From what I know, it’s true, but I don’t believe President Reagan deserves criticism for it. Both the United Kingdom and Argentina were American allies at the time. The United States did not want to see two of its allies go to war and it was absolutely proper and in US interests to try and avoid that. It wasn’t in British interests, so Mrs Thatcher said no, but Reagan - rightly - had to give US interests higher priority than British interests. And when it became clear that war was not going to be avoided, and he had to pick a side, he picked Britain.
There is nothing wrong with trying to find a non-war solution to an international crisis, up to a certain point. I think Reagan got it right with the Falklands - he tried to broker a peaceful settlement, but when that failed, he threw his support behind the democracy over a dictatorship, behind those defending a people’s right to self determination, over an invading country, and behind an old and trusted ally with many shared values, over an ally of strategic convenience.
Don’t have any problem with trying to find a peaceful solution. That is what friends (or seconds) are supposed to do.
It was proposing UN Peacekeepers as a solution. The UN is possibly the most corrupt and incompetent organization in the world. I would hate to see what sort or horrors they’d inflict on the poor Falkland Islanders.