BritBob

Slough, UK

#211 Aug 22, 2012
Terry Hill wrote:
<quoted text>
The Argentine president Domingo Sarmiento’s Message to the Argentine Congress on 1 May 1869:
“El estado de nuestras relaciones exteriores responde á las aspiraciones del país. Nada nos reclaman las otras Naciónes: nada tenemos que pedir de ellas, sino es la continuación de las manifestaciones de simpatía con que de parte de pueblos y gobiernos ha sido favorecida la República por sus progresos y espíritu de justicia.”(Heraclio Mabragaña 1910, vol. III, p. 286 which can be found in Biblioteca Nacional de la República Argentina, Agüero 2502, Recoleta, Buenos Aires)
“The state of our foreign relations fulfils the aspirations of the country. Nothing is claimed from us by other nations; we have nothing to ask of them except that they will persevere in manifesting their sympathies, with which both Governments and peoples have honoured the Republic, both for its progress and its spirit of fairness.”(printed in: British and Foreign State Papers 1870-1871 (printed London 1877), p. 1227-1228).
Argentina's president declared that the country had no claim on other nations.
The ultimate truth that proves that the Argentine government has already accepted that the Falklands are British.
francisco

Argentina

#212 Aug 22, 2012
Las pastillas abuelo....

Toma tus pastillas....

No las azules que usas para pajearte.

Las otras....

Las que hacen dormir.

Esas tenes que tomar....
MAlvinense1

Scarborough, Canada

#213 Aug 22, 2012
BritBob wrote:
<quoted text>
The ultimate truth that proves that the Argentine government has already accepted that MAlvinas son ARGENTINAS.
PELOTUDO!Still uk did not showed up to settle the issue in a court of law in 1884...LIAR
Deanstreet

Stanley, Falkland Islands (Malvinas)

#214 Aug 22, 2012
MAlvinense1 wrote:
<quoted text>
PELOTUDO!Still uk did not showed up to settle the issue in a court of law in 1884...LIAR
mal

show us the records please..?

you know the ones requesting UK to go to court..?

We'd all like to see them...

We keep asking and you keep evading...

LOL....

Kindest regards from the Falkland Islands
francisco

Argentina

#216 Aug 22, 2012
Como dije, ya se probo miles de veces lo de los 6 pedidos de arbitraje.

Si vas a desmenntir a Escude (tu amigo) y a Cisneros lo vas a tener que probar (Y a la UCEMA),vas a tener que probarlo.

Probarlo....
Ace McCloud

Ringwood, UK

#217 Aug 23, 2012
francisco wrote:
Como dije, ya se probo miles de veces lo de los 6 pedidos de arbitraje.
Si vas a desmenntir a Escude (tu amigo) y a Cisneros lo vas a tener que probar (Y a la UCEMA),vas a tener que probarlo.
Probarlo....
It is a simple concept. The Argentines want the Falkland Island, they have to do something! The U.K has to do nothing!
MAlvinero1

Richmond Hill, Canada

#218 Aug 23, 2012
Ace McCloud wrote:
<quoted text>
It is a simple concept. The Argentines want the Falkland Island, they have to do something! The U.K has to do nothing!
really? uk is putting the money.300 deads,1000 wounded,3 billion to invade MAlvinas,1 billlion to build the infrastructure,500 million to maintain the base......Argentina put nothing and too bad we are getting it back,and uk will be destroyed anyways....
Deanstreet

Stanley, Falkland Islands (Malvinas)

#219 Aug 23, 2012
francisco wrote:
Como dije, ya se probo miles de veces lo de los 6 pedidos de arbitraje.
Si vas a desmenntir a Escude (tu amigo) y a Cisneros lo vas a tener que probar (Y a la UCEMA),vas a tener que probarlo.
Probarlo....
francesca

you have not proven thousands of times regarding arbitration..

Otherwise, if you had you would have absolutely no hesitation whatsoever in repeating them...

You are just a cheap lying little malvinista...

Kindest regards from the Falkland Islands
Ace McCloud

Ringwood, UK

#220 Aug 23, 2012
MAlvinero1 wrote:
<quoted text>
really? uk is putting the money.300 deads,1000 wounded,3 billion to invade MAlvinas,1 billlion to build the infrastructure,500 million to maintain the base......Argentina put nothing and too bad we are getting it back,and uk will be destroyed anyways....
You refer to a war which Argentina started and then lost! And Argentina also had more killed and massively more wounded! A war which led to the Kirchner government totally disarming your country to ensure their power, wealth and influence was total, while giving you no political weight internationally.

3 Billion to remove a fascist Argentine invading army to protect the lives of the Falkland Island people is money well spent. We waste far more on welfare every year. The prestige of winning that war was also very beneficial to international relations and trade.

Spending on infrastructure is not wasted. It improves peoples lives and ensures the defence of the Islands.

The cost of the ongoing up keep and defence of the Islands is not that high. Bases operating in Germany or Oman etc would have similar costs. Its strategic location and possible resourses mean it is worth much more.

The Submarines cost nothing because you do not know if they are even there!

The Type 45 would be somewhere else if it was not in Argentina to is no added cost.
MAlvinero1

Richmond Hill, Canada

#221 Aug 23, 2012
Ace McCloud wrote:
<quoted text>
You refer to a war which Argentina started and then lost! And Argentina also had more killed and massively more wounded! A war which led to the Kirchner government totally disarming your country to ensure their power, wealth and influence was total, while giving you no political weight internationally.
3 Billion to remove a fascist Argentine invading army to protect the lives of the Falkland Island people is money well spent. We waste far more on welfare every year. The prestige of winning that war was also very beneficial to international relations and trade.
Spending on infrastructure is not wasted. It improves peoples lives and ensures the defence of the Islands.
The cost of the ongoing up keep and defence of the Islands is not that high. Bases operating in Germany or Oman etc would have similar costs. Its strategic location and possible resourses mean it is worth much more.
The Submarines cost nothing because you do not know if they are even there!
The Type 45 would be somewhere else if it was not in Argentina to is no added cost.
Who cares,you have VERY POWERFUL ENEMIES.....they will destroy uk....Just run for your life...I would not put a dime in the uk..
francisco

Argentina

#222 Aug 23, 2012
Ace McCloud wrote:
<quoted text>
It is a simple concept. The Argentines want the Falkland Island, they have to do something! The U.K has to do nothing!
Te voy a seguir rompiendo las pelotas hasta que me las devuelvas.

Ponete comodo....

Compra hielo....

Las bolas te van a doler hasta el fin de los tiempos si es necesario....
francisco

Argentina

#223 Aug 23, 2012
Deanstreet wrote:
<quoted text>
francesca
you have not proven thousands of times regarding arbitration..
Otherwise, if you had you would have absolutely no hesitation whatsoever in repeating them...
You are just a cheap lying little malvinista...
Kindest regards from the Falkland Islands
Ovejita pelotuda:

Lo probe miles de veces....

Lastima....
Ace McCloud

Ringwood, UK

#224 Aug 24, 2012
francisco wrote:
<quoted text>
Te voy a seguir rompiendo las pelotas hasta que me las devuelvas.
Ponete comodo....
Compra hielo....
Las bolas te van a doler hasta el fin de los tiempos si es necesario....
LLLLOOOOOLLLL That is funny!!

You have to be kidding me! You have no power at all? How do you propose to break our balls? That is funny! You have nothing! No case and no military power.

All that you say is meaningless! All that you do is meaningless!

Sorry my Argentine freinds! But the UK does nothing and you bust your own balls about it everyday ROFL.
BritBob

Slough, UK

#225 Aug 25, 2012
Deanstreet wrote:
<quoted text>
In 1850, argentina gave up its claim to the Falkland Islands with the signing of a peace treaty known as the Convention of Settlement.
In that peace treaty there is a clause:
"VII. Under this Convention perfect friendship between Her Britannic Majesty's Government and the Government of the Confederation, is restored to its former state of good understanding and cordiality."
A. It is a treaty between Britain and Argentina.
B. It explicitly says settle existing differences.
C. The intention was to establish peaceful relations.
How can you settle your differences and leave an issue unresolved?
Kindest regards from the Falkland Islands
This is the truth. Argentina has already given up its claim to the Falkland Islands. This is the reason why Argentina refused to go to the Courts of International Justice on three occasions with the UK to discuss ownership of the Falkland Islands. Argentine politicians know this but keep on using 'the Great Malvinas Lie' to distract their gullible public away from economic hardship.
BritBob

Slough, UK

#226 Aug 27, 2012
Terry Hill wrote:
<quoted text>
The Argentine president Domingo Sarmiento’s Message to the Argentine Congress on 1 May 1869:
“El estado de nuestras relaciones exteriores responde á las aspiraciones del país. Nada nos reclaman las otras Naciónes: nada tenemos que pedir de ellas, sino es la continuación de las manifestaciones de simpatía con que de parte de pueblos y gobiernos ha sido favorecida la República por sus progresos y espíritu de justicia.”(Heraclio Mabragaña 1910, vol. III, p. 286 which can be found in Biblioteca Nacional de la República Argentina, Agüero 2502, Recoleta, Buenos Aires)
“The state of our foreign relations fulfils the aspirations of the country. Nothing is claimed from us by other nations; we have nothing to ask of them except that they will persevere in manifesting their sympathies, with which both Governments and peoples have honoured the Republic, both for its progress and its spirit of fairness.”(printed in: British and Foreign State Papers 1870-1871 (printed London 1877), p. 1227-1228).
Argentina's president declared that the country had no claim on other nations.
Added to this when Argentina ratified the 'Convention of Settlement treaty' in 1850 they acknowledged that,' a state of perfect harmony had been restored' between Argentina and Great Britain and that 'neither country had ANY outstanding differences'- remember 1833?
francisco

Argentina

#227 Aug 28, 2012
Ace McCloud wrote:
<quoted text>
LLLLOOOOOLLLL That is funny!!
You have to be kidding me! You have no power at all? How do you propose to break our balls? That is funny! You have nothing! No case and no military power.
All that you say is meaningless! All that you do is meaningless!
Sorry my Argentine freinds! But the UK does nothing and you bust your own balls about it everyday ROFL.
Ves porque necersitas las rondas?.

Ve por otra....

P.S: Nada podes hacer para que la Argentina detenga su reclamo. Lastima....
francisco

Argentina

#228 Aug 28, 2012
BritBob wrote:
<quoted text>
Added to this when Argentina ratified the 'Convention of Settlement treaty' in 1850 they acknowledged that,' a state of perfect harmony had been restored' between Argentina and Great Britain and that 'neither country had ANY outstanding differences'- remember 1833?
1850....

Un tratado que probamos milles de veces que se lo meten en el culo....

Toma tu medicacion de una buena vez....
BritBob

Slough, UK

#229 Aug 28, 2012
BritBob wrote:
<quoted text>
Added to this when Argentina ratified the 'Convention of Settlement treaty' in 1850 they acknowledged that,' a state of perfect harmony had been restored' between Argentina and Great Britain and that 'neither country had ANY outstanding differences'- remember 1833?
Yes, we do not have ANY outstanding differences. This was acknowledged and this is a legally binding document. The moral claim to the islands is even weaker because the Falkland Islanders have the right to self determination under the UN charter. It is their right 'not to be part of Argentina'.
MAlvinero1

Richmond Hill, Canada

#230 Aug 28, 2012
Ace McCloud wrote:
<quoted text>
You refer to a war which Argentina started and then lost! And Argentina also had more killed and massively more wounded! A war which led to the Kirchner government totally disarming your country to ensure their power, wealth and influence was total, while giving you no political weight internationally.
3 Billion to remove a fascist Argentine invading army to protect the lives of the Falkland Island people is money well spent. We waste far more on welfare every year. The prestige of winning that war was also very beneficial to international relations and trade.
Spending on infrastructure is not wasted. It improves peoples lives and ensures the defence of the Islands.
The cost of the ongoing up keep and defence of the Islands is not that high. Bases operating in Germany or Oman etc would have similar costs. Its strategic location and possible resourses mean it is worth much more.
The Submarines cost nothing because you do not know if they are even there!
The Type 45 would be somewhere else if it was not in Argentina to is no added cost.
SHUT UP miserable PIRATE! Destroyer of people life and freedom!!
Sure India,Nigeria,etc......Just tell them..How much they hate the brits....
MAlvinero1

Richmond Hill, Canada

#231 Aug 28, 2012
BritBob wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, we do not have ANY outstanding differences. This was acknowledged and this is a legally binding document. The moral claim to the islands is even weaker because the Falkland Islanders have the right to self determination under the UN charter. It is their right 'not to be part of Argentina'.
TOO BAD you are losing at the UN..

When the Spanish governor left in 1810, this could be interpreted as a manifestation of intent to leave the islands. If this is the case, then the islands became terra nullius, and Buenos Aires acquired the title by occupation; Spain undertook no action to stop it, and did not even protest this might be interpreted as acquiescence.

Britain protested against the Argentine occupation in 1829, but at this stage Britain had definitely no valid claim over the Falkland Islands, Britain had maintained a settlement on the islands for a total of only seven to eight years, and had exercised effective control even then only over a small part of the West. Furthermore, any rights Britain may have had lapsed after 1774. It follows that Britain's seizure of the Falklands in 1833 was clearly an act of aggression.

Although these arguments are not officially accepted in Britain, the official case for British sovereignty is now generally made on the basis of post-1833 criteria. Two principles are invoked to support British sovereignty over the Falklands:(a) Prescription,(b) the right to self-determination.

According to the principle of prescription, Britain's occupation of the Falklands for nearly 150 years would suffice in itself for Britain to hold the title, even if its occupation was illegal in the first place.

The argument from prescription may have some legal basis, but it is legally tenuous, because it is not universally accepted as a principle of law (Brownlie 1963, p. 422). Furthermore, it is subject to certain conditions, as Ian Brownlie points out:

Assuming that title can result from adverse possession, the general recognition that the use of force as an instrument of national policy is illegal must cause such derivation of title to occur only in rare cases as a result of very long possession or general acquiescence by the international community. If prescription is permissible in such circumstances explicit statements as to non-recognition would play the role of protest in preventing or delaying the prescriptive process. Prescription may still exist as a mode of acquiring title in so far as its application had not been denied by states which at the same time accept obligations of non-resort to force. Nevertheless it is arguable that as a matter of principle the initial illegality can never be the source of legal right (Brownlie 1963, p. 422).

Similarly D. H. N. Johnson has stated that acquisition of a title by prescription is not possible unless a state can demonstrate that it has

... exercised its authority in a continuous, uninterrupted, and peaceful manner ... provided that 8 Christoph Bluth all other interested and affected states ... have acquiesced in this exercise of authority (Johnson 1950. p. 353).

April 1982 & FCO 1983). This argument does not make sense, since on the basis of the work of the UN Committee of 24 the UN General Assembly passed Resolutions 2065 (XX) and 3160 (XXVIII) which explicitly declared the Falklands to be a 'colonial situation', thus implying the need for de-colonization. Furthermore, these resolutions affirmed that the negotiations should bear in mind the interests of the population of the Falklands, thereby implicitly rejecting the applicability of the right to self-determination, which would have required bearing in mind their 'wishes'.

The application of the principle of decolonization to the Falklands case would involve two important issues.

Bluth,british professor on international law,Univerity of l
Leeds

http://www.malvinasonline.com.ar/index.php/de...

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.

Falkland Islands Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
2014 Global Crruption Index Scores - Argentina ... 1 hr bob es mIERDA 46
Why Did King George VI Refuse to Receive Eva Pe... (Oct '13) 1 hr bob es mIERDA 39
Why Dr. Kohen's Arguments Were Soundly Beaten 2 hr BritBob 126
Falklands to Unveil Thatcher Statue 2 hr BritBob 5
Intelligent people Exodus from Argentina 5 hr cruzada es mIERDA 13
Falklands public opinionpetition seeks to end -... 9 hr cruzada es MIERDA 12
Argentina’s lies at the United Nations (Apr '11) 16 hr pablo 32,368
More from around the web