“Argentina will run Falklands within 20 years”

isn't it the case that most people in the Falklands actually want to remain a part of Britain?

The UK is bankrupt. In a few years it will have to cut its military to the size of Portugal. Without a Navy the British will have no alternative but to return the Malvinas Islands to Argentina.

The US is bankrupt. In a few years it will have to cut its military to the size of Canada. Without a Navy it cannot service its overseas bases, and without an economy it cannot pay for them either. At that time Kosovo will return to Serbia.

(Michael Thomas, 6 February 2013 15:33)

AMEN

US $ 16,481,322,803,772
UK £ 1,092,539,708,652

Not precise, while I'm writing this US went up USD 1mil.

Nice :)

Not worth to mention Kosovo BTW, we all know what we want there and what's going to happen.

The Falkland Islands are not apart of the United Kingdom, they're a democratic self-governing/ administrating entity which relies on the UK to represent their interests in Defence and Foreign Affairs as they're too small (a population less than ten times smaller than the Principality of Lichtenstein) to have and afford a military and diplomatic network of their own; but they by no means belong to the UK, they belong to the Falklanders.

We'll see next month how many people in the Falklands what retain their current Political Status with upcoming referendum which they organised.

The UK wants to put an end this dispute over the Falkland Islanders, but as long as the Falklands consent to it. Argentina wants the UK 'return' the Falklands however the UK cannot do that as it is not ours to give away.

Argentina is terrified at the thought of negotiating with a people they openly want to colonise and a people who they forcibly colonised by force for two months in 1982 until the UK as their protectors liberated them. The main reason Argentina has reignited this dispute and are fanatical about colonising the Falklands again is due to the discovery/ confirmation of oil on the Isles. However that oil belongs to the Falkanders, not them foreigners hundreds of lies away in Argentina.

Will the Falklands be apart of Argentina in 20 years time? Will it F***! It looks like Argentina are overdue for a good hiding again. Argentina's last invasion was a blessing in disguise for the UK.

At that time Kosovo will return to Serbia.
(Michael Thomas, 6 February 2013 15:33)

Very true. Eventually, the US elite will revamp the way they run their country because the current way is very unsustainable. The Albanians don't understand this, they believe their partnership with the U.S. is set in stone but this is far from true.

They light up when there becomes talks of a "kosovo army" being formed but I truly light up because all that means is "you have your own army you are 'recognized', now you are on your own"

The day the Albanians become on their own will be a beautiful day in the Balkans.

Nikolle,

probably 99.99999% of the people living there.

Both countries kicked off the new year with a large high profile dose of militaristic statements so as to deflect attention away from their very large domestic problems ( both countries are in essence bankrupt).How very cynical.

At the end of the day these militaristic posturings have only one aim which is the opportunity to drill the place dry.

Could someone who supports the Argentine position please explain why "it's closer to us and a Spanish king put a finger on a map and said 'that's mine'" is a more legitimate claim than "all the people who live there want to be a part of the UK"

or, if you take the tack, "the UK has no legitimate claim because colonialism", then explain how the Spanish king putting his finger on a map and saying "that's mine" is somehow a more legitimate claim.

Thanks.


Because, from my perspective, I can't for the life of me see any legitimacy to the Argentine claim.

. At that time Kosovo will return to Serbia.
(Michael Thomas, 6 February 2013 15:33)


That day, you will never see it in your lifetime. rest assured. The rest of the story is history.

"Falkland island where taken away from Argentina "

Falkand islands were not taken away from Argentina; Argentina didn't even exist at the time whe UK settled this empty island.

For many people I believe they know what is coming. As the geopolitical situation changes and power shifts eastwards, so will many occupations end. This will be the case for the Falklands and KiM. We are all just waiting patiently for the monster to die and then the changes will come. Yes, all within 20 years.

At that time Kosovo will return to Serbia.
(Michael Thomas, 6 February 2013 15:33)

In other words, never.

Falkand Islands are British. They always were and always will be.

My point? oh nothing, something about giraffes. It's pretty obvious what my point is.

All that matters is can Britain keep these Islands? For the moment the answer is yes. Soon, however, things will change in the Malvinas and in Kosovo.
(Michael Thomas, 6 February 2013 18:38)
--
Thank you Michael for explaining it so eloquently. Since when has the UK, US or EU ever cared about the opinion of Serbs even when they formed the overwhelming majority?

Falkand islands were not taken away from Argentina; Argentina didn't even exist at the time whe UK settled this empty island.
(Danilo, 6 February 2013 18:53)

UK did not settle empty island, it was 100 inhabitants who previously took this place from Patagonian Ameridians who used it as a settlement during hunt and fishing season, for thousands of years. Those indigenous peoples of the Americas live on territory of now days Argentina. Those people were prevented by force by colonialists to come over and over again.

How many times we must say that?

Argentina as it is did not existed, we all know that, but it actually existed as sparsely populated, at least. There's many British islands no one ever lived, even seasonally, should we claim those islands?

Maybe the Spanish and Italian colonisers of the country called Argentina should give it back to its rightfull owners, the indigenous people of the continent although they have almost been wiped out by the conquistadores. Uruguay btw also wants a claim on the island, saying that Argentinian lawmakers signed the islands over to Uruguay somewhere in the 19th century.
Otherwise, Argentina is delusional. World opinion is not on their side and even if it did, the US, EU, Nato but more importantly the Common Wealth is on the UK's side. Argentina is in a really bad economic situation and they try to take attention away from that with this issue which is a non-issue because they won't get it back. This minister is involved with all kinds of corruption schemes and he needs something to take attention away from that as well.

isn't it the case that most people in the Falklands actually want to remain a part of Britain?
(Nikolle, 6 February 2013 15:24)

I think Ian and roberto are better than me on this subject. Give them some time.

