MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Francis calls on the Church to keep to its roots or it could become “a passionate NGO”
In his first public Mass, Pope Francis urged the Catholic Church on Thursday to stick to its roots and shun modern temptations, warning that it would become just “a compassionate NGO” if it forgot its true mission. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rules“He who does not pray to the Lord prays to the devil. When we don't proclaim Jesus Christ, we proclaim the worldliness of the devil, the worldliness of the demon.”
Mar 15th, 2013 - 07:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0Of course he would say that!! This guy is so brain washed he can't even accept that there are other relegions in the world.....
Or that the Catholic Church might be backing the wrong horse.
Nit-picking a bit, but the phrase is here is used clumsily: the Catholic church SHOULD be an NGO.
Mar 15th, 2013 - 08:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0@1 LMAO Good Morning to all my fellow Argies living in Malvinas.
Mar 15th, 2013 - 08:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0Speaking of being brainwashed, when will you people understand that Malvinas is part of Argieland. nuff said
When will this Pope apologise to the Falkland Islanders and to the British people for his slurs on our integrity?
Mar 15th, 2013 - 08:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0Gordo and when will you apologize for taking over a land that does not belong to you,
Mar 15th, 2013 - 08:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0When he visits London,
Mar 15th, 2013 - 08:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0Good Morning Sunshine :). Howdy today?
Mar 15th, 2013 - 08:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0This holy man was silent during the time of the Junta,the time of slaughter,when nuns where thrown alive from helicopters,he should retire to a monastery to examine his conscience and never say another word.
Mar 15th, 2013 - 09:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0You sound a little excited today, don´t forget to take the red pill.
Mar 15th, 2013 - 09:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Catholic Church is a dinosaur that's only interested in maintaining its own wealth.
Mar 15th, 2013 - 09:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0It lost any credibility it may have had when it was discovered that they ignored and covered up child abuse by Priests, to PROTECT the reputation of the Church, and didn't get rid of the Priests, they just moved them to another area so they could continue on with their evil deeds.
I truly believe that the last Pope resigned because he lost faith in the Catholic Church. I think he tried to bring reform and was pushed out by the majority who were happy with the status quo.
No wonder they voted in a 'safe' bet, with this already brainwashed puppet.
@5 - Pesky sussie
When are all none native Amerindians going to give back the land they've stolen and continue to steal? When is the government of Argentina going to actually start running the country for the good of ALL it's citizens, instead of trying to consistently steal someone else's land and homes?
This article posted by Ayayay on another thread shows just how much the Argentine government cares about the Argentine people.
http://m.aljazeera.com/story/201331313434142322
@9 P.A.
Mar 15th, 2013 - 09:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0If you think thats excited,you must lead a very quiet life,however I,ll take my vitamins as you advise.
So things are starting to come out of the wash about this guy already, apparantly he sold some of his fellow priests down the river during the Junta.
Mar 15th, 2013 - 10:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0@10 Sure you are aware that your so called allies the Canadians and Americans to name a few are also living in stolen land. Just go and tell them to give t their land back to the natives . LOL I can imagine their response....
Mar 15th, 2013 - 10:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0Pesky> I take it from your last post that you accept that Argentina is living on stolen land, stolen from an indigenous population. The Falklands were UNINHABITED when claimed for Great Britan.
Mar 15th, 2013 - 11:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0When will the Argentiner population wake up to the fact that they have no legal claim to The Falklands and that the leaders of there country have, for many many years, used this ficticious claim to deflect from thier inept and criminal leadership
@no sense at all
Mar 15th, 2013 - 12:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0First you didnt answer my question. Plus in 1833 there were people living there. So according to you is ok to evict argies but not brits.
Nice one lad...
PS Yes we live in stolen land just like Canadians do.
“and Jesus said unto the disciples, 'rather than follow my teachings and talk directly to God, I want you to only talk to God through the intermediate of a homosexual who hates homosexuals ironically in a closet, and give all your money to a really rich guy who claims to be God's representative on earth even though his main job is to cover up money laundering, clean up after pederasty, historical orgy-banquets and being rich. Then I want you to burn nearly all the books that give reference to my life and teachings and instead keep only 4 that align with the creation of Rome as the direct centre of spirituality as some kind of all time anachronism to our empire”
Mar 15th, 2013 - 12:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0All I have to say is it's easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than it is for KFC to get into the kingdom of heaven. Maybe she can buy an indulgence like Tony 'I'll be whatever religion gives me power' Blair?
Still no answer............
Mar 15th, 2013 - 12:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@Pesky Army , Argentine Pope (well kind of) Italian Parents (European Immigrats) now in planted into The Vatican-just wondering if this all reminds you of anything recently
Mar 15th, 2013 - 01:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@17 Did you ask a question? I thought you were just doing the usual la campora rant that has no objective historical basis and just based on peron-inspired myths.
Mar 15th, 2013 - 01:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What were you asking?
Church to keep to its roots
Mar 15th, 2013 - 02:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No greed, corruption, bearing false witness, stealing , claiming what is not yours,
Insulting the innocent, abusing the innocent ,
Well this counts CFK out, does it not..
.
@3 Always worth remembering the “record” of the Roman Catholic church. Going back centuries, it's only real interest was controlling as many people as possible and amassing wealth. For example, rather than helping the poor, the “church” demanded its own taxes and promoted superstition in order to maintain its power. By the 15th century the “church” was ready to divide the “New World” between Portugal and Spain. Fortunately, even at the time, no-one else accepted or recognised that. Despite that, the “church” happily sent the Portuguese and Spanish off to invade, occupy, steal, rape and murder in the name of religion. No doubt on the promise of generous “donations” of gold and silver. The pope of the time, Alexander VI, a member of the Borgia family, was notoriously corrupt even at the time. Presumably the “donations” came in handy to enable him to lavish the huge sums of money on his many mistresses and children. Meanwhile, the Spanish were busy “converting” the heathen by way of burnings and garrotings. One presumes the “church” was also in favour of the “Conquests of the Desert”. There were two. These are the “roots” of the Catholic “church”.
Mar 15th, 2013 - 02:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What is all this negative talk against the new Pope?? Your negativity speaks more about you than the Pope. Let him who is without sin cast the first stone. Ever since the begining when I first visited this form, there has been nothing but name calling, trash talk, and failure of the human spirit shown here. - Millet USA
Mar 15th, 2013 - 02:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Catholic Church needs to practise what it preaches.
Mar 15th, 2013 - 02:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Mr. Camoron is feeling the pressure :-)))))))))))))))))
Mar 15th, 2013 - 02:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What are your colours Camoron ?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/9932873/David-Cameron-tells-Pope-Francis-white-smoke-over-Falklands-was-clear.html
Popes “Honeymoon” period didnt last long did it?
Mar 15th, 2013 - 02:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21802684
---
marcos - Britain is Anglican on the whole (or agnostic or atheist), so very few people give a shit about the pope or what he says... pretty much just what we think about the Argentine Government in fact.
