MercoPress, en Español
Get our news on your inbox! Suscribe x
Montevideo, January 23rd 2022 - 16:21 UTC
Peter Biggs has announced his intention to stand for the Falklands General Election and is running for the circumscription of Stanley. Follows his manifesto: Read full article
There is an universal rule.-
Linving entities must adapt to their enviroment to prosper; you cant expect the enviroment to adapt at your convinience.-
Siege mentality of kelpers politicians are hoping the enviroment to adapt; wrong way of course; meanwhile all cities of south atlantic are growing while PS is still a little village, and kelper economy is out of scale.-
Linving entities must adapt to their environment to prosper; you cant expect the environment to adapt at your convinience.-
Exactly what Peronism needs to hear.
Argentina has done the opposite of prosper for how many decades now?
I dont know this guy, but let me guess, another guy born in London, came as a soldier, became instantly a kelper and now claims that the best for his community (becouse now he assume he is not a british but an islander) is to keep ties with the UK. Incredible.
I pray god that you tell me im mistaken, that he is not imported from Britain, that he was born in Malvinas.
Billy Hayes, their enviroment consist of a colonial regime that occupy large part of the Argentine territory and the South Atlantic area. They are used to those kind of enviroment becouse they have nine other colonial regimes in the same situation.
bushpilot, enviroment, Peronism and economic crisis common ground is?.
10 territories are still under british colonialism under the UN process of decolonization. Malvinas is one of those territories.
Decolonization, Libby, does not include recolonization.
Only the people of the territory can decide, as confirmed by the Chagos AO from the ICJ in 2019. That AO also confirmed that art.6 of resolution 1514 (1960) only applied to the NSGTs. So please do not waste our time rattling on about supposed territorial integrity.
Liberato, the enviroment i refer is the square formed by punta arenas, rio gallegos, ushuaia and port stanley. The colonial situation is a ballast for kelper economy.
Lorton, Decolonization, Libby, does not include recolonization.
It is your imagination talking that says recolonization. The UN request for sovereignty negotiation and have never talked about recolonization.
Only the people of the territory can decide, nope. The UN says that Peaceful Negotiated Settlement as Only Solution to Falklands Islands (Malvinas) Question.
Again your imagination talking when you says Chagos. The wrongly separation of Diego Garcia from Mauritius infringe the res 1514 self determination right of the mauritius occupying part of its territorie. In Malvinas, the british infringe the self-determination right of Argentina occupying part of its land and sea.
We can read all the rulling of the court if you like.
Billy Hayes, i see your point, but the colonial economy is exactly where they want it. It is very prosperous with low population, and with the feudal FIC taking huge incomes, without mention geopolitics which is the only important for the interests of the colonial power..
Of course liberato, colonial situation is only a prosperous situacion for kelper politicians and for guys like mike summers, but for the members of the local commercial chamber is a disaster.
Argentina is not listed as a NSGT, and therefore Res.1514 (1960) is not relevant to Argetina. Only the peoples of the NSGTs can decide their future. So said the Chagos AO.
No call for negotiations from the UN GA since 1988.
No debate in the GA since 1988.
Prove me wrong, Libby. You will find all the UN's GA resolutions here -
lorton, Mauritius is not listed either as a NSGT. And what the ICJ said is that the UK dismembered Mauritius creating a BIOT. And when they did it, they made an agreement with a british colony, so the british that administered that colony agreed with themselves on the creation of the BIOT.
The same happens in Malvinas. The colonial power that administer Malvinas (the UK), are the ones that claims to democratically wish to remains being adminitered by the UK.
So, in resume, For the ICJ, there is no people in Diego Garcia or the BIOT with a right to self determination in that BIOT. It is the people of Mauritius that had their land occupied by a foreign power impeding its people to exercise their right to self determination.
No call for negotiations from the UN GA since 1988. Why is that? what happened then?.
maintained that the General Assembly has not been actively engaged in the decolonization of
Mauritius since 1968. In particular, they have asserted that, after Mauritius became independent in
March 1968, it was removed from the list of territories being monitored by the Committee of
Twenty-Four and that the Chagos Archipelago was never added to that list.
