MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Falkland Islands: Refurbishing starts on Mount Pleasant runway
A contractor has started working on a £7m project to extend the lifespan of the runway at the Mount Pleasant Complex (MPC) airfield in the Falkland Islands until it can be fully re-laid in the coming years, the British Government reported Monday. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesPresumably this is illegal, and an outrage against the legitimate rights of Argentina....etc, etc. Where have all the lunatics gone ?
Feb 21st, 2023 - 11:20 am - Link - Report abuse +6@Msummers Yes, its ilegal since your country evicted an inocent population of port louis in 1833.
Feb 21st, 2023 - 07:38 pm - Link - Report abuse -10According to Rosalyn Higgins, former British judge and former President of the International Court of Justice: ‘Until it is determined where territorial sovereignty lies, it is impossible to see if the inhabitants have the right of self-determination’. (International Law and the Avoidance, Containment and Resolution of Disputes. General Course on Public International Law’, Hague Academy of International Law Collected Courses, 1991, vol. 230, p. 174).
So yeah, not good relationships. They can build whatever defense system they want. that as long as the sovereignty dispute exists, Pandora's box will remain open waiting for the smallest window of opportunity, change in the balance of forces, global geopolitical change or carelessness.
Could extend the Stanley run way while they are there with all that equipment.?
Feb 21st, 2023 - 08:04 pm - Link - Report abuse +4.
Its a shame Argentina refuses to go to The International court. The Falkland islands wants them to but they know their case is weak and they would loose the sovereignty dispute , they are cowards and cheats hiding behind fantasy claims and bullying tactics instead
AC, stop lying your false statement has been debunked over and over again,
Feb 21st, 2023 - 08:22 pm - Link - Report abuse +1@JC false statements for your pamphlet... not for history and legal facts.
Feb 21st, 2023 - 09:12 pm - Link - Report abuse -2AC, straight out of Donald Trumps handbook, repeat a lie enough times and people start believing it, that is exactly what you and your extreme nut job government has done for years starting off with the indoctrination of your children at school., a certain Mr Hitler did the same in the 1930s , Argentina has never owned the Falklands, its a myth and lie, there was no eviction of anyone other than your 24 murdering soldiers who tried to take the islands by force, but you already know this , but it doesnt suite your narrative, there is no legal document anywhere that says the islands are yours, pure fantasy, and on top of that you lost a war, their is no pandoras box, just a few thousand fantasists that cant accept reality, your own government said they will never try to take the islands by force, are they lying, the islanders will never have to fear Argentina ever again, there will be no Geopolitical change, no window of opportunity and no collapse in the defence of the islands, any attempt will be obliterated, so cut the bull take your case to the ICJ and get laughed out of court, put your money where your mouth ang go to court,
Feb 21st, 2023 - 09:42 pm - Link - Report abuse +6@JC i think ur who repeat the lie and idoctrinate.
Feb 21st, 2023 - 10:58 pm - Link - Report abuse -4But ur right at one thing, both countrys shuld go to the ICJ for finaly solve the dispute and determine where territorial sovereignty lies and see if the right of self determination apply to the population of falkland islands.. As your own country ICJ judge R.Higgens say “‘Until it is determined where territorial sovereignty lies, it is impossible to see if the inhabitants have the right of self-determination’. (International Law and the Avoidance, Containment and Resolution of Disputes. General Course on Public International Law ”.
The matter its your country refuse to acept the ICJ jurisdiction, and oh casuality Voila, they acepted to go to the icj abaut this issue for the antartic dependencys.. they dont acept to solve the dispute abaut malvinas because they havent argument and would lose...
Pure fantasy, AC, go to court and stop winging , the Falklanders will win 100%, deal with it,
Feb 21st, 2023 - 11:30 pm - Link - Report abuse +3If Argentina has an argument - legal, historical or geographical - it should go to the ICJ.
Feb 21st, 2023 - 11:55 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Marcelo Kohen, however, has apparently advised the Argentine Government NOT to go to the ICJ. Presumably, not because he feared them winning?
https://www.clarin.com/politica/gobierno-postulo-abogado-argentino-juez-corte-internacional-justicia_0_Vp6jmckiC.html
No, the uk Refuse to acept the ICJ jurisdiction, same as they did with chagos islands..
