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: 3618
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 22 Oct 2004, 15:15
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 09 Apr 2012, 23:25
Wow, am I really on a communist forum? In the one corner, we have The Mighty O having a national chauvinist wank over the fact that the Brits won the Falklands War. Truly impressive casualty counts indeed. Almost as impressive as all those other balanced wars in history like the US Army vs Saddam Hussein's army surrendering to camera crews. Stirring stuff:

Image


ZOMG Rule Britannia!!11 Although, to be fair, it's just a reaction to Fellow Comrade's "slight" misunderstanding about how the war ended up. Still, casualty counts don't really matter when half of them were from a cruiser full of sailors. Sailors as in ordinary working class lads sent on an insane and hopeless adventure by a military junta, sunk mercilessly because they were in the way of imperial interests. I guess the only people who have a problem with that are "bloody BBC poofs and Trots" anyway, to quote Thatcher's charming husband. Still, this guy desecrates the hammer and sickle by superimposing it over the fragging Butcher's Apron while justifying stuff like that. You couldn't make this up.

Then in the other corner we've got people like FC actually advocating fragging deporting ~3,000 people for being of the wrong ethnicity and the wrong political persuasion in the wrong place. Wow, what a well thought out proposal! Once we've done that, we should also deport from the USA any Mexicans who still speak Spanish and wave Mexican flags. And black guys who support black nationalism. If they want to do that Afrikan identity stuff, they can do it in Africa. Monoculturalism ftw.

Funny thing is that the only person who gets it right in this thread is actually the Argentinian who understands that the problem is neither the Falklanders nor the Argentinian claims, but the status of the Islands as a remnant of British imperialist power projection. What should happen is some kind of negotiated settlement whereby the area gets demilitarised and the Argentine claim recognised, but with some kind of guarantee of protection for the islanders living there. If they want to call it "Falklands", speak English and drive on the left, then whatever. But the concession they have to give is that they do it as part of Argentina instead of the UK. "Self-determination" or not.

I don't think "self-determination" is that simple as some people are putting it. "Self-determination" does not mean supporting the "right" of every settler population to play 19th-century colonialist re-enactment for all eternity which is clearly untenable on the long term. Otherwise, we should also support as "self-determination" the continued existence of Northern Ireland, the state of Israel, etc. The main difference, however, is that those settler populations actually got there by war and by displacing native inhabitants. In Palestine, you can speak of a "right of return", unlike in the Falklands dispute. Realistically, the Falkland Islanders won't be able to remain a colonial outpost forever, no matter how much they want it as "self-determination". That's just something they'll have to live with in an international world where they don't exist in a vacuum (even if the islands are pretty fragging remote!). As they will, in time. Deporting them for that would be totally barbaric and wrong though.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4953
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2008, 15:25
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 11 Apr 2012, 03:40
Quote:
Then in the other corner we've got people like FC actually advocating fragging deporting ~3,000 people for being of the wrong ethnicity and the wrong political persuasion in the wrong place.


No, I said that if the locals want to be British, they don't have to stay. A free plane ticket is what I'm thinking. That's not deporting by force. The people captured and sent home in the war I referred to were soldiers. I see nothing wrong with that and given that half the population of the islands today are in the military... You're seeing things in my post which weren't there.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 6211
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Aug 2004, 20:49
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Embalmed
Post 11 Apr 2012, 09:34
And the Argentines who would ostensibly be moved there? If local people want to be Argentine, why don't they simply stay in Argentina?
Why don't Spanish speakers simply evacuate Latin America and leave it to the natives - there was imperialist expansion, expulsion, exploitation etc. that was continually being carried out by almost every state in Latin America, even after the Brits established control of the islands.
I aren't saying the Brits didn't do this worse, by heck they did, but imperialism is imperialism, and in this case there was no genocide of a native population, as it didn't exist, and underhanded methods used by all imperial powers.
What did a newly formed, relatively weak nation expect by trying to expand its borders/sphere of influence, when it had recently gained independence from a reasonably powerful empire?
The current natives on the islands are a mix of Spaniards, Frenchmen and Brits and couldn't be happier from living off of inflated state benefits as a smokescreen for the military presence. I have nothing against the civilians, as I have made clear, but the military presence would only be replaced by different model warships with an Argentine flag over the harbour and barracks - you'd be quite naive to think otherwise.
Image

