MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Falklands celebrates with several events 250 years of British claim over the Islands
The 250 years since Britain officially claimed the Falklands will be celebrated on a number of occasions this month. Celebrations are being organized in Stanley by members of the public on January 21 and 24 and by Falkland Islands Government on January 23 and 31, along with a ceremony on Saunders Island at Port Egmont on January 23. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesThis American supports the islands rights of self determination and affiliation with any nation it so chooses via democratic elections.
Jan 19th, 2015 - 09:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina is a nation where corruption is pervasive and who silences it's critics by murdering them.
For the trolls!
Jan 19th, 2015 - 10:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This is not a myth, nor a fairy tale, nor a lie - this is the true history of the Falkland Islands.
No, no, no, no, no...this can't be right, the history of the Falklands only starts in 1833.
Jan 19th, 2015 - 10:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 01765 you say....Union Jack first flown you say...must be a fairy tale, a myth. We all know the British only turned up in 1833, don't we Argentina, eh.
‘I have perused the papers respecting the Falklands Islands. It is not at all clear to me that we have ever possessed the sovereignty of these islands.’ The Duke of Wellington 1829
Jan 20th, 2015 - 04:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8e/English_imperialism_octopus.jpg
Try giving all of it MoreCrap - not just the first sentence edited to suit Arg fantasies
Jan 20th, 2015 - 05:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/wellington-jenner.pdf
Marquitos Alejandrito
Jan 20th, 2015 - 06:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0Nene - you, too, should have done more research before making yourself look a fool - as you usually do!
Ain't gonna work no more, Marcos.
Jan 20th, 2015 - 06:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0People have educated themselves now.
More and more people are too, as the Falklanders and the F.O. Put on appropriate public events to counter your years of propaganda, half-truths, and lies.
Now, you paymasters and propagandists are murdering fellow Argentines!
Doesn't it make you question the morals of your society?
Doesn't bit make you feel a bit sick??
Indoctrinated fool. Liar!
Congratulations, Falkland Islands! 250 years of being British.
Jan 20th, 2015 - 08:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0Once again you show the world how Argentina lies, and all they can retort with is the same old crap (Marcos) that has been disproved time and time again.
So to the Falkland Islands, I hope your celebrations go well and that you don't have too many hangovers.
Marcos, its 'all' in the wording isn't it Marcos, because after 'all' that is 'all' you have. Now run along and read his actual words, that is 'all' you have to do to understand where you go wrong 'all' of the time, with 'all' those lies you were exposed to at school and by 'all' your governments. They 'all' make it so easy for us to expose their lies. That's 'all' for now, from me. T'all'y ho.
Jan 20th, 2015 - 08:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0“250 years of British claim over the Islands”
Jan 20th, 2015 - 08:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0The UK doesn't have a “claim”, it has possession.
@10. Possession? GB does not OWN the FI. They are self governing. The FI raise and use their own tax's etc. GB does not force the FI to do anything. Unlike what Argentina are trying to do. FORCE it to be under the ownership of the Argies, or be FREE while protected by GB. Wonder which one I'd rather ;)
Jan 20th, 2015 - 10:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0Oh yes, the TRUTH always hurts the argies, murdering liars that they are.
Jan 20th, 2015 - 10:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0Happy Birthday fellow citizens.
Jan 20th, 2015 - 11:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0@11. Whilst I sort of understand the point you are making, the fact is that the Falkland Islands are a British Overseas Territory. The sovereignty involved is British sovereignty. The constitution is written, with due regard to the Islanders' wishes, by Britain. One can also class the Falkland Islands as a UN trust state, with Britain being the trustee. It is Britain with the duty to guide the Islands to nationhood and ensure proper governance. It is British service personnel that garrison the Islands to ensure the continuation of British sovereignty and possession and the freedom of the Islanders. When, and if, the Islanders choose to seek independence, no doubt it will be Britain that will guarantee that independence. But that will be by means of a treaty between two sovereign nations. Britain will no doubt continue to defend the Islands, unless the Islanders propose to spend the money to provide a defence infrastructure, weaponry and mercenary troops, if the Islanders agree to pay for that defence.
Jan 20th, 2015 - 12:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Don't try to drive a wedge between the Islands and Britain, but reality must prevail. If the Islanders seek independence but end their association with Britain, Britain will withdraw. WE will be sad watching argieland taking over.
For the time being, make no mistake, it is British sovereignty and POSSESSION that stands between the Islands and argieland.
“Falklands celebrates with several events 250 years of British claim over the Islands”
Jan 20th, 2015 - 12:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0no you dumbassholes.
it is 182 (one eighty two) years of illegal ocupation.
GOT IT?
Hooraaaaaaahhh PC has his electricity back on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jan 20th, 2015 - 12:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@15 paul
Jan 20th, 2015 - 12:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If British possession of the Falkland Islands is illegal why doesn't Argentina take us to the International Court of Justice and PROVE IT?
Just saying something doesn't make it true.
What is true is that the British 1st claimed the islands in 1690 - and gave them the name Falklands.
What is true is that the 1st British settlement was established 250 years ago.
What is true is that the United Provinces tried to ILLEGALLY steal the islands from the British in 1832/33 and were kicked off.
What is true is that Argentina tried to ILLEGALLY steal the islands from the British in 1982 and were kicked off.
What is true is that Argentina hasn't got a LEGAL case for sovereignty of the islands - hence why you avoid going to court.
What is true is if Argentina won't pursue the LEGAL path regarding the Falklands then Argentina in fact ACCEPTS British sovereignty over the islands.
And what is true is that Argentina is a failing country teetering on the brink of oblivion - because of people like you Paul.
@11
Jan 20th, 2015 - 01:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Malvinistas like to push the fiction that there are two competing “claims” for the Falklands. There are not two competing “claims”. There is an Argentine “claim” which seeks to overturn British possession. That is a different kettle of fish entirely. To overturn possession requires a burden of proof and formal legal title that they are nowhere near having.
“”“”“”no you dumbassholes.
Jan 20th, 2015 - 02:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0it is 182 (one eighty two) years of illegal ocupation.
GOT IT?“”“”
I wonder if this is an indoctrinated but genetically development trait within all Malvos that they simply cannot read the truth?
@15. Paul. A sovereignty claim without a case is an illegitimate claim and worthless.
Jan 20th, 2015 - 02:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@18 No, you just refuse to believe facts when it comes to the Falkland Islands. The Argentine claim comes from being “handed” the Islands from Spain, who never owned them to begin with. Refer to @17 for some truths.
Jan 20th, 2015 - 03:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Other than that you just rely on Geography for a claim. “oh but they are really close to us” ever thought Argentina Governments need to distract their citizens from their incompetence?
Maybe if Argentina wasn't so hostile towards the Islanders there may be a relationship and maybe the referendum that happened in 2013 could have turned out a differently. Cant imagine Argentina giving the Falklands those freedoms ;)
#14 You are not correct on the Constitution. It is drafted jointly between the UK Govt and the FI Government, and is/was the subject of lengthy negotiation. No part of it was imposed or adopted by the UK Government without the prior agreement of the Falkland Islands Government. Other territories have sat for years without having their Constitutions updated because they could not agree.
Jan 20th, 2015 - 04:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nevertheless, thanks for your ever solid support.
15 BottyBoyPaulie
Jan 20th, 2015 - 04:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”no you dumbassholes.
it is 182 (one eighty two) years of illegal ocupation.
GOT IT?”
Oh Dear Paulie. You know you really should workshop those emotions, I can see the steam coming out of your ears from here ( Nottingham, England, in case you were wondering ). Or is it just the hot air coming out of your mouth??
Anyway, as friend LEPRecon says at 8:-
“Congratulations, Falkland Islands! 250 years of being British”.
If you would like to raise your glasses and toast the NEXT 250 years. May the Islanders go from strength to strength.
15 paulcedron
Jan 20th, 2015 - 04:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina was legally barred from any claim of inheritance from Spain, under the Peace of Utrecht:
“...it is hereby further agreed and concluded, that neither the Catholic King, nor any of his heirs and successors whatsoever, shall sell, yield, pawn, transfer, or by any means, or under any name, alienate from them and the crown of Spain, to the French, or to any other nations whatever, any lands, dominions, or territories, or any part thereof, belonging to Spain in America.”
@15. “no you dumbasshole”.
Jan 20th, 2015 - 04:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Tired of your lies. Your shithole wasn't even properly recognised as a 'state' until 1858. Found that bit of history? The date when spain finally accepted 'argieland' as a country. Just a colony in rebellion until then. Shame you know nothing about real history and international law.
@17. Inaccuracies. Research shows that Britain DISCOVERED the Islands in 1690. No formal claim was made until 1765. The dumb spanish had to be shown the error of their ways in 1770/71, returned all seized goods, paid compensation and accepted the right of the British to the Islands. The United Provinces of somewhere tried to use a PIRATE to claim the Islands in 1820. The so-called Republic of Buenos Aires also made an attempt in 1832. And got kicked off. 1982 is a very important date. Argieland illegally invaded and occupied. The UN said so. The argies got kicked off. Also from South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. International legal principle of uti possidetis. At the end of an armed conflict, territory belongs to the party that possesses it. Everything before 1982 is irrelevant. The territories are British.
What is true is that argieland, since 1982, has NO case at all. It has NO choice but to accept British sovereignty.
Before 1982 there 'might' have been a case to argue. No doubt one reason why no attacks were made on the argie 'homeland'. The situation now is different. There is no legal impediment to Britain bombing argieland into submission if it attacks British territory. Bombs, missiles, whatever. And, despite certain whinges about defence cuts, Britain is so much better equipped today. What we didn't have in '82 that we have now. A rapid airborne reinforcement. Cruise missile-equipped submarines. Best in the world air defence destroyers. State of the art combat aircraft. Long range ballistic missiles. And, as ever, the best troops in the world.
@15 paulcedron
Jan 20th, 2015 - 05:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Islands became British Territory 250 years ago.
How can it be “182 (one eighty two) years of illegal occupation”
Do the maths, the Islands were British Territory for 68 years BEFORE your alleged “illegal occupation” began.
In 1833 the British RECOVERED the Islands RESTORING British rule, 3 months after the UP invaded.
Argentina only has a case if the prior British history of the region does not exist.
Except it does, and not only has that cost you the S. Atlantic, it is going to cost you the Antarctic as well.
You cannot do to the British what you did to Atahualpa or the Mapuche, the British have more than just bows and arrows with which to defend their territory.
It is written that Drake on his expedition in 1693 I believe passed the islands,
Jan 20th, 2015 - 07:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0and probably stopped there,
but as 25 Conqueror stated no formal claim was made,
I also believe other British explorers also ventured that way around the late 1600s, so paulie just lives in a dream world and spends his days on here wishing , hoping , praying, still,
the indoctrinated must do something to past the time away.
just saying like.
@21
Jan 20th, 2015 - 11:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I do believe you're confusing me with someone else.
Come on !, Come and celebrate fucking thieves, while they can. Nobody in the world has a longer doubt who brainwashed who in the Malvinas Argentinas Islands.
Jan 20th, 2015 - 11:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Pirates, passed through his testicles the previous discovery of the islands by Spain in 1502 by Vespucci, the founding of Port Louis in 1764 by the French Bouganville, recognition on the part of France that the entire archipelago belonged to Spain and its delivery the formal Corona.
