Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: John Fields on 14 Jan 2007 14:36 On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 13:04:58 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >John Fields wrote: > >snip <dumb donkey's stupidity> > >> If you do, then your deliberate omission of any reference to the >> UK's role in starting the trouble in Iran shows you up for the >> stinking liar that you really are. >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax >> >> gives a pretty clear picture of what happened, with BP's greed being >> the fuse. >> --- > >I think they did the right thing. Don't take away someone's >property without fair compensation. Without Anglo's money >and skills, Iran would have remained as primitive as it >had always been and likely still would be. Iran's greed is >what ignited the fuse. --- Exactly what I expected, denial. Fact is, you were cheating, keeping Iran's royalties lower than they should have been, which fomented the whole thing in the first place. Had you not been why would you have refused the audit and eventually shut the whole operation down? To avoid an international scandal, that's why. And then, in order to try to get it back you get us involved in your own personal squabbles, like you always do and then we're stupid enough to fall for it and help you out. -- JF
From: John Fields on 14 Jan 2007 14:42 On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 19:20:06 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >unsettled wrote: > >> John Fields wrote: >> >> snip <dumb donkey's stupidity> >> >> > If you do, then your deliberate omission of any reference to the >> > UK's role in starting the trouble in Iran shows you up for the >> > stinking liar that you really are. >> > >> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax >> > >> > gives a pretty clear picture of what happened, with BP's greed being >> > the fuse. >> >> I think they did the right thing. Don't take away someone's >> property without fair compensation. Without Anglo's money >> and skills, Iran would have remained as primitive as it >> had always been and likely still would be. Iran's greed is >> what ignited the fuse. > >And US oil companies got a nice reward out of it too. --- What, you think we're going to do it all for free? The business of America is business dumbass, and at least now the books are being kept properly. I think we let you back in there too, didn't we? -- JF
From: Michael A. Terrell on 14 Jan 2007 14:46 Ken Smith wrote: > > In article <45A96EEA.690D405F(a)earthlink.net>, > Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >Ken Smith wrote: > >> > >> I worry more about the poor state of education. Someone in the airforce > >> may get hungry and push the button he things says "lunch" > > > > > > Then its a really good thing that you aren't in the Air Force. > > You would never get me to sign up for such duty. I know my limitations. It must painful to admit that you're not good enough. -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida
From: unsettled on 14 Jan 2007 15:31 John Fields wrote: > On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 13:04:58 -0600, unsettled > <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > > >>John Fields wrote: >> >>snip <dumb donkey's stupidity> >> >>>If you do, then your deliberate omission of any reference to the >>>UK's role in starting the trouble in Iran shows you up for the >>>stinking liar that you really are. >>> >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax >>> >>>gives a pretty clear picture of what happened, with BP's greed being >>>the fuse. >>>--- >> >>I think they did the right thing. Don't take away someone's >>property without fair compensation. Without Anglo's money >>and skills, Iran would have remained as primitive as it >>had always been and likely still would be. Iran's greed is >>what ignited the fuse. > > > --- > Exactly what I expected, denial. You better look up the meaning of the word since you're misusing it. I disagree with your reasoning without denying what happened. > Fact is, you were cheating, keeping Iran's royalties lower than they > should have been, which fomented the whole thing in the first place. > Had you not been why would you have refused the audit and eventually > shut the whole operation down? To avoid an international scandal, > that's why. First of all, I am in the US and I had nothing, personally, to do with any of this. Who are you to say what Iran's royalties should have been? Were you party to the negotiations and contracts? Do you have any resources showing what those contracts said, let along what time period they covered? Do you have any way to compare the terms and conditions to any of the other similar arrangements made by western investment with other oil producing nations? You're pissing into the wind. Remember, Iran had no capital to invest and invested nothing in the exploration and development, so they legitimately had rights only t the smaller slice. They were never at risk for an of the work leading to oil production, and even then, transport to users required further investment, development, and risk. There is no legitimate excuse ever for nationalizing an entire oil production industry without fair compensation to the people who developed and installed it. Even assuming the Brits were cheating Iran, to take without compensation is not an acceptable solution. We did the right thing. > And then, in order to try to get it back you get us involved in your > own personal squabbles, like you always do and then we're stupid > enough to fall for it and help you out. The US was only party from the standpoint that shutting off the Iranian spigot drives world prices up, and perhaps a great deal of investment by US citizens in Anglo. The Soviet border was a convenience that tipped the balance in favor of US involvement. We did what was best for the US. You don't like that, it is historical fact, so tough. Iranian greed was the trigger.
From: Phil Carmody on 14 Jan 2007 15:46
MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> writes: > On 14 Jan 2007 12:44:47 +0200, Phil Carmody > <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> Gave us: > > >MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> writes: > >> On 13 Jan 2007 22:32:46 +0200, Phil Carmody > >> <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> Gave us: > >> > >> >Hmmm, can't find that story. I can find this one though: > >> ><<< > >> >Chargers LB shot by off-duty officer > >> > >> > >> What part of FORMER NFL player do you not understand? > > > >It's quite alright if you can't find the reference to back up > >your claim. It appears you have a reputation for that here already > >and thus no further tarnishing has taken place. > > It wasn't Foley, dumbass! Where, show the exact line, do I claim that it was Foley. > They blew the guy away. Are you sure your reading skills are up to > snuff to be in Usenet? Perfectly. We see that yours aren't though. Apparently you can't even comprehend the difference between the demonstrative pronouns "this" and "that". That's a pretty poor reading level you're demonstrating. > I made it clear in my first post about it. Paraphrased to "cops shot an ex footballer". Call that "clear"? Not as clear as the space between your ears. Phil -- "Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of /In God We Trust, Inc./. |