Interesting article in Irish Times today...

JustHalf

Typedef, if you're going to insult someone, at least do it properly. Your response was of the same caliber as replying to "You idiot" with "But I didn't ask for beans"

Sand

Not getting into this particular dispute but ive just got to say

Your response was of the same caliber as replying to "You idiot" with "But I didn't ask for beans"

ROFLMAO:)

Typedef

Hey pal I'm not the one point scoring grammar.
Also jeez is a quilocial euphamism for Jesus but, it aint no word.

Sand

Oh yeah Tools i sped read that link you supplied- Its quite the propaganda piece but it didnt really answer why anyone would have wanted to intervene- You either have a fascist dictatorship, OR a "revolution" that reminds me a lot of the birth of the USSR- and the consequent grinding misery of its people. Least in WW2 the allies were able to guarantee Western Europe the rights of liberal democracy and the prosperity generated by free enterprise. What would be gained from either of the above options for Spain?

Hobbes

Originally posted by Sand
I dont compare the demands of Hitler to the demands of the palestinians...I simply stated that the appeasement of terrorism will be as successful as the appeasement of Hitler- simply because the terrorists have not shown any interest in meaningful negotiation.

What is meaningful negotiation? Ever occur to you that prehaps the terrorist attacks are happening because they are unable to get meaningful negotiation?

Sand

What is meaningful negotiation?

Well it would be recognising youre not going to get everything- Taking that 95% offer the Israelis made as a basis for talks might have been a start.

Ever occur to you that prehaps the terrorist attacks are happening because they are unable to get meaningful negotiation?

They were the ones who walked out on the talks cos of the final 5%. And terrorists should not be rewarded- it merely encourages further terrorism should things get unhappy further down the line.

gandalf

OK lads get back on topic or this thread will be closed. People I do not want to see spelling corrections, personal insults etc appearing in this thread or any other on the Politics board or your voice will go very quiet.....quickly. Understood !

Consider yourselves warned.

Gandalf.

Boston

o sweat mother of god, this is a discrace, cant you people keep a single thread with in the realms of reality. my head hurts from reading this.

tools

Originally posted by Sand
Oh yeah Tools i sped read that link you supplied- Its quite the propaganda piece but it didnt really answer why anyone would have wanted to intervene- You either have a fascist dictatorship, OR a "revolution" that reminds me a lot of the birth of the USSR- and the consequent grinding misery of its people. Least in WW2 the allies were able to guarantee Western Europe the rights of liberal democracy and the prosperity generated by free enterprise. What would be gained from either of the above options for Spain?

Fascism could have been halted if the liberal democracies intervened. They had plenty of opportunity when Germany was still weak and Spain was the last chance. WW2 could have been averted, millions of lives could have been saved and eastern europe might not have been taken over by the USSR. That they were afraid of Spain's social revolution was one reason they preffered to side in effect with the nazis.

As for Spain's importance to the nazis in WW2, Hitler wanted gibraltar which was vital to the meditteranean but Franco dissuaded him.

Spain was vital to germany as a supply route with the US.

A substantial portion of supplies went by ship and tanker under flags of neutrality. Many of the financial arrangements covering such trade were handled by BIS (Banks For International Settlements) in neutral Basle. As an example of how substantial this trade was: by mid-1944 America was supplying Germany with 48 thousand tons of oil, and 11 hundred tons of much-needed wolfram (tungsten) per month! The fact that this trade was illegal in the USA for much of this period - and particularly after Americas entry into the war in December 1941 - did little to stop it. The large corporations, such as Standard Oil and ITT, saw to that. After all, then - as now - the US Administration was effectively under corporate control. Even the Secretary of Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, and his Assistant, Harry Dexter White, aware as they well were of the part played by BIS in this, could do little about it.

.....

By the late 1930s the BIS had assumed an openly pro-Nazi bias - much of it disclosed by Charles Higham in his book Trading With the Enemy, and years later corroborated by a BBC Timewatch film Banking With Hitler, broadcast in late 1998. Two examples of such bias (there were many more) were: (1) The BIS had arranged transfers into the account of the Germany’s Reichbank of $378 million of what was, in effect, gold looted from the coffers of the invaded countries of Austria, Czechoslovakia, Holland and Belgium; and (2) in the summer of 1942, plans for the projected American invasion of Algeria were leaked to the governor of the French National Bank, who immediately contacted his German colleague in the BIS, SS Gruppenfuehrer Baron Kurt von Schroder (of the Stein Bank of Cologne), and by transferring 9 billion gold francs to Algiers - via the BIS - the Germans and their French subsidiaries made a killing of some $175 million in this dollar-exchange scam.

George Orwell a propagandist? Haw haw.

Err, what's the topic again?

WhiteWashMan

well, i just had to write to the esteemed niall o dowd the author of that article and ask him if he would care to visit the boards and enlighten us as to the nature of his piece.
howefully we will get a response


oh, and sand, stop talking shíte will you.
cheers

Sand

Whitewash:

Okay ill just agree with you.

Tools

This is going far off topic- Ive posted my reply to this by opening a new thread. Please take it up from there.

WhiteWashMan

good lad