Hehe, I know what you tring to make, wise boy, you should be a lawyer :rolleyes:
By the way in my last post I forgot to mention that the Argentine militia ( it wasnt an army is those days) defeated two british attemps to invade the mainland, in 1806 and 1807.
William carr Beresford the commander of the invation Forces in 1806.
Thank you for the compliment - or was it?
No, I am sincere in my motives, although I can see why you would think otherwise.
There is much debate about british occupation and the resident people. It would be difficult for any British politicians to order a withdrawal since forces gave their lives to re-tale the islands.
From an economic view point, I doubt Britain would want to give up its claims to Antarctica, something to do with mineral depositis and how the continent is divided by the surrounding nations. A little vague now, but there is where the route of the problem probably lies.
Yes, Beresford was one of those fantastically, incompetent, British generals. He commanded some excellent regiments, but he was hopeless…lucky for you fellows, hey?
Thank you for the compliment - or was it?
Yes it was a compliment.
I undestand…it would be almost suicidal (politically) to order the british withdraw. That is way I get shocked when 1000yds post that the islands are an independent state :shock:
Yes, Beresford was one of those fantastically, incompetent, British generals. He commanded some excellent regiments, but he was hopeless…lucky for you fellows, hey?
The year after John Withelocke came with 6 times more soldiers (12000) but…it didnt suceeded either :rolleyes:
You are beginning to get to the point of the matter. British generals, with a few exceptions, were gentlemen, not soldiers. 
British generals, with a few exceptions, were gentlemen, not soldiers.
At list they were in those times, this general surrender his sword to the Bs As garrison commander, pretty elegant. :roll:
Yes, this is what I was referring to:
The 95th subsequently saw action at Colonia against a Spanish force that had crossed from Buenos Aires where the Rifles held off the force until it could be repulsed, with the 95th gaining much praise from Auchmuty for their part in the defeat of the Spanish force. The 95th subsequently saw action in June at San Pedro where they, the 40th and light companies, fought against the Spanish force that had crossed from Buenos Aires and defeated them. Lieutenant-General John Whitelocke, the newly-arrived overall commander, subsequently launched an ill-advised and mis-managed assault on Buenos Aires in which the companies of both battalions of the 95th were involved as part of the Light Brigade, commanded by Robert Craufurd. During the assault on Buenos Aires on 5 July, the 95th and the rest of the British force suffered heavy casualties in bitter fighting to capture the city. The Light Brigade had suffered so heavily that they had to take refuge in a church and surrendered soon after. Whitelocke eventually surrendered his force. After Whitelocke negotiated the withdrawal of British forces, the men were released and they returned home later that year. In the aftermath of the disastrous expedition, Popham and Whitelocke were court-martialled, with Popham reprimanded and Whitelocke dismissed from the Army.
I haven’t read much on it. It was more of a vague memory from the days when I was studying the ‘Rifles’ and the history of the Peninsular War. The exeptional generals were Sir John Moore and Sir Arthur Wellesley(Wellington).
Naturally, the 95th were not much impressed by Whitelocke.
http://www.peninsularwar.org/penwar_e.htm
1000yds
Basically Panzerknacker, Rising Sun* is spot on.I applaud you RS for putting your thoughts forwards so well and so clearly.
Panzerknacker, read, learn and absorb. YOUR country started it, MY country finished it. Any losses on your side, were caused (ultimately) by your own leadership.
Belgrano could well have caused severe damage to the RN task force. Her guns and her armour were from another era, one that we had forgot. That she was sunk is indeed unfortuante, but a key part to OUR winning of the war.
Or you could sulk.
First of all I have nothing to learn neither from RS ( no ofense RS) or you.
Second the war might be over but the conflict continue and it will continue until :
A meteorite hit the Earth and finished with all the freaking planet.
The island returned to Argentine hands. ( radical aproach but fair one)
-Another war began.
The military 1982 Goverment only exploit the historical uncomformity for ther british takeover of Malvinas, but is not the responsible for his creation.
Is always the same when some take another s territory by force there be always trouble, a close example in here in the appropiation of Peruvian and Bolivian territory by Chile in 1879, ( actually Bolivia was cut off his sea shore) and this caused conflict today and forever.
None taken.
Second the war might be over but the conflict continue and it will continue until :
A meteorite hit the Earth and finished with all the freaking planet.
The island returned to Argentine hands. ( radical aproach but fair one)
-Another war began.
Or Argentina just accepts things as they are, and have been for getting on for a couple of centuries, and changes its constitution by removing the rights asserted over the Malvinas. 
