This year is the 30th anniversary of Argentinian invasion of the Falkland's islands that lie 350 miles from the coast of Argentina and belongs to the UK. The invasion that happened on Friday 2 April 1982 and within days the Government led Prime Minister Margret Thatcher had despatched a task force to take back those islands and free the British subjects from the dictatorship of Argentina.
Â
74 days later over ten thousand soldiers of the Argentine Government surrendered their positions along with all their weapons and aircraft and were sent home with their tails well and truly beaten by a smaller armed force in a conflict that our American allies said would be impossible to win.
Â
That should have been the end of the matter, by invading, a British sovereign country and losing the Military Government of Argentina fell and a form of democracy came to Argentina. Agreements were put in place and for a time a peace came to that area. However, while the Falkland Islands prospered from first wool and then fishing and now oil Argentina fell into a well-known decline.
Â
And when Argentina falls into any kind of economic decline, a well-rehearsed routine takes place. The Government always starts to whip up rhetoric against the three thousand British subjects that live on those islands.
Â
They even changed their constitution in the 90s to include that it is a duty to obtain sovereignty over a territory that has never belonged to them.
Â
http://falklandsnews.wordpress.com/2012/02/11/britain-attacks-argentinas-constitution/
Â
Â
Â
So it was with regret that I was made aware of a blatant anti British article calling for a Boycott of the London Olympics Until Malvinas Are Returned to Argentina
Â
by Gary C. Gibson
Â
Â
Boycott London Olympics Until Malvinas Are Returned to Argentina
April 23, 2012 11:30 AM EDT (Updated: April 23, 2012 12:21 PM EDT)
Â
Â
The Monroe Doctrine updated and applied to the Malvinis could restore Argentine Sovereignty to those islands held by imperial power. Bringing peace and international stability to the occupied archipelago would bring Great Britain closer unto the brotherhood of mankind. Imperialism is successful fascism that rots away through decolonization.
Â
Defending the Mallvinas from possible BP oil spills of the future can better be accomplished with a secure Argentinian democracy guarding the islands settled first by the French although discovered by the Portuguese. The Spaniards and later the Agentinians long lived in the Malvinas, while the British presence left following the U.S. War of Independence.
Â
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Falkland_Islands
Â
Now I don't mind any discussion on the Falkland Islands but when a person writes an article on the subject and then puts at the bottom that he chooses to vet and approve comments then this smacks of censorship and propaganda.
Â
So I am going to put the British side of the story to you and I promise that anyone can comment and will not be deleted unless their comments are of an insulting nature.
Â
First it is a misconception that the Islands in the South Atlantic that are now called the Falkland's was ever populated by anyone other than the French, Spanish, British, and for a very short time people that lived in the Capital Buenos Aires that was Spanish and not Argentinian. In 1810-1818 a war was fought between forces loyal to the Spanish Crown and what was then called patriotic forces at the end of that war the Argentina, as we know it now came into force.
Â
Â
The Argentinians and other Latin American countries call the Falkland's by the name Malvinas, however this name is derived from the French name Les Iles Malouinesâ€, after the port of St Malo in Brittany. The Spanish never gave the Falkland's a Spanish name it was around 1805 that the Spanish started to spell it Malvinas however they still called it “Maluinas†for quite a number of years after. And we find that the word Malvinas is now used a century after the English words of Falkland
http://www.britishempire.co.uk/maproom/falkland/gettingitright.pdf
Â
Â
Â
Â
The Falkland Islands had no native inhabitants when they were first settled by the French and the French had settlements from 1764 to 1767 in a place called Port Louis on East Falkland. In in 1765 Britain formally claimed the Falkland's both the French and the British at the time did not know of each other’s presence and from 1766 to 1774 Britain had a garrison at Port Egmont on Saunders Island and the ruins can still be seen today. In 1767 Spain took over from the French which maintained a garrison at Port Louis for 44 years until 1811.
Â
http://www.britishempire.co.uk/maproom/falkland/gettingitright.pdf
Â
Â
To write about the true account of the Falkland's and to research all the relevant documents appertaining to the legality of Britain's sovereignty would for take forever so I am going to show a link so that the reader can read at their own leisure it’s a long read but I am sure that it puts it all into perspective. I will finish by showing the conclusion.
