40
   

On the wings of a snow-white dove

 
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2010 01:18 pm
@High Seas,
High Seas wrote:

That's what I found so funny in Ceili's post - wonder if she did it on purpose, as she usually makes no typos. As to the USS Carl Vinson - word reached me George didn't like the logistical control computers when he took over; don't ask. Apologies to Dyslexia for switching topic from white dove to gold eagle Smile


Where did you learn that? Largely a true story. The computers were ubiquitous and involved everything from e-mail to navigation, control of air operations and supply. Unfortunately they were conceptually far ahead of their time and their real ability to perform. They were the independent creation of a Captain predecessor who afterwards went on to head the automation and modelling programs at Carnegie Mellon University. Just owing to our respective times in the chair, I spent most of my time deployed at sea ,and had lots of right now problems and little time for futuristic distractions.
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2010 01:23 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
That's just another anecdotal account.


I'll add my anecdote (which I've probably posted here a half-dozen times) - I sold a buncha the pins (and sew-on badges) to students from Texas I met at Schiphol. It was a few thousand years ago, but it wasn't unusual at the time (which was why I'd prepared ahead by carrying extra pins and badges - a good source of a few extra travel guilder)
djjd62
 
  2  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2010 01:27 pm
i always loved musician Laurie Anderson's description of travelling as an American in the middle east after the first gulf war

So even though the diplomatic part of the trip wasn't going so well, at least I was getting some instruction in terrorism. And it reminded me of something i read in a book about how terrorists are the only true artists left, because they're the only ones who are still capable of really surprising people. And the other thing it reminded me of, were all the attempts during the Gulf War to outwit the terrorists, and I especially remember an interesting list of tips devised by the US embassy in Madrid, and these tips were designed for Americans who found themselves in war-time airports. The idea was not to call ourselves to the attention of the numerous foreign terrorists who were presumably lurking on the way to terminal, so the embassy tips were a list of mostly don'ts. Things like: don't wear a baseball cap; don't wear a sweat shirt with the name of an American university on it; don't wear Timberlands with no socks; don't chew gum; don't yell "Ethel, our plane is leaving!". I mean it's weird when your entire culture can be summed up in eight giveaway characteristics.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2010 01:28 pm
@ehBeth,
According to this projection for 2008 by AAA, it was expected that there would be more than 25 million "person trips" to foreign destinations by Americans, in 2008. They commented that this was a rise of more than 2 and half percent over 2007--which means that there were more than 24 million person trips by Americans in 2007. Now, a certain number of those person trips would have been businesswomen or -men making more than one trip overseas. But even if that accounted for half of those person trips, that still leaves well over ten million Americans travelling overseas in 2007.

Bow many do you suppose carried backpacks with Canadian flag patches, or wore Canadian flag pins?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2010 01:54 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
Notably Islam experienced no secular enlightenment and no religious reformation as did Europe (though science, learning and religious disagreements abounded) and importantly no tradition of nation states, distinct from religious authority. These Islamic Empires, owing to their geographic situation, also controlled trade between the, adjacent to them, Eastern and Western worlds.


The idea of a 'nation state' wasn't to be found in Europe either ... until, perhaps, late 18th century (in France and England).
So that's really no difference at all - at least not until a couple of decades ago.

georgeob1 wrote:
The United States was not the agent of Islamic suppression. It is true that we foolishly aided the British & French in destroying the Ottoman Empire by our assistance in WWI (we put a million troops in Europe while they withdrew about 700,000 for transfer to Palestine): we even more foolishly aided our British ally by providing muscle to their overthrow of Iran’s Mohammed Mossadegh so they could impose a continued 90-10 split of the profits of British Petroleum in Iran (as opposed to the 50-50 deal we had just negotiated with Saudi Arabia) - The British Labor government needed the money to pay welfare benefits in Britain.
Well, this is one of your favourite topics, isn't it?

However, your infos are only partly correct.
In fact, BP was indeed one of the first companies to exploit Iraqui oil.
The 25-years concession contract fro 1925, however, was granted to a consortium, 23.75% owned by BP, while the rest was shared between other British, French and US-American companies. (In the so-called "Turkish Petroleum Company", later becoming the "Iraq Petroleum Company", the companies which later became Shell and Total hold 23.75% as well; forbears of Exxon and Mobil hold another 23.75%; the deal fixer Calouste Gulbenkian hold the rest of 5%.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2010 02:02 pm
Yes, and in fact, BP originally was The Anglo-Persian Oil Company, incorporated in 1909.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2010 02:03 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Trivial and mostly irellevant, distracting detail.

Your Nation state point was a "correction" to a distinction I didn't make at all, and which plays no part whatever in the argument.

I accurately described the conflict between Britain and Iran in 1953 over the Abadan Oil Refinery and the distribution of the Anglo Iranian Oil Company profits between Britain & Iran (Later BP) involving then Prime Minister Mohammet Mossadegh. It was 90 - 10 just as I wrote. I made no reference to other companies at all (except the contemporaneous - and highly relevant - negotiation for the for the formation of ARAMCO). There are some excellent recent histories of these events which you may like to read.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2010 02:07 pm
@georgeob1,
In fact, you did not accurately describe it. Mossadegh was overthrown by a coup organized by Central Intelligence, authorized by Eisenhower, and code-named Operation Ajax.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2010 02:15 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

... we even more foolishly aided our British ally by providing muscle to their overthrow of Iran’s Mohammed Mossadegh so they could impose a continued 90-10 split of the profits of British Petroleum in Iran (as opposed to the 50-50 deal we had just negotiated with Saudi Arabia) - The British Labor government needed the money to pay welfare benefits in Britain.


Mossadegh spent about a month in Washington as President Truman's guest while he and Dean Atchenson tried earnestly to negotiate a solution with the British, who instead urged us to take over a network they had established in Iran to overthrow Mossadegh and reassert the power of their appointed stooge, Shah Pahlevi. Negotiations didn't work due to British intransigence, and soon after he took office, the new President Eisenhower gave the go-ahead for the CIA operation to which you referred. I believe he later regretted this action and this may have influenced his decision over the Suez invasion by Britain, France, and Israel a few years later.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2010 02:23 pm
@georgeob1,
You claimed that the 90-10 split came from an agreement with Mossadegh, and that it began with a Brit operation to take the Abadan refinery. There was no conflict between Britain and Iran. Atlee would not approve a military operation against the Abadan refinery, and Truman would not back the Brit play. That's why, after Eisenhower was inaugurated in 1953, Central Intelligence took their plan for Operation Ajax to him for approval. Maybe its just your writing skills which are lacking, but this passage below makes it look as though there were a conflict between Britain and Iran, and that Mossadegh was involved in the distribution of the profits. In fact, Mossadegh proposed to the Majlis the nationalization of the oil industry, and they approved it unanimously.

georgeob1 wrote:
I accurately described the conflict between Britain and Iran in 1953 over the Abadan Oil Refinery and the distribution of the Anglo Iranian Oil Company profits between Britain & Iran (Later BP) involving then Prime Minister Mohammet Mossadegh.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2010 02:25 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
I believe he later regretted this action and this may have influenced his decision over the Suez invasion by Britain, France, and Israel a few years later.


This is about the only part of your narrative with which i agree. I think as the case was years late with Kennedy and the Bay of Pigs, Eisenhower got a bait and switch run-down on Operation Ajax from Central Intelligence, and once bitten, twice shy, he wouldn't listen to them in 1956.
0 Replies
 
contrex
 
  2  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2010 02:25 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

The British Labor government


georgeob1, just a couple of wee points...

1. The Australians have a "Labor" party. The British party that sounds similar is the Labour Party.

2. The coup that overthrew Mossadegh took place in 1953 when the government in Britain was formed by the Conservative Party.

... that make you come over a bit, er, ignorant.



Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2010 02:26 pm
@contrex,
contrex wrote:
... that make you come over a bit, er, ignorant.


Pot, meet kettle.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2010 02:32 pm
@Setanta,
No, the 90-10 split predated Mossadegh, and I believe I made that fairly clear. It was a long-standing holdover from earlier British petroleum concessions in Iran/Persia that had their origins back in the very early 20th century. Mossadegh was trying to achieve something closer to the 50-50 split then being negotiated in Saudi Arabia. There was considerable ongoing violence at the British controlled refinery on Iran's Abadan island in the Gulf and the whole matter had been simmering for several years. Mossadegh later precipitated a crisis by nationalizing the operation, as you say, and that was the occasion of his extended visit to Washington and Truman's failed attempts to mediate.

I left out a lot of detail, but my earlier description, though mercifully abbreviated, was accurate.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2010 02:33 pm
@georgeob1,
However, Mossadegh did not negotiate that split.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2010 02:34 pm
@Setanta,
I agree.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2010 02:38 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
The United States was not the agent of Islamic suppression. It is true that we foolishly aided the British & French in destroying the Ottoman Empire by our assistance in WWI (we put a million troops in Europe while they withdrew about 700,000 for transfer to Palestine): we even more foolishly aided our British ally by providing muscle to their overthrow of Iran’s Mohammed Mossadegh so they could impose a continued 90-10 split of the profits of British Petroleum in Iran (as opposed to the 50-50 deal we had just negotiated with Saudi Arabia) - The British Labor government needed the money to pay welfare benefits in Britain.

Well, this is one of your favourite topics, isn't it?


No, it is simply the real truth. I repeat it only because folks like you persistently forget it.

The truth is what it is. That I repeat it has no bearing on its veracity or relevance to today's situation.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2010 02:48 pm
@contrex,
contrex wrote:

2. The coup that overthrew Mossadegh took place in 1953 when the government in Britain was formed by the Conservative Party.

... that make you come over a bit, er, ignorant.

True, but the failed negotiations that preceeded the coup and the preparations for the coup and earnest solicitations to us to finance and manage it all came from the previous Labor Government - and were enthusiastically endorsed by the incoming Conservative government.

The different spellings we use are irellevant.

... that makes you come over as a little, er, petty and stupid.
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2010 03:07 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

The different spellings we use are irellevant.


For you, that may be.
But if they were for the Labour Party (and party members)- they had used a different spelling already.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2010 03:13 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
If I refer to the Social Democrat party in Germany, you know what I mean, even If I don't write the title in German. We and the Brits share parts of a common language... but not all. In particular we eschew all the extra "u"s in color, labor and other like words.

However, If that is all you can come up with, I'll accept the criticism.


There is another point I should acknowledge, and it does involve some errors in my previous discourse. The British labor government in fact, at the top at least, couldn't bring itself to actually endorse a coup (though their intelligence services had already prepared one). Neither would they accept a relaxation of the 90-10 split that was at the heart of the dispute. They were at impasse. In effect they kicked the ball to the incoming Conservatives who earnestly requested our help in carrying out a coup they had already largely organized.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/30/2024 at 03:11:15