@111jasy111 maybe they are english descendants, but they have been there 9 generations, longer than argentina has existed as a country! Anyway, argentinians descended from spain, so whats the difference? If falklanders should "go back to britain" then shouldnt argentinians "go back to spain?"
@111jasy111 maybe they are english descendants, but they have been there 9 generations, longer than argentina has existed as a country! Anyway, argentinians descended from spain, so whats the difference? If falklanders should "go back to britain" then shouldnt argentinians "go back to spain?"
@111jasy111 maybe they are english descendants, but they have been there 9 generations, longer than argentina has existed as a country! Anyway, argentinians descended from spain, so whats the difference? If falklanders should "go back to britain" then shouldnt argentinians "go back to spain
I see on todays news that Argentina's substitute president is taking the opportunity leading upto the 30th anniversary of the war, to bitch about the Falklands to try to make a name for himself.
I guess sovereignty was settled by the complete and utter humiliation of the Argentine military by a small island who was able to sail a outnumbered task force 1000s of miles to do it,to carry it on and keep being reminded of your soldiers bravely facing those Brits by holding there arms in the air while messing there pants would have been enough once but no here the Argentinian's are again,its as if national humiliation is part of Argentine culture.
@BdeBakanj And your a pretty retarded troll,when you try to put a insult on my channel at the same time you dont have to explain it's me your insulting you stupid fuck.
Yeah yeah make a comment saying it like it happened and some retarded troll appears with the accusations n name calling,how fucking original.A Google of your name shows what your about retard now carrying on showing everyone what loser's act like, your army already has,
@bom8er1 Do you think my army is the North American military in Vietnam? moaning yankee do you want another ass kicking? go try invading Iran now, or North Korea hahahahaha
que esto no vuelva a ocurrir, por la inoperancia de los superiores poco preparados, si no fuera por el valor de esos jóvenes la guerra hubiera sido poco gloriosa. mis mas sinceros respetos a ellos y al pueblo argentino, claro menos a los que enviaron a esos muchachos mal equipados solo con su coraje
Britain secretely sent McBride to secretely sneak an illegal port - not even on the Western or Eastern Island - and without the consent of neither France nor Spain.
By the way in 1765 the British only stuck a flag up and left quickly.
That was not a full colony.
Louis XV sold the real French full colony to Spain, formally proving that France was exerting rightful sovereignty.
Britain never informed to anyone that a merchant called John Strong had wrongly claimed sovereignty on the islands.
@111jasy111 A ship from Camargo’s 1540 expedition wintered near islands that MAY have been the Falklands, but not confirmed, and no record of landing, naming or claiming.
British McBride informed the French de Nerville that he was on British territory as soon as French settlement discovered.
McBride expanded the British colony and left a year later.
The French were later forced to handover their settlement on the British Falklands to Spanish in 1767 but British sovereignty not affected.
No, the French settlement was discovered on the British Falklands after a few months and told to leave.
The Spanish attacked the British settlement at Fort Egmont on the British Falklands in 1770, but this was restored in 1771 with compensation from Spain after the threat of war.
The British left the British Falklands temporarily in 1776 to deal with the problems in the US colonies, but left a lead sovereignty plaque clearly retaining British sovereignty.
@111jasy111 Did Argentina actualy exisit in 1690 when Cpt Strong landed on the Islands to claim it?? NO! - - therefore no real soveriegnty argument from the argentines.
Anyway - history aside, what only really matters is what the Islanders, who have been there 200 years, want. And guess what Diego, they want to remain British! Nothing argentina can do about that.....
@cheltcanary What Cpt Strong did was irrelevant. There are long dated Spanish sovereignty claims before him. The recovery of Malvinas by Argentina is as inevitable as the end of the anachronistic colonial forms which base of English rule there. It is becoming clearer to the world stage these old structures represent a world that no longer exists, and the three thousand settlers living in the islands will have to find another way to interact with the world.
@111jasy111 "spanish sovereignty???" - are argentina spanish again now?!!!
why the fuck cant agentina just move on and accept what has been a constant for 200 years..... theres no way the self determining Falklnad Islanders, who have existed there the same time as argentina existed as a country, will want to change. Britain will protect their civil and human rights. Argentina better not mess with Britain, or it will have its arse kicked again!
@cheltcanary We inherited the islands from Spain. There was no proof of British sovereignty when we established there. You had left half a century ago!
@111jasy111 - The British were in the Falklands in 1690. Its documented! The spanish eventually settled and co-exisited with French and British settlements. Eventually ALL left, only for Britain to return.... anyway, you have your version of history so I dont expoect you to agree - but you cant deny that Argentina didnt even exist when British people were living in the islands! Anyway its all hypothetical. Fact is, we are there now and nothing argentina can do can take them away.
Capt John Strong landed in the uninhabited islands in 1690, long before spain had raped south america, persecuted the indigenous south american inuits and planted its own people, and long before argentina even existed as a country!! Funny thing is, Argeninians conveniently forget their own countries history and birth, when arguing for the falklands. Fact is, argentina shall never have the islands unless its what the islanders want.
"SPAIN HAD NO COLONY ON THE FALKLANDS AT THE TIME OF INDEPENDENCE" --> Irrelevant. Following that logic Britain could have landed on Tierra del Fuego and claim it British land.
The plaque was null and void especially after Britain complied with the Nootka Sound Treaty. Argentina inherited the Spanish islands after the independence and exerted righful sovereignty from 1820 to 1833. The principle of inheritance is called "Uti Possidetis Iuris", well known in international law.
The declaration stated: "the restitution of the fort known as Egmont CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT IN ANY WAY AFFECT THE QUESTION OF THE PREVIOUS SOVEREIGNTY RIGHT ON MALVINAS".
It was signed on January 1771.
Since then Britain lost any sovereignty claim.
3 years later the evacuation of Port Egmont was completed.
A tiny plaque located on a DISTANT ISLET of many in the Malvinas archipielago does not justify the INVASION of 1833 AT ALL.
Only crafty ruffians would think it had ANY legal validity.
Does not mention ANY island in particular but does REFER TO SAILING AND FISHING IN THE "SOUTH SEAS" ON ARTICLE III.
LAS ISLAS MALVINAS: Surrounded by SPANISH waters in the SOUTH SEAS of the SOUTH ATLANTIC and part of SOUTH AMERICA AND LATER ARGENTINA'S CONTINENTAL SHELF.
You could fish there and stay for some days, then LEAVE.
Also, 20 years before Britain had LEGALLY RECOGNIZED Spanish sovereignty after evacuating Port Egmont in 1770s
Nootka is a reciprocal treaty. Both Spain and UK (the “respective subjects“), were subject to fisheries and landing restrictions. And the first paragraph clearly states that existing claims to sovereignty were not affected. (“setting aside all retrospective discussions of the rights and pretensions of the 2 parties“)
The British left a plaque in 1776 clearly retaining British sovereignty
The British Falklands are 300 miles from Argentina and are in British Falklands waters.
@EddieExile Spain first noticed the illegal settlement of Port Egmont on 1769. Following orders from the Spanish Crown, Buenos Aires sent its forces to the area. The British quickly showed the white flag after a few cannon shots. Both countries later signed a declaration stating that Port Egmont would be restored but with a secret promise between the monachies that Britain would evacuate. It was a matter of honour. Fortunately, it was clearly stated that Britain would not claim sovereignty.
The Spanish launched a cowardly sneak attack on the British settlement in Port Egmont on the British Falklands on 10 June 1770 and forced the British to withdraw.
When the British threatened war, the Spanish signed an agreement in London on 22 January 1771 in which the British Port Egmont settlement was restored and the Spanish paid compensation to the UK.
And the agreement stated that existing claims to sovereignty were not affected.
@EddieExile Spain controlled the islands after the brief illegal settlement left for good in 1774. Their illegal port was destroyed in 1777 and the plaque located in front of it ripped out and sent to Buenos Aires. In 1793 the Spanish found an American ship fishing in Malvinas and sent a note to its captain saying that by means of the Nootka Sound Treaty only Britain was allowed to fish at a distance of 10 leagues from Spanish settlements. Nootka applied to Malvinas with the consent of Britain.
@EddieExile The declaration of 1771 officially stated that the previous sovereignty right of Spain would not be affected by the temporary restitution of Port Egmont. The British counter-declaration stated that George III was satisfied with the agreement. The British started leaving gradually and their illegal port was later destroyed. The plaque left was null and void, the Spanish forces ripped it out and sent it to Buenos Aires. By the time of Nootka treaty, the islands were Spanish territory.
@111jasy111 A "secret" and undocumented deal handing the Islands to Spain - well how convenient and what a total fantasy :0)
Anyway - Spain ain't Argentina so you wouldn't have a claim anyway!! LOL Give up mate - you've not won an argurment yet and you're starting to get desperate!
Spain and France consider them British and Falklands and signed the EU Treaty of Lisbon :
"The Member States agree to associate with the Union the non-European countries and territories [including the Falkland Islands, as listed in Annex II]
… [this] association shall serve primarily to further the interests and prosperity of the inhabitants of these countries and territories in order to lead them to the economic, social and cultural development to which they aspire".
@EddieExile Argentina inherited the lands of the Spanish Viceroyalty and that included the islands. It's well-known principle of international law called Ute Possidetis Juris. Britain only had a brief illegal port that was quickly dismantled by Spain. They were Spanish islands and we inherit them, exerting sovereignty for two decades. Only a lunatic would have thought possible to go back to a place that was left behind for 60 years and claim rights that he never had in the first place.
A ship from Camargo’s 1540 expedition wintered near islands that MAY have been the Falklands, but not confirmed, and no record of landing, naming or claiming.
French colonists landed in secret on the British Falklands a few months before the full British colony, and they were told to leave when discovered.
Tthe French were forced to handover their colony to Spain but this did not affect British sovereignty
Argentina can impotently chase rainbows forever - no one cares.
@EddieExile The ship from Camargo provided accurate latitudes that confirm the fact that they stayed on the islands. They named the bay where they stayed Fox Bay, definetly because of the Warrah, called British Falkland Fox by the British invadors, who exterminated it a few decades after invading our islands in 1833.
Also the Spanish stayed for 10 months without having any contact with natives, another proof that they landed on the islands.
The UN, OAS and G77 care about Argentina's claim...
@111jasy111 Claro, si ganás la discusión la bandera en las íslas cambiará y la Argentina se ve re viva y banana ¿no? que tontín... las Malvinas fueron invadidas en 1833: cuando eso era común en el mundo entero con las potencias europeas repartiendosé los continentes y plantando poblaciones criollas luego independientes como Argentina ¿porqué la obsesión? lo de Malvinas "siempre argentinas" es solo folklore, la soberanía ya no puede cambiar ¿porqué gente como vos no lo puede entender?
mientras tanto hoy se supo que el gobierno britanico intentará dar un nuevo golpe y pasar a controlar un millon de kilometros cuadrados de aguas circundantes a las georgias.
sabias que 100 años atras las pretensiones britanicas de aguas malvinenses llegaban hasta la provincia chilena de cohiaique en el oceano pacifico?
una ridiculez absoluta y sin embargo los britanicos desistieron despues de años de debate y discusion con los gobiernos de chile y argentina.
¿y cuándo van a aprender que "años de debate" no cambia nada? ¿y la defension territorial? lo inglese emplean más inteligencia para terminarse anexandoló, es culpa de nuestros gobiernos que venden todo el sur con las "compras privatizadas de la familia Benetton, etc" y después porque uno solo dice "veamos lo positivo de esto entonces si el 'nacionalismo' que nos fomentan es mas falso que la peluca de De La Sota" te dicen que sos un vendepatria, ¿Garré que está haciendo?
@krackersdave George III was satisfied with the declaration of Prince Masserano, the Spanish ambassador in London. Spain had no doubts about sovereignty, but the Spanish Crown compromised and let the illegal British settlement be temporaly restored, since it was a matter of honour for the British crown that didn't want to show any weakness. The British crown compromised as well and their settlers evacuated gradually Port Egmont after a couple years. Egmont was destroyed in 1777. Spanish islands.
George III was satisfied with the Masserano treaty signed by Spain in London on 22 January 1771 because the British Port Egmont settlement was restored and the Spanish paid compensation to the UK.
And the agreement stated that existing claims to sovereignty were not affected.
@EddieExile "the agreement stated that existing claims to sovereignty were not affected" and George III was satisfied which that declaration clearly indicating that Spain HAD sovereignty rights on the Western Island. Also Britain was aware that Spain CONTROLLED the Eastern Island too. The first settlement there was Port St Louis, established on 1764 by France. France sold it to Spain in 1767 who renamed it Puerto Soledad and remained the sole settlement and administrative centre of the islands.
The British Falklands were uninhabited when landed on named and claimed by British John Strong in 1690. And the first British colony was created in 1765, before Spain, and long before Argentina existed.
When Spain forced the handover of a French settlement on the British Falklands in 1767, this did not affect British sovereignty.
@EddieExile The real reason the British left Port Egmont was because Britain had secretely promised Spain that the settlement would be evacuated after the agreement between both countries in 1771. Britain cowardly delayed the evacuation and Prince Masserano, the ambassador that had signed the agreement with the British minister on behalf of hm, departed from London being indignant at their dishonourable behaviour.
Britain did not report to Spain the flagrancy of leaving flags and a plaque.
As already explained, the Spanish sneakily attacked the British Falklands in 1770 and forced the British to withdraw, but restored the British settlement and paid compensation when the British threatened war - with existing claims to sovereignty not affected.
This has nothing to do with the voluntary and temporary British withdrawal in 1774-1776 to address the US colonies crisis - when the British publicly confirmed retention of sovereignty
On May 20, 1774, The British left Port Egmont due to the need to send the garrison to the 13 American colonies but retained sovereignty under the customs of the time by leaving all flags flying and a lead plaque reading:
"Be it known all nations that Falkland Islands, with this fort, the storehouses, wharfs...are the sole right and property of His Most Sacred Majesty George III, King of Great Britain."
@EddieExile The expedition of Spanish Navy Obispo de Plascencia did on 1540, one hundred and fifty years before merchant John Strong. The Spanish stayed for 10 months on a bay they named Puerto de las Zorras (Fox Port) probably because of the Warrah (Aguara in Guarani) known by the British as Falkland Islands Fox and exterminated by the British a few decades after usurping the islands from Argentina in 1833.
@EddieExile The first colony ever was French, settled on February 2, 1764. Their settlers built a fort, some houses and remained there. The "colony" created by the British in 1765 on the Western island consisted solely on sticking a flag and leaving. Britain was not aware that the French had already settled one year before. Louis XV of France formally recognized Spanish sovereignty rights on both islands in 1767 and the original settlers received a generous compensation from Spain in return.
The British Falklands were uninhabited when landed on named and claimed by British John Strong in 1690 and Louis XV was in no position to recognise any other sovereign rights after he was forced to handed over the French settlement to the Spanish in 1767.
And the British had established substantial buildings and a garrison in Fort Egmont before this.
The Spanish Navy expedition of Obispo de Plascencia did on 1540 (one hundred and fifty years before merchant John Strong landed and named the islands "Hawkins") and also stayed for 10 months.
Louis XV was an ally of Spain and rightfully ceded sovereignty given that:
1) Spain had landed on the islands long time before France (and Britain).
2) France had created the first ever settlement in 1764.
3) Britain never reported her sovereignty claim to France or Spain before 1764.
One of the ships from Camargo’s 1540 expedition wintered near islands that may have been the Falklands - not relevant..
The British captain John McBride informed the French commander de Nerville that he was on British territory as soon as the French settlement was discovered.
@EddieExile And as soon as the British settlement was discovered, Spanish Navy Captain Juan Ignacio Madariaga informed whoever was in charge of Port Egmont, that it was Spanish territory.
@EddieExile Ridiculous answer. Spain first noticed Port Egmont in 1769 and on March 1770, following orders from the Spanish Crown, the governor of Buenos Aires gave Captain Madariaga clear orders to expel the British. Too late my @ss.
The French and therefore the Spanish knew about the British Port Egmont settlement and claim when Spain forced France to handover the French settlement in 1767.
As already explained, the Spanish sneakily attacked the British settlement 3 years later in 1770 and forced the British to withdraw, but they restored the British settlement and paid compensation when the British threatened war - with existing claims to sovereignty not affected.
@EddieExile Bougainville's de Nerville response was that he had set sail to Malouines-Malvinas from Saint-Malo in 1763 and had landed on January 1764. Also that the French had built a fort and houses on the newly harbour called Port St Louis in March 1764. Mc Bride's response was that he was just examining the islands and only asked to take a look at Port St Louis as well. After such examination Mc Bride went back to Britain.
No - McBride informed de Nerville that he was on British territory and was to leave, but McBride had been instructed not to start hostilities with the French.
McBride was recalled to the UK a year later but the British settlement remained.
Britain had abandoned the islands for good in 1774. Since then the Spanish Viceroyalty of the River Plate had jurisdictional control after evacuating the islands in 1811 leaving a plaque on the wall of the chapel in Port Soledad proclaiming Spanish sovereignty rights.
Argentina inherited the islands after the independence and rightfully exerted sovereignty from 1820 to 1833.
The principle of inheritance is called "Uti Possidetis Iuris", well known in international law.
The UK never abandoned the British Falklands "for good in 1774" - she returned in 1833 and kicked out the argentine squatters who had landed illegally a few weeks before.
@EddieExile More than HALF A CENTURY after the UK had LOST HER DUBIOUS SOVEREIGNTY CLAIM, and knowing that the United Provinces were under political turmoil, the British decided to return to exert a right that never had in the first place. Ruffians.
@111jasy111 LOL - if they abandoned the islands for good why did they leave a plaque behind stating their claim to the island? You are simply getting desperate!
And by what right did Argentina inherit the islands?? in your dreams? Quote the document that states it or stop repeating lies! No doubt you'll claim that Spains holdings passed to Argentina--- well bad news SPAIN HAD NO COLONY ON THE FALKLANDS AT THE TIME OF INDEPENDENCE! It had no more of a claim than Britain.
It is agreed with respect to the eastern and western coasts of S America and the islands adjacent, that the respective subjects shall not form in the future any establishment on the parts of the coast on the south of the parts of the same coast and of the islands adjacent ALREADY OCCUPIED BY SPAIN. Said respective subjects shall retain the liberty of landing on the coasts and islands for objects connected with their fishery and other temporary structures serving only those objects.
The 1790 Nootka treaty was purely bilateral between UK and Spain (NOT Argentina) agreeing that there would be no further new settlements by UK OR Spain on coasts of South America or adjacent islands, and it DID NOT AFFECT EXISTING CLAIMS TO SOVEREIGNTY
The Treaty also contained secret article 6 rendering the Treaty NULL AND VOID if a 3rd party tried to land (eg Argentina)
god isn,t there a lot of shit written on here. The only thing that matters is that Argentina will never have the Falklands, they can keep on whinging to their hearts content. The Argies can invade again and again, but they will be kicked out again and again. You see the simple truth is the Islanders dont want to be Argies.
By the Nootka Sound Treaty Spain permited Britain to fish near coasts and waters adjacent to Spanish territories in South America, and perhaps stay for some days . Britain signed that treaty almost 20 years after the illegal British settlement of Port Egmont was evacuated for good. Now please I want you to mention that tiny piece of metal with some foolish inscription that was located on a far distant islet of many in the Malvinas archipielago. That is the funniest part of the British strategy.
@111jasy111 Yeah "the best part of the British strategy": 111jasy111 loving the british rock and roll and the british culture like all his compatriots LOL.
@BdeBakanj I like British rock and roll as much I like British literature. I don't like the British goverment's refusal to comply with long dated UN resolutions on this situation. I don't like my goverment either.
Take a look at our uruguayan neighbours. Last week Uruguay denied access to Royal Navy PIRATE warship AGAIN!!! HAHAHAA
“I had to deny access to any UK war ship access to Uruguayan territory. Why? Because we have the question of the Malvinas Islands”, said President Mujica.
Brazil has done the same some months ago.
The entire OAS, incluiding the USA, together with G77 and China are all telling the UK stop the lies and enter talks.
@krackersdave Seguramente a ustedes no les importa, al igual que las Malvinas. Te pregunto en mi idioma: qué tienes en la boca? una cloaca? o acaso esa es la educación que te dan en el "primer mundo"?
@JAVITHEMIRROR Y los rollingas no son una parte grande de la juventud argentina? you love the british rebel youth and imitate it LOL what a paradox isnt?
@cheltcanary A UN resolution that was created to free people from its oppressors and now the oppressors are using that UN resolution on their behalf. Since when the islanders were a colony like say Tanganika? The islanders know not what is to suffer the colonial yoke, yet the masters in London hide them behind UN resolutions on decolonization... Touche! Too much hypocrisy. So they want remain British? That is fine to me, if they go back to Britain... It's logical after all.
@111jasy111 but they're already in British Islands! Capt John Stronh landed in the uninhabited islands in 1690, long before spain had raped south america, persecuted the indigenous south american inuits and planted its own people, and long before argentina even existed as a country!! Funny thing is, Argeninians conveniently forget their own countries history and birth, when arguing for the falklands. Fact is, argentina shall never have the islands unless its what the islanders want.
@111jasy111 Why do you continue to repeat your lies.. The Falklands are NOT referred to in the Nootka Sounds treaty. Spain did indeed attack and expel port egmont - however you FAIL to mention that a peace treaty the same year allowed them to return in January 1771 after Spain failed to win support from France for a war on Britain - this treay allowing the British is stay is a clear recognition of Britains claim to the islands by Spain..
@krackersdave Spanish ambassador in London, Principe de Masserano, signed the treaty regarding a brief restitution of Port Egmont on Sep 16th 1771 although it was clearly stated: "This compromise CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT in any way affect the question of our previous right on sovereignty of Islas Malvinas".
It was a pact between Spain and the UK that they would not go to war because of Malvinas, but the UK would leave since it was Spanish territory, hence the UK completed evacuation in 1774.
@krackersdave Nootka Sound Treaty. Article 6 & 7 clearly state that Britain would not create any establishment in the seas of South America, in the coasts of its west and east and IN THE ISLANDS THAT WERE ALREADY UNDER SPANISH ADMINISTRATION. Britain had abandoned the islands almost 20 years before, hence it is a clear recognition of Spanish sovereignty in Malvinas. Britain only could disembark TEMPORARILY on Spanish territories and islands in South America, and that included Malvinas.
@krackersdave LOL - if Britain as part of the Nootka Sound treaty withdrew from the islands recognising as you claim Spains rights THEN WHY DID THEY LEAVE BEHIND A PLAQUE RESTATING THE UK'S OWNERSHIP OF THE ISLANDS AND PROMISING THEY WOULD RETURN??
WHY DID VERNET REQUEST BRITISH PERMISSION TO FOUND HIS COLONY IN 1827??
WHY?? BECAUSE THE BRITISH CLAIM WAS IN EFFECT - NOTICE HE DID NOT ASK THE SPANISH??
WHY - BECAUSE IN 1771 SPAIN ALLOWED THE BRITISH TO RETURN AND TAKE THE ISLANDS!
@krackersdave That tiny plaque located on a far distant islet of many in the archipielago lost any legal value after the Nootka Sound treaty was signed. The treaty was convenient to the UK as usual since it assured fishing rights near any territory (islands) or coasts in Spanish South America. But by doing so Britain legally recognized Spanish sovereignty there. Spain had restored its sovereignty 16 years before. Britain abandoned the islands in 1774. Also, Spain also left a plaque in 1811...
@111jasy111 As explained - Nootka sound only affected lands that were under SPANISH ADMINISTRATION - the FALKLANDS were not under direct Spanish administration from 1811 onwards. And the bit you missed out about Nookta sound is this.., "and that areas south of the southernmost settlements were off limits to both countries, provided (in a secret article) that no third party settled there either. "
Argentina was that third party .. Argentina invalidated the treaty...
@111jasy111 This makes me laugh as Argentina didnt exist as its own Presedentially formed country till 1826 !!!!
How can a "country" claim something 300 hundred years before it existed??!!
Anyway, you can ague all you want - - TWO facts and TWO facts ONLY decide the issue of The Falklands: 1, The UN agreement 2, The will of the Islanders.
@cheltcanary Following that logic South America should be Spanish and the US should be British. We've asserted sovereignty on those islands, like on most territories that belonged to the Viceroyalty of River Plate, since 1820. Britain had abandoned the islands for good in 1774. Spain did the same in 1811. Both countries left plaques that already meant nothing when we formally declared independence from Spain in 1816 and became the United Provinces of the South.
@111jasy111 so how come argentina waited till 1982 and 9 generations of families born and bred on the islands before doing ANYTHING about it? Nothin to do with trying to win favour with the impovrished argentine people was it??!! what about the 30,000 "disappeared" issue which was surfacing domestically at the same time, After the illeal invasion the people in Beunos Aries soon forgot about them, didnt they?! This "claim" is nothing more than some misguided distraction from domestic issues.
dry them, fact: YOU LOST get over it!! the islands belong to us, no one gives a shit apart from you argies, you want them back so bad give it anoter shot. after 29 years your still cant face it you lost, they belong to us
In 1820 the government of Buenos Aires sent a frigate to take possession and assert their rights in Malvinas as a succession of Spain. Since 1823 Luis Maria Vernet gave the exploitation of island resources. On June 10, 1829 created the Political and Military Command of the Malvinas Islands based in the Islands and adjacent jurisdiction to Cape Horn. On August 30, 1829 he founded Port Louis.
Do not argue with Argentine people guys, it’s pointless. The “Malvinas” is embedded into their mind from school. They have patriotic lessons at school that teach how the islands were “stolen” by the evil British empire in 1833. We cannot blame them because this is what they are taught from a early age. They are a sick nation, one day they will mature and grow up but not whilst the Falklands are used as a political tool.
@EddieExile Yeah, it did, it gave the location of Argentinean Ships.
Argentina was under a dictatorship [Too mark that war was not what the Argentinean people wanted], and historically they should be Argentinean, but the habitants want them to be from UK.
Vernet landed his colony on the British Falklands in 1826/1828 with British permission.
And when the British expelled the illegal United Provinces military from the British Falklands in 1833,(26 men who had landed illegally a few weeks earlier) the Vernet colonists remained
Russian journalist Sergei Brilev confirmed Soviet satellite help for Argentina with former KGB and Red Army generals who confirmed that Moscow was tracking the Royal Navy around the Falklands.
@EddieExile In 1764 the French Count Louis Antoine de Bougainville took possession of the islands for the King of France. Before the Spanish protest, in 1766 France agreed to evacuate and recognized Spanish sovereignty over the archipelago, provided compensation to Bougainville. The 115 French settlers came under the government of Felipe Ruiz Puente, who proceeded to build a chapel and other buildings, establishing the Governor of the Islands. In 1811 the islands were evacuated by the Spanish.
@EddieExile Britain had no title to the Malvinas' islands and were in no position to recognise any kind of sovereignity, hence their illegal settlement was rightfully expelled by Spain in 1770. 1,400 Spanish soldiers in five ships were dispatched from the mainland . The Englishmen made no resistance; and after a few shots, exchanged for the honor of the flag, they capitulated and abandoned the islands. However, more than a half a century later, Britain returned to invade Malvinas. Cowards.
The British Falklands were uninhabited when landed on named and claimed by British John Strong in 1690. And the first British colony was created in 1765, before Spain, and before Argentina existed.
The Spanish attacked and tried to destroy the British settlement at Fort Egmont in 1770 but this was restored in 1771 with compensation from the Spain who wished to avoid war.
A humiliated argentine surrender monkey calling his British conquerers cowards is comical in a way.
@EddieExile Every illegal British settlement was rightfully expelled by Spain. The UK pirates abandoned the islands for half a century. No British flag was waving when Argentina sent its first governor to the islands inherited from Spain. Only a braindead monkey would have thought it was possible to take back a territiory that was left behind for half a century! But well here you are... trying to claim those islands are still british. Ridiculous.
It is a shame that British soldiers and misled Argentinians died to deal with an Argentinian domestic political maneuver. Next time you want to start a war for internal political reasons try it on with someone else.
pelicula de mierda... por que no muestran el valor de los combatientes y nuestra consagrada fuerza aerea... por q no muestran al soldado poltronieri combatiendo solo contra un batallon de paracaidistas ingleses... y haciendolo retroceder... no muestran nada de eso solo esa basura q mostraron ... IDIOTAS MUESTREN LA GLORIA DE LA PATRIA Y NO SUS FLAQUESAS
@cheltcanary based on his obscenities on other videos, it's likely albertchile is a troll poster called flyingxk - who claimed to be Greek - no wonder he switched ....
@EddieExile - exactly! how the imbecile has the audacity to even compare and THEN slag off British domestic issues is way beyond comprehension. Even for a troll!
Hey Argies, forget the falklands, you'll never take them!!! The onyl way would be by force and we ALL know that wont happen again so you'll have to rely on the Islanders will as we wont give them away. And why would the Islanders WANT to be ruled by a tinpot third world country like agentina?!!!!
@cheltcanary Why do Brits still natural resources, from the Third World? Why do WELSH IRISH and SCOTS hate the English? Because you pay taxes for the richest bitch of the world, your whore kween Elisabeth II....and you steal here and there. Falklands/Malvinas must return to the original owners, Argentina as they were under the Argentinian flag in 1832.
@alberttochile ahh, but they were under the BRITISH flag in 1690...... argentina didnt even EXIST then!!! (not until Spain raped south america many years later!!)
@cheltcanary Dutch and French had rights just for seeing or for arriving. With no dialogues the situation of 1833 is just the same as in 1982, exactly the same fact! Río de la Plata started to exist just as USA declared independence in 1776. OK. Argentinian settlers went to occupy the islands until the arrival of Brits in 1833.
Argentina always claimed its rights on the islands, they are on the shelf in front of ARGENTINA not in front of Britain, pay a look at a map!
The uninhabited Falklands were first landed on named and claimed by the British in 1690 and the first British colony was created in 1765, long before Spain, and long before Argentina existed.
When the British expelled the illegal United Provinces military from the British Falklands in 1833, the existing Vernet colonists remained and were a mixture of nationalities including French, British, German, United Provinces, and American Indians.
@EddieExile Illegal? Buenos Aires andthus the United Provinces exist since 1580, founded Buenos Aires when the Spaniarssettled in that part of South America. If they had been true colonies, the islands would have been inhabited in 1829 as the Comandancia started to exist. So the first ones to provoke a war were the Brits. But England is always in every war and conflict and has no mercy when the richness is found, especially against Natives, Gandhi's India, China opium, South Sea, and son on!
The United Provinces miltary (Pinedo and 26 men) had landed illegally on the British Falklands a few weeks before they were removed in 1833.
The British Falklands were inhabited by a small number of Vernet colonists of mixed nationality, and they were allowed to remain because Vernet had British permission for his enterprise.
@EddieExile If some US sailors had problems it was because the Malvinas were "inhabited" and in 1806 and 1807 Beresford tried to occupied the United Provinces, defeated bravely by the Argentinians, so no wonder UK tried on in a southernmost place the Islas Malvinas. So MALVINAS were are and willbe A L W A Y S ARGENTINAS, just as London is British!
Argentina didn’t exist when a small British force attacked Spanish colonies in South America in 1806/1807 as a small part of the Napoleonic wars when Britain was fighting against France and Spain.
And the UK humiliated Argentina and kicked it's butt when it tried to invade the British Falklands in 1982.
@cheltcanary Funnier you ignore Argentinians settled in the 1820s and no one was there just because they are Argentinian. And funniest how old baroness Maggie enjoy her last days while so many British soldiers died cooked or fried on the Sheffield and other warships! What is the sense of that war? Satisfying some clever politicians! Malvinas Argentinas and Antártica Chilena, faraway invaders!
The Vernet colonists in the British Falklands were of mixed nationalities including British, French, and Germans, and when the British expelled the illegal United Provinces military from the British Falklands in 1833, the Vernet colonists remained because Vernet had British permission
It’s funny that old Galtieri lived long after the war despite Argentine shame and humiliation with 649 dead, 1,068 wounded, and 11,313 surrendering prisoners shipped home.
@alberttochile strange how you try to justify 1820 over 1690 when argentina didnt even exist..... and strange how you bring up the subject of using British war dead on the Sheffield and other British ships when actually Argentine numbers lost on the Belgrano and other ships were much higher. ALL sad losses on BOTH sides caused to a fascist argentine junta ONLY interested in trying to turn attentions from domestic issues to the Falklands to save themselves.
@cheltcanary Idon't justify 1820 over 1690, I repeat Malvinas were inhabited by Argentina's people (indep. in 1816) in 1820 and no Briton was there. I mentioned the irony of life, cooked and fried soldiers on British ships just to satisfy old baroness Maggie Thatcher, etc Belgrano was attacked out of the war zone and this was more a Terrorism action, but it seems the Brits wanted to wage war despie peace proposals. No Malvinense was killed in the Argie occupation. Now no junta... and dialogue?
@alberttochile again, its either the brain washing OR mis-information fed to you.... The British AND French both had settlements on the islands long before 1820. The Belgrano was sunk as we were war with agentina and it posed a threat. Even its captain, when interveiwed after the war, admitted he too would have sunk it! It cant be a terrorist act as the UN found the attack within the guidelines of war. THREE Islanders died in the war. NO ONE would have died had argentina invaded ILLEGALY.
