• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Stealing a Nation Documentary

M

michijo

Banned
Joined
Sep 2, 2013
Messages
750
Reaction score
120
Location
Carolina del Norte
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depopulation_of_Chagossians_from_the_Chagos_Archipelago

Strange event I had no knowledge of. In order to build a hug military base that has been used in many major wars in Iraq, etc, the UK forcibly removed the entire native people known as Chagossians. It shows how they have to remove a whole people in order to have a base to attack more people. Its alarming to see how the governments of the west do this stuff. I think its that as a group member of the military or state establishment, you have no self-belief. Like a gang member who relies on gang for self-esteem, of you remove a nationalist nut from his group, he loses self-belief, so that these jingoists are capable of almost anything in order to maintain their military group identity. I dont know why but it occured to me when watching about this:

 
*yawn*

Not sure what this has to do with the military though. And it was not "stolen", it was bought. But hey, knock yourself out.
 

I think the world needs all the 'hug' military bases it can get. As the previous poster noted, not only is your post factually incorrect, it has nothing to do with the military.
 
What is Obama doing about this base on Diego Garicia or the former inhabitants of the island who were brought there as slaves in the late 1700s and now live in poverty after being forcibly removed and having all their dogs killed by the military?

Thank you, John Pilger!
 
You've got to stop reading all of these loons and believing what they say. It makes you look dumb.
 
It was "owned" by Mauritius and "sold" to the UK as part of the independence deal. The few thousand (Chagossian) islanders had no say in the matter, and were shipped off to Mauritius against their will, where they still live in poverty in ramshackle camps, fighting for the right of return. (sound familiar?)
 

Yes, its a bit cliche, the displaced. Nevertheless, its filed as "extremely important" in the department of "Total Desire By Michijo to Debunk Europe, Canada, and the USA in the most absolute and final manner imaginable".

Its especially important for me as an American, where I am accused of racism and being complicit to slavery, to call this out. If the courts in the UK said they could go back to said island and were blocked by the USA, well lets complain about it.

They live like crap, refugees. Maybe we should give them asylum?
 
Last edited:

And although the Mauritius were paid for the islands and relocation way back in 1972, for some reason they did see fit to pay the people until 1977.

So who's fault is that? And once again, if they are living in slum conditions, who's fault is that? The Mauritius have had over 40 years to take care of things, seems to me they have done a pretty freaking miserable job of it.


Well, then if they were brought there as slaves in the "late 1700's", then they really do not belong there in the first place, do they?

And there were not slaves there for very long, since the United Kingdom was one of the first major nations to abolish slavery.

First the Slave Act of 1807, which forbid the buying or selling of slaves. Then the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833, which emancipated all slaves throughout the British Empire.

So from what you are saying yourself, they are not an indigenous population at all, but descendants from slaves. They were also paid for their land and relocation, and you say they live in slums by the Mauritius.

Why not ask them about why this is, eh? After all, they are the ones that withheld payment for this sale and relocation for over 5 years. They are the ones forcing them to live under these horrible conditions. Why not ask their own government (which is who actually sold that island in exchange for independence) why they have been treating them so poorly.

Seems to me that you are screaming at the wrong governments. Why not ask these questions of the Mauritius?
 
Well, if the USA and England went in an killed their dogs, tricked them into relocating by denying them the right to return when they thought they were just abroad visiting, then the USA and UK are at fault. Sell and island and forcibly move the people off? If they were brought there as Slaves and worked the island since the late 1700s, then I would actually give them the island as their own property.

Depopulation of Chagossians from the Chagos Archipelago - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

compelled expulsion of the inhabitants of the island of Diego Garcia and the other islands of the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) by the United Kingdom, at the request of the United States of America
Click to expand...

How about if the US government wanted to build a base on Saint Simons Island off the coast of Georgia, and from there decided all the middle class white people were going to be removed by force, have their pets killed, and tricked into leaving, so we could have a military airstrip base to strike Cuba?

In Chagos we are talking about an island with a Creole culture that developed over decades. You cant just remove the people like an infestation.
 
Last edited:

And why won't you discuss the issues I already pointed out?

Like it was their own government that had sold their island. And that their government is the one that withheld giving them the payments for over 5 years. Or that it is their government that has been causing their problems. Not the US and the UK.

But I am sorry, this is yet another "Let's bash the US/UK/Military/Anything I Do No Like" thread, so facts and reality does not matter.

Let me know if you want to actually discuss things, instead of pontificating on your pulpit.
 
It was part of the deal to gain independence from Britain. Mauritius got independence, Britain got the island, to lease to the US, Britain got a massive discount on the Polaris Nuclear missle system they were buying from the US, and the islanders were dumped in a ghetto, second-class citizens in a country that has never wanted them. The difference between the treatment of the 2,000 Chagossians vs. the 2,500 Falkland islanders couldn't be more different.

Chagos and the Struggle Against British Neocolonialism - AntiCapitalists
 

You are just embarrassing yourself with the ignorance you are displaying on this subject. Cut your losses and run.
 

Okay, but it wasnt their government that got them off the island. It was USA/UK as usual, the deadly duo.

If the USA sold the Florida Keys to Cuba, and Cuba went in and killed all the dogs of the white people living in the Keys and forced them to leave, you would call Cuba a dictatorship.

https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Falklands_and_Chagos_-_A_Tale_of_Two_Islands
 
Its clear that the USA and UK were the ones to remove these people from Chagos, not Mauritius. I might blame Mauritius for selling out its own citizens to an evil western colonial empire USA/UK, but I suppose USA/UK are the type of people who are so righteous that they cannot be blamed for their own crimes.

https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Falklands_and_Chagos_-_A_Tale_of_Two_Islands

 
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Falklands_and_Chagos_-_A_Tale_of_Two_Islands

 

Yep , the story is shameful alright. Pilgers great.

You might want to see the work of Mark Curtis ( great historian imo ) on this subject of Diego Garcia ............. I first read about it in his book Web of Deceit which chronicles British underhandedness towards various groups

A relevant passage from the book.......


https://markcurtis.wordpress.com/2007/02/12/the-depopulation-of-the-chagos-islands-1965-73/
 
Oozlefinch said:
*yawn*

Not sure what this has to do with the military though. And it was not "stolen", it was bought. But hey, knock yourself out.
Click to expand...

Apparently is was a none too concealed condition for Mauritian independence................ kinda puts a different slant on it for me at least
 

And once again, you dodge the actual issues and continue to pursue fantasy and things not relevant in any way, shape, or form.

If you want to have a factual conversation about the facts and reality of this, let me know. If you want to pontificate on fantasy and propaganda and avoid the real issues, then this discussion is pretty much done.

oneworld2 said:
Apparently is was a none too concealed condition for Mauritian independence................ kinda puts a different slant on it for me at least
Click to expand...

And the point here is?

England could very well have not granted them independence at all. It was within their right to continue to hold sovereignty of the islands until today. And they could still could have leased the land to the United States. They were under no obligation to give independence to this new nation, this was not some kind of mandate.

So how does this change the slant? I fail to see the connection here to be honest.

What if they decide for some reason to give Independence to the Turks and Caicos Islands, but one of the conditions is to maintain Salt Cay, and pay for it. Is this somehow "stealing" Salt Cay?

The administration of Mauritian could have told them no. It was their choice, so why are people upset at the UK for making it and paying for it? Instead of maybe at the Mauritian for making this agreement, putting the islanders from there in slums, and withholding their payments for over 5 years?


Oh, and as an FYI, the land was already owned by the UK. They had purchased the islands from the owner back in 1967.

The island was previously owned by the Chagos Agalega Company, the main employer on the island. So the islanders actually did not "own" the island, they were given land to live on, or rented land from the company that owned it.

Imagine if I owned a farm and on it had erected 100 housing units for the employees. Then I decided to sell the farm to somebody else, and they decided to evict all of the tenants and turn it into an amusement park. What gives the employees I have been housing there the right to sue the new owner? Because this is really what we are talking about.

But let's take it a step further. The new owner decides to pay these people for their land anyways, and I promise to move all of the workers to another farm I own.

But instead of upholding my part of the bargain, I instead stick my workers into cardboard shacks. And when the new owner promises to pay the workers for them to move, I decide to hold the money for over 5 years in my own bank, until I am forced to actually give the money up.

So who is guilt here. Me for selling my land, putting the people in crappy conditions and trying to steal their money, or the people who bought it?

All I see here once again is people screaming how evil everything about this is, purely pontificating pompously with very little facts.

Funny how all of those screaming how horrible this is does not seem to care about the attempted theft by the Mauritian government of the money, or the horrible conditions they were placed in by the Mauritian government. Or the fact that the islands were privately owned.

Understand that, privately owned. This is something that was once quite common in many areas of the world. A company owned the islands, not the people living there. You may squat on 2 acres of land up in the mountains for 15 years. That does not mean however it is your land. Especially if it is say a National Forest owned by the US Government. If they tell you to get off, you get off. It is not your land, no matter how long you lived there.

There is an abandoned house right around the corner from me. I can move into it, fix it up, but that still does not make it mine. And if the owner sells it to somebody else, what gives me the right to scream when they try to evict me? Or if the owner of the house I am renting decides to sell, what gives me the right to refuse to move if I am ordered to do so?

Yes, they are obligated to pay for moving expenses, and early termination of the least payments, but they are not obligated to let me continue to live there if they want me out. And it is not my house.

I wish people would just concentrate on the facts, and not get all wrapped up in emotions which do not have a damned thing to do with this.
 
Conservatives are crazy in my book. Nuts, cookoo, barmy, lala, soft in the head, demented, and evil, willfully malicious distorters of the truth for their own profiteering.

Its stated very clearly that the British respected the rights of self-determination in the Falkland Islands of a similar number of people as could be found in Diego Garcia, that the inhabitants of bother Falkland islands and Diego Garcia were both non-natives to the place and had developed their own culture, but the british felt inclined to give military aid to them rather than allow Argentina to annex them, but in a similar situation did a full ethnic cleansing in Diego Garcia.

Now either you think that the British and USA are living Gods as the Aztecs imagined the Spanish, or you call them out on basic hypocrisy.
 
Perhaps you need a new book.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…