(ZMAJ, 6 February 2013 16:28)

That's more accurate:

http://www.iea.org.uk/blog/true-level-of-uk-government-debt-exceeds-%C2%A35-trillion

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=true+debt+of+the+us&aq=0&oq=true+debt+of+US&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

isn't it the case that most people in the Falklands actually want to remain a part of Britain?
(Nikolle, 6 February 2013 15:24)
--
And your point is?

"Falkland island where taken away from Argentina "

Falkand islands were not taken away from Argentina; Argentina didn't even exist at the time whe UK settled this empty island.
(Danilo, 6 February 2013 18:53)

"Falkland island where taken away from Argentina "

You have already made several comments on this topic in defense of Britain's imperialist claims over the Falkland Islands. You are probably one of those handful of kids in Serbia who wear British and American flags on their shirts as fashion statements. Uzas.

"Britain's imperialist claims over the Falkland Islands"

Britain has no "imperialist claims" on the islands. UK position is for the local population to decide.

If anyone "imperialist claims" describes the Argentine position.

Oh yes, the Falkland Wars. Here are our two participants of 1982:

- A run-down military dictatorship in Argentina that occupied the isles in order to please nationalistic sentiments of the people.

- A run-down Thatcher government that was under increasing pressure by the opposition and the unions. Just like her counterparts in Argentina, she saw the Falkland War as an opportunity to please nationalistic sentiments of her people.

The UK won. Thatcher's triumph made sure she could stay in power and pursue economic liberalism.

SCP UK - the example of Wales is pure rubbish. Welsh people vote their MPs into UK parliament. Falklanders don’t. Laws passed in UK government have jurisdiction over Wales. No such arrangement exists for the Falkland Islands. Wales is legally a constituent part of UK. Falkland Islands aren’t. They are self governing – Wales isn’t.

You also talk of UK never “handing over these islands”. The UK position is perfectly clear – it will respect the free will of the people, whatever they decide. They are committed to this even for constituent parts of UK as in the case of Scotland. This is simply democratic justice.

You seem confused about the role of the Queen as Head of State. She is Head of State in many, many countries – Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Jamaica, etc. This doesn’t mean that they aren’t independent countries (and I speak as a republican who would rather not have monarchy anywhere!).

Your arguments will be better served by facts rather than fiction.

Hi Ari.

Feel free to disagree with any of the points I've made.

Point taken,which mountain are you heading to?Give me a time frame.
(Leonidas, 6 February 2013 21:00)

I'm already on the huge mountain, in huge crisis - preparing for external crisis. I have so much taxes to pay already that if I do not succeed I'll stay on plain Mizithra, Stamnagathi and Goat meet. Not that bad. I know those things are difficult to preserve in big amounts but I'm an old survivor ready to share knowledge and rapidly coming into the matter using old rebel survival knowledge they have out here. Couldn't have better company for any crisis magnitude, really. I'm on the biggest mountain with greatest people of all, ready to survive anything!

Oh, wait a moment- I forgot : I'm in mid age pre-cancerous stage so "survive anything" is a bit limited at present. But IF we exclude or solve that I'm surviving US domination EASY for many years to come!

So, here's the mountain and time frame.

The Argentinian case is so weak it is untenable.

They just like making noise about it.

(Leonidas, 6 February 2013 16:39)

I know it was greedy but I designed 1.8m old fashion red on black wi-fi 14 digits display and it is single address configuration., so I entered "usdebtclock". It's so cool. I'm even thinking about making more and sell some :) Morning coffee and whole day is better watching this clock.

I don't know if I'd sell it well but I'm sure no American would buy it, that's sure.

Sorry Zmaj.

100 fishermen maybe not being able to use the islands 200 years ago (whether or not this actually happened or is just a story, I don't know. Link, please) doesn't trump the will of the people living there now.

Besides. you're claiming those people were aboriginals. How does whether or not those fishermen being allowed to use those territories or not translate into "Argentina is the rightful sovereign of the Falklands"?


Does anyone know why Argentina refused arbitration of this issue three times in the ICJ?

You hit the nail on the head, Leonidas. The seas aound the Falklands are rich in oil reserves. There is a reaon why these two nations are fighting so hard for their rights to this land. On claims territtorial righs, one claims the will of its inhabitants. So who is right? Usually, it has been might is right but, with the world changing the way it does, who knows, maybe China will claim the Falklands on day? I just wish that governments were more forthright in their comments, as oppossed to going around this "people's will" bush. It's about the economy, stupid!

This article here basically sums up the situation: http://www.fleetstreetfox.com/2013/01/dear-argentina.html?m=1

Ian, don't make out that they are somewhat independent, their head of state is Elizabeth II and the very fact that their defense is the British military says it all.

It is about as much of a joke as Britain's claim to Gibraltar on Spanish territory, theres no way the Brits will hand onto these islands forever, anyone who thinks so is delusional.
(SCP UK, 7 February 2013 14:39)

SCP UK is right you know, Queen Betty 2 is an absolute evil military dictator of the Falkland Islands.

