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

[littlebabyjesus]

One of the uncomfortable truths about nasty murderous dictatorships like Argentina's or Chile's is that they were not without support from within their own country. Losing the war destroyed even this support.

 

[Termite Man]

No 30000 people were killed by the junta no ones denying that.
What finished the junta off was defeat in the Falklands.
They' had killed or driven the opposition abroad the Falklands invasion was massively popular until it all went wrong.
Having the junta defeated not only destroyed the junta humiliated the military and made it impossible for the. Military to meddle in politcal affairs again.

No one is denying the war helped finish of the junta but it was on it's way out anyway and the war was a last attempt to keep power for longer, it's not just as simple as saying 'the war ended the military dictatorship' because there were many other factors involved and some of those factors led to the deaths of many thousands of people.

 

[Diamond]

No one is denying the war helped finish of the junta but it was on it's way out anyway and the war was a last attempt to keep power for longer, it's not just as simple as saying 'the war ended the military dictatorship' because there were many other factors involved and some of those factors led to the deaths of many thousands of people.

Even if you had proven that, which you haven't, your shrill conclusion that celebrating the British victory in is an insult to the Argentinian people is illogical and preposterous.

 

[Pingu]

Probably as likely as the Gurkhas wearing Sony Walkmen and cutting their own injured up.

which way did you lace your boots though?

nice necromancing of a thread btw whoever it was

 

[Termite Man]

Even if you had proven that, which you haven't, your shrill conclusion that celebrating the British victory in is an insult to the Argentinian people is illogical and preposterous.

I have said nothing like celebrating the victory is an insult,I have said claiming it is the only reason why the junta fell is insulting. Do you think defeat in the Falklands is the ONLY reason why the junta fell?

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

. Do you think defeat in the Falklands is the ONLY reason why the junta fell?

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.

 

[stuff_it]

Course he was - This is old hat - he wanted lead an over the top charge against the filthy argie machione gun post with his trusted men -they had other ideas

all his piss stained life, he wanted to go out ion a blazre of glory

I do, but I don't have an ion cannon.

 

[likesfish]

If they'd won they could probably held on for a few more years.
The fact the general resigned after the defeat and a new junta came in to hand power over to civillians does prove defeat in the Falklands sealed their Faye.

 

[dylanredefined]

Its the major reason.It was unpopular and the economy going down was not helping and probably doomed anyway.Loosing a war and making yourself look bad while doing it especially if your a military regime seals your fate.They couldn't sell it as heroic defeat like Dunkirk or an epic last stand.Which might have kept the people on side for a bit longer.
Thatcher won and defeated a fascist regime (well with the help of Chile and the USA giving us anything we wanted and the french doing their best to sabotage the Exocet missles they had sold etc)

 

[Spymaster]

Thatcher won and defeated a fascist regime (well with the help of Chile and the USA giving us anything we wanted and the french doing their best to sabotage the Exocet missles they had sold etc)

And despite the best efforts of Israel who quietly went about equipping the Argentinian's against Britain under Menachem "Cunt" Begin.

 

[Diamond]

I still don't understand how Termite has managed to construe some grave insult to the spurious "Argentinian People".

It looks a little bit like unfounded, vainglorious controversialism.

 

[dylanredefined]

Its the thatcher effect.If it was any other pm they wouldn't have a problem.As thatcher can do no good ever (you have no idea how much I hated school milk quite possibly the only good thing she ever did)

Also the fact the junta killed 30,000 in their dirty war and had basically won it.

 

[kebabking]

And despite the best efforts of Israel who quietly went about equipping the Argentinian's against Britain under Menachem "Cunt" Begin.

i don't doubt that an element of the Israeli state helped the Argentines (external fuel tanks allowing greater range, and allegedly a number of Radar Warning Recievers being the apparent aid), however Israel (regardless of what you think of its policies), has proved itself extremely competant in the use of both intelligence and in covert support to the enemies of its enemies - that this alleged Israeli support appears to have achieved not far off absolutely fcuk all is perhaps an indication that 'best efforts' is taking it a little far.

as an example, at the time of the war,the Argentine AF flew a number of ex-Israeli Air Force, Israeli built version of the French Mirage V called the IAI Dagger. In Israeli service they were fitted for the use of a number of Air-to-Surface PGM's, though not anti-ship missiles. had Israel really wanted to assist the Argentines, a very easy and quick way to do so decisively would merely to be provide the Argentines with the PGM's. they didn't.

its, imv, likely that the aid given was the maximum that one element of the Israeli state could get past the rest of the Israeli state.

