MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Mark Thatcher to visit Falklands for inauguration of Baroness' memorial
Mark Thatcher is to travel to the Falklands for the inauguration of the memorial to his mother the late Baroness Margaret Thatcher which will take place on January 10. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesI wonder if there will ever be a statue of la Kretina in Argentina. I think there should be - the dogs can pee on it¡
Dec 19th, 2014 - 10:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Are you planning another coup Sir Crook Mark Thatcher?
Dec 19th, 2014 - 11:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Let's hope he doesn't get lost this time.
Dec 19th, 2014 - 11:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“blablabla...the Infant and Junior School, Camp Education and the Falkland Islands Community School,...blablabla”
Dec 19th, 2014 - 11:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0what a poor, poor, poor education system.
shame on you, isleters.
@4
Dec 19th, 2014 - 11:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”Despite the fact that Argentina has the 3rd highest literacy rate in Latin America (99.2% after Cuba and Uruguay), and spent 7.1% of GDP on education in 2010 (approximately US$21bn) the nation is experiencing “an educational tragedy” in the words of the former rector of the University of Buenos Aires, Guillermo Jaim Etcheverry.
There can be no doubt that the system faces problems. Teacher union strikes are common for a variety of reasons, including salary disputes, violence in the classroom, and a lack of respect in society. Schools are also crowded, despite an official average 13:1 student/teacher ratio, with morning and afternoon shifts, while the poor state of maintenance of many buildings is obvious.
In the year 2008, only 48% of Argentine teenagers would finish secondary school (UNICEF). And although registration for universities grew 33% over a ten-year period, out of every 100 new university students, only 10-12 will eventually receive their degree, a statistic that has remained stagnant since the turn of the century”
http://www.argentinaindependent.com/tag/argentina-education/
All this being said, it's all the more impressive that paulie can determine the quality of Falklands education from the names of the schools.
@4 LOL coming from an uneducated cretin like yourself, tell me pauly, is your tin shanty shithole house near a school?
Dec 19th, 2014 - 11:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So Pobbly Woobly is going on holiday to the rebel province of Argentina, L a Paloma in Uruguay. Did his mummy buy him illegal blue dollars for him to do that?
Dec 20th, 2014 - 12:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0I hear great White sharks have been spotted off that resort. No problem for Pobbly Wobbly. Any self respecting shark would disdain such an unappetising morsel and anyway as a troll he will find a rock to hide under if the beast gets really hungry
Mamarracho No.1 @$
Dec 20th, 2014 - 01:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0As you seem always to have statistics at your finger tips I wonder if you are able to supply figures for analfabetsimo in Argentina comparable to level “zero” in the Falkland Islands, the British Territory in the South Atlantic.
Of course, you can't! Idiot child!
Strange init? No Word on this thread from the Maggot of Mendoza. Perhaps its pupating in front of the dark screen of its laptop?
Dec 20th, 2014 - 01:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0Mark Thatcher? where did i saw him?. Oh right, he is the son of the drunk thatcher, the guy who was caught financing a coup d'etat in Africa. Nice example.
Dec 20th, 2014 - 02:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0@10 Who is the drunk thatcher? I wasn't aware that Argentine trolls know anything about British roof repairers!
Dec 20th, 2014 - 02:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0And as far as financing a coup d'etat in Equatorial Guinea Mark Thatcher was given a suspended sentence - a really tough punishment, I don't think.
Another idiot troll remark.
Yes yes Liberato
Dec 20th, 2014 - 03:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0Now let's see your country try to stop his visit!
Oh that's right, they can't. They're powerless to do anything when it comes to the Falkland Islands.
Too bad. So sad.
#11: An atempt to organize and finance a coup d'etat, creating a “rebel force” that will later take the government in Ecuatorial Guinea. With an ex sas involved. Do you think that was planned for thatcher's son personal ambition?, or the ex sas ambition?. OR do you think it was a response from a higher power?. Do you think that all South America's nations were under dictatures in the same time becouse it was fashion back then to be ruled by a dictature?.
Dec 20th, 2014 - 03:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0Dont underestimate the people. Thatcher family are scum of the worse kind. The same kind as Galtieri and videla. The same kind as Blair that invaded a nation with a lie, with no other purpose than taking natural resources from a weak but sovereign nation.
So imagine how ironic is that the guy involved in financing a plot to control a nation by force, is the representant of the woman that is “honored” in the islands for its “liberation”.
Yep.
Dec 20th, 2014 - 04:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0Honoured mate. Let that sink in. Honoured.
For his mother kicking your country's arse.
So what are you going to do about it?
Whine as usual. Seems to be the Argentine way.
Perhaps a second statue will be erected in Buenos Aires to commemorate Mrs Thatchers role in bringing an end to Argentine fascism?
Dec 20th, 2014 - 04:20 am - Link - Report abuse 015 brit bobo
Dec 20th, 2014 - 08:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0no you tw@t.
thatcher was the most fascist “leader” of her era.
only a bunch of brainless isleters can't recognize it.
the bitch backed militarily, financially and politically and was an ally of regimes like the ones of:
saddam hussein, muammar gaddafi, pinochet, the khmer rouge, hosni mubarak, etc.
the bitch was responsible of the death of millions of civilians worldwide.
but of course, like in the case of churchill, blair and other english scum, the bitch is considered a hero in little england.
it seems his son is an authentic son of a bitch.
@13 Liberato
Dec 20th, 2014 - 09:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Do you think that all South America's nations were under dictatures in the same time becouse it was fashion back then to be ruled by a dictature?.”
Basically, yes. That and the fact that you inherited anti-democratic, oligarchical, political cultures, held up by the military and Catholic hierarchies, from your colonial forebears in Spain and Portugal, which were also running the same system themselves until the 1970s.
Not even the gringo bogeymen of the North could have imposed such structures without a culture that welcomed it.
You've moved on a bit, of course, and I'm sure we all welcome that, but you only have to look at your fascist colonial attitudes to the inhabitants of the Falklands to see how far you still have to go.
Paulie 16 - Care to com,e up with a list of concrete evidence to back up all your splutterings above?
Dec 20th, 2014 - 09:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0Who were these millions of deaths worldwide for a start?
Name the countries and show the evidence?
Lady Thatcher,s actions down here in restoring the right of democratic choice
to the Islanders also caused the downfall of the fascist who ruled your country and who exterminated some 30,000 of your citizens I recall.
Pinochet - yes they gut who stood up to your military in the 1970s when your side threatened to invade southern Chile over the islands in the Beagle Channel. He was no saint I agree - but he shut your dictators up didn't he!
Did you know that some Islanders have always felt there should be another monument - out at our Int Airport - one saying “Thankyou Dumb Arse Argentina - by invading us in 1982 you put us on the world map and ensured our Democratic Future”
@16
Dec 20th, 2014 - 09:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0Not a lot of people know this, but Thatcher was also responsible for shooting down an alien spaceship over Roswell, New Mexico, in 1947.
Lady Thatcher who handbagged Argentina now ruled by the Wicked Witch of fascism. Deserves a massive monument.
Dec 20th, 2014 - 10:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0I do hope that the monument will be on Thatcher Drive and suitably protected from the stupid 20 YO argie veterans who always seem hell bent on vandalism.
Dec 20th, 2014 - 12:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sir Mark was not I suspect the apple of his mother's eye for the inept way things went in his life but he did give her lovely grandchildren so it was all worth it in the end.
#13
Dec 20th, 2014 - 01:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I see you plucked figures from your dead brain/imagination.
Would you care to provide proof of your accusations. What resources did we “LOOT” from Iraq ? I have tried to find out and all I can come up with is that it cost us much more than any financial gain made from trade.
MONETARY DIRECT COSTS
MOD
according to the Ministry of Defence, the total cost of UK military operations in Iraq from 2003 to 2009 was £8.4bn. [20]
FINANCIAL GAIN
ft.com/cms/s/0/bc8485de-271e-11e1-b7ec-4feabdc0.html#axzz3MNHPeGqp
It appears that British firms lost out heavily to other countries who did nothing but wait to jump in when S. Hussein was deposed.
You obviously know something different from official sources.
As a unbiased poster with no preconceived prejudices, you would not possibly make up accusations without proof, would you ?
Breaking news...Mark Thantcher to apply to Alicia Castro for Malvinas Visa
Dec 20th, 2014 - 01:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@4. Lovely to know that life goes on peacefully in this haven of normality away from the corruption, crime and bestiality of south america. Another triumph for British armed forces. Notably the Royal Marines, the Paras, the Scots and Welsh Guards, the Fleet Air Arm, the Royal Air Force, the Blues and Royals and anyone else that had some free time and fancied a bit of light exercise.
Dec 20th, 2014 - 02:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@8. I must correct part of what you wrote. It should read “One of the BRITISH Territories in the South Atlantic”.
@10. On the other hand, you ought to see how some of your 'people' get their money. Isn't la presidente hoping to get her 'take' up to US$20 million by next year?
@13. I can understand why you're unhappy. A female member of the Thatcher family giving the orders that resulted in your scummy little arses being kicked off OUR Islands. And now you've got a female ruling YOU. How's the old 'machismo'?
@16. Yeah. Good, wasn't she? Do I detect jealousy. Arising from the FACT that the best your whore can do is to give out press releases about how yet another insignificant state supports argieland.
Incidentally, the possessive pronoun in respect of a woman is 'her'. Although, with what you've got in the Pink House, I can see how you might get confused. Bandy, isn't she?
22: Your intensions to justify invading a SOVEREIGN nation with a lie as an excuse, shows how far you are willing to go to defend international criminals as bush and blair. Pathetic.
Dec 20th, 2014 - 05:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/secret-memos-expose-link-between-oil-firms-and-invasion-of-iraq-2269610.html
Wants some proof?. well it is simple, show where are iraq's weapons of mass destruction?. Did the uk found those weapons after 10 years of invasion and occupation?.
Knowing as i know you brits, i congratulate you for the monument of thatcher. You do not fail to your ideologies. I wonder when will you honor the best friend and ally of thatcher and the uk that helped too to “liberate” the islands. Im talking of the General Augusto Pinochet, Who was always welcomed in britain. Perhaps a new street name close to the thatcher drive?.
Nevertheless, i want you to know that we argentines have no weapons of mass destructions, nor we have a rebel force that want a change of regime nor we will never accept an helicopter from Mark. I thought i should told you that now.
