The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Reasons Iran does not trust the West in General and Israel and the US in particular. Options
towan52
Posted: Thursday, February 7, 2019 9:41:09 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/28/2012
Posts: 1,785
Neurons: 192,953
Location: Midland, Texas, United States
If you don't consider this article as a justification for Iran's recent wrongdoings, you might find it extremely interesting. I mean, the US did not detain and hold hostage any Iranian diplomats; but then the Iranians didn't shoot down a US passenger airplane! The article itself does not talk about "SAVAK", a violently repressive secret police force created by the CIA and MOSSAD (Israel's equivalent of the CIA), but that's how the Shah stayed in office from the 1950s to 1979. In the interest of fairness, it was the British losing their control of Iran's oil that started this whole sorry affair. The vast majority of Americans, in my experience, have absolutely no knowledge (and even less interest) of these events, They just group Iran with other countries that "don't like us" and usually pronounce Iran as "Eye-ran" - there's your sign!

"Of all the liars in the world, sometimes the worst are your own fears. ~ Rudyard Kipling "
FounDit
Posted: Thursday, February 7, 2019 11:22:45 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 10,306
Neurons: 53,413
towan52 wrote:
If you don't consider this article as a justification for Iran's recent wrongdoings, you might find it extremely interesting.
Interesting — yes. Justification for wanting to destroy the U.S. and Israel — no.

I mean, the US did not detain and hold hostage any Iranian diplomats; but then the Iranians didn't shoot down a US passenger airplane! The article itself does not talk about "SAVAK", a violently repressive secret police force created by the CIA and MOSSAD (Israel's equivalent of the CIA), but that's how the Shah stayed in office from the 1950s to 1979. In the interest of fairness, it was the British losing their control of Iran's oil that started this whole sorry affair. The vast majority of Americans, in my experience, have absolutely no knowledge (and even less interest) of these events, They just group Iran with other countries that "don't like us" and usually pronounce Iran as "Eye-ran" - there's your sign!

Well, you're right that most of us here in the States have little knowledge of, and even less interest in, what happened between the Iranian Regime and the British. We had other things to think about at the time, like recovery from the war in Korea and the on-going recovery from WWII, not to mention helping Europe recover also. But things are usually never quite as simple as one article may present it — even NPR (National Public Radio), which is an admitted proponent of the political Left.

Be that as it may, the article itself doesn't answer some questions which might shed some light on why things happened as they did.

Foremost is the idea that "Mohammad Mossadegh was a beloved figure in Iran." That assertion isn't backed up with any evidence, but assuming it is true, why did he then Nationalize the oil industry, and thus create friction between his nation and Great Britain? And did he not think that seizing the assets of another country might cause some hard feelings? Did Iran at that time have the ability or technology to take advantage of the oil beneath the sands? Did Mossadegh see an opportunity because of the weakened state of G.B. and decide to serve himself by seizing those assets? We can't know, but it certainly seems logical.

Only a month earlier, Britain had just come out of the Korean War effort with 87,000 British troops taking part, and over 1,000 British servicemen losing their lives, not to mention all that happened in WWII. Oil would have been a major factor in reconstructing the society of G.B., so choking off that supply might have been a factor in taking action in Iran

I'm not looking to start an argument, but I do think it is a good idea to think a bit critically when reading something like that article, because these kinds of things are never quite that simple. Political jockeying and creation of spheres of influence go on all the time, and have since the beginnings of political systems. Flawed humans make mistakes, but sometimes we get it right, also. There is nothing new here. And it's foolish to simply seize a moment in time and assign blame while ignoring everything that went on before which contributed to that moment.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
towan52
Posted: Thursday, February 7, 2019 12:44:31 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/28/2012
Posts: 1,785
Neurons: 192,953
Location: Midland, Texas, United States
I'm sure you're not wishing to start an argument Whistle I do however slightly object to the implied criticism of not thinking critically. The article, I think, is designed to encourage further research. I would hope that most moderately intelligent people would look further (as I did).

My opening line was worded ambiguously - let me emphasise: nothing can justify some of the Iranian government's actions. I wanted to encourage readers NOT to see it as justification - my bad!

