Argentina, the UK and the Malvinas/Falklands

[www]

Martin wrote:

only this:
Falkland Islands government:“We wish to remain British”
http:///2009/03/3/falkland-isl ands-government-we-wish-to-rem ain-british

Sure, get into someone else's home, kick them out, put your family members there and later asks them if they want to keep the house...

[Joe]

www wrote:

<quoted text>
Sure, get into someone else's home, kick them out, put your family members there and later asks them if they want to keep the house...

Then give Florida back to Spain.

[colonial kiwi]

my ten cents worth, The argentinians work on some line of inheritence from spain. To apply that logic should new zealand inherit british antartic territory then.

We have a treaty with our native people and involve them in ourpolitical systems. What does he indian population think of the malvinas and not to mention spanish equisition.

In a nut shell fcck off falklands are british.

[Che]

colonial kiwi wrote:

my ten cents worth, The argentinians work on some line of inheritence from spain. To apply that logic should new zealand inherit british antartic territory then.
We have a treaty with our native people and involve them in ourpolitical systems. What does he indian population think of the malvinas and not to mention spanish equisition.
In a nut shell fcck off falklands are british.

yes your opinion is probably worth 10 cents...

[www]

Joe wrote:

<quoted text>
Then give Florida back to Spain.

Joe, I am not surprised by your response, nor by your effervescent pro-british stance on all your postings, you being an implant on an English colony who still swears allegiance to the queen of England and still sings god save the queen... you are probably a skinhead afraid of every non-english person...

But I will tell you this… just to humor your comment; Florida belongs to the USA, is part of the continent, is geographically attached to the country, and Spain is thousands of miles away etc… kind of what is happening in Malvinas… which is also geographically attached to Argentina , while England is thousands of miles away…

[davidab]

www wrote:

<quoted text>
Joe, I am not surprised by your response, nor by your effervescent pro-british stance on all your postings, you being an implant on an English colony who still swears allegiance to the queen of England and still sings god save the queen... you are probably a skinhead afraid of every non-english person...
But I will tell you this… just to humor your comment; Florida belongs to the USA, is part of the continent, is geographically attached to the country, and Spain is thousands of miles away etc… kind of what is happening in Malvinas… which is also geographically attached to Argentina , while England is thousands of miles away…

Geography is, and always has been, legally irrelevant. There are plenty of islands around the world which, being closer to one country, are under the sovereignty of another.

[www]

davidab wrote:

<quoted text>
Geography is, and always has been, legally irrelevant. There are plenty of islands around the world which, being closer to one country, are under the sovereignty of another.

I do not agree with your very general and vague statement... geography does play a big part but again, that is not the only reason why Malvinas is part of Argentine sovereignty...

[davidab]

www wrote:

<quoted text>
I do not agree with your very general and vague statement... geography does play a big part but again, that is not the only reason why Malvinas is part of Argentine sovereignty...

Well, I suggest you read Judge Max Huber's arbitration award over the island of Las Palmas

http://www.haguejusticeportal.net/eCache/DEF/...

One of the grounds for the US claim to the islands was:

"The United States Government finally maintains that Palmas (or Miangas) forms a geographical part of the Philippine group and in virtue of the principle of contiguity belongs to the Power having the sovereignty over the Philippines."

and this is what Max Huber said regarding this:

"In the last place there remains to be considered title arising out of contiguity. Although States have in certain circumstances maintained that islands relatively close to their shores belonged to them in virtue of their geographical situation, it is impossible to show the existence of a rule of positive international law to the effect that islands situated outside territorial waters should belong to a State from the mere fact that its territory forms the terra firma (nearest continent or island of considerable size). Not only would it seem that there are no precedents sufficiently frequent and sufficiently precise in their bearing to establish such a rule of international law, but the alleged principle itself is by its very nature so uncertain and contested that even Governments of the same State have on different occasions maintained contradictory opinions as to its soundness. The principle of contiguity, in regard to islands, may not be out of place when it is a question of allotting them to one State rather than another, either by agreement between the Parties, or by a decision not necessarily based on law; but as a rule establishing ipso jure the presumption of sovereignty in favour of a particular State, this principle would be in conflict with what has been said as to territorial sovereignty and as to the necessary relation between the right to exclude other States from a region and the duty to display therein the activities of a State. Nor is this principle of contiguity admissible as a legal method of deciding questions of territorial sovereignty; for it is wholly lacking in precision and would in its application lead to arbitrary results. This would be especially true in a case such as that of the island in question, which is not relatively close to one single continent, but forms part of a large archipelago in which strict delimitations between the different parts are not naturally obvious."

And for an explanation of why the Falklands are not and never have been part of Argentina I suggest you read:

http://www.malvinasonline.com.ar/g82/artic/pa...

[davidab]

www wrote:

<quoted text>
Joe, I am not surprised by your response, nor by your effervescent pro-british stance on all your postings, you being an implant on an English colony who still swears allegiance to the queen of England and still sings god save the queen... you are probably a skinhead afraid of every non-english person...
But I will tell you this… just to humor your comment; Florida belongs to the USA, is part of the continent, is geographically attached to the country, and Spain is thousands of miles away etc… kind of what is happening in Malvinas… which is also geographically attached to Argentina , while England is thousands of miles away…

To add to what I said before. Florida is part of the US because Spain ceded it to the US via the Adams-Onis treaty:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adams-On%C3%ADs_...

