Yabby,

Revisiting the D'Arcy deal which you appear to be alluding to in your last past - this from wiki:

"...The overarching argument for revisiting the terms of the D'Arcy Agreement on the Iranian side was that its national wealth was being squandered by a concession that was granted in 1901 by a previous non-constitutional government forced to agree to inequitable terms under duress."

Further to that, and after decades of stonewalling by the British company:

"In late December 1950, word reached Tehran that the American-owned Arabian American oil Company had agreed to share profits with Saudis on a 50-50 basis. The UK Foreign Office rejected any idea of a similar agreement for AIOC."

Like I said, the imperialist mindset didn't include "equitable" terms for former colonised/third world countries. The Americans at least, in this instance, concluded there was more to be gained in fairer dealings with the Saudis.

That's how they did business.

please tonight when you watch the news
watch the dude in the un with a bomb

and a red coal..he puts very near the fuse

burn this image into your minds

please

ignore the words
see the fire in his hand..who stands there with 500 plus

*_*
bombs

*@*
and his red marker
will be first hint of 'the black flag

dont say your too busy to watch
the lead up to end ytime hate mate

hate
its great*

grrrr-eat!

our seeds now bare its fruits
while we sqabble and name call

we got til dec 25 folks

merry xmass*
happy harvest time..that the comfortor come

'you will hear of wars and rumours of wars'

it looks the darkest before the dawn
[pre dawn a black thread and a white thread both LOOK grey

the times make the men
and im ashamed

*by a previous non-constitutional government forced to agree to inequitable terms under duress."*

Duress? Nobody even knew if any oil existed. In fact for 7 years
they found nothing.

Iran could have waited 10 years, for the contract to expire. Or
they could have applied an export tax, increasing their revenue.
Stealing the lot is hardly the only option.

*Like I said, the imperialist mindset didn't include "equitable" terms for former colonised/third world countries.*

Sounds like Australia must be a third world country. When the NW
Shelf was developed, nobody wanted to buy the gas. You need to invest
billions, just to unload the gas. The NW partners signed initial
agreements, basically giving the gas away for around 2c/litre, just
to get it going, for the next 30 years. Some smart Chinese and other
companies signed on the dotted line and Australia kept its agreement.

Should we have told those customers to get stuffed, we would now
raise prices to what was now fair? That is not how business works,
believe it or not.

Our royalties on iron ore are around 5-7%, so 16% was hardly a crook
deal.

Those rock throwers in Sydney must be well informed.
To take those actions because Britain once is said to have ripped an Arab nation off.

Yes, Belly, very droll.

Apparently one isn't allowed to divert to related topics at all on this thread. There is a series of contiguous links here connecting these events that lead to the Iranians overthrowing the US installed Shah and opting for a theocracy.

(btw, I'm fairly sure Iranians are technically "not" Arabs....)

I am very near sure Iran is not a safe country to be in post the American election.
Just another thing to blame the west for.
Taking their Lunatic leader at his word, and stopping him.
More street riots world wide.
And the opportunity to flog more burning cars with sticks.