The central logical problem with Argentina’s claim to the Malvinas / Falklands, as with all irredentist arguments, is that it stands up only if everybody accepts the arbitrarily selected point in time at which the irredentists claim their ownership began. That time is invariably the one most favourable to the irredentist position. Naturally it will rarely be accepted by the opposition.
If we look at the chronology of the Falklands, there are points at which various nations can claim entitlement.
http://www.naval-history.net/F13history.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1987/CRD.htm
Irredentists of European origin in former European colonial possessions never want to take their arguments to their logical conclusion by going back to the first known ownership of the land, which is the native peoples in those colonies (As far as I can work out, the Falklands were not inhabited by anyone before Europeans, which destroys any claim based on ethnic or geographic connection with South America). The original occupants have the best irredentist claim to the land. The Incas have a better claim to the whole of Argentina than does anyone of European descent. After all, it’s only about 420 something years since Spain first landed there. The Incas were there first. Same situation in Australia with the Aborigines; America with their Indians; and Canada with their Indians.
The reason that the native peoples’ claims are ignored is because, rightly or wrongly, they were conquered or dominated by the invaders. They couldn’t hold their land. Which brings us to the concept of colonial ‘possessions’. As the term suggests, a possession is something possessed, or held, by a colonial power. Sooner or later, the world comes to accept that long possession equates to ownership in fact as well as acquiring possession in earlier international law by occupation.
Argentina declared independence from Spain in 1816. Britain has held the Falklands since 1833. Britain has held the Falklands continuously for the past 174 years of Argentina’s 191 years of existence.
The days of international law recognising acquisition of territory by military force and civilian occupation have long gone. Article 49 of the Geneva Convention on Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm , which came into force in 1950, makes it a war crime for an occupying power to remove civilians from occupied territory and or to import its own civilians. As a party to that Convention, the only way that Argentina can reclaim the Falklands in any practical sense is to commit war crimes.
Another major problem with Argentina’s claim is that it derives from Spain’s claim. As Argentina declared independence from Spain and fought a revolutionary war early in the 19th century to achieve that independence, Argentina cannot rely on Spain’s territorial claims when it had repudiated Spanish rule. Such a claim is as absurd as would be an American claim now that it owns Canada because Canada comprised British possessions at the time of the American War of Independence which repudiated British rule.
I don’t see that Argentina’s claim has any real foundation beyond national emotion, while Argentina is prohibited by international law from giving effect to its ambitions.
It is always the British who have to give up isn’t it?
It isn’t going to happen. The Islanders have the say, and they want to be part of Britain.
The Islands incidently ARE independant, in the same was as the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, look them up and read about them.
They rely on UK for one thing only… defence.
As we have discussed before, with Eagle. If the Argentine “rules” governing who owns what are followed correctly, then half the globe will be rearranged. Because the Argentine “rules” are flawed and cock-eyed to be generous to the Argies in this instance only.
Why, apart from irredendist claims, and perhaps a desire to avenge the humiliation of losing the Falklands War, is it so important to Argentina to grab the Falklands? It’s not like it will make a major contribution to Argentina’s economy, defence, international prestige (the reverse on this point) or any other positive reason for having them. I sense strong feeling from Argentinians about the Falklands but I can’t see any rational basis for those feelings apart from weak and confused irredentist arguments.
Why is it that Argentina is so focused on reclaiming the Falklands when it has much better historical title, arising around the same time, to Paraguay, Uruguay, and Bolivia? Is it just that the Falklands is an easy target that Argentina thinks it can pick off? If not, then to be consistent Argentina should be maintaining claims to those countries as well as the Falklands.
I suppose it’s a little like thinking about winning the lottery. For a few minutes after purchasing an essentially worthless ticket, one’s mind can take a vacation and think of all the wonderful possibilities that would open up if only one won! It’s like a nearly free vacation from the workaday cares of the world. That must be what the Falklands are to the Argentinians, something outside of themselves, a shining city on the hill, a taliesin of the mind, or a free ticket to an all-nude Club Med on the Isle of Guadaloupe. That must be it!
But, like all such fantasies, it will not come to pass. El condor, no pasa…
Sorry man, but I have no the slightest idea of what a hell you try to say in your last post.
Any chance that you explain or is that you just like the garblings post ?
My knowledge about non-argentine South American music is extremely limited but I know that El condor pasa is a peruvian song…so just for the record.
This is Peru:
And this is Argentina:
No response ???
Ha.
Huh?
Ah!
Aha!
Ha! Ha!
That should clear it up. 
Or was that ‘ha’ in Spanish? Which clears it up less.
And just for completeness, Babel translates the quote from Spanish to English as
“not response? it has.”
That definitely clears it up.
I do so like mystical posts.
At least, Panzer, you are quite consistent and I have to salute you for hanging in here and robustly defending the Argentinian point of view. I think that is quite commendable. I can’t agree personally with any of it, but that’s why they call it DISagreement. I can’t help but be surprised at the some of the more or less violent imagery - a meteorite hit the Earth (holy smokes) - that sometimes accompanies your posts, but perhaps that is the latin passion for you. What I don’t get is why the Argentinians waste so much energy on this issue. It reminds me a bit of arguments between university professors which tend to be almost unbelievably vicious over completely trivial topics and where the stakes are practically nil.
I suppose the US could always just annex the Canadian province of Quebec. We did invade it once but unfortunately got roundly thrashed on the PLains of Abraham on top of the cliff in front of Quebec City. After all, Quebec is basically the same land mass as America, and so what if the people there speak a different language? I’m sure that the Quebecois who don’t like the English Canadians very much would like their raucous neighbors to the south even less, and if it came to a vote, wouldn’t vote to join us either. I mean, who cares, really, what they think?
Tell you what, maybe we could propose that Canada seize the French Islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon which lie menacingly at the mouth of the St. Lawrence Seaway. Quebec for these two islands - what a deal.
Nah, Panzer, I’m sorry, that doesn’t make any more sense than Argentina laying claim to the Falklands either. Sorry. I admire your pluck, Panzer, but can’t bring myself to buying your reasoning, no matter how hard I try.
At least, Panzer, you are quite consistent and I have to salute you for hanging in here and robustly defending the Argentinian point of view. I think that is quite commendable
Thanks. And by the way, I dont try too sell nothing, I am just giving a opinion wich (I think) represent a large portion of the argentine public.
And remember the firt post of this issue, was a british who said the the islands should be Argentines…I agree with him.
OAS unanimous support for Argentina’s Falklands’ claim
[b]Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Direct Link: http://www.mercopress.com/vernoticia.do?id=10660&formato=html
[/b]As has been the rule the 37th Organization of American States Foreign Secretaries summit unanimously approved a declaration in support of Argentina’s claim to the Malvinas/Falklands islands while Argentina pounded Britain for its unilateral actions ignoring cooperation understandings.
The OAS meeting this time was held in Panama and the main topic energy, however recent events in Venezuela overshadowed the summit with a strong clash between Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro and US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice who walked out of the meeting applauded by the delegates.
Argentina’s Foreign Secretary Jorge Taiana said that “UK does not cease to carry out unilateral actions contrary to the cooperation convened under the (Falklands/Malvinas) sovereignty formula” and exemplified recalling the awarding of oil exploration and production licences in the disputed area.
This attitude contradicts the Argentine/British joint declaration of September 27 regarding activities in the South western Atlantic, and the international community mandate, “forcing Argentina to end such understanding”, added the Argentine delegate.
Taiana said the issue had been recently addressed by all Latinamerican leaders during the first South American Energy Summit, which approved a presidential declaration supporting Argentina’s decision to conclude the 1995 Argentina/UK Joint declaration.
Taiana further on said that on the 25th anniversary of the conflict, “I would like to pay respectful homage to all those who gave their lives and efforts in the South Atlantic”. But “this (1982) conflict did not alter the legality or nature of the dispute” and this has been recognized by the international community, which has repeatedly called on both sides to resume talks on the issue.
Finally Taiana said that for over a year Argentina has repeatedly invited the United Kingdom to maintain an open dialogue over the current situation of all existing provisional understandings, and particularly the context framework: the existence of the Falklands/Malvinas sovereignty dispute and the obligation on both sides to solve it by the resumption of bilateral negotiations, “unfortunately the UK intransigency has not allowed so far this frank and open dialogue”.
The declaration in support of Argentina’s Falklands/Malvinas “legitimate claims” and call for resumption of dialogue and a peaceful solution was presented by the Uruguayan delegate.
According to Taiana OAS has passes ten resolutions and 14 declarations in support of Argentina on the Falklands sovereignty dispute.
Was there a rush of bog Irish immigration to Argentina at some stage?
Do you just enjoy banging your heads on a brick wall to no purpose?
… and this has been recognized by the international community, which has repeatedly called on both sides to resume talks on the issue.
Evidence?