I'm curious, FD. You're now defending an Iranian dictatorship that used mass torture and death squads to hold power. It was backed, trained and supplied with arms by Uncle, who actively facilitated the removal of a democracy and the installation of a dictatorship. There's no spin in this, it's all on the public record. The CIA acknowledge it.

When we point out your support of this in future, will you tell us you've forgotten? Will you ask us to quote you?

Or will you change the subject and ask more questions?

Quote:


As is the US fighting tooth and nail against democracy in Iraq, apparently. Do you realise how difficult you make it to take you seriously Karnal?

Quote:


It was not a breakdown in negotiations Gandalf. The negotiations had been settled long before.

Quote:


Funny, I did not find a single question from you to Soren about whether the 50-50 split counted as something in return. Every question you asked about it was about whether it was reasonble and why didn't the oil company even sit down for negotiations. I am not asking you a different question. I am asking you the exact same one. Here it is for you, word for word:

In the case of Iran, do you think offering 50% of the oil profits to Britain was a fair proposal?

freediver wrote on Feb 10^th, 2016 at 6:14pm:


Excellent point FD - Britain did indeed "settle" negotiations by deciding from the very beginning they were going to overthrow the democratic government.

freediver wrote on Feb 10^th, 2016 at 6:14pm:


Well was it? It was in line with previous nationalisation deals, and seemed to be backed by the US. It could have been the starting point of negotiations - negotiations which only one side was willing to partake in.

More to the point though, was it so unreasonable that it justified the overthrow of democracy and the installation of decades of brutal dictatorship? I can't emphasise too many times that it was Britain who decided from the very beginning that they weren't going to negotiate, and that overthrow was plan A from the outset.

Let's try again. How did Uncle establish democracy in Iraq?

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 9:27am:


If we make an agreement with Muslims that involves putting up all the money upfront, should we expect them to take the investment then renegotiate the terms in their favour?

Is this your socialism speaking, or is this something to do with the way Muslims do business?

freediver wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 1:19pm:


Oh the poor victimised British oil company 

The AIOC (British oil company) forced an "agreement" with the Iranians that basically allowed them to pillage the Iranian people. And I say "forced" because thats the reality of the power relationship between the two: Britain was a domineering imperialist who had the military and economic might to basically do whatever they wanted with Iran's wealth. So this notion of an "agreement" is a complete joke - and the reality is, the Iranian people fought against it from the very outset. The British reacted to this in their usual manner: overthrowing regimes and threatening invasions. Thus a wave of grassroots democratic resistance to British imperialism was inevitable, culminating in the election of the nationalist Mosadegue and his pledge to retake Iran's rightful sovereign wealth.

You also don't have a leg to stand on running with the treaty violation line. As K has already posted, the British flagrantly violated their side of the agreement:

Quote:


So to summarise, we have...

1. an aggressive imperialist swoops in and forces the far weaker Iranians to basically give up their natural wealth - under clear threat from the greatest economic and military power on earth.
2. Britain flagrantly violates their side of the agreement - namely to improve the conditions of their local workers and build up local infrastructure. Britain reacts to any protest by overthrowing regimes and threatening invasion, and actually invading
3. Inevitably nationalism builds up in response to this bullying, and culminates in the election of a nationalist government that promises to reclaim Iran's rightful wealth
4. Britain response in usual fashion by overthrowing the nationalist government and installing a dictatorship - all the while completely ignoring all attempts by that government to negotiate a more reasonable agreement.

It was naked exploitation, greed and aggression by Britain from start to finish. This is what you spinelessly apologise for, and you grasp at straws desperately seeking a way to blame the victims of naked imperialistic bullying.

Quote:


Pillage eh? Sounds a bit like Muhammed don't you think? Could this be a bit of an exaggeration?