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 ...
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.
” “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.
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.
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?
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.
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.?
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.
You don’t know your history and you have no place here at FR. Get lost, third-worlder. Drool Britannia.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
Love this reply, I still feel, this anti-American British banker is NOT typical British!
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.