If Spain had not ceded it, Florida might today be either an independent state or still Spanish. Geography is irrelevant.

[www]

davidab wrote:

<quoted text>
To add to what I said before. Florida is part of the US because Spain ceded it to the US via the Adams-Onis treaty:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adams-On%C3%ADs_...
If Spain had not ceded it, Florida might today be either an independent state or still Spanish. Geography is irrelevant.

bla bla bla.... none of them apply...

[joe]

www wrote:

<quoted text>
bla bla bla.......

Seems that's about the level of your debate.

[Anda A Hacerte Mover]

Juan wrote:

Argentinean in Ushuaia!

You was born with Mental Deficiency, isn't??

[Anda Hacete Mover]

Tiger Bay wrote:

the very aggressive and rude comments coming from some of the Argentines
Argentines living in the Islands. Argentines as a rule do flock here live more than they flock Patagonia live. Through our Constitution Britain guarantees us the right to Argentina incorporate the Islands, our wishes, into part of Argentina, has have the UN agree that populations subject to a sovreignty dispute do not have a right to self-determination. the 4th Committee of the UN has this totally democratic principle.
Falkland Islanders trace their ancestors here back to the early 1840's, years before the Indians of the Pampas and Patagonia had been exterminated during the Campa~as del Desierto. Whatever the historical arguments are, why should a non-indigenous population who murdered no-one to settle a territory (ie Falkland Islanders) have less right to their country than a population who settled vast lands at the expense of 1000's of indigenous inhabitants several decades later? There is precious little logic attached to many of the submissions to this blog from Argentines.
However, according to one blogger Cordobese the Mapuches didn't count because they had invaded from Chile anyway, and the Tehuelches have no-one to blame but themselves because they didn't fight hard enough. That's alright then! All Amerindian populations have been badly treated by their colonial masters except, quite clearly, Argentine Native Americans....and you expect anyone to accept your "logic" in any of your other arguments...err.
Neanderthal man quite clearly invaded Africa and then Europe so he should get the hell out and leave it to the apes, lions, tigers, dinosaurs (oooh, but they were colonists too, weren't they?)and rats and snakes and pterodactyls.

Firslty, you clearly are not a Malvinas ilsander, your IPQ don't say that obviously, so stop to clowning thinking that gotta help you in your brit cause. Secondly, drug addicts as that stupid 'lot-of-bullshit-talker' are in all the countries, like yours in and mine maybe, so don't be so twat for generalize only basing you in a lowlife mental infraequipped poor man/guy like that. Because as if, you would be the same crap like that ignorant scums who you mentions, are you understand?

[Ze Brasil]

é isso inglesada... mete pau nessa cambada de Argentinos!!!
eles não pensam que são europeus?? então, nada como uma porrada do irmão mais velho pra ficarem espertos!!!

[Nexus]

la doce wrote:

eu Here Is The Deal, we don't gonna repeat you again, the name is MALVINAS.Íslas Malvinas, no Fucklands

Its the Falklands mate - you did not secure the right to name the islands. Argentina has been a fascist country ruled by the military for many years. A country that murdered its own people. If this was not the case there would have probably been a settlement after the second world war when Britain divested its colonies.

There was no way a country (the UK) that had fought itself to standstill and contributed to the defeat of Nazi Germany and Fascist Japan was going to hand over British Citizens to a fascist country as was Argentina post second world war.

It's a pity in many ways as prior to WWI before the US decided to annex South America via the Monroe Doctrine Argentina and Britain had a good economic relationship and Argentina was a leading economy with lots of British and European investment. So...in reality it has been the US that has pulled down South America and Argentina

For information the Monroe Doctrine was a United States policy that was introduced on December 2, 1823, which said that further efforts by European governments to colonize land or interfere with states in the Americas would be viewed by the United States of America as acts of aggression requiring US intervention

[Tiger Bay]

Anda Hacete Mover wrote:

<quoted text>Firslty, you clearly are not a Malvinas ilsander, your IPQ don't say that obviously, so stop to clowning thinking that gotta help you in your brit cause. Secondly, drug addicts as that stupid 'lot-of-bullshit-talker' are in all the countries, like yours in and mine maybe, so don't be so twat for generalize only basing you in a lowlife mental infraequipped poor man/guy like that. Because as if, you would be the same crap like that ignorant scums who you mentions, are you understand?

what??? no, don't understand you, I think you've missed some of your most important grammar lessons, the ones where you learn how to turn a lot of words into viable and legible sentences.

By the way, if you are going to quote me, couldn't you at least do it right? Not sure if it's a language or computer problem you have, but maybe it's just a mental one...(couldn't resist that, this is hilarious!)

And another thing...I am a Falkland Islander, 6th generation, so very sorry, you are wrong yet again!

[GMK]

Did you think that maybe your history book is wrong? You have to get more information from more books, so that you can say that BBC is lying, or not. Is your book written by a neutral writer, or by an english one?. I think BBC is right.