Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I have no idea what you are talking about (and evidently neither do you) but it's clear you just don't want to discuss the subject of this thread. BTW, there is little anyone can do when some despotic gov't decides to steal assets at gunpoint from the rightful owners.
(see: Nationalization of oil supplies - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia)
Iran
Since its beginning, Iran's oil industry has experienced expansion and contraction. Rapid growth at the time of World War I declined soon after the start of World War II. Recovery began in 1943 with the reopening of supply routes to the United Kingdom. The oil was produced by what became the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, but political difficulties arose with the Iranian government in the postwar period.[11]
Iran sought to rid itself of British political influence and the exploitation by AIOC. Negotiations between Anglo-Iranian Oil Company and the government failed and in 1951 the oil industry was nationalized. As a result of Britain's boycott and the Abadan Crisis, Iranian production dropped to virtually zero. On British initiative the CIA overthrew Prime Minister of Iran Mosaddegh in Operation Ajax. Formally the nationalization remained effective, but in practice a consortium of oil companies was allowed in under a by then standard 50/50 profit-sharing deal.
The whole process had left the British a major share in what had been their single most valuable foreign asset. It had stopped the democratic transition in Iran however, leaving its mark for decades to come. The coup is widely believed to have significantly contributed to the 1979 Iranian Revolution after which the oil industry would be nationalized again.
Iraq
The properties of the majors were nationalized totally in Iraq, in 1972.[12] Worldwide oil shortages major oil supplies in the 1970s forced major oil suppliers to look elsewhere for ways to acquire the resource. Under these circumstances, NOCs often came forward as alternative suppliers of oil.[12] Nationalization of the Iraq Petroleum Company (IPC) in 1972 after years of rancor, together with restrictions on oil liftings by all but one of the IPC's former partners, put Iraq at the forefront of direct marketing.[12] Iraq's oil production suffered major damage in the aftermath of the Gulf War. In spite of United Nations sanctions, has been rebuilding war-damaged oil facilities and export terminals.[11] Iraq plans to increase its oil productive capacity to 4 Mbbl/d (640,000 m3/d) in 2000 and 6 Mbbl/d (950,000 m3/d) in 2010.[11]
But, I do know. And so do you.
What your source exposes that in neither seizure of private property (Iran-1951 & Iraq-1972) were the owners compensated. Imagine for a moment that you had been a shareholder in one of the aggrieved corporations. Suddenly your retirement plan was pilfered by people who cared nothing for your loss and you had no recourse. In addition to stealing private property (without compensation)Castro felt compelled to establish the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution. Local CDRs (informants) were tasked with keeping "vigilance against counter-revolutionary activity", keeping a detailed record of each neighborhood’s inhabitants' spending habits, level of contact with foreigners, work and education history, and any "suspicious" behavior. Homosexuals were considered subversives regardless of their productivity or embrace of the revolution. Such is the nature of socialism ... it must be installed and enforced by repressing human rights and it only survives as long as it has OPC (other peeps cash) to support it.
What my source states is that both nation states moved toward nationalization after having been exploited. Imagine for a moment that the owners ripped you off on a repeated basis and then made it a point to control your housing, government, education, etc. They did everything in their power to make sure that you could not make ends meet while they played a larger political game. Suddenly your entire country was hijacked and you had a puppet leader that was obedient to that larger political power.
The countries in question had the option of doing the right thing ... paying for what they stole. They conveniently CHOSE instead to steal it.
I hate it when the British do that shit, amiright? And then with the backing of the US, amiright?
Welcome to politics 2014............................Curious why you point out one person in the ocean of corruption..............The last bill Congress read was written by CitiGroup (Bank) if I remember right.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Might explain why Obama was so desperate to sign the bill..
(you do know the Presidents limitations on bills correct?????????)
Obama is the current sitting President..
And Obama has changed those rules..
^Not a very smart post............
He changed NOTHING. This corruption has been happening for years. It just took a Black President for many of you to pay attention...
Obama is the current sitting president, guess you will have to deal with that. Especially given the original post I quoted.
"The last bill Congress read was written by CitiGroup (Bank) if I remember right....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................."
Thus proving that you are making accusation not connected to reality..
On the other hand I pointed out that it would explain why Obama was chomping at the bit to sign the bill..
