Page 23 of 34 FirstFirst ... 14151617181920212223242526272829303132 ... LastLast
Results 331 to 345 of 505

Thread: US Steel & Aluminum Tariffs

  1. #331
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,085
    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    I thought you were saying that the Canadian Government earned extra tax revenue from their counter tariffs so benefitted ergo tariffs are good?
    Yeah, who pays the Canadian tarrifs? It ain't the Americans.

    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    As a Catholic I do not regard the consumption of wine but thanks for another insult.
    You insult yourself. Twice. Once with your ignorance of the term. The second time when you thought that the existence of that term is an insult to your religion.

    Look it up.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin_tax

    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    I did not mention growth. How is the debt doing? I mean that is a conservative thing to worry about normally, so perhaps Trumpkin is not a real conservative? "Analysts predict the U.S. will dive further into debt over the next year. In a report published March 2, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said the national debt “is rising unsustainably.” It added that “recent tax and spending legislation have made a bad situation even worse."
    http://www.newsweek.com/us-national-...on-mark-855946
    No, you did not mention debt. You're jumping all over the place trying to squirm out of the fact that you know crap all about Ottawa's sin tax schemes. Only now you're mentioning Trump and his debt wheras you said nothing about it when you jumped in on Ottawa's smoking and drinking taxes.

    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    Actually I do not mind a highland malt in winter
    Californian valley white barrelled or French red barrelled?

    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    but you can compare collections with my Pater.
    So a Ukrainian has more knowledge of scotch than you who lived in Scotland for a time.

    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    People also pay for they can afford. US prices for goods needing steel rise as they cannot buy they cheapest steel on the market.
    Play me a violin because HARLEY DAVIDSON is shifting production to Europe. It's the same goddamned thing when Toyota openned plants in the US to get around NAFTA.

    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    Ironically in Europe it was a good criticsm of the EU that the UK could not import cheap bananas etc from Africa. Don't get me wrong I am all for free trade but I do not think customs unions or tariffs encourage free trade. The end result is you get smugglers - the ultimate 'free traders'.
    What has any of this got to do with Trudeau's $16bil tax grab?

    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    Never met an insulting fact, not sure one can find a fact insulting. Only people such as you trying to avoid a point. Yea I know... "the Senate illegaly elected Pompey" right? Just more BS and insults. Stick to the Scotch.
    The facts are obvious. I've shown you know crap all about Ottawa's tax schemes and you're the one trying to squirm around the issues.

    Lay off the Caesar crap. Open the thread in the history section and I will bury you there.
    Last edited by WABs_OOE; 01 Jul 18, at 23:32.

  2. #332
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    4,936
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    Yeah, who pays the Canadian tarrifs? It ain't the Americans.
    Does it add to Canadian wealth or detract?

    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    You insult yourself. Twice. Once with your ignorance of the term. The second time when you thought that the existence of that term is an insult to your religion.
    I have never heard of "sin tax" before. In Europe we increase taxes on tobacco and alcohol for health reasons.

    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    No, you did not mention debt. You're jumping all over the place trying to squirm out of the fact that you know crap all about Ottawa's sin tax schemes. Only now you're mentioning Trump and his debt wheras you said nothing about it when you jumped in on Ottawa's smoking and drinking taxes.
    I never mentioned GDP year on year either but you brought that up. Look idiot if the debt is growing more than the income you end up going bankrupt. The debt repayments take up more and more of your budget first so these Trumpkin tax cuts are doing the opposite of what he said he would - eliminate the debt (which was an impossible lie).

    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    Californian valley white barrelled or French red barrelled?
    Pretty sure most distilleries on Speyside use oak barrels.

    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    So a Ukrainian has more knowledge of scotch than you who lived in Scotland for a time.
    I am a Ukrainian too and my Pater lived in England too.

    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    Play me a violin because HARLEY DAVIDSON is shifting production to Europe. It's the same goddamned thing when Toyota openned plants in the US to get around NAFTA.
    So Harley Davidson creating jobs in Europe (which I believe they do not intend to do but switch production to Asia which is not subject to EU counter tariffs) is good for where the production goes - more tax income. Likewise Toyata producing in the US is good for the US.

    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    What has any of this got to do with Trudeau's $16bil tax grab?
    Well it doesn't actually work is the point. You end up worse off.

    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    The facts are obvious. I've shown you know crap all about Ottawa's tax schemes and you're the one trying to squirm around the issues.
    Look old man I just want you to tell me how it is that tariffs benefit tax yield... not so hard for someone who seems to know all.

    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    Lay off the Caesar crap. Open the thread in the history section and I will bury you there.
    I invited you to do so some time ago I think but have obliged your wish.

  3. #333
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,085
    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    Does it add to Canadian wealth or detract?
    Ask the Liberals. They're the ones raising the tarrifs.

    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    I have never heard of "sin tax" before. In Europe we increase taxes on tobacco and alcohol for health reasons.
    Yeah, does the money go into general revenue?

    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    I never mentioned GDP year on year either but you brought that up. Look idiot if the debt is growing more than the income you end up going bankrupt. The debt repayments take up more and more of your budget first so these Trumpkin tax cuts are doing the opposite of what he said he would - eliminate the debt (which was an impossible lie).
    Hey, IDIOT, I NEVER MENTIONED ONCE about Trump or his tax cuts or his debt. You did. So, don't pull this crap that this was my arguement. It was YOUR STRAWMAN, pure and simple.

    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    Pretty sure most distilleries on Speyside use oak barrels.
    And here, you showed your lack of knowledge. Scotch distilleries buy used wine barrels to age their scotch. The two most sought after used wine barrels in recent use California Valley White and French Red. That's what gives the scotch it's fruity aromas.

    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    I am a Ukrainian too and my Pater lived in England too.
    Yeah, well, two people who never lived in Scotland knows more about scotch than you do.

    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    So Harley Davidson creating jobs in Europe (which I believe they do not intend to do but switch production to Asia which is not subject to EU counter tariffs) is good for where the production goes - more tax income. Likewise Toyata producing in the US is good for the US.
    HARLEY DAVIDSON and TOYOTA are doing what's good for HARLEY DAVIDSON and TOYOTA. Period. Don't think for one second their products are any cheaper just because they avoid the tarrifs. The companies just pocket the difference and that's the way it should be.

    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    Well it doesn't actually work is the point. You end up worse off.
    So, absolutely nothing to do with Trudeau's $16bil tax grab. You're just trying to squirm around the issue with another strawman arguement.

    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    Look old man I just want you to tell me how it is that tariffs benefit tax yield... not so hard for someone who seems to know all.
    I KNOW A A HELL OF A LOT MORE ABOUT MY TAXES THAN YOU WILL EVER PRETEND TO.

    I call this tarrif a Trudeau tax grab! So, stop pretending you anything about Canada's taxes.
    Last edited by WABs_OOE; 02 Jul 18, at 02:49.

  4. #334
    Senior Contributor DOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Mar 11
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,900
    The only way for import duties to increase GDP is if the decline in imports is greater than the decline in exports that arises from retaliatory duties elsewhere. Raising prices via taxes or suppressed competition reduces investment and consumption. The money raised through import duties might – might, in an ideal world – be used to generate government-led consumption and investment, but it is hard to prove. If you take out retaliation (or otherwise create a fantasy world), all bets are off.

    Excise duties on tobacco and alcohol (i.e., sin taxes) were originally aimed at imposing a higher tax on those better able to afford it. Only later when health concerns became a matter of public policy were such taxes designed to actually reduce consumption. And, only much, much later when public health insurance took over in most civilized countries were such taxes thought of as ways to reduce future spending obligations.


    Scotch: The reason no one outside of a Lagavulin distillery in Scotland is allowed to make that particular type of beverage has nothing to do with location. It is 100% about brand ownership. If United Distillers & Vintners or its parent, Diageo plc, decided to set up a production line in Japan, no one will stop them. Sure, someone would probably object to calling it Scotch Whisky, but that’s not the same as preventing them from making the product elsewhere.

    New oak is a bit harsh. Age mine in sherry barrels, not rum, if you please.
    As for the origin of the oak, that would be the decision of the sherry maker, not the whisky maker…

    Ketchup? Catsup? Probably shouldn’t get into this, since Canada has the second highest per capita consumption in the world (Finland’s first). But, it’s a $4.5 billion global market, so that means something to an economist. Henry Heinz or someone in the 19th century added tomatoes to the original Chinese recipe, so geographically I’m on firmer ground.

    Canadians consume 2.5 liters of the red stuff per person per year, which probably goes a long ways toward explaining something or other but I'm not sure exactly what. If that C$0.20 tax figure is accurate, that’s in the range of C$37-73 million a year in revenue. You’d raise as much revenue – ignoring all other factors – with a C$15-30 tax on every Canadian car produced.

    Anyone want to show me an OECD government that makes major policy decisions for such paltry sums?
    Trust me?
    I'm an economist!

  5. #335
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,085
    Quote Originally Posted by DOR View Post
    And, only much, much later when public health insurance took over in most civilized countries were such taxes thought of as ways to reduce future spending obligations.
    Well, the monies go into general revenue and already spent. So, no way to reduce future spending obligations. And people will die no matter what you do. You just shift the cost from lung cancer to long term old age homes.

    Quote Originally Posted by DOR View Post
    Scotch: The reason no one outside of a Lagavulin distillery in Scotland is allowed to make that particular type of beverage has nothing to do with location. It is 100% about brand ownership. If United Distillers & Vintners or its parent, Diageo plc, decided to set up a production line in Japan, no one will stop them. Sure, someone would probably object to calling it Scotch Whisky, but that’s not the same as preventing them from making the product elsewhere.
    Incorrect.

    The various Scotch Whisky Acts and trade agreements states only malt whiskies made in Scotland can be call Scotch. All other countries call theirs Malt Whiskies. India has a few scotches but they cannot be exported in the World Market unless they relabel as Malt Whiskies.

    Quote Originally Posted by DOR View Post
    New oak is a bit harsh. Age mine in sherry barrels, not rum, if you please.
    As for the origin of the oak, that would be the decision of the sherry maker, not the whisky maker…
    They're products. The Scotch Master has to choose the used barrels for his flavours. Each region has their own distinct flavours to give the scotch their characteristics. Scotch masters don't willy nilly just pick up barrels from anywhere.

    However, I believe the Japanese have been experimenting with barreless single malt whiskies using technology to give some very unique flavours. Don't know how far they've got but Japan has consistently been winning single malt awards for the last 10 years, beating Scotland on more than one occasion.

    Quote Originally Posted by DOR View Post
    Ketchup? Catsup? Probably shouldn’t get into this, since Canada has the second highest per capita consumption in the world (Finland’s first). But, it’s a $4.5 billion global market, so that means something to an economist. Henry Heinz or someone in the 19th century added tomatoes to the original Chinese recipe, so geographically I’m on firmer ground.

    Canadians consume 2.5 liters of the red stuff per person per year, which probably goes a long ways toward explaining something or other but I'm not sure exactly what. If that C$0.20 tax figure is accurate, that’s in the range of C$37-73 million a year in revenue. You’d raise as much revenue – ignoring all other factors – with a C$15-30 tax on every Canadian car produced.

    Anyone want to show me an OECD government that makes major policy decisions for such paltry sums?
    I don't care how you want to come up with this sum. It's still a $16bil tax grab.
    Last edited by WABs_OOE; 02 Jul 18, at 18:05.

  6. #336
    Senior Contributor GVChamp's Avatar
    Join Date
    26 Aug 06
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    1,557
    Canada isn't imposing $16 billion taxes, it's imposing taxes on $16 billion worth of goods. The collected tax is quite a bit lower than that, so the additional subsidies could very well wipe out any revenue gains.


    Still falls into the "cutting off your nose to spite your face" category.
    "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

  7. #337
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    966.3673
    Posts
    3,799
    Scotch has a GI tag guys, which means it is tied to Scotland amongst many other rules. The Col is right.
    Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles!

    Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain!

  8. #338
    Senior Contributor DOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Mar 11
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,900
    Col.,

    Well, the monies go into general revenue and already spent. So, no way to reduce future spending obligations. And people will die no matter what you do. You just shift the cost from lung cancer to long term old age homes.
    With all due respect, sir, stick to engineering.
    • Just because revenue goes into a larger pot doesn’t mean it can’t be used for purposes related to its source.
    • Future obligations can, in fact, be mitigated by reducing causal factors.
    • People will die no matter how inane that sounds.
    • The cost of dying from lung cancer cannot usefully be balanced off against the cost of living a longer, productive and loving life.



    The various Scotch Whisky Acts and trade agreements states only malt whiskies made in Scotland can be call Scotch. All other countries call theirs Malt Whiskies. India has a few scotches but they cannot be exported in the World Market unless they relabel as Malt Whiskies.
    The New York Times, Feb 20, 1977:
    https://www.nytimes.com/1977/02/20/a...-in-japan.html


    And, then there’s Scotch blended in America: http://culinationmagazine.com/index....cotch-whiskey/

    I don't care how you want to come up with this sum.
    And therein lies the rub. You see, I actually respect your expertise in your professional arena . . .
    Trust me?
    I'm an economist!

  9. #339
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    966.3673
    Posts
    3,799
    Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles!

    Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain!

  10. #340
    Former Staff Senior Contributor Ironduke's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Aug 03
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    11,822
    Quote Originally Posted by DOR View Post
    Excise duties on tobacco and alcohol (i.e., sin taxes) were originally aimed at imposing a higher tax on those better able to afford it. Only later when health concerns became a matter of public policy were such taxes designed to actually reduce consumption. And, only much, much later when public health insurance took over in most civilized countries were such taxes thought of as ways to reduce future spending obligations.
    From what I've observed from people who've died of lung cancer, once they find out they have cancer, they're usually dead within six months.

    If the smoking rate were higher, the taxpayer would be less burdened as Social Security and Medicare outlays would be lower. The savings realized from shortened lifespans of a smoker probably vastly exceeds by several times any lost productivity that resulted from a smoker having smoked during their lifetime.

    It kind of begs the question - why is the government so dead-set on reducing the smoking rate when it's actually beneficial to their bottom line to do otherwise?

    I'm not necessarily being totally serious, I just see the irony in the situation.
    Last edited by Ironduke; 03 Jul 18, at 15:19.
    What I don't want to see is the Bills winning a Super Bowl. As long as I'm alive that doesn't happen.

  11. #341
    Senior Contributor GVChamp's Avatar
    Join Date
    26 Aug 06
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    1,557
    Yeah, I wonder what the actual present value is of smokers vs. people who live to older age. Someone has definitely taken a look at the topic, but somehow I've never seen cross before my eyes.

    Excise taxes on whiskey were a hot topic in the US for a while.... <_< >_>
    "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

  12. #342
    Senior Contributor DOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Mar 11
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,900
    Smoking

    Among the factors to consider are,
    • The treatment of smoking-related disease that is not fatal;
    • The treatment of smoking-aggrevated disease and injuries that are not cancer related;
    • The cost of picking up tobacco-related garbage (not a trivial amount);
    • The cost of fires started due to smoking (ditto);
    • The loss of taxable revenue due to a ban on tobacco advertising;
    • The loss of tax revenue on earnings from workers unable to expand their economic lives;
    • The loss of tax revenue on consumption from people living longer;
    • The cost of healthcare and welfare benefits for additional years due to longer life; and
    • The cost of end-of-life treatment for cases of tobacco-induced cancer.


    That's not the full list, I'm sure. But, it does illustrate the complexity of the issue.

    In one study, nearly 100,000 people lost over 13 years of life each due to smoking. (https://iea.org.uk/wp-content/upload...blic-Purse.pdf.)

    Here’s a study in Wales that says the net present value of benefits from smoking reduction campaigns out-weighs the cost to the NHS and the economy as a whole. On top of that clear economic benefit, add net costs per life year saved “shows the programme generates additional working life years at relatively low costs.”
    The costs include loss of revenue from advertising (this was a 1981-85 era study), which I doubt anyone here considered when making a guess. And, it holds true even if only 10% of the actual benefits accrued are attributable to the smoking reduction programme.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8350035
    Trust me?
    I'm an economist!

  13. #343
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    966.3673
    Posts
    3,799
    Exclusive: China presses Europe for anti-U.S. alliance on trade

    BRUSSELS/BERLIN (Reuters) - China is putting pressure on the European Union to issue a strong joint statement against President Donald Trump’s trade policies at a summit later this month but is facing resistance, European officials said.

    In meetings in Brussels, Berlin and Beijing, senior Chinese officials, including Vice Premier Liu He and the Chinese government’s top diplomat, State Councillor Wang Yi, have proposed an alliance between the two economic powers and offered to open more of the Chinese market in a gesture of goodwill.

    One proposal has been for China and the European Union to launch joint action against the United States at the World Trade Organisation.

    But the European Union, the world’s largest trading bloc, has rejected the idea of allying with Beijing against Washington, five EU officials and diplomats told Reuters, ahead of a Sino-European summit in Beijing on July 16-17.

    Instead, the summit is expected to produce a modest communique, which affirms the commitment of both sides to the multilateral trading system and promises to set up a working group on modernising the WTO, EU officials said.

    Vice Premier Liu He has said privately that China is ready to set out for the first time what sectors it can open to European investment at the annual summit, expected to be attended by President Xi Jinping, China’s Premier Li Keqiang and top EU officials.

    Chinese state media has promoted the message that the European Union is on China’s side, officials said, putting the bloc in a delicate position. The past two summits, in 2016 and 2017, ended without a statement due to disagreements over the South China Sea and trade.

    “China wants the European Union to stand with Beijing against Washington, to take sides,” said one European diplomat. “We won’t do it and we have told them that.”

    In a commentary on Wednesday, China’s official Xinhua news agency said China and Europe “should resist trade protectionism hand in hand”.

    “China and European countries are natural partners,” it said. “They firmly believe that free trade is a powerful engine for global economic growth.”

    In Beijing, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang said summit preparations were proceeding, and details would be announced in due course.

    But he added that at a high level China-EU economic dialogue in Beijing last week both sides had agreed to oppose unilateralism and trade and investment protectionism.

    CHINA’S MOMENT?
    Despite Trump’s tariffs on European metals exports and threats to hit the EU’s automobile industry, Brussels shares Washington’s concern about China’s closed markets and what Western governments say is Beijing’s manipulation of trade to dominate global markets.

    “We agree with almost all the complaints the U.S. has against China, it’s just we don’t agree with how the United States is handling it,” another diplomat said.

    Still, China’s stance is striking given Washington’s deep economic and security ties with European nations. It shows the depth of Chinese concern about a trade war with Washington, as Trump is set to impose tariffs on billions of dollars worth of Chinese imports on July 6.

    It also underscores China’s new boldness in trying to seize leadership amid divisions between the United States and its European, Canadian and Japanese allies over issues including free trade, climate change and foreign policy.

    “Trump has split the West, and China is seeking to capitalise on that. It was never comfortable with the West being one bloc,” said a European official involved in EU-China diplomacy.

    China now feels it can try to split off the European Union in so many areas, on trade, on human rights,” the official said.

    Another official described the dispute between Trump and Western allies at the Group of Seven summit last month as a gift to Beijing because it showed European leaders losing a long-time ally, at least in trade policy.

    European envoys say they already sensed a greater urgency from China in 2017 to find like-minded countries willing to stand up against Trump’s “America First” policies.

    NO “SYSTEMIC CHANGE”
    A report by New York-based Rhodium Group, a research consultancy, in April showed that Chinese restrictions on foreign investment are higher in every single sector save real estate, compared to the European Union, while many of the big Chinese takeovers in the bloc would not have been possible for EU companies in China.

    China has promised to open up. But EU officials expect any moves to be more symbolic than substantive.

    They say China’s decision in May to lower tariffs on imported cars will make little difference because imports make up such a small part of the market. China’s plans to move rapidly to electric vehicles mean that any new benefits it offers traditional European carmakers will be fleeting.

    Whenever the train has left the station we are allowed to enter the platform,” a Beijing-based European executive said.

    However, China’s offer at the upcoming summit to open up reflects Beijing’s concern that it is set to face tighter EU controls, and regulators are also blocking Chinese takeover attempts in the United States.

    The European Union is seeking to pass legislation to allow greater scrutiny of foreign investments.

    We don’t know if this offer to open up is genuine yet,” a third EU diplomat said. “It’s unlikely to mark a systemic change.”
    Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles!

    Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain!

  14. #344
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 06
    Posts
    4,347
    https://www.thelocal.de/20180704/don...el-warns-trump

    Don’t turn car tariff conflict into ‘real trade war’, Merkel warns Trump

    German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Wednesday warned US President Donald Trump against unleashing an all-out trade war after he threatened to impose steep tariffs on cars from the European Union.


    Both sides were already locked in a "trade conflict" since Trump's decision to slap punitive tariffs on steel and aluminium imports, said Merkel, adding that "it is worthwhile to prevent this conflict from becoming a real war".

    Trump on Sunday charged that Europe is "possibly as bad as China" on trade, as he reiterated that he is mulling import taxes of 20 percent on EU cars.

    The EU has slapped tariffs on iconic US products including bourbon, jeans and Harley-Davidson motorcycles, as a symbolic tit-for-tat response to the metals duties.

    Taking aim at Trump over his complaint that the EU, and in particular Germany, is running a massive trade surplus against the US, Merkel said that his calculation is skewed as it is based only on goods, not services.

    "If you include services like the digital services, then you have a completely different trade balance sheet with the US showing a surplus against the EU," she noted.

    "It is almost old-fashioned to only calculate goods and not include services," Merkel told parliament.

    Merkel had previously voiced her backing for a "digital tax" that would target multinationals like Amazon, Facebook or Google, which have come under fire for shifting earnings around Europe in order to pay lower taxes.

    But the EU is divided over the proposal, as countries including Luxembourg and Ireland are loath to see US tech giants head for the exit.

  15. #345
    Defense ProfessionalSenior Contributor tbm3fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Nov 09
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    3,615
    I believe Europeans are smart enough to realize that the Chinese are exploiters. They look for a weak spot and then try to leverage it to their sole advantage. Just look at what they have done in Sri Lanka.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (1 members and 1 guests)

  1. astralis

Similar Threads

  1. Review: Man of Steel
    By gunnut in forum Movie & TV Room
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 12 Jul 13,, 11:15
  2. This Guy Has Balls of Steel
    By Bigfella in forum World Affairs Board Pub
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 07 Jul 09,, 02:37
  3. Mexico slaps tariffs on U.S. goods in truck feud
    By Donnie in forum International Economy
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 18 Mar 09,, 20:46
  4. U.S airforce using transparent aluminum?
    By canoe in forum Military Aviation
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 21 Oct 05,, 04:58
  5. EU scores steel victory over US
    By Ironduke in forum International Economy
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 11 Nov 03,, 21:15

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •