Argentine vets seek to mark unnamed Falklands graves
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 кві 2012
- As the Falkland Islands prepares to mark Monday's 30th anniversary of a bitter war, Argentinian families are still desperately trying to identify more than 100 unknown bodies in one of the islands' most iconic cemeteries. Duration: 02:32
Argentina, we can be friends, or enemies.
Remember, our enemies rarely fare well.
Respect to the fallen, of both sides.
What a stupid remark, they valued their sons just as much as we valued ours. Its stupid remarks like that that will cause more trouble between the Argentine people and us.
You are refering to the United Nations Security Council.
I am refering to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Hague.
When two countries take a case to the ICJ they get to appoint one judge each and the other 13 judges are appointed on a completely ad hoc basis.
Argentina knows it has no solid legal claim and that if they brought their case before the Court they would lose....that is why they have been refusing to do so since 1946.
This is a direct quote from your previous post
"when the British arrived the ones living there were Patagonian Gauchos"
this is a lie
When the British arrived (in the mid 18th Century) there was nobody on the islands.
I am well aware that they lost the war, I have never heard, or read that they forced the Brits to bury them there. Maybe there relatives thought as they died there, thats where they should be buried. Lots of our boys that died there asked for them to be buried there also. The same as a lot of my friends were buried where they fell in the 2nd World War, or maybe you never heard of that. From a Veteran 1944-1948!!!., Royal Artillery.
They can have the bodies back if they want. We always offered that. Instead they forced the Brits to bury and mark their graves.
I would not call that cemetery a mass grave.
Incorrect.....there was no indigenous population on the islands when the British first landed in 1690.
Wrong again......the UK has offered to settle the matter in Court at the ICJ five times since 1946....and Argentina has refused every time.
The reason Argentina refuses to take the matter to Court at the ICJ is because they know they have no legal entitlement to the islands and that they would lose.
The last time Argentina took a case to the ICJ (the "Paper Mill" case against Uruguay) they lost 14-1.
At the end of the war in 1982 the UK offered to repatriate the Argentine fallen but the Argentine government refused to accept them. Even in death the Argentine government wanted to use those dead Argentine soldiers as a sick method of maintaining an Argentine "presence" on the Falkland Islands.
think the same of you.
Wrong...you are referring to the situation over fifty years after the British first settled the islands and nearly 150 years after Captain Strong landed in 1690.
Wrong again.....the falklandshistory website is owned and maintained by the Falkland Islanders themselves and every claim is backed up by referenced original sourse material (much of it from Argentine museums and libraries).
The simple fact is that the Falklands have never been legally Argentine and they never will be.
You are quite wrong....settlement means everything.
The islands are UK territory. The UK has successfully removed two illegal invasions...the first in 1833 and the second in 1982.
The UK has de facto control of the islands and has had for over 180 years.
If Argentina had a genuine case they would take it to the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
The reason they refuse to go to the ICJ (the judicial branch of the UN) is because they have no legal case and they know they would lose.
But...as you have already stated.....Port Egmont was the first settlement and there was no indigenous population which were displaced.
Case proven
;-D
Wrong again....the first permanent, self-sustaining settlement was British (Port Egmont)
Everything before that was temporary and unsustainable
There is only one person in this argument who is in denial....and it isn't me
;-D
It doesn't matter how many times you repeat your lies....it doesn't make them true.
There was nobody on the islands when the British first settled there in the mid 18th Century......nobody lived there and therefore no land was stolen.
Any subsequent incursions were illigitimate since it was UK territory.
So you admit that the Brits were there first....case proven.
You said they were there BEFORE the British whereas, infact, that was over 50 years later
You are a liar....you should get a job as a journalist on "Gente" magazine......"Estamos Ganando!"
;-D
As you have already admitted this is a lie.....please feel free to retract all your other lies
;-D
1766 Port Egmont = 100% British
Keep up with your posts....I enjoy laughing at you
;-D