"Phil Spector is haunting Europe" -Dr. Karl H. Marx
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 6451
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 Sep 2005, 13:48
Embalmed
Post 12 Jun 2012, 18:41
For those who haven't heard, the Falkland Islands will hold a referendum on its 'political status' in a bid to end the dispute with Argentina over the archipelago's sovereignty.
Now what is this…
Soviet cogitations: 7674
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Nov 2004, 02:08
Embalmed
Post 12 Jun 2012, 19:43
Quote:
Give the Falklands to Argentina, the British are evil imperialists.
Tibet belongs to China, to hell with the evil west.
South Sudan belongs as one Sudan!
The Golan Heights belongs to Syria!
Gibraltar is Spanish!
Abkhazia deserves the right to be its own country!
Kosovo is not a real state!


So what is the criteria again for who gets what? I've heard it's about national determination, but it seems to be out the door in this case....
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3821
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2006, 02:14
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 12 Jun 2012, 20:44
Szabo wrote:
For those who haven't heard, the Falkland Islands will hold a referendum on its 'political status' in a bid to end the dispute with Argentina over the archipelago's sovereignty.


The referendum will end nothing. It's like asking the looters if they want to keep the loot.
No one's objecting their right to be british. They can be that, but they're on argentinian soil.


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

Forum Rules
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 12 Jun 2012, 22:32
And what makes their soil Argentinian?
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3821
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2006, 02:14
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 12 Jun 2012, 22:36
Mabool, read this thread again from the beginning. I've stated several times all the issues that support the argentinian claim.


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

Forum Rules
Soviet cogitations: 7674
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Nov 2004, 02:08
Embalmed
Post 13 Jun 2012, 06:46
So what happens when they are no longer british, but their own people with their own culture, who are in no way shape or form connected with Argentina and are no longer under the 'subsidy' of the crown?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3821
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2006, 02:14
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 13 Jun 2012, 14:46
Who cares? They aren't in that position nor they want to be. Our claim still stands.


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

Forum Rules
Soviet cogitations: 7674
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Nov 2004, 02:08
Embalmed
Post 13 Jun 2012, 15:23
Che Burashka wrote:
Who cares? They aren't in that position nor they want to be. Our claim still stands.

ok, so just to be perfectly clear what applies in this circumstance does not apply to others? Because this is how it's really coming off.... It was ONCE Argentina's, but now the people living there are in no way shape or form connected with Argentina and dont want to be. It would almost be like giving Alaska back to Russia 'just because' even though the population would want nothing to do with it.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3821
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2006, 02:14
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 13 Jun 2012, 15:56
Alaska was sold from one state to another. There was a contract and both parts agreeded to it. The Malvinas islands were stolen. Their population was kicked out and replaced with foreign population.
There is no way this situation is even remotely similar to Alaska.

The population can do whatever they want there. No one is kicking them out (we're not british). We want the UK to acknoledge our sovereignty over they islands so we can integrate them to the rest of our territory.


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

Forum Rules
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 13 Jun 2012, 16:05
Our territory, our islands, us and them ... god, this thread is teeming with nationalism.
Soviet cogitations: 7674
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Nov 2004, 02:08
Embalmed
Post 13 Jun 2012, 16:50
Quote:
The population can do whatever they want there. No one is kicking them out (we're not british). We want the UK to acknoledge our sovereignty over they islands so we can integrate them to the rest of our territory.

But the population doesnt want to integrate with your territory, why force it on them?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3821
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2006, 02:14
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 13 Jun 2012, 18:49
Because it's not up to them to decide. The population there is the same empire that stole our land, placed a military base, fish our fishes and try to get our oil.
Sovereignty over the islands also mean an extension on the economic exclusive zone and the projection over the antartic. They didn't just steal 12 173 km² from us, it's much more.


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

Forum Rules
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 13 Jun 2012, 21:22
Do you think it would be legitimate for Germany to claim the Western half of Poland?
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3821
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2006, 02:14
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 13 Jun 2012, 21:36
Why? Germany has accepted several times the Oder-Neisse border. You cannot claim what you've agreeded to give away.

That doesn't apply to the Malvinas issue.


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

Forum Rules
Soviet cogitations: 1128
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Aug 2008, 18:12
Party Member
Post 13 Jun 2012, 23:18
Other.

I just don't care what happens to them.



