MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, March 28th 2023 - 17:24 UTC



Falklands' referendum receives praise and is shown as an example for other Overseas Territories

Thursday, November 28th 2013 - 10:04 UTC
Full article 118 comments

Praise for the Falkland Islands last March referendum and encouragement for other Overseas Territories to hold similar referendums on their future, was included in the final communiqué from the annual UK/British Overseas Territories joint Ministerial Council held this week in London. Read full article


Disclaimer & comment rules
  • Anglotino

    I like the mention of “their… home”.

    Seems to be forgotten by many people on here and within some governments.

    Nov 28th, 2013 - 11:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Lord Ton

    Democracy in Action :-)

    Human rights to .... after all, self-determination is now a human right :-)

    Nov 28th, 2013 - 11:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Liberato

    Someone should explain those brutards that there are different kinds of colonizations. Not only the one where the population is under control by a foreign power.
    If a nation (uk) steal land from a foreign power (Argentina) and put their own population (kelpers). It will not matter how many stupid referendums they like to make. IT IS THE LAND THAT IS BEING COLONIZED, not the population you brutards.

    Nov 28th, 2013 - 11:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Buzzsaw

    Liberato...steal...really...where did Argentinian land come from, how did you get it. Patagonia, oh yes, it was empty, no one living there, so you just took it as it belonged to no one. Poor Argentina, always the victim.

    Nov 28th, 2013 - 12:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Monkeymagic


    There is so much ignorance in your post it is hard to know where to start.

    Firstly, the UK has claims over the Falklands dating back to 1690, long before Argentina existed, so, if (by your premise) land is colonized not people...then any Argentine attempt to seize the land was in itself in in 1826 or 1832, because it ignored the historic British or Spanish claims.

    Secondly, as has been discussed on numerous occassions, Britain didnt steal the Falklands from Argentina in January 1833 as the only Argentines evicted from the islands had arrived there in November 1832.

    You cant steal from someone who doesnt own it.

    The third point and the sickening rank hypocrisy of your argument is

    ”If a nation (Argentina) steal land from a foreign power (Patagonians/Amerindians) and put their own population (Latinos). It will not matter how many stupid referendums they like to make. IT IS THE LAND THAT IS BEING COLONIZED, not the population you brutards.

    you see..Liberato.

    The colonialists are stole a massive landmass when you were all Spanish and did it again in 1880 as Argentines.

    The Falkland islanders returned to an uninhabitted land and evicted a bunch of rapist murderers whod been there 2 months.

    Nov 28th, 2013 - 12:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • LEPRecon

    @3 Liberato

    There are several flaws in your argument.

    British sovereignty goes back to 1690, when the Falklands were 1st discovered. Argentina didn't exist in 1690, did it?

    So the UK couldn't have stolen anything from you.

    The current population of the Falkland Islands ARE descended from the original colony (the one that Argentina erroneously claims the British evicted), and have been living there LONGER than the Republic of Argentina has existed.

    Also, as Buzzsaw states, the Spanish invaded the land that is now called Argentina, killed off the people who lived there, and replaced them with their own people. Even once these Spaniards gained independence from the Spanish Empire, they continued with their murderous, genocidal conquest, stealing even more land from the native population.

    All Argentina is trying to do now is steal even more land from the rightful inhabitants. Only these rightful inhabitants have a very powerful friend which frightens the bully Argentina.

    So if the Falkland Islanders don't have the right to self-determination because they are implanted, then at least 43 and a half MILLION Argentines also DON'T have the right to self-determation. The other half million are what is left of the native Amerindians after your genocidal conquest. I'm sure they'd be more than happy to have you Argentina thieves kicked out of their country before you destroy it completely.

    But feel free to take your claims to the International Court of Justice. I look forwards to seeing you laughed out of court.

    Nov 28th, 2013 - 12:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Conqueror

    @3 I wonder why you call yourself “Liberato”? It's a word that doesn't seem to exist. But to your points. You say that there are different kinds of colonisation. Quite true. How would you characterise a “colonisation” that began with an Italian, Amerigo Vespucci, in 1502? Then continued, 1516, 1536, 1573 and 1580, by various Spanish scum. Colonial Viceroyalty of Rio de la Plata covers the period from those dates until the early 19th century. Spanish colonisation of the Americas was characterised by armed “invasion”, conquest, occupation, oppression, theft, rape, murder. Much of it under the guise of religion. Now let's see, when you invade a territory that belongs to someone else and attempt to dominate and exterminate the rightful owners, are you trying to control the population or the land? But, by any intelligent, legal and/or logical measure, the Falkland Islands have NEVER belonged to argieland, cesspit of the south. The pricks of argieland like to quote the Inter caetera. A papal bullshit rejected at the time. Treaty of Tordesillas. Also meaningless. United Provinces of Rio de la Plata claim they “inherit” the Islands from Spain. Although UP is not recognised by Spain and “inheritance” doesn't even exist as a legal possibility. And so the UP resorts to the actions of a couple of pirates. The pirate of 1820 acted on behalf of an unrecognised state. Doubly irrelevant. The pirate of 1829-1832 also acted on behalf of an unrecognised state - Republic of Buenos Aires. And thus you are proven to be a stupid, ignorant, irrelevant “thing”. Go away, child. You don't have the intelligence to get your pay from the foreign ministry. Back to your kindergarten. Assuming you are human. Most argies aren't. Take the time to comprehend the difference between an Argentine and an argie. Argentines are sane, reasonable, intelligent, logical people. But argies are none of those things. Members of La Campora, Quebracho or other terrorist groups.

    Nov 28th, 2013 - 01:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Gordo1

    Liberato - pelotudo!

    Nov 28th, 2013 - 01:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • El capitano

    “Liberato” indeed a very funny senorita,as well as a totally daft one.....All one can do is laugh at her ignorance of history...ohh well...!!

    Nov 28th, 2013 - 02:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DanyBerger


    You argument is clear a lie because “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland” didn’t exist as nation until the act of annexation of Northern Ireland (1922).

    How could “UKoGB&NI” have discovered something in 1690 if it didn’t exist?

    So clearly this shows that the Islanders are illegally occupying a land that belongs to Argentina.

    Nov 28th, 2013 - 04:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Lou Spoo

    In other news:

    It's official, Argentina is a massive shitter!

    Giant prehistoric toilet unearthed

    Nov 28th, 2013 - 04:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • LEPRecon


    Is that the best you can come up with?

    Why am I not surprised.

    DanyBerger = PATHETIC

    Why don't you tell us of your plans to invade the Falklands by sacrificing wave after wave of Argentines? 10,000 wasn't it?

    DanyBerger is a clown, a joke and no one takes him/her/it seriously.

    Nov 28th, 2013 - 04:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • so_far


    “ The UK government stands ready to support any Territory that wishes to have a referendum on its future ”


    1- “You hear the British government talking in the news about human rights and justice, but they are the ones that manipulate the justice.”

    2-“The Falklanders are living in their homeland. They had a choice whether they wanted to stay under the rule of the British or they wanted to go to the Argentine’s rule. But we the Chagossians did not have a say. It gives me the impression that there is no justice,

    3- “For how long are they going to punish us? For how long are we going to lead this life? We don’t want this life! We want to go back home, where we belong. That’s our dream !!”

    4- “It’s our land! It’s not for them”

    5- “The UK government is happy to defend the rights to self-determination of the Falkland Islanders, but when the Chagos Islanders appeal for protection from their government they are abandoned,”


    Nov 28th, 2013 - 05:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • rupertbrooks0

    10 DanyBerger

    In 1801, through acts of Both the British and Irish parliaments the two kingdoms of Britain and Ireland were united thereby forming the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. In 1922 the Irish Free State broke away from the UK. The 6 northern counties choose to remain part of the UK. Northern Ireland wasn’t therefore “annexed” in 1922 as you claim.

    Like many other ancient Kingdoms the British state can trace a continuity going back over 1000 years. That the boundaries and names of this State have changed in the course of history doesn’t alter this fact.

    Equally the name and boundaries of what is now the Republic of Argentina have also changed, dramatically so in fact. The present day Argentina, including as it does Patagonia (for example) also did not exist in say 1820. It wasn’t called Argentina either, but the United Provinces of the River Plata, and included territories that are now part of Uruguay, Bolivia and Paraguay. Does this mean that Argentina's 1820 claim on the Falklands (Pretty dubious historically anyway) is invalid because what is now the Republic of Argentina didn’t exist in 1820?

    Nov 28th, 2013 - 05:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • golfcronie

    My understanding was that the UK Government paid £ 4,000,000 and £ 1,000,000 worth of land to settle any claim against the UK which as I understand was accepted. ( 1982 ) If you are so passionate about returning to the Chagos Islands I suggest you talk to the 1500 that were dislaced and come up with £ 5,000,000
    and return it to the UK Government. That equates at about £ 3333.00 each, should be quite feasable in this day and age.

    Nov 28th, 2013 - 06:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Briton

    we think you will find, that most of these people today, were not even born on the islands,

    they have a new home,
    so should stop try to get money out of it..

    Nov 28th, 2013 - 06:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Orbit

    Colonisation, Chagossians, bogus historical whatabouts...

    All these arguments (if they could be described as such) have been comprehensibly destroyed ad nauseum on these pages and are very, very dull.

    Please, please, please if you are going to come up with nonsense about the illegal and impotent Argentine claim to the Falkland Islands, please do your homework. At least make it original, or clever. If you can't do that, please try and make it funny.

    Nov 28th, 2013 - 07:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pugol-H

    @3 Liberato
    The S. Atlantic has been British since long before Argentina ever existed, or rather was carved out of Indian land.

    It’s Argentina that keeps trying to steal the Islands from the British, just like you stole Patagonia and TdF from the Indians, who used to be our neighbours in that part of the world before you exterminated them.

    Unfortunately for you, unlike the Inca, Mapuche or Selknap, the British have more than just bows and arrows with which to defend their territory from murdering, Creole, Conquistador, Bastards.