Betty 2 can't exercise sweet FA power in the UK and she has even less power outside of the UK where she is head of state.
If you knew anything, Nigel Haywood is the Head of State (Governor) of the Falkland Islands. His role is defined by Chapter 2 (Sections 23-25) of the Falkland Islands Constitution. He role is purely ceremonial apart from Defence matters where he is "Commander of the British Forces" on the Falkands and that itself is another ceremonial position. The elected Chief Executive (Head of Government) of the Falkland Islands after being elected goes to the Governor to ask permission to form a government. Of course the Governor never says no as it is only ceremonial. The Governor of the Falkland Island has no political power.

And you really think the Falklanders have a problem with the British military being there? They're more than welcome in the eyes of the Falklanders. The last time the Falklands was almost fully demilitarised by the UK, the Nazi colonialist Argies invaded.

Ian, Falkland island where taken away from Argentina just like Kosovo from Serbia. Full support for friendly people of Argentina, law (and whole world) is on your side.

My point? oh nothing, something about giraffes. It's pretty obvious what my point is.
(Nikolle, 6 February 2013 17:39)

Nikolie,

Zoran’s question is perfectly appropriate. The world elite (including some Brits) don’t care about the opinions or wellbeing of Serbs, Iraqis, Syrians, Russians, Chinese or indeed any peoples of the earth. The elite only cares for itself. The opinions of the 2,841 people who currently live on the Malvinas Islands are of no consequence. All that matters is can Britain keep these Islands? For the moment the answer is yes. Soon, however, things will change in the Malvinas and in Kosovo.

From my perspective, some Serbs desperately cling to this Falklands issue because of Kosovo.
(Danilo, 7 February 2013 15:25)

Exactly, I'm pure example, must confess that.

NOT because Britain can no longer maintain its colonial attitude or because colonialism is long past but only because of Kosovo and few other things, that's truth.

But Zmaj,

You just made the argument earlier that Argentina is the rightful owner of the Falklands because they colonized people that used to fish there.

Are you simply confused?

"If the Brits on the Falklands were to one day call for full independence from Britain and rise up there would be an immediate crushing of this from the government in London"


yes, except the Islanders overwhelmingly wish to stay British, so this scenario exists only in your head.


Re: Kosovo.

No hypocrisy. In both examples, the local population overwhelmingly doesn't want to be colonized by their neighbour, regardless of whether Spanish, Aboriginals or Illirians were fishing there first.

You go on about anti-colonialism. You know, self-determination kind of goes hand-in-hand with that.

(ZMAJ, 6 February 2013 17:43)

You need more than 14 digits in your display.

(Leonidas, 6 February 2013 18:25)

Whatever you say it's mostly guarantee to me, I appreciate your opinion but here you're out : the point is that I really do not need more digits.

14 digits is just enough, it'll explode long before 15th.

Crisis Preparedness by Jack A. Spigarelli is a must hand book in the US today.

Funny SPC,

From my perspective, some Serbs desperately cling to this Falklands issue because of Kosovo. It give them an example in the world where the will of the people living there can be ignored with some mental gymnastics.

Kosovo doesn't change my opinion on the Falklands. Didn't in the 80s; doesn't now.

I notice you didn't answer the question. Like most, you claim that the UK shouldn't have the islands (which aren't UK, but self-governing, but nevermind) because colonialism. ok, fine.

So, explain the Argentine position, if you can.

Are you going to go with "because it's closer Argentina should be allowed to forcefully colonize the people living there for 9 generations"?

малвини су срце Аргентине!!!!

You just made the argument earlier that Argentina is the rightful owner of the Falklands because they colonized people that used to fish there.
Are you simply confused?
(Danilo, 7 February 2013 16:21)

This is the smallest "crime" I'm ready to commit against interests of someone who's proven enemy of my own country AND I'm not confused at all.

How many Serbians do you employ?
(Danilo, 8 February 2013 11:50)

I do not employ any. I employ one Bulgarian and one Albanian occasionally as of last decade. Why's that important first of all? How can you know what I did for my people and country by now, actually? How can I know that you're not liar when you, years now, constantly repeat about Serbs you employ?

I don't care how many Serbs "you employ" as any Albanian or Turk can write here that "he's employing" Serbs.

Stop delivering this stupid malicious, could be lie, information- you're not gaining absolutely nothing with it.

BUT, if it's truth that you employ any Serbs must say I'd feel bitterness about that. It's not because you're some Danilo I do not agree with, I live with people with whom I do not agree at all and we're just OK, but because you're repeating this all the time like parrot, years now. Welcome with any personal or professional stuff but don't try to prevail with that, it's SO worthless. Nobody believe you anyway. You don't need that, it looks so stupid.

14 digits is just enough, it'll explode long before 15th.

Crisis Preparedness by Jack A. Spigarelli is a must hand book in the US today.
(ZMAJ, 6 February 2013 19:02)

Point taken,which mountain are you heading to?Give me a time frame.

(Winston, 6 February 2013 23:00)

That's right Winston. Resources = money for the City of London boys and girls.The Tories will send the army off to Falklands or Malvinas to fight for the rich while at home they will continue to screw the poor.Moreover,it will help "call me Dave" to get another war on his CV.

This is the smallest "crime" I'm ready to commit against interests of someone who's proven enemy of my own country AND I'm not confused at all.
(ZMAJ, 8 February 2013 02:06)

Here I was referring to "someone" Else's country as obvious from the context of your comment I attached and I was was responding to.

