General News & Politics (104 Viewers)
- Thread starter Ocelot
- Start date
Hard question. Worst choice China 100%. Then US and Russia holding next spot, however we'd have more benefits with the East.
I don't know. Maybe Scandinavian as a the new thing (which surely won't happen). Despite everything, would rather see Germany than those above. I wouldn't trust France. But when you think about it, best choice would be none, which is again impossible.
I don't know. Maybe Scandinavian as a the new thing (which surely won't happen). Despite everything, would rather see Germany than those above. I wouldn't trust France. But when you think about it, best choice would be none, which is again impossible.
Open a history book.
Iran, 1953, Mohammed Mossadeqh (Killed Irans new democracy in 4 days, for oil)
Premier Minister of Kongo, Patrice Lumumba. Ngo Dinh Diem president of South Vietnam, Sukarno Indonesia president. All of them in the 1960s alone.
1973, Salvadore Allende, Chile. Could go on.
All of them assassinated or overthrown by the US (and shortly killed after the coups). All of them elected in fledging democracies. The US preferred murderous dictators instead.
Iran, 1953, Mohammed Mossadeqh (Killed Irans new democracy in 4 days, for oil)
Premier Minister of Kongo, Patrice Lumumba. Ngo Dinh Diem president of South Vietnam, Sukarno Indonesia president. All of them in the 1960s alone.
1973, Salvadore Allende, Chile. Could go on.
All of them assassinated or overthrown by the US (and shortly killed after the coups). All of them elected in fledging democracies. The US preferred murderous dictators instead.
That's because US is the only place the US and it's allies won't bomb 
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/10/move-1985-bombing-reconciliation-philadelphia
So aparently the guy tried to nationalize the AIOC Anglo-Persian Oil Company (aka buy out with money or by force the interests of the UK or USA in the said company.
Now I don't wanna play devils advocate, but if the USA or UK had large investments in the company why would they agree to this?
If the Iranian government had 1/3 of the company, than I think it would be fair to buy the 2/3 if they want to sell, not backstab your partners with a forced nationalization, probably at some price the Iranian government deemed fair, not the UK or USA.
Now I don't wanna play devils advocate, but if the USA or UK had large investments in the company why would they agree to this?
If the Iranian government had 1/3 of the company, than I think it would be fair to buy the 2/3 if they want to sell, not backstab your partners with a forced nationalization, probably at some price the Iranian government deemed fair, not the UK or USA.
Dude, the US supported murderous dictators in most of those countries for decades. They are still feeling the effects of having their democracies torn down by American backed assassinations and coup d’états.
I mean, no one here thinks that the US is the bad guy on a global scale relative to the Chinese and Russians, etc. But while understanding that they have done a good job in certain instances, and have helped democracy be the aspiration for the developing world, it’s also important to not bury your head in the sand and pretend they haven’t fucked up badly and made a giant mess in a lot of places too.
- - - Updated - - -
Dude. Nationalizing natural resources is the right of any government on their own soil. Now their should be fair payment and negotiation involved in the process with invested entities. But the US can’t go around assassinating and overthrowing democratically elected governments because they dislike their natural resource plans. There is no justifying what the US did in places like Iran and Guatemala.
I mean, no one here thinks that the US is the bad guy on a global scale relative to the Chinese and Russians, etc. But while understanding that they have done a good job in certain instances, and have helped democracy be the aspiration for the developing world, it’s also important to not bury your head in the sand and pretend they haven’t fucked up badly and made a giant mess in a lot of places too.
- - - Updated - - -
Dude. Nationalizing natural resources is the right of any government on their own soil. Now their should be fair payment and negotiation involved in the process with invested entities. But the US can’t go around assassinating and overthrowing democratically elected governments because they dislike their natural resource plans. There is no justifying what the US did in places like Iran and Guatemala.
So assassinate him is the next step?
This was not a normal bussines deal. US and UK had basically insane colonial control of all Irans precious resources including oil, in snatch and grab them approach of the post war days. He was elected as his nations new leader, and his toughest main task was how to limit this parasitic hold of foreign powers and get control back of his countries wealth. Which is any nations basic right.
He wanted to audit their books and lessen their insane monopoly on their resources. They refused every measure, including buyout. Then his parliament got angry and voted to nationalize it all. And he was overthrown for it in a sham way (elaborate and fancy operations like Operation Ajax or operation Boot). For having the nerve to get stake back in his own countries resources.
Churchill and Eisenhower preferred the unparalleled theft and control over a nations resources, over the new foundation of a democracy. They preferred and installed a Shah that gave them everything and acted as the fancy puppet. That had the destabilising effect enough to lead to the zealots rising up and to now dictatorship we still have today.
- - - Updated - - -
Yeah much longer. I focused on democracies because that's what he specified (and just names I recall right now). But apparently it didn't matter because he just moved the goal posts anyways.
Last edited:
LOL, exactly. Can't believe what I'm reading. A company business wasn't dealt right and it's totally fine if a country interferes, kills or overthrows somebody who's doing something that doesn't suit them. Which was exactly my point. Them invading countries, getting hands on oil, military bases & killing/overthrowing governments is only what suits their needs. Them helping others is such a hilarious thing only a naive person would buy, but I guess it's easy to hide behind "we're bringing democracy" even if they are bringing it with tanks, snipers and airplanes.
So you think it's fair if your partners put 2/3 of the funds to build one of the biggest rafinery in the world on your soil in the hopes of extracting oil from it, for you to come and say my soil, my oil, f your trouble, f your investment, f our agreement, get out?
You can test this in real life against 2 bullies and see where that gets you.
@Osman he was not assassinated. He was put in jail until his death in 1967.
How fair was that, I don't know, but the guy did try to seize private property by force, cause that's what he did, but because it's aparently in the name of the people than that's alright.
Present time. Now the people have all the oil and their government are actively trying to shut down the internet for they're citizens in case they wake up and demand better.
You can test this in real life against 2 bullies and see where that gets you.
@Osman he was not assassinated. He was put in jail until his death in 1967.
How fair was that, I don't know, but the guy did try to seize private property by force, cause that's what he did, but because it's aparently in the name of the people than that's alright.
Present time. Now the people have all the oil and their government are actively trying to shut down the internet for they're citizens in case they wake up and demand better.
Last edited: