MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Falklands/Malvinas: strong support from China in joint declaration with Argentina
Daniel Filmus head of the Argentine Foreign ministry office on Issues related to the Question of Malvinas, underlined the support from China to Argentina' sovereignty claim over the disputed Islands, which was “clearly expressed” in a joint declaration signed by Presidents Cristina Fernandez and Xi Jinping, currently on a visit to several Latin American countries. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesChina knows that it must secure access to natural resources to survive. Having made good progress in that respect with Argentina it trots out the standard line with regard to the Falkland Islands and hey presto the issue is parked. UK has no need, no wish and no inclination to talk to Argentina about the Falkland Islands. So, who you gonna call.......?
Jul 21st, 2014 - 06:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0No mention of Tibet?
Jul 21st, 2014 - 07:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0Daniel Filmus said? How wonderfully forgetable
Jul 21st, 2014 - 07:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0I think I would be more worried if China and Russia sided with the UK, then we would know that the UK were in the wrong. Both Russia and China have sovereignty issues with other countries where they are the aggressor. This just shows that they side with the illegitimate claim, as they wish to gain support for their own illegitimate claims form other unscrupulous regimes.
Jul 21st, 2014 - 09:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0Having China and Russia side with you only strengthens the UK’s case, it’s like asking you local mafia boss to be your character witness in court.
“”“”“which comes to show the growing endorsement at global level for our claim”“”“”“
Jul 21st, 2014 - 10:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0This is the bit that always tickles me - all these supposed supporters of their ”claim” are nothing like that - they all give support for negotiations... it is only Argentina that believes that any negotiations = their automatic gaining of sovereignty and other peoples support.
... entirely wishful thinking on Argentina's part.
Here's a clue: even the UK supports the idea of talks with Argentina, they just have to include the Falkland Islanders...and those talks dont end up with Argentina holding sovereignty.
it isnt a fait accompli
China wants to enslave the Taiwanese, Argentina wants to enslave the Falkland Islanders. It's a natural alliance.
Jul 21st, 2014 - 10:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0Did Argentina reciprocate by supporting China's claim to those disputed Japanese islands? I suspect it did. A case of “You rub my back and I'll rub yours”. How very predictable.
Jul 21st, 2014 - 11:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0The trolls are hiding...lol
Jul 21st, 2014 - 01:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Quite clever, China. Stupid as usual, argieland. “in conformity with what was established in the pertinent UN resolutions”. Noting that all the relevant UN resolutions are NON-BINDING. How many times does that have to be said? In essence, no matter what argieland thinks, there are no “pertinent” resolutions. In any case, anything that took place before 14 June 1982 no longer has relevance!
Jul 21st, 2014 - 01:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Wow, Russia and now China “supports” Argentine's Malvinas claim: its offiicial, the moral high ground has hit an all-time new low....
Jul 21st, 2014 - 02:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What use is a sovereignty claim without a sovereignty case? Laughable state of affairs.
Jul 21st, 2014 - 02:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@7 Devonian
Jul 21st, 2014 - 04:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina’s support for China’s ambitions of territorial expansion will certainly influence how the Vietnams, Japans and Philippines of the world would view any UNGA resolution vote, is the simple arithmetic.
Argentina's claims to sovereignty of the Falklands/Malvinas have never been tested by law. Until they agree to test their claim in the International Court of Justice then their claim is just fairy tales, lies, myths and totally false interpretation of the history of the archipelago.
Jul 21st, 2014 - 04:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Xi Jinping is just saying what the Kretina wants to hear...last week it was Putin's turn to please her....how many other 'heads' of state are going to get in line for one of CFK's special “bj's” ??
Jul 21st, 2014 - 04:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@14
Jul 21st, 2014 - 04:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0President Assad?
Say what you want to say, but it looks like the bit*h (sounds like witch) has the support of two members of the UN permanent security counseled well as a majority of world nations leaning to Argentina's claim.
Jul 21st, 2014 - 06:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@16
Jul 21st, 2014 - 07:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But this support its only momentarily relevant when they meet and wheel out these banal pleasantries. When one of these, or other nodding donkeys, pro-activly does something than I may take notice. But the idea of Russia raising this at the UN would be laughable given their own recent form.
Alas we still live in a world where for some reason, historical 19th century colonism is much worse than 20/21st expansionists, despots, dictators and the like. Political correctness has a lot to answer for.
Two possible scenarios.??
Jul 21st, 2014 - 08:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 01, armed with this vital back up, CFK will immediately take the case to the ICJ.
2, Russia and china will fight each other for the attention of the plastic lady,
and the winner will get Argentina and all her debts, chuckle chuckle..
Say what you will, but we dislike Argentina's pretensions to the Falklands, yet our government officially supports recognizing their claims. LAN serves the islands once a week under a strict agreement with Argentina, and I believe we have the largest non FI-UK workforce working on the islands. Unofficially Chile strongly supports the FI, but who knows what will happen in 4 or 8 years...
Jul 21st, 2014 - 08:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@19
Jul 21st, 2014 - 09:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In the foreseeable future Argentina can do no more than replay and repeat the same old same old: OAS, UN C24 etc. Joint declaration, on the inisistance of Argentina, but no substance.
What situation is going to make the UK talk about sovereignty without the consent of the islanders? Just not going to happen.
@19
Jul 21st, 2014 - 09:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What Threat does Argentina Currently Pose to the Falklands?
http://www.isn.ethz.ch/Digital-Library/Articles/Detail/?lng=en&id=181854
It overstates the importance of the C24 in my view, but broadly I think you're right, and it's time there was a more robust British response to an Argentine narrative that has more holes in it than the Santissima Trinidad.
We had 'Debbie does Dallas' and now after Putin's and Xi's visits we have 'Christina does Communism'
Jul 22nd, 2014 - 03:09 am - Link - Report abuse 06 Justthefacts I think it necessary more clarifying on this point: the average Argentine citizen mental disposition towards the Islanders. Because the statement that “Argentina wants to enslave them” is simply not true -at least at this PERSONAL level- . When at it, and groping towards the light, I find that, however, hostility towards the BRITISH EMPIRE has been hard and consistent. (It´s necessary to remember at least 5 invasions : 1806, 1807, 1833, 1845, 1982 on our own account). But, again, with respect to the British citizen coming in ordinary, peaceful way, they were for us , worthy and respected persons. What happen when the average argentine´s attention turn to the ISLANDS..? : Kelpers, ALL kelpers DISAPPEAR as object of emotions, either positive or negative. Only the LAND counts. So, we loudly and most sincerely protest against such a preposterous supposed goal of “enslaving” you. Have you ever thought that we “enslaved” Welsh settlers in Northern Patagonia...?. So, at personal level we wish you to remain...you, with your language, your nationality, your usages, your properties, your schools (just as in the Continent..!). SOVEREIGNITY ON THE LAND DOES NOT MEAN ON THE SOULS.
Jul 22nd, 2014 - 07:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0Empires everywhere supports imperialism, what a surprise!
Jul 22nd, 2014 - 08:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0#23
Jul 22nd, 2014 - 10:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0Look, Argentina did not exist in 1806 and 1807. What is today Argentina was then, merely a colony of Spain, the nation we were at war with at the time. 1833, and 1982 were the reassertion of UK sovereignty over the Falklands and events in 1845 were not an “invasion” but a blockade, largely run by France.
Fine, you don't “want” the people, you just want to steal their land and homes. How very noble of you. I would say that the world has moved beyond territorial annexation against the wishes of the inhabitants but you and your buddies Russia and China prove me wrong.
Face it, in 1982 your people supported a brutal military invasion of a peaceful island population based on some pathetic 150 year old claim. Can you imagine if the rest of the world was as pathetic as your government in this regard? Perhaps Paraguay should demand back the land you conquered after the war of the Triple Alliance, or perhaps the native Amerindians should demand back Patagonia.
You people are brainwashed from birth to believe that the Falklands yours. Pathetic.
@23 Argenfellow
Jul 22nd, 2014 - 01:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(It´s necessary to remember at least 5 invasions : 1806, 1807, 1833, 1845, 1982 on our own account)'
1806-Britain invaded Spanish territory-so what? the Spanish made an unprovoked attack on Port Egmont (Falkland Islands-1770).
