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
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!
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?
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?
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.
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?
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?
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
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?
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).
this is why the Nazi occupation of Jersey was good and socialist after all the island is closer to continental Europe than England and that is the only relevant factor when deciding which country an island should be in. The fact that they culturally are English and don't speak German or French as a rule is for some reason irrelevant here
Alberto Fernandez has already implemented some social policies. Countries like Venezuela use oil money to directly benefit the public. Imperial powers all have more wealth among the populations than non-imperial powers. Maybe a non-imperial power should get access to oil off their coast? It would be as easy aa nationalizing the oil there, as many countries do.
And that wealth doesn't translate into better living standards. It's almost as if capitalists will hoard resources no matte rhow much is available.
This is such obviously false coping.
Capitalist countries, famous for nationalitising resources
A bunch of capitalist countries have been nationalizing their resources.
the oil in the area is not valuable not to be extracted.
Must be why Britain has spent billions to setup extraction. This is just "Venezuelan crude isn't profitable" all over again. Imagine thinking oil isn't profitable.
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.
resource extraction near some town? And they're not like colnized oppressed people they're just some probably comfortable British people. They're not in some anti-colonial struggle give me a break.
They're not colonized or oppressed because Argentina's attempt to turn them into such failed. If Argentina gained control of the Falklands then the inhabitants would become oppressed because you can't maintain a presence in a place over and against the will of the people there without doing a little oppression.
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".
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.
It's on the side of most of the world's countries, who probably don't appreciate foreign British territories. Oh no no encroaxhing on British-claimed land!
Do white people in the US have claims to be here if the area they're in was colonized by white people without indigenous people in the immediate vicinity.
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.
The Caribbean is a whole chain of islands. Cuba has like 20 million people. It's an actual independent country.
The Falklands are some islands with like 3000 people plus a bunch of military crap, owned by a country 7000 miles away so they can drill for oil in the nearby waters. They literally import their food from Britain instead of just importing it from Argrntina.
lol apparently even an Israeli company os exploring oil there: https://theprint.in/world/argentina-sanctions-israeli-oil-company-over-exploration-near-falklands/928153
You're fretting over 3000 people who are only supported by the British as a human shield for resource extraction by colonial powers.
Ok keep supporting British and Israeli oil drilling off the coast of a much poorer country because 3000 white people happen to live there. Those oil companies are indigenous!!!
On the one hand, anything that makes
mad is cool and funny, but why pick literally the only place they settled fair and square?
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!
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?
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?
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?
yes, because people matter more than realpolitik shit
Apparently poor Argentinians who could benefit from social program funding don't matter, but white British people living in a colonial outpost do.
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
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?
When did anyone say anything about deporting people?
Sorry, my bad, you're going with "forcibly integrating".
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).
it isn't "reverse colonialism" it's just colonialism
deleted by creator
this is why the Nazi occupation of Jersey was good and socialist after all the island is closer to continental Europe than England and that is the only relevant factor when deciding which country an island should be in. The fact that they culturally are English and don't speak German or French as a rule is for some reason irrelevant here
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Does Britain have a higher standard of living than Argentina?
deleted by creator
Alberto Fernandez has already implemented some social policies. Countries like Venezuela use oil money to directly benefit the public. Imperial powers all have more wealth among the populations than non-imperial powers. Maybe a non-imperial power should get access to oil off their coast? It would be as easy aa nationalizing the oil there, as many countries do.
deleted by creator
This is such obviously false coping.
A bunch of capitalist countries have been nationalizing their resources.
Must be why Britain has spent billions to setup extraction. This is just "Venezuelan crude isn't profitable" all over again. Imagine thinking oil isn't profitable.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Yeah it's so inconvenient for these people to exist.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
Historically, how have occupying powers dealt with local populations that overwhelmingly don't want them there?
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.
A hostile local population is an obstacle to resource exploitation and capitalists will remove that obstacle one way or another.
resource extraction near some town? And they're not like colnized oppressed people they're just some probably comfortable British people. They're not in some anti-colonial struggle give me a break.
They're not colonized or oppressed because Argentina's attempt to turn them into such failed. If Argentina gained control of the Falklands then the inhabitants would become oppressed because you can't maintain a presence in a place over and against the will of the people there without doing a little oppression.
deleted by creator
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.
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.
Literally Richard Spencer "peaceful relocation" bullshit at this point.
Who said they had to relocate?
No one, full support for just killing Argentinian occupation soldiers until they go home.
deleted by creator
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.
"self determination" of a bunch of white people living under the rule of the extremely present (navy ships and military planes) British government.
Self determination of the people living there, who's ancestors took it from noone. The rest is jargon.
deleted by creator
It's on the side of most of the world's countries, who probably don't appreciate foreign British territories. Oh no no encroaxhing on British-claimed land!
deleted by creator
well as they were born there and have the only sensible claim of being native to the island
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
Do white people in the US have claims to be here if the area they're in was colonized by white people without indigenous people in the immediate vicinity.
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.
I mean why is this important? Ok, make it joint owned by Chile and Argentina. Better than Britain controlling it.
Chile gets the left one, Argentina gets the right one.
You're right, Argentina's shouldn't have control over an island hundreds of miles away, glad we could agree
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
Just give everything back to the Romans
Independent Gaul!
all of gaul except for one village should be Roman
deleted by creator
Do you think there's a reason you wouldn't want your food imports dependent on a hostile power
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!
deleted by creator
The Caribbean is a whole chain of islands. Cuba has like 20 million people. It's an actual independent country.
The Falklands are some islands with like 3000 people plus a bunch of military crap, owned by a country 7000 miles away so they can drill for oil in the nearby waters. They literally import their food from Britain instead of just importing it from Argrntina.
lol apparently even an Israeli company os exploring oil there: https://theprint.in/world/argentina-sanctions-israeli-oil-company-over-exploration-near-falklands/928153
You're fretting over 3000 people who are only supported by the British as a human shield for resource extraction by colonial powers.
deleted by creator
Ok keep supporting British and Israeli oil drilling off the coast of a much poorer country because 3000 white people happen to live there. Those oil companies are indigenous!!!
deleted by creator
No I think Argentinian oil should benefit Argentinians and not the British Empire and Israel lmao.
deleted by creator