24: I have no problem with a woman in the presidency. There is no machismo here. Even shemales have more rights respected here than in the uk.
Boy,, you argies aint very bright are you,
Dec 20th, 2014 - 07:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0its not so much him, its what he represents,
and at the end of the day, despite all your deluded leaders crying sobbing and UN protests,
its a BRITISH V.I.P. that's visiting the islands,
and not cfk, and that gentlemen is where the envy and jealousy comes in,
lol
@25
Dec 20th, 2014 - 09:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 03rd paragraph, “we have no weapons of mass destruction”, yes we know, it would be more correct for you to say, “we have no weapons”.
Have you ever wondered why despite your governments constant whining day after day on this issue to anyone who will listen, the UK never responds and has no interest in doing so. WE don't care what you say, think or do, your country is utterly insignificant to us.
I do hope Mark Thatcher brings his daughter Amanda to the unveiling, she is a star in the making and definitely has some of her grandmother in her.
#22
Dec 20th, 2014 - 11:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That is not the question I asked you and typical of Argie trolls, you change the subject.
Read my post again, it is written in plain English and answer my question.
What financial gain did we acquire?
If you are unable to comprehend basic English, then remove yourself to a Spanish speaking site.
4# “what a poor, poor, poor education system.
Dec 21st, 2014 - 05:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0shame on you, isleters.”
Before ridiculing the education system in the Falklands you should compare the quality of the posts written by Falkland Islanders with the work of people like yourself.
On the one hand we have readable, well argued and logically presented writing from the Falkland Islanders and from the likes of you and others we get garbage like the comments quoted above and much worse.
Take the good look at your own performance before ridiculing people who are demonstrably better in every respect.
28 grandpa ckyde, you are answering to yourself (#22).
Dec 21st, 2014 - 11:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0do not forget to take the pills.
29 boludo
what quality of the posts written by the isleters are you talking about, you benny?
the quality of #24 for example?
and again, a camp education and a community school is not enough, even for a bunch of hillbillies like you.
#30
Dec 21st, 2014 - 12:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oh ye of little brain and understanding.
My question WAS, not what some firms in the UK, MAY have got but what advantage and financial gain DID they get.
It would appear that France , Germany, China, Russia and of course the USA made money out of it. The UK seems to have come out rather poorly in financial terms.
It's a shame they couldn't have found someone a bit more reputable than Mark Thatcher to unveil the bust. Margaret Thatcher refused to see what a “spiv” she had helped raise - but there that's mothers for you!
Dec 21st, 2014 - 01:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@32 Devonian
Dec 21st, 2014 - 01:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“It's a shame they couldn't have found someone a bit more reputable than Mark Thatcher to unveil the bust. Margaret Thatcher refused to see what a “spiv” she had helped raise ”
Absolutely.
While I have the greatest of respect for Margaret Thatcher, her son would have made an ideal Argie.
How the hell did that idiot get a knighthood?
Having him unveil a statue of the mother he embarrassed is in extreme bad taste, and vital ammunition for all Malvanistas.
And things were looking good with Top Gear and island Parish.
Why not Carol Thatcher or even better, someone like Simon Weston?
I believe Carol Thatcher has actually visited the Islands.
With any luck Mark Thatcher will go on a 4WD rally across the camp to show off his driving prowess.....
Clyde15, OR you are very stupid or very naive to think that the uk invaded Iraq to find weapons of mass destruction and to later admit the information was weak. So you think Blair had an honest mistake while more than one millon of iraquians are dead?.
Dec 21st, 2014 - 06:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The same with Lybia, The UNSC made a resolution to protect civilians, while the uk instead, bombed Lybian forces, civilians, trained the rebels with sas teams, armed the rebels and helped them to take the country and sell oil assets.
British oil firms had and are extracting huge oil from those nations, and were benefited by their nations armed forces only. Mark Thatcher was not in Lybia but who knows if the rebels was not created the same way the planed to create in Ecuatorial Guinea.
About thatcher monument, she did not considered the chilean dictator, someone she could use to win a war. Pinochet was her ally, a british ally, a dictatorship that took the government by force in Chile. Killing, torturing and dissapearing the chilean citizens in the process. He helped you to win the war, and was always welcomed in britain. Even was helped to escape from the spanish judiciary system.
But you guys could not make a monument of a dictator for what it represent. It shows that the uk supported fascist dictatorships, even the argentine dictatorship before the war, but do not want to present themselves as supported of fascism in british history.
To the list of thatcher friends that she supported or helped, we should add Saddam Hussein of Iraq, the Shah of Iran and Suharto of Indonesia, among others. But may be when you look at thatcher face in the islands you may not see those people represented. Becouse you dont consider your self imperialist nor colonialist nor fascist. And in the ceremony of the monument, you may not see MArk as a criminal, but as the son of your “liberator”.
Sour grapes perhaps,
Dec 21st, 2014 - 09:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Things change, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worst.
Pinochet disappeared about 300? Arg dictators disappeared 30,000! Maggie gave you lot a good handbagging and you are all still smarting. She sorted out many of Britains basket cases, your present lady dictator nutures yours which is precisely why you are still living in a basket case country. KFC will never be remembered with a statue. A good memorial representing her reign would be what… a pool of botox?
