Falkland Islands to hold referendum on sovereignty

reply to post by stumason


hahahaha., now you got me laughing too, do you have anything on topic?

reply to post by Physic


Plenty, actually. I've already commented on this thread a few times and in response to things you've said, which you skip over as if they were never said to carry on with your gibberish. You have willfully ignored all the salient points made about both the UK and Argentine claims and carry on prattling about some "King" espousing Argentina as the sole owner of a collection of islands they have never owned.

However, as I am actually well studied on this I don't need "links" as what I say is the truth. Your inability to even counter any of my points shows your lack of knowledge.

The UK claim is dated 1766, the Spanish claim was later and they gave it up at the Nootka convention which is what Argentina base their claim on. Until you can overcome this blatant fact, you will never be able to demonstrate why Argentina's claim is valid, much less superior to the UK's.

An Argentinian tennis player, David Nalbandian, has just attacked an old Englishman at Queens.

We must declare war immediately!

reply to post by stumason


Well you can't argue with someone who has their mind made up and opinion set and not going to change, and convinced they do not need any out side sources to support their beliefs, is beyone reasoning with, no matter how much one disagrees with them...would you not agree, hahah?

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk
An Argentinian tennis player, David Nalbandian, has just attacked an old Englishman at Queens.

We must declare war immediately!

Sounds quiet par for the course, anything new going on?

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by Physic

 

Plenty, actually. I've already commented on this thread a few times and in response to things you've said, which you skip over as if they were never said to carry on with your gibberish. You have willfully ignored all the salient points made about both the UK and Argentine claims and carry on prattling about some "King" espousing Argentina as the sole owner of a collection of islands they have never owned.

However, as I am actually well studied on this I don't need "links" as what I say is the truth. Your inability to even counter any of my points shows your lack of knowledge.

The UK claim is dated 1766, the Spanish claim was later and they gave it up at the Nootka convention which is what Argentina base their claim on. Until you can overcome this blatant fact, you will never be able to demonstrate why Argentina's claim is valid, much less superior to the UK's.

Not seeing fallands included in Nootka, so what gives, you more truth with out proof?


Nootka Convention
The Nootka Conventions were a series of three agreements between the Kingdom of Spain and the Kingdom of Great Britain, signed in the 1790s which averted a war between the two empires over overlapping claims to portions of the Pacific Northwest coast of North America. The claims of Spain dated back...
Found on en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Physic


Physic/Germanicus you do know having two accounts is not allowed? very easy to spot fella.

reply to post by Physic


Your link is broke...

But, if you go to the wiki page you were trying to link:

First Nootka Convention

The first Nootka Convention plays a role in the disputed sovereignty of the Falkland Islands between the United Kingdom and Argentina. Article VI provided that neither party would form new establishments on any of the islands adjacent to the east and west coasts of South America then occupied by Spain. Both retained the right to land and erect temporary structures on the coasts and islands for fishery-related purposes. However, there was an additional secret article which stipulated that Article VI shall remain in force only so long as no establishment shall have been formed by the subjects of any other power on the coasts in question. This secret article had the same force as if it were inserted in the convention. The Nootka Convention's applicability to the Falklands dispute is controversial and complicated. The United Provinces of the River Plate was not a party to the convention. Therefore it is defined in the convention as 'other power' and the occupation of the settlement (at Port Louis) by subjects of any other power negated Article VI and allowed Great Britain to re-assert prior sovereignty and form new settlements.

en.wikipedia.org...

[5][6]

Both sides agreed to not settle the island and resolve who owns it later unless a third party got involved, which is what happened when the the UP (later Argentina) settled there.

You can take this two ways, either Argentina was the third party, which allowed the UK to assert it's Sovereignty over the islands, or Argentina was acting as successor to Spain, in which case they broke the Agreement signed by the UK, again allowing it to assert it's prior claim, which we did.

reply to post by stumason


Not doubting you, just asking you for a source, besides you..

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by Physic

 

Physic/Germanicus you do know having two accounts is not allowed? very easy to spot fella.

It is crying pity, you are the one making all the claims about the Falklands and who they belong too and now resorting to such outlandish claims that I am another member here now...so starting to doubt your version of facts and questioning your opinions and views now, is tough to avoid.

reply to post by stumason


gosh, just can't help laugh at that response, and if that is how you practice law and think it should be, then no wonder it is in dispute

reply to post by Physic


Whether you like it or not, or even if you agree with it, I couldn't give a toss. This is the position and the facts of the matter. Argentina has no leg to stand on at all.

We agreed with Spain not to settle the islands as we had competing claims, unless they settled them or a third party did, in which case our prior claim (from 1766 - long before the United Provinces or Argentina ever existed) could be asserted.

This is quite clear and I notice you have absolutely nothing to counter it aside from (what you think are) clever remarks.

reply to post by stumason


ja ja ja, god has spoken, anything else you want to add?

Originally posted by Physic
ja ja ja, god has spoken, anything else you want to add?

With respect, the ball is in your court as the facts have been outlined and you can either sensibly refute them with intelligent and well sourced argument and debate, or not.

If you merely shrug them off with puerile comment and silliness then you will be exposed as a charlatan.

Regards

reply to post by Physic


No, I think that's it.

You clearly have no retort, just (really bad) personal attacks instead...

reply to post by stumason


oh wait, I am personally attacking you now or someone else, as thought it was the other way around and you were the one trying to make the character assassinations

reply to post by paraphi


charlatan? I sorta of like that one...think I would need to do some more research and take the time to point out the holes in your legal claim you are making on the behalf of the empire...

I am not sure I agree with your view that, Argentina did not own it and have claim, prior to 1766 and also that just because a 3rd party got involved, voided their claim, as think it could be argued the other way and would hope that is the case, as your claim sounds like since you did not quote and link us to source of the law and how it applied at the time, leaves lots of questions that need answers and you seem to have issue with posting links, and sadly don't see any point arguing with you, since it is more hearsay then anything else and not going to look up all your claims for you.

A wiki link be better than nothing, if you want me to really take you seriously...maybe a youtube video for us to review? Something besides nothing is all asking...

You could present the law of the time, reference to treaty signed and deals made with source links, can't you, someone else believes the same as you, is my guess, and you are not the only one...

That other stuff looked up was so far off based and off topic, not sure how you really expect anyone to take you seriously, and oh, please let me know if you feel better, calling me a charlatan and insulting me, as hope it does make you feel like more of human and less of an idiot

reply to post by Physic


Let me see if you can understand this.

Great Britain has been on those Islands or involved with those Islands since the 1600's
The FIRST TIME the words Falklands (Malvinas) and Argentina appear together is 1820.

Is that quite clear to you?

Seems this whole discussion has turned into a massive outbitching contest. In the spirit of good will I can give both sides something to think about here....

No matter whether you happen to support the Argentinian claim to the Falklands, or whether one supports the British one, the fact is that all your blather doesnt mean a God damned thing. The wonderful thing about this scenario, is that the only people with a single solitary vote in this, will be the people who have lived on the Falklands , while everyone else has been running their mouth.

IF Britain is the colonialist dog that people seem to like to claim, then the Islanders will have no problem denying the British the right to claim that territory as their own, or fly the Union Flag there.

And IF the Islanders decide that they have had enough of all the fascistic, militant, thuggish ill will they have recieved from the Argentinians, and their tame attack cow, then they will vote to stay a part of the United Kingdom... And what ever they decide we will all have to like it, or lump it.

Failure to accept the choice of the people in this matter, would be a grave mistake.