Just in case if you were little confused, you were not that "someone" as I really do not consider you capable to be my enemy or enemy of my country. You can swallow this as a compliment, I'm giving you permission.

Hi Ari.

Feel free to disagree with any of the points I've made.
(Danilo, 6 February 2013 19:54)

Hahaha, that made me laugh.

Regarding why Argentina does not want the ICJ involved, I think most likely because its lawyers know that "interests vs wishes" arguments do not fly very well there.

ok. SPC. You're going with "because it's close".

Why should the UK have the resources? The UK proposed 50/50 sharing and it was rejected. Actually, Argentina has resisted any attempts at negotiation. Three binding arbitrations and, more recently, a 50/50 proposal with the islanders. To me this is telling that they know that their position is unreasonable, but like to use the issue periodically to excite their electorate.

Why shouldn't the resources belong to the community that has lived there continuously for 200 years? Why shouldn't ALL of the resources go to them? Seems like 50/50 is pretty generous.

But hey. "it's close". why not.

I think Danilo enjoys taking the British line on this one by using empty arguments to solidify his position on Kosovo. The one argument you hang on to Danilo is that British people live there, this is a stupid and dangerous logic. By this logic any area in the world populated by a majority of a certain ethnic group should be able to demand that land be attached to the rest of their people living in their mainland. Should Germans in the Volga region be allowed to unite with Germany? This was Hitler's logic as is the logic with all colonialists and expansionists. The fact that the Falklands or should I say Malvinas are Islands makes no difference here, geographically it is an utter joke that Britain claim rights to this land. The fact Brits are a majority there is also significant seeing as they are not indigenous to those islands, rather moved there to strengthen the British claim, somewhat like how Tito allowed mass immigration of albanians into Kosovo. I think Danilo just purposefully likes to disagree with the majority of Serbs on any issue just to be alternative, its pathetic.

Ian, don't make out that they are somewhat independent, their head of state is Elizabeth II and the very fact that their defense is the British military says it all.

It is about as much of a joke as Britain's claim to Gibraltar on Spanish territory, theres no way the Brits will hand onto these islands forever, anyone who thinks so is delusional.

You maintain this idea that the Falklands are somehow very independent from Britain, it is not, their self-governance is relatable to Wales having its own assembly, nevertheless Wales is a part of Britain where head of state and military are shared. If the Brits on the Falklands were to one day call for full independence from Britain and rise up there would be an immediate crushing of this from the government in London.

While the Argentine viewpoint isn't flawless it makes far more sense for them to have rule over these islands, geography is a much more important factor than you think. Obviously the real reason for hanging onto the Falklands is for natural resources, now here geography plays a very important role. I would like to know a credible argument as to why Britain in western Europe should have rights to resources where the closest nation to those resources is indeed Argentina, please clarify why Britain has the right to those resources.

The relevance to Kosovo is the sheer hypocracy shown by Britain, they advocate that Serbia doesn't have a right to a province where their entire history and culture has been since the Serbian people existed, and before the albanian people or nation existed. Yet Britain wants to hang on to islands thousands of miles away, it is absurd.

Are you simply confused?
(Danilo, 7 February 2013 16:21)

Just in case if you were little confused
(ZMAJ, 8 February 2013 18:10)

I had not heard the "I know you are but what am I" type of argument since elementary school. ZMAJ you are awesome.

"Proven enemy?" LOL

First of all, Serbia isn't "my country".

Secondly, I do more concrete good for Serbia every month than you'll do in your life. How many Serbians do you employ?

Anyway. I'll take your non-answer as an inability to answer.

Why should the UK have the resources? The UK proposed 50/50 sharing and it was rejected. Actually, Argentina has resisted any attempts at negotiation. Three binding arbitrations and, more recently, a 50/50 proposal with the islanders. To me this is telling that they know that their position is unreasonable, but like to use the issue periodically to excite their electorate.

Why shouldn't the resources belong to the community that has lived there continuously for 200 years? Why shouldn't ALL of the resources go to them? Seems like 50/50 is pretty generous.

But hey. "it's close". why not.
(Danilo, 7 February 2013 18:39)

Well Danilo,

Because it reneges on it's earlier promise to relinquish sovereignty to Argentina. Sovereignty is traditionally absolute and not conditioned by another sovereign entity ie; "Sovereignty is the quality of having independent authority over a geographic area, such as a territory.

They cannot claim this otherwise it opens a precedent to have any small or large community to challenge any Gov't sovereign right to natural offshore resources.

The Argies claimed the islands when there was no settlements or any population of the kind FYI.

The solution is legally simple, Argies take the islands pay the "Kelpers" transporation costs and land in Britain. Problem over wouldn't you agree?

Playing Devils Advocate,

no, I don't think ethnic cleansing is the solution but, sadly, it doesn't surprise me that that's what some Serb would come up with.

Playing Devils Advocate,

no, I don't think ethnic cleansing is the solution but, sadly, it doesn't surprise me that that's what some Serb would come up with.
(Danilo, 8 February 2013 17:55)

I am glad to see that, but don't give this poor wee lil Serb from OZ credit for coming up with it. Nor for comfirming it's legality.

http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/12/21/william-hague-should-say-%E2%80%98sorry%E2%80%99-to-the-chagos-islanders-and-restore-the-right-of-return/

Those Chagos got around 4k pound in assylum aid. In one way Mugabe had a point reversing it eh?

Colonialism is explotation lets hope you don't do the same or defend it so vigorously in future.

I also take the absence of a response to my other points as an inability to do so.