    @ 10 DanyBerger
    Only if you can prove Argentina existed and had claimed them before 1690.

    It’s called “prior claim”.

    @ 13 so_far
    So, are you saying the Chagoss Islands are suddenly habitable once again???

    Where is your evidence of this?

    Then we can talk about “a return”, of compensation paid for one thing.

    Nov 28th, 2013 - 07:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • M_of_FI

    @13 - so_far

    Nov 28th, 2013 - 07:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DanyBerger


    Ok, none can take me serious, but your arguments still a lie...

    So even a clown and a joke like me can realise that.


    Well ask Leprecon for that not me is his Argument.

    Argentina also can trace it origin since 1536 with the foundation of Buenos Aires in fact same political entity where always was exercised sovereign and political power.

    Then turned into a viceroy, a United Provinces and Argentina.

    So what is the difference with UK?

    None, so Argentina has the strongest argument to claim the Islands by long presence than any other in the world plus proximity, etc.

    Nov 28th, 2013 - 07:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Briton

    Anti British==pro greed.

    enough said .lol

    Nov 28th, 2013 - 07:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • M_of_FI

    @13 - so_far

    Nov 28th, 2013 - 07:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pugol-H

    @20 DanyBerger
    “Argentina also can trace it origin since 1536”

    Yes, in Argentina, but not in the S. Atlantic, this has been British since before even the Spanish tried (and failed) claiming the Malvinas.

    “Prior claim”

    Proximity, if it existed, would simply mean the British had a better claim to Patagonia and TdF than Argentina did.

    Nov 28th, 2013 - 07:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Briton

    A foreign field that is forever England’: Gibraltar and Argentina self-determination
    After all, they are inhabited by British citizens and
    land belongs to those who inhabit it.

    Not those who wish to steal it.


    Nov 28th, 2013 - 07:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • rupertbrooks0

    20 DanyBerger

    Not so my friend. The Spanish colonies of South America rebelled against the Spanish Crown in the early 19th century, out of which emerged several new Republics. There was no political continuity between the new Republic of Argentina and the former Spanish colonial territory of the old Vice-Royalty of the River Plata. The new rebellious Republics therefore do not inherit any treaty obligations or territorial claims from the Spanish crown. This is not to deny a religious, linguistic and cultural inheritance, but politically this rebellion marked a new beginning.

    Likewise in North America, the Republic of the United States dates itself from July 4th, 1776. Naturally the USA maintains much cultural continuity with its British colonial roots. Politically however it is a new State.

    And again, the Irish Republic emerged out of a rebellion against the British Crown. It is a new 20th century State which inherits nothing from the British Crown. Naturally Irish history and culture has long roots, but this is not the same thing as the political State of the Irish Republic.

    “So what is the difference with UK”?

    Well now you know.

    I'm off to the pub now, so have a good evening.

    Nov 28th, 2013 - 08:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Anglotino

    I've tried to teach the difference between continuing states and successor states.

    After a while you realise some people just don't have the capacity.

    Nov 28th, 2013 - 10:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pete Bog

    “None, so Argentina has the strongest argument to claim the Islands by long presence than any other in the world plus proximity, etc.”

    Long presence? Am I missing something? When has Argentina had a 'long'continual presence on the Falkland Islands?

    Explain, if Vernet was meant to be representing Argentina, (withstanding the fact he sought British permission to be on the Islands) why was there no Argentine currency in use on the Islands?

    Proximity? If Argentina claims the Falkland Islands from the 1820s , the United Provinces of the River Plate were nowhere near the Falkland Islands, in fact more than 1000 miles away.

    They are that far away from Argentina now that Argentine aircraft in 1982 only just had the range to reach the Islands and get back.

    Also before Argentina stared its genocidal march south in the 1880s, there were many British settlers in Patagonia.

    According to your logic, a nation that was to become Argentina in the future claimed the Falkland Islands, on the strength of a military occupation lasting just three months then you are suggesting that the UK should claim large parts of Patagonia, because British settlers were there before those of the United Provinces of the River Plate.

    You forget that the British were in the FalklandIslands from 1765-1774.

    If you say that a country that became Argentina being involved in the Falklands from 1826-1833 (i.e. continuously) , counts as a sovereignty claim then therefore so does a prior British occupation of 9 years (as against 7).

    And the crucial point is that Vernet's civilian population including settlers from the River Plate region was not forced to leave in 1833, only the military and penal colony were (suggesting that the people sent there by the UPs were transplanted-as prisoners do not choose to go to a penal colony). And as some of those settlers were still in the Falkland Islands up to the 1870s when they died there, these are the originators of the Falkland Islanders today.

    Nov 29th, 2013 - 12:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • lsolde

    When does Argentina intend to return the land which you stole from Paraguay in 1971?
    After all, you are all brothers, part of the anti-British South American Brotherhood.
    Or so your insane war-mongering leader, TMBOA(thanks ChrisR)would have us believe.
    Come on Liberato, show us how magnanimous & regretful your noble country is!

    Nov 29th, 2013 - 12:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DanyBerger



    And will claim that the British that didn’t exist also discovered the American continent?

    There is no way that any British claim could be stronger than any Argentine claim. Just pure lies...


    Well I guess that doesn’t matter Argentina is claiming the Islands and has a stronger case than the British.
    Anyone knows that except the British I guess.

    @Pete Bog
    “UK should claim large parts of Patagonia, because British settlers were there before those of the United Provinces of the River Plate.”

    Well they can try but I guess that would be quite difficult, What do you think?

    Yeah, Yeah, Yeah but Argentina will continue claiming the Islands because belongs to Argentina.

    Nov 29th, 2013 - 12:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Liberato

    Brits, stop listen to your prime minister. The poor bastard think he is like blair stealing your monney for later dissapear.
    The islands were spanish before argentine. Portugal recognized it, France recognized it and even britain recognized it. Britain not only recognized spanish rights in Nootka Sound Convention but did not protested for 50 years where spanish and later argentines administered the islands.
    The british did not discovered the islands.
    They did not claimed first the islands.
    They did not occupied them first either.
    They did nothing to prove they own sovereignty. Thats why their only excuse to remain there is a self- determination right that do not apply in the case of the sovereignty of Malvinas.
    Argentina inherited the islands from Spain, by the uti possidetis iure. Then a doctrine, now an international principle. Without uti possidetis, most of this continent would still be spanish becouse no independence would had happened.
    Isolde, Paraguay war was legal. They invaded our sovereign territory to move troops to Uruguay. Was that war legitimate? i think not, but was legal.
    I think it was a war provoked by Brasil, Argentina and specially England to eliminate and indoctrinate a nation very developed to the time.
    Isolde, if it would depend on me, i have no problem giving Paraguay the land it lost in war. Even so, i would have no problem giving independence to any province of our nation including Malvinas and TDF. The problem is that i cant support independence to a colony, to a bunch of people that lives in a south american island without south americans on it. I cant support an independence to guys that control its inmigrants origins.
    Islanders can go and live in any nation they choose, in any territory or land, including Argentina. But argentines have no oportunities to live and work in Malvinas. Thats the thruth.

    Nov 29th, 2013 - 01:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Monkeymagic


    Argentina DID NOT inherit the islands from Spain.

    There was absolutely nobody living on the islands when Argentina claimed independence

    The last Spanish residents of the islands left via Montevideo to FIGHT Argentina

    Argentina no more inheritted the Falklands from Spain than they inheritted Chile, Paraguay, Uruguay, Mexico, Cuba or any other Spainish territory in latin America.

    Argentina tried and failed to claim the islands between 1826 and 1832. Vernet left the islands by choice, and the Argenitne militia were on the islands between November 1832 and January 1833 between which time they managed to mutiny, rape and murder.

    So sadly, you have been lied to...the Spanish who administered East Falkland were not Argentines, and never became Argentines...they fought Argentina...

    So sadly, it is you who have been lied to.

    Your statement that our government lies to us and steals our money was ironic right...??? LOL

    Nov 29th, 2013 - 08:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • lsolde

    @30 Liberato,
    My mistake, l typed 1971, it should have been, of course, 1871, when Argentina stole Paraguayan land.
    So Liberato, you were invaded.
    So also, we were invaded in 1982.
    You managed to defeat the invaders.
    We also, defeated our invaders.
    As has been proved here many times, Argentina “inherited” nothing from Spain.
    You were in rebellion against Spain.
    l hardly think that Spain would give you anything.
    Are you saying that we don't have a right to control who comes to & lives in OUR OWN Country?
    Of course we don't want a lot of Argentines on OUR land. Of course not!!
    The very idea!
    They would SCREAM “SELF-DETERMINATION” & vote en masse, to join Argentina.
    Of course they couldn't if we are indeed a “Special Case”, as you Argentines keep saying to anyone who will listen.!
    (Actually they probably wouldn't vote thus when they saw our standard of living compared with yours!).
    We will decide who lives here, Argentina will not.
    Finally, Liberato, the Falklands are in the South Atlantic, NOT South America.
    And they are OURS(i.e. NOT YOURS)!

    Nov 29th, 2013 - 09:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Heisenbergcontext

    @30 Liberato

    Do you believe it's possible that, lurking in the depths of the Cancilleria, is a dusty document, marked 'Ultrasecreto', that constitutes a legal opinion by some brave Argentinian legal scholar stating that the chances of Argentina obtaining a judgement in it's favour at the International Court of Justice are ...negligible?

    Would you not agree that this hypotheses is as good a reason as any that Argentina has not pressed it's claim at this august institution? In other words that it knows it has no case, cannot win and is reduced to expressions of impotent rage?

    Just a few idle musings...

    Nov 29th, 2013 - 10:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Liberato

    Monkeymagic said: “There was absolutely nobody living on the islands when Argentina claimed independence”
    What that has to do with anything?. What? do you think there should have been an argentine in every corner of our territory to claim independence?.
    Anyway, you should know that there was nobody in the islands in 1816 becouse the spanish left to defend Montevideo, but the important thing is that Spain left after 40 years of peacefull administration with not a single british protest or claim or occupation, being those islands a dependency of Buenos Aires and a dependency of the vicerroyalty of the Rio de la Plata.

    Isolde, when we were invaded by Paraguay, PAraguay recognized our borders And still invaded.
    When Argentina occupied the islands, the islands constituted as today a territory in dispute. Which means that there is a sovereignty dispute involving that territory.
    Today the islands are recognized internationally by a territory with a sovereignty dispute, under a process of decolonization. You can come up with referendums or patroll it with military ships trying to impose unilateral frontiers, but reality is that the Malvinas are a colony administered by the uk, claimed by Argentina.

    Nov 29th, 2013 - 11:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • lsolde

    @34 Liberato,
    lt is true that they are “claimed” by Argentina, but that means nothing.
    Anyone can “claim” something, it does not make it theirs.
    l could “claim” your car or your best suit, but l do not own them.
    The same is that Argentina does not own the Falklands.
    btw- Liberato, the correct term for our land is the Falklands.
    This “malvinas”place only exists in your imagination.
    Perhaps you meant the Maldives, in the lndian Ocean?
    lf you are so utterly sure of your ownership of OUR land, then l invite you to lay your case before the ICJ.
    But as you are well aware, you have no case.

    Nov 29th, 2013 - 12:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Monkeymagic


    You are partially correct.

    Spain had an administration on the islands. It was contesed..but certainly it is true.

    Spain also had an administration in Uruguay, paraguay, Bolivia, Chile, Peru, Mexico, Cuba and Venezuala...none of these automatically ceded to Argentina either.

    You talk about there needing to be a population in every corner of Argentina....a ridiculous statement, the Falklands were 1000 miles from the nearest point of Argentina...give me a single other example anywhere where an island group 1000 miles away from a country automatically becomes part of that country..I'll give you 50 where they don't.

    So..first point about Spanish inheritance...rubbish
    Second point about no British claim..also rubbish

    If Argentina had automatic rights from Spain (which we know it didnt) Why did Jewitt try and claim sovereignty? Answer...because there was no rights.

    If Argentina had automatic rights, why did it beg Vernet to take a ceremonial role...Answer...because it didnt.

    And dont even start on poor Esteban Mestevier and his family.

    The truth (and you know it although youd never admi it) is that when Spain left in 1811, nobody had a strong claim. Spains was probably stronger, then Britain, then France, then Chile or patagonia...Argentinas (or UP) weak.

    Argentina tried to seize the islands, first through Jewitt (failed), then through Vernet (failed) and then lastly through Mestevier (failed).

    in January 1833, fewer than 60 were evicted, and the evictees had only been there 8 weeks...that isnt sovereignty.

    Nobody disputes that the Falkland in the late 1700s were de facto part of the Spanish Empire in South America. However so were 20 other countries that aren't now part of Argentina.

    If you'd like to return to Argentinas November 1832 boundaries, please withdraw from patagonia..otherwise you just come across as a steaming hypocrite.

    Nov 29th, 2013 - 02:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • M_of_FI

    @13 - so_far

    If the treatment of the Chagos Islands by Britain disgusts you to the extent that you suggest it does, why do you think Britain should do it again to the people of the Falklands?

    Nov 29th, 2013 - 02:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • GFace

    “Liberato”. Your country has no real claim. Your government knows it as does the rest of the adult world *as* *does* the fellow global teenagers who happy enable your governments' pointless and distracting pursuit of something that never was and never can be theirs.

    It will not take the UK or the FI to the ICJ because they know they will loose both because of your fantasy of a claim and the fact that self-determinace trumps all - no matter how often your government lies to you about how it doesn't apply to the Islands (or Gibraltar); that vote was tried and lost - big time!

    They will not comply with letter or spirit of UNGA 2065 as was sealed this February when Timerman RAN from meetings that were all planned and ready for him AND of course by your precious Junta that you are to trained love-hate, who had no right to rule in Buenos Aires let alone Stanley, permanently blew it for you by violating binding UNSC resolutions and of course the human rights of the Falklands in 1982.

    Your government just keeps the islands on the agenda to rage against the Norte, regional empty self-validation from fair weather allies that work with the Islanders behind your back, and of course to string gullible suckers like you to distract from the cavalcade of mismanagement from your various governments -- and you keep falling for it just like you gladly did in 1982 -- before the Junta let you down of course. It's like rigging Pavlov's bell. They cry Malvinas and you drop the bones that you should be focusing on and drool obediently - and they of course take your bone and your country's genuine potential with it.

    No ICJ + no 2065 + 1982 = no claim, no pursuit, no reason to waste your energy on fascist colonialist fantasies that you were raised on and falsely promised since childhood. There. Is. No. True. Argentine. Claim. On. The. Falklands. Move on and do something that you're good at, because lying about a Malvinas myth that you've been lied about all along just isn't it.

    Nov 29th, 2013 - 02:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • rupertbrooks0

    34 Liberato

    You are substantially mistaken. The islands were NEVER administered by Spain. Spain maintained a penal settlement and garrison at Port Louis (Soledad) only. The islands were not part of the Vice-Royalty of the River Plate, whose boundaries are clearly set in the act of the Spanish Parliament (Cortes) which created it on 1 August 1776.

    Britain claim on the islands dates from 22nd January 1765. It has never been rescinded. Britain’s claim was recognised by Spain in the Anglo-Spanish agreement signed in London on 22 January 1771. Britain may have withdrawn its administration for financial reasons but the islands were in continued use by British citizens.

    In 1776 the British parliament extended the whale oil bounty system (the oil was used to light London's streets ) to the Falklands Islands by the Whale Fishery Act and was renewed every few years thereafter.

    In 1786-87 Lt Thomas Edgar of the Royal navy spent nearly 18 months on the islands conducting surveys. The maritime charts he created are still available today. See “A Chart of West Falkland Island from an Actual Survey by Lieu. Tho. Edgar of the Royal Navy in the Years 1786 & 1787”

    There is a substantial list of ships logs and other records demonstrating the islands were in continuous by British whalers and sealers: e.g. In 1787 the British whaling ship, Amelia, commanded by Capt. James Shields and the British whalers The Hudibras and the Shallop Audaz plus the Brig Malplaquet are recorded as visiting the Falkland Islands. In 1788 British ships visiting the Falklands include the Lucas, under Cap. William Aiken,the Intrepid, under Capt. John Leard and the Quaker under the command of Shadrick Kearn.

    In fact such were the numbers of sealers operating in the islands that in 1788 there was even some consideration of regulating the seal fisheries around the islands due to concerns of over fishing by the British government

    Nov 29th, 2013 - 02:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Liberato

    Isolde @35: The argentine claim is validated under the UN. Its not like claiming a car. The Malvinas islands status is described in the UN as a non self governing territory under a colonial situation that differs from other cases of colonialism in light of the sovereignty dispute. Textual words from the UN.
    Monkeymagic @36:
    The islands were governed from Buenos Aires. Its governor responded to Buenos Aires. Thats the difference with the others spanish colonies you mentioned like Peru , Bolivia, Chile, etc.
    Jewett claimed sovereignty becouse we were no more Spain. If we declared independence without taking formal posetion of Malvinas, for international law, it would be like not recognizing those islands as part of the territory independized.

    rupertbrooks0 @39:
    The islands were indeed administered by Spain through Buenos Aires for decades alone and with several governors.
    That administration were ceded to the Vicerroyalty of the Rio de la Plata at the begining after the british were expelled from Port Egmont.
    Even the british recognize this i dont see how cant you?.

    Nov 29th, 2013 - 07:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Briton

    It should have read [Gibraltar and the Falklands, ]

    Proximity is an irrelevance,
    After all, if this was true
    Then France and England would have a claim on each other
    Going back to the Normans,
    Justa thought..
    Just how far back does one goes in pursuit of ambitious greed,
    Perhaps Rome the city,
    Could claim Europe and north Africa through the old roman empire,
    Egypt before this, would have claims,
    What about Eritrea in Africa,
    Could she not claim the world?
    After all ape man came from around these parts,

    We think you Argies and Spanish live in the past,
    Why not, grow up forget the past, forget your silly claims, and re join the modern world,
    Or is this a step to far…lol


    Nov 29th, 2013 - 07:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Liberato

    Briton, imagine then what kind of world would be if any nation can committe the most horrible acts and just wait for 200 years to legitimate those barbaric acts.
    What would you said to the Kuwaitis if Iraq would have ensured their invasion for 200 years?, or if the UK and the US could ensure the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan for 200 years?.

    Nov 29th, 2013 - 07:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Briton

    Your post is not fully understood,

    But many and most European nations in the past,
    Have committed atrocities,
    South Americans, Africans, very very few are exempt,

    But we should learn from the past,
    Sadly some of us just make the same old mistakes ,

    But as we are in the so called 21st century, all territorial claims should be nun and void,
    And the likes of Argentina and Spain should be living in harmony , not diverting home attention with silly claims that affect others..

    Nov 29th, 2013 - 08:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Clyde15

    How were Argentina or Brazil “obtained” if not through horrible acts by the Spanish and Portuguese ?
    To what barbaric acts are you referring. ?
    Do you mean the murderer called Gaucho Rivero ??
    Argentina seems to have legitimised his acts in the form of the Gaucho Rivera Bill.
    Argentina committed a rather horrible act by invading a practically defenseless little group of islands and terrorising their inhabitants.

    What would you said to the Kuwaitis if Iraq would have ensured their invasion for 200 years?,
    or if the UK and the US could ensure the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan for 200 years?.