Dec 21st, 2014 - 09:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As for the son - fat Max, leader of the Argie SA?
No matter how many goliaths you argies come up with,
Dec 21st, 2014 - 09:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0remember,
we have a David,lol
pelotudo 36
Dec 21st, 2014 - 10:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0read and learn, pelotudo.
http://elpais.com/diario/2011/08/20/internacional/1313791208_850215.html
@34
Dec 21st, 2014 - 10:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's rather convenient that logical consistency has never been a major consideration in the Malvinaverse, and consequently the UK can be damned as villainous for attempting to take down Saddam and Gaddaffi, and also damned as villainous for not attempting to taking down Pinochet, Suharto, the Shah, etc, etc. Given that the Shah fled Iran, incidentally, some months before Thatcher was even elected, it's rather hard to see how she is guilty of either supporting or undermining him, but why let a little thing like chronology get in the way of resentment?
It also helps if you can ignore that fact that the vast number of casualties in Iraq were caused not by the invasion, but by the failure to anticipate or prevent the sectarian strife that ensured. That is certainly culpable in itself, no doubt about it, but it's not the same as claiming that Blair killed 1 million. It's also relevant that Blair is no longer PM, thanks to Iraq, and that the biggest public demonstrations ever seen in the UK were in opposition to that war. Compare and contrast the Plaza de Mayo in April 1982.
Likewise, it's helpful to ignore that the intervention in Libya was the provision by NATO of a no-fly zone, following a plea by the rebels in Benghazi threatened with annihilation by Gaddafi. If you don't believe that, look for Said Gaddaffi's “We are coming” broadcast on youtube.
More generally, the problem with assholes like Pinochet, the Shah etc, etc, is that there are just too many of them for anybody to take them all down. On the other hand, when one of them attacks you, you've got no alternative or pretty soon you'll be attacked by all of them. And at that point, sometimes you're forced to go with the lesser asshole. The choice between Pinochet and Galtieri wasn't a tough one to make, asshole-wise.
Mark Thatcher, incidentally, is also in my view an asshole, but he is strictly minor league, and doesn't even register on the same asshole radar as the asshole Obiango.
#39: Nonono, nobody is saying the uk should take down nobody. Thats the problem you have. The uk is not free to take down or not to take down a foreign government in a SOVEREIGN nation. What makes the right for the british citizens of not being invaded and not being under a foreign intervension government goes both ways. You should not invade, atack, occupy other nations so other nations do not occupy your nation.
Dec 22nd, 2014 - 04:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0About the shah, read what i said. I said the shah was friend of thatcher and that she helped him and supported him. I never talked about governments. Before thatcher was elected, she visited the shah, praised him and declared very unhappy that her government suggested he could not settle in britain.
Here is one link among others, that compile the friends of thatcher:
http://www.wideasleepinamerica.com/2013/04/the-ironic-lady-margaret-thatcher.html
Also i never said that Blair killed 1 millon people in Iraq, read what i wrote. But certainly more than 1 millon are dead becouse of the decision that blair took in invade that (again) SOVEREIGN nation.
About Lybia, i was talking about the UN and you come up with NATO. So for you NATO represent the world community?. NATO represent the international law?. So if NATO says they will destroy Libya, you as a citizen of one member of NATO will think its legal.
Quote: “More generally, the problem with assholes like Pinochet, the Shah etc, etc, is that there are just too many of them for anybody to take them all down”
Listen to me, if you have an asshole as prime minister or president or king, nobody have the right to take him down but you. Becouse if you dont respect the sovereignty of others, there will be a more powerfull nation than yours and will not like your leader and will invade you and kill your leader. You are not an animal, you have to respect the law, and the sovereignty of other nations.
@40
Dec 22nd, 2014 - 09:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0Respecting the law, and respecting sovereignity, aren't quite the same thing. Sovereignity doesn't mean impunity, although it's apparently widely believed to be so in Argentina. And you don't seem to be too keen on Thatcher respecting it.
As for Libya, it's rater hard to say how civilians would have been better protected by letting the Gaddafis massacre them, but perhaps Argentine sensibilities would have been better respected.
#41: Exactly, sovereignty doesnt mean impunity. The problem is that you think it is the uk who decide whether a nation breaks the law or not. Preventive atacks? unilateralism?.
Dec 22nd, 2014 - 12:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Lybia was not massacring its people before the rebel force. But the rebel force appeared from nowhere. Nobody knows who they were. But the uk supported them, trained them, and fighted for them. Ghadaffi was a dictator, but the rebels were not a democracy force either.
@42
Dec 22nd, 2014 - 02:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So it wasn't a problem that Thatcher respected the sovereignity of all those assholes you mentioned earlier? I thought you were criticising her for that?
Regardless of what happened after, do you really think the Gaddaffis weren't going to massacre the people of Benghazi? I suppose the Serbs didn't expel the population of Kosovo either?
@43 : You are way over their heads .
Dec 22nd, 2014 - 07:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Anyway , a quick look at who Argentina's main trading and political partners are and their political set up :
1 ) Cuba : Marxist one party since 1961 . No freedom of the press , thousands of political detainees .
2 ) Venezuela : Marxist one party state since 1999 . No freedom of the press , thousands of political detainees .
3 ) China : Communist one party state since 1950 . Thousands of political detainees .Restricted access to the internet , no freedom of the press .