The Spanish Armada attempted to invade Britain in the 1500s and was repelled.
1807
Again, this failed British invasion of SPANISH territory was repelled (as were Spanish actions against the British over the years-this pre dated Argentina-but you can't tell the difference, unsuccessfully trying to merge the past into the present.
1833-You have no convincing evidence to suggest that the Falklands were Argentine territory-it was VERNET's territory as without his settlement there would have been no occupation-and Vernet obtained permission from Britain to be there-why did he do that if the territory was not British?
1845-Britain was supporting a mostly FRENCH blockade.
So what? Argentina is making pathetic attempts to blockade the Falklands now-so you are copying the British actions of the past rather than doing something more intelligent to achieve your goals?
1982
Argentina invaded the Falklands , Britain liberated the Islands.
Your inability to distinguish an invasion from a liberation, explains why Argentina with huge resources and no doubt some talented people continues to wheel spin in the mud instead of progressing.
That's why your approach to the Falkland Islands is the same imperialist approach that Britain gave up a long time ago.
@23 Argenfellow
Jul 22nd, 2014 - 02:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So you don’t want to enslave them, you simply want to steal their land and resources (which is how Argentina was created as a country), based on a completely fictitious version of history.
British operations in the river Plate 1806 & 07 were against the Spanish, part of the Napoleonic wars, Argentina did not yet exist. The British also captured Montevideo at that time, but I have never heard of a Uruguayan claim that the British invaded Uruguay.
In 1833 the British recovered the Islands after the UP of the River Plate invaded and captured them a few months earlier in 1832.
1845 was a BLOCKADE, nobody set foot on dry land, never mind “invaded”.
1982, same as 1833, Argentina invaded and the British recaptured.
The facts are that the British have never invaded Argentina, however Argentina has in the past twice invaded British territory in the region, and aggressively claims three British territories in the region to day.
And you wonder why we maintain a military presence there to defend our territory.
Does it not bother you at all that you dismiss the rights of the Islanders, based on a version of history that is a complete lie?
Because it should.
23@
Jul 22nd, 2014 - 06:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0simple fact are--you are wrong and on the wrong side of history,
either come into the 21st century or forever live in the shadow of the past..
The Qom Chaco in the Falklands War: an open wound -
Jul 22nd, 2014 - 07:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The message is that even before being Argentina, Falkland was Indian,” said Juan Chico teacher and researcher at the launch of “The Qom Chaco in the Falklands War: An Open Wound”, which was held by the House Memory.
'The historic journey from the 1800s to today is enriched raw and etchers testimonies of Indians who experienced firsthand and battlefronts the war that gave closure to the military dictatorship bloodiest of Argentina.
's a bilingual book that comes to highlight the participation of indigenous peoples around the Malvinas in Argentina different stretches of history, and recount the details of an unjust war...'
http://www.diarionorte.com/article/109104/los-qom-del-chaco-en-la-guerra-de-malvinas-una-herida-abierta
'WHAT THREAT DOES ARGENTINA CURRENTLY POSE TO THE FALKLANDS? – ANALYSIS ~ ...Buenos Aires might choose to launch an aggressive postmodern “lawfare” campaign of economic, legal and diplomatic sabotage to delegitimize the UK’s administration of the islands. Like Russia’s current involvement in the Ukraine crisis, Argentina’s attempts to destabilize the Falkland Islands would occur below the level of open war...'
http://www.diarionorte.com/article/109104/los-qom-del-chaco-en-la-guerra-de-malvinas-una-herida-abierta
To Mr. inthegutter(25), Pete Bog(26), Pugol-H(27), Briton(28) :
Jul 23rd, 2014 - 07:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0”1) Argentina did not exist in 1806 and 1807.” Buenos Aires DID exist then (since 1580), and our forefathers fought and died repulsing the first and second English INVASIONS. No Spanish reinforces were sent, despite the fact that the Viceroy, Marquis de Sobremonte, had asked for them on several occasions.
2) “Events in 1845 were not an ”invasion“, but a blockade” (25). “Britain was supporting a mostly FRENCH blockade”(26);“1845 was a BLOCKADE, nobody set foot on dry land, never mind ”invaded“ ”(27)...Well, for obvious reasons, I must be cautious and careful with English Semantics.:WEBSTER´S DICTIONARY OF SYNONYMS(1951): “INVASION strictly implies ENTRANCE UPON ANOTHER´S TERRITORY WITH HOSTILE INTENTIONS”. (p.474); confirmed by WEBSTER´S ENCYCLOPEDIC UNABRIDGED DICTIONARY(1989): INVADE: “TO ENTER FORCEFULLY AS AN ENEMY; GO INTO WITH HOSTILE INTENT”(p.748). Now, when the Argentine defenders engaged the combined Anglo-French, 20-strong warships (Battle of Vuelta de Obligado, November 20, 1845), it had advanced 200(two hundred) kilometers (125 miles) INLAND from Buenos Aires. The overwhelming superiority of its artillery took a 400-casualties toll on our forces. Too much for a “blockade”, right..? And too fitting for the other word. 3)“Face it, in 1982 your people supported a BRUTAL military invasion of a peaceful island population..”. Our BRUTALITY produced no civilian or military BRITISH casualties.
4) “I would say that the world has moved beyond territorial annexation against the wishes of the inhabitants but you and your buddies Russia and China prove me wrong”. Should it be the case, we simply followed the example that you and YOUR buddy afforded us -namely that little DIEGO GARCIA ISLAND business- A better example, perhaps, that ours, because the natives were willy-nilly expelled, and the Argentine people nurtures no wish of it .
#30
Jul 23rd, 2014 - 08:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0The UK has held sovereignty over Diego Garcia for 200 years, how then can Diego Garcia be an example of recent territorial expansion by the UK?
The reality is that in late 1960s the United Kingdom evicted the inhabitants to make way for an airbase. The UK purchases the islands from the self governing colony of Mauritius and paid to relocate the inhabitants, in the same way that any piece of land would be bought.
How, in your mind, this is equivalent to the Argentine invasion of the Falkland Islands, which ultimately caused the death of almost 1000 combatants and Falkland Island civilians is beyond me.
Moreover, if you're claiming what we did to the inhabitants of those islands is unacceptable, you must surely agree that your government's desires for the Falkland Islands are equally, if not more, morally dubious.
I'm really appalled at the brain washing your government uses on its people.
Argenfellow,
Jul 23rd, 2014 - 08:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0Another ill-informed malvinista.
Argenfellow, l couldn't care less what happened to your country in the past.
You do NOT own the Falklands, no matter what you believe.
You have NEVER owned them & NEVER will.
We do
C'est fini
To 31Inthegutter : Sir, I suggest that you lack information on this particular issue, because of the misunderstanding involved in your first question. Diego García is a terribly eloquent example of UNITED STATES “recent territorial expansion”. PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS has edited David Vine´s ISLAND OF SHAME: THE SECRET HISTORY OF THE U.S MILITARY BASE ON DIEGO GARCIA press.princeton.edu/titles/8885.html and this is a comment: “Island of Shame is the first major book to reveal the shocking truth of how the U.S conspired with Britain to forcibly expel Diego García´s indigenous people -the Chagossians- AND DEPORT THEM TO SLUMS IN MAURITIUS AND THE SEYCHELLES, where most live in dire poverty to this day”. Another Review: “Coldly furious book that details precisely how London and Washington colluded in a scheme of population removal more redolent of the eighteenth or nineteenth century than the closing decades of the twentieth”. I establish no equivalences between the Chagossians and “Kelpers” I do assure you that neither our government nor our people have ever wished to expel the last ones from the Islands.
Jul 23rd, 2014 - 10:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0#33
Jul 23rd, 2014 - 12:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“” Diego García is a terribly eloquent example of UNITED STATES “recent territorial expansion”. “” Except that it is not a territory of the United States but a British Overseas Territory which has in part being leased to the United States.
“Diego García´s indigenous people -the Chagossians- ” Diego Garcia has no indigenous people, it had no permanent inhabitants when it was first discovered by Europeans. It was subsequently settled by the French who imported slave labour from Africa, and other Indian ocean islands. After their capture by the British the Islands were administered as part of the Crown Colony of Mauritius. The Chagos islanders never exercised sovereignty nor self government, they were effectively tenured contract workers on the plantations.