    Nov 29th, 2013 - 08:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • GFace

    I see “Liberato” is yet another new-world creationist like little Saddam==Poland XIII, insisting that he has no colonialist guilt as if Argentina was always there since the earth was made in 1833. It must be great to be a Malvanista; you get to have all fruits of your own genocide with none of the guilt, and even be able to live in a fantasy coulda-woulda-shoulda alternative post 1982 history where the Junta was in power for much longer than it was and always craving more more more. Do they have the FAINTEST clue as to how bad they look to owe of us living outside of the conflict!?!

    Nov 29th, 2013 - 09:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Anglotino

    Liberato says:

    “The argentine claim is validated under the UN”
    No it is not. The UN recognises a SOVEREIGNTY DISPUTE - recognition of a dispute does not validate it.

    “The Malvinas islands status is described in the UN as a non self governing territory”
    That is correct. It was included on the list by the UK itself and not the UN nor Argentina.

    “under a colonial situation that differs from other cases of colonialism in light of the sovereignty dispute”
    No it does not. The UN has NEVER stated that the non-self governing nature of the Falkland Islands is different from others. All the UN states is the recognition of Argentina's claim. However it recognises UK sovereignty because it continually REQUESTS that the UK 'decolonise' the islands. It does not ask Argentina to. It also does not state that such 'decolonisation' must, should or can only involve the transfer of sovereignty to Argentina.

    “Textual words from the UN”
    Clearly not. If so, please provide links to your claims because you won't be able to find them.

    Nov 29th, 2013 - 09:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • lsolde

    More lies, Liberato?
    Or you just don't know.
    Argentina has no case & you know it.
    Or you should know it if you can be bothered to do any research.
    And l believe that in the Spanish time, the lslands were administrated from Montevideo, NOT BsAs.
    Thank you.

    Nov 29th, 2013 - 10:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • José Malvinero

    “We welcome the result of the March 2013 referendum in the Falkland Islands, which overwhelmingly demonstrated the Falkland Islanders“
    Fuck you !
    For once say something true ” inhabitants“. Almost all of them born in U.K. and a few old kelpers extinct.
    Ja , ja , ja , nor the UN has in mind and it is logical : the British negligible born in the UK, living in Argentine territory usurped and emit a small vote in favor of maintaining the occupation of the territory.
    The right to self-determination is enshrined for ”peoples“ in the legal sense only and is also enshrined the right to territorial integrity , in this case violating against the territory of Argentina Republic, and that is the reason these guys have to have a basis in our Isla Soledad, to retain it by force.
    The government U.K. is believed God? So if in a remote country is armed sedition , ”god” will support the rebels ? Fuck you!
    The Decolonization Committee be dissolved as soon as the rotten RU finished with colonization everywhere and in all forms and that includes the Malvinas Argentinas .
    British creeping poor who do not conceive in his mind anything other than money , money, money. That is the only reason to retain the Malvinas with the story of the false self-determination.

    Nov 29th, 2013 - 11:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • GFace

    @40/46-7 and why oh WHY do they keep telling this lie over and over! (Especially here!) The UN voted a big HELL NO! on the cynically transparent “I-call-dibs” override in self-determination hard and everyone know it. The vote is there for all to see. Argentina and Spain lost. The ramification of a yes vote is just too much to contemplate. Imagine a world where any two-bit thug, fascist or president-for-life can scrub the most fundamental right a people have and as the case of Argentina demonstrates, never have the courage or integrity to take it to the only place that can adjudicate such issues, the ICJ, thus keeping the land they covet but can never have because they can never prove they own it in permanent limbo even all-likely blocking the de-colonization process Argentina lies incessantly about wanting to use. How stupid do you have to be to swallow that lie when it's so clearly marinated in bullcrap? Oh yes, you just have to be Liberace here.

    The UN recognizes the UK as the administrating power. The UN recognizes that Argentina, who have violated and vacated resolution after resolution in letter and spirit, that they have a “claim” and that there is only two ways for them to realize it 1) take it to the ICJ which the know will result in humiliation and so they don't, or 2) negotiate with the UK in a manner that takes the Islanders interest to heart, which they refuse to do over and over most dramatically in 1982 when they voluted the islanders most basic human rights and in a more drama-queeny manner more recently in February when they were too weak and afraid sit in a room with two --TWO -- elected representatives of a set of islands with only 3000, THREE THOUSAND, people who were waiting for them so they could talk seriously like grownups.

    Do we need puppetry and interpretive dance to get this point across? We've tried everything else.

    Nov 29th, 2013 - 11:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • rupertbrooks0

    40 Liberato

    Not so. Spain maintained a garrison and penal colony only. They did not administer the whole islands. The Governors were garrison commanders and exercised no authority over the rest of the islands. There is surprisingly little documentation as to the activities of the garrison and it is probable that it was at times left deserted with the nominal commanders staying in Buenos Aires.

    British and American sealers and whalers continued to use the islands as a base without the need to recognise any authority from Spain. They even repaired ships, and built huts and grew vegetables. The Anglo-Spanish treaty of 1771 explicitly recognises the sovereignty claims of both countries.

    The Port Soledad garrison was under the authority of the Spanish navy and was never a part of the Vice-Royalty. Spain still claimed the islands until 1836. Spain recognised the Republic of Argentina on 9th July 1856 as a “free, sovereign and independent nation” in the 'Treaty of Recognition, Peace and Friendship' signed in Madrid between Spain and the Argentine Confederation.

    This agreement with Spain was based upon the territory that the United Provinces had held on May 25 1810. The Falkland Islands, which had never been a part of the Viceroyalty were not evacuated by Spain until 1811. They therefore not included in the treaty, nor were they included in Argentina’s constitution or recognised as forming a part of the Argentine confederation.

    Nov 29th, 2013 - 11:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund


    Jewitt. A newspaper report claiming a witness claimed to have witnessed a pirate captain claiming to have claimed territory on behalf of the United Provinces, does not confer sovereignity in any sane legal system. Especially when the United Provinces not only did nothing to support the claim, but apparently didn't know shit about it, and weren't even informed of it by the pirate captain in question.

    @48 Perhaps puppetry and interpretive dance might just help, given that logic, reason, and evidence have failed abysmally.

    Nov 29th, 2013 - 11:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • rupertbrooks0

    48 José Malvinero

    I rather think it is Argentina who is being colonialist. Argentina clearly aims to occupy the Falklands which will thereby become part of an Argentine empire and whose inhabitants will be forced to accept Argentine rule, laws currency, taxes etc against their wishes.

    No doubt when this happens the islanders will ask to be placed on the de-colonisation commitees list of non self governing countries.

    Strangely non of my Argentinian friends here in London give a damn about the islands. They are more concerned about how the Argentine government is wrecking the country and enriching itself in the most open and blatant manner.

    Perhaps you to should get your priorities right.

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 12:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • José Malvinero


    Ridiculous, idiot! Thank God those “Argentine friends” they left. I hope they never return.

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 12:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Liberato

    11 post of bollocks.....
    Briton @43: I agree that we should learn from the past and that we are in the 21 century. So, please tell your government to comply with UN resolutions and decolonize 10 out of 16 remaining territories that remains under a colonial situation in the british hands.

    Clyde15 @45: Argentina and Brasil Were colonized, populated and then they went independent state where all people have the same oportunities as in any territory but the Malvinas islands, where if you are british, you are welcome, if you are argentine, you cant get a permit for shit.

    Gface, dont be stupid, im not playing the victim here, im talking about a reality. Argentina is a democracy that saw independence in 1816, and the islands are a non self governing territory, a territory with a colonial situation.

    Anglotino@46: ALL resolutions regarding the decolonization of the islands include sovereignty negotiations with Argentina!!!!!!!.
    For the UN, the uk is not its owner, it is the administering power, which means that the uk administer that non self-governing territory. Ergo the UN is telling the uk a colonist power. For the UN all reports regarding the situation of the islands are not requested to a non existance government in the islands but to the administering power of that colony.

    rupertbrooks0 you are totally confused man.

    HansNiesund @51: was that a gossip you are telling me? aparently????.

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 02:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • GFace

    “Gface, dont be stupid, im not playing the victim here, im talking about a reality. Argentina is a democracy that saw independence in 1816, and the islands are a non self governing territory, a territory with a colonial situation.”

    Argentina, a “democracy” that rejects democratic principles when they don't agree with them. An organismically overwhelming number of Falklanders voted a resounding YES to keep their current status and like the Fascists for whom you gladly cheered in April 1982 you can't cope with it. That's not democracy. It's no change from 1982. WHEN Falklands eventually for independence in whatever form their current evolution leads them (and evolution that you oppose in violation to the UN charter) Malvanista fascists like you will *still* not be able to handle it despite the charter you signed and still ignore because it stands in the way of YOU colonizing the islanders against their will and natural rights. You even have the cheek to talk about negotiations that your government rejected in 1982 and even this very February when it was too weak and afraid to just meet with two representatives of only three thousand in continued disregard for the resolutions and the UN charter and resolutions that enshrines self-determination for ALL regardless of what some bitter colonialist fascist wants. All was ready, and Timerman turned and ran, so small, so petty, so weak, so afraid to look across room from a comfy chair to see TWO people with minds of their own, and he could do nothing to force them to his will like not even the Junta could, let alone convince them to join a trainwreck of a country that brutally and illegally occupied them and then spitefully left their islands filled with uncharted, poorly charted and ill charted land mines and STILL proudly celebrates it all with a coin like a modern Germany celebrating the occupation of Denmark or Japan honoring soldiers who “served honorably” in Nanjing in 1937.

    You REALLY just don't get it.

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 02:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Liberato

    Democratic principles?????????? The islands are considered a non self-governing territory under a colonial situation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 03:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Biguggy

    Please do not forget that the ICJ have stated on two occasions (1971 & 1975) that ALL NSGTs have the right to self-determination. The Falklands area NSGT.
    Game over.