4 ) Russia . Police state run by a megalomaniac . Like Argentina , likes invading neighbouring countries .
5 ) Iran : Fanatical muslim state that hangs 15 year olds from cranes , exports terrorism and treats women as chattels .
6 ) Angola : Marxist one party state since 1976 . No freedom of the press and thousands of political detainees .
Liberato and all these other pricks hold up Gaddaffi as some sort of benevolent dictator , yet he made Videla, Camps , Massera and crew look like boy scouts...
They simply defeat their own arguments .
Oh , and Argentina participated in the 1st Gulf war coalition :
Argentina was the only Latin American country to participate in the 1991 Gulf War sending a destroyer, ARA Almirante Brown (D-10), a corvette, ARA Spiro (P-43) (later replaced by another corvette, ARA Rosales (P-42)) and a supply ship (ARA Bahía San Blas (B-4)) to participate on the United Nations blockade and sea control effort of the gulf. The success of Operación Alfil as it was known, with more than 700 interceptions and 25,000 miles sailed in the theatre of operations helped to overcome the so-called “Malvinas syndrome”. Argentina was later classified as major non-NATO ally due to its contributions during the war ( Wiki )
So I guess that makes them warmongers and Bush's running dogs too ?
I don't think I am either stupid or naive, but I have my opinions about YOU.
Dec 22nd, 2014 - 07:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Were or are British Oil companies getting a free gift of oil from Iraq ?
Were they paying the international market price for it ? Please elucidate.
As far as Sadaam Hussein goes, he would eventually have acquired some weapons of mass destruction, either chemical-which he had and used, biological or nuclear.
These would most likely have been used against Israel who would have unleashed total war in the middle east. If there is a mad dog on the loose, you don't wait until it bites you !
We just did what your government and people did in the Falklands although on a larger scale.
no matter what we say, what the UN says , what the islanders say,
Dec 22nd, 2014 - 07:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0these brainwashed Argies are not the slightest interested ,all
they want it is all or nothing,
they will ignore all rules , ignore the UN , ignore the right's of the people , just to get what they want , written by them, for them ,
they will keep on pushing and pushing, until the inevitable happens,
and like all 4th rated fools and cowards,
after the dust has settles , after the deaths of hundreds possible thousands,
they the great uneducated self rictus brainwashed will sit and sob ,the now famous argy un-intelligent motto,
WE ONLY WANTED TO TALK.
Boxxoks , let the islanders live in peace , so Soddy offy before you start something YOU will surely regret,
is their not enough bullshit and bloodshed in this stinking world without a bunch of brainwashed ungrateful selfish wanabe empire builders like you,, jumping on the band wagon, you should be bloody well ashamed of your selves, You call yourselves civilised, more like hyenas stealing everything they can,
just my humble Christmas point of view..
.
@42 Liberato
Dec 22nd, 2014 - 11:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Note the excellent post @44 Usurping Pirate which illustrates who Argentina are dealing with now (not 1982 0r 2003).
I note that Argentina is also pals with Syria who. like most of the countries supporting Argentina on the C24 committee aren't very hot on rights themselves.
One thing Margaret Thatcher got right was the rights of the Falkland Islanders being paramount.
But I find myself rarely agreeing with the Malvanistas that Mark Thatcher sucks.
#43: QUOTE: “So it wasn't a problem that Thatcher respected the sovereignity of all those assholes you mentioned earlier? I thought you were criticising her for that?”.
Dec 22nd, 2014 - 11:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No, im criticising the british for making a monument of a woman that praised dictators, criminals that commited state terrorism.
#46: Quote: “no matter what we say, what the UN says , what the islanders say”
Well, i dont think you should put the we, UN and islanders words in the same sentense.
You and islanders thinks the islands are not a colony and are undoubtly british. The UN do not think that way. For the UN the islands are a non self governing territory with a colonial situation, which sovereignty is disputed between the uk and Arg. I thought that was very clear. Even your greatest ally the US has already told you officially and textually: “We recognize the de facto UK administration of the islands, but we take no position on sovereignty claims.”
We do not ignore the UN, nor the rights of the people. The UN have always recognized a sovereignty dispute (while the uk says they have no doubt about british sovereignty) and have always asked for negotiations (that the uk refuse to accept).
Every resolutions on decolonization has the brits voting Against. Res 1514, 2065 for example.
You are the uneducated fool, You are being brainwashed. You dont even know what it means sovereignty (you think an invasion is justificable if your government dont like the government of the other nation?). Have no respect for international law (unilateralism or preemptive strike). You are so naive that im sure you think the uk invade other nations to fight for freedom and democracy!!!!.
@48
Dec 22nd, 2014 - 11:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0To lift this from another thread, what 1514 actually says is :
“1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.”
Why is Argentina so determined to subject the Falkland Islanders to alien subjugation, deny their fundamental human rights, violate the Charter of the United Nations, and impede the promotion of world peace and co-operation?
#49: well i think you forgot 6 more points beside that one. It is nice to choose a part of the resolution you like. And a correction to what i said in my previous post. The uk did not voted against this resolution. It abstained. This resolution was voted almost unanimously in favour. The uk, Spain and the US among a few others, abstained. Argentina, voted in favour of this resolution.
Dec 23rd, 2014 - 02:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0You Hans, live in a fantasy. First, you take as an excuse a resolution that the uk abstained and Argentina voted in favour. Secondly, You quote one point out of six described in the resolution, one of those six says: “ Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.”
Third, How on earth do you think that a nation who was once a colony and fighted for its independence, that the only war in a century that fought, was over a period of two month under a coup d'état can be a colonial power, just becouse a nation who invaded %99 of the world and that recently invaded a nation without ANY valid or legal reason says so?.
It is really comic hearing that from Camaron mouth.
Fourth, It is your imagination that makes you believe we want to subject a foreign people under an alien subjugation. If a foreign people, is colonizing a territory of my nation, it is my nation who is subject to alien subjugation.
Fifth, The UN have never ever accused us of such, of being a colonial power, or to be trying to subjugate a foreign people. At the contrary, the UNGA have praised us on many resolutions for our efforts to negotiate sovereignty.
The reality is (according to UN GA and DC), that the Malvinas islands are a non self governing territory, under a colonial situation, which sovereignty is disputed between the uk and Argentina. I know that fact is hard to swallow for you, but its the truth. So no people under alien subjugation ok?.
@50
Dec 23rd, 2014 - 10:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0It's not relevant whether the uk abstained or not at the time of the resolution. The question is whether the UK has ever respected the resolution. And in this regard, there can be no doubt that the UK has. The UK is in fact the world champion at decolonisation having decolonised approximately one third of the world's surface. Indeed the only remnants left are the 10 NSGTs which the UK itself placed on the UN NSGT list, and which remain there only because a corrupt coterie of Latam states voting on an ethnic basis declines to recognise the fundamental founding principle of the UN.
As you know, there isn't enough space on mercopress to quote the resolution in its entirety, but the only straw it provides for Argentina to clutch at, is the statement about territorial integrity. It's unfortunate then, that in 200 years Argentina has never been able to substantiate that the islands were ever Argentine territory, and declines to take its case to the only body that could pronounce upon the matter. I think we all know why that is.
The term “alien subjugation” shouldn't be too hard for you to understand, particularly since the resolution uses it in the context of people. The only people in Argentina subject to alien subjugation are those remnants of the original indigenous inhabitants who haven't been exterminated.
Meanwhile, it is incontestable that Argentina wishes to impose an alien Argentine regime upon the inhabitants of the Falklands Islands who have near unanimously expressed their rejection of any such thing. Nonetheless, Argentina continues to reject any application of the principles of law, democracy, and human rights in pursuit of its territorial ambitions in the South Atlantic, it has resorted to warfare once already in pursuit of these aims, and continues to use as justification some principle of colonial inheritance which is a violation of every advance in modern international law and which has no legal standing whatsoever.
#50: QUOTE: “It's not relevant whether the uk abstained or not at the time of the resolution. The question is whether the UK has ever respected the resolution”
Dec 23rd, 2014 - 01:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0At the time of the resolution?. Do you think that some way the british changed its mind or what?. Historically the british voted against decolonization. Today, the british continue to vote against decolonization having 8 others colonies, which sovereignty is not disputed between the uk and any foreign power.
Dont you think that the if the uk is the world champion on decolonization as you suggested, could it be becouse they had the biggest colonies on earth without decolonizing?.
In the whole history of the dispute. It was Argentina the only one to suggest an arbitration. The british refused. Many british public officials had admitted the british case was weak and even were talks to recognize argentine sovereignty and transfer sovereignty. Now many of your countrymen suggest that the war changed that, and that Argentina lost its right to claim for that war. That is not true. Wining a war do not grant sovereignty rights. And there was no peace treaty signed after the war that cede sovereignty to britain.
In 1833 the uk Invaded the islands, expelling the argentine government, even if some of them stayed, constituted a subjugation of the argentine people to live under a foreign power and foreign law.
QUOTE: “ it is incontestable that Argentina wishes to impose an alien Argentine regime upon the inhabitants of the Falklands Islands who have near unanimously expressed their rejection of any such thing...”
It is incontestable that the islands constitute a disputed land, You should read sometimes the UN resolutions regarding the islands situation. And the islands constitute a colonial situation. So, that “incontestable fact” you mention is only believed by the uk government. You give for granted that the islands are british and by that, you think the argentines are trying to impose an alien regime over islanders.
@52
Dec 23rd, 2014 - 01:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Of course the islands are a disputed land. It doesn't follow from this that Argentina's claim is valid, from the mere fact that it exists.
The thing is that modern international law and the modern international system provides a number of mechanisms for resolving disputes peacefully, and Argentina rejects all of them, preferring to base its case on some principle of colonial inheritance two centuries ago, which not only has no legal basis, but which Argentina it is completely unable to establish in any manner that cannot be debunked by anybody with 30 minutes to spare and a web browser.
The really peculiar thing is that even now, Argentina can have the islands tomorrow, in full respect of all international law and UN resolutions, and to the general applause of everybody concerned. All it has to do is convince the islanders. And yet Argentina persists instead with an approach that is historically false, legally irrelevant, morally reprehensible, and guaranteed to fail. You have to wonder what exactly in the Argentine psyche allows this to go on, and who exactly benefits from it.
#53: Of course that the fact there is a sovereignty dispute do not means Argentina's claims are valid but neither means that they are british. You take as granted that the islands are british and that the islanders have self determination rights ON Malvinas oil. And thats why you think that if we recover the islands we would be subjugating a people.
Dec 23rd, 2014 - 11:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But for the international community, represented in the UN, the islands are not a self determined people. They are a non self governing territory with a colonial situation, which sovereignty is disputed between the uk and Argentina.
Why dont you number the mechanisms for resolving disputes peacefully, that Argentina has rejected?.
The principle of uti possidetis that you claim has no legal basis of 2 centuries ago was used practically by all latin america without Brazil as a legal basis of sovereignty after independence to delimit their frontiers.
About your advise of convincing the islanders. They are not a different people than those of the Uk. Its like if i tell you go to Usuahia and convince the people there to be british. Your suggestion is very stupid. And again you fail to recognize that the dispute is between the uk And Argentina. To want to islanders to be recognized as a third party when its not.
@ 54 Liberato
Dec 24th, 2014 - 11:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0WHY would anybody with a brain in their head WANT to go to Usuahia, you cnnot even get a SHIT in the damn place:
““SEWER SYSTEM IN USHUAIA
Pumping station still not functioning
Almost a year since the technical report on the status of the sewer system of Ushuaia was presented by the Advisory Commission on Coastal Management Plan, the Government and Municipality has still not defined who will be responsible for the repair and maintenance.” Source Ushuaia Noticias.
What a bunch of tossers!”
48 Liberato
Dec 24th, 2014 - 01:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0the word is simple,
do you believe the islanders who have lived on the islands for over 200 years,
have a right to decide who they wish to be,
do they have a right to live in peace,
do they have a right to self determination,
do they have human rights,
do they have a right to be British,
when ether you agree or not,
but if you disagree,
then do you belive
Argentina has a right5 to steal them,
does Argentina , who has NEVER administered them have a right to demand them,
do you have a right to , invade them , humiliate them , abuse them , blockade them , tell abhorrent lies abt them , does Argentina have a right to humiliate them to all that will listen , does Argentina have a right to ignore them , and refuse to acknowledge them ,
do you think Argentina was right to tell the world that they believe in the rights of people, then refuse the rights of the islanders to exist,
what ever your view,
at the end of the day, if you think Argentina can take them against the will of the people,
then you surely are living in cuckoo land,
to deny people the basic rights that you enjoy make Argentina itself a hypocrite,
two faced and a liar,
and last but not least,
for those of you that supposed to believe in god and the rights of man,
you will surely no go to heaven .
The British Falkland's will remain until they say other wise,
either take it to the ICJ of grow up and leave them in peace.
#55: Usuahia has many thousens more turist than the islands. So i take your opinion that you dont like Usuahia.
Dec 24th, 2014 - 06:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#56: Briton i will respond every one of your accusations and questions:
Quote: “do you believe the islanders who have lived on the islands for over 200 years, have a right to decide who they wish to be,”
The colony of Malvinas for over 200 years, even now, has a population control, that specially select their inmigrants to mantain the britishness and the status quo. For instance, i could go to any place in the world, compling with inmigration requirements and live whenever i want but in Malvinas. I could invest my monney where ever i want but in Malvinas. The islanders can go whenever they want even in Argentina and reside here or work here or invest here. That crap you british always says that people from the uk has the same protocols to reside in Malvinas are pure bullshit and you know it.
The islanders live in peace, but in a disputed land. If they dont like that situation tell their government in London to comply with UN resolutions and find the way to negotiate with Argentina to end the dispute.
They have a right to self determination, like evey the rest of the world. But not in a foreign land. Like this case.
They have humans rights of course, nobody denied them that. But what they are not is a different people from those in the uk.
They have the right to be british, but they dont have the right to have a british government in argentine territory.
Argentina did not stealed them, Britain invaded Argentina in 1833 remember?.
Argentina administered the islands, and there was even a conflict with the USA. And even before independence it was Spain that administered the islands and the continent.
We dont lie about them, we dont humiliate them. Our government refuse to acknowledge them becouse if we do acknowledge them, we will lose our claim becouse we would be recognizing a different government than the uk. We would be recognizing a colonial gov.
I note your points however I would make the following observations.
Dec 25th, 2014 - 10:12 am - Link - Report abuse 01) not in a foreign land. Like this case. Wrong, it is sovereign British territory
2) Britain invaded Argentina in 1833 remember?. Wrong. Britain recovered it's sovereignty of the islands.
Of course the Falklands has a population control. It wants to keep out undesirables. If there was a free for all, Argentina would flood the islands with their own citizens until they outnumbered the original residents, Then there would be a “spontaneous” outcry for the islands to be incorporated into ARGENTINA. The original inhabitants would be outvoted...end of story.
#58:
Dec 25th, 2014 - 11:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 01) Nope, for you it is british sovereign territory but for Argentina it is not, and The UN considers Malvinas's sovereignty in dispute between the uk and Argentina.
2)Recovered???? could you please tell me when did Britain had sovereignty before 1833?.
About the “undesirables”. Yeah right, in the all days it would be: “business as usual” but know your excuse is to protect the britishness. hahahaha.
BLA BLA BLA
Dec 26th, 2014 - 12:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0its British,
come and take it to the ICJ,
or Carry on crying , moaning , sobbing , yelping,
but to no avail.
British old chap British...
Merry Christmas to all the true believers who reject facism and support the rights of the Falkland Islanders to chose their own destiny. I have enjoyed reading your excellent contributions this year and I think that collectively you have help improve the knowledge that we all have about the Falkland Islands.
Dec 26th, 2014 - 01:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0SPANISH RAKER 'REPORTED FOR PROCESS' AFTER BOXING DAY INCIDENT
Dec 27th, 2014 - 01:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Police were called after at least six fishing boats were spotted off Catalan Bay
http://www.chronicle.gi/headlines_details.php?id=35247
////////////
Now THAT's how you deal with poachers! Indonesian style
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2882538/Now-s-deal-poachers-Indonesian-navy-blows-illegal-foreign-fishing-vessels-spectacular-fashion-confiscating-ships-arresting-crew.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490
Perhaps Indonesia should patrol the bay,
That David wont secure.
.
#59
Dec 27th, 2014 - 08:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Who gives a toss what the UN thinks. It's British, end of story.
Since it was discovered by the British BEFORE Argentina existed.
Of course it is to protect it's Britishness. They have had an experience of Argentinian rule in 1982. They did not find it pleasant and you are STILL the same people as then,
Off to watch TOP GEAR in Patagonia. Should be enlightening !!!!!!!!!!!
@59
Dec 28th, 2014 - 01:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0“ Nope, for you it is british sovereign territory but for Argentina it is not, and The UN considers Malvinas's sovereignty in dispute between the uk and Argentina.”
And the Falkland Islanders interests(according to the UN) come before Argentina's and the UK's (that's why the latter two's interests aren't included in any resolution ,i.e.2065).
2)Recovered???? could you please tell me when did Britain had sovereignty before 1833?.
From 1765, though after 1771 this was shared sovereignty with Spain. Under the agreement signed with Spain, to avoid Spain going to war with the UK, no third party nation was to be given the Falklands-and Britain did not do this.
When the UPs came in they were a third party and not Spain (the clue being in the name United Provinces of the River Plate -or your Spanish translation, which isn't spelled the same as S p a i n).
@59
“but know your excuse is to protect the britishness.”
Like the Spanglish words used in the Falklands that are not used in the UK?
The saddle for my horse is called a saddle, in the UK.
It is not called a saddle in the Falklands, which is known by the Spanish name, originating from the Gauchos who worked under Lafone-like the place name San Carlos, named under British rule.
The Falkland Britishness is not the same as UK Britishness-I have never heard of morning break being called Smoko in the UK and the countryside around here is not called the Camp (from Campo I believe).
But if the Falklands were to possess the total Spanishness that you do, they would be broke like you are and get nothing done as they would be asleep in the afternoon.
You do not understand that most Falkland Islanders do not commute into the Islands from the UK everyday-they were born in and live in the Islands, not 8000 miles to the north. Given the climate of the Falkland Islands is similar to the UK's (plus the sunlight hours), of course the place suits British people- Stanley is same latitude South that London is North.
59@
Dec 28th, 2014 - 01:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0probably don't even know where the UK is.
#63: The british did not discovered the islands. They did not claimed them first and they did not settle them first. They created a settlement hided from Spain and France that lasted a few years.
Dec 28th, 2014 - 07:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#64:
1)The islanders's interests are paramount, nobody discuss that. The population (regardless of the dispute), are inhabitants of the islands. They are not a product that you can dismiss, or expell, like the uk did in Diego Garcia Island. Now there is a different between taking care of islander's interests and taking care of islanders wishes. Argentina have always claimed they will take care of islander's interest.
2)There was no shared sovereignty between Spain And Britain. The violent expulsion of the british is what almost provoked war. And the spanish to avoid it, returned Port Egmont, as a reparation for the violence committed in their expulsion. This resolution was made in the Masserano treaty of 1771. In that treaty it specifically says that:
“The Prince de Masserano declares, at the same time, in the name of the King, his master, that the engagement of his said Catholick Majesty, to restore to his Britannick Majesty the possession of the port and fort called Egmont, cannot nor ought in any wise to affect the question of the prior right of sovereignty of the Malouine islands, otherwise called Falkland's Islands.”
So it means that the Devolution of fort Egmont could not be interpreted as a recognition of british sovereignty. So no shared sovereignty at all.
What you say about about the third party belongs to the nootka sound conventions of 1790’s, in which Spain, the lonely sovereign and administrative of the Malvinas, made an agreement with Britain in which, the last would not colonize territory already colonized by the other(Spain). Ergo, no british objection of Spanish sovereignty in Malvinas?.
About different words, then Argentina should be split into lots of nations becouse of talking differently, using different words, etc. Typical british ignorance.
#66
Dec 28th, 2014 - 11:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The bottom line is that Argentina cannot be trusted to keep any promise or treaty that would be made. This being obvious to all, what is there to talk about ?
Your country has the sovereignty written into it's constitution. Your morons and thugs in Ushaia act as if they rule the islands making stupid pronouncements.
Do you REALLY expect us to have anything to do with the likes of them?
Abandoning the Islanders to the tender mercies of hoodlums like them ?.
Thank you Mr. Clarkson for showing us the type of people who would like to rule over the islands. Utter scumbags !
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!