Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

[UK's] Standard Chartered left US vulnerable to terrorists
Reuters ^ | Aug. 6, 2012 | Jonathan Stempel and Carrick Mollenkamp

Posted on 08/06/2012 12:10:12 PM PDT by Milagros

(Reuters) - A rogue Standard Chartered Plc banking unit violated U.S. anti-money laundering laws by scheming with Iran to hide more than $250 billion of transactions, and may lose its license to operate in New York State, a state banking regulator said on Monday.

Lawsky's order quotes a senior Standard Chartered official in London who, upon being advised by a North American colleague that its Iran dealings could cause "catastrophic reputational damage," reportedly replied: "You f---ing Americans. Who are you to tell us, the rest of the world, that we're not going to deal with Iranians."

(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: banks; bho44; bhomiddleeast; eurabia; europeanunion; iran; iraniannukes; moneylaundering; newyork; sanctions; standardchartered; unitedkingdom; waronamerica
UK bank accused of laundering money for Iran through US USA TODAY Michael Gormley, AP ALBANY, New York - A British bank schemed with the Iranian government to launder $250 billion from 2001 to 2007, leaving the United States financial system "vulnerable to terrorists," New York's financial regulator charged Monday. http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/banking/story/2012-08-06/Iran-money-laundering/56823924/1
1 posted on 08/06/2012 12:10:25 PM PDT by Milagros
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Milagros
"You f---ing Americans. Who are you to tell us, the rest of the world, that we're not going to deal with Iranians."

The people who first saved you from the NAZIs, then from the Soviets, and still pay the bulk of your defense tab to this day.

2 posted on 08/06/2012 12:26:51 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (The Slave Party Switcheroo: Economic crisis! Zero's eligibility Trumped!! Hillary 2012!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Milagros

” “You f-—ing Americans. Who are you to tell us, the rest of the world, that we’re not going to deal with Iranians.”

Close the bank before Obama gives it a $500,000,000.00 gift
or a grant.


3 posted on 08/06/2012 12:28:21 PM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (God, family, country, mom, apple pie, the girl next door and a Ford F250 to pull my boat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stephenjohnbanker
I heard Reid has an account with that bank. I can't divulge my anonymous source dontchya know. ; )
4 posted on 08/06/2012 12:42:00 PM PDT by Chgogal (WSJ, Coulter, Kristol, Krauthammer, Rove et al., STFU. TY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

Bullshit. First of all, the Soviets did more to win the war than the Americans, and the Soviets never had the means to invade us, as they were never a real maritime power. In any case, if it wasn’t for the Americans, Britain would probably have signed a peace with Hitler, who never wanted to fight Britain in the first place and Britain could have sat back and watch the Nazis and Soviets tear each other apart, which would probably have been the best thing for Britain to do in the first place.

And seeing as how we have the world’s fourth largest defence budget, we don’t need the US to defend us, although there is mutual advantage in the NATO pact, but if there wasn’t, Britain could certainly pick up the slack if it needed to.


5 posted on 08/06/2012 1:13:55 PM PDT by sinsofsolarempirefan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sinsofsolarempirefan

We FED the Soviets, and gave them much materiel in terms of wheeled transport to win that war. No one discounts their sacrifice in troops. Second, what would have become of Western Europe if there weren’t enough non communist troops to stop the Soviets at Berlin?


6 posted on 08/06/2012 1:18:59 PM PDT by Amberdawn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Amberdawn

American aid to the Soviet Union enabled the USSR to advance against the Nazis, it didn’t do as much to help them defend it. US and British aid made very little difference to the outcome of Stalingrad.
In any case, a Nazi conquest of the USSR was doomed from the outset, regardless of any outside help. Russia was too big, too cold and too populous.

It is also wrong to assume that the Soviets would have tried to conquer the entirety of Western Europe after conquering Germany, considering the fact that they were not willing to expend their energies in conquering Finland after 1944, especially if a lack of US help made the fight even more difficult and the Soviets were even more war-weary and exhausted than they actually were in 1945.


7 posted on 08/06/2012 1:30:27 PM PDT by sinsofsolarempirefan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Milagros

There’s a StanChart office right on Ave of the Americas in NYC. Why not have Federal Marshals padlock the place, have the Justice Department free all their U.S. assets and take in for questioning any C-level execs who happen to be in the U.S.?


8 posted on 08/06/2012 1:54:49 PM PDT by Dr. Thorne (Don't vote for anyone who takes contributions from Goldman Sachs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sinsofsolarempirefan

Given that the Nazi’s scoured conquered territories for food, so as not to “starve” their own population, I would think that food supplies would be of utmost importance to a fighting army. That said, I know the Soviets were tough. The Nazi’s could have easily won the war IF they had treated the civilian population with respect and offered inducements to the subject people’s there. Finland’s geographical location ensured their gravitation to Soviet influence, as much as Latvia’s and Lithuania’s. Even today, the Ukraine can hardly call itself a sovereign country due to Russian meddling. There’s a reason Patton wanted to fight on past Berlin.... The Eastern Europeans certainly paid a heavy price. Given the numbers of Soviet soldiers at Berlin in April 1945, they could easily have gone further (if unopposed) and that would have made life quite different for the remaining non communist countries on the continent.


9 posted on 08/06/2012 1:55:47 PM PDT by Amberdawn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: sinsofsolarempirefan

You don’t know your history and you have no place here at FR. Get lost, third-worlder. Drool Britannia.


10 posted on 08/06/2012 1:58:07 PM PDT by Dr. Thorne (Don't vote for anyone who takes contributions from Goldman Sachs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sinsofsolarempirefan

I thought Finland kicked their ass. I guess the 59 divisions Germany had tied down in France, Belgium and the Netherlands wouldn’t have made a difference if they could have been assigned to the eastern front.


11 posted on 08/06/2012 2:01:14 PM PDT by meatloaf (Support Senate S 1863 & House Bill 1380 to eliminate oil slavery.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Thorne

Gosh, why didn’t you just say ‘YOU SUCK!’? It would have required even less effort that you were prepared to put into that reply.


12 posted on 08/06/2012 2:05:52 PM PDT by sinsofsolarempirefan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Thorne

Gosh, why didn’t you just say ‘YOU SUCK!’? It would have required even less effort that you were prepared to put into that reply.


13 posted on 08/06/2012 2:06:11 PM PDT by sinsofsolarempirefan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Amberdawn
Given that the Nazi’s scoured conquered territories for food, so as not to “starve” their own population, I would think that food supplies would be of utmost importance to a fighting army. That said, I know the Soviets were tough. The Nazi’s could have easily won the war IF they had treated the civilian population with respect and offered inducements to the subject people’s there. Finland’s geographical location ensured their gravitation to Soviet influence, as much as Latvia’s and Lithuania’s. Even today, the Ukraine can hardly call itself a sovereign country due to Russian meddling. There’s a reason Patton wanted to fight on past Berlin.... The Eastern Europeans certainly paid a heavy price. Given the numbers of Soviet soldiers at Berlin in April 1945, they could easily have gone further (if unopposed) and that would have made life quite different for the remaining non communist countries on the continent.

Like I said, it would have been very difficult for the Soviets to advance without US help. but defensively, they virtually unbeatable. Yeah, Hitler might have had a chance if he had acted as a liberator in the conquered provinces, but that was never going to happen. The Nazis racist ideology concerning peoples of the East meant that they were never going be treated as anything else other than subhumans fit only for slavery at best. Patton was mad if he thought that taking the fight to the Soviets was a viable option, not only because The Soviets were more numerous and just as battle-hardened as the defeated Nazis, but also because it is very likely that both the allied armies and the publics at home would have mutinied at the prospect of an even tougher war against an adversary that had been up until recently lionised as a valued ally. Patton may have been a skillful general, but his grasp of political realities was practically non-existent.

