MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
“Falklands can count on UK' continued support in countering Argentina's campaign”
Prime Minister David Cameron reaffirmed Britain's steadfast support for Falkland Islands self determination and development of its resources, outstanding the Falklands referendum as the great event of 2013, a year which he described as 'momentous'. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesread: “we are determined in securing british interests in whatever oil is found in the south atlantic because we will need it desperately when and if Scotland declares its independence.”
Dec 20th, 2013 - 07:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0Zzzzzzzzzzz
Dec 20th, 2013 - 07:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0Thats rather daft Troneas.
Dec 20th, 2013 - 07:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0So if that is the case, what were the British defending before oil was found? Your argument holds about as much water and logic as those we see from the Argentine government.
Unlike Argentine's we stand by our people and are a people of integrity and dignity and we aren't engaged in bullying and name calling like your government.
Get some class.
@1 Troneas
Dec 20th, 2013 - 08:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0Was oil foremost in our minds in 1982?
Don't try to undermine our resolve in defending our people, their rights and lands.
@1 Troneas. You sound like a disappointed child on Christmas morning who never got the gift you were expecting. Grow up! While you are growing up, take some lessons in history with you and show some respect for the men who died...yes died, while defending the Falkland Islands. It was not all that long ago and there are many of us (and I say 'us' with clout) and our children and their children that will never forget that and oil had nothing to do with it then and has nothing to do with it now. The people have spoken!
Dec 20th, 2013 - 09:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0@1 You could turn your argument around 180 degrees.
Dec 20th, 2013 - 09:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0The only reason that Argentina is continuing to push its invalid sovereignty claim (certainly not tested by the ICJ) is because there might be some oil. I think right now they would be glad of some given the degree of economic mismanagement by CFK and her circus of clowns
@troneas
Dec 20th, 2013 - 10:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0Just imagine what Argentina could do with that oil if only Cristina's mad old husband hadn't torn up the hydrocarbons agreement...
Thanks Prime Minister Cameron; it's, as always, reassuring to hear your words of support.
Dec 20th, 2013 - 10:18 am - Link - Report abuse 06 Steveu
They assume it's about oil for the UK because more than ever now it's about oil for them. I am nowhere near confident that oil will flow in massive amounts anyway. The likely date for first recovery has been pushed back yet again.
@1 troneas
Dec 20th, 2013 - 10:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0There won't be enough oil found to make a difference to the UK or Argentina.
It will however help the Falkland Islands develop their economy and infrastructure.
It's totally hypocritical to accuse the UK of wanting to steal the oil off the Falkland Islands Government, (in spite of the fact that the UK lets the FIG control it), when Argentina wants to steal it.
Argentina=Pirates, except you're not very good at piracy as 1982 demonstrated.
i find the prospects of Argentina carrying out there threat amusing. it will give the UK all the incentive to as Argentine Put it Militarize the south Atlantic. and they will be right. UK will be forced to patrol around the outside of Argentine waters. to protect there shipping from illegal piracy. all the diplomatic protests lol expelling of the ambassadors. very interesting prospects little Argentina puts us though
Dec 20th, 2013 - 10:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0And as long as the UK is involved in an issue that has nothing to do with them, Argentina can count on the support of Latam.
Dec 20th, 2013 - 11:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0Great news for Latam integration, Uruguay is offering Paraguay an exit to the Atlantic through the deep sea port.
@1 Conveniently overlooking the FACT that any oil, or gas, found in the vicinity of the Falkland Islands will belong to the Falkland Islanders. You remember the Falkland Islands, it's that self-governing British Overseas Territory whose “self-determination” Britain respects.
Dec 20th, 2013 - 11:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0As a UK/British/English tax-paying citizen, I would like to assure all Falkland Islanders of a number of FACTS;
1. The United Kingdom/Britain/England will NEVER desert you. The people here will not permit it. If you choose to go a different way, that's up to you.
2. Your oil is YOURS. WE will not demand or ask for anything. If you choose to contribute to your defence, that's YOUR choice. WE will defend you anyway.
3. If you need anything, ask. You need to support and govern yourselves, but that doesn't mean we can't help. And we will.
4. Your situation may not make the news in Britain every day. But that doesn't mean we've forgotten. Some British people may be too young to know about what you suffered and continue to suffer. But, as the Prime Minister has said, the argie government will not be allowed to succeed EVER.
A Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to each and every one of you!
You could always start with leaving their sheep alone...
Dec 20th, 2013 - 11:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0@12 Well Said!
Dec 20th, 2013 - 11:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0@13 Little Mr Contrary, why not give it a rest and ask Santa for some valid arguments for Christmas.
Dec 20th, 2013 - 11:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0Tell me who your friends are and I tell you who you are.
Dec 20th, 2013 - 11:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0By the way, I'm an atheist, keep your excuses to feed the system.
@16 Stevie - My Company has a surplus stock level on boxes of Keyboard wipes. I could do you a good deal on them, as the way you keep beating over your keyboard it sounds like your going through a couple of boxes per day and are in need of some more lol.
Dec 20th, 2013 - 12:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Cheers!
Dec 20th, 2013 - 12:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have a couple of books on electricity production for you. Could be quite relevant as you seem to think that a lightbulb consumes more electricity than AC...
Lets trade!
@18 - Errr Helloooo... Light Bulbs actually use AC (Alternating Current)!!! In fact, electrical current in houses is AC, given that the power plant sends electricity as AC through the power lines from the power plant!
Dec 20th, 2013 - 12:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sorry for overestimating your wits....
Dec 20th, 2013 - 12:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0AC as in Air Conditioning....
My bad........
The Falkland Island people voted to remain a BOT. If Argentina has a valid claim they can go to the ICJ. For some reason Argentina just shouts a lot and do everything they can just to annoy the Falkland Islands Citizens. Nothing I repeat nothing Argentina has done since their invasion in 1982 has made it more likely they will gain control of the Falklands.
Dec 20th, 2013 - 12:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Wish You all a Happy xmas and new year.
Dec 20th, 2013 - 12:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0exciting times for the Future with the oil revenue
coming..
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/10529997/David-Cameron-promises-to-defend-Falklands.html
Dec 20th, 2013 - 12:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What a nice Christmas present for KFC and gollum. Their hopes dashed yet again. The impotent C24 committee whinges and whines, meanwhile the trajectory of all the BOTs is onward and upward. The failed 1982 invasion and the recent Falklands referendum made the possibility of Argentina EVER having any influence over the Falkland Islands impossible.
Dec 20th, 2013 - 01:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So, seasons greetings to all the trolls but just remember you will have to go without a bottle of Champers and make do with socks (useful for your numerous sock puppets). I am sure you will all have a lovely Christmas as you are mostly here in Britain away from the power cuts, water shortages, riots and bent policemen that figure so prominently in your homeland.
For all Peronistas, your national anthem...http://kerstfun.punt.nl/content/2010/12/kerstmuziek-met-bierflesjes
Feliz Navidad (or whatever)
AND THE WORLD HEARD THE REFERENDUM: UN STILL CALLS FOR BILATERAL NEGOTIATIONS UK-ARG TO SOLVE DISPUTE IN SOVEREIGNTY. SAME AS BEFORE: NO SELF DETERMINATION FOR PROXIES, YOU HAVE CONFIRMED YOUR BRITISHNESS AND HENCE PARTY TO THE BILATERAL DISPUTE. CAMERON IS SO AWARE OF THIS...
Dec 20th, 2013 - 01:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 023
Dec 20th, 2013 - 02:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A Christmas song, just for you.....every little helps...;-)))
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WI02_UJ1C6I
@Alejo
Dec 20th, 2013 - 02:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The reason there have been no talks is because Argentina won't talk if there is a representative of the Falkland Islands in the room.