Prior to independence the UK split the Chagos Islands from Mauritius to form the British Indian Ocean Territory and legally acquired the plantations. The British government paid for the islanders to be relocated to other parts of Mauritius in order to make way for a UK/US military establishment.
“I do assure you that neither our government nor our people have ever wished to expel the last ones from the Islands.”
Perhaps, perhaps not. What we do know is that in 1982 you forcefully invaded a peaceful Island population in order to expand your territory. You forced the Islanders to adopt Argentine law and customs (e.g. driving on the wrong side of the road), you renamed their towns, streets, and the Islands themselves. You rounded up “trouble makers” and imprisoned them.
Please explain to me, why if you “deserve” the Falkland Islands, Paraguay doesn't “deserve” the territory captured during the War of the Triple Alliance, or the native inhabitants of Patagonia.
You main argument seems to be that we deserve it because the British did something kind of similar 50 years ago. You people throw so much of your energy, and diminishing wealth and a morally unjustifiable cause. That's sad.
@32Isolde, @34inthegutter...it is obvious Argenfellow is full of sh*t....I wouldn't waste any more time on him.
Jul 23rd, 2014 - 04:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Tend to agree..
Jul 23rd, 2014 - 06:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0To Idiots usurpers must translate the items ...:
Jul 24th, 2014 - 12:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0Unanimous decision in favor of Argentina in Malvinas sovereignty over simulated process in Belgium.
It is a common practice within the university, which aims to familiarize students with the advanced performance of both national and international, as entered the Center for International Law at the Free University of Brussels in their website tribunals .
The procedure, which involves the preparation and development of a case inspired by the reality-took place in the context of the fiftieth anniversary of the Center for International Law at the University and the court ruled in favor of Argentina consisted of eight advanced students between 23 and 26 years, one Canadian, one French and the other, Belgian.
“Las Islas Malvinas are subject to the sovereignty Argentine”, unanimously ruled the tribunal formed with course participants on “Settlement of international disputes” under a ruling that is available on their website.
Under the process, the Argentina position was represented by the Argentine Marcelo Kohen, Professor of International Law, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva; meanwhile, the British government's position was presented by Professor Michael Waibel University of Cambridge.
“In its reasoning, the court found that, in 1829, the date of the British protest against the establishment by the Argentina of the Political and Military Command of the Malvinas, Argentina and not Britain had sovereignty over the islands,” Kohen appropriated Telam.
Also explained that “the court also dismissed the British thesis prescription purchasing and the application of the right of self-determination of peoples to the present inhabitants of the islands.”:
http://www.elmalvinense.com/malvinas/2014/2453.htm
25 and 34 Inthegutter:
Jul 24th, 2014 - 03:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0“You people are brainwashed from birth to believe that the Falklands yours. Pathetic. ”
As brain-washing is the usual derogative expression to design the means (necessarily crooked and devious, as they oppose UK´thesis), to make our people conscious of our rights on the Islands, may I remind you that they were persuasive enough to convince also Mr. Richard GOTT, a well-known journalist from THE GUARDIAN...? (“Argentina´s claim on the Malvinas is still a good one”- THE GUARDIAN, April 2, 2007).
“Please explain to me, why if you ”deserve“ the Falkland Islands, Paraguay doesn´t ”deserve“ the territory captured during the War of the Triple Alliance, or the native inhabitants of Patagonia.”
A brief and comprehensive answer is hardly possible until the common feature is grasped: the British Empire, Marshall Solano López, and the Pampas´ “caciques” share one condition : they were all agents of ARMED ATTACKS on argentines lands and/or citizens.
1) In the Islands´case, the stumbling block for the discussion is to which side are we going to adscribe the condition of “agressor”. Captain ONSLOW´s conduct, on January 1833, obeying Admiralty´s orders and his ultimatum to the “garrison”( 26 nominal, 10 effective) decide, to my mind, the matter . (“FORCE OR THE THREAT OF FORCE”).
2) An internecine quarrel in Uruguay provoked a confrontation between Brazil and Paraguay, each of them supporting opposing factions of the first country. Marshall Solano López declared war on Brazil. He also asked President Mitre authorization to send troops via Corrientes, an Argentine province . Mitre refused and López (as brave a soldier as reckless stateman) declared war also on Argentina. So, nothing to be returned to Paraguay, except his personal furniture.
