Comments by "1IbramGaunt" (@1IbramGaunt) on "BBC News" channel.

  1.  @jojodio9851  yes, they were, John Strong was the first to land on the islands in 1690, not counting Native people that probably went there first in prehistoric times, and various other sailors (from Spain yes but also from Holland, France and England) who possibly saw the islands in passing in the 1590's and early 1600's sure, but didn't land on them, and those accounts are up for debate and unconfirmed. What IS confirmed is that the French were the first to have a settlement there in 1764, quickly followed by the British in 1765, the Spanish didn't turn up on the Falklands until 1766 and even then only acquired the already-existing settlement the French had created there rather than building their own; they tried kicking the British out of theirs in 1770 but the threat of open war made the Spanish back down, and we only left at all in 1774 because of the whole American Revolution thing starting and our suddenly needing all our resources and attention elsewhere. However we left the islands voluntarily, never officially relinquished our claim to them and left a plaque behind saying as much, that we'd officially claimed the Falkland Islands for King George III, that the land was still ours regardless of Spanish occupation; and when we came back in 1833, about four massive wars later haha, all we did was renew an already-existing claim to the islands and kick out Vernet (and JUST Vernet, who was sent safely back to Argentina, all the other guys working for him were allowed to stay on the Falklands and were paid to work for us instead, so don't get started on your expulsion myth bullsh*t again). And no, the various treaties agreed upon in the intervening time during the 1820's between Britain and Argentina never included full official recognition of Argentine sovereignty over the Falklands, they did to other places including all of what we recognised as being Spain's old territory on the mainland but NOT to our islands, they weren't included. Oh the Argentines may have interpreted it that way sure as it suited their own interests to, but that doesn't mean they actually DID legally get given those islands. Feel free to actually properly look those treaties up (in a source not written by an Argentinian) if you don't believe me
    13
  2. 13
  3. 12
  4. 11
  5. 11
  6. 11
  7. 10
  8. 10
  9. 9
  10. 9
  11. 9
  12. 9
  13. 8
  14. 8
  15. 8
  16. 8
  17. 8
  18. 8
  19. 7
  20. 7
  21. 7
  22. 7
  23. 7
  24. 7
  25. 7
  26. 7
  27. 7
  28. 7
  29. 7
  30. 6
  31. 6
  32. 5
  33. 5
  34. 5
  35. 5
  36. 5
  37. 4
  38. 4
  39. 4
  40. 4
  41. 4
  42. 4
  43. 4
  44. 4
  45. 4
  46. 3
  47. 3
  48. 3
  49. 3
  50. 3
  51. 3
  52. 3
  53. 3
  54. 3
  55. 3
  56. 3
  57. 3
  58. 3
  59. 3
  60. 3
  61. 3
  62. 3
  63. 2
  64. 2
  65. 2
  66. 2
  67. 2
  68. 2
  69. 2
  70. 2
  71. 2
  72. 2
  73. 2
  74. 2
  75. 2
  76. 2
  77. 2
  78. 2
  79. 2
  80. 2
  81. 2
  82. 2
  83. 2
  84. 2
  85. Why? Aside from making a few anti-British people and hardline left-wingers happy, the people who always rant on about slavery despite it being us who ENDED the slave trade, what else is actually changing for the better here, for Barbados or anywhere else? They're already all self-governing for the most part, all these Carribean former colonies turned Commonwealth Realms or Overseas Territories, just with the Queen as a Head Of State figurehead who's considered important but with little real power there anymore besides having her face on the money. Canada, Australia and New Zealand which are frankly all substantially larger and more important places all seem ok with carrying on the exact same centuries-old traditions that don't hurt anybody, keeping some reminders of their British past while looking to the future, as for that matter do the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Cyprus and many OTHER small remote islands or cities that are or used to be British colonies, they're all happy to keep the historical and ancestral links alive while ALSO managing their own affairs without needing Britain to hold their hands anymore, as they are all completely free and able to do, Nepal even still happily lets us recruit Ghurkas for the British Army; hell even India seems happy to be a close friend and ally that maintains strong political, economic and military links as of course does America. Only reason Hong Kong isn't still a British colony in their case is because in 1997 we respected their wishes and willingly handed them over to Communist China, a decision they're definitely regretting now lol or would be if they were still allowed to talk about it, something other places wanting quote "freedom" should definitely keep in mind, given China's desire to control anything it sets it's sights on while at the same time hypocritically banging on about "Imperialism"
    2
  86. 2
  87. 2
  88. 2
  89. 2
  90. 2
  91. 2
  92. @RoderickTheRed as for thinking the war was really about oil, not the land itself or the people living there, if you truly believe that you've clearly never spoken to an Argentinian about the subject- while they certainly like the idea of getting that oil along WITH the islands, the islands themselves are always the first thing to them with the oil just being a kind of added bonus. Remember in the 70's and 80's there was just THEORETICALLY massive oil-wealth there but with no actual oil-drilling infrastructure, the Falklanders were a bunch of poor tenant-farmers raising sheep and horses not rich Texan-style oil-barons, and while the industry there is more about tourism and holidays and catering to the military garrison these days it still certainly isn't all about gas and oil there. The war was a real throwback in a way, as it truly wasn't about resources or Capitalism versus Communism, but just about territory, principle, pride, patriotism, internal politics and just plain war for war alone's sake. Argentina wanting (and still wanting) land they believed we'd "stolen" from them "back" (with of course the ulterior motives for the Junta of distracting the Argentine people from domestic troubles and uniting them in common cause), and the UK retaliating against it's sovereign territory being invaded and occupied for the first time in decades if not centuries (depends what you consider British sovereign territory doesn't it), with of course Thatcher also having the ulterior motives of her own of rallying the people behind her and likewise distracting them from their domestic issues, along with perhaps the chance of bringing some lost glory back to a fading power; but still, for neither side it was never really about the oil
    2
  93. 2
  94. 2
  95. 2
  96. 1
  97. 1
  98. 1
  99. 1
  100. 1
  101. 1
  102. 1
  103. 1
  104. 1
  105. 1
  106. 1
  107. 1
  108. 1
  109. 1
  110. 1
  111. 1
  112. 1
  113. 1
  114. 1
  115. 1
  116. 1
  117. 1
  118. 1
  119. 1
  120. 1
  121. 1
  122. 1
  123. 1
  124. 1
  125. 1
  126. 1
  127. 1
  128. 1
  129. 1
  130. 1
  131. 1
  132. 1
  133. 1
  134. 1
  135. 1
  136. 1
  137. 1
  138. 1
  139. 1
  140. 1
  141. 1
  142. 1
  143. 1
  144. 1
  145. 1
  146. 1
  147. 1
  148. 1
  149. 1
  150. 1
  151. 1
  152. 1