An American Argentine’s response to a Falkand Islander’s rejection of the Argentine claim to

sovereignty on the Falkand Malvinas Islands.

Robin Goodwin​: Until you actually experience an occupation of aggression and the ensuing
battle that follows you cannot really understand the effects it has on any individual. I lost
relatives during and after the Falklands Conflict. All as a direct result of the action and later
stress brought upon them. It was an unnecessary act of aggression and it cause such a
terrible waste of life on all sides. That act of aggression was caused by Argentina and it was
started not only to avert tension in Argentina but largely because Britain was sending the
wrong signals at the time. There are soldiers from both sides as well as civilians that could
have all been avoided. Yes some of our people have been affected for life and they have their
reasons for saying what they say. I have always stated that we should have repatriated the
invading war dead back to Argentina at the first opportunity at the end of the conflict , We
know why that did not happen because Argentina refused to accept them back saying they
were laid to rest in their land and so the hate continues to this day. I know that there are many
who will never trust Argentina again myself included but there are also many who would never
abuse the fallen. Remember the vast majority of those fallen did not want to be here. They all
acted or was made to act for their government at the time. Fortunately for us Margaret
Thatcher was prime minister at the time and that she stood by her subjects. Had Jeremy
Corbyn been prime minister I do believe we would not be doing what we are doing today
because he has no interest in any place other than inside his own Country . There have been
many others just like him who have come to these Islands to try and persuade us to share
sovereignty or allow ourselves to be handed over on a long term lease like Hong Kong was.
So we who live here know and experienced all these things, but at the end of the day this is
my home just like it is their home in Gibraltar.
~
Patrick Edgar Regini​:​ Yes ​Robin Goodwin​, definitely a much more reconciliatory or moderate
tone in the use of language than one is used to reading by the British. And I do share with you
your perspective on the human insensitivity aspect, of a people being run over by a forceful
military occupation, yet only up to that point would I applaud an "Argentine apology" by whom
I believe should be limited to its Military Institution, not its government. See, there is a critical
flaw in your overall reasoning to my understanding. And one should say a profound flaw, upon
which as one observes the erection of the rest of your reasoning, just like the bent or slanted
foundation of a building, everything that comes above it gradually increases in the number of
odd conclusions, errors and miss assessments the taller the building rises. And I will explain
what those fundamental errors in how you define your basic elements of understanding are.
...
~
Patrick Edgar Regini​: ​These are absolutely essential points for a course that would travel and
lead to the greatest truthful understanding of the conflict as a whole, involving
un-hierarchically the Islanders the Argentine and the British.
1) A military overthrow of government or cup d' etat, and its occupation of a People's nation,
is an aberration in the discourse among nations properly represented by their people and their
constitution, and thus cancelling out all substance, interaction and accountability put upon that
nation and its people by other nations. This we know, however it is not always honored as it
should be. Often that truth is subject to the other country's interest towards logic, or need to
"just blame that nation".
When you say "Argentina invaded", you are saying that today's people did that in 1982, which
is incorrect and slanderous. The truth is that Argentinians never ever had a militaristic thought
towards any country in the world after it finished fights that had to do with it and its neighbors
defining their boarders, nor toward the Falkland or Malvinas Islands. This type of semantic
inference by the English media and most everyone in social networks, seemingly intentionally
wanting to forget the Junta and all its murderous flogging for the Argentine population, is
doing Argentina a lot of harm today. In few words, it would appear the British find it
advantageous for the Islanders to have "an enemy nation".
It is indignant that the British can be so brutally destructive in the use of world
communications, and not care at all about embedding in literature a defaming account of
events with ignores what Argentina was actually going through then with the story line they
create, so as long as they can run off with territory without having to face fair arbitration.
2) …
~
The English media, and thus the British, Islanders, Americans, Australians etc... have been
made to read titles such as "Argentina invaded Islands", "Argentina says Islands belong to
them" "Argentina does not consider the rights of self determination of the Islanders" This has
been hammered in as the central understanding of the conflict for the last 37 years,
intentionally as such worded by the British and the Falklanders. Very seldom hardly ever do
you hear sentences such as, "... about a long held 188 year old dispute over which of these
