Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I clearly meant land border. Apply common sense. The original poster meant they were surrounded by Arab nations, and that simply is not true. They share a single land border with an Arab nation.
True, they are not surrounded by Arabs, and they are not Arabs themselves.
Fully understand the history leading to the Iranian revolution. That doesn't change the fact that you mistakenly tried to claim that the U.S. was exploiting Iranian petroleum when that was done by the U.K. Even now, you are saying that the U.S. didn't take an active role in intervening in Iran until after the nationalization of the petroleum industry.
I am not denying U.S. involvement in internal Iranian politics. That is documented. The only role the U.S. played with regard to Iranian petroleum began in 1954 following the nationalization of the petroleum industry. As a condition for restoring the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, in 1954 the U.S. required removal of the AIOC's monopoly; five American petroleum companies, Royal Dutch Shell, and the Compagnie Française des Pétroles, were to draw Iran's petroleum after the successful coup d'état—Operation Ajax. The Shah declared this to be a "victory" for Iranians, with the massive influx of money from this agreement resolving the economic collapse from the last three years, and allowing him to carry out his planned modernization projects.]
The phrase "massive influx of money" would be a key indicator that the five U.S. companies, Royal Dutch Shell, and Compagnie Française des Pétroles were not exploiting the Iranian petroleum reserves as the money was returning to the Iranian economy.
Are you kidding me? The Shah was a puppet and dictator supported by the US, what he said was irrelevant. The Iranian parliament had overwhelmingly supported the nationalization of the Iranian oil industry. Thus the whole boycotts that followed were wrong and immoral to begin with, just like those these days as they are based on mere accusations without proof.
If you have to choose between war, and some other option, most people choose the other option and use war as the very last resort. There is a good chance this deal will not work, but if the only other option is war, then maybe it is worth the try.
They share borders with Saudi Arabia, and other arab countries on the other side of the gulf, some of which are openly hostile towards Iran. Maybe you meant land-border.
so to be clear you claim the border they share is on the other side of the gulf not a land border
Not really. So what if they don't keep the agreement? What do you wanna do about it? Go to war?
Again as you've been told earlier...they're not threat to us with or without a nuke.
They have no answers. Surely, they didn't want to go to war with Syria; NOW they want to go to war with Iran? Please. Give peace a chance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ace Rothstein
Are you able to walk out your door without wetting yourself?
Thank you for that chuckle. Conservatives do get their panties in a wad quite easily. I guess they really don't want peace in our time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by katygirl68
A very good reading of this Iranian deal from Charles Krauthammer. I know some will dismiss it because it's from him, but read it because it's not just him saying these things. Our economic sanctions were really having an effect on Iran's economy, but just at the point where we had the most leverage, we lifted the sanctions.
“We haven’t seen anything like this in modern presidential history,” said Klein. “One person who is the best friend of the First Lady and the soulmate of the President, who is the last person to leave the Oval Office after a meeting, goes upstairs to the family quarters, has dinner with the President. Goes on vacation with them. Has his ear. Is de facto president of the United States.”
“Wow, that’s big,” said Doocy. “Well, let’s talk about her resume. Does she have the resume to have this job?”
No, she doesn’t,” replied Klein. “But what she does have is the trust of Michelle Obama, number one, whom she hired in Chicago, and the President, who uses her as his gatekeeper.”
I was born in Germany to a military family. Does that make me German? Please.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Three Wolves In Snow
Oh please. For how many decades are Iran's make believe nukes going to be talked about? You actually believe Iran had nukes? You really believe that? The left is even more gullible than I thought.
The right appears to be quite in angst over Iran's nukes at the moment so point your gullible finger at them please.
They share borders with Saudi Arabia, and other arab countries on the other side of the gulf, some of which are openly hostile towards Iran. Maybe you meant land-border.
In the illustration, you can clearly see that Iran is the only Arab nation that shares a land border with Iran. True, several nations share an ocean border with Iran, but that is like saying the U.S. is "surrounded." Please tell me, of the nations that share a sea border, how much of a threat is posed by Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE, and Oman? In actuality, even when the sea borders are taken into consideration, Iran shares a western border with Arab nations that could pose any credible threat. Hardly surrounded as initially claimed.
so to be clear you claim the border they share is on the other side of the gulf not a land border
No, necessarily on the other side of the gulf. Water borders and territorial water claims are typically not on one side other other, but closer to the middle. The persial gulf is very narrow at spots like the straits of Hormuz, and Iran has played their games around that area.
In the illustration, you can clearly see that Iran is the only Arab nation that shares a land border with Iran. True, several nations share an ocean border with Iran, but that is like saying the U.S. is "surrounded." Please tell me, of the nations that share a sea border, how much of a threat is posed by Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE, and Oman? In actuality, even when the sea borders are taken into consideration, Iran shares a western border with Arab nations that could pose any credible threat. Hardly surrounded as initially claimed.
For the third and final time, why do you think I said "maybe you meant land border". Next time just say land-border, if you mean land-border. I never said they are surrounded, I specifically said they are NOT surrounded by Arab nations.
Are you kidding me? The Shah was a puppet and dictator supported by the US, what he said was irrelevant. The Iranian parliament had overwhelmingly supported the nationalization of the Iranian oil industry. Thus the whole boycotts that followed were wrong and immoral to begin with, just like those these days as they are based on mere accusations without proof.
As I said, yes, it is documented the Shah was a puppet. You are selectively ignoring the more important facts. Yes, the Majlis nationalized the Iranian oil industry, however, there was no Iranian expertise to maintain production levels. When Iran nationalized the industry, the British placed an embargo on Iranian oil, and pulled their technical workers out. Iran lacked the ability to produce oil themselves. Following the Coup, the U.S. agreed to assist through five U.S. companies, Shell, and a French company. The resulting profits from the expanded production went directly back into the Iranian economy ending the three year retraction resulting from the British embargo. How is this "stealing Iranian oil" as you initially alleged?
Last edited by TXStrat; 11-25-2013 at 09:02 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.