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 ...
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.
The French intervention in Mexico was in the 1860’s. I suppose an argument could be made that America’s attentions were elsewhere at that time.
The Brits have no place in the western hemisphere. Remember the Monroe Doctrine.
While I think it’s valid to criticise a lot of UN Peacekeeping operations as you have done, now, the situation was quite a bit different back then. Until the 1990s, UN Peace Keeping operations were fairly rare, and they tended to be undertaken by forces including significant numbers of troops from first world nations. For example, during the 1970s (the period just prior to the Falklands War), there were only three UN Peacekeeping operations, headed by nations such as Finland, Canada, France, and Denmark. In the 1990s, there were 28 UN Peacekeeping operations, many of which were being undertaken by half trained soldiers from countries with significant corruption problems. How UN Peacekeeping operations are undertaken changed dramatically after about 1988.
Even if he was, reverend Wright probably convinced him the national average income was over $250K and they are all supposedly "rich" and therefore, he resents 'em!!!
Your post should read: "I hope this is not true. It would reduce my respect for Reagan."
Oh, it probably is only half-true. Like he said it, but Maggie knew he didn't mean it. That's called diplomacy.
Doesn't make sense based on everything else he did, does it.
HHhhhahahaha
As always, the stinging humor comes whipping thru the interspace, blogoshere.
Sorry, but its your opinion on the papers released this week. I have my opposite opinion. These are at least documents we can read rather than speculation.
Just because you dont like whats being presented dosent mean its rubbish.
BTW, the Aussies and Kiwis gave us some naval and intelligence support. Dont disrespect them, they may not be your kith and kin but they are ours.
Our big 3 supports were the US, Chile and S Africa. France, contrary to myth, actually helped us with the Exocets. It was Germany that was the problem with missiles.
Who cares about the Monroe Doctrine?.
Sorry, but last time I looked it was nothing but an American doctrine of intent. It was never law. Oh, and btw, we were in the Western Hemisphere before your country was born.
I never understand why Americans think we were/are supposed to bow down to this mythical doctrine.
Woe is me... I'm just nuts, that's all there is to it!!!
I was merely using Australia and New Zealand as examples of natural allies to the UK and that it was certainly expected that they would help England to kick out Argentina from the Falklands.
Comparing them to Guam and Puerto Rico was not a comment on the military capabilities of Australia and NZ at all but rather a poke at your "allies" comment. As if Guam and PR would not be an ally to us in a similar situation.
So which is it, Scotsman, did the US assist the UK or not with the Falklands?
The Brits “occupy” a small archipelago in the South Atlantic that until discovered and settled by England had been completely uninhabited by anyone.
They established themselves there LONG before Argentina even existed as a political entity.
Argentina attacked and tried to conquer this small archipelago using “Las Malvinas” as a pretext.
The Brits beat them back and unequivocally re-established their title with true blood and guts, 8000 miles from home.
Yeah, that sounds pretty illegitimate to me.
OK, my apologies. Obviously I did misunderstand what you were saying.
You be nuts auright—this be the last, unedumacashun, post dat I sends to ya’alls.
From now on, I slip into my black tassled loafers, dark grey slacks, top brand name of course, Armani suit coat,
bespoke shirt from London and Hermes tie. I will try and use a few 6 and 7 letter words in my future missives. All I can do is try.
Yes, I talked to your mother about that once and she agreed that you were trying... Very trying!!! (hoot!)
1—It read as disrespectful to Australia and NZ. Both naturalman and I read it as such.
2—Yes, America helped. But there is this myth now that we wouldnt have won without the US help. Which is nonsense.
OUCH...I’d rather be Rick-Rolled.
Too bad. I understand though. It means you probably don't think much of Guam or Puerto Rico. You're probably a bit gun shy too. My Scottish ancestors are rolling over in their graves.
2—Yes, America helped. But there is this myth now that we wouldnt have won without the US help.
Oh hogwash. Only in your mind. Most people don't even know the type of help that was given.
I have no problem with the U.K.s occupation and possession of the Falklands. I find their understanding of the legitimacy of that and their failure to find the legitimacy of Israel defending itself as hypocritical.
1—Firstly, what the fudge has guns to with it.
BTW, you do realise that naturalman and I are ex-armed forces?. Gun shy?. I was a Para for seven years!. And I have been a gun owner since I was 17. And still am. Rifle, shotgun, and more air weapons than I can count.
Your comment, even if not intended to be so, LOOKED and read disrespectful. An actual bonefide Aussie thought so to.
2—Nope, I have read here many times and from other Americans that US involvement was so crucial in 1982, that the lack of it would have meant a British defeat. I have had to correct/attack such tosh, as has Winnie, Vanders and our Aussie friend.
Sorry, but the UK govt publicly supports Israel. They supported publicly the retaliation recently against Hamas.
The UK officially supports Israel even if a loud leftwing pro-Palestinian minority makes itself heard often.
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.