Thereafter Puerto Luis renamed Puerto Soledad and that name was inherited by the nascent Argentina's capital where the entire archipelago ruled.
Come and celebrate while you can, pirates. What happened to the brave British in 1770? Juan Ignacio de Madariaga, sent by the governor of Buenos Aires, expelled them from kicking ass and in 1775 John Calleja reduced to rubble the few buildings of the invaders in Trinidad (no Saunders).
After the 1771 Treaty of Masserano English despicable understand that this was serious and the ship was taken in 1774.
The rest, thieves know it by heart. After 60 years taking advantage of the weakness of its genuine owner (The United Provinces of Rio de la Plata) usurp the Malvinas Argentinas. Gone are 20 Spanish governors (dependent on Buenos Aires) and 6 Argentines.
Islas Malvinas Argentinas, we will back.
@29
Jan 20th, 2015 - 11:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What's this? There were Brits on the islands 63 years before the United Provinces first attempted to implant a garrison? 42 years before the United Provinces even existed?
List of Spanish and Argentine governors until piratical usurpation of 1833:
Jan 20th, 2015 - 11:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0SPANISH
1767-1773 F. Ruiz Puente
1773-1774 D. Chauri
1774-1777 F. Gil y Lemos y Taboada
1777-1779 R. Carassa y Souza
1779-1781 S. de Medina y Juan
1781-1783 J. M. del Carmen Altolaguirre
1783-1784 F. D. Montemayor
1784-1785 A. de Figueroa
1785-1786 R. de Clairac y Villalonga
1786-1787 P. de Mesa y Castro
1787-1788 R. de Clairac y Villalonga
1788-1789 P. de Mesa y Castro
1789-1790 R. de Clairac y Villalonga
1790-1791 J. J. de Elizalde y Ustariz
1791-1792 P. P. Sanguineto
1792-1793 J. J. de Elizalde y Ustariz
1793-1794 P. P. Sanguineto
1794-1795 J. de Aldana y Ortega
1795-1796 P. P. Sanguineto
1796-1797 J. de Aldana y Ortega
1797-1798 L. de Medina y Torres
1798-1799 F. X. de Viana y Alzaibar
1799-1800 L. de Medina y Torres
1800-1801 F. X. de Viana y Alzaibar
1801-1802 R. Fernández de Villegas
1802-1803 B. de Bonavía
1803-1804 A. L. de Ibarra y Oxinando
1804-1805 B. de Bonavía
1805-1806 A. L. de Ibarra y Oxinando
1806-1808 B. de Bonavía
1809-1810 G. Bondas
1810-1811 P. G. Martínez
ARGENTINES
1820-1821 D. Jewett
1821-1821 W. Mason
1824-1824 P. Areguatí
1829-1832 L. Vernet
1832-1832 J. F. Mestivier
1832-1833 J. M. Pinedo
During all these years (66) there was no complaint from any country.
THE MALVINAS ARE ARGENTINE FOREVER”
And yet in 2015 are British.
Jan 21st, 2015 - 01:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0Go figure!
31 José Malvinero
Jan 21st, 2015 - 01:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0The UK can rely on at least six-planks of international law and three Anglo-Spanish treaties, that support irrefutably its right of sovereignty, while legally barring any Argentine claim.
There being no official protests to the UK by Argentina after 1888 until 1941. Over fifty years had passed, which is more than enough to cause Argentina to lose the right to even pursue a legal claim.
Cling to your hopeless fantasies, Argentina has lost any chance of making any legal claim against the UK. But even if she could the court would view her failure to bring suit earlier as an admission that her claim has no merit. Even if she could overcome that hurdle, she would be stopped dead in her tracks by the admissions of her past president, and vice-president to congress that Argentina had no unresolved disputes with any country. Finally, the legal effect of the 1850 Convention would totally void all Argentine pretensions.
@14 Conqueror
Jan 21st, 2015 - 01:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0“ ...reality must prevail... ”
“For the time being, make no mistake, it is British sovereignty and POSSESSION that stands between the Islands and argieland”.
For once, this statement strikes me as PERFECTLY sound. Now, only a few hours ago, I was reminding “Troy Tempest” the rage that erupted in the U.K. when Mrs. Clinton, as Secretary of State, suggested that the U.K and Argentina must resume talks about the sovereignty matter, according with U.N. reccomendations; and I pointed out this was equivalent to a DE FACTO acknowledgment of U.K. sovereignty on the Islands, “leaving in the mist DE JURE situation”. Appalled as he was by my many errors, he was however kind enough to answer me:
“ The UK is open to ” talks“ but they must be with the population concerned -the Islanders.
”Timerman DEMANDED talks when he was in London.
“The Foreign Office agreed and INVITED Timerman to attend, and arranged a meeting -he REFUSED and did not come.”
(“Troy Tempest” capitals)
Might inconsequence -on this occasion- lay at Foreign Office´s door and not at Timerman´s...?
That does not make sense.
Jan 21st, 2015 - 04:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0Timerman never had any intention of talking or meeting.
It was a show he put on. He just made that trip to incite the British to anger.
A chance to provoke the Brits to angry retaliation.
He failed miserably - it all fizzled when the Brits comply agreed to a meeting.
31 states the Falkland's are argentine,
Jan 21st, 2015 - 10:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0yes of course it is, we must be blind,
the argentine flag flies over Stanley, the governor is argentine ,
we use argentine currency,
argentine soldiers and pilots are on the land,
the great and powerful argentine navy is in our port,
of course it belongs to Argentina, any indoctrinated fool can see that..
lolol
@31 José Malvinero
Jan 21st, 2015 - 11:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0Just a couple of minor points :
- Spanish governors are not Argentine governors
- By the 1770 agreement, Spain and Britain acknowledged each others' presence on the islands, while leaving the question of sovereignity open. Therefore it is hardly surprising the UK never protested the Spanish appointing governors of their claim.
- When the Spanish abandoned the islands in 1811, that left UK as the only valid claimant
- There was never any Argentine governor. Vernet contrived to get himself appointed Commandant in 1829, at which there was an immediate British protest. Mestivier was sergeant major in charge of the garrison which murdered him. Pinedo was a ship's captain. Neither Jewett, Areguati, or Mason had any official appointment in the islands. Most of them barely set foot in the place.
- The list of British authorities in the islands may be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Governors_of_the_Falkland_Islands
- None of this any relevance in the 21st century anyway
-
#31 Good that you mention the 32 Spanish Governors appointed in the islands. Don't forget Spain's protest in 1749 when the learned of England's “sudden” interests in the South Atlantic. And your then King accepted that.
Jan 21st, 2015 - 11:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0@38
Jan 21st, 2015 - 12:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's so hard to choose, but my personal favourite just has to be A. L. de Ibarra y Oxinando. What a governor that was!
38 Alejomartinez
Jan 21st, 2015 - 01:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The UK sovereign is a constitutional monarch who has no political power, that being the preserve of parliament to wit:
'The British Foreign Secretary at the time, Lord Palmerston, ... ... On 27 July 1849, in reply to a question in the House
of Commons, he said:
“... a claim had been made many years ago, on the part of Buenos Ayres, to the Falkland Islands, and had been resisted by the British Government. Great Britain had always disputed and denied the claim of Spain to the Falkland Islands, and she was not therefore willing to yield to Buenos Ayres what had been refused to Spain.”'
Getting it right: the real history of the Falklands/Malvinas by Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper
@ 14 Conqueror
Jan 21st, 2015 - 02:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“....reality must prevail...”
“For the time being, make no mistake, it is British sovereignty and POSSESSION that stands between the Islands and argieland”.
Let me insist: a PERFECTLY sound statement. The problem is to afford it a POSITIVE twist. How? By granting CONSECUENCE its chance : H.M. Government and the Argentine Government would start the discussion of the SOVEREIGNTY on the Islands as several WORKING HYPOTHESIS, OF NO BINDING VALUE FOR THE PARTS. (privately, of course, the FIG will make all its observations to the U.K.) . At this point both governments will be aware of what they could, and what they could not concede AT THEIR LEVEL. IF (“oh, what a great ”IF“...!” , wrote once Charles Darwin) the possibility and the will of an agreement arise, the THREE PARTS , now with the FIG, will discuss local issues, within the frame of the General Treaty. This last, of course, will contain all the necessary minimal guarantees that the U.K. and the Islanders judged necessary, including, most certainly, the continuance of the FIG as the local tool of government. . So, the “stumbling block” of the presence or absence of the Islanders vanishes when things are seen in their real perspective.
@41
Jan 21st, 2015 - 02:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The stumbling block would vanish a whole lot quicker if Argentina were prepared to recognise the principles of law, democracy, and human rights in pursuit of its territorial ambitions in the South Atlantic, but nobody expects that any time soon.
@41 argfellow
Jan 21st, 2015 - 04:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The stumbling block is that the Argentinean government has been pushing the 'great Malvinas lie' for so long that large proportion of the population actually believe that they have a grievance and a sovereignty claim.
Laughable.
There is no sovereignty claim: 93 years of acquiescence has killed it.
Meanwhile the British claim is based on:
Settlement and possession; Conquest and Subjugation (Argentina keeps rattling on about usurpation so what). 1850 Convention of Peace; Prescription - kicked in 30 years after 1833 - protest was irrelevant in the 19th century - you had to take it back by force; extinctive prescription and acquiescence - Argentina had 30 years after the formation of the world courts system in 1922 to present its case and self-determination - affirmed by 1 judgment and 4 ICJ Advisory Opinions to apply to ''all non-self-governing territories.'' -v- uti possidetis juris which has NEVER been applied by ANY tribunal WITHOUT the CONSENT of BOTH parties.
As per Jewett and Vernet & co their occupation was not 'legal' nor was it long enough to establish prescriptive title - the occupation had to be 'more than a few years' - Vattel .
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=151896994837147&id=359586040259
Still not enough? Just ask the man:
argfellow
Jan 21st, 2015 - 05:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0how about “if” this.
the USA and Brazil enter into “negotiations” of handing Argentine sovereignty to Canada. The Argentine position can be represented by Brazil who will protect their “interests” but not their wishes.
Surely there must be a way to negotiate Argentine sovereignty to Canada..“if” Brazil and the USA discuss and negotiate it.
if...oh the great if....if we could negotiate away the argentines sovereignty of argentina, then there would be no argentina to falsely claim the Falklands.
it is no more a ridiculous idea than yours/
@38 Alejomartinez
Jan 21st, 2015 - 05:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Spain's protest in 1749” “And your then King accepted that”
You must know that even if any such protest had been made, the British would have laughed at it.
dear Malvinistas
Jan 21st, 2015 - 05:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0please repeat 1000 times
Argentina did not “inherit” the Falklands from Spain.
Not a single solitary inhabitant of the Spanish settlement on the islands became Argentine. Not one.
So thats up to 1811 covered.....zero Argentine claim.
1820...Jewitt irrelevant...no settlement
1821..Mason irrelevant...no settlement
1824..Areguati...irrelevant.... no settlement
1829...1832..Vernet....nope..Vernet insisted he had no sovereignty claims and was running a commercial venture, left in early 1831 leaving two British in charge
November-December...Mestevier...the only Arg governor...murdered by his own crew
Dec 1832-Jan 1833...Pinedo...not governor at all..
so yes, there was an Argentine governor in Novemebr 1832 for 3 weeks before he was murdered by his own crew....
there has been a British governor for 180 years
3 weeks...180 years....its a toughie....
@41 argfellow
Jan 21st, 2015 - 06:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You appear to be a reasonable, educated fellow. As such, I have a rather simple question, one that I have presented a number of Argentine acquaintances (fine people all), however one which never seems to get a coherent response.
In a democratic republic such as your own, the constitution (as interpreted by the Supreme Court), is the ultimate rule of law, and as such, the government is bound to (strictly) abide by all its provisions, in the execution of its duties.
Your constitution is exceptionally unambiguous about the sovereignty of the Malvinas; it is not open to interpretation in any stretch.
“The Argentine Nation ratifies its legitimate and non-prescribing sovereignty over the Malvinas, Georgias del Sur and Sandwich del Sur Islands and over the corresponding maritime and insular zones, as they are an integral part of the National territory.”
With that in mind, and considering the very definition of diplomatic “negotiation”; how would it be legally possible for any instrument of the Argentine government to EVER concessionally negotiate any aspect of said sovereignty (whether in good faith, or even bad faith)? Even discussing anything other than complete Argentine national sovereignty, at any time, would be circumventing Argentine law (and possibly even constitute treason).
I constantly hear that all Argentina is asking for is a commencement of talks, but when you are hamstrung by such a constitution, how is the initiation of such even possible without first a complete and utter capitulation by the UK/FI governments. This is hardly the framework for even exploratory work towards a compromise.
If you can give me a coherent answer, it would be greatly appreciated (and a first).
As for the jest of your last post, I am quite certain that you would reasonably concede that such a scenario is hopelessly naïve. Once national sovereignty has been conceded, all bets are off, as far as the how the local’s wishes are respected. International treaties actua
250 years and they still have an Island full of geriatrics and ugly bitches.
Jan 22nd, 2015 - 01:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0uuuggh makes my dick shrink just thinking about those Island scrubbers,
Yep and richer, more stable and prosperous than anything your shrunken dick can get close to in Argentina.
Jan 22nd, 2015 - 01:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0@49 I am off to bed, my dick is going to be hanging out of a good looking Argentine girl tonight.
Jan 22nd, 2015 - 02:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0You go molest BAAAARBBRAAA once again.
oh dear!
Jan 22nd, 2015 - 02:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina emasculated once more. That Klingon has to resort to such comments only proves how ineffectual Argentines are when it comes to debating FACTS.
Please continue (not!)
arf!
51.
Jan 22nd, 2015 - 03:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0I thought Klingon used independent, reasoned thought on some occasions, in the past.
He knew when he was getting shirt-changed at any rate.
I HAD some respect for him.
Now I see he's just as bigotted and revolting as Pablo and the Lesser Trolls.
Tonight aside, Klingon is “getting f¥cked but he ain't getting kissed” by that old harpy, CFK !
@47 Derke Blake
Jan 22nd, 2015 - 05:02 am - Link - Report abuse 01) “You appear to be...” . Very kind on your part, thank you.
2) “Your Constitution is exceptionally unambiguous about the sovereignty of the Malvinas; it is not open to interpretation in any stretch”. QUITE RIGHT.
3) “With that in mind, and considering the very definition...”
”Even discussing anything other than complete Argentine sovereignty, at any time, would be circumventing Argentine law (and possible even constitute treason)“. WE HAVE ARRIVED TO A KEY POINT. Most certainly, we intend to negotiate with the U.K. ”the complete Argentine RECOVERY” (the islanders reject this last word ) of our sovereignty on the insulae; but NEITHER OUR CONSTITUTION NOR (which is far more important) THE CIRCUMSTANCES, TELL US THAT THAT OBJECTIVE MUST BE ACHIEVED THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW. It would be impossible, even with the best disposition of all THREE parts; let alone after the occurrences of the immediate past.
4) “I constantly hear that all Argentina is asking for a commencement of talks...” YES, THAT´S RIGHT.
5) “ how is the initiation of such even possible without first a complete and utter capitulation by the UK/FI governments. ” To my mind, your timetable is quite reversed, with respect to reality. Sovereignty transfer, FIRST TO BE ENVISAGED AND PLANNED by both governments, can only be THE FINAL STEP IN ACTUAL REALIZATION. It is our ULTIMATE GOAL (in both senses: the maximum and the last) of a LONG process The FIG, for example, is absolutely necessary. Keeping the Islands´ WAY OF LIFE, the same; as a PERMANENT feature of the aftermath, just as it happened with our Welsh settlers in the Continent, since the eighteen sixties.( We are proud of them).
For the sake of coherence, that you kindly demand upon me, I suggest the picture of a TRANSITION process developing during no less than 10 years.
@53 argfellow
Jan 22nd, 2015 - 06:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0But why would the UK government or the Falkland Islands Government agree to any such 'transition' process, whether it be in 10 years, 20 years, 100 years or 1000 years?
The Falkland Islanders are a free people NOW TODAY. Their government does everything for them, raises taxes, makes and upholds laws, manages the fisheries and the oil explorations, education, health etc..., and they even have their own unique currency, which is linked to Sterling. The only thing that they actually require the UK for is assistance with foreign policy and defence.
As time goes on, and their population expands (slowly but surely), they may one day opt to become a fully independent nation in their own right.
So what can Argentina offer the Falkland Islanders that would be better than that?
Why would the people of the Falkland Islands voluntarily give up their independence (because voluntarily is the only LEGAL option on the table here) to become vassals of Argentina?
The Islanders way of life cannot be 'protected' (just like Argentina doesn't protect the few surviving Native Amerindians way of life) by Argentina. Because Argentina's morals, laws and culture are ALIEN to the people of the Falklands.
Argentina is the wannabe coloniser here. Argentina wants to force an alien culture and way of life on the Falkland Islanders.
Come on, argfellow. Argentina has had nearly 33 years to 'woo' the Falklanders. 33 yrs to prove that Argentina would respect the Falklanders and their way of life. 33 yrs to prove that Argentina is no longer like it was in 1982.
But Argentina hasn't even had the decency to apologise to the Falkland Islanders for the brutal invasion of their homes. Instead they've vilified the Islanders, stated that they have no human rights, constantly call them squatters in their own country - a country that has been theirs longer than Argentina has existed.
So tell us, argfellow. What can Argentina offer other than oppression and slavery?
@53. argfellow. You keep forgetting that a claim without a case is an illegitimate claim and worthless. Argentina has right to dialog with anyone regarding the Falkland a islands.
Jan 22nd, 2015 - 08:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0argfellow
Jan 22nd, 2015 - 09:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0what you describe is not “negotiation”
Negotiation is when two sides offer something that the other side want.
You are describing prolonged capitualtion....that is not an option.
Argentina needs to identify what it can offer the islanders in return for their sovereignty...and then negotiate WITH THEM.
At the moment you are offering them loss of self governance, loss of fishing rights, loss of mineral rights, loss of their society, loss of their homes, businesses and security, and governance by a group who have insulted, abused, invaded and victimised them for decades.
Unsurprisingly, they do not wish to enter these negotiations.
Stop trying to draw the UK into the negotiations, our position is quite clear...we will follow the wishes of the islanders.
Stop bullying, lying and threatening the islanders.
Then after many generations, perhaps they may wish to start negotiations.
Until then....NOTHING
@53
Jan 22nd, 2015 - 10:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0But why exactly should the UK ever contemplate the transfer of sovereignity in the first place?
We've heard many times Argentina's case, we don't think it stands up to any serious examination, and it's in clear violation of international law as it has developed in the 2oth century. In nearly 100 years, Argentina has declined to take it to the only body that could pronounce upon the validity of it. We've been obliged to go to war once already to defend the islanders. We've carefully read all the UN resolutions, respected all of them though none were binding, and not a single one of them has ever recommended transfer of sovereignity to Argentina.
For purely pragmatic reasons, the UK has in the past attempted to negotiate the type of arrangement you describe, and the only consequence was the junta didn't like what it was hearing and chose to invade instead. Now, apparently, having been obliged to fight a war to remove an Argentine colonial regime from the islands, a UK government is supposed to commit political suicide by imposing one upon the islanders immediately after a near unanimous vote rejecting any such thing.
The truly curious thing in the whole business is that Argentina can have the islands tomorrow. All it has to do it convince the islanders. And yet everything Argentina does appears designed to achieve the exact opposite. Why exactly is that, do you think?
Well if argentina was rich successful and stable then they'd probably get somewhere.
Jan 22nd, 2015 - 10:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0Being a basketcase i that collapsed in the 20th century avoiding two world wars not having an empire to lose but having a military that kept trying to run the country badly.
You havnt been invaded you've most just screwed yourselves over and the falkland islanders want as little to do with you as possible.
As would any other sensible region of argentina choose to be ruled by somebody else.
@53: ”...Most certainly, we intend to negotiate with the U.K. ”the complete Argentine RECOVERY” (the islanders reject this last word )...“
Jan 22nd, 2015 - 11:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0Because it's *not* the accurate term. It cannot be disputed that Argentina doesn't really have a claim to the Falklands.
There was the attempted usurpation in 1833, yes, and again in 1982, but those were indeed attempts to usurp sovereignty from Britain, not any form of recovery.
You cannot recover what was not yours to begin with.
Heck, if Argentina was serious about fair negotiations, that clause in your constitution wouldn't exist, it's just another extension of the Malvinas Lie.
As people above have said, you're not asking for fair compromise, you're asking for capitulation. You've had decades to take it to the ICJ, which is the only legal body capable of ruling on sovereignty, and you've refused. Not that you could be trusted to abide by a legal ruling - Argentina in the past has declared ICJ rulings ”null and void” when they didn't go their way.
There's 2 irrefutably fair ways to solve this dispute:
1: Drop your fake claim, remove it from the constitution, and make an apology at the UN for wasting so much time with what was undisputably a lie.
2:Take the sovereignty claim to the ICJ. If they rule against you, accept it and take steps to abide by their ruling (see first two parts of Option 1).
@ 41 argfellow
Jan 22nd, 2015 - 04:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Presenting the Islanders with a framework for going forwards, agreed by the two Governments, upon which they can only adjust the decorations, is a flagrant violation of their right to self-determination.
The “stumbling block” is the issue of self-determination, if you agree they have that right, then it is for the Islanders to let you know what they are going to do, when they alone have decided.
Discussions only really become possible when Argentina accepts the truth about the history of the region and recognises the Islanders rights, even then the discussions will only be on matters of mutual interest not sovereignty, unless the Islanders agree.
The real, and only, perspective here is the Islanders perspective, they are the ones most affected. In simple terms Britain and Argentina do not have the legal or moral right to decide the Islands future, only the Islanders do.
@41 to @44 ; @47 ; @54 to @59
Jan 22nd, 2015 - 06:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I´m forced to mix some synthetic and also some specific answers.
“ Marchemos, y yo el primero, por la senda constitucional...” These words belong to Ferdinand the Seventh, King of Spain, and History records them as a peak of both falsehood and cynicism. Exactly the opposite applies to Argentines and their Constitution, regarding our Malvinas. Our “brainwashing” has been a perfect one. We believe in the Justice of our sovereignty claim as in the Gospel. And we state that during almost 150 years, however orderly, peacefully, diplomatically expressed as it was, it became unheeded by the U.K. The 1982 invasion may have been a reckless whim of a Junta; but Malvinas is a NATIONAL CAUSE. Sometimes it seems that an enormous black hole has engulfed your historical memories between mid-eighteen and nineteen centuries. Malvinas was only a TINY RIPPLE on the giant wave of British imperialism that devastated the world, and as such has been recognized by VIRTUALLY THE REST OF IT, THAT SUPPORTS OUR POSITION IN THIS FEUD, despite the fact that it finds us not precisely sympathetic as a people.
