in the Monroe Doctrine for those future battles?
Just thinking outside the box here.
wondering; if Ed Meese's, could remarks
/ memoirs, enlighten us.
Posted on 12/28/2012 10:11:00 AM PST by the scotsman
'Ronald Reagan issued a last-ditch appeal to Margaret Thatcher to abandon her campaign to retake the Falklands and to hand over the islands to international peacekeepers, according to official documents made public today.
Files released by the National Archives at Kew, South West London, under the 30-year rule show that as British troops closed in on final victory, the US president made a late-night phone call to Mrs Thatcher urging her not to completely humiliate the Argentines.
However, his request fell on deaf ears as a defiant Prime Minister insisted that she had not sent a British task force across the globe just "to hand over the Queen's islands to a contact group".'
(Excerpt) Read more at uk.news.yahoo.com ...
I hope this is not true. Reduces my respect for Reagan.
On the bright side, he followed up with real support as an ally ought to.
Dang. Ronald Reagan’s hero status with me just came off.
Playing Devil’s Advocate...
Argentina in part based their seizure of the Falklands on an interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. Reagan knew he had a major battle on his hands with Soviet proxy states in Nicaragua and potentially elsewhere in Latin America. So perhaps he was trying to maintain some integrity in the Monroe Doctrine for those future battles?
Just thinking outside the box here.
There is always more to the story.
This could have been a “wink-and-nod” gesture by Reagan - - he may have been asked by the Argentina General to make the call in return for... who knows what?
Myths die long, slow deaths. Fact of the matter is, Reagan would be considered a “globalist” under today’s standard, by those who demand ideological “purity.”
Why? Of all the great things he did, you're going to let this ruin it?
If it makes you feel any better, Reagan's successful invasion of Grenada really ticked Thatcher off.
It would’ve been nice if this writer had contacted the Reagan Archives, and discovered what his reasoning was at the time. It’s probably on paper, somewhere.
Why would this turn you against Reagan.
It shows that even though he did not agree with an ally he stuck with that ally.
I don’t have to agree with everything a friend tells me or that he feels, but that doesn’t make me any less a friend.
Having some personal knowledge on what lengths the Reagan Administration went to support the British efforts in the Falklands, this “reporting” doesn’t change how I feel about Ronald Reagan as a great President.
I bet that was a disinformation plant story.
psy-ops, to conceal truth.
nobody would have believed it then and nobody believes it now.
(except John Kerry, he believes anything)
Get used to the fact that there are very, very few heroes in politics.
It’s all a matter of comparison: Reagan was better than Carter who, in turn, is better than Obama. Where the Bushes and Clinton fall in that group will be determined at a later date when we will also find out who killed Kennedy.
Even though it has a liberal hag as the star, I strongly suggest “The Iron Lady.” I suspect the liberal idiots behind the move thought the audience would be aghast at her unbending will on the issues.
For me the only thought was, “DAMM could we use somebody like that now”!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Let’s keep in mind a context of the times. Argentine was actually an allay of America’s also. America has a special duty to ensure peace reigns in this hemisphere. I think that Reagan was trying to allow Argentina to save some face because if they didn’t the government could fall, chaos and the unknown would ensue. Then who knows what happens in Argentina. Possible communism? As it happened, the government did fall but they didn’t turn to Russia.
As for Britian going it alone as it is said in the article. That’s not entirely true. Reagan cut off arms sales to Argentina, approved the use of our LPH’s for backup in case they lost an aircraft carrier and we sold them missiles and other military equipment.
Reagan did have some extreme Globalists in his admin like Bush and Baker...who were also neo Hispano-Racist....Note the Falkland Is. are the Argos. version of Aztlan-Reconquista
I am more impressed with Thatcher than disappointed with Reagan
Indeed.
There is probably more to this story. It comes to mind that the present president, will certainly jump all over this news to justify his/her decision to condemn any Israeli action against Syria and/or Iran.
On that light note, I wish all my fellow FReeperrs a Very Happy New Year.
>So perhaps he was trying to maintain some integrity in the Monroe Doctrine for those future battles?<
.
Ah, I forgot all about the Monroe Doctrine — to keep the nasty Europeans out of the American sphere of influence. Good thinking.
Of course, an exception is being made when it comes to Islam and its slow but irreversible destruction of the Americas.
Haig was pretty pro-Argentine and Jeanne Kirkpatrick was fanatically pro-Argentine.
However Cap Weinberger was fanatically pro-British.
The Administration was pulled in a lot of different directions, though Weinberger won out in the end.
There are three Reagans:
1) The warmongering senile idiot of the Left
2) The idealized, and somewhat fictionalized and mis-remembered “True Conservative” of the Right
3) The real Reagan, who was an impressive person, but who wasn’t either 1) or 2).
If I remember right there were a lot of conservatives that backed Argentina at the time, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, US Ambassador to the UN, being one of them.
Jeanne Kirkpatrick: “She was one of the strongest supporters of Argentina's military dictatorship following the March 1982 Argentine invasion of the United Kingdom's Falkland Islands, which triggered the Falklands War. Kirkpatrick had a “soft spot” for Argentina's President Gen. Leopoldo Galtieri,[1] and favored neutrality rather than the pro-British policy favored by the Secretary of State Alexander Haig.[5] The administration ultimately decided to declare support for the British, thus forcing her to vote yes to UN resolution 502.”
