Eyre International – Bringing You The News No One Else Wants To Bring You

The Hidden Truth Behind The News

Who legally owns the Islas Malvinas (Falkland Islands)

with 53 comments


Barak – “Listen up, I can’t take sides on this issue as we have huge investments in Latin America”

Barak – May I suggest you get a couple of our oil big boys such as Anadarko involved and maybe you can drag us into a potential conflict as we would have to protect our own citizens”

Cameron – “What a fantastic Idea – You know I get good backhanders from Rockhopper, Desire Petroleum and Falklands Oil & Gas so adding another expert fraudster could really make it work”

Barak – “Please be careful with this David. You know these companies are virtual companies and the fact that there is no oil and gas of commercial value down there and if this gets out my investments in Latin America could be in jeopardy so lets both get involved but do it under the radar”

Cameron – “Don’t worry my old chum, our British companies know how to stitch up their investors and we both can benefit from this little conflict…….you know what I mean….the brushing of the palm”

Barak – “Great concept David let’s do it…….I can throw in maybe an AWAC aircraft, possible help with some in flight refuelling and you can use my military spy satellites”

AWAC 

  

“You know that the Malvinas were handed over to us by the original settlers, France, and there is clearly no question about the true sovereignty of these islands so bring it on Mr. Cameron – We are much better prepared than before and we have the whole of Latin America behind us – “as we say “Que la corrida de toros comienzan” – “tenemos los mejores toreros” (let the bullfight begin – we have the best Matadors)

Excuse my typically British humour…..just couldn’t resist the opportunity to have a little fun!!

It is historically clear to me, having studied marine navigation and some aspects of Maritime Law,  that under  International Maritime Law these islands do belong to Argentina.

We all understand that apart from Brazil most of Latin America was colonised by the Spanish be that right or wrong it is fact. The only British and American involvement was that of “Piracy” and you know we have always been good at stealing something that belongs to someone else. It is hard to be critical of anyone now days when we reflect on the days when we established the “Great British Empire” and raped and pillaged so many countries all under the good name of “Queen Victoria”

I know that Spain committed some terrible autrocities in Latin America  but what country didn’t in those early days! One cannot forgive what we the “Brits” did to India the scars of which remain there to this day. I remember talking to an academic in Southern India during one of my visits to help those in poverty. He told me how the British ripped up vast tracts of native  forest for the high quality timber and in search for gold. When they realised there was  no gold of commercial value  they decided to fill the empty spaces with tea……you know that true British tradition “Let’s have and Earl Grey old chap” etc.

Locals picking tea in Southern India – Photographed by myself

 Let’s just take a look at the history on these islands and then look at what the Maritime Laws says about such situations:

On this British based map you will not see any reference to Port st Louis

Louis Antoine de Bougainville

 French government conceived the project of colonising the “Malouines” (Falkland Islands). These islands were at that time almost unknown. Bougainville undertook the task at his own expense. He set out with the frigate “Eagle” (Captain : Nicolas Pierre Duclos-Guyot ) and the sloop “Sphinx” (Captain : Francois Chenard de la Giraudais). This expedition included the naturalist and writer Dom Antoine-Joseph Pernety) and the engineer and geographer Lhuillier de la Serre.

But the settlement he established in 1763, Port St. Louis, excited the jealousy of Britain and the Spanish government. Even if the French colony was no more than 150 people, for financial motivations (he himself paid for many expeditions) and diplomatic reasons (Spain feared that the Falklands would become a rear base to attack her Peruvian gold), Bougainville was ordered by the French government to dismantle his colony, to sell the islands to the Spanish (the King of Spain paid him 603,000 pounds for the islands). On 31 January 1767, he met in Rio de la Plata Don Felipe Ruiz Puente, commanding the frigate La Esmeralda and La Liebre (the “Hare”) and future governor of the Malvinas Islands (Falklands), to take possession of the islands, and to evacuate the French population. During this time, British sailors tried to settle in the of Port de la Croisade in 1766, that they renamed Port Egmont. Bougainville wrote: – In December 1766, the frigate HMS Japan dropped anchor in Port Louis opposite to the fort. Captain Mac Bride landed, uttered threats and went away on the same day.”

The map below shows clearly the french named Port St. Louis which was named after  Louis Antoine de Bougainville the person who discovered it and created the first settlement.

 

On this British map one can clearly see reference to Port Louis and Port Louis South 

 The islands were transferred to Spain in 1767 under a Governor subordinate to the Buenos Aires Colonial Administration and renamed Puerto Soledad (In Spanish, East Falkland is known asIsla Soledad).

What happened in the interim period and just prior to this formal handover of sovereignty was a very tactful and conniving move by the “Good old Brits” under the command of Capt Byron who in 1765 claimed the West Island Group. Byron claimed the island group for King George III and was totally unaware the French colony on the East Island Group.

In 1766 this was followed up by another sneaky visit by Captain MacBride who established what to all intents and purposes was clearly an illegal colony……..remember this was in the Western Islands and not the East where the main settlement remains to this day. In 1770, Spain attacked Port Egmont and expelled the British presence…….and rightfully so!!

Before moving on I should point out that all of the above settlements were clearly not the first settlers on this island group. Archaeological finds have revealed that some primitive settlers arrived on the islands many years before from Tierra Del Fuego which we all know is a Province of Argentina and so it remains clear to me that the rightful owners of the Malvinas (Falkland Islands) is Argentina beyond a shadow of doubt. However in order to prove if my understanding is correct I will later show you how, internationally speaking, one can legally claim the rights of sovereignty over a specific coastal or island area.

The British again returned to the islands in their  defiant manner  and again settled on the Islands but in 1774 were again forced to leave owing to the pressure associated with their activity in the US leading up to the American Revolutionary War. The British left behind a plaque asserting her continued claim. Spain maintained its governor until 1806 who, on their departure also left behind a plaque asserting Spanish claims. The remaining settlers were withdrawn in 1811.

This is where the whole situation started to get extremely complicated as the countries involved kept changing their bed partners which resulted in the following:

In 1820 storm damage forced the privateer Heroina to take shelter in the islands. Her captain David Jewitt raised the flag of the United Provinces of the River Plate and read a proclamation claiming the islands.  After several failures, Luis Vernet  established a settlement in 1828 with authorisation from the Republic of Buenos Aires and Great Britain. In 1829, after asking for assistance from Buenos Aires, he was instead proclaimed Military and Civil Commander of the islands. Additionally, Vernet asked the British to protect his settlement if they returned (knowing the British they most certainly would).

As one can again clearly see that Argentina again played the leading role in the settlement of the Malvinas. In  November 1832 Argentina sent Commander Mestivier as an interim commander to establish a penal settlemen but this was not to last long because in January 1833 the British again returned and requested the Argentinian Garrison to leave, no doubt with some persuasion!!

Captain  Don Pinedo of the Argentian warship ARA Sarandi, reluctantly under protest, left the island but the Vernet settlement remained. The settlement continued until August 1833 when the leaders were all killed (known as the Gaucho murders)….Gaucho being an Argentinian cowboy. From 1834 – 1840 the outpost was run as a Naval Base until the British then fully established a permanent colony…….one can clearly see here that once again the British Military, by force, controlled the areas until the first proper colony was established totally and utterly illegal. 

Sovereignty over the islands became an issue in the second half of the 20th century, when Argentina saw the creation of the United Nations as an opportunity to pursue its claim. Talks between British and Argentine foreign missions took place in the 1960s but failed to come to any meaningful conclusion. A major sticking point in all the negotiations was that the inhabitants preferred that the islands remain British territory…….well naturally you would expect the British  Ex Pats to stand by those that put them there!!

The inevitable happened when on 2 April 1982, Argentina invaded the Malvinas (Falkland Islands) in an attempt to regain its own sovereign territory but the mission failed….not without a fight…..the Argentinian Airforce almost gained control with heavy losses by the Royal Navy (RN)  (2  RN Destroyer, 2 Frigates, 1 LSL Landing Ship, 1 LCU Amphibious Craft, 1 Container Ship, 24 Helicopters and 10 Fighters).

It was purely a fluke that the main base/ flagship HMS Hermes was not attacked…..the Argentinian Air Force approached the area not knowing their target at the time and came across the Atlantic Conveyor which they took out with Exocet Missiles the pilots were not totally aware just how close the carrier was……the Atlantic Conveyor formed part of the main carrier group and was carrying a massive arsenal of weapons and aircraft which the picture above clearly shows. The fact that this valuable asset was unable to be protected still causes some concern for those of us that served in the Royal Navy……..in my opinion had conditions been slighly better and had the Argentinians had more fuel to hang around the whole outcome of the war could have been totally different…….. “take out the carrier and you have air superiority.”

The Atlantic Conveyor after the Argentinian attack 

With the war now buried in the archives of history let’s look at what has happened since. Diplomatic relations were again established in 1990. Things started to turn sour in 1994 when Argentina again stood its ground and  added its claim to the islands to the Argentine Constitution under the principles of International Law …..which I will discuss a little later. 

Kirchner who was campaigning for President in 2003 regarded the islands as a top priority, taking actions such as banning flights to the Falklands from Argentine airspace. In June 2003 the issue was again brought before a United Nations committee, and attempts have been made to open talks with the United Kingdom to resolve the issue of the islands to no avail.

Hey Mr. Brown that wouldn’t be a Freemason’s handshake would it?

“Oh my God Gordon don’t squeeze so aggressively….are you trying to tell me something”

Again in 2007 Argentina reasserted its claim over the Falkland Islands, asking for the UK to resume talks on sovereignty. At this stage I would have to mention the donation made  by our ex useless Prime Minister  Gordon Brown who in March 2009  stated at a meeting with the Argentinian  President that there would be no talks over the future sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. As far as the governments of the UK and of the Falkland Islands are concerned, there is no issue to resolve. The Falkland Islanders consider themselves as almost entirely British and maintain their allegiance to the United Kingdom. As you can clearly see yet again the great “British Empires Arrogance Prevailed.” 

In October 2007 a British spokeswoman confirmed that Britain intended to submit a claim to the UN to extend seabed territory around the Falklands and South Georgia,  in advance of the expiry of the deadline for territorial claims following Britain’s ratification of the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention.

 This claim would enable Britain to control activities such as fishing within the zone, in areas not conflicting with the Antarctic Treaty. Argentina has indicated it will challenge any British claim to Antarctic territory and the area around the Falkland Islands and South Georgia. Argentina made a similar claim in 2009, and the United Kingdom quickly protested against these claims.

In 2009, when delegates from the Falkland Islands were invited to the World Summit of Fishing Sustainability the Argentine delegation protested and walked out of the conference. In February 2010, the Argentine government announced that ships traversing Argentine territorial waters en route to the Falklands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands would require a permit, as part of a dispute over British oil exploration near the Falklands. The British and Falkland governments stated that Falklands-controlled waters were unaffected.

So here we are some 30 years on since the Falklands War and still the “Tit or Tat” reigns supreme and yet Argentina certainly does have a very good arguable case as to who is the legitimate owner of these islands. However lets just reflect on what our current Prime Minister is saying and what hidden cookies he carries in his pocket or should that be in his very fat wallet?

David Cameron is clearly at war with everyone and everything covering a vast area from Libya – Syria – Afghanistan –  Somalia and now yet again in true “Thatcher Style” is once again wishing to bring yet another conflict into being……..my comment however would be “Don’t bite off more than you can chew”…..the entire scenario has changed since the last war in that we do not have a carrier or indeed the Harriers that had the upper hand when it came to aerial combat.

The other aspect that sticks out like a sore thumb is the fact that Argentina no longer stands alone and has the entire South American Continent standing shoulder to shoulder with her and the outcome, should a conflict occur, could well be totally different. Despite our PM’s on going arrogance towards flexing the British muscle it is clear that he has made three very important mistakes:

  • He’s not aware of the incredible shortfalls in our military machine which he himself has diminished.
  • He’s not aware of the enormous support for President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner in Latin America
  • He’s fraudulently used a fake oil field to bring support for the islanders and the people of Britain i.e. Oil for Britain. He’s also promoting fake  oil companies that are known “Virtual Companies”  and who are experts are ripping off their investors money.

This is not the first time that our Prime Minister has deceived this country and not the first time that he has participated in fraudulent deals one of which earned him £17.8 million…….but hey that’s another story!!

Lets now look that the legality of these islands which clearly show that originally it was settled by the French who then clearly and legally handed it over to Spain whose  territory at the time included Argentina and many other colonies in Latin America.

In regard to the right to claim territory in coastal and offshore Islands there is a very clear cut principle that has been created under the United Nations referred to as  The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea ( UNCLOS), also called the Law of the Sea Convention or the Law of the Sea Treaty.

I throughout my time in the Royal Navy and also during my time in the offshore oil and gas industry have studied in great detail the navigational aspects of this law and the basics of the law itself. It is now an appropriate time in this article to try and explain this to you in laymen’s terms.

Every country, colony or even small independent island groups have their right to own their coastal fringe as well as an extended Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) so as to benefit from the natural resources that may exist in their outer marine limits.

Typical explanation as to how it works  

You will note that the base line is the low water mark on the coast and  the first 12 nautical miles (called the 12 mile limit) is basically all yours. There is another 12 nautical miles which is called the Contiguous Zone that is also basically  your territory. In a nutshell from the low water mark out to 24 nautical miles is your baby.

In order to protect your economy and the resources that may or may not exist in your offshore waters the UN created what is known as the EEZ which extends 200 nautical miles from the low water mark out to sea and generally runs at 90 degrees from  any point on your coastline.  

As an example, I spent a long time trying to support Gaza into understanding that the conflict there had the usual hidden agenda. Close to Gaza’s shoreline were  vast natural gas fields  and obviously the Israeli’s were intent on securing it for themselves which they still do to this day, even though Gaza (Palestine) are the legal owners. Let’s use this as a typical example to clearly show who owns what:

This chart shows the UNCLOS  approved international borders but with no recognition of Gaza (Palestine) waters. However, the red triangle is the area that the UN call disputed borders i.e. Palestine which to some extent proves that such a border exists pending future settlement.

In this case (as opposed to the false claims of commercial viable oil in the Falkland Islands) there are many known oil/gas fields and many more still to be explored…..I have put them on the chart in yellow. You can clearly see that one field is well inside Gazan Waters the other to the north is half and half ie over the border with Israel and the one to the east may just be over the border or touching…….either way one can clearly see that the lions share could well lean towards being that of Gaza!

The Israeli’s have been pumping natural gas from their production platform that just so happens to sit right on the border with Gaza and soon they will be sucking the gas from the other field which for sure is jointly owned……basically the conflict with Gaza is all about greed and high sea piracy by the Israeli Government. For your information I have also drawn in the 12 + 12 Nautical mile limits I have explained in the above part of this introduction.

So with all of this in mind now lets apply this to the Malvinas and see who comes up trumps……I can assure you that Argentina wins this game hands down based on the following:

If one extends a 200 nautical mile line (EEZ) out from the Argentinian coastline you can see that it falls well within the EEZ circle that goes around the Malvinas so if the soveirgnity of the Malvinas belongs to Argentina then it is easy to see that when both are combined the total EEZ is vast. I have crudely shown this in the map below by fixing the 200 nautical pins at the appropriate location ie out from the coast of Argentina and out from the coast of the Malvinas………..you can see the obvious circle radiating out around the islands and how the two knit into each other.

Drawn by Peter Eyre – Middle East Consultant – 10/4/2012


I will now explain the legality of the wording for each specific area:

Territorial Waters: Out to 12 nautical miles (22 kilometres; 14 miles) from the baseline, the coastal state is free to set laws, regulate use, and use any resource. Vessels were given the right of innocent passage through any territorial waters, with strategic straits allowing the passage of military craft as transit passage, in that naval vessels are allowed to maintain postures that would be illegal in territorial waters. “Innocent passage” is defined by the convention as passing through waters in an expeditious and continuous manner, which is not “prejudicial to the peace, good order or the security” of the coastal state. Fishing, polluting, weapons practice, and spying are not “innocent”, and submarines and other underwater vehicles are required to navigate on the surface and to show their flag. Nations can also temporarily suspend innocent passage in specific areas of their territorial seas, if doing so is essential for the protection of its security.

Contiguous Zone: Beyond the 12 nautical mile limit, there is a further 12 nautical miles from the territorial sea baseline limit, the contiguous zone, in which a state can continue to enforce laws in four specific areas: Customs, Taxation, immigration and pollution, if the infringement started within the state’s territory or territorial waters, or if this infringement is about to occur within the state’s territory or territorial waters. This makes the contiguous zone a hot pursuit area.

Exclusive Economic Zone  (EEZ): These extend from the edge of the territorial sea out to 200 nautical miles (370 kilometres; 230 miles) from the bseline. Within this area, the coastal nation has sole exploitation rights over all natural resources. In casual use, the term may include the territorial sea and even the continental shelf. The EEZs were introduced to halt the increasingly heated clashes over fishing rights,  although oil was also becoming important. The success of an offshore oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico in 1947 was soon repeated elsewhere in the world, and by 1970 it was technically feasible to operate in waters 4000 metres deep. Foreign nations have the freedom of navigation and overflight, subject to the regulation of the coastal states. Foreign states may also lay submarine pipes and cables.

There is also one more aspect of a countries coastal fringe that is really discussed but I can assure you that one country that takes all and gives nothing is the United States who takes advantage of all four. One could assume that Argentina certainly has the right to take those same initiatives. So lets just introduce another very important aspect that of the Continental Shelf because many countries will argue that where their land actually finishes is in the deep depths of the ocean where their own land mass falls away into the dark blue……..America has clearly followed this rule to the book!!

Continental ShelfThe contental shelf is defined as the natural prolongation of the land territory to the continental margin’s outer edge, or 200 nautical miles from the coastal state’s baseline, whichever is greater. A state’s continental shelf may exceed 200 nautical miles until the natural prolongation ends. However, it may never exceed 350 nautical miles (650 kilometres; 400 miles) from the baseline; or it may never exceed 100 nautical miles (190 kilometres; 120 miles) beyond the 2,500 meter isobath (the line connecting the depth of 2,500 meters). Coastal states have the right to harvest mineral and non-living material in the subsoil of its continental shelf, to the exclusion of others. Coastal states also have exclusive control over living resources “attached” to the continental shelf, but not to creatures living in the water column beyond the exclusive economic zone.

“Come on David give up this senseless battle” “It’s clearly a Check Mate”

So there you have it folks…..clearly in the historical sense Argentina can rightfully lay claim to the Malvinas (Falkland Islands) beyond a shadow of doubt and the only right the United Kingdom has on these distant islands is the fact they took them by military force and kicked out the legal owners.

I would never expect you to take my word for it so simply do your own research and I am sure you will come up with the same answer.

Peter Eyre – Middle East Consultant – 10/4/2012     http://www.eyreinternational.wordpress.com

53 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Your argument about Argentinean rights to the islands based on visitation from Tierra Del Fuegans prior to 1700 is specious, as the modern nation state did not exist then. The islands were barren outcrops for millennia and it was only with European settlement that any prosperity came to the place. The existing residents also want to remain under the Union Jack so their wishes should be respected. It is true that on a map the islands are closer to the Argentinean mainland than Britain, but distance does not discount sovereignty, witness New Caledonia, Faroe Islands, Dutch Antilles etc. It is however true that the Falkland Islanders should become friends with their closest neighbors, and vica versa. Any military conflict in the South Atlantic must be avoided.

    adamneira

    April 11, 2012 at 14:26

    • I respect your valuable input but the argument still stands that the French arrived first to set up a permanent colony but were forced to relinquish it to Quote Spain Unquote who at the time had control of what is now called Argentina…….at the same time they also had what is now Peru etc etc…….the Spanish never left what became Argentina and the same as other Latin American countries but they did eventually get their Independence from Spain as is the case all over the world…….. They intended to do the same in the Malvinas but were forced off the Islands by the Royal Navy despite the fact they (the Spanish Colonial Authority in Buenos Aries) had laid claim to the island legally and I might add having paid the French accordingly ie the land was sold with the relevant paperwork….the fact that a plaque was also left at location also signifies it legitimacy etc.

      So then the Royal Navy having forcibly taken the islands from their legal owners then had to pull out to attend to their other activity in the US.

      If one wants to compare the difference between legal owners of land and occupation by force then one is clearly barking up the wrong tree….ie we took over India and then divided it up into what is now India and Pakistan….did we have the right to remain……you already know the answer!!

      Does that mean that if a small settlement in India wants to continue to be ruled by the Brits that its ok and legal….do not think so……anyway lets agree to disagree and thank anyway…..you have the right to state your case…..Peter

      Peter Eyre

      April 11, 2012 at 14:51

    • no one cares about this plonker. the argies tried it on before when we were totally unprepared and we still beat them. Now we have nuclear submarines and a few other surprises close by they havent got a chance.

      Dave

      March 14, 2013 at 16:39

    • como explicarlo.. en cuanto al hecho de que cuando Argentina se independizo paso a ser dueño de las propiedades tomadas por España (Malvinas incluidas) y no se olviden que en la primera invasión se expulso a un gobernador argentino de las islas, segundo las islas están en la plataforma continental y no están a mas de 500 km de la costa,por lo que según las leyes nos pertenecen. y los ingleses deberían dejar de joder y meterse en tierra ajena como han hecho siempre, se metieron en la india, en china, en África y solo por mencionar algunos.lo mas seguro es que después de utilizar las islas hasta mas no poder les den libertad como país autonomo se llenen de tratados y prácticamente sea de ingleses pero con otro nombre como si no los conociéramos ya y supiéramos que son unos piratas. En cuanto a una guerra no se preocupen la ultima vez no decidió el pueblo lo hizo un gobierno de facto para poder tapar los asesinatos y desapariciones… los argentinos no iríamos a la guerra porque defendemos la democracia y la diplomacia y es verdad no tenemos armamento suficiente para hacerlo. seguramente no entiendes español así que anda a traducirlo con google. gracias por leer mi mensaje y conocer la postura de una simple argentina. Julia

      Julia Lucero

      September 9, 2013 at 00:49

      • Hello Julia….yes I fully understand and agree with you and maybe one day you will see the return of these islands……..I guess another one to look at is Gibralter……it is typical British Imperialism in order to create their “Great British Empire” that was forced upon the world by Queen Victoria……..she was on heroin most of the time so maybe that explains her way of thinking….Thank you for your comment

        Peter Eyre

        September 9, 2013 at 02:56

      • What a vindictive and idiotic clown you are.

        Victoria was, as is her grand daughter twice removed unable to do more than sign the Royal Assent to documents presented to her.

        She had little if any influence in the formulation of policy and being a CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCH, could only offer suggestions that may or may not have influenced the policies of her government.

        In case you cannot comprehend the meaning of ‘Constitutional Monarch’, I suggest you take a look in your history books or look it up on line.

        I also suggest you get your biased head out of your derriere and take a look around the world about you. Starting with a profound reading of modern history as from the 16th century, or if you prefer, from the onset of the British Empire.
        One thing you instantly discover, the Falklands were never held by Argentina as it never came into existence as a state until well after the islands were settled and occupied by British people.

        Grow up and stop being an irritatant

        morgan

        September 9, 2013 at 06:58

  2. Cut out all the historical and political front man nonsense, the ONLY reason Argentina is being pushed into an interest in the Falklands is because of the oil discovered there. The USA don’t want the British to have oil, otherwise why did they destroy Irans democracy and put a dictator in it’s place to out the British monopoly on Irans oil. The USA was most obstructive when Argentina attaked the Falklands a few years back, making it all very difficult. The USA are no allies of the British they have tried their best to sabotage anything British, even on joint science projects they refuse to share their part of the information. It’s all about oil and the USA wanting all of it for free. The Argentinians could’nt give a toss about the Falkland islands.

    Pix

    April 11, 2012 at 15:57

    • Why dont you learn Spanish and read pages related to the fight in the islands?
      Do you really think that the only interest of Argentina is the oil? Argentine soldiers gave their lives on the islands just for the love of their land, and also the British, but the difference is that these one were payed for that.
      The vegetation and animals (like bird)of the islands are the same as Argentina, as if a piece of land had been separated.
      We have to stop making problems that were generated by disputes over 30 years ago and let live in peace the island people.
      In the other hand Argentina did not have a good tecnology as Britain and of course would not be able to win.

      “After hostilities, the British government banned the entry of any civil Argentine to the Falklands, but later allowed the entry of Argentine just as tourtist.”
      Do not you think it’s a little unfair?

      Agostina

      July 9, 2012 at 16:20

  3. The Falkland islands belong to GOD…… now stop your damn fighting azzhats!!!!!!!

    charles perry

    April 11, 2012 at 16:39

    • The problem is that most of those that are genuine Christians are totally blind to what is actually going on in the world…..the world to them is green valley’s, nice trees, birds, butterflies and families with children under the tree having a picnic…..my upbringing and foundation also believed the same but then the reality of life came into play and many times I witnessed the church actually being responsible for conflict or in some cases turning their backs on things they would rather not see………there is now an imitation God called the NWO who want to decide who should live and who should die……they are trying to depopulate the world by anything up to 80 – 90%……..so your reply is an input but does not make sense…….welcome to the real world….Peter

      Peter Eyre

      April 11, 2012 at 16:52

  4. although blindingly obvious, it’s still useful to point all this out.

    The brits are out for a resource grab in the Antarctic, where they have no right at all. It’s too bad the argentinians didn’t tank that carrier. It would have ended the american empire also, as their obsolete carriers would have frightened nobody anymore.

    Anthony Migchels

    April 11, 2012 at 16:50

  5. 1. might is right. 2. both the UK and Argentina believe in this. 2. if Argentina believe otherwise why did it invade south Georgia as well? no claim what’s so ever on these islands. 3 both groups of islands are important staging posts to Antarctica,rich in fishing and possible oil and gas. 4, by laying claim to these islands and extending sea rights around the islands [including south Georgia] the future of the Antarctic is challenged. 5. no one takes the UN seriously, if the invasion had been successful Argentina would not be in talks with the UK [see 1]. if there was a world elected parliament it might be different ,but that is never going to happen. 6. the real problem is the islands are totally undeveloped and the population should be at least 500,000 this would take away the need for Britain to defend the islands and Argentina to have a new strong trading partner. plenty of new business operation’s could be started given goodwill by both sides and the absent landlords losing their land if they don’t develop.

    doug

    April 11, 2012 at 17:37

    • You have raised some interesting aspects but in regard to Oil/Gas…..that is a total fabrication because my associate and I investigate massive fraud and all three British Companies are virtual companies that just rape the investors of their money…..there is no massive oil fields and the Prime Minister is using this a a ploy to gain support from the citizens here…….he his totally corrupt and in promoting this alone has put up the share price for something that is totally fake and this is not the first time he’s done this…….its big money and big back handers etc etc…..fishing yes but oil no………the issue here is who legally took possession of the islands and the straight answer is firstly the French and then it was sold to Spain via its colony in what is now Argentina……..They have to sit around a table and resolve this issue…..surely the logical thing to do is not to go to war….because if they do they could loose this time and the other option is sit around the table with the Argentinians, British and Islanders……put the island back under the legal control of Argentina but make much like when they switched Hong Kong back to the Chinese….make the Island a sort of Mini Colony such as the islands of Guernsey and Jersey…..if they cannot resolve this it will certainly be another conflict and this time the odds are against the UK as the whole of Latin America stands behind Argentina….surely that fact alone says something….enough said on this topic lets move on….Peter

      Peter Eyre

      April 11, 2012 at 17:50

      • If we regard Argentine succession to Spanish claims as a basis for sovereignty, Argentina has at best a dubious case, since (1) Spain abandoned its colony on the Falklands; (2) although Spain administered the Falklands through Buenos Aires, such arrangements are and were common for the sake of expediency, and by no means necessarily indicated that the Falklands were considered part of the South American mainland – the Falklands always had their own governor; and (3) Argentina did not succeed to any part of the Spanish Empire except southeastern South America, which may or may not have included the Falklands

        jim

        June 15, 2012 at 16:34

  6. I have no doubts about the evils of the British Empire or the House of Windsor. However, Britain has maintained a continuous community in the Falklands since long before Argentina existed as a state. Simply because the “Malvinas” are closest to Argentina should not be grounds to take them when their only real claim was a tenuous temporary Port St.Louis under the flag of France and a subsequent sale to Spain in the 18th Century. By this Argentinian logic, the maps and governments of virtually every nation on Earth should be changed to give allegiance to earliest inhabitants, no matter how transient. Spain never made a serious effort to establish a permanent colony in the Falklands, effectively abandoning it. Argentina should get over it and recognize the Falklands British community in a friendlier more cooperative manner. Are these little islands really worth another humiliating war with the UK?

    David McElroy

    April 11, 2012 at 18:12

    • This is not a House of Windsor , for as you should recall there was NO DNA connection to the Czars/Tzars of Russia. However, there was to the Duke of Kent. This is an House of Mountbatten/berg .

      carl

      April 11, 2012 at 18:46

    • Your statement certainly is not fact when you say ” Britain has maintained a continuous community in the Falklands since long before Argentina existed as a state.” 1812 was the first attempted introduction of the name Argentine and was when they created “The Argentine National Anthem”….however the first official and legal reference was in 1826 when it was used in their constitution.
      Just to recap in 1811 the islands were vacated and in 1820 a Capt David Jewitt raised the flag claiming the islands under the name of “The United Provinces of the River Plate” ie Argentina. In 1828 Lis Vernet established yet again a settlement under the Authority of the Republic of Buenos Aires and Great Britain….ie with full British Approval!!! and in 1829 he was proclaimed the Military and Civilian Commander of the Islands. The population in 1831 was between 24-40 people.

      Now just to put things into legal terms you will not that the islands were reclaimed by the rightful owners under the flag of “The United Provinces of the River Plate” which to this day is one of the legal names still used for Argentina ie the names of the “United Provinces of the Río de la Plata”, “Argentine Republic” and “Argentine Confederation” are acknowledged as legitimate names of the country…….the British did not up to this tame have any permanency on the islands and initially settle on the Western Side despite the French followed by the Spanish actually owner the island group. There first real time change did not come until 1833 when Capt Onslow Royal Navy forced Vernet off the island and it became a military outpost for the time being and then in 1841 a colony was fully established.

      So it is clear that the Spanish Colony on the mainland owned the islands and then that colony became the The United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata (Argentina) well before the Brits set up there first proper colony in 1841……….Peter

      Peter Eyre

      April 11, 2012 at 18:49

  7. In reply to Pix ! Do the Americans care about the British ? Most of the americans of my age came across the pond or should i say were sent across the pond at an early age without any parents. At an early age i remember the americans (probably Irish) were singing to me Fe Fi Fo Fun i smell blood of an englishman, i didn’t even know what an englishman was let alone of them saying,YOU and that english temper !! (must have been Irishman) I recall of people telling me that the ship left south hampton in late 1947 arrived in Halifax in 1948 is that right ? well i really do not know ,for i was only five when i left and only six when i arrived. The americans never got away from the british because of the united nations and the british royalty. Because of the brotherhood of freemasons and the false believe that the Jews are Gods chosen and your strong believe in the queen, who is ahead of the church , which would be an abomination unto the Almighty ! YOU is screwed, because you do not know that you are a nation of the lost sheep of the house of Israel (non jew). The british royals think they are Jews and Jezebel is taking your money and giving it to the Rothschilds who say they are Jews but are not,for they all are of Esau/Edom,(Red). Now as an american i’m telling you to stop sending that perverted music, actors and actresses our way. You as a house of Israel shoul read Ezekiel for you will know whats coming on you. Go stay in those churches or come out of the contradiction of things. The Falkland Islands , i don’t even know where they are and wouldn’t have except for a few maps in Peters artical.

    carl

    April 11, 2012 at 18:34

  8. Nothing much to say about this other than its tripe straight out of Argentina’s ministry of misinformation.

    Brittain Discover the Falklands in 1592
    Brittain fist landed, named and claimed the Falklands in 1690
    Brittain attempted to set up a colony on the Falklands in 1765
    French and Spanish interests in the Falklands occurred around this time.
    French gave their interests away to Spain.
    Brittain continued to maintain its claim to the Falklands.
    Up till no Argentina did not exist as a Country

    1829 Brittain warns Argentina that Falklands are Brittish.
    1832 Argentina send a garrison of troops to Falklands. First invasion.
    1833 Brittain expels Argentine Garrison of Troops and allows the Settlers to stay.

    Argentina claims the Islands fully 130 or more years after the British.

    1982 Argentina invade the Islands for a second time.
    1982 The Brittish expel the second Argentine invasion.

    Now look at South Georgia Islands.

    Brittain discovers South Georgia and claims them in 1775 and claim them
    Brittain formaly annexes South Gerogia in 1909. No-one argues the point.
    Argentina claims South Georgia in 1927, fully 152 years after the Brittish.

    Now look at the South Sandwich Islands.

    Brittain discovers South Sandwich Islands and claims them in 1775 and claim them
    Brittain formaly annexes South Sandwich Islands in 1909. No-one argues the point.
    Argentina claims South Sandwich Islands in 1938, fully 163 years after the Brittish.

    Argentina has a very sad habit of claiming Islands that are already claimed and owned by other peoples.

    More importantly, Brittain does not currently own the Islands.
    As a Self Governing Overseas Territory of Brittain, the Falkland Islanders OWN the Islands.
    Many are decendants of colonist who arrived in the 1820s, some 9 generations ago.

    No point in negotiating.
    Argentina’s position is fixed and immutable, their claims are also false.
    Brittain don’t own the Islands anyway, the Falklander Islanders do.
    So Brittain upholds the Falkland Islanders right to decide.

    The Islanders live their, they’ve been their a very long time, they have no wish to be Argentine.

    It’s the Islanders right to decide.

    Michael von Blucher

    April 12, 2012 at 02:15

    • Your diary of events only covers events that were know as visits by passing vessels. In early days naval charts were made up and amended based on evidence or surveys carried out by visiting or passing ships to the area……if on their navigational chart there is no headland or island then one simple surveys the land, draws it into your own chart and gives it a name……this is standard surveying and navigational practice….obviously the name you give it is subject the the nationality of the visiting vessel…..much like the Dutch visited the coast of Australia but did not quote “raise a flag and colonise it”

      You also did not mention all the other nationalities that visited the islands around this time…….obviously many ships and nationalities took transit of this region when sailing around cape Horn onto the New World or whatever you want to call it Drake, Magellan and many others including little known sailors from Turkey………sighting and naming a land mass it not claiming sovereignty but purely common sense surveying and navigation so as to amend the charts for those that follow……..you say nothing of the visit in 1522 Portuguese cartographer Pedro Reinel who was I think the first to show the islands on any map and indeed the French issued another map using the Portuguese data.

