and solar is not going to get us off oil, either. Though through a combination of existing technologies (nuclear, hydroelectric, geothermal, natural gas, "clean" coal, wind, sugar cane ethanol, hydrogen, etc) and better implementation of methods to eliminate, reduce, or make more efficient current power usage... it's entirely possible that we could stop using oil altogether, and eventually get off fossil fuels completely. But, we won't. Not until there is no longer trillions of dollars of the stuff left in the ground and profits to be made.
This is known as "bad luck.”
― Robert A. Heinlein
This applies to countries that happen to be sitting on oil as well as those countries that do not happen to sit on oil.
This is just so wrong on so many levels. The Shah was behind the Westernization of Iran. It's one of the things that made him unpopular. He also wanted peaceful relations with the USA, Europe, Israel, Sunni Iraq (you know stability)... that was another thing that made him unpopular. One guy was in power for about a year who was elected, but he was not elected to the level of power that he eventually claimed for himself. He managed to steal power similar to how Hitler did it (who was also elected, but not to be Fuhrer. His position was supposed to have little power). Iran was never democratic. It flirted with Westernization and stability (under the Shah), but these things didn't take.
Lastly, just because I had a bit of a chuckle here, please inform me how you can legally usurp a dictator.
DB: okay so their "negotiation" was... "give us 50% of your money which we're prepared to offer you absolutely nothing for, or we will take by force 100%." Right. thanks for making my point for me.
The only thing relevant to the AlSauds was greed. In Iran the situation was a bit different. Public opinion was manipulated by politicians trying to make a cynical power grab. The issue was made relevant to the politics of Iran. It remains irrelevant to the meaning of the word theft or the concept of ownership or contract. If you hadn't taken my words out of context...
Furthermore, I wasn't implying that there would be a perfect liberal secular democracy in Iran. I was merely saying it was ignorant to characterise majority Islamic countries as either autocratic and prosperous; or democratic and self-destructive and pointed to Indo as an example. It's not as if every Iranian is a religious zealot, a lot of them despite the nature of their government are quite friendly and intelligent people, even towards Americans. But you're right, political theory is very grey. I'm just offering a perspective from a different framework without being outraged and scornful at what you have to say.
gandalf: every point I wished to make was clearly stated.
Tecumseh: Faux News is a channel not a program. And no, they wouldn't like to have me on. My grasp on reality is too strong. Being faced with reality is not something that Fox enjoys for the same reason that people who want to accuse the USA of intentionally sowing disorder don't like it. It is harmful to the erroneous worldview they have invested themselves in.
Let's look at what you DID explicitly say, then. The rightful owner ("the people," in you estimation) have a right to commandeer the natural resources of a country any time they see fit, their natural ownership rights superseding any and all previous claims, whether legal or not, ignoring any investments made in developing said resources, provided gandalf doesn't like the country's type of government or decides that such deals were "unfair."
"The people" have NOT taken anything. The gangsters that rule Saudi Arabia, the zealots that rule Iran, and the dictators that rule Venezuela, have stolen these resources to enrich themselves and maintain their grip on power, contributing to the prolonged oppression of "the people" and suppression of any true diplomacy in their countries. So the justification of your fantasy narrative fails totally.
kal, thank you for enriching these quizzes with insightful commentary without the delusion of self-obsession. apparently, it's still en vogue to wear the intellectual disease of laziness masquerading as moral sophistication.
How about this? When the government in Washington freed the Southern United States' slaves this represented the largest forced forfeiture of property in the nation's history. They were absolutely morally right to do so, but they still took away a large amount of valuable property.
The emotion-fueled and largely ignorant protests against my word choice do not render that word choice inaccurate and I stand by it. Also the oil infrastructure was the property of British Petroleum and had nothing to do with the United States.
Second, what hi said. And also, OPEC was founded in Baghdad in 1960 by Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, the KSA and Venezuela. Other countries have come and gone over the years.
Gabon joined in 1975. It terminated its membership in 1995 but then rejoined last month. The quiz is out-of-date.