lol of course I am FD - you're definitely not desperately scrounging for a way to apologise for the British overthrow of a parliamentary democracy are you? Wherever did I get such a crazy idea?

Do you find anything objectionable to Soren's "oppress the bastards" arguments? Have you noticed it?

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 7^th, 2016 at 4:53pm:


So this greater truth justifies all the little lies you are telling?

Karnal wrote on Feb 7^th, 2016 at 3:44pm:



A contract is a contract. 

Under the 1933 agreement with Reza Shah, AIOC had promised to give laborers better pay and more chance for advancement, build schools, hospitals, roads and telephone system. It had not done so.[11]

In August 1941, the Allied powers Britain and the Soviet Union invaded and occupied Iran, subsequently forcing Reza Shah to abdicate in favor of his son (see also Persian Corridor) whom they considered far more friendly to their interests.

Following World War II, nationalistic sentiments were on the rise in the Middle East; most notable being Iranian nationalism. AIOC and the pro western Iranian government led by Prime Minister Ali Razmara initially resisted nationalist pressure to revise AIOC's concession terms still further in Iran's favour. In May 1949, Britain offered a "Supplemental oil agreement" to appease unrest in the country. The agreement guaranteed royalty payments would not drop below £4 million, reduced the area in which it would be allowed to drill, and promised more Iranians would be trained for administrative positions. The agreement, however, gave Iran neither a "greater voice in company's management", nor the right to audit the company books. In addition, Iranian royalties from oil were not expected to ever drop to the proposed guarantee of £4 million and the reduced area covered all of the productive oilfields. When the Iranian Prime Minister tried to argue with AIOC head Sir William Fraser, Fraser "dismissed him" and flew back to the UK.[12]

In late December 1950 word reached Tehran that the American-owned Arabian American Oil Company had agreed to share profits with Saudis on a 50-50 basis. The UK Foreign Office rejected the idea of any similar agreement for AIOC.[13]

...

By 1951 Iranian support for nationalisation of the AIOC was intense. Grievances included the small fraction of revenues Iran received. In 1947, for example, AIOC reported after-tax profits of £40 million ($112 million), but the contractual agreement entitled Iran to just £7 million or 17.5% of profits from Iranian oil.[11] Britain was receiving more from AIOC than Iran.[16] In addition, conditions for Iranian oil workers and their families were very bad. The director of Iran's Petroleum Institute wrote that

Wages were 50 cents a day. There was no vacation pay, no sick leave, no disability compensation. The workers lived in a shanty town called Kaghazabad, or Paper City, without running water or electricity, ... In winter the earth flooded and became a flat, perspiring lake. The mud in town was knee-deep, and ... when the rains subsided, clouds of nipping, small-winged flies rose from the stagnant water to fill the nostrils ....

Summer was worse. ... The heat was torrid ... sticky and unrelenting—while the wind and sandstorms shipped off the desert hot as a blower. The dwellings of Kaghazabad, cobbled from rusted oil drums hammered flat, turned into sweltering ovens. ... In every crevice hung the foul, sulfurous stench of burning oil .... in Kaghazad there was nothing—not a tea shop, not a bath, not a single tree. The tiled reflecting pool and shaded central square that were part of every Iranian town, ... were missing here. The unpaved alleyways were emporiums for rats.[17]

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 7^th, 2016 at 4:53pm:


So this greater truth justifies all the little lies you are telling?

freediver wrote on Feb 7^th, 2016 at 7:29pm:


What is the lie FD? - that you go out of your way to apologise and excuse Britain and the US overthrowing democracy in the muslim world? Say it FD, I'd love so much to hear  you come out and say what a big porky that is.

How about you start by saying what a criminal and unjust act the overthrow of the Iranian parliamentary democracy was by British intelligence agents - you know like someone who defends freedom and democracy would. Then who knows, maybe we can even get on to speaking out against Soren's "oppress the bastards" attitude towards the muslim world.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 8^th, 2016 at 5:35pm:


The lie was that I said what you claimed I said.

Tell me Gandalf, if you negotiated a business agreement where you fronted all the initial investment, and took 84% of the profits,  would you consider it reasonable to enter into negotiations to accept only 50% once you had sunk that investment? What if you were acting on behalf of shareholders that you had a legal duty towards?

Does the answer depend on whether the other party are Muslims?