0
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by Awoo@hexbear.net to c/news@hexbear.net

Worth noting that the Chinese ambassador also called it the Malvinas throughout, not the Falklands.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] ClimateChangeAnxiety@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago

On the one hand, anything that makes england-cool mad is cool and funny, but why pick literally the only place they settled fair and square?

[-] blobjim@hexbear.net 0 points 2 years ago

how is it fair and square they literally fought a war over it, to prevent argentina from getting to use it

[-] Staines@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago

what justifiable claim does Argentina have to the islands?

[-] blobjim@hexbear.net 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

That it's literally a foreign government's outpost on an island directly off the coast of Argentina, which Argentina could benefit from (and Argentina isn't as rich as Britain).

What claim do a bunch of British people who get their British people food shipped half way around the world have? They don't even import food from Argentina as far as I know.

Apparently they even has a ship they sail around there. Woo hoo massively polluting military industrial complex!

[-] Staines@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago

I agree, how dare the Irish occupiers squat on the western british isles, intruding into the UK's rightful atlantic EEZ. The people that live there will be returned to rightful british rule, as that is clearly what is harmonious.

[-] ClimateChangeAnxiety@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago

100% agree, the US’s claim to Cuba is valid and it should be a US territory.

That’s how we handle islands off the coast right? Significantly closer than the Falklands, and the US actually owned Cuba for a while!

[-] WoofWoof91@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago

it's been a british outpost since before argentina was even a country
it's just a spanish imperial claim inherited by a colony, pursued by the colonizers

[-] blobjim@hexbear.net 0 points 2 years ago

It literally has nothing to do with that. It's land off the coast of Argentina. They should be allowed to use it and not have British oil drilling and navy ships patrolling around it.

How long before the US decides to coup Argentina and sets up some spy base or black site on the islands, if they don't have one already?

[-] Staines@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

There's a lot to criticize the UK for. Fairly inhabiting barren rocks without an indigenous population isn't one of them.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] WoofWoof91@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago

How long before the US decides to coup Argentina and sets up some spy base or black site on the islands, if they don't have one already?

and how would that be affected by the brits owning it?

as a communsist, the thing i care about the most is people and the people of the falklands overwhelmingly want to be part of this hell hole for some fucking reason
and given that the islands were uninhabited before they were colonised, there is no justification for suddnly making them argentinian

[-] blobjim@hexbear.net 0 points 2 years ago

Not like those people have any more claim to the islands than anyone else. Who cares that they were uninhabited beforehand or whatever. The here and now is that Britain is drilling for resources there.

The UK is 11th in terms of median wealth, Argentina is 119th. Should oil money off the coast of Argentina benefit Argentinians, or British people?

[-] ClimateChangeAnxiety@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago

Not like those people have any more claim to the islands than anyone else. Who cares that they were uninhabited beforehand or whatever.

I would absolutely say the first group of people to settle a previously uninhabited area have more claim than anyone else.

“Native Americans have no more claim to Ohio than anyone else” yeah except being the first people to live there

[-] autismdragon@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago

Not like those people have any more claim to the islands than anyone else.

There is no reason whatsoever to override self determination because There were no indigenous people there when it was settled. So the people who live there come first.

[-] blobjim@hexbear.net 0 points 2 years ago

"self determination" of a bunch of white people living under the rule of the extremely present (navy ships and military planes) British government.

[-] autismdragon@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago

Self determination of the people living there, who's ancestors took it from noone. The rest is jargon.

[-] usernamesaredifficul@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

well as they were born there and have the only sensible claim of being native to the island

[-] WoofWoof91@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

they have claim to the islands because they fucking live there dude

because i'm sensing a "you're just a british nationalist" coming in the immediate future, i'll just make my position clear
if the islanders decided that they would rather be argentinian, i would wholeheartedly support argentina's claim to the islands

[-] Staines@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago

This. People first. Peoples right to self determination and democracy from top to bottom in society is paramount. As communists, that principle is absolute.

[-] blobjim@hexbear.net 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

You're acting like the Argentinian government is gonna massacre them the second power is transferred. Probably nothing would change but Argentina would get the profit from oil and tourism.

Like Argentinians are not on average wealthy people. The British people living on those islands probably have it way better than most of the people in Argentina. It's kind of gross.

[-] Staines@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago

Humans don't exist to create profit for the Argentinian government.

[-] blobjim@hexbear.net 0 points 2 years ago

lol idealist nonsense. Argentinians would see more wealth from owning the islands than they do now.

[-] Staines@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago

Idealist nonsense, says the person who wants to divide up all natural resources equally into amorphous national state boundaries regardless of the wishes of the people who live there, until all national states have equal populations, areas, and access to natural wealth?

[-] blobjim@hexbear.net 0 points 2 years ago

You're literally just spewing more idealist nonsense. You know that countries are a thing that still exist right? Either Argentina gets to benefit from the islands, or Britain (lmao) does. You're saying the British should benefit because they colonized some islands hundreds of years ago and there's a couple thousand people there. If there was 1 person living in the Falklands, would that justify oil and gas drilling and a British military outpost?

[-] WoofWoof91@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago

yes, because people matter more than realpolitik shit

[-] blobjim@hexbear.net 0 points 2 years ago

Apparently poor Argentinians who could benefit from social program funding don't matter, but white British people living in a colonial outpost do.

[-] WoofWoof91@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago

people who live in a place when they have not displaced a native population do matter more than a random government who are pursuing an imperial claim from their former imperial masters yes

[-] Staines@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago

Or maybe (radical, I know, wow), people matter equally, and we shouldn't forcibly deport or integrate them into various countries due to arbitrary vibes?

[-] blobjim@hexbear.net 0 points 2 years ago

When did anyone say anything about deporting people?

[-] Staines@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago

Sorry, my bad, you're going with "forcibly integrating".

[-] blobjim@hexbear.net 0 points 2 years ago

lmao are y'all trying to do a "reverse colonialism" thing? Literally the only thing that would likely change is who they pay taxes to and where they get there food from (shipped from Argentina probably instead of shipped 7,000 miles).

[-] WoofWoof91@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago

it isn't "reverse colonialism" it's just colonialism

[-] BeamBrain@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago

You're acting like the Argentinian government is gonna massacre them the second power is transferred.

Historically, how have occupying powers dealt with local populations that overwhelmingly don't want them there?

[-] blobjim@hexbear.net 0 points 2 years ago

Yeah those occupying powers like the British Empire. You're gonna act like Alberto Fernandez is gonna massacre some people living on an island lol.

[-] BeamBrain@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago

A hostile local population is an obstacle to resource exploitation and capitalists will remove that obstacle one way or another.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[-] usernamesaredifficul@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Argintina literally had a US installed fascist government that was torturing people for being socialists at the time of the Falklands war. Losing the Falklands war was one of the main things that led to the collapse of said government

this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2023
0 points (NaN% liked)

news

24202 readers
517 users here now

Welcome to c/news! Please read the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember... we're all comrades here.

Rules:

-- PLEASE KEEP POST TITLES INFORMATIVE --

-- Overly editorialized titles, particularly if they link to opinion pieces, may get your post removed. --

-- All posts must include a link to their source. Screenshots are fine IF you include the link in the post body. --

-- If you are citing a twitter post as news please include not just the twitter.com in your links but also nitter.net (or another Nitter instance). There is also a Firefox extension that can redirect Twitter links to a Nitter instance: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/libredirect/ or archive them as you would any other reactionary source using e.g. https://archive.today . Twitter screenshots still need to be sourced or they will be removed --

-- Mass tagging comm moderators across multiple posts like a broken markov chain bot will result in a comm ban--

-- Repeated consecutive posting of reactionary sources, fake news, misleading / outdated news, false alarms over ghoul deaths, and/or shitposts will result in a comm ban.--

-- Neglecting to use content warnings or NSFW when dealing with disturbing content will be removed until in compliance. Users who are consecutively reported due to failing to use content warnings or NSFW tags when commenting on or posting disturbing content will result in the user being banned. --

-- Using April 1st as an excuse to post fake headlines, like the resurrection of Kissinger while he is still fortunately dead, will result in the poster being thrown in the gamer gulag and be sentenced to play and beat trashy mobile games like 'Raid: Shadow Legends' in order to be rehabilitated back into general society. --

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS