Why Iran hates us

[Fastb]

On a side note for this video....

This whole fiasco started because Iran invited the UK in to develop their oil fields and once the profits started rolling in Iran nationalized the fields. It was simple theft. That left the UK with a huge loss on their investment and with a lot of anger.

If someone had you invest your capital, your technology and years of effort into a project and then kicked you out what would you do? You would take whatever steps where available to recover your investment. This is exactly what happened.

It was not about religion. It's not about politics... it always boils down to the money.

Iran made an agreement and then ripped their partner. They hide behind religion as an excuse for any evil that they do. Hundreds of thousands have died and many more may perish due to Iranian greed.

 

[REIMktg]

On a side note for this video....

This whole fiasco started because Iran invited the UK in to develop their oil fields and once the profits started rolling in Iran nationalized the fields. It was simple theft. That left the UK with a huge loss on their investment and with a lot of anger.

If someone had you invest your capital, your technology and years of effort into a project and then kicked you out what would you do? You would take whatever steps where available to recover your investment. This is exactly what happened.

Few people understand this. They had a good profit share gig, but they wanted it all. - to bad it was a true asset and not a San Sebastian Mine - not enough forethought on the part of the West. On nationalization they should have left it as they found it - Ellis Wyatt style.

 

[Fastb]

Few people understand this. They had a good profit share gig, but they wanted it all. - to bad it was a true asset and not a San Sebastian Mine - not enough forethought on the part of the West. On nationalization they should have left it as they found it - Ellis Wyatt style.

Wyatt's Torch may still burn there, but it will likely be ignited by Israel and burn at a whopping 100 million kelvin.

 

[guerilla]

Only an Objectivist would defend corporatism between the British government and oil companies, the overthrow of a democratic government, and installation of a dictator as some form of private property rights justice.

And people wonder why Objectivism never caught on beyond Atlas Shrugged...

As Rand was fond of saying, "Check your premises".

 

[REIMktg]

Only an Objectivist would defend corporatism between the British government and oil companies, the overthrow of a democratic government, and installation of a dictator as some form of private property rights justice.

And people wonder why Objectivism never caught on beyond Atlas Shrugged...

As Rand was fond of saying, "Check your premises".

Maybe the argument is not pure, but the fact is that it was from a Ayn Rand interview on the Phil Donohue show back in the 1970's that I recall her making a similar argument, specifically citing oil and the Middle East and how they stole what we gave them, "the product of our minds". The interview is on YouTube but I don't have the time to find it right now.

 

[Linklover]

Oil jumps over 2% as Iran threatens supplies
Oil jumps over 2% as Iran threatens supplies - Dec. 27, 2011

By Steve Hargreaves @CNNMoneyMarkets December 27, 2011: 5:14 PM ET

Iran said Tuesday that 'not a single drop of oil will pass through Hormuz Strait' if its own oil exports are cut off by the West.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Oil prices jumped over 2% Tuesday, crossing the $100-barrel-mark after Iran threatened to choke off the flow of oil passing through the Strait of Hormuz.
The Iranian threat came in response to a recent tightening of Western sanctions against Iran that attempt to limit the amount of oil that country can export.

"If Iran oil is banned, not a single drop of oil will pass through Hormuz Strait," Iran's 1st Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi said Tuesday, according to the Iran State News Agency.
Iran is also currently conducting Naval exercises in and around the Strait.
Over 15 million barrels of oil a day passed through the Strait in 2009, according to the U.S. Energy Information Agency. That's about a sixth of the world's total oil production and a third of all oil traded worldwide. EIA calls it the "world's most important oil chokepoint."
Most of the oil passing through the strait goes to Asia, but because oil is a globally traded commodity, a shortage of oil in any one place impacts oil prices worldwide.

Iran oil targeted by Obama sanctions
Analysts note that with escalating tensions in the Persian Gulf the potential exists for an accident or some other event to lead to a full scale war.

"We are in a situation where there is essentially no communication between the Iranian government and the U.S. government," Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council, told CNN Monday after reports said Iranian military forces confronted a Western helicopter near the Strait. "It is very worrisome."

Iran has been sparring with the West over its nuclear program for years. Iran says its uranium enriching activities are for peaceful purposes, but many Western governments suspect they are intended to produce a weapon.
Last month the Obama administration upped the pressure on Iran by declaring its central bank a threat, which many analyst took as a prelude to an attempt to cut off Iran's oil exports entirely.
Iran, the world's third-largest oil exporter, conducts its oil export business through its central bank.

It's thought that Washington and other Western governments would love to put additional pressure on Iran by threatening its oil industry, but they are mindful of the impact that may have on oil prices.
Investment bank Merrill Lynch predicts a $40 rise in oil prices if the country's 2.2 million barrels day of crude are shut off completely.
Prices could spike much higher if Iran tries to disrupt oil tanker traffic flowing through the Strait of Hormuz, although it's unclear how long the spike would last.

Iran attacked ships passing through the Strait during the 1980s in an attempt to cut off Iraq's oil exports when those two countries were at war. The impact on prices was minimal however after foreign navies began escorting oil tankers through the Strait.

Many experts say Iran would only have limited success in blocking the Strait for an extended period of time as many governments maintain a naval presence in the region, notably the United States.

 

[lukep]

^Good. Let them shut the strait down. Oil prices will jump to $140 a barrel or so and they'll suffer the lack of income while the rest of the world buys more non-iranian oil.

(Naturally our abundance of ships in the area will allow us to get our allies' oil out of Kuwait...)

We'll also:

1. Be given the opportunity to develop more of our own oil
2. Be given a big push to developing non-oil energy sources, like Sun, Wind, Nuke, Fuel Cells, and possibly LENR.

Fuck, this is a wet dream for Andre Rossi... He's getting 20 more ECAT orders tonight!

 

[guerilla]

The only thing propping up the US dollar is the petrodollar agreement. That agreement creates an international demand for dollars, so everyone around the world maintains a dollar balance so they can trade for oil. This is a well known secret of American monetary and military policy.

When Saddam went off the dollar for oil, he got invaded. When Qaddafi wanted to do gold for oil, he was overthrown. Iran's central bank doesn't recognize the petro dollar arrangement after the US started sanctioning them.

That is why their CENTRAL BANK is a threat. This is about the house of cards that is the US dollar since the US abandoned the gold standard in 1971. This has nothing to do with terrorism, nukes, democracy or Israel.

 

[(O_o)]

Iran

 

[optimex]

I'm Iranian, I love Americans!

 

[Hale.Pane]

The only thing propping up the US dollar is the petrodollar agreement. That agreement creates an international demand for dollars, so everyone around the world maintains a dollar balance so they can trade for oil. This is a well known secret of American monetary and military policy.

When Saddam went off the dollar for oil, he got invaded. When Qaddafi wanted to do gold for oil, he was overthrown. Iran's central bank doesn't recognize the petro dollar arrangement after the US started sanctioning them.

That is why their CENTRAL BANK is a threat. This is about the house of cards that is the US dollar since the US abandoned the gold standard in 1971. This has nothing to do with terrorism, nukes, democracy or Israel.

Damn you guerilla. Now I have to read the cool books I found on the subject.

 

[lukep]

The only thing propping up the US dollar is the petrodollar agreement.... That is why their CENTRAL BANK is a threat. This is about the house of cards that is the US dollar since the US abandoned the gold standard in 1971. This has nothing to do with terrorism, nukes, democracy or Israel.

There you go again, making too much sense G.

All I was trying to do is wish we could get away with it, I guess.

So what do you think Paul being elected (and somehow not assassinated, and somehow not completely stonewalled by congress) would do to this issue of the Petrodollar and the USD world standard?

Think RP would try to get off foreign oil and allow all this fake dollar shit to slide? He does sound like he would prefer to put the USD back on a precious metal standard...

 

[guerilla]

Damn you guerilla. Now I have to read the cool books I found on the subject.

I keep saying this, and I feel somewhat rewarded that some people get it. I don't pretend to have all of the answers, but I am pretty sure that a solid foundation in economics and history help put a lot of this stuff into focus.

And that's important because before you decide to fight and die in a war, or support a politician, policy or nation, you want to be sure you understand the underlying conditions and incentives, not the fear and propaganda spread by mass media and pundits.

So what do you think Paul being elected (and somehow not assassinated, and somehow not completely stonewalled by congress) would do to this issue of the Petrodollar and the USD world standard?

There are two ways this ends.

1. Badly

2. Very Badly

Paul wants to help it end quickly and badly, rather than very badly. The latter scenario you can imagine the worst. Proper police state, nuclear detonation, food lines. Something like 1984.

Think RP would try to get off foreign oil and allow all this fake dollar shit to slide? He does sound like he would prefer to put the USD back on a precious metal standard...

It's not necessarily America's choice that everyone use the dollar. It's the global banking cartel's choice, and it is enforced with the US military.

Paul doesn't want a standard unless it emerges from the market, like gold did over thousands of years. Paul wants currency competition, and from that he hopes a natural standard will emerge based on some commodity.

Anyway, if it wasn't obvious above, America went from a gold standard to an oil standard. Oil is easier to control then gold, and the supply is self-liquidating, which means that the velocity of money is kept high, since oil isn't a store of value (nor is it particularly liquid, pardon the pun).

 

[Fastb]

Only an Objectivist would defend corporatism between the British government and oil companies, the overthrow of a democratic government, and installation of a dictator as some form of private property rights justice.

And people wonder why Objectivism never caught on beyond Atlas Shrugged...

As Rand was fond of saying, "Check your premises".

Let's narrow this down to where you can better understand my point.

Let's say that you build a high quality and popular website that was earning you $10,000 per month.

Let's also say that you where hosting it offshore for whatever reason, perhaps lower hosting costs.

What would you do if the government of the country where you hosted your website seized your website and gave it to the hosting company because they felt that the hosting company was the rightful owner of any profits generated by any websites that it hosted.

Would you:

a) Congratulate the foreign hosting company for it's tremendous $10,000 per month windfall? Perhaps send them a brochure on this years Bently line recommending that they purchase a Continental GTC convertible (St. James Red of course) with your money, or

b) Do anything in your power to get your property and revenues back, including working with others that had been ripped off and recover the fruits of every-ones labor

This is pretty much the same thing that happened to BP in 1951. The British chose plan b.

It's not Objectivism, it's a predictable response.

 

[guerilla]

Maybe you should read up on the history of BP and how the British tried to strongarm the Iranians.

Then, you might want to think about how you're rationalizing installing a police state on innocent people, and overthrowing an elected leader with violence.

You're on the wrong side of morality, even when you present the false caricature of the situation and the options.

 

[Fastb]

Maybe you should read up on the history of BP and how the British tried to strongarm the Iranians.

Then, you might want to think about how you're rationalizing installing a police state on innocent people, and overthrowing an elected leader with violence.

You're on the wrong side of morality, even when you present the false caricature of the situation and the options.

Theft is theft, whether it is shoplifting from a dime store or seizing assets on a grand scale in the name of the downtrodden masses.

When a new Prime Minister or president is elected in any country the peace treaties and commercial treaties stay in effect. If they did not there would be continuing world chaos and no trading could be done across borders.

Could you imagine if the USA and Russia had to renegotiate their entire array of nuclear treaties every few years from scratch?

The British didn't strong arm the Iranians into developing those assets - they purchased the rights on a profit sharing basis. They started out at a 16 percent of net profits, then went up to 25 percent, then the Iranians raised it to 50%, then the Iranians just seized the whole project.

 

[REIMktg]

You're on the wrong side of morality, even when you present the false caricature of the situation and the options.

The state that took over is hardly moral. With allowing acid on the face of girls without punishment, justified rape, honor killings - The Shaw may not have been perfect, but lets not play the moral card.

 

[guerilla]

Theft is theft, whether it is shoplifting from a dime store or seizing assets on a grand scale in the name of the downtrodden masses.

Right, so if someone steals from a dimestore, you would overthrow their government and enslave their people in a torturous police state?

When a new Prime Minister or president is elected in any country the peace treaties and commercial treaties stay in effect. If they did not there would be continuing world chaos and no trading could be done across borders.

You do know the international courts found for Iran in the dispute?

Could you imagine if the USA and Russia had to renegotiate their entire array of nuclear treaties every few years from scratch?

Irrelevant.

The British didn't strong arm the Iranians into developing those assets - they purchased the rights on a profit sharing basis. They started out at a 16 percent of net profits, then went up to 25 percent, then the Iranians raised it to 50%, then the Iranians just seized the whole project.

Convenient how you leave out how the British embargoed the Iranians. You do realize embargoes are acts of war... or maybe you don't...

 

[guerilla]

The state that took over is hardly moral. With allowing acid on the face of girls without punishment, justified rape, honor killings - The Shaw may not have been perfect, but lets not play the moral card.

Why not? You guys are playing the morality of theft card.

The Iranian people choose the Ayatollah over the Shah. It may be a worse government, but they chose it. Just as they chose Mossadeq.

The Shah was chosen by no one, and he had his citizens tortured. He maintained a pipeline for Iranian natural resources that flowed to the West, and the Iranian people suffered in poverty while he lived it up at their expense.

It is abominable to play the right and wrong card, but when it comes to the inherent imperialism, bullying and violence of the British state, turn a blind eye in blatant hypocrisy.

Believe whatever you want. People who support the premise of aggression cannot be reasoned with, and shame on me for trying.

 

[REIMktg]

Why not? You guys are playing the morality of theft card.

The Iranian people choose the Ayatollah over the Shah. It may be a worse government, but they chose it. Just as they chose Mossadeq.

The Shah was chosen by no one, and he had his citizens tortured. He maintained a pipeline for Iranian natural resources that flowed to the West, and the Iranian people suffered in poverty while he lived it up at their expense.

It is abominable to play the right and wrong card, but when it comes to the inherent imperialism, bullying and violence of the British state, turn a blind eye in blatant hypocrisy.

Believe whatever you want. People who support the premise of aggression cannot be reasoned with, and shame on me for trying.

I did not say theft was moral, nor did I say the Shah was moral. I simply said that there is no moral high ground in this argument and therefore no one should play the moral card. As for the tortue of citizen's, that is happening now just as before - simply under a different banner.

The pipeline to the West was because the West built that pipeline and was paying, as agreed, for the resources it delivered. This was an agreed upon business contract that in and of itself would have provided substantial wealth to Iran. But that was not enough for them, they wanted to loot the producers. The West provided the technology and the product of their mind in order to build that pipeline and purchase its production. They had sand before the West came in.

You mentioned wealth at the expense of the people - that has been the case in both pre and post revolution Iran. There is some glimmer of hope now under Ahmadinejad that some wealth will "trickle down", but anything substantial has yet to be seen.

As for aggression, I am not certain I defended it as the others have, but I have mentioned that the oil economy in Iran, which provides much of their wealth, was given to them by the same people they hate so much.