You have no prove for me to prove wrong. The question of Malvinas remains on the UNGA agenda and no more resolutions were made in the GA becouse of a decision of Argentina and Britain. Perhaps you have a more valid event that occurred in that year. a resolution perhaps?.
It is interesting the ICJ advisory opinion becouse it talks about self determination and its aplicability as mention in page 38:
158. The right to self-determination under customary international law does not impose a
specific mechanism for its implementation in all instances, as the Court has observed:
The validity of the principle of self-determination, defined as the need to pay
regard to the freely expressed will of peoples.”
The Falklands prosperity is not the reason Argentina is doing so poorly. Wrong place to put the blame.
Blame yourselves for letting your Peronist politicians enrich themselves at the expense of your misery.
You should focus on improving a piece of your own land, instead of focusing on ruining a piece of land that belongs to another people.
Allow me to challenge that.
Usuhaia in 1950 has the same population that stanley today. Today the descendants of the owners of the business of that time are the owners of chains of supermarkets, hotels, restaurants, fleets of catamarans, trucks, busses, malls, warehouses, etc...millonaires.
Meanwhile the children of the stanleys businessman face low opportunities of growth, no college at home, poor future opportunities and most probable outcome is emigration.
Prosperity and a good per capita pib not always are the same.
Argentina's economic situation is not what would be called prospering. The outside world is not clamouring to become a part of the Argentine economy.
Are the people emigrating from the Falklands going to Argentina?
“ I dont know this guy, but let me guess, another guy born in London, came as a soldier, became instantly a kelper and now claims that the best for his community (becouse now he assume he is not a british but an “islander”) is to keep ties with the UK. Incredible.”
Liberato - Peter Biggs is a direct descendant of the Biggs family that came to the Falkland Islands in 1842.
When did your ancestors emigrate to Argentina?
Argentina’s constitution destroys their claim to the Falklands.
Falklands - The Futility of Negotiating Sovereignty With Argentina (1 pg) : https://www.academia.edu/57344689/Falklands_The_Futility_of_Negotiating_Sovereignty_With_Argentina
So why are Argentines always describing the kelpers as an implanted population without the right of self determination? They are of course not more implanted than any other person of Asian, African or European descent in the Americas. With that logic only people of Amerindian decent have the right of self determination and all others should go back to Spain, Italy, Germany or wherever there forefathers came from. So stop describe them as implanted. I presume Liberato is as much implanted.
Perhaps Argentina should try going to the ICJ, Libby.
Little Mauritius had the cojones.
Why doesn't Argentina?
If the people of the Falklands are an implanted British population, then the Islands should be immediately delisted, as they do not qualify to be a NSGT under the 1952 resolution (two previous C24 Chairmen have suggested this).
Cannot have it both ways. Either the Islands are a NSGT eligible for decolonization, or they are not. Of course, if they are an NSGT, the self-determination rules. If they are not, and are delisted, Argentina has nobody to talk to.
Liberato… “ It is very prosperous with low population, and with the feudal FIC taking huge incomes”
The FIC is not feudal, do you even know what Feudalism even is?! It’s a monarchy system with vassal lords below the central monarch. The FIC is a company not a state, therefore cannot be feudal
No such place as the Malvinas, never has been never will be,
if the Falklanders are implanted so is every white person on the American continent,
Billy Hayes, Prosperity and a good per capita pib not always are the same. I disagree. Their aim is to keep the hugh strategic area at the minimun cost possible. Thats their prosperity.
mollymauk, Peter Biggs is a direct descendant of the Biggs family that came to the Falkland Islands in 1842.. He was born in Malvinas or not?.
When did your ancestors emigrate to Argentina?. On my mothers side, she claims her grandma had toba origins, so i dont know exactly.
Nevertheless, if we count only Malvina's Vernet descendants, their origins goes back way before 1842.
Lorton, The ICJ advisory opinion on Diego Garcia, was called by the General Assembly and for Argentina to take the question of Malvinas to the General Assembly would take to the trash the sovereignty umbrella and the madrid talks. The only one to offer arbitration on the Malvinas dispute was Argentina in 1884. But what the UN request, which are sovereignty negotiations, arbitration to the ICJ or any other form is valid. It only needs the UK to sit to the negotiation table. If not, well, eventually Argentina will have to seek other ways.
158. The right to self-determination under customary international law does not impose a
specific mechanism for its implementation in all instances, as the Court has observed:
“The validity of the principle of self-determination, defined as the need to pay
regard to the freely expressed will of peoples, is not affected by the fact that in certain
cases the General Assembly has dispensed with the requirement of consulting the
inhabitants of a given territory. Those instances were based either on the consideration
that a certain population did not constitute a ‘people’ entitled to self-determination or
on the conviction that a consultation was totally unnecessary, in view of special
circumstances.” (Western Sahara, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1975, p. 33,
Libby, the UK offered to go to the ICJ in 1967 and 1982.
There is no connection between the sovereignty umbrella and the UN. It is merely a device to allow direct communications between Argentina and Britain. It does not stop Argentina lobbying the General Assembly for a question to be put to the ICJ.
The only thing stopping Argentina, is fear.
Argentina - grow some
Lorton, the UK offered to go to the ICJ in 1967 and 1982. Argentina refused. And your source is?. Is it in your book?. Should i buy it?. Is it like the fishermen that administered the islands before 1833 for the british crown?.
quote:No call for negotiations from the UN GA since 1988. No debate in the GA since 1988.. So what happened then?. Why Argentina or anybody didnt raised the question since then?. You know perfectly well that the topic is permanently included in the UNGA agenda for anybody to invoke it. So?.
Liberato couldn’t refute me telling him that the FIC cannot be a feudal monarchy since it’s a company, how nice.
Zaczac, The old times where the feudal lord collected taxes for the monarchy, became the Feudal FIC that does the same thing but for itself, even if you like it or not.
All life in the islands are still dependent on the services the FIC provides, from Construction,
Court & Bailiff Solutions, Environmental & Safety Solutions, Insurance Services, Haulage & Groundworks, Oil Services, Property & Sites, Retail & Wholesale, Security, Shipping & Logistics, Travel & Tourism, Vehicles, etc.
If you live there, and like to go to the grossery, or want to rent a car, or like to go for a drink to a tavern, or would like to spend the night in a hotel, or go to the club, etc. Well, these are your guys.
quote:FIC cannot be a feudal monarchy since it’s a company. Forget what i said before. You are too young to go to a tavern!!!. Cheers.
Libby, the first document is here. Dated 1969, but I believe that it refers to the 1967/68 negotiations - https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/1969-offer-to-go-to-icj.jpg
For the second, you'll need to go to the US Foreign Affairs Committee archives as it was to that Committee that Secretary Haig said that Argentina had been offered a chance to to to the ICJ.
“I have talked adjudication by the World Court, by the UN, or by a special commission. It was rejected all.” [Briefing by the Honorable Alexander M. Haig Jr. Secretary of State before Key House Leadership and House Foreign Affairs Committee – Room 2172, Rayburn Building, Washington DC 4/29/82].
You are so full of crap, Libby
Liberato - Peter Biggs was born in the Falklands, (or possibly South Georgia, where his Falkland Islands parents were working, I am not sure).
Do you think that Argentina should be “given back” to your Toba ancestors that it was “stolen” from?
Your suggestion that -
“All life in the islands are still dependent on the services the FIC provides, from Construction,
Court & Bailiff Solutions, Environmental & Safety Solutions, Insurance Services, Haulage & Groundworks, Oil Services, Property & Sites, Retail & Wholesale, Security, Shipping & Logistics, Travel & Tourism, Vehicles, etc.”
- is laughable! You are at least 40 years out of date, and I could list multiple options for each of the sectors that you name.
Liberato… A company can’t be feudal, it’s literally a business. Relying on a company for construction is literally what a country does with Construction Companies all over the globe.
Being paid to construct something is completely different to a monarch collecting taxes.
