Tuesday, 15 October 2013

WE'VE BEEN (NEARLY) EVERYWHERE

According to a new book by Stuart Laycock "All the countries we ever invaded and the few we never got round to", there are only 22 countries in the world not to have 'benefited' in some way from invasion by Britain.

And they wonder why we have a terrorist problem!


Andorra, Belarus, Bolivia, Burundi, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Guatemala, Ivory Coast, Kyrgyzstan, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Mali, Marshall Islands, Monaco, Mongolia, Paraguay, Sao Tome and Principe, Sweden, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Vatican City.

So we must have invaded Switzerland at some time...  Well, they never taught us that at school.

14 comments:

  1. So Britain has invaded around 90% of the countries in the world. And when you consider that a lot of the ones missed are very small or perhaps didn't exist during the high point for invasion, it must be about 99% by land mass or population.

    Haven't we done well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I guess that's why we have so many enemies...

      Delete
  2. I think we can cross Andorra off the list of unaffected states. During the Peninsula war, Wellington crossed the Pyrenees and knocked lumps off Toulouse.

    I don't think he took the Hannibal route and went over the mountains though.

    By deposing Napoleon, we (UK) affected Andorra as it has two joint Head of State, one some Spanish Cardinal and the other the Head of State of France.

    So, another off the list.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Can't think of when Russia was invaded, Britain attacked Russian naval base at Kronstadt during Crimean War, didn't think they had landed though. Also - Greenland??

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I suspect it must be that Craig, Crimean...and I imagine that Greenland is considered a part of Denmark, as is the Faroes.

      I was wondering about Iceland too...although there was the cod war, which, as I recall, Iceland won!

      Delete
  4. Britain invaded Iceland to pre-empt the Nazis.

    I have a mate who did a couple of tours of Belize in the eighties. I'm pretty sure British armed forces wandered over the border with Guatemala...

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think it is fair to say that BritNats hate foreigners especially those that they can bully.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well , let's say that Brits are pretty largely a xenophobic lot. I can't believe someone the things that people I know say about foreigners. It's something to do with being an island race. Isolated from others and ignorant of how similar we all are.

      It' just something that all my life has been a complete mystery to me. A person is a person is a person, regardless of religion, race, nationality, sexuality, gender, colour, etc etc. I just don;t see it at all.

      I was never meant to be a Birt

      Delete
  6. Well must say the snp/nats haters of all things not snp
    are out in force spitting hate of Britain and the British
    (especially any Scottish/British)

    How is the yes camp doing not to well in Govan eh ???

    Conan i thought he was just a mythical character
    from out of the pages of the hootsman.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not sure where you got that idea from Niko. Britain is a warlike nation... dispute it if you like, but it won't change anything. Like France it went all over the world stealing from the poor and giving it to the rich of tits own. The poor Brits didn't profit!.

      Portugal and Spain did the same, and Belgium ...well, what can you say about Leopold and The Belgian Congo? Bastard might be appropriate.

      Wherever Brits (and the rest of them) went they treated the locals like they were shit. They took what they could, and gave almost nothing back. They refused to learn local languages and customs, and now complain bitterly when other people do it to them.

      They were all disgusting.

      Brits tend to me even more Xenophobic because spearated from other countries by water, they are unaware of how similar otehr people are. The wogs start at calais.

      As for a by-election in a council ward. Niko, you know that it is a ward of four councillors 2 Labour 1 Glasgow First (which is Labour) and 1 SNP.

      All the people who voted could vote in the by-election. It was perdu d'avance.

      The same thing happened in Dundee a few years ago. In Maryfield ward... 2 SNP and 1 Labour (a very very good Labour councillor too Joe Morrow, who went to work for the government in Edinburgh). A friend of mine stood for the SNP, and was almost bound to win, because it was an SNP ward. Just like Govan is a Labour ward.

      It's a flaw in the system... and it's unfair. In the case of Dundee it threw the balance from SNP and the unionist parties. Until then the 3 unionist parties had formed a coalition. After the election the SNP formed the administration.

      In Glasgow it doesn't make any difference to the composition of the council.

      Delete