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

news

23550 readers
896 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-- Repeated consecutive posting of reactionary sources, fake news, misleading / outdated news, false alarms over ghoul deaths, and/or shitposts will result in a comm ban.--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 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (4 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year 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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

yes, because people matter more than realpolitik shit

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

When did anyone say anything about deporting people?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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).

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year 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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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".

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So you're saying that sometimes it's ok to conquer people who have done nothing but exist, as a treat.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Again you're acting like a transfer of ownership from THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT to Argentina is "conquering" lmao.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Literally Richard Spencer "peaceful relocation" bullshit at this point.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Who said they had to relocate?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

No one, full support for just killing Argentinian occupation soldiers until they go home.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nobody should have control over land on the other side of the planet.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why shouldn't the Falklands be Chilean then?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Chile is further away. Didn't luck out I guess.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Chile is only 5000 meters further away. Yes, meters.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean why is this important? Ok, make it joint owned by Chile and Argentina. Better than Britain controlling it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Chile gets the left one, Argentina gets the right one.