The Falkland islands/Malvinas

[Dr Mindbender]

I am probably ignorant of the history and politics surrounding the Falklands/Malvinas but what i cant help wondering is what territorial right does Argentina have over them when there is no indigenous population that actually supports Argentine rule?

It seems very different to Northern Ireland which only came about due to territorial gerrymandering.

If someone can explain Argentinas claim better i would be interested.

[Sasha]

first look at the map,
http://www.goargentina.net/images/map01-301.jpg
you see the UK anywhere near there?

and for the rest, well, there isnt an indigenous population at all (except sheep and even they where imported) there are some british living there but before the invasion it where only a very few.

i as an sort of anarchist offcourse also dont recognise the claims of argentine but from an statist perspective they make an hell of a lot more sense than the british.

[Crimson Commissar]

Argentina taking control of the Falklands makes no sense at all. If the people there were Argentinian or at least Spanish-speaking, then it would be fine. But they're not, they're British. I understand that the whole reason that Britain owns the Falklands is because of our imperialist past, but the fact is that the island is British, and unless the island is suddenly repopulated with Argentinians, then it will stay under British control.

[Unis]

Unfortunately as much as we hate imperialism, the British clearly have the real claim here - with the entire population wanting to stay part of Britain. No Argentines are being oppressed (Indeed, next to none live there) there and the Argentines have never owned the land or lived on it - only the British have.

Geography is not an indicator of anything. If Argentina claims sovereignty over those islands, it better hurry up on its Claims for Chile too.

The Falklanders are the indigenous population. They want to stay part of Britain. And so we should respect their position and not let the Argentine politicians use it as a populist weapon to get people to rally behind when their popularity drops.

[Dr Mindbender]

first look at the map,
you see the UK anywhere near there?

No but then geographic contiguity is seldomly a good basis for territorial claim in its own right otherwise France would be expected to give up guiana and america Hawaii.



i as an sort of anarchist offcourse also dont recognise the claims of argentine but from an statist perspective they make an hell of a lot more sense than the british.


what, and the desires of the current occupants (almost all of them) doesn't even come into it? That doesnt make an awful lot of sense to me.

as for the issue of indigenous peoples, the current falklanders are the closest thing, there never were pro argentina residents.

[Sasha]

No but then geographic contiguity is seldomly a good basis for territorial claim in its own right otherwise France would be expected to give up guiana and america Hawaii.


euh, yes dont know for sure about hawai but yeah, since when do we recognize colonial rights?

[Boboulas]

These days argentina only wants it for their oil purposes or to gain some kind of support for bieng hardline against the british state.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

This is the ideology of Nationalisms true nature, a silly mystification of "the home land" wich in this case is the area thats inside some special lines on a map and those lines can be wider so that more territory can be included in "the home land".
About the Falklands war, it was just a way to change focus and a try to strength the postion of and by the ruling classes. First in Argentina the dictatores wanted to change focus frome theire failur of handling the economical crises so they started a truely meningless war to gain some barren islands with no natural reasorces (exept sheep products) and that was great for miss Tacher who now could change focus frome her brutal neoliberization of the brittish public sector and angry striking miners, to say that now we all must unite against the invadors that has violated brittish soil on the other side of the equator. Divide and conquer.

[graymouser]

No but then geographic contiguity is seldomly a good basis for territorial claim in its own right otherwise France would be expected to give up guiana and america Hawaii.
Hawai'i is stolen land. If the native Hawai'ans decide they want independence Marxists should support their claim.

[Dr Mindbender]

euh, yes dont know for sure about hawai
I think so, otherwise by the same merit Russia or Japan could claim Hawaii.


yeah, since when do we recognize colonial rights?
I think in the case of the falklands its different because there is no existing indigenous people that are being oppressed as a result of british rule.

Arguably the same applies to Gibraltar because the vast majority of Gibraltans apparently are happy remaining british.



Hawai'i is stolen land. If the native Hawai'ans decide they want independence Marxists should support their claim.
I agree, but this is exactly what the Philippines chose and i think in hindsight they regret their desicion as they are now a developing nation.