@56 “Argentina needs to identify what it can offers the Islanders in return for THEIR sovereignty... and then negotiate with THEM”
Excuse me. My departing point was CONQUEROR´s (@14) opinion that both sovereignty and possession were BRITISH, (for the time being), which I judged “perfectly sound”.
@57 “The truly curious thing in the whole business is that Argentina can have the Islands tomorrow. All it has to do is TO CONVINCE THE ISLANDERS”.
I´m afraid that a small addendum is painfully lacking: that then THE ISLANDERS WILL HAVE TO CONVINCE THE U.K.
@58 “The Falkland Islanders want as litle to do with you as possible”.
A perfectly possible and respectable position. Sovereignty on land and sea
has little to deal with domain on persons , behaviours or ideas, except of course our own ones.
@31 José Malvinero
Jan 22nd, 2015 - 06:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“all these years (66)” came after the British took possession of the territory in 1765.
You cannot have a legitimate “Spanish” or “Argentinian” Governor of what is already established sovereign British Territory.
Or can we start appointing Governors of Patagonia or TDF.
@61 argfellow
Try telling your population the truth about the Falklands, and your problem (and it is a problem entirely of your own making) of believing “in the Justice of our sovereignty claim” will disappear in a generation or so.
If you actually do believe that a majority of countries support you, then you should propose a resolution to the UNGA, calling on the British to “negotiate sovereignty of the territory directly with Argentina”. If you are right, then you will win.
Short of that, no one is going to believe you that “the world supports you” simply because you say it does. Proof required.
61 argfellow
Jan 22nd, 2015 - 07:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You were explicitly barred under prior Anglo-Spanish treaties from ever holding sovereignty. Under Utrecht and Nootka Spain had promised NEVER to cede any of her territories, and gave permission for the UK to continue further development in Islands, in the event of a third parties' intrusion. Along with shared sovereignty of the islands from the 1771 Declaration. But even if these prior conditions didn't exist and the UK simply sailed over the ocean blue and took them, it was perfectly legal in 1833.
61@
Jan 22nd, 2015 - 07:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0you have big ambitions, shame then your government only has small ones...lol
@61 argfellow
Jan 22nd, 2015 - 08:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Even if what you say is true (which Terrance has proved it isn't in his post 63), ALL previous treaties, conventions etc... CANNOT override the UN Charter, because the UN Charter has succeeded every single one of them. And countries that signed the UN Charter (that includes Argentina by the way) PROMISED to follow this charter.
Now the UN Charter gives ALL PEOPLE the right to self-determination. That is what the Falkland Islanders did in March 2013 and voted overwhelmingly to remain a British Overseas Territory.
The problem with all of your arguments is that they are based on a FALSE premise. This premise is that the British 'stole' the Falklands from Argentina on 2 Jan 1833.
Now this supposed usurpation is incorrect for several reasons:
1. The Falkland Islands were already British territory in 1833, and had been since 1774 (although 1st claimed in 1690).
2. The Republic of Argentina DID NOT exist in 1833 no matter how you might try to 'fudge' history to make it otherwise.
3. In 1833 taking territory by force was a legitimate way of gaining territory. Just how do you think all South American countries as we know them today come into existence? By taking the land by force from the natives. So EVEN if the British had taken the Islands by force in 1833 (which we didn't as not even one shot was fired and the UP slunk away), it would've been a perfectly legitimate way of gaining territory.
So since ALL of your arguments are based on a false premise then it makes your arguments illegitimate, and therefore your sovereignty claim is illegitimate.
The ONLY body in the WHOLE world that can order a change in sovereignty is the International Courts of Justice. So IF your claim is LEGITIMATE why haven't you taken it there?
It's because the right to self-determination just shuts down ALL of your spurious claims.
Answer my question. Just what can Argentina off the Falklanders that is better than they have now?
An ACTUAL answer please, not more claptrap.
Argfellow
Jan 22nd, 2015 - 09:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your hypocrisy is astounding...
British imperialism.....YOU are a product of Spanish Imperialism that decimated the entire continent of South America.
The only part of south America that is in no way imperialist is the falklands, as there was no indigenious population for YOU to wipe out.
“the malvinas is an Argentine cause..obsession..if you like...invented to control you...to pretend you are hard done to..and give you a common enemy...Peron thought youd be stupid enough to fall for it..and youve proven him correct.
As for ”the whole world supporting you”, wrong again....when you last put it to the test at the UNGA in 2008...50% MORE countries back the UK with respect to self-determination than backed Argentina trying to deny it.
So
1) Unless you can find evidence that Argentina ISNt a result of Spanish Imperialism and in fact Kirchenor or Peron are indigenous South Americans...shut the fuck up about Imperialism
2) Unless you can find a UN vote that expressly denies the Falklanders self-determination, or one that expressly states Argentina has sovereignty...You are wrong yet again.
You have swallowed you governments lies to you...its all rubbish
@61
Jan 22nd, 2015 - 10:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That's exactly it, although it's rare to find anybody admitting it quite so openly.
Your NATIONAL CAUSE is a matter of faith rather than reason. But unfortunately for its prospects of success, it's a faith we don't share, and which you cannot impose upon us, either the UK or the Falkland Islanders. You've tried and failed militarily, you've not even tried legally, and your current attempt to promote your agenda through political pressure has fooled only yourselves.
In fact, despite what your governments tell you, the rest of the world does not support your position. The rest of the world supports peaceful resolution of the dispute. That's not quite the same as the forcible transfer of sovereignity to Argentina against the democratically expressed wishes of the inhabitants. Indeed, the only country that has ever explicitly rejected peaceful solution of the dispute is Argentina in 1982, and to a lesser extent today. You have the support of a corrupt UN committee voting on ethnic lines in flagrant breach of its mandate, but apart from that the unfortunate fact is that nobody but yourselves really cares. The rest of the world either supports self-determination, as the UN GA showed in 2008 when it voted down a joint Spanish/Argentine attempt to limit the right of self-determination, or quite simply has other concerns than sour grapes over a minor colonial skirmish of two centuries ago.
It's also a rather peculiar argument that the Falkland Islanders are somehow supposed to atone for the crimes, real & alleged, of the former British Empire by surrendering to an Argentina colonial regime. It's hard to see why the Falklanders have to assume the guilt, or why it's Argentina that they have to make amends to.
Finally and notoriously, the UK would have been perfectly happy to hand over the islands at various times over the last century, and the main reason this has never happened is because Argentina has made it impossible through its own false sense of entitlement
@61 Argfellow. UPJ was never recognised by the European powers nor Brazil. UPJ has never been applied by any court or tribunal without the consent of both parties. So it must be disappointing to you to grow up with all of this propaganda and learn that Argentina did not inherit the Falklands from Spain. The fact that neither Jewett, Bernet, nor Mestivier didn't establish a settlement of 'some years' the requirement in the early 19th century kills off Argentina's claims d e a d. A sovereignty claim without a case is an illegitimate claim and worthless . There is no need or requirement for anyone to negotiate with Argentina regarding the sovereignty of the Falklands. 0/10. Must try harder.
Jan 23rd, 2015 - 09:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0Begging your pardon, I must try again with sinthetic answers:
Jan 23rd, 2015 - 07:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 01) To me, as to any Argentine, THE FULL RECOVERY OF SOVEREIGNTY OVER THE ISLANDS, AND NOTHING LESS THAN THAT, is the ULTIMATE GOAL of any bargain. This point aside, virtually all the rest is negotiable.
2) The UNITED KINGDOM HOLDS “de facto” that SOVEREIGNTY.
3) Consequently, the Argentine Government must deal with H.M. Government this supremely important (and complex in ist details) matter, as the first step to an agreement, that would begin with several non-binding working hypothesis. OF COURSE, British delegates will be PERFECTLY AWARE of the INTERESTS A N D the WISHES of the Islanders.
4) “ULTIMATE”: A) last; B) maximum, decisive. Seldom has the English Language showed me as benevolent a face. The DECISIVE (B) subject of the sovereignty transfer, and the FIRST to be considered and decided , at governmental level, will, however, be THE LAST(A) to be EFFECTIVELY ACCOMPLISHED, at the end of a LONG TRANSITION, that will, for example keep the FIG with all its faculties as a Local Power during its time span and even beyond it.
5) Last, but certainly not least: WHAT DO WE OFFER...?
To the UNITED KINGDOM: The end of the grievous and STERILE politico-military tension in the South Atlantic, and the resumption of commercial relations on ample bases. The “thorn in the flesh” has become more than infected. It has gone beyond common sense and even beyond sanity according to many cost/benefit standards.
To the ISLANDERS: in very broad terms, we feel as OUR MAIN PRIORITY TO KEEP THEIR WAY OF LIVING AS UNDISTURBED AS POSSIBLE. Please, forgive my insistence on our succesful Welsh settlement during the 1860´s : Trelew, Rawson...
BESIDES: a 45-milllion people market for your exports and a NEARER one. PLUS (on your part) a currency unit stronger than the peso. Net result: a substantial drop in the cost of your imported supplies and specially perishables. And a LONG etc.-room, please-
69
Jan 23rd, 2015 - 08:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0you live in total cuckoo land,
you live in a dreamland just like your glorious deluded victory hungry CFK,
still,
you are entitled to your opinion, but its not the total opinion of your deluded government,
when CFK goes, so will your dreams of a mystical victory, the new government will red themselves of the biggest danger to Argentina since the parting of her hair,
trust us,
when she goes so will her deluded puppet's on here..
@69 argfellow
Jan 23rd, 2015 - 10:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“To the UNITED KINGDOM: The end of the grievous and STERILE politico-military tension in the South Atlantic, and the resumption of commercial relations on ample bases.”
Well we in the United Kingdom don't notice this 'grievous and sterile politico-military tension in the South Atlantic. Commercial relations? Such as? Trust me if Argentina disappeared tomorrow no one in the UK would notice.
What we in the United Kingdom do know is that 255 British servicemen and 3 Falkland Islanders died BECAUSE of Argentina's Imperialist Colonial Ambitions. And WE in the UK would NEVER let Argentina get its way over this.
So what you offer the UK is NOTHING.
“To the ISLANDERS: in very broad terms, we feel as OUR MAIN PRIORITY TO KEEP THEIR WAY OF LIVING AS UNDISTURBED AS POSSIBLE.”
So in other words you can offer the Falkland Islanders NOTHING. Nothing except slavery and oppression.
Now listen carefully argfellow.
The UK cannot tell the Falkland Islanders what to do. The Falkland Islands belong to the people of the Falkland Islands and they and ONLY they can say what they want, and by whom they wished to be governed.
Now in case you missed it, in March 2013, more than 97% of the Falklands population voted to remain a British Overseas Territory. So they have stated what they want.
What you want, what Argentina wants is irrelevant.
But Argentina could so easily get the Falklands. All you have to do is persuade the Islanders that being Argentine would be beneficial to them.
You've had 33 years to do so. Yet all you have done is try to isolate them, threaten them, deny them the same basic rights as the other 7 billion people on the planet, and your government has made statements stating that if it wasn't for the presence of the British garrison that you would invade the islands again.
