: Why is it so difficult to understand Britain flagrant usurpation?
And I remind the author that if our claim dates from 1833, not this President and his foreign minister, silly.
P.S.
Very good the second figure of the article, where the houses are built Vernet and Argentina flag there.
@28;
Feb 16th, 2013 - 12:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0Easy tiger! I feel the lad has a good heart, but hoplessly devoted to something installed in him (her?) by other people (school) than himself. (herself??)
I don't feel any malace from PH, just a very passionate, but mislead voice.
Go easy on PH.
It's all turned to shit for the Malvinistas in the past couple of weeks!
Feb 16th, 2013 - 12:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0Redrow (@28) - your final sentence is spot on. We have nothing against Argentina per se but if you continue to threaten the Falklands then you'd better watch out - revenge is a dish best served cold and you are going to need some friends pretty soon! Justine Greening's statement yesterday is the first gentle turn of the screw!
#25 You Scilly little man, keep lurching from one hilariously 'off' colloquialism (look it up, dunno the spanish) to another. Keep on providing the faux English gent BS.
Feb 16th, 2013 - 12:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0'You're fired!' to quote Lord Sugar, or in your case Lord Haw-Haw.
Is doverandover trying to pass themself off as a Brit?
Feb 16th, 2013 - 01:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0Thought they were a cheeky RG living in the South of England......
(bet they eat with their mouth open)
#34 Yet another pathetic impersonation... spot the zero instead of an 'o'
Feb 16th, 2013 - 01:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0Ooooh how clever of you
@32, 33
Feb 16th, 2013 - 01:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0Commander McDod/ Dame Dover/ Doveoverdover - what an outdated ludicrous caricature of a retired British ex-serviceman!
Remind you guys of anyone???
I think that THINK must have read 'The Beezer' as a kid...
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_JsT2sunEVI0/S1M-8kpV64I/AAAAAAAAACY/EzU-9GaSmgo/s1600-h/Colonel+Blink.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_JsT2sunEVI0/S1M-8kpV64I/AAAAAAAAACY/EzU-9GaSmgo/s1600-h/Colonel+Blink.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_JsT2sunEVI0/S1M-8kpV64I/AAAAAAAAACY/EzU-9GaSmgo/s1600-h/Colonel+Blink.jpg
Okay, everybody come clean. Up hands, If ye swore an oath to HM QE2?
Feb 16th, 2013 - 02:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0...
“According to the DoD view of things, Las Islas Malvinas are the Falkland Islands and the capital city is not Stanley, which was founded in 1844, but London in England, which did not really begin to be a town until AD 43 with the establishment of a Roman colony there.”
Feb 16th, 2013 - 03:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0So Doveoverdover is now talking about himself in the third person.... or is he?
He seems to be mixing up his Think and Doveoverdover logins a little bit in the past 24 hours. But while I'm here
What a bloody stupid comment. Someone needs to look up the definition of 'capital' after all you excel in pedantic nit picking.
I live in Melbourne. A capital city. THE capital city of Victoria. Does its existence alter the fact that THE capital city of Australia is elsewhere.
Nope!
Wow how woud have thunk it? A country can have more than one capital.
But only in Doveoverdover/Think's bitter mind can the Islands have no capital. Maybe even he recognises how pathetic his arguments have recently become.
@12 screenname. You don't have a link to that forum do you. I'd live to have a read of the replies. LMAO.
Is it just me or is the Argentine position becoming more ridiculous by the day? And accelerating? Even Argentina is changing her story by the day!
The only truth is you are ilegal okupas!!!!!!!!!!!!
Feb 16th, 2013 - 04:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0@23 Doveoverdover
Feb 16th, 2013 - 04:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0“As opposed to you looking at a screen with AIS on it? I know who I trust and it isn't you.”
but we should trust you posting a picture from 2011 (2011-06-19) !!!
@30Escoses
Feb 16th, 2013 - 07:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0”@28;
Easy tiger! I feel the lad has a good heart, but hoplessly devoted to something installed in him (her?) by other people (school) than himself. (herself??)
I don't feel any malace from PH, just a very passionate, but mislead voice.
Go easy on PH.“
I'm sorry, Escoses, I beg to differ.
While I believe he was greatly wronged by being indoctrinated at an early age, I do feel he displays great malice, disdain, intolerance, and contempt for others.
I wish it were not so, but those are my honest observations.
As misguided as he is, PH ALEX supports many 'anti-western' hate sites and propaganda organisations, from La Csmpora to Al Quaeda and the Taliban.
He supports terrorism in the Middle East and dictators such as Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, and Assad.
Bin Laden is a hero to him.
PH has spread vicious lies about UK /US war crimes, while posting on this forum that the entire civilian population, including the children should be killed by Argentina in order to claim the islands.
He shows complete disdain for the poorer classes and unemployed of Argentina. Faced with hardship and discrimination and difficulty feeding their families, he declares, ” it's their own faults, they're lazy, they deserve it!“
Falklanders and British people of all nationalities he calls ”thieves, pirates, and murderers”, while gloating that he is commuting immigration fraud as an 'illegal' in Canada, amongst other things.
When he does try to argue, it is obvious he knows what he is doing. He will often lie or skew statistics to support his logic.
I see him as dishonest, hateful, and intolerant.
One of the most significant facts of this piece is that Pascoe and Pepper were given access to the National Archives of Argentina so their various accounts would appear to be nearer actual events than the fairy tales, lies and imaginative manipulations which we hear from the Argentine side of the dilemma.
Feb 16th, 2013 - 08:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0@39 Good enough to prove that cruise ships visit Dover, which I recall was the issue in question at the time. Feel free to come back at me but a small amount of research will allow you to track down the cruise programme of the ship in the photograph to confirm its plans.
Feb 16th, 2013 - 09:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0(42) Mr. McDod
Feb 16th, 2013 - 09:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0You can see ships from your Dover window; you refer to the British Hesperides in their less common denominal…..... and you like Apple Pie!
What kind of ”Un-British, Scottish Ogre” are you?
PS:
I’m at ease with Puerto Estanley being the “Capital” of them windy Isles…..
It’s the “City” part that bothers me ;-)
@43 Sr Think. The very best kind, of course.
Feb 16th, 2013 - 10:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0(44) Mr. McDod
Feb 16th, 2013 - 10:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0:-)))
Back to the subject of this article....:
Convergent truths in convergent universes….
Please find below a link to Thomas Bridges’s house and “Estancia”, given to him (together with Argentinean citizenship) by the Argentine National Congress in acknowledgement for his work with the natives and with shipwrecked sailors of the Cape Horn area.
http://www.estanciaharberton.com/homeenglish.html
Ahhhhhhhhh…………....... That bucolic picture of Port Louis around 1834
If you examine it closely, you will notice that the flag on it does not resemble the Union Flag….
What other flag could it possibly be?
Chuckle chuckle©
@43 and 44
Feb 16th, 2013 - 10:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0Aw Think and his alterego DOD are still having a mutual lovefest!
Isn't that nice. Of course you are still spouting crap regardless of which name you are posting under.
Agreeing with youself is just the icing on the case.
Tell me Think/DOD, do you have multiple personality disorder? Or do you have no friends, so you invent some to make yourself feel loved?
However this article is interesting because it shows the blantant lies Argentina has been spouting to its own people and to the world.
It seems that many of the people of Argentina are waking up to the fact that Argentina never had a claim, that the government lied and continues to lie about it, and the fact that the Argentine government only use this issue to blind the people to the fact that they are a bunch of crooks, who are incompetent and managing the country's economic problems, but very good at stuffing dollars in their own off shore bank accounts.
But even the 'Great Malvinas Myth' is being exposed and ignored by the people of Argentina.
I do feel sorry for them. I don't think they've ever known true democracy, and they've certainly never had a government that cares more about Argentina than they do about lining their own pockets.
Argentina needs a revolution in the worst way. They need to pull down the establishment, and rebuild it all from scratch.
They need to instill values and patriotism into the youth. Yes patriotism, not nationalism.
So in other words and to paraphrase JFK, the Argentine people need to “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.”
The people of Argentina need to pull together to solve their problems. However populist government only survive by keeping the public happy, and when that doesn't work point a finger at someone and tell them that it's their fault.
Hence the Great Malvina's Myth. They tell the people of Argentina that if they had the Falklands then all of Argentina's problems would disappear like magic.
@45
Feb 16th, 2013 - 10:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0A flag! Hallelujah, the scales has just fell from my eyes!
@42 Doveoverdover
Feb 16th, 2013 - 10:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0No one has ever disputed with you that cruise ships visit Dover.
Quote “Not that I need a website, since I can see one from my window”
Think=oxymoron with the emphasis on moron
Feb 16th, 2013 - 10:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0Doveoverdover = Think same person
Both entities incapable of reading English or rational thought
Just the same Rg troll, please ignore
@45 - Think
Feb 16th, 2013 - 10:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Flag is a couple of pixels, which distort when they get bigger.
However it looks like a White Ensign. There is definitely red in it.
Desperately you are grasping at straws because you have no comeback, no argument, no future.
Get the picture (pun intended).
(50) Artemis Fowl
Feb 16th, 2013 - 10:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0You say...:
“However it looks like a White Ensign. There is definitely red in it.”
I say...:
O'RLY?
A white ensign with red in it...?
How much red can you find in this one...:
http://darwinbeagle.blogspot.dk/2009_03_01_archive.html
Chuckle chuckle
Argies are unbelievable, you show them a document from the time, written by people that were there, supporting what other documents from the time, in their own archives, state, and they still prefer to believe the made up version of the story that stops their little arrogant world from crashing in. Their so mentally messed up they don't even know it. They just sit in the corner, rocking backwards and forwards holding their knees foetally mumbling malvinas argentinas...malvinas argentinas... it's pathetic and sad, i have no sympathy for these people, let the country slip into the ocean so we can all get on with our lives.
Feb 16th, 2013 - 11:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0(50) Artemis Fowl
Feb 16th, 2013 - 11:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0What happended?
Coudn't you find the right picture in my link?
Here's a better link for Artemis Fowl, the teenage genius...
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_9oTslXzpqec/Sb4GOdWFiAI/AAAAAAAAFLk/bqZQcq5u5rc/s1600/PortLouisFalk.jpg
Looks very much like an Argentinean flag to me....
In 1834 Malvinas!
Chuckle chuckle
Looks very much like a drawing to me. When was it made? who made it?
Feb 16th, 2013 - 11:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0Looks Argentine Artistic Licence to me.
Tierra del Fuego is British, we already have a flag;
Feb 16th, 2013 - 12:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://lamnay.deviantart.com/art/British-Argentina-157435012
Think, that only thinks, not facts! it is a British flag, you know why? because it's on British territory. Why would it be any other?
Feb 16th, 2013 - 12:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Which flag flies on the islands today?
Feb 16th, 2013 - 12:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And tomorrow?
And in 20 years time in Timerman's nightmare?
Aw look, Think is getting desperate! Clutching at straws. Making inane statements that have no place in reality.
Feb 16th, 2013 - 12:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I know, why don't you log on as DoveoverDover, and pretend to support yourself?
That'll cheer you up.
The character who refers to themselves as a 'thiink' has pictures, everyone else has reality.
Feb 16th, 2013 - 12:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Dear Mr. John Fowler, author of the above article.
Feb 16th, 2013 - 12:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You say…:
”The odd thing about this report by an Argentine newspaper, in Argentina, aimed at Argentine readership, is that the account that they give of the event does not appear to be entirely the officially sanctioned one, which tells of a civilian population cruelly expelled from their homes by the might of the imperialistic British.”
I say…:
Would you, Mr. John Fowler (or anyone else) please direct me to that….:
”…officially sanctioned (account), which tells of a civilian population cruelly expelled from their homes by the might of the imperialistic British.”
Just one link….
It's certainly not too much to ask...?
Unless your information comes from a ”Paralell Universe and Thruth”, not available for the rest of us, mere mortals…
Sincerely yours
El Think, Chubut, Argentina.
it's not worth twisting history (Think) it will never get you the British Falkland Islands.
Feb 16th, 2013 - 12:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0More BS propaganda invented by UK team for CaMoron
Feb 16th, 2013 - 01:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Each chuckle is really a sob, a cry for help.
Feb 16th, 2013 - 01:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Straight from the horses mouth, although this one isn't in a lasagne yet;
http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/120753/cfks-letter-to-david-cameron
@63
Feb 16th, 2013 - 01:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Think has made the same comment in the past and been provided with a similar link to the same letter, but not acknowledged it.
@48 agent999: Forgot it was you that spotted DoD's cruise season mistake.
Feb 16th, 2013 - 01:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thanks
Oh wow. There are so many comebacks I want to use. Let's see....
Feb 16th, 2013 - 02:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 01/ Dear El Think of Chubut in Argentina.
FAIL!
2/ “Just one link....”
And it was. Just one. Straight from the horse's mouth.
Literally and figuratively.
3/ Supposedly I “have some challenges understanding plain English” according to Think on another thread.
So Think is this plain enough for you?
“The Argentines on the Islands were expelled by the Royal Navy”
THE
ARGENTINES
ON
THE
ISLANDS
WERE
EXPELLED
Seems pretty bloody plain to me.
Please feel free to vote on which is your favourite! Voting lines close when the article does.
But you are right agent999, he will now disappear and pretend to not read it. He's still around as he just posted on the Landmine article. You should see how he has turned that argument around. Lol. He's been bested on 3 maybe 4 articles just today.
He'll probably skulk back using the Doveoverdover login.
@17 Oh, alex, don't you ever read the drivel you type and recognise it as garbage? So the British Consul said “OK, Mr Vernet, you have our permission to travel to the Falkland Islands and take up post as the United Provinces governor.” You think? But let's have an end to the illegal occupation of Patagonia and the militarisation of Mapucheland.
Feb 16th, 2013 - 02:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@29 Indications of stupidity and psychosis are to believe obviously ludicrous statements and then defend them. Thank you fpr proving, once again, that you are stupid and psychotic. Read this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquisition_of_sovereignty Do you see “inheritance” as a method? No? That's because it's not a legal method. But you can't be educated. Because you're a stupid, psychotic, brainwashed idiot!
@30 You are mistaken. Go to Wikipedia. Look up “User contributions for Avargas2001”. See what he used to do? “Malicious editing”! And rude, vicious “edits” as well. And the word is “malice”.
@38 You too. And genocides and thieves as well!
@43 No such place as “Puerto Estanley”. Do you think that using such words gives your dumb “claim” some sort of weight?
@53 Nope!
@60 DYOR. You know what that means, don't you?
@62 So much better than the argie propaganda invented by Hitler's pal, Peron. And, more recently, by CFK, the Wicked Witch of the South, and Hector, the Tinman pretending to be the Cowardly Lion!
@17 prat the Hunter “we demand the end of the illegal occupation of Islas Malvinas Argentina and the end of the militarization of Antartica or let's all bring our nuclear defense program to date”
Feb 16th, 2013 - 02:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0UMMM who was the only nation to actually fire upon another nation in Antartica? that would be.... guess who? Argentina! who has the biggest amount of troops in Antarctica to date, now who might that be, oh yes that's Argentina. Well maybe you could bring a rogue Argentine Nuclear program into action if you got on and stopped trying to steal the Falklands and Antarctica and surrounding areas.
The 'thiink' character is nothing if not predictable, that's the REPTILIAN brain at work - cool of blood, predictable in response.
Feb 16th, 2013 - 02:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0They don't realise the game is up and pointless arguments on simple semantics changes nowt.
Best to ignore the Think that thinks only, no hard facts!
Feb 16th, 2013 - 02:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So there is no mistake here is the RG Prez propaganda on the Falklands, British Usurpation. with all the lies and drama you'd expect:
Feb 16th, 2013 - 02:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.encuentro.gov.ar/sitios/encuentro/programas/detallePrograma?rec_id=103988
Propaganda machine working at full speed :) very strong Nazi orientation about it.
Feb 16th, 2013 - 02:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This strengthens the case note Argentinos and Decolonization Committee of the United Nations to treat correctly the Falkland Islands as a colony established in 1833 by the English ..
Feb 16th, 2013 - 02:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The historical context of the time is English colonialism and imperialism. Consequently recognized by England and historically demonstrated the expulsion of Argentine in 1833.
It reinforces the statement century of colonialism and imperialism and demonstrated English is understood and made by the four British invasion of Argentina in 1806-1807-1833-1845. All these historical facts under the same context: The English colonialism and imperialism and as a result of this aggression to the introduction of English settlers in the Falklands.
