Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Should the UK give the Falklands to Argentina?

POST REPLY

Should the UK give Argentina the Falklands.

Yes, the UK should give the Falklands to Argentina
16
47%
No, the UK shoouldn't give the Falklands to Argentinia
8
24%
Other
10
29%
 
Total votes : 34
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4430
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
Post 02 Apr 2012, 22:53
Loz wrote:
Lenin clearly said that we cannot and must not support either side in an inter-imperialist war.


But what does that mean in the world today, when formal empires are few and imperialist states operate more by financial and economic domination than by direct military imperialism? Who are we to support in a confrontation between say the United States and Iran, where the strategic situation is so asymmetrical? Obviously Argentina in 1982 was a case of aggressive adventurism of a right wing junta, but what if the British had been the first to initiate conflict, or if the regime in Buenos Aires was say a social democratic one? Today the Left is fractured enough and the wars asymmetrical enough that there is virtually no chance of socialist revolution in either of the countries fighting one another (the wars really aren't felt on a mass level by the populations of big powers). In a situation like Libya, hoping that Gaddafi's crooked semi-socialism will be replaced by real socialism built by a rising proletariat is wishful thinking. And generally, isn't it better to support the construction or maintenance of a multipolar world, even if those opposing the hegemon aren't radical progressives or aren't leftists at all, than to continue to live in a unipolar system dominated by Western capitalist imperialism, where initiating any type of social change anywhere becomes so much harder?

Edit:

Loz wrote:
And you can't play realpolitik if you don't have the toys.


Are you saying we powerless individuals shouldn't use realpolitik calculations in arguments because we are powerless?
"The thing about capitalism is that it sounds awful on paper and is horrendous in practice. Communism sounds wonderful on paper and when it was put into practice it was done pretty well for what they had to work with." -MiG
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 02 Apr 2012, 23:00
Quote:
But what does that mean in the world today, when formal empires are few and imperialist states operate more by financial and economic domination than by direct military imperialism?

It means that we should further strenghten the struggle against worldwide imperialism.

Quote:
Who are we to support in a confrontation between say the United States and Iran, where the strategic situation is so asymmetrical?

No one, both are enemies. We must fiercely oppose the US attack on Iran, however that doesn't mean that we should side with the anti-peoples regime in Teheran.

Quote:
Obviously Argentina in 1982 was a case of aggressive adventurism of a right wing junta, but what if the British had been the first to initiate conflict, or if the regime in Buenos Aires was say a social democratic one?

Of course that we would have opposed that invasion.

Quote:
In a situation like Libya, hoping that Gaddafi's crooked semi-socialism will be replaced by real socialism built by a rising proletariat is wishful thinking.

It's up to the Libyan people to make their revolutions. The principled stand is the fight against imperialism, so that means opposing any foreign intervention in Libya. But i don't think that openly standing behind Gadafi's criminal and anti-communist clique would have been any better. We can clearly see that in retrospect.

Quote:
And generally, isn't it better to support the construction or maintenance of a multipolar world, even if those opposing the hegemon aren't radical progressives or aren't leftists at all, than to continue to live in a unipolar system dominated by Western capitalist imperialism, where initiating any type of social change becomes so much harder?

That's playing realpolitik IMO. Supporting one imperialist bloc against the other. But we're in no position to play realpolitik because we don't really have anything. Therefore i think that the best strategy would be opposing every kind of imperialism, be it Western or Eastern or...

Quote:
Are you saying we powerless individuals shouldn't use realpolitik calculations in arguments because we are powerless?

I meant us communists,the working class in general. We should remember that, no matter what inter-imperialist conflicts there might be, we are still their first and most dangerous enemy.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 716
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Aug 2007, 23:25
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 02 Apr 2012, 23:47
I'd say yes, for mere logic.
Image

"Communism is more about love for mankind than about politics."
Me
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14448
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 03 Apr 2012, 06:45
KlassWar wrote:
Isn't inertia another word for status quo? I mean, stuff remaining moving or motionless accordin' to their prior state, unless a force intervenes over it?

I'm 99% sure you wanted to say momentum.

No momentum is just the beginning. The force of our movement to overwhelm the force of other movements is a battle of inertias.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 86
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Feb 2012, 23:00
Ideology: Other Leftist
Pioneer
Post 03 Apr 2012, 13:57
Well British oil companies have found oil field in the Falklands in the late 70, that’s why we didn't give them to Argentinian.
Quote:
Anything that destroys British power is a good thing. So yes.

