General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

1IbramGaunt
BBC News
comments

Comments by "1IbramGaunt" (@1IbramGaunt) on "How has the Falklands War changed Argentina, 40 years on? - BBC News" video.

@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
Actually we torpedoed it, there is a difference
9
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@andremartin9571 actually we left a plaque on the previous occasion we were there saying the land still belonged to us
5
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@thecondesce3904 yup, but if someone has an agenda to see something their way good luck convincing them otherwise
3
@sandrider1406 have fun with that
3
@sandrider1406 and yet last time I checked the British flag is still flying over Port Stanley, and the islands are still defended by a stronger British military garrison than many entire countries have in their armed forces
3
@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
@sandrider1406 you can keep saying that all you want, it makes no difference whatsoever, more nations actually back Britain's claim to the islands than they do yours, and even if they didn't? the British population and garrison still aren't going anywhere regardless, not without a second Falklands War anyway, one that'd make the first look like a bad Tuesday at the office
3
@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
@sandrider1406 the UN don't seem too powerful trying to confront Russia right now but whatever you say, they also supported BRITAIN during the actual war back in 1982 and made no visible difference in the conflict whatsoever by doing so
3
@TheSoleGOAT was at one point, might be again if CANZUK happens
3
@evercruz7686 well it certainly will be necessary to fight if you want those islands haha, and well we're ready when you are
3
@andremartin9571 the conflict with Argentina may have started then in the 1830's, sure, that doesn't somehow mean the far earlier claim the English had over the islands is somehow forfeit just because that was the first time Argentina was directly involved and not France or Spain
3
@crichighlights2531 the Irish're already free last time I checked, or at least two thirds of them are, been their own seperate country since the 1920's, and the last Northern third of it is mostly loyalists who WANT to remain part of the UK regardless of what a certain minority terrorist group thinks. Any Irishman who doesn't want to live under British rule has only to step over the border, and he's welcome to do so. As for Scotland they had their chance to leave in that referendum in 2014 (the "once in a lifetime" referendum) and they chose to stay, fair and square, and if there's another referendum as they're calling for and this time they choose to leave we'll respect it and let them, but good luck to them- they're gonna need it as such a tiny independent country with next to no native industrial or economic base to start from. Even more so for Wales. We're far stronger together as one large group of United countries than four or five tiny weak seperate ones
3
@andremartin9571 you ceased to maintain claim over the islands in the 1840's following successive negotiations, if that treaty in the 1820's had been the last time all this was discussed between the two countries then you'd be right and that would indeed be the end of the matter but it definitely was not, again, the Arana-Southern Treaty of 1839-40, look it up; the majority of what that one was about is unrelated to the Falklands issue but part of it clearly was a discussion on the island's sovereignty, and afterwards the Argentines suddenly went very quiet on the issue for over 40 years
3
@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
@cesargabriel5716 it would've been that same right of conquest that you would've been expecting to get away with invading the Falklands with in 1982, after all you weren't expecting the British to respond with force and certainly not to kick you right back out again, and at the time Britain actually HAD the support of the United Nations Security Council, who voted that all Argentine armed forces should be withdrawn immediately. Argentina just completely ignored the UN then and got away with it, why should we listen to them now
2
@sandrider1406 actually we've counted as the British since 1707, and have no Empire anymore sadly, at least not worth the name, although we DO still have British Overseas Territories and Commonwealth Dominions, mostly small remote islands that used to be the outer edges OF our once-great Empire, of which the Falkland Islands are one of the former
2
@SpaceMongoose they would if they were aiming for the Argentine soldiers next to those civilians
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
 @roberteugene7295 damn straight
2
@TheSm1thers you're wasting your time and energy mate, that JoJo guy is practically Galtieri reborn, he has no interest whatsoever in anything that doesn't entirely support his own views and will not budge an inch no matter what evidence is presented
2
@Wasserkaktus nope, they're definitely called a British Overseas TERRITORY in everything I've read so don't know where the hell you pulled that out from, they USED to be called "Crown Colonies" sure but now they're a BOT just like Gibraltar or Ascension
2
@jojodio9851 Alfonso De Carmago "may", "MAY" have gone to "what is believed" to have been the Falkland Islands, but there is as much actual proof of that as there is for his "City Of The Caesars". The French didn't buy Spain's bullsh*t anymore than I'm doing now about those being "Spanish Seas" lol, they let Spain have the settlement because Spain paid France handsomely to do so, Spain BOUGHT that settlement, rather than it being given for free as part of some kind of greater French acceptance of Spanish dominance or something lol
2
@Xgeneration28 meh not really into football so not to me particularly, I know he's still a massively popular figure there though, in part because his success in that sport against England was in their eyes a form of revenge and something to salve the pain of their defeat, just as we see in the video
2
@sandrider1406 you passionately wanting something to be true doesn't actually make it a "fact" you know, do you have any actual sources to back up that claim? It's believed he might have sure but it's not something with hard evidence. They were probably first sighted by English mariner John Davis in 1592, who definitely did actually go there, followed in 1600 by Dutch explorer Seebald De Weedrt, they were first actually landed on by John Strong in 1690 however and THAT'S a "fact" because I can back it up with historical sources; where's yours for Magellan?
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
@sandrider1406 we would prefer to go on stating our case on friendly diplomatic terms however, because no-one wants another war over tiny islands in the middle of nowhere; we ARE more than ready TO fight again if we have to though, and your leaders should bear that in mind
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
@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
@andremartin9571 "Argentina claims that the population of the islands was expelled in 1833; however, both British and Argentine sources from the time, including the log of the ARA Sarandí, suggest that the colonists were encouraged to remain under Vernet's deputy, Matthew Brisbane"
2
@andremartin9571 maybe although since we did have a prior claim we'd never officially given up on, could also be argued we were just reclaiming what was already ours. Even if it WAS an illegal invasion though, kinda cancelled out as an argument surely by the DEFINITELY illegal one you guys did in 1982
2
The defences on the islands being stronger now than they were then isn't exactly a hard thing to achieve, think it was a single company of Royal Marines guarding them in 1982. Now? There's the better part of a thousand troops there, backed up by Royal Navy warships and nuclear submarines, surface-to-air missile systems and four RAF Typhoon jet fighters. And all that's just the existing permanent garrison
1
@TheSoleGOAT the British Empire only truly ceased to be as a major world power in the 1960's, a lot more recently than a lot of other former superpower empires, Spain for example, but Argentina still tries to carry on Spanish imperial claims as though they mean anything, frankly if they can why can't we
1
@cesargabriel5716 fair enough. Tell you what, how about we just agree to disagree
1
@andremartin9571 and yes, at the time they were all just called "colonies" regardless of the territory's actual legal status, so what, the 13 original American States were initially called "colonies" too
1
@sandrider1406 nope, sorry, The FALKLANDS always will be British, they (mostly) always have been British and if you're planning on trying to take them away by force again, good luck with that
1
@andremartin9571 those 150 formerly-armed men were taken prisoner as part of a military operation, they weren't exactly crying women and mewling babies, and they were actually paid to stay there IN The Falkland Islands and keep working, just under British authority rather than being taken away at all, according to what I'm reading
1
@andremartin9571 regardless of the cause behind a decision it's still a decision, and yeah at one point we were friends and allies, you're the ones who chose to screw that up and get a lot of people killed over land that never belonged to you and never will, the sorry situation now is what it is and, no matter how you try to twist it that situation always comes back to being Argentina's fault
1
@andremartin9571 yes, that's exactly what I just told you about and as far as I'm concerned it just means Argentina had dropped the matter by then?!
1
@Xgeneration28 actually it definitely seems like they would do just about anything to get those islands given how much they bang on about it, and how is he a "numnutt" for assuming you're Argentine in this comment thread exactly given Maradonna IS such a hero to them?
1
@thecondesce3904 like talking to a brick wall, sadly
1
@ArrowBast they did and still do have canoes, including pretty big multi-person ones, and could have got there slowly, bit by bit while hugging the mainland coast right up until they saw the islands in the distance from the closest point, it's far from impossible; they are (or certainly were at the time) already island-dwellers and (short-ranging) sea-farers, and used to relatively cold climates, and supposedly a pre-European skull has been found there that's believed to be Yahgan, or so I've been told, and some stone arrowheads and the remains of a canoe too, on East Falkland specifically. They clearly didn't stay there long though, if it was them and they did go there, and it's easy to see why, the Falklands are not exactly the most hospitable of places in terms of weather or terrain at the best of times haha and have little in terms of natural resources (ones that'd be useful to them that is) that couldn't be gotten far easier and more plentifully on the mainland or other islands further North
1
@ArrowBast https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahgan_people
1
@jojodio9851 no, we did not! but I've given up trying to convince you frankly, we've clearly reached a total impass where both of us are too entrenched in our positions and at odds to shift on anything, just like our respective governments sadly
1
@ArrowBast Well if I'm mistaken so be it, I just heard some stuff believed to be theirs had been found there and was just theorising on how they could've travelled that far, but from what you've said now it does seem pretty unlikely, so maybe it was indeed just stuff washed up there by the sea; then again as you say that's exactly how the sadly-gone Falklands Wolf got there, if he could end up there through natural coincidence and make it his home maybe they could, this can be one weird and random planet after all haha
1
@ArrowBast couldn't agree more and well as for that poor wolf I'm just sorry our ancestors wiped it out, to protect their sheep, chickens and other livestock presumably; the Falklanders do now regret it being gone though as it's the only known truly "native" Falkland animal (stuff like Penguins and other birds don't count as they come and go to and from other places, that wolf may have come there from the sea but he lived and died a Falkland Wolf only once he got there). There's talk of trying to use cloning and such to perhaps bring one back someday if the DNA can be found
1
@jojodio9851 nope, they didn't because we already had an existing claim from the 18th century which we'd never officially given up, we left a plaque behind saying as much which both the Spanish and you guys clearly chose to ignore
1
@jojodio9851 no, we did not acknowledge that, not in that treaty or any other bloody treaty, and you constantly repeating us as having done so doesn't actually make it true
1
 GODISABIGPILEOFSHIT do you mean the Belgrano?
1
@francoismendy8829 the French being first to discover the islands is yet another unproven disputed claim that hasn't been "established" at all, just because something's written down in a book doesn't automatically make it true you know
1
@francoismendy8829 As for Argentine ships (especially military ones, for training or otherwise) visiting the islands, not without British permission they're not!
1
 @idk-ye7ur "logically speaking" and "seeing the bigger picture" Argentina shouldn't be populated by people descended from Spaniards or Germans right now should it, but here we are
1
 @olojondro73 good luck with that haha
1
@paherne1 first dibs to TRY and take them, sure haha. If the British were there first the British were there first and we were. You don't see us trying to claim anything actually on the South American mainland do you, our Empire's gone just like those of Spain or Portugal, we've decolonised practically everywhere else we once ruled against the wishes of the locals. British Overseas Territories like the Falklands are only still ours because the people living there WANT them to be and because we have a long-standing historical claim to them
1
 @idk-ye7ur we know they did, the fact Argentina teaches another version of the island's history doesn't somehow automatically make ours untrue
1
@planto80 they can say what they want, you can say what you want and we can say what we want in return, it doesn't automatically make either side right or wrong regardless of how many other people who happen to agree with you that you bring in to back your claim
1
@MrBagpipes it was a British colony AND a French one, then a British and Spanish one
1
 @0816M3RC couldn't agree more
1
@sandrider1406 good luck with that, the UN talk a good talk but couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag
1