From: Lloyd Parker on 15 Jan 2007 09:00 In article <24e3d$45aa7edb$4fe76e9$22623(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, 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. > > > Why don't you argue that western oil companies took Iran's wealth in the first place?
From: T Wake on 15 Jan 2007 14:13 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:45742$45abaef6$49ecfc6$17826(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >T Wake wrote: > >> "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >> news:4b2bb$45aa932c$4fe76e9$25519(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >> <snip> >> >>>We did what was best for the US. You don't like that, it is >>>historical fact, so tough. Iranian greed was the trigger. >> >> >> While, with the benefit of hindsight it seems the 1953 operation was >> misguided, I do actually agree with you here. >> >> The UK and US acted in their national best interests at the time. The >> fact it _may_ have been linked to the subsequent events of 1979 isn't the >> issue. It *could* be argued that a better solution would have been >> establishing an equitable deal with the Iranians (it is "their" oil etc), >> and that this may have prevented the Iranian revolution from ever >> happening - but we will never know for sure. > > The French provided a strings free haven for Ayatollah > Khomeini and allowed him to pursue anti-western international > intrigue for decades. Had today's standards been applied > that should not have been permitted. If we (the USA) were > caught by surprise at his return to power then we did a > lousy job that we're still paying for. Unfortunately I > believe that's the case. > >> As an aside, this is why I tend to think trying to argue over the pros >> and cons of things which happened decades ago is always going to be >> flawed. > > But we do need to look at these things, hopefully not to > repeat them. I agree. It does strike me, sometimes, that people who do study these historical events seem equally doomed to repeating the mistakes as those who don't. It is possible to find an analogy for current events at pretty much every decade in history and each analogy will give a different interpretation of how to handle the modern day equivalent. To a large extent, with using historical parables, you can pretty much have anything you want. Human interactions are a flowing event, picking an arbitrary point in time to assess seems to me to be flawed. If you go back in time x years you can get a totally different spin on the matter and prescribe a different course of events.
From: T Wake on 15 Jan 2007 14:16 "Phil Carmody" <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:87bql0w2xf.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org... > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> writes: >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >> > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >>From what I see, most people are suggesting the extremists be ignored & >> >>marginalised and the terrorists be treated as criminals. >> > >> > How can you marginalize a billion people? >> >> What on Earth makes you think there are a billion extremists? >> >> The extremists are a minority (otherwise they aren't called >> "extremists"). >> >> Your line of "reasoning" is shockingly bad. When the IRA were killing >> protestants, did it mean _all_ Catholics supported it? > > And if you consider where large proportions of IRA funding came from, > there would be 250 million guilty Americans too using BAH's, oh god > I hate to use this word in this context, logic. It is ok. It is rare to get BAH and logic in the same sentence (without lots of negative words like "no" being attached..), so this should be relished :-)
From: unsettled on 15 Jan 2007 14:21 T Wake wrote: > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > news:bb4c$45abb155$49ecfc6$17870(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > >>T Wake wrote: >> >> >>>"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >>>news:2c02e$45aba54a$49ecfc6$17552(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>> >>> >>>>T Wake wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>>news:eofssu$8u0_004(a)s960.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>In article <eodof8$gus$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>>>>>kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>In article <eodeen$8qk_004(a)s849.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>>>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>>>>>[....] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Anybody who insists that the extremists are criminals. To treat >>>>>>>>their actions as criminal, you must arrest and put them on trial. >>>>>>>>This implies that the arresting officiers have jurisdiction wherever >>>>>>>>and whenever these extremists reside. This approach requires a >>>>>>>>global police force that is not answerable to any single nation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>No, you have it wrong. You don't need a global police force to do it. >>>>>>>Criminals who have crossed borders are dealt with all the time. If >>>>>>>someone commits a murder in the US and then runs to England, he is not >>>>>>>safe. This is how it would be for the terrorists if they were called >>>>>>>the >>>>>>>criminals they are. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>When you call it a "war" you make them soldiers. When they are >>>>>>>soldiers >>>>>>>in a cause against you the other governments can't arrest them. When >>>>>>>you >>>>>>>stop calling it "war" and start calling it "crime", other governments >>>>>>>can >>>>>>>arrest them. This is part of why calling it a war is such an awful >>>>>>>idea. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>But nobody was arresting them, especially in Europe. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Yes they were. Terrorists have been getting arrested (or shot if they go >>>>>to Gibraltar) in Europe for decades. There are more terrorist >>>>>organisations than the Al Qaeda bogey monster you know. >>>>> >>>>>Currently, if as you say the fight against terrorism is a "war" then >>>>>there is no requirement for _any_ nation to arrest terrorists. Nations >>>>>not explicitly allied to the US should actively _not_ impede the passage >>>>>of the Terrorist Soldiers. >>>> >>>>Wrong. Any military force crossing neutral territory must have >>>>permission from that country to transit, otherwise they are >>>>violating that country's neutrality and territory. Check out >>>>German ships entering neutral ports during WW2. >>> >>> >>>Only if the countries are declared "neutral." I said not allied to the >>>US. If the country does not recognise the declaration of war then it is >>>not treated as "neutral" under the Geneva accords (which were written in >>>1948 following the problems of WW2). >> >>In that case they fall under the laws regarding immigration and >>weapons controls along with whatever "conspiracy to commit" >>laws are on the books in the host country, "soldiers" or not. > > > Probably true and a better example than the one I gave. Sorry. However, this > reinforces the fact that it is criminal law which will deal with the > terrorists better than military action. Noriega.
From: Lloyd Parker on 15 Jan 2007 09:02
In article <4b2bb$45aa932c$4fe76e9$25519(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >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. Did the oil companies pay fair compensation for all the oil they removed from Iran? >Even assuming the Brits were >cheating Iran, to take without compensation is not an acceptable >solution. We did the right thing. > If you rent a house for years, you have no right to demand to be compensated when the owner sells it, do you? And if you put up things like a shed, you're out of luck. >> 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. > > |