I am now 38 and I am a teacher, I am of British Indian origin and I was born in the UK as were all of my family going back around WW2. I actually teach some of my students about this period in history and I always mention both sides of the story. I have always wanted to be on friendly terms with the Argentinian people because their hurt is the same as ours. May the Lord be with the souls of both soldiers on both sides of this conflict it was a very sad event and I hope we can get on better now.
I remember this war so well I was 9 years old at the time. I remember rushing back from school to see the images of the war on the news, I will never forget seeing the Harrier Jump Jet attack the Islands and also seeing British war ships being attacked by the Argentinian Air Force. It hurts me to this day because Thatcher wanted to win an election and the Argentine government also wanted to make some profit out of this disaster. It was inevitable that war was going to happen for both nations
@Eddieposted: Eddie where are you? Wasted too much time posting the same nonsense here over and over? Decided to cancel your account? Or are you rowing the 300 miles from Argentine to the Malvinas for a short visit? Or trying to hide the traces of British occupancy of northern Europe by removing all radioactive isotopes originating from Windscale? Good bye, clown!
Damn Colonising, they give back what it does not belong to them… Argentina is absolute owner of the Malvinas.Aquien islands likes that an enemy sleeps in the patio of his house? all-consuming of our natural resources, they want only it to operate hydrocarbons, do not have English feelings colds.
@faustto333 LOL - yeah give the land you stole from the Amerindians back and apologise for 400 years of murder, rape and theft. Do that and maybe the world will take you seriously.
@faustto333 Why are they the owners? Britains claim goes back further and the people there are British. They are 100s of miles away from the mainland. Argentina itself is land taken from the natives in colonial times, Argentinians are European, please back up your comment with facts.
@Eddieposted: Thank you for your compliment as i will only understand what people write. These are the basics of communication. There is no logic to counter. The British did not "discover" the islands. The British did not give them their first name. The British were not the first on these islands. The British did not have the first colony there. The British did not have the first governement there. After all that arrogance is if you think you own these islands.
@lifeisavideo Return Argentina to the natives, colonial bastards. Argentinians did not "discover" the land, they slaughtered the people living there, they were not he first there, they did not have the first colony. Argentinians arrogance. You think you own this land?
@sepiasilence "Colonial bastards?" I read in your profie: "Country: Great Britain and NORTHERN IRELAND". START RIGHT THERE.
Because of your confusing and unclear statements, i cannot reply to the rest. Note: this discussion is about the Malvinas. Additional note: prejudice is a bad thing. Not everybody votes for their own profit in an egoistic way. Voting for the Argentinian side does not necessarily mean to be affiliated with Argentina in any way. So think again about what you wrote.
@lifeisavideo Oh dont give me that crap, nearly every country on earth has been involved in wars for land, Argentina itself is stolen lands, the people European in origin. If the FALKLANDS are to be given to Argentina, then the southern US should be returned to mexico, Belgium should not exist as a country, Canada and countless other countries should be returned to Britain, the list is endless. Give me facts to why they should be given to Argentina, that is my only question.
@lifeisavideo You're a fool, you're taking my comments completely out of context, i am not saying they should be returned, merely pointing out that returning to the period in history that Argentina bases its claim to the islands should mean a return of all territories to their owners of this period. Yes, and you may wish to have a look back at history and see how many times Britain itself was robbed and attacked, it was what every country did.
@lifeisavideo What are you on about, "limited view", not at all, i am denying nothing, you are clinging to pathetic arguments hoping I'm some kind of ignorant moron, unfortunately you are the only one coming across as such. I can see perfectly our countries history, i can also see everyone else's and put it into context. The British just happened to be better at it then the rest of the known world, that does not change the fact every nation in history has invaded another. Grow up.
@lifeisavideo Now, back to the original question and enough of this rubbish, please give me facts to back up your opinion to give the Falkland Islands to Argentina.
@lifeisavideo Oh and you may wish to check up on where the people of Northern Ireland stand, they want to be British, the same rule applies as to the Falklands, if they want to be so they shall remain, this is backed up by the UN.
@sepiasilence: On which side do you think do the invaders of Tibet stand? Or to say it more clearly but unfortunately in the same way like before again: don't you think your argument is quite stupid because it is so obvious while it justifies nothing?
@lifeisavideo It is a totally different situation, the Falklands had no native inhabitants, the small settlements on the island came and went, put there by various colonial powers and then abandoned, the current peoples have been there the longest and are the territories only true "natives".
@Eddieposted: (Aside from the fact that punctuation is wrong): "And the first British colony was created in 1765, long before Spain..." This means "And the first British colony was created in 1765, long before Spain..." and then the possible choices to end the sentence are WAS CREATED or EXISTED. Both choices lead to a wrong statement. You have shown problems with logics before but now you also show problems with your own language...
@Eddieposted: Your "clarification" was that Spain didn't exist in 1765 and that's the joke. Nuclear waste is a proof of British life and occupation today just as arrowheads and canoes were for the Indians. Canoes, arrowheads and radioactive isotopes seem to last longest in history. I asked you which proof is better but i am sure you wouldn't even accept Indian occupancy if they would have left a radioactive no-go zone there (it could have drifted over the ocean from a different area ha ha...).
@Eddieposted: That much ignorance is not funny anymore - Mr. Eddie Superman will clean the ground of hundreds of square miles of the seas and of the land, collect all our bones, the bones of all animals and remains of all plants and deposit his isotopes wherever he wants. You are a wanted man, go to Japen, they badly need you there, that's no joke now.
@Eddieposted: "And the first British colony was created in 1765, long before Spain... existed." Spain existed since at least 1492. Fyi: this is a contradiction and your statement is wrong.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@Eddieposted: I see even this extreme example does not help to make you understand that the proof of British occupancy of a territory will be easy and persist much longer in future compared to the proof of any Indian occupancy today in an absolutely pervert way.
@lifeisavideo I see even this extreme example does not help to make you understand that the proof of British occupancy of a territory will be easy and persist much longer in future compared to the proof of any Indian occupancy today in an absolutely pervert way.
@Eddieposted: I do not doubt that proof of British presence will last longer than the proof of Indian presence. British waste, including radioactive isotopes diluted in the North Sea will last for some 100'000 years longer. Decide on your own which is better and if you want to be proud of that.
@Eddieposted: Wow, you are making progress by admitting the real facts, thank you. And as for "long term settlement" Britain did not have that 1833 (and no claim resulting from that therefore) and does not have this even today. I doubt that you have understood what "long term" means in terms of Indian civilization. You forgot to explain how the arrrowheads drifted there. And i forgot to ask if Britain ever asked the Indians for permission or compensation or if this is just their greedy nature.
@Eddieposted: I agree with you that the United Provinces were not "any other power" but Spanish as i already explained and as still recognised so by the British and the Spanish side. I agree that the treaty reserved the sovereignty rights both of the UK and Spain - and that's the reason why the British have abused and violated the treaty by invasion of the islands in 1833. The treaty shold have preserved the status quo, the result was sole British occupation. Above all they violated article VII.
@Eddieposted The United Provinces have not been recognised as a nation or power or whatever neither by Spain or Britain. You can call them pirates or whatever but in fact they must be considered Spanish at this time by both parties. Britain had to recognize the United Provinces colonization as Spanish and lawfully protected by the treaty therefore. Britain has violated article VI and especially VII of the treaty therefore. The British fooled themselves wihle they wanted to fool the Spanish.
@Eddieposted: Row 300 miles over the ocean, stop for "a short visit" and row back 300 miles Mr. brainless wannabe Superman and then call me dumb again.
@Eddieposted: There was no space for the last joke: "...that the canoe pieces and arrowheads could have been washed up or from a short visit" A SHORT VISIT 300 MILES ACROSS THE OCEAN.... And you want to call me dumb... i am really having fun here with you, ha ha!
@Eddieposted: You think that you "discovered" islands which have appeared on maps before. You think that arrowheads are being washed ashore on a remote coast 300miles away. You are arrogant enough to think that only Britain, being the third as colonists, can leave an island and have the right to claim it later. You abuse the EU for your imperialistic purposes. You dont mind that Britain stole half of the Indian world but you whine about Argentine colonists doing the same. And YOU call me dumb.
@Eddieposted: You show again your inabiltiy to understand logics as you are only able to repeat something i proved to be logically wrong. It does not help that you repeat your invalid statement, you have to give an argument against my statement which you do not. The reason is that you have no argument. Article VI is null and void because the United Provinces were recognized bei neither party and are no power in the sense of the treaty therefore. Plus, article VII has been intentionally violated.
@Eddieposted: British imperialism all over the world is a shame for every peaceful European. The British imperialism was and is only for the benefit of Britain and evenmore and especially for a few there. The destruction of native colonizations by British invasion as for example the Australian Aboriginals which lasted for over 30'000 years, a number within which we will destroy this planet several times, is a crime and just disgusting to hear you say it was for the benefit of Europ. colonials.
@Eddieposted: You show your inability for logical thinking again as article VI is not applicable. Neither Argentine or any of its predecessors were recognized by either Britain or Spain at this time and ARE NO FOREIGN POWER (there is no "party" :-) there) therefore. And then check article VII. So Britain committed an aggressive act by expressly violating article VII of the Nootka Sound convention. I fully agree with you that Argentine cannot steal the Malvinas as they are the lawful owner.
@Eddieposted If you had a brain then you would understand that the "IF" in your sentence is a logical fault because canoes and arrowheads are not being created by nature or chance. The Indians have left their "plaque" on the islands long BEFORE the British have left the islands in 1776. You have been too late and your claim is void therefore. Britain stole half of the world from Indians on 3 continents while you are whining about one single country doing the same as you did so many times.
