Argentina invites British diplomat to Buenos Aires

Jun 8, 2012 Full story: WHBF-TV Rock Island 185

The two men accused of beating a San Francisco Giants fan after last season's opening day game at Dodger Stadium were ordered to stand trial Friday on charges stemming from the brutal attack.

Full Story
francisco

Argentina

#22 Jun 10, 2012
dEANSTREET wrote:
<quoted text>
Francesca,
you really oughta get something done about your fixation with sheep - do you fancy ewes or rams..?
Anyway, back to the ICJ..
Just imagine if in the late 1940s through to the mid 1950s argentina had accepted the the invitation/request to use the ICJ to settle this particular aspect of the dispute and won the case..
Imagine it...
The Falkland Islands problem would have collapsed like a card house...
Britain would have had absolutely no choice but to hand over the Islands...
But what happened, argentina ran, and ran as fast as its very little legs could carry it..
It gave out the (in my opinion the correct) that argentina had absolutely no confidence then in its legal case.
Somebody else in this topic also mentioned the makeup of the Court at the time was not favourable to argentina...
Well, argentina has had nearly 60 years to choose its time to say yes to ICJ, but you have never done it.
You have to ponder this, scratch your head and ask the simple question - WHY..?
The only reason that one can come up with is, that again, argentina does not have a case strong enough to present to the ICJ.
Kindest regards
En aquellos años reclamabamos tod el paquete oveja ridicula!.

Y lo seguimos haciendo!.

No vamos a discutir lo que ustedes nos impongan, si no todo el problema en toda su extensión.

Ustedes son los unicos que corren aqui....

Y muy lejos esta una oveja como vos de poder acusar a mi país de cobardia cuando sabes muy bien que jamas impulsariamos un proceso ante la CIJ porque sabemos que ustedes no irian alli de todas formas.

Además, en una muestra más de tu total cobardia. Aún sabiendo que tal prceso es imposible de llevarse a cabo. Igual, por si las dudas, dijiste "We refuse...".

No se puede llevarlos a juicio, pero su remota posibilidad igual
te hace cagar en las patas ovinas que tenes!.

Oveja....

Luis Vernet

Buenos Aires, Argentina

#23 Jun 10, 2012
Biter wrote:
Good morning Diego
Discussion is pointless at the moment due to Argentinas constitution. It does not leave room for negotiation.
Argentina has 4 options I can see.
1) Win the hearts and minds of the Falkland Island people. I would suggest this option will be difficult following the invasion of 1982. It might be possible in 30-40 years, but Argentina is still today building hate using trade blockades against the population so maybe this option will not be available for 70-80 years.
2) Take a military option again and use force. Impossible at the moment. But you could build a sufficient armed force in 5 - 10 years. Of course at this point Great Britain will also have 2 Super Carriers and Satellites will make suprise very hard, so any convoy would be at the mercy of hunter killer submarines. A huge parachute drop might be possible though, but again only if intelligence did not know about it.
3) Go to the IJC and take it through the courts. This option seems unlikely as Great Britain does not look at desputes before 1974. Even if they would the legal case for Argentina is also weak, resting on only very two debated points. Argentinas government would not risk going to court and loosing. Loosing would end that government (politicians are selfish and greedy whatever the nation)
4) Keep raising the subject at the United Nations (U.N). This will never actually achieve anying in Argentinas favour. And it makes Argentina look colonialist, strengthening world opinion against it. The U.N will not over rule the rights of the Falkland Islands population. The U.N is itself a weak organisation with no power.
Have a nice weekend.
Best Regards
Biter
Muy interesante, Biter.
La pregunta que tengo es ¿de qué invasión en 1982 estás hablando?
Las Islas Malvinas, territorios y mares adyacentes, son de soberanía Argentina. Las mismas fueron invadidas y usurpadas el 3 de Enero de 1833. Desalojando a la población y gobierno Argentino que las habitaba para que nada Argentino floreciera en ella jamás e transplantando en ellas a una población netamente Pirata(Británica).
Lo que hicímos en 1982 fué legalizar la situación sobre parte de nuestro territorio usurpado y posterior defenza del mismo.
Sin quitarle la vida a nadie.
Cosa que uds. NO hicieron.¡Asesinos!
Región del planeta que es maldecida por vuestra presencia no deja más que MUERTE y DESOLACION.¡Asesinos!
Como te podrás dar cuenta NADIE invade lo que le és propio.
De todas formas, gracias por tu aporte. Te lo podés guardar bién guardado en el fondo de la parte trasera de tu anatomía.¡Asesino!
Atte.,
Luís Vernet.
Terry Hill

São Paulo, Brazil

#25 Jun 10, 2012
Luis Vernet wrote "Muy interesante, Biter.