3) The indian “malones” were devastating looting raids of our southern savages, almost all nomads.They did not recognize private property of the land.They,however, got some of it back, on a tribal basis.
Thank you 23 for correcting me. If Argentina ever achieves it's aspirations it will be comforting for the islanders, I am sure, to know that their enslavement is not intended personally.
Jul 24th, 2014 - 10:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0@37 José Mal,
Jul 24th, 2014 - 11:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0Who cares what your precious Belgian tribunal or your silly Professor(ha ha!) Kohen says or believes?
They don't live here.
You can trot out the President of the Flat Earth Society for all that we care.
These lslands have NEVER belonged to Argentina & NEVER WILL.
If you believe otherwise & have the PROOF, then get your arse down to the ICJ with your PROOF that the lslands are yours or shut your mouth.
Poltroon.
Why does just about every headline in this forum end up with dozens of posts from CFK's fanatical trolls claiming the Falklands belong to the Argentine ? Besides all the historical facts, which in themselves are sufficient evidence that Argentina has no right whatsoever to the Islands, why don't they either take their weak case to the ICJ, or just shut up. It is becoming a pain in the neck to have to filter through all their misguided information and bullsh*t every week.
Jul 24th, 2014 - 05:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#38
Jul 25th, 2014 - 01:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Richard Gott, was also “persuaded” to take money of the KGB, he was a traitor.
This has become tiring, look, if you really really want the islands, you have one of three options. 1) Invade. 2) Take it to the ICJ. 3) Convince the islanders to join you.
You, and your brainwashed brethren may want the Falklands, but its pretty clear that your government does not. How else would it continue to unite and distract the population?
@38 Argenfellow
Jul 28th, 2014 - 10:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0”In the Islands´case, the stumbling block for the discussion is to which side are we going to adscribe the condition of “agressor”. Captain ONSLOW´s conduct, on January 1833, obeying Admiralty´s orders and his ultimatum to the “garrison”( 26 nominal, 10 effective) decide, to my mind, the matter . (“FORCE OR THE THREAT OF FORCE”).”
You had enough numbers to resist but crewing the Sarandi with mostly British mercenaries wasn't such a good idea was it?
How can you keep referring to 'Argentine' forces when most of those forces were British sailors?
The fact is that most of Vernet's settlers and some of your military weren't even born in what is now Argentina-in fact most of these were born in Europe-so you complain about European people evicting mostly European people.
I note that you conveniently fail to mention that the biggest evictions were by the USS Lexington in 1831, which was not British.
With the Lexington, there was no polite letter as with Onslow-Vernet's settlers were not even given a choice.
@43 Pete Bog
Jul 28th, 2014 - 06:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I entertain some doubts about having rightly grasped your key points. If not, my excuses in advance.
“You had enough numbers to resist but crewing the Sarandí with mostly British mercenaries wasn´t such a good idea was it?”
Let us doubt that just after the bloody mutiny that murdered new governor Mestivier, and the effort to capture and keep on custody the implicated (all were shot afterwards in Buenos Aires´Plaza del Retiro) “we had enough numbers to resist”. However, I heartily agree that “crewing the Sarandí with mostly British MERCENARIES” (your words) was a blunder; because siding with Argentina and Captain Pinedo in armed ressistance would have meant, if vanquished, their immediate execution as traitors by Onslow. But we cannot ignore the nasty (for the British) “detail” that the Empire and the Argentine Confederation WERE AT PEACE AT THAT MOMENT.
“How can you keep referring to 'Argentine forces' when most of those forces were British sailors?”
In the most disembarrased fashion, since they manned an Argentine vessel, under Argentina´s pavillion, commanded by an Argentine official fulfilling Argentina´s War and Navy Ministery´s orders. (¡Remember, please, that Nelson´s VICTORY was manned by 22 nationalities...!
“The fact is that most of Vernet´s settlers and some or your military weren´t even born in what is now Argentina- in fact most of these were born in
Europe-so you complain about European people evicting mostly European people”.
BEGGING YOUR PÀRDON..! I complain about European people evicting mostly European people... FROM ARGENTINE L A N D...!