The British, in their endearingly colonial and arrogant ways had stitched up the Iranian oil industry in a such a way as to ensure that little benefit accrued to the Iranians. Nationalizing was a last resort to get control of their own resources. It seems that Britain's reduced influence, post WWII, caused them to seek assistance from the US. Perhaps because of the start of the cold-war and the fact that Iran shared a border with the USSR, Roosevelt was keen to instigate a regime change and eventually succeeded. We're still experiencing blow-back!

NPR may well be seen as sympathetic to the "political left", but it's the only nationally networked news source (I've found) that presents different viewpoints on topics of the day and frequently invites those with opposing views to participate. Note that those from the "political right" frequently don't respond to those invitations. Knowledgeable reporters and correspondents that actually question and challenge public figures and "subject-experts" will, probably be seen as "leftist" - Maybe it's just that they're smarter than the average CNN/Fox reporters Dancing

Personally, I'm appalled at the blatant chauvinism and bias of CNN and Fox News and pay no attention to their reporting. Even the NBC, ABC and CBS evening news programs cannot be considered serious or authentic news sources. They are supposed to be 30 minute news broadcasts, but what we get is superficial, ethnocentric coverage for about 13 minutes with 15 minutes of commercial breaks. Additionally, after they finish with the "main news" stories, it's one feature at a time followed by repeated commercial breaks. Is it any wonder that, generally speaking, US citizens are often familiar with bad calls in a football playoff, but couldn't place New Zealand on a world map!

Off you go Dave!

"Of all the liars in the world, sometimes the worst are your own fears. ~ Rudyard Kipling "
FounDit
Posted: Thursday, February 7, 2019 4:27:42 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 10,306
Neurons: 53,413
towan52 wrote:
I'm sure you're not wishing to start an argument Whistle I do however slightly object to the implied criticism of not thinking critically. The article, I think, is designed to encourage further research. I would hope that most moderately intelligent people would look further (as I did).
Well, if you thought I was implying that you don't think critically, I apologize. My intent was to merely suggest that people reading articles such as you offered, look a bit further, too (as you suggest).

My opening line was worded ambiguously - let me emphasise: nothing can justify some of the Iranian government's actions. I wanted to encourage readers NOT to see it as justification - my bad!

The British, in their endearingly colonial and arrogant ways had stitched up the Iranian oil industry in a such a way as to ensure that little benefit accrued to the Iranians. Well, I don't know much about this, so I have to ask questions and hope someone more knowledgeable can answer them. For example:
Did the British "stitch up" the Iranian oil because they didn't want the Iranians to benefit much, or was it because the British had invested a great deal of money, materials, and labor into building the oil industry? I'm asking.


Nationalizing was a last resort to get control of their own resources. The article says there were negotiations. Do we know if the British proposed unreasonable terms, or if the Iranians demanded unreasonable terms? I don't know, just asking. The answers might have a strong influence on how the events turned out and how we might evaluate them.


It seems that Britain's reduced influence, post WWII, caused them to seek assistance from the US. Perhaps because of the start of the cold-war and the fact that Iran shared a border with the USSR, Roosevelt was keen to instigate a regime change and eventually succeeded. We're still experiencing blow-back!
Perhaps, but that seems a guess on your part. Is there any evidence to suggest this was Roosevelt's thinking? I don't know, I'm just asking. And what reason would Roosevelt have for doing this? Were the Iranians interested in supplying oil to Russia? Was Russian interested in exerting undue influence over Iran and the British oil infrastructure? I can't imagine the British Gov't. being a fan of Russia taking over their oil infrastructure in Iran either. I don't know, but wonder if those things might have an influence. There may also be other influences we don't know about, too.

NPR may well be seen as sympathetic to the "political left", but it's the only nationally networked news source (I've found) that presents different viewpoints on topics of the day and frequently invites those with opposing views to participate. Then you haven't watched Fox News because they do it ad nauseum.

Note that those from the "political right" frequently don't respond to those invitations. Knowledgeable reporters and correspondents that actually question and challenge public figures and "subject-experts" will, probably be seen as "leftist" - Maybe it's just that they're smarter than the average CNN/Fox reporters Dancing
So are you saying that only NPR reporters are knowledgeable? And only they question public figures and "subject-experts"? If so, I would suggest you watch some other news outlets because they all seem to do it in one form or another.