Feb 22nd, 2023 - 12:37 am - Link - Report abuse -6Abaut the territorial dispute with argentina, they only acept go to the cort for the artantic dependencys not for the malvinas islands.. they havent bases for a case thats why they dont acept go to the ICJ for the malvinas island. and we are here with an open territorial dispute.
Argentine citizen, the situation in the Indian Ocean is hugely different. Not only that, your “settlement” in 1833 had twice been asked by the rightful owners to leave. Argentina, much as she did in 1982 when the UN issued UN Res 502, chose to ignore the warnings. The Falklands have been British since 1765, when the first British settlement was established. Please, bear in mind that “Argentina”, in 1833 was little more than a bunch of disparate states, clustered around the mouth of the River Plate. Even by 1840, the country had not managed to spread beyond the Rio Negra. Argentina refuses to go to the ICJ, because she knows she will lose.
Feb 22nd, 2023 - 08:00 am - Link - Report abuse +2ArgieZit
Feb 22nd, 2023 - 08:55 am - Link - Report abuse +6The UK offered to take the Falklandes to the ICJ in both 1968 and 1982. Argentina refused to go. As for refusing to accept ICJ jurisdiction, the same option that Mauritius used is available to Argentine. That is, that Argentina can lobby the UN for a question to be put to the ICJ. Such a question could ask the ICJ for its advisory opinion on, say, sovereignty. Or the applicability of self-determination. Or the definition of 'peoples'.
Argentina's failure to take such an option suggest that your government already knows the likely outcome.
@FitzRoy your country only had a settlemen at Port Egdmont in 1765. The installation of the settlement was illegal, since it violated several International Treaties in force at that time; it was clandestine, since it remained hidden until the Spanish managed to find it; it was late since the French colonization of Puerto Soledad preceded it by almost 2 years; it was partial, being confined to only one site on a small island and it was brief and fragmented, being inhabited from 1766 to the mid-1770s and then between September 1771 and May 1774. Furthermore, the Spanish Crown resisted the British Presence, protesting at every turn, expelling the garrison in 1770, removing the protest plaque in 1776, and razing its buildings in 1780.
Feb 22nd, 2023 - 06:21 pm - Link - Report abuse -3Your country, made a departure agreement with Spain (Masserano-Rochtford agreement) and left the port of Egdmont in 1774.
However, leaving all this aside, for international law the Falkland Islands were Nullis land in 1820 when Argentina develops its settlement in Port Louis.
With or without an exit agreement, with or without a legitimate English presence in 1765, with or without prior Spanish possession.
For international law the islands were TerraNullis, and there was an acquisitive prescription.
Between 1774 and 1829 (the first English protest) 55 years of silence passed. Time by which people were born there, and a town of 200 people developed.
It should also be noted that the United Kingdom attacked an innocent civilian town on a totally different island and on which it had never had sovereignty at 300 kilometers and where it had never had any type of settlement... Let's remember that the supposed plate that they left in port egdmont, individually mentioned the location of said settlement.
Feb 22nd, 2023 - 06:23 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Situation that would later be reflected in the memorandums of the foregging office, the subsequent negotiations of the 70s“ and the statements of their own diplomats such as John Troutbeck ”...our takeover of the Malvinas Islands in 1833 was so arbitrary [. ..] that it is therefore not easy to explain our position without showing ourselves as international bandits”.
More lies AC, an international buisness venture was on the islands led by a German, and a Brit, but you already know this, also you know full well that Vernet asked Britain permission to go to the islands and then he left, lie after lie after lie, You are wasting your life on a myth and a lie, and you lost a WAR, that is the end, you can cry whinge moan complain twist and distort the truth all you want but it will achieve NOTHING, instead of being a petty little angry man show the islanders some love and remorse and relations can thaw, otherwise grow up and go to court with your pathetic dubious claim,
Feb 22nd, 2023 - 06:35 pm - Link - Report abuse +1I think both countries should accept ICJ jurisdiction to prove who held the titles in 1833 at the time of the English occupation.
Feb 22nd, 2023 - 09:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And determine if the principle of self-determination applies to the current population and end this open sovereignty dispute regardless of the outcome.This will allow both countries to begin an era of peace.
The vast majority of the Argentine population does not want this, they consider the islands an integral part of the territory of the country under foreign occupation, and the passion to recover it is so frantic that they even dream of immolating themselves for the cause, even knowing the differences in power with the United Kingdom.
A large proportion refuse any negotiation in court, because even winning would imply recognizing fundamental rights and concessions.
I suppose that in the same way that the islanders would not accept any negotiation in an international court due to the risk of losing rights in the event that the ruling proves Argentine possession in 1833.
AC. last year a friend of mine went to a motorcycle Grand Prix in Argentina, after being at the circuit he got talking friendly with a group of Argentine fans, after an hour the Falklands subject cropped up, it lasted about 3 seconds before the subject changed, Argentine fan said we have no interest in the subject, its your crack pot extreme nut job government that keep your so called issue alive, normal people have more important things to think about, they all went and had a barbeque together, no interest in the islands what so ever,
Feb 22nd, 2023 - 09:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@ KP I do not know the specific conversation that your friend had, or if out of respect they tried to be politically correct with him.
Feb 22nd, 2023 - 10:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Here there is no small town, city or community that does not have monuments on the islands, signs indicating the distance in kilometers from each town to the islands.
A large proportion of the cars that circulate on the street carry stickers with the legend “we will return” and the logo of the islands.
Every April 2, in each city of the country, self-convened conglomerations are held, waving the Argentine flag with the islands.
In each soccer match, recital or massive gathering, the nationalist masses sing, mentioning the territory and making allusions to leaving life.
In fact, even in the Defacto government of Galtieri imposed by the United States... that tortured the civilian population and threw them from planes... despite the repudiation they had of him... when he recovered them by force in 1982... there was no rift on the matter and everyone lined up
Only because your stupid Government never shuts up about the subject, its called indoctrination of the masses and whipping up nationalism. patriotism yes nationalism no.
Feb 22nd, 2023 - 11:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No, nobody is idoctrinated.. or in any case you are idoctrinated by british propaganda with that criteria you argument..
Feb 23rd, 2023 - 12:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0Inside the minds of many English nationalists, always All those who have disputes with the United Kingdom and complain about the robberies are indoctrinated people according to the thinking of some fanatics who raise that logic that they argue.
The islanders of Chagos complain because they were expelled from their homes and even killed their pets with gas... Voila!, they are indoctrinated...
In another example, in 1869 the English ship HMS Topaze, which had left the Malvinas port weeks before, made a stopover on Easter Island. They raped the women of the Rapanui community and on the night of November 7, while looting the city, they stole a Moai (Hoa Hakananai'a) and took it by boat to the British Museum.
The Rapanui people still demand the repatriation and return of their stolen art... and... Voila!, they are indoctrinated for making such a demand..
Do you realise how silly you sound, nobody is taught anything about the Falklands ever, not at school not at college not at university, probably makes news on TV about twice a year, how is that indoctrination, foolish statement The Chagos situation is completely irrelevant and not remotely a similar situation. your arguments are getting desperate and quite frankly bizarre, a rape in 1869 good grief, how about all you Spanish/.Italian Argies that raped and pillaged and murdered its way through Latin America and stole the land from the true native owners, seek out some professional help for de programming, all Spanish, Italian, Portuguese leave latin America, return to Europe and return the land to its rightful owners.
Feb 23rd, 2023 - 12:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0We do not steal anything from any native people, in fact our constitution is written in 3 aboriginal languages and we have good ties with the natives.
Feb 23rd, 2023 - 12:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0In any case, it would have been Spain.
Here we all know very well the historical background of the sovereignty dispute, any ordinary citizen knows about the atrocity of 1833... Unlike the soldiers who fought for you and did not even know where the islands were on the map... Anyone English citizen of the United Kingdom, mostly, if you ask them where the islands are, they don't know how to locate them on the map..:
we are nott in 1869, we are on 2023.. and the british museum still not give back the stolen moai to the poor rapanui people.. they are idoctrinated for theyr claim on your opinion?
AC, you should to be on TV as a comedian, that is hilarious,
Feb 23rd, 2023 - 01:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentine citizen you may be interested to know that when your country owned slaves it was not just African imported slaves but indigenous ones as well.When The British arrived some several indigenous slaves from South America were liberated. They chose not to return as slaves to Argentina. The first citizen of the Falkland islands to swear loyalty to the British flag was Antonina Roxa, an indigenous princess from a native tribe of your country. She is regarded as the mother of the nation. Some of the women had happy marriages to British sailors and had large families. Most Falkland Islanders are descended from these first families. Dna proves it. As such you are a colonial occupier of Argentina and Falkland islanders are decendants of your slaves, but they will nevetr be your slaves again !
Feb 23rd, 2023 - 03:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0@King Penguin
Feb 23rd, 2023 - 08:05 am - Link - Report abuse +1I understand your misinterpretation, due to lack of historical knowledge.
Argentina never had slaves..
We became independent from Spain in 1810 and immediately declared freedom in 1813. Slavery was later formally abolished in 1853 with the constitution.
Those who had slaves were the Spaniards in the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata.
We became independent from them in 1810, in fact with the help of the gauchos, mulattoes, and black slaves who helped us to reveal ourselves from Spain.
They also collaborated extensively to prevent the colonization of Buenos Aires between 1806 and 1807 by your country, the evil plan of the United Kingdom was to transform us into an English colony as they did in India, America and other countries that you enslaved...
Fortunately, thanks to the Creoles, gauchos, mulattoes and black slaves, we were able to reveal ourselves and get rid of Spain and the United Kingdom (almost totally).
The settlement they maintain in the Malvinas is a small part of what they tried to colonize and failed in 1806, 1807 and 1845.
Your country, on the other hand, continued to have slaves until 1833, and continued to apply slavery practices throughout the world, from India, to the apharteid in South Africa, ending recently in 1970 with the humanitarian crime they committed against the islanders of Mauritius, not only did they enslave some of those poor islanders, they made a food blockade to their island generating hundreds of deaths due to famine... and later they gassed all the animals and/or pets on the island with poison gas.
You will probably say that it is an isolated fact... however, it is a chain of evidence of colonization along the world.
+1
Feb 23rd, 2023 - 03:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0-+
Argentine citizen
You need to get up to speed on your history.
Britain did not invade you in 1833. They came to tell the military garrison that had been put in there to leave British sovereign soil.
The civilians were offered the chance to stay and almost all of them chose to stay because they said the British would treat and pay them better than the spanish had done.
So no there was no invasion , just an enforcement of the law that what is now Argentina broke the day they installed that garrison. Just as they ate doing today. Breaking an international law my militarization of the Antarctic bases that Argentina have permission to access.
Great Britain did not invade you in 1833 [by pascope&pepper and new british trys to modify history after 82' , before 1970 are antecedents of your own diplomats and historians aknowledging an atrocius act of force]. They came to tell the military garrison [by P&P ?] that had been posted there to leave British sovereign soil [by convenient british view].
Feb 23rd, 2023 - 06:09 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Civilians were offered the chance to stay and almost all chose to stay because they said the British would treat and pay them better than the Spanish. [this had no sense, and not even need an aswer, british ocupation resulted on an eviction of the 90% of the population.. same as putin made with donbass ucranian region today, and he celebrate anexion referendums with remanent pro russian]
Well I am relieved to see the lunatics are alive and well. It would be a dangerous business if Argentina was led by people who had a clue.
Feb 23rd, 2023 - 06:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@mike summers Well, for us you are the lunatics, that is precisely why it is an open territorial dispute, we both agree to disagree with the other party's version. There are no good or bad, just different interpretations of history and evidence.
Feb 23rd, 2023 - 06:44 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Notice Argentine Citizen has two accounts set up as he often further replies to his own questions before someone else has answered. He uses Argentine_Citizen as his second account. Bet if Mervopress knew that there would be action.
Feb 23rd, 2023 - 09:54 pm - Link - Report abuse +1@Falklands-Free we're twins!! two different people, different users
Feb 23rd, 2023 - 10:24 pm - Link - Report abuse -2“british ocupation resulted on an eviction of the 90% of the population”
Feb 24th, 2023 - 05:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0The civilians, 100% of them, were offered the opportunity to stay.
Some civilians left, but no civilians were forced to leave.
0% of the civilian population was “evicted”. Not 90%.
Not 90% of the military population was evicted, 100% of the military population was evicted.
Forcing a military force to leave is no travesty of human justice. Those poor soldiers?
Just crying out, “90% of the population was evicted!” is not a “different interpretation” but a dishonest twisting of the numbers.
Typical weasels.
@bushpilot {“90% of the population was evicted!” it is not a “different interpretation” but a dishonest misrepresentation of the numbers. }
Feb 24th, 2023 - 09:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0According to our own historical records that we have, added to the own recognitions of their own ukdiplomats that it was an act of unjustifiable aggression.
According to our vision, the misrepresentation is made by you. . .
I am glad that we are finally reaching the point of the issue that divides us. And that we agree, that we disagree.
We would be interested in proposing to go to court, to be able to analyze the events of 1833 and evaluate whether the United Kingdom was in possession of the sovereign rights of the islands at that moment when the English ship HMS clio made port and analyze these alleged misrepresentations that you comment.
Argentine_citizen. Argentine citizen
Feb 24th, 2023 - 09:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0Britain did in fact have full sovereign rights. Rights that were in place in over a hundred years before your lot started claiming them.
In fact, Given that you claim Spain had all possession of the whole of the south Atlantic area then does seem rather strange that both Britain and France were established on the islands. I notice the Spanish invaded port Edgmont and kicked the British out, yet they never invaded the French at port Louis, now I wonder why that was so.
Oh dear I keep forgetting that both France and Spain hated the British at the time. Strange how Britain came to Frances rescue many years later during world wars.
Sadley you have not been told the truth. The truth that when Spain decided to give up trying to colonise the islands when Britain threatened military action to remove them. They did not at any time hand the islands to what is today Argentina. Because Spain admitted they never owned them.
Argentina has since it became an independent country, invaded the entire length of South America killing and stealing untill it removed all the indigenous people.
Was you ever taught that part of your shady history. Could it be that history is the very fact your country has never actually took your claim to the ICJ. Could it be that you would be humiliated and that your present day lenders would withdraw if it was proven you are in fact trying to land grab.
Could it be that your regime would end up in a civil war when the innocent of Argentina learned the truth.
So much to loose, that is why Argentina has never went to the ICJ.
Argentine Citizen
Feb 24th, 2023 - 12:24 pm - Link - Report abuse +1The point of whether Britain or Argentina or Spain or France had sovereign rights in 1833 is no more than a historic opinion, unless you wish all countries to return to historic borders at any date in history you pick against the will of the people who live there. Argentina in 1833 was much smaller than it is today.
Sovereignty of an area in 1833 was almost universally agreed that if you could put a working population on a free space, it was yours...if you couldn't it wasn't.
Given that at least between 1820-1828 we would agree that the islands were all but empty I would happily concede that any historic claim, be it Spanish, French, British or even the ridiculous “inherited from Spain” really do not stand to scrutiny.
We should also agree, that whatever was on the islands in November 1832 was not a working Argentine population. It was the remnants of a failed business venture, led by a British Matthew Brisbane, aligned to no particular state.
The rag-tag militia sent by Argentina in November 1832, cannot really be considered a working Argentina population, they had already mutinied and murdered the governor and raped his wife, and had only been there 10 weeks.
So, your argument lives or dies on the Vernet business between 1828-1831...three years in the history of the islands.
-Was this business ever a “working Argentine community”?
-Was it still a working Argentine community in 1833?
-Did the business constitute Argentine sovereignty?
Vernet himself changed his opinion on the subject at least three times, depending on which way the wind blew, and was recompensed by the UK government for his business losses...never recognizing he was a representative of the Argentine state on the islands.
So..you pick a tiny window of history, misrepresent the provable facts, and use it to claim a sovereignty against the wishes of the current population 200 years later.
If they are the rules, every single m2 of land on earth has no provable sovereignty
@monkeymagic A brainy moment, according to pascope&pepper it turns out that the Argentine settlement between 1820-1833 that had more than 200 people, and obviously around 35 in 1833 as a result of the disbandment and attack of the uss lexington shortly before the arrival of the hms clio. And with 55 years of silence on the part of the United Kingdom until its first late protest in 1829. Added to the spy visits of HMS Beagle in 1831 that contradict pasocpe&peper since in their blog they say that it was a prosperous population.
Feb 24th, 2023 - 04:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But it turns out that the clandestine, temporary and 100% military settlement that you had in port egdmont without a civilian population and that you later abandoned if it is legitimate... is an argumentative self-contradiction
@FF probably refers to the UK settlement at Port Egdmont (on Sunders Island)
Feb 24th, 2023 - 06:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A 100% military settlement with no civilian population that arrived 2 years late since the town of Port Louis already existed.
And a settlement that was inhabited between 1766 and 1770 (4 years).. and that was abandoned by you through an exit agreement with Spain (masserano-rochtford)..
But it turns out that in your line of argument, that settlement was legitimate... but that was not the case with the Argentine settlement between 1820-1833, which had 200 inhabitants and at the time of the expulsion about 35 between civilians and military personnel.
Good luck argumenting that the Argentine settlement was not legitimate, after 55 years of English silence and without any sovereign argument in 1833... because what you base on the Port Egdmont settlement is lazy papers.
Argentine citizen,
Feb 26th, 2023 - 08:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If you are so sure of your case...why lie?
There was no population on the islands between 1820-1826 (so half the time you claim is a complete lie), Between 1827-1829 there were a couple of expeditions to the islands, no population...another fabrication by you.
Vernet arrived in 1829, he was well aware of conflicting claims of Argentina and Britain and played one against the other. His business ran for only 2 years until (as you correctly say) he left in 1831 after the Lexington raid, leaving the British Matthew Brisbane in charge.
So, your claim of a 200 strong Argentine population from 1820-1831 is pure falsehood.
There was a business on the islands from 1829-1831, that failed, and its remnants were being managed by a British citizen in 1832. None of the remnants of the business were evicted.
So, sadly you are so unsure of your argument, you had to lie to make it stronger......
speaks volumes.....
oh really? if are lies, make the UK go to the icj where they can prove it.. convince your politicians to acept the ICJ jurisdiction for the malvinas issue and not only for the adyacent islands and antartic territory
Feb 26th, 2023 - 10:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The UK doesnt have to do anything...the islanders have the islands and Argentina is little more than a stench in the room.
Feb 26th, 2023 - 11:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You know they are lies, Argentina was never in possession of the islands less still a 200 strong Argentine population for 13 years as you insinuate..there was a private business, which failed, the tiny remnants of which was run by the British Matthew Brisbane, none of whom were evicted.
You know it, I know it.......which is why I know you are lying and so do you.
Poor you, lying on a faceless forum on the internet....sorry for you Tobias
there was no private business.
Feb 27th, 2023 - 01:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0I am waiting for you to give me your arguments that the United Kingdom possessed the rights of sovereignty in 1833 or some argument that comes close to a right of possession.
“I am waiting for you to give me your arguments that the United Kingdom possessed the rights of sovereignty in 1833”
Feb 27th, 2023 - 11:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0How about the US official view.
“As late as 1886 the Secretary of State found it necessary to inform the Argentine Government that as “the resumption of actual occupation of the Falkland Islands by Great Britain in 1833 took place under a claim of title which had been previously asserted and maintained by that Government, it is not seen that the Monroe Doctrine, which has been invoked on the part of the Argentine Republic, has any application to the case. By the terms in which that principle of international conduct was announced, it was expressly excluded from retroactive operation.”
P.60 Sovereignty and the Falkland Islands Crisis D.W. Greig
The argument of saying that there was no Argentine population between 1820-1826 trying to bring down Argentine sovereignty in this way is funny.
Feb 27th, 2023 - 11:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0So if this is so, what was the existing British population on the islands?
They also conveniently do not mention the years of Spanish occupation without British protest.
If they did not discover the islands - any British sailor knows that John Davis's coordinates do not lead to the islands - and furthermore they were not occupied by the British, then how do they justify their sovereignty? No one has yet been able to justify the aggression of 1833.
1833, thats because there was a Multi national settlement led by a German and a Brit.no Argentine town,
Feb 27th, 2023 - 02:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@ Juan Cervantes
Feb 27th, 2023 - 02:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0He was unaware that the nationality of people determined the sovereignty of a place.
So London, due to the number of arab and muslim citizens, does not belong to the United Kingdom.
Capisce...?
1833 ?. one of your least impressive arguments,
Feb 27th, 2023 - 03:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If we are talking about the sovereignty in 1800s and who was there at the time first then all the European settlers in Argentina should leave as it belongs to the indigenous people who your first president fought some nasty wars with to take their land. At one stage Argentina had more black slaves than any other South American country,, even the church had slaves!Argentina is now its the whitest, The reason ? When emancipation came slaves had to join the army and fight the indigenous people , many were killed , many slaves were exported to other South American countries as well.https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/display/document/obo-9780199766581/obo-9780199766581-0157.xml
Feb 27th, 2023 - 08:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!