Thus proving that race baiting comments from the likes of you continue to run the narrative that the far left loves to push..
Welcome to politics 2014............................Curious why you point out one person in the ocean of corruption..............Might explain why Obama was so desperate to sign the bill..
(you do know the Presidents limitations on bills correct?????????)
Obama is the current sitting President..
And Obama has changed those rules..
^Not a very smart post............
He changed NOTHING. This corruption has been happening for years. It just took a Black President for many of you to pay attention...
Obama is the current sitting president, guess you will have to deal with that. Especially given the original post I quoted.
"The last bill Congress read was written by CitiGroup (Bank) if I remember right....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................."
Thus proving that you are making accusation not connected to reality..
On the other hand I pointed out that it would explain why Obama was chomping at the bit to sign the bill..
Thus proving that race baiting comments from the likes of you continue to run the narrative that the far left loves to push..
^
Iran
Since its beginning, Iran's oil industry has experienced expansion and contraction. Rapid growth at the time of World War I declined soon after the start of World War II. Recovery began in 1943 with the reopening of supply routes to the United Kingdom. The oil was produced by what became the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, but political difficulties arose with the Iranian government in the postwar period.[11]
Iran sought to rid itself of British political influence and the exploitation by AIOC. Negotiations between Anglo-Iranian Oil Company and the government failed and in 1951 the oil industry was nationalized. As a result of Britain's boycott and the Abadan Crisis, Iranian production dropped to virtually zero. On British initiative the CIA overthrew Prime Minister of Iran Mosaddegh in Operation Ajax. Formally the nationalization remained effective, but in practice a consortium of oil companies was allowed in under a by then standard 50/50 profit-sharing deal.
The whole process had left the British a major share in what had been their single most valuable foreign asset. It had stopped the democratic transition in Iran however, leaving its mark for decades to come. The coup is widely believed to have significantly contributed to the 1979 Iranian Revolution after which the oil industry would be nationalized again.
Iraq
The properties of the majors were nationalized totally in Iraq, in 1972.[12] Worldwide oil shortages major oil supplies in the 1970s forced major oil suppliers to look elsewhere for ways to acquire the resource. Under these circumstances, NOCs often came forward as alternative suppliers of oil.[12] Nationalization of the Iraq Petroleum Company (IPC) in 1972 after years of rancor, together with restrictions on oil liftings by all but one of the IPC's former partners, put Iraq at the forefront of direct marketing.[12] Iraq's oil production suffered major damage in the aftermath of the Gulf War. In spite of United Nations sanctions, has been rebuilding war-damaged oil facilities and export terminals.[11] Iraq plans to increase its oil productive capacity to 4 Mbbl/d (640,000 m3/d) in 2000 and 6 Mbbl/d (950,000 m3/d) in 2010.[11]
But, I do know. And so do you.
What your source exposes that in neither seizure of private property (Iran-1951 & Iraq-1972) were the owners compensated. Imagine for a moment that you had been a shareholder in one of the aggrieved corporations. Suddenly your retirement plan was pilfered by people who cared nothing for your loss and you had no recourse. In addition to stealing private property (without compensation)Castro felt compelled to establish the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution. Local CDRs (informants) were tasked with keeping "vigilance against counter-revolutionary activity", keeping a detailed record of each neighborhood’s inhabitants' spending habits, level of contact with foreigners, work and education history, and any "suspicious" behavior. Homosexuals were considered subversives regardless of their productivity or embrace of the revolution. Such is the nature of socialism ... it must be installed and enforced by repressing human rights and it only survives as long as it has OPC (other peeps cash) to support it.
What my source states is that both nation states moved toward nationalization after having been exploited. Imagine for a moment that the owners ripped you off on a repeated basis and then made it a point to control your housing, government, education, etc. They did everything in their power to make sure that you could not make ends meet while they played a larger political game. Suddenly your entire country was hijacked and you had a puppet leader that was obedient to that larger political power.
The countries in question had the option of doing the right thing ... paying for what they stole. They conveniently CHOSE instead to steal it.
I hate it when the British do that shit, amiright? And then with the backing of the US, amiright?
See the far left narrative continues as it is not based on reality..
Welcome to politics 2014............................Curious why you point out one person in the ocean of corruption..............
(you do know the Presidents limitations on bills correct?????????)
Obama is the current sitting President..
And Obama has changed those rules..
^Not a very smart post............
He changed NOTHING. This corruption has been happening for years. It just took a Black President for many of you to pay attention...
Obama is the current sitting president, guess you will have to deal with that. Especially given the original post I quoted.
"The last bill Congress read was written by CitiGroup (Bank) if I remember right....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................."
Thus proving that you are making accusation not connected to reality..
On the other hand I pointed out that it would explain why Obama was chomping at the bit to sign the bill..
Thus proving that race baiting comments from the likes of you continue to run the narrative that the far left loves to push..
^
Yes you are just showed that you are a racist..
The Right knows as much about the Left as the Left knows about the Right.....
You all post ignorant bias posts trying to make the other one completely wrong when you both believe in the same thing just different avenues.
Iran
Since its beginning, Iran's oil industry has experienced expansion and contraction. Rapid growth at the time of World War I declined soon after the start of World War II. Recovery began in 1943 with the reopening of supply routes to the United Kingdom. The oil was produced by what became the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, but political difficulties arose with the Iranian government in the postwar period.[11]
Iran sought to rid itself of British political influence and the exploitation by AIOC. Negotiations between Anglo-Iranian Oil Company and the government failed and in 1951 the oil industry was nationalized. As a result of Britain's boycott and the Abadan Crisis, Iranian production dropped to virtually zero. On British initiative the CIA overthrew Prime Minister of Iran Mosaddegh in Operation Ajax. Formally the nationalization remained effective, but in practice a consortium of oil companies was allowed in under a by then standard 50/50 profit-sharing deal.
The whole process had left the British a major share in what had been their single most valuable foreign asset. It had stopped the democratic transition in Iran however, leaving its mark for decades to come. The coup is widely believed to have significantly contributed to the 1979 Iranian Revolution after which the oil industry would be nationalized again.
Iraq
The properties of the majors were nationalized totally in Iraq, in 1972.[12] Worldwide oil shortages major oil supplies in the 1970s forced major oil suppliers to look elsewhere for ways to acquire the resource. Under these circumstances, NOCs often came forward as alternative suppliers of oil.[12] Nationalization of the Iraq Petroleum Company (IPC) in 1972 after years of rancor, together with restrictions on oil liftings by all but one of the IPC's former partners, put Iraq at the forefront of direct marketing.[12] Iraq's oil production suffered major damage in the aftermath of the Gulf War. In spite of United Nations sanctions, has been rebuilding war-damaged oil facilities and export terminals.[11] Iraq plans to increase its oil productive capacity to 4 Mbbl/d (640,000 m3/d) in 2000 and 6 Mbbl/d (950,000 m3/d) in 2010.[11]
But, I do know. And so do you.
What your source exposes that in neither seizure of private property (Iran-1951 & Iraq-1972) were the owners compensated. Imagine for a moment that you had been a shareholder in one of the aggrieved corporations. Suddenly your retirement plan was pilfered by people who cared nothing for your loss and you had no recourse. In addition to stealing private property (without compensation)Castro felt compelled to establish the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution. Local CDRs (informants) were tasked with keeping "vigilance against counter-revolutionary activity", keeping a detailed record of each neighborhood’s inhabitants' spending habits, level of contact with foreigners, work and education history, and any "suspicious" behavior. Homosexuals were considered subversives regardless of their productivity or embrace of the revolution. Such is the nature of socialism ... it must be installed and enforced by repressing human rights and it only survives as long as it has OPC (other peeps cash) to support it.
What my source states is that both nation states moved toward nationalization after having been exploited. Imagine for a moment that the owners ripped you off on a repeated basis and then made it a point to control your housing, government, education, etc. They did everything in their power to make sure that you could not make ends meet while they played a larger political game. Suddenly your entire country was hijacked and you had a puppet leader that was obedient to that larger political power.
The countries in question had the option of doing the right thing ... paying for what they stole. They conveniently CHOSE instead to steal it.
I hate it when the British do that shit, amiright? And then with the backing of the US, amiright?
It was a far different world, D, and Western corps found and developed those oil fields using Western technology, creating jobs for locals and economies for countries without them. It's easy for you to do your Monday morning quarterbacking but its intellectually lazy at best and dishonest at worst.
What your source exposes that in neither seizure of private property (Iran-1951 & Iraq-1972) were the owners compensated. Imagine for a moment that you had been a shareholder in one of the aggrieved corporations. Suddenly your retirement plan was pilfered by people who cared nothing for your loss and you had no recourse. In addition to stealing private property (without compensation)Castro felt compelled to establish the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution. Local CDRs (informants) were tasked with keeping "vigilance against counter-revolutionary activity", keeping a detailed record of each neighborhood’s inhabitants' spending habits, level of contact with foreigners, work and education history, and any "suspicious" behavior. Homosexuals were considered subversives regardless of their productivity or embrace of the revolution. Such is the nature of socialism ... it must be installed and enforced by repressing human rights and it only survives as long as it has OPC (other peeps cash) to support it.
What my source states is that both nation states moved toward nationalization after having been exploited. Imagine for a moment that the owners ripped you off on a repeated basis and then made it a point to control your housing, government, education, etc. They did everything in their power to make sure that you could not make ends meet while they played a larger political game. Suddenly your entire country was hijacked and you had a puppet leader that was obedient to that larger political power.
The countries in question had the option of doing the right thing ... paying for what they stole. They conveniently CHOSE instead to steal it.
I hate it when the British do that shit, amiright? And then with the backing of the US, amiright?
It was a far different world, D, and Western corps found and developed those oil fields using Western technology, creating jobs for locals and economies for countries without them. It's easy for you to do your Monday morning quarterbacking but its intellectually lazy at best and dishonest at worst.
No. It's not. The jobs were reserved for the British. It was exploitation. Capitalism and Communism look beautiful on paper but they rarely play out well.
So, if we are going to play this game of greed then lets make sure that we use the facts. You don't have to like it but those are the facts.
What your source exposes that in neither seizure of private property (Iran-1951 & Iraq-1972) were the owners compensated. Imagine for a moment that you had been a shareholder in one of the aggrieved corporations. Suddenly your retirement plan was pilfered by people who cared nothing for your loss and you had no recourse. In addition to stealing private property (without compensation)Castro felt compelled to establish the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution. Local CDRs (informants) were tasked with keeping "vigilance against counter-revolutionary activity", keeping a detailed record of each neighborhood’s inhabitants' spending habits, level of contact with foreigners, work and education history, and any "suspicious" behavior. Homosexuals were considered subversives regardless of their productivity or embrace of the revolution. Such is the nature of socialism ... it must be installed and enforced by repressing human rights and it only survives as long as it has OPC (other peeps cash) to support it.
What my source states is that both nation states moved toward nationalization after having been exploited. Imagine for a moment that the owners ripped you off on a repeated basis and then made it a point to control your housing, government, education, etc. They did everything in their power to make sure that you could not make ends meet while they played a larger political game. Suddenly your entire country was hijacked and you had a puppet leader that was obedient to that larger political power.
The countries in question had the option of doing the right thing ... paying for what they stole. They conveniently CHOSE instead to steal it.
I hate it when the British do that shit, amiright? And then with the backing of the US, amiright?
See the far left narrative continues as it is not based on reality..
It is reality.
What your source exposes that in neither seizure of private property (Iran-1951 & Iraq-1972) were the owners compensated. Imagine for a moment that you had been a shareholder in one of the aggrieved corporations. Suddenly your retirement plan was pilfered by people who cared nothing for your loss and you had no recourse. In addition to stealing private property (without compensation)Castro felt compelled to establish the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution. Local CDRs (informants) were tasked with keeping "vigilance against counter-revolutionary activity", keeping a detailed record of each neighborhood’s inhabitants' spending habits, level of contact with foreigners, work and education history, and any "suspicious" behavior. Homosexuals were considered subversives regardless of their productivity or embrace of the revolution. Such is the nature of socialism ... it must be installed and enforced by repressing human rights and it only survives as long as it has OPC (other peeps cash) to support it.
What my source states is that both nation states moved toward nationalization after having been exploited. Imagine for a moment that the owners ripped you off on a repeated basis and then made it a point to control your housing, government, education, etc. They did everything in their power to make sure that you could not make ends meet while they played a larger political game. Suddenly your entire country was hijacked and you had a puppet leader that was obedient to that larger political power.
The countries in question had the option of doing the right thing ... paying for what they stole. They conveniently CHOSE instead to steal it.
I hate it when the British do that shit, amiright? And then with the backing of the US, amiright?
It was a far different world, D, and Western corps found and developed those oil fields using Western technology, creating jobs for locals and economies for countries without them. It's easy for you to do your Monday morning quarterbacking but its intellectually lazy at best and dishonest at worst.
No. It's not. The jobs were reserved for the British. It was exploitation. Capitalism and Communism look beautiful on paper but they rarely play out well.
So, if we are going to play this game of greed then lets make sure that we use the facts. You don't have to like it but those are the facts.
Dear gawd.......nobody look in Capitalism's direction......it cannot be.
What my source states is that both nation states moved toward nationalization after having been exploited. Imagine for a moment that the owners ripped you off on a repeated basis and then made it a point to control your housing, government, education, etc. They did everything in their power to make sure that you could not make ends meet while they played a larger political game. Suddenly your entire country was hijacked and you had a puppet leader that was obedient to that larger political power.
The countries in question had the option of doing the right thing ... paying for what they stole. They conveniently CHOSE instead to steal it.
I hate it when the British do that shit, amiright? And then with the backing of the US, amiright?
It was a far different world, D, and Western corps found and developed those oil fields using Western technology, creating jobs for locals and economies for countries without them. It's easy for you to do your Monday morning quarterbacking but its intellectually lazy at best and dishonest at worst.
No. It's not. The jobs were reserved for the British. It was exploitation. Capitalism and Communism look beautiful on paper but they rarely play out well.
So, if we are going to play this game of greed then lets make sure that we use the facts. You don't have to like it but those are the facts.
Except you are not telling the truth. Certainly westerners were involved but many local jobs and entire economies were created. Just because the facts don't support your narrative doesn't mean they aren't facts.
What my source states is that both nation states moved toward nationalization after having been exploited. Imagine for a moment that the owners ripped you off on a repeated basis and then made it a point to control your housing, government, education, etc. They did everything in their power to make sure that you could not make ends meet while they played a larger political game. Suddenly your entire country was hijacked and you had a puppet leader that was obedient to that larger political power.
The countries in question had the option of doing the right thing ... paying for what they stole. They conveniently CHOSE instead to steal it.
I hate it when the British do that shit, amiright? And then with the backing of the US, amiright?
It was a far different world, D, and Western corps found and developed those oil fields using Western technology, creating jobs for locals and economies for countries without them. It's easy for you to do your Monday morning quarterbacking but its intellectually lazy at best and dishonest at worst.
No. It's not. The jobs were reserved for the British. It was exploitation. Capitalism and Communism look beautiful on paper but they rarely play out well.
So, if we are going to play this game of greed then lets make sure that we use the facts. You don't have to like it but those are the facts.
Socialism looks good on paper as well and has never worked..
Yet the far left wants in place..
However the far left narrative you run does not explain how Russia is a "Western Nation"..
The countries in question had the option of doing the right thing ... paying for what they stole. They conveniently CHOSE instead to steal it.
I hate it when the British do that shit, amiright? And then with the backing of the US, amiright?
It was a far different world, D, and Western corps found and developed those oil fields using Western technology, creating jobs for locals and economies for countries without them. It's easy for you to do your Monday morning quarterbacking but its intellectually lazy at best and dishonest at worst.
No. It's not. The jobs were reserved for the British. It was exploitation. Capitalism and Communism look beautiful on paper but they rarely play out well.
So, if we are going to play this game of greed then lets make sure that we use the facts. You don't have to like it but those are the facts.
Except you are not telling the truth. Certainly westerners were involved but many local jobs and entire economies were created. Just because the facts don't support your narrative doesn't mean they aren't facts.
Not in Iran. It's why Mosaddegh became so popular. The locals could not get in. You see this play out repeatedly. Egypt nationalizing the Suez Canel. Iraq then AND now.
So, I am telling the truth. You seem to think that the Western empires are all love and light and the bird droppings of capitalism are the fo' shizzle nitz.
That isn't how it played out.
That's why they move to nationalism. Exploitation...
crazy far right wingers.
