0
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2023
0 points (NaN% liked)
news
24205 readers
712 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-- Repeated consecutive posting of reactionary sources, fake news, misleading / outdated news, false alarms over ghoul deaths, and/or shitposts will result in a comm ban.--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
how is it fair and square they literally fought a war over it, to prevent argentina from getting to use it
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
what justifiable claim does Argentina have to the islands?
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!
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.
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!
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
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?
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
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?
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
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.
well as they were born there and have the only sensible claim of being native to the island
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
This. People first. Peoples right to self determination and democracy from top to bottom in society is paramount. As communists, that principle is absolute.
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.
Humans don't exist to create profit for the Argentinian government.
lol idealist nonsense. Argentinians would see more wealth from owning the islands than they do now.
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?
Yeah it's so inconvenient for these people to exist.
Settler 👌 Settler-colonial 👎💀
This is the important distinction. Settling previously uninhabited areas is good, or at least neutral. The problem with settler colonialism is the genocide and theft, not the people living where they previously hadn’t.
You're repeating rhetoric without considering context.
Historically, how have occupying powers dealt with local populations that overwhelmingly don't want them there?
There's a point where it tips from "just some people living on an island" and becomes "Britain maintaining an imperial outpost for resource extraction".
So you're saying that sometimes it's ok to conquer people who have done nothing but exist, as a treat.
Again you're acting like a transfer of ownership from THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT to Argentina is "conquering" lmao.
Literally Richard Spencer "peaceful relocation" bullshit at this point.
How you gonna transfer ownership if the people living there don't want to transfer ownership?
edit: wait we've seen this one before, let's do some greatest hits and get hundreds of people killed again.
There's a lot to criticize the UK for. Fairly inhabiting barren rocks without an indigenous population isn't one of them.
Nobody should have control over land on the other side of the planet.
Why shouldn't the Falklands be Chilean then?
Chile is further away. Didn't luck out I guess.
Chile is only 5000 meters further away. Yes, meters.