MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, September 25th 2023 - 09:17 UTC



Malcorra regrets no previous warning on the Falklands' military exercises

Tuesday, October 18th 2016 - 08:44 UTC
Full article 65 comments

Argentine foreign minister Susana Malcorra said that the recent diplomatic row with the UK over military exercises in the Falkland Islands shows that the consequences of the war persist and reiterated her disappointment with London for not giving the Argentine government any previous warning. Read full article


Disclaimer & comment rules
  • Brit Bob

    No wonder you didn't get that Secretary General's post Susana - you weren't up to speed with that old usurpation ruse and those UN resolutions. Tut tut.

    Oct 18th, 2016 - 09:05 am - Link - Report abuse +7
  • James Marshall

    ‘…I expressed has to do with the fact the military tests effectively show that they are also under the impact of the war”…So celebrating the invasion of the Islands every year, that is OK is it? Celebrating the hijacked plane landing in the Falklands, that is Ok is it? But making sure you are defensively prepared to repel a belligerent neighbour, whose constitution claims your home, no, that’s not fair.

    “..the British decision on military exercises definitively took us by surprise, there was no previous warning which evidently is not good’…..They happen every year luv. Just put it in your diary for around Oct/Nov, then there won’t be any more little ‘surprises’.

    Well…..’’The British military announced the actions will take place between 11:00 and 23:00 hours from October 19 to 28’…Now assuming it took a few days to release the info to the press etc. Looks like they had 5-7 days notice. Or are you saying your spam filter put the email in your junk box.

    Oct 18th, 2016 - 09:29 am - Link - Report abuse +11
  • Idlehands

    If they don't test the weapons they can't be sure they'll be able to shoot an invading Argentine horde. It's not complicated.

    Oct 18th, 2016 - 09:55 am - Link - Report abuse +8
  • The Voice

    The answer is simple… drop the ridiculous claim. Jabba is doing the Argentine no favours. Its like the Scotch thing, Theresa will just consign it to the litter bin.

    Oct 18th, 2016 - 10:09 am - Link - Report abuse +6
  • GALlamosa

    If the Presidency had no prior knowledge of the testing the fault lies with his advisors. They know months ago that there would continue to be routine testing and exercises.

    Oct 18th, 2016 - 11:22 am - Link - Report abuse +5
  • Islander1

    Ms Malcora - you are as thick as your Governor in TDF! These exercises happen EVERY October each year - ie annually. do please write that down for October 2017 as well!
    A|lso do look the weapon system up - range 7 miles - it wont even reach near the end of the Islands territorial limit for Christs sake - what on earth are you bitching about?

    Did you give UK and Falklands prior notice before you fired dodgy Exocets off about the the south atlantic back in February?
    No - because I expect you fired them inside your territorial limits- hope so anyway - if so you had no need to advise us.

    Neither do we have any
    need to tell you what happens within our limits.

    grow up!

    Oct 18th, 2016 - 11:39 am - Link - Report abuse +8
  • Livepeanuts

    Argentina has a habit of doing something wrong and then blaming everybody else .. Buenos Aires had a piracy business around the Falklands causing all sorts of international problems and when they were expelled they started calling everybody else and specially the UK pirates!
    Now seven months ago they were happily going around the South Atlantic firing big Exocets intimidating people (no “good will” or “peace loving Argentina” then, the invisible Armada Argentina was visible and doing all this because there was little risk for them so they left port) .. Now seven months latter the UK wants to show it too has missiles and will fire a few token small Rapiers .. and up comes Argentina inventing a “big” problem.. there she is Argentina whiter than white pontificating about not being violent or having good will!! They always do this and the Argentine people, totally indoctrinated only see what they are told to see, they seem to be immune to the constant hypocrisy of all Argentine rulers.

    Oct 18th, 2016 - 11:49 am - Link - Report abuse +7
  • DemonTree

    That was even more badly translated than usual, especially the 'remora'; is that the Spanish version of an albatross or something?

    Anyway, is it my imagination or does she sound a little more conciliatory in this one? Blaming the consequences of the war and 'the atomicity of bureaucracies'. Suggests she's still interested in doing some kind of deal with the UK.