You will never get the Falklands. They have never been Argentine, they are not Argentine and they never will be.
Take your 'case' to the ICJ if you dare. But you won't, will you?
CFK would rather see the break up of a once great Argentina, than go to the ICJ and lose..
Jan 23rd, 2015 - 11:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@69 Mr. Argfellow
Jan 24th, 2015 - 01:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0I will try to be very brief, as previous posters have conveyed the basic points much better than I ever could (and I have very limited data access at the moment).
No treaty between the UK and Argentina could ever guarantee ANYTHING to the Falklanders; none less so than their wishes be respected in the FUTURE.
Once sovereignty is granted to Argentina, all bets are off …………. That is the very nature of “sovereignty”; the sovereign government can function domestically as it wishes. It can modify and change its internal laws at its own discretion. Surely you realize that. Any guarantee is utterly worthless in EVERY respect and aspect.
The majority of people on the Falklands WERE BORN THERE, as proven in the last census*; which was so kindly (and mistakenly, to his horror) pointed out to me in a link by your compatriot, “Think”.
(*sans the MP military base, which exists ONLY because of the 1982 invasion; which you caveated by blaming only on the junta; despite it somehow still being viewed as a noble, yet foolish endeavour by the vast major of Argentines, regardless of their location on the political spectrum; but that’s another matter).
As there were no indigenous people (I term I don’t accept regardless, despite being 25% “first nation”); why can’t Argentina just leave them in happiness.
St. Pierre & Miquelon could be a good guide for you.
Have a pleasant evening.
Derke
It is 2015 and the Falkland Islands are British.
Jan 24th, 2015 - 05:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0In 2025 Argfellow will still be spouting the same nonsense. And the Islands will still be British.
I could possible say the same for 2035 but the Islands could possibly be independent by then. Either way Argfellow won't have any of his predictions/wishes come true.
@69
Jan 24th, 2015 - 10:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0If all that's negotiable is how Argentina's territorial demands in the South Atlantic are to be met, that's not a negotiation and the only possible responses all end in “Off!”.
Argfellow
Jan 24th, 2015 - 11:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0You seem to miss the ridiculousness of your points.
Argentina wants something that belongs to the UK...the sovereignty of the Falklands. We can debate whether the UK holds this honour due to the wishes of the present day islanders or through historic means, but nonetheless Argentina wants something it currently doesn't have.
In life, almost everyone wants something they can't have, it is human nature.
Usually there are 4 ways to get it.
1) steal it
2) buy it
3) legally gain it
4) convince the owner to give it to you.
You've tried stealing, and failed.
You couldn't afford to buy the islands.
You abjectly refuse to go to the only court in the world with power to give a legal judgement.
So you are trying number 4.
Yet again, you are messing it.
You are trying to convince the UK to give you sovereignty, through pathetic propaganda,lies and political stunts...there is no trade embargo from Argentina or anyone else...it is utterly unnoticed by the majority in the UK. If your government was serious it should utterly ban all trade with the Uk, expel all UK businesses and ban any goods with UK components...why doesn't it do that? Because it would hurt Argentina 100x more than the Uk who'd hardly notice.
You don't even listen to the answer from the Uk. You can have sovereignty tomorrow...all you have to do is convince 3000 islanders (or 51% of them).
Again, you could do this, but not by bullying them, threatening them, lying about them, and insulting them....your current stance.
So you can forget your “non-existent” rights, your imagined “history” or indeed your “ultimate aim”.
The UK have and always will be on the side of the islanders, and the day you convince them, is the day the islands are yours....currently your offer to “defend their way of life” is PATHETIC. They don't believe you, neither do I.
@69 argfellow
Jan 24th, 2015 - 03:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What you describe is not a negotiation, it’s a capitulation.
As you can’t even get anyone to even talk to you, never mind negotiate, a capitulation would seem somewhat optimistic.
To negotiate, you must first have someone to negotiate with and second something with which to negotiate.
You have neither.
You way over estimate your own importance, and effect, if you think you have caused the British any inconvenience.
Ironically if you ever succeed, that will only make the British more determined.
You now have (thanks to CFK & TinPot) nowhere to go with this, you have become irrelevant.
To
Jan 24th, 2015 - 06:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@71, 73, 76
I have written in reference to the Islanders: “We feel as OUR MAIN PRIORITY TO KEEP THEIR WAY OF LIVING AS UNDISTURBED AS POSSIBLE”
This statement is answered by Mr.LEPRecon (@71) :
“So in other words you can offer the Falkland Islanders NOTHING. Nothing except slavery and oppresion”. (sic)
(To me, an astounding novelty that they are at present living under slavery and oppresion).
But gentle Mr. DerkeBlake (@73) is here coming:
“why can´t Argentina just leave them in happiness”.(sic)
Mr. Monkeymagic (@76) has been particularly severe. He writes:
“Argentina wants something that belongs to the UK...the sovereignty of the Falklands.”(sic).
And Mr. LEPRecon (@71) rushes:
“The UK cannot tell the Falkland Islanders what to do. The Falkland Islands belong to the people of the Falkland Islands...”(sic).
Different persons mean different views, of course, and sometimes one can get confused. But ALL THREE HAVE LEFT UNNOTICED the hint on economical advantages (more than a hint I was unable to afford), that I produced
#78
Jan 24th, 2015 - 07:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Are YOU personally able to deliver all the so-called benefits of Argentinian citizenship ?
You may be sincere in what you say BUT could the islanders trust ANY Argentinian government to keep it's promises.
It would be a huge gamble for no obvious advantage to the Islanders.
They seem perfectly happy with the status quo.
Never mind, God will provide,
Jan 24th, 2015 - 07:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Apparently he will part the south Atlantic so CFK and her cohorts , bloggers , and government can just take a Sunday stroll through the parted Atlantic for a picnic on the Falkland's,
unfortunately whilst halfway through this gentle little walk,
God remembers all the cheating the corruption , the evil way in which you argies treated the innocent islanders,
and accidently, just for a moment lost concentration and the parting suddenly closed,
and the rest,, as they say is history...
and the islands are still BRITISH....lol
@78 argfellow
Jan 24th, 2015 - 08:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“To me, an astounding novelty that they are at present living under slavery and oppression”
Where is your PROOF that the Falkland Islanders are at PRESENT living under slavery and oppression?
You really are deluded. The people of the Falkland Islands are free to choose. They can choose to be British, or Argentine, or Chinese or Russian, or French or to be completely independent.
But they choose to be British - once again I direct you to the referendum that they held in Mar 2013.
Argentina can offer the Islanders nothing except what? Argentine citizenship?
Wow! So as I said you offer the NOTHING.
You said you 'hint' at economical advantage.
Oh my God, that made me laugh. What economical advantage? Argentina is sinking into the mire of economic obscurity even as we speak. Argentina is well known for economically imploding ever 10 years or so.
So what economic advantage can Argentina offer the Falkland Islands - who are far richer than Argentina is GDP wise? Answer = NONE.
Because Argentina has NOTHING that the Falkland Islanders, or the UK for that matter, wants.
Everything that Argentina produces can be bought elsewhere, and is of much better quality, and cheaper. And despite what your deluded government is telling you, the rest of South America is very, very eager to trade with the Falkland Islands.
The Falkland Islanders can get better healthcare in Uruguay, Chile or the UK. They get world class education in UK universities. They are well defended by the British military from Argentine fascism.
And MOST importantly, the Falkland Islanders RULE themselves. They have their OWN government, they make all their own decisions.
So yet again Argentina can offer them NOTHING.
If you could offer them a better way of life you would've tried to go down that route. But Argentina is a failing, very near failed, country. No one would voluntarily want to be a part of that nightmare scenario.
@78 Argfellow
Jan 24th, 2015 - 10:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I doubt very much that you personally would sell-out your cultural and national identity for an (imaginary) economic advantage, so why would you expect the Falklanders to do it.
The Falklanders today have a GPD/capita which is over 300% higher than Argentina; and I think you realize that the spread is only going to increase in the years to come (as that’s with zero oil royalties).
Also, as pointed out previously, since 1930 until the Falklands war, Argentina’s military had only allowed one elected government to complete a single term (and that was Peron; so not exactly something to brag about). DO you honestly think that long term promises from a BA government are worth anything at all?
If YOU were a Falklander, would you trust anything coming from such a belligerent and hostile neighbour?
My son studied in BA (last year). Enjoyed his time there very much, not least the warmth of the people. However he said it was almost impossible to grasp how brain-washed, misinformed and (frankly) ignorant of (emphasis) FACTUAL history the general population was concerning the “Malvinas”. It was impossible to even attempt to have a rational discussion on the issue on anything but the most juvenile level.
We (Canada) celebrate our relationship (and differences) with St. Pierre Miquelon, and they’re only 25km off our coast. That’s the mature approach.
I'll close with a question for you:
If Argentina is so reasonable about this issue, and wish the Falklanders no ill will or maliciousness, why do you have your Malvinas national holiday on April 2nd, THE DAY OF THE INVASION? I thought the war was the fault of the Junta; that it was a mistake even? Argentina is probably the only country on earth that celebrates the START of a war. Can you possibly at least acknowledge that that is rather insensitive to the Falklanders that you are supposedly attempting to woo?
Once again, have a good evening. I would appreciate an answer to that last question though.
Derke
Argfellow
Jan 24th, 2015 - 10:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are utterly clueless.
The Falkland Islanders way of live is to govern themselves, to choose how every penny generated by the islands economy is spent, to control their borders, to farm their land, fish their seas and to produce their oil.
So Argentina will guarantee this FOREVER.
I think not.
So you won't keep their way of living as undisturbed as possible. You will do what you've always done...lie, cheat, steal and eventually make life so unbearable that they all leave.
Don't believe me...believe 99.8% of them.
There are NO economic advantages, just a myth made up by your government for you to swallow.
You have nothing to offer in your “negotiations”
Argfellow
Jan 24th, 2015 - 11:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0One final thought for YOU.
Have YOU ever asked the Falkland Islanders what THEY want?
Because EVERY single UNGA resolution states that the wishes and interests of the Islanders MUST be taken into consideration. That is MUST BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION.
So has Argentina EVER asked the Falkland Islanders what they want?
The answer is no. So how can Argentina KNOW what is in the best interests of the islanders?
The Falkland Islanders rule themselves. They have minimal input from the UK, and that is only in matters of foreign policy (where the FIG takes advice - which it doesn't have to follow) and in defence, of which the Falklanders are glad about, especially since your government has stated that it would invade the Falklands tomorrow if the British Garrison wasn't there.
So, as we've already established, Argentina cannot guarantee anything to the Islanders, all it can do is take away the freedoms and self reliance that they already have.
So why would anyone give away their freedom to a country that despises them? All Argentina has ever done is harass the islanders, lie about them on the international stage, and tried to starve them out.
Your government has stated that the Falkland Islanders are not people, and because they are not 'people' they don't enjoy the same human rights as everyone else.
Face it, your country has acted in a despicable way towards the islanders and it is no wonder that they want nothing to do with you.
One day the Falkland Islands will no longer be British - and on that day they'll be an independent country.
But if you want to start building bridges the 1st step is an unreserved apology from the Argentine government to the people of the Falklands for invading their land and homes in 1982.
Until Argentina has admitted its fault, and stops celebrating the war it started, then there will never be any forwards movements.
Stop living in 1833 - try living in the 21st century where self-determination rules.
69 argfellow
Jan 25th, 2015 - 09:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0“we feel as OUR MAIN PRIORITY TO KEEP THEIR WAY OF LIVING AS UNDISTURBED AS POSSIBLE”
You sir, are a fool. You are a fool to write those words and you are even more of a fool if you believe them.
General Menendez said that, even promised that back in 1982, remember? and within a 3 days of the invasion ( AND IT WAS an invasion. IT was most definitely NOT a “recovery” ) the islanders all had to carry ID papers and start driving on the other side of the road and their children started to be taught lies in their schools.
So “NO!!” I don't believe you, I'll bet that the Islanders themselves don't believe you and if you had any sense whatsoever, you wouldn't believe you either.
@69
Jan 25th, 2015 - 10:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0I'm sure this is all very generous, but you'd think Argentina might have grasped by now that it's their complete disregard of the islanders which guarantees they will never get the islands.
The more interesting speculation would be to try to figure out which Argentine politicians know this already and are actively deluding their own population, and which are too clueless to have cottoned on. Personally, I'd put Timerman in the first category, CFK in the second, and I'm not sure about Filmus. But that's just my opinion.
The real problem is the starting point...Argfellow is an example.
Jan 25th, 2015 - 10:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0He believes Argentina has a right...a right to the islands.
He is one step up from Marcos, Jose or Dany in that he recognises a difficulty to exercising that “right”.
But he is still three steps down from the truth.
ARGENTINA HAS NO RIGHTS TO THE ISLANDS.
Only when this FACT is accepted by the Argentine government, taught as accurate in Argentine schools, accurately represented by Argentina at the UN and accepted by all...Only then is a starting point acceptable.
Argentina has no historic right, no inheritance from Spain, no mythical Vernet community, no usurption in 1833. NONE
Argentina has no moral right, it's invasion in 1982 alone should prove that to any decent person.
Argentina has no legal right, the only court in the world where a judgement could be made has never been approached.
Argentina has no geographic right. The Falklands are 300 miles off their coast.
So Argfellow first step is to accept you have no rights, ammend your ridiculous constitution and stop lying. I'd say about 20 years without a whisper of “Malvinas” would be a start.
Second, start treating the islanders as neighbours, stop lying about them, trade with them, apologise to them...Again 20 years would be a start.
Then and only then could sensible “discussions” take place, not for Argentine sovereignty, but for the reduction in defence of the islands..which to all intents and purposes would be the end of British involvement...and the islanders could live in peace.
@85/86/87
Jan 25th, 2015 - 03:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Accurate and well put all. Unfortunately, I think for the time being you are only preaching to the choir. Sad that.
Cheers,
Derke
Derke
Jan 25th, 2015 - 04:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I kind of agree, I guess we can live in hope that one day we will find an Argentine guest to these boards who is prepared to challenge the lies he has been told.
They are simple challenges.
1) if Argentina inherited the islands from Spain, how come not a single Spaniard who lived on the islands between 1765-1811 became Argentine? Is there any other territory on earth where none of the population took the nationality of the inheritee?
2) if Vernet was an Argentine governor, how come he denied this to the British, and left two British in charge when he left in 1831?
3) how come the so called “usurption” was just 50 people none of whom had been on the islands more than 6 weeks.
4) if the world supports Argentina how come they lost a vote on self determination of NSGTs in 2008 at the UNGA?
5) if the world supports Argentina why doesn't Argentina take their case to the ICJ, at very least for a guidance?
6) if the Argentine government is “hurting Britain” in South America, how come there is no unique trade barriers, how come there are numerous British companies operating all over Latam?
7) if the islanders would be better off under Argentina, how come 99.8% voted otherwise?
Come on Argfellow...challenge your perceptions of the truth...answer those key points...
if Argentina inherited the islands from Spain
Jan 25th, 2015 - 08:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0would not Spain be able to confirm this with documentation..
@90 Briton
Jan 26th, 2015 - 06:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0The only way that Spain could've 'left' the Falklands to Argentina in its will is for it to have done so on the day Spain recognised Argentina as a sovereign nation - so sometime in the 1860's.
This is one of the more interesting barrage of 'claims' from Argentina. Mainly because it wipes out ALL of their 1833 claims.
So IF the Falklands were Spanish in the 1860's to allow Spain to 'leave' them to Argentina, then they must've been Spanish in 1833, so therefore NOT Argentine (which we all knew because Argentina didn't exist in 1833), so the Argentine claims of usurpation are wiped out.
Argentina couldn't've 'inherited' the Falklands from Spain because by the 1840's Spain had dropped it's sovereignty claim to the Islands and recognised British sovereignty.
Spain didn't recognise Argentina as anything other than a rebellious colony until the 1860's.
Spain couldn't've possibly given away something that wasn't theirs.
So this 'inheritance' claim neatly blows their other 'claims' out of the water.
But our Argentine trolls are too brainwashed to see it. It's like 1984 by George Orwell: Black is White, War is Peace.
Contradictions, but the Argentines brainwash their children from a young age that they very rarely actually 'think' about what they've been taught, they just repeat it parrot fashion.
@82 Derke Blake
Jan 26th, 2015 - 06:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0It has become materially impossible for me to answer all comments. As most of them come from people firmly convinced of my idiocy, I hope they will accept more easily my excuses; and also that the answer to some of them will be found in this one addressed to you.
“I doubt very much that you personally would sell-out your cultural and national identity......, so why would you expect the Falklanders to do it?”
I NEITHER EXPECT NOR WANT SUCH AN OCCURRENCE, if compulsory. The Falklanders are automatically argentines according to our Law. Do they refuse (plebiscite) such condition..? Very well : they will keep their British nationality, their British language, their British teachers. (A recent survey showed English (forget my own) teaching in Argentine between the better and more extended in LATAM schools.
“If YOU were a Falklander would you trust anything coming from such a belligerent and hostile neighbour?”
HARDLY, if my only direct contact with it is a military unit on war footing that I can see only as an invader one, and that forces me to drive on the wrong hand. BUT IF MY OWN SON (your case) ”studied in BA (last year), and “enjoyed his time there very much, not least the warmth of the people” , my attitude would be slightly different, despite their ideas on the Falklands History.
“If Argentina is so reasonable about this issue, and wish the Falklanders no ill will or maliciousness, why do you have your Malvinas national holiday on April 2nd, THE DAY OF THE INVASION?.....Argentina is probably the only country on earth that celebrates the START of a war.”
NO, NO, mr. Derke, you´re wrong at this point...! What we are celebrating is the START of the RECOVERY of the Islands...albeit short and inglorious its end. WAR, however probable, was by no means a CERTAINTY on that day. Intense negotiations were held the next ones. We were well aware of our matériel short-comings. And GLAD of no BRITISH victims. A CLEAN job. (TOO CLEAN for UK?)
@92:
Jan 26th, 2015 - 08:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0“NO, NO, mr. Derke, you´re wrong at this point...! What we are celebrating is the START of the RECOVERY of the Islands...albeit short and inglorious its end.”
No, he is in fact correct. You *cannot* recover what was not yours to begin with.
What you celebrate is the illegal invasion of the sovereign territory of another nation, and the attempted subjugation of the legitimate inhabitants of that land.
It should also be pointed out that if it were indeed a recovery, the UNSC binding resolution requiring Argentina to remove its occupation force would never have been passed.
“WAR, however probable, was by no means a CERTAINTY on that day.”
I hate to break it to you, but when you attack another nation's defence forces, invade its land and attempt to subjugate its people - which is undisputably what happened - those actions are acts of war.
You started the war on that day, every measure we took was one of defense.
If you want peaceful discussion on this matter, might be a good idea to acknowledge the facts first.
@92 Argfellow
Jan 26th, 2015 - 09:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0“...too clean for the UK...?”
What does that mean?
Are you trying to say it would be more to the UK's liking, to have civilian casualties, a legal pretext for provocation?? A trigger for a patriotic retaliation, maybe??
For your sake, I hope you are just suffering from indoctrination and idiocy.
Otherwise, you are simply despicable!
@93CKurze30k
Very well put, Sir!
@92
Jan 26th, 2015 - 10:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0It's not the start of the “recovery” you should be celebrating, but the ignominious end of Argentina's territorial ambitions in the British South Atlantic. By invading and attempting to subjugate a tiny, peaceful population that posed no conceivable threat to you, you have ensured that no British government for the foreseeable future could grant you any concessions and expect to survive. And still you persist in hostility and impotent belligerence. In this respect, thebest guarantor of the Falklands' British status remains Argentina itself.
@93 an @95
Jan 26th, 2015 - 03:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Please, where does that preposterous idea of “SUBJUGATION” come from..?. Sheer and selfish Argentine national INTEREST orders us the opposite. War (as it finally erupted) is the worst environment, indeed, to keep mind on an even keel and, besides, to point the same once and again forces me to apologize in advance, but : In peacetime, what kind of “SUBJUGATION” suffered OUR Welsh settlers during one hundred and fifty years...? Even Patagonian TOPONYMY was open to them...!. At this very place we can gather testimonies on the contrary..!
@96
Jan 26th, 2015 - 03:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The difference is that your Welsh settlers went there voluntarily, whereas you invaded the Falklands in order to impose an Argentine military regime notorious for the human rights abuses it perpetrated to subjugate its own citizens.
This invasion place after years of barely concealed abuse, which continues at all levels of your society, including the highest levels of your government. And as you've recently stated yourself, you continue to celebrate your failed attempt at subjugation in 1982.
You talk about your Welsh settlers in a curious way, as if they were somehow different from mainstream Argentine citizens. It's reminiscent of the way South Africans used to talk about “OUR BLECKS”, and as such it's rather typical of a fundamentally racist attitude which is often displayed around here, to the effect that it is somehow illegitimate for anybody but the primarily Italo-Iberian populations of Latin America to control their own destiny in that part of the world.
It isn't.
@92 & @96 argfellow
Jan 26th, 2015 - 04:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'll ask you this question again. Have YOU or any Argentine EVER asked the people of the Falkland Islands what THEY WANT?
The answer to this question is...NO you haven't.
It's all about what YOU want. Well no one cares what you want.
The people of the Falkland Islands are NOT ARGENTINE, no matter what you may say. They are British, and they want to remain British.
As I stated earlier ALL of Argentina's sovereignty claims are based on FALSE premises. This makes everything you say illegitimate.
If your sovereignty case is SO strong, then take it to the International Courts of Justice.
If being Argentine is SO great, why don't you try to persuade the Falkland Islanders to become Argentine instead of trying to FORCE your nationality upon them?
And as others have said, in 1982, Argentina invaded sovereign British territory, ignored a LEGALLY binding UN Security Council resolution to leave (thus breaking international law), and was responsible for the deaths of nearly 1000 people.
Argentina can never 'persuade' the British to just hand over the Falkland Islands, no matter how many tantrums you throw. Why?
1stly there are 258 reasons. Each one a dead British serviceman or Falkland Islander. To give Argentina the Falkland Islands without the consent of the Falkland Islanders would be a gross betrayal of all those who died to ensure the freedom of the Falklanders.
2ndly international law is on the side of the Falkland Islanders.
My suggestion to you, argfellow, is stop believing the lies of your government. No UNGA resolution supports Argentina - they actually protect the Falkland Islanders from colonial aggression - that would be Argentina btw.
The world does NOT support Argentina's claims - in 2008 the UN voted down Argentina's and Spain's attempts to remove the right to self-determination. So self determination is the key here.
But try ASKING the Islanders what THEY want. Then you'll truly understand why you'll never get the Falklands.
Argfellow
Jan 26th, 2015 - 06:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Quite simply, you write highly offensive bullshit.
Firstly, you seem to believe that it was ok for Argentina, based on a highly dubious claim from 1833 to attack the Falklands military, to round up the civilians at gunpoint, and to celebrate this as a “clean job”.
Let's look at this in more detail....
Argentina had what it believes was an historic claim...check
Argentina ignored the wishes of the civilian population ....check
A civilian population of 3000 with a 180 year heritage...check
This is a clean job...check
Compare and contrast to the so-called usurption of 1833 that your country is obsessed by:
Britain had a far less dubious historic claim
Britain only ignored the wishes of the crew of the SS Sarandi
The crew was 50 people who had a 6 week heritage
This was a clean job
If you can (you can't) try and justify Argentinas actions in 1982, the Britains actions in 1833 are hundreds of times more justified. They are insignificant compared to your “clean job” in 1982.
Sadly, it appears your ridiculous indoctrination knows no bounds. The Falklands are not Argentine, never were, never will be. It is horrific that you have no shame for your governments actions both in 1982 and today.
The islanders loathe you...
However, perhaps Britain should invade Patagonia and reinstate the 1870s Argentine border....so long as we can keep civilian casualiies low...we can call it a “clean job”....(too clean for Argentina)
91@
Jan 26th, 2015 - 07:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0thank for that,
these argies are just brainwashed plain and simple..
argfellow
Jan 26th, 2015 - 08:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Follow the link to the many reasons why the UK would NEVER abandon the Falkland Islands and its people to Argentine colonial aspirations.
http://www.roll-of-honour.com/cgi-bin/falklands.cgi
As I have stated many times before Argentina should take its 'claims' to the International Court of Justice. If you won't it's because you KNOW your claim is false.
And if you don't take your claim to the ICJ then you are actually stating that you accept British sovereignty of the islands.
No amount of crying, crawling, begging or lying is going to change that.
To the glorious dead who defended the lives and freedoms of the people of the Falklands:
They shall not grow old, as we who are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.
And that, argfellow, is the difference between Argentina and the UK.
Argentina CELEBRATES the invasion of a peaceful land by a murderous military regime. The UK COMMEMORATES the end of the war.
Argentina USES its War Dead to try a foster some kind of claim to the Islands, and your politicians often bring them up to try and score CHEAP political points. The UK remembers with respect and dignity the sacrifice made by her War Dead, and any politician who tried to score cheap political points wouldn't be a politicians for very long.
You have NO RESPECT for your own War Dead. You have NO RESPECT for the people of the Falkland Islands. You have NO RESPECT for the concepts of freedom, democracy and self-determination.
You come on this forum and spout the same old lies that your government has been spewing for years.
But the real joke, argfellow, is that your government invented the 'Malvinas Myth' so they could more easily rob you blind.
And people like you are so stupid that you fall for it every time, whilst your politicians laugh all the way to their off-shore bank accounts.
In short you're pathetic. Argentina's 'offer' is pathetic.
Of all the drivel I've heard on these boards, Argfellow has set a new standard.
Jan 26th, 2015 - 08:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0According to him, Argentina was within its rights to attack the islands in 1982, and Britain was wrong to defend them.
Because Argentina managed to take the islands without massacring the islanders it was Britains fault for using military means to reclaim.
What an extraordinary logic...lbullshit of course.
Had Argentina actually felt this way, a simple withdrawal as per a binding UNSC resolution would have sufficed...but no...they were quite happy fighting when they thought they could win.
Argfellow is the worst of people, 1000 people died because of his attitude, his indoctrination, his blindness. Their blood is on his hands.
It is quite simple. Argentina has no claim...no Argentine has ever governed the islands for more than 6 weeks...and he was murdered by his own crew.
With argies like Argfellow Argentina has no chance,
Jan 26th, 2015 - 08:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0the next thing they will demand is compensation for damages .
Alicia Castro is already starting claiming the Falklands War started when the UK sunk the Belgrano.
Jan 26th, 2015 - 09:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It is gobsmacking how lying comes so easy to these people.
@92 argfellow
Jan 26th, 2015 - 09:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thanks you for your response. I won’t critique it line-by-line, as every point has been accurately and dutifully repudiated and discredited by HansN, LEPR, Monkey, etc
I will quickly add though that I believe you are definitely being disingenuous when you pretend exactly what the choice of April 2 represents. As well, the “TOO CLEAN for UK?” sign-off line is nothing short of bizarre (and insulting) and deserves to be addressed much more harshly; but we’ll let that pass.
I guess what I generally find most confusing (and disappointing) is how otherwise seemingly reasonable, rational, educated people, such yourself, can possibly still be such hard-core Malvinists, given the historical facts and modern civilized precedents (I really don’t care about the other mostly guttural Argentine posters on here, who obviously have an alternative agenda and are certainly not indicative of your general population, I trust).
As someone whom initially had no dog in this race; I find the history and evidence so utterly lop-sided as to be utterly undebatable (yes, granted, most of my research has been in English; however I’m just now working my way through “Malvinas Matters”, that was given to me by the consular in Montreal). This is probably why Argentina refused to bring it before the ICJ despite three formal offers from the UK.
I simple can’t my head around the rational, other than it’s a cult-like, jingoistic indoctrination with a life of it's own; and as such, the facts are not only secondary, but actually irrelevant.
Thanks for your time,
Derke
@104 Monkeymagic
Jan 26th, 2015 - 09:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's standard Argentine operating procedure. If history isn't on your side, change it by telling huge whoppers.
They lied about the events of 1833 - which, despite the numerous years that have passed can STILL be easily disproved.
They now lie about the event of 1982 - which, if anything are EVEN easier to disprove.
The lies are for their own people. It goes back to their inability to accept responsibility for ANY of their actions.
So the native Amerindians WEREN'T murdered by Argentina. Only a few thousand were, and even then they WEREN'T Argentine native Amerindians, but from Chile...apparently.
Argentina didn't invade the Falklands, that was the Junta, who were of course aliens from outer space. And even IF Argentina DID invade the Falklands is was, apparently, due to the sinking of the Belgrano, despite the Argentine invasion taking place a full month before Belgrano's demise. Those pesky Argentine's must've had a crystal ball, or read it in the stars or something, for they foresaw the sinking of the Belgrano at the hands of the British, so decided to invade the Falklands (?!?!?!?) to try and stop it.
Of course if Argentina had never invaded the Falklands then the British wouldn't've been at war with Argentina and the Belgrano wouldn't've been sunk.
Every action has consequences. The Argentines just don't like having to face up to those consequences.
Gents,
Jan 27th, 2015 - 12:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0I just love the rationale, “ if you didn't decide to fight, there wouldn't have been a war... ”!!
....and then, they buy into it... !!
dear oh dear... * shakes head from side to side, in feigned resignation*
argfellow, Troy, LEPR, Monkey, Hans. etc
Jan 27th, 2015 - 04:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0Time for some comic relief.
Okay, I finally get it! I know how the country got so brain-washed.
They get them YOUNG. Real YOUNG.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKkcTpCur7g
Actual cartoon on Public TV in Argentina. Although the translation isn't “exact” ;) ........... I thought it was pretty good.
Argentina is the home of satire, I guess (but maybe someone should tell them).
Derke
@98 LEPRecon
Jan 27th, 2015 - 06:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0I¨ll intend, on the basis of your questions and observations, to express new synthetic answers. Tired, as I am, of contrasting opposing opinions, I´d like to find some parallel coincidences, if possible.
My starting point was the opinion (@14, CONQUEROR) that “THE SOVEREIGNTY INVOLVED IS BRITISH SOVEREIGNTY”, which impressed me as “PERFECTLY SOUND”. And I have been honoured with your agreement, -first coincidence- because you state, just here, that “in 1982 Argentina invaded SOVEREIGN BRITISH TERRITORY”. (Capitals mine). Consequently, the United Kingdom and the Argentine Republic were exhorted to keep CONVERSATIONS on that matter, before and AFTER the 1982 War, by the U.N. General Assembly and its DCC.
Your question: “Have YOU or any Argentine EVER asked the people of the Falkland Islands what THEY WANT? The answer is...NO you haven´t”
(My answer is: YOU´RE RIGHT, AS FAR AS I KNOW, ON THE MATTER OF SOVEREIGNTY, which belongs to the U.K. and Argentine GOVERNMENTS. ) -second coincidence-
And you continue : ” But try ASKING the Islanders what THEY want. Then you´ll truly understand why you´ll NEVER (Capitals mine) get the Falklands”
(BUT I´LL TRULY UNDERSTAND SOMETHING FAR MORE IMPORTANT: If not getting (forever) Argentina the Falklands depends on the Islanders wishes, it simply means that their wishes will ALWAYS have the upper hand on the United Kingdom OPINION, AND CONSEQUENTLY THAT SOVEREIGNTY BELONGS TO THE FALKLANDERS, contradicting our “PERFECTLY SOUND” (and shared) intitial first coincidence. (I L O V E CONTRADICTIONS).
Argfellow @109 sounds so angry his English has deteriorated and his reasoning is even more muddled.
Jan 27th, 2015 - 06:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0I think his “fundamentals” are a bit shaken.
chucklety chuck chuckle...
@109 argfellow
Jan 27th, 2015 - 07:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0Your understanding of the situation is comical.
After the war the UK and Argentina were indeed 'encouraged' not exhorted into talks on a peaceful solution. However this was to prevent another armed conflict. It doesn't mean that the talks had to be about sovereignty.
This is where you Argentines get really confused. When a country states that it wants to see a peaceful settlement to the dispute Argentina automatically ASSUMES that means that the British should just hand over the Falkland Islands. In the UK it means that we will respect the wishes of the Islanders whilst at the same time protecting them UNTIL such a day when Argentina gives up its imperialist colonial ambitions.
The UN Charter states that ALL people have the right to self-determination. That means that the ONLY people (and this was confirmed by the UN General Secretary Ban Ki Moon) who can decide their future ARE the people of the Falklands.
Your post is insulting to them and typical of Argentine mentality. In YOUR opinion the wishes, human rights and freedom of the Islanders are irrelevant because YOU want THEIR land.
However the British will NEVER abandon the Falkland Islanders, and because your country is too weak, you can never again hope to try to take them by force. You had one chance in 1982 and YOU LOST.
Oh, and as to your 'too clean for you' crack earlier on, I remember well that the 1st act of the invading Argentine forces was to attack Moody Brook Bks, where they threw grenades and machined gunned the beds. They went there to murder the Royal Marines. It was fortunate that the RM had got wind of Argentina's plans and were already in defensive positions.
If not there would've been 80 murdered men that night.
Don't try to whitewash history and try to 'pretend' that is was somehow better than it was.
We know Argentina's true face, and it is very, very ugly.
The Falklands are British, they will be British tomorrow and the day after and so on.
Jealous?
@109
Jan 27th, 2015 - 01:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You seem to think you've scored some major point here, but it's rather hard to see what that is. The fact of the matter is that the UK has sovereignity, but the Falkland Islanders, like all the other constituent peoples of the UK, have the right to determine their own destiny, in accordance with the principle of self-determination. You might have noticed this principle in action in Scotland recently.
What that means is that if the Falkland Islanders want to have sovereignity transferred to them, they can have it. All they have to do is hold a vote, and they can do this any time they like. And once they have sovereignity, they can do what they like with it: be independent, or become part of any other country that wants to have them, including Argentina.
You might think that the conclusion to be drawn from this is blindingly obvious, but it seems that Argentina just cannot bear the thought that the islanders have the same rights Argentina claims for itself. Instead it persists in the delusion that the UK can somehow be obliged to impose an Argentine colonial regime on the islanders 30 years after the UK was obliged to fight a war to remove one. It is really had to see how any rational politician can actually believe this, although it is not hard to see how the unscrupulous might seek to profit from it.
And as for contradictions, you've just concluded that it's the Falkland Islanders who have sovereignity, and yet you refuse to talk to them and insist that sovereignity is a bilateral matter between the UK and Argentina. Make your mind up, at least.
109@
Jan 27th, 2015 - 07:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0if you leave the caps lock alone, people might endure to your argument,
tantrums have won precisely nothing,
Argfellow
Jan 27th, 2015 - 09:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You appear to be somewhere way beyond stupid.
The Falklands Islanders CHOOSE to have British Sovereignty
They have the right to CHOOSE not to have British Sovereignty
The British Government is happy to support the Islanders in whatever Sovereignty CHOICE they make.
It is their CHOICE.
Not Argentinas CHOICE or Britains CHOICE.
This is self determination....
I am sorry you wish us to deny the islanders their CHOICE, but we won't.
The Islanders have their Government, their laws, their Parliament and CHOOSE for the UK to look after their defence and foreign affairs.
This is their CHOICE, they CHOOSE this OPTION....not the OPTION that You offer.
This appears confusing to you...I am not sure why...so I offer a parallel.
Imagine the UK and the Falklands are married.
Either party can CHOOSE to divorce.
Either party can CHOOSE to divorce and then marry someone else.
However, what we cannot do is choose to divorce and then force the Falklands to marry you...that is only their decision.
We don't want a divorce, but if the islanders did, there is nothing we could or would do about it.
However, it is extraordinarily unlikely they would choose you as a partner irrespective of whatever divorce they had from us.
So Britain does have sovereignty, but for only as long as the islanders want us to...we have a marriage, either can leave...unlikely for the lying, bulling, ugly, poor, drunk scumbag down the road though!!
@ 114 Monkeymagic (Argfellow)
Jan 28th, 2015 - 01:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0I must say, spectacular analogy. Kudos for that; I’m going to have to steal that one and claim it as my own, in other circles, of course (and maybe as a favour, could you give my wife a call?).
I do feel that I must defend Argfellow for a moment though. While I’m as frustrated as anyone (well, maybe not) concerning his apparent lack of reasoning and bizarre rationalizations on this issue (i.e. you started the war when you decided to fight back is one for the ages); relative to the VAST majority of the other Argentine posters on here, he is the very definition of polite (not a high bar, granted), and on a “one-to-one” basis has been quite respectful. I don’t think I've seen a personal insult from him yet, which seems to be the standard modus operandi from the Argentine trolls on here (and I wouldn't even really classify him as a troll, in the true sense).
Probably might even enjoy having a pint with him in the pub. May end-up in fisticuffs, but worth a try.
Derke
@112 “And as for contradictions, YOU´VE just concluded that it´s the Falkland Islanders who have sovereignty...”
Jan 28th, 2015 - 01:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0NO, SIR...! THAT WAS Mr. LEPRecon´s CONCLUSION, unless you pretend that at this level, “self determination” is something different from “sovereignty”. I conclude at the very point I started: (@14 : “THE SOVEREIGNTY INVOLVED IS BRITISH SOVEREIGNTY”.) And also (@14: “REALITY MUST PREVAIL”). And you tell me:
“You seem to think you´ve scored some major point here, but it´s rather hard to see what that is. The fact of the matter is that the UK has sovereignty, but the FALKLAND ISLANDERS....have the right to determine their own destiny, in accordance with the principle of self-determination......”
“What that means is that if the Falkland Islanders want to have sovereignty transferred to them, they can have it. All they have to do is hold a vote, and they can do this any time they like. And once they have sovereignty, they can do what they like with it: be independent, or become part of any other country that wants to have them, including Argentina.”
A clear explanation, but sounds as : “THE FALKLANDS IN FANTASYLAND”.
Many thanks to all of you for your time and for your knowledge.
116 Arfgellow
Jan 28th, 2015 - 03:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Many thanks to all of you for your time and for your knowledge.”
Argfellow,
It seems to me that you have absorbed nothing from your time on here.
The Falkland RIGHT to Self determination seems to be contrary to what you want to believe - too bad.
@116
Jan 28th, 2015 - 09:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0'A clear explanation, but sounds as : “THE FALKLANDS IN FANTASYLAND”.'
I don't know why you think that. It's how the British Empire was dismantled, and as we've recently seen in Scotland, it applies to the constituent parts of the United Kingdom itself.
The more interesting question is why Argentina quite simply refuses to recognise something so glaringly obvious. There is a clear and simple path to sovereignity through the islanders, yet Argentine policy might have been designed to ensure it can never be taken.
@116 argfellow
Jan 28th, 2015 - 09:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yes the British currently hold sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. BUT the very point you are either missing or CHOOSING to IGNORE is that the Falklands are British because that is what the PEOPLE of the Falklands wish.
They can choose at ANY time to not be British, therefore Britain will no longer hold sovereignty over the islands.
All Argentina has to do, assuming it truly wants an end to this dispute, is to persuade over 50% of the people living on the islands to voluntarily become Argentine. If you can do this, then Argentina would hold sovereignty.
BUT as your previous posts have alluded, Argentina can offer NOTHING to the people of the Falkland Islands that would be better than their current situation.
The Falkland Islands are economically better off than Argentina. They have little or no corruption. Their security situation is stable. They have access to international markets. They have no massive debts that they are refusing to pay.
Face it, Argentina can offer the islanders nothing, hence why you could never persuade them to voluntarily become Argentine.
They are British because they WANT to be British. And no amount of cry, lying, crawling and begging by Argentina is going to change that.
So Argentina can do 1 of 3 things.
1. Accept the Falkland Islanders right to decide their own future and drop your ridiculous claims, and concentrate on sorting out the mess your own country is in.
2. Take your ridiculous claims to the International Courts of Justice.
3. Woo the Falkland Islanders and get them to voluntarily want to be Argentine.
But Argentina hasn't done ANY of these things. And THAT is why you will NEVER have any hope of gaining sovereignty of the islands, and it is also why your country will always remain a wannabe nation, failing completely, when you could be one of the richest countries on earth. You allow your politicians to rob you, and all they have to do is mention the Malvinas Myth, and you become blind to it all.
@119
Jan 28th, 2015 - 01:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This is the whole point. Argentina's Malvinas grievance was never created to be resolved, it was created to be nurtured and perpetuated. The current Peronists are much smarter in this respect than the junta. CFK and co only want to feed the neurosis in their own interest, the junta actually were dumb, desperate and arrogant enough to try to kill the goose that laid the golden egg.
It seems that misunderstandings appear by spontaneous generation when I dialogue with most of the present posters. Part of them are, indeed, due to my deficient English, but I´m afraid that another part obey to a very special bias that I´ll dare to expose , not to gain, certainly -and unfortunately- your sympathies. But I must DEFEND myself. As different as we may be, we share the same abhorrence of the figure of the pettifogger. (In Spanish, “rábula”, as applied to the charlatan lawyer, that twist everything to his convenience).
Jan 28th, 2015 - 06:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0When I answered that on April 2 we don´t celebrate the STARTING of a WAR, but of the RECOVERY of our sovereignty you -as one man- deduced that I intended to discharge the responsibility of the 1982 war on the U.K., as the first in provoking actual casualties in the opponent; while De Morgan, Boole, and Alan Turing outcried from their tombs.
It NEVER occurred to me that the April 2 invasion WAS NOT an ACT OF WAR , with all its risks and responsibilities . But I insist that ACTUAL WAR was not the fatal result of April 2 (intense negotiations followed), and certainly far from desired on our part, owing to our inferior fire power and American attitude. If you need a giant example of the difference: the U.S. blockade (graciously called “quarantine”) on Cuba in 1962 was beyond any doubt an ACT OF WAR, with no casualties; and the difference with ACTUAL WAR lies in that we live to mention it.
No BRITISH casualties on April 2. A CLEAN job. TOO CLEAN for U.K..?
I was, certainly, figuratively speaking. It was interpreted in the same way as indicating a convenience of British flesh and blood to justify a harsh reply. It was also interpreted literally. Boths ways are offensive, and both fortunately false, for the sake of my soul. What I hinted is that many British people lodge THE SUBCONSCIOUS IDEA THAT THE GARRISON MUST HAVE OFFERED MORE RESISTANCE, absurd as this happens to be. And if the R.M. are innocent, the grievance falls on Argies.
@121
Jan 28th, 2015 - 07:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This is getting more bizarre with every post. Your so-called “recovery” of sovereignity was accomplished by an armed invasion. An armed invasion is an act of war, and was recognised by such by the UN at the time, which recognised the UK's right of self-defence, and moreover passed a binding resolution telling Argentina to remove its troops, which you ignored.
You can no more dissociate your “recovery” from your act of war, than you can dissociate your acquisition of Patagonia from the War of the Desert.
You are right about one thing, which is that the shooting war could have been avoided had Argentina chosen to withdraw its troops as instructed by the UN, but Galtieri could not have done that even had he wanted to without being torn to pieces by the howling mob outside the Casa Rosada.
There is no subconscious idea that the garrison should have offered more resistance. This isn't Pinedo in 1833. The garrison on South Georgia drove off a frigtae with an anti-tank weapon and the garrison on the Falklands were ordered to stand down by the Governor to avoid futile bloodshed. The crying shame of it all is that Galtieri lacked the honour to save young lives in the same way.
But let's look on the bright side. Perhaps one day Argentina will be mature enough to accept responsibility for its own actions.
Argfellow
Jan 28th, 2015 - 08:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If you mean by “the Falklands in Fantasyland” that you believe an overseas territory of the UK is either:
1) never going to be allowed to self determine their future
Or
2) are extraordinarily lucky to be afforded such a privilege
Then you need to research the break-up of the British Empire. The vast majority of which was broken up voluntarily and often with a managed transition to self-governance.
With the exception of the 13 US States (and perhaps Eire), there were no wars of independence. Unlike the French, Spanish, Portuguese, Belgian empires we didn't fight for every inch, or get “chucked out”. The vast majority was peaceful and voluntary. Which is why today, the Commonwealth is such a successful brotherhood.
So, like Australia, Canada, and 30-40 other Commonwealth countries, the Falklands can have Independance just by asking for it. Sadly, they like the other NSGTs are too small to be truly independent so rely on Britain for a tiny amount of support in foreign affairs and defence.
Argentina talks of “territorial integrity” and would keep territories against the will of the people...something Britain grew out of nearly a century ago.
Fantasy or not....it's reality.
@123 Monkey
Jan 28th, 2015 - 10:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Good point (again, you bastard!).
I often tease my American friends about their war of independence. What did we (Canada) do? We asked, of course. Then said thanks.
Cheers,
Derke
121@
Jan 28th, 2015 - 11:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0you try to defend the indefensible.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!