A - Hole, hope you are enjoying the weather, you deserve it. Went for my dental checkup yesterday. They are all, original, present and correct and in A1 condition. Sorry to disappoint you :-)
Dec 20th, 2013 - 02:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@25:
Dec 20th, 2013 - 02:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Negotiations” are useless. The Argentines have nothing to offer. The only goal for them is a total take-over of the Islands. It is enshrined in their constitution. No Argentine negotiator could go against the Constitution of the Arg Republic. And the people of FI are totatally against any Argentine influence. There is really no dispute that can be solved. So just forget it.
@29 Swede
Dec 20th, 2013 - 02:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes, this is why Argentina does not sit down to negotiate. They know they will not win the falklands by negotiation or any other means, so its only real value to them is in combined enterprise through co-operation or as a whipping boy to hide their woes and mismanagement. They've opted for the latter. CFK would remove their self-determination, her poisonous language and activities sours any prospects for sovereignty. The future is with Britain or independence... up to them.
25 Alejomartinez
Dec 20th, 2013 - 02:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Simply legally a none-binding advisement, whereas the rule of international law in these matters is :
“The precise scope of the obligation is, however, that states should settle disputes peacefully, not that they should settle them. In other words, there is no general rule requiring a state to settle its grievances. Rather, the rule is that if a state does decide to settle, this must be done in a peaceful manner.”
page 275
Textbook on International Law By Martin Dixon
Alejo : There can be no negotiation because of Argentina's intransigence . The Argentine constitution demands an unconditional handing over of the islands , so what would the basis of “ negotiation ” be ?
Dec 20th, 2013 - 03:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Whether the people there are disappeared , as almost happened in 1982 ?
If you want the islands so much , offer each resident , man , woman and child , U$S10m each to leave .
They'll still tell you to p*ss right off , mind .
@ 25 Alejomartinez
Dec 20th, 2013 - 03:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0if you are trying to make yourself look ignorant, your success rate is 100%
As have been shown again and again using UN documents: in decolonisation questions self-determination beats all other arguments.
28
Dec 20th, 2013 - 04:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In the spirit of festive tradition.....“Oh no they aren't!”
All present and correct......What... both of them?....;-))))
@ 25 Alejomartinez
Dec 20th, 2013 - 04:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0WRONG, its not a bilateral dispute, it includes the Islanders whose ancestors were there before Argentina was even a country. Putting sentences in block capitals makes you look like a fool, and this is confirmed when one reads what you are saying.
And...whatever you, your government, the UN, or even Father Christmas says Argentina is not getting the Falkland Islands, its resources or anything, and Britain is saying that its standing by the Falkland Islands for ever.
Go away and weep...
Argentina has by decree set up a new department to focus on the FALKLAND ISLANDS with Filmus in charge, worth watching in the near future, LMBO
Dec 20th, 2013 - 04:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A-Hole, well, I am at Celtic Connections soon so you can come and check for yourself, or are you tied up performing at the back end of the pantomime horse?
Dec 20th, 2013 - 04:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sorry, the show is sold out....
You have to love this form of reporting.
Dec 20th, 2013 - 05:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“In a message 2 minutes and 41 seconds long,” from president Cameron
http://www.cronista.com/internacionales/David-Cameron-Argentina-nunca-tendra-exito-en-sus-reclamos-sobre-Malvinas-20131220-0098.html
http://www.cronista.com/internacionales/David-Cameron-Argentina-nunca-tendra-exito-en-sus-reclamos-sobre-Malvinas-20131220-0098.html
37
Dec 20th, 2013 - 05:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oh no...you are one of those.....
Which one there are lots of them at different venues across Glasgow on different dates....?
..are you fibbing...even the opening concert doesn't show sold out...
“Oh yes he is...”
@38
Dec 20th, 2013 - 05:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0For the not so well informed it is Prime Minister Cameron, not President, the UK is NOT a banana Republic.
Having visited several times the Falkland Islands and the UK, I can certify that
Dec 20th, 2013 - 05:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0PM Cameron is 100% correct:
'The Falklands are British through and through'!
Philippe
@9
Dec 20th, 2013 - 06:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I am not sure that is entirely accurate. The amount of oil discovered currently is between 300-500 million barrels....at $80-100 a barrel it is already a hefty value. The chances are there are multiples of this undiscovered together with equally valuable gas condensate. There is potentially hundreds of billions of dollars worth.
However, this has little to do with Britain, and nothing to do with Argentina. It is the property of the Falkland Islands government. However, of course both Britain and Argentina have choices.
If one was to foster close relationships with the islanders, then that nations companies and suppliers may be preferred, if one was to support the islanders, they may chose to invest their wealth in bonds or infrastructure to the benefit of both. If one was to support the islanders self-determination and respect their rights...it maybe that a portion of the hundreds of billions maybe benefit their population.
Now, which of Argentina and Britain is supportive of the islanders and which is spiting them, and therefore their own people with 200 year old fairy stories and child indoctrination?
WE ALREADY KNOW IT.
Dec 20th, 2013 - 06:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Don't worry mr cameron, we already know that argentina won't never recover the sovereignty of the islands, in fact everybody knows that such an important nation like the u. k., in some aspects still behaviours like the same thief of XIX century which deprived argentina of exercising it's rights over the islands.
Many people in this forum accuse us of believing a false history, in relation to the history of the islands, however none of them never criticise the too partial arguments of their side, in refference to this conflict.
The day they decide to investigate deeply as i did, they will realise that the case has strong and weak aspects for both nations, beside, leaders from both countries often tell just what is convenient for them, before int. scenarios, about the historic and the legal aspects of this conflict, not just argentina.
On the other hand, i can understand if the islanders reject to talk about the sovereignty of the islands, because they feel indentifficated with the british culture. But what really annoys me, is their hypocritical complaint in relation to the lack of dialogue with our government, due to every time they complain about it, they manifest that they are disposed to talk about many issues, but not about the sovereignty, which is the main problem, so, what they want is not a dialogue, it's actualy a submission. Their posture deffers from c. f. k's before the u. n. in 2012, when she read a secret document treated between both governments in 1974, which was based on a shared sovereignty with the u. k.
Although they don't want to accept it, the u. n. has always considered this cause like a special case since 1965, beside, it has never applied the right to self det., as it did for other colonial situations.
Even the president from the d. c. from the u. n. explained a few days before the referendum, the reasons why self det. is not applicable. If they prefer believing the contrary, they have right to live in their fantasy.
UK PM david Moron should be repairing the collapsed theather roof instead of showing off!
Dec 20th, 2013 - 06:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@12 Hear hear Conqueror.
Dec 20th, 2013 - 07:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Very well said.
We will continue to support and defend the Falkland Islands.
To preserve their right to Self Determination.
To govern themselves and for them (alone) to benefit from the oil & gas they discover.
Merry Christmas & a very prosperous New Year to everyone on the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar.
Argentina's argument is weak, the Falkland Islanders is strong.
Dec 20th, 2013 - 07:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0end.Of.
All of your careful picking of UN statements that suit your opinion cannot get around the issue that the UN supports self-determination and has clearly said so, its also said that the Uk is in breach of no resolutions and anything prior to 1982 was broken by Argentinas invasion anyway.
So, tough luck, but Argentina isnt getting its colonial ambitions fulfilled.
The Falklands arent your and never have been.
( 38) Leiard
Dec 20th, 2013 - 07:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yupppp..... One has to love your form of embarrassing yourself....
Nowhere in the two links you posted says “President Cameron”
Turnip....
@46
Dec 20th, 2013 - 07:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“in a message 2 minutes and 41 seconds long, the conservative president remarked that ”2013 will be remembered as a landmark year in the history of the Islands“, following the referendum last March in which the inhabitants of the archipelago reaffirmed their desire to maintain the political status of ”British overseas territory“.”