    @ Livepeanuts
    If Argentina announced it was testing so much as an air rifle in Falklands' waters you can just bet the UK government would be complaining. The government of Argentina more or less have to protest if they aren't going to give up the claim entirely.

    Oct 18th, 2016 - 12:00 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • EscoSesDoidao

    'No previous warning'? Like the warning they gave the Islanders in 1982?

    There's only been military training there every single year like. 'No previous warning' - Get yourself to F my dear.

    Oct 18th, 2016 - 01:50 pm - Link - Report abuse +6
  • LEPRecon

    No previous warning?

    What? Like the fact that these are routine exercises that occur EVERY SINGLE YEAR!

    I knew Marcri was too good to be true. Like the previous government he has stooped to using the great 'malvinas lie' to try and distract the population.

    What they (Argentine politicians) fail to realise that stupid comments like the ones from Malcorra only make Argentina look foolish, weak and irrelevant on the world stage.

    Anyone, and I mean anyone, with half a brain and access to the internet could ascertain that these military exercises are routine, which only makes Argentina look even more stupid.

    Oct 18th, 2016 - 02:06 pm - Link - Report abuse +7
  • EscoSesDoidao

    Yep, this foolishness is aimed at their domestic market, but aslo shows the world what a bunch of numpties their Gov is.

    Oct 18th, 2016 - 02:13 pm - Link - Report abuse +5
  • Briton

    How much more desperate can Argentina get.

    Oct 18th, 2016 - 02:18 pm - Link - Report abuse +7
  • darragh

    Just to let Ms Malcorra etc. know. Myself and some friends are going fishing (weather permitting) off the Blaskets on November 6th.

    I don't want her complaining that we didn't give Argentina any notice.

    Oct 18th, 2016 - 03:15 pm - Link - Report abuse +6
  • HughJuanCoeurs

    Argentina seems to like lumpy female politicians. Perhaps we should lodge a complaint with their government about this... Just sayin'

    Oct 18th, 2016 - 03:56 pm - Link - Report abuse +4
  • Pugol-H

    “These exercises have been taking place systematically over the last twenty years”

    “the British decision on military exercises definitively took us by surprise, there was no previous warning”


    The reaction of the Argentine congress to the very limited “joint letter” should be more than sufficient explanation for the continued military exercises, with no prior warning.

    When she is in a position to actually deliver something from her end, is the time to talk about “confidence building”.

    As yet she has nothing to negotiate with, even her very limited aspirations so far have been shot down in flames by the Argy congress.

    Business as usual for the Malvinazis in the Argy congress, business as usual for the British Military in the S. Atlantic.

    Oct 18th, 2016 - 05:21 pm - Link - Report abuse +8
  • Think

    Mr. Darragh
    November 6th, huhhh?
    Hmmmm... Permission given...
    But for God's sake..., watch the weather, laddie.

    Oct 18th, 2016 - 07:34 pm - Link - Report abuse -5
  • Jo Bloggs

    3 things are going to happen:
    1. The UK is going to keep firing their Rapiers each year
    2. The Argentine Government will keep squealing like the victims; and
    3. We will get our direct flight to Brazil

    Oct 18th, 2016 - 11:23 pm - Link - Report abuse +5
  • Frank

    'Argentine foreign minister Susana Malcorra said that the recent diplomatic row with the UK over military exercises in the Falkland Islands shows that the consequences of the war persist '... and whose fault is that exctly?....
    Oi... Thicko!...another 'coaster' in the strait... up near the west end... BTW at its narrowest its navigable width is 2 miles... Narrow? Whatever... drongo...

    Oct 19th, 2016 - 03:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • LEPRecon

    Argentina are like the boy who cries wolf.

    They make fools of themselves over these routine exercises every year, and the international community switches off and ignores them...they're just white noise.

    Yet if the UK did decide to bring in something bigger, better and badder than we have now, Argentina would cry, and the International Community would only hear white noise.

    Also, someone needs to tell Marci, Malcorra and the rest of the Argentine government that the UK can attack Argentina from 1,000's of miles away. We don't need assets stationed on the Falklands for that...those assets are for the defence of the Falklands only.

    If the UK truly wanted to attack Argentina we could do it from the UK, and Argentina couldn't do a thing about it. Fortunately for Argentina sneak attacks are not in the British character...the same can't be said about Argentina...hence the need to keep minimal defences in place.

    Oct 19th, 2016 - 09:55 am - Link - Report abuse +7
  • downunder

    “I also attribute this to the atomicity of bureaucracies, it leaves a bitter taste, there's no way of avoiding it”.

    This article is another sad litany of Argentine delusion and hypocrisy. One pathetic, self-serving line after another. Why doesn’t she just post, in big letters, “WE ARE LOSERS?”

    Who do these people think they are?

    Just when you think that the utterances from the Argentine Government couldn’t get any more bizarre, pathetic and delusional they disappoint and plumb new depths.

    Oct 19th, 2016 - 10:36 am - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Rufus

    @ Jo Bloggs

    I don't know about #3 (politics being what it is), #2 seems like a certainty in general, regardless of any other consideration, but #1 will only be true for a few more years (when Rapier is finally retired they'll be firing off CAMM(L)s every year instead).

    Oct 19th, 2016 - 04:49 pm - Link - Report abuse +3
  • DemonTree

    @ LEPRecon
    “Fortunately for Argentina sneak attacks are not in the British character.”

    I take it that plan to have the SAS destroy the Exocet missiles in Rio Grande doesn't count?

    Anyway it is pretty obvious that Malcorra does not think the missile tests are actually a danger to Argentina.

    Presumably she wanted the tests cancelled as a show of goodwill for the new government's attempts at building a better relationship with Britain, or at least some warning that they were going ahead as usual so she could spin it for the hostile populace.

    And I think the 'atomicity of bureaucracies' is her way of saying that the Foreign Office does not talk to the MOD so it didn't occur to anyone in Britain that going ahead with the usual tests could jeopardise the new agreement.

    Which is very likely true, but I think they would have gone ahead anyway even if it weren't.

    I think Malcorra sounds pretty sensible compared to the Governor of Tierra del Fuego anyway. I presume she is a Kirchnerist since she was ranting about 'militarization of the South Atlantic by the British Empire'? ;)

    Oct 19th, 2016 - 05:41 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • chronic


    Rg's signature is meaningless.

    Any memorialization of terms with rg is subject to automatic refutation with regime change.

    Monkey, you do prattle on about some inconsequential nonsense.

    Oct 19th, 2016 - 07:35 pm - Link - Report abuse -2
  • Swede

    Does the Argentine government or its armed forces really warn all their neigbours in advance when they are performing routine military exercises? This was not in any way a threat to Argentina. It happened far away from what is internationally recognized as Argentine territory. They consider it part of their own country, but that is their problem.

    Oct 19th, 2016 - 07:46 pm - Link - Report abuse +5
  • HughJuanCoeurs

    I don't recall the Argies letting the British know before they launched their illegal occupation of the Falkland Islands in 1982 and that was waaaaaaay outside of their territorial waters. Stop whining Ms Malcholera and remember that it was Argentina who started all of this militarization.

    Oct 19th, 2016 - 08:27 pm - Link - Report abuse +5
  • LEPRecon


    Well since Argentina had already declared war on the UK by invading sovereign British territory it wouldn't've been a sneak attack but a legitimate target between 2 countries at war.

    Argentina's illegal invasion of the Falklands and South Georgia was a sneak attack as they gave no warning and no formal declaration of war.

    Oct 19th, 2016 - 08:52 pm - Link - Report abuse +7
  • Kanye


    “I think Malcorra sounds pretty sensible compared to the Governor of Tierra del Fuego anyway. I presume she is a Kirchnerist since she was ranting about 'militarization of the South Atlantic by the British Empire'?”

    Hardly a Kirchnerist, as she is part of the opposing Macri government.

    However, she is pandering to that Nationalist element of the Argentine population that Kirchner so easily controlled with handouts and populist ideology.

    Oct 20th, 2016 - 04:00 am - Link - Report abuse +3
  • DemonTree

    @ LEPRecon
    I see. I find it hard to believe that in 3 centuries of warfare Britain never attacked another country without declaring war first, though.

    @ Kanye
    I meant the Governor of TdF must be a Kirchnerist, not Malcorra. But yes, I'm sure Enrique is right when he says no government can just ignore the issue; the people won't let them.

    Oct 20th, 2016 - 12:07 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Pugol-H

    The MoD will have been keenly aware of diplomatic machinations, be in no doubt a high level political decision was taken to go ahead with the exercises, un-announced.

    If you can say that when they take place same time, same place, every year.

    Like being surprised by Christmas turning up un-announced one year.

    As yet nothing has been agreed other than to talk on certain subjects, even this got a strong reaction from the Argy congress for not containing a surrender declaration by the British.

    When Argentina is able to deliver something at the table, is the time for goodwill gestures, not before.

    Part of this process is Argentina realising that they are the one who will have to make the concession, it is going to take some time.

    Meantime it is very necessary to keep reminding them of the actual situation in the real world.

    Which comes as a shock because they spend most of their time in a dream world.

    Oct 20th, 2016 - 05:35 pm - Link - Report abuse +5
  • Pete Bog

    Susan as it's self defence missiles that are being tested, unless you are planning to launch an attack, why are you bothered.? This alone illustrates the inbred stupidity,even in Argentines that are meant to be educated. Should the FIDF post notice of their exercises in advance to Argentina, so they have something else irrelevant to moan about?

    Oct 20th, 2016 - 06:18 pm - Link - Report abuse +6
  • Jack Bauer

    “.......and reiterated her disappointment with London for not giving the Argentine government any previous warning....”

    And why should prior warning be given if the exercises are to be conducted within FI territorial waters ? and even if the UK had given the Argies a head's up, what practical difference would it make ? Only to allow them to complain before, and after ?

    Oct 20th, 2016 - 06:40 pm - Link - Report abuse +5
  • Kanye


    Quite right, a Kirchnerist holdover.

    How do the Argentines even know that there was missle testing?

    With such short range, it's not like they can be visually seen from the coast of the Dark Country.

    Argentina isn't operating any commercial or military flights in the area.

    They must have their airforce that can't fly, and their navy that can't set sail, on full alert status, somehow.

    Oct 20th, 2016 - 06:59 pm - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Briton

    Does anyone think Argentina will EVER grow up,
    stop crying and acting like the victim every other day.

    Somehow one thinks flying piggy's will get there first..

    Oct 20th, 2016 - 07:38 pm - Link - Report abuse +5
  • DemonTree

    @ Pugol-H
    You could be right, but what do you think Malcorra meant by 'But I also attribute this to the atomicity of bureaucracies' then?

    “Part of this process is Argentina realising that they are the one who will have to make the concession, it is going to take some time.”

    It seems the new government did realise this, but the congress doesn't agree and neither does public opinion. And Macri is pretty unpopular right now so i doubt he'll want to take too many risks.

    @ Everyone else
    Argentina knew about the tests because they were publicly announced in advance, so passing ships can avoid the area in case they get hit. So they were complaining beforehand and will probably be complaining afterwards too. :)

    Britain didn't complain about the Argentine Navy testing Exocets in their own territorial waters, but what do you think the UK would do if Argentina tried to test self defence missiles in the Falkland's EEZ?

    Oct 20th, 2016 - 09:32 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Hepatia

    England will return the Malvinas within 25 years.

    Oct 21st, 2016 - 01:26 am - Link - Report abuse -7
  • EscoSesDoidao

    Not if Scotland has anything to do with it.

    Oct 21st, 2016 - 03:02 am - Link - Report abuse +5
  • LEPRecon


    “I find it hard to believe that in 3 centuries of warfare Britain never attacked another country without declaring war first, though.”

    Really? Just because you find it 'hard' to believe doesn't make it any less true.

    The British have used covert attacks in the past, but only against an already declared enemy, such as the Germans in WW2 and Argentina in the Falklands War.

    But a covert attack and a sneak attack are not the same thing.

    Examples of sneak other words attacking someone without declaring war first are the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour, the Germans attacking Czechoslovakia, the 6 days war, and of course the Argentine invasion of the Falklands.

    These are but a few but there are many such instances throughout history.

    Now a covert attack is done against someone you have already declared an enemy. Examples of which are: the Trojan horse, the battle of Trenton (1776), and the raid on St. Nazaire (1942).

    I have yet to find any incident that the British ever used a sneak attack in the last 1,000yrs (let alone the last 300). They've used plenty of covert attacks, but the difference is obvious to anyone.

    Oct 21st, 2016 - 02:22 pm - Link - Report abuse +6
  • Pugol-H

    No doubt she meant exactly what you suggested, it sounds very plausible as you say.

    Very, very unlikely to be the case though, shall we say.

    When I say “Argentina realising”, I was actually referring to the great unwashed rather than the current Argy gov.

    Who I agree, have to tread very carefully in this, as in some other thing as well.

    @ LEPRecon
    The seven year’s war.

    According to Dan Snow history of the RN, a squadron of British ships sailing to the American colonies passed a squadron of French ones sailing back from Canada.

    The British commander ordered guns loaded with two cannonballs in each gun, as the ships sailed close by each other, the French commander shouted, “Are we at war, or peace”???

    Where upon the British ships fired their broadsides in the Frogs, then the British Commander shouted back “Peace, we are at peace”.

    War had not been declared at that point.

    Oct 21st, 2016 - 05:57 pm - Link - Report abuse +4
  • Briton

    Within her own waters, Argentina can do what she pleases,

    if she thus started to do exercises or testing missiles within Falkland waters,
    one would suspect they may well come into contact with the British military,

    Oct 21st, 2016 - 07:28 pm - Link - Report abuse +4
  • DemonTree

    @ Pugol-H
    Do you think she believes it herself, or is she actually making excuses for Britain because she still wants to go ahead with improving relations?

    Sounds like we agree about the opinions of the people vs the government anyway.

    @ LEPRecon
    How about Operation Catapult, where Britain attacked the French navy after France surrendered to Germany? Britain was never officially at war with Vichy France.

    Oct 21st, 2016 - 08:57 pm - Link - Report abuse -4
  • LEPRecon


    Whilst it is true that the Vichy French were not officially at war with Britain, the terms of the British/French alliance was that neither was supposed to surrender without full agreement of the other party. When Pétain, the traitor, sold out France he broke the alliance and neither he, or his Vichy government were recognised as the true government of France. The 'true' (though exiled) government of France were fully aware of Operation Catapult, and whilst they didn't like it they also didn't want French ships in German hands, so they very reluctantly gave their blessing. So the British attacked the French navy with the full consent (although they weren't happy) of the Free French government. Also the French were offered alternatives:

    1. Sail to the UK and join the other Free French.
    2. Scuttle their own ships.
    3. Be sank by the RN.

    The French naval commander refused to join the Allies, and refused to scuttle his own ships. He knew what the 3rd option not a sneak attack as he had been warned.


    I've never heard of that one...and I have spent quite a few days researching to see if there were any, but I'm always eager to expand my knowledge and don't mind being proved wrong.

    Was it a true sneak attack (as in planned by the military hierarchy/government in a larger campaign), a misunderstanding or a rogue commander with his own agenda? Did Dan Snow elaborate? I'd be interested in knowing.

    Oct 21st, 2016 - 11:56 pm - Link - Report abuse +4
  • Think

    Mr. DemonTree

    Incredible how you brainwashed Brits have dificulties finding crystal clear examples about you being the baaax guys of the movie for al looooong time...
    Just one examle... from a looong list... Just from the top of me head... Two words...:

    “Suez Crisis”

    Oct 22nd, 2016 - 02:41 pm - Link - Report abuse -3
  • Briton


    baaax guys

    Pot , kettle.

    Oct 22nd, 2016 - 06:41 pm - Link - Report abuse +5
  • LEPRecon

    No Think, we were looking for examples of sneak attacks by the British not about good guys or bad guys. And as I stated in my post above I've no problem with being proved wrong if such an incident has occurred. Just because I can't find an example doesn't necessarily meant that one doesn't exist. Conversely it could also mean that there have been no incidents of sneak attacks by the British.