@Eddieposted: Even after i saw maps of your home i will claim "DISCOVERY" for me. Even if i know other people have been there already i will put my plaque with extraterestrial language in your backyard CLAIMING IT because it is UNINHABITED. As a notorious liar will then sign some treaties with people around you which say that i claim nothing close to you. 20 years later i will come with my army to drive anybody i dont like out of your home, set up my own home there and claim it for me.
@Eddieposted: You confirm that the British committed an aggressive act in 1833 violating the 1790 Nootka treaty by creating a new British and thus illegal colony on the islands. You seem to prefer Argentina to start another war over the islands rather than whining about them. You have not understood that Argentina is the only party who can represent the real owners of the islands, the Indians. Britain never tried to live or arrange itself with the real owners, Britain is just a greedy invader
@Eddieposted: The British plaque is bullshit as Indians are not able to read and do not need to be able to read english plaques or plaques at all. The idea to redefine the definition of a claim to your own standards is a crime per se and an example for British aggression. Spain DID exist in 1833 and Britain has violated the Spanish claim (which is also nonsense) then therefore. Britain repeatedly violated treaties with the intention to expand its imperium. Jewet DID claim for Argentine in 1820.
@Eddieposted: Spain leaves 1811 also leaving a plate claiming sovereignity. 1820 David Jewett claims the UNINHABITED islands for the United Provinces of the River Plate (now Argentina). 1833 Britain commits an act of aggression and expells the current governement and all unwanted persons from the islands. British occupation since then.
@Eddieposted: There is proof of a boat and arowheads found on the islands. These islands were used and inhabited by Indians as you may try to row yourself 300km to the mainland if you dont believe. These islands were "discovered" around 1500, named and drawn on maps long before any Englishman saw them. The French had the first western colony there 1764 (Îles Malouines). 1790 Britain (liars) sign Nootka Sound Convention and formally renounces 'all colonial ambition' in S.A. and adjacent islands
@Eddieposted: You repeat yorself. You are boring or "you" must be a computer. You must be out of arguments, but that is easy to understand. The British stole the land of the Australian Aboriginals, the land of the native Indians in Canada and the U.S.A. and the land of the bushmen in South Africa. And while the British did this on 3 continents you think you can accuse others with your own crimes. And by the way it was not the British who stopped slavery. You are a joke.
@Eddieposted: What is missing in your joke is that you ask the Indians to write a plaque in gold, roman alphabet and plain English next time. Anybody else can search for that boat and these arrowheads which were found and prove the Indian claim. U.S.A, South Africa, India, Australia, Argentina....., where did the British not play a dirty game?
@Eddieposted: According to you i could write that the U.S. landed on these islands, and if i would repeat this long enough everybody would have to believe that they are belonging to the U.S.A. now. This ist the style of nonsense you are posting here. Fact is the Argentinians could say "the islands were uninhabited when we colonized them" no matter what BS "nameplate" Britain left there, the native Indians did that as well and long before. And: no, i did not mark you post as "SPAM", no.
@Eddieposted: You say "And the first British colony was created in 1765, long before Spain, and long before Argentina existed." Wikipedia says: "in 1492, ... A global empire began which saw Spain become the strongest kingdom in Europe". "In 1765, Capt. John Byron, who was unaware of the French presence in the east. (of the "Falklands")...".
Just an example to show what nonsense you are writing.
@Eddieposted : Illegal British occupancy is being continued while there is only one party left which can represent the first inhabitants, the first users of the land, the native Indians, GUESS WHO. NOT BRITAIN. And they never did or wanted. Furthermore, as you correctly say, the islands are occupied by British people, which is as wrong as if they were occupied by Spaniards (though legally correct). Wanna go on with Ireland? Britain really has an imperialistic problem which should be solved.
@Eddieposted: I'm not whining about logics in your posts either. If you don't accept the Argentine population as it is today then LONG BEFORE THAT you cannot accept U.S (should i go on with Britain?). and Israeli population either. You can repeat it as long as you want, Britain did not have the first colony on "Les iles malouines" (which shows that your naming is nonsense because these islands had different names long before). Britain has robbed land of the native Indians just like Spain.
@Eddieposted. HELLO!! H E L L O ! ! ! DO YOU HEAR ME? Let me repeat what i said before: "i want to hear you say the same against the USA, L O U D PLEASE." IS TWICE ENOUGH OR DO I HAVE TO REPEAT IT A THIRD TIME??? And after that, you can continue with Israel, THE example for this case. And before we turn to Argentina, we say: British colonists who were second and not first on this island to colonize it expelled an Argentine governement 1833 by force stealing the ilsands a second time.
@Eddieposted: It all starts with the British parliament, the "act of settlement" and Princess Sophie von der Pfalz. And does not end 1917 with Queen Victoria von Hannover and Prince Albert von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha. No, we do not want to continue with the Queens husband or we would find out that "Mountbatten" means "von Battenberg". Ha ha.
@Eddieposted: German extraction, if not you then.... i am just reading with great amusement that the royal family in fact has to be named Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg-Sachsen-Coburg-Gotha, not Mountbatten-Windsor ... ha ha :-)
@Eddieposted: German descent - i'm sure you speak Breizh then (the real British!). Or Gaelic. Or Latin. Or Danish? (That was a hint...think!) After a year has passed you are writing the same SELCETIVE PSEUDO TRUTH, missing THE SAME historical FACTS and i wonder how you didn't learn anything during this time. Seems i have to post the facts again and again here...
@Eddieposted: i want to hear you say the same against the USA, L O U D PLEASE. And then i would like to remind you of the history of your own country. Most likely you are a German who killed some real Britons to make a living where you are now. To base a statement on an assumption which is in question is a logical fault. The Malvinas (yes! i know you like this expression!) are NOT British territory, are NOT independent, were NOT discovered by the British and NOT inhabited by British at first
As an Argentine citizen, I am not in favor of the war, as British citizens, you should compare how the territory, and the damage caused Argentina and Britain to our countries, Argentina never, Britain is a recidivist, criminal in their attitude. Violation of the rights of others, it is common to the British race.
@medinavogler What a disgusting thing to say. It was Argentina who invaded a peaceful island, overthrew the democratic government and forced 2000 british citizens to live under a military dictatorship. The islands have been sovereign british terriotory since 25th January 1765. In England even the police don't carry guns. In argentina the police murdered 30,000 people including throwing French nuns out of helicopters.
Unfortunately the British colonial mentality has not disappeared, stealing territory to other countries has been a constant of European countries, some already do not, others persist in their criminal attitude
@medinavogler Don't be stupid. Of course the colonial attitude has long gone. The islands have never been Argentinian. They have been British since 25th January 1765. The criminality of the Argentine invasion was recognised by the UN. Western European countries don't murder 30,000 of their own people.
@rupertbrooks0: You must be really stupid. "Western European countries don't murder 30,000 of their own people" - no, they kill some millions of their own and some dozens of millions more of their enemies before they can be stopped. I hope you can figure out what i mean, as a European you have to know. You would get applause from me if you would only kill your own people. Is there a continent which has a longer record of warfare than Europe? War is a tradition there.
@rupertbrooks0: To continue with nonsense: "Of course the colonial attitude has long gone". Why was it another war in which Diego Garcia was given to Britain? Why is Diego Garcia occupied by Britain while Mauritius is not? Why have the people of Diego Garcia been expelled? And now even worse than "colonial attitude" why did Britain lease these islands to the U.S. while the U.S. conduct wars from there? This must be the new colonial attitude.
@lifeisavideo The Diego Garcia expulsion was a disgraceful incident, and as I write compensation claims are going thru the courts here in London. This was 60 years ago however and the people were not British citizens or a native population. They were slaves brought over by the French.' This has nothing to do with the Falklands (Britain has called them this since 1690) which are part of Britain and the EU.
@rupertbrooks0: I appreciate your understanding of the Diego Garcia case but it doesn't matter who was expelled, if you say "the people were not British citizens or a native population" then it seems to me that these slaves were not second but third class only. The, if you want so, "Islas de Sansón y de los Patos" have not been discovered by Britain as maps around 1500 show, not been "discovered" (which is European arrogance) at all because they have been inhabited by Indians.
@rupertbrooks0: Britain and the EU are in Europe and have to stay there. Injustice ist still injustice even after only 60 years. Or 500. Wrong is just wrong. Diego Garcia is an example, some nations have no problems like these and Britain has several. The times of imperailism are over but not for Britain, though you are not alone. The Queen is visiting Ireland. Again see that wrong is still wrong, no matter how much time has passed. That's why it does have to deal with the Falklands.
@medinavogler In truth Man's inhumanity to man is universal. No continent is better than any other. How many millions of South American natives were butchered by the Spainish and Portugese? The last 70 years have seen peace in Western Europe at least. No British Government has ever done to Britain what Argentina did to itself between 1976-82. Didn't Argentina steal land from Paraguay in the 1860s? Argentina has never said what will happen to the falklanders if it ever controlled their island.
Respond to this video...It does kind of beg the question however, if stealing other peoples land is so bad, why did Argentina invade the Falklands? After all the Islands have been British since before Argentina existed? They have been Britisn since 25th January 1765. They have been called the Falklands since 1690. Britain almost went to war with Spain in 1770 over the islands whenspain threatened them. Would Argentina ever give back Formosa province to Paraguary?
@medinavogler All this is history however. Last week in the UK we had a referendum on a proposal to change the voting system. If the sovereignty and constitution of the Falklands is to change the people who were born and live there should have the final say in their own referendum. Otherwise Argentina is doing what Slobadan Milosovic did in former Yugoslavia, or what Israel is doing in Palestine. Using history as a justification to persecute innocent people.
Poor poor men, to be treated like that is a disgrace, they gave their all to that lousy country, argies arent all bad, some of my former comrades fought that war and some of their forces were realy brave, they fought at their posts till the end......terrible to treat any soldier like that.