When it came down to it, he backed Thacher. Since there wasn't anyone recording the call, we may not have the call completely right.
Good post.
That's one of the problems on our side, we'll kick our guys to the curb for the slightest infraction.
The Dems otoh will stick together through thick and thin.....no matter what.
Doesn’t turn me against Reagan, It is just disappointing.
Dunno what we could get from Argentina that would be worth making such a call.
The Monroe doctrine is dead, at least since the French took Mexico and put Maximilian on the throne and supported him with the French Foreign Legion. We didn’t do anything about that. Then, of course, there was Cuba. Based on that I don’t see how we could enforce it against Soviets.
I am not disappointed that he wanted to settle it peacefully; I am disappointed by his call for a UN intervention. They were just as corrupt and incompetent during the Reagan Administration as they are today. Why should the British subjects of the Falklands be subjected to them?
I totally agree. Central America looked really bad back then and Argentina was helping us in what looked like an uphill battle. The Falklands (or as Jesse Helms said, "The Malvinas") was a brutal sideshow and at the time, a lot of conservatives opposed Thatcher or were neutral. And to top it off, after we alienated our hemisphere, she trashed us on Grenada, which may have been Reagan's greatest move.
The Monroe Doctrine didn’t make sense when Monroe chucked it out there, especially seeing the wreck 95% of everything south of the Rio Grande became... ironically outside of the areas that the Europeans still control today.
Oswald killed Kennedy.
Oswald killed Kennedy.
Something’s not right with this. We were helping the Brits, but we didn’t make it known.
And with the Brits so close to the Falklands at the time it makes no sense for Reagan to have asked Thatcher to back-off and “give peace a chance”.
Sorry. This is BS.
Here’s where U.K. hypocrisy shows itself, today.
They can continue to claim legitimacy for their OCCUPATION of a colonial possesion thousands of mile away, while belittling little Israel for defending the defensible borders it has come to have in defense against the many threats to its existence.
It’s BUSH’S FAULT !
Are you kidding? Another unabashedly pro-Soviet state in S. America? We're playing chess here, not checkers.
My point wasn't that he wasn't a great President, it's that he was hardly the ideologically pure anti-RINO that a lot of people on here vaguely mis-remember him as.
And the State Department was as loaded with communists, appeasers, and scum during the Reagan Administration as it is today. Who knows what hand they had in the whole thing? What I find interesting is that Reagan did not make his alleged request of Thatcher publicly through the media, but rather with a private phone call that wasn't made public for 30 years. Keep your eyeballs peeled - - there will be more about this story coming shortly, I'm sure.
Nice try, but no sale.
Reagan was a genuine leader in every sense of the word.
That is WHY he is hated by the left and idealized by normal human beings.
Nobody ever claimed he was perfect, and nobody ever had to.
We FOUGHT alone.
And other allies gave us support: Chile, South Africa, Australia, NZ.
Sorry, I think its no BS.
Reagan ended the Cold War, earning a place as one of a handful of the greatest men in history.
The world was in hell before Reagan, every moment was shadowed with apocalypse and the instant end of Western Civilization.
Thank God for Ronald Reagan’s vision and skills.
Reagan surpassed the greatness of Emperors and war time presidents, and did it with almost no loss of life.
Speaking of JFK, as possible next SOS and from reading another thread regarding his desire to return communism to the southern hemisphere, might this slurring of RR be an initial appeasement offering to the ruling class?
That was a brilliant move - keeping it quiet and personal. What a dude!
Anybody really look up which navy burned down Puerto Soledad and bannished the priates raiding US clipper ships going round the cape to California ? Which by the way enabled the Brits to re-settle the chain.
Reagan offered a lot of important back channel stuff to the Brits. Who might know where the Belasario was and where it was going ? There was and still is a lot going on in South America at that time. If he did suggest this he already knew what their answer would be
It is no more an “OCCUPATION of a colonial possession” than is the current US government’s presence in the US.
Sorry. You'd be wrong.
And what the hell, saying Australia and NZ helped you? That's like saying the US was supported by Guam and Puerto Rico.
A President putting his country’s diplomatic interests first...
Reagan must be condemned for that LOL!
More than diplomatic nicety. This overthrew the generals. There was a serious communist threat in Argentina. This could've turned out very badly.
Exactly.
The scumbag rats would have had TV cameras wall-to-wall.
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.
Not at all. Britain did not formally assist Australian military assistance during the Falklands, but it was made quite clear to the UK that Australia would have provided anything requested and the Royal Australian Navy was of sufficient size and strength to make that offer very meaningful. In particular, we still had an aircraft carrier at the time, capable of operating non-VSTOL aircraft - a capability that the Royal Navy no longer had. Australia's force of six submarines would also have been very useful (and a lot of what they did around that time is still classified, just as a matter of interest). The capabilities of the RAN were, and are, significant in comparison to the RN, and back in the early 1980s, we were still very used to operating together (the last formal imperial model 'combined fleet' had only disbanded in 1975).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
