On one hand... the idea that the Argentinians aren't themselves a settler-colonial country a la the USA is pretty rich, so I'm not sympathetic to the claims that they are fighting colonialism by wanting the Falkland Islands. When the British settled it, it was unihabited so it's not like they took the land from native inhabitants - the British people there now are the original inhabitants. And most importantly, the people who live there now very clearly want to remain part of the UK and not be a part of Argentina, and all things being equal I would side with what the inhabitants themselves what.
OTOH... seriously, fuck the English / TERF Island. Their rape of the world via colonialism is maybe one of the greatest evils ever perpetuated by humans (definitely so if you count all of the USA's colonial atrocities in with the UK's by extension). They don't deserve to have any land outside of the British Isles. But they still have all these pockets around the world like the Falklands and Gibraltar where they put their own people that now makes it hard to change things. But the thing is, this website has like 5X the population of the Falklands. The Brits could easily relocate that small of a number of people and richly compensate them for it. And the Falklands are right at Argentina's doorstep and presents a massive security vulnerability. I'm sure if the Spanish set up shop on the Isle of Man, the Brits would be doing everything they could to get them out just for the military security alone.
So as a leftist, I don't know where I stand on this issue. Would be curious to know what you all think. @RNAi, big apologies if I'm wrong but afaik you are Argentinian? Would love to hear your perspective.
The island should be de-mined by a collaborative group of aging junta members and whatever Tory peers still believe in the colonial project; on completion, this group will be pushed into the sea and sunk to create an artificial reef. The hyper-nationalist islanders will be forcibly moved to the nearest Wetherspoons where they can give glowing rants about Thatcher in peace. This will allow safe handover of sovereignty to the true and original inhabitants, the penguins.
:penguin-love: las malvinas son pingüinas :penguin-love:
Forcibly relocating people is bad, even if they are "richly compensated". You cannot compensate someone as to make up for taking away their home.
They don’t deserve to have any land
outside of the British Isles.No part of the British Isles belongs to the British. They should be returned to their original inhabitants, the people of the bell beaker culture
They don’t deserve to have any land outside of the British Isles.
This doesn't make any sense sorry. Why does it stop at the British Isles itself? You've just drawn an arbitrary line that you have decided is a "good" amount of land to have. If you're going down the Imperialism route then Argentina is literally a colony, with almost the entire population being of European descent or mixed heritage. Why do they deserve Argentina? Never mind the Falklands.
The Brits could easily relocate that small of a number of people and richly compensate them for it.
Forcibly relocating people from their homes but in a leftist way. 👍
And the Falklands are right at Argentina’s doorstep and presents a massive security vulnerability.
Okay... and? This could literally be said of any border anywhere. The shortest distance between France and the UK is about 34km, which is about 1/15th of the distance from the Falklands to the Argentine mainland. This line of rhetoric is precisely why Cuba was so heavily attacked during the Cold War and to a lesser extent today.
The attack on the Falklands themselves was called on by the military junta appointed Leopoldo Galtieri, a man obviously so into anti-imperialism that he went to Ronald Reagan to ask for assistance with the Falklands. Argentina itself was noted for its strong Socialist support at this time as well, of course 🙄 . I get that British Imperialism has basically ruined huge portions of the world but I have no idea why some many leftists decide to die on this particular hill. This wasn't some anti-Imperialist campaign or a working-class uprising, it was a dumbass attack based on the foolproof casus belli of "these islands are closer to us so they're ours" that backfired miserably and got the President ousted for incompetence, and hundreds of people killed. Hell, the UK literally increased its military presence on the islands because of these attacks.
They've held a referendum and the citizens who live there (except 3 people) are fine with being British subjects and, other than saying "they're ours actually" a couple times throughout history, the Argentinians don't really have a solid claim on the islands. Even Spain laid claim to the Falklands for longer than Argentina did, historically.
It was a war between an imperialist ex-superpower and a right-wing tin-pot dictator, do yourself a favour and don't go picking a side from this stupid mess. Or maybe have a thought for the people who actually lived there who one day were plunged into a war because of the actions of the ruling class.
3 people in the entire island voted "No" on staying a part of the UK. 99+% identify as UK citizens and want to stay that way. It's British. I realise terf island can fuck off, but this is a settled issue. You don't get to override the will of literally everyone of the inhabitants because you want to spite Lizzy. That's nonsense.
Seems to me that if it was uninhabited, it's up for grabs to whoever can make a life there.
Your front lawn is uninhabited, why am I not allowed to make a life there? I would like to colonize your front lawn
No Argentinean actually lived there. The Spanish pseudo settled it then quit, then the British for real settled it. The only people whose lawn this could possibly be are the penguins.
lawn
Is this really the analogy you're gonna pick? You're going to dare a leftist to sacrifice the idea of a lawn? Of private property?
I fully support your lawn claiming endeavor but I suggest you go find an actual lawn owner first. Try Papa John.
British presence in the island is a clear example of Imperialism. They never cared for the Falklanders, they are but a mere colony, they were willing to negotiate the transfer of the islands to Argentina before the 1982 war so they kinda recognize Argentina's claim. All they care for now is the strategic role it has for the overall NATO doctrine and the natural resources that have been found in the last decades. Argentina most likely shattered it's dreams of actually getting the islands during the 1982 war, not only "we" attacked without warning, but "we" also lost, so yeah, go negotiate with that now.
I mean in the end if the Islands were transferred to Argentina, we would literally just sell them to foreign "investors", like with did with Patagonia. So nothing would change except for what flag is waving over the main square.
Argentinian here, I don't care about who the island belongs to, as far as I know both countries have a somewhat legitimate claim, but i don't want NATO having a military base so close to us.
"Next to" doing a lot of work here. By the same token, TERF island could just claim the Faroe Islands.
And I'm pretty sure everyone here is in agreement that the English can fuck on outta Ireland
I agree with Torenico about this one. It's a massive strategic vulnerability to have a foreign power own an island that close to Argentina.
That doesn't mean you can have it or that it's yours. That is the logic America uses against Cuba, and it's bullshit there too. Also, does that mean Russia has to turn over Big Diomede? What about the Faroe Islands to the UK? Does the UK get to claim all the Irish Islands closer to their bit of Ireland than Dublin for security reasons? From where and to where does this logic extend?
Does this give Russia and Finland a claim to Gotland? Does this only apply to islands, or what about enclaves, like Kaliningrad? Does this give the US a claim to Cuba and most of the Caribbean?
This is a terrible justification for territorial claims to be advocating or siding with.
Cuba is an island of millions of people. The Falklands are a rock with a population size roughly equal to a large-ish US high school. I think you can approach the Falklands differently from those other examples.
Small groups of people can be discounted, you heard it here first on leftist forum Chapo dot Chat
"We want it and it's close" is a colonial and imperial argument that literally echoes manifest destiny and lebensraum rhetorically. Its nonsense. You're saying nonsense, and unless you find something else this discussion is over.
??????????
One stands against Imperialism and you claim my arguments are "Lebensraum"? Lmfao, please.
This is a matter of major importance for the region, we have a permanent military base of NATO in our coastline, literally inside the continental shelf, it's an anti-imperialist cause and you're literally defending them because "Lebensraum". Argentina's claims were validated the moment the British agreed to negotiate the islands between the 1960s and 1982, so yeah.
I don't think folks here are eager to support dubiously revanchist territorial claims that are further justified by concerns about national or regional security.
It is a pretty safe bet that nobody here likes the idea of the islands as a NATO outpost. However, I don't know what leftist justification exists for either 1.) the rule of the islands and islanders, against their will, by the settler-colonial government in Buenos Aries, or 2.) their forced deportation.
