Did the USA violate the Monroe Doctrine during the Falklands War?

[afleitch]

Sorry for the crummy wording of the question.

Was Reagan right to offer diplomatic support to the UK in 1982 in it's war against Argentina?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It might've by letting Britain take the Falklands in the first place, but at that point it didn't matter anymore. And Argentina didn't have any better of a claim to them either.

And no, backing Britain was completely right. Argentina was a horrific military dictatorship that fell because of their defeat there. So the support for the UK was completely right.

Of course, that awful b!tch Kirkpatrick wanted to support Argentina.

[Rin-chan]

It might've by letting Britain take the Falklands in the first place, but at that point it didn't matter anymore. And Argentina didn't have any better of a claim to them either.

And no, backing Britain was completely right. Argentina was a horrific military dictatorship that fell because of their defeat there. So the support for the UK was completely right.

I actually agree with you!

*pops confetti*

Rin-chan

[afleitch]

I'd agree. The geo-politics of South America was far more different than it was at the time the doctrine was written; the USA could not have supported a dictatorship against an ally simply because that dictatorship was fighting over land in South America, but I found it amusing to find that some people in the adminstration and outside it, did.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Even if Argentina had not been a dictatorship, the Falklands had been British for over a century and the US did nothing about it. Argentina's claim is no better than any hypothetical US claim to Cuba, the only thing they had going for them is geographic proximity. It's rather silly to ignore something for 100 years and then do something about it just because someone in the Western Hemisphere opted to seize it in violation of the will of the vast majority of the inhabitants.

After all, wouldn't it have been following the Doctrine to support Canada if they decided to seize the Falklands instead? But there is no logical reason to support Canada in such an instance. And Canada probably has more of a claim to the islands than Argentina does.

[??????????]

The Monroe Doctrine still has any actual power?

[The Man From G.O.P.]

No, the Argentinians needed thier asses whipped, we shoulda helped

[J. J.]

Here is the Wiki summary of the Monroe Doctrine:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Monroe Doctrine was not to remove existing colonies, but to oppose future colonization.  The initial claims of the Crown to the Falklands came in the 1760's, pre-dating the Doctrine by some 70 years. 

I would add that, even claiming the Monroe Doctrine, the US tolerated claims to pieces of North America by the countries (or as applicable, the Crowns) of the Great Britain, France, the Netherlands, Russia, Spain, and Portugal.  I would also note that the first three continued to make these claims today.

[minionofmidas]

Arguably, but it never mattered since the Monroe Doctrine always was a piece of sh!t.

[MasterJedi]

Yes it was violated because it doesn't matter anymore because it's not followed anymore.

It should be though.

[Jake]

I'd agree. The geo-politics of South America was far more different than it was at the time the doctrine was written; the USA could not have supported a dictatorship against an ally simply because that dictatorship was fighting over land in South America, but I found it amusing to find that some people in the adminstration and outside it, did.

I agree.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

We tossed out the Monroe Doctrine in 1917 when we sided with Allies over the Central Powers.  We should have sided with Germany.  Then we'd have Canada, Jamaica, the Bahamas, and most of the Lesser Antilles, with the exceptions of the Netherlands Antilles and the Danish Virgin Islands.  Could also have picked up a few possessions in the Pacific like Tahiti, Fiji, and Formosa.

[Bugs]

It was no violation.  Britain was not trying to acquire new colonies.  But European domination of the western hemisphere is not the issue it was when Monroe was president.  So once again it doesn't apply. 

[Kevin]

No because the British were Allied to the United States.

[patrick1]

An irrelevant pep rally for Maggie.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

An irrelevant pep rally for Maggie.

True but it did bring down the Argentine military regime, even if that was not the intention.

[The Duke]

I think JJ's point is well taken that the Monroe Doctrine was meant to prevent future colonisation but really did not pertain to existing colonies, where we give the Europeans much greater flexibility in how to handle their affairs.  I think the point is also well taken that the Monroe Doctrine is not particularly relevant today and should not guide our Latin America policy.

We tossed out the Monroe Doctrine in 1917 when we sided with Allies over the Central Powers.  We should have sided with Germany.  Then we'd have Canada, Jamaica, the Bahamas, and most of the Lesser Antilles, with the exceptions of the Netherlands Antilles and the Danish Virgin Islands.  Could also have picked up a few possessions in the Pacific like Tahiti, Fiji, and Formosa.

That's awesome.