I think Hawai'ans observed the filipino's mistake and arent keen to repeat it.

[Demogorgon]

States and borders are artificial. The notion that Argentina or Britain has some kind of "right" to rule the Falklands is absurd. What matters is the people that live there. The people of the Falklands are close to unanimous in wishing to be a British territory and there is no displaced indigenous population wishing otherwise. Argentina has no claim at all.

[Demogorgon]

I agree, but this is exactly what the Philippines chose and i think in hindsight they regret their desicion as they are now a developing nation.

I think Hawai'ans observed the filipino's mistake and arent keen to repeat it.
The Phillipines never had or were close to attaining statehood, there is a clear difference there and to my knowledge there is no particular desire to return to America.

As for Hawaii, yes if they want independence, Marxists have to support that, but likewise while there is no desire for that, it is not our job to start acting as if nationalist ideas of states are correct.

[Dr Mindbender]

The Phillipines never had or were close to attaining statehood, there is a clear difference there and to my knowledge there is no particular desire to return to America.


Speaking as someone whos been to the philippines i can state confidently there is a certain regret among the younger generation of Filipinos that were denied the privilege of a developed lifestyle thanks to the stubborn nationalism of their forefathers.

[Demogorgon]

Speaking as someone whos been to the philippines i can state confidently there is a certain regret among the younger generation of Filipinos that were denied the privilege of a developed lifestyle thanks to the stubborn nationalism of their forefathers.
Well maybe, but at any rate the Philippines were not being offered statehood and the notion that they could have gained American levels of prosperity is overly optimistic. The US's other dependent territories stand testimony to that.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Speaking as someone whos been to the philippines i can state confidently there is a certain regret among the younger generation of Filipinos that were denied the privilege of a developed lifestyle thanks to the stubborn nationalism of their forefathers.

Because colonial Philippines would have been so much more advanced?

Like that other colony of the United States... Puerto Rico...

Since when do we support imperialist arguments of "bringing prosperity to savages" by colonising them anyway? And people regretting some warped unrealistic dreams about a reality that never would have been much different from current-reality is irrelevant; they obviously desire things to be better but stop at making up a nonsensical fantasy about how being a total U.S. colony instead of just a vassal would have been so much better.

[graymouser]

I agree, but this is exactly what the Philippines chose and i think in hindsight they regret their desicion as they are now a developing nation.

I think Hawai'ans observed the filipino's mistake and arent keen to repeat it.
Despite the vulgarization of Lenin's position on the right of nations to self-determination, Marxists don't advocate the independence of subjugated nations. If the Hawai'ians actually want to stay in the USA (now I mean the natives, not the US and Japanese settlers), that's their right. And if they want to be independent, that's their right too.

The reality is that the status quo has been much better for US and Japanese settlers than for native Hawai'ans, which I think is an important fact to look at in analyzing the differences between Hawai'i and the Philippines.

[Blake's Baby]

The thing about the Falklands/Malvinas is, if the Argentinians did take over (either militarily or through a diplomatic deal) it would behove those who believe in 'anti-Imperialism' to support the islanders' rights - and return them to Britain.

The Malouines (I'm going to use the earliest known spelling) were named by French sailors (from S Malo in Brittany), but not settled. The British settled them under the name 'the Falkland Islands'. Subsequently Argentina gained its independence from Spain adn claimed the Malouines. It never owned the Malouines, nor indeed as far as I can recall did Spain ever own them, and the 'native' or 'original' population is of British and Irish descent. And, overwhelmingly, wants to remain part of Britain.

So, make of that what you will. Nasty colonial Argentina seeking to conquer the native British. Or a European planted colony denying a southern emergent economy territorial integrity. Either/or; maybe both. But I think it's undeniable that Argentina has never 'owned' the Malouines (so any claim is based on logic, and proximity) and the population wants to be British (so claims based on popular mandate and indigenous rights).