@Harkenish argentina lost the war because the president didn't care about winning the war . in fact they sent young kids of 18 years old, they didn't know anything about it... the real soldiers were lazy... they didn't wan't to die or risk their lifes.. so the argentinian army was in fact an inexperienced army... the real army was in fact against their own people.. the real war was inside argentina.. (30.000 dissapeared at that time) anyways some real soldiers fought and were very brave
Wow. That is one despicable regime. Even the worst at least have some respect for their veterans...this one tosses them like garbage. Fucking assholes.
that islands belongs to Argentina this idiots saying the islanders the islanders do you think that islanders are saints? who live in that islands before colon :"discovered" america our south american natives that now they live in argentina so part of the military force of Argentina was native people of originals from that islands what islanders? wanna be british? fucking murders of shit they murder a lot of natives there or simply take what dont belong to them as always they did
@7yeassaey7 No, even if there might have been native Americans in pre-historical times, they left and the islands were not populated were the Europeans arrived.
@OlenkaWagner Man. the British have spread their seed, half this world speaks English.Spaniards are still spreading their stuff. But Spaniards know that the Brits are best. America is British. We burned their capit(o)al in 1812. We rule. RULE BRITANNIA.
@dunnowy123 why would we be saying Heil Hitler? We clearly defended our land against him. Jesus christ I wouldn't be calling people stupid when you are making comments like that...
@7yeassaey7 you have nothing to be proud of - your country was a dictatorship that killed its own people, it sent boys to fight men and left them to their deaths, it abandoned them when they returned home. Your country is a fucking disgrace. Yes, britain did bad things - but 100s of years ago, not today.
@THthefirst i think your country was a dictatorship too... thatcher was the most bad bitch of all times.. she was like hitler in feminine role... she killed a lot of people at war of course but she was cruel.. she killed a lot of people at the belgrano too when they didn't need to do it .. she sucked pinochet's cock too.. so she was a bitch . she was the worst president of this century with hitler..yes we abandoned our soldiers but USA did the same with vietnam.so we're not the only ones
@micaela1488 Are you on drugs or just stupid? How can anyone compare Thatcher to Hitler? It's just a lazy attempt to make a rubbish point. She was elected into office and removed from office by her party which had elections. She was part of a democratic system which Hitler loathed. The decisions to go to war and so on she took were taken through Parliament. As for the Belgrano, it was an enemy ship in time of war, a war Argentina started, and it got sunk. That happens in war.
@THthefirst in fact Hitler lost the elections but he had a lot of votes, he lost in second place..after that he was elected by parlament and he became what we know now.. he changed some rules after that election, that's why he became some kind of "dictator" but he was voted in fact. about belgrano: at that moment argentina was totally destroyed,the victory for england was a fact.. but thatcher still wanted to destroy that ship anyways, she was cruel.. that's what i was trying to explain.
@THthefirst: "She was elected into office and removed from office by her party which had elections. She was part of a democratic system which Hitler loathed. "
OK, i see, in Germany only Hitler was bad, in Britain at least Thatcher, her party, the whole Parliament and those who elected it, thank you.
@lifeisavideo Not a very good point because Hitler couldn't have stayed in power without the support of the army. To compare Thatcher and Hitler, no matter how much you disagree with Thatcher, is utterly ridiculous. If Thatcher was like Hitler, she would have dropped a nuclear bomb on Argentina and killed millions without care. As it was, she fought a legitmate war, supported by the rest of the world, against a shitty third world dictatorship that couldn't care less for its own people.
@micaela1488 And if Britain was a dictatorship, why was there political debate at the time of the Falklands, with people and politicians questioning openly the decision to go to war? You make a very stupid point, and it shows that you have nothing else to rely on but make outlandish, stupid, comments that show you understand little about the reality, especially as you call her president when she was a prime minister - it just shows your utter ignorance.
@THthefirst in fact prime minister is similar to what we know as "president",if i used a wrong term it's only because presidents are what we have almost in all the countries.. countries like england are a little late about that.. no offense but i think queens and kings are from 17th century. and i'm not ignorant at all, in fact i have relatives who fought at that war and i know what really happened at that time.
I pity the veterans who fought in the Falklands, as they did do their duty! However, I still look at Argentina with contempt for starting the war in the first place. Not only did they cause the deaths of innocent civilians and British soldiers and sailors, but they have also caused the deaths of hundreds, if not thousands of young men. Like all wars it was pointless and only caused death and destruction. It is a sad day when your own government abandons you for no good reason!
@Eddieposted - there is also fear (I think) from being labeled as a "traitor". If a person says that the territory his/her country regards theirs is not theirs, such a person will likely to be labeled as 'traitor' or at least 'not patriotic'. People fear of such a label and leaders fear too.
@Eddieposted - Things like sinking the Canberra were easy to disprove while they were just on her deck. Things like sovereignty rights are not to be proved or disproved easily. Both sides can present true arguments, but they would put different value on them. How improtant is the will of inhabitants? Or succession from Spain? - each side would have different opinions and the justification of the opinion is not so simple as in case of facts like 'sunk vs not sunk'.
my nana and grand dad live on the falklands and my mam grew up on it . it seems strange to me tht seen as tho no argentinian has ever lived there, they still claim its theres because its close to them. end of the day they invaded british soil the people on tht island are english it was just like invading ur street. and it will never belong to argintina
@naymaximum - territorial disputes are always very difficult. Argentinians go back to 1833 and earlier trying to present historical reasons in their favour. I have noticed that the same events are presented differently by Argentinians and the British. Something that cannot be denied is that the isladers want British sovereignty and in my opinion this is the most important thing.
@MrVampiredog Up yours scumbag, Britain colongized the Islands before Argentina existited and became an Indepent nation from Spain!!! The Argentine Political system is corrupt and murderous!!!
@WICKEDMAN85 and @MrVampiredog - I think the topic presented in the video is serious and not appropriate for arguments like talking anbout "scumbag" or (British) "invaders". It is sad that the war happened.
@OlenkaWagner Fair enough Britain and Argentina lost alot of good people and many more still suffer to this day. R.I.P all those killed on both sides.
Es un gran lastima como los imperialistas en el govierno trataron a los veteranos argentinos que son los victimas de la guerra. Espero que los imperialistas de hoy en Argentina - que buscan guerras que no lucharan - veen esta pelicula.
Amazing how they talk of the propaganda pumped out during the war, e.g. sinking of Canberra, etc,. yet they still believe that the Malvinas belong to them. There is no difference really. They're lied to from birth it seems.
Argentina will become a grown up nation once they realise that the islands belong to the people that live there. Just as Argentina belongs to them.
That man had to deny he was a soldier and lie so he could find employment, what kind of people treat their returning soldiers this way? It is they who should be killing themselves, killing themselves because of the deep shame they should feel. This is a disgrace. Argentine veterans, stand proud with strength in your hearts, you deserve it.
@Skyswinger those were hard times but now soldiers are better.. they have money from the government... i think it's hard for a country to accept that.. they lost the falklands but a lot of soldiers too.. it's very sad for the families too.. and of course some people felt ashamed about that.. that's why the dictatorship of that time.. and some presidents after, didn't want to talk about war... but we' re not the only country .USA did the same when they lost vietnam's war.. and that has to change
The ability to steal and possess what is not yours by force. It is your historical Gen. That's intellectual capacity?. That so easy to be overwhelming. I thought we were more civilized but I see no. They are in the time of Neanderthal was still stone or a hammer to master. They have no human form to demonstrate this point, and won over time. That disaster historically done to the world.
@Eddieposted So , why did capt. Giacchino die in that first operation? They had clear orders to follow: no british should get wounded or killed , due to continue negotiations on UN and through diplomatic channels.
And another true historical fact is that there was no military strtegical plan on our side ; I am not a brainless hater , so must tell you both are right on that point. What I stated about gurkhas is UK always used them to fight and kill abroad , and today they beg for a recognition. Unfortunately many people died , from both sides, so noone ran away , guys.
@Restaurador35 When Malvinas were recovered , there was a strategy and one hour gov. Hunt and a hundred marines were took over . Not even a kelper got hurt. Am I lying? You should realize about british cockiness and sistematic use of force , despite your patriotism , which I understand and respect.
@Restaurador35 - it is true that while the invasion no one on the British side was hurt, but it was partially due to good luck and good cover. In any case when military action is planned casualties cannot be excluded. When something was taken by force it is logical to expect that the response can also be force. I don't know (probably no one does) if it was possible for Britain to retake the islands without force. Probably regaining full control would not have been possible.
@Eddieposted We don´t want those fucking outsiders to become argies. They´re neither british nor argentine, but the wicked Albion keep playing politics and using them as island puppets.
hi i am a british falklands veteran and i would like to get in touch with some argentine veterans to share our experiences It was a long time ago and remember we are only tools of the government and we are all somones sons
@delphine199 - I think he means just material value. Of course for those who fought and for their families they have non-material value, but this is another thing.
@Eddieposted - I haven't said they are right in it, but I think this is their way of thinking. Alternave hypothesis would be that they want to cope with their frustration and make problems, because then the Argentinian government would feel better.
@Eddieposted - I think if they gave up the claims the problems with trying to damage the economy would end automatically. They want to put the pressure hoping that Britain would give up the islands. Once they give up the claims all this will end.
@Eddieposted - I understand that the inhabitats would not agree to be a part of Argentina, but would it be possible to establish normal relationships between the Islanders and Argentinians? Much worse things happened during WW2 and now the relationships between the countries involved are normal.