Read it and weep. Oh! don't let the facts get in the way of a good argument.

False Falklands History at the United Nations How Argentina misled the UN in 1964 – and still does © 2012 by Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper

page 3

Ruda stated in 1964 that the expedition “only prospered
partially”, but in fact it was a total failure....... From the time of the departure of Oviedo and the last gauchos, there was no one from Argentina in the
Falklands for two years until June 1826, when Vernet arrived
with a second expedition to recover his lost investment. He
refounded the settlement at Port Louis and thus gave
Argentina a claim to the islands.

3. Britain did not expel the Argentine population
from the Falklands in 1833. In fact Britain did its
best to persuade genuine residents to stay.

In August 1832 the British government ordered the
Admiralty to arrange annual visits to the Falklands by “one of
His Majesty’s ships”.5 There was no intention to occupy the
islands permanently, as British policy at that time opposed
further commitments overseas. The yearly visits were to
maintain British rights in the Falklands and to forestall any
threat to British trade routes to the Pacific – the government
was worried by American activity in the Falklands.

The American intervention led the British government to
order annual visits by Royal Navy ships to the Falklands. The
first was by the corvette HMS Clio, which arrived at Port
Louis in January 1833. Her captain, John James Onslow, had
been ordered to command any “foreign force” to leave, but
not to molest any civilian inhabitants – his orders stated:

… you are not to disturb them in their agricultural or
other inoffensive employments.6

Onslow was in fact very anxious that they should stay – he
states in his report:7

I had great trouble to Pursuade 12 of the Gauchos to
remain on the Settlement, otherwise cattle could not
have been caught, and the advantages of refreshments
to the shipping must have ceased....

to be continued
Terry Hill

São Paulo, Brazil

#26 Jun 10, 2012
Luis Vernet wrote "Muy interesante, Biter.

False Falklands History at the United Nations How Argentina misled the UN in 1964 – and still does © 2012 by Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper

page 3 continued

..The only group Onslow did expel was a 26-man
Argentine garrison (with their 11 women and 8 children) that
had come in the armed schooner Sarandí as an Argentine
response to the visit by the Lexington. They arrived on 6
October 1832 and left on 4 January 1833, so they had been
there for less than three months. Moreover, the British
ambassador in Buenos Aires had made an official diplomatic
protest to Argentina when he heard of their departure for the
Falklands.8
They had not exactly been peaceful – on 30 November
1832 some of them mutinied, brutally murdered their
commanding officer, Major Esteban Mestivier, plundered the
settlement and terrorised the civilian population, eight of
whom sought refuge aboard the British schooner Rapid.

pues no hay graza à causa de no poder salir à carnear por qe no hay
caballos. Con decirle à V qe estamos pereciendo, he concluido.”
1
Letter in German, 8 April 1824, from Emilio Vernet at Port Louis
to his brother Louis Vernet, AGN Sala VII, legajo 132, doc. 8.
2
Areguati never referred to himself as governor, nor by any other
official rank. This is confirmed by Argentine historian Mario Tesler
in “Gobernadores que nunca fueron”[“Governors Who Never
Were”], Clarín, Buenos Aires, 6 June 1974.
3
AGN Sala III, Capitanía del Puerto, legajo 17.
4
AGN Sala VII, legajo 127, doc. 33.
5
PRO FO 6 499, fols. 166 recto - 166 verso; 168 recto - 169 recto.
They had not exactly been peaceful – on 30 November
1832 some of them mutinied, brutally murdered their
commanding officer, Major Esteban Mestivier, plundered the
settlement and terrorised the civilian population, eight of
whom sought refuge aboard the British schooner Rapid.

6
Admiralty orders to Onslow, PRO Adm 1/2276.
7
Onslow’s report, PRO Adm 1/2276.
8
PRO FO 6 499, fols. 195 recto to 196 recto.
Luis Vernet