Â
http://www.britishempire.co.uk/maproom/falkland/gettingitright.pdf
Â
Â
Â
43. Conclusion
The principal arguments put forward by the Argentinians in their 3 December 2007 seminar, and repeated
in both the 2007 pamphlets, are untrue. The truth of the matter is that:
(1) The 17th and 18th-century treaties between Britain and Spain did not prohibit British possession of
the Falklands.
(2) The Argentinians have quoted the 1771 Anglo-Spanish agreement incorrectly. The agreement as
finally signed preserves the claims of both Spain and Britain, not Spain alone. There was no secret
promise by Britain to evacuate the Falklands after the restitution of Port Egmont.
(3) The Argentinians and Professor Dolzer have incorrectly described the history of the 1820s in the
Falklands. David Jewett did claim the Falklands then for Argentina, but he had not been sent there.
He did not attempt to apply fishing regulations, or Argentine laws, or tell any foreign ships to leave.
His claim was not announced formally in Argentina or even mentioned in his report. Professor Dolzer
has also incorrectly described the activities of Pablo Areguati in the Falklands in 1824. Areguati was
never given any official rank, nor did he attempt to enforce Argentine law or fishing regulations. It
was all he could do to survive himself, and his expedition collapsed after a few weeks. Britain did
object promptly when Louis Vernet was given an official title in 1829. Professor Dolzer’s assumption
that Argentina did establish itself adequately in the islands in the early 1820s is based, as we have
shown, on a profound distortion of history.
(4) Argentina’s claim that the 1825 Treaty of Friendship and Navigation with Britain supports its claim to
the Falklands is incorrect. There was no one from Argentina in the Falklands at that time, and the
Treaty does not describe Argentine territory at all.
(5) The Argentine claim that Britain expelled an Argentine population from the Falklands in 1833 is
false; the settlement continued, and most of its inhabitants were from Buenos Aires.
(6) Argentina did not inherit a unitary claim to the Falklands from Spain, and its claim is further
weakened by the lack of foreign recognition in the 19th century and by Louis Vernet’s preference for
British sovereignty.
(7) Argentina dropped its claim to the Falklands by ratifying the Convention of Settlement in 1850. The
failure to mention that this ended Argentina’s claim to the Falklands is a gross distortion of history, as
are the statements by Argentine historians that the British Foreign Secretary accepted in 1849 that the
matter was “pending†or “postponed†– the reverse is true. After 1850 Argentina dropped all protests
to Britain over the Falklands, and did not mention the Falklands to Britain for 34 years. The dropping
of the Argentine claim was confirmed by Argentine leaders in their Messages to Congress in the
1860s, and the Falklands were not mentioned in any Message to Congress for 91 years until 1941.
(8) The Argentine claim was artificially revived in 1884, by non-diplomatic means – the “Affair of the
Map†– but after failing to change Britain’s position Argentina dropped the matter again for several
decades.
(9) The Argentinians have never had a valid claim to South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands.
These islands were only claimed by Argentina after the Second World War, after decades of
acquiescence and after acknowledgement of Britain’s sovereignty there.
(10) The Argentine argument that Islanders have no right to self-determination is absurd. They have the
same rights as any other immigrant population of the New World.
We conclude that the Argentine seminar of 3 December 2007 and the two Argentine 2007 pamphlets do
not make a case for Argentine sovereignty over the Falklands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich
Islands. All these islands are rightfully British.
The Falklands dispute was ended over 150 years ago with Argentina’s agreement; there is no need
for any “solutionâ€.
Graham Pascoe
V14a Peter Pepper May 2008
Â
I would also add that Argentina has had opportunity’s galore to take the matter to the International court of justice (ICJ) And at every opportunity have backed away at the last moment preferring to lie at every opportunity.
Â
At the moment, the Government of President Cristina Fernandez is trying to isolate a legitimate overseas territory by blockading any Falkland flagged vessel from docking at any South American port. It is also putting pressure in Chile to stop the only air flight from Chile to the Falkland's and back from flying which is against International Law .