Things that dont change die
Mar 15th, 2013 - 03:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0bye catholic church
Pope Francis have became death the destroyer of worlds. lucky im not in that world
As a non-papist, I wonder if the pope might have got his reflective spikey-garter on a bit tight and it's gone a bit septic, causing him to openly support the ethnic cleansing of the falkland islands through armed conflict in some kind of delusion. Oh wait, he's infallible.
Mar 15th, 2013 - 03:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0... and where is Antonio Blair when the pope needs him to swoop in and save the catholic-day?
@Marcos Alejandro I think you should be more concerned what the thoughts of the new ITALIAN Pope towards Kirchner and her dead husband I think the word CORUPT was how he described them.
Mar 15th, 2013 - 03:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@15 - Pesky sussie
Mar 15th, 2013 - 03:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes there were people living on the Falklands in 1833, their descendants still live on the Islands today.
Argentina cannot produce one shred of evidence that anyone, other than the mutinous, murderous military penal colony was removed; because NO ONE but the mutinous, murderous military penal colony was removed.
And they weren't even forcibly removed. They were told to leave, and they did, without a shot being fired.
But back to the thread.
@25 Anbar
Good link. Reminds me of how the Catholic Church also denied supporting the Axis powers in WW2, when they did, and not once did the Vatican speak out against the mass murder being committed by the NAZI's.
“First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.”
Martin Niemöller
*song*
Mar 15th, 2013 - 03:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There once was a pope from buenos aires,
Who listened to confessions of tony blairs'
He couldn't take any more,
And collapsed on the floor,
after scribbling 'do 300 hail marys'.
I'll think up one about supporting ethnic cleansing and land clearance through military conflict later.
@19 @10 Sure you are aware that your so called allies the Canadians and Americans to name a few are also living in stolen land. True or False? Should they return their land to the natives?
Mar 15th, 2013 - 03:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@ Pesky ... youre an idiot. You have been brainwashed by the argentinian Cruella De Vil into believing her lies, no doubt she now thinks god is on your side ha ha ha
Mar 15th, 2013 - 03:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@31 There are two possible answers there, one is no, the other is yes. If one says 'no' then we're all in agreement that Argentina cannot resurrect the dead mapuches that they relentlessly slaughtered through necromancy and the world should just keep going on. However, this would contradict what your dear leader KFC wants which is an end to all colonialism in the americas and the land to be returned to an owner who never owned the land, as long as they are genetically from spain, italy or germany.
Mar 15th, 2013 - 03:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So I'd probably go against KFC and your government in their suggestion of handing over and any all land to latinos with historical ties to southern europe, with 'no' and suggest they learn to live alongside one another.
Does that answer your question?
“”“@19 @10 Sure you are aware that your so called allies the Canadians and Americans to name a few are also living in stolen land. True or False? Should they return their land to the natives?”“”
Mar 15th, 2013 - 03:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0erm... Argentina... hello....?
Doh!
Answer is: yes, they should.
Now go make them do it.
Oh.
Doh!
@34 Straight answer good.
Mar 15th, 2013 - 04:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No we will not since we have no issues with them. Just between us.
who is “us”?
Mar 15th, 2013 - 04:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@35 Now it's you who didn't answer my question. Seriously, how rude are you? I guess it's because you're argentinian that you just didn't like the answer.
Mar 15th, 2013 - 04:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So can you now answer my question: Do argentines know that they're epically sh!t soulless people or are they ignorant of this too?
Pesky, just to get this straight:
Mar 15th, 2013 - 04:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 01) You believe that the land, regardless of where it is, should be returned to its original inhabitants? yes/no?
2) You are not interested in this occuring in other countries where you are not trying to get land for yourself. yes/no
3) You agree that your own land is stolen and the 95% of its inhabitants derived from implanted stock, stock that therefore have no rights there. yes/no (see 1 above)
4) The earliest inhabitants of the Falklands were French. (historical fact)
5) Next settlement was British (Historical fact)
(at this point do you see the HUGE problem with your argument...?)
@37 I can answer 1 question at the time
Mar 15th, 2013 - 04:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And no shitbrains you did not, just the usual rant on argentina and latinos and europe.
Check my post n 15. You people are waste of space. I pity you, seriously...
PS: You can insult KFC, hell I will even help you out, but once she is gone, the issue will remain the same, you stupid peasant...
What else has Adolfo Pérez Esquivel ever done that is noteworthy? He truly is a voice from the past.
Mar 15th, 2013 - 04:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Gordo
Mar 15th, 2013 - 04:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0you should ask yourself what have YOU ever done that is noteworthy?
So Kirchner as dispatched Hector Timerman to Rome to set up a meeting with Kirchner and the Pope before his ceromony on Tuesday.
Mar 15th, 2013 - 04:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This bitch is beyond decent
“Diplomatic sources confided, meanwhile, the Casa Rosada undertook efforts to meet with Bergoglio, beyond the ceremonial greeting. Today arrive in Rome Foreign Minister Hector Timerman to initiate contacts. The President will depart next Sunday afternoon.”
@39 twas not a rant. It was bounded by factual and well thought out reasoning.
Mar 15th, 2013 - 04:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The United Provinces of RP are not Argentina. They broke up into all sorts of things and there was no continuing state. So if the nonsense on the islands in 1833 was under the auspices of the UPoRP then it is unlikely that any of the people would have been Argentine. They would have been UPoRPians. Other than this we all know Vernet wasn't an Argentine and neither was his deputy, Matthew Brisbane.
The fact is, you didn't even prove that there were any 'Argentines' on the islands in 1833 and if there were which people were evicted such that you can make a statement about 'it being good and right to evict argentines'.
Maybe you need to explain who was evicted first, and what their nationality was, and then we can try to answer it.
What a low class of people that dominate this forum. 99% of the posts printed here are by people that certainly do not uplift the human spirit. As they say.... birds of a feaher flock together. I'm out of here, this forum makes me feel dirty. - Millet USA
Mar 15th, 2013 - 04:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@Millet bye
Mar 15th, 2013 - 04:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@44 Millet, do you always have to tell people that you're leaving a forum before you leave? Do you tell people when you're leaving a room or turning off the tv? Do you have any inner dialogue?
Mar 15th, 2013 - 04:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“I'm taking this pan off the stove now, because it's boiled”
“Oh, ok”
@43 . It was bounded by factual and well thought out reasoning. The United Provinces of RP are not Argentina...OK lets test your logic:
Mar 15th, 2013 - 04:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The 1707 Acts of Union declared that England and Scotland were “United into One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain” though the new state is also referred to in the Acts as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and the United Kingdom.[19][20][nb 6] The term United Kingdom is found in informal use during the 18th century and the country was occasionally referred to as the “United Kingdom of Great Britain”
So according to you UK exists only since 1707 and before that it was....no ones land right? BRAVO GENIUS
@Millet - What is the purpose of your comment?
Mar 15th, 2013 - 04:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It appears to a self-assumed position of moral authority from which you denigrate all others, then show absolute unwillingness to do anything about it.
I'm not sure that really gives you a moral foundation to dismiss others as lacking “Human spirit”... certainly not when using pejorative terms such as “Low class”.
hmmm
@47 Even though you're an ignoramus, I'll respond by stating facts like Argentina wasn't the successor state to the UPoRP. They just claim to be, and that claim is meaningless. The succession of states caused by the merging of England+ and Scotland was quite clear. The successor state being the UK.
Mar 15th, 2013 - 04:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0After being made to look uneducated you probably feel a real penis, literally and metaphorically.
“”““Diplomatic sources confided, meanwhile, the Casa Rosada undertook efforts to meet with Bergoglio, beyond the ceremonial greeting. Today arrive in Rome Foreign Minister Hector Timerman to initiate contacts. The President will depart next Sunday afternoon.””“”
Mar 15th, 2013 - 05:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0CFK really doesnt understand the British.
If the Pope puts his sticky-beak in this it will massively harden opinion against Argentina and pro-Falklands.
Even the Gruniadan would tell him to foxtrot-oscar.
This whole thing proves why argies still claim those rocks......You are simple pathetic...Read some history and then post something smart. Just a clue, try some books, since any idiot just like you can edit wikipedia.
Mar 15th, 2013 - 05:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Francis was speaking to the Cardinals of the Catholic Church. He was speaking to the Catholic Church. If you are not Catholic, he was not speaking to you.
Mar 15th, 2013 - 05:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Desperate, Desperate ,Desperate She knows the Pope was no fan of Nestor or herself but she just can not help herself
Mar 15th, 2013 - 05:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Do you think the Pope will speak to Timerman then ? Timerman isn't Catholic and is a pathological liar, so both those things will count against him.
Mar 15th, 2013 - 05:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“” Just a clue, try some books, since any idiot just like you can edit wikipedia.“”“
Mar 15th, 2013 - 05:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentine-published books I take it?
---
IN all seriousness I've yet to hear any solid reason for any Argentine claim over the Falklands.... they always just seem to say ”Coz we wantss it nasty Hobbittzesss“ and expect the world to go ”OH, OK then!”.
Pesky: What exactly is your claim to the Falklands based on?
@Orbit Timerman as to do as he is told he is Kirchners whipping boy, christ he evens kisses Iranian ass
Mar 15th, 2013 - 05:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@51 How can it prove argentina has claim to the rocks? If Argentina wasn't the clear successor state to UPoRP then it cannot have claim to anything that the UPoRP laid claim to, it's not legally possible. So, when Argentina became independent from Spain it couldn't have had claim to something that was claimed by the UPoRP for two reasons: a) not legally the successor state; and b) spain never gave up claim to the islands until 1860.
Mar 15th, 2013 - 05:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The claims to the islands by Argentina are based on naught but mythology. Sorry about that.
@52 whosoever the pope does or doesn't speak to around his cauldron is up to the pope.
Pesky - it would appear we have concensus then; all current inhabitants of lands will not be returning them to the native occupants, irrespective of whether the original occupants were human or penguins. Its nice to end the week in agreement.
Mar 15th, 2013 - 05:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@55 Anbar
Mar 15th, 2013 - 05:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If you are planning to talk about argentine history, what book would you read? A french one? (Not saying that there are not foreign historians qualified for it)
About Argentina's claims, simple forget it, the above idiot is the living proof that some of you would happily claim that the earth is square if this would suit you. Waste of time and yet you call us ...brainwashed. Your heads are completely fucked up...At least make some sense...just a little bit.
@59 an ad hominem attack on me doesn't change the fact that: a) Argentina does not have rights as successor state to any claims by the UPoRP; and b) the spanish did not give up their claims to their colony 'the Falklands' until 1860, thereby negating any claims any ex-colony would have over the islands.
Mar 15th, 2013 - 06:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Feel free to writhe in self-pity at the legal realities of history.
“”If you are planning to talk about Argentine history, what book would you read? A french one? “””
Mar 15th, 2013 - 06:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In all honesty?
I would do what I do with News: read half a dozen different sources (BBC, RT, CNN, AL-Jez, Xinhua, MT) and draw my conclusions from them all taken together.
I wouldn't read an Argentinian one.... until last though.
(take that as you like, my reasons may not be yours though)
---
But that avoids the question again: What is the Argentine claim over the Falklands based upon? It cant be that hard to put up a brief list of claims.... can it?
Briefly
Mar 15th, 2013 - 06:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You left the islands willingly which belonged to Spain . You signed a treaty of friendship with Argentina regognizing her independance AND NOT CLAIMING the isles even though there was ALREADY at the time a settlement struggling to exist. and in 1833 evicted the population from there, thus breaching the treaty and comitting an act of piracy.
You mean the Treaty of Friendship and Peace 1850.
Mar 15th, 2013 - 06:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Anyone else spot the glaring error, breaching a treaty a full 17 years before it existed, those bloody clever Imperialists think of everything.
@ Pesky Army Here take a look at actual history
Mar 15th, 2013 - 06:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.falklandshistory.org/false-falklands-history.pdf
@63 Not even worth insulting, your stupidity is beyond limits
Mar 15th, 2013 - 06:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.argentina-rree.com/2/2-051.htm
http://www.argentina-rree.com/2/2-051.htm
...In 1825 Mexico, Argentina and Colombia were recognised by means of the ratification of commercial treaties with Britain. In November 1825 the first minister from a Latin American state, Colombia, was officially received in London. “Spanish America is free,” Canning declared, “and if we do not mismanage our affairs she is English ... the New World established and if we do not throw it away, ours.” Also in 1825, Portugal recognised Brazil (thanks to Canning’s efforts, and in return for a preferential commercial treaty), less than three years after Brazil’s declaration of independence.
a settlement struggling to exist
Mar 15th, 2013 - 06:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Dont sound like serious attempt at colonisation, lazy Argie fuckers
@ 66 Your answer just proved I was right you simpleton...
Mar 15th, 2013 - 06:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“You left the islands willingly which belonged to Spain . You signed a treaty of friendship with Argentina regognizing her independance AND NOT CLAIMING the isles even though there was ALREADY at the time a settlement struggling to exist. and in 1833 evicted the population from there, thus breaching the treaty and comitting an act of piracy.”
Mar 15th, 2013 - 06:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Pesky - you've got a couple of problems in that list... regardless of who is reading, to do with chronology and provable historical fact.
I'm not going to argue them btw, entirely because they are problems to do with chronology and provable historical fact.... whether or not you want to find those out for yourself, so that you can, in future, present an argument with a better foundation, say to a third-party, is entirely up to you though.
Talking of Piracy though: is there a definition of piracy in Argentina that is different to the international one?
In the international one Piracy “is an act of robbery or criminal violence at sea. ”
What is it in Argentina?
