Colonel H - shot in the back by his own troops?

[hipipol]

You're just babbling now. The US propped up dictator after dictator. It sponsored a coup in Guatemala in 1956 simply because the government had the temerity to assert land rights over plantations owned by US businesses. It, of course, sponsored the coup in Chile. It trained the death squads of various countries, including Argentina. It was almost certainly behind the failed coup in Venezuela. It attempted all kinds of things against Cuba, and still does - a lesson pour encourager les autres...

I could go on and on. I haven't even mentioned the coca trade yet. Really, read the Galliano book.

I'll say it again as you are obviously in the grip of some fixed conviction that means you dont actually see whats written
19 th Century
Argentina

NOT 20 th century, nor central America - to get in the right time frameon that point you would better advised to look at Teddy Roosevelts actions rather than the CIA's.

 

[hipipol]

You were factually wrong about Chile, hipipol. Better to admit that.

IN what way? Please elucidate

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The Monroe Doctrine dates from 1823.

 

[hipipol]

Right thank you, you've manged to answer my question, and i agree with the point. Why couldn't you just do that at the start instead of making yourself look like an ill-informed ranty dick?

Cos I want to be like you

 

[littlebabyjesus]

IN what way? Please elucidate

The idea that it was a stable democracy at any time before 1973 is so wrong that I would say that it is factually wrong. I'd wager you simply didn't know its history well enough to know that.

 

[butchersapron]

Cos I want to be like you

The amazing thing is that this bloke is coming up for OAP status soon.

 

[hipipol]

The Monroe Doctrine dates from 1823.

And?
I fail to see how a statement made in the early 19thc which concerned keeping European Powers out of all the Americas and which the USA had bugger all power to enforce at that time in any way undermines my contentions re Argetina and its spefic history in the 19th century
The US was interested in projecting power, first into the Carribean, then Central America but did not really have the wherewithal until late in the 19thc - it wasn't really until the 20thc that the US had the power and influence to really impact further south

 

[hipipol]

The idea that it was a stable democracy at any time before 1973 is so wrong that I would say that it is factually wrong. I'd wager you simply didn't know its history well enough to know that.

Fiver says you dont

 

[hipipol]

The amazing thing is that this bloke is coming up for OAP status soon.

So, we are back to time again eh?
'Soon' is a relativistic term and as such means you are probably right given the context of en entire life
However with Cameron at the helm I think the number of years between me and a free bus pass is liable to grow, not shrink

 

[littlebabyjesus]

And?
I fail to see how a statement made in the early 19thc which concerned keeping European Powers out of all the Americas and which the USA had bugger all power to enforce at that time in any way undermines my contentions re Argetina and its spefic history in the 19th century
The US was interested in projecting power, first into the Carribean, then Central America but did not really have the wherewithal until late in the 19thc - it wasn't really until the 20thc that the US had the power and influence to really impact further south

This, from 1845, columnist John O'Sullivan:

And that claim is by the right of our manifest destiny to overspread and to possess the whole of the continent which Providence has given us for the development of the great experiment of liberty and federated self-government entrusted to us.

Used at first to justify the annexation of Texas. And a decade later, the so-called 'filibusters' led to private attempts to take over parts of Latin America through colonisation. Infamously, William Walker proclaimed himself president of Nicaragua in 1856.

Approaching the end of the century, as the US became the predominant power, the threats to the whole of the Americas were becoming apparent. José Martí changed his view on the matter, and warned of the threat from the Collossus of the North.

Yes, their adventures started north and spread south, but there were plenty of actions before the end of the 19th century.

 

[Termite Man]

No one has said that, many people have correctly stated that defeat in the Falklands was the final straw for a moribund dictatorship and that had the UK lost it may well have bolstered that dictatorship enough to plod on a few more years, with a few more thousand Argentinians disappearing each year for good measure.

And that is exactly what I'm saying, it was the final thing that HELPED remove the junta, but not the only cause which is what the first post I responded to suggested. In fact If you quoted my entire post I think you'll see I actually said that.

As for feeling insulted, I do think it's insulting to dismiss the actions of the people* that lead the government to invading the Falklands to bolster support by claiming that solely the British victory removed the junta which is how I interpreted whoever first posted along those lines


*especially when so many people were executed without trial by their own government.

 

[dylanredefined]

Except the junta won their dirty war.So you can't claim they helped end the junta.Being crap at running a country was going to end the junta not a military defeat which is a shame as I doubt they would have got a trip to a pow camp and their rights respected like the one officer who the Brits took prisoner in South Georgia who was wanted by Spain and Sweden.

 

[butchersapron]

They didn't win the dirty war - the conditions that produced the class conflict that led to the dirty war persisted and were still being resisted on a mass level - hence the war. FFS.

 

[Termite Man]

Except the junta won their dirty war.So you can't claim they helped end the junta.Being crap at running a country was going to end the junta not a military defeat which is a shame as I doubt they would have got a trip to a pow camp and their rights respected like the one officer who the Brits took prisoner in South Georgia who was wanted by Spain and Sweden.

The dirty war wasn't won, the junta were losing power and wanted to gain popular support at home along with growing international pressure about the torture and execution of dissidents is what led to the war, and why did they need to disappear people, because there were people who still opposed the regime, people who hadn't been defeated.

 

[coley]

Especially if some rotten cunt has screwed in the gas regulator.

Better again if you put the bugger on upside down, which I did earlier

 

[likesfish]

The montaros the armed resistance had been killed or forced to flee so had become irrelevant organised resistance had been effectivily crushed the place was still falling apart the defeat gave it the final push.
without the military defeat junta two would have been along in a couple of years as was normal in argentine politics
being proved utterly incompetant at war nerfed the Argentine militarys ability to argue they were defenders of the country.

 

[Kg673]

I served in the British army 1988-1992, the story of H Jones been killed by his own men was well known and was regarded as a fact. Whether it's true or not who knows, but I heard it time and time again from lots of different people including Para's.
During the first Gulf war our 2IC was a complete prat and anytime he did anything that people didn't like, he would find a bullet with his name written on. I've no doubt that someone would have fragged him.

 

[Spymaster]

It's bollocks.

 

[ViolentPanda]

It's bollocks.

As I said earlier, it's actually difficult to tell, given that both sides used some (most) weapons of the same calibre. During the Falklands conflict both sides had variants of the FN FAL as their service rifle, the Argentine army had the metric pattern, and we had the inch pattern variant. We also both used 7.62mm LMGs, 9mm sub-MGs and 9mm sidearms.

To blithely say "it's bollocks" in the face of such difficulty in discerning who fired the fatal shots bespeaks a certain thick-headedness.

 

[youngian]

I didn't realise he was killed.

Isn't this going to affect the Steps reunion?

 

[Spymaster]

To blithely say "it's bollocks" in the face of such difficulty in discerning who fired the fatal shots bespeaks a certain thick-headedness.

Read the thread. I've seen a documentary in which the Argentine soldier who shot him, described in the utmost detail how Jones attempted to charge a position, how he shot him the first time, and how he put another burst into him when he was down. His account is also very well corroborated in reports of Goose Green if you care to read-up a bit.

Total urban myth.

 

[Mr.Bishie]

I also heard the story whilst serving. We took everything the paras said with a pinch of salt - egotistical & arrogant jumped up cunts

 

[ViolentPanda]

Read the thread. I've seen a documentary in which the Argentine soldier who shot him, described in the utmost detail how Jones attempted to charge a position, how he shot him the first time, and how he put another burst into him when he was down. His account is also very well corroborated in reports of Goose Green if you care to read-up a bit.

Total urban myth.

I've read the thread. I've contributed on it, I've read various histories of the conflict. Doesn't change the fact that it'd be impossible to tell which side shot him simply by forensics. As for testimony, Mandy Rice-Davies at ya!

 

[Spymaster]

The story's been around for ages but there's absolutely nothing credible to back it up and loads of accounts to the contrary.



Sgt Barry Norman (from 1.11)

 

[ViolentPanda]

I also heard the story whilst serving. We took everything the paras said with a pinch of salt - egotistical & arrogant jumped up cunts

Harsh, but fair!

 

[Spymaster]

I've read the thread. I've contributed on it, I've read various histories of the conflict. Doesn't change the fact that it'd be impossible to tell which side shot him simply by forensics.

Forensics has fuck all to do with it.

If you've read histories of the Falklands in detail, particularly GG, you will have read many accounts of what happened from both sides and nothing credible to suggest that he was shot by other paras.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Forensics has fuck all to do with it.

Mmmm, they have quite a lot to do with it, actually. They'd show directionality, at least.

If you've read histories of the Falklands in detail, particularly GG, you will have read many accounts of what happened from both sides and nothing credible to suggest that he was shot by other paras.

Of course not. If it did happen, it's hardly something that would get written about while the perpetrator(s) were still living, would it? I know you're a bit Jingo, Spy, but do at least think about what you're saying before leaping to the defence of your cherished beliefs!

 

[Mrs Magpie]

What I heard is that he was a bit gung-ho and ignored what they were meant to be doing and basically put himself and his men in unnecessary danger.

 

[Spymaster]

Apart from anything else, there was no need for his own men to kill him. He was virtually certain to be killed by the guy with the MAG in the second trench (who's said he shot him and who everyone there has said he shot him).

Quite a few accounts suggest the myth was started by the Royal Marines.

 

[silverfish]

I also heard the story whilst serving. We took everything the paras said with a pinch of salt - egotistical & arrogant jumped up cunts

HAT