    The Suez Crisis wasn't a sneak attack because the British had issued an ultimatum to the Egyptian government. It's not about the 'good' guys vs' the 'bad' guys. So your comment, like so many of your comments, is a fail.

    What's incredible to me though, think, is how much you don't 'think' and it's amazing that you don't choke on your own hypocrisy.

    Tell me this, think, how long has your family been in Argentina? 1 generation? 2 at most?

    Yet you want to steal the land off people who can trace their ancestors to 8 and 9 generations.

    Remember when I asked you this question years ago, “How long does someone have to live in a country to be considered a citizen of that country?”

    You ran away and refused to answer it, because it undermined your whole 'argument' about the Falkland Islanders, since they can trace their ancestry on the Falklands back 9 generations to a time before Argentina existed as a country. Whereas the majority of Argentines can only trace their ancestry back in Argentina to between 3-6 generations. And of course people like you are only second generation.

    Tut, tut. At this rate forget choking you'll end up drowning in your own hypocrisy.

    Perhaps you should run away again?

    Oct 22nd, 2016 - 06:45 pm - Link - Report abuse +5
  • Briton

    Thinks says
    Just one example... from a looong list,

    I wait in anticipation of the rest.

    Oct 22nd, 2016 - 07:20 pm - Link - Report abuse +5
  • Jack Bauer

    DT -
    Just to finalize our exchange on “Brazil's lower House approves...”

    “Would Lula be safe in Uruguay, do they not have an extradition treaty with Brazil? Seems odd when they are neighbouring countries”.

    An extradition treaty was signed between the two countries in 1919, and ratified recently by the 4 original Mercosur members; Lula's escape to Uruguay however, would give him time to flee elsewhere if the warrant for his arrest is issued. But it would be tantamount to his confession of guilt - besides, he can be condemned 'in absentia' and then Interpol could hunt him down. Even if he did manage to get away, the up-side is that it would be the end of the PT and the Lula myth.

    “Also has Rousseff been charged with anything? So far she seems to be one of the few who wasn't taking anything for herself, although she had to have known about it all”.

    So far, nothing specific has been divulged. But the Federal Police and the Attorney General's office are looking into her direct participation in the Pasadena refinery purchase, whereby Petrobras ended up losing well over USD 1 billion - which obviously went towards corruption. At first glance it might seem that she took nothing for herself, but at a closer look, it would appear she did - in the same way that Lula appears to have hidden his assets and illegally gained wealth by “investing” a good part of it in his sons' “businesses” (money laundering), right after Dilma was elected in 2010, her daughter, virtually overnight, became a millionaire enterpreneur.....smells fishy, to say the least of it.
    In retrospect, it is pretty clear that they counted on remaining in power for a hell of a long time and that they would get away with it.

    Oct 22nd, 2016 - 09:38 pm - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Kanye

    ONE example from 60 years ago.

    Also, a matter of economic survival and not just rolling over - as much as Mr Troll would have liked to have seen that.

    Quite a different matter with the Argentine invasion of the Falklands and Spain threatening Gibraltar- pure politics

    Oct 22nd, 2016 - 09:41 pm - Link - Report abuse +4
  • DemonTree

    @ LEPRecon
    Was there really a Free French government at that point? I didn't think there was anyone around who really had the authority to represent France immediately after the surrender, and I thought de Gaulle wasn't recognised until later, after he had built up some support.

    Anyway, I guess since the commanders of the French navy in North Africa were given an ultimatum, it doesn't count as a sneak attack. But what about the French ships that were moored in harbours in England? Weren't they boarded in the night with no warning?

    Also if a commander issues a declaration of war but then attacks before it has been received, does that count as a sneak attack in your opinion?

    @ Think
    I don't imagine that Britain is never the 'bad guy'; that is why I was sceptical of LEPRecon's claim. But he's talking about something quite specific here. If you know of an example that fits then feel free to share it.

    @ Jack Bauer
    Heh. Do you think Lula will run or stay and fight?

    And they apparently did all think they could get away with it forever. Have the investigators managed to get back any of the money that was stolen? It must have been a substantial fraction of Brazil's GDP.

    Oct 23rd, 2016 - 11:12 am - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Pugol-H

    She knows what is going on, she is trying to walk a tight rope and making excuses.

    She has to come up with something tangible for the Brits to have a reason to talk to her, whilst making it look like she is getting concessions rather than making them.

    A tall order, we shall see how far she can get with it.

    Apparently it was the Commanders own idea, an example of the “gung ho” spirit of many RN commanders at the time, Dan Snow just said un-surprisingly war was the result.

    Oct 23rd, 2016 - 12:42 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Think

    Mr. DemonTree

    You say...:
    @ Think
    I don't imagine that Britain is never the 'bad guy'; that is why I was sceptical of LEPRecon's claim. But he's talking about something quite specific here. If you know of an example that fits then feel free to share it.

    I say...:
    Do we agree that you are asking about this...:
    “ I find it hard to believe that in 3 centuries of warfare Britain never attacked another country without declaring war first”....
    ...........................................................if so, I have already given you one example... The sneak attack against Egypt in 1956 that was launched without any declaration of war, using as a feeble excuse a British “Ultimatum” issued to both; Egypt AND Israel...
    Do I need to point out that the British fought on the Israeli side against the Egyptians?

    Want another one...?
    One closer to me heart...?
    The Terror Bombing of Copenhagen in 1807. The world's first terror bombing of civilians...
    Denmark was fiercely neutral in 1807... At peace with both France and them bloody Engrish...
    All Danish troops were posted on Denmarks southern borders to oppose a probable Napoleonic invasion...
    The pirate Engrish fleet sneaked past the mighty cannons of Kronborg Castle on the 2.5 miles wide Øresund... (Juppp.... Hamlet's Castle).. under the cover of the official state of “Peace” between the two Kingdoms.... only to terror bomb Copenhagen a couple og days after...

    The charred fundaments of a 12th great granduncle of mine can still be admired at the Danish National Museum...

    Perfid Albion then...
    Brainwashed turnips now...

    Oct 23rd, 2016 - 03:31 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Pugol-H

    Busy year 1807, what with bombarding spineless dopey Danes and invading non-existent countries in the River Plate.

    Not to mention that bombardments of Castles, forts, towns and cities, with their civilian populations, had been going on since long before the Romans invented their catapult.

    Which was not used for delivering food parcels to besieged towns.

    Oct 23rd, 2016 - 05:54 pm - Link - Report abuse +4
  • Briton

    I bet he stayed up all night looking,

    but fair is fair , A plus for him.

    Oct 23rd, 2016 - 07:13 pm - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Think

    .... continues from above:

    ”The (Copenhafen) attack itself is a historic landmark – it is the first deployment of terror tactics on civilians to cause a country’s surrender and acts as a prime example of a pre-emptive attack. This is also the first example of rockets being used in Europe.


    Oct 23rd, 2016 - 07:33 pm - Link - Report abuse -2
  • Jack Bauer

    Good question; I'd like to see him rot in prison, but if that's where he ends up, he'll always claim he is innocent, no matter the amount of proof to the contrary. If he runs away, it'll be as good as a confession, which would do his reputation more harm than if he goes to prison...besides, by fleeing, he wouldn't be seen as a martyr, and the whole rigmarole would be over sooner.
    So far, the PB corruption numbers point to roughly US$ 6.5 billion in bribes, causing a loss of about US$ 42 billion to the company, not to mention the massive losses to shareholders. Of the bribe money, I think the've only got a few hundred million back, but as the investigation unfolds, and more of the accused resort to plea bargains, more should be recovered.
    It's only a small fraction of the GDP (US$ 2.3 trillion in 2013, US$ 1.5 trillion in 2015) but it has had far more devastating effect on the economy, in that investors, both domestic and foreign, have lost confidence in Brazil, and that'll take some time to get back, delaying recovery.

    Oct 23rd, 2016 - 09:58 pm - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Kanye

    Mr Think searches all night, only to come up with one incident over 200 years ago, that is supposed to reflect on the Britain of today.

    What a dope.

    Oct 23rd, 2016 - 10:00 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
  • DemonTree

    @ Think
    No, what I said there was too vague. Since the end of WWII countries hardly ever officially declare war anymore so almost all recent conflicts would be included by default.

