I'm a Navy veteran and a liberal. The tone of this article really makes me cringe because not only is it anti-military, it thinks our hearts should bleed for the so-called "Chagossian people." These types of attitudes give liberals a really bad name. I'll bet a sizeable percentage of Chagossians were very happy to get off that god forsaken patch of land in the middle of a vast ocean and cursed the day their ancestors were ever brought there. The Navy, and it's sailors, welcome such a place, and given modern realities, it only makes sense for the U.S. and Britain to make use of this strategic asset.
Any Chagossians complaining now are most likely looking for some sort of reparations, which most likely does not include being returned to live in the middle of nowhere on an island prison. It's unfortunate they are living in poverty in their new home. Giving them some sort of compensation would be best, but in the history of displaced peoples, that rarely happens.
"Then, in the Spring of 1971, US military officials gave the order to round up all of the pet dogs on the island and have them killed. About 1,000 pet dogs were taken – some straight from screaming children – and gassed with exhaust fumes from American military vehicles. The Chagossians were told that if they didn’t comply, the same would be done to them."
Are you a liberal? You seem to be incredibly supportive of the United States military establishment, which isn't a very liberal position to take.
(Though I suppose it might be by US standards.)
> The tone of this article really makes me cringe because not only is it anti-military,
What's wrong with being anti-military? Ignoring absolute pacifism (which has obvious problems), opposition to the military (and the military-industrial complex) is a valid political position to hold.
The article isn't "anti-military", anyway. It's not against the US Military, it's against these specific actions of the US Military. Criticism of something and opposition to it are different things.
> it thinks our hearts should bleed for the so-called "Chagossian people."
Basic human empathy, is it not? If 2000 people next door to me were kicked out of their homes, I'd be sad for them too.
> These types of attitudes give liberals a really bad name.
What attitude? Non-unquestioning support of institutions which can and do have flaws, and having human empathy?
Usually, these are valued attributes in people.
> I'll bet a sizeable percentage of Chagossians were very happy to get off that god forsaken patch of land in the middle of a vast ocean
Do you have any reason to actually believe this? Why would they enjoy being kicked out of their home? After all, this "god forsaken patch of land" is probably not all that different from the "god forsaken patch of land" they were moving to: Mauritius.
> The Navy, and it's sailors, welcome such a place,
Which has no bearing on how the occupants feel.
> and given modern realities, it only makes sense for the U.S. and Britain to make use of this strategic asset.
Well yes, it makes sense from a strategic perspective: the US wishes to remain a global superpower with control of all the world's oceans. The BIOT is of strategic importance.
That being said, it has no real bearing on the morality of the action,
> Any Chagossians complaining now are most likely looking for some sort of reparations
That's rather cynical of you. People don't forget injustices, they're right to continue complaining.
> which most likely does not include being returned to live in the middle of nowhere on an island prison.
Island prison? I don't think they would have called their old home that.
> It's unfortunate they are living in poverty in their new home.
It's unfortunate. It's also a direct consequence of how the British treated them when they were evicted.
I'm suggesting that liberals who don't temper their empathy with practical realities risked being dismissed as holier-than-thou dreamers. I looked up the word temper to make sure I it was the right word, because I'm not sure you are from my culture, and Google suggests it means "their idealism is tempered with realism." I know it probably feels good to author an article like this one, but battles must be chosen and this one is kind of ridiculous in the larger picture of things wrong with the world.
I'm not here to debate that. I fervently wish we Americans were spending less money on the military and more on educating our children. I took part in the military. I understand it's a giant machine (military industrial complex) that doesn't just wind down in a couple years or even decades without sustained public pressure.
I'm here to understand the point of this article. If the author were advocating giving the .io domain fee profits to the Chagossians, I'm all for it, but I don't see that being advocated. I'm not sure what is being advocated. It's just a bad article with a lot of hand waving and emotional appeals that don't really do anything.
Any Chagossians complaining now are most likely looking for some sort of reparations, which most likely does not include being returned to live in the middle of nowhere on an island prison. It's unfortunate they are living in poverty in their new home. Giving them some sort of compensation would be best, but in the history of displaced peoples, that rarely happens.