For these reasons it is confirmed that the specificity of the Falklands conflict is the expulsion of Argentine civil authorities and in 1833 and prevent its return. The Argentines who escaped provoked him at Gaucho Rivero for the return of sovereignty Argentina.
Another gem: http://www.encuentro.gov.ar/sitios/encuentro/Programas/detallePrograma?rec_id=115691
Feb 16th, 2013 - 03:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Raul, No one in their right mind could believe the drivel you post. Stop embarrassing yourself and your country.
The Argentine National Academy of History considered in 1966 that Rivero and his followers were common criminals driven by no patriotic feeling, and Argentine historian Laurio H. Destéfani wrote in his 1982 book on the history of the Falkland Islands dispute:
Feb 16th, 2013 - 03:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“This is the true story of what happened proof of which is stated in 42 documents published by the National Academy of History. Attempts have been made to create a legend about courageous gauchos who attacked and defeated the British, but this is just imagination. The truth as recorded in those documents does not authorize the creation of myths or legends”
I’ll repeat, once again, for the Turnips….
Feb 16th, 2013 - 03:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The official Argentinean governmental position about the expulsion of the Argentinean Malvinas population has always been the same……. In 1833 and in 2013 :
“The Argentines on the Malvinas Islands were expelled by the Royal Navy in 1833”
Not any mention of “Civilians”, “All Argentineans”, “Cruelly expelled”, ”Ethnic cleansing” and other semantic trickery the Brits dream about…
Just plain and simple…:
“The Argentines on the Malvinas Islands were expelled by the Royal Navy in 1833”
An indisputable fact.
@73 - Raul
Feb 16th, 2013 - 03:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I tell you what. Take it to the International Court of Justice and let them decide.
But make sure you can answer these questions that they will put to you.
1. How could the British (not English) expell any Argentines in 1833 when Argentina didn't exist in 1833?
2. British sovereignty dates back to 1690, so just what does 1833 have to do with anything?
3. Spain still held onto its sovereignty claims of the Falklands until the mid 1840's, so how could the United Provinces have 'inherited' anything from them in 1833? By the way no country can 'inherit' a sovereignty claim from someone else in international law.
4. The records of both HMS Clio, the Falkland Islands, the Argentine national archive and the diary of Charles Darwin all show that no civilians were expelled from the Falkland Islands in 1833. Why do you lie and say they were?
5. Territoral integrity doesn't apply in this case, as the Falklands were never part of Argentina, and the Falklands community pre-dates the formation of Argentina. Why do you lie about it?
6. Don't even bother mentioning the continental shelf thing because lets face it, its stupid and doesn't stand up in international law.
7. You say the UK is in breach of UNGA resolutions. However, the UN General Secretary says they're not, so why do you lie and say they are?
8. You say that the Falkand Islanders do not exist, yet here they are, I can see them.
9. Because they exist, and according to UNGA resolution 1514:
- that all peoples have the right to self-determination, but that this necessarily includes the right freely to determine their political status and freely to pursue their economic, social and cultural development (art. 2);
See so they have the right to self-determination, the UNGA resolutions you are always spouting says so.
Pathetic attempt. La Campora, I'd fire him if I were you, he's useless.
@76 “The Argentines on the Malvinas Islands were expelled by the Royal Navy in 1833”
Feb 16th, 2013 - 03:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes think, you are correct, the Argentine first invasion of the Falkland Islands, Britain authorized those people there, but Britain didn't expect them to try and claim the islands, therefore just like 1982 you were removed! You will never get another chance to invade us! we know what you are like now.
@76 - Think
Feb 16th, 2013 - 04:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A few corrections to your post.
There is no such place as the Malvinas.
No Argentines of any kind could've been expelled in 1833 because Argentina didn't EXIST in 1833.
Is this the real reason you won't take your little 'dispute' to the International Court of Justice?
Because you know that they would laugh you and your pathetic lies out of court?
Hurts doesn't it to be so impotent.
But don't worry. Keep screaming, crying, begging and prostituting yourselves on the international stage.
The International community view your government, and therefore your country, as a joke.
Every year that goes by strengthens the Islanders claim and weakens the spurious claims made by Argentina.
In March it will all be over.
Yes Argentina will keep on crying, and may even get some meaningless 'lip service' from the usual suspects, but the serious countries in the world will accept that the Falklanders have made their choice.
Argentina is a bankrupt country in more ways than one.
No money. No ethics. No morality. No honour. No courage.
Soon you'll be too busy to survive from day to day to give a feck about a group of mythical islands that your government say will somehow make all of Argentina's problems 'magically' disappear.
In fact, the way your government is going, it'll be Argentina that 'magically' disappears, when all your provinces decide they'll be better off declaring independence and going alone.
Who knows, some of them may even ask to join the Falklands and enjoy all the benefits that good governance, democracy and little or no corruption brings.
Zero generation “Islander” John Fowler revisited history in a strange way again. If there were trouble in the Argentine establishment, this was not a reason to justify the occupation. The fact that Pinedo did not oppose resistance does not deprive Onslow act of a forcible character. This was an ultimatum. I only make just some points here: For Fowler, the British “taking of possession” (i.e. the Argentine dispossession) of 1833 is “reasonable, given that we have claimed sovereignty over the Islands since the 18th Century”. How amazing is Fowler’s blatant silence of the history of the islands in the 18th century: a 1741 British request of permission to the Spanish Crown to visit the Islands, the fact that Britain has never been alone in the islands during its stay in Port Egmont 1766-1770 and 1770/1774, the 32 Spanish Governors of the Islands appointed from Buenos Aires who were never requested by Britain to withdraw, the destruction of Port Egmont by the Spaniards after the British abandonment in 1774 without any single reaction, the 1820 taking of possession by Buenos Aires, Argentine acts during the 1820s, etc. At the end of the day, what he shows is that when the British came for the first time in history at Port Soledad or Louis there was another State there exercising sovereignty.
Feb 16th, 2013 - 04:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Fowler uses Pepper’s manipulation of history again and again: he repeats the absurd argument that Vernet requested permission to the British to his establishment in Port Louis, while the truth is that the British consul legalised the Buenos Aires land concession given to Vernet, something no consul would do with regard to a territory that his/her country would consider as part of its territory! So much for Pepper’s accuracy. With “historians” like him, you will not go too far.
The crude reality is that the British government expelled the country that had made more than any other to bring civilisation to the islands. Whether some people remained in Puerto de la Soledad de Malvinas (P
74 yankeeboy
Feb 16th, 2013 - 04:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Raul, nobody in their right mind could believe the nonsense you write. Stop being ashamed and country.
I do not understand you. The link you suggested justify my views. This link is no nonsense. I am proud to be Argentine and defend my country from British aggression.
75 agent999
I appreciate your courtesy:
At that time the National Academy of History Argentina was widely questioned for being pro-British and justify the genocide of indigenous Julio Argentino Roca and omit or falsify the history of Argentina and suppress revisionist authors like Jose Maria Rosa, Fermin Chavez, Manuel Gálvez etc.
Laurio H. Destefani is one justifying the genocide of rock.
The Gaucho Rivero is a real hero Argentino and no record of the fourth died fighting British invasion in 1845 “vuelta de obligado”
I suggest reading the following books.
British policy in the River Plate by Raúl Scalabrini Ortiz
Life of Don Juan Manuel de Rosas by Manuel Gálvez.
Besides him the following links:
www.encuentro.gov.ar/sitios/encuentro/Programas/detallePrograma?rec_id=103988&capitulo_id=103991
www.cuestionmalvinas.gob.ar/
www.embajadaabierta.com/?p=660
www.cancilleria.gov.ar/portal/seree/malvinas/docs/03-Jorge_Arguello.pdf
77 Leprecon
You go always with grievances and insults. Give up hatred and resentment towards all that is American and Argentine. You too fanatical and intolerant.
I appreciate your intention and your arguments. But see also the arguments and listen Argentinos other bells.
Nobody has said that no British islanders. They have their human rights and are represented by London.
Read the links to send to 75 agent999
thank you very much
Raul, Are you too stupid to cut and paste? This is what I wrote;
Feb 16th, 2013 - 04:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Raul, No one in their right mind could believe the drivel you post. Stop embarrassing yourself and your country.
Of course you think those videos are accurate it is the hogwash your gov't has been brainwashing your populations with for decades.
cue dramatic music
How embarrassing
80 Marcelo Kohen
Feb 16th, 2013 - 05:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are conveniently forgetting that Briton was a presence on islands that preceded Spain.
That the two nations signed a treaty that enabled both nations to leave their claims of sovereignty unaltered.
Even if the UK had sailed over the ocean blue, without a prior claim and seized the islands. That was clearly permissible under the international laws that were in force at the time.
THE RIGHT OF CONQUEST The Acquisition of Territory by Force in International Law and Practice SHARON KORMAN
96 Conquest in Traditional Law and Practice
...John Fischer Williams wrote in 1926: To say that force cannot give a good title is to divorce international law from the actual practice of nations in all known periods of history.9
Thus, in the Island of Palmas case, decided in 1928, an international tribunal of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague explicitly recognized the validity of conquest as a mode of acquiring territory when it declared in its decision that:
'Titles of acquisition of territorial sovereignty in present-day international law are either based on an act of effective apprehension, such as occupation or conquest, or, like cession, presuppose that the ceding and the cessionary Power or at least one of them, have the faculty of effectively disposing of the ceded territory.10' That the tribunal's decision in this arbitration should have admitted conquest as a valid mode by which a state could establish a legal title to territory is not surprising. For conquest was clearly recognized by states
as a valid mode of acquisition of territory, ...
9 'Sovereignly, Seisin, and the League', BYBIL (1926), 24, at 35.
10 Island of Palmas case (Netherlands v. USA) (1928), RIAA 2 (1949),ß
@80 Even if we took your claims about Spain as being correct (remembering that Spain forced France to cede its interest in the Port Louis settlement and did its level best to drive the British out until the threat of war allowed the Port Egmont settlement to continue), you still have to show that Argentina has inherited the Spanish claim . If you want to use the [non universally recognised] principle of uti posedis juris or other legal tenet, then I would suggest that Argentina takes its claim to the ICJ (as many posters have suggested previously)
Feb 16th, 2013 - 05:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Spain later recognised the UK sovereignty claim (as does France - the only other possible contender to sovereignty) so your post, interesting as it may be, changes nothing.
@81 Raul
Feb 16th, 2013 - 05:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are following the standard Argentinian path.
If we don't like history, we can always re-write it and bias it in our favour.
Our learned friend Marcelo Kohen can also be prone to this.
http://www.law.cam.ac.uk/press/events/2012/11/lcil-friday-lunchtime-lecture-the-falklands-malvinas-and-the-peaceful-settlement-of-disputes/1944
Listen to the audio of the lecture and you may find it a little bit one sided.
There has been no British or Falklanders aggression The only aggression from us is a reaction to the aggression shown again and again by Argentina. Within living memory this has comprised invading British territory, terrorising the inhabitants, killing inhabitants, imprisoning inhabitants, attacking our embassy, burning flags, agressive speeches by your politicians, teaching lies to your children etc etc... That's why we are well armed and any aggresioby us is just a result of what you do. If you think you have a case, take it to law, otherwise just shut up whingeing and concentrate on solving your own problems.
Feb 16th, 2013 - 05:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What a load of “pura mierda” from the malvinistas - ¡como siempre!
Feb 16th, 2013 - 05:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0For example, Vernet requested approval from the British Consul only to establish his commercial venture on the archipelago. This courtesy was given. The Britsh Consul was unaware of any appointment of Vernet as a “Governor” appointed by the authorities of the Provinces especially as he was a citizen of Germany or France - this has never been established.
80 Marcelo Kohen
Feb 16th, 2013 - 05:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Excellent review! An honest and constructive opinion.
Face1354@hotmail.com
82 yankeeboy
Why do you keep insulting and offending? Why are you so proud and arrogant?
Never read you something constructive and positive and lift humanity. Never created a positive idea. You always appeals to violence and terror. Never bet for peace and dialogue. Whenever all your negative opinions and insulting. Never expect coincidieras me.
Did you learn manners and respect ever? You are pathetic and pitiful
You really are a sad soul and feel sorry.
May God help your soul.
@88 Raul
Feb 16th, 2013 - 05:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are following the standard Argentinian path.
If we don't like history, we can always re-write it and bias it in our favour.
Our learned friend Marcelo Kohen can also be prone to this.
www.law.cam.ac.uk/press/events/2012/11/lcil-friday-lunchtime-lecture-the-falklands-malvinas-and-the-peaceful-settlement-of-disputes/1944
Listen to the audio of the lecture and you may find it a little bit one sided.
The CFK universe has quite a lot more Dark Matter than Light.
Feb 16th, 2013 - 05:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Raul, I am sorry you think my posts aren't constructive. If you have been studying them for so long, you would see that I have always tried to teach the un-informed and point out how they have been duped by their rotten corrupt thuggish govt.
Feb 16th, 2013 - 05:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If you have been heeding my advice you should well stocked with Sugar, laundry detergent and toilet paper and ready for the coming hyperinflation.
You just don't know your dumb that's ok though because most dumb people don't ever realize it either. Studies have show dumb people are happier though so that is something!
Now I am sad, dumb people make me sad.
LOL the WMD people are talking about truth? Why even bother when we all know that the english care not for truth but for the CIA and mi6 war agenda. Good try english man, try again another time, but you all got to get up a lot earlier to fool some of us. About we talked about the fakland holding corporation rather then making up a country of it, Luis vernet will come soon to get his cows back.
Feb 16th, 2013 - 05:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://investigativereportingworkshop.org/investigations/gunrunners/story/romania-mexico-arizona/
the islands belongs to Argentina full stop
Feb 16th, 2013 - 06:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0El Think
Feb 16th, 2013 - 06:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Not last week your Foreign Minister was in London talking about the “original population” of the islands being removed on January 6th 1833.
As the original population was French, and then a year later British...it is unlikely either original population was removed in 1833.
The next population that ran concurrently with the British was Spanish, and they also left voluntarily in 1811. So, none of the first three “original populations” we're removed in 1833.
The next group that was a possible population was Vernets group, and they weren't forcibly removed either.
So, the “original” “population” was not “forcibly removed” as per your Foreign Ministers official position.
Now, had he been truthful and the Argentine position reflective of the truth then nobody would mind at all.
In 1833, the British RECLAIMED the islands, removing a small “ARGENTINE MILITIA” who had been present for only 2 MONTHS, and had already MUTINEED, RAPED and MURDERED their Captain. ALL civilians were ENCOURAGED to stay and accepted BRITISH sovereignty.
It sounds much less appealing than the a “blatant act of 19th century colonialism” where the islands were “forcibly stripped” and the “original population evicted”....
The sad thing is Think, you know the truth, your government knows the truth, yet THEY ARE TERRIFIED OF IT.
93
Feb 16th, 2013 - 06:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sussie you are nothing but a retard. Go and play somewhere else. Nobody on either side thinks you're worthy to be here.
Oh let her be, this must be some sort of therapy they do in the mental institutions in Argentina.
Feb 16th, 2013 - 06:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@76 Think
Feb 16th, 2013 - 06:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Would you mind explaining to this turnip, how, if the Argentinian population was expelled by Onslow, national hero The Murderer Rivero managed to be still around to go on his heroic escapades some months later?
@80 Marcelo Kohen
Can you say how many British Governors of the Falklands have been appointed since 1833? How many of these appointments have been the subject of individual protests by the government of Argentina?
Regarding 1820, are you aware of the testimony given by Marcelo Luis Vernet at the C24 in June 2012, in the presence of La Presidenta and virtually the entire upper tier of the Aregentine government, in which he describes Vernet as deciding to take possession of the islands in August 1828 (followed incidentally by an immediate British protest). Given the wide distribution of this testimony on Argentine government websites, should we assume that this is now the official position? Or should Argentina now be issuing a clarification to the C24?
How do you explain that a mere 17 years after a supposed outrage which continues to preoccupy Argentina 180 years later, a Treaty of Perfect Friendship is signed which makes no mention of it whatsoever? What is the meaning of “Perfect” in this context?
I take it you are also aware that subsequently during his legal proceedings in London, Vernet denied that this endeavors were intended to assume sovereignity on behalf of the BA authorities. How much credibility do you believe should attach to Vernet?
