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. And they also lost the actual war, kinda a major factor that outweighs all the others don't you think?
    13
  3.  @andremartin9571  that's debated, the Spanish (unsurprisingly) say they were first to discover them too; John Strong, an English mariner was first to definitely record his own discovery for posterity though, in 1690, decades before the Spanish claim and over 300 years before Argentina even existed
    12
  4.  @jojodio9851  nah, just means I don't actually NEED to look up incredibly obscure information to back up my country's claim to those islands because they're already ours anyway. I'm humouring you however regardless, and every time I HAVE looked this stuff up I've found just as much stuff that contradicts what you're saying as I have stuff that supports it. The maps of ALL countries in the 1500's were unreliable at the best of times, made according to as much guesswork and memory as they were definite cartography; and the people writing & drawing them were also far from unbiased, and if it suited them and their particular country's interests to stretch the truth a little, say to just throw in a pair of islands as official Spanish-discovered territory because Spanish sailors SAID they'd found such land and PROBABLY had, who were they to argue
    11
  5.  @andremartin9571  evidently you've never been to a big British city if you think we're all white European and always have been, even back in the British Empire's glory days London was as cosmopolitan as they come. And ok yeah, sure, so I was generalising and you're not all Spanish-descended, you win a cookie, at least I didn't say anything about the Nazi's still living there did I. My POINT however was that claiming that any territory should remain in the hands of solely it's original inhabitants is not only the height of hypocrisy in your case, but also a bit like suggesting everybody in Britain who isn't somehow still 100% Ancient Briton should leave for Germany immediately haha, and saying something like that about the Falklands? is the most ridiculous thing of all, given even the Native American peoples never lived there before the British
    11
  6. Why, it's just throwing away centuries of tradition and light rule for Chinese money and possibly, ironically, future Chinese imperialism. And if you're Canadian, Australian or elsewhere in the Commonwealth you already ARE independent moron, you just have the Queen as a powerless figurehead on your money
    11
  7.  @Maria-ox4km  which ones would that be? Willing to bet you're only talking about interviews that asked questions you liked
    10
  8.  @jojodio9851  no, it just means the Spanish put on their maps whatever they claimed to have "discovered" when they did "discover" it as though it WAS irrefutable fact and never bothered trying to actually back any of it up
    10
  9.  @jojodio9851  and you can keep quoting the Treaty Of Tordesillas till the cows come home, or any other treaty you like, anything said in that or anywhere else is clearly not gonna make those British people who've lived there for nearly 200 years suddenly change their minds and agree their ancestor's land was yours all along, and until that happens the islands are staying British territory and going nowhere, making this whole conversation academic anyway (oh you're welcome to try taking the islands by force again but I think we all know how that would go this time, so it isn't even really worth discussing)
    9
  10.  @jojodio9851  as for what I assume you were quoting before, the Nootka Conventions, just looked them up myself, you say Article IX, I say Article VI: "The Nootka Convention's applicability to the Falklands dispute is controversial and complicated. The United Provinces of the Río de la Plata was not a party to the convention. Therefore, it is defined in the convention as 'other power' and the occupation of the settlement (at Port Louis) by subjects of any other power negated Article VI and allowed Great Britain to re-assert prior sovereignty and form new settlements"
    9
  11. Actually we torpedoed it, there is a difference
    9
  12. Got bullied out of videos about the actual Russia-Ukraine war so decided to try your luck here, did we Russian troll, well good luck with that. And nope, they're British territory whether you and the rest of the world like it or not
    9
  13.  @jojodio9851  tell me, what do you think would've happened if, for whatever reason, during the 40 years since the Falklands War we'd decided to stop defending the islands so heavily? Hmm? It IS after all a massive drain in money and resources keeping such a large powerful garrison down there 24/7, so I'm sure the British government would LOVE to pull out all the troops, ships, missiles, guns, tanks and planes and leave the islands almost defenceless again, leaving only a token force behind, just like things had been before the 1982 invasion. What do you think Argentina would do if that had happened, GIVEN how obsessed with getting those islands the people there clearly still are?
    8
  14.  @jd0604  there's nearly 3000 people living there now, still a small number yes but stable, growing and not going anywhere, whether you lot like it or not
    8
  15.  @jojodio9851  in 1592 another English sailor, John Davis, went to those islands, at least according to him, and no doubt shortly after he got home and told others about this, a map was created that showed those islands as he'd described them and put them roughly where he said he'd found them, and AT THE TIME this was no doubt accepted as the gospel truth throughout the English-speaking world. However, now in 2022 I do NOT have to accept that nearly 500-year-old hand-drawn map as being definite irrefutable evidence he was first there, nor do I, so why should I accept what your maps from back then say either?
    8
  16.  @andremartin9571  and you are literally Spanish descendants who settled land that didn't originally belong to you either, at least in our case there never was a pre-European population on those islands. When is Argentina planning to hand all it's own territory on the mainland back to the Native Americans haha?
    8
  17.  @andremartin9571  the continental shelf they happen to be attached to is completely irrelevant, almost as much as the opinion of the UN, Britain is attached to the same shelf as Europe, doesn't mean we own France or Germany or Spain does it. And don't start quoting the UN's decisions on things at us now as if it matters, if their opinion on this dispute mattered to Argentina one iota in 1982 the war would've lasted about five minutes
    8
  18.  @javiermendez9880  no, they weren't, the first to land on the islands were probably Yagan Indians in prehistoric times, and they were probably spotted from a distance by ships from various different countries over the centuries, including the Portuguese explorer Magellan which I assume is who you're referring to, but none of those cases are definitely provable as being actually the Falklands and not other islands. The first educated literate man to actually go to what was definitely the Falklands, land on them, take a detailed survey and write it all down for posterity was definitely John Strong in 1690
    8
  19.  @jojodio9851  what we get triggered at "Jojo" isn't that treaty or any other piece of historical evidence you've brought up (every single one of which by the way I've come up with a counter-argument for and which counter-arguments you still keep dodging lol, much to my amusement). THOSE we're actually very calmly and patiently discussing and would actually be perfectly willing to accept as evidence backing your claim- IF that was what they truly, irrefutably represented. What "triggers" the reasonable intelligent British people arguing with you, is your complete inability to accept any viewpoint other than the one you like on any of this, and the fact YOU'RE the one accusing ME of twisting facts to suit MY narrative is truly the icing on the hypocrisy cake. As for wars yeah I'm SUUUURE that, if Argentina gets all the new planes and other weaponry that your military keeps trying to from China or Russia, that your government has no intention of ever trying again, suuuure
    7
  20.  @Breastsinmymouthplease  yep, and if you do call him out on his bullsh*t then he'll either completely ignore what you've said and continue as though you haven't said anything, or he'll change the subject to something completely different without addressing the previous subject any further, really is like talking to a wall at that point
    7
  21.  @jojodio9851  nope, pretty sure if you'd actually bothered to properly read everything I've said in this comment thread instead of just rejecting it immediately, just like I have yours, that you'd see I've been very calm, patient and accepting with you, and every time you've talked about references to treaties or accounts of explorers I've never heard of that to your mind back the Argentine claim, I've humoured you and looked into them myself as well, because unlike you I'm actually perfectly willing to accept that there's two sides to every argument and that BOTH viewpoints may have merit; every time I HAVE looked into the things you've talked about though, there's been nothing about them that can't be disputed in the British view's favour just as much as that of the Argentines, vague and contradictory treaties with multiple clauses to them favouring neither side fully, or accounts from earlier explorers who could well have been mistaking the Falklands for completely different islands. Every time I have tried to explain my own views on these pieces of evidence however, you've either flat out ignored my points or just changed the subject and presented some new kind of evidence without discussing the previous one further
    7
  22.  @jojodio9851  I'm also still waiting for an answer to my previous question about what Argentina would be doing right now if we weren't defending the islands so heavily? because whether you prefer to call your obsession "outrage" or not, it's clearly still an obsession nonetheless, where for us the Falklands War is just an interesting part of history, a distant proud memory
    7
  23.  @jojodio9851  as for your "X country claim islands in our waters" thing, yeah we HAVE disputes like that with our neighbours like France and Spain all the time in real life, the Channel Islands or the Gibraltar dispute for example, however it's not something we've fought a real war with THEM over in centuries, because frankly there are just bigger far more important issues and because it simply isn't worth it
    7
  24.  @jojodio9851  and one that held as much weight as the UN's opinions on anything lol. If it matters to you though, your invasion changed their minds a bit, try looking up UN Draft Resolution 502, or is that just me "projecting" again
    7
  25.  @jojodio9851  and again you bring up the continental shelf that is completely irrelevant. You realise you are literally the only country in the world that has tried to make that argument right? The idea that just because two landmasses are connected below the sea that it makes national territories on the surface the same place too is frankly ridiculous, by that logic everywhere in Europe would all belong to each other, last time I checked we don't own France and France doesn't own us, Jojo
    7
  26.  @jojodio9851  as for not wanting another war, why is your country desperately trying to get new fighter jets from China via Pakistan right now then? There's definitely other things Argentina could be better spending money on right now, so why exactly does your air-force suddenly need as many of the JF17 'Thunder' as it can get, instead of that money going toward better healthcare or benefits or infrastructure? For "defence against Chile" or something? Preventing Uruguayan aggression lol?
    7
  27.  @jojodio9851  it won't let me send my response to that because I was wanting to include a link to a website that YouTube doesn't like, but the gist of what it was saying is that it changes nothing and that Argentina's government and media made misleading claims about what their continental shelf claim being accepted actually meant, and THAT was what the UK government was upset about, rather than the declaration itself which actually means very little in regard to the sovereignty dispute
    7
  28.  @jojodio9851  what?! You're the one who brought up the continental shelf nonsense, I was just trying to respond to it while also continuing with the subject at hand where I could, but whatever
    7
  29.  @jojodio9851  "childish" huh, says the country that's still unable to let go of this subject after 40 years and keeps on insisting on "decolonisation", showing a complete lack of knowledge (or CHOOSING a lack of knowledge) of the... more uncomfortable aspects of their own country's history lol. I'll make you a deal, we'll "decolonise" when you do
    7
  30.  @lturange  how does that disprove the points he was making? Those were different conflicts at different times for different reasons that had no bearing whatsoever on what happened on the Falklands in 1982? aside, I guess from their having the same countries involved, but if you're going down that road should we still hate the present-day Italians because of Julius Caesar invading Ancient Britain in 55bc?
    6
  31.  @andremartin9571  a bunch of Yagan Indians doing expeditions to that area while hunting in canoes or something and happening to randomly camp on them for a night then leave again, is a lot different than being the first educated literate man to officially note down the exact size, shape, number and position of the islands and tell that to the world. John Strong quite literally put those islands on the map, whether you like it or not, and that's the official historical version of events
    6
  32.  @andremartin9571  the first inhabitants of the islands were French and then British then Spanish respectively, the fact you're choosing to ignore earlier populations having been on the islands doesn't somehow mean there actually weren't any
    5
  33.  @andremartin9571  when we returned to the islands later we were simply reclaiming territory already claimed as ours, and that claim had never officially been given up, there was nothing in that treaty you mentioned saying we had, not over those specific islands, it recognised Argentine independence from Spain (and Argentine control of the already-officially-recognised territory of the former "United Provinces") rather than recognising more detailed territorial claims like small seperate islands
    5
  34.  @andremartin9571  if you were in our position you would be doing the exact same thing to defend those islands, their people and the resources on, under & around them, and nothing you've said so far actually means we don't have a legitimate claim and therefore a legitimate right TO defend that claim to the best of our ability
    5
  35.  @andremartin9571  actually we left a plaque on the previous occasion we were there saying the land still belonged to us
    5
  36.  @wisenG771  huh? Don't think that applies to what we were talking about as those are problems the ships in question HAVEN'T had
    5
  37. More specifically, at least two reliably-working carriers, with actual planes on them, not just helicopters, British-owned and British-flown planes at that, and not supposedly state-of-the-art carriers easily stopped in their tracks by a single propshaft coupling failing
    4
  38.  @sandrider1406  and yet the British flag still flies proudly over the FALKLAND ISLANDS... it has flown there uninterrupted for 40 years now, did for nearly 200 before that and will carry on doing into the future. If you want to try changing that by force again though, be my guest of course, but our military's only gotten far far stronger since 1982, don't think Argentina's can say the same
    4
  39.  @andremartin9571  one skull, sure, could be someone who took too close an interest in the chief's daughter or something and was killed and quietly buried there where no-one would find the body haha, who knows, or perhaps a casualty of a skirmish with a rival tribe. Regardless of the skull's origin, it doesn't mean the islands still belong to the Yagan NOW does it, as there were certainly no living Yagan there by the time John Strong arrived. But hey if surviving descendants of that particular Native American people want to try exercising a legal claim they're welcome to do so by engaging diplomatically on the subject, I doubt it though as they clearly never had a continuous settlement there nor showed any protest at all toward the various Europeans turning up and all claiming the land as theirs
    4
  40. That's your opinion and one you're entitled to, but the established fact is that they ARE British territory and, unlike with Russia and Ukraine, that's what the people who actually call the islands home say, not some damn foriegn dictator with delusions of bringing back dead empires
    4
  41. Understandable, but to those who were actually there it's basically like Britain & Argentina's version of Vietnam, and all the politics aside it was still a terrible experience as many of those who fought there came back with scars invisible to the eye, and it's still a very big deal to them and their families; and yeah it's a smaller-scale shorter war than most major-power modern conflicts, and was definitely an easier time overall for the British, but we're still talking thousands of people here a long way from home, fighting in some of the coldest most miserable conditions imaginable with relatively modern weapons, and with civilians under occupation caught in the middle
    4
  42.  @Bhaleri6  yeah suuuure
    4
  43.  @andremartin9571  "Although Fuegians from Patagonia may have visited the Falkland Islands in prehistoric times, the islands were uninhabited when Europeans first explored them. European claims of discovery date back to the 16th century, but no consensus exists on whether early explorers sighted the Falklands or other islands in the South Atlantic. The first undisputed landing on the islands is attributed to English captain John Strong, who, en route to Peru and Chile's littoral in 1690, explored the Falkland Sound and noted the islands' water and game. The Falklands remained uninhabited until the 1764 establishment of Port Louis on East Falkland by French captain Louis Antoine de Bougainville and the 1766 foundation of Port Egmont on Saunders Island by British captain John MacBride. Whether or not the settlements were aware of each other's existence is debated by historians. In 1766, France surrendered its claim on the Falklands to Spain, which renamed the French colony Puerto Soledad the following year.  Problems began when Spain detected and captured Port Egmont in 1770. War was narrowly avoided by its restitution to Britain in 1771. Both the British and Spanish settlements coexisted in the archipelago until 1774, when Britain's new economic and strategic considerations led it to voluntarily withdraw from the islands, leaving a plaque claiming the Falklands for King George III"
    4
  44.  @andremartin9571  nope, it apparently "has been argued as weakening Britain's claim" a bit but that's about it, and in any event you say that treaty, I say the "Arana Southern Treaty" of 1839; evidently if we did agree to anything in the earlier treaty it didn't last, and by the 1840's Argentina was apparently happy with the situation either way, as they went quiet on the issue after that last treaty was signed, and didn't bring it up again for decades
    4
  45.  @cesargabriel5716  the people living there are the people living there, you can't just ignore their decision because of their ancestry or because you don't agree with it, if the Argentines had somehow won that initial battle in the 1830's and maintained their own population, do you honestly think they would ever willingly change their allegiance, no matter how nicely we asked?
    4
  46.  @TheSoleGOAT  was at one point, might be again if CANZUK happens
    3
  47. And this is from a proud Brit that really LIKES the Royal Navy and LIKES those carriers, but the sad joke they are is ongoing and not getting any funnier
    3
  48.  @littleshep5502  well said mate, but your words are wasted here unfortunately. If a war couldn't solve the dispute over those islands once and for all, then us talking on here certainly isn't gonna. Neither side will back down
    3
  49.  Michelle  huh?
    3
  50.  @andremartin9571  and nope, again, from what I'm being told there the British didn't actually take them anywhere, seems like the British just expelled the guy in charge back to Argentina, installed his British assistant as the new boss and the rest of the guys just stayed on where they were under new management
    3