Personally, I'm appalled at the blatant chauvinism and bias of CNN and Fox News and pay no attention to their reporting. I agree on both counts.

Even the NBC, ABC and CBS evening news programs cannot be considered serious or authentic news sources. I agree here also.

They are supposed to be 30 minute news broadcasts, but what we get is superficial, ethnocentric coverage for about 13 minutes with 15 minutes of commercial breaks. Additionally, after they finish with the "main news" stories, it's one feature at a time followed by repeated commercial breaks. Is it any wonder that, generally speaking, US citizens are often familiar with bad calls in a football playoff, but couldn't place New Zealand on a world map!
Have you a great deal of experience with asking US citizens to locate New Zealand on a world map? I must admit that I don't. It's never occurred to me to ask that question. I'll try that with some of my co-workers and some of the college students and report back to you. Of course, it will be anecdotal. Will that be acceptable?

Off you go Dave!
Vroom! Vroom!

We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
towan52
Posted: Friday, February 8, 2019 11:43:40 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/28/2012
Posts: 1,785
Neurons: 192,953
Location: Midland, Texas, United States
I think you must be mellowing, young sir! New Zealand was a hypothetical choice but I would be interested in the results! There comes a time when sufficient anecdotal evidence becomes statistically significant. I haven't watched Fox since the election night when the presenters led the cameras down to the Fox research center because they couldn't believe that Obama had won! d'oh!


"Of all the liars in the world, sometimes the worst are your own fears. ~ Rudyard Kipling "
BobShilling
Posted: Friday, February 8, 2019 12:10:00 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/1/2018
Posts: 570
Neurons: 3,843
Location: Beroun, Stredocesky, Czech Republic
FounDit wrote:

Did the British "stitch up" the Iranian oil because they didn't want the Iranians to benefit much, or was it because the British had invested a great deal of money, materials, and labor into building the oil industry? I'm asking.

[...]
Do we know if the British proposed unreasonable terms, or if the Iranians demanded unreasonable terms? I don't know, just asking. The answers might have a strong influence on how the events turned out and how we might evaluate them.


You'll find some answers here. While the British did indeed find the oil and invest a great deal in the building of the oil industry. they ensured that the Iranians did pretty badly out of their oil.
FounDit
Posted: Friday, February 8, 2019 4:28:12 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 10,306
Neurons: 53,413
towan52 wrote:
I think you must be mellowing, young sir! New Zealand was a hypothetical choice but I would be interested in the results! There comes a time when sufficient anecdotal evidence becomes statistically significant. I haven't watched Fox since the election night when the presenters led the cameras down to the Fox research center because they couldn't believe that Obama had won! d'oh!


Mellowing? Why I'm always mellow, sir ... well, most of the time ... about 99% anyway.

By the time I collect enough anecdotal evidence for it to become statistically significantly, we both may be too old to remember why I was doing it. We may have to settle for a tiny sample. I did print out an unlabeled world map today in anticipation of my endeavor (and debated with myself whether or not snacks would be required).

Presenters led the cameras down to the Fox research center? What presenters do you mean? I never stay up to watch election results so I was unaware there were "presenters". I'm happy to get my sleep and wait 'til the next morning to find out if I am to be momentarily happy or disappointed.

Like I said, I'm almost always mellow.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
FounDit
Posted: Friday, February 8, 2019 4:32:45 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 10,306
Neurons: 53,413
BobShilling wrote:
FounDit wrote:

Did the British "stitch up" the Iranian oil because they didn't want the Iranians to benefit much, or was it because the British had invested a great deal of money, materials, and labor into building the oil industry? I'm asking.

[...]
Do we know if the British proposed unreasonable terms, or if the Iranians demanded unreasonable terms? I don't know, just asking. The answers might have a strong influence on how the events turned out and how we might evaluate them.


You'll find some answers here. While the British did indeed find the oil and invest a great deal in the building of the oil industry. they ensured that the Iranians did pretty badly out of their oil.