Axel, you are right, after 1982 and the referendum whatever any anti British C24 head says Argentina will NEVER get the Falkland Islands. Turn around and look at the state of your country and set about making it better.
Dec 20th, 2013 - 07:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 043 axel arg
Dec 20th, 2013 - 07:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0WE ALREADY KNOW IT.
Doesn’t worry Mr Cameron, we already know that Argentina won't never recover the sovereignty of the islands
To true,
As long as there is freedom and democracy, you have no chance.
Still,
Look on the bright side,
China could start the year of and conquer the world with it best’s ally Argentina,
You defeat the USA UK Europe, Russia capitulates,
And CFK becomes queen of the Americas,
And have her very own empire, [and the Falklands]
Its Christmas?? Where dreams come true…lol.
Ha ha ha ..
.
@43 axel
Dec 20th, 2013 - 07:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Talks were available to you when your foreign sec visited London. He had demanded talks and so our foreign sec got some biscuits in and some extra chairs and even flew the FI reps in since it is their country that Mr T wanted to discuss. But once he got here he decided he didn't want to negotiate after all. Funnily enough as soon as he got home he started demanding negotiations again!
Axel, if the case for UK sovereignty is so weak then test that at the ICJ. It doesn't matter what you or I think - the ICJ is the only forum with the ability to change things. Mr T was free to go this year and didn't and he won't go next year either. That should tell you all you need to know about the relative strength of the two cases. And in any case that is all history - self-determination beats everything. One day you will come to terms with that, just as we have.
perhaps axel knows not what freedom of choice is,
Dec 20th, 2013 - 07:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0self determination is,
freedom is,
democracy is.....
A-Hole/Think/Vestige and any other sock puppets - no comment to make or is Eastenders just too gripping? Surely you are not going to let our President off?
Dec 20th, 2013 - 08:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0yeah I got a comment for you.....
Dec 20th, 2013 - 08:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0heard they got a promotion on at Boots for Poligrip...
...don't miss out...
(47) Leiard
Dec 20th, 2013 - 08:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You say….:
“….in a message 2 minutes and 41 seconds long, the conservative president remarked that ”2013 will be remembered as a landmark year in the history of the Islands…..“
I say….:
And the monolingual Turnip repeats the same mistake again, even after having being told that he made a mistake…
The ORIGINAL SPANISH ARTICLE says…:
”en un mensaje de 2 minutos y 41 segundos de extensión, el MANDATARIO conservador remarcó que “2013 será recordado como un año trascendental en la historia de las Islas””
http://www.cronista.com/internacionales/David-Cameron-Argentina-nunca-tendra-exito-en-sus-reclamos-sobre-Malvinas-20131220-0098.html
“MANDATARIO” in Spanish means “LEADER” you Turnip…..
No wonder those monolingual Anglo Turnips believe the Malvinas Islands to be English…..
Some bad English translator has wrongly translated the relevant documents into English and that makes it automatically “The Truth” in the Monolingual Turnips minds…..
Brainwash anybody….
David Cameron is the “ Leader ” of the Conservative party but is the “Prime Minister” of the UK.
Dec 20th, 2013 - 08:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The brain washed trolls are not even capable of presenting their criticisms in a sensible way! ¡ Qué ineptos!
Dec 20th, 2013 - 08:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Think/A-hole/Vestige these discussions about semantics are not amusing, please revert to your usual inane rubbish. Its not funny. We dont have Presidents (thats normally reserved for the local Womens Institute, things like that, and banana republics of course). The Scotch are trying to get one and they presently have a Pink President and a slithery assistant but I am sure you already know that.
Dec 20th, 2013 - 08:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(56) golfcronie
Dec 20th, 2013 - 08:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You say...:
“David Cameron is the “ Leader ” of the Conservative party but is the “Prime Minister” of the UK.”
I say...:
Jupppppp......... And that's EXACTLY what the The ORIGINAL SPANISH ARTICLE says (see post 55).....
57 Gordo1
Juppppppp....... The brain washed English Turnips are not even capable of translate ONE single Spanish/ Latin (mandatarius) word correctly... !
¡ Qué ineptos!
58
Dec 20th, 2013 - 08:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Scotch ...How can a type of Whisky get anything?....Scots moron...
57
from your link @23
The comments section of the real British not the sycophants and wannabes on here is funny enough...and it says it all.....
some examples...
Christmas message! Who does this twerp think he is? The monarch?
The best he can pledge is the Falklands. What about the economy? Jobs? Pay scandals? Immigration? Illegal business deals (like the selling off of Post Office to politicians as favoured) and other really bad issues that need to be addressed. I noticed he pledged little help to the UK. This reading between the lines really worries me a lot. He doesn't brag any achievements any more does he! The best he can do to help is a little island that has little impact on how our country operates. What a claim for Christmas success.
1) Defend them with exactly what after all the cuts? Amazing isn't it, the forces are supposed to be more efficient now that they are smaller, after all everytime there are cuts we are told this. Strange then this doesn't apply to politicians and bureaucrats too, cut them and lets have greater efficiency there!
2) So the Falklanders want to remain British and Cameron supports this, well I want to remain British and not be european, how about supporting this view as well?
...great stuff....
60 A_Voice
Dec 20th, 2013 - 08:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Say no more.....
:-))))))))))
Think - I agree, you should say no more as A-Hole, its all irrelavent dross anyway. You should realise the Scotch (and little Scotchlanders) have very little influence on Torys. HIGNFY, very distracting aint it?
Dec 20th, 2013 - 09:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0TWIMC
Dec 20th, 2013 - 09:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A couple of small pearls from the comment section of the Telegraph’s article…:
Stephen Jones
20 minutes ago...:
”Cameron has said “Britain will always be ready to defend the Falkland Islands.” So that’s us handing the island back to the Argentinians within the next few months.”
ogga1
2 hours ago...:
”A Cameron pledge could prove far more dangerous than any argies.”
Chuckle chuckle©
But, A-Hole, are these just more of your Scotch sock puppets?
Dec 20th, 2013 - 09:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0TWIMC
Dec 20th, 2013 - 09:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Please somebody refresh this old man's memory.....
How many % votes did Mr. Cameron, the Pledging Mandatary got in the last “English” Election?
About 20% was it not?
Wat was the abstention % in the last “English” election?
About 35% was it not?
Ps...:
Yet another little pearl...:
billymiddleengland
2 hours ago
It's a Cameron pledge , God help them .
12 Conqueror (#)
Dec 20th, 2013 - 09:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Very very well said Conqueror ! The vast majorityof the people in the UK support those ideals and would agree with every word you say, as do I.
Merry Christmas to you Conqueror, and all our friends and compatriots in the Falklands.
64
Dec 20th, 2013 - 09:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Go read the comments section mentioned above...and get yourself a sense of humour...
true opinions....true Brits......they slag off everyone...themselves, their politicians and they don't give two hoots about the Falklands or Argies....
...and they see straight through the Bullshit grandstanding of Cameron...
and they are funny as feck....unlike you...;-))))
(67) A_Voice
Dec 20th, 2013 - 09:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hear, hear....
@65
Dec 20th, 2013 - 09:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Read your link at post 55 from Cronista. Love the comments from your compatriots on the article, doesn't seem that they are very convinced by Mr Filmus's new posting.
Your optimistic appraisal of every Argentine move in this game of chess is admirable, one would 'think' you are being paid, but you will lose your Queen before we do, I can assure you of that.
“Falklands can count on UK' continued support in countering Argentina's campaign”
Dec 20th, 2013 - 09:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Happy xmas Argies lol
66 Audi Consilium
Dec 20th, 2013 - 09:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yeah!! A Merry Christmas to all our friends and compatriots in the Falklands. May the New Year bring happiness and peace to you all!!