two countries has sovereignty to the islands".
Britain and its subjects on the Islands have made sure that no headlines read a more truthful
category definition title such as "Once more the British and Argentine confronted over who's
sovereignty the Falkland or Malvinas Islands are, this time the Argentine invaded and re-took
the islands, in-spite of a well settled British population" for example.
In other words, English media is making sure that no one in the world understands this as an
old conflict between Argentina and Britain, they are intentionally and logistically making sure
that all literature turns this into an antagonism by Argentina of the Falklanders, WHEN IN
REALITY the islanders are the ACCOUNTABILITY of Britain. Britain is who wanted them on
the islands to secure their position against Argentina, and to keep Argentinians from migrating
to the islands. An aspect of this historical conflict between the two countries notoriously
absent.
3) ...
~
Britain did not actually HAVE TO turn that invasion into a war.
Like I said, the Junta's occupation of Argentina already loathed by the Argentine and
increasingly resented, was on its way out. No military occupation lasts for ever, especially in
Latin America. the UK knew this, but of course had Britain been more diplomatic looking more
in the distance that at the immediate gains it would have with a war, meant some kind of
negotiation. Negotiation that could have indeed led to less British authority and involvement,
and more Islander autonomy, supported by Argentina. The war was unnecessary. The heat of
the invasion would have blown over once the generals saw Britain preferred the path of
diplomatic negotiations, and they would have all gone home.
Britain wants CONTROL of the Islands, and this "intention" they are careful to not let the
Islanders see. Of course now they are less shy of that, the reason being is the war was used
to psychologically condition the islanders. Britain had all the options on the world table, and
time was not a factor. Unless of course if what your prime directive since 1833 has been to
absolutely not let Argentina incorporate the islands into their national territory.
... And this is because England, or Britain still have an imperialistic condescending colonial
view towards countries such as Argentina, laden with with expansionist motivation. ​Robin
Goodwin
4) ...
~
Four) Is about the notion and principals of the Falkland Islanders rights to "chart their own
destiny ... self determination ... owning their home islands etc etc ". The one true sovereign
natural order for the world's nations. The most natural element of political civilization since the
beginning of time, has been the creation of singular nations by their own people joined by
language society and culture. It has always been one people > one nation, and that nations
has always been under the fee of those people. This is the natural source of countries and
their singular territories. Hence why after centuries of abuse by military might, enslavement,
mayhem, wanting to take from others, colonizing and destroying their cultures to no end, we
have finally come full circle back to the singular most natural and honorable truth to our
human psyche: one people > one nation.
All nations are created by their people's directive and necessity of creating an organizing
government administratively and authoritatively above them, they design it in such a way as
to maintain their drive of it and influence, yet all people concede to the necessity of honoring
government in order to fulfill the wishes of people. The Falklanders, are no different to the rest
of us. They must honor the dispute between their ruling government and another one. They
have no right to tell another country to not claim a territory, or denounce their government
against its usurpation of land they claimed. Especially if it occurred before their own arrival to
that land. This lack of respect towards other countries by the Falklander's is nourished by the
political logistic of the BOT, or the British double sided ploy meant to keep the islands from
Argentina, which was devised in order keep the islanders on the islands with a sense of
empowerment.

The Falkland Islands Government is simply an expansionist strategy by Britain. Whereas

Argentina simply wanted to incorporate Spanish held territory to the creation of their singular
territory's new nation. Two different motivations, highlighted by the basic British silent directive
of not letting Argentina naturally gravitate towards incorporating the islands. But of course
they had to organize it and create a facade administration to motivate people to live there and
not feel used.
.... You'll notice that today' narrative by the English language almost to a teeth, seems to go
out of its way to skirt around these points I made to you, almost making it evident that they
are trying to create a story different to something that is there, yet unseen.
~
Lastly ​Robin Goodwin​ 5)
However I do believe there is a way to honor the Islander's and their earned right after having
settled on the islands for so long BY THEIR OWN MERIT, that would instead of practically
deny Argentina's existence, would create a field from which a natural human sovereignty
resultant could be produced towards everyone's satisfaction, which no longer denies and
opposes points and facts, but instead builds from what we truly are, and what we truly have in
substance.