Discussion in 'world politics, current affairs and news' started by likesfish, May 3, 2012.
Well a nice little war of liberation would keep the peoples mind off the winter of discontent.
We may have been able to were he not dead.
Quite a few Chilean citizens on the Falklands.Some Chileans may dislike us for the whole Pinochet catastrophe they also dislike Argentina
so probably wouldn't mind helping us covertly.
pinochet was a barstard no doubt but managed to kill just over 3000 and inprison 30000 in his despostic regime
argentina the poor oppresed victims of island theft killed up to 30000 though more realisticly 15000 or so .
so as tryants go pinchoet was a 2nd division barstard
it was the argentinean government (protecting its political interests) that governed its actions towards the falklands in 1982, just as it was a british government (protecting its political interest) and indeed a chilean government (protecting its political interests) that determined their course of action.
Just as galtieri was a poisonous element against the argentinean working class, so pincochet was a poisonous element against the chilean working class and thatcher of course the same in this country.
i don't think there's anything particularly novel in saying the enemy of the argentinean working class is not "the British" but their own ruling class (equally applicable to the UK). Of course flag waving and jingoism and cheerleading wars allows for a good distraction of the fact.
See also the appaling behaviour of successive brit govts with regards to israel,cyprus,suez,ireland,iraq,afghanistan...the list is endless.
Your point is...?
How do you know this?
..... quite obvious.
If we're going to condemn British imperialism we should also reject Argentinian imperialism, which is precisely what their designs on the Falklands are.
Get it now?
Do you reject british imperialism?
Yes. I'll happily condemn all of Britain's colonial adventures that you've mentioned as well as those you haven't. But the Falkland Islands simply aren't one of them.
My knowledge of the Irish issue is probably worse than yours of the Falklands, so it's a debate that I avoid.
Colonial "adventures" is an interesting turn of phrase,And simply using the word simply doesn't a fact make
You already condemed the brits behaviour in Ireland,not leaving yourself much wriggle room eh?Now what about argentine "imperialism"?As it seems to be a key point in the "arguement" of the military fan boy club here,could you describe what it is historically and how it profited and improved the lives of the argentine population at the expense of the vast colonial territories that it's large imperialist army and navy controlled...See, i've even given you a clue
fair play. If i was a flag waver i'd have problems condemning the british colonial adventures in ireland.
Why isn't the falklands a part of the history of british imperialism? It was/is certainly part of the british empire. Unless you prefer the term colonialism?
What are you on about? It's quite clear that the "Argentine colonialism" that we're talking about here is that which seeks sovereignty over Islands that they have no reasonable claim to, against the wishes of the settled populace.
The Falklands must have served their purpose in the 18th and 19th century because pre Panama Canal, going round the edge of South America would have been one of two routes for the Far East. Having a British port there would have been a strategic plus for the empire.
Most people in rejecting any imperialism, seek to condemn the displacement or subjugation of an indigenous population. That wasn't the case with the Falklands was it?
From the 15th to the 20th centuries, all European nations were involved in colonialism. I've no particular problem with the concept of countries laying claim to, and settling land which was previously uninhabited, it's how the world was shaped. You can argue the rights and wrongs of the colonialism of centuries ago but the fact is the Falklands have been peacefully settled by the Brit's for 200 years and the Argentinian claims to them are a nonsense, as described in this thread.
Still wriggling?In your rush to defend brit imperialism in the south atlantic,you said argentinian imperialism must be rejected.You are the one who introduced the idea of argentinian "imperialism" as comparable to british imperialism,i'm asking you to develop this "arguement" so that we can juxtapose the two and see if your "arguement" holds up...Oh and if your prepared to use the quote above to justify your position,why does the same sentiment not apply to british imperialism in ireland?
empire building then, call it what you will. How the falkland islands, which was part of the british empire, which was up until 1981 called a 'crown colony', can not be seen as part of Britain's colonial adventures is beyond me.
Not interested in the argentinean government's claims. It's chest beating and flag waving. It's what political power was made for.
You are quite mad. You asked me if I reject British imperialism. My answer was quite clear in that I said I do reject that which displaces or subdues an indigenous population (most of it), but that that was not the case in the Falkland Islands. And I'll repeat that in the case of Ireland, I don't know enough about it to condemn or defend either side.
What bit of this don't you get? :
What about making a gain of territory to facilitate other actions to 'displace or subdue an indigenous population'? I say again, having control of a military base on of the only routes to the Pacific and Far East would have helped some of the worst excesses of the British Empire.
Here we go again.
FFS, why do idiots keep making comparisons about totally unrelated situations?
Every situation needs dealing with on the basis of the circumstances concerning that particular unique situation, it is fucking pointless trying to compare the situation regarding the Falklands to the likes of any of the situations listed by this twat.
One day I hope that someone may come up with a point concerning the Falklands, without trying to compare it with totally unrelated situations, although I'll not hold my breath.
Up until 1982 The Falklands hadn't really been used by Britain militarily. The Brit's and Spanish had limited military establishments on them at various times but these were small and used only to exert sovereignty. Historically the value of the islands has been in the hunting of whales and seals, and the harbours, which have been used by everyone.
My post was very clear,as was yours calling for the rejection of argentinian "imperialism".I'm still waiting for a jingo/nationalist free pro british analyses of the situation,you know one that's not based on reactionary shite.Frankly lying and wriggling isn't gonna do it.
I'll leave it to other readers to decide who's spouting shite and wriggling here.
Read the post from spymaster it was relating to gobshite.One day i hope somebody will come up with a point about the malvinas not based on jingoistic,reactionary shite...
Cop out .Last resort of a man with no arguement left
Separate names with a comma.