@Pesky Army (# Further proof my dear person is to google Latzina maps 1882-Chile was granted The Beagle Islands from evidence of these maps which is obvious why your beloved lady The Botox Queen will not take Argentinas lies to The ICJ they will be laughed out of court-take a look at the maps 1882 you will clearly see Argentina 1 colour (Argentine territory) while the Falkland Islands another
Mar 15th, 2013 - 06:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 01825 ......thats it. Game over. Insert Coin
Mar 15th, 2013 - 07:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@15 Don't be silly. If they were “argies”, they weren't people. Incidentally, could you explain how Vernet got his illegal “land grant” from the United Provinces but was “appointed” commander by the Republic of Buenos Aires? Especially as the “Republic” had seceded from the “Provinces”. And what were they “Provinces” of? And have you noticed that although “the Argentine Republic” claims that the United Provinces is an “alternative” name, it doesn't mention the Republic of Buenos Aires?
Mar 15th, 2013 - 07:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@31 Set an “example”. You go first. Emphasis on “go”!
@39 Thing is that she's going to destroy you before she goes. Do we care? You'll still have the “economy” (joke). You'll still have the debts. You'll still have the court judgements against you, all the various “disputes” against you. And, no, you won't be allowed to try the “it wasn't us, it was her” cop-out. Incidentally, I am keeping the comments by all you trolls as evidence for when we get to screw argieland to the wall. Or should it be a cross?
@47 TROLL DIVERSION ATTEMPT!!!
@48 Don't forget that millet is birdseed!
@59 Let''s be quite clear. NO-ONE would read an argie “book” and expect truth. It's doubtful if any argie ever “born” has ever told the truth. In argieland, the “truth” is what happens to suit you today. Just a couple of thoughts. You argies like to call Brits “pirates”. But, way back in 1820, Jewett was a pirate. And what was the cause of the visit by the USS Lexington? Vernet's piracy. Incidentally, Jewett's piracy invalidates anything he did. The same goes for Vernet. Who are the “pirates” now?
@65, 67 Your first reference in 65 is invalid. It's argie. And therefore a lie. Your second reference is better. Spanish America recognised as English and therefore OURS. And for 67, your stupidity knows no bounds. Have you ever tried intelligence and cogency? Instead of seizing upon snippets that you hope might “support” your idiocy!
problem is pesky - it doesnt actually help.
Mar 15th, 2013 - 07:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0When Britain informally recognised “Argentina” and when it formally did 2 years later, it did not recognise Argentina's various and extensive territorial claims.
You've just sort of assumed that I'm afraid.
If you check up on that though you will find a very clear distintion made, as well as the unbroken British claims to soveriegnity of the Islands.
Your text is trying to suggest that the 1825 document “gave up” our claim or “recognised” Argentinas.
It didnt.
sorry.
@72 Simply put, you recognized us and didn't say a word about the islands which you never owned. Do you get it?
Mar 15th, 2013 - 07:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“”@72 Simply put, you recognized us and didn't say a word about the islands which you never owned. Do you get it?“”“
Mar 15th, 2013 - 07:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No, and I doubt anybody else will from that.
You've gone back to the ”Coz we wantz its hobbitzzs” mode.
@Pesky Army
Mar 15th, 2013 - 07:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0iv) Peace treaty: the Preamble and Article VII of the
Convention of Settlement, signed 24 November 1849,
ratified 15 May 1850.4
The peace treaty known as the Convention of
Settlement (also called the “Arana-Southern treaty” from the
names of its signatories) was signed on 24 November 1849
and ratified by both sides in Buenos Aires on 15 May 1850. It
ended a British armed intervention around the River Plate,
which had been a failure and had harmed Britain’s trade. The
treaty was not imposed on Argentina by Britain; the
Argentine leader General Juan Manuel Rosas humiliated
Britain by prolonging negotiations for nine months (October
1848 to July 1849) until he got everything he saw as
important, including recognition of Argentina as a sovereign
power in which European powers were no longer to intervene
at will, and sovereignty over the River Paraná, which he
particularly wanted in order to isolate separatist rebels in
Paraguay and Corrientes. Argentine historians generally
regard the Convention of Settlement as a triumph of
Argentine diplomacy, though some have criticised it for
omitting Argentina’s claim to the Falklands. In fact Rosas had
long regarded Argentina’s claim as something that could be
traded away in exchange for more direct advantages.5
In keeping with that position, the Convention twice
states (in the Preamble and Article VII, see fig. iv) that it
restores “perfect friendship” between Britain and Argentina,
which rules out the continuance of any territorial dispute. In
addition, both sides regarded it as a peace treaty, and it is a
universal principle of international law that in a peace treaty,
any territories not mentioned are confirmed by the treaty in
the possession of the party that held them when the treaty was
4 British
I showed you the treaty, your term to prove me wrong....
Mar 15th, 2013 - 07:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“I showed you the treaty, your term to prove me wrong....”
Mar 15th, 2013 - 07:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I must have missed you showing everyone the treaty - can you post the link again please?
Or,e vne better, the part that recognises Argentine soveriegnity over the Falklands.
Off the top of my head though I was always under the impression that the treaty of friendship, commerce & navigation“ only recognised the province of BA as being ”sovereign Argentina”... it didnt recognise or confer recognition of any other territories whatsoever.
If you can point out where I missed that I am happy to accept your point.
@75 andy65
Mar 15th, 2013 - 07:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nice one andy. The falklands received no mention in argentine congression messages until 1941 when Argentina disgracefully resurrected the claim thereby breaking the terms of the treaty. Tis not the only time they reneged against a commitment, they failed to honour the result of the ICJ in the Beagle channel dispute in the 70s.
@Musky, Exactly which The then Pope had some input,now theres a new ITALIAN pope born in Argentina she thinks she can get him to change British minds LOL Less we forget Cristina you can not chose which Pope to obey.
Mar 15th, 2013 - 07:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I don't think that the idiot 'Pesky' is Sussie.
Mar 15th, 2013 - 07:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If anything he is TTT aka WTF the 13th, etc.
He throws out simple challenges and then, when the likes of Shed-time and others cut his legs off at his balls with actual facts, he comes back with comments which are laughable in the extreme followed by 'Game over. Insert Coin'
Who else have we seen use this juvenile 'closure' on a regular basis?
I rest my case.
Well the 1825 is, in a nutshell, British recognition of the Independence (caps) of Argentina, being then the River Plate province.... it doesnt confer anything else, and it was also drawn-up as a way to give the British a better economic basis form which to continue doing its usual under-hand economic infiltration of a “new” area.
Mar 15th, 2013 - 07:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There is no mention at all of the Falklands, nor any need to raise the point either - the island were at that time British and uncontested.
Vernet approached the British to place his private enterprise in 1826, after the 1825 treaty (obviously)... so in 1825 there was no “Argentine” presence on the Falklands, it wasnt part of the territories that Britain was recognising and the British regarded it as British, so why would they?
What is of more importance is that after the removal of the piratical elements of the 1832 Vernet enterprise that the new fledgling state of Argentina then signed the 1850 Convention of Settlement... with nary a mention of the Falklands or any dispute at all.
Now if Britain had, let us suppose, handed over sovereignty of the Islands to Argentina in 1825, one would imagine that they would have remembered so in 1850 and said something about it.
Surely?
One would also believe that if Argentina's then government had believed that Vernets 1832 settlement was 'illegally removed' they would make mention of it, and certainly not sign a legally binding document stating that they had absolutely no outstanding issues with Great Britain (or GBs settlement on the Falklands Islands)
In the land of “common sense” it is exceptionally difficult to imagine a set of circumstances where Britain “Pirated” an entire set of Islands which it has, only 25 years earlier admitted were Argentinas...and then have Argentina agree that Britain now holding those Islands was not a problem.
This seems to be something that Argentina will have extreme difficulty countering and makes a compelling legal argument for the British.
Upps I just remember another thing, Brits evacuated Port Egmont in 1776 and return to evict argies in 1833. Territorial claims are usually considered defunct if there is a gap of 50 years . Which is redundant since you never have the sovereignty of the islands, but in case you did.....57 years had gone by. Check and mate
Mar 15th, 2013 - 08:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Treaty of Peace aand Friendship 1850.
Mar 15th, 2013 - 08:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Try pulling your expat head out of your Rg ass, you moronic halfwit!
Sorry, that's being rude to halfwits.
Argentina published several maps in the
Mar 15th, 2013 - 08:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 01870s and 1880s that did not show the Falklands as Argentine
territory (see section 11 below). After an attempt to reopen
the question in 1884, which ended with a last protest on 20
January 1888, Argentina dropped the subject again for several
decades, and in 1899-1902 accepted arbitration by Britain in
a territorial dispute with Chile, thus recognising Britain as an
arbiter over Argentina’s territory. That is incompatible with
maintaining a territorial dispute with Britain.
There is plenty of evidence from historians that the
Convention of Settlement ended the Argentine claim to the
Falklands. The Mexican diplomat and historian Carlos
Pereyra (1871-1942) says that Argentine dictator General
Juan Manuel Rosas wanted to purchase the end of Britain’s
involvement in River Plate affairs by giving up the claim to
the Falklands, and Pereyra adds that the effect of the
Convention was as if it had an unwritten article stating that
“Britain retained the Falkland Islands.”5
Some Argentine historians agree with Pereyra: Ernesto
Fitte criticised the Convention in 1974,6 and Alfredo Burnet-
Merlín says the Convention’s omission of the Falklands was
“a concession to Britain or a culpable oversight”.7
The negative effect of the Convention of Settlement was
also mentioned in the Argentine Congress on 19 July 1950 by
a Deputy, Absalón Rojas, in a major debate on Argentina’s
claim to the Falklands. Rojas blamed General Rosas for the
loss of the Falklands to Britain, and complained that the
restoration of “perfect friendship” between Britain and
Argentina without mentioning the Falklands was a serious
omission and a weakness in the Argentine claim.
@84 Just for you dimwit
Mar 15th, 2013 - 08:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2012/03/argentina-britain-islands-oil
@86 Can't see any citations on that socialist blog that you linked to, and all I can see are assertions that seem to miss out on all the detail. Can you provide a link to something worth reading with actual facts not opinions passed as facts? thanks.If you read the comments on that blog you'll see that for a PhD candidate he's simply referred to as intellectually dishonest.
Mar 15th, 2013 - 08:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You might want to provide links to actual articles, they usually make more sense.
Nice article by a student. wow! he must be right.
Mar 15th, 2013 - 08:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“TJ Coles is a PhD candidate at Plymouth University”
On second thoughts, stick it back up there, save some room for his head too
57 years gone by...............I didn't know ideology did matter in this case...LMAO
Mar 15th, 2013 - 08:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You should not always believe what you read in the papers,
Mar 15th, 2013 - 08:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If you are going to always go back to past years, then you must include both,
And the dirty war , they say killed 30,000 plus,
So please consider this before casting any stones,
And one last this to consider,
The British, or Scotland, if you prefer,
Did not send anyone to the Vatican,
And thus we did not vote for him, or put him in power,
[ as pope]
This man has very big shoes to fill,
And a very shady past to deal with it.
For no one is perfect,
Especially not CFK now sitting on the halo of a man.
Justa thought.
.
(86) Pesky Army
Mar 15th, 2013 - 08:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thanks for the link to that good article Mr. Pesky Army....
It had escaped my attention.
The good men of England are awakening indeed...:
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2012/03/argentina-britain-islands-oil
@90 Excellent point britney
Mar 15th, 2013 - 08:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I was talking about 1776-1833 / 1825
and you repplied me, well just re read your answer and tell me what sense does it make
1776-1833 or 1825 Choose your flavour..............LOL
@Pesky “Check and mate”
Mar 15th, 2013 - 08:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So, in the space of 4 posts your claim has gone from the miss-representation of an 1825 treaty to a complete re-write of history to invent a 57 year gap whereby Britian didnt claim sovereignty over the Falklands...and therefore lose it!
It seems to me that you are having a lot more difficulty producing “clear evidence” that the Falklands are Argentine than I anticipated any Argentinian would have.
I was under the impression that the history surrounding the Falklands was taught throughout Argentine schools, and a passion for its every citizen. Is this not actually true, or are you not Argentinian?
You see some very quick Google-fu has revealed all of your claims so far to be unrepresentative of publicly available history, supported by documentary evidence.
Which seems somewhat at odds with an entire nations educational system pumping the history into its every citizen at every opportunity.
Can you solve this dilemma?
@91 About time,
Mar 15th, 2013 - 08:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@88 T J Coles is a student at a university where citations aren't required apparently.
Mar 15th, 2013 - 08:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“”The good men of England are awakening indeed...:“”“
Mar 15th, 2013 - 08:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0an article that was slammed by ”the good men of england” for its terrible inaccuracies by the overwhelming majority of respondents.
Once again; inaccuracies easily checked with a bit of googling...
Is that your evidence to the court of public opinion el Thinko?
Its isnt very convincing.
Are you Argentine btw?
Where did you do your schooling?
No talk of oil or gas in 1982 and British position as not changed since then.
Mar 15th, 2013 - 08:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So anbar tell me the evacuation of Port Egmont in 1776, Canning and 1833 incident is all a product of my imagination right? Speaking of being brainwashed......
Mar 15th, 2013 - 08:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0hehe, that Staggers article is so full of holes its amazing... I suspect that its tragic list of inaccuracies is the reason T J Coles has never been invited back to write anything else... it was over a year ago after all.
Mar 15th, 2013 - 08:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thinko - here's a more up too date one from the “good men & women of Brazil” - you know, one of your core “they'll back us every time over the fallkands” “South America is united 100% behind us!”allies....
http://en.mercopress.com/2013/03/14/falkland-islands-referendum-argentina-should-yield-to-reality-and-peoples-self-determination-says-brazilian-daily
(Dont read it if you are averse to a bit of common sense though.)
Still waiting for any Argentine to present a cogent case of why the Falklands are Argentine sovereign territory - Pesky has not been able to produce anything that hasnt sunk within moments....
...
..
.
@99 I repeat myself
Mar 15th, 2013 - 08:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So anbar tell me the evacuation of Port Egmont in 1776, Canning and 1833 incident is all a product of my imagination right? Speaking of being brainwashed......
Pesky: your issue is that the way you connect these events are made-up, and happily ignore events that occur in-between them.
Mar 15th, 2013 - 09:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In 1776 the British left Port Egmont, leaving behind a plaque asserting their sovereignty. (at the time & law an accepted method of asserting sovereign claim over an area of land).
Their sovereign claim was not dropped, even when Spain removed the plaque and destroyed the remains of Port Egmont.
Any other things you need de-bunking?
TJ Coles. A columnist for the Axis of Logic.
Mar 15th, 2013 - 09:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well that explains a lot.
@101What about the 57 years gap? Can you provide me the documents where Brititsh gov. challenged Argentine right to settle on the islands in the 1820's, until they were evicted in 1833.
Mar 15th, 2013 - 09:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0PS. The ghost plaque I heard about it...
anyway i'm off too bed. Pesky, it might do you no harm to read this: http://www.falklandshistory.org/false-falklands-history.pdf
Mar 15th, 2013 - 09:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As you believe that it is only right to read Argentine history about Argentina then read that Falklands Islanders history about the Falklands.
It pretty much debunks all the “usual suspects” so I imaigne it will cover anything else you can raise.
nighty night
Good Night and give a thought to this
Mar 15th, 2013 - 09:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What about the 57 years gap? Can you provide me the documents where Brititsh gov. challenged Argentine right to settle on the islands in the 1820's, until they were evicted in 1833.
I am off too good night everybody..........ITS FRIDAY NIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No, but we can show you lots of proof where they challenged their right and evicted them in 1982.
Mar 15th, 2013 - 09:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0we now think pesky may be thinky,
Mar 15th, 2013 - 09:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0as for argentina,
you are just as much a creation of empire as the falklands are,
you are just as implanted as the falklands are,
the only reas difference today,
is they are british and you are not,
and the envy shows.lol.
Come on people ... stay focused.... stay on topic...
Mar 15th, 2013 - 10:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/pope-warns-against-compassion-2013031562808
I hope I'm not the only one who starts his day with the Daily Mash.
Hi Peskybarmy, why did you ask for permission from the British to be there in 1832? and then try to claim it. as usual, like South Georgia in 1982 us little argies are only scrap metal merchants, yeh right. That's why you will never get the Falklands, because you can't be trusted, idiots.
Mar 15th, 2013 - 10:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Saint Christina..it has a certain elan.
Mar 15th, 2013 - 10:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0if this new Argie Pope is saying that we should all be respected as his children wonder where in th elist he placed the Falkland islands catholic British decendant Islanders. He will have to be very careful in his role not to forget he has a flock of people living on th eIslands that His leader believes does not exist.
Mar 15th, 2013 - 10:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Wonder how many innocent Argentines or dissapeared ones were removed with his knoweledge. The chances are he will not last long as pope because like all brainwashed Argentines they very soon self destruct.told the world where we are and will continue for years to come building our empire Knowing that we never killed anyone to own it. Surely that makes us children of the lord without question.
Never mind we Islanders have
The Church in Argentina has asked the population to take 3 days off to celebrate the appointment on the Pope. Do they need anymore excuses to stay away from working? Lazy s*ds.
Mar 15th, 2013 - 11:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Pope is Southamerican.....Gracias Lord. Gracias Argentina fot the nobel act! Princeps!
Mar 16th, 2013 - 12:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ni5YL4p-sA4&list=FLmXPTu1f8AdGlizWNiASx2A
The whole situation is bananas.
Mar 16th, 2013 - 08:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0As there is no god, all popes are delusional and liars. The new arsehole sounds perfect for the job.
Mar 16th, 2013 - 11:10 am - Link - Report abuse 076 YO, ran off to be a vicar because some little tart turned him down and he did not have the balls to try again. Supported the Junta: he did however, give Boss-Eyed Nestor and his harridan bitch, soon to be elevated to TMBOA a tough time of it over the poor and thieving government money, so he has some redeeming features after all.
I see we are having all sorts of cretins coming out of the woodwork in argieland saying this twat NEVER supported the Junta. This must be up there to the rest of the country never supported them either; so why are there so many videos on YouTube of the screaming masses waving flags?
112 Brasileiro He is Italian, and first generation argie, doesn't count if you compare TMBOA rants about 9th generation Falklanders, does it?
@108
Mar 16th, 2013 - 03:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0please can you provide such documents,
on the other hand read this what were the thoughts of the Duke of Wellington
”I have perused the inclosed papers respecting Falklands Islands. It is not clear to me that we have ever possessed the sovereignty of all these islands. The convention certainly goes no farther than to restore to us Port Enmont [Port Egmont] which we abandoned nearly sixty years ago.
If our right to the Falkland Islands had been undisputed at that time and indisputable, I confess that I should doubt the expediency of now taking possession of them. We have possession of nearly [f.1v] every valuable post and colony in the world and I confess that I am anxious to avoid to excite the attention and jealousy of other powers by extending our possessions and setting the example of the gratification of a desire to seize upon new territories. But in this case in which our right to possess more than Port Enmont is disputed, and at least doubtful, it is very desireable to avoid such acts.
I am at the same time very sensible of the inconvenience which may be felt by this country and of the injury which will be done to us if either the French or Americans should settle upon these [f.2r] islands, the former in virtue of any claim from former occupancy, the latter or both from any claim derived by purchase or cession from the government of Buenos Ayres.
That which I would recommend is that the government of Buenos should be very quietly but very distinctly informed that His Majesty has claims upon Falklands Islands and that His Majesty will not allow of any settlement upon, or any cession to, individuals or foreign nations of these islands by Buenos Ayres, which shall be inconsistent with the King's acknowledged right of sovereignty....
Docref=WP1/1036/14 Copy of a letter from Arthur Wellesley, first Duke of Wellington, to Sir G.Murray on Britain's claims to sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, 25 July 1829: contemporary copy
102 Pesky Army
Mar 16th, 2013 - 05:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“@101What about the 57 years gap? Can you provide me the documents where Brititsh gov. challenged Argentine right to settle on the islands in the 1820's, until they were evicted in 1833”
From 1820 to 1833 is only 13 years....where did you get 57 years from?
Are you sure you're not part of TMBOA's finance team???
Or is it that you just can't count???
116 toooldtodieyoung
Mar 16th, 2013 - 06:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You almost had it right but the last word of the final sentence needs to lose the 'o'. :o)
@116 Sometimes I forget I deal with some handicapped people...
Mar 16th, 2013 - 07:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Wellington quote “[Port Egmont] which we abandoned nearly sixty years ago.”
Speaks volumes of you mate...
I see that Pesky didnt bother reading-up as I suggested - all the answers are already there pesky.
Mar 16th, 2013 - 07:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As others have pointed out though - Britain couldnt have protested to Agentina prior to 1825...for fairly obvious reasons (it didnt exist).
Prior to that you need to look at Spain/British documentation, from the Treaty of 1771 onwards in particular (again its in that document i linked to - the one you keep refusing to read because it negates anything and everything you keep claiming - oh my!)
I suspect you are suffering from a miss-reading of the 50-year rule though... take a look at the treaty and the following years of Spanish/British correspondence though.
Whilst you are at it (again) though - would you like to explain why Argentina signed a peace-treaty with the GB in 1850 “perfect” peace, no outstanding issues at all, when Britain was in sovereign control of the Falklands...?
That treaty, under international law, ratifies the fact (Caps if you like) that Argentina has absolutely no legal issues with Britain being in control of the Falklands and then being British sovereign territory.
(That's an extant document btw - you can go and see it in person)
Its a pretty BIG problem for every Argentina lawyer who's looked at the issue... they all know its the Achilles heal of the entire Argentine claim...and why they wont go to the ICJ... because their Nation effectively signed-away the Falklands in that treaty.
(Something even many Argentine historians agree on!)
Dear Anbar
Mar 16th, 2013 - 07:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Southern/Arana Convention states the following:
Art. I. The Government of Her Britannic Majesty, animated by the desire of putting an end to the differences which have interrupted the political and commercial relations between the 2 countries, having on the 15th of July, 1847, raised the blockade which it had established of the ports of the 2 Republics of the Plata, thereby giving a proof of its conciliatory sentiments....
VII. Under this Convention perfect friendship between Her Britannic Majesty's Government and the Government of the Confederation, is restored to its former state of good understanding and cordiality.
It never mentions the islands simple because it clearly refers to the Anglo-French blockade (Art.I). This was conveniently forgotten by “Gettin-it right” (I assume you are just copying and pasting).
Art VII ....its former state of good understanding and cordiality, refers to the situation previous to the blockade not to 1833, since this was the reason the treaty was signed.
The citations you are quoting next have no legal value since though there was a dispute for the islands, the relationship between the two nations were very cordial.
“When the peace treaty was ratified in 1850 the Argentine protests stopped.” Not true, Gettin-it right mentions Ricardo´s Napp book but “again forgets” to quote p.450 p.451. It reads as follows:
“Pertenecen al territorio de la Patagonia las Islas Malvinas o Falckland, de que, contra todo derecho, esta posesionada la Inglaterra desde el año 1833… …El Gobierno Argentino tuvo que limitarse a una protesta en toda forma, entregada en el acto al representante ingles en Buenos Aires que, algunos meses después fue repetida en Londres ante el Gobierno Británico por el enviado Argentino, y por mas que este paso no haya producido consecuencias practicas, ha servido, sin embargo, para resguardar nuestro buen derecho......
Now the question is can you challenge Wellington´s handwritten letter?
So if as History shows
Mar 16th, 2013 - 07:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The British first landed on the Falklands in 1690, when Captain John Strong sailed through Falkland Sound, naming this passage of water after Anthony Cary, 5th Viscount of Falkland, the First Lord of the Admiralty at that time. The British were keen to settle the islands as they had the potential to be a strategic naval base for passage around Cape Horn. In 1765, Captain John Byron landed on Saunders Island. He then explored the coasts of the other islands claiming the archipelago for Britain. The following year, Captain John MacBride returned to Saunders Island and constructed a fort named Port Egmont. The British later discovered the French colony at Port Saint Louis (founded 1764); initiating the first sovereignty dispute
Meaning that th eFrench had established their claim to a British claimed territory that there is no dispute. Later when Spain is said (documents to this effect would be good) to have purchased the Islands from th eFrench and subsequently as a result when Argentina was created assumed they had aquired the Islands as well.
It is clear from the above that the English long before Argentina was even invented did have a legal posession of the Islands. The French seeing an oppertunity during a period when the English were at odds with them built a settlement at Port Louis knowing full well that they were attempting to steel a land claimed by Britain. The French bieng further clever and attempting to get one back on Britain sold their elegal claim to Spain . and as they say the rest is history.
120 Pesky Army
Mar 16th, 2013 - 08:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Port Egmont was established in on 25 January 1765, by an expedition led by Commodore John Byron consisting of 3 boats HMS Dolphin, Tamar and Florida. The expedition left a watering place and a vegetable garden.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentina
Buenos Aires, as complicated
new centralist constitution was enacted in 1826, during the War with Brazil,. It was rejected by the provinces
The provinces then reorganized themselves as a loose confederation of provinces that lacked a common head of state. They would instead delegate some important powers to the governor of Buenos Aires Province
the Constitution of Argentina of 1853. Rejecting it, Buenos Aires seceded from the Confederation and became the State of Buenos Aires. nearly a decade later , Buenos Aires rejoined the Confederation
And from that day, this little country, grew and GREW,
1862. began military campaigns against both the remaining federals in Argentina, the whites from Uruguay, and Paraguay. The War of the Triple Alliance, in alliance with Uruguay and Brazil, left over 300,000 dead and devastated Paraguay.
Since the colonial times, huge territories were under the control of indigenous peoples. All governments since then attempted to, kill them, or push them to ever farther frontiers. The final conflict was the Conquest of the Desert, waged by Julio Argentino Roca in the 1870s. With this military operation, Argentina seized control of Patagonia
,,,,, ,
BASICLY you grew and conquered, to what you are today,
,,,,,,,,
Port Egmont grew and become the Falkland’s,
They have as much right to freedom democracy and independence as Argentina, [did] and [now have]
You have Argentina, and they have the Falkland’s,
And you should respect them and leave them alone…
..
@5 PESKY ARMY
Mar 17th, 2013 - 03:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0TO WHICH COUNTRY DO YOU REFER? AS FAR AS THE WORLD IS CONCERNED BRITAIN DOES NOT OCCUPY ANY ARGENTINE TERRITORY!
@122 Thanks for the history lesson, but my question was
Mar 17th, 2013 - 05:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0about Wellington´s handwritten letter?
you can find such letter in one of the above posts. Meanwhile this is what The Duke of Wellington thought...
”I have perused the inclosed papers respecting Falklands Islands. It is not clear to me that we have ever possessed the sovereignty of all these islands. The convention certainly goes no farther than to restore to us Port Enmont [Port Egmont] which we abandoned nearly sixty years ago.
If our right to the Falkland Islands had been undisputed at that time and indisputable, I confess that I should doubt the expediency of now taking possession of them. We have possession of nearly [f.1v] every valuable post and colony in the world and I confess that I am anxious to avoid to excite the attention and jealousy of other powers by extending our possessions and setting the example of the gratification of a desire to seize upon new territories. But in this case in which our right to possess more than Port Enmont is disputed, and at least doubtful, it is very desireable to avoid such acts.
Oh wow, the Duke of Wellington” perused SOME PAPERS and stated an opinion.
