Argentina calls William Falklands 'conquistador'

Jan 31, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: The State

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina - Argentina said again it doesn't seek another war over the Falkland Islands, and it accused Britain of militarizing their sovereignty dispute by announced Tuesday that it is sending an advanced warship to the islands along with Prince William "in the uniform of a conquistador." The assignment of Prince William, a Royal Air ... (more)

Comments (Page 36)

Showing posts 701 - 720 of793
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Ricardo

Isidro Casanova, Argentina

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#717
Mar 24, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

supersonic boom wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't you just love governments.
Politicians only think short term for reelection and kick the problems forward to be dealt in another guy's shift
Biggest flaw of Democracy

Since: Feb 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#718
Mar 24, 2012
 
Giggs wrote:
<quoted text>
All these LOL'S and leaving the caps lock on makes you come across as a true retard.
Like I said......Its the same people whos opinions count in my country......as with you, EU, Israel etc.....
The Queen can throw weight around even in countries that have never been her colonies. Builderberg is full of people who have been in business with the royal family and your federal reserve.
Nothing anybody can do about it.
That said I still dont want Argies in the Falklands.......and America still never had much in the way of usefull natural resources. Thats why England didnt just stop everything and run over to America when you guys wanted indipendence.
"make me' come across? Exactly what am I in your illusioned world crossing?

Nothing can 'make me' or you or they become anything other then that which preconception lives within the onlookers state of consciousness as a conceptual reality first.

hello there 'onlooker.'

Is that a popular spectator sport where your from?

Since: Feb 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#719
Mar 24, 2012
 
and a correction of sorts.

"Nothing can 'make me' or you or even "they" become anything other then that which is first in preconception given life within the onlookers state of consciousness as a conceptual reality first.

Since: Feb 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#720
Mar 24, 2012
 
let's reverse the table.

What if Argentina was to lay claim to the islands off the coast of Ireland.

Would that not be a most bodacious claim against Britain?
Krypteia

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#721
Mar 25, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

StellarKnight wrote:
let's reverse the table.
What if Argentina was to lay claim to the islands off the coast of Ireland.
Would that not be a most bodacious claim against Britain?
If it was of the coast of Ireland why would it be our problem,also there are no Argies living on set islands at all ever..
You have to remember the Falklands were ours years before some American states became into the US,before the Mexican/American war of 1846-48,should the US hand back California,Nevada,Utah,New Mexico,Arizona,Colerado,Texas, Oklahoma,Kansas,Wyoming back to Mexico..
Krypteia

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#722
Mar 25, 2012
 
StellarKnight wrote:
let's reverse the table.
What if Argentina was to lay claim to the islands off the coast of Ireland.
Would that not be a most bodacious claim against Britain?
If you meant of the coast of Northern Ireland than sure it would be our problem but no Argies have ever settled there and secondly Southern Ireland wouldn't like it whether it was islands of the South or North....
Ricardo

Isidro Casanova, Argentina

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#723
Mar 25, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

StellarKnight wrote:
let's reverse the table.
What if Argentina was to lay claim to the islands off the coast of Ireland.
Would that not be a most bodacious claim against Britain?
We do not have any support for such a claim whatsoever.
To claim things without any reason but brute force is a British custom, not ours.
Ricardo

Isidro Casanova, Argentina

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#724
Mar 25, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Krypteia wrote:
<quoted text>If it was of the coast of Ireland why would it be our problem,also there are no Argies living on set islands at all ever..
You have to remember the Falklands were ours years before some American states became into the US,before the Mexican/American war of 1846-48,should the US hand back California,Nevada,Utah,New Mexico,Arizona,Colerado,Texas, Oklahoma,Kansas,Wyoming back to Mexico..
I have asked here many times to please explain when and exactly why Britain "owned" the Islands, without response
This is your oportunity and I am waiting.
All you have is a De Facto posession after your 1833 act of force, recognized by nobody
Ricardo

Isidro Casanova, Argentina

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#725
Mar 25, 2012
 
Krypteia wrote:
<quoted text>If it was of the coast of Ireland why would it be our problem,also there are no Argies living on set islands at all ever..
You have to remember the Falklands were ours years before some American states became into the US,before the Mexican/American war of 1846-48,should the US hand back California,Nevada,Utah,New Mexico,Arizona,Colerado,Texas, Oklahoma,Kansas,Wyoming back to Mexico..
Mexico officially acknowledged in Treaties the U.S. sovereignity over that States.
We did not such a thing with the Malvinas...quite the opposite...since the very moment you stole them with no titles at all...all the British said was that they "belonged to them", conveniently not mentioning why.
Krypteia

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#726
Mar 25, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Ricardo wrote:
<quoted text>
Mexico officially acknowledged in Treaties the U.S. sovereignity over that States.
We did not such a thing with the Malvinas...quite the opposite...since the very moment you stole them with no titles at all...all the British said was that they "belonged to them", conveniently not mentioning why.
So explain your right to Argentina,and i'm not interested in Spain i'm talking about the rightful owners the indiginous people and not colonial.
Mexico really had little choice the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the money they got from the US was a lot less then was offered before the war..
Anyone asked the indiginous people of the States or Mexico what they think odf cause not stolen lands yet again with no rightful claim between the US or Mexico..
So as you see your a conquistador and have no rights to anything..
Just explain your rights to what is Argentina above the real inhabitants..
Ricardo

Isidro Casanova, Argentina

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#727
Mar 25, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Krypteia wrote:
<quoted text>So explain your right to Argentina,and i'm not interested in Spain i'm talking about the rightful owners the indiginous people and not colonial.
Mexico really had little choice the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the money they got from the US was a lot less then was offered before the war..
Anyone asked the indiginous people of the States or Mexico what they think odf cause not stolen lands yet again with no rightful claim between the US or Mexico..
So as you see your a conquistador and have no rights to anything..
Just explain your rights to what is Argentina above the real inhabitants..
I will explain immediately after you explain the British rights over the Malvinas
So I think I will wait for a looooooong time
Krypteia

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#728
Mar 25, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Ricardo wrote:
<quoted text>
I will explain immediately after you explain the British rights over the Malvinas
So I think I will wait for a looooooong time
Pointless just gonna go round in circles,i will compromise when you lot have left Argentina and gone back to what ever country your ancestors originally come from i will except an indiginous indians claim to the Falklands..
ronan

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#729
Mar 25, 2012
 
Krypteia wrote:
<quoted text>So explain your right to Argentina,and i'm not interested in Spain i'm talking about the rightful owners the indiginous people and not colonial.
Just explain your rights to what is Argentina above the real inhabitants..
"Indigenous people" in the Falklands?

They were none reported by the French sailors who first set foot on these islands.

The ploy of colonialist countries over centuries was to bring settlers to affirm their claims on invaded territories.But that didn't suffer close examination, and gave them no "rights". Most colonies had to be surrendered in the long run. The Falklands will be no exception.

If suddently a country was to land 500 of its nationals on a deserted Scottish island to claim it as theirs, that would be acceptable to no one.
So, what's the difference with the Falklands.

British sovereignty over the Falklands will stay 'de facto' and never 'de jure' and will have to be maintained by force every time it will be challenged.

In between, relations with most of the South American countries will suffer, and we will loose business with them that could be profitable to our economy.
Just a thought

Beloit, WI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#730
Mar 25, 2012
 
France established a colony in 1764.The British,1765.England withdrew, leaving a plaque proclaiming it's"sovereignty",in 1776.They were then ruled by Spain until 1811,who again,left a plaque proclaiming it's sovereignty.
ronan

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#731
Mar 25, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Just a thought wrote:
France established a colony in 1764.The British,1765.England withdrew, leaving a plaque proclaiming it's"sovereignty",in 1776.They were then ruled by Spain until 1811,who again,left a plaque proclaiming it's sovereignty.
After the departure of the French, British and Spanish, in 1932 Argentina landed a group of people to build a settlement in the Falklands which it had received from Spain at the time of independence.

In 1983, Britain sent a ship to take the islands by force, destroying the Argentine settlement and expulsing its inhabitant.

The British sovereignty over the Falklands only rests on that!
Just a thought

Beloit, WI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#732
Mar 25, 2012
 
Ronan.Spain withdrew 1811.Argentina aquired the Falklands from Spain when it won it's independence in 1816.In 1826,Argentina drew up it's constitution,in which,it was refered to as a"republic or nation".Between 1826 and 1853 the constitution was repealed.Unless I'm mistaken,Argentina ceased to exist as a Republic/nation.Britain bases it's claim on "continuous administration"since 1833.1853,A new constitution was drawn up declaring itself the Argentine"nation".Or iginally,Argentina was a confederation of states.Confederations allow states to make important decisions within their borders that are not binding on other states."States rights".
Ricardo

Isidro Casanova, Argentina

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#733
Mar 25, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Just a thought wrote:
France established a colony in 1764.The British,1765.England withdrew, leaving a plaque proclaiming it's"sovereignty",in 1776.They were then ruled by Spain until 1811,who again,left a plaque proclaiming it's sovereignty.
France passed sovereignity to Spain. Britain never had it
Diego

Santa Fe, Argentina

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#734
Mar 26, 2012
 
romp wrote:
argentina needs to reconquisttt.
QUE IGNORANTE QUE SOS PIRATA..JEJEJE
Ricardo

Argentina

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#735
Mar 26, 2012
 
StellarKnight wrote:
and a correction of sorts.
"Nothing can 'make me' or you or even "they" become anything other then that which is first in preconception given life within the onlookers state of consciousness as a conceptual reality first.
Ways too complex for poor Giggs, dude.
Ricardo

Argentina

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#736
Mar 26, 2012
 
Just a thought wrote:
Ronan.Spain withdrew 1811.Argentina aquired the Falklands from Spain when it won it's independence in 1816.In 1826,Argentina drew up it's constitution,in which,it was refered to as a"republic or nation".Between 1826 and 1853 the constitution was repealed.Unless I'm mistaken,Argentina ceased to exist as a Republic/nation.Britain bases it's claim on "continuous administration"since 1833.1853,A new constitution was drawn up declaring itself the Argentine"nation".Or iginally,Argentina was a confederation of states.Confederations allow states to make important decisions within their borders that are not binding on other states."States rights".
You are seriously mistaken. The 1853 Constitution defines Argentina as a Republic...and also, of course, as a Nation. Those are not mutually excluding terms.
Moreover, States can change their political organization and/or denominations without losing continuity of their rights.

The UK surely did that, too. Their present denomination and organization has changed.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 701 - 720 of793
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
•••
•••