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).
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.