And to our dear enemies in argentinaland, you guys have a great christmas too, and remember to keep them christmas lights on!!! ( if you can!! )
They are probably all Scotch though, cant afford the Torygraph, so post stupid comments just like you lot. You cant expect everyone to agree with our leader. But, when the chips are down they will fight the invaders. I am not trying to be funny, I am leaving that to you, but, you arent doing very well at anything...., totally ineffective, neutralised...
Dec 20th, 2013 - 09:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(69) Britworker
Dec 20th, 2013 - 09:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You say...:
“....you will lose your Queen before we do, I can assure you of that.”
I say...:
ORLY?............ Our Queen is 42…....... How old is yours?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYU-n7Ket-c
@73
Dec 20th, 2013 - 09:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I would agree if she hadn't cleverly got herself out of Argentina and became Dutch, hardly a comparison.
Unfortunately you are stuck with this lot and you thoroughly deserve them :-)
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ugly+pics+of+cristina+kirchner&rlz=1CASMAE_enGB530GB530&espv=210&es_sm=93&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=E720UrPsGJHb7AaRzIFo&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1366&bih=657#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=0aMm_lfPrl8PzM%3A%3BzqtFcqjABLUmrM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.ripoffreport.com%252Fd%252F6b23e0fd-51bf-4482-ade4-5f827e34311b%252Fcristinaehijos.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.ripoffreport.com%252Fr%252FCristina-Kirchner%252Finternet%252FCristina-Kirchner-Cristina-Kirchner-Cristina-Fernandez-de-Kirchner-CFK-Dra-Cristina-Fe-836396%3B468%3B320
Touche A-Hole
Dec 20th, 2013 - 10:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Chuckle chuckle. The Scotch have no queen at all other than the Pink President and his red ruski
Everything Camoron touches turns to poop!
Dec 20th, 2013 - 11:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Camoron PROMISES to persuade India to buy Eurofighter.
Result:
India picks French jet over Eurofighter in $10bn deal.
Prime Minister David Camoron personally intervened to sell Typhoon jets to United Arab Emirates .
Result
“Britain fails to seal multi-billion pound deal to sell 60 Eurofighter Typhoon jet fighters to the United Arab Emirates”
Keep the good job Camoron :-)))
@76
Dec 20th, 2013 - 11:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And what do you build and sell?
@77
Dec 21st, 2013 - 12:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e46aev-4WdA
Fat idiot Cameron: best continue without neglecting its military power because as is well known throughout the world, the only thing keeping the Malvinas Argentinas Islands under the disgusting clutches of the British fucking, is precisely military force and no other thing, call it history, geography, or legal rights and your beloved and much less ridiculous British vote in Argentina land which no one remembers if ever taken into account.
Dec 21st, 2013 - 12:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0Furthermore I tell you that the Argentina Republic, and not “the government” has no interest in resources but sovereignty.
Jose,
Dec 21st, 2013 - 02:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0So you confirm you would steal the islands again if the military wasn't there?
Axel Arg
Dec 21st, 2013 - 09:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0You claimed to have “researched” the subject, yet still talk as an indoctrinated moron. Perhaps your level of research and intelligence isn't as high as you believe.
Firstly, your claim of Britain behaving like a colonial thief....that's not impartial is it Axel....it's also ridiculous. since 1945 Britain has voluntarily reduced its colonies to the tune of 1/3 the surface of the planet. It didn't fight wars of independence like Spain and France....it gave them up voluntarily.
Your “secret” (sic) document of 1974, isn't secret at all. Britain was continuing the process of decolonisation, and exploring, with Argentina the opportunity of doing this. HOWEVER DUMBASS, this process in 1974 just as today, requires the buy-in and support of the islanders. EVERY SINGLE UN RESOLUTION, DOCUMENT AND CHARTER says that the islanders rights are paramount.
In 1974 the discussions weren't based on some fantasy from 1833, they were based on whether support from a country geographically closer may suit the islanders better. The islanders then, as today, saw this as ridiculous...which is why it failed.
This is not secret, it is common knowledge.
If you were a Falklander what would you choose Axel, a corrupt despotic, failed 3rd world cesspit, who denies your rights and has colonialist aspirations, or a country that supports you, died for you, let's you determine your own futures and supports your industry.....it's a toughie Axel.
It was Argentina that chose the wrong path in 1974, instead of realising that persuading the islanders the benefits of Argentine sovereignty, you invaded, planted unmapped minefields and used them as a human shield. Hardly a charm offensive was it Axel?
As far as the historic claims of Argentina and Britain having strong and weak points, Axel....FUCKING NONSENSE. Argentinas claim is weak and full of lies, Britains claim is strong and supports the only people who matter, the islanders.
Your “research” is both “partial” and “ignorant”..
It's very clear to me (and anyone else) that Argentina did not learn from their painful humiliation in 1982.
Dec 21st, 2013 - 10:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0The actions of the present Argentine Government in forming new laws to put some form of financial pressure on the Islanders, as well as the statements by Argentines on this board that they would invade the Islands again (against the wishes of the Islanders) if the British military left, shows that we have a duty to ensure that the Islands are protected to the best of our ability.
Some hilarious posts here especially the ones name calling against Prime Minister Cameron. Those who proceed with the name calling are just showing their immaturity and lack of class, its the same as the disgusting behavior exhibited by Argentina's ambassador to England.
Dec 21st, 2013 - 11:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0Is that all you Argentine folk have? Insults and lies.... It's no wonder you've made zero progress since your fantasies about the Falkland Island's started.
#73
Dec 21st, 2013 - 12:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Actuarial projections say that someone of 42 is likely to outlive someone of 87. Looking at HM's genetic line, she has a good chance of reaching 100+. By the same reasoning, a 42 year old could look forward to decades of life. However, illness, disease or accidents can hit anyone at any age. So, nobody can say for sure how long anyone will live. It's a futile exercise predicting the life span of anybody.
#83
That's all they have got ....school playground name calling.
You notice that they are rather “short on Argentina's ”successes”........
if you will pardon my oxymoron !
Dear Mr Filmas
Dec 21st, 2013 - 01:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 01) A British ship HMS CLIO ( a cruiser brig sloop ) re-established British rule in the FALKLANDS in 1833
2) In 1861 Argentina was established after many years of civil war
3) After a war with Paraguay,( 1870 ) Argentina then made war on the indigenous population of Patagonia, thousands were killed and 15000 were displaced ( Conquest of the Desert ) by ROCA
Now which came first the chicken or the egg?
Argentina is so hypocritical about it's history. All the above, if anyone is really interested can be found on Wikeapedia site. Also I found an interesting article written buy Miguel Alberto Bartholome called “How Argentina became White.”
@1 read your stupid statement again and then take you self off to the bathroom and slap yourself about. Am I missing something did Scotland announce an independence debate in 1982 or am I in a time warp. Did Scottish soldiers kick rgenweener arses whilst asking for independence. What a prick. you're nearly as stupid as Alex Salmond
Dec 21st, 2013 - 03:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@13 Jealous of sheep now? Buy a broom!
Dec 21st, 2013 - 04:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@18 Have you tried standing in a puddle and shoving your dick in an extension light socket? Do you have a dick? Is it long enough to make contact?
@20 I looked it up on wikipedia. It actually stands for “Anal Cunt”. No wonder you have books on it.
@25 UN can shove it where the sun don't shine. Where it will find argieland!
@43 Another comment from the muppet puppet!
@44 Notable that you are only 3/7ths of Cameron! Reflects your worth.
@55/59 WE don't DO “gibberish”.
@60 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotch_(adjective) Educate yourself.
@63/65 Cameron is “temporary”. Britons and Britain are both permanent.
@76 Cunning ploy. India is now defenceless. One Typhoon equals five Rafales. That's why it's cheap. Going to buy some?
@79 Then you have NO chance of ANYTHING! Why would we expect anything different. Argieland is absolutely chocker with donkeys.
@81 Please. “axel_moron” didn't “research” anything. He went down the public library and stole a book. Then he consulted the “Ministry of Foreign Affairs”. Initially, the information that Timerman gave on the number of call-girls he'd used that week wasn't a lot of help. However, when he asked for more information, things got better. Reluctantly, Timerman had to admit how many times he'd been “ejected”. Thus an argie “administration” being “ejected”. Regrettably, Timerman has never been able to “get to the bottom of it”. Two inches fully erect has never been enough! Of course, argieland, in the person of Timerman, may have been “screwed”. But he loves it. Bends to lick CFK's arse and gets screwed at the same time. Why wouldn't he “sit down” with the Islanders? He'd had a BIG night! Argie “pens” are more like biro refills!
@79 Argentina's claim to the Falkland Islands is at best spurious but in reality fraudulent.
Dec 21st, 2013 - 04:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I actually feel sorry for all of those people who have allowed themselves to be indoctrinated by propaganda. Sad.
“Falklands can count on UK' continued support in countering Argentina's campaign” Say no more no more comments required
Dec 21st, 2013 - 04:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 087
Dec 21st, 2013 - 06:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oooo Wiki...lets take a look...
”Scotch (adjective), a largely-obsolescent adjective meaning “having to do with Scotland”
obsolescent....obsolete a bit like old timers like you and Faz
...a closer look at wiki...
“Scotch is an adjective meaning ”of Scotland“. In Scotland the modern usage in Scotland is Scottish or Scots, and the word ”Scotch“ is only applied to specific products, mostly food or drink, such as Scotch whisky, Scotch pie, Scotch broth, and Scotch eggs. ”Scotch“ applied to people is widely considered pejorative, reflecting old Anglo-Scottish antagonisms.”
Well would you have guessed...
It's so funny they way FAZ attacks Scotland because he thinks I'm Scottish....;-))))
They need an enemy and don't care if it's a British one...how bizarre....
I love the way I can make the fools dance to whatever tune I'm in the mood to play....
...and I can certainly play this 4/4 march...begins...
......Drums 8 beats...quick march off the left foot...4 beats inflate pipes on E...9th beat on the left foot..play this...and into battle we go....
E...A Taorluath..B...C doubling..A..C doubling..E..High A wipe...A Grip (Leamluath) ..E..Doubling C..A....that's your first 8 beats...
Pipers at the front carrying only a pistol... followed by bass drum, tenors and lastly snares....lead piper...well that would be me...;-)))
Sassanachs.....come on up.....I'll take you all....:-))))
Hark, hark, the night is falling
Hear, hear the pipes are calling
Loudly and proudly calling down through the glen
Here where the hills lie sleeping
now feel the blood a leaping
high as the spirits of the old highland men
(Chorus)
Towering in gallant fame
Scotland my mountain hame
High may your proud standards gloriously wave
Land o' the high endeavour
Land o' the shining river
land o' my heart forever
Scotland the brave
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkJM5Upfusc
Anyone want to learn the pipes??...;-)
REDROW.
Dec 21st, 2013 - 08:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I agree absolutly on taking the case to the i. c. j., in fact, i think it's the only one solution to finish with this humbled situation for argentina. However, this is evident that you ignore that in in 1884 and 1888, argentina suggested taking the case to the arbitration, but it was rejected by the u. k. In 1947, britain manifested argentina that it would be disposed to discuss about the sovereignty of the dependencies from the islands (south georgia and sandwich) before the i. c. j., but it hadn't included the malvinas in that proposal. After that year, none of the two nations proposed again to take the question to the arbitration.
Perhaps both aren't sure of getting a positive result for them, if the case is discussed before the court.
On the other hand, although i don't agree on your opinion, i praise the fact that unless you aren't reactionary, in fact if you have a look to many comments, you'll realised that it's too difficult to discuss with people who just insult. I wasted so much time with them in the past, and i could never get any interesting interchange of oìnions, that's why i'm not disposed to continue to talk to such mediocre people.
@91
Dec 21st, 2013 - 08:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0axel arg, you appear to be a reasonable fellow, please comment on my post @85
Have I got the facts right?
Axel Arg is not a reasonable fellow.
Dec 21st, 2013 - 10:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0His “research” is to trot out the same misguided crap that comes from all Malivinistas.
The history is an interesting side note, and shows little more than how actual events can be distorted with lies and myths and fed to children as indoctrination. But the history is IRRELEVANT even though it supports the British case.
180 years of continued habitation by a population makes the land YOURS.
It makes Argentina belong to the Latinos from Europe.
It makes the US belong to the various and multiple immigrant populations.
It makes Britain belong to the mix of Saxon, Norman and Celtic races.
I personally think Axel is worse than Jose and Marcos. Their IQs are in the low teens, axels is around 30-35 and therefore he should be able to see the crap he writes.
You can waste time point out the deficiencies in his argument, the hypocrisy and the stupidity...but he trots off and then comes back and repeats it a few days later
He believes he is an intellectual...possibly with an IQ of 35 in Argentina he is, poor Axel.
@91
Dec 21st, 2013 - 10:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“that you ignore that in in 1884 and 1888, argentina suggested taking the case to the arbitration,”
After Argentina declared in 1850 in a treaty with Great Britain that there were no outstanding differences between the two countries.
If the Argentines then regarded the Falkland Islands as their territory in 1850, why did they declare there were no differences?
I would have thought a territorial dispute WAS a huge difference surely?
Golfcronie you appear to be a reasonable fellow, please comment on this post...
Dec 22nd, 2013 - 12:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0Have I got the facts right?
1) A British ship HMS CLIO ( a cruiser brig sloop ) re-established British rule in the FALKLANDS in 1833
1) British rule was established not re-established in 1833 on the settlement of East Falkland...Britain had no previous sovereignty claim to this island.
2) In 1861 Argentina was established after many years of civil war
2) 1824, June 25th, Woodbine Parish sends a report on the present condition of the United Provinces to the Foreign Office in London; “The United Provinces of la Plata, or, as they are sometimes called, the Argentine Republic, comprise, (with the exception of Paraguay and the Banda Oriental, which have become separate ..) the whole of that vast space lying between Brazil and the Cordillera of Chile and Peru, and extending from the 22nd to the 41st degree of south latitude. The most southern settlement of the Buenos Ayreans as yet is the little town of Del Carmen, upon the river Negro.”
December 30th, Foreign Secretary Canning informs the US Minister that the British Government has decided to recognise the independence of three new American States – Mexico, Colombia and Buenos Ayres....sometimes called the Argentine Republic.
Argentine Republic officially recognised by the UK 30th Dec 1824
3) After a war with Paraguay,( 1870 ) Argentina then made war on the indigenous population of Patagonia, thousands were killed and 15000 were displaced ( Conquest of the Desert ) by ROCA
3) It would be easier to list which countries Britain and her Anglo legacy hadn't invaded, enslaved, displaced, starved and killed numbers of the inhabitants....what would be a conservative estimate?...a couple of hundred thousand...half a million perhaps? One doesn't create the worlds largest Empire without killing a few.
Britain is so hypocritical about it's history. All the above, if anyone is really interested can be found on Wikeapedia site.
95 A_Voice
Dec 22nd, 2013 - 03:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Britain of today doesn't have an empire. What were once parts of the British empire are now independent nation states. Argentina on the other hand consists to this day of lands stolen from others. Roca is still a national hero in Argentina. Argentina still has colonial ambitions in the South Atlantic. It wants to turn the Falklands into an Argentine colony and denies the inhabitants any say in their own future.
British people are very conscious of their history. History is the past however and people born today should not feel responsible or guilty for what they themselves are not culpable for.
@95
Dec 22nd, 2013 - 10:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0Axel, so you do not dispute the fact that Argentina under General ROCA killed thousands, and displaced thousands of the Ameridians then. By the way, we the UK have never shied away from our history. Yet you diverted the last of my paragraphs 3) and this was specific as it occurred after “ the so called colonisation of the FALKLANDS” Am Icorrect a YES or NO would suffice.
