4 ms·

>Citizens of both countries seem to hate America, but ordinary Iranian citizens never did a 911-style attack on the US. Is it because of historical reasons that

>Citizens of both countries seem to hate America, but ordinary Iranian citizens never did a 911-style attack on the US. Is it because of historical reasons that Saudis are the friend and Iranians the enemy? The real quick spark notes are: Iran tried to socialize their Oil Production as they believed that Irani's deserved more than 10% of the profit generated instead of just paying Britain forever. In response the CIA did a coup d'état and there's been instability ever since. Naturally the US aligned itself with it's own oil company in the region (California-Arabian Standard Oil, which is now the Aramco) given that it had just made an enemy of Iran. I think a pretty weird quirk of history is that if you squint hard enough Aramco is technically a Silicon Valley startup, with beginnings in San Francisco that was one of the largest IPOs of 2020.

oh_sigh 5y ago
Imagine this: In England, the Queen decides to dissolve the parliament - which she has the absolute right to do. Boris says "No, I'm the boss now". The USA sends in some aid for the Queen and helps get Boris out of there, so the Queen can re-set up a new government. Did the Queen/US commit a coup d'etat? Or did Boris commit the coup and try to become a dictator by not stepping down when legally required to? That is exactly what happened in Iran, if you replace "Queen" with "Shah" and "Boris" with "Mossadegh".
- yongjik 5y ago
  I don't know what answer you are expecting, but realistically(?) speaking, the world will absolutely lose their mind if America installs its favorite leader on the UK. That kind of shit is what superpowers do onto countries like Iran or Afghanistan, not in Western Europe.
  - sceadu 5y ago
    That's not the point of his example...
- nemothekid 5y ago
  >The USA sends in some aid for the Queen ... That is exactly what happened in Iran This seem disingenuous as you completely remove the motivations of the actors. You forgot the part where the US bribes the queen to dissolve the parliament so that Boris doesn't nationalize British Petroleum. That's a HUGE detail that you are handwaving away. So yes, if the US bribed the queen to dissolve parliament because the people of UK democratically decided to nationalize BP, that would be a very bad thing even though the queen "has the absolute right to do" so.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > You forgot the part where the US bribes the queen to dissolve the parliament so that Boris doesn't nationalize British Petroleum Also the part where the CIA pays for and stages a coup attempt just so that it can use it as a pretext to use other forces that it is also paying to suppress the armed uprising on behalf of the Queen, with the resulting security situation being the public pretext used for the disillusion of parliament.
    - p_l 5y ago
      Also don't forget US-trained and provided for oppression campaign which radicalizes opposition and ends up in revolution and ultimately the heavily religious shift.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > In England, the Queen decides to dissolve the parliament - which she has the absolute right to do No, she doesn't, at least by what appears to be the dominant constitutional theory (not having a simple written Constitution makes this...less clear than one might want it to be.) The Crown does, sure, but the particular category of Crown powers this falls into is that it is validly exercised by the Queen/King-in-Council; that is, by and with the advice and consent of the Privy Council, not unilaterally. > Did the Queen/US commit a coup d'etat? Yes.
55555 5y ago
> I think a pretty weird quirk of history is that if you squint hard enough Aramco is technically a Silicon Valley startup, with beginnings in San Francisco that was one of the largest IPOs of 2020. It looks like the company that became Aramco was Chevron, which was a result of Standard Oil's break up. So not sure I'd call it a startup. But if I squint even harder, and I consider their investment to simply be VC money, then it sorta makes sense, but if I squinted any harder my eyes would be fully closed. Am I missing something?
- nemothekid 5y ago
  >Am I missing something? Nope you aren't, it's already a pretty wild stretch of the imagination; it's just a fun anecdote.

oh_sigh 5y ago

Imagine this: In England, the Queen decides to dissolve the parliament - which she has the absolute right to do. Boris says "No, I'm the boss now". The USA sends in some aid for the Queen and helps get Boris out of there, so the Queen can re-set up a new government. Did the Queen/US commit a coup d'etat? Or did Boris commit the coup and try to become a dictator by not stepping down when legally required to? That is exactly what happened in Iran, if you replace "Queen" with "Shah" and "Boris" with "Mossadegh".

yongjik 5y ago
I don't know what answer you are expecting, but realistically(?) speaking, the world will absolutely lose their mind if America installs its favorite leader on the UK. That kind of shit is what superpowers do onto countries like Iran or Afghanistan, not in Western Europe.
- sceadu 5y ago
  That's not the point of his example...
nemothekid 5y ago
>The USA sends in some aid for the Queen ... That is exactly what happened in Iran This seem disingenuous as you completely remove the motivations of the actors. You forgot the part where the US bribes the queen to dissolve the parliament so that Boris doesn't nationalize British Petroleum. That's a HUGE detail that you are handwaving away. So yes, if the US bribed the queen to dissolve parliament because the people of UK democratically decided to nationalize BP, that would be a very bad thing even though the queen "has the absolute right to do" so.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > You forgot the part where the US bribes the queen to dissolve the parliament so that Boris doesn't nationalize British Petroleum Also the part where the CIA pays for and stages a coup attempt just so that it can use it as a pretext to use other forces that it is also paying to suppress the armed uprising on behalf of the Queen, with the resulting security situation being the public pretext used for the disillusion of parliament.
  - p_l 5y ago
    Also don't forget US-trained and provided for oppression campaign which radicalizes opposition and ends up in revolution and ultimately the heavily religious shift.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> In England, the Queen decides to dissolve the parliament - which she has the absolute right to do No, she doesn't, at least by what appears to be the dominant constitutional theory (not having a simple written Constitution makes this...less clear than one might want it to be.) The Crown does, sure, but the particular category of Crown powers this falls into is that it is validly exercised by the Queen/King-in-Council; that is, by and with the advice and consent of the Privy Council, not unilaterally. > Did the Queen/US commit a coup d'etat? Yes.

55555 5y ago

> I think a pretty weird quirk of history is that if you squint hard enough Aramco is technically a Silicon Valley startup, with beginnings in San Francisco that was one of the largest IPOs of 2020. It looks like the company that became Aramco was Chevron, which was a result of Standard Oil's break up. So not sure I'd call it a startup. But if I squint even harder, and I consider their investment to simply be VC money, then it sorta makes sense, but if I squinted any harder my eyes would be fully closed. Am I missing something?

nemothekid 5y ago
>Am I missing something? Nope you aren't, it's already a pretty wild stretch of the imagination; it's just a fun anecdote.