Regards

The UK is bankrupt. In a few years it will have to cut its military to the size of Portugal. Without a Navy the British will have no alternative but to return the Malvinas Islands to Argentina.

The US is bankrupt. In a few years it will have to cut its military to the size of Canada. Without a Navy it cannot service its overseas bases, and without an economy it cannot pay for them either. At that time Kosovo will return to Serbia.

isn't it the case that most people in the Falklands actually want to remain a part of Britain?

Ian, Falkland island where taken away from Argentina just like Kosovo from Serbia. Full support for friendly people of Argentina, law (and whole world) is on your side.

For many people I believe they know what is coming. As the geopolitical situation changes and power shifts eastwards, so will many occupations end. This will be the case for the Falklands and KiM. We are all just waiting patiently for the monster to die and then the changes will come. Yes, all within 20 years.

"Falkland island where taken away from Argentina "

Falkand islands were not taken away from Argentina; Argentina didn't even exist at the time whe UK settled this empty island.
(Danilo, 6 February 2013 18:53)

"Falkland island where taken away from Argentina "

You have already made several comments on this topic in defense of Britain's imperialist claims over the Falkland Islands. You are probably one of those handful of kids in Serbia who wear British and American flags on their shirts as fashion statements. Uzas.

At that time Kosovo will return to Serbia.
(Michael Thomas, 6 February 2013 15:33)

Very true. Eventually, the US elite will revamp the way they run their country because the current way is very unsustainable. The Albanians don't understand this, they believe their partnership with the U.S. is set in stone but this is far from true.

They light up when there becomes talks of a "kosovo army" being formed but I truly light up because all that means is "you have your own army you are 'recognized', now you are on your own"

The day the Albanians become on their own will be a beautiful day in the Balkans.

isn't it the case that most people in the Falklands actually want to remain a part of Britain?
(Nikolle, 6 February 2013 15:24)
--
And your point is?

. At that time Kosovo will return to Serbia.
(Michael Thomas, 6 February 2013 15:33)


That day, you will never see it in your lifetime. rest assured. The rest of the story is history.

Nikolle,

probably 99.99999% of the people living there.

My point? oh nothing, something about giraffes. It's pretty obvious what my point is.
(Nikolle, 6 February 2013 17:39)

Nikolie,

Zoran’s question is perfectly appropriate. The world elite (including some Brits) don’t care about the opinions or wellbeing of Serbs, Iraqis, Syrians, Russians, Chinese or indeed any peoples of the earth. The elite only cares for itself. The opinions of the 2,841 people who currently live on the Malvinas Islands are of no consequence. All that matters is can Britain keep these Islands? For the moment the answer is yes. Soon, however, things will change in the Malvinas and in Kosovo.

Could someone who supports the Argentine position please explain why "it's closer to us and a Spanish king put a finger on a map and said 'that's mine'" is a more legitimate claim than "all the people who live there want to be a part of the UK"

or, if you take the tack, "the UK has no legitimate claim because colonialism", then explain how the Spanish king putting his finger on a map and saying "that's mine" is somehow a more legitimate claim.

Thanks.


Because, from my perspective, I can't for the life of me see any legitimacy to the Argentine claim.

My point? oh nothing, something about giraffes. It's pretty obvious what my point is.

isn't it the case that most people in the Falklands actually want to remain a part of Britain?
(Nikolle, 6 February 2013 15:24)

I think Ian and roberto are better than me on this subject. Give them some time.

"Falkland island where taken away from Argentina "

Falkand islands were not taken away from Argentina; Argentina didn't even exist at the time whe UK settled this empty island.

"Britain's imperialist claims over the Falkland Islands"

Britain has no "imperialist claims" on the islands. UK position is for the local population to decide.

If anyone "imperialist claims" describes the Argentine position.

Sorry Zmaj.

100 fishermen maybe not being able to use the islands 200 years ago (whether or not this actually happened or is just a story, I don't know. Link, please) doesn't trump the will of the people living there now.

Besides. you're claiming those people were aboriginals. How does whether or not those fishermen being allowed to use those territories or not translate into "Argentina is the rightful sovereign of the Falklands"?


Does anyone know why Argentina refused arbitration of this issue three times in the ICJ?

The Falkland Islands are not apart of the United Kingdom, they're a democratic self-governing/ administrating entity which relies on the UK to represent their interests in Defence and Foreign Affairs as they're too small (a population less than ten times smaller than the Principality of Lichtenstein) to have and afford a military and diplomatic network of their own; but they by no means belong to the UK, they belong to the Falklanders.

We'll see next month how many people in the Falklands what retain their current Political Status with upcoming referendum which they organised.

The UK wants to put an end this dispute over the Falkland Islanders, but as long as the Falklands consent to it. Argentina wants the UK 'return' the Falklands however the UK cannot do that as it is not ours to give away.

Argentina is terrified at the thought of negotiating with a people they openly want to colonise and a people who they forcibly colonised by force for two months in 1982 until the UK as their protectors liberated them. The main reason Argentina has reignited this dispute and are fanatical about colonising the Falklands again is due to the discovery/ confirmation of oil on the Isles. However that oil belongs to the Falkanders, not them foreigners hundreds of lies away in Argentina.

Will the Falklands be apart of Argentina in 20 years time? Will it F***! It looks like Argentina are overdue for a good hiding again. Argentina's last invasion was a blessing in disguise for the UK.

(ZMAJ, 6 February 2013 17:43)

You need more than 14 digits in your display.

All that matters is can Britain keep these Islands? For the moment the answer is yes. Soon, however, things will change in the Malvinas and in Kosovo.
(Michael Thomas, 6 February 2013 18:38)
--
Thank you Michael for explaining it so eloquently. Since when has the UK, US or EU ever cared about the opinion of Serbs even when they formed the overwhelming majority?

At that time Kosovo will return to Serbia.
(Michael Thomas, 6 February 2013 15:33)

In other words, never.

Falkand Islands are British. They always were and always will be.

You hit the nail on the head, Leonidas. The seas aound the Falklands are rich in oil reserves. There is a reaon why these two nations are fighting so hard for their rights to this land. On claims territtorial righs, one claims the will of its inhabitants. So who is right? Usually, it has been might is right but, with the world changing the way it does, who knows, maybe China will claim the Falklands on day? I just wish that governments were more forthright in their comments, as oppossed to going around this "people's will" bush. It's about the economy, stupid!

I think Danilo enjoys taking the British line on this one by using empty arguments to solidify his position on Kosovo. The one argument you hang on to Danilo is that British people live there, this is a stupid and dangerous logic. By this logic any area in the world populated by a majority of a certain ethnic group should be able to demand that land be attached to the rest of their people living in their mainland. Should Germans in the Volga region be allowed to unite with Germany? This was Hitler's logic as is the logic with all colonialists and expansionists. The fact that the Falklands or should I say Malvinas are Islands makes no difference here, geographically it is an utter joke that Britain claim rights to this land. The fact Brits are a majority there is also significant seeing as they are not indigenous to those islands, rather moved there to strengthen the British claim, somewhat like how Tito allowed mass immigration of albanians into Kosovo. I think Danilo just purposefully likes to disagree with the majority of Serbs on any issue just to be alternative, its pathetic.

Ian, don't make out that they are somewhat independent, their head of state is Elizabeth II and the very fact that their defense is the British military says it all.

It is about as much of a joke as Britain's claim to Gibraltar on Spanish territory, theres no way the Brits will hand onto these islands forever, anyone who thinks so is delusional.

You maintain this idea that the Falklands are somehow very independent from Britain, it is not, their self-governance is relatable to Wales having its own assembly, nevertheless Wales is a part of Britain where head of state and military are shared. If the Brits on the Falklands were to one day call for full independence from Britain and rise up there would be an immediate crushing of this from the government in London.

While the Argentine viewpoint isn't flawless it makes far more sense for them to have rule over these islands, geography is a much more important factor than you think. Obviously the real reason for hanging onto the Falklands is for natural resources, now here geography plays a very important role. I would like to know a credible argument as to why Britain in western Europe should have rights to resources where the closest nation to those resources is indeed Argentina, please clarify why Britain has the right to those resources.

The relevance to Kosovo is the sheer hypocracy shown by Britain, they advocate that Serbia doesn't have a right to a province where their entire history and culture has been since the Serbian people existed, and before the albanian people or nation existed. Yet Britain wants to hang on to islands thousands of miles away, it is absurd.

Both countries kicked off the new year with a large high profile dose of militaristic statements so as to deflect attention away from their very large domestic problems ( both countries are in essence bankrupt).How very cynical.

At the end of the day these militaristic posturings have only one aim which is the opportunity to drill the place dry.

(Michael Thomas, 6 February 2013 15:33)

AMEN

US $ 16,481,322,803,772
UK £ 1,092,539,708,652

Not precise, while I'm writing this US went up USD 1mil.

Nice :)

Not worth to mention Kosovo BTW, we all know what we want there and what's going to happen.

(ZMAJ, 6 February 2013 16:28)

That's more accurate:

http://www.iea.org.uk/blog/true-level-of-uk-government-debt-exceeds-%C2%A35-trillion

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=true+debt+of+the+us&aq=0&oq=true+debt+of+US&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Maybe the Spanish and Italian colonisers of the country called Argentina should give it back to its rightfull owners, the indigenous people of the continent although they have almost been wiped out by the conquistadores. Uruguay btw also wants a claim on the island, saying that Argentinian lawmakers signed the islands over to Uruguay somewhere in the 19th century.
Otherwise, Argentina is delusional. World opinion is not on their side and even if it did, the US, EU, Nato but more importantly the Common Wealth is on the UK's side. Argentina is in a really bad economic situation and they try to take attention away from that with this issue which is a non-issue because they won't get it back. This minister is involved with all kinds of corruption schemes and he needs something to take attention away from that as well.

But Zmaj,

You just made the argument earlier that Argentina is the rightful owner of the Falklands because they colonized people that used to fish there.

Are you simply confused?

Hi Ari.

Feel free to disagree with any of the points I've made.

14 digits is just enough, it'll explode long before 15th.

Crisis Preparedness by Jack A. Spigarelli is a must hand book in the US today.
(ZMAJ, 6 February 2013 19:02)

Point taken,which mountain are you heading to?Give me a time frame.

Falkand islands were not taken away from Argentina; Argentina didn't even exist at the time whe UK settled this empty island.
(Danilo, 6 February 2013 18:53)

UK did not settle empty island, it was 100 inhabitants who previously took this place from Patagonian Ameridians who used it as a settlement during hunt and fishing season, for thousands of years. Those indigenous peoples of the Americas live on territory of now days Argentina. Those people were prevented by force by colonialists to come over and over again.

How many times we must say that?