It is really quite simple:
Feb 16th, 2013 - 06:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 01) France had a civilian population and therefore sovereignty.
2) Britain had a civilian population and shared sovereignty.
3) Spain purchased the French rights and therefore France ceded its sovereignty to Spain.
4) Britain voluntarily vacated and ceded sovereignty
5) Spain voluntarily vacated and ceded sovereignty.
It is now 1811, there are no civilians on the islands and just a couple of historic claims, valueless without a population.
All parties had the occasional stopping off on the islands between 1811-1828 but no civilian population.
When the UP claimed independence (recognised by Britain and not Spain), the islands were empty, therefore we're NOT part of the claim.
When the UP split up the Islands were already under British control.
So, it all comes down to the period of 1828-1833.
Did Vernet consider himself representative of the United Provinces, and his population to be Argentine? Were any of this population forcibly removed?
At best Vernet didn't consider himself a representative until long after his arrival, when he appeared to choose the UP ( if it is possible to do such a thing, it would also be possible to reverse that choice later, as he appeared to do), however, as none of the Vernet community was removed forcibly, it is a moot point.
So that takes us right up to Mestervier, Pinedo et al.
Does a group of 50 “deportees, vagabonds, and militia” present for just 2 months, already having murdered and raped....an “original population” make?
Does evicting such a group really amount to a “blatant act of 19th century colonialism”
Does evicting such a group “corrupt Argentinas territorial integrity”?
I think if Argentina actually went around the world and told a little more truth and a little less hyperbole and fantasy....LOL
@83: “the British presence preceded that of Spain”. The first occupant: France, transferred its occupation to Spain, legally speaking: Spain takes precedence over Britain. Then: the British had never been alone in the islands prior the 1833 Argentine expulsion. For more than half a century they did not do anything and were absolutely silent, compared with the permanent presence of Spain until 1811. State succession: call it uti possidetis or whatever, it is a universal recognised principle that a newly independent State succeeds the territorial sovereignty of its predecessor State. Ask any former British colony and now independent State about that. Conquest: if you claim conquest, you recognise that the territory was Argentine in 1833. Please, do it officially! ICJ: in order to go, both States has to conclude an agreement. In order to conclude an agreement, you have to negotiate. Who is not willing to negotiate? The UK.
Feb 16th, 2013 - 06:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@97: the 1850 Convention on Settlement is a pointless argument discovered by your favorite “historian” Pepper. It has absolutely -I repeat: absolutely- nothing to do with the Falklands/Malvinas dispute. Please, read it entirely. Pepper forgets to show you Article 1. It put an end the conflict originated by the naval blockade of the River Plate and the question of the navigation of the rivers Paraná and Uruguay. Do you want further evidence? Why not any single British government -I repeat: not a single British governement- ever invoked the 1850 Convention when Argentina protested later on? Please, provide an answer to this.
@81 - Raul
Feb 16th, 2013 - 06:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The truth frightens you doesn't it?
Take your spurious claims to the ICJ if you dare. But you won't despite the fact that the UK has INVITED you 3 times.
Why? Because they would laugh you out of court and you know it.
Oh, and I don't hate anyone, so stop transferring you own petty hates and beliefs onto others.
@99 “In order to conclude an agreement, you have to negotiate. Who is not willing to negotiate? The UK.”
Feb 16th, 2013 - 07:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The events of the past two weeks have shown that it is Argentina that is not willing to “negotiate” (it is hard to see how that negotiation would work when the Argentine constitution makes any negotiation of sovereignty illegal). Timmerman was invited to talks at the FCO but cried off because we dared to insist that the Islanders' representatives (ie the only people who really stand to lose in such as discussion) should be present.
I really don't understand why, if Argentina thinks its case is so solid, it refuses to go the the ICJ. The UK are not stopping this from happening and it could clear things up once and for all.
Having said that, Argentina has a pretty poor track record at the ICJ - it is still in breach of a ruling regarding the islands in the Beagle Channel which found in Chile's favour.
Our suspicion is that keeping the sovereignty dispute alive is good for internal propaganda purposes (remembering that such claims only started in earnest with Peron as he thought the Allies would lose WWII and saw this as an opportunity).
The chances of Argentina controlling the Falklands are possibly at their lowest in 30 years given recent developments and statements from the UN (excluding the C24 “circus”). Moon has confirmed that the UK is not in breach of any current UN resolutions
@99
Feb 16th, 2013 - 07:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why then did Argentina cease making its annuals protests in 1850?
Would you care also to answer the other points I raised in @97?
and yes we all know why, because Argentina and Britain agreed that between them there were no differences, meaning that they were happy about their territorial borders, Argentina recognized that the Falklands are british. end offfffffff.
Feb 16th, 2013 - 07:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@99 Marcelo
Feb 16th, 2013 - 07:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“it is a universal recognised principle that a newly independent State succeeds the territorial sovereignty of its predecessor State. Ask any former British colony and now independent State about that.”
Former British Colonies, now Independent States, are States that became independent peacefully, in agreement with Britain. In other words, they did not revolt and forcibly extract themselves from being a possession of Britain.
A newly independent state that was formed as a result of a revolt, can only claim the territory they directly occupy and actively administer and have direct control over.
With the revolt of the UP, Spain did not relinquish all of its other holdings outside of the River Plate area directly under control of the rebels.
As far as Spain was concerned, all other holdings and possessions were still theirs and not controlled by anyone else until physically seized.
The Falkland Islands were 1000 miles away, and certainly not under the control and dominion of UP, when they revolted and claimed independence.
Further, Spain never voluntarily relinquished its claims over remaining SA territories until 1840.
Certainly, the UP did not 'inherit' the Falklands from Spain.
@97. Simple answers : 1) Argentina protested against the British occupation immediately in 1833, on the contrary, Britain never protested against the Spanish presence in the islands 2) No matter what Marcelo Vernet said in C24, Argentina took possession of the islands in 1820, Jewett stayed in the islands for months, the news were published in The Times and not a single British reaction : none. 3) 1850 Treaty : already explained. Nothing to do with the Islands. Argentina did not interrumpt diplomatic relations after the 1833 occupation. 4) Why there were no protests therefore until the 1880s ? Because Argentine representative Moreno in London was humiliated by the British Government after each of his protests and the British government warned him that the matter was considered « closed ». Moreno warned that his silence then and thereafter should not be constructed as acquiescence. In any case, the matter was discussed again in1884. 5) Your account of Vernet’s action after his dispossession is not accurate. In any case, Vernet had a twofold action in the islands : an official one, an a private one (like many « MLA »s today, hein… ?) What he did as a private person in order to have his ownership recognised in no way affected Argentine sovereignty 6)
Feb 16th, 2013 - 08:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@ 101 : « negotiations » you said ? Cheek and Sowle went to London to « negotiatie » ? « Sovereignty » ? Re Beagle Channel : it was not the ICJ and the matter is definitively arranged between the 2 countries since 1984…
@102 : look answer 4) above
@ 104 : plenty of judicial decisions and the very Spanish position on the matter in general and in the Falklands/Malvinas in particular contradict you
105 Marcelo Kohen Clearly you are brainwashed, was it from primary school when it first happened?
Feb 16th, 2013 - 08:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Marcelo
Feb 16th, 2013 - 08:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are talking bollocks.
Firstly, the British Empire broke up in a completely different way to the Spanish and French Empires. The vast majority of British colonies ceded peacefully under predetermined conditions and boundaries. There are many cases that regions administered by one colony did not cede at the same time, did not become part of the new state, and either became independent, joined another state, or remained part of the Empire. So, your idea to “ask any former British colony” is bollocks.
However, there is one example of where a British colony did fight and win a war of Independence. The USA. I cannot think that in winning this War, all British parts of the remainder of North America automatically ceded to the US. I especially cannot think of uninhabitted island groups, 1000 miles from the new independent region, that were deemed automatically ceded.
Spain relinquished its sovereignty in 1811 when it voluntarily left the islands.
Britain reclaimed sovereignty when it recolonized the islands in the 1830s.
Vernets community did not represent any state, and the 50 murdering rapists from the UP in 1832 does not constitute “maintaining a civilian population”.
So, I have done as you requested...
Now please show me an example, where a country has claimed independence, and has automatically gained sovereign rights of additional territories over 1000miles away despite having absolutely no population on said territory.
@105 Marcelo Kohen:
Feb 16th, 2013 - 08:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You say, '...2) No matter what Marcelo Vernet said in C24.'
Well that is one way to deal with a slip up made by a member of a delegation headed by your President. Unfortunatly for you, it will not wash on this forum.
We have an eyewitness statement recorded to the real attitude to who had best control of the Falklands pre 1829, and clearly it was not UP.
The ONLY way that the Falklands could have been AUTOMATICALLY transferred from Spain to the UP, is if the Spanish inhabitants on the islands had claimed independence at the same time....
Feb 16th, 2013 - 08:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As there were ZERO inhabitants on the islands in 1814, this was impossible.
Jewitt was on the islands for months....yes, and he kept talking to Captains of British ships whilst he was there....LOL. Jewitt is irrelevant.
The only relevance is whether you think the 50 vagabonds, rapists, murderers..who were on the islands for 2 months in 1832 and forcibly removed constitutes a viable sovereignty claim, a civilian population or a worthwhile cause to feel hard done by.
I think not.
Comment removed by the editor.
Feb 16th, 2013 - 09:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0All of the above in the grand scheme of things is irrelevant because in 21 days the FALKLAND ISLANDERS will have made their decision, THEY WILL have the last word on what THEY WANT going forward. Europeans and North Americans say this, Argentinians say that, makes no difference. They ( Argies will bang on about The FALKLANDS) so what. 21 days time who give s a s**t
Feb 16th, 2013 - 09:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@111
Feb 16th, 2013 - 09:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I think the difference is this:
Whereas nearly all the Americas know there is someone who has a longer (and possibly stronger) claim to the land which they now share, the Islanders are safe in the knowledge that it is not the case for them.
All previous inhabitants of their home left voluntarily.
It is the ultimate irony. The only place on the whole two continents not stolen in a colonial act is the only place left where there is a claim that it was!!!!!
@109: no ground for your point. If one follows you, then what rule to apply to uninhabited islands?
Feb 16th, 2013 - 09:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@111: do you know what will happen on 12 March? Absolutely nothing. Each side will continue with its position. The UN will continue to consider the territory as subject to decolonisation. A costly propaganda exercise for nothing.
@111 I agree with @113. The only decision they will make IS whether TO vote Yes or No. This is A consultative Referendum. It says SO in the official guidance and so you can be sure it is not going to be the last WORD.
Feb 16th, 2013 - 09:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@105
Feb 16th, 2013 - 09:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sorry, but I'm not convinced by emphatic reassertion.
Let's take this one at a time. How is is that Britain not protesting the appointment of Spanish governors counts as acquiescence (when there is a treaty recognizing British presence on the islands), but Argentina not protesting the appointment of British governors doesn't?
@113
Feb 16th, 2013 - 09:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No rule until the next time they are inhabited. Which in this case was 1833 by the British.
I see we have the eminent Argentinean professor of law posting on these humble threads.
Feb 16th, 2013 - 09:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Prof. Marcelo G. Kohen represented Argentina as a specialist of sea law at the ITLOS.
http://untreaty.un.org/cod/avl/pdf/ls/Kohen_bio.pdf
Also back in November gave a lecture at the Finley Library, Cambridge.
http://untreaty.un.org/cod/avl/pdf/ls/Kohen_bio.pdf
I am surprised that he is talking to us turnips as Herr Think always calls us.
Mind you woodentop Think keeps on bringing DOD out for support.
@115: the Spanish-British agreement does not recognise British sovereignty at all! Britain left Port Egmont, the Spaniards remained in Port Louis, destroyed the British settlement, withdrew the famous plate, and there was not a single British action. How on Earth you can invoke maintaining sovereignty? On the contrary, Argentina protested its expulsion from the Islands. Big difference! @117: always a pleasure to discuss with polite people who respect the other. I feel sympathy for true islanders, irrespective of one's views. We can discuss and disagree, but we share plenty of things too.
Feb 16th, 2013 - 09:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I think you will find that most of the civilised world will recognise that
Feb 16th, 2013 - 09:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 01) The FALKLANDERS exist
2) That they, the FALKLAND ISLANDERS wish to live their lives as they want.
The UN specifically will recognise the above.
@119: the UN does not recognise the existence of a “Falklander” people. This does not mean that islanders do not exist, of course. Just that they are not entitled to the right to self-determination, but to fundamental civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights. Just like the inhabitants of Northern Cyprus who cannot decide the fate of the territory on which they live.
Feb 16th, 2013 - 10:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Marcelo Kohen, I will say this again: Clearly you are brainwashed, was it from primary school when it first happened?
Feb 16th, 2013 - 10:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@120 Marcela Kohen “the UN does not recognise the existence of a “Falklander” people. ”
Feb 16th, 2013 - 10:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Kindly indicate where this statement has been made by the United Nations. Any statement made by the UN Decolonisation Committee does not count as it is not recognised anyway!
TIME will tell, early days yet, wait till the oil starts flowing in Q3 2017
Feb 16th, 2013 - 10:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@118
Feb 16th, 2013 - 10:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Marcelo, pardon me for insisting, but you've rebutted something I didn't say, but not answered the question I did ask.
I didn't say the Spanish recognized British sovereignity, I said the Spanish recognized the British presence by restoration of the Port Egmont settlement. Obviously. The question of sovereignity was deliberately left in abeyance in order to avoid a war.
The question I did ask was why the absence of British complaints concerning the appointment of Spanish governors apparently amounts to recognition of Spanish sovereignity, while the absence of Argentine complaints regarding the appointment of British governors apparently doesn't.
@120: it is for the UN to determine the way to decolonise. When there are a people entitled to self-determination, the UN states so. In the case of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), the UN has clearly stated the way to decolonise: not self-determination. Compare resolutions, please.
Feb 16th, 2013 - 10:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@124: Because Argentina protested against the UK action and the UK did not protest against the Spanish action in the islands. Clear?
We are going round in circles . The FALKLANDERS WILL determine their own future despite what others say. TIME will tell.
Feb 16th, 2013 - 10:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@120 Marcelo Kohen:
Feb 16th, 2013 - 10:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Might I suggest that the UN saltwater rule does mean that they have the right to self determination, and that is the very reason why they are on the c24 list, no matter what Argentina's little puppet on the commitee says.
@125 Marcelo Kohen
Feb 16th, 2013 - 10:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0To which indigenous population should the Falkands Islanders defer if they should “decolonize”?
What is your position, if they self-determine, as expected, to reman a UK Overseas Territoty?
It sounds like you are saying that they have the right to self determination if they wish to become independent but don't if they wish to remain a UK BOT
...unless you want them to be colonised by another country against their wishes.
@124
Feb 16th, 2013 - 11:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sorty, but no. You mentioned 36 Spanish governors, which I presume should have meant 36 complaints. I don 't actually know how many British governors there have been of the Falkland islands but I am not aware of Argentina having protested any of them. I am, on the other hand, aware of the British protesting Vernet's appointment as governor in 1828.
That said, we are all well aware that Argentina has a complaint about the sovereignity of the Falklands and doubt that Argentina needs to protest every act of sovereignity exercised by the Brits in order to keep the complaint alive.
But by the same token, given that the Brits and the Spanish had an explicit recognition of each other's presence, I fail to see why Britain would have complained about the appointment of Spanish governors in the first place, or why the absence of such complaints amounts to an acceptance of sovereignity. And when did the Spanish complain about British governance arrangements in Port Egmont after the restoration?
@128: sorry, no my fault if the current inhabitants of the islands, the majority of them not being born in the islands, are not recognised as holder of the right of self-determination. Please, ask again at the UN, as the UK did without success
Feb 16th, 2013 - 11:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@129: if you don't see the difference, I'm also sorry. Strange sovereign that State which leaves the territory, its settlement destroyed, while another State continue to exercise sovereignty without a single British protest for more than 60 years. As you see, Spain did more than protest, Spain destroyed any British presence and was careful to avoid any British presence after the 1774 withdrawal. PLease, read the history. Anyway, if you follow yourself, then forget Pepper's stories about Argentine abandonment of its sovereignty. Thanks.
@130 Marcelo Kohen
Feb 16th, 2013 - 11:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You keeping talking of the UN wanting Argentina and UK to peacefully discuss the Sovereignty issue.(of course the illegal invasion of '82 does not count)
As far as Argentina is concerned there is no issue to be discussed other that the date of handover of the Falkland Islands to Argentina.