Mar 17th, 2013 - 06:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I guess the gig is up! Time to evacuate the population.
Why haven't we heard about this before? Oh that's right. WE HAVE!
Why oh why can't Argentineans find new arguments? These old ones are just so...... raked over.
Not a single new argument that overrides the doctrine of self determination that the world has been operating under for the past 60+ years.
NOT ONE!
@125
Mar 17th, 2013 - 07:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oh wow, the Duke of Wellington” perused SOME PAPERS and stated an opinion....
Of course and in the Annals of History...everyone knows who Anglotino is...
LMAO
Honestly, I´m fed up with you lots, just remember who is being “brainwashed” ;
126 Pesky Army
Mar 17th, 2013 - 08:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We KNOW who is being brainwashed: it's ”you lots: (lot)”.
Try English next time.
127@Christine
Mar 17th, 2013 - 09:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thank you for you interesting opinion in this matter, now... If I throw a stick, will you go away?
GOOOOOL DE ARGENTINA
Sometimes I amuse myself to no end....
Pesky Army
Mar 17th, 2013 - 09:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Don't get upset if your continual posting of what you think is the holy grail has backfired.
Yes the Duke of Wellington perused SOME PAPERS. He was replying to a specific set of papers in a specific circumstance.
What you haven't been able to show is why this bolsters Argentina's sovereignty claim. For if this is so important, surely Argentina's failure to raise the issue of sovereignty for 50 years prior to the 1940s is of even greater importance.
But alas, as your juvenile attempt at humour regarding ChrisR's name shows, you yourself do not want to be taken seriously.
“Sometimes I amuse myself to no end....”
Hardly surprising. You so far haven't shown any qualities that would make us assume otherwise.
Careful though, it has been claimed it leads to blindness as well as a sticky keyboard.
@130 Anglotino
Mar 17th, 2013 - 09:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I must say impressive speech mate. Just one question remains though...since for you Wellington's papers are not good enough, can you explain those 'specific circumstances'.
Besides Wellington clearly says.. ”I have perused the inclosed papers respecting Falklands Islands“ and you wrote ”the Duke of Wellington perused SOME PAPERS”, can you explain me how do you know he didn't have ALL THE PAPERS?
Your turn...
Pesky Army
Mar 18th, 2013 - 12:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0Thank you for your kind words. You obviously can recognise quality when you see it.
But please don’t ask me to bolster your ineffectual argument. The Duke of Wellington is perusing some papers. You have bought this up, so what were the documents? You tell me. They seem important enough for you to hinge your entire argument on at this time.
Unless he was adjudicating on something where he had all the information possible, I can only assume that he had only enough to be “inclosed” in a communication.
He talks of his hesitation in “now taking possession” if the islands are “disputed” or if sovereignty is “at least doubtful”.
Somehow you have extrapolated this into government policy instead of just an opinion of the facts that were presented to him. The simply fact is that, contrary to his opinion, the UK government (the Prime Minister is not the entire government such as a presidential system might be) asserted its right to sovereignty in 1833 and has never wavered from it. As Arthur Wellesley was only prime minister until 16 November 1830, it would seem his opinion was not regarded as binding, important or pertinent on January 2nd, 1833 when Argentina’s attempt at usurping that sovereignty was ended.
So my turn to question; what is your opinion on Argentina's failure to raise the issue of sovereignty for 50 years prior to the 1940s?
Keep in mind that the letter you talk about was obviously kept and is accessible even today – a sign of British pride and bureaucratic efficiency. Please feel free to reference any pertinent Argentine government documents from 1890 until 1940 in your answer.
You failed to address this in your brief reply. How did you put it? Oh yeah “your turn...”
Right-wingers in Argentina are just reproducing traditional idea of a humble pope that fights for the good of the world.
Mar 18th, 2013 - 04:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0Well, get to know this: this man's attitude against gay civil rights in Argentina and other things caused his relationship with CFK government to be quite bad.
So... How can the same corporate media, the same right-winger journalists that show CFK and popular governments in Latinamerica almost as dictators show this man like a hero?
When I see men like these being against CFK Government I realize that I have chosen well my vote in the last elections for President.
It seems that the Vatican got tired of the politicians get all the credit in SouthAmerica for improving the life of their people and they are coming back to take the popularity they lost.
Mercopress is a busy ambience for debates around the Malvinas conflict. But of course even if the pope says Malvinas are part of Argentina (only some portion of UKs population just doesn't say so) I can't just sit and look this man be shown as a holy spirit.
I live in a country where the government chose to support organizations' claims for same-sex marriage rights, knowing that another powerful institution (The Church) would be added to the list of opositors that fight against the government to keep social equity and civil rights as far away as possible in Argentina.
I want to go on living in this country and I want the next Government to have the same BRAVENESS to act for a better society. I hope Argentine's do not start being afraid of the pope's power.
Here a video of Madonna's speech this weekend at the GLAAD awards:
*** http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZI7wRDMsk5k ***
ANY type of bullying is not OK, may it be against the homosexuals, women in asian countries, or empires like the UK seizing land in SouthAmerica.
132 fermin (#)
Mar 18th, 2013 - 05:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Mar 18th, 2013 - 04:41 am
“... or empires like the UK seizing land in SouthAmerica.”
You do know that the famous, or infamous, British Empire disappeared into the realms of the history books about 50 years ago. Now the remains of that empire are 10 British Overseas Territories with a agregate population of aproximately 10.000 people which are too small to manage as independent states.
Your comments on the Pope are, to say the least of it, in very dubious taste. He is a conservative cleric of the Roman Catholic Church which frowns on gay marriage, anticonception and abortion, what do expect from the new representative of the 1.2 billion Catholics. What is important about the first latinamerican Pope is that he has spent his entire life trying to help the poor in our poor benighted country, while successive governments, form the milicos to CFK have done NOTHING to improve their lot except to make them more dependent on government hand-outs. And this is the government you wasted your vote on, Fermin, I pity you, I really do!!!!!!
ANY type of bullying is not OK
Mar 18th, 2013 - 07:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0then CFK should stop her bullying of the falkland islands,
should she not.
Pesky....Wellington wrote..
Mar 19th, 2013 - 03:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”I have perused the inclosed papers respecting Falklands Islands. It is not clear to me that we have ever possessed the sovereignty of all these islands. The convention certainly goes no farther than to restore to us Port Enmont [Port Egmont] which we abandoned nearly sixty years ago.”
The one importamt phrase in that sentence was '...the sovereignty of all these islands'. He is merely pointing out that GB according th the perused documents, only had sovereignty and therefore a claim to some of the islands, East Falkland etc. but it is not clear that GB had sovereignty over all the islands of the archipeligo, what his statement does not say unfortunately for you is that he thought GB has no claim at all,
Now if he had said ' ..It is not clear to me that we have ever possessed the sovereignty of these islands', then that would have been a different story, but the insertion of that small three letter word 'all' makes a big difference in the meaning and understanding of his statement.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!