Argentina as it is did not existed, we all know that, but it actually existed as sparsely populated, at least. There's many British islands no one ever lived, even seasonally, should we claim those islands?

ok. SPC. You're going with "because it's close".

Why should the UK have the resources? The UK proposed 50/50 sharing and it was rejected. Actually, Argentina has resisted any attempts at negotiation. Three binding arbitrations and, more recently, a 50/50 proposal with the islanders. To me this is telling that they know that their position is unreasonable, but like to use the issue periodically to excite their electorate.

Why shouldn't the resources belong to the community that has lived there continuously for 200 years? Why shouldn't ALL of the resources go to them? Seems like 50/50 is pretty generous.

But hey. "it's close". why not.

"If the Brits on the Falklands were to one day call for full independence from Britain and rise up there would be an immediate crushing of this from the government in London"


yes, except the Islanders overwhelmingly wish to stay British, so this scenario exists only in your head.


Re: Kosovo.

No hypocrisy. In both examples, the local population overwhelmingly doesn't want to be colonized by their neighbour, regardless of whether Spanish, Aboriginals or Illirians were fishing there first.

You go on about anti-colonialism. You know, self-determination kind of goes hand-in-hand with that.

(Leonidas, 6 February 2013 16:39)

I know it was greedy but I designed 1.8m old fashion red on black wi-fi 14 digits display and it is single address configuration., so I entered "usdebtclock". It's so cool. I'm even thinking about making more and sell some :) Morning coffee and whole day is better watching this clock.

I don't know if I'd sell it well but I'm sure no American would buy it, that's sure.

"Proven enemy?" LOL

First of all, Serbia isn't "my country".

Secondly, I do more concrete good for Serbia every month than you'll do in your life. How many Serbians do you employ?

Anyway. I'll take your non-answer as an inability to answer.

Hi Ari.

Feel free to disagree with any of the points I've made.
(Danilo, 6 February 2013 19:54)

Hahaha, that made me laugh.

Regarding why Argentina does not want the ICJ involved, I think most likely because its lawyers know that "interests vs wishes" arguments do not fly very well there.

(Winston, 6 February 2013 23:00)

That's right Winston. Resources = money for the City of London boys and girls.The Tories will send the army off to Falklands or Malvinas to fight for the rich while at home they will continue to screw the poor.Moreover,it will help "call me Dave" to get another war on his CV.

Funny SPC,

From my perspective, some Serbs desperately cling to this Falklands issue because of Kosovo. It give them an example in the world where the will of the people living there can be ignored with some mental gymnastics.

Kosovo doesn't change my opinion on the Falklands. Didn't in the 80s; doesn't now.

I notice you didn't answer the question. Like most, you claim that the UK shouldn't have the islands (which aren't UK, but self-governing, but nevermind) because colonialism. ok, fine.

So, explain the Argentine position, if you can.

Are you going to go with "because it's closer Argentina should be allowed to forcefully colonize the people living there for 9 generations"?

малвини су срце Аргентине!!!!

Ian, don't make out that they are somewhat independent, their head of state is Elizabeth II and the very fact that their defense is the British military says it all.

It is about as much of a joke as Britain's claim to Gibraltar on Spanish territory, theres no way the Brits will hand onto these islands forever, anyone who thinks so is delusional.
(SCP UK, 7 February 2013 14:39)

SCP UK is right you know, Queen Betty 2 is an absolute evil military dictator of the Falkland Islands.

Betty 2 can't exercise sweet FA power in the UK and she has even less power outside of the UK where she is head of state.
If you knew anything, Nigel Haywood is the Head of State (Governor) of the Falkland Islands. His role is defined by Chapter 2 (Sections 23-25) of the Falkland Islands Constitution. He role is purely ceremonial apart from Defence matters where he is "Commander of the British Forces" on the Falkands and that itself is another ceremonial position. The elected Chief Executive (Head of Government) of the Falkland Islands after being elected goes to the Governor to ask permission to form a government. Of course the Governor never says no as it is only ceremonial. The Governor of the Falkland Island has no political power.

And you really think the Falklanders have a problem with the British military being there? They're more than welcome in the eyes of the Falklanders. The last time the Falklands was almost fully demilitarised by the UK, the Nazi colonialist Argies invaded.

You just made the argument earlier that Argentina is the rightful owner of the Falklands because they colonized people that used to fish there.
Are you simply confused?
(Danilo, 7 February 2013 16:21)

This is the smallest "crime" I'm ready to commit against interests of someone who's proven enemy of my own country AND I'm not confused at all.

(Leonidas, 6 February 2013 18:25)

Whatever you say it's mostly guarantee to me, I appreciate your opinion but here you're out : the point is that I really do not need more digits.

14 digits is just enough, it'll explode long before 15th.

Crisis Preparedness by Jack A. Spigarelli is a must hand book in the US today.

Point taken,which mountain are you heading to?Give me a time frame.
(Leonidas, 6 February 2013 21:00)

I'm already on the huge mountain, in huge crisis - preparing for external crisis. I have so much taxes to pay already that if I do not succeed I'll stay on plain Mizithra, Stamnagathi and Goat meet. Not that bad. I know those things are difficult to preserve in big amounts but I'm an old survivor ready to share knowledge and rapidly coming into the matter using old rebel survival knowledge they have out here. Couldn't have better company for any crisis magnitude, really. I'm on the biggest mountain with greatest people of all, ready to survive anything!

Oh, wait a moment- I forgot : I'm in mid age pre-cancerous stage so "survive anything" is a bit limited at present. But IF we exclude or solve that I'm surviving US domination EASY for many years to come!

So, here's the mountain and time frame.

This article here basically sums up the situation: http://www.fleetstreetfox.com/2013/01/dear-argentina.html?m=1

SCP UK - the example of Wales is pure rubbish. Welsh people vote their MPs into UK parliament. Falklanders don’t. Laws passed in UK government have jurisdiction over Wales. No such arrangement exists for the Falkland Islands. Wales is legally a constituent part of UK. Falkland Islands aren’t. They are self governing – Wales isn’t.

You also talk of UK never “handing over these islands”. The UK position is perfectly clear – it will respect the free will of the people, whatever they decide. They are committed to this even for constituent parts of UK as in the case of Scotland. This is simply democratic justice.

You seem confused about the role of the Queen as Head of State. She is Head of State in many, many countries – Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Jamaica, etc. This doesn’t mean that they aren’t independent countries (and I speak as a republican who would rather not have monarchy anywhere!).

Your arguments will be better served by facts rather than fiction.

Playing Devils Advocate,

no, I don't think ethnic cleansing is the solution but, sadly, it doesn't surprise me that that's what some Serb would come up with.

Are you simply confused?
(Danilo, 7 February 2013 16:21)

Just in case if you were little confused
(ZMAJ, 8 February 2013 18:10)

I had not heard the "I know you are but what am I" type of argument since elementary school. ZMAJ you are awesome.

Oh yes, the Falkland Wars. Here are our two participants of 1982:

- A run-down military dictatorship in Argentina that occupied the isles in order to please nationalistic sentiments of the people.

- A run-down Thatcher government that was under increasing pressure by the opposition and the unions. Just like her counterparts in Argentina, she saw the Falkland War as an opportunity to please nationalistic sentiments of her people.

The UK won. Thatcher's triumph made sure she could stay in power and pursue economic liberalism.

From my perspective, some Serbs desperately cling to this Falklands issue because of Kosovo.
(Danilo, 7 February 2013 15:25)

Exactly, I'm pure example, must confess that.

NOT because Britain can no longer maintain its colonial attitude or because colonialism is long past but only because of Kosovo and few other things, that's truth.

The Argentinian case is so weak it is untenable.

They just like making noise about it.

Why should the UK have the resources? The UK proposed 50/50 sharing and it was rejected. Actually, Argentina has resisted any attempts at negotiation. Three binding arbitrations and, more recently, a 50/50 proposal with the islanders. To me this is telling that they know that their position is unreasonable, but like to use the issue periodically to excite their electorate.

Why shouldn't the resources belong to the community that has lived there continuously for 200 years? Why shouldn't ALL of the resources go to them? Seems like 50/50 is pretty generous.

But hey. "it's close". why not.
(Danilo, 7 February 2013 18:39)

Well Danilo,

Because it reneges on it's earlier promise to relinquish sovereignty to Argentina. Sovereignty is traditionally absolute and not conditioned by another sovereign entity ie; "Sovereignty is the quality of having independent authority over a geographic area, such as a territory.

They cannot claim this otherwise it opens a precedent to have any small or large community to challenge any Gov't sovereign right to natural offshore resources.

The Argies claimed the islands when there was no settlements or any population of the kind FYI.

The solution is legally simple, Argies take the islands pay the "Kelpers" transporation costs and land in Britain. Problem over wouldn't you agree?

How many Serbians do you employ?
(Danilo, 8 February 2013 11:50)

I do not employ any. I employ one Bulgarian and one Albanian occasionally as of last decade. Why's that important first of all? How can you know what I did for my people and country by now, actually? How can I know that you're not liar when you, years now, constantly repeat about Serbs you employ?

I don't care how many Serbs "you employ" as any Albanian or Turk can write here that "he's employing" Serbs.

Stop delivering this stupid malicious, could be lie, information- you're not gaining absolutely nothing with it.

BUT, if it's truth that you employ any Serbs must say I'd feel bitterness about that. It's not because you're some Danilo I do not agree with, I live with people with whom I do not agree at all and we're just OK, but because you're repeating this all the time like parrot, years now. Welcome with any personal or professional stuff but don't try to prevail with that, it's SO worthless. Nobody believe you anyway. You don't need that, it looks so stupid.

Playing Devils Advocate,

no, I don't think ethnic cleansing is the solution but, sadly, it doesn't surprise me that that's what some Serb would come up with.
(Danilo, 8 February 2013 17:55)

I am glad to see that, but don't give this poor wee lil Serb from OZ credit for coming up with it. Nor for comfirming it's legality.

http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/12/21/william-hague-should-say-%E2%80%98sorry%E2%80%99-to-the-chagos-islanders-and-restore-the-right-of-return/

Those Chagos got around 4k pound in assylum aid. In one way Mugabe had a point reversing it eh?

Colonialism is explotation lets hope you don't do the same or defend it so vigorously in future.

I also take the absence of a response to my other points as an inability to do so.

Regards

This is the smallest "crime" I'm ready to commit against interests of someone who's proven enemy of my own country AND I'm not confused at all.
(ZMAJ, 8 February 2013 02:06)

Here I was referring to "someone" Else's country as obvious from the context of your comment I attached and I was was responding to.

Just in case if you were little confused, you were not that "someone" as I really do not consider you capable to be my enemy or enemy of my country. You can swallow this as a compliment, I'm giving you permission.