Quote:
The Malvinas islands were stolen. Their population was kicked out and replaced with foreign population.


Like with the colonisation of Argentina in general? Why don't you move back to Europe, you've clearly stolen land from native Americans living in what is now called Argentina. If you do, I'll move back to Denmark/Germany. As an Anglo-Saxon I am obviously guilty of stealing the land of the Ancient Britons.

Quote:
Our territory, our islands, us and them ... god, this thread is teeming with nationalism.


Yup, Che has been thoroughly sucked in by the bourgeois con of nationalism. This is how the bourgeoisie distract the proletariat and make them support bourgeois governments.

Hence Che comes out with stuff like this:
Quote:
We want the UK to acknoledge our sovereignty over they islands so we can integrate them to the rest of our territory.


This is despite the fact that, as a proletarian, Che is unlikely to see any material improvement in his life should Argentina suddenly possess the Falklands. Yet he seems to believe that the integration of the Falklands to Argentina would result in some extensive benefits for him and his peers.

Quote:
Because it's not up to them to decide. The population there is the same empire that stole our land, placed a military base, fish our fishes and try to get our oil.


No it isn't. None of the people there were born even remotely close to the time the British seized the Falklands. Our fish and oil? Sounds like bourgeois concepts of property to me (and I expect you to defend these since you are sucked in by the bourgeois concept of nation).

Quote:
They didn't just steal 12 173 km² from us, it's much more.


Haven't stolen anything from you as you weren't born at the time.
Soviet cogitations: 7674
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Nov 2004, 02:08
Embalmed
Post 14 Jun 2012, 09:35
Quote:
That doesn't apply to the Malvinas issue.

Listen, if you're going to be a hypocrite and not admit to it because it's a national issue, could you at least call the islands by their proper name? FALKLANDS.

Christ, even I'm willing to admit to personal hypocritical feelings regarding Quebecois separatism as I am against it, but generally supportive of certain separation movements internationally. Everyone is supportive of movements promoting self-determination or allowing groups of people the right to self-determination the right to choose until it's on their own door step.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3821
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2006, 02:14
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 14 Jun 2012, 14:18
Comrade_Canuck wrote:
Listen, if you're going to be a hypocrite and not admit to it because it's a national issue, could you at least call the islands by their proper name? FALKLANDS.


The propper name of the islands is Malvinas. It's the derived spanish name from its original french name "Malouines". The UN accepts both names, because it's a territory under dispute. That's right - under dispute.

Comrade_Canuck wrote:
Christ, even I'm willing to admit to personal hypocritical feelings regarding Quebecois separatism as I am against it, but generally supportive of certain separation movements internationally. Everyone is supportive of movements promoting self-determination or allowing groups of people the right to self-determination the right to choose until it's on their own door step.


And that's the main problem with Malvinas, the population there is not original. It's not self-determination, because they're illegal settlers. That's why it's subject of discussion on the UN's Special Committee on Decolonization.


gRed Britain wrote:
This is despite the fact that, as a proletarian, Che is unlikely to see any material improvement in his life should Argentina suddenly possess the Falklands. Yet he seems to believe that the integration of the Falklands to Argentina would result in some extensive benefits for him and his peers.

It will certainly result in benefits for our peers. The fishing rights and oil extraction rights will certainly benefit those living in Tierra del Fuego, the province where Malvinas belong. And through our national oil company, the benefit of new stocks of oil reach all of the population. That's what happens when you have a popular government.

gRed Britain wrote:
No it isn't. None of the people there were born even remotely close to the time the British seized the Falklands. Our fish and oil? Sounds like bourgeois concepts of property to me (and I expect you to defend these since you are sucked in by the bourgeois concept of nation).
Haven't stolen anything from you as you weren't born at the time.

They haven't stole from me, but from my community, my nation. It's just one of the many attempts of the british empire to promote its influence on this part of the world. They tried taking over Buenos Aires twice, and after failing, they went for the islands.

gRed Britain wrote:
Yup, Che has been thoroughly sucked in by the bourgeois con of nationalism. This is how the bourgeoisie distract the proletariat and make them support bourgeois governments.

And you're soooooo progressive, you're siding with the Empire. Good for ya.
Should the USA keep Guantanamo? I mean, they're there for a century already. I guess it's just bourgeois of Cuba to ask it back...


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

Forum Rules
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.