|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Mar 29, 2023 4:53:33 GMT
What, taking loads of money and spewing out loads of shite? Not sure I see that as an achievement. In the military and technology department China is much more formidable. Unlike the United States and other Western nations China is not hindered by Christianity. China has no restrictions on genetic research and is already about 75 years ahead of the United States in that field. If you thought China was going to be a pushover like Russia because they were both once Communist nations then you are in for a rude shock. Western nations have fallen so far behind in both science and technology that it is like handing over the future to China, and you can blame Christianity and the culture wars for that. In a peckerwood who's dick is bigger contest China would swiftly break your dick off and shove it up your ass. On home turf, sure. But right now, they have no ability to project force at a distance. Once those aircraft carriers are built, though, you - the US - are in for an awakening. Keep sending them money, though.
|
|
|
Post by yggdrasil on Mar 29, 2023 9:28:08 GMT
But we are not giving it to them, we are making unwise investments. The whole Cameron/Osborne partnership was based on China being OUR future and pouring money into partnerships with them. The new nuclear power stations will be built with Chinese software which seems extremely unwise, but that software comes with the EDF design (which don't work anyway, half the French Nuclear stations are off line) Were the Conservatives complete idiots to deal with China, or was it the case that you can't tell the future and going by that logic it would make a lot of countries off limit to deal with including most of the ME who we sell massive amounts of weapons to. We buy tons and tons of shit from them. We give them money for it. Money goes into aircraft carriers and slave labour camps. Aircraft carriers come and attack. We have paid for the attack. But these are transactions, we do the same as I say with Saudi Arabia where the money also goes to murder, enslave and deny basic human rights. Where would you replace the sales and purchase with? I agree we shouldn't be trading with these regimes, but our finances would collapse without them. You are sounding as naive as the most lefty Guardinista.
|
|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Mar 29, 2023 11:53:08 GMT
We buy tons and tons of shit from them. We give them money for it. Money goes into aircraft carriers and slave labour camps. Aircraft carriers come and attack. We have paid for the attack. But these are transactions, we do the same as I say with Saudi Arabia where the money also goes to murder, enslave and deny basic human rights. Where would you replace the sales and purchase with? I agree we shouldn't be trading with these regimes, but our finances would collapse without them. You are sounding as naive as the most lefty Guardinista. Derp. Saying giving china money is a bad idea does not mean I support giving it to saudi. You sound as non sequiturish as pilar.
|
|
|
Post by slowcomingwarbird on Mar 29, 2023 14:04:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by yggdrasil on Mar 30, 2023 10:39:40 GMT
But these are transactions, we do the same as I say with Saudi Arabia where the money also goes to murder, enslave and deny basic human rights. Where would you replace the sales and purchase with? I agree we shouldn't be trading with these regimes, but our finances would collapse without them. You are sounding as naive as the most lefty Guardinista. Derp. Saying giving china money is a bad idea does not mean I support giving it to saudi. You sound as non sequiturish as pilar. Yes, but if you stop that trade what do you replace it with?, as I say, you sound like the worst trendy Guardian reader. No one wants to deal with evil regimes, we don't do it for fun. You are even against any tariffs to protect UK producers.
|
|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Mar 30, 2023 10:56:36 GMT
Yes, but if you stop that trade what do you replace it with?, as I say, you sound like the worst trendy Guardian reader. No one wants to deal with evil regimes, we don't do it for fun. You are even against any tariffs to protect UK producers. Good grief, so money comes before lives? You sound like the worst kind of money-obsessed, uncompassionate Stalin-something. And stopping trade with china is Guardian-ish? Far from it.
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Mar 30, 2023 12:55:59 GMT
Yes, but if you stop that trade what do you replace it with?, as I say, you sound like the worst trendy Guardian reader. No one wants to deal with evil regimes, we don't do it for fun. You are even against any tariffs to protect UK producers. Good grief, so money comes before lives?You sound like the worst kind of money-obsessed, uncompassionate Stalin-something. And stopping trade with china is Guardian-ish? Far from it. It's not a binary choice. China is the second largest economy on Earth. You're not cutting them off without doing significant damage to your own economy which also ends up costing lives as mortality always increases during a recession.
|
|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Mar 30, 2023 13:42:10 GMT
Good grief, so money comes before lives?You sound like the worst kind of money-obsessed, uncompassionate Stalin-something. And stopping trade with china is Guardian-ish? Far from it. It's not a binary choice. China is the second largest economy on Earth. You're not cutting them off without doing significant damage to your own economy which also ends up costing lives as mortality always increases during a recession. So 'may be' is more important than 'is'?
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Mar 30, 2023 13:59:51 GMT
It's not a binary choice. China is the second largest economy on Earth. You're not cutting them off without doing significant damage to your own economy which also ends up costing lives as mortality always increases during a recession. So 'may be' is more important than 'is'? I don't think it's a "may be." It's "is". In this globalized economy, cutting trade with the second largest economy is insanity. Almost the equivalent of shooting the patient to stop the disease.
|
|
|
Post by yggdrasil on Mar 30, 2023 16:24:33 GMT
Yes, but if you stop that trade what do you replace it with?, as I say, you sound like the worst trendy Guardian reader. No one wants to deal with evil regimes, we don't do it for fun. You are even against any tariffs to protect UK producers. Good grief, so money comes before lives? You sound like the worst kind of money-obsessed, uncompassionate Stalin-something. And stopping trade with china is Guardian-ish? Far from it. No, I agree with you, but you said that Brexit comes first and Brexit was about our economy, just asking how you would replace the billions of trade with China, Saudi and the like? When Labour proposed not allowing a trade deal with China because of their attempts at Genocide you opposed it and played semantics in defending China from the accusations of Genocide. I'm glad you have seen the light and switched from Conservative policy to Labour.
|
|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Mar 30, 2023 18:51:03 GMT
Good grief, so money comes before lives? You sound like the worst kind of money-obsessed, uncompassionate Stalin-something. And stopping trade with china is Guardian-ish? Far from it. No, I agree with you, but you said that Brexit comes first and Brexit was about our economy, just asking how you would replace the billions of trade with China, Saudi and the like? When Labour proposed not allowing a trade deal with China because of their attempts at Genocide you opposed it and played semantics in defending China from the accusations of Genocide. I'm glad you have seen the light and switched from Conservative policy to Labour. "you said that Brexit comes first and Brexit was about our economy" Not sure whether you are attributing the second part of that to me but just to clarify, I never said Brexit was about the economy - that is the left-wing position which I deride. "how you would replace the billions of trade with China, Saudi and the like?" Get other trade partners who don't have a million people in slave labour camps. It seems you think that will take a while and cost you a few quid so we should just carry on paying the slavers. You know, there's a bit of movement against that kind of thing these days. Weird how you don't seem too bothered about slavery and will put a few quid first. "When Labour proposed not allowing a trade deal with China because of their attempts at Genocide you opposed it and played semantics in defending China from the accusations of Genocide." I don't remember that but, if true, you believed that's my position? Pull the other one.
|
|
|
Post by yggdrasil on Mar 31, 2023 9:25:29 GMT
No, I agree with you, but you said that Brexit comes first and Brexit was about our economy, just asking how you would replace the billions of trade with China, Saudi and the like? When Labour proposed not allowing a trade deal with China because of their attempts at Genocide you opposed it and played semantics in defending China from the accusations of Genocide. I'm glad you have seen the light and switched from Conservative policy to Labour. "you said that Brexit comes first and Brexit was about our economy" Not sure whether you are attributing the second part of that to me but just to clarify, I never said Brexit was about the economy - that is the left-wing position which I deride. "how you would replace the billions of trade with China, Saudi and the like?" Get other trade partners who don't have a million people in slave labour camps. It seems you think that will take a while and cost you a few quid so we should just carry on paying the slavers. You know, there's a bit of movement against that kind of thing these days. Weird how you don't seem too bothered about slavery and will put a few quid first. "When Labour proposed not allowing a trade deal with China because of their attempts at Genocide you opposed it and played semantics in defending China from the accusations of Genocide." I don't remember that but, if true, you believed that's my position? Pull the other one. "Get other trade partners who don't have a million people in slave labour camps." You are about as light on the details as a Kier Starmer policy document. Who exactly will pour the billions into our arms industry that Saudi currently do? Not because they need the weapons, but to stop us attacking them on human rights violations. Who will replace China's contributions, there is no one who will pour that sort of money into the economy, it's just fantasy economics. We shouldn't be touching China or Saudi with a bargepole and I am very happy that you now accept the genocide attempts are valid and not to be ignored, but in "realpolitik" these things just don't matter,
|
|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Mar 31, 2023 11:45:18 GMT
"you said that Brexit comes first and Brexit was about our economy" Not sure whether you are attributing the second part of that to me but just to clarify, I never said Brexit was about the economy - that is the left-wing position which I deride. "how you would replace the billions of trade with China, Saudi and the like?" Get other trade partners who don't have a million people in slave labour camps. It seems you think that will take a while and cost you a few quid so we should just carry on paying the slavers. You know, there's a bit of movement against that kind of thing these days. Weird how you don't seem too bothered about slavery and will put a few quid first. "When Labour proposed not allowing a trade deal with China because of their attempts at Genocide you opposed it and played semantics in defending China from the accusations of Genocide." I don't remember that but, if true, you believed that's my position? Pull the other one. "Get other trade partners who don't have a million people in slave labour camps." You are about as light on the details as a Kier Starmer policy document. Who exactly will pour the billions into our arms industry that Saudi currently do? Not because they need the weapons, but to stop us attacking them on human rights violations. Who will replace China's contributions, there is no one who will pour that sort of money into the economy, it's just fantasy economics. We shouldn't be touching China or Saudi with a bargepole and I am very happy that you now accept the genocide attempts are valid and not to be ignored, but in "realpolitik" these things just don't matter, It is well known around here that you see everything in a negative, can't-be-done light, so this is no surprise. Your answer to such difficulties is to carry on funding slavery. Appalling, really. If there was a statue of you, I would topple it for sure.
|
|
|
Post by yggdrasil on Mar 31, 2023 16:07:44 GMT
"Get other trade partners who don't have a million people in slave labour camps." You are about as light on the details as a Kier Starmer policy document. Who exactly will pour the billions into our arms industry that Saudi currently do? Not because they need the weapons, but to stop us attacking them on human rights violations. Who will replace China's contributions, there is no one who will pour that sort of money into the economy, it's just fantasy economics. We shouldn't be touching China or Saudi with a bargepole and I am very happy that you now accept the genocide attempts are valid and not to be ignored, but in "realpolitik" these things just don't matter, It is well known around here that you see everything in a negative, can't-be-done light, so this is no surprise. Your answer to such difficulties is to carry on funding slavery. Appalling, really. If there was a statue of you, I would topple it for sure. So you haven't got the faintest idea. Fair enough.
|
|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Mar 31, 2023 17:02:34 GMT
It is well known around here that you see everything in a negative, can't-be-done light, so this is no surprise. Your answer to such difficulties is to carry on funding slavery. Appalling, really. If there was a statue of you, I would topple it for sure. So you haven't got the faintest idea. Fair enough. What is the point of explaining? You will just dismiss it. You support slavery.
|
|