MM

Escape - you need to escape xxxxxx & learn history & debate

It is difficult to argue with you when you jump from branch to branch, changing subjects as you please.  Better yet, learn to debate.  For example, you are the one who changed the subject of the blog and questioned why Iran dragged England into the court, and when confronted with evidence otherwise, you say who cares and bring in some other subject.

Final thought: Read Aynak's response below

M&M's VPK's

MM-.It doesn't matter to me who dragged who into court.The point was you should have been happy that Iran was able to Re-Neg out of their own deal and why are you still complaining about it now? Compared to you,I don't dwell so you believe I'm younger,don't know as much and don't have the 'Iranian' nature..I'm not arguing with you,I say -You're right!!

VPK-I'm not going to spare truth for your sort of requested handicapped 'un-insultive behavour'.Doing a stupid thing is doing a stupid thing whether I point it out or not.The real argument is how stupid was it not how much can we blame other's for our own stupidity.

Now,why you don't try the other argument-'Why it wasn't such a stupid thing to do' hmmm?

'Innuendo can sometimes end up as In-ur-endo'

Escape

 Why was one party that dumb enough to get into an argreement they disagreed with?

Why don't you keep the insults to yourself. The world is full of people who get cheated. The British were stronger at the time and more crooked. So they managed to cheat Iran. By your logic every crook and gangster in the world is "right". Not surprising knowing your sympathy for MKO. In fact it explains it. However this is a world of laws.

In America which you like to brag  about we have laws. When people swindle or cheat others they get taken to court. Then they are punished for it. British have been international gangsters and pirates for centuries. They have no right to their criminal scams. 

The real argument Iranians here are having is about other stuff.

Aynak

My friend, setting aside the undue pride we have as Iranians, vs Afghanistan, which with the exception of Pashtun region, has been part of Iran,  Afghanestan is the country you are asking for:   Iran without
Oil.

Well I agree with part and disagree with other part:

• Yes Afghanistan is part of Iran. May I remind you that Balkh was a great city long before oil. It did not need oil to become great. It was destroyed by invasion after invasion and not lack of oil.
• Does India have oil? No, it has people who use their skills. I guess we have to disagree on the importance of oil. It has done us no good.

Frankly there would have been no coup if it were not for oil. I have read so many analysis of the coup that nothing surprises me. However it was about oil. I repeat: we better get used to standing on our feet. No more stupid crutches like oil.

escape

The Brits dragged Iran into the world court.  As I stated below:

The court documents that loveofliberty provided and the link within to the actual judgment (//www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&k=cd&case=16&code=uki&p3=5&PHPSESSID=81e6ba65c05ce74e06cc87904f7fa28f)

concludes that while the world court does not have jurisdiction over the matter, the court sighted several European cases when a treaty was not ratified and therefore not valid and Britain could not show a case otherwise (ONLY TREATIES SUBSEQUENT TO RATIFICATION COME INTO CONSIDERATION), i.e., the treaty was signed by a one-man-vote of the Monarch under duress (probably, as CIA documents show the situation in Iran after the war, with the Russian pressure from the north and the British pressure from the south).

Escape, you seem to know very little about the past.  Are you not of Iranian origin, or are you a youngster, compared to us, and trying to learn?
 

Aynak

  No I don't see it as the Hague being the all knowing and powerful judge of everything.In fact I think it was noone's business but Iran's and Britain's.And I don't see it as the British stealing or The West's control,influence whatever.Because without the west that Oil would not be worth anything AT ALL.Theres the WEST'S INFLUENCE..they are BUYING IT..What is Iran's influence??  SELLING IT...

And I can't wait for the day when we in the West can tell every single OIL LUBING S.O.B. in the M.E. what they can do with their OIL.That is KEEP IT...I'm going to be blunt with you..I see it as a weak helpless people who could not even control their own land,their own destiny or stand by their own word.This is what started all the problem Iran has to this day...Why did the Hague have to get involved into a legal agreement between two parties? Why was one party that dumb enough to get into an argreement they disagreed with? There is something many Iranian's don't feel is important,that is accountability for their own actions.That's all fine in make-believe Iran world but give me a break.

Re: Not having oil

VPK:  "Honestly I would have rather just given the oil for freedom. Let them
take the damn thing and leave us alone to have democracy. Of course it
is unrealistic as neither Iranians nor British would have gone for that.
It would have been great if we could just have flushed it all down the
drain and watch the British stamp their feet."

My friend, setting aside the undue pride we have as Iranians, vs Afghanistan, which with the exception of Pashtun region, has been part of Iran,  Afghanestan is the country you are asking for:   Iran without Oil.

VPK Jan, please read this excellent analysis of the coupe by Ramin Kamran:

//www.iranliberal.com/Maghaleh-ha/Ramin_Kamra...

May we all have good dreams.

Aynak

In many ways we agree. I just do not think that it is fair to say Shah sold out the nation. The facts are that Britain was powerful and Iran was weak. They were going to get their way one way or other. If not Shah then they would have found someone else.

If there was no oil then Britain would have left us alone and we would have been able to move on. But with oil they were bent on getting their way. So they picked Shah and he reluctantly went along. The real problem was that he became arrogant and dictatorial. He decided to shut up all other voices. Then 

Honestly I would have rather just given the oil for freedom. Let them take the damn thing and leave us alone to have democracy. Of course it is unrealistic as neither Iranians nor British would have gone for that. It would have been great if we could just have flushed it all down the drain and watch the British stamp their feet.

Re: Oil is

VPK,

I can not say I disagree with any of what you say.   Indepdence from oil, getting our own act together.   But if you look at Mossadegh's approach, his was very much based on improving the domestic front as much as he could.   That's why as I mentioned, the country experienced an almost balanced budget inspite of income shortfall of almost 1/10 of previous years due to Brits blockade.   In regard to oil, his main focus was,*if we can't do it ourselves, let's wait for the day we can and when we can develop  technology*.

You have to remember, both during Qajar as well as Pahlavi's the approach was, we either do as we see others do it, or as they tell us we should do it.   Mossadegh's fight for independence in this regard, was not just about oil, but really trying to see what We need to truly progress and how to solve our  own problems.   Part of that approach was also a very free society, including the print media and freedom for parites to form.

In this regard, he was truly a generation ahead of his time.   The main problem in my view, was that the bulk of population was illiterate at the time, and of course the other force that pushed for changes *at least from the point of view of Good laws, and accountable government* in the form of a strong aristocracy in places like U.S, was absent in Iran.

Given these limitations, Mossadegh was already facing a sisyphean task.  With the budds of democracy just having a chance to blossom post WWII in Iran,  AT LEAST HE TRIED as a leader and visionary.   Remember, the outcome could have been very different, had some not sold their own country.   Shah himself was reluctant, as it is documented, but gave in to Ashraf and exteral forces.    My distaste is with Britians, systemic approach to derail democracy in Iran, because it was the main obstacle to their interest.  Obviously every country wants to maximize benefits for her own people.   So where as a Brit may be proud of what their government did, for them,  as an Iranian, fullfilling those interest came at our expense, not just oil, but the forced changed path away from democratic governance in Iran.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Fall of Mossadegh, in effect was not the fall of an individual, but aspiration of a nation, which was not mature enough to persist and defend her own achievement.   The issue is very basic:   Does a country and people have the right to control their own resources?

MM, started this thread, by suggesting, the Brits, who condemn Mossadegh for nationalization (which at the time was synanmous with socialization of the resource, and a crime in their view) have infact done the same with their own resources.

Not sure what people are arguing here:

--We should not have tried to nationalized our oil?

--We should not try to think of a solution based on our own needs?

--We should bow to the strong, without even attempting at getting our rights?

No sane person would answer NO to any of the above.   Then the question becomes TACTICAL.   What could have Mossadegh done different to achieve these goals?   That is a perfectly valid question.

The opposite approach pursued by Monarchists, resulted in 1979 revolution.  That much we know.

FYI/Operation Ajax based on Stephan Kinzer's Book (BBC Persian)

MossadeghComic Book based on Stephan Kinzer’s All The Shah’s Men (BBC Persian Report)

VPK

As you may know, I say my piece and leave it be.  I will not go into a war of words nor will I re-write history.  If I see a rational argument/debate, I don't mind it, however, if I see a futal hopeless argument, I will just ingore it. 

Darius

I have no doubt that MRP was

1. a nationalist

2. his accomplishments on building Iran are unmatched by IRI in 31 years

3. He had his faults as well and we need to look at his accomplishments as well as his faults

and finally that his courage to be independent grew as time went by, and some folks on this site have blamed his demise on some of his criticisms that you sited regarding the Jewish lobby, criticism of the Brits, etc.

I was only looking as a particular time-period in 1950's, and in that particular time-period the Shah was manipulated by CIA/SIS, the army was manipulated by CIA/SIS (through appointment of Zahedi by CIA/SIS) and the thugs on the street were even orchestrated by CIA/SIS, as written in the CIA documented that I referenced below.

MM Jaan

I have not had much luck reasoning with escape so I have given up. Maybe you will have more success. I am not sure if escape is Iranian or American or MKO. But I do know that I have not got anywhere with this person no matter how hard I tried.