    LEPRecon was talking about sneak attacks, by which he apparently means an attack without any warning against someone you are not already at war with.

    I'll leave it to him to explain whether the attack on Copenhagen meets his definition. But I have to say I don't see much of a distinction. Would the attack on Pearl Harbor have been okay if the Japanese Ambassador had handed over a declaration of war in Washington 30 minutes before it started?

    It is interesting to compare to the invasion of Iraq though, as the equivalent strategically would have been to go in, destroy the WMDs, and then leave again, rather than conquering and occupying the country. It makes it even more clear that the WMDs were mostly an excuse for the other aims of the Iraq war. Of course this also brings up another difference as there were no WMDs in Iraq, whereas the Danish fleet was a potential threat to Britain at the time.

    @ Pugol-H
    Oh well, it can't be any harder than the Secretary General's job, and she apparently thought she was up to that. ;)

    @ Jack Bauer
    I hope they are able to get a bit more of it back. And I suppose you are right, the loss of confidence causes more harm than the actual money stolen.

    Oct 23rd, 2016 - 11:05 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Think

    Mr. DemonTree...

    “... the Danish fleet was a potential threat to Britain at the time.”, you say...

    Evidently you didn't read the article I linked, lad..., I say...
    Or your brainwash is deeper than I thought...

    Oct 23rd, 2016 - 11:27 pm - Link - Report abuse -3
  • Voice

    Tit for tat Mr. Think...;-)

    Her wæron reðe forebecna cumene ofer Norðhymbra land, ⁊ þæt folc earmlic bregdon, þæt wæron ormete þodenas ⁊ ligrescas, ⁊ fyrenne dracan wæron gesewene on þam lifte fleogende. Þam tacnum sona fyligde mycel hunger, ⁊ litel æfter þam, þæs ilcan geares on .vi. Idus Ianuarii, earmlice hæþenra manna hergunc adilegode Godes cyrican in Lindisfarnaee þurh hreaflac ⁊ mansliht.

    In this year fierce, foreboding omens came over the land of the Northumbrians, and the wretched people shook; there were excessive whirlwinds, lightning, and fiery dragons were seen flying in the sky. These signs were followed by great famine, and a little after those, that same year on 6th ides of January, the ravaging of wretched heathen people destroyed God's church at Lindisfarne.

    Never before has such terror appeared in Britain as we have now suffered from a pagan race.

    ... The heathens poured out the blood of saints around the altar, and trampled on the bodies of saints in the temple of God, like dung in the streets.

    Oct 24th, 2016 - 01:06 am - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Think

    Juppppp, Mr Voice....

    “Tit for tat” has been the prevalent human gut reaction since almost the Beginning...

    It took a great Mahatma to find out that...: ”A tit for a tat leaves the whole world titless.”

    (Thinking about that... what a boring world that would be for us gentlemen ;-)

    Oct 24th, 2016 - 06:35 am - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Pugol-H

    So the thieving, murdering, raiding, church burning heathen Dane bastards, were making chemical weapons were they, that’ll learn em.

    Oct 24th, 2016 - 03:39 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • DemonTree

    @ Think
    Because the intelligence about an invasion of Ireland was probably false?

    But the fleet was real enough, and still at risk of being seized by Napoleon. Whereas Iraq's non-existent weapons of mass destruction were not a threat to anyone (except for Iraq itself, of course, since they were the pretext for the invasion).

    Oct 24th, 2016 - 07:02 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Think

    Your brainwash IS deeper than I thought...

    Oct 24th, 2016 - 07:42 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • DemonTree

    @ Think
    That's nice. But since you haven't even attempted to explain why I'm wrong, I really have no reason to change my mind.

    Oct 24th, 2016 - 08:22 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Think

    Sorry lad...

    Atempting to reason with an Anglo that adheres to the Violent Preemptive Strike Doctrine amounts to try to reason with an Arab that adheres to the Violent Jihad Doctrine...

    Oct 24th, 2016 - 08:52 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • DemonTree

    @ Think
    Because calling something a potential threat is exactly the same as supporting jihad? That's some interesting logic you've got there.

    Oct 24th, 2016 - 09:44 pm - Link - Report abuse +1

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!