@Eddieposted - OK, in a common language 'never' would be the world. But it is said you should never use the words 'never' or 'always'. I don't know what will happen in 500 or 1000 years let say. Whether the countries as we know will exist. So I said 'in the predicatable future'.
argies try again and you will have your arse kicked,third world fucking junta these argie lads who fought there tell the truth,the fuckwits now want to do it again even though the uk have some serious gear down there
@pomplumber As well as argies beat the shit out of your arrogant regiments in 1806, 1807 and 1845. Research a little and look for Treaty Arana-Southern , signed in 1849. Anyway , I know many british are smart , nice and are against imperialism.
@j20gu3: "kick your neighbour out...": I never said that i want to do that. And i will not shut up, even more as you don't have arguments. This world is not black or white, it is grey in many different ways. If you cannot imagine soltutions in which the present inhabitants are not being kicked out - your problem then.
@lifeisavideo - I believe you don't want to kick them out, but at the same time you do not accept their wishes about sovereingnty. In 1982 the residents were allowed to stay, but at the same time there were attempts made to make the islands Argentinian also in a cultural sense (changing names, changing traffic, etc.). If you are able to convince the residents about Argentinian soverignty it would be OK. But this is unlikely in the predicatable future.
@j20gu3: You can come back here and use the word "greedy" after the Argentinians "OWN" a North-European island close to Britain and have their people installed there. As long as this isn't true, the British are the greedy ones.
So many of the vulgar comments here demonstrate how little has been learnt by the suffering and sacrifices of all the lads who fought in that bloody war, Argentine or British sons. Grow up, all of you.
@thylacine1930 War is always tragic , a "bitch" as you can tell , but try not to forget that kelpers are illegal aliens in Malvinas since 1833. England took over the islands through military intimidation. They did the same in 1806, 1807 and 1845 in the mainland, but got kicked out . I don´t agree with violence ; on the other hand, oil, fish resources and gas belong to us and shouldn´t be under negociation.
Argintines should get over it. They were not wanted, are not wanted and will never be wanted on the Falklands. I mean, how thick can they be. The locals don't want a bar of Argentina. Argentina was thrashed and the rag tag argentine army thrown off in short order by the British who were welcomed as saviours.
@prisoner1673 - a continent is not a kind of a club where people gather on a basis of individual sympathy. People living there have equal rights, no matter if other people like them or not.
@OlenkaWagner: ANY OTHER and even your own continent is not a territiory where you pick a piece and keep it for strategic or economic reasons for yourself. If you do not accept that a continent is a club in which you have to ask for entrance not by force but by negotiation and cooperation then you cannot be surprised if you are generally not liked.
@lifeisavideo - It so happened in the history that some nations went overseas looking for new territories. They settled on these territories. In some cases the territories had not been inhabited before and in some they had been inhabited and they often ignored the local people. Sometimes they settled peacefully, sometimes the fighting was going on. Central and South America was colonized mainly by Spanish and Portuguese, but not only by them.
@OlenkaWagner - for example you have French Guyana or Guadelupe which make an integral part of France - different status than the status of the Falklands - and there is no conflict with France about that (or I don't know about this).
@OlenkaWagner: (the ESA Ariane rocket base - how much money do they spend there?) I do not know enough about french overseas territiories - but France or Britain or whoever, i do not support the idea of "European" overseas territories.
@OlenkaWagner: As soon as you give a part of your continent or your country to let's say Lybia, Saudi Arabia, Brunei or the like (rich, different culture AND religion) by MILITARY or other FORCEFUL means then i agree. But please note that it is not you who will participate from the wealth of the foreigners.
Also note that the the inhabitants of the lands taken from you will not object against the foreigners because most of them have foreign nationality.
@lifeisavideo - but you are describing a new situation and I am talking about the situation that has been going on for a long time and has stabilized to certain degree.
@OlenkaWagner: (NO! I'm NOT describing a new situation, i do describe a situation which exists from the OTHER SIDE !!) From this answer i conclude you don't like this idea - so why do you accept the British on the Falklands if you wouldn't accept that situation on your continent?
@lifeisavideo - I accept different cultures on the European continent. For example a part of Turkey (Istanbul/Constantinopol) is on the European continent. It was taken by force and no one is even thinking of re-taking it. Certain situations have to be accepted, although they were created by injustice and there is nothing to do about that.
@OlenkaWagner: You still don't seem to accept invaders who broke several treaties. In Europe. From another continent. That is what you have to first.
About Turkey: i don't mind Europe to end at the Bosporus :-) no, honestly, "re-taking it": you're wrong, the nice example Turkey just shows that there will be war if doing so, look at the first world war, but don't look back only 30 years.
Unintentioinally you have shown that even in this case this means war, that is exactly what i don't want.
@lifeisavideo - I don't quite get you. Do you want to say that the First World War was to retake the areas Turkey had conquered long time ago? If so, do you think it was right or wrong? I think in case of the areas inhabited by the population which was not Turkish it was good to retake them, but when the population was Turkish - the territories should remain as such.
They wont be yours
ultraAnomalocaris 6 days ago
Sad
ultraAnomalocaris 6 days ago
See were kind but invade the island agian then chile will get involved plus you dont own the islands but we will give a few island but probaly not.
ultraAnomalocaris 6 days ago
I am now 38 and I am a teacher, I am of British Indian origin and I was born in the UK as were all of my family going back around WW2. I actually teach some of my students about this period in history and I always mention both sides of the story. I have always wanted to be on friendly terms with the Argentinian people because their hurt is the same as ours. May the Lord be with the souls of both soldiers on both sides of this conflict it was a very sad event and I hope we can get on better now.
sduroch 2 months ago
I remember this war so well I was 9 years old at the time. I remember rushing back from school to see the images of the war on the news, I will never forget seeing the Harrier Jump Jet attack the Islands and also seeing British war ships being attacked by the Argentinian Air Force. It hurts me to this day because Thatcher wanted to win an election and the Argentine government also wanted to make some profit out of this disaster. It was inevitable that war was going to happen for both nations
sduroch 2 months ago
It's over. it's time to move on. The people who live there must decide for themselves and they have. Case closed
keddw 4 months ago
God.. This is depressing!
A soldiers should always be respected by their people
DarkPigeon21 4 months ago
@Eddieposted: Eddie where are you? Wasted too much time posting the same nonsense here over and over? Decided to cancel your account? Or are you rowing the 300 miles from Argentine to the Malvinas for a short visit? Or trying to hide the traces of British occupancy of northern Europe by removing all radioactive isotopes originating from Windscale? Good bye, clown!
lifeisavideo 7 months ago
@lifeisavideo Wow talk about "Bitter".Face the truth.
You gambled & lost,"..the British will NEVER come half way around the world to fight,its impossible"
Well it seems that did not turn out the way you wanted it.
One arse kicking later.....
You get no say,you start a war & lose that is what happens.
Live with it ,because you have no choice,its been 30 years & nothing going to change.
Why should it,the Islanders hate you and what they say matters. You can do NOTHING..its OVER!
TrentVenture 7 months ago
Damn Colonising, they give back what it does not belong to them… Argentina is absolute owner of the Malvinas.Aquien islands likes that an enemy sleeps in the patio of his house? all-consuming of our natural resources, they want only it to operate hydrocarbons, do not have English feelings colds.
faustto333 7 months ago
@faustto333 LOL - yeah give the land you stole from the Amerindians back and apologise for 400 years of murder, rape and theft. Do that and maybe the world will take you seriously.
krackersdave 2 months ago
@faustto333 Why are they the owners? Britains claim goes back further and the people there are British. They are 100s of miles away from the mainland. Argentina itself is land taken from the natives in colonial times, Argentinians are European, please back up your comment with facts.
sepiasilence 1 week ago
@Eddieposted: Thank you for your compliment as i will only understand what people write. These are the basics of communication. There is no logic to counter. The British did not "discover" the islands. The British did not give them their first name. The British were not the first on these islands. The British did not have the first colony there. The British did not have the first governement there. After all that arrogance is if you think you own these islands.
lifeisavideo 8 months ago
@lifeisavideo Return Argentina to the natives, colonial bastards. Argentinians did not "discover" the land, they slaughtered the people living there, they were not he first there, they did not have the first colony. Argentinians arrogance. You think you own this land?
sepiasilence 1 week ago
@sepiasilence "Colonial bastards?" I read in your profie: "Country: Great Britain and NORTHERN IRELAND". START RIGHT THERE.
Because of your confusing and unclear statements, i cannot reply to the rest. Note: this discussion is about the Malvinas. Additional note: prejudice is a bad thing. Not everybody votes for their own profit in an egoistic way. Voting for the Argentinian side does not necessarily mean to be affiliated with Argentina in any way. So think again about what you wrote.
lifeisavideo 1 week ago
@lifeisavideo Oh dont give me that crap, nearly every country on earth has been involved in wars for land, Argentina itself is stolen lands, the people European in origin. If the FALKLANDS are to be given to Argentina, then the southern US should be returned to mexico, Belgium should not exist as a country, Canada and countless other countries should be returned to Britain, the list is endless. Give me facts to why they should be given to Argentina, that is my only question.
sepiasilence 1 week ago
@sepiasilence: (Actually you are absolutely right, but)
"Canada and countless other countries should be returned to Britain"
Ha ha, this is the best joke heard here since a long time which shows your double standards or, maybe, you're too blind to see.
These are the countless countries you robbed from others, but with your limited view you cannot see this.
Ist there a nation on earth which invaded and robbed more land from others than Britain?
lifeisavideo 1 week ago
@lifeisavideo You're a fool, you're taking my comments completely out of context, i am not saying they should be returned, merely pointing out that returning to the period in history that Argentina bases its claim to the islands should mean a return of all territories to their owners of this period. Yes, and you may wish to have a look back at history and see how many times Britain itself was robbed and attacked, it was what every country did.
sepiasilence 6 days ago
@lifeisavideo What are you on about, "limited view", not at all, i am denying nothing, you are clinging to pathetic arguments hoping I'm some kind of ignorant moron, unfortunately you are the only one coming across as such. I can see perfectly our countries history, i can also see everyone else's and put it into context. The British just happened to be better at it then the rest of the known world, that does not change the fact every nation in history has invaded another. Grow up.
sepiasilence 6 days ago
@lifeisavideo Now, back to the original question and enough of this rubbish, please give me facts to back up your opinion to give the Falkland Islands to Argentina.
sepiasilence 6 days ago
@lifeisavideo Oh and you may wish to check up on where the people of Northern Ireland stand, they want to be British, the same rule applies as to the Falklands, if they want to be so they shall remain, this is backed up by the UN.
sepiasilence 1 week ago
@sepiasilence: On which side do you think do the invaders of Tibet stand? Or to say it more clearly but unfortunately in the same way like before again: don't you think your argument is quite stupid because it is so obvious while it justifies nothing?
lifeisavideo 1 week ago
@lifeisavideo It is a totally different situation, the Falklands had no native inhabitants, the small settlements on the island came and went, put there by various colonial powers and then abandoned, the current peoples have been there the longest and are the territories only true "natives".
sepiasilence 6 days ago
Comment removed
lifeisavideo 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sepiasilence: And then: don't you think it is quite stupid to accuse somebody for something your own country did on a much larger basis?
There are enough examples. So better don't start to argue.
lifeisavideo 1 week ago
@Eddieposted: (Aside from the fact that punctuation is wrong): "And the first British colony was created in 1765, long before Spain..." This means "And the first British colony was created in 1765, long before Spain..." and then the possible choices to end the sentence are WAS CREATED or EXISTED. Both choices lead to a wrong statement. You have shown problems with logics before but now you also show problems with your own language...
lifeisavideo 8 months ago
@Eddieposted: Your "clarification" was that Spain didn't exist in 1765 and that's the joke. Nuclear waste is a proof of British life and occupation today just as arrowheads and canoes were for the Indians. Canoes, arrowheads and radioactive isotopes seem to last longest in history. I asked you which proof is better but i am sure you wouldn't even accept Indian occupancy if they would have left a radioactive no-go zone there (it could have drifted over the ocean from a different area ha ha...).
lifeisavideo 8 months ago
@Eddieposted (You repeat yourself) - you are out of arguments (but that's another repetition)....
lifeisavideo 8 months ago
@Eddieposted: That much ignorance is not funny anymore - Mr. Eddie Superman will clean the ground of hundreds of square miles of the seas and of the land, collect all our bones, the bones of all animals and remains of all plants and deposit his isotopes wherever he wants. You are a wanted man, go to Japen, they badly need you there, that's no joke now.
lifeisavideo 8 months ago
@Eddieposted: "And the first British colony was created in 1765, long before Spain... existed." Spain existed since at least 1492. Fyi: this is a contradiction and your statement is wrong.
lifeisavideo 8 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Eddieposted: I see even this extreme example does not help to make you understand that the proof of British occupancy of a territory will be easy and persist much longer in future compared to the proof of any Indian occupancy today in an absolutely pervert way.
lifeisavideo 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lifeisavideo I see even this extreme example does not help to make you understand that the proof of British occupancy of a territory will be easy and persist much longer in future compared to the proof of any Indian occupancy today in an absolutely pervert way.
lifeisavideo 7 months ago
@Eddieposted: I do not doubt that proof of British presence will last longer than the proof of Indian presence. British waste, including radioactive isotopes diluted in the North Sea will last for some 100'000 years longer. Decide on your own which is better and if you want to be proud of that.
lifeisavideo 8 months ago
@Eddieposted: Wow, you are making progress by admitting the real facts, thank you. And as for "long term settlement" Britain did not have that 1833 (and no claim resulting from that therefore) and does not have this even today. I doubt that you have understood what "long term" means in terms of Indian civilization. You forgot to explain how the arrrowheads drifted there. And i forgot to ask if Britain ever asked the Indians for permission or compensation or if this is just their greedy nature.
lifeisavideo 8 months ago
@Eddieposted: I agree with you that the United Provinces were not "any other power" but Spanish as i already explained and as still recognised so by the British and the Spanish side. I agree that the treaty reserved the sovereignty rights both of the UK and Spain - and that's the reason why the British have abused and violated the treaty by invasion of the islands in 1833. The treaty shold have preserved the status quo, the result was sole British occupation. Above all they violated article VII.
lifeisavideo 8 months ago
@Eddieposted The United Provinces have not been recognised as a nation or power or whatever neither by Spain or Britain. You can call them pirates or whatever but in fact they must be considered Spanish at this time by both parties. Britain had to recognize the United Provinces colonization as Spanish and lawfully protected by the treaty therefore. Britain has violated article VI and especially VII of the treaty therefore. The British fooled themselves wihle they wanted to fool the Spanish.
lifeisavideo 8 months ago
@Eddieposted: Row 300 miles over the ocean, stop for "a short visit" and row back 300 miles Mr. brainless wannabe Superman and then call me dumb again.
lifeisavideo 8 months ago
@Eddieposted: There was no space for the last joke: "...that the canoe pieces and arrowheads could have been washed up or from a short visit" A SHORT VISIT 300 MILES ACROSS THE OCEAN.... And you want to call me dumb... i am really having fun here with you, ha ha!
lifeisavideo 8 months ago
@Eddieposted: You think that you "discovered" islands which have appeared on maps before. You think that arrowheads are being washed ashore on a remote coast 300miles away. You are arrogant enough to think that only Britain, being the third as colonists, can leave an island and have the right to claim it later. You abuse the EU for your imperialistic purposes. You dont mind that Britain stole half of the Indian world but you whine about Argentine colonists doing the same. And YOU call me dumb.
lifeisavideo 8 months ago
@Eddieposted: You show again your inabiltiy to understand logics as you are only able to repeat something i proved to be logically wrong. It does not help that you repeat your invalid statement, you have to give an argument against my statement which you do not. The reason is that you have no argument. Article VI is null and void because the United Provinces were recognized bei neither party and are no power in the sense of the treaty therefore. Plus, article VII has been intentionally violated.
lifeisavideo 8 months ago
@Eddieposted: British imperialism all over the world is a shame for every peaceful European. The British imperialism was and is only for the benefit of Britain and evenmore and especially for a few there. The destruction of native colonizations by British invasion as for example the Australian Aboriginals which lasted for over 30'000 years, a number within which we will destroy this planet several times, is a crime and just disgusting to hear you say it was for the benefit of Europ. colonials.
lifeisavideo 8 months ago
@Eddieposted: You show your inability for logical thinking again as article VI is not applicable. Neither Argentine or any of its predecessors were recognized by either Britain or Spain at this time and ARE NO FOREIGN POWER (there is no "party" :-) there) therefore. And then check article VII. So Britain committed an aggressive act by expressly violating article VII of the Nootka Sound convention. I fully agree with you that Argentine cannot steal the Malvinas as they are the lawful owner.
lifeisavideo 8 months ago
@Eddieposted If you had a brain then you would understand that the "IF" in your sentence is a logical fault because canoes and arrowheads are not being created by nature or chance. The Indians have left their "plaque" on the islands long BEFORE the British have left the islands in 1776. You have been too late and your claim is void therefore. Britain stole half of the world from Indians on 3 continents while you are whining about one single country doing the same as you did so many times.
lifeisavideo 8 months ago
@Eddieposted: Even after i saw maps of your home i will claim "DISCOVERY" for me. Even if i know other people have been there already i will put my plaque with extraterestrial language in your backyard CLAIMING IT because it is UNINHABITED. As a notorious liar will then sign some treaties with people around you which say that i claim nothing close to you. 20 years later i will come with my army to drive anybody i dont like out of your home, set up my own home there and claim it for me.
lifeisavideo 8 months ago
@Eddieposted: You confirm that the British committed an aggressive act in 1833 violating the 1790 Nootka treaty by creating a new British and thus illegal colony on the islands. You seem to prefer Argentina to start another war over the islands rather than whining about them. You have not understood that Argentina is the only party who can represent the real owners of the islands, the Indians. Britain never tried to live or arrange itself with the real owners, Britain is just a greedy invader
lifeisavideo 8 months ago
@Eddieposted: The British plaque is bullshit as Indians are not able to read and do not need to be able to read english plaques or plaques at all. The idea to redefine the definition of a claim to your own standards is a crime per se and an example for British aggression. Spain DID exist in 1833 and Britain has violated the Spanish claim (which is also nonsense) then therefore. Britain repeatedly violated treaties with the intention to expand its imperium. Jewet DID claim for Argentine in 1820.
lifeisavideo 8 months ago
@Eddieposted: Spain leaves 1811 also leaving a plate claiming sovereignity. 1820 David Jewett claims the UNINHABITED islands for the United Provinces of the River Plate (now Argentina). 1833 Britain commits an act of aggression and expells the current governement and all unwanted persons from the islands. British occupation since then.
lifeisavideo 8 months ago
@Eddieposted: There is proof of a boat and arowheads found on the islands. These islands were used and inhabited by Indians as you may try to row yourself 300km to the mainland if you dont believe. These islands were "discovered" around 1500, named and drawn on maps long before any Englishman saw them. The French had the first western colony there 1764 (Îles Malouines). 1790 Britain (liars) sign Nootka Sound Convention and formally renounces 'all colonial ambition' in S.A. and adjacent islands
lifeisavideo 8 months ago
@Eddieposted: You repeat yorself. You are boring or "you" must be a computer. You must be out of arguments, but that is easy to understand. The British stole the land of the Australian Aboriginals, the land of the native Indians in Canada and the U.S.A. and the land of the bushmen in South Africa. And while the British did this on 3 continents you think you can accuse others with your own crimes. And by the way it was not the British who stopped slavery. You are a joke.
lifeisavideo 8 months ago
@Eddieposted: What is missing in your joke is that you ask the Indians to write a plaque in gold, roman alphabet and plain English next time. Anybody else can search for that boat and these arrowheads which were found and prove the Indian claim. U.S.A, South Africa, India, Australia, Argentina....., where did the British not play a dirty game?
lifeisavideo 8 months ago
@Eddieposted: According to you i could write that the U.S. landed on these islands, and if i would repeat this long enough everybody would have to believe that they are belonging to the U.S.A. now. This ist the style of nonsense you are posting here. Fact is the Argentinians could say "the islands were uninhabited when we colonized them" no matter what BS "nameplate" Britain left there, the native Indians did that as well and long before. And: no, i did not mark you post as "SPAM", no.
lifeisavideo 8 months ago
@Eddieposted: You say "And the first British colony was created in 1765, long before Spain, and long before Argentina existed." Wikipedia says: "in 1492, ... A global empire began which saw Spain become the strongest kingdom in Europe". "In 1765, Capt. John Byron, who was unaware of the French presence in the east. (of the "Falklands")...".
Just an example to show what nonsense you are writing.
lifeisavideo 8 months ago
@Eddieposted : Illegal British occupancy is being continued while there is only one party left which can represent the first inhabitants, the first users of the land, the native Indians, GUESS WHO. NOT BRITAIN. And they never did or wanted. Furthermore, as you correctly say, the islands are occupied by British people, which is as wrong as if they were occupied by Spaniards (though legally correct). Wanna go on with Ireland? Britain really has an imperialistic problem which should be solved.
lifeisavideo 8 months ago
@Eddieposted: I'm not whining about logics in your posts either. If you don't accept the Argentine population as it is today then LONG BEFORE THAT you cannot accept U.S (should i go on with Britain?). and Israeli population either. You can repeat it as long as you want, Britain did not have the first colony on "Les iles malouines" (which shows that your naming is nonsense because these islands had different names long before). Britain has robbed land of the native Indians just like Spain.
lifeisavideo 8 months ago
@Eddieposted. HELLO!! H E L L O ! ! ! DO YOU HEAR ME? Let me repeat what i said before: "i want to hear you say the same against the USA, L O U D PLEASE." IS TWICE ENOUGH OR DO I HAVE TO REPEAT IT A THIRD TIME??? And after that, you can continue with Israel, THE example for this case. And before we turn to Argentina, we say: British colonists who were second and not first on this island to colonize it expelled an Argentine governement 1833 by force stealing the ilsands a second time.
lifeisavideo 8 months ago
@Eddieposted: It all starts with the British parliament, the "act of settlement" and Princess Sophie von der Pfalz. And does not end 1917 with Queen Victoria von Hannover and Prince Albert von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha. No, we do not want to continue with the Queens husband or we would find out that "Mountbatten" means "von Battenberg". Ha ha.
lifeisavideo 8 months ago
@Eddieposted: German extraction, if not you then.... i am just reading with great amusement that the royal family in fact has to be named Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg-Sachsen-Coburg-Gotha, not Mountbatten-Windsor ... ha ha :-)
lifeisavideo 9 months ago
@Eddieposted: German descent - i'm sure you speak Breizh then (the real British!). Or Gaelic. Or Latin. Or Danish? (That was a hint...think!) After a year has passed you are writing the same SELCETIVE PSEUDO TRUTH, missing THE SAME historical FACTS and i wonder how you didn't learn anything during this time. Seems i have to post the facts again and again here...
lifeisavideo 9 months ago
@Eddieposted: i want to hear you say the same against the USA, L O U D PLEASE. And then i would like to remind you of the history of your own country. Most likely you are a German who killed some real Britons to make a living where you are now. To base a statement on an assumption which is in question is a logical fault. The Malvinas (yes! i know you like this expression!) are NOT British territory, are NOT independent, were NOT discovered by the British and NOT inhabited by British at first
lifeisavideo 9 months ago
LES DIMOS BIEN DURO A LOS PIRATAS,NO SE OLVIDARAN JAMAS DE LOS ARGENTINOS. VIVA LA PATRIA CARAJO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
MARIANO777RACINGCLUB 9 months ago
As an Argentine citizen, I am not in favor of the war, as British citizens, you should compare how the territory, and the damage caused Argentina and Britain to our countries, Argentina never, Britain is a recidivist, criminal in their attitude. Violation of the rights of others, it is common to the British race.
medinavogler 10 months ago
@medinavogler What a disgusting thing to say. It was Argentina who invaded a peaceful island, overthrew the democratic government and forced 2000 british citizens to live under a military dictatorship. The islands have been sovereign british terriotory since 25th January 1765. In England even the police don't carry guns. In argentina the police murdered 30,000 people including throwing French nuns out of helicopters.
rupertbrooks0 8 months ago
Unfortunately the British colonial mentality has not disappeared, stealing territory to other countries has been a constant of European countries, some already do not, others persist in their criminal attitude
medinavogler 10 months ago
@medinavogler Don't be stupid. Of course the colonial attitude has long gone. The islands have never been Argentinian. They have been British since 25th January 1765. The criminality of the Argentine invasion was recognised by the UN. Western European countries don't murder 30,000 of their own people.
rupertbrooks0 8 months ago
@rupertbrooks0: You must be really stupid. "Western European countries don't murder 30,000 of their own people" - no, they kill some millions of their own and some dozens of millions more of their enemies before they can be stopped. I hope you can figure out what i mean, as a European you have to know. You would get applause from me if you would only kill your own people. Is there a continent which has a longer record of warfare than Europe? War is a tradition there.
lifeisavideo 8 months ago
@rupertbrooks0: To continue with nonsense: "Of course the colonial attitude has long gone". Why was it another war in which Diego Garcia was given to Britain? Why is Diego Garcia occupied by Britain while Mauritius is not? Why have the people of Diego Garcia been expelled? And now even worse than "colonial attitude" why did Britain lease these islands to the U.S. while the U.S. conduct wars from there? This must be the new colonial attitude.
lifeisavideo 8 months ago
@lifeisavideo The Diego Garcia expulsion was a disgraceful incident, and as I write compensation claims are going thru the courts here in London. This was 60 years ago however and the people were not British citizens or a native population. They were slaves brought over by the French.' This has nothing to do with the Falklands (Britain has called them this since 1690) which are part of Britain and the EU.
rupertbrooks0 8 months ago
@rupertbrooks0: I appreciate your understanding of the Diego Garcia case but it doesn't matter who was expelled, if you say "the people were not British citizens or a native population" then it seems to me that these slaves were not second but third class only. The, if you want so, "Islas de Sansón y de los Patos" have not been discovered by Britain as maps around 1500 show, not been "discovered" (which is European arrogance) at all because they have been inhabited by Indians.
lifeisavideo 8 months ago
@rupertbrooks0: Britain and the EU are in Europe and have to stay there. Injustice ist still injustice even after only 60 years. Or 500. Wrong is just wrong. Diego Garcia is an example, some nations have no problems like these and Britain has several. The times of imperailism are over but not for Britain, though you are not alone. The Queen is visiting Ireland. Again see that wrong is still wrong, no matter how much time has passed. That's why it does have to deal with the Falklands.
lifeisavideo 8 months ago
@medinavogler In truth Man's inhumanity to man is universal. No continent is better than any other. How many millions of South American natives were butchered by the Spainish and Portugese? The last 70 years have seen peace in Western Europe at least. No British Government has ever done to Britain what Argentina did to itself between 1976-82. Didn't Argentina steal land from Paraguay in the 1860s? Argentina has never said what will happen to the falklanders if it ever controlled their island.
rupertbrooks0 8 months ago
Respond to this video...It does kind of beg the question however, if stealing other peoples land is so bad, why did Argentina invade the Falklands? After all the Islands have been British since before Argentina existed? They have been Britisn since 25th January 1765. They have been called the Falklands since 1690. Britain almost went to war with Spain in 1770 over the islands whenspain threatened them. Would Argentina ever give back Formosa province to Paraguary?
rupertbrooks0 8 months ago
@medinavogler All this is history however. Last week in the UK we had a referendum on a proposal to change the voting system. If the sovereignty and constitution of the Falklands is to change the people who were born and live there should have the final say in their own referendum. Otherwise Argentina is doing what Slobadan Milosovic did in former Yugoslavia, or what Israel is doing in Palestine. Using history as a justification to persecute innocent people.
rupertbrooks0 8 months ago
WELCOME EDGARDO, OUR WAR HERO
outlaw21actual 10 months ago
This is a disgrace,treating them like dogs.Only you would treat your dog better.
Argentines should hang their heads in shame.
TrentVenture 1 year ago
Comment removed
TrentVenture 1 year ago
Poor poor men, to be treated like that is a disgrace, they gave their all to that lousy country, argies arent all bad, some of my former comrades fought that war and some of their forces were realy brave, they fought at their posts till the end......terrible to treat any soldier like that.
Harkenish 1 year ago
@Harkenish argentina lost the war because the president didn't care about winning the war . in fact they sent young kids of 18 years old, they didn't know anything about it... the real soldiers were lazy... they didn't wan't to die or risk their lifes.. so the argentinian army was in fact an inexperienced army... the real army was in fact against their own people.. the real war was inside argentina.. (30.000 dissapeared at that time) anyways some real soldiers fought and were very brave
micaela1488 1 year ago
The isles belong to us, the argentines
spidermanarge 1 year ago
Wow. That is one despicable regime. Even the worst at least have some respect for their veterans...this one tosses them like garbage. Fucking assholes.
dunnowy123 1 year ago 3
the narrator for the Argentines should not be American.
Studas2006 1 year ago
that islands belongs to Argentina this idiots saying the islanders the islanders do you think that islanders are saints? who live in that islands before colon :"discovered" america our south american natives that now they live in argentina so part of the military force of Argentina was native people of originals from that islands what islanders? wanna be british? fucking murders of shit they murder a lot of natives there or simply take what dont belong to them as always they did
7yeassaey7 1 year ago
@7yeassaey7 No, even if there might have been native Americans in pre-historical times, they left and the islands were not populated were the Europeans arrived.
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@OlenkaWagner Man. the British have spread their seed, half this world speaks English.Spaniards are still spreading their stuff. But Spaniards know that the Brits are best. America is British. We burned their capit(o)al in 1812. We rule. RULE BRITANNIA.
Studas2006 1 year ago
@Studas2006
UK FTW
PrezDaNTJIHAD 1 year ago
@Studas2006
How is America British if you burned their capital? Makes no sense.
Also, that would be saying HEIL HITLER because he bombed the shit outta London. Stupid Brit lol.
dunnowy123 1 year ago
@dunnowy123 why would we be saying Heil Hitler? We clearly defended our land against him. Jesus christ I wouldn't be calling people stupid when you are making comments like that...
manchesterfellow 1 year ago
Comment removed
micaela1488 1 year ago
@7yeassaey7 you have nothing to be proud of - your country was a dictatorship that killed its own people, it sent boys to fight men and left them to their deaths, it abandoned them when they returned home. Your country is a fucking disgrace. Yes, britain did bad things - but 100s of years ago, not today.
THthefirst 1 year ago
@THthefirst i think your country was a dictatorship too... thatcher was the most bad bitch of all times.. she was like hitler in feminine role... she killed a lot of people at war of course but she was cruel.. she killed a lot of people at the belgrano too when they didn't need to do it .. she sucked pinochet's cock too.. so she was a bitch . she was the worst president of this century with hitler..yes we abandoned our soldiers but USA did the same with vietnam.so we're not the only ones
micaela1488 1 year ago
@micaela1488 Are you on drugs or just stupid? How can anyone compare Thatcher to Hitler? It's just a lazy attempt to make a rubbish point. She was elected into office and removed from office by her party which had elections. She was part of a democratic system which Hitler loathed. The decisions to go to war and so on she took were taken through Parliament. As for the Belgrano, it was an enemy ship in time of war, a war Argentina started, and it got sunk. That happens in war.
THthefirst 1 year ago
@THthefirst in fact Hitler lost the elections but he had a lot of votes, he lost in second place..after that he was elected by parlament and he became what we know now.. he changed some rules after that election, that's why he became some kind of "dictator" but he was voted in fact. about belgrano: at that moment argentina was totally destroyed,the victory for england was a fact.. but thatcher still wanted to destroy that ship anyways, she was cruel.. that's what i was trying to explain.
micaela1488 1 year ago
@THthefirst: "She was elected into office and removed from office by her party which had elections. She was part of a democratic system which Hitler loathed. "
OK, i see, in Germany only Hitler was bad, in Britain at least Thatcher, her party, the whole Parliament and those who elected it, thank you.
lifeisavideo 9 months ago
@lifeisavideo Not a very good point because Hitler couldn't have stayed in power without the support of the army. To compare Thatcher and Hitler, no matter how much you disagree with Thatcher, is utterly ridiculous. If Thatcher was like Hitler, she would have dropped a nuclear bomb on Argentina and killed millions without care. As it was, she fought a legitmate war, supported by the rest of the world, against a shitty third world dictatorship that couldn't care less for its own people.
THthefirst 9 months ago
@THthefirst: It was a joke :-) this pseudo logic was too much provocation for me to resist...
lifeisavideo 9 months ago
@lifeisavideo What pseudo logic? It is logic surely? Making a shit point isn't a joke.
THthefirst 9 months ago
@micaela1488 And if Britain was a dictatorship, why was there political debate at the time of the Falklands, with people and politicians questioning openly the decision to go to war? You make a very stupid point, and it shows that you have nothing else to rely on but make outlandish, stupid, comments that show you understand little about the reality, especially as you call her president when she was a prime minister - it just shows your utter ignorance.
THthefirst 1 year ago
@THthefirst in fact prime minister is similar to what we know as "president",if i used a wrong term it's only because presidents are what we have almost in all the countries.. countries like england are a little late about that.. no offense but i think queens and kings are from 17th century. and i'm not ignorant at all, in fact i have relatives who fought at that war and i know what really happened at that time.
micaela1488 1 year ago
@THthefirst if this is the case you too has nothing to be proud of a country to living robbed earths :-0
7yeassaey7 1 year ago
I pity the veterans who fought in the Falklands, as they did do their duty! However, I still look at Argentina with contempt for starting the war in the first place. Not only did they cause the deaths of innocent civilians and British soldiers and sailors, but they have also caused the deaths of hundreds, if not thousands of young men. Like all wars it was pointless and only caused death and destruction. It is a sad day when your own government abandons you for no good reason!
MadMac2236 1 year ago 8
@Eddieposted - there is also fear (I think) from being labeled as a "traitor". If a person says that the territory his/her country regards theirs is not theirs, such a person will likely to be labeled as 'traitor' or at least 'not patriotic'. People fear of such a label and leaders fear too.
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@Eddieposted - Things like sinking the Canberra were easy to disprove while they were just on her deck. Things like sovereignty rights are not to be proved or disproved easily. Both sides can present true arguments, but they would put different value on them. How improtant is the will of inhabitants? Or succession from Spain? - each side would have different opinions and the justification of the opinion is not so simple as in case of facts like 'sunk vs not sunk'.
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
my nana and grand dad live on the falklands and my mam grew up on it . it seems strange to me tht seen as tho no argentinian has ever lived there, they still claim its theres because its close to them. end of the day they invaded british soil the people on tht island are english it was just like invading ur street. and it will never belong to argintina
naymaximum 1 year ago 3
@naymaximum - territorial disputes are always very difficult. Argentinians go back to 1833 and earlier trying to present historical reasons in their favour. I have noticed that the same events are presented differently by Argentinians and the British. Something that cannot be denied is that the isladers want British sovereignty and in my opinion this is the most important thing.
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@naymaximum - but I think the claims make one issue and the tragedies of individual people (no matter the side) make another issue.
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
Comment removed
MrVampiredog 1 year ago
GOD BLESS EVERY ARGENTINA SOLIDERS AND SAILORS WHO DIED FIGHTING THE INVADERS ACROSS THE SEA. THEY DID NOT DIE IN VAIN DEFENDING THEIR LAND
MrVampiredog 1 year ago
@MrVampiredog Up yours scumbag, Britain colongized the Islands before Argentina existited and became an Indepent nation from Spain!!! The Argentine Political system is corrupt and murderous!!!
WICKEDMAN85 1 year ago
@WICKEDMAN85 and @MrVampiredog - I think the topic presented in the video is serious and not appropriate for arguments like talking anbout "scumbag" or (British) "invaders". It is sad that the war happened.
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@OlenkaWagner Fair enough Britain and Argentina lost alot of good people and many more still suffer to this day. R.I.P all those killed on both sides.
WICKEDMAN85 1 year ago
Es un gran lastima como los imperialistas en el govierno trataron a los veteranos argentinos que son los victimas de la guerra. Espero que los imperialistas de hoy en Argentina - que buscan guerras que no lucharan - veen esta pelicula.
alanheath3 1 year ago
As an ex-British soldier. I really hope the Argentinion Government will look after the vets, and not ignore them.
tomliath 1 year ago 23
@tomliath I second that also as a former British soldier.
alanheath3 1 year ago
@tomliath in fact now the actual president gives them money (subsidies) .. they recognized them as heroes.
micaela1488 1 year ago
@tomliath Right on, man.
Beeyatchibus 1 year ago
Amazing how they talk of the propaganda pumped out during the war, e.g. sinking of Canberra, etc,. yet they still believe that the Malvinas belong to them. There is no difference really. They're lied to from birth it seems.
Argentina will become a grown up nation once they realise that the islands belong to the people that live there. Just as Argentina belongs to them.
Strompy82 1 year ago
That man had to deny he was a soldier and lie so he could find employment, what kind of people treat their returning soldiers this way? It is they who should be killing themselves, killing themselves because of the deep shame they should feel. This is a disgrace. Argentine veterans, stand proud with strength in your hearts, you deserve it.
Skyswinger 1 year ago 17
@Skyswinger in a country with a dictatorship...what do you think!
alvarogrm 1 year ago
@Skyswinger those were hard times but now soldiers are better.. they have money from the government... i think it's hard for a country to accept that.. they lost the falklands but a lot of soldiers too.. it's very sad for the families too.. and of course some people felt ashamed about that.. that's why the dictatorship of that time.. and some presidents after, didn't want to talk about war... but we' re not the only country .USA did the same when they lost vietnam's war.. and that has to change
micaela1488 1 year ago
the only legitimate war Britain has ever fought.
waynecannington 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The ability to steal and possess what is not yours by force. It is your historical Gen. That's intellectual capacity?. That so easy to be overwhelming. I thought we were more civilized but I see no. They are in the time of Neanderthal was still stone or a hammer to master. They have no human form to demonstrate this point, and won over time. That disaster historically done to the world.
elbuscahuellas 1 year ago 2
Damn shameful the way their own country treated them.
nrang1 1 year ago
@Eddieposted So , why did capt. Giacchino die in that first operation? They had clear orders to follow: no british should get wounded or killed , due to continue negotiations on UN and through diplomatic channels.
Restaurador35 1 year ago
@Restaurador35 utter rubbish. sorry to break it to you.
45545512 1 year ago
And another true historical fact is that there was no military strtegical plan on our side ; I am not a brainless hater , so must tell you both are right on that point. What I stated about gurkhas is UK always used them to fight and kill abroad , and today they beg for a recognition. Unfortunately many people died , from both sides, so noone ran away , guys.
Restaurador35 1 year ago
@Restaurador35 When Malvinas were recovered , there was a strategy and one hour gov. Hunt and a hundred marines were took over . Not even a kelper got hurt. Am I lying? You should realize about british cockiness and sistematic use of force , despite your patriotism , which I understand and respect.
Restaurador35 1 year ago
@Restaurador35 - it is true that while the invasion no one on the British side was hurt, but it was partially due to good luck and good cover. In any case when military action is planned casualties cannot be excluded. When something was taken by force it is logical to expect that the response can also be force. I don't know (probably no one does) if it was possible for Britain to retake the islands without force. Probably regaining full control would not have been possible.
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@Eddieposted We don´t want those fucking outsiders to become argies. They´re neither british nor argentine, but the wicked Albion keep playing politics and using them as island puppets.
Restaurador35 1 year ago
hi i am a british falklands veteran and i would like to get in touch with some argentine veterans to share our experiences It was a long time ago and remember we are only tools of the government and we are all somones sons
paddycraig 1 year ago
@delphine199 - I think he means just material value. Of course for those who fought and for their families they have non-material value, but this is another thing.
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
Esteban otro APÁTRIDA los veteranos odian hizo esa pelicula maliciosa de iluminados por el fuego, otro hijo de puta!
hugomilano1106 1 year ago
@Eddieposted - I haven't said they are right in it, but I think this is their way of thinking. Alternave hypothesis would be that they want to cope with their frustration and make problems, because then the Argentinian government would feel better.
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@Eddieposted - I think if they gave up the claims the problems with trying to damage the economy would end automatically. They want to put the pressure hoping that Britain would give up the islands. Once they give up the claims all this will end.
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@Eddieposted - but if Argentinians gave up their claims the relationships would be normal.
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@Eddieposted - I understand that the inhabitats would not agree to be a part of Argentina, but would it be possible to establish normal relationships between the Islanders and Argentinians? Much worse things happened during WW2 and now the relationships between the countries involved are normal.
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@Eddieposted - OK, in a common language 'never' would be the world. But it is said you should never use the words 'never' or 'always'. I don't know what will happen in 500 or 1000 years let say. Whether the countries as we know will exist. So I said 'in the predicatable future'.
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
argies try again and you will have your arse kicked,third world fucking junta these argie lads who fought there tell the truth,the fuckwits now want to do it again even though the uk have some serious gear down there
pomplumber 1 year ago
@pomplumber As well as argies beat the shit out of your arrogant regiments in 1806, 1807 and 1845. Research a little and look for Treaty Arana-Southern , signed in 1849. Anyway , I know many british are smart , nice and are against imperialism.
Restaurador35 1 year ago
@j20gu3: "kick your neighbour out...": I never said that i want to do that. And i will not shut up, even more as you don't have arguments. This world is not black or white, it is grey in many different ways. If you cannot imagine soltutions in which the present inhabitants are not being kicked out - your problem then.
lifeisavideo 1 year ago
@lifeisavideo - I believe you don't want to kick them out, but at the same time you do not accept their wishes about sovereingnty. In 1982 the residents were allowed to stay, but at the same time there were attempts made to make the islands Argentinian also in a cultural sense (changing names, changing traffic, etc.). If you are able to convince the residents about Argentinian soverignty it would be OK. But this is unlikely in the predicatable future.
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@j20gu3: You can come back here and use the word "greedy" after the Argentinians "OWN" a North-European island close to Britain and have their people installed there. As long as this isn't true, the British are the greedy ones.
lifeisavideo 1 year ago
@j20gu3:
1) You admit that i am right, but you're still wrong. Read Wikipedia...
2) The French were the first but they later accepted Spain's sovereignity, not like the British did
3) It shows British nature: Aggression plus greed which equals imperialism
4) They did from 1820 - 1833, you're wrong.
5) Who in the world ever accepted that? "Your ownership" is DE FACTO, not DE IURE
6) If i do get back what was stolen from me i can only win...
Empires come and go - yours is about to go...
lifeisavideo 1 year ago
@j20gu3: About "idiot": Are you running out of arguments? I'll give you some more:
1) The British didn't "discover" these islands, fact.
2) The British didn't inhabit these islands as the first ones, fact.
3) The British repeatedly violated treaties about these islands with the Spanish to whom they belonged
4) The Argentinians in fact goverened these islands before the British did
5) The British in fact threw out the Argentinians
6) There will be a conflict as long as these islands are British
lifeisavideo 1 year ago
@j20gu3 Of course they are british,because you threw out the first inhabitants who were argentinians.
uboot1967 1 year ago
@j20gu3 This doesn't change the fact,that Falklands belong to Argentina.
uboot1967 1 year ago
@j20gu3 It makes,because it shows how you are thinking.
uboot1967 1 year ago
@j20gu3 Falklands belong to England?????
Japan belongs to Nigeria?????
uboot1967 1 year ago
@j20gu3 Will you try alone with the help of UN-USA and so on...
uboot1967 1 year ago
Falklands belong to Argentina.
England belong to USA,not even to Europe....
England uses the financila destruction of Argentina.....
uboot1967 1 year ago
las malvinas son argentinas
corsinimariano 1 year ago
no barrel of oil is worth more than a human life
Flamorgan 1 year ago
@Flamorgan: The contrary has been proven. :-(
lifeisavideo 1 year ago
So many of the vulgar comments here demonstrate how little has been learnt by the suffering and sacrifices of all the lads who fought in that bloody war, Argentine or British sons. Grow up, all of you.
thylacine1930 1 year ago 7
@thylacine1930 War is always tragic , a "bitch" as you can tell , but try not to forget that kelpers are illegal aliens in Malvinas since 1833. England took over the islands through military intimidation. They did the same in 1806, 1807 and 1845 in the mainland, but got kicked out . I don´t agree with violence ; on the other hand, oil, fish resources and gas belong to us and shouldn´t be under negociation.
Restaurador35 1 year ago
Argintines should get over it. They were not wanted, are not wanted and will never be wanted on the Falklands. I mean, how thick can they be. The locals don't want a bar of Argentina. Argentina was thrashed and the rag tag argentine army thrown off in short order by the British who were welcomed as saviours.
Get over it.......... take some good advice.
peter12341000 1 year ago
@peter12341000 what a funny comment. didn't you see the news?
NOBODY IN OUR CONTINENT LIKES YOU. get out of South America.
prisoner1673 1 year ago 5
@prisoner1673 - a continent is not a kind of a club where people gather on a basis of individual sympathy. People living there have equal rights, no matter if other people like them or not.
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@OlenkaWagner: ANY OTHER and even your own continent is not a territiory where you pick a piece and keep it for strategic or economic reasons for yourself. If you do not accept that a continent is a club in which you have to ask for entrance not by force but by negotiation and cooperation then you cannot be surprised if you are generally not liked.
lifeisavideo 1 year ago
@lifeisavideo - It so happened in the history that some nations went overseas looking for new territories. They settled on these territories. In some cases the territories had not been inhabited before and in some they had been inhabited and they often ignored the local people. Sometimes they settled peacefully, sometimes the fighting was going on. Central and South America was colonized mainly by Spanish and Portuguese, but not only by them.
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@OlenkaWagner - for example you have French Guyana or Guadelupe which make an integral part of France - different status than the status of the Falklands - and there is no conflict with France about that (or I don't know about this).
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@OlenkaWagner: (the ESA Ariane rocket base - how much money do they spend there?) I do not know enough about french overseas territiories - but France or Britain or whoever, i do not support the idea of "European" overseas territories.
lifeisavideo 1 year ago
@lifeisavideo - I think if the local residence do not object - there is nothing wrong in having European overseas territories.
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
- "local residents" - of course.
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@OlenkaWagner: As soon as you give a part of your continent or your country to let's say Lybia, Saudi Arabia, Brunei or the like (rich, different culture AND religion) by MILITARY or other FORCEFUL means then i agree. But please note that it is not you who will participate from the wealth of the foreigners.
Also note that the the inhabitants of the lands taken from you will not object against the foreigners because most of them have foreign nationality.
Now pls say "there's nothing wrong" again.
lifeisavideo 1 year ago
@lifeisavideo - but you are describing a new situation and I am talking about the situation that has been going on for a long time and has stabilized to certain degree.
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@OlenkaWagner: (NO! I'm NOT describing a new situation, i do describe a situation which exists from the OTHER SIDE !!) From this answer i conclude you don't like this idea - so why do you accept the British on the Falklands if you wouldn't accept that situation on your continent?
lifeisavideo 1 year ago
@lifeisavideo - I accept different cultures on the European continent. For example a part of Turkey (Istanbul/Constantinopol) is on the European continent. It was taken by force and no one is even thinking of re-taking it. Certain situations have to be accepted, although they were created by injustice and there is nothing to do about that.
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago
@OlenkaWagner: You still don't seem to accept invaders who broke several treaties. In Europe. From another continent. That is what you have to first.
About Turkey: i don't mind Europe to end at the Bosporus :-) no, honestly, "re-taking it": you're wrong, the nice example Turkey just shows that there will be war if doing so, look at the first world war, but don't look back only 30 years.
Unintentioinally you have shown that even in this case this means war, that is exactly what i don't want.
lifeisavideo 1 year ago
@lifeisavideo - I don't quite get you. Do you want to say that the First World War was to retake the areas Turkey had conquered long time ago? If so, do you think it was right or wrong? I think in case of the areas inhabited by the population which was not Turkish it was good to retake them, but when the population was Turkish - the territories should remain as such.
OlenkaWagner 1 year ago