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 ...
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.
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.
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...
...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.
“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.
“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.
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”.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
‘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.
Try running your economy without maintaining global supply lines.
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...
Yes, and?
Pointing out that you didnt keep the USSR alive alone, as some in this thread seem to think.
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.
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.