Comments by "1IbramGaunt" (@1IbramGaunt) on "Top 5 Facts on Falkland Island Wars" video.

  1. matt mahoney I think you meant 'OUR' :) agreed though
    4
  2. BoJack Stark if the old-school, REAL British Empire wanted to take them out, to REALLY unleash hell on the fuckers there wouldn't have been a damn thing they could do about it
    2
  3. Bulletproofcammy that and the F35's partly a British design itself anyway and clearly heavily inspired BY the Harrier
    1
  4. Bulletproofcammy once a Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier loaded with 40 of those badass things sails past the islands something tells me the cries of 'Las Malvinas Forever' might get a bit quieter lol
    1
  5. FireStorm it was clearly covered by the warnings they'd been given several times over that any vessel would be sunk REGARDLESS of it's position if it posed a threat to the British forces operating in the area, they were told that LOUD AND CLEAR beforehand. At the time it was sunk that ship and it's escorts, either partially or entirely armed with lethal Excocet missiles, were headed straight for the HMS Invincible and HMS Hermes (the HEART of the taskforce- if one or both were sunk we'd have lost the war then and there, it's that simple). At the same time the Veinticinco De Mayo, Argentina's only then aircraft carrier loaded with Skyhawk Aircraft and with her own escort of missile-armed frigates and destroyers, was coming at them from the opposite direction. Now whether this was truly a colossal pincer movement as Thatcher's military advisors thought it was is unknown, what IS known is that both groups of Argentine naval vessels posed a clear and present danger to the British task-force and were clearly ready to attack if not already attacking; the HMS Conquerer, the sub that launched the attack only had a brief window of time for orders to be decided upon and transmitted to her and before the Belgrano made it to the shallower waters she was headed for and out of the effective attacking range of the Conquerer. The escort vessels were deliberately left alone in the hope they would pick up Belgrano's crew before scuttling off home, regrettably however they only did the latter part. As far as I'm concerned those involved simply did what seemed best at the time and we as a country have little to apologise for
    1
  6. sickparrot3 I'm not sure about the 'lucky' part, that WAS the intended target after all
    1
  7. LouisHB bullshit, the Belgrano hadn't yet engaged AT ALL just like the rest of your navy, but at the time it seemed a hell of a lot like both she and your aircraft carrier were leading two naval groups in a giant pincer movement right at our main naval taskforce, all we did was pick off one arm of the pincer. If one or both of our big carriers, Hermes and Invincible had been lost we'd have effectively lost the war then and there, your leaders knew that as well as ours did
    1
  8. Mattheos Clemence nothing was going to stop him launching this war BECAUSE of that, he saw it as his only way to hold on to power
    1
  9. Mattheos Clemence Hong Kong was completely different, it wasn't a British colony, actual soveriegn British territory like the Falklands, just a British possession (there's a difference) and yet our simply handing it over to one of the cruelest and bloodiest regimes in the world should damn well never have happened. If I were in charge we'd take the place right fucking back just like the Hong Kongers WANT us to, and if you don't believe me and think that's just 'Brit propaganda' or something ask them yourself, they know the rights and freedoms they had before the handover are being secretly stripped away bit by bit while the international community isn't looking
    1
  10. LouisHB it WASN'T fleeing though and they'd been given prior warning
    1
  11. Mattheos Clemence ask them, seriously, ASK THOSE CITIZENS if they were better of as citizens of a thriving, ultra-modern western democracy or as vassals of a corrupt, brutal, unethical regime that considers itself within it's legal rights to imprison, torture, kill and sell the organs of it's own people for practicing the wrong form of worship or even, god forbid, complaining about human rights, before promptly showing a completely different softy-softy panda-cuddling face to the rest of the world so no-one ever asks any questions
    1
  12. Australian123Gamer that and a 'Hong Kong like deal' is probably not a good idea, we've already basically left a city of people at the mercies of one of the cruellest regimes on Earth (not that you'd know that as China's very careful to make sure the rest of the world and in particular places like Australia never find out how bad it is getting for these citizens he thinks are so much better off now)
    1
  13. Mattheos Clemence yeah that's definitely what they WANT you to think I'll give you that
    1
  14. Mattheos Clemence you clearly descend from the Spanish so why don't YOU go back to SPAIN. Yeah. That's why not
    1
  15. Niidea1986 well you shouldn't support it as they made their claim up
    1
  16. Luli Cortes the UN did NOT also say so and we claimed legal rights to them in 1833, and whether you agree on that or not you took them by force in 1982 because they were barely defended then, 60 marines against about 2000 men, and thought we wouldn't try taking them back again. You thought wrong, and ever since you were sent back home with your tails between your legs all you've been able to do is whine and complain about it. For THIRTY-FOUR YEARS.
    1
  17. Lanester 101 that treaty was negated when you placed them in the hands of a foreign mercenary-turned-governor who had REQUESTED BRITISH ASSISTANCE there in exchange for partial control over the islands. He reneged on that deal, gave the islands to Argentina in their entirety and the British merely re-asserted their rights to islands THEY HAD ORIGINALLY DISCOVERED and which had at the time in 1690 been INHABITED ONLY BY PENGUINS
    1
  18. BoJack Stark dude no-one talks about those times outside of Argentina, despite the fact you were still a Spanish colony then and we already had been at war with them at the time so it just doesn't count
    1
  19. DetroitStorm no idea about him as he didn't reply but I think the majority of his countrymen made their opinions on it perfectly clear
    1
  20. LouisHB no, it wasn't retreating, it was maneuvering, don't believe Argentinian propaganda. British sailors are not murderers, they are brave men doing their duty for their country who were removing a threat by sinking a ship, not trying to kill the men aboard
    1
  21. Mattheos Clemence not if he'd won that war he wouldn't have been, immediately after the initial Argentine invasion of the islands the previously rioting crowds became ecstatic about a government who they'd have gladly strung up and hung just weeks before, and that change of national mindset would've certainly held up if the British hadn't fought back and won
    1
  22. Mattheos Clemence he wouldn't have if Argentina had invaded the Falklands or 'Malvinas' and held onto them, that's something he knew would be a uniting factor for the Argentine people and would instantly make them forget everything but their victory over the British and 'reclamation' of the Falklands
    1
  23. panchociarer because they're British and staying that way and WE call them the Falklands, and Argentinians calling US butthurt is beyond ironic
    1
  24. Rubashow what they said and if they'd waited another THIRTY years we'd have had carriers again anyway and bigger and better ones at that, so a pretty narrow window of opportunity
    1