@90 Thank you for confirming what I was pointing out. Being a kindly soul, at this time of year, I thought it best to simply provide the reference so that you could educate yourself in relative privacy. However, since you want to drag it out in the open...... “a largely-obsolescent adjective”, i.e. not completely obsolescent. Therefore, reasonable and acceptable. Who would complain about “Scottish” whisky? Incidentally, “whisky” and “whiskey” are both valid and acceptable as they both derive from the Gaelic uisce/uisge meaning water. “Scotch is an adjective meaning ”of Scotland“. So are people who originate in Scotland not “of Scotland”? ”Scotch“ applied to people is widely considered pejorative, reflecting old Anglo-Scottish antagonisms.” So? We have a nation that, more than 300 years ago, begged to enter into a union with England following its disastrous attempt to emulate England. A nation that had its debts taken over by England. A nation that, despite all its current claims to wealth, still owes England more than £2 quadrillion. Perhaps we could consider offsetting the small extra amounts that it has contributed in the last 50 years against that amount. Perhaps drop it down to £1.8 quadrillion. And still it, in the person of Alex Salmond, thinks it's entitled to 9% of the UK's assets. Well, the territory of Scotland is a UK asset and, if they gain independence, they can have that. Is it any wonder that some English people have no problem with referring to the indigenous inhabitants of Scotland in pejorative terms. However, back to the original. You mocked Faz for using a term that, although LARGELY obsolescent, is not completely so. Will you have the intellectual honesty to admit that you were wrong?
Dec 22nd, 2013 - 11:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0@91 Didn't argieland want the “arbitrator” to be Peru? Why would the UK accept a bribed argie sycophant? We aren't as dumb as you. Let's mention the Arana-Southern treaty again. Convention of SETTLEMENT of existing Differences!
@95 And yet for all that the British Empire has morphed into the Commonwealth. A collection of independent states who were (mostly) once part of that empire.
Dec 22nd, 2013 - 11:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0Where is Spain's 'Commonwealth'?
Where is Portugal's 'Commonwealth'?
Where is France's 'Commonwealth'?
Where is Belgium's 'Commonwealth'?
Where is the Netherland's 'Commonwealth'?
Tee heh heh! A-Hole is foaming at the mouth and his rantings have been well and truly Scotched by Conquerer. Having recently re-read Ian Flemings Bond novels, Scotch people are mentioned several times. I am an old fashioned sort of guy and like that sort of venacular, so I will continue to Scotch the obnoxious troll.
Dec 22nd, 2013 - 11:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0British people are total hypocrites according to A-Hole. Well, if we compare ourselves with the Falkland Islands near neighbours, the mendacious Malvinistas we are lilly white in comparison. Britons are well aware of our history, proud of its achievements, and at the same time ashamed and regretful of mistakes. But in spite of all this Britain remains a free democratic beacon of light and good in the world, which is why arseholes like A-Hole shun their own countries and choose to live here.
@91
Dec 22nd, 2013 - 01:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Axel
I think you will find that the UK suggested in 1947,1948 and 1955 that the case should be taken to the ICJ but Argentina declined. WHY? I short answer would do.
Why on earth would Britain take the Falklands case to the ICJ.
Dec 22nd, 2013 - 08:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If the ICJ took (as it would) Britains side, that the self-determination, rights and interests of the islanders are the ONLY relevant concern, what would change.
PRECISELY NOTHING.
Argentina would be back at the C24 whining, lying and complaining in the completely and totally wrong forums within a year.
The Malvinistas would still lie about their “rights”, and the myths of 1833 would still be drummed into school children in a sickening Goebelsesque fashion.
Axel would still spout about his laughable childlike research, and Stink would still dribble diahorrea over these forums.
Argentina would still discourage cruise ships, still put in place an economic barricades, still try their stupid oil laws etc etc.
However, of the million to one chance of an inch of vague interpretation in an ICJ ruling, Argentina would “demand” any exaggerated crap they could imagine.
The only way the case should go before the ICJ is if the decision is final, binding and humiliating for Argentina.
Argentina must commit before the ruling $1bn US in trust. If the ruling goes against them, that $1bn must be used to undue their decades of lies.
Every single schoolchild in Argentina must get 5 hours of schooling a week explaining in detail the lies of the Peronist/Kirchener governments.
The islands minefields must be cleared manually by the current Argentine government.
CFK must resign and five Argentina over as a UN protectorate to investigate her corruption and be tried in an international court.
These are our preconditions. If Argwntina is so sure of their case, they should be confident none of these conditions are needed to be fulfilled.
See you in court?
GOLF CRONIE. PETE BOG.
Dec 22nd, 2013 - 08:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In relation to the proposals of arbitration by both countries, i explain them in my comment 91.
In the case of argentina, despite it's intervalls in relation to it's claims, it had the political will of discussing the case before an arbitration, but it was rejected by the u. k. You don't have forget about the great economic dependence of our country with the u. k. for more than 100 years. It wasn't in conditions for claiming the u. k.
On the other hand, despite the intervalls in our claims, the u. k. was disposed to discuss about the sovereignty with arg., in 1968, 1974 and 1980.
The u. k. usually argues that it discovered the islands, but according to public international right, discovery just gives a precarious titte which must be improved with a permanent occupation. The u. k., only occupied port emont for 8 years (1766-1774), and after it left the island, it didn't return again untill 1833.
In the case of spain, it had occupied the soledad island for more than 45 years, and it had submitted it to the jurisdiction of the viceroalty of rio de la plata. So, when argentina declared it's independence, it had right to occupy unless the soledad islands, where spain had exercised it's sovereignty. In my opinion i think that arg. and the u. k. had rights over the islands in 1833, because of a secret article included in the nootka sound convention of 1790, which benefitted the u. k., however it deprived arg. of exercising it's rights.
In relation to julio roca, he was a son of a bitch who decimated ur originary populations and stole their lands, however despite the genocide against those people, our constitution includes their rights and claims, which is a true historical reparation for them. However the u. k. has never made any historical reparation for argentina, for having deprived it from the islands in 1833.
All these objetive facts and much more, show that the case has strong and weak aspects for both nations, as i often say.
@103
Dec 22nd, 2013 - 09:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You never owned the FALKLANDS, please post a link to prove that you did, or perhaps look up the records in your countries archives, as I think you are mistaken.We did not deprive Argentina we re established our control of the FALKLANDS
@103
Dec 22nd, 2013 - 10:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“So, when argentina declared it's independence, it had right to occupy unless the soledad islands, where spain had exercised it's sovereignty”
As Spain did not drop its claim to the Falklands till the mid 1800s, Argentina cannot have inherited a claim that Spain had not dropped, ie; Spain did not drop its claim to the Falkland Islands in 1810, 1816 or in the 1820s.
“the u. k. was disposed to discuss about the sovereignty with arg., in 1968, 1974 and 1980.”
Correct. And in resolution 2065 it states quite clearly that the interests of the population have to be taken into account. The stumbling block for the UK was they could not get the people BORN on the Islands(i.e. the people NOT born in the UK, NOT as you would claim.transplants) to agree.
“In the case of spain, it had occupied the soledad island for more than 45 years, and it had submitted it to the jurisdiction of the viceroalty of rio de la plata. ”
Based in Montevideo, not Buenos Aires.
The UK/Great Britain has occupied the Islands between 1765-1774, and 1833-2013
That is more than 45 years.
“ However the u. k. has never made any historical reparation for argentina, for having deprived it from the islands in 1833.”
So the United Provinces of the River Plate in 1833, were Argentina and did not include other future nations such as Uruguay?
Also, what was the exact number of people BORN in what is now Argentina that populated the Islands from 1828-1833?
(i.e you CANNOT include people that were born in Germany, France, Uruguay, England, Scotland and Ireland-as by your definition that is a transplanted population).
Also how many people between 1828-1833, were actually born in the Falkland Islands who's parents were from what you call Argentina, and history records as the United Provinces of the River Plate?
“ In my opinion i think that arg. and the u. k. had rights over the islands in 1833,”
So therefore did Spain, as they had not dropped their claim to the Islands by 1833.
Congratulations to Mercopress on its 10,000th story with that same title.
Dec 23rd, 2013 - 12:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0#106
Dec 23rd, 2013 - 10:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0They have to keep repeating it because Argies and their fellow travelers are SO thick that they cannot understand the concept that the UK MEANS what it says about the Falklands.
Lovely picture of the crew of HMS Protector in The Times this morning, out on the ice having an early Christmas dinner. They will be out on patrol on Christmas day. Remember Endurance and her role in defeating the odious Asiz when Argentina tried to invade South Georgia. We must remember that all the islands are gems to be protected from Gollum and the Orcs who are aching to colonise them against the will of the inhabitants. Britain remains vigilant.
Dec 23rd, 2013 - 10:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0@103 Another fatuous comment from the dinky toy. You're going to need to explain about the British settlements from 1690. And, for the millionth time, where is the legal right for an illegal, rebellious colony to occupy the territory of another country. Heard about the “Falklands Crisis” of 1770/71? And how the Spanish got kicked smartly in the balls. So, 1690 to 1776. Sovereignty ASSERTED in 1765. And Pete's made some good points. Why don't you try answering them at the same time? With intelligent, intelligible and referenced facts!
Dec 23rd, 2013 - 10:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0@106 Congratulations on continuing to be a pointless fart! Or are you going to suggest that youu don't know any better? Haven't I already described you, essentially, as an anal, barbarous, brain-dead, cretinous, duplicitous, evil, fatuous, ignoble, mendacious, perfidious, racist, scrofulous, stupid, uneducated, xenophobic waste of space. Which part of that description can you prove to be incorrect?
Can't believe people on here quoting wikepedia as 'evidence for anything'
Dec 23rd, 2013 - 10:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0Anybody can edit a wiki page, at any time, - They are not monitored very closely.
All you do is go to the page - re-word it to suit you, then post the link, and say, look everybody it's on the internet.........
(face palm)
@110
Dec 23rd, 2013 - 11:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0I agree, but unless someone changes the pages then surely it can be credible. If you edited a page and said black was white I am pretty sure you will find that someone will edit to say no black is black and white is white.
Axel wishes to claim that Argentina inherited the islands from Spain.
Dec 23rd, 2013 - 12:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This quite clearly DID NOT HAPPEN.
Firstly the islands we NOT part of the Viceroyalty nor the United Provinces
Secondly no inheritance of any kind occurred. A war of independence took place.
Thirdly the Spanish on the islands fought against the Buenos Aires uprising.
Fourthly nobody lived on the islands to claim independence
Fifthly the UP split into several states there is nothing to suggest that the islands would have been part of Argentina rather than Uruguay, Paraguay or independent.
Sixthly, The UP knew there was no inheritance which is why they tree and failed to claim to sovereignty in 1820, 1828 and 1832.
Axel then correctly goes on to claim that perminant settlement constitutes sovereignty.
There has never been an Argentine perminant settlement.
So clearly Argentina has never had sovereignty.
Finally axel is so thick he cannot see that the discussions in the 1960s and 1970s were DESPITE Argentinas claims not BECAUSE of them.
Britain doesn't want sovereignty of the islands, but because the islanders wish it, so it will be.
If Argentina wasn't so stupid, so bullying, so corrupt and belligerent, if they hadn't invaded, lied, and behaved “like Axel” they would have had the islands decades ago.
Britain gave up 1/3 of the world...it could easily have kept masses of this territory. IT DOESN'T WANT AN EMPIRE. Sadly Argentinas (and axels) retardation has meant this tiny pocket in the south Atlantic will always chose Britain as its senior partner.
Britain is happy and proud to carry out their wishes.
GOLFCRONIE. PETE BOG.
Dec 23rd, 2013 - 03:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Firstly i want to say that if i decided to answer your comments, is because beyond our differences of opinions, you were respectfull when you expressed your lectures. If you continue in this way, i'll keep on answering all the questions you want, but i won't waste my time with reactionary people who insult me, like the ones you can see above.
My answer:
As i said before, according to public international right, discovery just gives a precarious tittle, which must be improved with a permanent occupation. There is a great controversy respecting which country discovered the islands, but although it was britain or any other, it wouldn't mean it had an unquestionbale right over them.
Objetive facts show that britain occupied permanently port egmont in the periods of (1766-1774), after they left, and returned in 1833 in order to occupy permanently the territory.
In the case of spain, since 1766 untill 1810, it occupied permanently the soledad island, and submitted it to the viceroalty of river from la plata. According to public international right, the sussession of states is applied to all emancipated colonial territories. So, when the united provinces declared it's independence, it had right to occupy unless the soledad island. The fact that the viceroalty was joined also by uruguay, is absolutly irrelevant, because if it decided to form and independent country, there is nothing it can claim over the islands.
I say that in my opinion the u. k. had rights over the islands in 1833, because a secret article benefitted britain during the nootka sound convention in 1790. That's why i have always thought that the u. k. should have negotiated a solution with the u. p., instead of using it's superiority in order to deprive our country of exercising it's rights.
In my next comment i'll give the bibliographies i use to support my lectures.
#107 They have to keep repeating it because they're a propaganda arm of the UK/FI colonialist government. Silly.
Dec 23rd, 2013 - 04:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This is for those who continue to claim the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands for Argentina
Dec 23rd, 2013 - 04:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.falklandshistory.org/historia-falsa.pdf
The lies, fairy stories, false historical allegations etc etc are clearly shown for they are - ¡pura basura!
#114
Dec 23rd, 2013 - 04:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Conspiracy theories again! Everyone is plotting against us, BOO HOO !
Maybe that it is because it gets people like you wound -up in your impotent frustration - by rebutting Argentina's colonial ambitions.
How is your arithmetic ? You are telling me that MP have published this story every day for almost 30 years ?
Why don't I believe you ?
If MercoPress are the propaganda arm of the UK/FI, prove it .
Give details of payments made, programs of dissemination sent by the UK government etc
I lifted the following topic from todays website subjects.
Argentina successfully launches rocket; “program to recover defense capabilities
”Struggle to end with 'shreds of colonialism' (Malvinas) must continue, said Mujica
Falklands' piece published in Uruguay, infuriates Argentine ambassador
Uruguay Senator receives “Malvinas war honor” from Argentina for volunteering in 1982
Argentina creates new Malvinas agency and names former Senator Filmus chief
Falklands/Malvinas controversy: Argentine Senator rejects Oxford invitation and honors
etc, etc
That seems a fair bit for Argentina's “anti Falklands” brigade.
Do you wish MP to become a mouthpiece for the Argentine government ? I am sure you do !
Let's forget the past and look to the future. The FALKLANDERS have decided to remain a BOT. They want to decide on their own future as you all would expect too , even if you are Latin Americans. The FALKLANDERS have at present the islands, and they will not be giving them up unless they themselves decide to. The UK has no say in it, although the UK will advise the FALKLANDERS on Foreign Policy. Argentina if ( a large IF ) they want the FALKLANDS they are going to have to sit down and talk to the FALKLANDERS. Without dialog with the Islanders ARG is on a losing wicket.
Dec 23rd, 2013 - 04:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why does ARG have to be so contrary, is it because in reality the do not want the Islands? Surely it can't be about oil as Arg has plenty in Patagonia that they stole from the Ameridians. Perhaps it is jealous that the FALKLANDERS have oil and IT WILL GO TO MARKET.
