Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Brexit


alibongo
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Leto_loves_melange said:

Not sure that i follow your train of thought but are you suggesting that Steve's penchant for reminding the world of Britain's past is relevant to Brexit? Steve has clearly hijacked a losing argument and shifted the argument towards nationalist... yet again and you fell of it...lol 

No, he didn't.  He responded to a post by BRD taking a shot at Britain and erroneously using Pearl Harbor to do it. It's as simple as going back and reading the posts, try it sometime.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, stevewinn said:

Hang on when did Pearl Harbour happen? 1941. We stood up to Hitler in September 1939, and with the fall of Europe we found ourselves alone. Three times Hitler offered Britain a peace agreement in which Germany would guarantee Britain and its empire in return for our neutrality Three times we Said NO. - all this time fighting in Europe, North Africa and on the Seas and Oceans. and in the meantime we were getting the **** bombed out of us. As for invasion and Goose stepping  - Operation Sea lion which was the name for Hitler's invasion of Britain. Thanks to the British Spirit of not being a conquered people for a thousand years we fought tooth and nail in the now famous Victory in the Battle of Britain in the summer of 1940 - with winter approaching Hitler postponed Operation Sea lion indefinitely. So Britain safe from Invasion, Hitler turned his attention to invading Russia the following summer, June of 1941. - So, look at the dates, start of the war 1939, Battle of Britain - Invasion defeated 1940, Hitler attacks Russia June 1941. Japanese Attack Pearl Harbour December 1941. So, explain exactly why would we thank the Japanese for preventing Britain getting invaded? 

Europeans capitulated and we Great Britain yet again from Waterloo, to Mons/Somme, to D-day/Normandy, yet again when push came to shove WE put everything on the line to rid Europe of German aggression for the second time in 21 years, and liberate Europe once more. -

Pearl Harbour seen Britain once again thrust into the thick of it, not only fighting here at home in Northern, and Southern Europe, North Africa,  but also in the Far East, India, Malaya, Burma, Singapore, dragging the British empire and Royal Navy into battles to protect such territories as Australia. 

It's such arrogance (below) that's laughable and it seems to imply Britain saved Europe, almost annoyingly and reluctantly.  While your post seems to suggest that Britain even saved the world. :lol: 

"and we are sick of helping out Europe since Waterloo"

For starters, if the Prussians didn't turn up on time at Waterloo, Wellington would have lost the battle.  So Europeans can also thank the Eastern Germans for "helping them out".

We'll never know, but for what it's worth, I'm pretty certain Britain would have eventually fallen to the Germans.  Does that mean that I'm claiming that Britain didn't kick a$$ in the Battle of Britain?  No.  The heroics of the RAF pilots are well recognised.  Also the resistance and supply from the British population were a deciding factor in the battle.  But Hitler turned his attention to Russia because the Russians just got their butts kicked by Finland and Summer was approaching, the best time for a ground invasion.  He obviously thought the Russians were easy meat and he would have Blitzkrieged he's way to Moscow in no time (and almost did) like he did with France earlier and then come back to Britain later.  The Russians kicked him back into place so Europeans can also thank the Russians. 

In the mean time, Americans were kicking butt in the Pacific keeping a dangerous ally away from joining German Forces on more fronts.  Not until 1944 did the Allies go on the offensive against the Axis on the Western Front while on the Eastern Front the Germans were busy fighting the Russians.  Until then it was pretty stagnant and the Germans were still occupying most of Europe.  The first offensive invasion was in Sicily with American and Canadian troops joining British troops. Until Americans started sending heavy divisions into Europe Britain was mainly on the defensive.

So while I'm not denying Britain had a heavy role to play in WWII, they wouldn't have saved themselves in WWII if it wasn't for the help of others, including the various resistance movements.

 

Edited by Black Red Devil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, spud the mackem said:

And you guys would all be speaking Japanese ...Sayonara  B.R.D. san

Not denying that, but I'm not the pompous fool telling everyone we saved Asia from the Japanese.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Leto_loves_melange said:

And that is exactly what will happen in the UK with almost all other business and trade dealings too. Without EU protection Britain will be become a fire sale paradise for foreign companies. America and China have a "free trade" agreement and American firms can't even get a foothold in China without taking on a Chinese partner and being relegated to a minor junior role. Whilst Chinese companies behave like pirates. Apple, Microsolf, Google and Uber have all been either kicked out or under Chinese central government review. On the other side of the coin American companies have done the same in Europe and the rest of the world. Britain will have its family silver bought by foreigners with almost NO reciprocity.  

The myth of free trade has served only a privileged few.  

~

450px-Pawnbroker%27s_sign%2C_Camden_High

~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Thorvir Hrothgaard said:

Well I don't give any credibility to anyone that sides with, sympathizes with, or condones, the actions of the Japanese before and during WWII, so BRD can pound sand for all I care.  They were the aggressors, they were the villains in that tale, and they got what they deserved in the end.


Now, the fact that you don't give credibility or care means diddly squat in the grand scheme of things because I wasn't quoting you or exchanging opinions.  If you need to comment on any of my posts quote my posts directly otherwise give us your two cents worth and be happy with yourself but leave me out of it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Thorvir Hrothgaard said:

No, he didn't.  He responded to a post by BRD taking a shot at Britain and erroneously using Pearl Harbor to do it. It's as simple as going back and reading the posts, try it sometime.

Again, don't quote me indirectly and don't translate my posts to suit your dirty and spiteful means.  I didn't take a shot at Britain.  I took a shot at the potato guy for being misleading and pompous.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Thorvir Hrothgaard said:

No, he didn't.  He responded to a post by BRD taking a shot at Britain and erroneously using Pearl Harbor to do it. It's as simple as going back and reading the posts, try it sometime.

Oh yes he did ( A fish called Wanda... love that movie ). 

Steve replied to one of Spud's posts (post 222). Spud casually mentioned waterloo and Steve broke out into an off key continuous rendition of Rule Britannia ever since. For all we know Steve's still in the backyard singing his lungs out...lol  

Edited by Leto_loves_melange
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, spud the mackem said:

And you guys would all be speaking Japanese 

Correct to a point. But i think it was the entry of America into WW2 that made the difference. Anyway a tyrant and facism was defeated so who cares. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Leto_loves_melange said:

I don't get your drift.

Pawn ... Medicis and all that ... China has the cash reserves and economic disbursement plans that everyone else wants to get on board of ... One Belt One Road or The Silk Road Economic Belt ~ some is at the table , some is ranting about not being seated where they wanna be seated , some is throwing tantrums about not getting in the door ~

~

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, third_eye said:

Pawn ... Medicis and all that ... China has the cash reserves and economic disbursement plans that everyone else wants to get on board of 

 

State funded companies and loans unwritten by China's HUGE cash reserves are more than investments. This is a strategic economic cold war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Leto_loves_melange said:

State funded companies and loans unwritten by China's HUGE cash reserves are more than investments. This is a strategic economic cold war.

Unless you suggest China starts giving out cash gifts out of the goodness of their economic strategic plans ...

strategic economic Cold War ... I am sorry ... I am laughing too hard to possibly attempt a reply ...

~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, third_eye said:

Unless you suggest China starts giving out cash gifts out of the goodness of their economic strategic plans ...

strategic economic Cold War ... I am sorry ... I am laughing too hard to possibly attempt a reply ...

~

No I'm not suggesting that China should play Santa Claus. But by the same token surely you see the hipocracy of a communist country, using state funds to engage in capitalism. Here in Australia, NSW in particular the state government wants to privatise part of the power infastructure. The only bidder is a state owned Chinese company. 10 billion dollars worth. Now the sale will have to go through the federal government and a security clearance, why? Cause it's an important and critical asset. Look at Russia's state company, Gazprom and its dominance of Ukrainian and European energy and the levage Russia has used this against Western interests. Wouldn't Chinese foreign policy also use strategic investments against their hosts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Leto_loves_melange said:

No I'm not suggesting that China should play Santa Claus. But by the same token surely you see the hipocracy of a communist country, using state funds to engage in capitalism. Here in Australia, NSW in particular the state government wants to privatise part of the power infastructure. The only bidder is a state owned Chinese company. 10 billion dollars worth. Now the sale will have to go through the federal government and a security clearance, why? Cause it's an important and critical asset. Look at Russia's state company, Gazprom and its dominance of Ukrainian and European energy and the levage Russia has used this against Western interests. Wouldn't Chinese foreign policy also use strategic investments against their hosts?

China would not be bidding if it were not by the invitation of NSW Australia ... sorry ... the hypocrisy is not Political or Systems of Governance ... all you have to do is tell your Government that all Communist Countries are NOT welcomed to participate in such bids .... anyhow it does not matter who bids, it still will have to go through clearances ... that you single out China as such due to such reasons is the hilarity of your proposition ~

~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, third_eye said:

China would not be bidding if it were not by the invitation of NSW Australia ... sorry ... the hypocrisy is not Political or Systems of Governance ... all you have to do is tell your Government that all Communist Countries are NOT welcomed to participate in such bids .... anyhow it does not matter who bids, it still will have to go through clearances ... that you single out China as such due to such reasons is the hilarity of your proposition ~

~

That's right they were invited by a corrupt and ruthless State government...but luckily the federal government has stepped in. The problem is that the stupid trade agreements encourage investment which in the case of Australia and China has mostly been one way traffic in Australia. Look at what happened to Uber in China to see just how anti-completive the Chinese really are when it comes to infrastructure nd the lengths they will go to to stop it YET they expect equal investment rights abroad.

 Chinese money has fuelled a property bubble and the government views foreign home purchases as investment. It encourages this and wants this just doesn't wanna be dependent on Chinese ownership of critical infrastructure. Its a juggling act. So every deal is looked at independently. And this one s no different. Now if it was Singaporean, French, German or Japanese investment into our power infrastructure then it wouldn't be a problem. But a nation that claims oceans and builds helicopter landing pads in the middle of those oceans as proof of ownership is never going to make a reliable and trustworthy investor in such a critical project. I already gave the example of Russia using economic investments as pre-texts to insert itself in the affairs of others so why you would think that China wouldn't do it or why Australia shouldn't be vigilante... 

Edited by Leto_loves_melange
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Leto_loves_melange said:

That's right they were invited by a corrupt and ruthless State government...but luckily the federal government has stepped in. The problem is that the stupid trade agreements encourage investment which in the case of Australia and China has mostly been one way traffic in Australia. Look at what happened to Uber in China to see just how anti-completive the Chinese really are when it comes to infrastructure nd the lengths they will go to to stop it YET they expect equal investment rights abroad.

 Chinese money has fuelled a property bubble and the government views foreign purchases as investment. It encourages this and wants this just doesn't wanna be dependent on Chinese ownership of critical infrastructure. Its a juggling act. So every deal is looked at independently. And this one s no different. Now if it was Singaporean, French, German or Japanese investment into our power infrastructure then it wouldn't be a problem. But a nation that claims oceans and builds helicopter landing pads in the middle of those oceans as proof of ownership is never going to make a reliable and trustworthy investor in such a critical project. I already gave the example of Russia using economic investments as pre-texts to insert itself in the affairs of others so why you would think that China wouldn't do it or why Australia shouldn't be vigilante... 

Because there is no longer any need for a US nominated Sheriff here in Australasia ... ;)

~ as for your clearly biased claims regarding those investments from the other nations being not a problem, you are obviously out of the loop because it was your corrupt and ruthless State government that disqualified them with Federal Government consent ... pretense valid or otherwise ~

`

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, third_eye said:

Because there is no longer any need for a US nominated Sheriff here in Australasia ... ;)

~ as for your clearly biased claims regarding those investments from the other nations being not a problem, you are obviously out of the loop because it was your corrupt and ruthless State government that disqualified them with Federal Government consent ... pretense valid or otherwise ~

`

So you say. Like i said before, China is a authoritarian communist state that likes to play the capitalist and insert itself into the affairs of others. The fact that it does this and gets away with it, at least in public is because of two reasons... 1, stupid trade agreements and 2, stupid and greedy politicians. In this case the Australian investment review process has put its foot down as a step too far. China is a untrustworthy business partner which ever way you look at it. ( take good note Brit's). Whats it to you who Australia has as a defence and strategic partner and where do you get off on claiming that the U.S. is no longer needed?

What bias are you referring to? 

Edited by Leto_loves_melange
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Thorvir Hrothgaard said:

Bye Bye!  We'll send you a card sometime.  Don't call us, we'll call you.  And all that sarcastic stuff.

Perhaps you'll educate yourself and return as a better poster in the future, one that can actually engage in discussion without attacking and insulting and being completely ignorant of the actual material you're posting in.  I'm looking forward to it.

Dont be nastyThorvir.Your posts are above that.You are an amazingly good poster.!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Leto_loves_melange said:

So you say. Like i said before, China is a authoritarian communist state that likes to play the capitalist and insert itself into the affairs of others. The fact that it does this and gets away with it, at least in public is because of two reasons... 1, stupid trade agreements and 2, stupid and greedy politicians. In this case the Australian investment review process has put its foot down as a step too far. China is a untrustworthy business partner which ever way you look at it. ( take good note Brit's).

What bias are you referring to? 

Oh dear ... I think this is something you best take up with your points referred to as 1 and 2 ...

as for 'untrustworthy' business partner (an oxymoron by the way) - it is 'strategic' according to the representatives that you refer to as stupid greedy politicians ~

 

Quote

 

Trade and Investment

China is Australia's largest two-way trading partner in goods and services (valued at $155.5 billion in 2015, up 2 per cent on the previous year). China is our largest export market ($91.3 billion in 2015) and our largest source of imports ($64.2 billion in 2015). The Government is pursuing a number of initiatives to strengthen and diversify this relationship.

Economic diplomacy is at the core of the Government’s international engagement. This is why we are bringing together activities in trade, growth, investment and business.

The China-Australia Free Trade Agreement (ChAFTA) entered into force on 20 December 2015.  The Agreement will enhance the growing trade and investment relationship between our highly complementary economies. It will ensure the competitiveness of Australia’s agricultural and manufacturing industries, protect and ensure the competitiveness of our services providers and attract greater investment in Australia. Over 86 per cent of the value of Australia’s goods exports to China enter duty free following ChAFTA’s entry into force, rising to 96 per cent when ChAFTA is fully implemented. Australian services providers benefit from new access to China’s significant and growing services sector.

 

~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has become a remarkably wide-ranging thread hasn't it. It's covered footy chat, and now we're on to China. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, third_eye said:

Oh dear ... I think this is something you best take up with your points referred to as 1 and 2 ...

as for 'untrustworthy' business partner (an oxymoron by the way) - it is 'strategic' according to the representatives that you refer to as stupid greedy politicians ~

 

~

Maybe you should read it again. Trade is one thing BUT i was referring to direct investment. Concerning trade and that high volume only means that to keep such a surplus sacrifices need to be made. Which is exactly what has happened with the home investment but a strategic position in the NSW power grid is a step too far. If you think I'm wrong then the federal government differs with your view. 

And how is an untrustworthy business partner an oxymoron. You can have an untrustworthy wife, partner, neighbour and so on... all perfectly natural.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Grand Moff Tarkin said:

This has become a remarkably wide-ranging thread hasn't it. It's covered footy chat, and now we're on to China. 

Yes it has. I guess i can't make fun about Steve anymore. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Leto_loves_melange said:

Maybe you should read it again. Trade is one thing BUT i was referring to direct investment. Concerning trade and that high volume only means that to keep such a surplus sacrifices need to be made. Which is exactly what has happened with the home investment but a strategic position in the NSW power grid is a step too far. If you think I'm wrong then the federal government differs with your view. 

It is all connected and one relies on the numerical dictates of FTAs in accordance to the others from DI to DFI and ODI ...
As for the NSW power grid 'bonanza' :

Quote

NSW power asset privatisation: Consortium wins bid for TransGrid electricity 'poles and wires' lease

By state political reporter Sarah Gerathy, staff

Updated 25 Nov 2015, 12:33pm

***

 

Race was 'very tight', Mike Baird says

He denied that security concerns had counted against the bid of Chinese government-owned State Grid.

"Every single consortium was cleared [by the Foreign Investment Review Board] which obviously meant that the race was very tight," he said.

Mr Baird conceded that about $3 billion of debt attached to the business would have to be paid, leaving about $7 billion from the transaction in the state's coffers.

The better-than-expected result for Transgrid could mean that Mr Baird raises more than the $13 billion he promised from power privatisation when he took the policy to the state election in March.

But Mr Baird said with two more poles and wires businesses yet to be leased, he did not want to count on the extra funds just yet.

"We've had a very good start. We're not even at half time yet so many things can change in a soccer match ... after half time," he said.

"I can assure you that if there are additional dollars that come every single one of those will go into additional infrastructure for the people of this state."

 

~

Just now, Leto_loves_melange said:

And how is an untrustworthy business partner an oxymoron. You can have an untrustworthy wife, partner, neighbour and so on... all perfectly natural.

You can, unfortunately .. but hardly 'natural' which if it were would render it an oxymoron ~ because it is supposed to be contrary wise ~

 

~

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, third_eye said:

It is all connected and one relies on the numerical dictates of FTAs in accordance to the others from DI to DFI and ODI ...
As for the NSW power grid 'bonanza' :

 

~

 

Updated 25 Nov 2015, 12:33pm... this is the time stamp off the above article you posted. The NSW government can award any tender they like BUT it needs be signed off by the direct investment review board. This news article is only 18 hours old and NOT the 9 months old article you dug up.

After Scott Morrison sparked speculation about State Grid Corporation of China’s bid by declaring national security would be his “prime consideration’’, former premier Bob Carr said rejection would affect NSW’s infrastructure plans, while former Liberal federal leader John Hewson described national security concerns as “spurious’’.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/morrison-warned-blocking-china-tender-will-hurt-ties-and-budget/news-story/070c19981e33f475b06120fa392e5622

Edited by Leto_loves_melange
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, third_eye said:

 

You can, unfortunately .. but hardly 'natural' which if it were would render it an oxymoron ~ because it is supposed to be contrary wise ~

 

For it to be the oxymoron you claim it to be it would have to be contradictory.

Example:  

oxymoron
ˌɒksɪˈmɔːrɒn/
noun
 
  1. a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction (e.g. faith unfaithful kept him falsely true ).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.