14 posted on 08/06/2012 2:16:15 PM PDT by sinsofsolarempirefan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: meatloaf

Finland didn’t really kick Soviet ass. They fought hard, and gave them a bloody nose, but they still lost. They basically inflicted enough damage to persuade the Soviets that they weren’t worth the trouble of conquering completely. The Soviets could certainly have done so if they were determined enough, which makes me question whether the Soviets would really have been willing to go on conquering Western Europe when Germany had already been conquered...


15 posted on 08/06/2012 2:20:01 PM PDT by sinsofsolarempirefan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: sinsofsolarempirefan
Bullshit.

A good indication of projected argument.

First of all, the Soviets did more to win the war than the Americans, and the Soviets never had the means to invade us, as they were never a real maritime power.

Bullshit. From truck factories to tanks, the Americans paid to build the industrial infrastructure with which they fought, in gold, and transferred the technology to boot.

the Soviets never had the means to invade us, as they were never a real maritime power.

Had that idiot not invaded Russia, with western Europe under control and ICBMs, jets, and nuclear weapons in development, without us they'd have had plenty of time and there wouldn't have been much left of you to fight.

So you earn a "bullshit" there too.

In any case, if it wasn’t for the Americans, Britain would probably have signed a peace with Hitler, who never wanted to fight Britain in the first place and Britain could have sat back and watch the Nazis and Soviets tear each other apart, which would probably have been the best thing for Britain to do in the first place.

Hitler signed a peace treaty with the Soviets too. Are you really so callow as to think that Hitler would have allowed the House of Rothschild to stand? Really?

Yes, I think you are.

And seeing as how we have the world’s fourth largest defence budget, we don’t need the US to defend us,

rotflmao

Britain couldn't guarantee safe transit for maritime material supplies from across the globe. There is only one nation that can do that.

16 posted on 08/06/2012 2:21:38 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (The Slave Party Switcheroo: Economic crisis! Zero's eligibility Trumped!! Hillary 2012!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sinsofsolarempirefan; Dr. Thorne
Gosh, why didn’t you just say ‘YOU SUCK!’? It would have required even less effort that you were prepared to put into that reply.

Fair enough. I'll say it:

YOU SUCK!

Happy to help.
17 posted on 08/06/2012 2:21:39 PM PDT by mkjessup (0bama squats to pee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: sinsofsolarempirefan

You are really dumb enough to believe Hitler would honor a treaty with GB? Fortunately for the world, Winnie never believed it, seeing how Hitler had already treated “Peace in our time.”

The other poster is correct in his analysis: You suck.


18 posted on 08/06/2012 2:29:33 PM PDT by Cyber Liberty (Obama considers the Third World morally superior to the United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Cyber Liberty

You fail to realise the difference between Hitler’s attitude towards the USSR and that of Britain. Hitler set out quite clearly in his book ‘Mein Kampf’ his belief in the inevitability of war with the USSR, for ideological and racial reasons, as well as a desire for ‘lebensraum’.
I don’t think Stalin was really stupid enough to believe that his pact with Hitler would last. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was merely an attempt to buy time and create a buffer space between Russia and the Reich.
What did surprise Stalin was how quickly Hitler would break it. He believed that he would have had a few more years to build up his forces (and give them time to recover from the purges he had subjected to the officer corps during the 1930s). He simply could not believe that Hitler would invade the Soviet Union would invade before defeating Britain, and it was indeed a mad decision that was based on ideology rather than common sense.

Hitler also made clear in Mein Kampf his admiration for Britain, whose people he considered the racial equals or near-equals of Germans. He also especially admired the British Empire, and modeled his planned domination over Russia on Britain’s rule of India. Sadly for him, he didn’t take into account the fact that Britain was successful in ruling India with so few troops because it was not pointlessly cruel and brazen has he was with racist contempt for its subject peoples. As Amberdawn has already pointed out, he could have been successful if he had come as a liberator instead of a conqueror, but he didn’t.
Hitler had hoped that he would be able to form an alliance with Britain, which before his rise to power had been extremely anti-Soviet and had sent troops in 1919 to try and crush the Bolsheviks. He was extremely disappointed when Britain declared war on Germany as a result of his invasion of Poland, but even then, and for long time after, hoped that Britain could be persuaded to come to terms and perhaps even join him in his struggle against the Soviets whom he considered were both his and Britain’s real common enemy.


19 posted on 08/06/2012 2:47:15 PM PDT by sinsofsolarempirefan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
The people who first saved you from the NAZIs, then from the Soviets, and still pay the bulk of your defense tab to this day.

Love this reply, I still feel, this anti-American British banker is NOT typical British!

20 posted on 08/06/2012 2:55:34 PM PDT by Milagros (Y)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
Bullshit. From truck factories to tanks, the Americans paid to build the industrial infrastructure with which they fought, in gold, and transferred the technology to boot.

So without US help, the Soviets would not have been capable of dominating Europe. OK, fair enough.

Had that idiot not invaded Russia, with western Europe under control and ICBMs, jets, and nuclear weapons in development, without us they'd have had plenty of time and there wouldn't have been much left of you to fight.

The fact is though, that he did. And even without the US, Britain and Canada's joint research into nuclear weapons (codenamed 'tube alloys') was more advanced than that of Nazi Germany, British research into jets was only slightly behind that of Germany's. Of those three, only in rocketry was Germany clearly ahead.

Hitler signed a peace treaty with the Soviets too. Are you really so callow as to think that Hitler would have allowed the House of Rothschild to stand? Really?

I don't think he cared enough to miss an opportunity to ally with Britain, Germany certainly didn't force the issue of the Jews with his allies until late in the war when parts of them (such as Northern Italy in 1943) were were under direct German occupation.

Britain couldn't guarantee safe transit for maritime material supplies from across the globe. There is only one nation that can do that.

Britain once had the world's largest navy, and might have continued to have it if not for the ruinous war with Germany, that was completely unnecessary from a British perspective. As for today, Britain is would certainly be capable of building a stronger navy if it had to, It certainly has the technical expertise and the means to do so if we really had to. If America was not taking on the burden we formerly bore, British defence policy would have adapted around that reality, rather than the one it has.

21 posted on 08/06/2012 3:14:45 PM PDT by sinsofsolarempirefan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: sinsofsolarempirefan

All very true, but off topic, which is partly my fault! The Soviets may have been weary, but who had the strength to oppose them IF they had decided to camp out in Austria, Switzerland or all of Germany? At that point, only the U.S. had the bomb, the materiel and the numbers to oppose them realistically. This isn’t to denigrate the fighting forces of ANY Allied country, but numbers TELL.


22 posted on 08/06/2012 4:22:03 PM PDT by Amberdawn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Amberdawn

Austria and all of Germany would probably have been occupied, but I doubt Switzerland would have been. Why would the Soviets have bothered? They would have been an even tougher nut than Finland to crack, and in any case, they had no beef with Switzerland.
The Soviets could have completely obliterated Finland if they had wanted to, but they didn’t. I don’t think it is necessarily a question of whether the Soviets COULD conquer Western Europe, but did they have the WILL to do so? Doing so would have cost them much more dearly than conquering tiny Finland, and they already showed on two different occasions that they weren’t willing to pay the price to do even that, and whilst the Soviet forces had fanatical morale when it came to fighting the Nazi Germans, would they have had the same morale when it came to fighting countries that had not attacked them? I doubt it. Attempting to do so might even have broken the Red Army and led to a Revolution that brought down Stalin the way the First World War had brought down the Tsar...


23 posted on 08/06/2012 4:33:37 PM PDT by sinsofsolarempirefan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; ColdOne; Convert from ECUSA; ...

Thanks Milagros.
...scheming with Iran to hide more than $250 billion of transactions... a senior Standard Chartered official in London who, upon being advised by a North American colleague that its Iran dealings could cause "catastrophic reputational damage," reportedly replied: "You f---ing Americans. Who are you to tell us, the rest of the world, that we're not going to deal with Iranians."
His POS head belongs on a spike on the town gate.


24 posted on 08/06/2012 6:33:54 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

“His POS head belongs on a spike on the town gate.”

Actually, that POS is the norm for the vast majority of western Europers, UK or continental. His only fault was saying it out loud where someone might remember it.

Europer ideology has been rabidly anti-American since before there was even an America to be anti. Google up “history of anti Americanism” if you haven’t already.

The average Europer would cut off his nose to spite his face, and do so happily, if he believed it’d screw over the US or its people.


25 posted on 08/06/2012 6:45:36 PM PDT by Grimmy (equivocation is but the first step along the road to capitulation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: sinsofsolarempirefan

“Bullshit. First of all, the Soviets did more to win the war than the Americans, and the Soviets never had the means to invade us, as they were never a real maritime power. In any case, if it wasn’t for the Americans, Britain would probably have signed a peace with Hitler, who never wanted to fight Britain in the first place and Britain could have sat back and watch the Nazis and Soviets tear each other apart, which would probably have been the best thing for Britain to do in the first place.”

Standard issue idiocy. If it wasn’t for the US, USSR would have been minus approx 80% of it’s rolling stock...ie, transport, supply and repair vehicles. There’d have been no oil supply transport to the front to allow the insanely large human/tank wave attacks, there’d been no food transport to the front to feed those huge waves of manpower, nor ammo to feed the guns of those human waves.

The soviets were able to focus on tank manufacture because the US supplied very nearly all their other ground vehicular needs.

Minus the massive US supply, the Soviets would have been reduced to WW1 maneuver capability and would have been eaten alive at the German’s will.

As to the USSR not having the means to invade you, they’d have had the remnants of the German fleet, however weak that was, and all the time they’d need to build whatever fleet they needed. The Sovs also had a willingness to shed their own countrymens’ blood to a degree that their attempts to take your islands wouldn’t have had to be all that competently managed to still have a high degree of probable success. Their current strat/tac was to just keep throwing men at a problem until the problem got worn away.

As to NATO, keep on thinking like that. The UK can’t sustain a full division in a foreign field on its own. The US logistics system must assist any and ALL NATO force deployments. You’d not be able to afford your parasitic socialism AND a fully functional military at the same time. And, there was never a moment in post WW2 UK military history where the UK could have even come close to the necessary military force of sufficient size and capability to give the USSR pause.

Semper Fi, Mac.


26 posted on 08/06/2012 6:57:49 PM PDT by Grimmy (equivocation is but the first step along the road to capitulation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sinsofsolarempirefan

Fair enough, but I tend to wonder what the power of ideology will make a soldier/people do. There have been plenty of wars begun on the whim of a dictator or to avenge some slight, real or perceived. I also think we’re hearing echoes of the old isolationist bent in the American public in that we prefer to mind our own business, so that when we’re criticized the response is “well, we didn’t create Hitler, Lenin, Stalin so don’t blame us”.


27 posted on 08/06/2012 8:00:08 PM PDT by Amberdawn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Grimmy

Again, the Soviet victory at Stalingrad was achieved before western aid became a significant factor. Defensively, the Soviet Union was unbeatable. Offensively, the USSR would have struggled enormously without US logistical aid.
And it is doubtful that the USSR would have invaded Britain even if it had rolled up through France to the English Channel. First of all, building a navy to rival the Royal Navy wouldn’t have simply been a matter of building more ships, the USSR lacked the maritime experience to build a truly effective navy.
Secondly, as I have said before, would the USSR have had the will to invade Britain? It would certainly have been extremely costly to attempt to do so, more so than with any country they had faced before, and considering that they didn’t even have the will to conquer Finland (in an aggressive war) I doubt they would attempted to do so with Britain either, unless Britain had been stupid enough to try and invade the USSR and give the Red Army men a cause to rally against an enemy of the motherland.