      Your argument is baseless……I again repeat do not consider visiting and passing visits as being the first settlement because they clearly were not….I have already documented the first colony and indeed discussed the early finds of people living there prior to this who came from Tierra Del Fuego which is a Province of Argentina.

      Unless you are an expert in surveying and navigation or indeed ex navy then you comments are certainly up for questioning…..on the other hand I am ex Royal Navy, civil Marine, offshore oil and gas etc.

      Conflicts and wars frequently occur either by religion, greed or simply by claiming land that is clearly yours……it is not as if the Argentinians have not attempted to get round the table…..in all cases from Thatcher – Major – Blair – Brown – Cameron only absolute arrogance has bee shown towards the Argentinians………last but not least we have the Argentinian takeover of the islands without loss of life and one could use your argument about the islands being a self governing body…….couldn’t one use the same argument that by discussion the islands could have retained the same but under Argentinian protection etc.

      Finally one should not fail to mention under the terms of military engagement that when one establishes a military no fly zone or exclusion zone then all within are fair targets but in this case the Argentinian Cruiser was clearly outside of that zone and taken out by an extremely sophisticated nuclear submarine compared to an old WW2 vessel……..many people in this country were shocked at this cowardly attack and heavy loss of life on a vessel that stayed outside of the zone for obvious reasons…….The Iron Lady was clearly loosing her political position and as is the case created a conflict in an attempt to strengthen her position…….it failed and she left office anyway……I rest my case

      P.S. I lost a friend in that battle compliments of an Exocet Missile so please understand I have mixed feelings about this……wars are pointless and we the Brits are currently up to our necks in wars and conflicts without just cause…..all in the name of arrogance and greed!!!

      Peter Eyre

      April 12, 2012 at 04:31

  9. floor jacks
    I actually appreciate this post. I’ve been seeking all over for this! Thank goodness I located it on Bing. You might have created my day! Thank you once again..

    ozzie guillen fidel castro

    April 12, 2012 at 02:25

  10. Valuable info. Fortunate me I found your website by accident, and I am shocked why this twist of fate did not happened in advance! I bookmarked it.

    backlink software

    April 15, 2012 at 04:12

  11. Yeah, right. As if “legal claims”, especially ones as spurious as this, have any meaning. Not to mention that whatever claim the Argies had de facto went the way of the Dodo the moment ol’ Thatcher kicked them back to the mainland.

    Hell, in the end, this is the international arena. Might makes right, and Argentina doesn’t have much might to throw around. There’s no reason for any of the other Latin American countries to support a unilateral Argentinian attack on two dinky little Atlantic islands, just like no other states actually supported the Argentinians in 1982. There’s precious little legal reason for the Argentinians to claim the Falklands, and no way in hell that they’ll take the place by force. Not given that their military has not just not recovered from the beating they took last time, it actually atrophied even more. The few Typhoons stationed on the islands are nowadays enough to functionally wipe out the entire Argenitinian Airforce if the latter decided to come for a fight. And what even a single Type 21 or a modern SSN would do to the Argie rustbuckets doesn’t even bear mentioning. (It should also be mentioned that with the Cold War over, Uncle Sam would have no good reason not to simply drive a CBG down there and tell the Argentinians to sit down, shut up and leave those islands alone.)

    The Flaklands are british. Them’s the facts and the Argies gotta deal with it. Or suffer another embarrasing defeat, if they decide to play stupid.

    Anon

    May 4, 2012 at 18:58

    • You sound like a typical colonial rapist….full of bravado and seeking conflict…….I used to think that way once but time and experience tells me otherwise…….I was hoping you would mention the vast oil fields that Cameron gave reference too…..that was a scam….oh well that was a pity……I don’t think they got their arse kicked in the way you described…….yes the army were in poor shape and without supply in what is a very bleak place but in regard to the naval side we got our arse well and truly kicked and it was just by fluke they didn’t get the carriers…..had they found them the whole game would have been over for one very good reason…..when you have air superiority the game is over.

      We lost many high tech ships and equipment and the Argentinian pilots were very good considering the range and tight fuel versus payload etc….had they been able to target, gain height and drop thinks would have certainly been different but by the time they appeared from around the islands they only had a couple of seconds to launch.

      What is different this time is that the whole of Latin America is against us and should we try it again it could well be a disaster…….a squadron of approaching fighter from every conceivable angle would be a force to reckon with and despite two carriers and the wonderful Harrier we still lost many ships and in other cases the bombs did not go off……we do not have those aircraft or carriers now……oh and talking about Typhoons…..they did do so well in Libya and found themselves totally unsuitable for the task on hand and consequently some very crude mods had to be made…..thanks for you comment anyway

      Peter Eyre

      May 4, 2012 at 19:33

      • And you sound not merely un-, but rather misinformed. I’m a “colonial rapist” for standing agianst what is de facto nothing but naked aggression on part of the Argentinians? For supporting the Falklanders defending their sovereignity and right to self-determination? For not letting the Argies get away with a bogus claim over territory they never controlled or cared about and which they specifically acknowledged to be british territory until they decided to raise a stink over it for the sole reason of diverting the attention of their populace from internal problems? That’s rich.

        To make it simple, Argentina lost the Falklands War despite getting exceedingly lucky throughout most of it. Today, the balance of forces is even less in their favour. The islands back in ’82 a garrison of two dozen Royal Marines who had all of one Carl Gustav in terms of heavy weapons. Today, it’s a full Army battalion plus support and the Falkland Islands Defence Force has been a wee bit more than an afternoon shooting club ever since ’82. And there’s a squadron of Typhoons on permanent station at Mount Pleasant, with more being able to get down there on drop tanks within hours if the situation requires it. On sea, the RN still has at least one surface combatant on station at any time plus the ability to get Trafalgars or Astutes down there. And you can bet at least one of them always there.

        As for the Argies, they have functionally the same stuff they had 30 years ago, except less of it and in worse shape. As much as one may talk about the british armed forces losing capabilities, they are in a massively better shape vis-a-vis the argentinian forces than they were 30 years ago. Functionally, a squadron of Typhoons is more than the current argentinian airforce can handle and even a single Astute is more than capable of sending their entire navy to the bottom without them having even a chance of hitting back. For god’s sake, the youngest destroyer in the Argentine navy entered service just a year after the Falkands War and was a slightly dated design even back then. Their ASW gear would have been mildly threatening back then. Today, it’s a bad joke. And given the amphibious capacities (or lack thereof) of the Argentinians, even the largest force they could theoretically get on the islands would be outgunned by the garrison these days.