@cheltcanary No body can wah my brain, since history is one and it's a matter of getting right information=thus in 1832 only Argentinians inhabited the islands, on the other hands if Brits did, they surely defend-them, but Britain had geopolitical interests ever since in 1806 and 1807 tried to invaeMontevideo (curr. Uruguay) and Buenos Aires. So they took adavantage of a see minor conflict with US for occupying the islands in 1833. No islander died during the Argies' settlement in April-ay 1982!
The Argentine claim that the British expelled the civilian settlers in 1833 is not true.
The illegal 26 man United Provinces military was expelled but the 33 Vernet settlers had British permission and were encouraged to stay.
Captain Pinedo in Sarandi, returned to BA on 16 Jan 1833 and recorded in his ships log the 26 soldiers, plus only 4 civilians who chose to leave (Joaquín Acuña and wife Juana, Mateo González and wife Marica)
In addition, 7 men of various nationalities including British and American also took the opportunity to leave voluntarily in other ships: José Viel, Juan Quedy, Francisco Ferreyra, Máximo Warnes, Charles Brasier, William Drake, and Henry Metcalf.
This left 22 civilians remaining in Port Louis: 12 Argentines (8 gauchos, 3 women, 1 child); 4 Charrúa Indians from Uruguay; 2 British, 2 Germans, 1 French and 1 Jamaican.
The number 22 was confirmed and recorded by Charles Darwin.
@EddieExile So give the islands back to Argentina in a dialogue. Cristina is an attorney and must understand every legal item, international laws, etc. she is democratic and 1994 Argies' constitution ensured peaceful means of recovery of the islands. Chile and Arg found peace definitely in 1984 Peace Treaty deciding the citizenship the destiny of southern sea and Beagle Channel islands. Thus it is possible to make both Argies and Falklanders/Malvinenses happy for ever and ever.
@EddieExile BUDDY, THE FALKLAND ISLAND THAT WOULD TAKE THE NICKNAME "FUCKARGENTINE" YEAH YEAH XD. Take away ALL NEXT TIME YOUR DAMN COUNTRY AND MAKE A PARADISE TO LIVE.
@alberttochile "THREE ISLANDERS DIED DURING ILLEGAL AND HOSTILE ARGENTINE OCCUPATION!!! "
please explain which part of that sentance dont you understand!
No one would have died at all if argentina hadnt illegally and aggresively invaded the peaceful island just to satisfy if facist junta taking the peoples attentions away from its domestic troubles.
@cheltcanary Taking the peoples attention away from its domestic troubles is for the BRITONS and their Prime Minister sending HMS Montrose to the South Atlantic...Instead of fighting against "severe poverty" of millions millions millions U K children. And I am talking about october 2011 not three decades ago, when a de facto govt' cheated Argies! May Cameron get a life and look for peace!
Take a look at my favourite videos 1,5 m UK children in severe poverty, not made in Argentina!
@alberttochile now you're attacking Britain domestically! why? we're still first world whilst argentina are still third world! Moving back to the subject of the Falklands, Argentina have NOTHING to offer the Islanders. No incentive, no REASON to want to be "owned" by argentina. Especially after 1982, it will never happen. The only possible way is if the Islanders WANT it, which they dont, OR Argentina invades the Islands again, which they cant afford and know they will lose heavily again.
@cheltcanary England invaded the MALVINAS islands in 1833 and never gave back but settled with British citizens, that is the true. ARGENTINA ha got nothing to do with 1,5 MILLIONS United Kingdom CHILDREN in severe poverty!! Instead of wasting money in weapons and armies all around the war, sending the Montrose, for instance, HELP YOUR OWN CHILDREN! Shame on you, your money is for killing and not for true WELFARE, as Norway, Denmark, Finland, etc etc do.
@alberttochile this is amazing! you're trying to turn the focus of the argument to Britains domestic troubles - I think you'll find Britain has one of the best records in the world for poverty. We still give millions to other countries for christs sake! Anyway, this has nothing to do with protecting people who want to stay British in our Islands! Theres NO REASON why they would want to become argentine. They dont forget bullying, aggressive actions in 1982 during the invasion!
@alberttochile children in severe poverty they still got a house over the heads electricity heating and food, i bet your richest citizens cant even say that talk about our smal problems your entire country is poverty stricken, and we invaded 1833? we RETOOK IT in 1833 after french forces earlier invaded and took it then gave it to spain so we RETOOK our possesion, jesus your country is so poor it cant afford an education or even a history book.
@TheGunner1324 retook nothing. every illegal british settlement was expelled by spain. the islands were NEVER considered british land by spain. britain had already abandoned the islands for half a centuiry so yes britain INVADED rightful argentine territory in 1833. no british flag was waving when argentina sent its first governor.
@111jasy111 you fucking fags you got indepdences from spain and you expect all there old territory and we never left we were forced to leave you stupid idiot you fucking hispanic, uneducated, smelly bastards, come to the falklands if you want a rematch we are ready kick your fucking argentinian arse straigth back to were it came from
lol jasytroll/armitroll returns and repeats the same old impotent, deluded and meaningless crap
Meanwhile the British Falklands remain British for as long a they wish ie forever.
EddieExile 6 days ago
@EddieExile "as long a they wish ie forever." thanks for confirming their wishes are the wishes of England in disguise...
111jasy111 5 days ago
@111jasy111 maybe they are english descendants, but they have been there 9 generations, longer than argentina has existed as a country! Anyway, argentinians descended from spain, so whats the difference? If falklanders should "go back to britain" then shouldnt argentinians "go back to spain?"
cheltcanary 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@111jasy111 maybe they are english descendants, but they have been there 9 generations, longer than argentina has existed as a country! Anyway, argentinians descended from spain, so whats the difference? If falklanders should "go back to britain" then shouldnt argentinians "go back to spain?"
cheltcanary 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@111jasy111 maybe they are english descendants, but they have been there 9 generations, longer than argentina has existed as a country! Anyway, argentinians descended from spain, so whats the difference? If falklanders should "go back to britain" then shouldnt argentinians "go back to spain
cheltcanary 2 days ago
I see on todays news that Argentina's substitute president is taking the opportunity leading upto the 30th anniversary of the war, to bitch about the Falklands to try to make a name for himself.
Another puppy barking that needs a good slap??
cheltcanary 1 week ago
@BOM8ER1 hahaha well said
juggalo0777 1 month ago
@juggalo0777 but sadly he is a mexican multiaccount always trolling argies videos
BdeBakanj 1 month ago
I guess sovereignty was settled by the complete and utter humiliation of the Argentine military by a small island who was able to sail a outnumbered task force 1000s of miles to do it,to carry it on and keep being reminded of your soldiers bravely facing those Brits by holding there arms in the air while messing there pants would have been enough once but no here the Argentinian's are again,its as if national humiliation is part of Argentine culture.
bom8er1 1 month ago
@bom8er1 LOL You are mexican.
BdeBakanj 1 month ago
Comment removed
bom8er1 1 month ago
@BdeBakanj And your a pretty retarded troll,when you try to put a insult on my channel at the same time you dont have to explain it's me your insulting you stupid fuck.
bom8er1 1 month ago
@bom8er1 Hey beaner wetback...........speaky the english.......me no understandy........
BdeBakanj 1 month ago
Yeah yeah make a comment saying it like it happened and some retarded troll appears with the accusations n name calling,how fucking original.A Google of your name shows what your about retard now carrying on showing everyone what loser's act like, your army already has,
bom8er1 1 month ago
@bom8er1 Do you think my army is the North American military in Vietnam? moaning yankee do you want another ass kicking? go try invading Iran now, or North Korea hahahahaha
BdeBakanj 1 month ago
que esto no vuelva a ocurrir, por la inoperancia de los superiores poco preparados, si no fuera por el valor de esos jóvenes la guerra hubiera sido poco gloriosa. mis mas sinceros respetos a ellos y al pueblo argentino, claro menos a los que enviaron a esos muchachos mal equipados solo con su coraje
Artillerow 1 month ago
Face facts. They don't want you. The Falklands are British.
Wayne74566 1 month ago
Britain secretely sent McBride to secretely sneak an illegal port - not even on the Western or Eastern Island - and without the consent of neither France nor Spain.
By the way in 1765 the British only stuck a flag up and left quickly.
That was not a full colony.
Louis XV sold the real French full colony to Spain, formally proving that France was exerting rightful sovereignty.
Britain never informed to anyone that a merchant called John Strong had wrongly claimed sovereignty on the islands.
111jasy111 1 month ago
@111jasy111 A ship from Camargo’s 1540 expedition wintered near islands that MAY have been the Falklands, but not confirmed, and no record of landing, naming or claiming.
British McBride informed the French de Nerville that he was on British territory as soon as French settlement discovered.
McBride expanded the British colony and left a year later.
The French were later forced to handover their settlement on the British Falklands to Spanish in 1767 but British sovereignty not affected.
EddieExile 1 month ago
@EddieExile
It took 3 years for Britain to discover the French settlement. Too late.
Before the 1760s Britain had never said to Spain and France that she had a claim on the islands.
The British brief and illegal "colony" was a tiny port that was not even located on the Western or Eastern Island.
It was sneaked in almost an islet, and it didn't face the ocean.
Spain noticed that illegal British port, and its settlers were informed that it was Spanish territory.
Britain left in 1774.
111jasy111 1 month ago
@111jasy111
No, the French settlement was discovered on the British Falklands after a few months and told to leave.
The Spanish attacked the British settlement at Fort Egmont on the British Falklands in 1770, but this was restored in 1771 with compensation from Spain after the threat of war.
The British left the British Falklands temporarily in 1776 to deal with the problems in the US colonies, but left a lead sovereignty plaque clearly retaining British sovereignty.
EddieExile 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EddieExile
Bougainville's de Nerville response was that he had set sail to Malouines-Malvinas from Saint-Malo in 1763 and had landed on January 1764.
Britain landed later. Also Britain never informed to anyone that she had a claim before the 1760s. Too late.
Anyway Mc Bride never told the French to leave.
He said he was just examining the islands and only asked to take a look at Port St Louis.
Louis XV sold Port St Louis to Spain.
Since then Spain exerted sovereignty on the islands.
111jasy111 1 month ago
@111jasy111 Did Argentina actualy exisit in 1690 when Cpt Strong landed on the Islands to claim it?? NO! - - therefore no real soveriegnty argument from the argentines.
Anyway - history aside, what only really matters is what the Islanders, who have been there 200 years, want. And guess what Diego, they want to remain British! Nothing argentina can do about that.....
cheltcanary 1 week ago
@cheltcanary What Cpt Strong did was irrelevant. There are long dated Spanish sovereignty claims before him. The recovery of Malvinas by Argentina is as inevitable as the end of the anachronistic colonial forms which base of English rule there. It is becoming clearer to the world stage these old structures represent a world that no longer exists, and the three thousand settlers living in the islands will have to find another way to interact with the world.
111jasy111 1 week ago
@111jasy111 "spanish sovereignty???" - are argentina spanish again now?!!!
why the fuck cant agentina just move on and accept what has been a constant for 200 years..... theres no way the self determining Falklnad Islanders, who have existed there the same time as argentina existed as a country, will want to change. Britain will protect their civil and human rights. Argentina better not mess with Britain, or it will have its arse kicked again!
cheltcanary 5 days ago
@cheltcanary We inherited the islands from Spain. There was no proof of British sovereignty when we established there. You had left half a century ago!
111jasy111 5 days ago
@111jasy111
The British Falklands were never Spanish or argentine.
Meanwhile the British Falklands remain British for as long as they wish ie forever.
EddieExile 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EddieExile 'The British Falklands were never Spanish or argentine.'
More bollocks.
Keep going...
111jasy111 5 days ago
@111jasy111 - The British were in the Falklands in 1690. Its documented! The spanish eventually settled and co-exisited with French and British settlements. Eventually ALL left, only for Britain to return.... anyway, you have your version of history so I dont expoect you to agree - but you cant deny that Argentina didnt even exist when British people were living in the islands! Anyway its all hypothetical. Fact is, we are there now and nothing argentina can do can take them away.
cheltcanary 4 days ago
they are british islands... and will remain british islands.. and not a thing any one can do about it until give them back (if we give them back)
argentina has very little military compared to british military, id like to see them try take over the islands lol...
chezzylee 1 month ago
Capt John Strong landed in the uninhabited islands in 1690, long before spain had raped south america, persecuted the indigenous south american inuits and planted its own people, and long before argentina even existed as a country!! Funny thing is, Argeninians conveniently forget their own countries history and birth, when arguing for the falklands. Fact is, argentina shall never have the islands unless its what the islanders want.
cheltcanary 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"SPAIN HAD NO COLONY ON THE FALKLANDS AT THE TIME OF INDEPENDENCE" --> Irrelevant. Following that logic Britain could have landed on Tierra del Fuego and claim it British land.
The plaque was null and void especially after Britain complied with the Nootka Sound Treaty. Argentina inherited the Spanish islands after the independence and exerted righful sovereignty from 1820 to 1833. The principle of inheritance is called "Uti Possidetis Iuris", well known in international law.
BRUTISH THIEVES.
111jasy111 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The declaration stated: "the restitution of the fort known as Egmont CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT IN ANY WAY AFFECT THE QUESTION OF THE PREVIOUS SOVEREIGNTY RIGHT ON MALVINAS".
It was signed on January 1771.
Since then Britain lost any sovereignty claim.
3 years later the evacuation of Port Egmont was completed.
A tiny plaque located on a DISTANT ISLET of many in the Malvinas archipielago does not justify the INVASION of 1833 AT ALL.
Only crafty ruffians would think it had ANY legal validity.
111jasy111 2 months ago
The Nootka treaty only mentions "adjacent islands"
IT DOES NOT MENTION THE FALKLANDS ISLANDS.
The Falklands at 300 nautical miles from Argentina are NOT ADJACENT TO ARGENTINA .
So Nootka DOESN'T APPLY TO THE BRITISH FALKLANDS.
EddieExile 2 months ago
@EddieExile
Does not mention ANY island in particular but does REFER TO SAILING AND FISHING IN THE "SOUTH SEAS" ON ARTICLE III.
LAS ISLAS MALVINAS: Surrounded by SPANISH waters in the SOUTH SEAS of the SOUTH ATLANTIC and part of SOUTH AMERICA AND LATER ARGENTINA'S CONTINENTAL SHELF.
You could fish there and stay for some days, then LEAVE.
Also, 20 years before Britain had LEGALLY RECOGNIZED Spanish sovereignty after evacuating Port Egmont in 1770s
Nootka simply REAFFIRMED Spanish rights.
111jasy111 2 months ago
@111jasy111
Nootka is a reciprocal treaty. Both Spain and UK (the “respective subjects“), were subject to fisheries and landing restrictions. And the first paragraph clearly states that existing claims to sovereignty were not affected. (“setting aside all retrospective discussions of the rights and pretensions of the 2 parties“)
The British left a plaque in 1776 clearly retaining British sovereignty
The British Falklands are 300 miles from Argentina and are in British Falklands waters.
EddieExile 2 months ago
@EddieExile Spain first noticed the illegal settlement of Port Egmont on 1769. Following orders from the Spanish Crown, Buenos Aires sent its forces to the area. The British quickly showed the white flag after a few cannon shots. Both countries later signed a declaration stating that Port Egmont would be restored but with a secret promise between the monachies that Britain would evacuate. It was a matter of honour. Fortunately, it was clearly stated that Britain would not claim sovereignty.
111jasy111 2 months ago
@111jasy111
Not true.
The Spanish launched a cowardly sneak attack on the British settlement in Port Egmont on the British Falklands on 10 June 1770 and forced the British to withdraw.
When the British threatened war, the Spanish signed an agreement in London on 22 January 1771 in which the British Port Egmont settlement was restored and the Spanish paid compensation to the UK.
And the agreement stated that existing claims to sovereignty were not affected.
EddieExile 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EddieExile Spain controlled the islands after the brief illegal settlement left for good in 1774. Their illegal port was destroyed in 1777 and the plaque located in front of it ripped out and sent to Buenos Aires. In 1793 the Spanish found an American ship fishing in Malvinas and sent a note to its captain saying that by means of the Nootka Sound Treaty only Britain was allowed to fish at a distance of 10 leagues from Spanish settlements. Nootka applied to Malvinas with the consent of Britain.
111jasy111 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EddieExile The declaration of 1771 officially stated that the previous sovereignty right of Spain would not be affected by the temporary restitution of Port Egmont. The British counter-declaration stated that George III was satisfied with the agreement. The British started leaving gradually and their illegal port was later destroyed. The plaque left was null and void, the Spanish forces ripped it out and sent it to Buenos Aires. By the time of Nootka treaty, the islands were Spanish territory.
111jasy111 2 months ago
@111jasy111 A "secret" and undocumented deal handing the Islands to Spain - well how convenient and what a total fantasy :0)
Anyway - Spain ain't Argentina so you wouldn't have a claim anyway!! LOL Give up mate - you've not won an argurment yet and you're starting to get desperate!
krackersdave 2 months ago
@krackersdave One day ago you cited here the "secret" article of the Nootka Sound Treaty :0)
111jasy111 1 month ago
@111jasy111 It was secret at the time - now it's an open fact - GOOGLE IT.. it's not hard to find.
krackersdave 1 month ago
@krackersdave As secret as Mc Bride's instructions to establish his sneak illegal port.
111jasy111 1 month ago
@111jasy111 All perfectly legal - British law applies on the British Falklands.
EddieExile 1 month ago
@EddieExile What about the laws of other countries?
111jasy111 1 month ago
@111jasy111 Only apply in other countries - not the British Falklands
EddieExile 1 month ago
@EddieExile Spain and France.considered them neither British nor Falklands
111jasy111 1 month ago
@111jasy111
Spain and France consider them British and Falklands and signed the EU Treaty of Lisbon :
"The Member States agree to associate with the Union the non-European countries and territories [including the Falkland Islands, as listed in Annex II]
… [this] association shall serve primarily to further the interests and prosperity of the inhabitants of these countries and territories in order to lead them to the economic, social and cultural development to which they aspire".
EddieExile 1 month ago
@EddieExile Argentina inherited the lands of the Spanish Viceroyalty and that included the islands. It's well-known principle of international law called Ute Possidetis Juris. Britain only had a brief illegal port that was quickly dismantled by Spain. They were Spanish islands and we inherit them, exerting sovereignty for two decades. Only a lunatic would have thought possible to go back to a place that was left behind for 60 years and claim rights that he never had in the first place.
111jasy111 1 month ago
@111jasy111
The uninhabited Falkands were landed on, named and claimed by British John Strong in 1690.
And the first British colony was created in 1765, long before Spain, and long before Argentina existed.
The British Falklands were never Spanish or Argentine.
Only lunatic spanish/italian planters in argentina would start whining and try and make a bogus claim 200 year later.
EddieExile 1 month ago
@EddieExile
Spain did 150 years before John Strong.
The first real colony had been created long before Britain, it was French and Louis XV sold it to Spain.
Spain exerted sovereignty for half a century.
Argentina never relinquished its claim and never will.
111jasy111 1 month ago
@111jasy111
A ship from Camargo’s 1540 expedition wintered near islands that MAY have been the Falklands, but not confirmed, and no record of landing, naming or claiming.
French colonists landed in secret on the British Falklands a few months before the full British colony, and they were told to leave when discovered.
Tthe French were forced to handover their colony to Spain but this did not affect British sovereignty
Argentina can impotently chase rainbows forever - no one cares.
EddieExile 1 month ago
@EddieExile The ship from Camargo provided accurate latitudes that confirm the fact that they stayed on the islands. They named the bay where they stayed Fox Bay, definetly because of the Warrah, called British Falkland Fox by the British invadors, who exterminated it a few decades after invading our islands in 1833.
Also the Spanish stayed for 10 months without having any contact with natives, another proof that they landed on the islands.
The UN, OAS and G77 care about Argentina's claim...
111jasy111 1 month ago
@111jasy111 Claro, si ganás la discusión la bandera en las íslas cambiará y la Argentina se ve re viva y banana ¿no? que tontín... las Malvinas fueron invadidas en 1833: cuando eso era común en el mundo entero con las potencias europeas repartiendosé los continentes y plantando poblaciones criollas luego independientes como Argentina ¿porqué la obsesión? lo de Malvinas "siempre argentinas" es solo folklore, la soberanía ya no puede cambiar ¿porqué gente como vos no lo puede entender?
BdeBakanj 1 month ago
@BdeBoludo
mientras tanto hoy se supo que el gobierno britanico intentará dar un nuevo golpe y pasar a controlar un millon de kilometros cuadrados de aguas circundantes a las georgias.
sabias que 100 años atras las pretensiones britanicas de aguas malvinenses llegaban hasta la provincia chilena de cohiaique en el oceano pacifico?
una ridiculez absoluta y sin embargo los britanicos desistieron despues de años de debate y discusion con los gobiernos de chile y argentina.
no seas tontin...
111jasy111 1 month ago
@111paja111
¿y cuándo van a aprender que "años de debate" no cambia nada? ¿y la defension territorial? lo inglese emplean más inteligencia para terminarse anexandoló, es culpa de nuestros gobiernos que venden todo el sur con las "compras privatizadas de la familia Benetton, etc" y después porque uno solo dice "veamos lo positivo de esto entonces si el 'nacionalismo' que nos fomentan es mas falso que la peluca de De La Sota" te dicen que sos un vendepatria, ¿Garré que está haciendo?
BdeBakanj 1 month ago
@EddieExile Outside lambe ass! Of you charlatans who was there with a rifle! hen.
falcon1539 1 month ago
@krackersdave George III was satisfied with the declaration of Prince Masserano, the Spanish ambassador in London. Spain had no doubts about sovereignty, but the Spanish Crown compromised and let the illegal British settlement be temporaly restored, since it was a matter of honour for the British crown that didn't want to show any weakness. The British crown compromised as well and their settlers evacuated gradually Port Egmont after a couple years. Egmont was destroyed in 1777. Spanish islands.
111jasy111 1 month ago
@111jasy111
George III was satisfied with the Masserano treaty signed by Spain in London on 22 January 1771 because the British Port Egmont settlement was restored and the Spanish paid compensation to the UK.
And the agreement stated that existing claims to sovereignty were not affected.