It is enshrined the Argentinian constitution and your Foreign Minister Héctor Timerman has told the world that the Falkland Islands will be Argentinian within 20 years.
So what is the actual purpose of these discussions ?
99 Marcelo Kohen
Feb 16th, 2013 - 11:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“....legally speaking: Spain takes precedence over Britain. ...”
Hold the cotton-picking phone a moment, I'm going to hold your feet to the fire on this one. What support do you have for your assertion. What treaty, international law, or scholarly writings are you relying on.
Remember, you assume the burden of proof he who asserts must prove.
Uti Possidetis, was not formally recognized as definitive law among South American until The Lima Convention of 1847. Therefore it could not be applied to the islands in 1833, as it would be in violation of the international law barring the application of retroactive law.
“...The rule of the intertemporal law still insists that an act must be characterized in accordance with the law in force at the time it was done, or closely on the next occasion....”
The Acquisition of Territory in International Law By Robert Yewdall Jennings
Conquest it doesn't matter a jot who did or did not recognize whatever. It is totally irrelevant, even conquest gives absolute sovereignty over the territory, end of argument. Why would the UK need to make an application for international arbitration, they enjoy possession? It is needy Argentina who is the complainant who needs to make application if they want things to change.
It doesn't matter what you believe is the proper interpretation of the 1850 Convention on Settlement is, you are not a person a court would afford any credibility too. I have on hand at twelve opinions expert legal writers, who state the same:
§ 12. Principle of uti possidetes. A treaty of peace leaves every thing in the state in which it finds it, unless there be some express stipulations to the contrary. The existing state of possession is maintained, except so far as altered by the terms of the treaty. If nothing be said about the conquered country or places, they remain with the possessor, and his title cannot afterward be called in question....
ELEMENTS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, LAWS OF WAR, By H. W. HAL
Why do Argentineans always quote the UN but never reference their quote?
Feb 16th, 2013 - 11:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@132: big mistakes and confusion. You mix uti possidetis iuris with a rule of similar name in another field. Please, attend a course of international law. Can't explain ABC of IL here.
Feb 17th, 2013 - 12:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0@133: 2065 (XX) of 16 December 1965, 3160 (XXVIII) of 14 December 1973, 31/49 of 1 December 1976, 37/9 of 4 November 1982, 38/12 of 16 November 1983, 39/6 of 1 November 1984, 40/21 of 27 November 1985, 41/40 of 25 November 1986, 42/19 of 17 November 1987 and 43/25 of 17 November 1988, Special Committee resolutions A/AC.109/756 of 1 September 1983, A/AC.109/793 of 21 August 1984, A/AC.109/842 of 9 August 1985, A/AC.109/885 of 14 August 1986, A/AC.109/930 of 14 August 1987, A/AC.109/972 of 11 August 1988, A/AC.109/1008 of 15 August 1989, A/AC.109/1050 of 14 August 1990, A/AC.109/1087 of 14 August 1991, A/AC.109/1132 of 29 July 1992, A/AC.109/1169 of 14 July 1993, A/AC.109/2003 of 12 July 1994, A/AC.109/2033 of 13 July 1995, A/AC.109/2062 of 22 July 1996, A/AC.109/2096 of 16 June 1997, A/AC.109/2122 of 6 July 1998, A/AC.109/1999/23 of 1 July 1999, A/AC.109/2000/23 of 11 July 2000, A/AC.109/2001/25 of 29 June 2001, A/AC.109/2002/25 of 19 June 2002, A/AC.109/2003/24 of 16 June 2003, the resolution adopted on 18 June 2004, the resolution adopted on 15 June 2005, the resolution adopted on 15 June 2006, the resolution adopted on 21 June 2007, the resolution adopted on 12 June 2008, the resolution adopted on 18 June 2009, the resolution adopted on 24 June 2010, the resolution adopted on 21 June 2011 and the resolution adopted on 14 June 2012. Fine?
To all: intersting enough, nobody referred to what Fowler's article illustrates: the links between Tierra del Fuego and the Falklands/Malvinas. They existed during Vernet times and after the British control of the Islands. Lucas Bridge's relatives still live in Tierra del Fuego. How many generations?
@134
Feb 17th, 2013 - 12:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0These wouldn't be C24 sub committee resolutions would they?
@130
Feb 17th, 2013 - 12:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0But Spain did not just destroy the British presence, Spain restored it after destroying it. And in what way was Spain “careful to avoid any British presence” after 1774? Is the British absence after that date due to action by Spain? Did they repulse British attempts to return? Did they repudiate the Convention of Settlement? Did they at least warn the Brits they wouldn't be welcome if they came back? Did they protest the plaque?
Certainly I can see a good argument that the British departure weakens the British case, as indeed British governments themselves recognized, but I cannot see how an absence of British protest against Spain, when they have an agreement in place, supposedly invalidates the British case, when the absence of protest by Argentina against Britain, when they have a treaty of perfect friendship in place, apparently doesn't count.
Marcelo specifically I would appreciate if you could highlight reference to your following statements:
Feb 17th, 2013 - 01:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0@113 “The UN will continue to consider the territory as subject to decolonisation” after the referendum. Also has the UN differentiated between this referendum and the referenda it held for Tokelau?
@120 “they are not entitled to the right to self-determination, but to fundamental civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights. Just like the inhabitants of Northern Cyprus who cannot decide the fate of the territory on which they live.”
This one is interesting because Northern Cyprus is not listed as a non self-governing territory by the UN even though it was invaded by another country. But where does the UN state the Islanders are NOT entitled to self-determination especially considering it is a right enshrined in the UN Charter.
@125 “it is for the UN to determine the way to decolonise”
Really. Where does the UN state that it reserves this right? Has it ever overruled a people's decision? Why did it hold referenda in Tokelau if it reserves this right?
@125 ”When there are a people entitled to self-determination, the UN states so. In the case of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), the UN has clearly stated the way to decolonise: not self-determination.“
So the UN explicitly states some territories have self-determination. But it hasn't stated this for others? Doesn't the UN Charter explicitly state ”respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples“?
Interesting that those principles are not so equal.
@130 ”the current inhabitants of the islands, the majority of them not being born in the islands, are not recognised as holder of the right of self determination”
This I would be most interested in finding. Considering 25% of the population of my country was born elsewhere and another ~25% is first generation, then can we disenfranchise 25-50% of the population and still abide by the UN Charter.
@134: very, very weak answer to @132.
Feb 17th, 2013 - 01:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0And you end with,'... Fowler's article illustrates: the links between Tierra del Fuego and the Falklands/Malvinas. They existed during Vernet times and after the British control of the Islands. Lucas Bridge's relatives still live in Tierra del Fuego. How many generations?'
Please, please, please don't fall into the ridiculous position of trying to claim any Argentinians with Falklander ancestry should get a say in the status of the Falklands. I have heard Betts put this forward before, and quite frankly it sounds both stupid and desperate.
Are any other posters getting the impression this is a wind up? I cannot help but feel Mr Kohen has not put forward anything new...
So that there is no confusion i.e. muddying the waters this is what you appear to be relying on. If not please show what you claim to be relying on with chapter and verse, because it mirrors exactly Argentine claims of “territorial integrity” to date.
Feb 17th, 2013 - 01:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0'began with the 1847-1848 Congress of Lima, which was the first multilateral effort that we are aware of that explicitly addresses the intraregional dimension of territorial integrity. This congress produced a Treaty of Confederation between New Granada, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, and Chile. Article 7 sought to prevent hemispheric solidarity from being disrupted by border issues between the Latin American states,
leading to a declaration that (in the absence of special arrangements by the interested parties
themselves) borders should be those that the respective countries had possessed at the time of their
independence from Spain.'
Territorial Integrity Treaties, Uti Possidetis, and Armed Conflict over Territory
Paul R. Hensel, Michael E. Allison, Ahmed Khanani
You can post UN Resolutions until the cows come home, they are meaningless advisements, devoid of any legal authority. Unless proclaimed by the Security Council.
So the question is still unanswered “....legally speaking: Spain takes precedence over Britain. ...”
What support do you have for your assertion. What treaty, international law, or scholarly writings are you relying on?
@137 Anglotino: My understanding is that in the case of colonies, the UN are very careful that planted populations do not get a say in self determination (so, as with Tibet, the imperialist invader does not simply flood the area with its own ethnics).
Feb 17th, 2013 - 01:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0This is why Argentina is so keen to try and define ALL Falklanders as a planted population.
Since the Falklanders control their own immigration, I cannot see why new Falklanders should not get a vote. I think we can be pretty sure that either way, the voting population would still choose to remain a BOT.
It is interesting though that some Argentinians would be happy for a vote on the Falklands as long as Argentinians with Falklands ancestry get a vote too (because the estimates in the Argentine press would put them in the majority). They don't realise how weak and desperate it makes their 'planted population' claim look. I can only assume that deep down they realise that the recorded will of the Falklanders is going to be a very powerful statement.
@139
Feb 17th, 2013 - 03:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0I don't believe it is possible for the Spanish claim to take precedence over the British one.
Even if we put the landing in 1690 to one side, since it did not give rise to a colony, an Argentine historian (no less) stated that the French included a conditional agreement in the diplomatic secession documents, that were agreed by the King of Spain & his diplomats.
The French were extremely concerned that the British would gain full title to the Islands. French spies were aware that the British had landed in the Falklands & that a colony was being constructed. They simply did not know where this colony was located. It did not become apparent until the British arrived at Port Louis & told the French. By then, the secession agreement had been put in motion.
Both the French & Spanish had lost wars to Britain in the past decades, so they feared that if war broke out again and the British controlled the Falklands, then French trade around the Cape would be impeded. Let alone the danger to Spanish colonies on the mainland.
It was agreed that France would secede Port Louis on the condition that Spain maintained the colony and NEVER LEFT.
By 1811 France and Spain were enemies. Both countries had enough problems of their own. Napoleon was invading Russia and Spain was desperately fighting the Peninsular War against France with the aid of their ally Britain, whilst trying to prevent their colonies from rebelling.
The withdrawal of the Spanish colony on the Falklands invalidated the French secession of 1767 & the title returned to the French. As the French had more pressing matters to deal with & were not interested in the Islands, the full sovereignty title fell to the British.
The British continued to visit the Islands throughout 1774 to 1833. The Argentines like to state that the British abandoned the Islands, but this is not true. Some detailed surveys were made by the Royal Navy & British whalers were also there virtually all the time. Britain has full title.
Comment removed by the editor.
Feb 17th, 2013 - 03:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0@LEP Wrong
Feb 17th, 2013 - 03:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0“1. How could the British (not English) expell any Argentines in 1833 when Argentina didn't exist in 1833?”
Well you claim that United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (your country) is a nation right?
Since when exist with you UkoGB&NI according?
You take the formal legality or when a population starts to form itself as a nation?
Because if you take the first as the only valid reference a have to tell you that your country didn’t exist until the Irish recognised the annexation of NI to UK.
Argentina formally exists since 1816 you can see the Independence Act following the link below
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/26/Acta_Independencia_argentina_quechua.jpg
So in pure legal term Argentina is a older nation than UK (according with you own logic)
And if UkoGB&NI didn’t exist in 1833 as a nation why then are you claiming sovereignty over these Islands?
Can you see that your argument about “Argentina didn’t exist” is just stupid?
Argentina as state formed thanks to colonialism by the Spanish has more rights to the claim of the Islands than any body else in the world because since the 1500 they are here.
Marcelo Kohen - I have revised your postings and have yet to see your response to my request @ 122
Feb 17th, 2013 - 07:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Kindly indicate where this statement has been made by the United Nations. Any statement made by the UN Decolonisation Committee does not count as it is not recognised anyway!”
Well that was an interesting evening....Mr Kohen talking complete rubbish, and being unable to substantiate anything he said.
Feb 17th, 2013 - 08:12 am - Link - Report abuse 01) he claimed that the French claim to sovereignty was legally stronger than the British. Wrong. not even the French claimed this.
2) he claimed that the transfer of the French claim to the Spanish made the Spanish claim stronger. Wrong.
3) he claimed the British forfeited their claim when then voluntarily left, but somehow the Spanish didn't. Surely, either both forfeited their claim or neither!!!
4) he claimed that any Spanish claim automatically passed to Argentina “ask any British colony”. This is probably the biggest load of shit he wrote. As pointed out, much of the Viceroy was split up and became Uruguay, Paraguay, Argentina and the borders were far from agreed for decades, to suggest that an uninhabitted island group 1000 miles away automatically ceded to anyone has no precident at all....“ask any colony anywhere” LOL.
5) He claimed Jewitts claim was relevant. If sovereignty had passed automatically, as above, why did Jewitt have to claim anything? Clearly it hadn't, and a single ship who was there for “months” and then left, with nobody returning for years isn't a sovereignty claim...who did Jewitt make the claim to? Where we're they? Oh yes, the British on the islands LOL.
6) He claimed Vernet was a representative of the UP. Interesting that Vernet didn't accept this “by his diaries” until several months after his arrival, when he elected to accept to be a representative. again, if the UP had inherited the islands as point 4, or Jewitt had claimed the islands as point 5, the would have been no need to make this ceremonial decision. Again, if Vernet could choose who he represented, he must also have been able to change his mind, as would any deputy he left behind, Brisbane cough....
7) which leaves us with the only genuine attempt made by the UP to assert sovereigny. The 50 or so vagabonds, deportees, militia, murderers, rapists etc
@105
Feb 17th, 2013 - 08:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0> Your account of Vernet's actions after his dispossession is not accurate
May 1856 letter to Lord Harrowby (Lord Privy Seal 1855-1858):
“… the wish, to get my Colony under the British Flag, was in accordance with my own interests and those of my colonists, which required such change of flag; because situated as we were on the Highway of Nations, we could not expect permanent prosperity, unless placed under the sovereignty of a Government capable of protecting us against filibustering or other aggressions. As to the grants of Land, wild cattle, and privileges, these were originally obtained not with the view to establish any claim to the Islands on the part of Buenos Ayres, but merely to secure the best protection I could for my new colony, from the Authorities for the time being, regardless who they might be.”
Note that “originally”. It is entirely consistent with Vernet's 'appointment' as Governor in 1829. It is also consistent with the contemporaneous account given by Marcelo Luis Vernet at the C24 of Luis Vernet deciding to take possession of the islands in August 1828:
'Sunday, 30 August 1829 was a feast day for the village. Maria writes in her diary “Very good Saint Rose of Lima day, so Vernet has decided to take possession today of the islands in the name of the government of Buenos Aires”'.
Why would the officially appointed representative of the authorities in Buenos Aries only be taking possession of the islands in 1829 if they already had possession through Jewett in 1820?
On this basis, it is rather hard to see exercise of Argentine before 1829, when of course Vernet's appointment and actions are immediately protested by the Brits.
@13 Marcelo Kohen
Feb 17th, 2013 - 08:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0A very poor response !!!!
“big mistakes and confusion. You mix uti possidetis iuris with a rule of similar name in another field. Please, attend a course of international law. Can't explain ABC of IL here.” (sounds more like Herr Think or Tobias)
( uti posseditis juris or Uti possidetis )
“the phrase ^^uti possidetis juris” is meaningless and self-contradictory. To say that the word '^ juris'* excludes altogether the consideration of
possession de facto, is to make the words self-destructive. The judgment of *'uti possidetis'' cannot be predicated of a situation from which the thought of continued physical possession is wholly excluded. Such
a use of terms would be purely fanciful.”
http://www02.us.archive.org/stream/costaricapanamaa00moorrich/costaricapanamaa00moorrich_djvu.txt
--------------
You keeping talking of the UN wanting Argentina and UK to peacefully discuss the Sovereignty issue.(of course the illegal invasion of '82 does not count)
As far as Argentina is concerned there is no issue to be discussed other that the date of handover of the Falkland Islands to Argentina.
It is enshrined the Argentinian constitution and your Foreign Minister Héctor Timerman has told the world that the Falkland Islands will be Argentinian within 20 years.
So what is the actual purpose of these discussions ?
@143 Danal Buggery
Feb 17th, 2013 - 09:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Argentina as state formed thanks to colonialism by the Spanish has more rights to the claim of the Islands than any body else in the world because since the 1500 they are here”
See if you can critically analyse your statement above.
See if you can see the hypocrisy and why not only do they not have “more rights to claim the islands than anybody else on the planet”, they don't even have more rights to claim Argentina “than anyone else on the planet”.
What about the poor feckers who actually were victims of colonialism, the natives of South America?
As far as the islands are concerned, 50 vagabonds, deportees, murderers, rapists and mutineers, for two months...versus 2 periods of civilian population over 300 years including an unbroken current 180 years.
It's not much of a claim is it???
You will not win the argument as all Argentinians are biased and indoctrinated at birth, they have earphones strapped to the pregnant womens stomach reciting over and over the mythical history of the FALKLANDS.
Feb 17th, 2013 - 11:17 am - Link - Report abuse 021 days and the will get their REFERENDUM. I suspect they will vote NO to the question, because as the Argies on here have persuaded them with kind words and deeds. ( NOT )
@73 The usual drivel. Don't you ever pay attention?
Feb 17th, 2013 - 11:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0@76 Argies are liars. An indisputable fact!
@80 You missed a point. The British arrived in the Islands in 1690. There was no request by Britain to visit the Islands in 1741.
@81 No point in you quoting argie authors. Just part of your propaganda.
@99 Garbage. Britain arrived in 1690. France arrived in 1764. Britain declared sovereignty in 1765. In 1767, the Spanish bought the French settlement. That's all. Just the settlement. In 1770, the Spanish tried to expel the British. Didn't work. Britain threatened war. The Spanish Crown gave in. The Islands are British. Your comment about acquisition of sovereignty is rubbish. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquisition_of_sovereignty
@105 More garbage. Jewett was a pirate. Could not take a legal action.
@113 It's fairly simple. Habitation is not the issue. Sovereignty is. Britain claimed sovereignty in 1765. Before “argieland” existed. Spain never challenged British sovereignty except by the attempted, failed expulsion. British sovereignty still existed in 1820. And in 1833.
@120 Crap. And not relevant. Whatever the UN believes doesn't matter.
@125 It is not for the UN to determine anything. It has no legal jurisdiction.
@130 Drivel. Have you convinced yourself?
@134 You quote GA resolutions that are irrelevant and C24 drafts that are even more irrelevant. Try UNSC 502.
@143 “Argieland” wasn't recognised in 1816. Goodbye “argieland”.
@151/ @99
Feb 17th, 2013 - 11:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0I would say that living on the islands for 90 years without any serious protest was a pretty clear cut case of prescription - but as you say, the UK had the title anyway. France is the only country that could have possibly contested it. The Spanish claim was extinguished (by treaty) when they left in 1810.
The timeline graph in your Wikipedia link, Conqueror, shows nicely how specious the Argentine claim is. The UK already had the title and certainly protested once it was aware what was going on. UK whalers also used the islands once the Spanish had left - it just wasn't a permanent settlement (in the same way that the S Sandwich islands would be today)
@ 150, that really sums it up, but the argies have better bulls**t.
Feb 17th, 2013 - 12:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Three points are plainly evident today AD 2013:
Feb 17th, 2013 - 12:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0a) the Falkland Islanders do not want to become part of an Argentine Colony. It is their wish to remain ' a British Overseas Territory'.
b) the Argentine claim to the Falkland Islands is worse that weak otherwise they would have taken their case to the Courts of International Justice.
c) the UN Secretary General has confirmed that the Falkland Islanders DO have the right to self determination and that the UK IS NOT in breach of ANY UN Resolutions regarding the Falklands.
End of story.
@153 Brit Bob
Feb 17th, 2013 - 12:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Also plainly evident today AD 2013:
d) Argentinians think by posting on multiple accounts their claims will be somehow strengthened without adding anything new to the debate, even though in reality multiple log-ons just makes them look infantile.
@Marcelo Kohen
Feb 17th, 2013 - 01:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your getting all confused by history. No need for that, just keep things simple:-
None of your lies matter. Argentina will never gain sovereignty over the Falkland Islands because:
Fact 1: They already belong to somebody else, that doesn’t like you – The Falkland Islanders
Fact 2: The Islanders rights will be defended indefinitely by somebody else that doesn’t like you – The United Kingdom.
Fact 3: There is nothing you can do to change facts 1&2.
Hope that helps you to sleep better.
@151 Conq.
Feb 17th, 2013 - 04:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Great “aquisition” link. Thanks!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquisition_of_sovereignty
@136/156. Spain did not cede its sovereignty rights to the Falkland Islands to either Argentina or the UK in 1811. Spain did protested the independence of its South American colonies. Spain was not a signatory to the subsequent treaties of the Lima congresses by some its colonies, excluding Argentina. In 1833 Spain retained its sovereignty claim, however the UK ended this by its acquisitive prescription of Spanish sovereignty by Spanish acquiescence, especially by its contemporary salute of the British flag in 1863; Spain recognizes current British sovereignty in the EU Treaty of Lisbon
Feb 17th, 2013 - 05:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina was at all times a third party & failed to obtain cessation of sovereignty rights by Spain & transfer of those rights to Argentina by Spain
Britain is the Administering Country of the Non-Self-Governing-Territory of the Falkland Islands, s listed at the UN. If the British grant self-determination to the population of the Falkland Islands. The British have granted this in the referendum of March 10-11th 2013
In accordance with the UN Treaty Charter Chapter XI Articles 73 & 103, the population of the Falkland Islands do not require the permission of the Argentine Republic to exercise their own self-determination
Argentina terminated peaceful sovereignty negotiations with the UK under resolution 2065 in March 1982 & instead chose to settle its claim of sovereignty by the use of force in its illegal invasion of the Falkland Islands in 1982 & its unlawful disregard for UN SC Resolution 502. Britain acted in self-defense & recovered sovereignty in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter & uti possidetis
Argentina's claims of sovereignty have never been upheld by the UN International Court of Justice & are without legal merit unless they are subject to the rigor of the standard of law of the ICJ or other international court recognized under the UN Treaty
Thus Argentina has no power to interfere with the March referendum nor veto its outcome & can be safely ignored
134 Marcelo Kohen
Feb 17th, 2013 - 07:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Like original Marcelo Kohen you engage in same intellectual dishonesty such as ignoring the burden of proof. Since you fail to refute any of the assertions I have made they all stand:
1. Spain and Briton under treaty both retained a right of sovereignty.
2. Notwithstanding her other claims the UK had acquired sovereignty by right of conquest.
3. That the principal of Uti Possidetis cannot be applied as it is retroactive law, and certainly not on a none signatory nation.
4. The 1850 Convention on Settlement is a peace treaty that ends all further claims to territories.
Just to clarify a further error, the islanders in law are entitled to self determination. According to Rosalyn Higgins former president of the ICJ. The UK has sovereignty, as she says “But what the protests do not do is to defeat the British title, which was built up in other ways through Argentinas acquiescence.80”
80. Rosalyn Higgins, ”Falklands and the Law,” Observer, 2 May 1982.
”...Until it is determined where territorial sovereignty lies, it is impossible to see if the inhabitants have a right to self- determination” (Dame Rosalyn Higgins, Problems and Process - International Law and How We Use It, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1994)
If we are not going to talk about the british corporates theft of natural resources why do we even bother quoting truth when in fact there is nothing of truth in this reports? The Brits here think everyone around the globe is as stupid as them. I enjoy watching them chase their tale, I just wish they get a life.
Feb 17th, 2013 - 07:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_Holdings#section_2
@159
Feb 17th, 2013 - 07:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0nobody is disputing that British companies are exploring for and developing oil resources around the Falkland Islands. There are also Italian/French and American companies with shares of the Licences.
The royalties and taxation will be paid to the Falkland Islands government who are the legal owners/distributors of the Exploration/Production licences.
Nothing illegal going on. The Falkland Islands Government will then use the royalties and taxation for the good of the Islanders who own the land and associated resources.
“3. That the principal of Uti Possidetis cannot be applied as it is
Feb 17th, 2013 - 08:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0retroactive law, and certainly not on a none signatory nation.”
Terence,
This is uti possidetis juris
4. The 1850 Convention on Settlement is a peace treaty that ends all further claims to territories.
This is uti possidetis, also known as uti possidetis de facto, to avoid confusion with uti possidetis juris.
@160 Just to point out that all that you say is correct but it is worth adding a little context. The UK has no doubt over its sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. The arrangements you describe are only possible because the UK Government has delegated these powers to the local government body.
Feb 17th, 2013 - 08:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Her Majesty has reserved powers (see the Constitution) over the Islands and this arrangement you describe could, and should in my opinion, be terminated by the UK Government.
1850 declaration of perfect friendship indicates the Argentines dropped their claim during peacetime.
Feb 17th, 2013 - 08:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0End of story, legally.
(Cue usual bolox from mal-educated Argentines.)
@163 End of legal story, perhaps. The lack of any move to take the matter up at the ICJ by either Argentina or the UN Political Affairs staff (for an advisory ruling) speaks volumes and supports your conclusion.
Feb 17th, 2013 - 09:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The political story clearly goes on (and on) and a unilateral Referendum isn't going to end it in my opinion. So
Middle of story, politically.
(Cue usual abuse from ignorant and rude compatriots)
I bet if the Falklands case went to the ICJ and we won, they would still try to claim the Falklands, they would say that there was influence from the British and it is unfair booo hooo.
Feb 17th, 2013 - 10:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@162
Feb 17th, 2013 - 10:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The only way that I could see HMG revoking the self-determining powers of the FIG to spend the oil revenues as they saw fit would be in extreme circumstances.
I.e. they used it to buy a 100% made in the Falklands nuclear deterrent and blew up Pirat Hunter...or perhaps hired mercenaries to start “taking our” Malvinista trolls.
Of course none of this is going to happen.
As it stands at the moment, the large oil discovery, Sealion, plus the satellite discoveries, Casper, Casper South, Beverley and others probably amounts to 500 million barrels. Very nice, and will support the Falkland Islands economy for a generation or two, and make the islanders very rich...but not globally significant...yet!
However, if the tilted fault block play of which Darwin is a feature turns out to be a fairway, and if Desires high potential Isobel or Elaine were to be successful, then the FIG will have a very nice problem.
As has been previously discussed, they have already agreed that were there significant reserves, the ongoing defence costs would be covered, but one would hope that, with significant amounts of tax revenue to invest, the FIG would look favourably at British projects.
It is of course their right to choose, despite your protestations (or shit-stirring as we call it), the British population support the Islanders.
As it stands at the moment, there is confidence such reserves exist, but those “banked” are not yet sufficient for it to be anything other than a local jackpot!
Marcos, Pirat Hunter, Think, Marcelo, etc. 164 would like you to abuse him.
Feb 17th, 2013 - 10:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@165 I read somewhere that the problem with the ICJ is that the laws it interprets are fundamentally based on the world view of the US and on US law (something to do with their post war hegemony). This itself is based on British (well, English actually) law and hence is automatically prejudiced against everyone else. Particularly Argentina, which is the only country in the world that really knows how things ought to be done, Economists have noticed a similar national characteristic trait in their field too.
Feb 17th, 2013 - 10:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@167 Joe Bloggs:
Feb 17th, 2013 - 11:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Beat me to it.
as DoD would say, “chuckle chuckle”
164 and 168 Doveoverdover
Feb 17th, 2013 - 11:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”The political story clearly goes on (and on) and a unilateral Referendum isn't going to end it“
May be not, but I am just as sure such actions will still remain completely ineffective.
The ICJ would have to interpret the Falklands as per the international law as it was in 1833, which is solidly on the UK's side, thus:
”...The rule of the intertemporal law still insists that an act must be characterized in accordance with the law in force at the time it was done, or closely on the next occasion. ...”
The Acquisition of Territory in International Law By Robert Yewdall Jennings
Marcelo Kohen
Feb 18th, 2013 - 05:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0Presidente de La Republica Argentina Bartolomé Mitre al Abrir las Sesiones del Congreso Nacional en 1° de Mayo de 1865: “no ha habido sino motivos para consolidar las relaciones amistosas que existen entre éste y aquellos gobiernos.” [1]
“there was nothing to prevent the consolidation of friendly relations between this country and those governments.”
Vicepresidente de la Republica Argentina Marcos Paz al Abrir las Sesiones del Congreso Nacional en 1° de Mayo de 1866: “Este mismo gobierno .. sobre perjuicios sufridos por súbditos ingleses en 1845. Aun no se ha resuelto esta cuestión que es la única que con aquella nación subsiste.” p. 2 [2]
“The British Government ...for damages suffered by English subjects in 1845. This question, which is the only one between us and the British nation, has not yet been settled.”
Presidente de La Republica Domingo Faustino Sarmiento al Abrir las Sesiones del Congreso Nacional en 1° de Mayo de 1869:“El estado de nuestras relaciones exteriores responde á las aspiraciones del país. Nada nos reclaman las otras Naciónes: nada tenemos que pedir de ellas, sino es la continuación de las manifestaciones de simpatía con que de parte de pueblos y gobiernos ha sido favorecida la República por sus progresos y espíritu de justicia.”[3]
“The state of our foreign relations fulfils the aspirations of the country. Nothing is claimed from us by other nations; we have nothing to ask of them except that they will persevere in manifesting their sympathies, with which both Governments and peoples have honoured the Republic, both for its progress and its spirit of fairness.”
[1] http://constitucionweb.blogspot.com.ar/2010/09/mensaje-del-presidente-de-la-republica_5176.html
[2] http://constitucionweb.blogspot.com.ar/2010/09/mensaje-del-presidente-de-la-republica_5176.html
[3] http://constitucionweb.blogspot.com.ar/2010/09/mensaje-del-presidente-de-la-republica_5176.html
All of this is in the Argentine Heraclio Mabragaña, Los Mensajes 1810-1910, Buenos Aires 1910
Odd that Marcelo Kohen imagines that the treaty of 1771 confered no rights of sovereignty to Britain over the islands when this view is not shared by some of the Spanish governors. In September 1793 Don Juan Latre, patrolling East Falkland in the Spanish Brig,
Feb 18th, 2013 - 06:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0Galvez, sends a warning to the American Brig Nancy; “ In consequence of the recent Treaties between the Spanish and British Governments, and of the orders I have received from the Commander and Governor of these Islands of Malvinas, it is my duty to inform you that you have no right either to fish or to anchor in the neighborhood of Spanish settlements; as solely the English Royalists are allowed to fish at 10 leagues from the said Establishments …“
Diario del Fin del Mundo - extolls the truth of events of 1833 and match those recorded by british sources and that of the diary of the visit my Charles Darwin the great naturalist (or is it naturist). Proof again that argentines have been sold a desperate lie and the malvinista posters have more chance of cloning Eva Peron from a sample of her ear wax than fraudulently acquiring the Falklands.
Feb 18th, 2013 - 09:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0Smug mode set to 100%.
@172 rupertbrookso
Feb 18th, 2013 - 11:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentines claim that Britain abandoned the Islands in 1774. Of course, this is not completely true because although the colony at Port Egmont was evacuated for both financial & military reasons due to the American War of Independence, the British continued to visit the Islands.
The fact that Don Juan Latre indicated that Spain & Britain had treaties over the Islands & that Britain had every right to fish there, according to the Treaty of San Lorenzo, re-enforces the point made previously that the British were continuing to visit the Islands throughout 1774 to 1833 and had not relinquished sovereignty at all.
Don Juan Latre is equating the right to fish with the exercise of sovereignty and warned away the American ship, so they did not trespass (on British & Spanish territory) or could not claim sovereignty.
The very fact that we know about Jewett is because of Captain William Orne of the American schooner General Knox and Captain James Weddell of the British brig Jane. At the time of Jewett's visit, there were some 50 ships in the Falklands sealing and whaling & most of them were British or American.
We know that none of them were Spanish, because Jewett intended to capture any that were there, but none arrived. Seems to me that all Jewett's visit proves is that the British maintained their claim to the Islands and that the United States believed that they also had the right to exploit the resources. Continued exploitation by whaling & sealing is evidence of the exercise of sovereignty.
The flag in Conrad Martens' painting is the White Ensign, it can clearly be seen in the original, reflecting that the British Resident Lt Henry Smith RN was at home.
Feb 18th, 2013 - 12:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://blogs.rmg.co.uk/collections/assets_c/2009/02/PW6240-thumb-1280x427.jpg
Some Argentine nutcases get all moist claiming its the Argentine flag based on black and white versions, shrunk down and blown up again and compressed in a lossy jpg format to show it.