Buenos Aires, Argentina

#27 Jun 10, 2012
BritBob wrote:
The Falkland Islands have absolutely nothing to do with Argentina. There has been a continuous British presence on the Falklands since 1833. Argentina and Britain signed a treaty in 1850 called the 'Convention of Settlement' which settled all outstanding differences between the two nations. In the 1870s and 1880s the Argentine government produced maps that either omitted the Falklands or showed them in a different colour acknowledging the they had no claim to the Islands.(See '1882 Latzina Map'). It has only been since the time of Peron in the 1950s that the Argentine government has used the 'Falklands'('Malvinas') issue to distract their people away from economic strife, most of which has been caused by political ineptness.
Nó, estás equivocado.
Desde nuestra independencia de España que tiene TODO que ver...
Las mismas son parte indisoluble de nuestro territorio. Hemos venido reclamando por su restitución desde el 3 de Enero de 1833 hasta el presente.
No importa cuanto tiempo hace que Piratalandia(Gran Bretaña)venga ejerciendo dicha usurpación. Nuestro reclamo territorial tiene tanta antiguedad como vuestra la usurpación misma.
El mapa de Letzina, fué editado para incentivar la inmigración Européa. En el mismo se denomina a nuestro archipiélago por el nombre que le hemos dado y con la toponímia de la época. Lo del color será en detalle de impresión, pero quedate tranquilo que este detalle no significa renuncia de soberanía.
Buscate otra excusa ¡Asesino!
El único derecho que le haciste a Piratalandia(Gran Bretaña)a ejercerla es el derecho de las balas...¡Asesino!
Atte.,
Luís Vernet.
Terry Hill

São Paulo, Brazil

#28 Jun 10, 2012
Luis Vernet tried to write:

"Nó, estás equivocado.Desde nuestra independencia de España

The only acts of piracy enacted in Falklands/Malvinas were by Argentina's agents David Jewett and Louis Vernet against US shipping.
Talking about maps read below.

Getting it right: the real history of the Falklands/Malvinas
A reply to the Argentine seminar of 3 December 2007
by Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper © 2008

page 11

...At that time the Falklands were res nullius,“no one’s property”,5 though there were three limitations to that: Spain still claimed the islands, Britain had a claim dating from the establishment at Port Egmont 50 years earlier, and whether thatwas valid or not, Britain definitely had certain limited rights (of landing, building huts, etc.) under the Nootka Sound Convention with Spain. Britain’s rights under the Nootka Sound Convention were meagre, but they had been upheld through constant use for over 30 years and
were a clear limitation on any other country’s possible claim to full sovereignty....

page 29

...A century later it played a role in the territorial dispute over the Beagle Channel Islands between Argentina and Chile. The Beagle Channel islands (3 small islands at the bottom of the map) were long disputed between Argentina and Chile, but in 1977 a court of arbitration consisting of judges from the International Court of Justice ruled that they belonged to Chile, pointing out (among other things) that they are marked on the 1882 Latzina map as if they were outside Argentina.1 That is noteworthy, given
that the Falklands are also marked in blank beige, just like the three Beagle Channel islands.
Argentina and Chile almost went to war over the Beagle Channel Islands in 1978, but Pope John Paul II intervened and in 1985, after the Falklands War, Argentina accepted the Vatican’s decision that the islands belonged to Chile (though the adjacent sea areas were partly shared). Since Argentina in the end accepted that the Beagle Channel islands were not Argentinian, as the 1882 Latzina map shows, it would seem logical to accept that the Falklands, shown in the same colour, are not Argentinian territory either....

1
Details from “Beagle Channel Arbitration between the Republic of Argentina and the Republic of Chile”, in
International Law Reports, vol. 52, Cambridge 1979, esp. pp. 197-198, 212.
2
Details from the 1880s summarised in the Colonial Report on the Falkland Islands for 1927, London 1928, p. 3.
Luis Vernet

Buenos Aires, Argentina

#29 Jun 10, 2012
Terry Hill wrote:
Luis Vernet wrote "Muy interesante, Biter.
Read it and weep. Oh! don't let the facts get in the way of a good argument.
False Falklands History at the United Nations How Argentina misled the UN in 1964 – and still does © 2012 by Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper
page 3
Ruda stated in 1964 that the expedition “only prospered
partially”, but in fact it was a total failure....... From the time of the departure of Oviedo and the last gauchos, there was no one from Argentina in the
Falklands for two years until June 1826, when Vernet arrived
with a second expedition to recover his lost investment. He
refounded the settlement at Port Louis and thus gave
Argentina a claim to the islands.
3. Britain did not expel the Argentine population
from the Falklands in 1833. In fact Britain did its
best to persuade genuine residents to stay.
In August 1832 the British government ordered the
Admiralty to arrange annual visits to the Falklands by “one of
His Majesty’s ships”.5 There was no intention to occupy the
islands permanently, as British policy at that time opposed
further commitments overseas. The yearly visits were to
maintain British rights in the Falklands and to forestall any
threat to British trade routes to the Pacific – the government
was worried by American activity in the Falklands.
The American intervention led the British government to
order annual visits by Royal Navy ships to the Falklands. The
first was by the corvette HMS Clio, which arrived at Port
Louis in January 1833. Her captain, John James Onslow, had
been ordered to command any “foreign force” to leave, but
not to molest any civilian inhabitants – his orders stated:
… you are not to disturb them in their agricultural or
other inoffensive employments.6
Onslow was in fact very anxious that they should stay – he
states in his report:7
I had great trouble to Pursuade 12 of the Gauchos to
remain on the Settlement, otherwise cattle could not
have been caught, and the advantages of refreshments
to the shipping must have ceased....
to be continued
A ver si entendí bien.
El Sr.Oslow vino y dijo: No los estoy hechando a patadas, pero el que no besa mi bandera y mis votas que empieze a nadar...
Claro, se vé que hizo todo lo posible para que los "genuínos residentes" o séa todos los que se arrodillen a los pies de la Sra.Isabel, podían quedarse NO como Argentinos, por supuesto, pero sí como Piratas(Británicos)claro esa acción no puede ser tomada jamás como un acto de invasión, usurpación, destierro y despojo, no que vá...
Vos te debés creer que estás leyendo un cuento de hadas.
Andá a engañar a otros con tu tergiversación de lo que fué un acto de piratería, invasión, usurpación y destierro.
La única razón para que este delito se haya perpetrado y continúe impune en la actualidad es la supremacía armamentística, sinó, otro sería el cantar.
Atte.,
Luís Vernet.
Luis Vernet

Buenos Aires, Argentina

#30 Jun 10, 2012
Terry Hill wrote:
Luis Vernet wrote "Muy interesante, Biter.
False Falklands History at the United Nations How Argentina misled the UN in 1964 – and still does © 2012 by Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper
page 3 continued
..The only group Onslow did expel was a 26-man
Argentine garrison (with their 11 women and 8 children) that
had come in the armed schooner Sarandí as an Argentine
response to the visit by the Lexington. They arrived on 6
October 1832 and left on 4 January 1833, so they had been
there for less than three months. Moreover, the British
ambassador in Buenos Aires had made an official diplomatic
protest to Argentina when he heard of their departure for the
Falklands.8
They had not exactly been peaceful – on 30 November
1832 some of them mutinied, brutally murdered their
commanding officer, Major Esteban Mestivier, plundered the
settlement and terrorised the civilian population, eight of
whom sought refuge aboard the British schooner Rapid.
pues no hay graza à causa de no poder salir à carnear por qe no hay
caballos. Con decirle à V qe estamos pereciendo, he concluido.”
1
Letter in German, 8 April 1824, from Emilio Vernet at Port Louis
to his brother Louis Vernet, AGN Sala VII, legajo 132, doc. 8.
2
Areguati never referred to himself as governor, nor by any other
official rank. This is confirmed by Argentine historian Mario Tesler
in “Gobernadores que nunca fueron”[“Governors Who Never
Were”], Clarín, Buenos Aires, 6 June 1974.
3
AGN Sala III, Capitanía del Puerto, legajo 17.
4
AGN Sala VII, legajo 127, doc. 33.
5
PRO FO 6 499, fols. 166 recto - 166 verso; 168 recto - 169 recto.
They had not exactly been peaceful – on 30 November
1832 some of them mutinied, brutally murdered their
commanding officer, Major Esteban Mestivier, plundered the
settlement and terrorised the civilian population, eight of
whom sought refuge aboard the British schooner Rapid.
6
Admiralty orders to Onslow, PRO Adm 1/2276.
7
Onslow’s report, PRO Adm 1/2276.
8
PRO FO 6 499, fols. 195 recto to 196 recto.
No véo el motivo de porqué el embajador Pirata(Británico)exspresaría una enérgica protesta ante el nuestro gobierno porque ciudadanos Argentinos se desplazen por su territorio. El embajador Pirata(Británico)debería de haber protestado enérgicamente ante su gobierno por la presencia de una nave militar intimidando a nuestros ciudadanos habitantes de nuestras Islas Malvinas.
No te olvides que según la resolución 2065 de la ONU, nuestras Islas Malvinas territorios y mares adyacentes, son territorios bajo disputa de soberanía entre el Reino Unido de Piratalandia(Gran Bretaña)e Irlanda del Norte(la del Sur por suerte se pudo librar de esta lacra de ladrones y asesinos)y la gloriosa República Argentina.
Atte.,
Luís Vernet.
Biter

UK

#31 Jun 10, 2012
Good morning all

For those that do not read Spanish or do not use the translator tools, here is Mr Luis Vernets response in English.

[Very interesting, Biter.
The question I have is what invasion in 1982 are talking about?
The Falkland Islands, territories and adjacent seas, are sovereign Argentina. They were invaded and usurped on January 3, 1833. Evicted population and Argentine Government who inhabited them so nothing Argentine to flourish in it ever and transplantando them to a population clearly pirate (British).
What hicímos in 1982 was to legalize the situation on part of our usurped territory and subsequent defense thereof.
Without removing the life to anyone.
Thing that you not made. assassins!
Region of the planet that is cursed by your presence leaves no more than death and DESOLATION. assassins!
As you you realize no one invades what you own is.
Anyway, thanks for your input. You can save it also saved at the bottom of the rear part of your anatomy. killer!
Atte.,
Luís Vernet]

I dont think I really need to add anything to this.
Deanstreet

Risca, UK

#32 Jun 10, 2012
francisco wrote:
<quoted text>Y muy lejos esta una oveja como vos de poder acusar a mi país de cobardia cuando sabes muy bien que jamas impulsariamos un proceso ante la CIJ porque sabemos que ustedes no irian alli de todas formas.
Have you requested us to appear at the ICJ?

No you have not...

Has the UK requested part of your problem to be resolved at the ICJ..?

The answer is yes - and at least 5 times...!

argentina ran, and ran as fast as its very little legs could carry it...

So cowardice, yes argentina is a coward, for not using the ICJ to resolve what it sees as a problem..

Remember also, we do not have any problems, it is you/argentina that has the supposed problem/dispute...

It is entirely up to you...

Kindest regards
Terry Hill

São Paulo, Brazil

#33 Jun 11, 2012
francisco brilliantly said "After 47 years and 10 resolutions of the Assembly genreal you have to be very, very stupid to say the kind of crap you're saying."

Let me bring you up to speed.

Britain's Letter to the United Nation General Assembly - rebuttal of Argentina's clai

United Nations A/66/677

General Assembly

Distr.: General
31 January 2012
Original: English

Sixty-sixth session
Agenda item 45
Question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)

Letter dated 27 January 2012 from the Permanent Representative
of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to
the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General

...The United Kingdom notes that the Republic of Argentina regularly refers to regional statements of diplomatic support for Falkland Islands sovereignty negotiations, General Assembly resolutions, the last of which was issued in 1988, and resolutions of the United Nations Decolonization Committee. However, none of the regional statements or specific Falkland Islands resolutions fully reflect the legally binding principle of self-determination enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, nor the modern relationship between the United Kingdom and its Overseas Territories, which is based on self-determination. Regional statements and General Assembly resolutions do not modify or dilute the obligation of nations to respect the Falkland Islanders right of self-determination, enshrined under the Charter of the United Nations. All Caribbean participants of the UK-Caribbean Forum acknowledged this on 22 January 2012, when they committed to respecting the right of self-determination for all peoples, including Falkland Islanders...

...The United Kingdom and the Republic of Argentina cannot negotiate away the right of self-determination. It is a principle which we are both legally bound to respect, and promote the realization of, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and international law. The Republic of Argentina, and any country that supports its wish to deny the Falklands people their rights, are reminded of their legally binding international obligations to respect the principle and right of self determination for all peoples, as respectively set out under the Charter of the United Nations (Article 1.2), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (common Article 1). In contrast to the position of the Republic of Argentina, the position of the United Kingdom and Falkland Islands Governments is firmly based on the legally binding and fundamental United Nations principle and right of self-determination for all peoples. The United Kingdom and Falkland Islands Governments fully respect and apply all legally binding international law....
MAlvinero1

Richmond Hill, Canada

#35 Jun 11, 2012
Deanstreet wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you requested us to appear at the ICJ?
No you have not...
Has the UK requested part of your problem to be resolved at the ICJ..?
The answer is yes - and at least 5 times...!
argentina ran, and ran as fast as its very little legs could carry it...
So cowardice, yes argentina is a coward, for not using the ICJ to resolve what it sees as a problem..
Remember also, we do not have any problems, it is you/argentina that has the supposed problem/dispute...
It is entirely up to you...
Kindest regards
Argentina requested 6 times to appears at the arbitration court!
Why uk declined the invitation to settle the dispute in a court of law in 1884 and at least 5 times after?Miserable LIAR!
Terry Hill

São Paulo, Brazil

#37 Jun 11, 2012
MAlvinense1 wrote "Excellent answer,Ricardo!!
The brits in this forum,still did not ANSWER the simple question: Why uk declined the invitation to a court of law,when invited by Argentina in 1884??
Saludos!"

The only issue that I am aware of involving possible arbitration in that year is the following from page 30 of Getting it right: the real history of the
Falklands/Malvinas by Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper © 2008

The “Affair of the Map” with Britain broke in the Argentine press on 8 December 1884 with reports that the Argentine Geographical Institute was putting the Falklands into a map of Argentina that they were preparing with the help of a large government subsidy – and that the decision to include the Falklands had been taken by the Committee responsible for the map, headed by former president General Bartolomé Mitre. The article even talked about compensation for the heirs of Vernet, which made their involvement
clear too.

This publication led to a formal British diplomatic complaint.
At first Francisco Ortiz, the Argentine Foreign Minister, tried to fob Britain off by saying that it was nothing to do with the government and that the Argentine Geographical Institute was an independent entity. Plainly this was untrue. The map controversy lasted four years, and the correspondence contained two references to the Argentine suggestion that the matter should be decided by arbitration, but that is all. In a letter dated 2 January 1885 Ortiz urged “…that the postponed discussion be reopened again… and resolved by the friendly means and law that today civilised nations adopt to solve questions of this type.”4
However, the discussion had not been “postponed”; nothing can be postponed except by agreement, and there had been no agreement by either side to postpone the issue. Argentina had dropped the Falklands issue in 1850 and the issue was closed
Luis Vernet

Buenos Aires, Argentina

#38 Jun 11, 2012
Ace McCloud wrote:
<quoted text>
Very well. Please believe as you wish. We all have our own beliefs on right and wrong, good and bad, legal or illegal.
But!! IMO You cannot separate the issue of the land and the people. Too say 'Lets first give Argentina the land first and worry about the people later is immoral, unethical and illegal.
Inmoral e ilegal fué la invasió, usurpación y destierro a manos de Piratalandia(Gran Bretaña) contra el Pueblo Argentino.
No se puede separar una parte integral del territorio Nacional con la mera intensión de implantar una colonia.
Que de los colonos, se ocupe Piratalandia(Gran Bretaña) que después de todo es quien los depositó ahí y es a quienes ellos le rinden pleitesías.
¡Asesinos!
Atte.,
Luís Vernet.
Luis Vernet

Buenos Aires, Argentina

#39 Jun 11, 2012
dEANSTREET wrote:
<quoted text>
Francesca,
you really oughta get something done about your fixation with sheep - do you fancy ewes or rams..?
Anyway, back to the ICJ..
Just imagine if in the late 1940s through to the mid 1950s argentina had accepted the the invitation/request to use the ICJ to settle this particular aspect of the dispute and won the case..
Imagine it...
The Falkland Islands problem would have collapsed like a card house...
Britain would have had absolutely no choice but to hand over the Islands...
But what happened, argentina ran, and ran as fast as its very little legs could carry it..
It gave out the (in my opinion the correct) that argentina had absolutely no confidence then in its legal case.
Somebody else in this topic also mentioned the makeup of the Court at the time was not favourable to argentina...
Well, argentina has had nearly 60 years to choose its time to say yes to ICJ, but you have never done it.
You have to ponder this, scratch your head and ask the simple question - WHY..?
The only reason that one can come up with is, that again, argentina does not have a case strong enough to present to the ICJ.
Kindest regards
Con solo ver el mapa, a los ojos de todo el mundo, nuestro reclamo de restitución de soberanía está más que sustentado y robustecido.
En cambio el unico sustento que robustece la posición Pirata(Británica) es la de las balas...
Mientras tanto, dilatación vá dilatación biene, Piratalandia nos afana día a día, nuestros recursos naturales, como buenos ladrones y apartir de 1982 ¡ASESINOS! que són.
No por nada son la escuria de las naciones civilizadas...
Atte.,
Luís Vernet.
Deanstreet

Gravesend, UK

#40 Jun 11, 2012
MAlvinero1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Argentina requested 6 times to appears at the arbitration court!
Why uk declined the invitation to settle the dispute in a court of law in 1884 and at least 5 times after?Miserable LIAR!
malonero,

I do know what you are talking about, and I also am aware that argentine minister Argentine Foreign Minister Norberto Quirno Costa, 12 June 1888 only suggested arbitration - nothing else.
No formal request..

Now if you have proof that this was officially requested - I would sincerely like to see this..

Additionally, regarding the UK formal requests, i can provide you with proof, with the actual documents issued by the International Court of Justice.
Kindly let me know and I'll give the link to the ICJ official documents..

Kindest regards
Luis Vernet

Buenos Aires, Argentina

#41 Jun 11, 2012
Biter wrote:
Good morning all
For those that do not read Spanish or do not use the translator tools, here is Mr Luis Vernets response in English.
[Very interesting, Biter.
The question I have is what invasion in 1982 are talking about?
The Falkland Islands, territories and adjacent seas, are sovereign Argentina. They were invaded and usurped on January 3, 1833. Evicted population and Argentine Government who inhabited them so nothing Argentine to flourish in it ever and transplantando them to a population clearly pirate (British).
What hicímos in 1982 was to legalize the situation on part of our usurped territory and subsequent defense thereof.
Without removing the life to anyone.
Thing that you not made. assassins!
Region of the planet that is cursed by your presence leaves no more than death and DESOLATION. assassins!
As you you realize no one invades what you own is.
Anyway, thanks for your input. You can save it also saved at the bottom of the rear part of your anatomy. killer!
Atte.,
Luís Vernet]
I dont think I really need to add anything to this.
Don Biter, gracias por la alcahuetería.
El decir que no sabe leer en mi idioma lo pinta de cuerpo entero.
Los Piratas(Británicos) tiene dos resonantes casos pendientes de justicia con dos pueblos de habla hispana: España y la República Argentina.
Es tál el nivel de soberbia y altanería que los caracteriza que a pesar de ser uds. los invasores y usurpadores tienen el tupé de decir que necesita un traductor para entender lo que digo.
No es que me sorprenda,lo comento nada más...
A ud. le molesta que yo me exprese en mi idioma en este foro, pero sustenta a raja tabla la inmoral usurpación de parte de nuestro territorio a manos de su gobierno.
Claro ed. debe de estar acostumbrado a hablar con colonos que se arrodillan ante su bandera y ante la Sra.Isabel, pero conmigo se equivocó.
Una cosa es que nos manden a sus empresarios a realizar buenos negocios, a sus artístas a dibulgar su arte y cultura y otra muy distinta es que nos usurpen el territorio, nos robern los recursos naturales y, a partir de 1982, nos asesínen cobardemente.
Verguenza debería darle el dejarle esta nefasta herencia a sus hijos.
Atte.,
Luís Vernet.
Luis Vernet

Buenos Aires, Argentina

#42 Jun 11, 2012
Terry Hill wrote:
francisco brilliantly said "After 47 years and 10 resolutions of the Assembly genreal you have to be very, very stupid to say the kind of crap you're saying."
Let me bring you up to speed.
Britain's Letter to the United Nation General Assembly - rebuttal of Argentina's clai
United Nations A/66/677
General Assembly
Distr.: General
31 January 2012
Original: English
Sixty-sixth session
Agenda item 45
Question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)
Letter dated 27 January 2012 from the Permanent Representative
of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to
the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General
...The United Kingdom notes that the Republic of Argentina regularly refers to regional statements of diplomatic support for Falkland Islands sovereignty negotiations, General Assembly resolutions, the last of which was issued in 1988, and resolutions of the United Nations Decolonization Committee. However, none of the regional statements or specific Falkland Islands resolutions fully reflect the legally binding principle of self-determination enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, nor the modern relationship between the United Kingdom and its Overseas Territories, which is based on self-determination. Regional statements and General Assembly resolutions do not modify or dilute the obligation of nations to respect the Falkland Islanders right of self-determination, enshrined under the Charter of the United Nations. All Caribbean participants of the UK-Caribbean Forum acknowledged this on 22 January 2012, when they committed to respecting the right of self-determination for all peoples, including Falkland Islanders...
...The United Kingdom and the Republic of Argentina cannot negotiate away the right of self-determination. It is a principle which we are both legally bound to respect, and promote the realization of, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and international law. The Republic of Argentina, and any country that supports its wish to deny the Falklands people their rights, are reminded of their legally binding international obligations to respect the principle and right of self determination for all peoples, as respectively set out under the Charter of the United Nations (Article 1.2), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (common Article 1). In contrast to the position of the Republic of Argentina, the position of the United Kingdom and Falkland Islands Governments is firmly based on the legally binding and fundamental United Nations principle and right of self-determination for all peoples. The United Kingdom and Falkland Islands Governments fully respect and apply all legally binding international law....
Nó, estás equivocado.
Ningún tribunal en el concierto de las naciones civilizadas avalaría la invasión , usurpación y destierro padecido por el Pueblo Argentino a manos de Piratalandia(Gran Bretaña)jamás haría eso. De ahí que vos hagás mención a lo dicho en el foro caribeño-pirata(Británico)¿que esperabas vos que dijese ese foro, que estaban a favor de la demanda nuestra?si esos territorios están infectados de Piratas(Británicos), otra cosa no podían haber dicho...
Ningún tribunal, imparcial, podrá jamás darle el derecho a la autodeterminación a una población que no está subyugada por su colonizadores. Ellos(los colonos), los residentes (y digo residentes porque muchos de ellos ni siquiera la habitan son simplemente un número en la estadística Pirata(Británica)) de nuestras Islas Malvinas, están más que contentos con ser parte de Piratalandia(Gran Bretaña) a sí que no les cabe dicho beneficio.
Atte.,
Luís Vernet.
Terry Hill

São Paulo, Brazil

#43 Jun 11, 2012
Inmoral e ilegal fué la invasió, usurpación y destierro a manos de Piratalandia(Gran Bretaña) contra el Pueblo Argentino.
No se puede separar una parte integral del territorio Nacional con la mera intensión de implantar una colonia.
Que de los colonos, se ocupe Piratalandia(Gran Bretaña) que después de todo es quien los depositó ahí y es a quienes ellos le rinden pleitesías.
¡Asesinos!
Atte.,
Luís Vernet.

The UK was a presence on the islands before spain, and therefore before Argentina.
Again, a legal maxim, "first in time has right ".

You claim "You can not separate an integral part of national territory with the mere intention to establish a colony."
Well, how is this proposition supported. What other nation at the time of this incident recognized the islands as Argentine territory. Where is the supporting documentation that specifically cedes the islands from Spain to Argentina.
A single failed attempt at adverse possession in the face of another nations prior claim. Is an act of aggression by Argentina. It resulted in a perfectly predictable response by an aggrieved UK, or any other nation in the early nineteenth century.
It seems to me that Argentina tried by force to get her way and now complains when UK equally responded in a like fashion. THe UK after being prepared to go to war with Spain over the islands was not about to be acquiescent to Argentina's aspirations. Especially, the islands would have been seen as a vital component in protecting her maritime route to the Pacific.

It seems that at every historical juncture Argentina miscalculates the consequences of her actions.
Sets something in motion then complains about the results don't go her way. But lets turn to the present. Your government claims the islander's have no right to self determination because they are a transplanted population. Where is the legal precedent supporting such a view. The words that the islanders rely on for "self determination" are as follows
in the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; PART I; Article 1

1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.

3. The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.

Even if Argentina could put the issue before ICJ she would have one hell of obstacle overcome in defeating the protection of the Covenant. It's my belief that she is precluded from such action. Because her legal violations of UN Charter in attempting to bring about an economic blockade of the island's

Finally, you keep using the the word Asesinos!. I'm assuming it's an accusation leveled at the UK. But I don't understand why? The only deaths I know of were in the Argentine garrison in 1832. Which had nothing to do with the UK. And military personnel of both countries in the 1982 conflict.

Since: Apr 12

Brazil

#44 Jun 11, 2012
Luis Vernet

If you read the The Nootka Sound Convention (El Tratado de San Lorenzo), 1790 you should understand Britain had certain rights....Which Argentine governments either completly ignore, forgotten or missed and not even discussed which make it look like you are the Pirates...

So maybe you should change your name to Black beard?
Luis Vernet wrote:
<quoted text>
Nó, estás equivocado.
Ningún tribunal en el concierto de las naciones civilizadas avalaría la invasión , usurpación y destierro padecido por el Pueblo Argentino a manos de Piratalandia(Gran Bretaña)jamás haría eso. De ahí que vos hagás mención a lo dicho en el foro caribeño-pirata(Británico)¿que esperabas vos que dijese ese foro, que estaban a favor de la demanda nuestra?si esos territorios están infectados de Piratas(Británicos), otra cosa no podían haber dicho...
Ningún tribunal, imparcial, podrá jamás darle el derecho a la autodeterminación a una población que no está subyugada por su colonizadores. Ellos(los colonos), los residentes (y digo residentes porque muchos de ellos ni siquiera la habitan son simplemente un número en la estadística Pirata(Británica)) de nuestras Islas Malvinas, están más que contentos con ser parte de Piratalandia(Gran Bretaña) a sí que no les cabe dicho beneficio.
Atte.,
Luís Vernet.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 4 min Earthling-1 47,003
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 4 min Aura Mytha 117,355
Who do you side with in Ferguson? 7 min Blacktigershark 5,739
Longtime GOP Texas Gov. Perry wins another term (Nov '10) 8 min fubar 22,748
UN rights expert accuses Israel of 'ethnic clea... (Mar '14) 10 min Mandela 2,042
Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 13 min Fair Game 32,785
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 16 min Quirky 265,596
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 27 min RoxLo 1,115,129
Obama: US misjudged Iraqi army, militants' threat 47 min Bama Yankee 35
'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 1 hr Obama Zombies 155,436

US News People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE