It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Peruvianmonk
An Argentinian tennis player, David Nalbandian, has just attacked an old Englishman at Queens.
We must declare war immediately!
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Physic
ja ja ja, god has spoken, anything else you want to add?