This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Jeremy Corbyn
Visit the current forum | Forum Rules
  Hrolf The Ganger  03 Dec 16 3.29pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
The UK was in an almost unique historical position, and made the right decision. Not bailing the banks out would have created unknowable and unpredictable consequences, that included catastrophic destruction of the UK economy, and a knock on effect to the world economy. Even in hindsight, the decision to take the predictable outcome, of a financial hit, loss of confidence but with the assurance of stability only the state could provide was the right one. Had those banks gone to the wall it was entirely plausible that their collapse would have hit the banks that didn't need to be bailed out and ripped through the UK financial interests (which is our primary economic generator). The entire economic status of the UK wasn't worth risking. Now some of the decisions around that bail out can be questioned - but not the idea of ensuring an entirely unpredictable and possibly totally devastating outcome didn't occur
|
|
| .TUX. 03 Dec 16 5.27pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
I believe the term is hindsight. Can you be sure that we are worse off? The banking system is not something I can claim to be an expert on. Following certain economic patterns and noting the problems they can cause isn't really 'hindsight' tbf.
Buy Litecoin. |
|
| .TUX. 03 Dec 16 6.16pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
The UK was in an almost unique historical position, and made the right decision. Not bailing the banks out would have created unknowable and unpredictable consequences, that included catastrophic destruction of the UK economy, and a knock on effect to the world economy. Even in hindsight, the decision to take the predictable outcome, of a financial hit, loss of confidence but with the assurance of stability only the state could provide was the right one. Had those banks gone to the wall it was entirely plausible that their collapse would have hit the banks that didn't need to be bailed out and ripped through the UK financial interests (which is our primary economic generator). The entire economic status of the UK wasn't worth risking. Now some of the decisions around that bail out can be questioned - but not the idea of ensuring an entirely unpredictable and possibly totally devastating outcome didn't occur Bailing-out the banks was ridiculous and has put us in a worse position than before as they've just carried on from where they left off, but this time on an even bigger scale. But sadly that'll never happen because that's not how 'the system' works.
Buy Litecoin. |
|
| legaleagle 03 Dec 16 6.52pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
You have to remember the Falklands and the wider politics involved. But,then,when it comes to Castro and the wider politics of the Us trying to undermine and topple him for 50 years,you give it nil weight...ho hum...
|
|
NickinOX  Sailing country. 03 Dec 16 8.12pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by legaleagle
But,then,when it comes to Castro and the wider politics of the Us trying to undermine and topple him for 50 years,you give it nil weight...ho hum... Yes, trying to get rid of a brutal dictator by using some sanction. Frightful! I still find it funny that you think it's ok to praise a mass murderer, but criticise others for for doing the same. A plague on both their houses.
If you come to a fork in the road, take it. |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 03 Dec 16 9.12pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by legaleagle
But,then,when it comes to Castro and the wider politics of the Us trying to undermine and topple him for 50 years,you give it nil weight...ho hum... Why would the United States do anything else to an ally of the USSR, on their doorstep, during the cold war? Are you a Russian sympathiser?
|
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 04 Dec 16 12.35pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by legaleagle
That's plain silly,no? He only went towards the Soviet Union after the USA started trying to kick him out...how very uncivil of him actually trying top give his country some independence in the US backyard. Kind of a Cubexit of its time Thought you were in favour of national sovereignty being asserted over superstate hegemony? The US was in a war against communism. I would imagine that this was part of a battle against the ideology as much as a nation or individual. Remember that there was a witch hunt within the US to root our "commies" so this attitude is hardly inconsistent. It was never going to be a match made in heaven.
|
|
| cantrbury eagle Canterbury 04 Dec 16 12.56pm |
|
|---|---|
|
must admit to being a bit lazy but has anyone seen Corbins childhood home o how he must have struggled in his 5 bedroom detached manor house.
|
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 04 Dec 16 1.34pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by legaleagle
No,Castro wasn't any kind of "commie" when the US started to try and oust him...just wanted to kick out the mafia and stop Cuba being America's largest brothel... Castro's only "threat" at the time was that he might serve as a beacon for other Carribbean and Central American nations to emulate... Well you might argue terminology but the US would almost certainly seem him as such. He has been described as leftist, anti-imperialist and Marxist–Leninist so that clearly puts him at odds with America. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (04 Dec 2016 1.35pm)
|
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 04 Dec 16 2.33pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by legaleagle
Well,we will have to disagree about the "good reason" bit. He kicked out the US' dodgy stooge...clearly they couldn't have that kind of thing prospering and happening further in their backyard...as events in Chile showed 10-15 years later and in Grenada in the 80's..and going back to the US invasion of Guatemala in 1954 to protect the interests of the United Fruit Company... Well if it is a discussion about morality then I don't think anyone can claim victory. There wasn't much between Batista and Castro in that department. Batista was at least democratically elected originally, not that it excuses the coup, but you have to see these things in the contest of the times. The US had a self serving agenda and I would support that all day long against the alternative. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (04 Dec 2016 2.34pm)
|
|
| legaleagle 04 Dec 16 3.49pm |
|
|---|---|
|
We will very much have to agree to differ
|
|
| susmik PLYMOUTH -But Made in Old Coulsdon... 04 Dec 16 4.41pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by legaleagle
No,Castro wasn't any kind of "commie" when the US started to try and oust him...just wanted to kick out the mafia and stop Cuba being America's largest brothel... Castro's only "threat" at the time was that he might serve as a beacon for other Carribbean and Central American nations to emulate... AND nearly start a nuclear war if you know your history !
Supported Palace for over 69 years since the age of 7 and have seen all the ups and downs and will probably see many more ups and downs before I go up to the big football club in the sky. |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 06 Dec 16 10.10am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by susmik
AND nearly start a nuclear war if you know your history ! I'm not sure that's entirely down to Castro, the soviets wanted to put nuclear missiles on Cuba, in response the US missiles on the Turkish coast of the black sea and in Italy (close striking distance to Russian and the Soviet Satellite states). Interestingly, Kennedy's aide, said in 2002 that Castro didn't want the missiles, and that the Soviet had pressured them. And it was revealed in 1996 that Cuba already had nuclear capability for artillery and Soviet bombers stationed on the island. In reality the world didn't come as close to nuclear war as made out, but it the stand off did come close. Also the US similarly removed all its nuclear missile capability from Turkey as part of the agreement, and resulted in Kennedys speech to the UN, which effectively guaranteed Cuba from US military intervention. Also, at the time some nuclear missiles in Cuba weren't covered by the agreement, and were removed by the Soviet Union anyhow. The actual truth is that neither side were actually looking to fire first. The only real danger was from hawks among the US pushing for an invasion of Cuba, and a desperate Russian Nuclear Submarine (that the US had surrounded).
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Hoof Hearted 06 Dec 16 10.12am | |
|---|---|
|
Interesting that all the "Senior Trots" are women? Millie Tant from Viz anybody?
|
|
Attachment: Kermit8  Hevon 06 Dec 16 10.18am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
I'm not sure that's entirely down to Castro, the soviets wanted to put nuclear missiles on Cuba, in response the US missiles on the Turkish coast of the black sea and in Italy (close striking distance to Russian and the Soviet Satellite states). Interestingly, Kennedy's aide, said in 2002 that Castro didn't want the missiles, and that the Soviet had pressured them. And it was revealed in 1996 that Cuba already had nuclear capability for artillery and Soviet bombers stationed on the island. In reality the world didn't come as close to nuclear war as made out, but it the stand off did come close. Also the US similarly removed all its nuclear missile capability from Turkey as part of the agreement, and resulted in Kennedys speech to the UN, which effectively guaranteed Cuba from US military intervention. Also, at the time some nuclear missiles in Cuba weren't covered by the agreement, and were removed by the Soviet Union anyhow. The actual truth is that neither side were actually looking to fire first. The only real danger was from hawks among the US pushing for an invasion of Cuba, and a desperate Russian Nuclear Submarine (that the US had surrounded). Castro never wanted to go cap in hand to the Soviets but was forced to because of the US punishing embargo on Cuba...and all because poor little US of A were dealt a smacked botty by Fidel. Did they not like that!
Big chest and massive boobs |
|
| steeleye20 Croydon 06 Dec 16 12.27pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Kermit8
Castro never wanted to go cap in hand to the Soviets but was forced to because of the US punishing embargo on Cuba...and all because poor little US of A were dealt a smacked botty by Fidel. Did they not like that! The installation of Jupiter missiles in Turkey was a serious threat to the Soviet Union the USA the aggressors here. The Cuba crisis did get rid of them.
|
|
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2025 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.