[Red Saxon]

Since there was no native population on the Falkland Islands, the first group to settle there should legally and morally be considered the native population. Since the native population (i.e. those of Anglo-Saxon/Celtic descent) wants overwhelmingly to remain a subject of the British Isles then I don't see how the Argentinians have any claim over the area other than a geographic one.

Fuck Imperial Argentina.

[People's War]

Argentina taking over the Falklands would essentially be colonialism - the people want to be British, not Argentine. I don't see how any anti-imperialist can support giving the Falklands to Argentina.

[Sam_b]

but the fact is that the island is British

Says who, the current nation-state rulers or internationalists?

Is this the same slant you were getting on when talking about the 'British unity' in that nonsense pan-celtic thread?

[Boboulas]

Says who


The people that actualy live there.

[Crimson Commissar]

Says who, the current nation-state rulers or internationalists?

Is this the same slant you were getting on when talking about the 'British unity' in that nonsense pan-celtic thread?
Oh, come on. The PEOPLE THEMSELVES want to be British, and they consider themselves British. Just because some ridiculous Argentinian nationalists want to claim the islands as their own doesn't mean the people should be forced to accept it. Get over it, Britain is no longer some evil imperialist power who wants to "oppress the non-english peoples of the world", the British Empire is long dead, but that doesn't mean that a region such as the Falklands which is inhabited by BRITISH people should be handed over to Argentine nationalists.

[Unis]

Says who, the current nation-state rulers or internationalists?

Is this the same slant you were getting on when talking about the 'British unity' in that nonsense pan-celtic thread?
So say the inhabitants, the indigenous inhabitants - who want to escape from Argentinian imperialism.

[Sam_b]

Aah yes, the BRITISH people, the people of BRITAIN. I haven't asked the people of the Falklands lately, have you? Asides this takes nothing away from the notion of a boundryless, classless society with no nation state, which should be a basic communist position.


Britain is no longer some evil imperialist power who wants to "oppress the non-english peoples of the world"

Iraq.
Afghanistan.
Of course before that there's Korea, Vietnam, the former Yugoslavia.....do you know what imperialism is?

You're just chock-full of nationalist rhetoric! Up the BRITISH

[gorillafuck]

The Falklands shouldn't belong to either of them. Recognizing either states "right" to controlling the Falklands is really stupid, neither country has any sort of "right" to controlling the Falklands.

[meow]

fuck all countries and stuff.

[Crimson Commissar]

Aah yes, the BRITISH people, the people of BRITAIN. I haven't asked the people of the Falklands lately, have you? Asides this takes nothing away from the notion of a boundryless, classless society with no nation state, which should be a basic communist position.



Iraq.
Afghanistan.
Of course before that there's Korea, Vietnam, the former Yugoslavia.....do you know what imperialism is?

You're just chock-full of nationalist rhetoric! Up the BRITISH
The people of the Falklands ARE British. I doubt they want to become part of a country which:
1. They share no cultural or linguistic similarities with
2. Tried to forcefully invade them just 30 years ago

As for Iraq and Afghanistan, well, are you gonna go off on a rant against every country that is currently fighting in Afghanistan? Do you absolutely HAVE to oppose EVERYTHING that Britain does?

[¿Que?]

I think this thread is seriously missing some Argie perspective. In the absence of this, I'll have to do my best.

First off, Argentinians were duped into giving a shit about the islands in the first place. Nobody cared until I believe it was Galtieri decided to reclaim them. This made everyone happy.

But guess what? Nobody in Britain cared either. It was only until Thatcher duped the British working class into giving two shits, that this even gained any significance in the British consciousness.

So both sides (working class) were duped...one by Fascism, the other by British conservatism. So let's get some perspective.

257 British dead and 647 Argentinians. Why? Because some fascist nutcase invaded a tiny island nobody cared about, or because some conservative nutcase decided she wasn't going to let it slide?

The question of who actually has the right to the Malvinas, is in my opinion irrelevant. I would much rather go back to the good old days when nobody cares. However, there is a kink in this dream.