EddieExile 1 month ago
@EddieExile "the agreement stated that existing claims to sovereignty were not affected" and George III was satisfied which that declaration clearly indicating that Spain HAD sovereignty rights on the Western Island. Also Britain was aware that Spain CONTROLLED the Eastern Island too. The first settlement there was Port St Louis, established on 1764 by France. France sold it to Spain in 1767 who renamed it Puerto Soledad and remained the sole settlement and administrative centre of the islands.
111jasy111 1 month ago
@111jasy111
The British Falklands were uninhabited when landed on named and claimed by British John Strong in 1690. And the first British colony was created in 1765, before Spain, and long before Argentina existed.
When Spain forced the handover of a French settlement on the British Falklands in 1767, this did not affect British sovereignty.
EddieExile 1 month ago
@EddieExile The real reason the British left Port Egmont was because Britain had secretely promised Spain that the settlement would be evacuated after the agreement between both countries in 1771. Britain cowardly delayed the evacuation and Prince Masserano, the ambassador that had signed the agreement with the British minister on behalf of hm, departed from London being indignant at their dishonourable behaviour.
Britain did not report to Spain the flagrancy of leaving flags and a plaque.
111jasy111 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@111jasy111
As already explained, the Spanish sneakily attacked the British Falklands in 1770 and forced the British to withdraw, but restored the British settlement and paid compensation when the British threatened war - with existing claims to sovereignty not affected.
This has nothing to do with the voluntary and temporary British withdrawal in 1774-1776 to address the US colonies crisis - when the British publicly confirmed retention of sovereignty
EddieExile 1 month ago
@111jasy111
On May 20, 1774, The British left Port Egmont due to the need to send the garrison to the 13 American colonies but retained sovereignty under the customs of the time by leaving all flags flying and a lead plaque reading:
"Be it known all nations that Falkland Islands, with this fort, the storehouses, wharfs...are the sole right and property of His Most Sacred Majesty George III, King of Great Britain."
EddieExile 1 month ago
@EddieExile The expedition of Spanish Navy Obispo de Plascencia did on 1540, one hundred and fifty years before merchant John Strong. The Spanish stayed for 10 months on a bay they named Puerto de las Zorras (Fox Port) probably because of the Warrah (Aguara in Guarani) known by the British as Falkland Islands Fox and exterminated by the British a few decades after usurping the islands from Argentina in 1833.
111jasy111 1 month ago
@EddieExile The first colony ever was French, settled on February 2, 1764. Their settlers built a fort, some houses and remained there. The "colony" created by the British in 1765 on the Western island consisted solely on sticking a flag and leaving. Britain was not aware that the French had already settled one year before. Louis XV of France formally recognized Spanish sovereignty rights on both islands in 1767 and the original settlers received a generous compensation from Spain in return.
111jasy111 1 month ago
@111jasy111
The British Falklands were uninhabited when landed on named and claimed by British John Strong in 1690 and Louis XV was in no position to recognise any other sovereign rights after he was forced to handed over the French settlement to the Spanish in 1767.
And the British had established substantial buildings and a garrison in Fort Egmont before this.
EddieExile 1 month ago
@EddieExile
The Spanish Navy expedition of Obispo de Plascencia did on 1540 (one hundred and fifty years before merchant John Strong landed and named the islands "Hawkins") and also stayed for 10 months.
Louis XV was an ally of Spain and rightfully ceded sovereignty given that:
1) Spain had landed on the islands long time before France (and Britain).
2) France had created the first ever settlement in 1764.
3) Britain never reported her sovereignty claim to France or Spain before 1764.
111jasy111 1 month ago
@111jasy111
One of the ships from Camargo’s 1540 expedition wintered near islands that may have been the Falklands - not relevant..
The British captain John McBride informed the French commander de Nerville that he was on British territory as soon as the French settlement was discovered.
EddieExile 1 month ago
@EddieExile And as soon as the British settlement was discovered, Spanish Navy Captain Juan Ignacio Madariaga informed whoever was in charge of Port Egmont, that it was Spanish territory.
111jasy111 1 month ago
@111jasy111 Too late - Spanish didn't arrive until later
EddieExile 1 month ago
@EddieExile Ridiculous answer. Spain first noticed Port Egmont in 1769 and on March 1770, following orders from the Spanish Crown, the governor of Buenos Aires gave Captain Madariaga clear orders to expel the British. Too late my @ss.
111jasy111 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@111jasy111
The French and therefore the Spanish knew about the British Port Egmont settlement and claim when Spain forced France to handover the French settlement in 1767.
As already explained, the Spanish sneakily attacked the British settlement 3 years later in 1770 and forced the British to withdraw, but they restored the British settlement and paid compensation when the British threatened war - with existing claims to sovereignty not affected.
You talk through your ass.
EddieExile 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EddieExile
McBride's first letter to Bougainville de Nerville was on December 1766, almost THREE YEARS after the French had settled.
It took time for the Spanish to find out Port Egmont because :
1) it was not located on the Eastern Island where Port St Louis was established in January 1764.
2) it was not located on the Western Island either!
The British illegal settlement called Port Egmont was not EVEN located on the two biggest and most famous islands that we all know!
RUFFIANS
111jasy111 1 month ago
@EddieExile Bougainville's de Nerville response was that he had set sail to Malouines-Malvinas from Saint-Malo in 1763 and had landed on January 1764. Also that the French had built a fort and houses on the newly harbour called Port St Louis in March 1764. Mc Bride's response was that he was just examining the islands and only asked to take a look at Port St Louis as well. After such examination Mc Bride went back to Britain.
111jasy111 1 month ago
@111jasy111
No - McBride informed de Nerville that he was on British territory and was to leave, but McBride had been instructed not to start hostilities with the French.
McBride was recalled to the UK a year later but the British settlement remained.
EddieExile 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EddieExile Too late - Britain didn't arrive until later :P
111jasy111 1 month ago
@krackersdave
Britain had abandoned the islands for good in 1774. Since then the Spanish Viceroyalty of the River Plate had jurisdictional control after evacuating the islands in 1811 leaving a plaque on the wall of the chapel in Port Soledad proclaiming Spanish sovereignty rights.
Argentina inherited the islands after the independence and rightfully exerted sovereignty from 1820 to 1833.
The principle of inheritance is called "Uti Possidetis Iuris", well known in international law.
111jasy111 1 month ago
@111jasy111
The UK never abandoned the British Falklands "for good in 1774" - she returned in 1833 and kicked out the argentine squatters who had landed illegally a few weeks before.
EddieExile 1 month ago
@EddieExile More than HALF A CENTURY after the UK had LOST HER DUBIOUS SOVEREIGNTY CLAIM, and knowing that the United Provinces were under political turmoil, the British decided to return to exert a right that never had in the first place. Ruffians.
111jasy111 1 month ago
@111jasy111 LOL - if they abandoned the islands for good why did they leave a plaque behind stating their claim to the island? You are simply getting desperate!
And by what right did Argentina inherit the islands?? in your dreams? Quote the document that states it or stop repeating lies! No doubt you'll claim that Spains holdings passed to Argentina--- well bad news SPAIN HAD NO COLONY ON THE FALKLANDS AT THE TIME OF INDEPENDENCE! It had no more of a claim than Britain.
WILL YOU STOP LYING?
krackersdave 1 month ago
The alleged secret article only mentions "the parts of these coasts situated to the south of the parts of said coasts".
The alleged secret article DOES NOT MENTION THE ISLANDS ADJACENT ALREADY OCCUPIED BY SPAIN.
The alleged secret article only mentions establishment of any other power ON THE COASTS IN QUESTION.
Thus, any settlements on the islands by Argentina subsequent to its independence would NOT automatically render the Nootka Sound treaty null and void.
111jasy111 2 months ago
ARTICLE VI :
It is agreed with respect to the eastern and western coasts of S America and the islands adjacent, that the respective subjects shall not form in the future any establishment on the parts of the coast on the south of the parts of the same coast and of the islands adjacent ALREADY OCCUPIED BY SPAIN. Said respective subjects shall retain the liberty of landing on the coasts and islands for objects connected with their fishery and other temporary structures serving only those objects.
111jasy111 2 months ago
The 1790 Nootka treaty was purely bilateral between UK and Spain (NOT Argentina) agreeing that there would be no further new settlements by UK OR Spain on coasts of South America or adjacent islands, and it DID NOT AFFECT EXISTING CLAIMS TO SOVEREIGNTY
The Treaty also contained secret article 6 rendering the Treaty NULL AND VOID if a 3rd party tried to land (eg Argentina)
EddieExile 2 months ago
god isn,t there a lot of shit written on here. The only thing that matters is that Argentina will never have the Falklands, they can keep on whinging to their hearts content. The Argies can invade again and again, but they will be kicked out again and again. You see the simple truth is the Islanders dont want to be Argies.
kriskcar 2 months ago
By the Nootka Sound Treaty Spain permited Britain to fish near coasts and waters adjacent to Spanish territories in South America, and perhaps stay for some days . Britain signed that treaty almost 20 years after the illegal British settlement of Port Egmont was evacuated for good. Now please I want you to mention that tiny piece of metal with some foolish inscription that was located on a far distant islet of many in the Malvinas archipielago. That is the funniest part of the British strategy.
111jasy111 2 months ago
@111jasy111 Yeah "the best part of the British strategy": 111jasy111 loving the british rock and roll and the british culture like all his compatriots LOL.
BdeBakanj 2 months ago
@BdeBakanj I like British rock and roll as much I like British literature. I don't like the British goverment's refusal to comply with long dated UN resolutions on this situation. I don't like my goverment either.
111jasy111 2 months ago
Take a look at our uruguayan neighbours. Last week Uruguay denied access to Royal Navy PIRATE warship AGAIN!!! HAHAHAA
“I had to deny access to any UK war ship access to Uruguayan territory. Why? Because we have the question of the Malvinas Islands”, said President Mujica.
Brazil has done the same some months ago.
The entire OAS, incluiding the USA, together with G77 and China are all telling the UK stop the lies and enter talks.
Respect the UN, Britain!
111jasy111 2 months ago
@111jasy111 LOL - you think anyone cares? Uruguay? Hell I've had shits harder than Uruguay...
krackersdave 2 months ago
@krackersdave Seguramente a ustedes no les importa, al igual que las Malvinas. Te pregunto en mi idioma: qué tienes en la boca? una cloaca? o acaso esa es la educación que te dan en el "primer mundo"?
JAVITHEMIRROR 2 months ago
@JAVITHEMIRROR Y los rollingas no son una parte grande de la juventud argentina? you love the british rebel youth and imitate it LOL what a paradox isnt?
BdeBakanj 2 months ago
@111jasy111 I think you'll find its a UN resolution supporting the Falklander Islanders wishes to remain British, but thanks for your concern anyway!
cheltcanary 2 months ago
@cheltcanary A UN resolution that was created to free people from its oppressors and now the oppressors are using that UN resolution on their behalf. Since when the islanders were a colony like say Tanganika? The islanders know not what is to suffer the colonial yoke, yet the masters in London hide them behind UN resolutions on decolonization... Touche! Too much hypocrisy. So they want remain British? That is fine to me, if they go back to Britain... It's logical after all.
