Comments by "1IbramGaunt" (@1IbramGaunt) on "BBC News"
channel.
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@sandrider1406 and we have nuclear submarines, guided-missile destroyers, surface-to-air missile launchers and air-superiority jet fighters with Beyond Visual Range capabilities, silent-but-deadly drones, nigh-unkillable Main Battle Tanks, aircraft carriers the size of small TOWNS carrying state-of-the-art Stealth Jets, Trident II nuclear missiles, and some of the best-trained and best-equipped battle-hardened professional soldiers in the world including the world's deadliest special forces operators, so there YOU go. Britain is holding on to the Falkland Islands and is gonna carry on holding on to them, from now until the end of bloody time if necessary, and if the international community doesn't like it they're welcome to say so but they'd better be careful how they say it for THEIR sake
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@abdulmismail no, they CLAIMED and SETTLED the EASTERN island a year before we claimed & settled the WESTERN island, both islands however had been discovered by the English and the English alone in the previous century, and the French had as far as anyone knows never set foot on the Western half of the Falklands at all. If Spain or France want to renew their claim to the Eastern island they can, that's fine, THAT'S actually legal and something they can seek a diplomatic case on; doesn't mean BOTH islands are theirs however, or that South Georgia is, and it CERTAINLY doesn't mean they're all Argentina's, or automatically that we HAVE to hand the islands over to anyone, as even disregarding all of the above, AND the wishes of the islanders living there? they're ours until we say otherwise anyway by sheer British military dominance
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@nicolaslopez2662 we did not ever officially abandon our 1690/1765 claims just because we'd left the islands, and we left a plaque behind saying as much, that the islands were still claimed for King George III and his descendents in perpetuity, regardless of there no longer being British people living there and regardless of temporary Spanish or Argentine occupation; when we came back in 1833, with matters elsewhere finally quiet enough to turn our minds back to the matter, we were simply reasserting a prior claim that, as we saw it we'd never officially given up. "Pirates"? Maybe haha, but if so we were pirates operating under official colours and with legal land-claim rights, so more like "Privateers" lol. In any case even if we don't agree 100% on the history, thanks for at least being understanding in your case, and agreeing the wishes of the islanders themselves in the here and now is what truly matters
2
-
2
-
2
-
@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
-
@cesargabriel5716 nah sorry you just wasted quite a few minutes typing that, 'cos if that's supposed to make me suddenly say something like "hey! The Argie fanatics were right all along!" You'll be waiting a long time lol. The people living there are the people living there, right or wrong, it's their land and as far as we're concerned it always has been and always will be for a half-dozen different reasons, as has already been discussed to death in this comment thread (hell it's theirs just by good old basic RIGHT OF CONQUEST if nothing else, just like Spain's original claim over what's now Argentina). The fact they also want it TO stay their land, and to stay British land at that, is just an added bonus and the final nail hammered home as far as we're concerned rather than the thing in it's entirety, just one more item in the British claim's favour, added in addition to all the other evidence already presented, like having the longest-standing claim or the backing of the most other countries FOR that claim; it's far from the only card in our hand in other words, y'know like your whole "they're much closer to us" thing
2
-
2
-
@jojodio9851 what he was asking was where this "Article IX" (9 in Roman Numerals, dumbass) you keep talking about actually IS as I couldn't find that either. And yeah you clearly believe everything you've said is true, that doesn't mean it's not absolute horsesh*t. You agree that the accounts of early explorers visiting the islands are all disputed, you agree that there is no definite consensus on them having landed on the islands at all let alone multiple times, and you agree maps at the time were inexact and unreliable so therefore cannot be used as evidence (other than as explanation for how they ended up on a Spanish map in the wrong place, i.e. guesswork and second-hand accounts rather than the mapmaker actually ever going there himself). That leaves John Strong then, doesn't it, the first man it is COMPLETELY UNDISPUTED went to those islands, landed on them, thoroughly explored them and most importantly wrote it all down, including the island's exact position, number, shape and size, before going home again. Others, MANY others may or may not have visited them and/or seen them over the centuries prior, including the French, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch and even other Englishmen, and probably the Native Americans at some point or other before all of them; but the only point all sides definitely agree on? is John Strong in 1690
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1