Keep Them Coming MM Jaan More Kosher responses for you ;0)

Iran Live News | Shah Of Iran criticizing British foreign policy

Shah of Iran & Mike Wallace on the Jewish Lobby - 35 Yrs ago

Shah's Message to the "Blue Eyed People"

Shah responds to Mike Wallace on misuse of term Persian Gulf instead of Gulf

Shah of Iran: "We are not toys of any country including the US"

As for Courage it is easy to cast stereotyped judgments (à la Kinzer) ...

Where was Your Joon Joony Mossadegh when the Shah liberated Azerbaidjan ? :

pictory: Soviet Propaganda Film - Iran, Tabriz 1945-46

or when the Shah was targeted by assassins in 1949 as well as in different times throughout his reign ( often granting amnesty to those who tried to kill him) ?:

HISTORY OF VIOLENCE: Shah of Iran wounded after Assassination Attempt (1949)

No one is entirely courageous nor entirely a coward. Mossadegh relied on the Mob and treacherous minister's to sustain his power ... the Shah on the army ...

Both played ... One Won ... The latter On the short term ... The Former ... Well ... One wonders if his politcal legacy will live on given his own follower's controversial attitude during the Revolution:

Mehdi Bazargan and the controversial legacy of Iran's Islamic intellectual movement

BotShekan - See reply 2 escape/loveofliberty 4 rights of nations

& not just human rights

Darius, Mosaddegh, as far

Darius,

Mosaddegh, as far as I know, never asked for the head of the Shah.  However, a head of a country that is played like a harp by foreign agents is not exactly kosher either.

CIA coup in Iran, by NYT: //www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-index.html

CIA coup in Iran, from the National Archives: //www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/

"The shah's cowardice nearly killed the C.I.A. operation. Fearful of risking his throne, the Shah repeatedly refused to sign C.I.A.-written royal decrees to change the government. The agency arranged for the shah's twin sister, Princess Ashraf Pahlevi, and Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf, the father of the Desert Storm commander, to act as intermediaries to try to keep him from wilting under pressure. He still fled the country just before the coup succeeded."

"There are also some new details on how that US persuaded the shah to agree to the coup, including a statement that Assadollah Rashidian was involved in this effort and that General Schwartzkopf, Sr. played a larger role in this than was previously known."

"The CIA described the coup plan as “quasi-legal,” referring to the fact that the shah legally dismissed Mossadeq but presumably acknowledging that he did not do so on his own initiative.  These documents make clear that the CIA was prepared to go forward with the coup even if the shah opposed it."

"......this thoroughly refutes the argument that is commonly made in Iranian monarchist exile circles that the coup was a legitimate “popular uprising” on behalf of the shah."

VPK

I understand what you are saying and that is why the foreign personnel got extra money for working amongt the uncivilized.  But it was unprecedented for an uncivilized Mosaddegh to go to the world court and stand against the mighty Britain too. I just do not understand how a person of Iranian origin can stand there and say the Brits were right in everything they did and the Iranians deserved every bid of it.  Are we re-writing history here?

MM Jaan I have a slightly different take on '53 than Kinzer

Need I repeat myself again ? ...

THE PAST IS A FOREIGN COUNTRY: How Would You Evaluate Iran's Democracy Index in 1953 ?

Isn't Calling for the Head of State's Death usually called "Treason"?

Darius ;-)

I do not know know what this blog have to do with NIAC, but

1. if you are trying to show your contempt for NIAC at every chance? OK, so be it.

2. If you are trying to praise the behavior of the Monarchs at the time?  Please read the CIA documents beforehand: 

CIA coup in Iran, by NYT: //www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-index.html

CIA coup in Iran, from the National Archives: //www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/

MM Jaan

The British do not view us as their children. The view us as their inferiors. They feel justified to do what they want do us. Churchill himself was very clear he did not consider "other" races as equal to the British.

This is not about fairness. This is about their sense of superiority. We are never going to get a fair deal from them because they do not believe in it. Now do you see my point. 

VPK

escape/loveofliberty

Imagine that I want my kids to quit smoking, so I walk into their room with a cigarette in my mouth telling them " smoking is bad.  I want you to quit".  Similarly, the good Brits have nationalized their own industries, and at the same time telling Iranians that they are out of order by their nationalization laws.

OK, we are not talking about human rights, but more as the rights of nations.  The right

* to self-rule and decide as a collective,

* have a fair share of its natural resources (See Aynak's comment) rather than highway robbery.

* Not to have a government within a government, as the Brits did in Khoozestaan.

Also,

The court documents that loveofliberty provided and the link within to the actual judgment (//www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&k=cd&case=16&code=uki&p3=5&PHPSESSID=81e6ba65c05ce74e06cc87904f7fa28f)

states that while the court does not have jurisdiction over the matter, the court sighted several European cases when a treaty was not ratified and therefore not valid and Britain could not show a case otherwise (ONLY TREATIES SUBSEQUENT TO RATIFICATION COME INTO CONSIDERATION), i.e., the treaty was signed by a one-man-vote of the Monarch under duress (probably, as CIA documents show the situation in Iran after the war, with the Russian pressure from the north and the British pressure from the south.

Yes Well I'm Afraid They call it diplomacy ... ;0)

Yes Minister - British EU Diplomacy

I thought given their own experience NIAC members and their Pre-Selected leadership should have known better ...

Yes, Prime Minister - We did a deal !

Hee Hee ...

The British

I am not sure what they are up to. On one hand BBC is egging on the protesters. On the other hand their government supports Mubarak. I do know they are up to no good. 

They are not hypocrites; just plain evil. They want what is good for them and what is bad for others. Even when it makes no difference to them they still want to harm others.  I have never known any other nation that does evil for the sake of doing it.

If we

had more faith in our own ability and less in oil we would be better off. The fatal mistake by Mossadegh was to put his faith in oil. Instead I would have focused on people. Don't worry about the oil. The British would not have overthrown him.

We would have had democracy by now. The oil all went to waste anyway. We don't have democracy. I am sorry but the more I learn about Mossadegh the more I question him. Yes he was a patriot but he sure was not a good  decision maker. 

Oil is

a modern day curse on Iran. We need to stop this obsession with it. Cyrus the great did not have oil. Nor did the Sassanids. We do not need oil to be great. Watch India! This damn thing is an addiction that we should give up relying on.

All I ever hear is about "our oil" being stolen. Well how about working and using our brains. That does not need oil. As long as we connect advancement with oil we are stuck. I suggest we pay attention to real industry and production instead.

aynak,

aynak: "But if you don't still agree, remember the independent court of Hague
ruled in favor of Iran.   Obviously they found something very wrong with
the deal that Brits were asking for.   But apparently, good folks like
yourself still see things more on the side of the Brits than even a
court based in Europe, that ruled in favor of Iran."

If you are referring to the 1951/1952 Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. (United Kingdom) versus Iran International Court of Justice case, the court simply ruled that it wasn't within the ICJ's jurisdiction to settle that dispute.

So, although this ruling could be interpreted as being in favor of Iran, particularly since Iran argued that the court lacked jurisdiction in the case, the actual "fairness" of the deal between the Anglo-Iranian Oil Co./United Kingdom and Iran was not decided upon by that court.

Here is a link to ICJ's documentation surrounding that case, for those of you who are interested:

//www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&k=cd&case=16&code=uki&p3=6 

Are we into double talk here?

We are not talking about human rights. we are talking about business deals. You are saying the same thing as I have said but you seem to conveniently omit the overriding principle here: serving one's own national interests. This must be, and was in 1951, the overriding principle in negotiations. And remember, "fair" according to who? Hypocrisy is going aganist one's own principles. In the field of international business the overriding rule is to save one's own national interests.

Re:

"I need to know if the Iranian oil company is still under the influence
of west (sharing the profit) or the oil is totally belong to Iranians
-please advise"

The consortium deal was dissolved after revolution, but unfortantely it still does not belong to Iranian people.   It belongs to thugs.   Independence is only meaningful, if it is democratic.   Otherwise, what difference does it make, if an Iranian thug or Brits plunder the wealth?   That is why the remark of Rafighdoost, was so off the other day.   Sure him and his gang are benefiting but what good is it for the rest?

Escape:  You don't seem to understand the basics of Equitable and Fair trade.   First, Dr. agreed, to set aside 25% of the income to pay for all expenses incurred by the Fcking brits.   This was PRE sale figure.  (i.e unlike Brits deal where after all expenses were taken, we would take a small perecntage of proit that remained, ie they would rourtinely bloat the expneses which was used to pay Brit employeeds, equipment sold by Brits company, and subtract all of that from the profit, which was very beneficial for their economy), in the case of Dr.Mossadegh deal, he agreed to give 25% pre-all expenses.   Which was a very good/fair deal for them,  still for the fcking brits that was not enough.

But if you don't still agree, remember the independent court of Hague ruled in favor of Iran.   Obviously they found something very wrong with the deal that Brits were asking for.   But apparently, good folks like yourself still see things more on the side of the Brits than even a court based in Europe, that ruled in favor of Iran.

May we all have good dreams.

re: British White Van Ploughs into Egyptians

Today, the Egyptians report that the White Embassy Van that ploughed into the peaceful protesters belongs NOT TO AMERICANS BUT TO THE BRITISH!

The British use underhanded murderous techniques to incite hatred for the Americans. this is typical of British who frequently malign the Americans so that they can further their economic interests. 

Do you know if

I need to know if the Iranian oil company is still under the influence of west (sharing the profit) or the oil is totally belong to Iranians -please advise