Recently, the conflict resurfaced as British ships were detected in the area, speculating for oil. These were ships were owned by private oil companies, but had been assisted and encouraged by the British government. To the Argentinians, this was like reopening an old wound. Only this time, there was actually something at stake...natural resources.

So...My understanding from the general consensus on this thread is that the British (as state and as corporation), since they have every right to the Malvinas, also have every right to the sea around the Malvinas, and every right to the natural resources they find there.

And this is perfectly ok with all the "Anarchists," "Marxists", "Communists" etc that have contributed such meaningful analysis of the situation on this thread?

Analysis that would have us hold to the idea of a third world, developing, impoverished (whatever you want to call it) nation as "imperialist" and "colonial". :thumbup1:

Take that rhetoric where it belongs...stormfront!

[Crimson Commissar]

It is possible for a third world nation to be imperialistic, in the right circumstances. Argentina is in nowhere near the amount of shit some other countries are. I'm not saying here that Britain has the right to own the island, I'm saying that the British PEOPLE have the right to own the island, you know, the ones LIVING THERE? If they wish to remain part of Britain, then so be it.

[¿Que?]

It is possible for a third world nation to be imperialistic, in the right circumstances.
Well go ahead and dust off the books. I'll believe it when I read it.

[Crimson Commissar]

Well go ahead and dust off the books. I'll believe it when I read it.
So, invading a country that you have nothing to do with, merely based on it's geographical location isn't imperialistic? You wouldn't be saying the same thing if it was Britain doing the invading and not Argentina.

[¿Que?]

So, invading a country that you have nothing to do with, merely based on it's geographical location isn't imperialistic? You wouldn't be saying the same thing if it was Britain doing the invading and not Argentina.
You simply cannot make this analogy and retain any kind of credibility as a leftist in my book. You're shouting "reverse racism" which we understand cannot exist when the distribution of power remains so unequal. Imperial Argentina for me can only exist in relation to indigenous people. So you were somewhat right, but for the wrong reasons.

EDIT: In any case, I was asking for some evidence like a credible source.

[Demogorgon]

Incidentally, the notion that somehow Argentina has a "right" due to geographical location barely qualifies by its own logic. After all the shape at the border at Cape Horn would give Chile a claim too, not to mention that there is a reasonable Chilean population on the Islands but no Argentinean one. That being said though while there is no desire to be part of either Chile or Argentina, where is the justification for forcing it under foreign rule.

I find it quite shameful that some leftists have bought into the rhetoric of Argentinean expansionism, most forcibly pushed by a right wing military dictatorship trying to shore up support with war (which ironically ended up shoring up support for another undesirable government...). For goodness sake, drop the double standards.

[Sam_b]

The people of the Falklands ARE British. I doubt they want to become part of a country which:
1. They share no cultural or linguistic similarities with
2. Tried to forcefully invade them just 30 years ago

This is fail. Why are you so quick to define workers by nationality?


As for Iraq and Afghanistan, well, are you gonna go off on a rant against every country that is currently fighting in Afghanistan? Do you absolutely HAVE to oppose EVERYTHING that Britain does?

Why do all your posts reek of British nationalism?

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Didn't the British put the settlers on the Island to get another foreign territory under their flag anyway? How is that not imperialism?

[Crimson Commissar]

This is fail. Why are you so quick to define workers by nationality?
I'm not. You seem to be ignoring the fact that the people WANT to be part of Britain. Going against that would be completely un-Socialist. And before you try to say that I am going against what the people want by saying Ireland should be British, that is only what I would want to happen, but if no one is in support of that then obviously I wouldn't try to force it upon the Irish people.


Why do all your posts reek of British nationalism?
And why do your's reek of Anti-Angloism?


Didn't the British put the settlers on the Island to get another foreign territory under their flag anyway? How is that not imperialism?
Yeah, true, but going by that logic you could also say that all North Americans should be deported back to Europe and their land given back to the Native Americans.

[Sam_b]

I'm not. You seem to be ignoring the fact that the people WANT to be part of Britain. Going against that would be completely un-Socialist. And before you try to say that I am going against what the people want by saying Ireland should be British, that is only what I would want to happen, but if no one is in support of that then obviously I wouldn't try to force it upon the Irish people.

This is not what i'm getting at at all. The woring class movement is an internationalist movement, the stuggle for liberation is an international one, and all genuine revolutionaries believe that internationalism is an integral key to the movement. So why are you so quick to start labelling by nationality?


And why do your's reek of Anti-Angloism?


Source me some evidence to support this.

Indeed, you could even start by deining 'Angloism'.

[Raúl Duke]

I find it quite shameful that some leftists have bought into the rhetoric of Argentinean expansionism, most forcibly pushed by a right wing military dictatorship trying to shore up support with war (which ironically ended up shoring up support for another undesirable government...). For goodness sake, drop the double standards. QFT

Let's get straight to the point via questions:

1-Do the population in Falklands consider themselves Argentinian, British, or nether?

From my understanding, the don't consider themselves Argentinian and do not share a common culture with Argentina. Thus, why would Argentina's claim on them be legitimate in any sense?

I heard that the population considers themselves British. From a nationalist standpoint, they should than stay with the UK if they identify with that nation.

2-Does the population, or at least a substantial segment consider themselves oppressed by the UK?

I don't know really, but I doubt it. If they did than from a national-liberation standpoint the best route would be for the independence of the Malvinas

3-Should the left even bother supporting either nations' claims? We obviously shouldn't care who are the "rightful national owners" or the Falklands.

Again, why should we bother ourselves with purely nationalist shenanigans? Unless the people of the Falklands are being and feel oppressed/subjugated to a significant degree more than the rest of the UK, why should the left care about nationalist territorial claims?


Didn't the British put the settlers on the Island to get another foreign territory under their flag anyway? How is that not imperialism? Supposedly, the island was un-inhabited/un-settled prior to the arrival of the British.

[Crimson Commissar]

This is not what i'm getting at at all. The woring class movement is an internationalist movement, the stuggle for liberation is an international one, and all genuine revolutionaries believe that internationalism is an integral key to the movement. So why are you so quick to start labelling by nationality?
Again, I'm not. Why do I have to support the Argentine nationalist claims to the Falklands to be an internationalist? I'm not judging anyone be nationality, I'm just supporting the decision made by the people of the Falklands.


Source me some evidence to support this.

Indeed, you could even start by deining 'Angloism'.
By "Anti-Angloism" I mean being Anti-English. Most of your posts that I've seen have been denouncing Britain as being some kind of imperialistic world power that is "dominated by the English" and "oppresses the non-English peoples of the world"

[Sam_b]

Why do I have to support the Argentine nationalist claims to the Falklands to be an internationalist?

Did I say you did?


By "Anti-Angloism" I mean being Anti-English. Most of your posts that I've seen have been denouncing Britain as being some kind of imperialistic world power that is "dominated by the English" and "oppresses the non-English peoples of the world"

Prove it. Find me quotes where I have said that Britain is 'dominated by the English' and 'oppresses the non-English peoples of the world'. I believe you said the second quote, and I happened to respond that we can see imperialism at work in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Unis]

Didn't the British put the settlers on the Island to get another foreign territory under their flag anyway? How is that not imperialism?

The islands were empty. Settlers moved there. And now they don't want to be invaded. How is that imperialistic?

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

The islands were empty. Settlers moved there. And now they don't want to be invaded. How is that imperialistic?

If they were encouraged to move there in order to establish (and provide some sort of "ethnic justification" for) an overseas imperial dependency, how is it not imperialistic?

[Unis]

If they were encouraged to move there in order to establish (and provide some sort of "ethnic justification" for) an overseas imperial dependency, how is it not imperialistic?
You guys are really clutching at straws here. Whatever reasons the original settlers had for moving - keep in mind that they are the indigenous population and that the free movement of people is an important right.

Their descendants are not responsible for their forefather's reasons, and they are the indigenous and only population. It is not imperialistic for them to stay part of the country they want to - especially to protect themselves from actual imperialist aggression.