@Monkeymagic
Feb 18th, 2013 - 01:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“What about the poor feckers who actually were victims of colonialism, the natives of South America?”
Yes what happen?
Because none is claiming Argentina or disputing her sovereignty but yes over the Islands which are a territory under sovereignty dispute between Argentina and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
“As far as the islands are concerned, 50 vagabonds, deportees, murderers, rapists and mutineers, for two months...versus 2 periods of civilian population over 300 years including an unbroken current 180 years.”
Dear Monkey none cares what the Islanders think because it is just irrelevant for this territory dispute.
If Britain have deported these people even being criminal or whatever Britain had broken the law and had imposed her will by force.
The same had done Britain in several places like in the Chagos Archipelago.
Well the poor Chagossians have no power to fight against Britain and her can get away with it but Argentina can fight with Britain and even in any moment to use force like in 1982 to get the Islands back.
So there is nothing in the world that could stop Argentina to exercise her rights.
Dany
Feb 18th, 2013 - 02:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sorry, I just stopped laughing after reading your post.
You seem to be under a huge misaprehension that Argentina will one day have sovereignty over the islands. That will NEVER happen.
The purose of these boards is to discuss whether there is a tiny tiny thread of evidence that supports whehter Britain should feel guilty about anything in the history of the islands. We like to feel guilty in Britain about all sorts of shite...but in this case, it appears there is nothing to feel guilty about.
In 1833 Britain evicted a small band of 50 or so murdering, rapists from islands that a had a historic sovereignty dispute between Britain and Spain (not Argentina).
Argentina has never had sovereignty of the islands, in fact those 50 were the first Argentines ever to live there, and theyd only been there 2 months.
Now, as we have nothing to feel guilty about on the islands. No reparation is required. Reparation has been made to the Chagos Islanders.
You seem to want to glorify Argentinas humiliating behaviour in 1982, and you dont feel guilty for the genocide inflicted by your ancestors. Go for it, it doesnt matter to me, you are clearly an imbecile.
As far as Argentina exercising her rights is concerned...its not working is it? Not a single solitary thing has changed because of CFK and Timidmans actions, yet they have been flown around the world lining their pockets at your expense.
the islands are still British, for as long as the islanders want. you say nobody cares what the islanders think..but sadly for you britain does.
You are on record for saying you are prepared to sacrifice 10,000 Argentines to claim the islands...However, being an imbecile you dont realise you couldnt do it with a million. Getting an Armada 400 miles across open ocean when being bombed by aircraft out of your range and torpedoed by submarines you cant see is a hazardous business.
Good Luck with your pipe dream....
176
Feb 18th, 2013 - 03:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Further to what Monkeymagic says above. Stop talking about it so much, grow a pair and do something about it.
Impotent tango dancing pussies.
Chuckle chuckle
The guilt for the 649 Argentine dead in 1982 lies with people like you, who believe that Argentina has the right to use force to subjugate a people who do not wish to be Argentine. It's the very same guilt as those that committed genocide to steal Patagonia from the Amerindians.
Feb 18th, 2013 - 03:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0All those Argentine servicemen who suffered at the hands of their officers, all those men who are now claiming compensation for the inhuman treatment they received should be banging on YOUR door, demanding that YOU compensate them, because YOU are prepared to make the same mistake & humiliate Argentina once again.
When you sleep at night, I hope the ghosts of dead Argentine servicemen come to haunt you. That the faces of the dead, as seen in photos held up by Argentine mothers, reminds you that nothing can be gained by resorting to war, except the loss of loved ones & the misery that follows.
Argentina NEVER owned the Falklands. Argentina did not even exist in 1833.
The garrison (belonging to the United Provinces of the River Plate) that was expelled protested, but left peacefully. They did not return. They had no right to be on the Falkland Islands. It was British sovereign territory. The British Consul, Woodbine Parrish had already protested at the UP government's appointment of Vernet as the Civil & Military Commander. They had no right to appoint anyone to govern on British soil. When Vernet pirated the US ships, he acted without authority & the United Kingdom had every right to detain anyone engaging in piracy.
Twenty Two civilians remained on the Falklands in 1833. They did not engage in piracy. Twelve UP civilians remained on the Islands. The only two members (& wives) of Vernet's colony that left were Brazilian & Uruguayan.
We know for a fact that 12 UP civilians remained, because Pinedo made a detailed report for his Courts Martial on his return to Buenos Aires. These documents in the Argentine National Archives, is proof that the Argentine Government knew the truth & lied.
@ Monkeymagic
Feb 18th, 2013 - 03:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Doesn’t matter what you wish the fact is that you will never know when invasion will hit at your door.
And if Argentina winds your are terminate and will receive the same compensation as the Chagos Islanders.
Or do you expect to receive more?
BTW Argentina at the moment is only paying compensation in Pesos.
I have a lot of fate on Argentina’s Army to defeat the Britons...
Just 10 k soldiers for me will be enough don’t worry.
Then I will cover the cost of armament, compensation to family’s soldiers, etc. with the oil of the Islands.
So please hurry up to extract some oil please because I want to confirm in the investment will pay back ASAP.
I like invasion and you?
Should be incorporate in Olympics games as a new sport.
Dany
Feb 18th, 2013 - 03:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The problem is that we will know when an invasion will hit. The world has changed since 1982.
How do you get an Armada across 400 miles of open ocean, when modern technology can trace every single ship you have in your “fleet”.
How do you get an Armada across 400 miles of open ocean when you are being bombed from above and below from an enemy out of your range or invisible to you?
You would be walking into the biggest suicide mission of all time.
Your 10,000 souldiers would never get to the islands.
Stop being an imbecile.
@180
Feb 18th, 2013 - 03:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Post 179 is directed at you.
You are insane.
Argentina tried invasion & failed.
It humiliated the country before the rest of the world. Yet you seek to repeat this mistake.
Einstein once said that Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
There will be only one result if Argentina tries to invade again. A great many Argentines will die. A great many Argentine mothers & fathers will grieve and a great many other nations will shake their heads in despair that Argentina did not learn from 1982, that armed aggression cannot be used to sort territorial disputes.
GROW UP.
@180
Feb 18th, 2013 - 04:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Dany
So you bought shares as I suggested. Don't forget first oil is Q3 2107.
Plenty of it I am reliably informed. Oil rig in FALKLANDS probably mid 2014, must get on as time lines in licences have to be considered. You see if we have contracts we abide by them.
@183
Feb 18th, 2013 - 05:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0oh for that edit function Mercopress
I think you meant 2017
(175) JustinKuntz
Feb 18th, 2013 - 06:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You say...:
The flag in Conrad Martens' painting is the White Ensign, it can clearly be seen in the original, reflecting that the British Resident Lt Henry Smith RN was at home.
http://blogs.rmg.co.uk/collections/assets_c/2009/02/PW6240-thumb-1280x427.jpg
I say...:
And what's your “Expert” opinion about this other one?
http://blogs.rmg.co.uk/collections/assets_c/2009/02/PW6240-thumb-1280x427.jpg
Take your time.....
Chuckle chuckle.
@Monkey
Feb 18th, 2013 - 06:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well monkey if I tell you the trick where is gonna be the surprise?
Never say never, and all is possible in this world and tech works for everybody mate.
@nigelpwsmith
“There will be only one result if Argentina tries to invade again. A great many Argentines will die. A great many Argentine mothers & fathers will grieve and a great many other nations will shake their heads in despair that Argentina did not learn from 1982, that armed aggression cannot be used to sort territorial disputes.”
The same applies for the British or do you think they are immortal?
I guess that I will start to make plastic bags with the British flag on it, wheelchairs and prosthesis (arms, legs, etc) you know to sell to you cheap will be a good business what do you think mate?
@184
Feb 18th, 2013 - 06:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Correction 2017, Must be fat fingers or the horse burgers I imported from Argentina, god knows what they eat there on U$D 1.53 per day
@187dany
Feb 18th, 2013 - 06:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”I guess that I will start to make plastic bags with the British flag on it, wheelchairs and prosthesis (arms, legs, etc) you know to sell to you cheap will be a good business what do you think mate?”
I think that you are a trash talking schoolboy who has no understanding of war or those who must fight in it, on both sides.
It is obvious to those who read your post that you have no morals, compassion or respect for others.
BTW, Britain is not in any territorial 'disputes'. Britain is not trying to 'annex' anyone else's territory, militarily or otherwise.
Argentina can not say the same.
@186
Feb 18th, 2013 - 06:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Dany
you don't get it, things have changed since 1982, but the Argentine military capability hasn't. Your politicians may wish to pretend that the Falklands are just a few miles of the coast...but it's 400 miles.
You don't have the technology, cretin. We would see you coming, and destroy the entire Armada. Even CFK and Putidjelly aren't stupid enough to try an invasion.
As to your answer to Nigel...I doubt the Uk would lose very many. It's difficult to hit a target out of range and you can't see.
It is funny, as you are the only one on these boards STUPID enough to be advocating an invasion. Based on a strike force suitably sized to be successful, I would reckon Argentine losses would run into 100,000s and British few than 100, and the task force all sunk before it made it half way.
Britain would then have to decide whether “shock and awe” on the major Argentine cities would be a suitable repost, or whether, like last time we show pity, and follow Reagans plea “not to humiliate you”.
How pathetic eh Dany, having another countries President pleading that we don't “humiliate” you.....
Of course there was no need....you humiliated yourselves....and continue to do so.
The desperation of the trolls is rising and rising daily.
Feb 18th, 2013 - 08:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Is it the referendum or the crashing economy?
@189Monkey
Feb 18th, 2013 - 08:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The only way Argentina could threaten Falklsnds militarily, would be to get somebody else involved.
Not likely. As Venezuela inevitably assumes new leadership, the Argentine economy nosedives and they default on local commitments, Mercosur splinters as Brazil does not want an anchor around its neck and others want to look “outward” also, nobody will partner with CFK.
Why risk trade, troops, expensive assets, spend a fortune on a task force for a deadbeat neighbour, just to risk losing everything or end up in a partnership with childish arrogant nation, that feels it is entitled to all the spoils anyway.
Not to mention, the international condemnation.
Sorry, it will never amount to more than crying and ranting, from the likes of La Csmpora no-future youths, Dany and Toby.
@191 I would ask you:
Feb 18th, 2013 - 08:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why risk trade, troops, expensive assets, spend a fortune on a task force for a deadbeat colony, just to risk losing everything or end up in a partnership with a childish arrogant colony, that feels it is entitled to all the spoils anyway (well, those who arrived after 1982 at least). Not to mention, the international condemnation.
After all, we did.
Hmmmm seems a troll's true colours suddenly show (seems to be the week for it):
Feb 18th, 2013 - 09:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“deadbeat colony”
“childish arrogant colony”
I don't know if Joe is about, but Joe it seems I was right about someone's bitterness:
”feels it is entitled to all the spoils anyway (well, those who arrived after 1982 at least)”.
Visa DENIED! No spoils for you!
@192 Dame Dover
Feb 18th, 2013 - 09:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”@191 I would ask you:
Why risk trade, troops, expensive assets, spend a fortune on a task force for a deadbeat colony, just to risk losing everything or end up in a partnership with a childish arrogant colony, that feels it is entitled to all the spoils anyway (well, those who arrived after 1982 at least). Not to mention, the international condemnation.
After all, we did.”
LOL, just could not pass up on that post, could you??
Looks like the pantomime horse has shown it is really just an Ass afterall !!!
Very revealing. :-D
193
Feb 18th, 2013 - 10:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hey Anglo, how goes it mate? Still hot? I don't suppose you're a petrol head are you? I'm starting to get excited about the start of F1 season. I've never been to Albert Park, as far as I know but judging by the TV footage it's almost right in the city.
Dove Think is very bitter about something; that's for sure. Exactly what who knows. I just wish he'd stop his attempts to convince anyone he was an officer in the RN.
194 Troy
If Dove and Think ARE two separate posters I think they are both arses rather than one arse and one head. Push me Pull you? Is that what Dr Seuss called it?
Not long before the referendum now boys.
Chuckle chuckle.
Ps. Who's going to win the F1 this year?
@195joe bloggs
Feb 18th, 2013 - 10:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes, our Think/Dame Dover, or Think/Blink, certainly does seem to be reckless and stressed.
I heard that Think was getting his Think and DDover personas mixed up. Is that right?
Tick tock, LOL!!
Chuckle chuckle
TWIMC
Feb 18th, 2013 - 11:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0and @195 Just a slight matter of service protocol if I may? By custom and practice senior British Naval, Military and Air Force Officers retain their rank until death unless they resign their commissions or are convicted of a criminal offence. Although I have conviction I have no convictions, not even points on my license.
All this to say that I agree with you for once. I am not an officer who was in the RN, I am an officer in the RN. Sadly for me only on half pay and the Retired List though.
And wasn't it Dr Doolittle? He claimed he could talk to the animals too.
The 'Commander' is all chuffed - must be back on an even keel.
Feb 18th, 2013 - 11:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0176 DanyBerger
Feb 19th, 2013 - 12:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Britain had broken the law and had imposed her will by force.”
That is an invention of yours that is absolutely false, so I'm reposting from #83.
Even if the UK had sailed over the ocean blue, without a prior claim and seized the islands. That was clearly permissible under the international laws that were in force at the time.
THE RIGHT OF CONQUEST The Acquisition of Territory by Force in International Law and Practice SHARON KORMAN
96 Conquest in Traditional Law and Practice
...John Fischer Williams wrote in 1926: To say that force cannot give a good title is to divorce international law from the actual practice of nations in all known periods of history.9
Thus, in the Island of Palmas case, decided in 1928, an international tribunal of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague explicitly recognized the validity of conquest as a mode of acquiring territory when it declared in its decision that:
'Titles of acquisition of territorial sovereignty in present-day international law are either based on an act of effective apprehension, such as occupation or conquest, or, like cession, presuppose that the ceding and the cessionary Power or at least one of them, have the faculty of effectively disposing of the ceded territory.10' That the tribunal's decision in this arbitration should have admitted conquest as a valid mode by which a state could establish a legal title to territory is not surprising. For conquest was clearly recognized by states
as a valid mode of acquisition of territory, ...
9 'Sovereignly, Seisin, and the League', BYBIL (1926), 24, at 35.
10 Island of Palmas case (Netherlands v. USA) (1928), RIAA 2 (1949),ß
Dover is playing with us now....
Feb 19th, 2013 - 06:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0“TWIMC” on post 197
Yup! No eureka moment mate it’s too late to try and bait to deflect.
@195 Joe
Thank God it was a cool day today. Got to 37C yesterday and my workplace almost evacuated us as the fires closed in. Even this morning when I drove in the gate I could still see flames in the distance. Have a squizz - took me more than an hour to get home last night:
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/grass-fires-a-part-of-landscape-fire-chiefs-warn-20130219-2eorw.html
And yes Albert Park is very close to the city. One end is on Fitzroy Street St Kilda so you were probably quite close, especially if you got the light rail from the city as it travels down one side. The noise is quite loud as I have lived in that area before.
Not much of a petrol head, I leave that to the Greek and Italian boys in their Commodores.
@200 Looks very much as though you have deflected yourself.
Feb 19th, 2013 - 07:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0Mate.
@ Troy Tempest
Feb 19th, 2013 - 09:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0No need to get so emotional mate...
Think in this way if Argentina and UK go into war sure will be a lot of British soldier corpses to be putted into plastic bags. Right?
So we get here a business opportunity to make some profit from something bad. Right?
So see the positive part of this...
Meanwhile some one had passed away, I will turn this into a positive thing and get some $$$ that when I expend it, let say in a new car I will be providing jobs, profit to EU car companies, tax revenues, etc.
“It is obvious to those who read your post that you have no morals, compassion or respect for others.”
Ok I know what the words “Have & no means”...
But what did you say then?
Morals & compassion?
Sorry I couldn’t find it in my dictionary.
Anyway do you want to enter into the business of the plastic bags with British Flags on it, wheelchairs and prosthesis or not.
Look I have and idea what a bout...
Get your new pair of plastic legs with the pic of CaMoron on it and you get a “hand kit” for free courtesy of the Islanders?
Or...
By naming CaMoron you pay for 1leg and get 2 plus discounts in arms?
@ Monkeymagic
Really Monkey so what is your problem then?
@ Terence Hill
Who cares about what John Fischer Williams wrote?
“Who cares about what John Fischer Williams wrote?”
Feb 19th, 2013 - 09:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0I do, because when an experts like him and his writings directly refute yours, and your nations lies. There a quiet satisfaction in helping to balance the scales of justice and expose your wrong doing.
@195 Joe
Feb 19th, 2013 - 10:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0Sorry mate it seems I deflected when I replied to your comment earlier according to post 201. If I have, I apologise. Please ask me any question and I promise I'll not only answer. But answer truthfully.
Oh btw I forgot I totally blitzed (funny choice of word) El Think on another thread over his German. I even starting feeling sorry for Doveover.... I mean Think considering how terrible his German was.
I shall now sign off it a contemptuous fashion
El Anglotino
Melbourne (a capital city though not THE capital-confuses some simpletons)
Victoria (oh that's right a sovereign state with its own Queen-go figure)
Australia (once British but now not... Falkland's future perhaps?)
@176 DanyBerger
Feb 19th, 2013 - 11:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0Oh the Chagossians, so you believe britain was a bad boy for their removal yet you intend the same for the falklands... double standards, thus NULL argument.
@Terence Hill
Feb 19th, 2013 - 01:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Still none cares mate, just for domestic consumption...
@Musky
Welcome to the world!
FOWLER'S OMISIONS.
Feb 19th, 2013 - 02:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have always said that i have never believed in our official history, that's why i have investigated deeply about the arguments of both parts of the conflict. If many people in this forum, or from the u. k.. or from the mainland, where we have some sepoys who love being pro imperialist, think that just our politicians omit information respecting the historic aspects of this conflict, before the u. n., or before any other int. forum, then it means that many of them have been perfectly indoctrinated by their so loved decadent british empire. Or perhaps they dont have enough intellectual honesty.
While it is true that the u. k. had occupied port egmont (1766-1774), it's also true that according to the international right, the discovery just gives a precarious title, which must be improved with a permanent occupation. After the british abandon in 1774, there was any other settlement over the islands, in name of the british state, untill the imperialist usurpation of 1833.
Anyway, perhaps the u. k. had right to occupy the islands, in virtue of the occupation in port egmont, or in virtue of the secret article which had been included in the nootka sound convention in 1790, signed between spain and the u. k., which allowed the u. k. to stablish settlements over the islands, if another power stablished settlements too.
However, if the u. k. had right to occupy the islands, it didn't mean that it had to deprive arg. from the archipelago, due to the rights of our country were based on the sucesion of states.
The u. k. shoud have negotiated a peaceful solution with arg., or maybe share the sovereignty of the archipelago, instead of depriving our country of exercising it's rights.
Accept it or not, the case is much more complicated than the tipical mediocre analysis that politicians from both parts usually make. There is a lot more to say about all these questions.
@206 DB
Feb 19th, 2013 - 02:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That makes you a hypocrite, you can't wag your finger at us when you intend to do the same. However I am not all that familiar with the rights and wrongs of the chagos case, looks to me that only contract workers occuppied the islands but in any case this hot topic is due to be dealt with at the Hague very soon.
@207 - axel
Feb 19th, 2013 - 03:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0During your 'extensive' research, did you also discover that no Argentinians were deprived any rights in 1833, because there was no such place as Argentina in 1833?
Also try to remember that in 1833 the Spanish still claimed sovereignty of the Falklands as well as the British.
And also remember that the United Provinces that tried the land grab in late 1832, that went so disasterously wrong, not due to British interference, but to the fact that they were all mutinous and rebellious murderers and rapists.
When the United Provinces stopped being so 'United' any soveriegnty claim that they might have 'tenuously' had died with them.
Sovereignty claims are non-transferable.
And perhaps during your extensive research you can explain just what laws the UK broke in 1833?
Lets look at the order of events.
Vernet asks the British permission to set up a colony in the Falkland Islands some time mid 1820's. Permission is given. The fact he asked the UP for permission is actually irrelevant, as the UP never had any sovereignty claim to the Falkland Islands as Spain still maintained their own claim. So no 'inherited' claim is valid as it is not recognised in international law.
Then the UP sent troops in 1832 (militarising the South Atlantic!), and the British immediately protested to the UP government that the Falklands were British territory.
The UP did nothing, and continued with its plans, forcing the British to send the Royal Navy to reassert its sovereignty claim against these invaders.
In 1833 HMS Clio arrives and turfs the murderous and mutinous rabble off the Islands.
The United Provinces did nothing in 1833 or 1834 or 1835 or 1836 or...ever.
So in the 19th century, the UK acted in accordance with international law of that time, and turfed a bunch of squatters off their land. The UP did NOTHING during or AFTER this fact, and the UP then ceased to exist later that decade.
So no laws broken by Britain, and the UP did nothing to maintain its claim.
@207
Feb 19th, 2013 - 03:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are quite right to examine the history of both sides & if possible compare it to the historical documents in both national archives. Quite a few reputable historians have already loaded these to the internet. As a result, it is fairly obvious that successive Argentine governments made misleading statements to gain international support. They omitted the truth or even exaggerated (about 1833), because it did not help their claim.
As this article points out, for nearly 70 years, the Argentine government has been promoting their version of events to the world & teaching it in schools. Consequently, the majority of your countrymen simply won't accept the truth, because it would mean that they'd been the victim of propaganda, taught to them by both their teachers & families.
When Kretina put an advert in the British press in January, one of the British newspapers responded by printing an advert in Buenos Aires. It was quite a surprise to many Argentines that the British colony arrived in the Falklands in 1775 & not 1833 as they'd been told. The problem is that telling the truth about the Islands also means that everyone in Argentina has to accept they were deceived. Documents show that successive Argentine governments knew the truth, but simply ignored it, because it wasn't convenient to admit a weakness in the Argentine claim.
Most of the British people that post on these boards accept that redeployment of British forces in 1774 did temporarily remove the British presence in the Islands, but it did not negate the sovereignty claim & the Spanish knew this. British sealing & warships continued to visit the Falklands between 1774 & 1833.
When Vernet captured the American ships, there were plenty of British ships in the vicinity, but he was careful not to capture them, as he knew he would get an official response, which eventually did happen. There was no imperialist usurpation, but an assertion of previously established sovereignty rights.
More follows.
@207 The arguments over who inherited what, who claimed what and who stole what from whom are endlessly fascinating. They are, though, mere distractions from an argument about colonisation which according to the UN is an unacceptable political status.
Feb 19th, 2013 - 03:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0My personal preference is for integration of the British Overseas Territories into UK followed by comprehensive devolution process. Argentina could not reasonably complain about the physical breath of this expanded United Kingdom when it claims its own national territory covers two continents and various island groups in intercontinental seas.
(197) Mr. Mc.Dod
Feb 19th, 2013 - 07:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You say...:
TWIMC
I say...:
TWIMC?
Chuckle chuckle©
(211) Mr. Mc.Dod
You say...:
”(Argentina) claims its own national territory covers two continents and various island groups in intercontinental seas.”
We say...:
Adjacent......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Location_Antarctica.svg
@205 Musky:
Feb 19th, 2013 - 07:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Diego Garcia is being rented to the Americans. There is a lease agreement. Meanwhile the Chagossians have all been offered British passports (and I believe about half have taken them).
Why any Argentinian thinks this would be the same as giving away Diego Garcia forever, I don't know.
@207
Feb 19th, 2013 - 07:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Continued from 210...
You say that Argentina should not be deprived of the archipelago, due to rights of your country based on succession of states.
You see there's four problems with that statement which you have overlooked. Let me explain.
Firstly, there is no international right of succession. Just because the states of the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata declared independence on 9 July 1816 & became Provincias Unidas del Río de la Plata, does not mean that all the other lands held by Spain transferred to the United Provinces. Did Canada automatically become part of the United States of America? Did Bermuda or the Bahamas? No they didn't.
Likewise, you could ask why Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador or Peru were not claimed by Argentina? Obviously I can anticipate that you would say that this was a different Viceroyalty, but then you could say that Paraguay, Bolivia & some of Peru were part of the same Viceroyalty, but that did not mean that the United Provinces owned their sovereignty.
Succession is not a recognised legal right, yet Argentina uses this 'right' to say that the Falklands belongs to them. The claim is at fault on this point alone.
Secondly, at the time that the United Provinces declared independence, the Falklands was not occupied by Spain. They left in 1811, 5 years beforehand. So even if it was a legal right, you cannot inherit something which the parent does not have. I could also point out that Spain lost the title due to abandoning the colony which they agreed with the French they would never do.
Thirdly, even if you could inherit, you cannot inherit a sovereignty already claimed by Spain & not relinquished. When Spain left the Islands, they maintained that their claim was still in effect, as the British did.
Lastly, and most important of all, as already mentioned, Argentina did not exist under a constitution until 1853. So you cannot succeed to a title that is held by others. In 1853, the sovereignty was held by UK.
More...
Keep going
Feb 19th, 2013 - 08:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@214 nigelpwsmith: you forgot to mention Spain evacuated the Falklands to Montevideo, not BA.
Feb 19th, 2013 - 08:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That makes a balls up of the Spain-> Viceroyalty RP-> BA-> Argentina before they are even started.
@212 Sr Think. South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands? Adjacent? Don't make me laugh.....
Feb 19th, 2013 - 08:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@211
Feb 19th, 2013 - 08:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The arguments over who stole what aren't just endlessly fascinating, they are highly relevant in that without them Arentina has got nothing apart from Think's bizarre doctrine of adjacency.
It's hard also to think of a British policy more suited than yours to support Argentina's attempt to drag the rest of Latin America into a supposedly colonial conflict, but which is in reality just some peculiar Peronist time warp version of Manifest Destiny.
Which is exactly why this would hardly shut Argentina up either. Since when was Peronist Argentina about to respect the rules of law, contracts, elementary logic, or just plain common sense that have caught on to one degree or another quite widely elsewhere on the globe?
(217) Mr. McDod
Feb 19th, 2013 - 08:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Juppp...................
Even more adjacent than the Australian or New Zealand's Subantarctic Islands.............
http://www.antarctica.gov.au/__data/assets/image/0014/23090/antplus.gif
@218 I'm sure Think will be eager to acknowledge your insight in realising that all this discussion feeds Argentinean paranoia and protects his weak argument from to much exposure to ridicule. As for your second point, can you really be saying that decolonisation of the Falkland Islands would be objected to by Latin American countries? In this the third UN Decade of Decolonisation? Surely not!
Feb 19th, 2013 - 08:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@219
Feb 19th, 2013 - 09:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have serious difficulties with the idea that annexation somehow counts as decolonization, especially in the eyes of Latin America. It might have been a good idea once, if Britain was France, or if Britain had done the same with any other colonial possession. But we tend to prefer rather obscure constitutional arrangements for many of our islands, as you are no doubt aware.
But fun though it may be, you might be right that too much time is spent on the 1833 smokescreen, or indeed the UN smokescreen. I'm sure those areva solid part of most Malvinista belief, but I don't believe it is the supposed slight of 1833 that is driving current Argentine policy.
Why don't you ask your chum to make his case more explicitly?
Read this
Feb 19th, 2013 - 09:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Scroll down to this.
Kirchner’s Argentina: externalising domestic tensions
http://dalyhistory.wordpress.com/
The answer as to why the issue keeps re-appearing, as so often with latin american politics, lies within. Listed below are just a few of the news stories regarding Argentina from the BBC website in the past few months:
Widespread unrest and looting in Argentina; troops deployed
Seized Argentine Navy ship leaves Ghana
IMF data deadline looms for Argentine fagile economy
Argentina wins court delay over debt
Argentina default over debt likely
And more
So… rioting on the streets and supermarkets being looted; Navy ship seized in a foreign port over unpaid debts; the IMF questioning Argentine honesty regarding financial data; and the possibility of a default over foreign debt… still wondering why Fernandez-Kirchner is trying to divert the attention of her people outside the country’s borders? It’s an ever-present in Argentine politics – when there are problems, the Malvinas issue is dragged out. It’s route one politics and not all that indistinguishable from Galtieri’s methodology in 1982.
Related articles
Falklands row reignites as Argentine president calls on UK to relinquish control (scotsman.com)
Argentine president Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner reignites Falklands row (independent.co.uk)
Argentine President writes to David Cameron over Falklands (itv.com)
Argentine President Cristina Kirchner publishes full-page advert in The Guardian UK (intentious.com)
Argentina rebuffed over Falklands (bbc.co.uk)
Hands off the Falklands: No to Argentine imperialism (thecommentator.com)
Argentina reignites Falklands row (bbc.co.uk)
Argentina accuses UK of ‘colonialism’ by holding on to the Falkland Islands – Daily Mail (dailymail.co.uk)
Argentina presses claim to Falklands (cnn.com)
Cristina Kirchner’s Falklands demands are delusional and insulting
Read and enjoy
.
@216
Feb 19th, 2013 - 10:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Quite so. The people that left the Falklands in 1811 were loyal to Spain, not to the United Provinces. So there is no provenance leading to UP. In fact, it adds weight to the fact that Spain retained their sovereignty claim, right up until they finally acknowledged British sovereignty in 1863.
I hope you also noticed my typo error in 210 where I said the British arrived in 1775, which should have read 1765. That's also if you disregard the fact that we first landed in 1690 & claimed the Islands. As the Argentines would no doubt respond, mere landing does not convey sovereignty. However, the fact that the British did land before the Spanish & did return to re-assert sovereignty meant that the British title was good.
Continuing my reply to 207 and Axel...
The Argentine claim might have been a lot stronger if the United Provinces had returned to the Islands in 1833 or 1834. The United Provinces merely protested, when they knew that HMS Clio departed the Islands on 10 January 1833. HMS Tyne arrived for 4 days the same month, but also left. HMS Beagle did arrive later in March, but also departed. There was no British presence on the Islands, save the British members of Vernet's business & these were murdered by Rivero in August 1833. Lieutenant Henry Smith did not arrive on the Islands until 10 January 1834.
All the United Provinces did was protest the British move diplomatically. They did not send a delegation to London to discuss the matter. They did not send another garrison to the Islands. Mind you, that would have provoked an even stronger British response.
All the actions of the United Provinces equated to legal acquiescence & acceptance of the British sovereignty. This acceptance was given a more concrete form in the Convention of Settlement, the Arana-Southern Treaty of 1850. The fact that both the UP & Argentina discontinued any protests about the Falklands afterwards, adds weight to the point that Argentina knew their claim to the Falklands had ended.
@185
Feb 19th, 2013 - 10:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Conrad Martens joined HMS Beagle in late 1833, he only visited the Falkland Islands in March 1834. His sketches and watercolours were used by J.W.Cook and lithographs prepared by S. Bull for inclusion in Darwin's diaries. As noted in Darwin online:
http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F1925&keywords=martens+conrad&pageseq=239
lithographs by S.Bull incorrectly show scenes from Patagonia as being in the Falklands. They're simply not Martens' work, they are later derivative works, which are inaccurate.
The explanation is simple - if you're not a brain washed moron.
Chuckle, chuckle.
After nearly 200 years, the islands are still british, and will remain so.
Feb 19th, 2013 - 10:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And no amount of crying to the UN will alter that fact,
unless you are prepared to come and get them,
and to fight for what you concider yours,
then the fact will remain,
you have no claim never did , never had and never will.
I've reviewed the protests made by Moreno in London, as well as the correspondence between the American Secretary of State and the former ambassador to Buenos Aires and they make interesting reading.
Feb 20th, 2013 - 01:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0Moreno's approach was to write letters protesting the actions in 1833 to Lord Palmerston. The first letter Moreno sent had the 'Argentine' version of events. It suggested that the UK had lost sovereignty to the Islands in the differences between the Spanish & British treaties of 1771, together with the supposed withdrawal in 1774 by some secret agreement with Spain to allow them to save face.
In reply Lord Palmerston provided Moreno with copies of all the relevant documents detailing the negotiations & agreements between Britain & Spain in 1770-1, conclusively proving that Britain did not give up her rights of sovereignty. The differences in the texts of the treaties were not acknowledged in the other version, which would be necessary if there were any right conveyed by that difference. The Spanish treaty was merely acknowledging that Spain did not give up her rights of sovereignty or that allowing the British back impinged upon those rights. Likewise the British treaty did not give up sovereignty either.
Moreno took the documents he was provided with and referred back to Buenos Aires, but continued to make his claim in letters, regardless of the fact that the British Government now considered that the matter was settled by the acquiescence of UP.
Effectively, Moreno was writing the same protests (Just as C24 makes the same resolution year in & year out) but these protests had already been answered in full.
Moreno even changed his approach. His new tactic was to suggest that East Falkland (Soledad) belonged to UP, whilst West Falkland belonged to Britain. The response from the Foreign Office was to point out that the British claim was to ALL the Islands, not just West Falkland.
The letters continued until Rosas gave up the claim with the Arana-Southern Treaty.
This is getting boring...
Feb 20th, 2013 - 07:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0If Argentina wants really the Islands the only way to get them back is by military force.
But for that Argentina will have to have full determination and prepared even to go into war with main land UK.
So time to start to assembly those lovelies Missiles to reach UK, Ascension Island, etc. just in case the stupid little heads would even think to shut a bullet to ARG main land.
Then all will have a good floating target at 300miles to test all kind of weapons and see how good is British defence of the Islands.
I didn't realise DanyBerger's address was:
Feb 20th, 2013 - 09:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0Cnr Fastasy St & Dumbass Ave
Delusionalville
Twilight Zone, 666, Republic of Fictional
Go to was with the UK mainland!!!!!
WITH WHAT? Their navy? BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Didn't I read recently that only a QUARTER of Argentina's navy can actually sail?
Good luck with that invasion and attack.
@228
Feb 20th, 2013 - 12:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Dany tales his cue from the military genius who thought he could take on the world's greatest land power , the world's greatest sea power, and the world's greatest economic power, all at the same time. This is what happens when you are foaming at the mouth.
@228 & 229
Feb 20th, 2013 - 02:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Dany is very foolish. He actually damage's Argentina's position because none of the nations urging discussions desires further conflict & if Argentina did try this again, their support would be withdrawn & a conflict would end the same or worse for Argentina.
By contrast, Axel (207) is at least willing to debate the dispute. This holds out the possibility of reaching an understanding about what would be best for all.
Getting back to where I was with Moreno's letters to Palmerston. UP's approach was merely to protest the matter diplomatically through the ambassadors. This may have been a mistake.
I'm not suggesting that UP should have declared war on Britain or re-invaded the Islands, both moves would have had bad outcomes for UP. Although, these may have shown the level of importance to UP of their claim.
It is my belief that UP should have taken the matter more seriously by sending a delegation to Britain with all the relevant documents to back up the UP claim.
The problem as I see it (& as Buenos Aires probably saw it at the time) was that they were a minor nation, whilst Britain was a mighty empire that had defeated both Spain & France, far stronger countries than UP.
Secondly, if UP was to mount a challenge to British sovereignty, they would also have to overcome the Spanish claim, which was still valid at that time. UP would just become another claimant to the prize and having arrived late to the game, would not legally be entitled to seek priority over the others.
If UP had sent a delegation explaining the position & sought an agreement to share the resources, not by dual sovereignty, but by offering to assist in the costs of developing the Islands for a share of the 'property', then UP would have been seen as a willing business partner more than an exclusive challenger to sovereignty.
It's this approach that Argentina misses out on today. Instead of confronting the Islanders, AR would be better off trading with them to make friends.
LEPRECOM. NIGELPWSMITH.
Feb 21st, 2013 - 03:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As i said in planty of comments, if you think that just our politicians omit informaton before the u. n., or before any other int. forum, respecting the historic aspects of this conflict, then it means that you have been perfectly indoctrinated by your so loved empire.
You reject the rights of our country over the islands in 1833, and at he same time defend so trongly the british usurpation of that year, however i already told you how is the the discovery considered by the int. right, and told you also why i think that perhaps the u. k. had right to occupy the islands in virtue of some relevant facts.
In relation to the sucesion of states, according to the int. right, it's applied to all the emancipatted colonial terrtories.
Our coutry didn't need spain's licence in order to declare it's independence, in fact, after that declaration, it had right to occupy the territories which were under the jurisdiction of the viceroalty.
The fact that some territories decided to separate part from our country, doesn't affect our claim for the islands, because it was their decision to become into independent nations, in contrary to what happened in the islands, when our authorities were deprived, and since that moment, the u. k. has never let arg. exercise it's rights over the archipelago.
Respecting the intervalls in our claims, i recognize that it might prejudice our claim for the islands. However, it would be honest to take into account the huge economic dependence that arg. had along XIX century and for more than 100 years with the u. k., so, it was obvious that it wasn't in conditions for claiming. Beside, despite our intervalls, between (1884-1888), arg. suggested the u. k. to take the question to the arbitration, which was rejected by the it. On the other hand, in 1968, 1974 and 1980, the u. k. tried to find a solution with arg. Accept it or not, the case has strong and weak aspects for both. There is a lot more to say about it.
Oh!
Feb 21st, 2013 - 04:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Here we go again with BS from the past.
Ladies and gentlemen we are in 2013 and not in the middle age.
So you have defected the Spanish and the French in the past wow!
But you couldn’t with the Argies even in your glorious days do you remember?
Argies defected the Spanish, the British 4 times and the French a very impressive record for a nation that has no clue about warfare.
What do you think?
Now in 2013 you have to win a war by merit and that have to be tested in a real scenario.
So here are the real options if Britain wins a new war you can keep the status quo lets say for another 30 years perhaps until a new war?
But if the Argies win all you are over and Argentina simply will set up her rules because will be noting to negotiate.
But don’t worry may be the argies will be so generous and will pay you ticket to UK. Who knows?
“If UP had sent a delegation explaining the position & sought an agreement to share the resources, not by dual sovereignty, but by offering to assist in the costs of developing the Islands for a share of the 'property', then UP would have been seen as a willing business partner more than an exclusive challenger to sovereignty.
It's this approach that Argentina misses out on today. Instead of confronting the Islanders, AR would be better off trading with them to make friends.”
Hey mate you are putting the horse in the back of the trolley...
You need to become friend of the Argies not them.
So what do you have to offer to them?
Their own oil and fish?
Ha ha
@232
Feb 21st, 2013 - 07:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0??????? To be honest mate I couldn't understand a word you just said. The Falkland Islanders don't need you for anything. You brought up the subject of war. How would Argentina win a new war? For that you need an armed forces that is well equipped, well payed and organised. Bottom line you don't have any of that do you? Bottom line 2, all together you actually need money to spend on it, but you don't do you?
@232
Feb 21st, 2013 - 08:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0OMG!!
It's hopeless.
We don't stand a chance against a formidable and professional Argentine military.
We should be friends with the people who attacked our civilians 30 years ago, and insulted and blockaded us steadily since that time .
We should forsake our people and throw them to the wolves, along with their homes, oil, and fish. Thanks btw for confirming that it IS “their own oil and fish”.
Oh, wait! This is the 'parallel universe' article - that must be what you are on about.
I should have realised it was not real.
@Conor J
Feb 22nd, 2013 - 12:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0Oh! Sorry I couldn’t understand a word of what you just have posted.
Can you try again please?
Thank you
@Troy Tempest
May be if you try to be nice with the argies and apologise with them for your wrong doing you will avoid to be deported in the future.
Who knows?
@235
Feb 22nd, 2013 - 12:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0Maybe because Google translation isn't as good as people make out? TWAT!
You didn't answer my questions.
1. How would Argentina win a new war?
2. What do the islanders need Argentina for?
Write slowly and carefully to make sense.
@67 Conqueror :
Feb 23rd, 2013 - 03:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Do you see “inheritance” as a method? No? That's because it's not a legal method. But you can't be educated. Because you're a stupid, psychotic, brainwashed idiot!”
Conqueror, you incorrigible spastic wanker – don’t ever let anyone throw a piece of paper at your head, lest your weak empty skull collapse from the impact.
Do you see #2 “cession” listed there in your precious article???? I know a history lesson is completely wasted on a hopeless berk such as yourself, but let us pretend for a moment that I am not replying to a gormless muppet.
What, oh fool of fools, do you think Britain did when it recognized US independence in the Treaty of Paris?
IT CEDED ITS TERRITORIES!!! Informally, one could say the United States “inherited” the territories of the 13 former british colonies, and that's as may be, but the territory was CEDED. Specifically, it was a cession agreed to in 1783, retroactive to 1776 – of all territories as declared, effective as of declaration.
SO THEN, what, you dim-witted chav, do you think Spain did when it recognized the independence of the former viceroyalty?
Of course, I must assume that eventually you will conquer the inertial resistance of that spunk-festooned clavier through which you pretend to type, and amuse us all with yet another of your idiotic hypocrisies, but the answer is that SPAIN, LIKE THE UK, CEDED ITS FORMER COLONIAL TERRITORIES, in the case of Argentina, in 1857 retroactive to 1816. Again, a cession of all territories as declared, effective as of declaration.
No? Go on, tell us all about how the same principle magically doesn’t apply, or somehow renders part of those former Spanish possessions invalid, or about how US independence is valid upon declaration but Argentine independence is valid upon recognition. Go on mate, tell us...
...After all, no one on this forum is more adept than you at historical cherry-picking (or, alternatively, dingleberry-picking, depending on the time of day).
@77 LEPRcon:
Feb 23rd, 2013 - 03:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0“I tell you what. Take it to the International Court of Justice and let them decide.”
WE'D LOVE TO!! Unfortunately, Britain would rather militarize the region and use islander's self-determination as a smokescreen to avoid a peaceful and legally-binding solution, such as the one ICJ would offer.
Apropos, given that BRITAIN DOES NOT ACCEPT COMPULSORY ICJ JURISDICTION for disputes arising prior to 1976.
http://www.icj-cij.org/jurisdiction/index.php?p1=5&p2=1&p3=3&code=GB
But do go on, keep talking about how us psychotic demented argies are the bullies, even as you continue to deploy regiment upon regiment, frigate upon frigate.
LAUGHABLE!! British sovereignty is a lie, told at the point of a gun - nothing more.
237 Hermes1967
Feb 23rd, 2013 - 06:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0If you actually bothered to read the Treaty of Paris 1783 you would see there is no mention whatsoever of any backdated recognition, and the territory GB ceded to the new US is specifically defined in article 2
There is no mention of backdating in Spain's recognition of Argentina, there is no precise definition of what constitutes Argentine territory, in any case Spain was not in the position to cede the Falklands as it was no longer in possession. A state can't cede territory it does not possess.
Alejandro,
And Argentina doesn't recognise the ICJ's compulsory jurisdiction at all for any period. But compulsory jurisdiction isn't the only way the court exercises jurisdiction
http://www.icj-cij.org/jurisdiction/index.php?p1=5&p2=1&p3=2
The UK deals with cases relating to events before 1974 on a case by case basis.
And Argentina always has the option of asking the UNGA to ask for an advisory opinion. Though not binding, if favourable to Argentina, it would be an enormous boost to Argentina's position.
@Conor J
Feb 23rd, 2013 - 10:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0Conor little Affe be quite I don’t have to answer you absolutely nothing.
Time will provide you the right answer, just be patient...
@240
Feb 23rd, 2013 - 04:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So no answer?
Tell you what considering that you are a coward and cant answer me directly I will do it for you:
1.Argentine cant win a new war because she is weak, pathetic, underpowered and militarily inferior to the United Kingdom.
2. The Falkland Islanders don't need you and never will the only thing you provide is sheer comedy.
@240Dany Berger
Feb 23rd, 2013 - 11:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Dany, is that all you can say?
“Conor little Affe be quite I don’t have to answer you absolutely nothing.
Time will provide you the right answer, just be patient...”
It seems that given your threatening and boastful post about Argentina 'taking back' the Falklands, Conor J asked you two very reasonable logical questions,
“1. How would Argentina win a new war?
2. What do the islanders need Argentina for?”
You posts are rendered worthless, and in this case, laughable, if you can't back up your answers with reasoning.
Once again, the Brits win the argument -obvious to everyone reading this, and you look like a stupid pouty child - equally as obvious LOL!!!
Thanks for helping us out!
I bet your La Campora bosses will not pay you for this thread.
You have embarrassed yourself and your country.
What can one expect from “Sussie ”, though. :-D
BRITS WIN - AGAIN !!! Yay!!!
@242
Feb 24th, 2013 - 02:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0Thanks for the words of support Troy!
Burger boy talks the talk but he definitely doesn't walk the walk.
@239
Feb 24th, 2013 - 04:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0“ there is no mention whatsoever of any backdated recognition”
Quite the opposite, you are turning the burden of statement around to require backdated recognition, when in fact the the text would require a burden of statement of CURRENT recognition. Unsurprising as wanton misinterpretation of historical texts and events are part and parcel of proponents of british falklands sovereignty, without which your argumentative toolbox would be nearly empty.
The overwhelming consensus legal interpretation holds the text's formulation would recognizes a pre-existing independence, because “His Britannick Majesty acknowledges” them to BE (present state) “free sovereign and independent states”. It is a declaration made by the crown to accept the status quo, which lacking temporal specificity of effectiveness defaults to that declared by the recognised party, i.e., 1776.
The same applies to Spain's recognition of Argentine independence. Exactly the same as with Britain and the USA, it is a declaration by the Spanish crown of recognition an EXISTING status quo which, specifying no timeframe of effect, grants recognition of the declaration as of the time of declaration.
“Spain was not in the position to cede the Falklands as it was no longer in possession.”
So possession is a necessary factor of sovereignty? Very well! Given that Britain was not in possession, and therefore had given up sovereignty, by your own standard it could not re-establish in 1833 that which it did not possess. Either the plaques reserve sovereignty (and power of disposition) or they do not. Which is it?
“The UK deals with cases relating to events before 1974 on a case by case basis.”
So does Argentina. Which is to say both Britain and Argentina EQUALLY are reticent to taking the matter to ICJ, despite the popular hypocrisy of british sovereignty proponents that only paint Argentina as the party which refuses to go there.
Hermes
Feb 24th, 2013 - 11:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0You are talking shit.
Firstly, it is perfectly possible to cede parts of territories and not other parts. Britain “ceded” India but not Aden which had historically been governed from Bombay.
Assuming that ceding island groups 1000 miles away is a huge jump, otherwise Britain would automatically have ceded Bermuda and most of the West Indies when it ceded the 13 US states..land indeed most of the Canadian Islands.
Furthermore, you post recognises that Spain accepted the Status Quo of free and independent states...therefore Argentina became a free and independent state, as did Uruguay as did Peru as did Paraguay as did the Falklands...I see nothing that makes the falklands automatically part of Argentina in this.
Furthermore, you say that the Spanish plaque is relevant, and therefore so is the British, I personally think with neither supporting a civilian population both are pretty irrelevant.
Which takes you back to 1833, January 6th.
Britain did indeed remove 50 or so militia, deportees, rapists and murderers from the islands. They were not “islanders” they had only been there 2 months and had already carried out inhumane atrocities.
That is the sum total of the UP claim...less than 60 people for less than 60 days.
No civilians were ever evicted.
So...this assumption of inheritance from Spain...lbollocks isn't it.
@245
Feb 24th, 2013 - 12:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes - exactly, the UP garrison was there for only 2 months. Not enough time to establish sovereignty.
The key fact is that ONLY the UP garrison was evicted, not Vernet's colony. Vernet's colony remained on the Islands & increased in size as more civilians joined from all over the world, not exclusively from Britain.
Argentina deliberately omits the fact that the colony was NOT evicted, because it weakens their claim. If their own tenuous grasp on the sovereignty derives from Vernet AND Vernet's colony remained AND Vernet stated many times that he considered the Islands were British AND wanted them to be British because the UP government would try to steal his business from him, then the Argentine claim is invalid, because the colony still exists AND that colony wants to be British.
The Argentine Government LIES that all the Argentines were evicted, even though Argentina did not exist at the time & they have Pinedo's evidence to prove that Vernet's colony remained.
The United Provinces tried to take advantage of the fact that the British & Spanish had removed their settlements. Although the Islands had no permanent residents, there were plenty of whaling & sealing ships visiting the Islands all the time, from Britain, the Americas & from Spain. British warships surveyed the Islands and regularly stopped to re-provision when they were in the South Atlantic.
The problem for the United Provinces was that before Vernet arrived, none of the UP citizens wanted to live in such a harsh climate. That's the principal reason that Vernet had to recruit so many North Europeans to colonise the Islands. The climate was too harsh even for them. The only people that thrived on the Islands tended to come from Scotland or Scandinavia.
UP tried to steal property that did not belong to them, they used a proxy (Vernet) to try & establish a foothold & when they exerted authority over the land, they were evicted by the true owners.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!