 

[hipipol]

Argentina names top football league after ship sunk in Falklands war

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/07/argentina-football-league-ship-falklands?newsfeed=true

Forget the generals, Las Malvinas have been a convenient cause with which to whip up the masses and divert attention from the fucked up state of the country since the start of the 20thc. Bothered no fucker while Brit wedge poured into Argentinian beef, railways, blah blah, etc at the end of the 19thc (Barings bank went bust the first time lending wedge to Argentinian railway expansion in 1890s by the way of pointless fact!). Argentina seems have suffered incompetant/greedy/murderous Govts for a good century or so, they rise, they fall, the people suffer, plus ca change, c'est la meme chose

 

[Fuchs66]

weird how many ex soldiers and some serving post on urban..

VP beat me to it (again)

 

[butchersapron]

Argentina names top football league after ship sunk in Falklands war

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/07/argentina-football-league-ship-falklands?newsfeed=true

Forget the generals, Las Malvinas have been a convenient cause with which to whip up the masses and divert attention from the fucked up state of the country since the start of the 20thc. Bothered no fucker while Brit wedge poured into Argentinian beef, railways, blah blah, etc at the end of the 19thc (Barings bank went bust the first time lending wedge to Argentinian railway expansion in 1890s by the way of pointless fact!). Argentina seems have suffered incompetant/greedy/murderous Govts for a good century or so, they rise, they fall, the people suffer, plus ca change, c'est la meme chose

What do you mean 'bothered no fucker' - the Argentinean states relation with first the british empire and then US has been what the countries politics have pivoted around since the start of the 'lost republic' in the 30s - it's driven coup after coup, revolt after revolt, bother after bother.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yep. Butchers is dead right. And this is true across Latin America. These corrupt, murderous regimes aren't some kind of result of Latin propensity towards fecklessness or something.

 

[hipipol]

What do you mean 'bothered no fucker' - the Argentinean states relation with first the british empire and then US has been what the countries politics have pivoted around since the start of the 'lost republic' in the 30s - it's driven coup after coup, revolt after revolt, bother after bother.

Its a tricky language English.
You may notice that my post refers to the 19thc - ie the 1800s
Unless time is not sequential and linear I stand by my claim
I think you will find that the 1930s are generally regarded to have occurred after tha 19thc
I should also like to draw you attention that I am critical of the last 100 years of Governance in that sad benighted country and that opinion is also explicity stated in my post
Still, never let the facts interfere with entrenched stupidity and the desire to rant

 

[littlebabyjesus]

US involvement in Latin America over the last 100 years is crucial to understanding developments there. May I do a Chavez-on-Obama with you and recommend Open Veins of Latin America by Eduardo Galleano?

I think sometimes people find it hard to accept the extent of what can only be described as evilness that has been perpetrated in Latin America by the US. It doesn't sit well with the idea of the US as an open democracy.

 

[butchersapron]

Its a tricky language English.
You may notice that my post refers to the 19thc - ie the 1800s
Unless time is not sequential and linear I stand by my claim
I think you will find that the 1930s are generally regarded to have occurred after tha 19thc
I should also like to draw you attention that I am critical of the last 100 years of Governance in that sad benighted country and that opinion is also explicity stated in my post
Still, never let the facts interfere with entrenched stupidity and the desire to rant

What do you mean by 'bothered no fucker' though? It bothered plenty of people in the 19th century and bothered them in a particularly acute form as a result from the 1930s onwards. Have you actually a point? If so i suggest that you make it. If you have an answer to my question, i also suggest you post it. Otherwise your post is the only thing resembling a rant that appears here.

 

[hipipol]

Yep. Butchers is dead right. And this is true across Latin America. These corrupt, murderous regimes aren't some kind of result of Latin propensity towards fecklessness or something.

Oh dear, another poor soul with comprehension problems eh?
Chile, until the vile Pinochet with Yankee backing destroyed it otherwise unblemished democratic record, was the one beacon of stability.
Argentinas history shares some, but not all, causal factors with other S American countries, a simple, "it was the vile Foreigners- ie us - wot did it" does not bear close scrutiny

 

[butchersapron]

i think maybe you need to go back to your threads about wiping your arse hipipol.

 

[Idris2002]

Chile was described as the England of south America, if memory serves, but it had its own episodes of political crisis before 1973:

he Chilean economy partially degenerated into a system protecting the interests of a ruling oligarchy. By the 1920s, the emerging middle and working classes were powerful enough to elect a reformist president, Arturo Alessandri, whose program was frustrated by a conservative congress. In the 1920s, Marxist groups with strong popular support arose.[26]
A military coup led by General Luis Altamirano in 1924 set off a period of political instability that lasted until 1932. Of the ten governments that held power in that period, the longest lasting was that of General Carlos Ibáñez del Campo, who briefly held power in 1925 and then again between 1927 and 1931 in what was a de facto dictatorship (although not really comparable in harshness or corruption to the type of military dictatorship that has often bedeviled the rest of Latin America).[29][30] By relinquishing power to a democratically elected successor, Ibáñez del Campo retained the respect of a large enough segment of the population to remain a viable politician for more than thirty years, in spite of the vague and shifting nature of his ideology. When constitutional rule was restored in 1932, a strong middle-class party, the Radicals, emerged. It became the key force in coalition governments for the next 20 years. During the period of Radical Party dominance (1932–52), the state increased its role in the economy. In 1952, voters returned Ibáñez del Campo to office for another six years. Jorge Alessandri succeeded Ibáñez del Campo in 1958, bringing Chilean conservatism back into power democratically for another term.

This is from wikipedia, which I banned students from citing in my last two teaching gigs - but Butchers should be along in a mo with more accurate details.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chile#20th_century

 

[littlebabyjesus]

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.

 

[Idris2002]

i think maybe you need to go back to your threads about wiping your arse hipipol.

As I said, always with the accurate details.

 

[butchersapron]

Oh dear, another poor soul with comprehension problems eh?
Chile, until the vile Pinochet with Yankee backing destroyed it otherwise unblemished democratic record, was the one beacon of stability.
Argentinas history shares some, but not all, causal factors with other S American countries, a simple, "it was the vile Foreigners- ie us - wot did it" does not bear close scrutiny

Absolutely laughably wrong about Chile - the only thing stable thing was the electoral system that was designed to return the oligarchy to political power no matter what the result due to an extremely limited franchise. Outside of that there was constant serious ongoing violent conflict.

 

[hipipol]

What do you mean by 'bothered no fucker' though? It bothered plenty of people in the 19th century and bothered them in a particularly acute form as a result from the 1930s onwards. Have you actually a point? If so i suggest that you make it. If you have an answer to my question, i also suggest you post it. Otherwise your post is the only thing resembling a rant that appears here.

No one was bothered - well it was not a serious or major political concern - about the Malvinas in the 19thc - there were too many other factors, cicvil war, dictatorship, etc going on - the various wars with Brazil and Uruguay were the methods used to distract the masses.
I suppose the base contention is that pretty much since independance from Spain, external disputes have provided the various ruling Juntas with deiversions from the fuck ups and home, Las Malvinas is just the most recent

 

[hipipol]

i think maybe you need to go back to your threads about wiping your arse hipipol.

Tsk tsk, what threads would that be little boy?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

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

 

[butchersapron]

No one was bothered - well it was not a serious or major political concern - about the Malvinas in the 19thc - there were too many other factors, cicvil war, dictatorship, etc going on - the various wars with Brazil and Uruguay were the methods used to distract the masses.
I suppose the base contention is that pretty much since independance from Spain, external disputes have provided the various ruling Juntas with deiversions from the fuck ups and home, Las Malvinas is just the most recent

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?