As for NATO, Britain could certainly field a much more powerful military if it had to. However, America enthusiastically seized Britain’s former burden and placed it upon their own shoulders. It really is ridiculous to make an offer and then whine when the other person accepts it.
By all means lobby your politicians to cut back on the size of the US military, Britain and the other European nations could certainly adapt if they had to. The most serious military threat Britain and the other European nations theoretically face is Russia, and frankly, they are a shade of their former selves...


28 posted on 08/07/2012 12:47:53 AM PDT by sinsofsolarempirefan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Grimmy

Like most Americans, you ignore or forget that Churchill and Britain gave the USSR huge amounts of arms and material in 1941-42. As did Canada.

It wasnt only the Americans.


29 posted on 08/07/2012 3:45:25 AM PDT by the scotsman (i)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

America helped Britain, it did not save it.

Britain did not rely on the US in the Cold War, even if much of Europe did.

As to your assertion that you pick the UK defence tab, pure drivel.


30 posted on 08/07/2012 3:47:15 AM PDT by the scotsman (i)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Amberdawn

We also fed the Soviets.

We also gave them the arms and material to save themselves in 1941-42.

Also, the USSR paid the US and Britain back via ‘reverse lend lease’. They paid the US back $8-10 BILLION.


31 posted on 08/07/2012 3:49:18 AM PDT by the scotsman (i)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Amberdawn

We also fed the Soviets.

We also gave them the arms and material to save themselves in 1941-42.

Also, the USSR paid the US and Britain back via ‘reverse lend lease’. They paid the US back $8-10 BILLION.


32 posted on 08/07/2012 3:50:32 AM PDT by the scotsman (i)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Thorne

No, he does. As do I.
Then again, we are both British.

Its the ‘history’ here on FR that 9 times out of 10 is a joke.


33 posted on 08/07/2012 3:53:00 AM PDT by the scotsman (i)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Grimmy

‘And, there was never a moment in post WW2 UK military history where the UK could have even come close to the necessary military force of sufficient size and capability to give the USSR pause.’

In 1945-46, Britain still had a huge army, the world’s biggest navy, and a huge airforce. It still had an Empire, and its resources. Britain retained that navy, airforce, army and Empire until the late 1960’s. And it fought Korea and many colonial wars (many overlapping) from 1946-1972.

It had a nuclear bomber fleet by the mid 50’s, and was a nuclear power in its own right by the early 50’s.

Yes, Britain had plenty to make the Russkies think twice from the 1940’s to 1970’s.


34 posted on 08/07/2012 4:00:58 AM PDT by the scotsman (i)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: the scotsman
As to your assertion that you pick the UK defence tab, pure drivel.

Try running your economy without maintaining global supply lines.

35 posted on 08/07/2012 6:22:19 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (The Slave Party Switcheroo: Economic crisis! Zero's eligibility Trumped!! Hillary 2012!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Milagros

Oh yeah, on topic, I probably should mention that I think this guy is a prat. Iran is undoubtedly a terrorist supporting nation that not only kidnapped our sailors, but also supported the Taliban and Iraqi insurgents who killed British soldiers. Doing business with these a-holes should be banned in Britain as well as the US...


36 posted on 08/07/2012 6:45:13 AM PDT by sinsofsolarempirefan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the scotsman

Yes, and?


37 posted on 08/07/2012 10:10:12 PM PDT by Amberdawn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Amberdawn

Pointing out that you didnt keep the USSR alive alone, as some in this thread seem to think.


38 posted on 08/08/2012 3:25:30 AM PDT by the scotsman (i)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: the scotsman

Some might, but I read a lot of WW II history-Those who think that way need to READ more. We’ve gotten away from the principle debate, which is about some assclown making stupid remarks vis ‘a’ vis handling money for Iran.


39 posted on 08/08/2012 3:03:35 PM PDT by Amberdawn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson