Is it to protect their one remaining possession in the South Pacific, The Pitcairn Islands, you'll need a map to find Pitcairn, its about 5,500 km east, north east, of New Zealand, all 47 sq km of it, about the size of Bognor England. Bognor has a population of 67,0000, Pitcairn has a population of 67. No matter, British possessions are British possessions, and must be protected at all cost. Like the Falkland Islands off the coast of Argentina in 82, the Pitcairn Islands must be saved from any foreign aggressor, Baijing is only a short 14,000 km canoe ride away, and the aggressive Niuens are even closer at a 4,000 km row, right on Pitcairn's door step!

The serious question is what business does the British have involving themselves in the affairs of the South Pacific, again. They exploited and mistreated the region, and its inhabitants, for almost 200 years. Now they are wanting to stick their noses in one again. Politely I'd tell them to go away, in reality they deserve much stronger language! Given British ships in the South Pacific, Chinese ships in the English Channel would seem most reasonable. Agree?

How about wanting to aid an ally, Australia, settled by the British, and a member of the British Commonwealth, sharing the same Monarch?

Our culture, values, language and laws all come from Britain. 600,000 people came here this financial year to be part of it.

Who would you prefer to lend us a hand knowing that we don't have a hope in Hell of defending ourselves? You hate America, you hate the UK. Who do you fancy? China.

I believe Australia should be a neutral nonaligned nation, serving the interest of its people in the region, establishing friendly relations with both the powerful and not so powerful. We don't need the British with their 19th century "gun boat" mentality returning to stir up trouble with the likes of China, the United States does enough of that now, we don't need the Poms pouring fuel on the fire. China is a large and powerful, and somewhat reactive, and at times aggressive nation in our region, we need to learn the best way to deal with them. The NOALITION with its "shirt front" diplomacy came off second best. The British with a "gun boat" mentality, arriving uninvited by all except the white fellas of Australia and US will cause nothing but trouble as well, not just with China but with India also. The Indians have a vivid recollection of British imperialism in their country!

Yes indeed. The Indians do recollect the British Raj.

That's why they quickly went back the British way of doing things after a brief dalliance with the Soviet Union.

I would recommend to thinking people the book 'The Case For Colonisation' by Bruce Gilley.

It wouldn't be for you, of course.

For all the rubbish about countries ruined by colonisation, the dysfunctional, backward countries became that way, AFTER the colonists left. The ones that carried on with the way that colonisers did things are doing OK. And the colonised themselves are the ones saying that.

African countries, some of the poorest and most useless now, since the colonists left, are asking, 'when are the British, Germans etc. coming back.

In fact, there is a school of thought that suggests that some countries could be re-colonised (with the permission) until they got on their own feet.

If you bothered to read, you would know that this idea has the support of many of the people who were colonised once.

Thanks to the lies and anti-Western crap from Leftist intellectuals, that won't happen, and the now deadbeat countries will continue suffering.

There is an interesting sidelight to this anticolonialism;
The Frankafile Africans of Central Africa have told the French to go.
So they went, but they got into various political messes and would
you believe Putin has offered to take France's place.
Out of the pot and into the fireplace !

A google search of Pitcairn Island reveals nothing special going on at the moment. So what's Paul raving about? Has he just decided to take up the cause of Fletcher Christian's decedents after 200 years?

Bezza

Most of the African continent is a write off.

In South Africa, since Mandela, things are going downhill every day because the politicians want to rule like tribal chiefs. The crooked despot, Zuma, wants another go at wringing the country dry, even though he is not legally entitled to go again. 10-1 he will, though. Africans learnt nothing from colonisation and how to do things.

Not all of Africa....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDv42L8-soA

So what's Paul raving about?
mhaze,
Just his standard anti-white stance or racism in plain English. You know the ones who've fed him all his life !
The British, unlike most others who happened to gain the upper hand through brain & brawn have long ago evolved a mentality that the likes of Paul1405 have to ignore to perpetuate playing their broken record. They can see how wrong they are but admitting that would lock the brakes on that bandwagon.
Pretending to want to close the Gap with their mouths whilst widening it with their actions.

Hi Paul,

You ask - "Why Are the British sticking
their noses in?" From what I've read
the entire island is generally a loss
for the UK due to the fact that the UK
pays about 90% of the entire cost of
Pitcairn Islands.

The island's population is tiny and slowly
decreasing. The region is too mountainous
for a naval base. And if Australia or New Zealand
would make an offer - having asked the locals
first of course, The UK may just be eager to cut
its losses.

Elsewhere ttbn tells me to get off the jungle juice, then he makes a statement like this;

"How about (Britain) wanting to aid an ally (Australia) good old British selflessness wanting to care for little old Australia! How naive can you get! The Poms was a cut of those billions Australia will fork out for these non existent nuk subs on the never never plan. The Poms think if there is a sucker to be had, why should the Yanks pocket all the lovely Aussie luca. Morrison wasted $5 billion paying out the frogs for non existent subs what about $50 billion for the Poms. Remember the Bottom of the Harbour scam, the Poms and Yanks have gone one better with a Bottom of the Ocean scam. The government is always warning about scammers calling you, be on the look out for a Pom or a Yank calling wanting to sell you dodge nuk subs on the never never plan. They called Albo, and it was come in sucker!

Hi Foxy,

Yep the Poms want to protect their last remain sovereign possession in the South Pacific, the Pitcairn Islands (pop 67). Like they saved the Falkand Island (pop 2,800) in the Atlantic, a mega-metropolis compared to Pitcairn.

Paul,

You certainly do need to get off the sauce.

Who made that “statement”? It wasn't me. The misspelling and semi-literate twaddle looks like something you made up.

This misrepresentation is really low, even for you.

ttbn

This is what you said, first post after my opening; "How about wanting to aid an ally, Australia" You see the Poms in the Pacific as aiding Australia, I see it as a Pommy money grab. You can't refute what I say so you look for typos etc to have a shot. You are pathetic, the king of typos and stupid comment.

Paul,

You are a raving lunatic. This was my first post after yours:

"How about wanting to aid an ally, Australia, settled by the British, and a member of the British Commonwealth, sharing the same Monarch?

Our culture, values, language and laws all come from Britain. 600,000 people came here this financial year to be part of it.

Who would you prefer to lend us a hand knowing that we don't have a hope in Hell of defending ourselves? You hate America, you hate the UK. Who do you fancy? China.
-ADVERTISEMENT-
Posted by ttbn, Saturday, 30 March 2024 7:31:43 PM"

You have serious problems. Hope Hopefully other posters will notice your new low of falsely attributing stupid comments to other other people. You need to be avoided like the plague.

ttbn,

You might see the Poms in the Pacific as aiding Australia, I see it as part of a Pommy money grab.

BTW; you wrote: "Hope Hopefully", a fine example of semi-literate twaddle.

Where's the apology for accusing me of something, I didn't say, you liar?

You copied my first sentence, then added your own rubbish, and put quotation marks around the lot, and lied that I had posted the garbage. Anyone can see that, you out of control lunatic.

You are a disgusting heap of garbage.

So nothing special happening with Pitcairn at the moment. Seems Paul just closed his eyes, stuck a needle in a map and said, let's whine about this place.

Paul seems aggrieved that the islands are still part of Britain although the islanders themselves seem perfectly content with the arrangement given that they are largely self-governing.

The whining of the perpetually aggrieved....poor Paul.

mhaze,

I think my reference to the Pitcairn Islands might be seen as somewhat tongue-in-cheek, I know you are a little slow on the uptake, so it may have alluded you. My question, if you wish to answer is; "Why Are The British Sticking Their Noses In (the South Pacific)? After all they are 16,000 km away.

A supplementary question could be; If its appropriate for the Poms to sail warships through the Taiwan Strait, do you think it would be equally appropriate for the Chinese to sail warships through the English Channel? Do you think the English might object? Then the Chinese might call them "Whinging Poms" and cut off their supply of fortune cookies!

"I think my reference to the Pitcairn Islands might be seen as somewhat tongue-in-cheek"

Well that's one way to withdraw an obvious load of rubbish.

" Poms to sail warships through the Taiwan Strait, do you think it would be equally appropriate for the Chinese to sail warships through the English Channel?"

The Poms sail through the Taiwan Straits in international waters. If the CCP can find any international waters in the English channel then they are free to sail there as well. Good luck with that.

I apologise for using facts...I know it baffles you.

Nah mhaze,

The Chinese claim the Taiwan Strait as internal territorial waters. Its only about 100 miles, land to land from Mainland China to Taiwan. Do you think they have a case? BTW, who said the Taiwan Strait is international waters? America. For the Chinese Taiwan is to them, what Tasmania is to us, and we agree.

"The Chinese claim the Taiwan Strait as internal territorial waters."

And you always believe whatever the CCP tells you, don't you Paul? Tell us again how unbiased you are.

"BTW, who said the Taiwan Strait is international waters?"

International law. And we should always adhere to the law, shouldn't we Paul? Except when its detrimental to the totalitarians.

mhaze,

Making up another lie about me; "And you always believe whatever the CCP tells you, don't you Paul?" Your rhetorical question is a lie. I would like to see the Taiwan Strait as a demilitarised waterway, free to commercial shipping, off limits to all military ships. Bass Strait, English Channel and all other "enclosed" waterways, that should apply to as well. Do you agree? When was this, and by whom was this, made "international law".

Again another lie; Claiming that I in someway support totalitarianism; "And we should always adhere to the law, shouldn't we Paul? Except when its detrimental to the totalitarians."

YOU being a devote Trumpster, having indicated that before, I should ask that of YOU.

"Making up another lie about me; "And you always believe whatever the CCP tells you, don't you Paul?""

Not a lie....just an observation.

" by whom was this, made "international law"."

Well its been around for centuries but was updated and endorsed by the UN in the 1950s. You agree that the UN should be making such rules, don't you Paul?

The rule is that a nation's internal waters extend 12 nautical miles from the coast ie approx 20 kms. This includes islands. So, while some of the English channel is international waters its impossible to traverse it without entering either British or French territorial waters at some point. OTOH it is possible to traverse, with some difficulty, the Bass Strait and remain outside Australia's internal waters, so if the Chinese wanted to sail a warship through there, then they are perfectly at liberty to do so, just as they have been able to station vessels off our coast to view naval exercises.

But its really quite simple to sail the Taiwanese Straits and remain entirely outside anyone's territorial waters and wholly within international waters. Now I get that for people like you, the CCP merely declaring that they own those waters is proof enough, but the rest of the world isn't required to adhere to that imperialism.

Tell me, do you think China should stay out of The Philippines territorial waters, or is that OK in your view?

mhaze,

I am fully in agreement with the 'United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea', although some countries still do not recognise it, China was one of the first signatories, the US has NOT ratified the convention. I assume they want to exercise their bully boy ways with their oversized bloated navy, all around the World. Your claim that I am pro China on this is fallacious, you stand corrected, ho hum. Although sailing Australian/US/British/Ethiopian etc etc, warships through the Taiwan Strait may be technically correct, as would Chinese warships and for that matter Ethiopian, sailing through Bass Strait be technically correct, and if a country that still recognises a 3 mile territorial limit through the English Channel. I would say such action is provocative, and could result in war, its imperialist sabre rattling. To your folk hero The Mad Monk Abbott, it would be an act of shirt fronting!

BTW mhaze; Why are you, a devote Trumpster, supporting the UN, are they not a bunch of radical communists? Are you now a radical communist?

"I assume they want to exercise their bully boy ways with their oversized bloated navy"

The Chinese navy is now bigger than the US navy.
If you want to see an example of the speed of light, watch how quickly Paul now changes his mind about bloated navies.

"I would say such action is provocative, and could result in war, its imperialist sabre rattling. "

No...making claims over waters that aren't part of your territorial rights is imperialist. But China's doing it so that's OK in Paul's eyes.

"Why are you, a devote Trumpster, supporting the UN".

I support the UN when it does what it was designed to do, and oppose it when it tries to over-reach its power.
Why aren't you a Trumpster...I thought you were on the side of the working class?

mhaze,

If you tally up all "ships" including row boats China has more than the US. Something more relevant would be the number of Carriers US 20 China 5 naval planes/helicopters US about 2,500 China about 450. Nuk subs US 67 China 12 Military spending US $900 billion, China $300 billion (round figs). And YOU say China has the biggest navy, I don't have the figures for the number of row boats each has, but that would give them a numerical edge. BTW; Both countries spend way too much on militarism, as does Australia $54 billion in my opinion. The furphy of "Defence" spending around $2.3 trillion world wide is a nonsense in my book.

"Why aren't you (Paul) a Trumpster...I thought you (Paul) were on the side of the working class?"

So was Hitler, so he said, but I don't agree with that Fuhrer either. Yep, this modern day Fuhrer, YOUR folk hero, the good old Trumpy, invites the "working class" over to Mar-a-Lago for a round of golf and to chew the fat every weekend. He's made half the homeless in New York ex-homeless, he puts them up in Trumpy Tower, likes to keep them out of the cold. Mate are you so deluded about Trump! Just for balance, Biden is a silly old fool, should be on this forum with the rest of the forum Old Farts. BTW Old Joe has probably forgotten who Trumpy is; Biden; "Trumpy?...oh yes the family cow when I was a kid.... is that right aid, I've forgotten your name as well."

"Something more relevant would be the number of Carriers..."

That might have been relevant in 1950. Today? Not so much.

Counting all major surface ships ,aircraft carriers, ocean-going amphibious ships, submarines, mine warfare ships, and fleet auxiliaries as well as patrol combatants and craft that carry anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCMs) the CCP has 440 vessels compared to the US 295. Those are 2020 figures. The gap would be bigger now.

" I don't have the figures for the number of row boats each has"
Whenever he realises he's out of his depth, Paul always plays the clown.

As to Trump, I've already provided data as to how good his tax cuts were for the working class. Clearly that went over your head. The facts are that polling shows the working class now heavily favours Trump - but what would they know, eh?

"Trumpy, invites the "working class" over to Mar-a-Lago for a round of golf and to chew the fat every weekend."

Whenever he realises he's out of his depth, Paul always plays the clown.

mhaze,

Number of nuclear weapons US over 5,000, China about 500, the overwhelming facts that show militarily, at sea, in the air, on land, the US has the superior fire power over China. mhaze is the clown.



"The facts are that polling shows the working class (and mhaze) now heavily favours Trump" They favoured the other Fuhrer Hitler 80 years ago, so what does that prove? The working class (and mhaze) will support lunatics

"Number of nuclear weapons US over 5,000".
You started claiming the US navy was "oversized". Now that you been proven wrong, you just move the goalposts. Pretty standard."

They favoured the other Fuhrer Hitler 80 years ago, so what does that prove?"

Actually they didn't (he never got anywhere near to 50% of the votes), but I guess the facts are unimportant when TDS kicks in.

mhaze,

It obvious the US has far superior nuclear capability to that of China, on land, sea, and in the air. As a devote Trumpster you believe otherwise. Just as the gullible like you believed the US and the Soviets were neck and neck during the arms race of the Cold War. The US was always far superior to the Soviet Union in military capability, but to make sure billions of dollars was poured into the military/industrial complex of the United States, the lie was propagated by idiots like Reagan, another of your folk hero's, where do you dig them up from, they're all crazies, and people like you still swallow it today about the military capability of US v China. If crazy thinking was illegal we'd have to lock you up.

"It obvious the US has far superior nuclear capability to that of China, on land, sea, and in the air. As a devote Trumpster you believe otherwise. "

Its got nothing to do with Trump (that's just your Trump Derangement Syndrome showing through) and I don't "believe otherwise". I didn't say such a thing...You see, Paul, when you have to fabricate my opinions, you've already lost.

So just to be clear, your claims about the US naval numbers have been shown to be so much gumph and you're now trying to change the subject. Nice try, but you need to study SR's posts because he's much better at running and hiding from his cockups than you.

mhaze,

You seen ( probably did a Google) that China has more ships/boats than the US, from that you deduced that the Chinese Navy therefore must be militarily stronger than that of the US, WRONG!

As for Steele, he's boxed you around the ring, knocking you to the canvas many a time, yet bloodied and bruised you still want to claim victory. Pathetic.

p/s, From your posts I believe you to be a devout Trumpster, praying at the alter of 'The Dangerous Doctor Donald' at every opportunity.

"You seen ( probably did a Google) that China has more ships/boats than the US, from that you deduced that the Chinese Navy therefore must be militarily stronger than that of the US, WRONG!"

More fabrication. You said the US navy was oversized. I proved to you that was wrong. That's it...why can't you acknowledge that? I've said nothing about the relative military strength of the Chinese navy. Do try to follow the logic of the discussion.

"As for Steele, he's boxed you around the ring, knocking you to the canvas many a time,"

That's pretty funny. My favourite example from many years of discussions...http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=9530#321781

"p/s, From your posts I believe you to be a devout Trumpster..."

I favour Trump over all other candidates because of his policies.
From your posts I believe you suffer Trump Derangement Syndrome. Its common among those who follow the news via the headlines.

mhaze,

"You (Paul) said the US navy was oversized". Yes in my opinion it is, so is the Chinese, Russian, Ethiopian (do they have a navy?) Australian, in the name of peace we don't need navy's, or armies or air forces. Militarism is a sad state of affairs! I am a pacifist, don't agree with war, don't agree with militarism. As a devout Trumpster you probably see thing differently.

Late news, Ethiopia, a land locked country, has a navy established in 1955, so does Bolivia, they have a "fresh water" navy! Paraguay another landlocked country also has a navy, with a dozen ships and several thousand sailor! The worlds gone made!

"I (mhaze) favour Trump", that's obvious, you pray at the alter of The Dangerous Doctor Donald! I think Biden is loopy as Trump, do I also have Biden Derangement Syndrome?

"I (mhaze) favour Trump over all other candidates" Who are the "other candidates" bacteria? If they are then it would be a close race. Agree?

"Who are the "other candidates" .....? "

At this stage, Biden and RFK Jr.

" we don't need navy's, or armies or air forces."
Yeah well we'll have to agree to disagree on that, cos I live in the real world.

There is unfortunately no doubt we do need armed forces.
Perhaps if China changes it would be better, but I am afraid the
Islamists will never change, so we should lock them up in the Middle
East and throw away the key !

"Who are the "other candidates" .....? "
The candidites are:

Biden - Zionist political donors
Trump - Zionist political donors
JFK Jr - Zionist political donors

Old Fart Biden wants to unleash the JAPANESE upon Australia. What does the Old Fart Brigade think of that? What is Japans record with Australia remember Pearl Harbour! remember Darwin! They want our resources, they haven't bloody got any of their own. My Old Man said; "Son, ya can trust a Chinaman, but never trust a JAP! We need those nuks bad, how far to Hiroshima, Pete can lead the way, the Royal Navy rules the seas! "Rule, Britannia!" Britannia rules the waves! I say remember Waterloo!

Paul is a total idiot and is an anarchist in political theory. Loyal to the Marxist call for World domination, and oppression of dissenting thought.