@117 golfcronie
Dec 23rd, 2013 - 08:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The falklands is probably more valuable to these wacko governments as a whipping boy for all their troubles. If they got the islands the argentine landmass would barely increase, they'd have the oil fields.. seem small compared to their existing resources but they are cak-handed and their past record shows how risky it is to invest in the Argentine. They cak up fisheries management too, total balls-up of a country.
As far as I'm aware the UK claims sovereignty over the islands...not the Falklanders..they are temporary...change every year. People come and go..die, leave..etc.
Dec 23rd, 2013 - 08:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The islanders do not decide foreign policy...the UK does and not in an advisory capacity....
The UK if it so decided could compulsory purchase the property of every islander and move them to the UK and compensate....if they really wanted to.
Until there is independence the UK is the master of all their fates....
@119
Dec 23rd, 2013 - 11:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Smoke and Mirrors. Why would we ( UK ) want to buy out the FALKLANDERS, better we have the opportunity to exploit the Oil and Gas for our country. Makes more sense. We do not claim sovereignty over the FALKLANDS we have sovereignty over them. We ( UK ) are quite happy for the FALKLANDS to determine their own destiny ( provided we have a cut ) of their resourses. But of course they know that. common knowledge ( PSST don't let on I told you so )
@ 119 A_Voice & @120 golfcronie
Dec 24th, 2013 - 02:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What a load of manure!
@121
Dec 24th, 2013 - 02:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I was answering A_voice. I was being facetious, if you look at previous posts you will see that
just hour short of Christmas day,
Dec 24th, 2013 - 08:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0and what argies doing, lol-
searching every gran of sad , hoping , praying , grasping at ay fur loin hope o finding a grain of sand saying Argentina owns this grain,
then horary its proof they on it, lolol
facts=
another day , another year, and the Falklands , like Gibraltar 'is, British,
was British,, is British , and will remain British, as long as democracy rules the civilised part of the world,
[any objections ]
@123
Dec 24th, 2013 - 08:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Bloody rubbish british comment!
124 ron_57
Dec 24th, 2013 - 08:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes we totally agree with you,
Just most argentine comments, is it not lol.
.
@ 125 Briton
Dec 25th, 2013 - 04:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Have you imbibed too much seasonal cheer?
@113
Dec 26th, 2013 - 12:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0Axel
“I say that in my opinion the u. k. had rights over the islands in 1833, because a secret article benefitted britain during the nootka sound convention in 1790”
At least in some areas you are not ignoring history which I respect axel-the British undertook not to ignore Spain's claim (as Spain reciprocated with the UK). However if a third party occupied the Islands (ie the UP was a third party -it was not Spain), the UK were not forbid by the convention to return-It is interesting that when the Spanish were on the Islands after 1774-1810, they did not stop the British presence that was continually there, British sealing ships and Royal Navy ships were not attacked by the Spanish.
However, in 1833 the British did not eject the Spanish, as they were not there.
I find it hard to accept UP inheritance of the Falkland Islands from the Spanish, when :
@112 MonkeyMagic
“ Thirdly the Spanish on the islands fought against the Buenos Aires uprising.”
“ it occupied permanently the soledad island”
I cannot see how this outweighs more than nearly 200 years occupation by Britain?
You are under no obligation to answer my questions involving the settlers of what Argentina considers a UP administration and what Britain considered a settlement there (1828-1833-there was no permanent settlement UNTIL 1828) with the approval of the British consulate in Buenos Aires (i.e. Vernet asked permission for his settlement from Britain-why if he did not recognise British sovereignty???).
If the UP has such a strong claim-how many of their nationals were in Vernet's settlement (i.e. there were no shortage of British and German born people in the settlement)??
How many people classified as being from UP origin were born in the Falkland Islands??
Something missed by many people is such a simple viewpoint. Most of the settlers wanted to be Falkland Islanders. Otherwise, why live there? And why leave Europe and the UPs?
119 VoiceOver
Dec 26th, 2013 - 02:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“As far as I'm aware the UK claims sovereignty over the islands...not the Falklanders..they are temporary...change every year. People come and go..die, leave..etc.”
“As far as I am aware...” Lol
As far as I am aware, the FIG stays, year after year.
Your whole post @119 appears very Doveresque, Snr.
http://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/falklands-history18.pdf
Dec 27th, 2013 - 07:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0More evidence to damn Argentina's claims.
Dammed argentine key boards,
Dec 27th, 2013 - 11:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0lolol
still,
I have to blame some one, why not them..
Merry xmas ..
PETE BOG.
Dec 28th, 2013 - 07:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I never ignore history, in fact, i have always known that if i wanted to have a deep knowledge about this question, i couldn't take into account neather our mendacious official history, written by the most reactionary sectors of our society, and by some sepoys who we have always had, nor the history told by an empire in decadence like the u. k.
The article that you dated in your comment, is the argument i often express in order to say that the u. k. had rights over the islands in 1833 too.
Respecting the sussession of states, i already explained that according to public international right, it is applied to all emancipated colonial territories. So, if unless the soledad island (actual east falkland) was under the jurisdiction of the viceroalty, the u. p. had rights to occupy it after having declared it's independence. In 1820, there was a short intent of occupation, which was published in the times, and in some newspapers from u. s. a., but the u. k. didn't do any protest.
The fact that since 1774 untill 1833 there were sporadic settlements of british sailors, doen't have much relevancy in public international right, because permanent occupation must be made in the name of the state, private activities don't give sovereign rights.
These are some of the bibliographies i use to support what i say in my comments.
Malvinas, Georgias, Sandwich del sur. Perspectiva histórico-jurídica. Secretaría parlamentaria. Dirección de publicaciones. 1992-93-94.
Page: 29. Sucesión de Estados en el caso Malvinas. By: Lilian C. Del Castillo.
Page: 41. Las Islas malvinas. ¿Puede Gran Bretaña fundar su derecho en la prescripción adquisitiva?. By: Norma Gladys Sabia de Barberis.
( This bibliography can be found at the library from our chancery).
www.falklandshistory.org
(This bibliography was recommended to me by a forist 4 years ago).
@131 axel-interesting post.
Dec 28th, 2013 - 11:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“In 1820, there was a short intent of occupation, which was published in the times, and in some newspapers from u. s. a., but the u. k. didn't do any protest.”
Correct, however this was not a claim from UP as they didn''t sent Jewitt, his crew had scurvy. He also never told the UPs he had claimed the Falkland Islands for them.
Interesting that Jewitt later fought against UPs.
Another problem I have with Jewitt is that he was born in the USA and not UP-many Argentine claims toward the Falkland Islands are centred around people who were not born in the United Provinces-(i.e. Vernet was not born in South America) this is why I support views from people born in the Falkland Islands, on the Falkland Islands even if I don't agree with them, as despite being a UK citizen (which is what many Argentines cannot understand), I have no say in decisions on the Falkland Islands as I was not born on the Islands and am not a Falkland Island resident.
I find it amusing that Argentines have this attitude against people born in Britain who become Falkland Island residents, yet many of South America's heros of the 19th century appear to have been born in Europe and not South America.
In the same way that Argentines do not accept the presence of British warships and commercial vessels from 1774-1834 as British settlement then it is also true to say that the Argentines (1853 onwards) have never made a substantial effort to move to the Islands(they were not prohibited before 1982). So if a British 'absence' from 1774-1834 is significant, so is an Argentine absence from 1853-1982, 1982-2013.
Axels only point of view, is that the islands are argentine,
Dec 29th, 2013 - 07:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0and all the islands in the south Atlantic that are British,
Are argentine in he’s eyes,
Thus they will never ever be satisfied until they get them full stop..
Just my opinion,
of course, but as we live in a supposed civilised world, and thus believe in freedom and democracy,
Then,
until these islands say different, then they will remain British…
full stop..
.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!