MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Falklands/UK RAF air bridge called at Brazilian airports, claims Argentina
At least six Royal Air Force flights linking UK with Falklands' MPA, during 2016, called at Brazilian airports, claimed the Argentine foreign ministry Malvinas Desk based on information supplied by the country's Air Traffic Control office. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesAh the Argentine trying to interfere in the dealings of their neighbours as usual. No doubt the Brazilian authorities gave the notice the due attention, then threw it in the bin.
Mar 02nd, 2017 - 09:23 am - Link - Report abuse +3Dear Argentina. Diddums.
Mar 02nd, 2017 - 10:21 am - Link - Report abuse +1Do you know , I really ,really feel sorry for the Argies why does it matter what country our military fly to or touchdown.It is only for internal politics I know but comon grow up.
Mar 02nd, 2017 - 10:35 am - Link - Report abuse +26 flights in the last 12 months? Surprised they noticed. Still, just goes to prove that once all the rhetoric is over, it's business as usual for Argentina's neighbours.
Mar 02nd, 2017 - 12:26 pm - Link - Report abuse +3They aren't Royal Air Force flights though. The Voyager has a civilian registration and is manned by civilian crews.
Mar 02nd, 2017 - 03:12 pm - Link - Report abuse +1And Argies cannot count- more like a couple of times only.
Mar 02nd, 2017 - 05:17 pm - Link - Report abuse +1That's right... WhyTF would Argentina be concerned about British military in neighboring countries?
Mar 02nd, 2017 - 05:38 pm - Link - Report abuse -4Argentina is acting so paranoid! Almost as if, you know, the Brittos had tried to invade in three separate occassions in our collective history...
Never keep an eye off your adversaries.
And anyway, why does the British military need to be anywhere near BRAZIL, whether they allow it or not? What ff--in business you have there? What a bunch of hypocritical imperialists, accusing others of imperialism. Pathetic.
Trying to find logic in British conduct is like trying to find hairless skin in Australopithecuses.
Yaaajaa!
What bloody cheek ! what the hell do the Argies think, that they can dictate Brazil's foreign policy ? anyhow, seems their spies aren't too smart, or they would have known what the aircraft were carrying...
Mar 02nd, 2017 - 06:49 pm - Link - Report abuse +3AustrOllOpithecus
Mar 02nd, 2017 - 08:23 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Kindly remind us when you believe that ”the Brittos had tried to invade(Argentina) in three separate occassions in our collective history”. Whatever you say will be untrue anyway as I am sure you will tell us we invaded Buenos Aires in 1806 and 1807 - we did - BUT when that city was part of the Spanish Empire.
Then there was the Anglo-French blockade of the Río de la Plata which was was a five-year-long naval blockade imposed by France and Britain on the Argentine Confederation ruled by Juan Manuel de Rosas which ended in 1850 when Britain and Argentina celebrated the Convention of Settlement by way of which the Argentine Confederation tacitly ceded the Falkland Islands to Britain,
“by way of which the Argentine Confederation tacitly ceded the Falkland Islands to Britain,”
Mar 02nd, 2017 - 11:46 pm - Link - Report abuse -4It never did there was no mention of it and besides the Convention of Settlement returned conditions to as they were before the cause of the unsettlement ie.(The Blockade )..it does not and did not settle differences prior to the cause....a dispute of sovereignty of the islands.
Google Conventions of Settlements in International law...
Convention of settlement Article 7
Mar 03rd, 2017 - 12:13 am - Link - Report abuse +5“VII. Under this Convention perfect friendship between Her Britannic Majesty's Government and the Government of the Confederation, is restored to its former state of good understanding and cordiality.”
After this, restatements of the claim in the Annual message to Congress ceased.
1866 - Vice-President Marcos Paz opens Argentina's Congress and refers to an old dispute with some British citizens;
“The British Government has accepted the President of the Republic of Chile as arbitrator in the reclamation pending with the Argentine Republic, for damages suffered by English subjects in 1845.
This question, WHICH IS THE ONLY ONE BETWEEN US AND THE BRITISH NATION, has not yet been settled.”
1869 - President Sarmiento's message to Congress;
“Nothing is claimed from us by other nations; WE HAVE NOTHING TO ASK OF THEM, except that they will persevere in manifesting their sympathies, with which both Governments and peoples have honored the Republic, both for its progress and its spirit of fairness.”
All related to the cause...The Blockade...
Mar 03rd, 2017 - 12:35 am - Link - Report abuse -5Does not refer to prior differences everything is returned to the prior state before the cause...
The state that existed before the Blockade was a sovereignty dispute over the Falklands...
You should Google Convention of Settlements under International Law and stop trying to add extra inclusions...They were a common means of settling differences caused by wars etc...
If it's not specifically included it's not applicable..
The worst part about Kirchnerism government was the dismantling of the diplomatic proffesional corps. We can only hope this new government and the next do all they can to bring the struggle to our neighbors and shut down all ship trade, and aircraft assistance, not even for humanitarian reasons. And all ships that change flag need to be permanently banned from south american ports.
Mar 03rd, 2017 - 02:32 am - Link - Report abuse -3All we need is a good agreement, a good understanding.
Voice
Mar 03rd, 2017 - 06:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0Clutching at straws?????
Straws...?
Mar 03rd, 2017 - 11:50 am - Link - Report abuse -3...do you think so...
Don't take my word for it..
“§ 11. A TREATY OF PEACE DOES NOT EXTINGUISH CLAIMS UNCONNECTED WITH THE CAUSE OF THE WAR. Debts prior to the war, and injuries committed prior to the war, but which made no part of the reasons for undertaking it. remain entire, and the remedies are revived. The treaty of peace says Wheaton, ”does not extinguish claims founded upon debts contracted, or injuries inflicted previously to the war, and unconnected with its causes unless there be an express stipulation to that effect. Nor does it affect private rights acquired antecedently to the war, or private injuries unconnected with the causes which produced the war. ”
International law; or, Rules regulating the intercourse ... . Halleck, H. W. (Henry Wager), 1815-1872....CHAPTER XXXIV, TREATIES OF PEACE.
.......and your comments on the quotes from 1866 and 1869 that I posted above?
Mar 03rd, 2017 - 01:22 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Luke how old are you? Not in your teens yet I assume. You sound as you wish your country to end up like North Korea. An isolated country with no friends.
Mar 03rd, 2017 - 05:12 pm - Link - Report abuse +1@LukePig
Mar 03rd, 2017 - 05:21 pm - Link - Report abuse +1When are you going to realize that your neighbours haven't the slightest interest in Argentina's false claim to the FI ?....do you really think we are going to waste our time entertaining such BS ? ...we are just being diplomatic, but if it makes you and the other misinformed radicals happy to think we care, be my guest.
From and with thanks to Wikipedia
Mar 03rd, 2017 - 06:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Historians’ opinions
A number of historians have commented on the relation of the Convention of Settlement to the Falklands dispute. The Mexican diplomat and historian Carlos Pereyra considers that General Rosas gave up the claim to the Falklands in order to end Britain's involvement in the River Plate.
The impact of the treaty was also raised in a 1950 debate on Argentina's claim to the Falklands by a member of the Argentine Chamber of Deputies, Absalón Rojas.
Other Argentine historians have commented on the impact that the Convention of Settlement has upon Argentina's modern sovereignty claim, such as historian Alfredo R. Burnet-Merlín. Ernesto J. Fitte considers that the Argentine Confederation should have included its restitution in the treaty.”
Also, it should be recalled that Rosas also “offered” to cease conflict over the Falklands by ceding the archipelago to Britain in order to cover the Argentine debt to the Baring Brothers bank. This was refused as it had no merit.
Rosas, of course, left Argentina in 1852, in disgrace, and lived in exile in until 1877 in Hampshire when he died and is buried in Southampton.
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
Mar 04th, 2017 - 04:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0Still trying to foist the same fallacious argument that §11 is relevant. But, which has nothing to do with the actual Peace Treaty. Only civil claims for compensation as addressed by Vice-President Marcos Paz opened Congress on 1 May 1866, and in his Message mentioned some old claims for private losses by British citizens: “The British Government has accepted the President of the Republic of Chile as arbitrator in the reclamation pending with the Argentine Republic, for damages suffered by English subjects in 1845. This question, which is the only one between us and the British nation, has not yet been settled.”
Whereas here is what he actually stated concerning the legal effects of a Peace Treaty.
LAWS OF WAR By H. W. HALLECK, 1866, CHAPTER XXXIV, TREATIES OF PEACE.
§ 12. Principle of uti possidetes. A treaty of peace leaves every thing in the state in which it finds it, unless there be some express stipulations to the contrary. The existing state of possession is maintained, except so far as altered by the terms of the treaty. If nothing be said about the conquered country or places, they remain with the possessor, and his title cannot afterward be called in question. ... ...Treaties of peace, made by the competent authorities of such governments, are obligatory upon the whole nation, and, consequently, upon all succeeding governments, whatever may be their character.
As usual you ignore what it says in favour of what you think it means...
Mar 04th, 2017 - 03:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your interpretation is merely your unqualified opinion...
Voice
Mar 04th, 2017 - 04:06 pm - Link - Report abuse -1And as usual, YOU “ignore what it says in favor of what you think it means”
Remember Mollymauk??
“mollymauk
.......and your comments on the quotes from 1866 and 1869 that I posted above?”
Waiting for your interpretation and unqualified opinion...
or more likely, nothing.
There is no context in the quote I would need to read the whole address and therefore I would need a link...
Mar 04th, 2017 - 04:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Though I'm fairly certain that Sovereignty claims are not abandoned during a yearly address to congress...
Abandonment would certainly have to be discussed and probably voted on in Congress...which is the usual procedure...
Are there any links to a vote on that, minutes are usually recorded...
Don't bother looking...there has never been such a vote or decision...
The British Prime Minister does his/her Christmas speech every year too...it's always meaningless and for public consumption...
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
Mar 04th, 2017 - 05:34 pm - Link - Report abuse -1“You ignore what it says in favour of what you think it means” I merely showed the the complete articles in context, thereby exposing your deliberate attempted fraud. As you’ve ventured this very same fallacious argument before, when I used exactly the same rebuttal and put the boots to your conniving scheme.
Actually it was the other way around...
Mar 04th, 2017 - 06:11 pm - Link - Report abuse +1You were only quoting § 12. as the complete quote...
Whereas I had to produce § 11. which you purposely omitted...in an attempt to mislead folk...
You haven't the memory for your lies..
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
Mar 04th, 2017 - 08:04 pm - Link - Report abuse -1“Whereas I had to produce § 11. which you purposely omitted...in an attempt to mislead folk...You haven't the memory for your lies..”
I guess shooting from the hip causes you a lot of foot injuries as your use §11 was first used on 12th, 2015 - 11:00 pm in the accompanying thread to “Falklands triggers strong reply from Cameron… . While my reference to §12 did not occur until my post at Jun 13th, 2015 - 12:39 pm. That sattempted use of viveza criolla shows who is the truth teller and who is telling pork-pies.
You are confused again Terry...the proof of the pudding is in the Linking...
Mar 04th, 2017 - 11:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Here it is..
http://en.mercopress.com/2016/09/19/malvinas-sovereignty-claim-is-standing-and-non-negotiable-anticipates-macri-in-new-york/comments#comment449946
There you are posting §12
...and there is me posting §11 after you beginning with the words...
”Ha ha Terry there you go again...part quoting...
Just the bits you like eh...;-)”
Nothing changes eh...?
You lie...and I prove you are lying...;-)
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
Mar 05th, 2017 - 01:06 am - Link - Report abuse -1So when I show in first instance of your sophistry on this ’Falklands triggers strong reply from Cameron’, WHICH YOU DO NOT DENY. You move the same issue to a later thread “Malvinas sovereignty claim is standing and non negotiable” in a further attempt to cover your fraud.
Even on that thread your attempt to make §12 subordinate to §11 failed and you were reduced to feeble ad hominem attacks. Until I correctly pointed out they revealed much more about your own failings than mine. The fact that you continually attempt to run the same defeated unsupported arguments on later occasions, says it all about you as a person.
You have shown me nothing...links please...
Mar 05th, 2017 - 01:18 am - Link - Report abuse -1You do know how to make links I take it...?
...you don't do you...;-)
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
Mar 05th, 2017 - 01:33 am - Link - Report abuse -1So what I have stated stands, as you're unable to refute my contentions, so they stand. I don't have to provide a link since you have posted it and it is your own reliance. So you must be familia with its contents. If there was was any chance that my narrative was incorrect you would certainly have indicated this fact.
If you don't provide the link to prove what you are saying is true...
Mar 05th, 2017 - 01:37 am - Link - Report abuse -1We must assume you are lying...
You are lying..;-)
Do you want me to teach you how to link comments...?
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
Mar 05th, 2017 - 01:50 am - Link - Report abuse -1“You are lying” Since it’s your assertion you bear the burden to prove. If what you stated is correct then it’s a no brainer. On the other hand, your failure would be proof positive as to who is the liar.
Terry appears to be correct.
Mar 05th, 2017 - 01:55 am - Link - Report abuse -1Sorry Think/voice
Terry is incorrect...
Mar 05th, 2017 - 02:07 am - Link - Report abuse -2’Falklands triggers strong reply from Cameron’..was not the first time that he used that quote, my post on that thread was reminding him of previously using that part quote...
He's used it countless times...
So either he has forgotten or lying...
I can link it...he can't or won't...
...it's can't ;-))))
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
Mar 05th, 2017 - 02:21 am - Link - Report abuse -1’Falklands triggers strong reply from Cameron’ is the first instance that search on this site indicates the use of §12. Which is sufficiently reliable enough for me, as it doesn’t have any other agenda. If what you claim is true then prove it don’t simply allude as you are anything but truthful.
As brazilian that loves or ate least uses to browse i9n some or the main newspapers here, I never heard of Brazil ' s interests in matters that has not to do with us. Well the new government in power after a white coup started to put their dirt hands in matters of Venezuela or Bolivia. Me as taxpayer am really surprised, in other words, Argentine Macri looks like does not have to courage to face Britain now it is saying or ate least with english that it inot my language, I speak portuguese. I can see that they are atracting Brazil for their little discussion revolving things that were buried in the past. One thing I have to mention, former Ministry that left government alledging health issues has dirt side involve with corruption here as well this new guy in power, so if they are doing this reuiniting with their counterparts argentinians they don thave the moral and proxy to do that with our authorization at least mine.
Mar 05th, 2017 - 03:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Terry...
Mar 05th, 2017 - 07:23 pm - Link - Report abuse -3Here is the first mention of §12. and §11. by me on that thread, there is no mention of it previously on that thread until then...
Read it carefully....as it is quite clear that I am referring to a previous occasion that I caught you using that quote...
post 115 is you....
Therefore it is clear there is a previous occasion...
Note 7.26pm is before 11.00 pm
Voice Jun 12th, 2015 - 07:26 pm
115
You have a selective memory...I caught you quoting...
“If nothing be said about the conquered country or places, they remain with the conqueror, and his title cannot afterwards be called in question...”
but omitting from the same source....
“ A treaty of peace does not extinguish claims unconnected with the cause of the war.”
That certainly destroyed your point and got you your arse handed to you on a plate..”
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
Mar 05th, 2017 - 10:26 pm - Link - Report abuse -1“That certainly destroyed your point”
On the contrary one article that deals with individual damages, does not impact on the legal consequences of another article dealing with effect of a Peace Treaty. If it did, you would be able to show such were such a legal decision has so ruled.
The real story here is that while the British were claiming their inability to maintain an air bridge to Afghanistan or fly defensive maritime patrols around the UK they were maintaining an air bridge to one of their colonies. The result is that the USAF and USN had to provide flights that the UK should have been doing but wasn't.
Mar 05th, 2017 - 11:58 pm - Link - Report abuse -2I do not think that I could be construed as a Trump supporter but I agree with him when he says that these are not allies but bums. The US needs to exit NATO ASAP!
The FALKLANDS will be a BOT forever.
Mar 06th, 2017 - 12:31 am - Link - Report abuse +2There may not be a Britain forever...just an England...
Mar 06th, 2017 - 12:36 am - Link - Report abuse -2Troll woman
Mar 06th, 2017 - 11:04 am - Link - Report abuse +3I think that if you listened to Trump, he said that the UK was about the ONLY ally fulfilling it's commitment to NATO.
NATO is as much about the security of the USA as Europe. If not, the USA would have pulled out years ago !
As to the air bridge to the Falklands, two flights a week are hardly going to make a huge difference. The problem was that older aircraft were becoming unserviceable before their replacements could be brought into service. I think you will find that this has been sorted
out.
The scrapping of our Nimrod fleet of anti-submarine aircraft was a piece of stupidity pushed through against the advice of the Defence Chiefs.
Now the USA is gaining as we are buying a fleet of Poseidon aircraft to fill the gap caused by this. Workers in Boeing's plants can be nothing about happy.
We are also paying a chunk of the F-35's production costs.
So, the USA is doing quite well out of us.
@Voice: Having satisfied ourselves of where you 'come' from, you are no different to Salmond or Sturgeon.
Mar 06th, 2017 - 06:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Before you get into 'international law' you should learn a bit about it. For instance, Sturgeon is currently very big on threatening to call a second independence referendum. Conveniently forgetting to mention that she has no authority to do so. Or is she planning to lead an insurrection? Not a wise idea. Prime Minister Theresa May would not only be legally entitled to cancel devolution, but also to impose martial law. Salmond also thought he could play fast and loose with the law. It is not possible to find any provision in international law whereby a nation that not only enters freely into a “union” but begs to be allowed to do so can 'claim' any of the assets of the major state. So much for Salmond 'claiming' 8% of UK assets. And thinking he could cherrypick what he wanted.
And the same goes for your ludicrous assertions with regard to the 1850 Convention of Settlement. A matter not mentioned in such a settlement was accepted as not being the subject of any dispute. It says so. “for the Settlement of existing Differences”. Therefore the Falkland Islands did not represent a “Difference”.
Huh Conks...
Mar 06th, 2017 - 08:52 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Though worlds may change and go awry
While there is still one Voice to cry
There'll always be an England
While there's a country lane,
Wherever there's a cottage small
Beside a field of grain.
There'll always be an England
While there's a busy street,
Wherever there's a turning wheel,
A million marching feet.
There'll always be an England,
And England shall be free
If England means as much to you
As England means to me...
We used to sing
Mar 06th, 2017 - 10:05 pm - Link - Report abuse +1There'll always be an England
As long as Scotland's there
There may not be a Britain forever...just an England...
Mar 07th, 2017 - 03:36 pm - Link - Report abuse +2We can only hope....Sigh...
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!