111jasy111 2 months ago
@111jasy111 but they're already in British Islands! Capt John Stronh landed in the uninhabited islands in 1690, long before spain had raped south america, persecuted the indigenous south american inuits and planted its own people, and long before argentina even existed as a country!! Funny thing is, Argeninians conveniently forget their own countries history and birth, when arguing for the falklands. Fact is, argentina shall never have the islands unless its what the islanders want.
cheltcanary 2 months ago
@cheltcanary
Americo Vespuccio (1502-1503) / Binot Palmier de Gonneville (1503-1504) / Magallanes expedition (1520) / Esteban Gomez (1520) / Loaysa expedition (1526) / Plascencia expedition (1540)
... just to name a few who discovered / landed there before the British...
Nootka Sound treaty of 1790 Britain recognized every Spanish possession (including Malvinas)
In 1774 Britain completed evacuation on the islands after its brief illegal settlement was expelled by Spain around 1770.
111jasy111 2 months ago
@111jasy111 Why do you continue to repeat your lies.. The Falklands are NOT referred to in the Nootka Sounds treaty. Spain did indeed attack and expel port egmont - however you FAIL to mention that a peace treaty the same year allowed them to return in January 1771 after Spain failed to win support from France for a war on Britain - this treay allowing the British is stay is a clear recognition of Britains claim to the islands by Spain..
krackersdave 2 months ago
@krackersdave Spanish ambassador in London, Principe de Masserano, signed the treaty regarding a brief restitution of Port Egmont on Sep 16th 1771 although it was clearly stated: "This compromise CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT in any way affect the question of our previous right on sovereignty of Islas Malvinas".
It was a pact between Spain and the UK that they would not go to war because of Malvinas, but the UK would leave since it was Spanish territory, hence the UK completed evacuation in 1774.
111jasy111 2 months ago
@krackersdave Nootka Sound Treaty. Article 6 & 7 clearly state that Britain would not create any establishment in the seas of South America, in the coasts of its west and east and IN THE ISLANDS THAT WERE ALREADY UNDER SPANISH ADMINISTRATION. Britain had abandoned the islands almost 20 years before, hence it is a clear recognition of Spanish sovereignty in Malvinas. Britain only could disembark TEMPORARILY on Spanish territories and islands in South America, and that included Malvinas.
111jasy111 2 months ago
@111jasy111 The Islands WERE NOT UNDER SPANISH ADMINISTRATION - THEY HAD NO COLONIES THERE.. That alone blows a hole in your Nootka Sound claim.
krackersdave 2 months ago
@krackersdave LOL - if Britain as part of the Nootka Sound treaty withdrew from the islands recognising as you claim Spains rights THEN WHY DID THEY LEAVE BEHIND A PLAQUE RESTATING THE UK'S OWNERSHIP OF THE ISLANDS AND PROMISING THEY WOULD RETURN??
WHY DID VERNET REQUEST BRITISH PERMISSION TO FOUND HIS COLONY IN 1827??
WHY?? BECAUSE THE BRITISH CLAIM WAS IN EFFECT - NOTICE HE DID NOT ASK THE SPANISH??
WHY - BECAUSE IN 1771 SPAIN ALLOWED THE BRITISH TO RETURN AND TAKE THE ISLANDS!
krackersdave 2 months ago
@krackersdave That tiny plaque located on a far distant islet of many in the archipielago lost any legal value after the Nootka Sound treaty was signed. The treaty was convenient to the UK as usual since it assured fishing rights near any territory (islands) or coasts in Spanish South America. But by doing so Britain legally recognized Spanish sovereignty there. Spain had restored its sovereignty 16 years before. Britain abandoned the islands in 1774. Also, Spain also left a plaque in 1811...
111jasy111 2 months ago
@111jasy111 As explained - Nootka sound only affected lands that were under SPANISH ADMINISTRATION - the FALKLANDS were not under direct Spanish administration from 1811 onwards. And the bit you missed out about Nookta sound is this.., "and that areas south of the southernmost settlements were off limits to both countries, provided (in a secret article) that no third party settled there either. "
Argentina was that third party .. Argentina invalidated the treaty...
krackersdave 2 months ago
@111jasy111 This makes me laugh as Argentina didnt exist as its own Presedentially formed country till 1826 !!!!
How can a "country" claim something 300 hundred years before it existed??!!
Anyway, you can ague all you want - - TWO facts and TWO facts ONLY decide the issue of The Falklands: 1, The UN agreement 2, The will of the Islanders.
You'll NEVER own British People.
cheltcanary 2 months ago
@cheltcanary Following that logic South America should be Spanish and the US should be British. We've asserted sovereignty on those islands, like on most territories that belonged to the Viceroyalty of River Plate, since 1820. Britain had abandoned the islands for good in 1774. Spain did the same in 1811. Both countries left plaques that already meant nothing when we formally declared independence from Spain in 1816 and became the United Provinces of the South.
300 years of what?
111jasy111 2 months ago
@111jasy111 so how come argentina waited till 1982 and 9 generations of families born and bred on the islands before doing ANYTHING about it? Nothin to do with trying to win favour with the impovrished argentine people was it??!! what about the 30,000 "disappeared" issue which was surfacing domestically at the same time, After the illeal invasion the people in Beunos Aries soon forgot about them, didnt they?! This "claim" is nothing more than some misguided distraction from domestic issues.
cheltcanary 2 months ago
aii aiii aiii gritaba un kelper cuando lo estaban matando, y en mis ojos se veian LAS MALVINAS ARGENTINAS
Leo222222000 2 months ago
INGLESES , VAMOS A VOLVER , ISLEÑOS, VAMOS A VOLVER PRONTO !!
No hay mayor entrega que morir por la PATRIA! VIVA LA PATRIA CARAJO! GRINGOS DE MIERDA
thetubebrain1 2 months ago
dry them, fact: YOU LOST get over it!! the islands belong to us, no one gives a shit apart from you argies, you want them back so bad give it anoter shot. after 29 years your still cant face it you lost, they belong to us
richieguy1 2 months ago
RULE BRITANNIA !!
TheLloydA1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In 1820 the government of Buenos Aires sent a frigate to take possession and assert their rights in Malvinas as a succession of Spain. Since 1823 Luis Maria Vernet gave the exploitation of island resources. On June 10, 1829 created the Political and Military Command of the Malvinas Islands based in the Islands and adjacent jurisdiction to Cape Horn. On August 30, 1829 he founded Port Louis.
111jasy111 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Do not argue with Argentine people guys, it’s pointless. The “Malvinas” is embedded into their mind from school. They have patriotic lessons at school that teach how the islands were “stolen” by the evil British empire in 1833. We cannot blame them because this is what they are taught from a early age. They are a sick nation, one day they will mature and grow up but not whilst the Falklands are used as a political tool.
wank0r 2 months ago
Comment removed
watzangalanga 2 months ago
no it didn't
EddieExile 2 months ago
@EddieExile Yeah, it did, it gave the location of Argentinean Ships.
Argentina was under a dictatorship [Too mark that war was not what the Argentinean people wanted], and historically they should be Argentinean, but the habitants want them to be from UK.
watzangalanga 2 months ago
@watzangalanga Soviet satellites gave the location of British ships to argentina.
The argentine people wildly supported the invasion and war - until argentina started to lose.
And the British Falklands were landed on, named, claimed, and colonised by the British before argentina existed so they are historically Britsh.
EddieExile 2 months ago
@EddieExile Soviets didnt gave Argentines the locations and the Chileans did gave to the British the locations.
And what i meant with Dictatorship, is that we may have not got into war, i mistook.
Historically, because Britain invaded the islands when belonged to Argentina [1820-1833] and kicked its poblation.
watzangalanga 2 months ago
Comment removed
EddieExile 2 months ago
@watzangalanga
Vernet landed his colony on the British Falklands in 1826/1828 with British permission.
And when the British expelled the illegal United Provinces military from the British Falklands in 1833,(26 men who had landed illegally a few weeks earlier) the Vernet colonists remained
Russian journalist Sergei Brilev confirmed Soviet satellite help for Argentina with former KGB and Red Army generals who confirmed that Moscow was tracking the Royal Navy around the Falklands.
EddieExile 2 months ago
Comment removed
111jasy111 2 months ago
@EddieExile In 1764 the French Count Louis Antoine de Bougainville took possession of the islands for the King of France. Before the Spanish protest, in 1766 France agreed to evacuate and recognized Spanish sovereignty over the archipelago, provided compensation to Bougainville. The 115 French settlers came under the government of Felipe Ruiz Puente, who proceeded to build a chapel and other buildings, establishing the Governor of the Islands. In 1811 the islands were evacuated by the Spanish.
111jasy111 2 months ago
@111jasy111
The French created a colony on the British Falklands in 1764 until 1767 when the Spanish forced the French to hand over the colony.
However the French had no title to the British Falklands and were in no position to recognise Spanish sovereignty.
EddieExile 2 months ago
@EddieExile Britain had no title to the Malvinas' islands and were in no position to recognise any kind of sovereignity, hence their illegal settlement was rightfully expelled by Spain in 1770. 1,400 Spanish soldiers in five ships were dispatched from the mainland . The Englishmen made no resistance; and after a few shots, exchanged for the honor of the flag, they capitulated and abandoned the islands. However, more than a half a century later, Britain returned to invade Malvinas. Cowards.
111jasy111 2 months ago
@111jasy111
The British Falklands were uninhabited when landed on named and claimed by British John Strong in 1690. And the first British colony was created in 1765, before Spain, and before Argentina existed.
The Spanish attacked and tried to destroy the British settlement at Fort Egmont in 1770 but this was restored in 1771 with compensation from the Spain who wished to avoid war.
A humiliated argentine surrender monkey calling his British conquerers cowards is comical in a way.
EddieExile 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EddieExile Every illegal British settlement was rightfully expelled by Spain. The UK pirates abandoned the islands for half a century. No British flag was waving when Argentina sent its first governor to the islands inherited from Spain. Only a braindead monkey would have thought it was possible to take back a territiory that was left behind for half a century! But well here you are... trying to claim those islands are still british. Ridiculous.
111jasy111 2 months ago
CHILE HELPED INGLATERAA
chilenoorgullo 2 months ago
@chilenoorgullo Yes they did !! Viva Chile!
keirfree 2 months ago
It is a shame that British soldiers and misled Argentinians died to deal with an Argentinian domestic political maneuver. Next time you want to start a war for internal political reasons try it on with someone else.
cageordie 2 months ago
pelicula de mierda... por que no muestran el valor de los combatientes y nuestra consagrada fuerza aerea... por q no muestran al soldado poltronieri combatiendo solo contra un batallon de paracaidistas ingleses... y haciendolo retroceder... no muestran nada de eso solo esa basura q mostraron ... IDIOTAS MUESTREN LA GLORIA DE LA PATRIA Y NO SUS FLAQUESAS
gonzalo32975468 3 months ago
@gonzalo32975468 we leave fictional bravery to the argies.
EddieExile 3 months ago
@EddieExile - oh I dont know, its pretty brave to put up a white flag, surrender, then shoot at the officer coming forward : - (
cheltcanary 2 months ago
@cheltcanary based on his obscenities on other videos, it's likely albertchile is a troll poster called flyingxk - who claimed to be Greek - no wonder he switched ....
EddieExile 2 months ago
"Severe poverty" in the UK = average household income in Argentina :)
EddieExile 3 months ago
@EddieExile - exactly! how the imbecile has the audacity to even compare and THEN slag off British domestic issues is way beyond comprehension. Even for a troll!
cheltcanary 2 months ago
the argie troll who pretends to be from Chile posts the same old crap
EddieExile 3 months ago
Hey Argies, forget the falklands, you'll never take them!!! The onyl way would be by force and we ALL know that wont happen again so you'll have to rely on the Islanders will as we wont give them away. And why would the Islanders WANT to be ruled by a tinpot third world country like agentina?!!!!
cheltcanary 3 months ago
@cheltcanary Why do Brits still natural resources, from the Third World? Why do WELSH IRISH and SCOTS hate the English? Because you pay taxes for the richest bitch of the world, your whore kween Elisabeth II....and you steal here and there. Falklands/Malvinas must return to the original owners, Argentina as they were under the Argentinian flag in 1832.
alberttochile 3 months ago
@alberttochile ahh, but they were under the BRITISH flag in 1690...... argentina didnt even EXIST then!!! (not until Spain raped south america many years later!!)
cheltcanary 3 months ago
@cheltcanary Dutch and French had rights just for seeing or for arriving. With no dialogues the situation of 1833 is just the same as in 1982, exactly the same fact! Río de la Plata started to exist just as USA declared independence in 1776. OK. Argentinian settlers went to occupy the islands until the arrival of Brits in 1833.
Argentina always claimed its rights on the islands, they are on the shelf in front of ARGENTINA not in front of Britain, pay a look at a map!
alberttochile 3 months ago
@alberttochile
The uninhabited Falklands were first landed on named and claimed by the British in 1690 and the first British colony was created in 1765, long before Spain, and long before Argentina existed.
When the British expelled the illegal United Provinces military from the British Falklands in 1833, the existing Vernet colonists remained and were a mixture of nationalities including French, British, German, United Provinces, and American Indians.
EddieExile 3 months ago
@EddieExile Illegal? Buenos Aires andthus the United Provinces exist since 1580, founded Buenos Aires when the Spaniarssettled in that part of South America. If they had been true colonies, the islands would have been inhabited in 1829 as the Comandancia started to exist. So the first ones to provoke a war were the Brits. But England is always in every war and conflict and has no mercy when the richness is found, especially against Natives, Gandhi's India, China opium, South Sea, and son on!
alberttochile 3 months ago
@alberttochile
The United Provinces miltary (Pinedo and 26 men) had landed illegally on the British Falklands a few weeks before they were removed in 1833.
The British Falklands were inhabited by a small number of Vernet colonists of mixed nationality, and they were allowed to remain because Vernet had British permission for his enterprise.
EddieExile 3 months ago
@EddieExile If some US sailors had problems it was because the Malvinas were "inhabited" and in 1806 and 1807 Beresford tried to occupied the United Provinces, defeated bravely by the Argentinians, so no wonder UK tried on in a southernmost place the Islas Malvinas. So MALVINAS were are and willbe A L W A Y S ARGENTINAS, just as London is British!
alberttochile 3 months ago
@alberttochile
Argentina didn’t exist when a small British force attacked Spanish colonies in South America in 1806/1807 as a small part of the Napoleonic wars when Britain was fighting against France and Spain.
And the UK humiliated Argentina and kicked it's butt when it tried to invade the British Falklands in 1982.
EddieExile 3 months ago
@alberttochile funny how you ignore the fact that john strong landed in 1690!!!!!!
cheltcanary 3 months ago
@cheltcanary Funnier you ignore Argentinians settled in the 1820s and no one was there just because they are Argentinian. And funniest how old baroness Maggie enjoy her last days while so many British soldiers died cooked or fried on the Sheffield and other warships! What is the sense of that war? Satisfying some clever politicians! Malvinas Argentinas and Antártica Chilena, faraway invaders!
alberttochile 3 months ago
@alberttochile
The Vernet colonists in the British Falklands were of mixed nationalities including British, French, and Germans, and when the British expelled the illegal United Provinces military from the British Falklands in 1833, the Vernet colonists remained because Vernet had British permission
It’s funny that old Galtieri lived long after the war despite Argentine shame and humiliation with 649 dead, 1,068 wounded, and 11,313 surrendering prisoners shipped home.
EddieExile 3 months ago
@alberttochile strange how you try to justify 1820 over 1690 when argentina didnt even exist..... and strange how you bring up the subject of using British war dead on the Sheffield and other British ships when actually Argentine numbers lost on the Belgrano and other ships were much higher. ALL sad losses on BOTH sides caused to a fascist argentine junta ONLY interested in trying to turn attentions from domestic issues to the Falklands to save themselves.
cheltcanary 3 months ago
@cheltcanary Idon't justify 1820 over 1690, I repeat Malvinas were inhabited by Argentina's people (indep. in 1816) in 1820 and no Briton was there. I mentioned the irony of life, cooked and fried soldiers on British ships just to satisfy old baroness Maggie Thatcher, etc Belgrano was attacked out of the war zone and this was more a Terrorism action, but it seems the Brits wanted to wage war despie peace proposals. No Malvinense was killed in the Argie occupation. Now no junta... and dialogue?
alberttochile 3 months ago
@alberttochile again, its either the brain washing OR mis-information fed to you.... The British AND French both had settlements on the islands long before 1820. The Belgrano was sunk as we were war with agentina and it posed a threat. Even its captain, when interveiwed after the war, admitted he too would have sunk it! It cant be a terrorist act as the UN found the attack within the guidelines of war. THREE Islanders died in the war. NO ONE would have died had argentina invaded ILLEGALY.
cheltcanary 3 months ago
@cheltcanary No body can wah my brain, since history is one and it's a matter of getting right information=thus in 1832 only Argentinians inhabited the islands, on the other hands if Brits did, they surely defend-them, but Britain had geopolitical interests ever since in 1806 and 1807 tried to invaeMontevideo (curr. Uruguay) and Buenos Aires. So they took adavantage of a see minor conflict with US for occupying the islands in 1833. No islander died during the Argies' settlement in April-ay 1982!
alberttochile 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@alberttochile
The Argentine claim that the British expelled the civilian settlers in 1833 is not true.
The illegal 26 man United Provinces military was expelled but the 33 Vernet settlers had British permission and were encouraged to stay.
Captain Pinedo in Sarandi, returned to BA on 16 Jan 1833 and recorded in his ships log the 26 soldiers, plus only 4 civilians who chose to leave (Joaquín Acuña and wife Juana, Mateo González and wife Marica)
EddieExile 3 months ago
@alberttochile
In addition, 7 men of various nationalities including British and American also took the opportunity to leave voluntarily in other ships: José Viel, Juan Quedy, Francisco Ferreyra, Máximo Warnes, Charles Brasier, William Drake, and Henry Metcalf.
This left 22 civilians remaining in Port Louis: 12 Argentines (8 gauchos, 3 women, 1 child); 4 Charrúa Indians from Uruguay; 2 British, 2 Germans, 1 French and 1 Jamaican.
The number 22 was confirmed and recorded by Charles Darwin.
EddieExile 3 months ago
@EddieExile So give the islands back to Argentina in a dialogue. Cristina is an attorney and must understand every legal item, international laws, etc. she is democratic and 1994 Argies' constitution ensured peaceful means of recovery of the islands. Chile and Arg found peace definitely in 1984 Peace Treaty deciding the citizenship the destiny of southern sea and Beagle Channel islands. Thus it is possible to make both Argies and Falklanders/Malvinenses happy for ever and ever.
alberttochile 3 months ago
@alberttochile
The Falkland Islands were never Argentine.
The Falkland Islanders do not want to be Argentine.
The Falkland Islanders wish to remain a self governing overseas territory of the UK - and they will.
But peaceful cooperation based on mutual respect is possible.
EddieExile 3 months ago 5
@EddieExile BUDDY, THE FALKLAND ISLAND THAT WOULD TAKE THE NICKNAME "FUCKARGENTINE" YEAH YEAH XD. Take away ALL NEXT TIME YOUR DAMN COUNTRY AND MAKE A PARADISE TO LIVE.
SnuffCool 2 months ago
@alberttochile "THREE ISLANDERS DIED DURING ILLEGAL AND HOSTILE ARGENTINE OCCUPATION!!! "
please explain which part of that sentance dont you understand!
No one would have died at all if argentina hadnt illegally and aggresively invaded the peaceful island just to satisfy if facist junta taking the peoples attentions away from its domestic troubles.
cheltcanary 3 months ago
@cheltcanary Taking the peoples attention away from its domestic troubles is for the BRITONS and their Prime Minister sending HMS Montrose to the South Atlantic...Instead of fighting against "severe poverty" of millions millions millions U K children. And I am talking about october 2011 not three decades ago, when a de facto govt' cheated Argies! May Cameron get a life and look for peace!
Take a look at my favourite videos 1,5 m UK children in severe poverty, not made in Argentina!
alberttochile 3 months ago
@alberttochile now you're attacking Britain domestically! why? we're still first world whilst argentina are still third world! Moving back to the subject of the Falklands, Argentina have NOTHING to offer the Islanders. No incentive, no REASON to want to be "owned" by argentina. Especially after 1982, it will never happen. The only possible way is if the Islanders WANT it, which they dont, OR Argentina invades the Islands again, which they cant afford and know they will lose heavily again.
cheltcanary 3 months ago
@cheltcanary England invaded the MALVINAS islands in 1833 and never gave back but settled with British citizens, that is the true. ARGENTINA ha got nothing to do with 1,5 MILLIONS United Kingdom CHILDREN in severe poverty!! Instead of wasting money in weapons and armies all around the war, sending the Montrose, for instance, HELP YOUR OWN CHILDREN! Shame on you, your money is for killing and not for true WELFARE, as Norway, Denmark, Finland, etc etc do.
CRISTINA is worried about own troubles!
alberttochile 3 months ago
@alberttochile this is amazing! you're trying to turn the focus of the argument to Britains domestic troubles - I think you'll find Britain has one of the best records in the world for poverty. We still give millions to other countries for christs sake! Anyway, this has nothing to do with protecting people who want to stay British in our Islands! Theres NO REASON why they would want to become argentine. They dont forget bullying, aggressive actions in 1982 during the invasion!
cheltcanary 2 months ago
@alberttochile children in severe poverty they still got a house over the heads electricity heating and food, i bet your richest citizens cant even say that talk about our smal problems your entire country is poverty stricken, and we invaded 1833? we RETOOK IT in 1833 after french forces earlier invaded and took it then gave it to spain so we RETOOK our possesion, jesus your country is so poor it cant afford an education or even a history book.
TheGunner1324 2 months ago
@TheGunner1324 retook nothing. every illegal british settlement was expelled by spain. the islands were NEVER considered british land by spain. britain had already abandoned the islands for half a centuiry so yes britain INVADED rightful argentine territory in 1833. no british flag was waving when argentina sent its first governor.
111jasy111 2 months ago
@111jasy111 you fucking fags you got indepdences from spain and you expect all there old territory and we never left we were forced to leave you stupid idiot you fucking hispanic, uneducated, smelly bastards, come to the falklands if you want a rematch we are ready kick your fucking argentinian arse straigth back to were it came from
TheGunner1324 2 months ago