What British power. We've got nothing left.
Also it's a matter of nostalgia and patriotism of when we were a superpower in the Victorian times, that’s why we won't give them now or in the future.
“It is better to die standing than to live on your knees.“-Che Geuvara
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 6211
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Aug 2004, 20:49
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Embalmed
Post 03 Apr 2012, 17:35
This is a classic example of self-determination, where the Falklanders would vote almost exclusively in favour of being part of the UK, where those who should have the say are completely ignored, even with the suggestion of forcible removal.
The people want to remain there, so let them. Argentina pissed its pants back (also didn't technically exist back then) in the 1830s or something. Now, if there was a native population there, then I would argue differently.
Image

"Phil Spector is haunting Europe" -Dr. Karl H. Marx
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3837
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2006, 02:14
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 03 Apr 2012, 18:23
Let's start by saying that the islands are not called Falklands but Malvinas. That's the name given to them by the frenchmen who discovered them and persists in the spanish speaking world.
I've stated several times the rightful claims Argentina has on the islands (by law, geography, etc.), so I won't do it again.
The people living on the island are not indigenous. They're there to colonize, on stolen land. We weren't able to colonize the islands with our people, because our colony was destroyed by the americans in 1831, and then the british took over the islands and our last settlement in 1833.
We've always tried to keep the issue in the diplomatic arena. It was the military junta, specially the drunken president of the day - Galtieri - who decided to start a war. We don't want a war, nor we can have one.
What we, and all of our latinamerican brothers, want is to take the british imperialism out of our continent.
Malvinas is the last colony in south america, only comparable to Guantanamo in Cuba or Gibraltar in Spain.
No one is advocating to kick the settlers off the island, they can stay if they want, but we do want the military base out.


"Where Argentina goes, Latin America will go".
Leonid Brezhnev

Forum Rules
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 86
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Feb 2012, 23:00
Ideology: Other Leftist
Pioneer
Post 03 Apr 2012, 19:01
@che Now that you've attacked the islands once before how don't we know that you won't do it again? What is 2000 untrained and unarmed residents going to do if you decide to invade again, that is why there is the military base. Also almost all residents of the islands want to stay under british rule. Anyway you nicked it off the Spanish.
“It is better to die standing than to live on your knees.“-Che Geuvara
Soviet cogitations: 1533
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Oct 2007, 15:55
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Party Member
Post 03 Apr 2012, 19:57
I believe that the Falkland Islanders should belong to a country where they would be better off. Whether it be Argentina or the UK, I don't believe either side gives a hoot about what the islanders want. Yes, it is a symbol of British Imperialism. But how does this differ from Argentinian imperialism? Didn't the Argentinians themselves establish their rule in Patagonia?

In regards to Argentina I believe the islands are a scapegoat used by politicians to sway the public's mind off of domestic issues. It is also a symbol of Argentina seeking more activity in international politics, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Che Burashka wrote:
Malvinas is the last colony in south america, only comparable to Guantanamo in Cuba or Gibraltar in Spain. .


There are still colonies! French Guiana. If you want to count the Caribbean, there are still numerous islands under the control of the U.S., British, and French.
We have beaten you to the moon, but you have beaten us in sausage making.- Nikita Khrushchev
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3837
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2006, 02:14
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 04 Apr 2012, 20:35
@The Mighty O
We won't attack again because we don't have the will nor the strength to do it. We are not under a dictatorship like we were in 1982, it's a popular and democratic government. Besides, we were attacked several times by the british... 1806, 1807 (they took over Buenos Aires both times and our people kicked them out), 1833 (when they took Malvinas) and 1845 ( a blockade to Buenos Aires by the french and british navies).

The military base is not for protection of the civilians, it's a NATO projecting its presence. Half of the island population are soldiers, and you don't need nuclear submarines and the most modern destroyer to patrol the islands when the british themselves say there are no military threats to the islands.

@Soviet192491
Quote:
In regards to Argentina I believe the islands are a scapegoat used by politicians to sway the public's mind off of domestic issues. It is also a symbol of Argentina seeking more activity in international politics, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Really??? And what would those domestic issues be? We're not under crisis, Great Britain is. We're having what's probably the best time in the last 50 years...

Quote:
Whether it be Argentina or the UK, I don't believe either side gives a hoot about what the islanders want

Would you ask the israeli settlers in Palestina if they want to stay there?


"Where Argentina goes, Latin America will go".
Leonid Brezhnev

Forum Rules
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3711
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jul 2006, 04:49
Ideology: Juche
Old Bolshevik
Post 04 Apr 2012, 22:51
Other: At the end of the day, both Great Britain and Argentina are capitalist states, and to support Argentina taking back the islands or Great Britain defending their claim is tantamount to supporting the slaughter of workers.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4953
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2008, 15:25
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 08 Apr 2012, 06:46
Yes, they should be returned or taken back... again. If the local residents want to be British, that's fine. They can be sent back to England as the Argentineans did with prisoners they captured if I remember correctly. The islands can then be repopulated by the country which has rightful claim to them.