Â
International law states that the 3, 000 who live on the Falkland's are entitled to the right of self-determination. They have persistently stated that they want to remain British
http://wpik.org/Src/unga1514.html And that should be the end of the matter.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 40
What annoys me above anything else about the Falkland's is the information put out by Argentina they portray themselves as hard done by. I must emphasise that many of the ordinary people in Argentina are as heartedly sick of their embarrassing Governments as we are. Quite a few Argentine intellectuals are now coming out and saying that their country has no right over the Islands. This actually makes quite a nice change.
What many people don't realise either is that the Falkland's Government offered to share the newly found oil reserves with Argentina and the present Presidents husband when he was President signed an agreement with them. Then as soon as he died his wife, who took over from him ripped the agreement up in a hissy fit. How can a country that is in the doldrums and has poverty to the extent as Argentina has rip up an agreement that would bring in billions of $s ?
I am always amused when a State decides that something rightfully belongs to them, by going back to some arbitrary date, or incident.
With no aboriginal occupants, the obvious rights belong to France and England.
France abandoned the land, and in so doing, abandoned their right to claim.
Even if those rights were properly transferred to Spain, as noted, Spain laid no claim.
One solution may be to look at the qualifying set up by a British subject I am familiar with:
Does Argentine have a flag there?
“No flag, no country!”
Yes, that particular subject is an actor and comedian, but it seemed to be applicable.
He also noted that Britain needs the Falkland Islands … for ……. strategic …….. sheep purposes. ….
I can seldom resist intejecting some humor. No disrespect intended.
Non-taken Jesse, I don't mind a little humour.
I also noted that Mr Gibson stated Bringing peace and international stability to the archipelago. The only problem I have with that is that the only country in that region that has brought conflict is Argentina it’s self in 82 when it invaded a peaceful legitimate sovereign country and brought death and destruction to those islands with the loss of 258 British lives an around 750 wounded.
I am many times astounded, that some individuals can even walk. Their perspective, and vision so warped, they must feel as though they are reclining.
Off-topic, the comedian I mentioned, is to me, one of the best I have heard in decades.
He achieves (at least the appearance) of speaking entirely from in an extemporaneous manner.
He does like to wear make-up and silky, feminine clothing.
But his humor is outlandishly funny. His name is Eddie Izzard.
The true, historic references he makes are wonderful.
You have great taste in comedy and Eddie's Flag routine is one of his funniest.
The recent fashion for gold lamé pixie boots was absolutely ridiculous. I’m so glad Granddad has stopped wearing them.
It is a great routine, as well as hundreds of others.
The bit on Star Trek (Steve, from accounts), and the "widdly-weet" (from Unrepeatable) was also a great one.
I have all of his DVD's through Circle, and was unable to get Stripped, or Sexy in region 1 format, until now!
Just ordered them both, as well as the Biography
Mr. Graham L.
I prefer women’s clothes on women myself (or off?), however, in Mr. Izzards case, I will take no offense at his clothing, or make up.
(I looked up, and that squirrel was COVERED in make up!)
Forcing their will will prove to be self-defeating. Britain will just just whoop their tooshies again. The U.S. will not need to actively participate, but the technical support they can count on from their biggest ally would be more than enough.
With the exception of our politicians everyone in Britain knows "The Special Relationship" is dead.
He did? Maybe Jamaica should put in a claim for the Cayman Islands. Our claim to them would be much much stronger than Argentina's claim to the Falklands :-D
Dennis there will be no conflict in the near future; the present President and her husband who was president before he died have run down the Argentine military forces to such an extent that it would be suicide to start any kind of war conflict. The reason that they have done this is that they feared that any strong military force in Argentina would try and take back power and once more make Argentina a military dictatorship.
Anyway they had better not try it as I am taking a cruise at the end of this year to Patagonia taking in part of the Antarctic, the Falkland's once more and South Georgia.
I am still awaiting the fate of the comment I made on that article and which is still, days later, 'awaiting approval' from Mr Gibson.
http://en.mercopress.com/
One interesting development is how Argentina has not just pissed of our country and the Falkland's with their shenanigans but have now pissed of Spain one of their allies
http://en.mercopress.com/2012/04/17/ec-supports-spain-and-warns-ypf-expropriation-can-seriously-damage-business-climate
http://en.mercopress.com/2012/04/17/ypf-takeover-dreadful-decision-for-spain-for-argentina-and-terrible-for-legal-security
They seem quite oblivious on how the modern world works.
I have not been back on that other post, but I am not surprised that your comment will not see the light of day.
Ishbel R. 4.28, 2012, 12:08pm EDT
It'll be a cold day in hell before the British govt give sovereignty of The Falklands to the Argentinians.
Too much British blood has been spilt for public opinion to ever allow that to happen.
If you look at what Argentina wants to do and take over running the Falkland's and planting Argentinians on those islands, it’s the same as their ancestors did when they killed and populated the whole of what is now Argentina and Patagonia. And these people say we are colonists, what a load of old B******ks the whole of South America is full of colonists from the North to the South. Bunch of hypocrites
Ishbel the latest bit of harassment has come to London with Argentina's new Ambassador.
http://en.mercopress.com/2012/05/02/argentina-promises-more-public-harassment-on-falklands-you-wait-and-see
What part of go away and stop bothering us doesn't she understand, as there is nothing to negotiate?
How scary to be under those in S America. I'm very sorry for Mexico now and all the killing down there. Mexicans are very family oriented friendly people. They don't deserve all that drug cartel mess.
Argentina lost 25 helicopters, 35 fighters, 2 bombers, 4 transports, 25 COIN aircraft (Counter-insurgency aircraft) and 9-armed trainers.
We lost 24 helicopters most of them went down in the container ship in fact I am not sure if they all did, and 10 fighters.
Argentina had 649 killed and 1,068 wounded we took 11,313 taken prisoners
We had 258 killed and 775 wounded and had 115 taken prisoners taken at the start of the conflict
The Argentines planted landmines and 117 of these minefields still have not been cleared thirty years later due to Argentina refusing to give up information. Whenever veterans of the conflict go to the Falkland's and visit the battlefields where we fought we stick to a well-designated rout a never wonder from that rout
Argentina sank one of our aircraft carriers twice and the people of Argentina were quite surprised to see it sailing home such were the lies told to them about the war. And right up until the night of the surrender they were being told that they were winning. On the night that the news broke in Argentina that they had lost huge riots broke out in the Argentine Capital and all over the country.
http://www.viddler.com/v/451a8af0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYRC_HiA4g8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jh282sJMxIQ&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eo0BNYGgEV4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eEIjcWjr-A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfU2h-RGP1A
Those clips are the reason why we will never give something that does not belong to Argentina-to-Argentina; we fought sometimes without ammunition with the tip of the bayonet in some of the worst situations that you can imagine.
And everyone from the soldier on the ground to the sailor and airman did what was expected and each one of us even though we are a lot older now would go back and do it all over again. No one threatens our brothers and sisters freedom and gets away with it.
'Allo 'Allo! (series 5) (section Land Mines for London) of them being stealing Gruber's little tank, fighting their way down to the docks in the ... Land Mines for London : Alternative titles: Mines Away ...
161 KB (28,649 words) - 06:46, 25 April 2012
Maybe it's not worth it to take them over there but at least it's a way to clear out the danger.
Gosh, it's been 30 years Graham. Did you ever go through shell shock? I'm sure they have another name now but a rose by any other name . . . not a good illustration, roses.
I didn't know anything about the islands except, of course, their name. I'll go read your links. Thank you.
No Glome I was to annoyed with everything I had put my papers to leave four weeks before it all started and they were rejected as were quite a few and we could not understand why.
A lot of talk later was how it was possible for our Government at the time to put together a fleet as large as it was in just a few days. The truth of the matter they knew well in advance what was going on.
One of my neighbours worked at RAF Stafford as a civilian store man it was a none flight base that was used as a logistic role supplying everything that was needed for the conflict and a few weeks ago I was talking to him about the role it played and he told me that the base was put on alert and had started to supply bases down in the south of England a full six week before Argentina invaded.
To hear Obama talk and his worshiiopers parrot his words, one might get the impression that The Falklands can be reached by crossing a causeway from the mainland at low tide.
Don't know about Orkney and Shetalnd Ishbel, they're worth going to war over. But being a peace loving type I'd offer them Sunderland instead.
Graham, Channel Island? The French could claim England, we are closer to them than the Falklands to Argentina. And they forget France rightfully belongs to us, well most of it.
Perhaps he's 'feart' of the strength of feeling of UK members?
