The failure of the banks is legendary and legislation was always in place to bail their sorry arse out if they went bankrupt. When we questioned this policy, we were told there was no other option.
you didn't fuking question anything, in fact you were the one defending the banks on here when everyone was quite rightly outraged and their behaviour and telling US (in your usual pompous style) that there was other option; and there's plenty of people who were here at the time who can vouch for that. Of course though, you then kept a low profile for long enough for the habitual users of this board to change and now can come back and pretend you're a whole different person. You did the same a few months ago with your call to back Assad as the lesser of two evils (which I agree with, incidentally) and denouncing the failings of the campaigns in Iraq and Libya when in the past you were one of the staunchiest supporters of the war in Iraq and toppling Saddam.
I see many good points in leaving the EU, but what I can't stand is right wing cunts, all the way from boris johnson to you pretending they aren't to suit their needs and drag people to their side.
To address your concerns, I didn't defend the banks on a bailout. I defended them on their own decision to operate as they saw fit. There is a fundamental difference.
I believe banks are free to operate (still do), but they are also free to fail (always have). In doing so, should there be protection from bankruptcy? Well, seemingly, yes and that includes a bailout, EU legislation guaranteed just that. However, if you want to operate in a 'fully free market environment', then you have to accept the consequences - including liquidation. Banks are no exception. If banks want to exploit low interest rates and loan money on easy conditions, they have to be prepared to take all the consequences. I argued, and still do, that the banks had the right to lend in the way they did, providing they were prepared. There is a difference: you have to have the reserves. It's a high risk business and you accept the condition of failure without running to the government for a handout. As for borrowers, there must also be the realisation that they are responsible for their own decisions. I'm not sure what part of all this you didn't/don't understand.
I still stand by the removal of Saddam. What I don't agree with is the conduct thereafter. What I don't agree with is the loss of control and direction in Iraq, because no corresponding strong authority was put in place. What I don't agree with is the half-arsed attempt to 'move forward' without proper infrastructure in place. You need to finish what you start. Again, there is a fundamental difference.
The lack of long-term vision and planning is the problem - not Saddam's removal. However, the real regional threat, as I have stated many times on this board, is actually Saudi Arabia - supposedly our ally. Democracy is a better idea than dictatorship. Yes. However, a secular dictatorship is preferable to an Islamic 'dictatorship' or 'caliphate'. As for Assad, I'd take him over Saddam or Gaddafi. He was never in the same league. Perhaps what you misunderstand is my criticism for lack of constructive, long-term Western foreign policy over criticism of its basic decisions. Syria will end up in the shite if there is no long-term plan in operation, and there clearly isn't. Best to keep Assad than have the place fall to ISIS.
You can continue to misrepresent what people whom you don't like say and stoop to your amusing, predictable behaviour of name-calling, or you can choose to engage in proper discussion like many others on this board do.
You did much the same thing with ldopas' previous post in this very thread, but, as usual, failed to respond to his comments on the matter.