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 03:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • GFace

    They have local governance - for FAR more local governance than AR offers having them (on paper) ruled as a distant and *unwilling* Argentine colony from Tierra Del Fuego and certainly far more than you offered them in 1982 when you were holding guns to their heads. The relationship between the UK and the Islands have changed markedly since 1982 while your country still sees them as a face on which to press your jackboot like you failed to do in 1982. Your government won't even talk to them when they are in the same room - a night and day difference from the process they have with London.

    As a BOT (or as the UN insists, NSGT) they have an opportunity to move towards independance - an opportunity that you would NEVER give them (once again in open defiance of the UNGA vote on the matter and the UN Charter that your government constantly lies to you about). Currently they have voted (yes VOTED) democratically (yes DEMOCRATICALLY) in hilariously overwhelming numbers to stay with the status quo because while it they are still a BOT, they are not ready for full independence and they want nothing to do with a country that callously and brutally and even now, *unrepentantly* occupied them in defiance of the UN security council and their will. You blew it in 1982 for forever and a day. Now there is only a road towards independence/free association and they can only do that in the current model - with the UK, not with AR who shows them nothing but colonialist intentions. It WAS your defense minister who said that the only reason that AR has not illegally invaded the islands yet again, was because of the UK's deterrent force there, they are there for their protection. So if you want to wonder what's standing in the way of the Falklands being “decolonized” and why it's taking so long, take a good long look in the mirror. Sure, independence eventually... But in the end, you will never get them; the world will not sell them down the river like the Czechs Munich-style.

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 04:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Be serious

    Its not the UK's fault that Argyland Nationalists are still embarrassed by the manner in which their Military surrendered to British troops in 1982. They need to put such humiliations behind them and concentrate on economic development for the good of all Argies, not just the political elite. Clearly the Islands are, by any measure, British and will remain so until such times as the inhabitants decide otherwise. All countries benefit from the principle of self determination including Argyland.

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 07:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DanyBerger

    I think Argentina should compensate the Islander after taking back the Islands with 2 sheep and one way ticket to Ukistan.

    That would be fair...

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 07:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • lsolde

    @60 DanyBerger,
    You wouldn't know what fair is, you blithering idiot.
    l think that you should be given one change of underclothes & a one way ticket to Antarctica.
    There you can tout your rubbish to the penguins(if they will listen!).

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 09:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund


    > ALL resolutions regarding the decolonization of the islands include sovereignty negotiations with Argentina!!!!!!!.

    In fact, NO resolutions of the UN include sovereignity negotiations with Argentina.

    Try reading exactly what they say. They call for “dialogue” and “peaceful settlement” and other anodyne phrases which nobody could possibly object to (apart of course from Argentina, which has refused both)

    Any attempt by Argentina to get more than this has failed, and as a result Argentina no more dares ask the UN for what it really wants, than it dares go to the ICJ with its “claim”.

    And the only people fooled into believing otherwise are the Argentine domestic population.

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 10:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • rupertbrooks0

    53 José Malvinero

    Boy, you have a lot of anger in you. Maybe you need to talk with someone. Why shouldn't my Argentinians friends visit their friends and family back home from time to time. I guess living away from Argentina has changed their perspective on things, they say travel broadens the mind.

    Argentina has vast areas of under used land and resources, especially in Patagonia which it stole from the indians over a century ago. What difference would stealing the Falklands make to their prosperity. Argentina doesn't have the ability to make anything of the islands except to wreck a peaceful and prosperous community. It's just pure greed.

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 11:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Anglotino


    You are just repeating what others have said on here for years and never been able to prove either. Having heard something does not make it true. Do some research and post your results.

    “ALL resolutions regarding the decolonization of the islands include sovereignty negotiations with Argentina”

    Not they do NOT!

    Stop lying - whether deliberate or through ignorance!

    Not a single resolution calls for sovereignty negotiations with Argentina. They call for a resolution of the dispute. But none of those resolutions actually stipulate that the result of those negotiations should involve a transfer of the Islands to Argentina.

    NOT ONE. If they do, then provide a link. Because you will be the very first person EVER to provide such as link.

    “For the UN, the UK is not its owner, it is the administering power, which means that the UK administer that non self-governing territory. Ergo the UN is telling the UK a colonist power. For the UN all reports regarding the situation of the islands are not requested to a non existance government in the islands but to the administering power of that colony.”

    If the UK is the administrating power then the UK wields sovereignty over the islands otherwise it would not be able to negotiate. The definition of non-self governing is that another government exercises ultimate power. Therefore the territory is not sovereign in its own right. All territories must have sovereignty reside somewhere - the only landmass that doesn't is Antarctica.

    NSGT can change their status through 4 ways:

    1/ Change in status through integration with the metropolitan area or home rule
    2/ Free Association with the administering state or another state
    3/ Join another state
    4/ Independence.

    The UN has not narrowed down these option for the Falklands. No matter how much Argentina says it has; the UN has never said so.

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 11:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Clyde15

    Brazil and Argentina were colonised ..totally peacefully with the acquiescence of the original indigenous inhabitants ?
    As you stated at #54...BOLLOCKS

    Of course Argentinians cannot get permits to settle on the Falklands.
    It is not Argentinian territory !!!!

    Please name the barbaric acts that Britain committed, 200 years ago, on the Falklands !

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 01:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Liberato

    Anglotino, are you stupid or something?.
    I repeat what i said:
    “ALL resolutions regarding the decolonization of the islands include sovereignty negotiations with Argentina”.

    And your response was:
    “Not a single resolution calls for sovereignty negotiations with Argentina. They call for a resolution of the dispute. But none of those resolutions actually stipulate that the result of those negotiations should involve a transfer of the Islands to Argentina. ”

    I never said those negotiations will end that way, becouse im not a futurologist. But all resolutions involve sovereignty negotiations:
    - UN Decolonisation Committee Resolution 109/2012/L.6
    - UN General Assembly Resolution 43/25
    - UN General Assembly Resolution 42/19
    - UN General Assembly Resolution 41/40
    - UN General Assembly Resolution 40/21
    - UN General Assembly Resolution 39/6
    - UN General Assembly Resolution 38/12
    - UN General Assembly Resolution 37/9
    - UN General Assembly Resolution 31/49
    - UN General Assembly Resolution 3160 (XXVIII)
    - UN General Assembly Resolution 2065 (XX)

    Clyde15: call me when you get older than 15 and grow some balls.

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 04:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • GFace

    You forgot UNSC 502 -- the one that explicitly told you to unilaterally LEAVE the Falklands after you violated all of the above. You also forget that your country just vacated those 2065 yet again in February. Comfy chairs where ready. Tea and cakes were served. Two freely elected representatives of the 3000 people whose interests the UK and AR are to consider every step of the way (do you even READ any of these resolutions?) were waiting there with Bill Hague looking forward to what could be done between the FI and AR since they were the ones who would be making it happen from the UK side. And what did your government do? Immediately turned and ran. Timerman could have been a statesman, opening doors that had been childishly shut by your government. He could have been a total jerk and talked over the people he wanted to illegally colonize against the resolutions and charter. Either way it would have shown that your government was serious. But no. Your government isn't serious. Because your government knows there is no case. That's why they won't take it to the ICJ. They know they the Islanders want nothing to do with them, hence their vote in the referendum. And honestly they have no plan to manage an unwilling illegally colonized population who won't forgive you for 1982 and they won't forgive you today for celebrating with a coin (like the Germans commemorate invading Czechoslovakia - oh wait, they don't). Your. government. doesn't. want. the. Islands. Otherwise they'd have met with the islanders and or taken the case to the ICJ. They just want to string you along since it makes a great distraction. Just like it did in 1982. And you fall for it every. single. time.

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 04:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Liberato

    You are confused here. One thing is that islanders participate representing the british side, due to the fact they ARE british and another thing is trying to speak in the name of another side of the controversy when indeed there is only two side of the sovereignty dispute. The british, and the Argentine.
    The strategy of the british is to make a third side of the dispute, becouse is in the british interest to make islanders being considered another people different to those living in britain for their “self-determination” strategy. So they try hard to convince people that islanders are south americans that accidental happened to be almost 99% of british origins.
    Unfortunatelly for britain, islanders are not considering A people different to those from britain, ergo, the UN invites the uk and its people (which include islanders) and Argentina to resolve the sovereignty dispute taking into account the interests of the population that lives on the islands.

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 05:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • GFace

    It is you who are confused, you even admit that the UN invites your government to meet with the UK the Islanders. The interest of the islanders must be taken into account. Period. Your government refused to recognize them under any circumstances, just how can interests be identified let alone addressed and discussed when your government will not meet with them? Or do you plan to just hold guns to their heads like you did in 1982 and still celebrate on coins and tell them what their interests are at gunpoint -- Violating the most important and binding resolution of them all! They are indeed not just a “third” player but THE player in this situation that must be assured that they won't be sold down the river like the Czechs. And your predictable colonialist attempt to dehumanize them as unpeople like a true fascist and colonialist has been tried and has failed. The ICJ is clear on this. The Chareter is clear on this. The UNGA who voted against your country's cynical exception clause is VERY clear on this. The self-determination of NSGTs applies to ALL of them, not just the ones you aren't interested in colonizing against their will. And they have made their opinion made very loud and clear. They don't want you. End of story.

    Take it to the ICJ (the only people who can impose a solution), or meet with the UK AND the Islanders in compliance with 2065 or walk away from the big lie you've been told since childhood. Your Sudentenland doesn't exist. Find something you're good at, because pining for colonies to oppress against their will and natural rights isn't one of them.

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 06:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • rupertbrooks0

    66 Liberato

    Your argument conveniently ignores the fact that Britain WAS complying with both Resolution 31/49 and UN resolution 2065 by peacefully negotiating a solution to the dispute. In fact Britain had been negotiating since 1965. It was Argentina which ended the negotiations and broke the terms of both Resolutions 2065 and 31/49 by launching the invasion on 2nd April 1982.

    Argentina also broke UNSC Resolution 502 by refusing to withdraw its armed forces from the islands as requested and thereby broke international law.

    Argentina also broke resolution 31/49 in 1994 when Argentina put its claim to the Falklands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands into its new constitution.

    It broke it again in December 2009 when Argentina unilaterally included the Falklands within the province of Tierra del Fuego.

    Argentina’s claim that oil exploration by the Falklands breaches resolution 31/49 is hypocritical. What the Falklands is doing was perfectly legal under the 1995 Oil Agreement signed by Britain on behalf of the Falklands Government and the Government of President Menem. The Falklands were meticulous in complying with the Oil Exploration Treaty and were not in breach of any of its terms.

    President Kirchner, who didn’t like Menem or his treaty unilaterally tore it up and then accused the Falklands of acting “unilaterally” despite the oil exploration being expressly permitted under the 1995 treaty.

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 06:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Briton

    54 Liberato
    So, please tell your government to comply with UN resolutions and decolonise 10 out of 16 remaining territories,

    You do not name the TEN,
    But I have spoken to the government, and all of these 10 will be independent by 07.00 this morning,

    [NOW WHAT]
    I have done my bit,
    Will you now do your bit and tell CFK to
    obey UN rules and leave the Falklands alone, to live in peace as an independent nation,

    will you also inform Spain to now leave Gibraltar alone, as an independent nation,

    your reply would be very interesting..

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 06:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pete Bog


    ” UN invites the uk and its people (which include islanders) and Argentina to resolve the sovereignty dispute taking into account the interests of the population that lives on the islands.”

    The sovereignty dispute has been resolved. The Islanders don't want to be Argentine.

    Argentina does not take the Islander's interests into account or where resolutions recommend 'the granting of independence', therefore if they are going to continuously break the resolution thus, there is no need for UK to speak.

    If Argentina's politicians had any intelligence at all, they would persuade the Islanders of the benefits of being Argentine. But the idiots can't do that if they do not speak to the Islanders, whilst asking for dialogue, Argentina shows well actually, we don't want it. That's why Timmerman fled from TWO Falkland Islanders in February this year.

    Argentina would need extraordinary powers of salesmanship to do so as the Islanders run their own government per head of capita, better than Argentina runs it's government.

    Carlos Tevez did not stay at West Ham United because he could do better at Manchester United and subsequently decided he would do better at Manchester City. Lionel Messi is not playing in Argentina because their clubs are not as good as that fine Catalonian side Barcelona.

    But Argentine logic is that Lionel Messi should not be in a better place but a worse one. It is in Lionel Messi's interests to play in Catalonia, not Argentina, but Argentine logic would say 'join us at an Argentine club because you will do worse than at Barcelona.

    The Argentines have nothing to offer the Islanders that they can not provide for themselves.

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 06:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • rupertbrooks0

    68 Liberato

    Bit of a fancy on your part. At least 50% of the island population were born on the islands. Some have been on the islands for 8 generations. Something like 25% of the islanders are not of British descent. The islands have had their own elected legislature since 1845. Government house in Port Stanley was built in 1847. The Falklands have their own distinctive Falklands Islands accent. The Falklands have their own constitution, their own laws, their own currency, and issue their own postage stamps. Indeed the Falkland’s have been members of the international postal union since 1877, before Argentina.

    They have their own tax system, their own social security system, and their own immigration policies. They have their own separate membership of the commonwealth parliamentary association. They send their own representative sports teams to both the Commonwealth games and the international island games. They have their own separate association membership of the European Union. They have the right of self determination expressly written into their constitution. Their right to determine their own future is also guaranteed by the European convention on human rights.

    Under the terms of their constitution, European law and the conventions of the Commonwealth Britain can only negotiate on their behalf. The Uk cannot negotiate away their rights by signing up to an agreement with Argentina without their consent.

    In fact it would be illegal to do so.

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 06:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Briton

    the islanders themselves have said no,
    that's the end of it,

    why don't CFK and her bloggers go pick on someone your own size,
    like the Americans , Russians , china , north Korea , India or brazil,

    oh sorry, you cant can you, they would squash you like an ,

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 07:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Liberato

    To the morons that did not understood what i said:
    UN identify two sides in the sovereignty dispute:
    Islanders are british, ergo they are already represented in one of the two sides of the dispute.
    Both are requested by the UN to meet and negotiate a solution to this sovereignty dispute. One is Argentina where every year is contragulated by the decolonization committe on its efforts to end this problem and the other is the UK that refuses to sit in the negotiation table arguing the islanders are a different people ergo self-determined so they consider they cant negotiate unless islanders so wish.

    But islanders are not a different people than those in britain. That would be the case if the uk after 1833 would not had prohibited argentine inmigration to the islands. Instead they came with british inmigrants until these days, Dont forget that until recently islanders were not owners of their own house. The FIC controled the land, their jobs, all the daily life.

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 08:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Briton

    You cannot negotiate with a padlock,

    Just like Spain,
    If Argentina gets the Falklands,
    Then it must return Patagonia which they are not entitled to,

    Neither are they entitled to put Argentineans on that piece of land in Antarctica and thus sets a claim.

    She can’t have it both ways,
    She won’t have it both ways.


    Nov 30th, 2013 - 08:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Liberato

    Why you consider we are not entitled to Patagonia?. Please explain why?.

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 08:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Briton

    it used to be British,
    so they say.

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 08:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Liberato

    Used to be british???? so they say or so you say?

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 08:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Clyde15

    Moron in chief..Saludos ! Thank you for the compliment of calling me 15 years old....if only. I am almost 5 times that age and have been listening to ignorant sanctimonious twats like you for decades.
    Your head must be solid bone as any sensible thought cannot reach escape velocity from your “brain”
    As for “cojones”, I think that is where you keep what little brain cells you most Latams !
    You still have not told me what“ barbaric acts ”were committed by the UK in the Falklands 200 years ago . Please enlighten us on this matter.
    No offence meant, by the way !

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 09:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Swede

    Liberato said:
    “Both are requested by the UN to meet and negotiate a solution to this sovereignty dispute.”

    But what could an Argentine delegation ever “negotiate”? For them there is only one “solution” available. You cannot expect a delegation to break the constitution of its own country.

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 10:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • golfcronie

    Round and round the merry go round. THE FALKLANDS are in the hands of the FALKLANDERS and will remain so until hell freezes over, how is it that the twirps on here cannot see that. All the history means jackshit, FALKLANDERS wish to remain a BOT. End of. Possession is 9/10 ths of the law.

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 11:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Liberato

    Hi clyde, you may be right and my brain is not as developed as yours, may be in 4 or 5 decades when i got your same age i could be as smart as you are.
    200 years ago, if your memory doesnt fails you, britain invaded and expelled the argentine government and community, living in the Malvinas islands, our territory, implanting a colony where no argentine were alowed to return. That colony implanted by britain remains being an anachronic colonial remnant of the british empire in this 21 century.
    The UN is still waiting for the administering powers of the remaining NSGT to cooperate and decolonize those territories, while the uk is doing the opposite. Exploiting for oil in Malvinas, destroying the constitution of Turks and Caicos, ignoring Chagossians from Diego Garcia islands, etc.
    You should be ashame. But you looks proud having the uk colonies distributed around the world. Playing as an empire like the old days.

    Two different views, i think you are an animal that thinks that uk have a territory in every corner of the globe becouse they are good at diplomacy.
    Be proud of having 10 colonies you stupid fuck, your time to pay the bill will come sooner than later.

    Swede, you dont underestand the meaning of negotiations. By negotiation both, the uk And Argentina, can agree to an arbitration, they can agree to create a committe to search togetter their historical records, etc .
    There are so many things both nations can do to end this dispute together once and for all. The problem is that the uk has no intention to do it. Historically, the argentine claim consisted always in the same logic. We inherited the islands from spain and were expelled by the british.
    The british claim is always suspiciously changing . From discovery, they went to acquiescence and now to self-determination. Something smell very bad in that dont you think?.

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 11:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • GFace

    @83 God, here we go again twice in one day... regarding those “negotiations” for which there can only be one answer for you:

    The Falklanders when asked to be with you (like they're *supposed* to be asked as per the Charter and the rest) they said “No”. When asked again they said “No”. When you illegally invaded, they AND the UNSC said “NO!” AND “get the hell out, NOW!” (Think if it as another “no” but with a “now!” at the end.) When they were liberated and were asked even more they still said “No”. In 2008 the UN voted clearly to remind you that it's ok for NGSTs (including the Falklands) to say “No” and the message was explicitly delivered to you and Spain when you insisted that they didn't even get to say “yes” let alone “no” because you both knew that a “yes” would never come either. When the Islanders had their referendum because they got tired of saying “No” and wanted in officially in writing, they said “yes” to the UK (go figure!). The UK is the administrative power because the islanders have said “No” repeatedly to a change in their status for now which doesn't mean “Yes” to you! If the UK ignores the Islanders saying “No,” they respect the Islanders enough to listen and there will be hell to pay AND they'd be breaking the charter, the letter and spirit of the resolutions you cherry pick and the civilized world will not tolerate another Munich accord especially when “No” *is* the word for the day, yesterday and the ways things are going, tomorrow.

    It's not rocket science, it's not even algebra. When they say “No” it means the opposite 0f “yes.” “No” means “No”. What part of “No” don't you understand. It conviniently means the same in English and Spanish, and if you haven't noticed that when people make the “honest mistake” and confuse “No” with “Yes” or “Si” (Notice that? Neither sounds anything like “No”) they usually wind up spending a lot of time in prison mediating on the meaning of that those 2 simple letters spelled out in alphabetical order.

    Nov 30th, 2013 - 11:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Anglotino


    Thank you for that list, unfortunately for you it doesn’t help you.

    UN GA Resolutions:
    Each of those resolution calls it “PROBLEM” nothing about sovereignty. Indeed the wording is usually along the lines of:
    “resolve peacefully and definitively the PROBLEMS pending between both countries, including all aspects on the future of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations”

    UN GA Resolutions:
    3160 (XXVIII)
    2065 (XX)
    -UN Decolonisation Committee Resolution 109/2012/L.6
    These talk of “negotiations in order to find as soon as possible a peaceful solution to the sovereignty dispute” This is recognition of a dispute, not a recognition of Argentine sovereignty.

    You’ll notice that the wording has changed in more recent resolutions to avoid the word sovereignty and now for the previous 24 years they don’t even mention the Falkland Islands.

    UN GA Resolutions:

    I quote: “take all steps necessary to enable the peoples of the Non-Self- Governing Territories concerned to exercise fully as soon as possible their right to self-determination, including independence”.

    Sorry mate, but that includes the Falklands. There isn’t a single document produced by the UN that removes the right of self-determination FROM the Falkland Islanders.

    Not one.

    As for your claim “britain invaded and expelled the argentine government and community, living in the Malvinas islands”

    Please provide a list of those from the community that were living on the islands and were removed. Please don't included the illegal garrison or their families that were on the islands for less than 3 months.

    As with many others, you will slowly realise that you have been fed lies for many years and will be unable to find actual facts to back up ‘what you know'.

    Dec 01st, 2013 - 12:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • GFace

    Also Lib, these multiple arguments on the claim of the FI by the UK are not mutually exclusive, they're additive. International law sides with the Islands, that's why your government won't take it to the ICJ, they know they'll lose more than just a little face when the Judges does their impersonation of Kitzmiller v. Dover (the term “Breathtaking Inanity” is just not something you need to describe the Argentine case in contrast to the bulk of law on the side of the Islanders).

    As for the management of the Islands, it's actually pretty good. The FIG is competent in their affairs, they even handle a goodly amount of the diplomacy where as London only needs to handle defense against explicit statements from your government saying that they'd invade again if the UK deterrent force left.

    Citing the Chagosans is also a big hypocritical laugh against given that that's what you want to do with the Islanders as per explicit statements by the head of your occupying secret police in 1982 that you celebrate through that 2 peso coin of yours (LOVE that steel claw clutching the islands on the tails side). And statements by fascist malvanistas who want back the good old days of being able to call in the Junta (they are so handy when you know how to drop a dime) have made it clear that such a management plan against the UN charter, and will of the people is still an item, wrt ethnic cleansing.

    The oil situation is run through the FIG for the FIG, not London as you pretend (heck there are some people in the UK proper who bristle about that). Once again, well established fact. Discussed and debated here frequently.

    So to summarize. No means no. Claims add up. Unrepentant hypocrisy is not a wining argument. And on this discussion board, you have no one to repeat the lies your government has lied to you all along. They just don't fly.

    Dec 01st, 2013 - 12:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Biguggy

    @ 85 The 'icing on the cake as far as UNGA resolutions go is that many malvinistas claim that as UNGA 2065 only mentions the population of the Islands then they are not a people and are therefore not entitled to self-determination. However paragraph 7 (c) of 67/134 states:
    “To continue to examine the political, economic and social situation in the Non-Self-Governing Territories, and to recommend, as appropriate, to the General Assembly the most suitable steps to be taken to enable the populations of those Territories to exercise their right to self-determination, including independence, in accordance with the relevant resolutions on decolonization, including resolutions on specific Territories;”
    Similar wording has been used every year in a UNGA resolution since 1965 when UNGA 2105 was issued only 4 days after 2065.
    There has been a lot of hot air expended over almost the last 50 years for nothing.
    My opinion is that there never should have been any doubt after 2105 was issued.

    Dec 01st, 2013 - 03:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Anglotino


    Either way it doesn't matter because “peoples” has never been defined in international law and believe me when I say that countries like Russia and China are not eager for that to happen as they prefer it to be vague.

    I will admit I was surprised, thanks to Liberato, to discover how UN General Assembly Resolutions had changed over time. I can now use this research to further demolish the next Malvinista who pops up…. bit like whack-a-mole.

    Up until 1985 they talk about sovereignty.
    Then from 1986 until 1989 they talk about a problem.
    Then from 1989 until now the UN GA doesn't even pass a separate resolution for the Falklands, even though it continues for other issues like Western Sahara. Now it just reiterates the rights to self-determination.

    It is why Argentina concentrates on the C24 so much because no one else listens to them anymore about the Falklands. And the C24 really is an unimportant committee. It is why Argentina spends so much time and energy getting every meeting it attends to reiterate its legitimate rights to the Islands. Because in international law and where it does count, no one has yet been able to find any legitimate rights.

    Liberato won't be the last one to try his brainwashing up against reality and find it wanting.

    Dec 01st, 2013 - 06:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • lsolde

    Well Liberato, you nong, what do you say to all that.?
    You really believe all the lies that your immoral governments have fed you since you started school.
    lts been proven that no Argentines were expelled from the Falklands.
    Just an illegal military garrison were rightfully evicted.
    They had only been there 2 months & committed enough crimes for your/their OWN government to execute a few of them when they returned to BsAs.
    You “inherited”nothing from Spain-stop lying.
    Do you really think that Spain would give you anything when you were in open rebellion against her?
    Contrary to what you have been taught, the Falklands are NOT your territory & NEVER have been(& NEVER will be, either).
    Of course we will not allow Argentines to settle on OUR land.
    We will decide who comes here, NOT Argentina as its none of your business.
    We really don't care too much about what you think & there will be NO discussions or “dialogue” about Sovereignty.
    Would you discuss/dialogue Argentine Sovereignty with another country?
    China, perhaps?
    So really, Liberato, old chap, you have no case.
    lf you had, your country would have taken your“case”to the ICJ.
    Have you ever wondered why they have not?
    And for the record, Briton is correct.
    There were British settlers in Patagonia before you Argentines arrived in the late 19th century.
    As sr Think loves to say “lnform yourself”
    Thank you.

    Dec 01st, 2013 - 06:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Anglotino

    LOL Isolde!!!!

    Is Liberato one of these mythical “turnips” that I keep hearing about.

    I mean the Malvinas are mythical after all.

    Dec 01st, 2013 - 09:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • lsolde

    @90 Anglotino,
    l can't know.
    Don't know where they dredge these idiots up from.
    They believe all the lies they were ever taught at school.
    l believe their teachers believe them too as they were taught the same rubbish when they went to school.
    And so it goes, back to the 1940s, when Peron thought that the British were going to be invaded & decided to help himself to the scraps of the Empire before anyone else got them.
    These gullible idiots think that possession of the Falklands will magically catapult Argentina into a modern, prosperous, first class nation, free of debt & want. Hard work & honesty don't seem to have any part of it.
    Just a little bit of research would show them how ridiculous their claims are.
    Think is the Turnip-in-Chief, so l guess these other hangers on would be lesser turnips or turnipettes. lol.

    Dec 01st, 2013 - 10:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Biguggy

    @ 88
    Please do not forget the two ICJ advisoriy opinions that state that ALL NSGTs have the right to self determination. I have yet to see a malvi even try and repudiate that.
    In your research have you turned up UN document A/5800/Rev1? The section on the Falklands makes interesting reading.

    Dec 01st, 2013 - 11:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Monkeymagic


    You are again wrong. There are numerous areas governed from Beunos Aires as part of the Spanish Empire that are not part of Argentina, swathes of Paraguay, Uruguay, Bolivia, even Brazil. There are huge swathes of current Argentina that were not part of the Spanish Empire.

    If you want to return to the Spanish Empire borders governed by Buenos need to start by returning Patagonia to the indigenous Amerindians.

    Aden was administered from Bombay during the British Empire...oddly Gandhi didn't try and claim it upon independence...why, because he knew it wasn't part of India.

    The islands weren't part of the UP or the Viceroyalty, they, like Cuba or Mexico were a separate part of the Spanish Empire governed for expedience from Buenos Aires.

    Upon independence they were without a population. Argentina failed to establish a population and were aware of Britains historic claim.

    I am sorry you hate the historic facts.

    No resolutions call for negotiations on sovereignty.

    What they request is that the UK and Argentina negotiate to resolve their dispute baring in mind the interests of the islanders and the UN charter which expresses that all people have the right to self determination.

    Again, you have been lied to.

    There is no inheritance from Spain
    There are no UN resolutions demanding sovereignty negotiations.

    what there is is a corrupt racist failed state (Argentina) lying to a poorly educated population with propaganda and indoctrination to hide their own inadequacies.

    Dec 01st, 2013 - 11:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Anglotino

    Now that I think about it, New Zealand was once part of the Colony of New South Wales, so perhaps we should be claiming that.

    And Papua New Guinea was once a colony of Australia so perhaps we were a bit hasty in given them independence.

    Wow I like this game!

    @ lsolde
    “turnipettes” LOL Agreed, I think Peron was the Grand Turnip Poobaa considering he started the whole fairytale in the 1940s.

    @ Biguggy
    I haven't seen that document, but is that the one where they tried to remove the right of self determination and failed miserably?

    Dec 01st, 2013 - 01:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Clyde15

    Where we differ is in the interpretation of the historical sovereignty of the Falklands. My interpretation is that the UK removed a few Argentinian military from UK sovereign territory and reclaimed control of our land. Even by your hyperbole it could hardly be considered barbaric. However, the invasion of 1982 could be described as barbaric. Overwhelming military force used against a largely undefended civilian population !
    No, I don't think you are unintelligent but jingoistic to the nth degree.
    My post at #80 was in reply to your rather condescending comment about me. I don't believe that one becomes more intelligent with age but experience of life colours one's judgement.
    As to you last bit of venom in your post “you stupid fuck” is grammatically incorrect. Stupid is an adjective and fuck is a verb...not a noun. So you should have written “you stupid fucker”
    If you wish to use our beautiful and explicit language please get it right OR we may think that you are posting a lot of garbage.
    As to the use of insults, I think I could come up with many, many more than you can having had 72 years of experience of their usage.
    I now find that they mean nothing other than a desire to vent your frustration when you are losing an argument.