Graham L. May 3, 2012, 3:45am EDT
==What the British claim rests on==
That the British were the first to claim the islands in 1690 and have never renounced that claim.
That the islands have been continuously and peacefully occupied by the UK since 1833, with the exception of "2 months of illegal occupation" by Argentina.
That Argentina's attempts to colonise the islands in 1820–33 were "sporadic and ineffectual".
That the islands had no indigenous or settled population before British settlement.
That in an Argentine-inspired poll in 1994, 87% of the island's population rejected any form of discussion of sovereignty under any circumstances.
That the principle of uti possedetis "is not accepted as a general principle of international law".
That UN General Assembly resolutions calling for negotiations "are flawed because they make no reference to the Islanders' right to choose their own future."
The European Union Treaty of Lisbon ratifies that the Falkland Islands belong to Britain.
==Does the fact Spain once controlled the islands help the Argentine claim?==
In March 1848, the delegates at the Lima Congress in Peru signed a number of agreements.
Article 7 stated - " The confederated Republics declare that they have a perfect right to the conservation of their territories as they existed at the time of independence from Spain, those of the respective Viceroyalties, captaincies-general or presidencies into which Spanish America was divided."
This is known as the Uti Possidetis Juris principle and Article 7 was signed by Ministers from Colombia, Chile, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Peru. The doctrine of Uti Possidetis Juris is therefore a useful tool to resolve sovereignty/border issues between the signatories.
Argentina did not sign. Britain did not sign. Uti Possidetis Juris does therefore not apply to the Falkland Islands.
==Do Papal Bulls help the Argentine claim?==
No, they don’t. I refer to the papal bull of 1493 and the subsequent Treaty of Tordesillas. Regrettably, it wasn't recognised by most of the world then and by none now. Even the Papacy says it was wrong then and of no account now. By the way “self-determination” means that the people there decide.
The treaty only affects Spain and Portugal, so it isn't relevant to the Falklands dispute as the UK isn't a signatory of the treaty. If the UK was a signatory then it would effect the sovereignty of all former British colonies in the Americas, including countries like Canada.
The islanders have the right to determine the sovereignty of their birthplace. In which case, the islanders should not lose their rights as a result of things that happened before they were born - such as Spain and Portugal signing a treaty in the 15th century.
==Does the Nootka Sound Convention help the Argentine claim?==
Some points about the Nootka Sound Convention.
Article VI "It is further agreed with respect to the eastern and western coasts of South America and the islands adjacent, that the respective subjects shall not form in the future any establishment on the parts of the coast situated to the south of the parts of the same coast and of the islands adjacent already occupied by Spain; it being understood that the said respective subjects shall retain the liberty of landing on the coasts and islands so situated for objects connected with their fishery and of erecting thereon huts and other temporary structures serving only those objects."
1) It is debatable that it applies to the Falklands. It refers to adjacent islands. The Falklands at 300 nautical miles from Argentina are not adjacent to Argentina.
2) It was suspended in 1795 due to war between the two countries. It may or may not have been renewed in 1814 after the war.
3) It's a reciprocal treaty. Both countries, Spain as well as Great Britain (the respective subjects), were forbidden to form establishments on the coasts mentioned. Spain, by forming settlements late 18th -early 19th century in what is now San Clemente del Tuyú (directly south of the Banda Oriental -now Uruguay), was in breach of the Convention.
4) If it does apply to the Falklands, Argentina, by establishing a settlement on the Falklands in 1826 (subjects of any other power), rendered article 6 null and void as per the secret article:
Since by article 6 of the present convention it has been stipulated, respecting the eastern and western coasts of South America, that the respective subjects shall not in the future form any establishment on the parts of these coasts situated to the south of the parts of the said coasts actually occupied by Spain, it is agreed and declared by the present article that this stipulation shall remain in force only so long as no establishment shall have been formed by the subjects of any other power on the coasts in question. This secret article shall have the same force as if it were inserted in the convention.
(Argentine web pages on Nootka and the Falklands never mention the secret article)
5) New states do not inherit treaties without the consent of other signatories to those treaties.
6) Argentina did not inherit the Falklands so neither did she inherit any treaty Spain may have signed with any country regarding the Falklands.
==Do the Falklands belong to Argentina on the basis of geography?==
No, there are plenty of overseas territories from several different nations all over the world that are not disputed by the other closest nations. The islands are also 0 miles from the islanders who are self governing.
At their closest to Argentina, the Falklands are some two hundred and fifty miles from the tip of Tierra del Fuego, and over three hundred and fifty miles from the nearest Patagonian coast, and are not considered to be joined to South America’s continental shelf by many (not all) academics.
After recognition from Spain, Argentina began the annexation of Patagonia which was left to the native people and involved genocide. They are in no position to lecture the British on imperialism. Even though Argentina is still considerably closer to the Islands the UK, this annexation process inevitably brought the islands closer to Buenos Aires control.
It is irrelevant whether the islands are on the Argentine continental shelf anyway as international law regards various offshore distances as being of significance to territorial disputes: three miles, seven miles and twenty-one miles, with two hundred miles as an absolute limit. Territorial contiguity (via an undersea continental shelf) does not seem to have much force in international law; otherwise presumably the Canaries would belong to Morocco or the Faroe Islands to Britain.
==What about 1833?==
1833 was the Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands.
In 1765, Captain John Byron landed on Saunders Island. He then explored other islands' coasts and claimed the group for Britain. The following year, Captain John McBride returned to Port Egmont, on Saunders, to construct a fort. The British later discovered the French colony at Port Saint Louis, and the first sovereignty dispute began.
The Spanish expelled the British colony in 1770, but it was restored in 1771 following British threats of war over the islands. However, in 1774, economic pressures leading up to the American Revolutionary War forced Great Britain to withdraw from many overseas settlements. By 1776, the British had left their settlement, leaving behind a plaque asserting British sovereignty over the islands. Although there was no British administration in the islands, British and American sealers routinely used them to hunt for seals, also taking on fresh water as well as feral cattle, pigs and even penguins for provisions. Whalers also used the islands to shelter from the South Atlantic weather and to take on fresh provisions.
Luis Vernet approached the BRITISH for permission to build a settlement at the former Spanish settlement of Puerto Soledad, initially in 1826 and again in 1828 following the failure of the earlier expedition.
In addition, Vernet requested British protection for his settlement should the British choose to form a permanent presence on the islands. After receiving assurances from the British minister chargé d'affaires, Sir Woodbine Parish, Vernet provided regular reports to the British on the progress of his enterprise.
Vernet's appointment as Governor in 1829 was protested against by the British Consul Parish, in return the Government of the United Provinces of the River Plate merely acknowledged the protest. Britain protested again when Vernet announced his intentions to exercise exclusive rights over fishing and sealing in the islands. (Similar protests were received from the American representative, who protested at the curtailment of established rights and that the United States did not recognise the jurisdiction of the United Provinces over the islands.)
Vernet continued to provide regular reports to Parish throughout this period.
The raid of the USS Lexington in December 1831 combined with the United Provinces assertions of sovereignty were the spur for the British to establish a military presence on the islands.
On 2 January 1833, Captain James Onslow, of the warship HMS Clio, arrived at the Spanish settlement at Port Louis to request that the Argentine flag be replaced with the British one, and for the Argentine administration to leave the islands.
While Argentine Lt. Col. José María Pinedo, commander of the Argentine schooner Sarandí, wanted to resist, his numerical disadvantage was obvious, particularly as a large number of his crew were British mercenaries who were unwilling to fight their own countrymen. Such a situation was not unusual in the newly independent states in Latin America, where land forces were strong, but navies were frequently quite undermanned. As such he protested verbally, but departed without a fight on 5 January. The colony was set up and the islands continued under a British presence until the Falklands War.
After their return in 1833, the British began moves to begin a fully-fledged colony on the islands, initially based upon the settlers remaining in Port Louis (Argentine often claim these settlers were removed yet there is zero evidence for this). Vernet's deputy, Matthew Brisbane, returned later that year to take charge of the settlement and was encouraged to further Vernet's business interests provided he did not seek to assert Argentine Government authority.
In 1841, General Rosas offered to relinquish any Argentine territorial claims in return for relief of debts owed to interests in the City of London. The British Government chose to ignore the offer.
==Conclusion==
Britain has a legally sound claim the Falkland Islands. And that will not change now or in the future
Thanks for sharing with The Surreal Circus.
I will never understand the actions and behavior of human beings.