[Lyev]

Is this nationalistbrit.com now? As Marxists or anarchists shouldn't we be taking the fundamental presupposition that nations, the idea of borders, the "right" to own a bit of land more than someone else is all a capitalist construct? Why does either country have more of a right to own what is basically a bit of mud in the sea more than the other? And shame on you people saying Britain should own it because "they were there first". It sounds like you're arguing with children in the playground. Now, my understanding of the Falklands isn't nearly as thorough as some others folks here, but I think the basic crux of the matter is a fight for oil. Thatcher also used the nationalist sentiment stirred up by the war as a way of rallying support for crushing the striking miners at home. But anyway, to say one country has more of a right to it than the other is ridiculous, considering there is pretty much nothing there but sheep and bogs in the first, and of course there's the oil reserves. Neither country, therefore, is fuelled by nationalism in wanting hegemony over the island; they are bothed fuelled wholly by imperialist greed, backed up by aggressive expansion. Until I find out more that will change my mind, or unless I am fundamentally wrong in anything I know about the war, the Falklands was a pathetic, yet sad, conflict of which neither of the participating countries deserve a slither of my support. I don't have to take sides, because neither country deserves the little island more than the other.

[Crimson Commissar]

Is this nationalistbrit.com now? As Marxists or anarchists shouldn't we be taking the fundamental presupposition that nations, the idea of borders, the "right" to own a bit of land more than someone else is all a capitalist construct? Why does either country have more of a right to own what is basically a bit of mud in the sea more than the other? And shame on you people saying Britain should own it because "they were there first". It sounds like you're arguing with children in the playground. Now, my understanding of the Falklands isn't nearly as thorough as some others folks here, but I think the basic crux of the matter is a fight for oil. Thatcher also used the nationalist sentiment stirred up by the war as a way of rallying support for crushing the striking miners at home. But anyway, to say one country has more of a right to it than the other is ridiculous, considering there is pretty much nothing there but sheep and bogs in the first, and of course there's the oil reserves. Neither country, therefore, is fuelled by nationalism in wanting hegemony over the island; they are bothed fuelled wholly by imperialist greed, backed up by aggressive expansion. Until I find out more that will change my mind, or unless I am fundamentally wrong in anything I know about the war, the Falklands was a pathetic, yet sad, conflict of which neither of the participating countries deserve a slither of my support. I don't have to take sides, because neither country deserves the little island more than the other.
I agree, but we as Socialists should support what the people of the Falklands want, and they want to be part of Britain.

[Sam_b]

In fairness Lyev, your tendency practically cheered on the side of the British during the Falklands, which has been demonstrated in some earlier threads on the CWI's position on the subject.

[Lyev]

In fairness Lyev, your tendency practically cheered on the side of the British during the Falklands, which has been demonstrated in some earlier threads on the CWI's position on the subject.Well, I wasn't alive when the CWI/SPEW "cheered on the side of British during the Falklands", i.e., it wasn't their position on the Falklands that drew me to the organisation. I don't know clearly our position on the war, and right now, when we're organising meeting, setting up stalls, selling papers, talking to people on the street etc. it doesn't seem immediately relevant. Having said this, I don't have to follow the party line strictly, it's not a stiff dogma or religion.

[Dr Mindbender]

I agree, but we as Socialists should support what the people of the Falklands want, and they want to be part of Britain.

To be fair though, you cant blindly and blanketly use that as a benchmark of what to support and call yourself a socialist.

If the people of britain wanted to kick out every immigrant it doesn't mean we should support it.

Although on the other hand in the case of the falklands/malvinas i dont really think argentina has any historical, moral or political currency to back up its claim.

[Crimson Commissar]

To be fair though, you cant blindly and blanketly use that as a benchmark of what to support and call yourself a socialist.

If the people of britain wanted to kick out every immigrant it doesn't mean we should support it.

Although on the other hand in the case of the falklands/malvinas i dont really think argentina has any historical, moral or political currency to back up its claim.
Of course not, I'm not implying that. But in cases such as these, it's best to side with what the people themselves want rather than siding with the interests of imperialists and nationalists.

[Demogorgon]

If they were encouraged to move there in order to establish (and provide some sort of "ethnic justification" for) an overseas imperial dependency, how is it not imperialistic?
Because until the prospect of oil recently came up, the Islands were utterly useless.

At any rate whatever the reasons were almost two centuries ago, how does it follow that people with no connection with Argentina and no wish to be put under its rule should become part of the same?

[Crimson Commissar]

Prove it. Find me quotes where I have said that Britain is 'dominated by the English' and 'oppresses the non-English peoples of the world'. I believe you said the second quote, and I happened to respond that we can see imperialism at work in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I might be confusing you with someone else who posted in the Pan-Celtic thread, but your posts there did sort of imply that.

[Blake's Baby]

... until the prospect of oil recently came up, the Islands were utterly useless...

Was oil not part of the reasoning for the war in the '80s? I was under the impression it was. Large reserves under the South Atlantic, that at that point were considered economic to exploit, but it was thought that technological developments would lead to them being exploited in the future. And now it's the future (and the world is running out of oil).

[gorillafuck]

I agree, but we as Socialists should support what the people of the Falklands want, and they want to be part of Britain.
You're not really understanding this. Socialists (at least the ones who are firmly internationalist) are opposed to the Britains existence, because we are opposed to capitalist governments which Britain very obviously is. So why would we be like "well, I oppose Britain, but I think the Falklands should belong to Britain". That makes no sense at all.

[Crimson Commissar]

You're not really understanding this. Socialists (at least the ones who are firmly internationalist) are opposed to the Britains existence, because we are opposed to capitalist governments which Britain very obviously is. So why would we be like "well, I oppose Britain, but I think the Falklands should belong to Britain". That makes no sense at all.
What other option IS there, then? Would you prefer it was owned by Argentina, who has no reasonable claim to the islands other than one based on it's location?

[¿Que?]

On the issue of oil, I think it's perfectly reasonable to suggest that oil found in South America belong to the British.:laugh:

[gorillafuck]

What other option IS there, then? Would you prefer it was owned by Argentina, who has no reasonable claim to the islands other than one based on it's location?
The other option is opposing each side sending people off to die for either Britain or Argentina.

The Falklands war was primarily started as a move to rally up nationalist sentiment and support for Thatcher, by the way.

[Sam_b]

I might be confusing you with someone else who posted in the Pan-Celtic thread, but your posts there did sort of imply that.

So prove it.

[Crimson Commissar]

The other option is opposing each side sending people off to die for either Britain or Argentina.

The Falklands war was primarily started as a move to rally up nationalist sentiment and support for Thatcher, by the way.
I don't support either of the sides, but as long as the population there is British and wants to remain British, the Falklands should stay part of the British state, whether it is Socialist or not.

[gorillafuck]

I don't support either of the sides, but as long as the population there is British and wants to remain British, the Falklands should stay part of the British state, whether it is Socialist or not.
You're contradicting yourself by saying those two things.

You're still not understanding the issue, I don't think. The British state is a capitalist state. This is key. Socialists, internationalists, who oppose capitalist states, do not take sides on which capitalist government which is trying to gain control of a small island should control that island, as they are both regimes which should be opposed in their entirety.

[Crimson Commissar]

You're contradicting yourself by saying those two things.

You're still not understanding the issue, I don't think. The British state is a capitalist state. This is key. Socialists, internationalists, who oppose capitalist states, do not take sides on which capitalist government which is trying to gain control of a small island should control that island, as they are both regimes which should be opposed in their entirety.
I meant I do not support any side that took part in the Falklands war, not any side in the entire situation in the Falklands. And, who said I was not against the British capitalist regime? Just because I'd prefer the Falklands to be owned by Britain rather than Argentina doesn't make me some kind of British nationalist who supports everything the UK does.

[Sam_b]

The fact that you would 'prefer' to have a territory owned by a nation state certainly shows your commitment to internationalism.