Hacker News Reader

Comment by artyom | Hacker News Reader

This is data provided by the UK government itself: the Falklands have a little above 3500 people, with about half of it being military and government personnel, and the rest being their families.

So calling them "people living there", or "settlers" or "inhabitants" or "a democracy" is nothing short of disingenuous.

View on HN

Argentinians are "settlers" too, when you think of it. I think, that according to your line of logic, they should all leave Argentine and leave it to native people.

Maybe they can move to Falklands, then. Because it was empty and had no natives...

You proved my point. Argentina is full of people, as a multicultural country, including descendants of its natives (as long as you call "natives" to the first group of people ever that settled in a territory).

A planted and subsidized military operation half the world away doesn't magically become "a society" b/c they look like that on the surface.

The people living in the Falklands are descendents of the first gorup of people to settle that territory.

After Argentina did a Russia and decided they wanted the people who had lived there for generations to leave, the UK added a military presence.

I'd love to get a credible historical source saying that the conflict for that territory started around 1982 and before that there were just UK nationals casually settling there because... the weather was nice?

I'll be waiting here.

Why would soldiers, their families, and public employees have a reduced value in a democracy? Its not like they took the island by force.

Because of the law? In most western countries (including the UK), military personnel has reduced rights because of their status of having the monopoly of violence. For instance, the aren't allowed to unionize or go on strike.

I can't tell if the second part of your comment is trolling, or really not knowing the history of the UK before 10 years ago.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com