        And the whole of Latin America isn’t doing shit. Nobody there is even remotely interested in going to war over the Argies being mad about a bunch of tiny islands and neither is anyone going to risk their men or hardware or the political and economical consequences of such a war for them. There’D be nothing to win and plenty to lose for them, after all. Not that even the combined south american continent would have enough planes with the range to reach the islands for your “from every angle” scenario. Worse, the low number airfields in range would guarantee that the whole thing would be a one-shot attack. Because at that point, the RN would raze those fields via sub-launched cruise missiles, a capability that they didn’t have in ’82. (PS: Air superiority is actually not an instant ‘I-win’ button when facing a smart adversary with modern-day air defenses and the ability to use them well. Not every army is as hilariously incompetent as the Iraqis.)

        And really, Lybia? Are you comparing the anti-ground attacks in Lybia with an air-to-air scenario (the task the Typhoon was primarily developed for, mind you) over the South Atlantic? Apples and oranges come to mind. Especially given that they’d be facing EXACTLY the same aircraft as the Harriers, except in even lower numbers. The Argentine Airforce has quite literally done nothing to replace the losses they took in ’82 and has not bought any newer fighters since. In fact, most of the remaining airframes are in such a bad state that quite a few of those won’t actually be able to fly safely even in an uncontested sky.

        Anon

        May 4, 2012 at 23:36

  12. Thankyou Mr Eyre for telling the truth and giving the people the “RIGHT INFORMATION” about the Falklands. The problem with so many of the English is that they cannot handle the truth about England`s inglorious past let alone it`s present!
    Some of the comments made here shows why England is in the condition that it finds itself in. The English Unfortunately prefer to believe in “Myth and Fantasy” rather than believing in truth. By the way, i`m English, just in case one of you colonial rapist, (smile) want to make silly comments. I found your site by sheer chance but have also bookmarked it for future reference and to share it with others. Well done Mr Eyres.

    Mike

    June 6, 2012 at 21:46

    • Thank you for your kind words…..I have alyays tried to tell the truth no matter what the topic….thankyou

      Peter Eyre

      June 6, 2012 at 23:40

  13. Why can’t there be an even split of the Islands to the Argentines and brits

    Les

    July 24, 2012 at 21:16

  14. Peter. have you written anything about the Chagossian issue? also, how would you compare the rights of the chagossians with those of the Falkland islanders vis-a-vis self determination et al.

    Ollie9000

    September 10, 2012 at 12:35

    • Hello……In some respects one can see a connection….especially at one time being French Territory etc…….however this somewhat different because the Falkland Islands were taken by military force and the residents evicted……..in your case the Islands were acquired by the British for military purposes and the original dwellers have always wanted to get their island back and return.

      The residents of the Falkland Islands are not the original dwellers and where put there by the British and so they wish to remain as part of Britain……..if the same situation existed in your case those that currently occupy your islands may well wish to remain………but yes it is certainly your island and not the Brits etc…..I have not written any articles about this but one would have to be concerned about possible contamination of the islands as a result of Nuclear and Depleted Uranium stockpiles and also acting as a base for same!!

      Peter Eyre

      September 10, 2012 at 13:30

      • Thank you for your reply. I totally accept that the islands we’re taken by military force and the current inhabitants ‘planted’ there, and thus they of course wish to remain British. But is this really so different from Spain or Portugal planting settlers in other parts of South America, displacing the indigenous peoples of the time? The key difference being that other South American countries gained their independence from their former colonial masters whereas the Falklanders remained loyal to the crown.
        Please do not mistake my views as that of an imperialist. I am deeply ashamed of our imperialist past and believe us as a people must come to terms with it and do all we can to set it right, (which of course isn’t easy considering our recent foreign policy).
        I do strongly feel however that the islanders, who have lived on the Falklands for generations, have the absolute right to determine the sovereignty of their home. The islanders, many of whom I have met, call themselves Kelpers and consider themselves just as much a people as those of Argentina, Canada or any other former colony. Should their views not be considered because they are too few?
        I know taking anything the British government says at face value is trying considering they are happy to stick up for ‘liberty’ and ‘justice’ and then shun it equally when special interest is concerned. Just look at the Chagossians of Diego Garcia for example. But the issue for me has never been what the British government thinks but rather what the Islanders want.
        The British and Argentinian governments should work together on the issue and even come to some understanding. Not on the grounds of dated territorial claims, but rather by listening to what the islanders have to say and do what is in their interest.

        Ollie9000

        September 11, 2012 at 18:57

  15. the islanders ALREADY had they say… please.

    DC

    November 14, 2012 at 22:42

  16. There are some holes in your report Ollie9000. Things you seemed to have missed…

    1. The British were the first to claim the Islands when they first landed on the Falklands in 1690, with Captain John Strong.

    2. The Arana-Southern Treaty of 1850 ended all possible claims by Argentina on the Falkland Islands. In the treaty both countries acknowledged that ‘a state of perfect harmony had been restored between the nations.’ And, that neither country had ‘ANY outstanding differences.’

    3. The Argentine government had made sovereignty protests over the British presence on the Falklands right up to 1849 but not again until 1941. Under international law sovereignty claims are considered defunct if there is a gap of 50 years or more between claims on sovereignty.

    4. Argentina has no morel claim because it became independent in 1816, yet 54 years later in 1870 they began the ‘Conquest of the Desert’. It was the intent to establish Argentine dominance over Patagonia, which was inhabited by indigenous peoples. They killed thousands of people so that they could colonise the land and the surviving indigenous peoples today are still being denied land rights.

    The title of your report is “Who legally owns the Islas Malvinas (Falkland Islands)”. Well in terms of “legally” because of points 2 & 3 that I made, they certainly don’t belong to Argentina.

    The presence

    December 22, 2012 at 07:15

    • Maybe we could all argue that some holes exist in much the same way as the Chinese visited Australia then the Dutch but the first people to claim and settle were the British……….so if one looks at the difference between visiting or passing a given point on the earths surface, naming it after someone you know and actually claiming and settle are two different things…..Strong simply passed down the channel and did not claim or settle and so we have this very complex issue which is as follows: John Davis, an English navigator and explorer, may have been the first European to sight the Falklands, in 1592. In 1600 a Dutch navigator, Sebald Van Weert, visited the islands and called them the Sebald Islands, a name that still appears on some Dutch maps. Captain John Strong, an Englishman, navigated the sound between East and West Falkland in 1690 and named it Falkland Sound after Lucius Cary, 2nd Viscount Falkland. The English name for the islands was then taken from that of the sound. In 1764 French colonists from Saint-Malo (hence the name Malvinas) established a settlement on East Falkland, and the following year the British settled on West Falkland. In 1770 Spain bought out the French, and in 1774 the British left the islands. In 1816 Argentina overthrew Spanish rule and in 1820 claimed sovereignty of the islands. But in 1833 Britain took control of the islands. Argentina continued to claim the islands, however.

      So you can get lost into many holes as your call it but the first settlement in the real sense was the French who then sold them to the Spanish who then gave them to their colony in Latin America which is now Argentina…….we can argue this until the cows come home….Peter

      Peter Eyre

      December 22, 2012 at 07:36

      • sorry for calling you Ollie9000 in my first post, I ment to say Peter Eyre ^^

        well quite a lot went on so yeah, I suppose it can be easy to get lost into many holes, but peter you didn’t respond to my other points (2, 3, 4).
        I wish to know what your opinion on them is?

        And I also wish to add that I don’t believe Argentina ever effectively owned the islands overall. The inheriting the rights from Spain argument, doesn’t seem reasonable to me as the British were expelled by spain in 1770 but the colony was allowed to be restored a year later. The 1771 Anglo-Spanish agreement that was signed preserves the claims of both Spain and Britain, not Spain alone. Later in 1774, economic pressures leading up to the American Revolutionary War forced Britain to withdraw from the Falklands but by 1776 when the British had left Port Egmont, they left behind a plaque asserting British sovereignty over the islands. So by this time Britain did have a real claim to the islands and never renounced it. I don’t think Spain can legitimately pass it’s rights to the islands onto Argentina without some kind of agreement with the British.

        The presence

        December 23, 2012 at 02:01

      • Peter Eyre are you not going to reply to my last post?

        I am sure that In 1816 Argentina overthrew Spanish rule then in 1820 claimed sovereignty of the islands, until in 1833 Britain took control of the islands. However because of the 1771 Anglo-Spanish agreement, Britain already had sovereignty of the islands. It was signed and preserves the claims of both Spain and Britain (not Spain alone). Britain never renounced it’s sovereignty of the islands and Spain never wanted Argentina to have them.

        The presence

        December 27, 2012 at 00:47

  17. Even if Britain doesn’t want to give the Islands back, then at least they should share the oil revenues. That’s what the current dispute is really about. Perhaps Argentina is a poor loser, but Britain comes across as an ungracious winner. & it appears that the economic zone of the current map which contains the oil reserves unfairly favors Britain. Some of it should be allocated to Argentina. So there are 2 sides of the tale.

    Joe

    January 3, 2013 at 17:04

    • Hello Joe

      Thank you for your comment……..the only problem is that there is not oil and the British companies that are taking investors money in this scam are virtual companies or shell companies that operate out of what they call “Boiler Rooms”………the investors do not know this but over the next couple of years you will see that the oil story is fiction and not fact….Peter

      Peter Eyre

      January 3, 2013 at 21:15

  18. Maybe people don,t realize that possesion is 9 tenths of the law,in the case of the falklands argentina had the falklands in 1982 but not for long

    pattoms

    January 3, 2013 at 20:01

  19. What an appropriate response for being taken to task on the facts.
    Well done!.

    Not Snowed Under

    January 10, 2013 at 22:02

  20. What a load of waffle…It’s easy really, the vast majority on the Islanders do not want any other rule than British and the islands are owned by Britain…so if you want it Argentina come and get it, if you dare, just as you did in the past!

    davidnic2013

    March 18, 2013 at 17:07

  21. Just a small point Margaret thatcher got voted back in as prime minister following the Falklands war it raised her appeal and popularity.
    I’m Scottish didn’t agree with her polices but you made out that she was booted due to the war.
    Just out of curiosity who did you serve with as I’m ex military myself.

    Scotcha

    March 27, 2013 at 23:23

    • I am ex RN and my friends son died on HMS Sheffield

      Peter Eyre

      March 27, 2013 at 23:33

      • You didn’t answer about Margaret Thachter were you making a point that the Falklands got her booted or just jumping history

        Scotcha

        March 28, 2013 at 01:05

      • No I was skipping……..she got kicked out for many many reasons…..it was dear Maggie who ruined the UK by bringing in US policies and enhancing the take over by the EU which under our ancient laws was an act of treason…..that also applies to all those in high places from the PM down and not forgetting QE2

        Peter Eyre

        March 28, 2013 at 04:12

  22. When you state that the British involvement was piracy, and though the spanish committed some terrible atrocities, what country did not.looks a little biased toward the spaniards to me.While I would not say one good word about Britain’s colonialism and the treatment of india, we have now left while the ruling population of most of south america are Spanish.

    j martin

    April 20, 2013 at 19:30

  23. I understand Argentina’s claim to the Falklands. I don’t support it, but I understand it. The problem lies with the timeline of colonialism. France were the first to set up a colony; the British took it from the French; the Spanish then took it from us. The territory was transferred to Argentina upon independence; we later took it back from Argentina. But to be honest, I care little about that. What I care about is that people currently live there, and have done for almost two centuries. What they want is paramount; the British and Argentinians should be ignored – the Falkland Islanders are the only opinions who count. If you disagree with this, I also assume you believe that all Europeans should leave the Americas, Turkey should be given back to Greece, and the English should leave Britain for the Celts and move back to Germany.

    Argentina have a mild claim to the Falklands but NO claim to South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. They were first recorded by an English merchant, Anthony de la Roché in 1675, they were claimed by Britain in 1775, and annexed in 1908. Argentina had absolutely no connection to the islands at all besides a small whaling base set up in 1904. They claimed South Georgia in 1927 and the South Sandwich Islands in 1938; and I’m afraid that’s about 150 years too late. The claim is based on proximity (despite the islands being 1000 miles away) – so therefore do Argentina have a valid claim to St. Helena and Ascension Island? Does Scotland have a claim to the Faroe Islands, which are closer but belong to Denmark? No. South Georgia has no natural population and so therefore belongs to the nation who has had it longest – aka the United Kingdom.

    South Georgia is superior to the Falklands anyway. I know what I would rather keep.

    Louie Louie (@plowiee)

    July 4, 2013 at 01:55

  24. Morgan

    Was that Captain Morgan or some other imbecile that thinks he know his history “Parrot Fashion – “Argh Jim Lad”

    Are you saying here that all members of the Royal Family are not part of the New World Order who have been around for some considerable time and continue to support and help govern its existence and policy and the rest of the Committee of 300 or maybe your history book does not cover that aspect?

    As the article states I did not say Argentina in the real sense but that Spain gave it to their Spanish Colony
    that was then renamed Argentina further down the track.

    I suppose you also support the good old chap David Cameron who is bleating about the wealth in Oil and Gas that the Islands and Britain will benefit from when there is no oil and gas and the companies are all virtual (fake) companies that are ripping their investors off as David Cameron did in India for Cairn Energy to the tune of billions!!!

    It would appear you are an expert on history so I would ask you who owns the US,Commonwealth Countries, remnants of the Great British Empire and who indeed owns England?

    In relation to your comment “I also suggest you get your biased head out of your derriere and take a look around the world about you. Starting with a profound reading of modern history as from the 16th century, or if you prefer, from the onset of the British Empire”

    May I suggest that you go back even further to the time of the Magna Carta and see who did what and who own what…..then you can get back to me Mr. Professional Historian that you appear to be and let me have your valid input…….so stick that up your derriere mon ami.

    You know what they do with pests…….you spray them with insecticide and job done….go away little man!!

    Peter Eyre

    September 9, 2013 at 08:00


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: