Sean Penn backs Argentina over the Falklands

[Boris Godunov]

And Boris bites the trollbait...

Hardly.

"Biting" for trolls requires a far more intense and passionate response, and it would have to be an issue about which I actually give a crap. I've no dog in this hunt.

But that was funny irony, considering you have a nice history here of biting on trolls.

[Hauldren Collider]

Well, by your standard, I think that hardly counts as biting, either. Difference there and here is that I seriously doubt Drake actually cares one way or the other about the Falklands, and if he did he would favor the Brits. So you're arguing against someone who is not serious.

[Tupac Shakur]

Because if you're going to assert that the Brits were being dickish in 1833, then doing the same thing to the current British inhabitants is just as dickish...

I'm not saying that Argentina should remove the British by force. I'm saying the British Government should do the right thing and give the Malvinas back rather than hide behind the lame excuse that British settlers there don't want to leave. The British settlers in the Malvinas have no more right to be there than Israeli settlers in the West Bank.

[Tupac Shakur]

typical colonalist attitude from you drake. igoring the wishes of the people living there in favour of some dubious historical claim.

The Argentinian claim isn't "dubious". The British left the Malvinas, agreed that they belonged to Spain, then came back almost 60 years later and kicked out the Argentines who lived there.

[C0ckney]

no. your igorance of the history is true to form.

There is controversy as to who was first to discover the Falkland Islands, with competing Portuguese, Spanish and British claims in the 16th century.[6][13] While Amerindians from Patagonia could have visited the Falklands,[14] the islands were uninhabited when discovered by Europeans.[15] The first reliable sighting is usually attributed to the Dutch explorer Sebald de Weert in 1600, who named the archipelago the Sebald Islands, a name they bore on Dutch maps into the 19th century.[16]
#
In 1690, Captain John Strong of the Welfare en route to Puerto Deseado was driven off course and reached the Falkland Islands instead, landing at Bold Cove. Sailing between the two principal islands he called the passage "Falkland Channel" (now Falkland Sound), after Anthony Cary, 5th Viscount of Falkland, who as Commissioner of the Admiralty had financed the expedition. The island group takes its English name from this body of water.[17]

In 1764, French navigator and military commander Louis Antoine de Bougainville founded the first settlement on Berkeley Sound, in present-day Port Louis, East Falkland.[18] In 1765, British captain John Byron explored and claimed Saunders Island on West Falkland, where he named the harbour Port Egmont and a settlement was constructed in 1766.[19] Unaware of the French presence, Byron claimed the island group for King George III. Spain acquired the French colony in 1767 and placed it under a governor subordinate to the Buenos Aires colonial administration. In 1770, Spain attacked Port Egmont and expelled the British presence, bringing the two countries to the brink of war. War was avoided by a peace treaty and the British return to Port Egmont.[20]
#
In 1774, economic pressures leading up to the American Revolutionary War forced Great Britain to withdraw from many overseas settlements.[20][21] Upon withdrawal the British left behind a plaque asserting her continued claim. Spain maintained its governor until 1806 who, on his departure, left behind a plaque asserting Spanish claims. The remaining settlers were withdrawn by the United Provinces of the River Plate in 1811.[20]

and then,

In 1820, storm damage forced the privateer HeroÃna to take shelter in the islands.[22] Her captain David Jewett raised the flag of the United Provinces of the River Plate and read a proclamation claiming the islands.[22] This became public knowledge in Buenos Aires nearly a year later following the publication of the proclamation in the Salem Gazette.[22] After several abortive attempts, Luis Vernet established a settlement in 1828 after seeking authorisation from both British and Argentine authorities.[23]

A dispute over fishing and hunting rights resulted in a raid by the US warship USS Lexington in 1831.[23][24] The log of the Lexington reports only the destruction of arms and a powder store, though in his claim against the US Government for compensation (rejected by the US Government of President Cleveland in 1885) Vernet stated that the settlement was destroyed.[23] The Islands were declared free from all government, the seven senior members of the settlement were arrested for piracy[25] and taken to Montevideo,[24] where they were released without charge on the orders of Commodore Rogers.[26]

In November 1832, Argentina sent Commander Mestivier as an interim commander to found a penal settlement, but he was killed in a mutiny after 4 days.[27] The following January, British forces returned and requested the Argentine garrison leave. Don Pinedo, captain of the ARA Sarandi and senior officer present, protested but ultimately complied. Vernet's settlement continued, with the Irishman William Dickson tasked with raising the British flag for passing ships. Vernet's deputy, Matthew Brisbane, returned and was encouraged by the British to continue with the enterprise.[28][29][30] The settlement continued until August 1833, when the leaders were killed in the so-called Gaucho murders. Subsequently, from 1834 the islands were governed as a naval station until 1840 when the British Government decided to establish a permanent colony.[31]

[Barnabas]

There is a good article here

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1987/CRD.htm

WAR IN THE MODERN ERA SEMINAR
The Argentine Seizure of the Malvinas [Falkland] Islands:
History and Diplomacy
Lieutenant Commander Richard D. Chenette, USN
4 May 1987
Marine Corps Command and Staff College
Marine Corps Development and Education Command
Quantico, Virginia 22134
ABSTRACT

The Islands remained in possession of Spain for the next 40
years until the collapse of her New World empire. During this
period, there is no evidence of any British interest in the
Islands nor any record of demands by Britain that Spain abandon
them. In fact, in 1790 England disavowed any colonial ambitions
in South America "and the islands adjacent" by signing an
agreement with Spain at the Nootka Sound Convention. * Spanish
authorities removed Spanish settlers from Puerto Soledad in 1811
in response to growing factions in Buenos Aires who sought
independence from Spain. Once abandoned by Spain, the Islands
were freely and indiscriminately used for many years by mariners
from numerous countries for sealing, whaling, and fishing.(11)
In 1816, the newly formed United Provinces of Rio de la
Plata, forerunner of present day Argentina, declared independence
from Spain. The new "government of Buenos Aires" declared its
sovereignty over the Islands by right of succession from Spain
since the Islands had been previously governed by Spain, from
Buenos Aires. An envoy was dispatched from Buenos Aires by
frigate in 1820 to officially lay claim to the Islands. He
* The British would later deny that the islands referred to in
this agreement included the Falkland/Malvinas Islands.
informed the crews of the fifty or more vessels berthed at Puerto
Soledad that his government now had jurisdiction over all fishing
and hunting on the Islands.(12)
The new Government of Buenos Aires appointed its first
governor of Puerto Soledad in 1823. Three years later it granted
an enterprising business man of French origin named Louis Vernet
substantial rights to commercial development of territory in and
around the Islands including exploitation of the wildlife and sea
life. This was done to settle a rather large debt that the
government owed Vernet's wife. In 1826 he established a colony
on the Islands comprised of 90 settlers.(13)
Vernet was appointed governor in 1829 under protest from the
British consul in Buenos Aires who took that opportunity to
reassert the British claim to the Islands but without taking
further action. Vernet proceeded to impose restrictions on the
mariners in the area who had been slaughtering the seal
population.(14) His efforts to consolidate control over the
Islands culminated in July 1831 with the seizure of three United
States vessels on the grounds that they were engaging in illegal
fishing. One captain was permitted to continue fishing only
after agreeing to share profits with Vernet. The second vessel
escaped. The third was commandeered by Vernet and sailed to
Buenos Aires to put the captain on trial for illegal fishing.(15)
The incensed American consul in Buenos Aires dispatched the
United States warship Lexington to Puerto Soledad to seek
restitution for sealskins and other property which Vernet had
confiscated from the commandeered American ship. Upon arriving
there in December 1831, Lexington's captain, Silas Duncan, not
only recovered the sealskins but also destroyed Argentine guns
and settlement buildings, arrested numerous Argentine
inhabitants, and declared the Islands free of all government.
Vernet resigned as governor and never again set foot on the
Islands.(16)
The Government of Buenos Aires then decided to establish a
penal colony on the Islands, presumably because most of the
Argentinians left by Duncan were convicts. The new civil and
military governor, appointed in the fall of 1832 to run the penal
colony, was murdered upon his arrival there by mutinous
soldiers. The Argentine government responded by dispatching
troops commanded by Don Jose Maria Pinedo to restore law and
order. In January 1833, while Pinedo and his troops were
pursuing the murderers, British Captain James Onslow arrived at
the Islands on HMS Clio, under instructions to take and hold the
Islands for Britain. The British had ordered the expedition after
receiving word from their consul in Buenos Aires of the unstable
situation in the Islands.(17)
The arrival of the British forces caught the Argentines by
surprise. According to historian W. F. Boyson, Clio's presence
constituted "the embodiment of dazzling order, discipline and
restraint." Onslow convinced outnumbered Pinedo to quit the
Islands under protest but without firing a single shot. Except
for two months in 1982, Britain has maintained control of the
Islands ever since.(18)
News of the British capture of the Islands was bitterly
received in Buenos Aires. Boyson states: "The young republic was
ablaze with indignation at the insult to her dignity.... "(l9) In
London, the Argentine ambassador protested the British
occupation. Arguments between Britain and Argentina over the
sovereignty question, discussed in the next chapter, have
abounded ever since.................................

[Tupac Shakur]

no. your igorance of the history is true to form

I'm not surprised that you failed to mention the Treaty of San Lorenzo del Escorial...

In 1789, both the United Kingdom and Spain attempted settlement in the Nootka Sound, on Vancouver Island. On 25 October 1790, these two Kingdoms approved the Nootka Sound Convention, also known as the Treaty of San Lorenzo del Escorial. The Conventions included provisions recognising that the coasts and islands of South America colonised by Spain at the time were Spanish, and that areas south of the southernmost settlements were off limits to both countries, provided (in a secret article) that no third party settled there either.

The Spanish had settlements in the Malvinas in 1790, so the British formally recognised the Spanish claim to the Malvinas in the Treaty of San Lorenzo del Escorial. This Spanish claim passed to Argentina when it became independent.



Also note the Argentine settlement in the Malvinas at the time of the British return in 1833.

[The Mad Monk]

I must admit, I found HC biting on Boris' troll biting troll bait most entertaining. Very meta.

[C0ckney]

no. your igorance of the history is true to form

I'm not surprised that you failed to mention the Treaty of San Lorenzo del Escorial...

In 1789, both the United Kingdom and Spain attempted settlement in the Nootka Sound, on Vancouver Island. On 25 October 1790, these two Kingdoms approved the Nootka Sound Convention, also known as the Treaty of San Lorenzo del Escorial. The Conventions included provisions recognising that the coasts and islands of South America colonised by Spain at the time were Spanish, and that areas south of the southernmost settlements were off limits to both countries, provided (in a secret article) that no third party settled there either.

The Spanish had settlements in the Malvinas in 1790, so the British formally recognised the Spanish claim to the Malvinas in the Treaty of San Lorenzo del Escorial. This Spanish claim passed to Argentina when it became independent.

that's a strange interpretation. why would the claim pass to argentina. in any case spain recognised britain's claim in 1863.

In 1790 war between Britain and Spain nearly broke out again over the possession of Alaska (which
had “become” Spanish by the Papal Bulls and the “Treaty” of Tordesillas). War was averted this time by a
treaty known in English as the Nootka Sound Convention, after an inlet on Vancouver Island where the
dispute had arisen. Article III of this treaty (known in Spanish as “El Tratado de San Lorenzo”)
guaranteed freedom of the seas to both Britain and Spain, though Britain was not to trade illicitly with
Spanish settlements (Article IV), and both Britain and Spain agreed not to form new establishments on
South American coasts situated south of coasts or islands already occupied by Spain (Article VI).
As the Argentine 2007 pamphlets correctly say (English p. 2, Spanish p. 5):

In 1790, with the signing of the Treaty of San Lorenzo at the El Escorial [i.e. the Nootka Sound
Convention, signed at the Escorial Palace near Madrid], Great Britain undertook not to establish any
settlements on either the eastern or the western coasts of South America or on the adjacent islands
already occupied by Spain such as the Malvinas Islands.

What the pamphlets omit to mention, however, is that there were two important additions: Article VI
expressly permitted British seamen (many of whom were engaged in killing seals) to land on those coasts
and to build huts, etc., and more importantly, an extra secret article removed the restriction on new
establishments if any other power did make an establishment south of “the parts of those coasts already
occupied” by Spain.
5
In the late 1820s (see sections 12 and 14), Argentina did in fact form an
establishment at Port Louis in the Falklands, south of coastal areas already occupied by Spain in 1790. By
a strict interpretation of the Nootka Sound Convention, Britain therefore became entitled to form an
establishment in the Falklands as soon as Argentina had become established there.

Argentine historian Diego Luis Molinari believes that the secret clause in the Nootka Sound
Convention was specifically put in by Britain with the Falklands in mind, and that Britain’s reassertion of
sovereignty in 1833 (see sections 18 and 19) was an exercise of Britain’s rights under this clause.
6
In the opinion of Professor Dolzer, the Nootka Sound Convention was a purely bipartite agreement between
Britain and Spain, which means that Argentina could not benefit from its provisions in any way.
7

#

Also note the Argentine settlement in the Malvinas at the time of the British return in 1833.

so the argentine claim is based on a penal colony which lasted for 3 months. looks pretty dubious.

[C0ckney]

anyway, leaving argentina's dubious claim to one side. it's the views of those live there that matterj, not treaties signed centuries ago.

self-determination

[giblets]

anyway, leaving argentina's dubious claim to one side. it's the views of those live there that matterj, not treaties signed centuries ago.

self-determination

Don't be silly. The people who have lived on those islands their whole lives should move aside so Argentina can take their homes and everything they worked for.

[Tupac Shakur]

so the argentine claim is based on a penal colony which lasted for 3 months. looks pretty dubious.

Britain doesn't have any claim at all. You lie about having claimed the Malvinas first (when it was really the French), ignore the Spanish claim (which both France and Britain recognized), refuse to acknowledge Argentina's right to take over the Spanish claim via uti possidetis juris, and dismiss Argentina's history of settlement before Britain's landgrab in 1833. Some of the simpler posters here may be taken in by your imperialist sophistry, but I know the history involved and am well aware of Britain's true nature.

[giblets]

On a similar note, it's about time Texas was returned to its rightful owner, Mexico. It's only fair that people lose their land because it was stolen from someone else over a hundred years before they were born.

[Tupac Shakur]

On a similar note, it's about time Texas was returned to its rightful owner, Mexico.

While your analogy is flawed, I support any move to kick Texas out of the Union.

[kittenOFchaos]

Continuous settlement for over 170 years by British citizens is more than enough justification for continued ownership. If Argentina get bolshy, we could simply put a cruise missile into Buenos Aires and tell them that the next one is nuclear. In all seriousness all Argentina can do is whinge, they are completely out-matched militarily.

To think that they passed up the opportunity to have me become a diplomat.