It's time for the English to accept that their empire belongs in the dust bin of history, as do the last remnants of it.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 6211
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Aug 2004, 20:49
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Embalmed
Post 08 Apr 2012, 09:33
FC, then we should give the islands back to the penguins that live there, or at least to the French - they were the first to claim control of the native-inhabitantless islands.
This is nothing the hell like Northern Ireland at all, where a very clear case of deepening a rift between sections of society on religious and class lines.
The only case I can see is the militarisation of the islands, which should be stepped down anyway by whoever owns them - and the islands turned into a great place to observe and study animals and ocean currents etc.
Image

"Phil Spector is haunting Europe" -Dr. Karl H. Marx
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4953
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2008, 15:25
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 08 Apr 2012, 14:13
The French willingly handed the islands over to Spain which therefore rightfully puts them in the hands of Argentina. Again, I reiterate that the British (especially those calling themselves progressive) need to realise that the British Empire belongs in the dustbin of history. You're just having a nationalist wank over these islands because you got embarrassed 30 years ago.

Oh and +1 to soviet78.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 6211
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Aug 2004, 20:49
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Embalmed
Post 08 Apr 2012, 14:27
Of course you're completely correct, because the inhabitants, many fourth generation or older, have said they'd like to have an Argentine administration. You simply don't understand self determination. The militarisation of the island has to do with imperialism, inhabitation at present has nothing. In any case, if an Argentine oil company stepped forward with investment proposals that were profitable, then they would get a contract.
You're thinking like it's 1850.
Image

"Phil Spector is haunting Europe" -Dr. Karl H. Marx
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 86
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Feb 2012, 23:00
Ideology: Other Leftist
Pioneer
Post 08 Apr 2012, 14:44
Who got embarrassed 30 years ago the British or the Argentinians? Because I could have sworn that 255 British casualties compared to 649 Argentine casualties is a pretty big victory. I've had relatives who fought there and said that the Argentines were underprepared and thought we wouldn't fight back. Honestly some of the Argentine soldiers were conscripted and could barely hold a gun, they had no chance against the trained SAS opratives. Also I agree the British Empire is long gone but we have kept places of strategic value E.G Falklands and Gibraltar for our naval bases.
“It is better to die standing than to live on your knees.“-Che Geuvara
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 6211
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Aug 2004, 20:49
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Embalmed
Post 08 Apr 2012, 14:49
And that is my point exactly, it's the militarisation of the islands that makes it unsavoury. I wonder if the Argentines would commandeer the naval facilities and move a considerable portion of their navy there - of course they would, as their claim is as imperialist as the currently militarised British one.
I am honestly straining to see how I have been masturbating over imperialist glories! I can see plenty of people wanking over some untenable, poorly reasoned ultra-leftism though.
Image

"Phil Spector is haunting Europe" -Dr. Karl H. Marx
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 86
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Feb 2012, 23:00
Ideology: Other Leftist
Pioneer
Post 08 Apr 2012, 15:06
There is plenty of wierd pornography out there for your viewing 'pleasure' but i would say imerialist colonies hmmm thats a new one.....
So what make Argenina's imperial claim better than ours?
“It is better to die standing than to live on your knees.“-Che Geuvara
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3837
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2006, 02:14
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 08 Apr 2012, 16:59
Who says we want a military or naval base there? We just want to get the islands back. At least we have legal claims to the islands.
No one's comparing the situation to northern Ireland. I'm comparing it to the israeli settlers in Palestine (beyond the '67 borders) because it is like that. They settled there by force on land they know they stole from a less powerful country.

@Fellow Comrade, you're right, but we didn't send the local population to Britain in 1982. We kept them on the island.
@Loz, it's not ethnic clensing. They can stay as long as they want, just under argentinian law.


"Where Argentina goes, Latin America will go".
Leonid Brezhnev

Forum Rules
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 6211
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Aug 2004, 20:49
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Embalmed
Post 08 Apr 2012, 17:14
Oh come on, this is hardly like Palestine being occupied by Zionists -- they aren't currently killing people for speaking another language, looking differently or believing any other way, all twenty or whatever of the Spanish occupants left in the 1830s, besides, it's not like there are ten of them for every Brit, and very Brit is forced into military service, upholding the right to shoot anyone heard saying "oche" and steering bulldozers into schools where Spanish is taught. This is pretty dodgy conjecture - the Israelis didn't completely expel everybody in occupied lands.

It's still down to the majority of people on the island to decide what they want, no matter how they were put there in the first place - why should people whose families have been living there in excess of a hundred years be now subjected to a government they did not vote for, even one that doesn't acknowledge English as an official language. These people didn't choose to be pawns.

I think the Falklands War anniversary really brought this all up again, how a healthy slice of jingoism is good for national unity.
Image

"Phil Spector is haunting Europe" -Dr. Karl H. Marx
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.