I didn't say "feel contempt". You made that up. I merely pointed out that the Shah was NOT put in power by the CIA but was already in power since 1941. That was something you simply didn't know.
And not only did you get upset when it was pointed out that you confused the Shah with his father, you even accused me of denying historical facts. When you were first told that you were wrong, you should have checked with an encyclopedia or history book. Instead you decided to insult the messenger. That's when you lost the "I didn't get upset" argument.
Your argument was invalid because the incident you referred to didn't happen as you claim it did. The Shah was within his rights to fire a prime minister who broke the law by nationalising private property. A British prime minister or German chancellor could be "overthrown" for the same act, even when condoned by parliament. And yes, a legitimate government (and that's what the Shah was) can accept help from other countries.
There is nothing sinister about it.
What exactly did the oil companies steal from the citizens of middle-eastern countries? The oil they happened to be born on and could never use because they didn't invent petrol and diesel engines? The desert land used by the oil companies which could not be used for anything else? Their pride because western oil companies can do what locals cannot do?
Tell me, what exactly was stolen?
