David Cameron accused of Iran nuclear 'gaffe'

[Bigga]

You do know that the US hesitated about joining Europe in the War?! They hedged their bets, for a while, which is why they didn't help sooner.

They considered backing Hitler.

Some kind of fanfare they deserve...

Well actually what happened is they didnt want to join "are" war and declared war on Japan after Pearl Harbour but in doing that Germany declared war on America due to Japan being allies with them. They never wanted to back Hitler and if they had of considered that they wouldnt of bother lending us , money, food, tanks, weapons

The fact of the matter is they didnt want to go to war at all with anyone as they were far away from Europe

Interesting theory, but I think my answer leans more towards the truth, although it was an investors thing...

After World War I, Germany was rich-pickings for American investors. Germany had been a prospering, successful country but suddenly its economy was thrown into chaos, so all the vultures swooped down and bought up everything at a cheap price. It made sense therefore, for the US Media to promote Germany & its people as a good healthy nation to do business with. Most of these investors and media network controllers were certain rich American Jewish families with connections. So despite the Americans' pride of their participation against the Nazis, when WWII started in September 1939, the rich Jews were able to flee to the US and all the US Generals were actually happily sat at the cinema watching the 'Wizard of Oz'...

The Évian Conference the year before in 1938 shows the US sentiment at the time:
"The conference did not pass a resolution condemning the German treatment of Jews".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Évian_Conference

American investments in Nazi Germany at the time of Pearl Harbour in 1941 amounted to an estimated total of $475 million. Standard Oil - $120 million invested, General Motors - $35 million, ITT - $30 million and Ford - $17.5 million.

Rockefeller's Standard Oil was merged in hundreds of cartel arrangements with the German chemical company IG Farben - which was itself led by the Warburgs until 1937. About a month after World War II began in September 1939, Standard Oil executives flew to the Netherlands on a British Royal Air Force bomber and met with IG Farben executives. Standard Oil promised to keep the merger with IG Farben going even if the US entered the war. This was exposed in 1942 by Senator Harry Truman's Investigating Committee so then, President Roosevelt took hundreds of legal measures during the war to counter the Standard Oil-IG Farben cartel's supply operation for Germany.

Despite the American pledge that they will receive 'outcasts' from other countries, it took them a while to even accept the idea of more Jews going there.

I believe it was after Black people got their 'freedom' that Jewish were considered immigrants!!

 

[bluetom]

sorry mate that's nonsense. It doesn't matter who caused the problem the fact is we are all going to have to pay and I would rather trust Cameron gaffes and all than that control freak Scottish twunt Brown

My point is you could choose neither! Favouring one shit over another shit doesnt solve anything!

I think it does matter who caused the problem, how are we supposed to prevent these things happening if we don't identify the cause and look to fix it. We're not "all in this together", corporate tax is being reduced, bonuses are increasing - there are many doing very well -the cuts and VAT increases don't impact everyone.

 

[Ronnie the Rep]

sorry mate that's nonsense. It doesn't matter who caused the problem the fact is we are all going to have to pay and I would rather trust Cameron gaffes and all than that control freak Scottish twunt Brown

My point is you could choose neither! Favouring one shit over another shit doesnt solve anything!

I think it does matter who caused the problem, how are we supposed to prevent these things happening if we don't identify the cause and look to fix it. We're not "all in this together", corporate tax is being reduced, bonuses are increasing - there are many doing very well -the cuts and VAT increases don't impact everyone.

I don't understand how we can choose neither! we as a nation are in the pooper and we have to get out of it. reductions in corporation tax help improve profitability for the firms that employ most of us and who pay dividends to shareholders such as pension schemes. This is also a once in a generation chance to redress some of the inequalities in our current setup. Personally I would rather trust the coalition as they look like they are doing something a bit different and acting in a more open way than Brown and his cronies.

I had to laugh yesterday when one of the labour guys was popping at Cameron for suggesting that council houses maybe shouldn't be for life. This idiot said that the solution was to build more social housing. If that were true (and it maybe) why didn't labour do it during the 13 years they were in power?

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

Well actually what happened is they didnt want to join "are" war and declared war on Japan after Pearl Harbour but in doing that Germany declared war on America due to Japan being allies with them. They never wanted to back Hitler and if they had of considered that they wouldnt of bother lending us , money, food, tanks, weapons

The fact of the matter is they didnt want to go to war at all with anyone as they were far away from Europe

Interesting theory, but I think my answer leans more towards the truth, although it was an investors thing...

After World War I, Germany was rich-pickings for American investors. Germany had been a prospering, successful country but suddenly its economy was thrown into chaos, so all the vultures swooped down and bought up everything at a cheap price. It made sense therefore, for the US Media to promote Germany & its people as a good healthy nation to do business with. Most of these investors and media network controllers were certain rich American Jewish families with connections. So despite the Americans' pride of their participation against the Nazis, when WWII started in September 1939, the rich Jews were able to flee to the US and all the US Generals were actually happily sat at the cinema watching the 'Wizard of Oz'...

The Évian Conference the year before in 1938 shows the US sentiment at the time:
"The conference did not pass a resolution condemning the German treatment of Jews".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Évian_Conference

American investments in Nazi Germany at the time of Pearl Harbour in 1941 amounted to an estimated total of $475 million. Standard Oil - $120 million invested, General Motors - $35 million, ITT - $30 million and Ford - $17.5 million.

Rockefeller's Standard Oil was merged in hundreds of cartel arrangements with the German chemical company IG Farben - which was itself led by the Warburgs until 1937. About a month after World War II began in September 1939, Standard Oil executives flew to the Netherlands on a British Royal Air Force bomber and met with IG Farben executives. Standard Oil promised to keep the merger with IG Farben going even if the US entered the war. This was exposed in 1942 by Senator Harry Truman's Investigating Committee so then, President Roosevelt took hundreds of legal measures during the war to counter the Standard Oil-IG Farben cartel's supply operation for Germany.

Despite the American pledge that they will receive 'outcasts' from other countries, it took them a while to even accept the idea of more Jews going there.

I believe it was after Black people got their 'freedom' that Jewish were considered immigrants!!

Well thats all after WW1 and dont forget Nazi party was a lagitimate party up until the war and the realization that Nazi= Racist genocidal maniacs. Investors dint genarally count as human beings either as all they do is try and make money, doesnt matter who suffers or who is dying just keep making money.

Mainly what im saying is the government didnt back the war the rich people getting richer did

 

[Skashion]

That's a strong statement and one I'd like you to produce some evidence for.

They gave us over $30bn of aid (that's nearly £500bn in today's prices). that enabled us to ensure some of our domestic manufacturing/production resources were used for non-military purposes. Without that, there would have been even more severe shortages of various goods.

Also they were able to provide our convoys with escorts in the Western Atlantic and US coastal waters, which ensured that our own ships didn't have to make the full journey. This meant our own escorts could do twice as many journeys.

In addition, they supplied thousands of trucks to Russia, without which they could not have kept their armies supplied in the crucial battles for Moscow & Leningrad. Even Stalin, not a man noted for giving credit to others, admitted the war could not have been won without this aid.

Come on, you're better than that PB. Saying the United States was important in the war effort is not the same as saying they were more important. For instance, could the war have been won without Ultra intelligence? Could the war have been won if Britain hadn't been available/allowed itself to be used as the 'unsinkable aircraft carrier' and the launching pad for D-Day? In effect, even though you can argue Britain could not have won the war without the United States, it's just as easy to argue the United States could not have won without Britain. Regardless, even if Britain was to be considered the junior partner, it would certainly not have been to the U.S., it would have been to the U.S.S.R.

 

[bluetom]

I don't understand how we can choose neither!

Fair enough - this maybe isn't the thread for this discussion!

reductions in corporation tax help improve profitability for the firms that employ most of us and who pay dividends to shareholders such as pension schemes.

I think the big problem with this excuse is - you are justifying the financial crisis, justifying not using the incredible amounts of wealth of the corporations to rectify a situation they caused, justifying not preventing another financial crisis through corporate regulation; justifying greater social inequality - retrospectively through pension schemes people are dependent on - 'we can't regulate the market because our pension schemes are market-led' - but do we need to be dependent on market-led pension schemes. Considering the social impact of the recession. When a crisis comes many of these pension schemes are closed down. Are there other, less volatile ways to receive such benefits?

Bit of a rant but basically I don't think dependence on market-led pension schemes justifies the cuts, VAT rises etc.

 

[Bigga]

Well thats all after WW1 and dont forget Nazi party was a lagitimate party up until the war and the realization that Nazi= Racist genocidal maniacs. Investors dint genarally count as human beings either as all they do is try and make money, doesnt matter who suffers or who is dying just keep making money.

Mainly what im saying is the government didnt back the war the rich people getting richer did

All investors run countries. The governments pander to most investors or they'll up and leave.

 

[Ronnie the Rep]

I don't understand how we can choose neither!

Fair enough - this maybe isn't the thread for this discussion!

reductions in corporation tax help improve profitability for the firms that employ most of us and who pay dividends to shareholders such as pension schemes.

I think the big problem with this excuse is - you are justifying the financial crisis, justifying not using the incredible amounts of wealth of the corporations to rectify a situation they caused, justifying not preventing another financial crisis through corporate regulation; justifying greater social inequality - retrospectively through pension schemes people are dependent on - 'we can't regulate the market because our pension schemes are market-led' - but do we need to be dependent on market-led pension schemes. Considering the social impact of the recession. When a crisis comes many of these pension schemes are closed down. Are there other, less volatile ways to receive such benefits?

Bit of a rant but basically I don't think dependence on market-led pension schemes justifies the cuts, VAT rises etc.

I was just answering the two examples you gave. I agree that there are lots of other wrongs to right such as the reliance on benefits built into the system etc, etc. The banks do have a part to play in repairing the damage but they cannot possibly do all of it. Also, the banks are only part of the reason we are so indebted. The last government spent money we don't have on infrastructure we don't need. All of this has to be unpicked and made sensible. for example regional authorities -WOFT IMHO

 

[MadchesterCity]

I seriously hope Turkey doesn't get into the EU

They will with Bully boy promoting them. Which will mean an influx of turks being paid on less than minimum wages by unscrupulous bosses. Tory twonk won't give a shit as his mates will get richer.

you are right - many turks will get employed off the books so even less money for taxes but greater strain on services. Yuppeee

 

[BlueTony]

"You are absolutely right and I was absolutely wrong."

When the fuck was the last, or indeed first time, you heard that from Blair or Brown?

(Doesn't hold breath and waits for Nazi accusations)