Time to break links with Falklands and Gibraltar

Negotiate over sovereignty with safeguards
Status and links with UK anachronistic


Thatcher Drive in the Falklands. Is Cameron looking for his own street on the islands? Photograph: Daniel Garcia/AFP/Getty Images

The further we are from Britain, the better is our perspective on the country's true national interests and role in the world.

I learned this in my first years as a journalist, nearly a decade based in Brussels, observing how successive British governments found it difficult to adjust to a post-imperial, post second world war, role, as a new member of the European Community, as it was then known.

Approaching Earth for the first time creatures from another planet might wonder, among many other things, why the Union flag, the flag of the UK, is flying on islands in the South Atlantic close to Argentina and on a large limestone rock on Spain's southern tip.

I contemplated this as the Spanish government suddenly cancelled Queen Sophia's trip to join other European monarchs to celebrate Queen Elizabeth's diamond jubilee at Windsor castle (in protest against a planned visit to Gibraltar by Elizabeth's youngest son Prince Edward and his wife Sophie, Countess of Wessex).

I contemplated this further, as on holiday in Europe, I read about the spat between David Cameron and Argentina's president, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, at the recent G20 summit in Mexico. Cameron told Fernandez she should "respect the views" of islanders who are holding a referendum on their future status.

For her part, Fernandez was reported to have shown Cameron a letter referring to a 1985 UN security council resolution requesting both governments to negotiate a "peaceful" resolution to the Falklands dispute.

There is another island where the Union Jack flies. That is Diego Garcia, the largest island in the Chagos archipelago, seized from Mauritius and turned into the British Indian Ocean Territory, and a large US military base. The inhabitants there were given no choice they were deported to Mauritius and Seychelles. Recently released archives show that Britain deliberately hoodwinked the UN suggesting that the people living there were merely contract labourers and not indigenous. Unlike the inhabitants of the Falklands or the Rock of Gibraltar, the Chagos islanders are not white.

Britain's claims to the Falklands are not as solid as successive British governments have suggested. "Our rights of possession were not so incontestable as to render a renewal of the old controversy desirable from a British point of view," a Foreign Office official acknowledged back in 1927.

The Falklands were discovered by an Englishman in 1592. The first settlement was French, but in 1770 the Spanish captured a new British settlement and sent all the inhabitants back to Britain. In 1820 Argentina took formal possession of the Falklands. In 1832, the British sent HMS Clio to turn out the Argentine governor.

A year later, Argentina told Lord Palmerston that "settlement, and not discovery was the important factor in determining the rights of sovereignty, and the Spanish settlement had been established before and had lasted longer than the British".

Margaret Thatcher's government secretly offered to hand over sovereignty of the Falklands islands two years before the invasion by Argentine forces in 1982.

The secret meeting was disclosed in the official history of the Falklands by Sir Lawrence Freedman. He revealed that the cabinet's defence committee approved a plan whereby Britain would hand Argentina titular sovereignty over the islands, which would then be leased back by Britain for 99 years.

The British and Argentinian flags would be flown side by side on public buildings on the islands. British administration would continue with a view to guaranteeing the islanders and their descendants "uninterrupted enjoyment of their way of life".

In strict treaty terms, Britain's claims to Gibraltar are stronger the Rock was which was ceded in perpetuity to the British Crown in 1713 by the Treaty of Utrecht. Yet, just as successive UK governments have been prepered to negotiate about sovereignty of the Falklands, so they have sought a joint sovereignty agreement with Spain cover Gibraltar. The last attempt to do so was in 2002.

It cannot be beyond the wit of mature governments to abandon anachronistic notions of status or false pride. The territories are of no strategic use to Britain.

The inhabitants of the Falklands and Gibraltar must be allowed, in law, to preserve their basic rights, including language. And then cut the umbilical cords which still connects them to Britain.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/defence-and-security-blog/2012/jun/22/falklands-gibraltar-sovereignty

-------------------------------------------------------
"Las Malvinas fueron, son y serán Argentinas"

LOL I always enjoy The Guardian. I'm not sure Argentina could handle the Falklands if the British handed them over.

---

"The chief aim of all government is to preserve the freedom of the citizen. His control over his person, his property, his movements, his business, his desires should be restrained only so far as the public welfare imperatively demands. The world is in more danger of being governed too much than too little. It is the teaching of all history that liberty can only be preserved in small areas. Local self-government is, therefore, indispensable to liberty. A centralized and distant bureaucracy is the worst of all tyranny. Taxation can justly be levied for no purpose other than to provide revenue for the support of the government. To tax one person, class or section to provide revenue for the benefit of another is none the less robbery because done under the form of law and called taxation." John W. Davis, Democratic Presidential Candidate, 1924. Davis was one of the greatest trial and appellate lawyers in US history. He also served as the US Ambassador to the UK.

At least this guy make clear the pointless claim Brits (and mindless decrepits like Mike) have on Malvinas as a Brit territory. That crap is built on BS, lies, crimes, and racism. Of course... those are the main drivers of USA military action and the cream of Mike's pride.

-------------------------------------------------------
"Las Malvinas fueron, son y serán Argentinas"

lol the inhabitants of the Falklands want to stay British.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"deeds, not words"

Good!!! They must have to be moved to UK. End of problem. They are implanted chimpanzees... Argentine claim is on territory, not on people. They are there just for making this claim to be kinda human, you know. But it is just an excuse not to discuss UK criminal behavior.

-------------------------------------------------------
"Las Malvinas fueron, son y serán Argentinas"

And Argentinians are just implanted Spaniards...

Oh for heavans sake

Argentinas claim is based on them briefly occupying the islands god knows how many hundreds of years ago for a very brief time.

The population have been there 8 or 9 generations now.

If the 'we occupied it hundreds of years ago' argument is valid, then i guess the brits have claim
to calais as they occupied it for years?. Or the french have claim to britain as the normans invaded?

It really is that absurd.

BTW the islands were claimed by britain in 1690 before argentina even existed. It was then reclaimed in 1776 again before argentina existed

Finally we come to argentinas claims of colonialism.

Argentina only exists because a bunch of spanish colonists slaughtered the indigenous population
and set up home there- so the claim is a little rich. By their logic, argentinians are not
indigenous and should return to spain giving the country back to the original inhabitants.

Self determination matters, they have been there many generations and should be allowed to determine their own fate.

Independance and oil sharing with argentina would be ideal, And if they hadnt invaded in 82, they would have shared sovereignty by now. UK governments have tried to sell out the islanders in the past, however now blood has been spilt it is not up for negotiation.

Ive tried to explain facts...but i have a feeling ill just get childish insults back, we will see.



______
Some one had blundered:
Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do and die:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them
Cannon in front of them
Volleyed and thundered;
Stormed at with shot and shell,
Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of Hell
Rode the six hundred.
Flashed all their sabres bare,
Flashed as they turned in air
Sabring the gunners there,
Charging an army, while
All the world wondered:
Plunged in the battery-smoke
Right through the line they broke;
Cossack and Russian
Reeled from the sabre-stroke
Shattered and sundered.
Then they rode back, but not
Not the six hundred.
Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon behind them
Volleyed and thundered;
Stormed at with shot and shell,
While horse and hero fell,
They that had fought so well
Came through the jaws of Death,
Back from the mouth of Hell,
All that was left of them,
Left of six hundred.
When can their glory fade?
O the wild charge they made!
All the world wondered.
Honour the charge they made!
Honour the Light Brigade,
Noble six hundred!

Someone really needs to get over it. The Argies got their asses kicked and the Falklands are going to stay British.

_____________________________________


My Tank is Fight

As I've said before, whatever claims Argentina HAD, are now lost following their successful invasion.

@politcalgain

I honestly believe that if they hadnt invaded we would have sold out the islanders by now, we have tried in the past.

Now, it would be an election loser to do so..

I recently chatted to an army medic who did a falklands tour, he wouldnt go into details but
said the islands are well defended.

what did surprise me was this though

"the station goes on full alert regularly when the Argies cross into the no fly zone.
They do it often !! Planes are scrambled and missile sites track. The station is kept up to date via tannoy of what is happening"

______
Some one had blundered:
Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do and die:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them
Cannon in front of them
Volleyed and thundered;
Stormed at with shot and shell,
Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of Hell
Rode the six hundred.
Flashed all their sabres bare,
Flashed as they turned in air
Sabring the gunners there,
Charging an army, while
All the world wondered:
Plunged in the battery-smoke
Right through the line they broke;
Cossack and Russian
Reeled from the sabre-stroke
Shattered and sundered.
Then they rode back, but not
Not the six hundred.
Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon behind them
Volleyed and thundered;
Stormed at with shot and shell,
While horse and hero fell,
They that had fought so well
Came through the jaws of Death,
Back from the mouth of Hell,
All that was left of them,
Left of six hundred.
When can their glory fade?
O the wild charge they made!
All the world wondered.
Honour the charge they made!
Honour the Light Brigade,
Noble six hundred!

UK have no right to have a colony 1000 km away from their home. rhe ge of colonies in over. Falkland citizen should be given of self determination.Either of merging with Argentina or being independent. their should not be any British presence.

********************************************

quote
___

UK have no right to have a colony 1000 km away from their home. rhe ge of colonies in over. Falkland citizen should be given of self determination.Either of merging with Argentina or being independent. their should not be any British presence.
___

Its international waters so argentina have no geographical claim either

I actually agree independence would be best, however with a belligerent neighbour they need uk protection. Brits would be happy with independence as would falklanders, but the second our troops left the island..well you know what would happen.

People maybe don't understand the falklands are pretty much self governing

The only involvement the uk really has is in providing defence



______
Some one had blundered:
Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do and die:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them
Cannon in front of them
Volleyed and thundered;
Stormed at with shot and shell,
Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of Hell
Rode the six hundred.
Flashed all their sabres bare,
Flashed as they turned in air
Sabring the gunners there,
Charging an army, while
All the world wondered:
Plunged in the battery-smoke
Right through the line they broke;
Cossack and Russian
Reeled from the sabre-stroke
Shattered and sundered.
Then they rode back, but not
Not the six hundred.
Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon behind them
Volleyed and thundered;
Stormed at with shot and shell,
While horse and hero fell,
They that had fought so well
Came through the jaws of Death,
Back from the mouth of Hell,
All that was left of them,
Left of six hundred.
When can their glory fade?
O the wild charge they made!
All the world wondered.
Honour the charge they made!
Honour the Light Brigade,
Noble six hundred!

"Its international waters so argentina have no geographical claim either"


This. If anything, if the liked, they could just declare themselves independent. That does not mean if the Brits left that the Argies have any real claim on it either.

_____________________________________


My Tank is Fight

an altertnative is ethnic cleansing... It is above the law and that will convert Argentinian in just plain criminal Brits. I don't discard this alternative, but in principle... I wouldn't support (I guess) this alternative. End of the problem for good.. after all, who cares about white trash ecogenocide rednecks anyways.

-------------------------------------------------------
"Las Malvinas fueron, son y serán Argentinas"

Yag,

Lol. Coming from a nation as weak as Argentina I'd be careful making statements like that! Would be a lot easier for us to wipe you lot out than it would be for you to do that! Fortunately, we're a lot more civilised than you so that won't be happening to anyone. Guess theres a few more ex nazis in argentina than we first thought - know any?

Face it they'll always be the Falklands and after the thrashing you got in '82 all you can do is make silly claims like this online.

=====
Speaking of the Eurofighters close-in combat prowess, Major Marc Gr�ne, CO of 742 (Zapata), the second squadron of the wing, described to assembled aviation journalists how, on a recent visit to France to demo the aircraft, he had won two out of two battles against the Dassault Rafale in mock within visual range dogfights. Both fights were a standard set-up and merge at 21,000ft and 30,000ft he recounted, adding that the higher the fight the better the Eurofighter liked it. He singled out the Eurofighters excess power as its trump card over the Rafale

Argies need to get over the falklands and do something productive with their lives...

Thinking about the falklands all day everyday is not healthy for the mind.

-----------------

0:42- "sh!t happens" look

Matt. The islanders cant declare independence, because the second our troops left argentina would try to invade again, although to be fair im not even sure they could beat the islanders nowadays...

I dont understand argentinian obsession with the islands to be honest, all countries
have economic problems right now, but argentinas is a huge problem. Yet they focus on these tiny islands instead!

I can only assure they see 82 as a humiliation of their manhood or something

Thatit burns inside to know a small naval fleet and small army sailed half way around the world and inflicted a crushing defeat.

Theres no need to feel humiliated though, once the british troops had landed it was
all over bar the shouting

Royal marines, ghurkas and paras fighting against argentinian soldiers is only going
to go one way...



______
Some one had blundered:
Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do and die:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them
Cannon in front of them
Volleyed and thundered;
Stormed at with shot and shell,
Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of Hell
Rode the six hundred.
Flashed all their sabres bare,
Flashed as they turned in air
Sabring the gunners there,
Charging an army, while
All the world wondered:
Plunged in the battery-smoke
Right through the line they broke;
Cossack and Russian
Reeled from the sabre-stroke
Shattered and sundered.
Then they rode back, but not
Not the six hundred.
Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon behind them
Volleyed and thundered;
Stormed at with shot and shell,
While horse and hero fell,
They that had fought so well
Came through the jaws of Death,
Back from the mouth of Hell,
All that was left of them,
Left of six hundred.
When can their glory fade?
O the wild charge they made!
All the world wondered.
Honour the charge they made!
Honour the Light Brigade,
Noble six hundred!

I, too, think it ought to be up to those who live there. The last I checked, they'd been made that offer and opted to remain Her Majesty's subjects. I thinkmay's right Argentina probably couldn't take the islands even if Britain left.

---

"The chief aim of all government is to preserve the freedom of the citizen. His control over his person, his property, his movements, his business, his desires should be restrained only so far as the public welfare imperatively demands. The world is in more danger of being governed too much than too little. It is the teaching of all history that liberty can only be preserved in small areas. Local self-government is, therefore, indispensable to liberty. A centralized and distant bureaucracy is the worst of all tyranny. Taxation can justly be levied for no purpose other than to provide revenue for the support of the government. To tax one person, class or section to provide revenue for the benefit of another is none the less robbery because done under the form of law and called taxation." John W. Davis, Democratic Presidential Candidate, 1924. Davis was one of the greatest trial and appellate lawyers in US history. He also served as the US Ambassador to the UK.

I was only 8, but attended this with my parents... doubt ill ever forget it, was quite moving.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0MBNZhtV9E

______
Some one had blundered:
Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do and die:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them
Cannon in front of them
Volleyed and thundered;
Stormed at with shot and shell,
Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of Hell
Rode the six hundred.
Flashed all their sabres bare,
Flashed as they turned in air
Sabring the gunners there,
Charging an army, while
All the world wondered:
Plunged in the battery-smoke
Right through the line they broke;
Cossack and Russian
Reeled from the sabre-stroke
Shattered and sundered.
Then they rode back, but not
Not the six hundred.
Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon behind them
Volleyed and thundered;
Stormed at with shot and shell,
While horse and hero fell,
They that had fought so well
Came through the jaws of Death,
Back from the mouth of Hell,
All that was left of them,
Left of six hundred.
When can their glory fade?
O the wild charge they made!
All the world wondered.
Honour the charge they made!
Honour the Light Brigade,
Noble six hundred!

No the Argentinians need to be moved back to Spain.

-----------------------

Argentinas claim is based on them briefly occupying the islands god knows how many hundreds of years ago for a very brief time.

And the british claim to occupying the islands is military imperialism. The same logic a certain Hitler once used to occupy france, holland etc.

Somebody here rightly said that the age of imperialism is gone. UK just cannot occupy an island thousands of kilometers away from their country just coz they have the military muscle to do so. You guys already occupied Australia and new Zealand that way.

Ideal would have been for the british nationals in the islands to move back to england. But for obvious reasons it wont be possible.

I have said it once before, "might is right". Unfortunately as long as Argentina will remain weak they will be suppressed. Take the case of Hong Kong, the british did not have the stomach to fight china over an island.

yawn

oh look the Grundian is printing a lefty, right on, f*ck the establishment, article who would have though it?

and Yag dances like the cheap circus act that he is

I find myself becoming much much less accepting of dribbling idiots as time goes on

QUOTE
And the british claim to occupying the islands is military imperialism. The same logic a certain Hitler once used to occupy france, holland etc.

Somebody here rightly said that the age of imperialism is gone. UK just cannot occupy an island thousands of kilometers away from their country just coz they have the military muscle to do so. You guys already occupied Australia and new Zealand that way.

Ideal would have been for the british nationals in the islands to move back to england. But for obvious reasons it wont be possible.

I have said it once before, "might is right". Unfortunately as long as Argentina will remain weak they will be suppressed. Take the case of Hong Kong, the british did not have the stomach to fight china over an island.
ENDQUOTE


I agree worrying about who occupied the land first when it is so long ago is stupid

so all that matters is the wishes of the people who have lived there for 8 generations surely?.

As brits we dont sit here drooling over some bit of rock flying the flag, we would be happy to see the kelpers independent if they wished it.

But while their neighbor is belligerent, we will continue to defend them.

As far as hong kong is concerned, well the islands were on a 99 year lease.. the falklands are not.



______
It is an offence for a Trooper to die in bed!

Stop dying at once and when you get up, get your bloody hair cut" - Wintle to Trooper Cedric Mays (Royal Dragoons), who recovered and lived to the age of 95.

Oh yeah agree with lee about the guardian

People outside the UK might not know that while it is often quoted
by apologists, almost no one here actually reads it...

______
It is an offence for a Trooper to die in bed!

Stop dying at once and when you get up, get your bloody hair cut" - Wintle to Trooper Cedric Mays (Royal Dragoons), who recovered and lived to the age of 95.

Hey there May, good to see you after so long.

I agree worrying about who occupied the land first when it is so long ago is stupid

so all that matters is the wishes of the people who have lived there for 8 generations surely?.

A bit tricky.

Suppose WW2 was a stalemate, and the Germans managed to live in Holland, Poland, France etc. for 3-4 generations. Will you call them occupiers or native citizens? What if they all sympathise with Germany and want Germany to remain the "protector"?

The British had no problems leaving India and other colonies, and mind you some of the british in India had stayed here for generations.

But in the current context the only practical solution, i agree, would be a plebiscite of the local population. And we all know what the result would be.

As brits we dont sit here drooling over some bit of rock flying the flag, we would be happy to see the kelpers independent if they wished it.

Now thats a sweet lie, we both know it

But while their neighbor is belligerent, we will continue to defend them.

Accusing the argentines of being belligerent is akin to calling the british as belligerent for bombing Germany during WW2.

As far as hong kong is concerned, well the islands were on a 99 year lease.. the falklands are not.

Using the 200 year rule of British in India as a reference, I would safely say that British word, when it comes to colonial matters, is useless. But of course you are free to believe otherwise.

Fact of the matter is that falklands is nothing but a residue of british imperial days. In the same vein Argentina like i said is weak, forget British military, the British armed police can overrun the argies.

Things would have been different if the argies were strong, alas they are not.

Hi FN

Really, brits dont care about having bits of land in the middle of nowhere, most brits are only aware of the falklands because of kirchener.

Its different to germany invading and living in holland etc and its different to british rule of india for one simple reason.

There was no indigenous people on the falklands that was kicked out or subjugated.

Argentina have never had a civilian population on the islands..

Our rule for ALL overseas land territory is that if they wish independence then they can have it. For their own reasons some wish to remain part of the crown. I think because we went around painting the map pink at one time people really think that Brits sit around dreaming of empire and conquest

This could not be further from the truth, it is drilled into schoolkids heads how evil the british empire was (seriously) and people are forever apologising for our conquering descendants.

Brits feel the kelpers should be allowed to choose their own fate.. not because we think its cool to have a little empire, but because it seems the right thing to do.

What people also dont seem to understand is our government have TRIED to give away gibraltar and the falklands in the past

The only reason they didnt do so was because gibraltans and kelpers were outraged.

______
It is an offence for a Trooper to die in bed!

Stop dying at once and when you get up, get your bloody hair cut" - Wintle to Trooper Cedric Mays (Royal Dragoons), who recovered and lived to the age of 95.

"Argentina have never had a civilian population on the islands.."

Because you ethnic cleaned the islands!!! MF!!! I don't see any Fucbrit lamenting the cleansing of Aboriginal unimplanted Chagosian Islanders. Of course.... those dark skin sub-humans... who cares??? they don't enjoy the Fucbileee of the Tranny Queen!!!

Kelpers deserve the worst... up to now they killed 5 million Penguins cuz of their greedy policy... they are destroying the environment using the Union Fvck as flag. The best for Malvinas is to be out of Brits.hits... they only destroy every place they inhabit.

-------------------------------------------------------
"Las Malvinas fueron, son y serán Argentinas"

Then, by all means, Yag, Argentina should take "their" islands back. Oh, that tried that when they were far stronger than they are today and got their *sses handed to them. I wonder what happened to the flags shown in your signature when those troops threw down their weapons and were ignomiously shipped back to Argentina in disgrace.

---

"The chief aim of all government is to preserve the freedom of the citizen. His control over his person, his property, his movements, his business, his desires should be restrained only so far as the public welfare imperatively demands. The world is in more danger of being governed too much than too little. It is the teaching of all history that liberty can only be preserved in small areas. Local self-government is, therefore, indispensable to liberty. A centralized and distant bureaucracy is the worst of all tyranny. Taxation can justly be levied for no purpose other than to provide revenue for the support of the government. To tax one person, class or section to provide revenue for the benefit of another is none the less robbery because done under the form of law and called taxation." John W. Davis, Democratic Presidential Candidate, 1924. Davis was one of the greatest trial and appellate lawyers in US history. He also served as the US Ambassador to the UK.

Gosh such anger..

Firstly, when discussing ethnic cleansing do you realise Argentina only exists because Spanish colonists came and slaughtered the indiginous population? Do you not see the irony when complaining about brit colonoalism?

Secondly do Argentinans truly not believe the islands were discovered before Argentina existed? Please explain to me when argentinian civilians occupied the islands

Finally I am always willing to listen to coherent arguments and can often have my mind changed.. so if you can show a genuine argentinian claim please do!

However if your only response is to get emotional, start swearing and bring up irrelevant topics such as the queen.. please don't bother

I'm an adult and uninterested in 'being badass on the internet'

______
It is an offence for a Trooper to die in bed!

Stop dying at once and when you get up, get your bloody hair cut" - Wintle to Trooper Cedric Mays (Royal Dragoons), who recovered and lived to the age of 95.

Haha, Argentina lecture the UK on environmental issues? That would be a first. You can imagine the state of the islands should Argentina be in charge.

http://en.mercopress.com/2012/02/11/argentine-police-beats-up-environmentalists-protesting-mining-projects-24-injured

Looks like the cards were stacked against the Argies in the Falklands all along

This article was just out today. The US was ready to help the Brits in any way should it have been required - including "loaning" the Brtis the Iwo Jima staffed with some volunteer crew and US versions of the Harrier should the Argies have managed to take out one of the Brits carriers

http://news.usni.org/news-analysis/news/reagan-readied-us-warship-82-falklands-war-0

_____________________________________


My Tank is Fight

"I wonder what happened to the flags shown in your signature when those troops threw down their weapons and were ignomiously shipped back to Argentina in disgrace."

Well, you should ask your fellas in Korea, Vietnam, Irak, Iran, A'stan, ... what the F... were and are they fighting for? what did they feel when a peasant army kicked your asses with punji sticks and medieval techniques against drones, satellites, Phantom and Rambo itself... Did you perform better than us? How many wars have you been involved since 1945 and how many did you win? How many man have you lost? We comitted plenty of mistakes in Malvinas, but you are PhD in that matter... and keep grading everyday.

This is a question of international and some disguise-as-lawyer NSA temp like Mike know it but change subject by talking about Kelpers and other sheits. UK is violating the international law, and the 1982 retaken did not affect our international position on the islands. Please, Mike o whatever you are, read the first article and you will see the light. Only brainless morons cannot see it. Mike, you are not here to think (besides, your blood alcohol wouldn't allow it), you are here to defend US at any stakes... and that's pretty brainless so far. Keep earning your daily BigMac but don't try to pass as a thoughtful guy. You are not.

People in Malvinas are implanted population... puppets... they have the right... yes, the right to remain silence. Anything they say will be used against them when Argentina retake the islands. They should know it.

-------------------------------------------------------
"Las Malvinas fueron, son y serán Argentinas"

"Anything they say will be used against them when Argentina retake the islands. They should know it."








_____________________________________


My Tank is Fight

what aboriginal population? There was none unless you talking about penguins

I am sorry were oppressing the Argentine penguins maybe they should get to vote in the referendum as well?

Well, you should ask your fellas in Korea, Vietnam, Irak, Iran, A'stan, ... what the F... were and are they fighting for? what did they feel when a peasant army kicked your asses with punji sticks and medieval techniques against drones, satellites, Phantom and Rambo itself... Did you perform better than us? How many wars have you been involved since 1945 and how many did you win? How many man have you lost? We comitted plenty of mistakes in Malvinas, but you are PhD in that matter... and keep grading everyday.

Yag, what does that have to do with my question? You you evade relatively simple questions it weakens your arguments. You bring up all this irrelevant stuff as though it has impact. I will answer one of your questions, however because it made me LOL. Did the US perform better than Argentina? A cub Scout troops performs better, so yes, I do.

This is a question of international and some disguise-as-lawyer NSA temp like Mike know it but change subject by talking about Kelpers and other sheits. UK is violating the international law, and the 1982 retaken did not affect our international position on the islands.

Which international law is that, Yag?

Please, Mike o whatever you are, read the first article and you will see the light.

I read it. I didn't see any "light."

Only brainless morons cannot see it.

I think only brainless morons could see any light there or any legitimate claim of Argentina to the Falklands. Again, shown me your legitimate claim.

Mike, you are not here to think (besides, your blood alcohol wouldn't allow it), you are here to defend US at any stakes... and that's pretty brainless so far.

LOL. How is my pointing out Argentina's pathetic performance in the Falklands thirty years ago and its even more pathetic state today defending the US, Yag? By the way, how much and what do I drink?

Keep earning your daily BigMac but don't try to pass as a thoughtful guy. You are not.

You mean as opposed to say, you, for example?

People in Malvinas are implanted population... puppets... they have the right... yes, the right to remain silence. Anything they say will be used against them when Argentina retake the islands. They should know it.

If I were them I'd be more fearful that leftist weak kneed politicians in London might sell me out to the Argentinians than the Argentinians themselves. As I said, a reasonably tough Cub Scout troop could hold the Islands from the mighty Argentine military today.

---

"The chief aim of all government is to preserve the freedom of the citizen. His control over his person, his property, his movements, his business, his desires should be restrained only so far as the public welfare imperatively demands. The world is in more danger of being governed too much than too little. It is the teaching of all history that liberty can only be preserved in small areas. Local self-government is, therefore, indispensable to liberty. A centralized and distant bureaucracy is the worst of all tyranny. Taxation can justly be levied for no purpose other than to provide revenue for the support of the government. To tax one person, class or section to provide revenue for the benefit of another is none the less robbery because done under the form of law and called taxation." John W. Davis, Democratic Presidential Candidate, 1924. Davis was one of the greatest trial and appellate lawyers in US history. He also served as the US Ambassador to the UK.

Having spoken to someone who did a falklands tour, I agree there is no risk from the argentinian military.. and the real risk is our own government

I would still like to know when argentinian civilians occupied the falklands please by the way yag


If Argentina was smart, they would have spent the last thirty years engaging with the kelpers and trading with them, showing them the good parts of Argentina, encouraging them to visit Argentina etc. Reassuring them their way of life would not change

They would now have a share of future oil revenues, and maybee even a chance at shared sovereignty

But blustering, harrasing islanders and making threats they can't carry out hardens stances and means they will get nothing

I hope Argentina does not try to attack again; it would be a massacre this time, and this time the RN can easily hit Argentina itself if they with too (cruise). I have no desire to see young argentinians massacred

I think though that they know what would happen if they attacked so will just complain about it every few years...

______
It is an offence for a Trooper to die in bed!

Stop dying at once and when you get up, get your bloody hair cut" - Wintle to Trooper Cedric Mays (Royal Dragoons), who recovered and lived to the age of 95.

"Again, shown me your legitimate claim."

And who the F... you believe you are??? You are NOTHING, less than zero. Why should I to show you what? You are like a ******* who keep asking "why 2 + 2 = 4??? show me.... show me...." The problem is yours... not mine. Do your homework.


-------------------------------------------------------
"Las Malvinas fueron, son y serán Argentinas"

And who the F... you believe you are??? You are NOTHING, less than zero. Why should I to show you what? You are like a ******* who keep asking "why 2 + 2 = 4??? show me.... show me...." The problem is yours... not mine. Do your homework.

Excitable aren't you? I have looked. I've tried to see whether Argentina might have a valid claim and see none. They've been British since 1833? Argentina's whole time there was 2 months in 1832 when it placed a penal colony there. You claim it has a valid claim to the islands. I see none. Use your superior intellect and teach me.

---

"The chief aim of all government is to preserve the freedom of the citizen. His control over his person, his property, his movements, his business, his desires should be restrained only so far as the public welfare imperatively demands. The world is in more danger of being governed too much than too little. It is the teaching of all history that liberty can only be preserved in small areas. Local self-government is, therefore, indispensable to liberty. A centralized and distant bureaucracy is the worst of all tyranny. Taxation can justly be levied for no purpose other than to provide revenue for the support of the government. To tax one person, class or section to provide revenue for the benefit of another is none the less robbery because done under the form of law and called taxation." John W. Davis, Democratic Presidential Candidate, 1924. Davis was one of the greatest trial and appellate lawyers in US history. He also served as the US Ambassador to the UK.

If we really want to discuss 'who got there first'

in 1594 hawkins claimed the islands for the crown..

in 1764 (ish) the french and british set up colonies on the unhabited islands

this was decades before argentina existed..

and yes in 1832...argentina tried to set up a penal colony, i believe the soldiers mutinied!

Argentinas claim appears to be based upon 'its closer to us and we want it'

Like i said if they were smart and had used guile and diplomacy they may well have the islands by now.

Before 82 noone in the uk had heard of the place, and we have had some apologist limp wristed governments in our time who would have handed them over. Heck our prime minister, fresh from victory got flack for ordering the sinking the enemy flagship!

But no, instead of being smart..argentina had to try an invasion - which forced us to reach into the naughty cupboard, get the cane out and administer a thrashing.



______
It is an offence for a Trooper to die in bed!

Stop dying at once and when you get up, get your bloody hair cut" - Wintle to Trooper Cedric Mays (Royal Dragoons), who recovered and lived to the age of 95.

Really, brits dont care about having bits of land in the middle of nowhere, most brits are only aware of the falklands because of kirchener.

Diego Garcia was but one example. Even in 2012 AD there are a couple of "british protectorates" around the planet. Death of colonial imperialism must have been something really hard to come to terms with for some britishers.

Its different to germany invading and living in holland etc and its different to british rule of india for one simple reason.

There was no indigenous people on the falklands that was kicked out or subjugated.

Given how the british felt for native resistance it is but a mere co-incidence that there is no native casualty figure. Its not about randomly killing people. Its randomly launcing a military campaign to forcibly acquire islands that are thousands of kilometers away from the mother country.

Falklands is a living example of colonial imperialism practised in the 17th century by european powers. It is outdated and narcissist, but like I had said the argies are very weak and they have to tolerate it.

Argentina have never had a civilian population on the islands..

The British also never had a native population. The british population started after the falklands was annexxed.

Let me rephrase my argument. England is an island country. Obviously there will be a few islands that are unihabited of humans. How would you feel if argentina or some other country one fine day comes and annexes these uninhabited islands forcibly and say no wrong is done coz no human life is lost?

Our rule for ALL overseas land territory is that if they wish independence then they can have it.

You take out whatever means of livelihood they had and now you give show them this kind gesture? I would have appreciated the British moves if:

1) The British returned whatever wealth they stole from these territories over the years, with interest.

2) They compensate, like the Nazis did, for their colonial atrocities

3) They pay for rebuilding, like the nazis did, for the local industry that the british killed.

Of course none of that will ever happen, and its amusing to see how offended some british feel when they are compared with the nazis.

Fact is may, real world is not a utopia. Such things have happened in the past and people get away with it coz they are strong.

For their own reasons some wish to remain part of the crown.

An obvious decision, they have to survive after all.

I think because we went around painting the map pink at one time people really think that Brits sit around dreaming of empire and conquest wink.gif

The map was painted pink precisely coz the british dreamt of empire and conquest. If memory serves me right no country willingly became a part of the british empire.

This could not be further from the truth, it is drilled into schoolkids heads how evil the british empire was (seriously)

You dont have any clue here my friend.

Native Americans wiped out, one million bengalis starved to death in the span of one year during WW2, hanging rebels from trees and blowing them up from cannons to intimidate the local population during 1857. Slave labors employed by British for farming of cotton and indigo in India. The list goes on and on...

Even the nazis did not go to such extent.

and people are forever apologising for our conquering descendants.

We are so grateful for that.

Brits feel the kelpers should be allowed to choose their own fate.. not because we think its cool to have a little empire, but because it seems the right thing to do.

Of course. We cannot move back time and the situation in falklands has become such that the british can argue they are living thr for generations.

What people also dont seem to understand is our government have TRIED to give away gibraltar and the falklands in the past

The only reason they didnt do so was because gibraltans and kelpers were outraged.

Just like the whites in south africa were outraged at the thought of racial equality during the apartheid.

I have told you may, this world is not an utopia. England is a militarily strong country and they have the freedom to do things which are not morally justified but something the british can get away with it.

QUOTE

Let me rephrase my argument. England is an island country. Obviously there will be a few islands that are unihabited of humans. How would you feel if argentina or some other country one fine day comes and annexes these uninhabited islands forcibly and say no wrong is done coz no human life is lost?
ENDQUOTE

If someone finds and claims uninhabited islands inside international waters then fair enough. If the islands where inside internationally recognised argentinian waters- then geography would be a factor. But they arent, if they were 20 miles from the coast of argentina or something id support their claim.



Diego Garcia, the governments actions was wrong.


On the topic of the days of empire - do i think its right to go conquering half the world and planting the union flag there?

No of course not. However i think it has to be taken in the context of the time. In those days ALL european powers made land grabs, heck even belgium had an empire, it was wrong, but europeans believed it was the 'duty of the white man' to bring civilization etc.

The british empire gets special attention because it was more effective at empire building than anyone else, because of its Navy.


As i said earlier, the ideal solution would be full independence for the kelpers, they would be happy with that im sure. However it cant happen right now because they would be attacked.

To the people living there it is there home, they were born there as were their fathers, grandfathers and so on.. and i support protecting their right to determine their own fate.

______
It is an offence for a Trooper to die in bed!

Stop dying at once and when you get up, get your bloody hair cut" - Wintle to Trooper Cedric Mays (Royal Dragoons), who recovered and lived to the age of 95.

If someone finds and claims uninhabited islands inside international waters then fair enough. If the islands where inside internationally recognised argentinian waters- then geography would be a factor. But they arent, if they were 20 miles from the coast of argentina or something id support their claim.

Dear May, a country annexing an island, thousands of kilometers from their own shore, by sheer military force is not fair enough. The argies have a natural claim that is more feasible than the british claim on the same islands.

What the British did is a polite way of committing daylight robbery.

Diego Garcia, the governments actions was wrong.

Diego Garcia, then the Suez Crisis... there are a couple or so hiccups with the empire.

No of course not. However i think it has to be taken in the context of the time. In those days ALL european powers made land grabs, heck even belgium had an empire, it was wrong, but europeans believed it was the 'duty of the white man' to bring civilization etc.

Of course. It was in context of the time, but doesnt change the fact that millions had to die for that and for the same reason India and other colonies honestly don't see the difference between a Nazi and a Britisher.

The british empire gets special attention because it was more effective at empire building than anyone else, because of its Navy.

I dont dispute that. It was much, much, much more effective at crushing rebellions than other european powers. Starving a million people to death in one year is no mean feat.

As i said earlier, the ideal solution would be full independence for the kelpers, they would be happy with that im sure. However it cant happen right now because they would be attacked.

They don't need to be attacked. Left by themselves, the falklanders would die anyway. I dare say they dont have the resources to sustain themselves or create a currency system, legal system, constituition, police, military etc. They will forever be dependent on the British one way or the other.

To the people living there it is there home, they were born there as were their fathers, grandfathers and so on.. and i support protecting their right to determine their own fate.

passionate but flawed logic. As I had said previously, the british who ruled India also stayed here for generations. Some were in fact even respected, but didnt change the fact that they had to leave.

Dear May, a country annexing an island, thousands of kilometers from their own shore, by sheer military force is not fair enough. The argies have a natural claim that is more feasible than the british claim on the same islands.

I have asked Yag to no avail and so now I'll ask you, why does Agrentina which had the Falklands for two months have a "natural claim" to them while the British who've been there 170 years don't? I know your hatred of the British run deep but you are making claims here without any support. Under your reasoning who holds a "natural claim," India to Sri Lanka or Sri Lanka to India? My point is does proximity give anyone a natural claim to anything?

---

"The chief aim of all government is to preserve the freedom of the citizen. His control over his person, his property, his movements, his business, his desires should be restrained only so far as the public welfare imperatively demands. The world is in more danger of being governed too much than too little. It is the teaching of all history that liberty can only be preserved in small areas. Local self-government is, therefore, indispensable to liberty. A centralized and distant bureaucracy is the worst of all tyranny. Taxation can justly be levied for no purpose other than to provide revenue for the support of the government. To tax one person, class or section to provide revenue for the benefit of another is none the less robbery because done under the form of law and called taxation." John W. Davis, Democratic Presidential Candidate, 1924. Davis was one of the greatest trial and appellate lawyers in US history. He also served as the US Ambassador to the UK.

FN, with regards to reperations, empire NAZIs etc, i will simply state my view

Apologising and making reparations for ones actions is right- apologizing for the actions of your great great grandfathers actions is vacuous in the extreme. Should the Argentinians (or spanish) themselves be apologising to the natives they slaughtered to found their country for instance?. Perhaps argentinians should leave for spain as they have no 'natural claim' to the land?.

I would also ask what natural claim argentina has?

Finally i will respond to your last comment
___
They don't need to be attacked. Left by themselves, the falklanders would die anyway. I dare say they dont have the resources to sustain themselves or create a currency system, legal system, constituition, police, military etc. They will forever be dependent on the British one way or the other.
___________

Actually the falklands are pretty independant and propsperous and are largely self governing.

They have courts, their own police force, and pay for everything themselves except defence.

They have their own armed forces the FIDF which by all accounts are well trained, by the way they meet the entire cost of that themselves.



______
It is an offence for a Trooper to die in bed!

Stop dying at once and when you get up, get your bloody hair cut" - Wintle to Trooper Cedric Mays (Royal Dragoons), who recovered and lived to the age of 95.

I have asked Yag to no avail and so now I'll ask you, why does Agrentina which had the Falklands for two months have a "natural claim" to them while the British who've been there 170 years don't? I know your hatred of the British run deep but you are making claims here without any support.

Thats a pretty lame accusation, that I "hate" the british. I hate the british as much as an American you hate islam coz some muslims did 9/11.

As for the falkland question, I believe argentina has more claim on the falklands than the british for the same reason that I believe US has more claim on Alaska than Brazil.

One one hand you have a country that is as close to falklands as can be and on the other hand you have england that had occupied falklands under its imperialist conquest during its glory days.

Under your reasoning who holds a "natural claim," India to Sri Lanka or Sri Lanka to India? My point is does proximity give anyone a natural claim to anything?

Well if you had read the Ramayana then maybe you wouldnt have asked this question :P

Both Sri Lanka and India are sovereign countries. You could have asked who has more claim on Mauritius, is it India or Sri Lanka. I would have replied that the country closer to mauritius in geography and history has more claim.

FN, with regards to reperations, empire NAZIs etc, i will simply state my view

Apologising and making reparations for ones actions is right- apologizing for the actions of your great great grandfathers actions is vacuous in the extreme.

Beg to disagree.

North-east India was scene to british India's resistance against japanese aggression in WW2. Recently, as in approx 2007-08 a group of Japanese people in their youth had visited the battlefield to pay respect and apologise for their ancestors actions.

Apology does not equal to humiliation. Apology means you feel sorry for a wrong done in the past and want to atone for it. Its a misconception that by saying sorry you will demean yourself.

If the Germans in 1950 can be made to feel sorry why not the British. The Germans who were in their 20s in 1950s were hardly 7-8 year old children during WW2. They had no hand in nazi crimes but they were made to feel sorry, werent they?

Then again, the mighty does not need to apologise.

Should the Argentinians (or spanish) themselves be apologising to the natives they slaughtered to found their country for instance?.

Ideally yes, they should.

In a sense I feel bad for the Nazis, they were simply doing what other europeans were doing at the time and they are made to look like the in-laws of devil himself. Stalin was equally "evil", but he was on the victorious side and therefore didnt need to make any apology.

Perhaps argentinians should leave for spain as they have no 'natural claim' to the land?.

I agree, but there is a catch.

If argies go back to spain than it is only fair to expect that all the americans, canadians, australians, new zealanders etc go back to england.

I would also ask what natural claim argentina has?

Geography.

Actually the falklands are pretty independant and propsperous and are largely self governing.

They have courts, their own police force, and pay for everything themselves except defence.

They have their own armed forces the FIDF which by all accounts are well trained, by the way they meet the entire cost of that themselves.

Now thats news for me! What is their standard currency?

Do they have a separate constitution, parliament, legal framework etc?

So your argument is that every bit of land should belong to the country to whom it is geographically closest to? The freedom of choice of those who have lived there for generations should not be taken into account at all, just geography?

Seeing as India has never been powerful enough to establish far away colonies in recent times i can't offer an analogy at this level, however if your grandfather had been one of the Indians who moved to Britain years ago looking for a better life, had worked hard and bought a house there which was eventually handed onto yourself. Despite the fact that by all international law and your families choice you felt it was now rightfully your home, the people next door and in the neighbourhood were all also decendents of former indian citizens who wanted to stay there. Lets say then I decide to turn up with a load of right wing yobs and boot you out. How would you feel about that? Would you not fight to get what was rightfully your home back and also protect your neighbours and fellow ethnic settlers?

=====
Speaking of the Eurofighters close-in combat prowess, Major Marc Gr�ne, CO of 742 (Zapata), the second squadron of the wing, described to assembled aviation journalists how, on a recent visit to France to demo the aircraft, he had won two out of two battles against the Dassault Rafale in mock within visual range dogfights. Both fights were a standard set-up and merge at 21,000ft and 30,000ft he recounted, adding that the higher the fight the better the Eurofighter liked it. He singled out the Eurofighters excess power as its trump card over the Rafale

Thats a pretty lame accusation, that I "hate" the british. I hate the british as much as an American you hate islam coz some muslims did 9/11.

Actually, no it's not. You continually rail about the British, denouncing them at every turn. I don't castigate Muslims, in general, except for their failure to denounce those who pervert Islam to their own ends.

As for the falkland question, I believe argentina has more claim on the falklands than the british for the same reason that I believe US has more claim on Alaska than Brazil.

My recollection is that the US bought Alaska from Russia which had claimed it as a colony. When and from whom did Argentina buy the Falklands? I'm curious, too, as to why chose Brazil. Wouldn't it have as much claim, if proximity is the criteria as Argentina?

One one hand you have a country that is as close to falklands as can be and on the other hand you have england that had occupied falklands under its imperialist conquest during its glory days.

Why isn't Argentina's invasion considered an attempted "imperialist conquest?" I'm also curious, I thought the islands were uninhabited originally. Who, exactly did those rascally British "conquer?"

Well if you had read the Ramayana then maybe you wouldnt have asked this question :P

Well, I have not.

Both Sri Lanka and India are sovereign countries.

OK, but why? Why couldn't one or the other lay their claim and harp on it incessantly? I'm really just trying to understand your reasoning. For example, Canada is now a sovereign nation but was once a British Colony. Are you saying when the British occupied it, that because the US was close and a sovereign nation it could simply have laid claim to it? What would be the legal basis? Does not the land belong to the people who occupy it? If the Falklanders want to be British who are you to tell them they ought to be Argentinians?

You could have asked who has more claim on Mauritius, is it India or Sri Lanka. I would have replied that the country closer to mauritius in geography and history has more claim.

So proximity is the so basis for a lawful claim?

---

"The chief aim of all government is to preserve the freedom of the citizen. His control over his person, his property, his movements, his business, his desires should be restrained only so far as the public welfare imperatively demands. The world is in more danger of being governed too much than too little. It is the teaching of all history that liberty can only be preserved in small areas. Local self-government is, therefore, indispensable to liberty. A centralized and distant bureaucracy is the worst of all tyranny. Taxation can justly be levied for no purpose other than to provide revenue for the support of the government. To tax one person, class or section to provide revenue for the benefit of another is none the less robbery because done under the form of law and called taxation." John W. Davis, Democratic Presidential Candidate, 1924. Davis was one of the greatest trial and appellate lawyers in US history. He also served as the US Ambassador to the UK.

QUOTE

eing as India has never been powerful enough to establish far away colonies in recent times i can't offer an analogy at this level, however if your grandfather had been one of the Indians who moved to Britain years ago looking for a better life, had worked hard and bought a house there which was eventually handed onto yourself. Despite the fact that by all international law and your families choice you felt it was now rightfully your home, the people next door and in the neighbourhood were all also decendents of former indian citizens who wanted to stay there. Lets say then I decide to turn up with a load of right wing yobs and boot you out. How would you feel about that? Would you not fight to get what was rightfully your home back and also protect your neighbours and fellow ethnic settlers?
___

EXACTLY.

And yes FN they have their own constitution, their own legislative assembly and are essentially self governing.

They are also economically self sufficient paying for their own police, legal system, healthcare, education etc. The ONLY thing they dont pay for is defense.

______
It is an offence for a Trooper to die in bed!

Stop dying at once and when you get up, get your bloody hair cut" - Wintle to Trooper Cedric Mays (Royal Dragoons), who recovered and lived to the age of 95.

So your argument is that every bit of land should belong to the country to whom it is geographically closest to?

Geographically and historically, both.

The freedom of choice of those who have lived there for generations should not be taken into account at all, just geography?

Depends on how the people got there in the first place. My dear friend you do realise that Israel was created by driving out the arabs from the jews' promised land, right?

You cannot have different standards for different people. Though in these case the Jews enjoy 2 advantages - the Jews are smart and strong, and the arabs are the dumbest creatures that walk on two legs.

Seeing as India has never been powerful enough to establish far away colonies in recent times i can't offer an analogy at this level,

Unfortunately, a part of India was colonialist in the early medieval century. Hindusim in Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia etc were not mere co-incidences. The Cholas of India has a SEA empire. Even Singapore and Maldives are a corruption of the word "Singa Pur" (City of Lions) and "Mala Dweep" (Necklace of Islands).

And yes, Indians in Malaysia are very much discriminated against.

however if your grandfather had been one of the Indians who moved to Britain years ago looking for a better life, had worked hard and bought a house there which was eventually handed onto yourself. Despite the fact that by all international law and your families choice you felt it was now rightfully your home, the people next door and in the neighbourhood were all also decendents of former indian citizens who wanted to stay there.

If my grandfather went there as a colonialist then I should expect hostility from the "natives". Dont tell me the British fed milk and honey to Luftwaffe air crew who were captured during the Battle of Britain or the native englishmen celebrated the Roman legionnaires as heroes when they invaded England.

Lets say then I decide to turn up with a load of right wing yobs and boot you out. How would you feel about that? Would you not fight to get what was rightfully your home back and also protect your neighbours and fellow ethnic settlers?

If my grandfather went there as a worker, then yes. I have a natural right to be agitated. If my grandfather went there as a slave trader then the natives have a natural right to be agitated.

BTW if you are trying to highlight the skinhead attacks on Indians in England, then its a different issue altogether.

Actually, no it's not. You continually rail about the British, denouncing them at every turn.

Actually I dare say you are a bit prejudiced. I dont hate the British, no matter how much you accuse me, but I hate the justification of British imperialist past made out by some posters.

I don't castigate Muslims, in general, except for their failure to denounce those who pervert Islam to their own ends.

In the same way I dont hate British but posters (British or otherwise) who glorify imperialism and believely that colonialism was a boon for the colonies.

My recollection is that the US bought Alaska from Russia which had claimed it as a colony. When and from whom did Argentina buy the Falklands?

Siberia is also a part of Russia as Texas is a part of US through the ages. Likewise Lakshwadeep Islands is a part of India, though the claim was breifly challenged by Indonesia. If India was as weak as the argies then the bloody indoneisans would have been crawling all over the islands.

I can also rephrase the question as to from whom did the British buy the falkland islands, answer is nobody. If falklands was situated in the middle of the atlantic ocean and the british took over it then it may be argued that the british have a right over it. Falklands is argentina's "next door island".

I'm curious, too, as to why chose Brazil. Wouldn't it have as much claim, if proximity is the criteria as Argentina?

Brazil or Peru claiming Alaska is as ridiculous as England claiming Falklands.

Why isn't Argentina's invasion considered an attempted "imperialist conquest?" I'm also curious, I thought the islands were uninhabited originally. Who, exactly did those rascally British "conquer?"

Anexxation of territory would also count as invasion Dear Sir. You dont mean to say that the American marines would be welcoming any potential invader who might want to take on say some uninhabited Hawai islet?

Well, I have not.

Its ok, my point of argument was both India and Sri Lanka are ancient countries and have had diplo ties in the past.

OK, but why? Why couldn't one or the other lay their claim and harp on it incessantly? I'm really just trying to understand your reasoning.

Actually you are very close to the truth. The LTTE problem was in a round about sense a "them vs us" war for the Sinhala sri lankans. And as much as you will hate me for it, the root cause here is again England.

The English when they colonialised Sri Lanka hired slave labour from India, that is the Tamils. Over the years the Tamils became significant in number and an ethnic war erupted. The Tamils wanted a separate country and the Sinhalese viewed Tamils as foreign occupiers.

So in response to your argument, one can say that there were "claims" and harps" regarding territory.

For example, Canada is now a sovereign nation but was once a British Colony. Are you saying when the British occupied it, that because the US was close and a sovereign nation it could simply have laid claim to it?

Pardon my poor knowledge of American history. But I believe once I read a post in WAFF that said that the US actually tried to invade Canada, the British (sorry to bring them up again Sir) intervened on behalf of the canadians and even burned down the white house.

I never googled it, but you being an American who obviously know better than me.

The Canada-US angle is a fallacy. If US lays claim on Canadian territory or vice versa then its a simple case of war. The more apt equation would be the South China sea crisis, where a bunch of islands and maritime territory is being claimed by china and a host number of countries from SEA.

In that context, Canada laying claim on Alaska is more possible than Canda laying claim on say Washington. But of course it is just a hypothetic example I am giving.

What would be the legal basis? Does not the land belong to the people who occupy it? If the Falklanders want to be British who are you to tell them they ought to be Argentinians?

Of course the island belongs to the people who occupy it. But then like I said it depends on how the people got there in the first place. The ideal solution would have been argentine taking the island and falklanders rehabitated in england, but its not possible for obvious reasons.

So proximity is the so basis for a lawful claim?

Proximity - geographic and historical, is the basis of a lawful claim. Thats right.

"...as Texas is a part of US through the ages."

Ummm...actually Texas was part of Mexico until 1836, then an independent republic until 1845...then it became a state.

---

FN - Firstly, great to see you back again!

Depends on how the people got there in the first place. My dear friend you do realise that Israel was created by driving out the arabs from the jews' promised land, right?

You cannot have different standards for different people. Though in these case the Jews enjoy 2 advantages - the Jews are smart and strong, and the arabs are the dumbest creatures that walk on two legs.

I quite agree that the current Arab israeli problem was to some extent created by the way in which israel was forced into Arab lands and can see why there would be a historical resentment on the part of the arabs. However, i don't see the parallel with the Falklands situation, as May has rightly pointed out there were no indigenous population that were wiped out or forced from there lands in the Falklands, indeed before the arrival of European settlers the islands were unpopulated. Elsewhere within what was formerly the British Empire this was clearly the case but not here. I can see why people from former colonies would see it this way as some of our behaviour during those times was abhorrent by today's standards but the Falklands can't be compared with these situations.


Unfortunately, a part of India was colonialist in the early medieval century. Hindusim in Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia etc were not mere co-incidences. The Cholas of India has a SEA empire. Even Singapore and Maldives are a corruption of the word "Singa Pur" (City of Lions) and "Mala Dweep" (Necklace of Islands).

And yes, Indians in Malaysia are very much discriminated against.
----

I didn't mean india had never been colonial, just not in recent times. I think it might have been yourself or Jat or Aryan who first told me about India having used to have been the most powerful and wealthy nation on the planet pre -1600. Indeed IIRC much of the wealth for our industrial revolution came from wealth taken from India when we were able to take advantage of the fallout between Indian leadership of the time. For this reason if the Falklands had been a populated part of india that had it's natives wiped out or subjugated my opinion might be different.


If my grandfather went there as a colonialist then I should expect hostility from the "natives". Dont tell me the British fed milk and honey to Luftwaffe air crew who were captured during the Battle of Britain or the native englishmen celebrated the Roman legionnaires as heroes when they invaded England.
---
Again there were no natives to have resentment against the British settlers so it can't be compared with the Germans or Romans who attacked Britain.


If my grandfather went there as a worker, then yes. I have a natural right to be agitated. If my grandfather went there as a slave trader then the natives have a natural right to be agitated.

BTW if you are trying to highlight the skinhead attacks on Indians in England, then its a different issue altogether.
---
Though the British empire was to our deep shame involved in the slave trade (though in fairness thanks tto Lord Shaftsbury we also outlawed it before most other nations), this has nothing much to do with the Falkland Islanders. They were settlers inhabiting unpopulated lands, just as the Indians who came to the UK at the invitation of our government were to an extent. No the land wasn't unpopulated but they were asked to come and were needed to fill positions within our society.

I wasn't trying to specifically highlight attacks by skinheads against indians the UK - which btw makes me sick and ashamed to admit they're my countrymen (though as you say this is a different topic). Rather that the Argentine Junta at the time were a right wing bunch of thugs and a fairly good approximation of those types, these were people who had had the eyes gouged out of mothers who protested for their missing children who'd been abducted for protesting against the junta and then had their bodies hung on lamp posts in buenos aeries. To see these people come and force British citizens from their homes when their only claim to the lands is that they were geographically closer to them was intolerable. Especially when you consider that the lands were never populated by 'Argentines' anyway other than a short lived attempt to set up a penal colony there 200 years before and 100 years after Europeans had become the lands first settlers.

=====
Speaking of the Eurofighters close-in combat prowess, Major Marc Gr�ne, CO of 742 (Zapata), the second squadron of the wing, described to assembled aviation journalists how, on a recent visit to France to demo the aircraft, he had won two out of two battles against the Dassault Rafale in mock within visual range dogfights. Both fights were a standard set-up and merge at 21,000ft and 30,000ft he recounted, adding that the higher the fight the better the Eurofighter liked it. He singled out the Eurofighters excess power as its trump card over the Rafale

***Its randomly launcing a military campaign to forcibly acquire islands that are thousands of kilometers away from the mother country. ***

What is it with some people and their intense pet peeve for invading a far away place yet somehow its morally tolerable (or more bearable atleast) for invading a nearby place. It seems to be a common point whenever someone has to rant against European imperialism, yet, when pointed out that most, if not all, victims of European imperialism had at one time or another invaded others (could even possibly be trying to invade others while being invaded by Europeans), it gets brushed off like such is nothing because such invasions took place near their borders or some BS. lol

Ummm...actually Texas was part of Mexico until 1836, then an independent republic until 1845...then it became a state.

Now there you go again, Coalde, injecting facts into the argument. Can't you see that only serves to confuse some of those debating? Shame on you.


By the way, where's my yawning smilely?

---

"The chief aim of all government is to preserve the freedom of the citizen. His control over his person, his property, his movements, his business, his desires should be restrained only so far as the public welfare imperatively demands. The world is in more danger of being governed too much than too little. It is the teaching of all history that liberty can only be preserved in small areas. Local self-government is, therefore, indispensable to liberty. A centralized and distant bureaucracy is the worst of all tyranny. Taxation can justly be levied for no purpose other than to provide revenue for the support of the government. To tax one person, class or section to provide revenue for the benefit of another is none the less robbery because done under the form of law and called taxation." John W. Davis, Democratic Presidential Candidate, 1924. Davis was one of the greatest trial and appellate lawyers in US history. He also served as the US Ambassador to the UK.

FN - Firstly, great to see you back again!

Ah thank you, thank you!! Glad to know someone missed me

I quite agree that the current Arab israeli problem was to some extent created by the way in which israel was forced into Arab lands and can see why there would be a historical resentment on the part of the arabs. However, i don't see the parallel with the Falklands situation, as May has rightly pointed out there were no indigenous population that were wiped out or forced from there lands in the Falklands, indeed before the arrival of European settlers the islands were unpopulated. Elsewhere within what was formerly the British Empire this was clearly the case but not here. I can see why people from former colonies would see it this way as some of our behaviour during those times was abhorrent by today's standards but the Falklands can't be compared with these situations.

Ah.. you miss the point. England is claiming a piece of land, thousands of km from their home, as their own. That land was acquired through colonisation and annexation. Thats all.

I didn't mean india had never been colonial, just not in recent times. I think it might have been yourself or Jat or Aryan who first told me about India having used to have been the most powerful and wealthy nation on the planet pre -1600. Indeed IIRC much of the wealth for our industrial revolution came from wealth taken from India when we were able to take advantage of the fallout between Indian leadership of the time. For this reason if the Falklands had been a populated part of india that had it's natives wiped out or subjugated my opinion might be different.

I dont believe I exactly understood what you said. But I think the absence of natives does not justify forced annexation.

Again there were no natives to have resentment against the British settlers so it can't be compared with the Germans or Romans who attacked Britain.

same argument as above.

Though the British empire was to our deep shame involved in the slave trade (though in fairness thanks tto Lord Shaftsbury we also outlawed it before most other nations), this has nothing much to do with the Falkland Islanders. They were settlers inhabiting unpopulated lands, just as the Indians who came to the UK at the invitation of our government were to an extent. No the land wasn't unpopulated but they were asked to come and were needed to fill positions within our society.

I am not saying the settlers are evil or that they should be persecuted. My point of argument is even if you annex an uninhabited island that was/ is a part of another country or is claimed by another country, then using military force is wrong.

P.S. I thought u were Canadian, :P

And dont believe Provost, I am not a British hater

What is it with some people and their intense pet peeve for invading a far away place yet somehow its morally tolerable (or more bearable atleast) for invading a nearby place. It seems to be a common point whenever someone has to rant against European imperialism, yet, when pointed out that most, if not all, victims of European imperialism had at one time or another invaded others (could even possibly be trying to invade others while being invaded by Europeans), it gets brushed off like such is nothing because such invasions took place near their borders or some BS. lol

Yea aung sung su kyi, I heard you.

Now there you go again, Coalde, injecting facts into the argument. Can't you see that only serves to confuse some of those debating? Shame on you.
[linked image]

Now come on!! Thats uncalled for, I told you my history on America is weak. I was using Texas as a random example and you also know it.

"I was using Texas as a random example and you also know it. "

I am not involved in this debate at all (human migration has been going on since there were humans, so it is a pointless debate), I just giggled when you used Texas as an example as it became a state only 20ish years prior to Alaska being purchased.

---

I can't reply to this as fully as i would like, as I'm on the train to Liverpool on a hen do so I'm on my phone

I just want to point out two things

Firstly I agree that forcibly annexing an island that has been claimed would be wrong .. inhabited or not.

However.. when the islands were first claimed by Britain.. there was no claim by Argentina in existance.. in fact our first occupation of the islands predates the existance of the argentinian nation by several decades


Secondly, I agree that an island within a countries legally recognised waters sod be theirs by right

However at well over 200 miles from argentinas coast the islands are a long way from the international definition of a countries waters .. which is why I feel geography is not relevant in this case

Finally.. after 8 generations, the islanders are as indigineous as many countries populations including Argentina.. afterall mankind began I'm Africa.. so if you go back far enough we are all. Implanted populations

Oh .. its nice to debate on here with someone who doesbt resort to insults etc

______
It is an offence for a Trooper to die in bed!

Stop dying at once and when you get up, get your bloody hair cut" - Wintle to Trooper Cedric Mays (Royal Dragoons), who recovered and lived to the age of 95.

To be clear, when Argentina as a new country decided to take the Falklands after 60 of the British abandoning the islands (the British flag still flew there), the Argies in their infinite wisdom didn't check international law and just decided to dump convicts on it.

Britain believed that before the Argentinians would dare put people there, they would check with the international community at which point the islands would be negotiated, but when Britain realised the truth of the matter, they thought enough was enough and went back.

Ah.. you miss the point. England is claiming a piece of land, thousands of km from their home, as their own. That land was acquired through colonisation and annexation. Thats all.
---

I guess i don't have too much of a problem with colonisation as this is what has happened throughout human history. As May/Coalde said above otherwise we'd never as a species have moved out of Africa. I guess thats my point that i think thats ok but 'colonialism' as in what the British Empire did in a lot of places - subjugating the local population and stripping said nation of their resources is in my book wrong.


I dont believe I exactly understood what you said. But I think the absence of natives does not justify forced annexation.
----

Pretty much the same as above. I guess our view points are just different on what is right and wrong regarding absence of natives, nice to be able to debate without arguing though!


I am not saying the settlers are evil or that they should be persecuted. My point of argument is even if you annex an uninhabited island that was/ is a part of another country or is claimed by another country, then using military force is wrong.

P.S. I thought u were Canadian, :P

And dont believe Provost, I am not a British hater
---

I think thats where as others have said above the Falklands is fairly unique though in that they were claimed without military force before Argentina as a nation even came into existence.

Canadian? Don't know what you're talking aboot?!! Nah, I'm a limey through and through!

Don't worry i can see you're not a British hater and just quite rightly aren't keen on imperialism (regardless of who does it). There are some people who will defend the Empire over here and whilst you do have to remember it was a different time and most nations would have done the same if they were able, IMO the English language and a few railways aren't a fair trade for your liberty and all your resources and wealth!


=====
Speaking of the Eurofighters close-in combat prowess, Major Marc Gr�ne, CO of 742 (Zapata), the second squadron of the wing, described to assembled aviation journalists how, on a recent visit to France to demo the aircraft, he had won two out of two battles against the Dassault Rafale in mock within visual range dogfights. Both fights were a standard set-up and merge at 21,000ft and 30,000ft he recounted, adding that the higher the fight the better the Eurofighter liked it. He singled out the Eurofighters excess power as its trump card over the Rafale

I had, FN, a brilliant response to your missive above and had it all typed out, in a response window but got distracted by a client visit and when I went back and hit send I was timed out and lost it all. I will try to recreate it over the weekend to see about continuing our discussion.

---

"The chief aim of all government is to preserve the freedom of the citizen. His control over his person, his property, his movements, his business, his desires should be restrained only so far as the public welfare imperatively demands. The world is in more danger of being governed too much than too little. It is the teaching of all history that liberty can only be preserved in small areas. Local self-government is, therefore, indispensable to liberty. A centralized and distant bureaucracy is the worst of all tyranny. Taxation can justly be levied for no purpose other than to provide revenue for the support of the government. To tax one person, class or section to provide revenue for the benefit of another is none the less robbery because done under the form of law and called taxation." John W. Davis, Democratic Presidential Candidate, 1924. Davis was one of the greatest trial and appellate lawyers in US history. He also served as the US Ambassador to the UK.

Seriously, it is not a question of if but when. There is no rational for ethical argument of British rule over Falklands (as FN has comprehensively demonstrated in his arguments above) and as soon as US is relatively weak enough to not being able to support UK and as soon as Argies/Latin block are militarily strong enough the islands are out of UK's hand.

It is naive to assume that UK would have been able to hold on to the islands without the direct or indirect support/assurance of US (see what happened in Suez Crisis if you need an explanation) and therefore the best they can hope (I'm sure that some in the British establishment are already working along this line of thought) is a dignified exit. I'm sure that just like their exits from other colonies in the past - and Hong Kong in the recent past - they would be able to find an argument to sell to the local public.

It is deep boring how Mike and they Brit "chaps" expose themselves over and over again in their ignorance and lack of understanding of basic historical facts. With idiots like these, Tonking incidents, 2003 Irak invasion and many other unjustifiable criminal operations that cause hundred of thousands of innocent dead are going to be supported by this sick "public opinion." Keep going Mike, earn your daily BigMac...

-------------------------------------------------------
"Las Malvinas fueron, son y serán Argentinas"

You two should do stand up. You def are funny enough.

_____________________________________


My Tank is Fight

How about the UK gives the Falklands to Argentina when the Russians give Kaliningrad (Konigsberg) back to the Germans and the Chinese give the Tibetans their independence? no? Didn't think so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaliningrad

Oh .. its nice to debate on here with someone who doesbt resort to insults etc

Ah, thank you May. That was very sweet of you

Don't worry i can see you're not a British hater and just quite rightly aren't keen on imperialism (regardless of who does it). There are some people who will defend the Empire over here and whilst you do have to remember it was a different time and most nations would have done the same if they were able, IMO the English language and a few railways aren't a fair trade for your liberty and all your resources and wealth!

LOL!! Loved your last part. Anyways nice talking to you, its a rare phenomenon in WAFF when you can debate without going ballistic.

@Provost - Sure Sir, we can continue the debate when you wish.

"It is deep boring how Mike and they Brit "chaps" expose themselves over and over again in their ignorance and lack of understanding of basic historical facts. With idiots like these, Tonking incidents, 2003 Irak invasion and many other unjustifiable criminal operations that cause hundred of thousands of innocent dead are going to be supported by this sick "public opinion." Keep going Mike, earn your daily BigMac..."

Translation: My initial reasoning surrounding why the Falklands should be an Argentinian possession has been logically destroyed, proving me to be the simplistic brainwashed drone that I am...maybe if I change the subject no one will notice.

---

Actually I dare say you are a bit prejudiced.

Entirely possible, I think everyone is prejudiced to one extent or another. But, Im curious, how do you think Im prejudiced? For the British? Against the Argentinians? How do you think I am?

I dont hate the British, no matter how much you accuse me, but I hate the justification of British imperialist past made out by some posters.

Well, thats not my perception. I certainly am not minimizing the suffering of indigenous peoples at the hand on colonial powers. I would note, however, that as colonial powers go, Britain was at least middling.

In the same way I dont hate British but posters (British or otherwise) who glorify imperialism and believely that colonialism was a boon for the colonies.

Maybe I missed it but I dont recall anyone arguing here that colonialism was a boon to indigenous peoples. It was, to be fair, a mixed bag, some blessings, some curses. As with most things in history, there was good and bad that came out of colonialism. The fact is, we really dont know whether indigenous peoples would have been better off without colonialism or not. Theres little way to show the path not taken.

Siberia is also a part of Russia as Texas is a part of US through the ages. Likewise Lakshwadeep Islands is a part of India, though the claim was breifly challenged by Indonesia. If India was as weak as the argies then the bloody indoneisans would have been crawling all over the islands.

Yes, Siberia is a part of Russia, taken through colonialism. I know nothing of these islands nor the dispute between India and Indonesia.

I can also rephrase the question as to from whom did the British buy the falkland islands, answer is nobody. If falklands was situated in the middle of the atlantic ocean and the british took over it then it may be argued that the british have a right over it. Falklands is argentina's "next door island".

No, the British did not buy the islands. Neither did Argentina. Maybe history will be a bit of help. The Falklands were discovery by European powers in 1600 by the Dutch. Argentina did not exist. The first British claim dates to 1690. Argentina did not exist. In 1764 the French set up an settlement. Argentina did not exist. Britains first settlement there in 1766. Argentina did not exist. In 1767, France sold its interest to Spain. Argentina did not exist. In 1770, Spain expelled the British. Argentina did not exist. A peace treaty between them, resorting the British settlement. Argentina did not exist. In 1774, the British withdrew their settlement but continued in their claim to it. Argentina did not exist. The Spanish left in 1811 but continued in their claim to the islands. Argentina did not exist. In 1820, the islands were claimed in the name of the Republic of Buenos Aires. Argentina did not exist. In 1828, a settlement was established by the Republic of Buenos Aires with British permission. Argentina did not exist, at least not as a unified nation. In 1831, the US ship USS Lexington raided the island claiming its settlers were practicing piracy, removed the leaders to Montevideo for trial. Argentina, absent the Republic of Buenos Aires, established a penal colony on the islands in November, 1832. The convicts mutinied but remained on the islands. In January, 1833, the British returned to the Falklands, asked the Argentine garrison to leave and have held the islands ever since. The entire Argentine claim, the Republic of Buenos Aires not being integrated into a federal republic that is Argentina, in 1862, is based upon a 60 day occupation by a faction of what is now Argentina. The British have been there continuously since 1833 and had a settlement or a claim for 130 some years before that. Argentina has no valid claim to the Falklands and whatever claim they have is inferior to that of Britain.

Brazil or Peru claiming Alaska is as ridiculous as England claiming Falklands.

Actually, I was talking about a possible claim to the Falklands by Brazil. If proximity is enough, why not?

Anexxation of territory would also count as invasion Dear Sir. You dont mean to say that the American marines would be welcoming any potential invader who might want to take on say some uninhabited Hawai islet?

But Hawaii is as unquestionably US territory as the Falklands is British. The British claim far predates even Argentina existence, let alone any claim it might have.

Its ok, my point of argument was both India and Sri Lanka are ancient countries and have had diplo ties in the past.

So? Im not sure how that changes the argument.

Actually you are very close to the truth. The LTTE problem was in a round about sense a "them vs us" war for the Sinhala sri lankans. And as much as you will hate me for it, the root cause here is again England.

What does this have to do with the Falklands?

The English when they colonialised Sri Lanka hired slave labour from India, that is the Tamils. Over the years the Tamils became significant in number and an ethnic war erupted. The Tamils wanted a separate country and the Sinhalese viewed Tamils as foreign occupiers.

I honestly dont know much about that, but Im hard pressed to see its relationship to the British claim to the Falklands.

So in response to your argument, one can say that there were "claims" and harps" regarding territory.

Which has no impact one way or the other about the validity of the claim.

Pardon my poor knowledge of American history. But I believe once I read a post in WAFF that said that the US actually tried to invade Canada, the British (sorry to bring them up again Sir) intervened on behalf of the canadians and even burned down the white house.

My point is, which I noticed your sidestepped, was that Canada WAS a British colony when the US was a sovereign nation. Under your theory, the US as a sovereign nation in close proximity to a colony has a legitimate claim to that colony. Apparently you believe that the US, having divested Spain of Cuba should have kept Cuba as its own. It meets your valid claim criteria as well.

I never googled it, but you being an American who obviously know better than me.

Geography does not dictate historical knowledge.

The Canada-US angle is a fallacy. If US lays claim on Canadian territory or vice versa then its a simple case of war. The more apt equation would be the South China sea crisis, where a bunch of islands and maritime territory is being claimed by china and a host number of countries from SEA.

Why? Im not talking about Canada the nation, but rather about Canada the colony.

In that context, Canada laying claim on Alaska is more possible than Canda laying claim on say Washington. But of course it is just a hypothetic example I am giving.

Why? Washington abuts Canada just as Alaska does. The problem is Canada can have no claim to either because it remained a British colony when that territory was acquired.

Of course the island belongs to the people who occupy it. But then like I said it depends on how the people got there in the first place. The ideal solution would have been argentine taking the island and falklanders rehabitated in england, but its not possible for obvious reasons.

You want to expel people who have lived in the Falklands for the better part of 200 years, send them to a country to England even though, they and their ancestors have lived for generation in the Falklands to give that land to Argentinians who have NEVER lived there. Talk about colonialization and the cost to indigenous peoples. Youre no better than the imperialists you castigate.


Proximity - geographic and historical, is the basis of a lawful claim. Thats right.

The problem, FN, is that Argentina has only proximity. It has no historical claim. None. It seeks to assert its control over the Falklanders because it thought Britain either was too weak or apathetic to resist its imperialist conquest. It was wrong. To seek to give lip service to its imperialistic claims, is to side with the historical oppressors here. I dont think youd want to do that. Would you?

Nemo me impune lacesset,

---

"The chief aim of all government is to preserve the freedom of the citizen. His control over his person, his property, his movements, his business, his desires should be restrained only so far as the public welfare imperatively demands. The world is in more danger of being governed too much than too little. It is the teaching of all history that liberty can only be preserved in small areas. Local self-government is, therefore, indispensable to liberty. A centralized and distant bureaucracy is the worst of all tyranny. Taxation can justly be levied for no purpose other than to provide revenue for the support of the government. To tax one person, class or section to provide revenue for the benefit of another is none the less robbery because done under the form of law and called taxation." John W. Davis, Democratic Presidential Candidate, 1924. Davis was one of the greatest trial and appellate lawyers in US history. He also served as the US Ambassador to the UK.

Provost, you got the gist of what happened in 1832, but let me clarify a little.

Between 1829 and 1832 Britain knew that Argentina were making advances, but believed they would do so in accordance with international law. Britain felt its hand was shaky, and didn't want to p*ss anyone off and sat on it; they also could not tolerate the French or Americans laying claim to the Island.

However our hand was forced when Argentina instead of complying with international law and looking at the current owners and petitioning, they landed.

Britain believed it was illegal to do so and moved back.

Right Luis Vernet ask the UK government for permission for his settlement in 1826 which was established in 1828. In 1829 he agreed to send reports to the British counsel in Buenos Aires. The United Provinces proclaimed Luis Vernet as governor of the islands in 1829. British diplomatic protests at the appointment and declarations of sovereignty were ignored.

So the the Argentinian clam that the colony of 1832 was their is a load of rubbish. It was a British approved colony which was usurped, then removed.

Get over it.

Distance is not a factor, or should the Feroes got to Iceland?, or Scotland or Norway?

"The problem, FN, is that Argentina has only proximity. It has no historical claim. None."

You are really a PhD in Stupdity... no less than that. Suma Cum Laude. Come on, keep bragging on your iliteracy, hamburguer eater...

And again, kelpers are just rednecks good-for-nothing greedy ecogenocides... Malvinas are best uninhabited than being populated by British sheit. A good AC-130 Spectre should take count on them as you do with Muslims... they are only alcohol-blood anglo-fucsons promiscous useless outlaws... a 30mm round should put out their misery.

-------------------------------------------------------
"Las Malvinas fueron, son y serán Argentinas"

Ah, Yag, your contribution is insults and bullsh*t. Typical.

Nemo me impune lacesset,

---

"The chief aim of all government is to preserve the freedom of the citizen. His control over his person, his property, his movements, his business, his desires should be restrained only so far as the public welfare imperatively demands. The world is in more danger of being governed too much than too little. It is the teaching of all history that liberty can only be preserved in small areas. Local self-government is, therefore, indispensable to liberty. A centralized and distant bureaucracy is the worst of all tyranny. Taxation can justly be levied for no purpose other than to provide revenue for the support of the government. To tax one person, class or section to provide revenue for the benefit of another is none the less robbery because done under the form of law and called taxation." John W. Davis, Democratic Presidential Candidate, 1924. Davis was one of the greatest trial and appellate lawyers in US history. He also served as the US Ambassador to the UK.

"Ah, Yag, your contribution is insults and bullsh*t. Typical."

Unbelievable as it seems... mine is deepest and thoughtful than yours. Amazing isn't it? Your thoughts, with Brits.hit accent and trying to appear smartass, is more insulting... of course, is an insult to the intelligence, so you don't get it yet. In any case, your thoughts are not even yours but from people responsible for the dead thousands of innocent lives. They do support as fervent as you do this crap of older powers being victimized by small marginal countries when they spent the past centuries robbing, killing, raping, and destroying entire regions just for greediness.

Keep bragging for the minimum wage... "lier" or "lawyer".. whatever your undercover id is..

-------------------------------------------------------
"Las Malvinas fueron, son y serán Argentinas"

Yag, I could never hope to even approach your intellect and your thoughtful, fact filled responses are far better than I could manage but that leaves me with one remaining question: What is the legal basis of Argentina's claim to the Falklands? During this whole discussion, with my limited intelligence, I've not been able to grasp it. Can you tell me? That way I can bow completely to your superior intellect.

Nemo me impune lacesset,

---

"The chief aim of all government is to preserve the freedom of the citizen. His control over his person, his property, his movements, his business, his desires should be restrained only so far as the public welfare imperatively demands. The world is in more danger of being governed too much than too little. It is the teaching of all history that liberty can only be preserved in small areas. Local self-government is, therefore, indispensable to liberty. A centralized and distant bureaucracy is the worst of all tyranny. Taxation can justly be levied for no purpose other than to provide revenue for the support of the government. To tax one person, class or section to provide revenue for the benefit of another is none the less robbery because done under the form of law and called taxation." John W. Davis, Democratic Presidential Candidate, 1924. Davis was one of the greatest trial and appellate lawyers in US history. He also served as the US Ambassador to the UK.

Again??? What am I?? a Kindergarten teacher?

Simply as it is, Argentine inherited from Spain the city of Buenos Aires (have you ever heard of it?), the pampas, several other cities, and, after some claims from Chilli, we naturally inherited Patagonia. By 1806/7 UK sent two expeditions to take Buenos Aires from Spain and the local population (later Argentina) expelled them both times... So, can you get it AH??? UK was interesting in taking colonies from Spain even with such intensity so send 10.000 troops to the other part of the World to make it done. The second surrender of Brit troops is in a picture of my signature.

Malvinas were firstly populated by French, then by British, but then again.. it came Spain, kick the British asses and they recognize Malvinas as a Spanish territory. No any "but-.." nor fine print in the contract... Period. IN THE VERY SAME VANE they recognize that Buenos Aires, the Patagonia, and the pampas were Argentine. BUT, as they took Gibraltar for strategic reasons (or perhaps your ******* think that Gibraltar have some Anglosaxon inheritance that claim to be part of the UK... cuz idiots like you buy that kind of crap..), in the very same way (and for the same period of time) they took Hong Kong from China, and took Cape Town from the Dutchs... guess what?? can you figure the pict?... they control the access to Mediterranean by Gibraltar, they control the access to Indian ocean by taking Cape Town, they control access to China and Far East by taking Hong Kong... fill the picture A.H.!!! how would you control access to the Pacific Ocean??? By taking Malvinas when they have the biggest fleet on Earth. Of course, that sounds criminal. If you read Enciclopedya Britannica you will read that Opium war what provoked by the Chinese who fought against free trade... Somebody arrest the editor, please! So, following this misrepresentation of History, they created the UK version of Malvinas history. Ah, yes...that has nothing to do with this greedy stuff... Uk were humanitarian peaceseekers. Malvinas is just an innocent piece of land where, you know?, British just feel as their own land and send voluntarily people to make them happy. Nothing nonsense of strategic considerations and implanted population. That sounds so criminal and you know, royal bastards become sensitive people after all.

I cannot recognize USA and say that Massachussets is other territory, independent and with self-determination. Again, only idiots like you and your criminals chaps believe so. Keep asking why the water is wet, why the ice is cold, and why Malvinas are claimed by Argentine, MORON.

Last time I spent telling over and over again this story, you dirty undercover...

-------------------------------------------------------
"Las Malvinas fueron, son y serán Argentinas"

Again???

What am I??

An interesting question.

a Kindergarten teacher?

I doubt that. Your demeanor suggests you'd be ill suited for such a career.

Simply as it is, Argentine inherited from Spain the city of Buenos Aires (have you ever heard of it?), the pampas, several other cities, and, after some claims from Chilli, we naturally inherited Patagonia.

Buenos Aires, as I understand it wasn't all that crazy about Argentina as a nation state initially. After independence in 1816, Buenos Aires was part of an Argentine confederation which did not really function as a national entity. After the Constitution of 1853, Buenos Aires seceded and fought a civil war with the remainder of the confederation and, frankly, won. Argentina, as we know it as a nation state, didn't even exist until after the Battle of Pavon and reunification in 1862. So, it seems to me that your extremely simplified statement really isn't accurate.

By 1806/7 UK sent two expeditions to take Buenos Aires from Spain and the local population (later Argentina) expelled them both times...

Yes, England and Spain have fought many times. In fact, the Argentinians really only were able to assert their independence in 1816 courtesy of the British. Surely you've heard of Wellington, right?

So, can you get it AH???

I understand what you're saying, Yag, but so far you've not shown me any legal claim to the Falklands. I'm sure I'll get to that.

UK was interesting in taking colonies from Spain even with such intensity so send 10.000 troops to the other part of the World to make it done. The second surrender of Brit troops is in a picture of my signature.

Yes, Spain and England fought many times over colonies.

Malvinas were firstly populated by French, then by British, but then again.. it came Spain, kick the British asses and they recognize Malvinas as a Spanish territory. No any "but-.." nor fine print in the contract... Period.

But then they let the British back in 1770, right? To avoid a larger war with Britain? How does that affect the Spanish claim? By the way, Im curious the French and British co-occupied the Falklands so if the Spanish got Frances claim, then all they could get is what France could give, right?

IN THE VERY SAME VANE they recognize that Buenos Aires, the Patagonia, and the pampas were Argentine.

Who? Spain? Britain? Who recognizes this?

BUT, as they took Gibraltar for strategic reasons (or perhaps your ******* think that Gibraltar have some Anglosaxon inheritance that claim to be part of the UK... cuz idiots like you buy that kind of crap..), in the very same way (and for the same period of time) they took Hong Kong from China, and took Cape Town from the Dutchs... guess what??

Yes, the British ultimately defeated the Spanish and took what they wanted of Spains colonial imperial conquests. Im curious, Yag, how you see as valid Spanish colonial possessions but say that British colonial possessions are invalid. Can you explain that to me?

can you figure the pict?...

Some of it, but I still have some questions.

they control the access to Mediterranean by Gibraltar, they control the access to Indian ocean by taking Cape Town, they control access to China and Far East by taking Hong Kong... fill the picture A.H.!!!

Yes, the British were very successful colonizers. No question about that. What does that have to do with the Falklands?

how would you control access to the Pacific Ocean??? By taking Malvinas when they have the biggest fleet on Earth. Of course, that sounds criminal.

Really? More criminal than say the Spanish conquering it to begin with? Coal ships needed fueling stations. The British had the largest fleet and used many of its possessions as coaling stations. The Falklands is no different. Im not sure I see the moral implications in that. Can you help me?

If you read Enciclopedya Britannica you will read that Opium war what provoked by the Chinese who fought against free trade... Somebody arrest the editor, please! So, following this misrepresentation of History, they created the UK version of Malvinas history. Ah, yes...that has nothing to do with this greedy stuff... Uk were humanitarian peaceseekers.

Whos arguing that the British are saints? I certainly have not made that argument.

Malvinas is just an innocent piece of land where, you know?, British just feel as their own land and send voluntarily people to make them happy. Nothing nonsense of strategic considerations and implanted population. That sounds so criminal and you know, royal bastards become sensitive people after all.

Here, Yag, you lost me completely. The Falklands have no indigenous people. The only people there are British and have been since the 1830s. Assuming the British are 100% evil, as you seem to suggest, what does that say about Argentinas claim to the Falklands? I would submit, nothing.

I cannot recognize USA and say that Massachussets is other territory, independent and with self-determination. Again, only idiots like you and your criminals chaps believe so. Keep asking why the water is wet, why the ice is cold, and why Malvinas are claimed by Argentine, MORON.

But, Yag, thats not what I asked. I know why Argentina WANTS the Falklands. They see it as an imperial conquest which will raise their national prestige. My question was, and remains, what is the basis of Argentinas legal claim to the Falklands? Youve given me a lot of talk, but not answered that simple question.

Last time I spent telling over and over again this story, you dirty undercover...

In other words, you cannot answer the question rationally so you have nothing left but vitriol and insults. I appreciate, however, your efforts in giving me your views. I only wish you were better informed so that we could have a reasoned discussion about this issue. All of this talk about South Africa, Hong Kong and all the rest is nothing except a distraction to avoid people from noticing that you did not, and, apparently, cannot, articulate the legal basis for Argentinas claim to the Falklands.

Nemo me impune lacesset,

---

"The chief aim of all government is to preserve the freedom of the citizen. His control over his person, his property, his movements, his business, his desires should be restrained only so far as the public welfare imperatively demands. The world is in more danger of being governed too much than too little. It is the teaching of all history that liberty can only be preserved in small areas. Local self-government is, therefore, indispensable to liberty. A centralized and distant bureaucracy is the worst of all tyranny. Taxation can justly be levied for no purpose other than to provide revenue for the support of the government. To tax one person, class or section to provide revenue for the benefit of another is none the less robbery because done under the form of law and called taxation." John W. Davis, Democratic Presidential Candidate, 1924. Davis was one of the greatest trial and appellate lawyers in US history. He also served as the US Ambassador to the UK.

your wasting your time

Yag subscribes to the "I reject your reality and substitute my own" school of debate

Whatever happened to Spider? I used to enjoy debating with him, he was honest and I respected his position even though we fundamentally disagreed about everything to do with the Falklands

Yag simply needs to be committed and kept sedated so he can play with some brightly painted wooden blocks in an institution somewhere.

"Can you help me? "

No, I can't. You need proffesional assistance. I do not know how to treat retarded morons. Ask your mom how she raised you.

"Really? More criminal than say the Spanish conquering it to begin with? Coal ships needed fueling stations. The British had the largest fleet and used many of its possessions as coaling stations. The Falklands is no different. Im not sure I see the moral implications in that. Can you help me? "

Coaling stations... you are the most moron SoaB I've ever known. Sure, by 1833 they robbed Malvinas in steamships... A.H.!!!!

"In other words, you cannot answer the question rationally so you have nothing left but vitriol and insults. I appreciate, however, your efforts in giving me your views. I only wish you were better informed so that we could have a reasoned discussion about this issue. All of this talk about South Africa, Hong Kong and all the rest is nothing except a distraction to avoid people from noticing that you did not, and, apparently, cannot, articulate the legal basis for Argentinas claim to the Falklands."

Sure, sure... Cape Town, Malvinas, Hong Kong, Gibraltar, Suez... has absolutely nothing to do with anything... Hey, Mike.. I got a ball in my hand.. come on boy... go get it, go get it!

-------------------------------------------------------
"Las Malvinas fueron, son y serán Argentinas"

Yag

So to summarise what you wrote.

France and Britain were the first to occupy the islands, you seem to agree with that
Spain and Britain fought over the islands, more than once.
Spain briefly held the islands- and in argentinian views they inherit it from them.
Have i got all that correct?


In which case i still dont see how that advocates argentinian possession.
Not only did Britain occupy the islands before spain (so if precedence is given to
who got there first its britain)

But Britain has held them much much longer (so if precedence is given to who is there longest its britain).

I also dont see how britain successfully kicking spain out is evil colonialism, yet spain kicking britain out is seen as fine?


Finally all that stuff about killing islanders etc..please grow up.

I personally would never want to see young argentinians die the way they did last time... and i think another attack on the islands would be even more one sided this time and result in a lot of tragic argentinian death.



______
It is an offence for a Trooper to die in bed!

Stop dying at once and when you get up, get your bloody hair cut" - Wintle to Trooper Cedric Mays (Royal Dragoons), who recovered and lived to the age of 95.

Entirely possible, I think everyone is prejudiced to one extent or another. But, Im curious, how do you think Im prejudiced? For the British? Against the Argentinians? How do you think I am?

Dunno about England and Argentina but I think you are prejudiced to think that I am a british-hater. I assure you, I am not.

Well, thats not my perception. I certainly am not minimizing the suffering of indigenous peoples at the hand on colonial powers. I would note, however, that as colonial powers go, Britain was at least middling.

That would differ on how you define meddling. I wont comment on other colonbies but lets take the example of India. A few thousand British effectively neutralised the Mughal Empire (which at one time dwarfed the iranian and ottoman empire); subjugated the Marathas and the Sikh revolt. They did all this and more my sheer politics that would make Machiavelli proud.

In fact if I look from a neutral point of I cant help but admire the British for their strategy making prowess. They meddled, interfered, divided and did everything possible to take over India without openly declaring war. It was a masterpiece.

Maybe I missed it but I dont recall anyone arguing here that colonialism was a boon to indigenous peoples. It was, to be fair, a mixed bag, some blessings, some curses. As with most things in history, there was good and bad that came out of colonialism. The fact is, we really dont know whether indigenous peoples would have been better off without colonialism or not. Theres little way to show the path not taken.

If I may, then I can apply the same yardstick to Jewish Holocaust. The pogrom against the Jews united them and helped them to have their own country. Think about it, the greatest irony here is the Nazis hated the Jews but in a round about manner they helped to create the Jewish nation of Israel.

So what would you say, would Israel have been formed if no Nazis were there? Would the prjudice against the Jews in Europe have ended if no pogrom took place? Theres little way to show the path not taken.

Yes, Siberia is a part of Russia, taken through colonialism. I know nothing of these islands nor the dispute between India and Indonesia.

Not again, I need to brush up my knowledge on foreign history. Thanks for the correction. But before I go on a google search I would love to know the opinion of a Russian poster, I am sure they will have their own version how siberia became Russian.

The Andaman Islands are located in the Indian ocean, approximately halfway between India and Indonesia. The Indonesians once claimed the islands are disputed. Though it did not escalate much.

P.S. Just did a search on Siberia, heres what Wikipedia says.

Siberia was occupied by different groups of nomads such as the Yenets, the Nenets, the Huns, the Iranian Scythians, and the Turkic Uyghurs. The Khan of Sibir in the vicinity of modern Tobolsk was known as a prominent figure who endorsed Kubrat as Khagan in Avaria in 630. The Mongols conquered a large part of this area early in the 13th century. With the breakup of the Golden Horde, the autonomous Siberia Khanate was established in late 14th century. The Yakuts migrated north from their original area of settlement in the vicinity of Lake Baikal under the pressure of the Mongol expansion during the 13th to 15th century

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberia

One can argue that the Russians reclaimed their territory from the mongol tribes rather than anexx foreign territory.

No, the British did not buy the islands. Neither did Argentina. Maybe history will be a bit of help..... The British have been there continuously since 1833 and had a settlement or a claim for 130 some years before that. Argentina has no valid claim to the Falklands and whatever claim they have is inferior to that of Britain.

Again quoting Wikipedia,

Although the United Nations Special Committee on Decolonization includes the Falkland Islands on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories,[56] it has been asserted that the Falkland Islands is one of 16 territories which have too small a population "to survive as viable, fully independent state."[57] Both the United Kingdom and the Argentine governments claim responsibility for the islands. The United Kingdom bases its claim on continuous administration of the islands since 1833 (apart from the Argentine military occupation in 1982) and the Islanders "right to self determination, including their right to remain British if that is their wish".[58] Argentina claims that it acquired the islands from Spain when Argentina became independent in 1816 and that the United Kingdom exceeded their authority by allegedly expelling the Argentine settlers in 1833.[59] The islanders reject the Argentine sovereignty claim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands

I admit I will need more time to research deeper on this topic. It is a grey topic.

Actually, I was talking about a possible claim to the Falklands by Brazil. If proximity is enough, why not?

Maybe they don't have a strong historical proximity to the islands. Proximity in both geography and history is necessity to make a claim.

But Hawaii is as unquestionably US territory as the Falklands is British.

I beg to differ here.

Hawaii is one of four states that were independent prior to becoming part of the United States, along with the Vermont Republic (1791), the Republic of Texas (1845), and the California Republic (1846), and one of two, along with Texas, that had formal diplomatic recognition internationally.[37] The Kingdom of Hawaii was sovereign from 1810 until 1893 when the monarchy was overthrown by resident American (and some European) businessmen. It was an independent republic from 1894 until 1898, when it was annexed by the United States as a territory, becoming a state in 1959

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii

Hawaii is US territory, no confusion. Though there is a dark question on how it became US territory.

The British claim far predates even Argentina existence, let alone any claim it might have.

I will need some time to prepare my statement.

So? Im not sure how that changes the argument.

You asked why India and Sri Lanka dont claim each other's territory. My response was both were already sovereign countries with clearly demarcated boundaries (being an island obviously helped). Therefore there was no political ambiguity nor any disputes.

What does this have to do with the Falklands?

It doesn't have. But you asked me about Indo-Sri Lanka ties, so I elaborated a bit.

I honestly dont know much about that, but Im hard pressed to see its relationship to the British claim to the Falklands.

same as above.

My point is, which I noticed your sidestepped, was that Canada WAS a British colony when the US was a sovereign nation. Under your theory, the US as a sovereign nation in close proximity to a colony has a legitimate claim to that colony. Apparently you believe that the US, having divested Spain of Cuba should have kept Cuba as its own. It meets your valid claim criteria as well.

Well, it was the US after all that invaded Canada! Maybe the US at that time felt they have a legitimate claim on Canada.

As for Cuba, the US did strongly object to Russian missiles being stationed in Cuba - almost leading to WW3. If you look at it objectively, Cuba as a sovereign country has the right to do whatever they want with their territory, but they faced US wrath. US may not have claimed Cuba but they do have a sense of hegemony here.

Geography does not dictate historical knowledge.

I am sorry I did'nt get your point here.

Why? Im not talking about Canada the nation, but rather about Canada the colony.

If England, or any other country, had annexed Canada as a colony, then US or other country close to Canada can claim the colony as disputed. For example US can protest that they have natural claim over Canada and the UK cannot claim it as their territory.

If I am not mistaken, the US would actually be correct. I believe the Indian tribes of America did not view Canada as a separate country. Though I maybe wrong here.

Why? Washington abuts Canada just as Alaska does. The problem is Canada can have no claim to either because it remained a British colony when that territory was acquired.

Ok.

You want to expel people who have lived in the Falklands for the better part of 200 years, send them to a country to England even though, they and their ancestors have lived for generation in the Falklands to give that land to Argentinians who have NEVER lived there. Talk about colonialization and the cost to indigenous peoples. Youre no better than the imperialists you castigate.

The British also ruled India for 200 years, they have lived here for generations, but in August 1947 they had to leave.

I admit that Argentine claims are not concrete enough and I will need some time to study on it. But if Argentine claim is justified you possibly cannot paint the settlers as victims.

The problem, FN, is that Argentina has only proximity. It has no historical claim. None. It seeks to assert its control over the Falklanders because it thought Britain either was too weak or apathetic to resist its imperialist conquest. It was wrong. To seek to give lip service to its imperialistic claims, is to side with the historical oppressors here. I dont think youd want to do that. Would you?

The Argies claim that the British are imperialist and conquered Falklands. The British argue that the Argies make unfair claims on the island. Geographically you tend to support the argies coz the islands are closer to them.

But I will need to study the subject deeper. Will revert to you in a day or two.

No, I can't. You need proffesional assistance. I do not know how to treat retarded morons. Ask your mom how she raised you.

My mother passed in 2010.

Coaling stations... you are the most moron SoaB I've ever known. Sure, by 1833 they robbed Malvinas in steamships... A.H.!!!!

I don't recall saying anything about steamships in 1833, but it is why the Falklands took on an importance for Britain that it would not have had otherwise. The British didn't "rob" the Falklands, Yag, they settled it. Civilized it, if you will. The occupation of 60 days by renegade Argentinian interlopers was broken and just rule returned to the islands.

Sure, sure... Cape Town, Malvinas, Hong Kong, Gibraltar, Suez... has absolutely nothing to do with anything...

None of the others have anything to do with the Falklands, no. Why do you think they do? Trying to lump them in as you do doesn't clarify an supposed claim by Argentina, it merely obscures the issue. Why do you feel impelled to try to obfuscate? If Argentina's claim is as crystal clear as you assert, just set it out for all to see. Hong Kong has nothing to do with the Falklands. Unless, of course, you're now claiming the British stole it from the Chinese. Is that your claim?

Hey, Mike.. I got a ball in my hand.. come on boy... go get it, go get it!

I've no doubt you have someones balls in your hand but I've told you before I'm not interested in your homosexual exploits. Why don't you simply quit dodging and lay out this Argentinian legal claim? I keep asking for it, but you can't seem to stay focused on the simple issue at hand. Maybe that's because men's balls keep distracting you.

Nemo me impune lacesset,

---

"The chief aim of all government is to preserve the freedom of the citizen. His control over his person, his property, his movements, his business, his desires should be restrained only so far as the public welfare imperatively demands. The world is in more danger of being governed too much than too little. It is the teaching of all history that liberty can only be preserved in small areas. Local self-government is, therefore, indispensable to liberty. A centralized and distant bureaucracy is the worst of all tyranny. Taxation can justly be levied for no purpose other than to provide revenue for the support of the government. To tax one person, class or section to provide revenue for the benefit of another is none the less robbery because done under the form of law and called taxation." John W. Davis, Democratic Presidential Candidate, 1924. Davis was one of the greatest trial and appellate lawyers in US history. He also served as the US Ambassador to the UK.

You pervert freak...

I was thinking you are intellectualy a dog...




You inverted vicious were thinking on this




Stop thinking in naked men... freak pervert

Legal claim of Argentina, specially for you,... is this



Do you think you deserve better?

-------------------------------------------------------
"Las Malvinas fueron, son y serán Argentinas"

Jesus Yaguarete, have you been taking lessons from Prado and Tezel on how to get owned badly online?

---

Didnt churchill kill thousands of French sailors in the very beginning of WOII?. Because they would not agree with him on something. It is not known. He is as much as a criminal like most other western leaders.



Auf Wiedersehen Deutschland!

Do you think you deserve better?

Yes, Yag, I do. You keep making these claims but fail to prove them. When someone asks for proof, you resort to insults, talking about holding balls in your hands, and trying to bring in my dead mother. Frankly, it's more than a little pathetic.

If the Falklands belong to Argentina as you claim, you have but to show the proof to convince us all. We're still waiting.

Nemo me impune lacesset,

---

"The chief aim of all government is to preserve the freedom of the citizen. His control over his person, his property, his movements, his business, his desires should be restrained only so far as the public welfare imperatively demands. The world is in more danger of being governed too much than too little. It is the teaching of all history that liberty can only be preserved in small areas. Local self-government is, therefore, indispensable to liberty. A centralized and distant bureaucracy is the worst of all tyranny. Taxation can justly be levied for no purpose other than to provide revenue for the support of the government. To tax one person, class or section to provide revenue for the benefit of another is none the less robbery because done under the form of law and called taxation." John W. Davis, Democratic Presidential Candidate, 1924. Davis was one of the greatest trial and appellate lawyers in US history. He also served as the US Ambassador to the UK.

Didnt churchill kill thousands of French sailors in the very beginning of WOII?. Because they would not agree with him on something. It is not known. He is as much as a criminal like most other western leaders.

Uhm, SB, even you have to recognize this has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. Are you trying to distract folks from Yag's meltdown? That really is very sweet of you.

Nemo me impune lacesset,

---

"The chief aim of all government is to preserve the freedom of the citizen. His control over his person, his property, his movements, his business, his desires should be restrained only so far as the public welfare imperatively demands. The world is in more danger of being governed too much than too little. It is the teaching of all history that liberty can only be preserved in small areas. Local self-government is, therefore, indispensable to liberty. A centralized and distant bureaucracy is the worst of all tyranny. Taxation can justly be levied for no purpose other than to provide revenue for the support of the government. To tax one person, class or section to provide revenue for the benefit of another is none the less robbery because done under the form of law and called taxation." John W. Davis, Democratic Presidential Candidate, 1924. Davis was one of the greatest trial and appellate lawyers in US history. He also served as the US Ambassador to the UK.

SB The attack on Port Oran is Very well known, just like 1807 in Copenhagen. Its War get over it.

"from Yag's meltdown"

What??? you keep saying BS over and over again and keep saying: prove me... prove me my balls!!!! You are retarded, lier, stupid, cretin, and missinterpreter. You are just a plain lobbyist, nothing else. Brainless and complete stupid. Even more, correcting you is saving me future laughs. I won´t. Keep showing us your complete ignorance and homosexuality. I'm sorry to be that nice but I don´t want to be rude.

Come on... coaling stations... hahahahha... I know, France populated Guyane back in 1604 because they planned at that time to launch Arianne rockets in the 20th century ... hahahahaha you can't be serious.. you can't.. my ribs, please... mercy!!! hahahahahahaha

-------------------------------------------------------
"Las Malvinas fueron, son y serán Argentinas"

What???

Yes, Yag, you had a meltdown. It seems to be continuing.

you keep saying BS over and over again and keep saying: prove me...

No, I dont keep saying prove me. That, frankly, would be silly. I keep saying youve asserted that Argentina has a valid legal claim to the Falklands, prove IT.

prove me my balls!!!!

Your testicles are of no interest to me. You might talk to Shovel Boy, he seems unduly interested.

You are retarded, lier, stupid, cretin, and missinterpreter.

Wow, its those sorts of things that hurt my feelings.

You are just a plain lobbyist, nothing else.

For what am I lobbying, Yag? That you be honest? That you back up your claims? Is it that for which I am lobbying?

Brainless and complete stupid.

An incomplete sentence but I infer this is referring to me. Though, one might argue it applies to one who makes assertion of fact without the basis with which to back them.

Even more, correcting you is saving me future laughs.

Well, its always important, Yag, to enjoy what you do even if thats only being made a fool of.

I won´t.

I think the more accurate statement would be I cant.

Keep showing us your complete ignorance and homosexuality.

Well, I cant show you homosexuality but I do have my fair share of ignorance. Luckily, it rarely includes making claims I cannot back up and almost never does it include persisting in those claims in the face of contrary evidence.

I'm sorry to be that nice but I don´t want to be rude.

No need to apologize, Yag. Your courtesy and civility are the things that endear you to all in WAFF.

Come on... coaling stations... hahahahha...

Yes, coaling stations. They came to mind because I had just finished reading a book. You know about books, right? This one was called Castles of Steel and was talking about the strategic importance to Britain of Port Stanley and the coaling station in the First World War. You may recall there was a battle fought there. Heres a quote from the book about the importance of The Falklands to the British: Despite the economic insignificance of the islands, their defense was crucial to Britain; no other protected harbor and coaling station was available to the British navy in the South Atlantic. Castles of Steel You might read up on the Battle:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Falkland_Islands

Oh, I know reading is difficult so lets look at pictures, shall we?






I know, France populated Guyane back in 1604 because they planned at that time to launch Arianne rockets in the 20th century ...

Were we talking about the French? I thought you were detailing Argentinas claim to the Falklands as opposed to the British claim. Are you saying Argentina also has a claim to Guyane?

hahahahaha you can't be serious..

Serious about what? Making you back up your claim? Of course I am.

you can't..

Yes, I can.

my ribs, please... mercy!!! hahahahahahaha

Im glad youre enjoying yourself. Maybe you could enjoy yourself even more by backing up your claims. I know Id certainly enjoy seeing that.

Nemo me impune lacesset,

---

"The chief aim of all government is to preserve the freedom of the citizen. His control over his person, his property, his movements, his business, his desires should be restrained only so far as the public welfare imperatively demands. The world is in more danger of being governed too much than too little. It is the teaching of all history that liberty can only be preserved in small areas. Local self-government is, therefore, indispensable to liberty. A centralized and distant bureaucracy is the worst of all tyranny. Taxation can justly be levied for no purpose other than to provide revenue for the support of the government. To tax one person, class or section to provide revenue for the benefit of another is none the less robbery because done under the form of law and called taxation." John W. Davis, Democratic Presidential Candidate, 1924. Davis was one of the greatest trial and appellate lawyers in US history. He also served as the US Ambassador to the UK.

Faguerrette getting owned worse than the General Belgrano and those troops in her signature!!


Yeap these guys above sure took a beating!!


Anyway, after Yag, after listing everything else the UK has done wrong can we return to the issue of the Falklands and you give us your answer on why Argentina has a single legal claim to the islands and why Britain wasn't completely within our rights to give you the thrashing we did when your tin pot fascist junta government invaded British sovereign territory and denied our subjects their liberty and right to self determination. Just to give you a helping hand, that we behaved badly during the Boer war has nothing to do with the completely different situation we have in the FALKLANDS. Your attempts to bring up unrelated issues would be like me using Marradonna's hand of god as justification for Argentina not having the islands!

=====
Speaking of the Eurofighters close-in combat prowess, Major Marc Gr�ne, CO of 742 (Zapata), the second squadron of the wing, described to assembled aviation journalists how, on a recent visit to France to demo the aircraft, he had won two out of two battles against the Dassault Rafale in mock within visual range dogfights. Both fights were a standard set-up and merge at 21,000ft and 30,000ft he recounted, adding that the higher the fight the better the Eurofighter liked it. He singled out the Eurofighters excess power as its trump card over the Rafale

Lets not forget the 63 aircraft destroyed during the war and 27 captured after the war. (Not including accidents )

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"deeds, not words"

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F00714FE3F5C17738DDDAF0894DB405B8285F0D3

I thought, Yag, you'd find this article interesting. It's a New York Times article, with illustration showing Royal Navy coaling stations. You can now tie in Capetown and Hong Kong, despite any talk about them does nothing whatsoever to prove any claim of Argentina to the Falklands.

Nemo me impune lacesset,

---

"The chief aim of all government is to preserve the freedom of the citizen. His control over his person, his property, his movements, his business, his desires should be restrained only so far as the public welfare imperatively demands. The world is in more danger of being governed too much than too little. It is the teaching of all history that liberty can only be preserved in small areas. Local self-government is, therefore, indispensable to liberty. A centralized and distant bureaucracy is the worst of all tyranny. Taxation can justly be levied for no purpose other than to provide revenue for the support of the government. To tax one person, class or section to provide revenue for the benefit of another is none the less robbery because done under the form of law and called taxation." John W. Davis, Democratic Presidential Candidate, 1924. Davis was one of the greatest trial and appellate lawyers in US history. He also served as the US Ambassador to the UK.

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F00714FE3F5C17738DDDAF0894DB405B8285F0D3

I thought, Yag, you'd find this article interesting. It's a New York Times article, with illustration showing Royal Navy coaling stations. You can now tie in Capetown and Hong Kong, despite any talk about them does nothing whatsoever to prove any claim of Argentina to the Falklands."

Again, you are a really dumb beyond repair... That picture is from 1892... 60 years

AFTER

the british criminal act on the Argentine officers in Malvinas. What fhe F... are you talking about??? UK would have never took Malvinas under the excuse of using that Argentine territory for coaling station purposes when they went to rob Malvinas with sailing ships!... Stop with this sheit cuz only demonstrates the idiocy of yours.


Bye, bye... adiós!





-------------------------------------------------------
"Las Malvinas fueron, son y serán Argentinas"

the british criminal act on the Argentine officers in Malvinas.

What criminal act to what Argentine officers?

What fhe F... are you talking about???

The Falklands. What are you talking about?

UK would have never took Malvinas under the excuse of using that Argentine territory for coaling station purposes when they went to rob Malvinas with sailing ships!...

Of course they didn't. Steam ships didn't exist when the British claimed the islands in 1690. Interestingly, neither did Argentina. Other than the short lived penal colony, when did Argentina have a valid claim? We keep coming back to that, Yag, and you keep ignoring that you;'ve NEVER established Argentina's claim. What is the legal basis for Argentina's claim and from whence does it come?

Stop with this sheit cuz only demonstrates the idiocy of yours.

Trying to get a straight answer from you is, indeed, a fool's errand. I am being persistent because at some point, if pressed enough you'll either prove your assertion or everyone will see that you cannot. We may already be to that point. Time will tell.

Nemo me impune lacesset,

---

"The chief aim of all government is to preserve the freedom of the citizen. His control over his person, his property, his movements, his business, his desires should be restrained only so far as the public welfare imperatively demands. The world is in more danger of being governed too much than too little. It is the teaching of all history that liberty can only be preserved in small areas. Local self-government is, therefore, indispensable to liberty. A centralized and distant bureaucracy is the worst of all tyranny. Taxation can justly be levied for no purpose other than to provide revenue for the support of the government. To tax one person, class or section to provide revenue for the benefit of another is none the less robbery because done under the form of law and called taxation." John W. Davis, Democratic Presidential Candidate, 1924. Davis was one of the greatest trial and appellate lawyers in US history. He also served as the US Ambassador to the UK.

Let me help you, Yag. Even Wikipedia offers a stronger basis for Argentina's claim than you've mustered. Here's what they sahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute

Or even thishttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBp1oQtelo0

But really, something like this would be really helpful:http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1726&context=fss_papers

See, this is how you support a factual claim. You bring evidence that, at least, suggests that what you've said has some validity. I'm finished helping you. Of course, the Yale Law Review article suggests, as I assert that Argentina has no valid legal claim. So..........

What is it you assert to be the legal basis of Argentina's claim to the Falklands?

Nemo me impune lacesset,

---

"The chief aim of all government is to preserve the freedom of the citizen. His control over his person, his property, his movements, his business, his desires should be restrained only so far as the public welfare imperatively demands. The world is in more danger of being governed too much than too little. It is the teaching of all history that liberty can only be preserved in small areas. Local self-government is, therefore, indispensable to liberty. A centralized and distant bureaucracy is the worst of all tyranny. Taxation can justly be levied for no purpose other than to provide revenue for the support of the government. To tax one person, class or section to provide revenue for the benefit of another is none the less robbery because done under the form of law and called taxation." John W. Davis, Democratic Presidential Candidate, 1924. Davis was one of the greatest trial and appellate lawyers in US history. He also served as the US Ambassador to the UK.

still avoiding your own stupid arguments on UK robbing Malvinas cuz they need it a as coaling stations. You really are impune. Minimum 5 years without parole for you.



-------------------------------------------------------
"Las Malvinas fueron, son y serán Argentinas"

"UK would have never took Malvinas under the excuse of using that Argentine territory for coaling station purposes when they went to rob Malvinas with sailing ships!"

Ummmm...I think the point here is that there is no legal justification for the Falkland islands being considered part of Argentine territory other than their proximity to Argentina. It has also been established that proximity in and of itself is not a legal determinant to ownership. In fact if I read the facts provided Spain ceded the Falklands to the UK prior to Argentina ever existing.

---

This is what is so frustrating ... i am actually open to changing my view in things
if someone puts forward a convincing argument.

But all i see from our argentinian friend is insults, rants, dodgy pictures and
a line that seems to be saying

"We have a legal claim but im not telling you what it is so there!"


I think there is too much hot headedness which is a shame.

I can guess there is an obsession from the signature...celebrating the surrender of
a 50 man strong garrison, and what appears to be the battle of yorktown? (which
was america/france vs britain!)...very odd.

On the topic of 'criminal acts' are you talking of the sinking of the belgrano?

It was controversial back home, however it saved lives by taking the argentinian
navy out of the war... and your own sailors understood it was a legitimate act of war

"Argentine Rear Admiral Allara, who was in charge of the task force that the Belgrano was part of, said "After that message of 23 April, the entire South Atlantic was an operational theatre for both sides. We, as professionals, said it was just too bad that we lost the Belgrano""

Finally.. i am curious, are your countrymen as single minded and obsessed with possessing the islands?

It wont happen by war, the last conflict demonstrated that Argentinians even with similar field equipment, strong dug in positions and superior numbers are no match for Brits... i would have thought the way to go would to be to open dialogue with the islanders.


______
It is an offence for a Trooper to die in bed!

Stop dying at once and when you get up, get your bloody hair cut" - Wintle to Trooper Cedric Mays (Royal Dragoons), who recovered and lived to the age of 95.

still avoiding your own stupid arguments on UK robbing Malvinas cuz they need it a as coaling stations.

The problem, Yag, is quite simple. I didn't say the islands were claimed by the British in 1690 to serve as a coal station. It was, however, the reason the British maintained their claim in 1862 when Argentina, as we know it today, actually came into existence.

Answer my question. From whom did those rascally redcoats "rob" the Falklands?

You really are impune.

I'm what?

Minimum 5 years without parole for you.

LOL. Before you can convict someone you have to present some evidence. You seem to have trouble doing that.


By the way, I know you'll have problems with the Yale Law Review article so let me help you: So too, the Falklands: Stolen or not, the islands became British according to the prevailing international law.
Great Britain entered the twentieth century with a firm, if not proud, title. But that was hardly the end of the political or legal struggle.80
Page 19,http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1726&context=fss_papers


Nemo me impune lacesset,

---

"The chief aim of all government is to preserve the freedom of the citizen. His control over his person, his property, his movements, his business, his desires should be restrained only so far as the public welfare imperatively demands. The world is in more danger of being governed too much than too little. It is the teaching of all history that liberty can only be preserved in small areas. Local self-government is, therefore, indispensable to liberty. A centralized and distant bureaucracy is the worst of all tyranny. Taxation can justly be levied for no purpose other than to provide revenue for the support of the government. To tax one person, class or section to provide revenue for the benefit of another is none the less robbery because done under the form of law and called taxation." John W. Davis, Democratic Presidential Candidate, 1924. Davis was one of the greatest trial and appellate lawyers in US history. He also served as the US Ambassador to the UK.

May buddy,

"I can guess there is an obsession from the signature...celebrating the surrender of a 50 man strong garrison,"
----

Even then they surrendered at the request of Rex Hunt to prevent further loss of life and risk to civilians. Poor old Yag, his most proud victory only came about because our boys were concerned about the safety of the islanders!

Some of the other posters who present the opposite side of the argument are able to do so in a civil and coherent manner but this imbecile can't. He can only resort to fantasy arguments and wandering off topic!

NEW SIG
____

A bit offtopic.. but do you think that if the argentinian navy had stayed in the fight it would have changed things?

They had no answer to the sub, but still..

I think it was a mistake to announce we would not bomb the mainland personally.. it wouldn't have been practical but we shouldnt have ruled it out

I guess in a rerun of hostilities cruise could hit anywhere

______
It is an offence for a Trooper to die in bed!

Stop dying at once and when you get up, get your bloody hair cut" - Wintle to Trooper Cedric Mays (Royal Dragoons), who recovered and lived to the age of 95.

I guess it would have made our life more difficult but mostly from the POV of having to sink their carrier would have caused even greater argentinian loss of life which would have been a shame. I think they knew they were out of their depth going up against the Royal Navy and only their airforce could really hurt the taskforce if we took the gloves off.

I agree that saying we wouldn't hit the mainland was a strange decision though at the time the only air asset i could think of to hit it would have been Vulcans which would have been risky. The only other British only option would have been nuclear which there was no way we were likely to do IMO. I guess we could have asked the Americans for assistance - they were prepared to lend us a carrier so some bombers/support would certainly be feasible though something that would have to be very carefully thought about. Wasn't there also talk of the SAS being near airfields on the mainland and some plans for raids which back then would have been most likely IMO though again risky.

In a rerun with today's tech we could pretty easily hit the mainland as you say with cruise missiles. Can think of one silly little Argie's house we could hit too! Though to be fair he's probably trying to sneak into the US through mexico!!!

More importantly, the Falklands is where the females in the UK military can go and feel attractive.

Must be against their human rights to remove that detachment?

I think there was an aborted sas raid yes, think the heli was downed in bad weather.

And i just felt that stating we would fight a limited war sent the wrong message

Like you though I would not have wanted to see more argentinian dead, I believe the junta felt that thatcher as a woman didnt have the stomach for a fight.... bad mistake as she had more balls than any Pm since

Must admit this topic has got me youtubing a bit.. watching the return of Canberra was quite moving.. especially as I was there (though a very young child bewildered at it all at the time)

______
It is an offence for a Trooper to die in bed!

Stop dying at once and when you get up, get your bloody hair cut" - Wintle to Trooper Cedric Mays (Royal Dragoons), who recovered and lived to the age of 95.

This thread is boring!!! Why does the argie continue with this ridiculous thread?!?!

Is this the reason why argentina is considered a third world country..? They spend all
of their time on the Falklands instead of moving forward and worrying about argentina..?

This war happened like a million years ago, get over it!

-----------------

More importantly, the Falklands is where the females in the UK military can go and feel attractive.



@ topic - At the risk of repeating myself, can somebody clarify when the Argies took control over flaklands, under what circumstances and why were they forced to leave.

Thanks.

@ topic - At the risk of repeating myself, can somebody clarify when the Argies took control over flaklands, under what circumstances and why were they forced to leave.

Argentina, less the Republic of Buenos Aires, occupied the Falklands from November 1832 through January 1833. Their occupation was a penal colony, which had a mutiny killing the Argentine(Actually United Provinces) commander. The British reoccupied the island in January 1833 and instructed the remaining Argentinians to leave and they did so.

Thanks.

I have recited these basic facts several times, including in this thread and no one has provided contrary facts.

You're welcome.


Nemo me impune lacesset,

---

"The chief aim of all government is to preserve the freedom of the citizen. His control over his person, his property, his movements, his business, his desires should be restrained only so far as the public welfare imperatively demands. The world is in more danger of being governed too much than too little. It is the teaching of all history that liberty can only be preserved in small areas. Local self-government is, therefore, indispensable to liberty. A centralized and distant bureaucracy is the worst of all tyranny. Taxation can justly be levied for no purpose other than to provide revenue for the support of the government. To tax one person, class or section to provide revenue for the benefit of another is none the less robbery because done under the form of law and called taxation." John W. Davis, Democratic Presidential Candidate, 1924. Davis was one of the greatest trial and appellate lawyers in US history. He also served as the US Ambassador to the UK.

Why don't you hang yourself instead of spreading so many mistakes and invented fairy tails.., pervert freak... hasn't your mom's grave need new flowers? Go and do something productive ...

-------------------------------------------------------
"Las Malvinas fueron, son y serán Argentinas"

They also held them for a 2 months in 1982

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"deeds, not words"

It is funny how you and your Brit blowjobers try constantly to look down on Argentine claim by focusing in internal details or qualifications of the people involved... Had UK lesser rights on Australia because they put there the hugest penalty colony in History? Are you saying despiseful on Australian people? Are they criminal' sons?
You are a brute idiot and really don't know that the expedition that send the militar governor and troops to Malvinas in 1829 actually departed from Buenos Aires... and Buenos Aires was the capital of a conferedation of provinces (know as United Provinces of the River Plate or its cual name Provincias Unidas del Río de la Plata) acting as one nation. Buenos Aires declares for short period of times autonomous before and after that date, assh...! Finally, even if Buenos Aires had been split of the rest of the country... what have you to say about that? coming from the country who "enjoyed" the worst civil war of the XIX century??? Really, Mike... suicide is an option... don't let us down.

-------------------------------------------------------
"Las Malvinas fueron, son y serán Argentinas"

Why don't you hang yourself instead of spreading so many mistakes and invented fairy tails..,

LOL. Hang myself? I see your meltdown continues. If I am mistaken in my facts and spreading invented "fairy tails" then by all means show me up. Show me to be both stupid and a liar. Present the "true" facts to us so that we might all learn the truth according to Yag.

pervert

Mildly

freak...

Possibly, though I'd not for the record that if you are viewed as the norm, I'll happily remain a freak.

hasn't your mom's grave need new flowers?

I place flowers on both her and Dad's grave every couple of months. I do, however, appreciate your concern for my dead parents. I'm not sure though why you feel compelled to bring my family, alive or dead, into the conversation. Are you suggesting that in them lay some clue as to the legal basis for Argentina's claim to the Falklands?

Go and do something productive ...

Been in Court and am now drafting orders. I take a break to see your latest outburst.

It is funny how you and your Brit blowjobers try constantly to look down on Argentine claim by focusing in internal details or qualifications of the people involved...

What claim? I keep asking you to show the legal basis of Argentina's claim. So far, all you have responded with is insults and nonsense. Please tell me that's not the basis of Argentina's claim. Please tell me you have something more than vitriol and nonsense.

Had UK lesser rights on Australia because they put there the hugest penalty colony in History? Are you saying despiseful on Australian people? Are they criminal' sons?

Britain's claim to Australia was a tad more than 60 days. Is that 60 day period, where the leader was assassinated the legal basis you assert?

You are a brute idiot and really don't know that the expedition that send the militar governor and troops to Malvinas in 1829 actually departed from Buenos Aires... and Buenos Aires was the capital of a conferedation of provinces (know as United Provinces of the River Plate or its cual name Provincias Unidas del Río de la Plata) acting as one nation. Buenos Aires declares for short period of times autonomous before and after that date, assh...! Finally, even if Buenos Aires had been split of the rest of the country... what have you to say about that? coming from the country who "enjoyed" the worst civil war of the XIX century???

Then you admit that Argentina, as we know it today came into existence in 1862 and that the colony from Buenos Aires was on the Falklands with the agreement and permission of its owners, the British.

Really, Mike... suicide is an option... don't let us down.

LOL. I'm not the suicidal type, Yag. Why are you suggesting that I should die? Is it because you're embarrassed by your inability to back up your claims and are tired of me continuing to point them out?


Nemo me impune lacesset,

---

"The chief aim of all government is to preserve the freedom of the citizen. His control over his person, his property, his movements, his business, his desires should be restrained only so far as the public welfare imperatively demands. The world is in more danger of being governed too much than too little. It is the teaching of all history that liberty can only be preserved in small areas. Local self-government is, therefore, indispensable to liberty. A centralized and distant bureaucracy is the worst of all tyranny. Taxation can justly be levied for no purpose other than to provide revenue for the support of the government. To tax one person, class or section to provide revenue for the benefit of another is none the less robbery because done under the form of law and called taxation." John W. Davis, Democratic Presidential Candidate, 1924. Davis was one of the greatest trial and appellate lawyers in US history. He also served as the US Ambassador to the UK.

If you offered to swap the citizenship of Messi and Aguero I reckon you'd get a fair percentage of England fans backing your cause. Might say more about England fans but it could make for an interesting negotiation.

"I place flowers on both her and Dad's grave every couple of months. I do, however, appreciate your concern for my dead parents. I'm not sure though why you feel compelled to bring my family, alive or dead, into the conversation."

I don't buy. You MUST PROVE that. You have been a lier and keep lying and twisting arguments. In fact, you can't make an argument mixin nonsense explanations and switching time explanations. You only demonstrate the moron you are. So, stop BS on your mother, father or whatever creature that expels you from its ***. Prove me that, lier!

-------------------------------------------------------
"Las Malvinas fueron, son y serán Argentinas"

I don't buy.

You don't buy what?

You MUST PROVE that.

LOL. Simply because you're unable to prove your assertions you do this? My, Yag, you are a pathetic soul, aren't you?

You have been a lier and keep lying and twisting arguments.

By all means, point them out. Expose my "lies." LOL 115 posts and you have yet to offer even a scintillia of proof to support your ridiculous claims. Because you cannot, you have nothing to offer but insults and nonsense.

In fact, you can't make an argument mixin nonsense explanations and switching time explanations.

Yet, that still provides far more than you have offered. I'm still awaiting your proof.

You only demonstrate the moron you are.

Well, I admit it is fairly stupid of me to keep trying to make you prove your point long after it was obvious you have no proof. The funny thing is, in the course of our discussion I've giving you links to several sources that actually do offer something to support your claim but you've failed to avail yourself even when I point out the things any rational supporter of Argentina's claim would cite.

So, stop BS on your mother, father or whatever creature that expels you from its ***.

That, Yag, is an extremely rude thing to say about my dead parents. I suppose it serves me right by trying to be civil to a creature like yourself. It's OK, I know you can't help it. You are so frustrated by your ineptitude at even making rudimentary arguments and your almost total ignorance of the history that surrounds your adopted nation.

Prove me that, lier!

LOL. That's it? Ohhhhh....................... Now I see what you're doing. You're trying to give Prado and Shovel Boy a run for their money at the WAFF Tezel award. LOL. Congratulations. A few more idiotic performances like this and you'll truly in in the running. LOL

Nemo me impune lacesset,

---

"The chief aim of all government is to preserve the freedom of the citizen. His control over his person, his property, his movements, his business, his desires should be restrained only so far as the public welfare imperatively demands. The world is in more danger of being governed too much than too little. It is the teaching of all history that liberty can only be preserved in small areas. Local self-government is, therefore, indispensable to liberty. A centralized and distant bureaucracy is the worst of all tyranny. Taxation can justly be levied for no purpose other than to provide revenue for the support of the government. To tax one person, class or section to provide revenue for the benefit of another is none the less robbery because done under the form of law and called taxation." John W. Davis, Democratic Presidential Candidate, 1924. Davis was one of the greatest trial and appellate lawyers in US history. He also served as the US Ambassador to the UK.

See? you can't prove what you say and create sad stories for pitty... shame on you! Stop trolling, for the sake of the rest of the forum members.

-------------------------------------------------------
"Las Malvinas fueron, son y serán Argentinas"

LOL.



Nemo me impune lacesset,

---

"The chief aim of all government is to preserve the freedom of the citizen. His control over his person, his property, his movements, his business, his desires should be restrained only so far as the public welfare imperatively demands. The world is in more danger of being governed too much than too little. It is the teaching of all history that liberty can only be preserved in small areas. Local self-government is, therefore, indispensable to liberty. A centralized and distant bureaucracy is the worst of all tyranny. Taxation can justly be levied for no purpose other than to provide revenue for the support of the government. To tax one person, class or section to provide revenue for the benefit of another is none the less robbery because done under the form of law and called taxation." John W. Davis, Democratic Presidential Candidate, 1924. Davis was one of the greatest trial and appellate lawyers in US history. He also served as the US Ambassador to the UK.