Lorton, in 1968 the british government were more than willing to transfer sovereignty, if not by the FIC lobby and the antartic interests. The british even suggested to infiltrate argentine funds in the feudal FIC. Being refused from the islands. But no ICJ offer on the part of Britain was mentioned. Your link source is referring to the dependencies offer made earlier that did not included Malvinas.
quote Lord Belstead: As I said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, on 19th April, Argentina has shown no interest in referring the issue of sovereignty over the Falkland Islands to the International Court of Justice, and the British Government have never proposed it. That is the position as concerns the Falkland Islands themselves.
quote:The British Government have never offered to take the dispute over sovereignty in the Falkland Islands to the ICJ.
Keep writing your novel book. I have plenty more british documents that confirm that there were never offering to go to the ICJ or that there were an offering but ignorantly referring to the dependencies case, back in 1954/56.
mollymauk & Zaczac121, Why then, they refused to alow Argentine investors to buy shares of the FIH?. Why were so afraid of?. I thought they wanted argentines to invest in british Falklands.
Zaczac, Feudal is not used as the definition of the word. But as the British business in the colony that control life in the islands.
quoteThatcher has not made it possible for them to acquire land through the breakup of the holdings of the quasi-feudal Falkland Islands Company.
It’s the company’s own choice to refuse Argentine investment, you don’t force private companies to take on investors if they don’t actually want them.
And you have to use Feudal at its definition otherwise what good is a definition of a word? So I can now attach meaning to any word now? Get a grip Liberato, private companies aren’t feudal no matter how spread across industries they are.
Zaczac121, you don’t force private companies to take on investors if they don’t actually want them.. The problem is that the company wanted them, it had the best offer, until the british government and the colonial regime threatened them to block them and close all the FIC commercial licenses and then well, it was unwelcomed.
So, if the company is not feudal and not affect life of the islanders as you suggest. Why so much afraid of having argentine investment on it?. It is quite clear that any investment made in the colonial regime is against Argentina's interests becouse it recognize non argentine laws. So?
Are you having more excuses?.
Libby, the document speaks for itself. Regardless of what people said later, there was an offer during the 1967/68 talks and it was for the Falklands, not the dependencies.
Secretary Haig repeated that offer in 1982.
Your attempts at distortion reveal your ignorance.
Lorton, the document speaks for itself. Yours or mine?. Becouse the documents i linked are yours too.
Libby, the document I presented speaks for itself. An offer was made. That Lord Belstead was unaware of it, is not surprising. Governments are not automatically informed as to the actions of their predecessors. If you recall, in 1982, the Thatcher Government was unaware of the 1978 deployment of a submarine and two frigates by PM Gallaghan. It may seem a strange policy, but I suspect it stops a new government digging up the dirt on the one that just left office.
You produced a Parliamentary answer, not a document. I am surprised that anyone believes was is said in any Parliament/Senate.
Also surprised that you have not yet learned that Mercopress only allows one link.
Lorton, The document you presented serve as a toilet paper, as anything else you write on your book. Well, it is not even written in your book, what you describe as the british offering the ICJ to resolve the matter to Argentina.
But dont trust me. Trust the two links i gave you. Trust your own book that do not mention it either or trust your prime minister Thatcher when she says, and i quote:
”The Prime Minister
I believe that we referred the matter of the dependencies of the Falklands to the International Court of Justice in, I think I am right in saying, 1955. My right hon. and learned Friend will know that both parties have to agree to go to the International Court of Justice for it to adjudicate. We took the case to the Court, but the Argentines did not agree to the jurisdiction of the Court with regard to the dependencies. It is not through any lack of consent on our part that the case has not gone to the International Court of Justice.
If you have a theorie, different by all those suggested by the british government or intelectuals. It would be nice of you to clarify it. Becouse if your theorie is better than the theorie of the UK. You should be named in the Foreign Office at least. Cheers.
The 1967/8 offer was not the 1955 offer, and the 1967/8 offer which was only made public once the 30 year rule passed. Documents beat speeches, any day of the week.
Now let us see you squirm your way out of the same offer made in 1982 by Secretary Haig. Or was he lying when he addressed the US Foreign Affairs Committee?
“So, if the company is not feudal and not affect life of the islanders as you suggest. Why so much afraid of having argentine investment on it?“
It can’t be feudal it’s a private company! Maybe the investment was rejected because they just didn’t want a country that is continuously in economic ruins due to its own failures given a say in a successful company.
Feudalism is also not only when there is a monarch with separate vassals but also when said vassals own the people who live on a land as “serfs”
Serfdom is slavery by definition and the people on the island are not slaves or serfs.
Lorton, like many british that readed a british newspaper, ignorantly thinks that the british took the case of the Malvinas to court in 1955, while it was about its dependencies and the Antartic. Are you one of those guys?.
-I linked Lord Belstead in british parliament saying that the British Government have never proposed it.
-I linked a document made during the Malvinas conflict of Sir Robin Fearn, saying that:
The British Government have never offered to take the dispute over sovereignty in the Falkland Islands to the ICJ.
-I linked Thatcher who was prime minister when asked if the position about the reference of this dispute to the International Court of Justice, and she replied that it was only in 1955 about its dependencies.
I can link even freedman that in The Official History of the Falklands Campaign: War and diplomacy book he specifically deny in page 102 that there was such offer in those years when it says:
It was in this context that reference to the ICJ seemed to hold some advantages. The idea was not new. It had been considered in detail in 1966 with the conclusion that, while the British case was strong enough to withstand a reference, it was still possible that the ICJ might find against Britain. As the court had no attraction for Argentina and its membership was becoming less favourable to Britain, the matter was not pursued. The same view had been taken in 1981. In march 1982,.... the FCO saw inssuficient merit in adopting this strategy.
-I can link your own web with a paper of your friend Stephen Potts, where he says:...Although the UK has never sought a judicial ruling regarding
the Falkland Islands...”
I dont know who else to explain it to you. If you have your mother's telephone number, im sure she can tell you the same.
Libby, you remain confused.
To recap. The Thatcher Government in 1982 did not know about the 1978 deployment by the then Labour Government. And would not have known, under the 30 year rule, until 2008 if ex-PM Callaghan had not mentioned it in the House of Commons in 1982. Something, I suspect Callaghan regretted, as he refused to provide any more details. Hardly surprising then, that the Thatcher Government did not know about the 1967/68 offer regarding the ICJ. A round of negotiations of which details, even today, remain sparse. For example, the 1966 legal advice provided by the Law Officers to that same Labour Government is still unpublished. Re-embargoed as recently as 2016 (a decision that I disagree with).
There is no serious doubt that an offer was made in 1967/68, if only because – within the context of that negotiation – it was the obvious move. If any Government has been keen to offload the Falklands, it was that of Labour before 1978.
Haig's 1982 offer to go to the ICJ was also entirely in context. The obvious offer to make. Undoubtedly, Argentine arrogance in April, 1982, quickly dismissed the opportunity.
Libby, if Argentina will not take its opportunities to go to the ICJ – by lobbying the General Assembly – then the matter is settled.
Lorton, History and Politics are fascinating and it is logic that you must not take what your own government says as a bible and search with your own critic mind. But they have 200 hundred expert diplomatics and specialist treating the topic of this dispute. And if you have the luck to be allowed to see 200 documents in their national archives, they have 201 and you will get the history wrong. So you end up being a compulsive lier trying to keep your own storieto to the end (not the british history) and the only thing you get, is to confuse the people who can read your webpage.
You spend a lot of time making your timeline, (which i couldnt do it myself) with a lot of imagination that, even from the british point of view, are very absurd. You spend quite a time making it, and could be very interesting, even if i dont share your view. But instead, it is full of lies, like the fishermens administering the islands, making it only for propagandistic use.
Do you think Haig's knew about history, the ICJ or about anything?. He was trying to avoid a war for less than one month. And your theorie is that he declared in Bolivia, that there was an offering to the ICJ that was denied by own your government, Lawrence Freedman that investigated all the secrets, your own webpage, and im sure your mother too???.
Be a man, admit you blow it and erase that lie from your web and you will be a little better person. We are not keyboard warriors you know?. We are just opiners in a wordpress web and we f.... it from time to time.
Still whistling in the wind, Libby?
Couple of things to remember -
1) under the 30 year rule, the 1969 document did not become available until after 1999. Freedman does not appear to have seen it, but I will ask him.
2) there is no evidence that Haig lied to his Foreign Affairs Committee. And yes, I am sure that Haig knew his subject well. It was his job, after all.
Bolivia? Haig? Your confusion is showing.
You are beat, and now I have wasted enough time with you.
Go read, and despair
To be honest, there’s not point debating history with Liberato when he seems to think private companies -who have monopolies or arms in several industries on the Falklands- are feudal despite it not being close to that fact at all
As well as continually calling the situation on the islands “colonial” despite the fact the situation on said islands is the same as in Argentina, just more English culture and less economic ruin. The islanders deserve a right to decide their future just as much as Argentinians in their own country do, giving one group it (Argentinians) and not the other (Falklanders) is completely out of order.
It’s current year in the 21st century not the 1800s. Territorial claims mean nothing, it is the people who live on the land that decide it’s fate, not anyone else.
Liberato probably will try to argue the Falklanders shouldn’t have the right despite the fact they are the in the same political situation as the Argies in terms of living on a land they colonised (and considering that weren’t a native population on the Falklands it’s actually the Falklanders who have more rights to the land their on than the Argies on their own)
Zaczac121, quote: It’s current year in the 21st century not the 1800s. Territorial claims mean nothing, it is the people who live on the land that decide it’s fate, not anyone else.
Territorial claims are still in this 21st century. Including Britain that claims vast part of the whole South Atlantic and the Antartic just to mention one region of the planet.
But you are right, It is the 21st century and the UK keeps 10 territories under a colonial situation in a UN process of decolonization.
The oil you put in your car, is literally extracted by British Petroleum in Iraq where British petroleum was not allowed to be there, less to extract its oil, if not for the invasion that killed millons of innocent lives in the process. And dont forget that in this 21 century the british keeps ocupying part of Mauritius, where they mantain a US military base.
Im not trying to play the high moral card here, but before claming about Argentina's territorial claims, you should claim to your own government first that we are in the 21st century to be grabbing others territory (Malvinas), exploiting it (Iraq) or make military bases in them (Mauritius). Just to name a few.
I thought we had done, but not quite it seems.
Specifically, I asked Sir Lawrence Freeman whether he'd ever seen the 1969 document. His answer was that he had not. Because, and I quote, I didn't really go that far back in detail for official History. ... Interestingly Thatcher and Carrington discussed issue at end of March 1982. Carrington warned her we could lose - Thatcher's first recognition that not everyone saw the case as the UK did.
The document speaks for itself. An offer, probably informal, was put during the 1967/68 round of negotiations and rejected by Argentina.
‘claims vast part of the whole South Atlantic and the Antarctic’, yes, long standing British claims, the whole region is British territory and maritime spaces.
Remember that British claims to S. Georgia/S. Sandwich islands, Antarctica and surrounding spaces, are very old, where Argentina’s claims are very new.
The ‘10 territories’ consider themselves self-governing and choose their current status, but hay who care what they think, they only live there, right.
‘British Petroleum’ has been BP for at least 20 years now, or do you mean the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, Ltd?
Mauritius ceded the chagos Islands to the British for money, are they now offering to repay the money at current market rates?
The Americans will be leaving at the end of the lease no question, the Islands are coral atolls and disappearing beneath the waves.
Now, you can only grow coconuts and can’t even graze goats. The remaining fresh water aquifers are very limited and soon to disappear completely.
The ‘Chagossians’ have now twice accepted compensation as full and final settlement for what happened, the third court case was denied.
What has Argentina offered its native inhabitants by way of compensation?
And we are not talking about Iraq or Chagos, we are talking about the S. Atlantic/Antarctic, which, when the British first arrived, was uninhabited, unclaimed and unexplored.
Just as most of what today is called Argentina was at that time, except of course it was not unclaimed or uninhabited.
It is Argentina trying to do the ‘grabbing’ in the S. Atlantic/Antarctic, the British were there long before Argentina ever existed, in any form and the Spanish never went there.
Liberato talking about the Chagos islands and Antarctica as if it’s a “gotcha” moment.
I’ve said this time and time again, it’s the right of the people who live on the lands they occupy to choose their fate. The Falklanders have every right to decide their future, a right that we Brits have given them fully. Argentinians would be completely justified in resisting if suddenly Chile demanded that all of Patagonia should be ceded to them, the same situation applies to the Falklanders who do not share a culture or traditions with the Argentinians who only want the islands for the resources around it. Territorial claims are for the 19th and 20th centuries. The 21st is about the people! Chagos is being solved eventually when the lease to the states runs out… The people on the Falklands, St.Helena, Bermuda, Pitcairn, and Gibraltar want to be British, it is THEIR right to choose that fate, not some overzealous Spaniard with a superiority complex and shit economy.
If you support Democracy it must be for EVERYONE not just the people you like.
Lorton, I have already done with you, i replied zarzac. I quoted Freedman, with the Official Storie and it mentioned with details the two years you mentioned. I quote Thatcher, and we both knows that Maggie would have claimed at the four winds that Argentina refused to go to court. More under a war development. I also quoted your own webpage.
But what you got, its a paper made in Paraguay that claims an offer being made (without specific which, when, how) and the other proof is in the US Foreign Affairs Committee archives that you dont have access but somehow you think i have?. Oh but you have a new proof, which is that talked with Freedman and he told you personally that he didn't really go that far back in detail for official History..
So?, Im glad you asked Freeman or Freedman?. But before Thatcher died, i specifically asked her while she was opening a good scotch and she told me that there was no ICJ offer becouse she thought she would lose. And i said: Really Maggie?, you think so?.
Unfortunately, Thatcher is dead and i lost the celphone number of Freedman, so i coulndt ask him to confirm your version.
The only british i know with that theorie its you and some of your countrymen that confuse the offer to the dependencies with the islands itself.
Pugol-H, Britain created the BIOT three years before Mauritius became independent. So the deal was between Britain and Britain. Do i have to explain it to you how colonialism works?.
Zaczac121, If you support Democracy it must be for EVERYONE not just the people you like.. Ohh you are gonna makes me cry right there!. But, no thank you. I support democracy too but not your democracy, if you know what i mean.
For sure you live in democracy, but you dont spread that democracy!. Instead, you spread other democracy. Should i elaborate or u know what i mean?.
May i suggest that instead of nice words and spread democracy you pay for your oil to Iraq so the money that BP is making goes for the people there?.
Still squirming Libby?
I have spoken to Sir L on a few occasions, although not for a while and I confess to having been a little surprised that he answered so quickly. You do not believe? That's your problem.
The 'Paper from Paraguay' is an official message from the British Embassy to the Foreign Office reporting on Lord Chalfont's visit there in march, 1969. I had not realised that I would need to spell everything out for you.
Who said I didn't have access to the US House Foreign Affairs Committee Paper? I gave you the title, so that you could look it up yourself. However, I have a copy on the blogsite. Only 18 pages, long. You should find the relevant passage on page 9.
Be a man, Libby, or whatever you are, and accept defeat. Argentina has had the chance to go to the ICJ. Still does. All Argentina has to do, is grow some.
I don’t personally condone wars in the Middle East for the interests of corporations. In several messages I’ve posted I’m sure I clarified that I never ever condoned the Iraq war and the fact I see Blair as a war criminal anyway.
As I said before Democracy should be for all, not just likeminded parties. If you have a problem with my view then clearly you aren’t supporting Democracy the way you should.
It seems I need to explain how de-colonisation works.
Prior to independence there was an election and a Mauritian government was formed, which then took over all aspects of running the territory from the colonial administration.
Including agreeing the deal with the British about the Chagos Islands.
Once again you are just making things up.
And what has any of this got to do with the S. Atlantic/Antarctic being established British territory long before Argentina ever existed, in any form.
In the S. Atlantic/S. American cone region, it is the Creole Argentinians who are the ‘implanted population’, not the British or the Kelpers.
That part of the world was a lot better off before your people ever arrived.
“No evidence ever produced to prove that claim.”
But, if I knew that at this time you would be lurking on others coattails, I would have saved the subsequent ‘stool’ for your examination. It’s something your very familiar with, being the ‘clagnut’ that you are.
Still, ‘No evidence ever produced to prove that claim’, then.
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
-.-- . ... / -- .-. / ..-. ..- -.-. -.- .-- .. - - .-.-.- / -. --- .-- / -.. .-. .. -. -.- / -.-- --- ..- .-. / - . .- / .- -. -.. / - .- -.- . / -.-- --- ..- .-. / -- . -.. ... .-.-.-
“And what has he got? A picture of someone else’s Tankard”
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” Christopher Hitchens
FACTS are undeniable!
Exactly, since I'm the only one who has presented a proven fact, that's a no brainer.
With the ability to read Morse
Is there no end to your spectacular failures. My function was to service and repair airborne communications and navigation equipment. With also a special remit of ECM equipment.
Telegraphists were trained to operate, and often maintain, a variety of equipment. These included teleprinters, telephones, radios and computers. As well as being competent & fast touch-typists, Telegraphists were also schooled in the Morse and Murray codes, cryptography, signal propagation and aerial theory. https ://47th.weebly.com/about.html
You still are unable to prove anything you assert, perpetual loser. While providing clear evidence that you are a coattail-riding enabler, who deals in absurdities.
Also, still no evidence it’s your Tankard either.
‘That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence’.
Your dismissed, off you go.
- .. -- . / ..-. --- .-. / .- / -. .- .--. .--. -.-- / -.-. .... .- -. --. . / .- -. -.. / -- . -.. ... / -- .-. / ..-. ..- -.-. -.- .-- .. - -
What's important is proof, your opinion or my facts; it's no contest
“Also, still no evidence it’s your Tankard either.”
Except for the inscription which reads:
No. 18 SQUADRON RAF
“No. 18 Squadron - Valiant equipped C Flight of 199 Squadron renumbered 18 Squadron at Finningley on 17 December 1958 and disbanded 31 March 1963.”
Game, set, and match perpetual loser.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynihan
The best way to win an argument is to begin by being right.
And still no Evidence it’s YOUR Tankard, nobody doubts it exists.
Still, ‘No evidence ever produced to prove that claim’, as well.
Not doing very well here Tel, are you, the old mental faculties slipping a bit are they.
‘That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence’.
“No evidence ever produced to prove that claim”
I have picture of a tankard that is inscribed with my name my squadron, and the date.
“A picture is worth a thousand words.”
You keep making yourself look like an idiot, that round peg is not going to fit a square hole.
All because you choose to align yourself with two fascists.
“What you say about others says a lot about you, research shows
Your perceptions of others reveal so much about your own personality, says Dustin Wood, assistant professor of psychology at Wake Forest and lead author of the study, about his findings
The study appears in the July issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
The researchers found a person's tendency to describe others in positive terms is an important indicator of the positivity of the person's own personality traits.
Seeing others positively reveals our own positive traits, Wood says.
In contrast, negative perceptions of others are linked to higher levels of narcissism and antisocial behavior. A huge suite of negative personality traits are associated with viewing others negatively, Wood says. The simple tendency to see people negatively indicates a greater likelihood of depression and various personality disorders. Given that negative perceptions of others may underlie several personality disorders, finding techniques to get people to see others more positively could promote the cessation of behavior patterns associated with several different personality disorders simultaneously, Wood says.
This research suggests that when you ask someone to rate the personality of a particular.., you may learn as much about the rater providing the personality description. The level of negativity the rater uses in describing the other person, may indeed, but may also be a tip off that the rater is unhappy, disagreeable, neurotic -- or has other negative personality traits.
”It is not any kind proof that you did any kind of military service.”
Except for the inscription which reads:
No. 18 SQUADRON RAF
Hmm, your unproven assertion, or my proof of being a Cold War Warrior, that’s a no brainer.
“An assertion is a statement offered as a conclusion without supporting evidence. Since an argument is defined as a logical relationship between premise and conclusion, a simple assertion is not an argument.”
Ignoring the Burden of Proof http ://learn.lexiconic.net/fallacies/index.htm
Commenting for this story is now closed.If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!
Get our news on your inbox!