We are not concerned, as we never were, with the origin of the incoming people, although we preferred Europeans. Only their commitment, their efforts, their sacrifices for their new country, matters. (Admiral BROWN, our most revered sailor, was of Irish origin).
(I am fully aware, believe me, of the distance between ONSLOW and the wanton LEXINGTON ´s “compliments” ).
@44 Argenfellow,
Jul 28th, 2014 - 09:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina didn't exist at the time.
The would-be squatters were from the United Provinces & anyway, the Falklands was & are now, British land.
lf you're going to argue, please get your facts right.
@45 Isolde
Jul 29th, 2014 - 08:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Argentina didn´t exist at the time” (January, 1833)
“If you´re going to argue, please get you facts right”
My answer:
FROM: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_of_Argentina:
“The Spanish viceroy was ousted during the May Revolution, starting the Argentine war of Independence. The new government removed the ”Viceroyalty“ word from the name, renaming the territory as the Provincias Unidas del Río de la Plata”.........“The Constitution of 1826 was sanctioned as the CONSTITUCION DE LA REPUBLICA ARGENTINA. The other provinces rejected its high centralism, and the president Bernardino Rivadavia was deposed shortly after.”
During the second government of Juan Manuel de Rosas CONFEDERACION ARGENTINA (Argentine Confederation)* *(F O U N D E D I N 1832)** was the main name for the young country, but others were also used, including República de la Confederación Argentina (Republic of the Argentine Confederation) and Federación Argentina (Argentine Federation)”.
@46 Argenfellow,
Jul 29th, 2014 - 09:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0Who really cares about Argentina's name(?)s, anyway.? Not us.
Don't care what you call your silly country, you still have no business in the Falklands.
You have plenty of mis-managed land, go & sort that out & stop pestering us with your ridiculous “claims”
And while you're at it, what about returning to Paraguay the land that you stole from them in 1871?
@47 Isolde
Jul 30th, 2014 - 02:05 am - Link - Report abuse 01871? I warmly congratulate you on your excellent memory..! Do you keep many recollections on the Paris Commune..?. And on Queen Victoria..?. With respect to Paraguay I have already answered that question when replying to Mr. Inthegutter (Number 38, item 2)
@48 Argenfellow,
Jul 30th, 2014 - 08:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0Don't need that sort of memory. lts all in the history books.
Your remarks re Queen Victoria & the Paris Commune are completely irrelevant.
lf you are trying to be funny, then ha ha, not a very good try. No cigar for you.
Maybe you have “explained” about land stolen from Paraguay, but that doesn't make it right.
When do you think the Republic of Argentina is going to return that land.?
l mean we all know that Argentina would want to do the right thing, don't we?
l'm sure that Paraguay would love THEIR land back.
After all, Argentina violated their territorial integrity.
Don't you agree?
@46 Argenfellow
Jul 30th, 2014 - 06:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So the British Operations of 1806 & 7 in the River Plate, in the Cities of Montevideo and BA, were carried out in and against the Spanish vice Royalty of the River Plate.
I repeat, I have never heard of a Uruguayan claim that the British invaded Uruguay.
@49 lsolde
Not to mention the land belonging to the local Mapuche people, stolen by the now where near F*cking local, Criollo Conquistadors.
@44
Jul 30th, 2014 - 06:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I am glad to see you have a better grasp of history than Timmerman.
Are you aware that Louis Vernet asked permission from the British to have a settlement on the Island?
This seems odd behaviour if the Islands were Argentine.
Also the British had not dropped their claim for the Islands after their settlement in Port Egmont was started in 1765.
Also, if the United Provinces/Buenos Aires Government/Argentina truly thought The Falkland Islands were theirs, why did they not send their military between January 1833 and January 1834 when the British had no garrison, and there were no other occupiers other than Vernet's settlers who were allowed to stay on by Onslow?
@50 Pugol-H,
Jul 30th, 2014 - 09:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No need for stars in a swear word, old mate.
l have lived in rural Australia & they are not backward in coming forwards, lol!
l've heard it all & sometimes use them myself!
@51 Pete Bog,
l think that you & Pugol-H have got Argenfellow on the run.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!