    Dec 01st, 2013 - 01:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • GFace

    @94, no that BG's is from the 60s. It's pretty big PDF. The press release on the 2008 vote is here:

    Dec 01st, 2013 - 02:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Biguggy

    @ 94
    No, it and A/6000/Rev1 are essentially the reports of the Special Committee on Decolinization.
    5800 is a really interesting read, well the bits relevant to Gib and the Falklands it gives lot of insight. Unfortunately a lot of the documents it references do not 'pull up' on the UN website.

    Dec 01st, 2013 - 05:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • GFace

    @97 Yes, you have to fight with the URLs a lot and it often yells at you about cookies and firewalls...

    Dec 01st, 2013 - 05:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Briton

    You can’t talk to a padlock,
    information is padlocked and cannot be opened or changed.

    You cannot change the past,
    And the fact is, the people today, no matter where you live, including argentina, have a right to decide who they wish to be , governed by , associated with , or trade with ect ect ,

    In this case the Falkland people have decided they with to remain British,

    And yes Patagonia was once British, BUT it is now argentine,
    But how would Argentina like it, if we British put in a claim for Patagonia today [it won’t happen]
    But they voted and said they would remain argentine,
    And we refused it, we demanded argentine sit down and talked about it, and then gave it to us,

    How would you Argies like it, if we did to you, what you are doing to the islanders,

    The fact is,
    Argentina has far to much land, and taking the Falklands has nothing what so ever to do with the people or them being British,
    It’s the oil and that’s all, Argentina wants all the wealth of the people,

    The Falklands are British until they say other wise,
    So Argentina should leave them alone, and her people should do the same,
    And that my argie bargies is the fundamental difference between a dictatorship and a democracy

    And your claim of the past has sod all relevance..


    Dec 01st, 2013 - 06:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Anglotino

    Gawd Liberato didn't last long.

    Reality bites!

    Dec 01st, 2013 - 08:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DanyBerger


    With your theory I can go to any part empty in England, Wales or Scotdland with a couple of friends and claim that territory for Germany and then set up a military base there with a German flag over it and there is noting you can do.

    Just hilarious...

    Dec 01st, 2013 - 09:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • lsolde

    No Dany, you couldn't.
    You tried that little trick in 1940, but got no-where, did you? lol!
    The British lsles have been claimed already.
    Patagonia had not been claimed by anyone, when British settlers, many from the Falklands, moved there in the 19th century.
    The settlers were operating independently.
    The British government was not involved & the settlers did not claim the land for the UK.
    The Argentines then arrived, after the British.
    Perhaps we should have claimed southern Patagonia.
    l'll bet the inhabitants of those provinces today wished we had have done so! lol
    You really do need to read a truthful history book, Dany & stop soaking up Argentine rubbish.
    Most times you are hilarious.
    Ill-informed & hilarious.

    Dec 01st, 2013 - 10:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • GFace

    @100, he's spent all day with his head in a dictionary trying to find the word “no.” If his research skills are what I think they are he may make it to “Abril” by morning.

    Dec 02nd, 2013 - 12:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Anglotino

    Dany says:
    “With your theory I can go to any part empty in England, Wales or Scotdland with a couple of friends and claim that territory for Germany and then set up a military base there with a German flag over it and there is noting you can do.”

    Isolde says:
    “You tried that little trick in 1940, but got no-where, did you?”

    Anglotino says:

    Dec 02nd, 2013 - 11:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Clyde15

    You are welcome to try !

    Dec 02nd, 2013 - 12:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Briton

    you have been

    Dec 02nd, 2013 - 07:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • MagnusMaster

    @91 “Don't know where they dredge these idiots up from.
    They believe all the lies they were ever taught at school.
    l believe their teachers believe them too as they were taught the same rubbish when they went to school.”

    Of course they believe it! What you call lies is actual history in Argentina. To Argentinians, the claim that Peron brainwashed people in the 40s with Malvinas is about as believable as the reptilian alien conspiracy theory. There are less people in Argentina who believe what you do than there are Argentinians who believe in UFOs or in the 911 conspiracy.

    “These gullible idiots think that possession of the Falklands will magically catapult Argentina into a modern, prosperous, first class nation, free of debt & want. Hard work & honesty don't seem to have any part of it.”

    Actually we don't believe that possesion of them islands will magically catapult Argentina, but that it's necessary condition. For us, the issue is to undo the humillation upon us and to gain dignity and respect rather than being, well, the mockery we are today.

    Dec 02nd, 2013 - 08:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Swede

    Argentina could learn very much from Germany. There is specific term called “Vergangenheitsbewältigung” which means “struggle to come to terms with the past”. You can read about it here:ältigung and for the most concerned of course here:ältigung

    Germany has lost some 183 000 square kilometers of territory since 1910 in two world wars they started. 1933-45 they were ruled by one the bloodiest regimes in history.

    But now they are something of a “muster democracy” with good relations with all their former enemies.

    If Argentina, for a start, could just drop the absurd “Malvinas Myth” it could in the long run help it to become just a “modern, prosperous, first class nation, free of debt & want”.

    Dec 02nd, 2013 - 10:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • lsolde

    @107 MagnusMaster,
    -“them” islands ?
    Magnus, your slip is showing!
    either hoist it up or pull your hemline down a bit! lol!

    However, the Falklands are not yours, so you can't have them under any circumstances.
    And you brought the humiliation upon yourselves.
    There are no shortcuts to respect & you don't get it by lying & bullying.
    Hope this helps.

    Dec 02nd, 2013 - 10:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • MagnusMaster

    @108 German is a neat language, they always have a word for everything. But Argentina isn't going to drop anything anytime soon, for most Argentinians, it would be even more humillating. Maybe next century.

    @109 “ There are no shortcuts to respect & you don't get it by lying & bullying.”

    I agree. But if someone mocks you, you punch him in the face.

    Dec 03rd, 2013 - 12:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • lsolde

    @110 MagnusMaster,
    lf you can.

    Dec 03rd, 2013 - 11:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    The Anglo-Spanish agreement of 1771 was a de facto joint sovereignty arrangement.
    Prior treaty arrangements between spain and the UK specifically exclude Argentine claims. So you are wrong it was impossible for Argentina to have inherited from Spain like your indoctrinators have taught you.

    Peace of Utrecht
    Article VIII is hereby further agreed and concluded, that neither the Catholic King, nor any of his heirs and successors whatsoever, shall sell, yield, pawn, transfer, or by any means, or under any name, alienate from them and the crown of Spain, to the French, or to any other nations whatever, any lands, dominions, or territories, or any part thereof, belonging to Spain in America.

    Nootka Convention

    The first Nootka Convention plays a role in the disputed sovereignty of the Falkland Islands between the United Kingdom and Argentina. Article VI provided that neither party would form new establishments on any of the islands adjacent to the east and west coasts of South America then occupied by Spain. Both retained the right to land and erect temporary structures on the coasts and islands for fishery-related purposes. However, there was an additional secret article which stipulated that Article VI shall remain in force only so long as no establishment shall have been formed by the subjects of any other power on the coasts in question. This secret article had the same force as if it were inserted in the convention. The Nootka Convention's applicability to the Falklands dispute is controversial and complicated. The United Provinces of the River Plate was not a party to the convention. Therefore it is defined in the convention as 'other power' and the occupation of the settlement (at Port Louis) by subjects of any other power negated Article VI and allowed Great Britain to re-assert prior sovereignty and form new settlements.[5]

    Dec 03rd, 2013 - 01:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • HansNiesund


    >For us, the issue is to undo the humilation upon us and to gain dignity and respect

    It's quite remarkable that you consider some imagined slight on your ancestors' dignity two centuries ago to be of far greater import than the rights of people alive today.

    And it's rather hard to see how you expect to gain dignity and respect by parading this infantile obsession into every international forum there is.

    A better way to gain dignity and respect would be to announce to the world that you're mature and adult enough to let live in peace 3000 people 300 miles away from you, who have never done you any harm.

    Now that would be an example to us all.

    Dec 03rd, 2013 - 11:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DanyBerger

    Britain should give the Islands back to the Argies and compensate them economically for all those years that Britain had possessed her territories.

    That will improve the bad image of Britons in the world and especially in SA providing for Britain more trade opportunities en the region what will help to improve the bad economic situation in the poor and devastated Islands.

    After all we should not blame these people for their ignorance and luck of education.

    Remember guys that we are democratic, then are not, we have free education, they have not, we have freedom of expression, they have not...

    Dec 04th, 2013 - 04:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • lsolde

    Yes Dany, free to starve or be frozen.
    A better idea would be for Argentina to give Patagonia back to the native Amerindian peoples.
    Or for Argentina to return to Paraguay, the land that was stolen from them in 1871.
    People might trust Argentina's word then.
    lt also might improve Argentina's terrible image among her neighbours.

    Dec 04th, 2013 - 09:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • MagnusMaster

    @113 “It's quite remarkable that you consider some imagined slight on your ancestors' dignity two centuries ago to be of far greater import than the rights of people alive today. ”

    Yes, it´s remarkable, but it´s what the people of Argentina think.

    “A better way to gain dignity and respect would be to announce to the world that you're mature and adult enough to let live in peace 3000 people 300 miles away from you, who have never done you any harm.”

    I agree, but there is a problem... for a lot of people in Argentina it would be humilliating and I think a lot of people in UK will also see this as an opportunity to humilliate us.

    Dec 04th, 2013 - 03:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Clyde15

    Who are you talking about ? It sounds like Argentina but you seem confused.

    Dec 04th, 2013 - 04:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pete Bog


    “Britain should give the Islands back to the Argies and compensate them economically for all those years that Britain had possessed her territories.”

    Argentina should give back all the territory they stole off the native Amerindians (thanks Isolde) and compensate them economically for all the years that Argentina possessed their territories.

    Dec 04th, 2013 - 09:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!