Thanks for the info. I did read the article and was not too surprised to see the typical aspects of human nature in action -- greed, manipulation, jockeying for positions of power and influence, along with the selfish desire to keep the world's advancements increasing through the power of oil's energy.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
towan52
Posted: Saturday, February 9, 2019 8:14:48 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/28/2012
Posts: 1,785
Neurons: 192,953
Location: Midland, Texas, United States
FounDit wrote:
towan52 wrote:
I think you must be mellowing, young sir! New Zealand was a hypothetical choice but I would be interested in the results! There comes a time when sufficient anecdotal evidence becomes statistically significant. I haven't watched Fox since the election night when the presenters led the cameras down to the Fox research center because they couldn't believe that Obama had won! d'oh!


Mellowing? Why I'm always mellow, sir ... well, most of the time ... about 99% anyway.

By the time I collect enough anecdotal evidence for it to become statistically significantly, we both may be too old to remember why I was doing it. We may have to settle for a tiny sample. I did print out an unlabeled world map today in anticipation of my endeavor (and debated with myself whether or not snacks would be required).

Presenters led the cameras down to the Fox research center? What presenters do you mean? I never stay up to watch election results so I was unaware there were "presenters". I'm happy to get my sleep and wait 'til the next morning to find out if I am to be momentarily happy or disappointed.

Like I said, I'm almost always mellow.


Maybe you should add Yemen and Iran as they've been in the news recently?

"Of all the liars in the world, sometimes the worst are your own fears. ~ Rudyard Kipling "
BobShilling
Posted: Sunday, February 10, 2019 12:20:57 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/1/2018
Posts: 570
Neurons: 3,843
Location: Beroun, Stredocesky, Czech Republic
Coming back to some other of FD's points/questions:

Quote:
Foremost is the idea that "Mohammad Mossadegh was a beloved figure in Iran." That assertion isn't backed up with any evidence, but assuming it is true, why did he then Nationalize the oil industry, and thus create friction between his nation and Great Britain?

Quite simply, because the people of Iran, like the people of most nations which have natural resources, considered these natural resources to be theirs. From very early times, more powerful nations have taken control of the natural resources of less powerful nations. Sometimes they have simply stolen them; at other times they have entered into 'legal agreements', often imposed by force, which have almost always been heavily weighted in favour of the more powerful nations. As weaker nations, especially from the middle half of the twentieth century, began to take control of their own nations, they not unnaturally sought to make the systems fairer. When attempts to re-negotiate agreements failed, some of the by not not so weak nations did what the powerful nations had done in the first place - seized control of the natural resources.

Quote:
And did he not think that seizing the assets of another country might cause some hard feelings

Did the British government not think that seizing the assets of another country might cause some hard feelings when they first did this?

Quote:
Did Iran at that time have the ability or technology to take advantage of the oil beneath the sands?

Once they had control of their own natural resources, they had the wherewithal to pay for what they could not do themselves.

Quote:
Did Mossadegh see an opportunity because of the weakened state of G.B. and decide to serve himself by seizing those assets?

He probably did see such a opportunity, just as Britain had earlier seen the opportunity to take advantage of the weak state of Persia.

Did he do it to serve himself or his country? I don't know, but his country would have benefited if he had been successful.


Quote:
Only a month earlier, Britain had just come out of the Korean War effort with 87,000 British troops taking part, and over 1,000 British servicemen losing their lives, not to mention all that happened in WWII. Oil would have been a major factor in reconstructing the society of G.B., so choking off that supply might have been a factor in taking action in Iran.

Britain's problems were Britain's, not Iran's.
FounDit
Posted: Sunday, February 10, 2019 2:44:01 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 10,306
Neurons: 53,413
BobShilling wrote:
Coming back to some other of FD's points/questions:

Quote:
Foremost is the idea that "Mohammad Mossadegh was a beloved figure in Iran." That assertion isn't backed up with any evidence, but assuming it is true, why did he then Nationalize the oil industry, and thus create friction between his nation and Great Britain?

Quite simply, because the people of Iran, like the people of most nations which have natural resources, considered these natural resources to be theirs. How can that be when they didn't even know the oil was there until William D'Arcy spent more than £500,000 exploring for oil before finding it? You can't claim something is yours if you don't even know you possess it. Once it was found, they could then claim it and negotiate a deal to sell it, and that's what they did, so there should have been no complaint.

From very early times, more powerful nations have taken control of the natural resources of less powerful nations. Sometimes they have simply stolen them; at other times they have entered into 'legal agreements', often imposed by force, which have almost always been heavily weighted in favour of the more powerful nations.
What you say is true, but not here. D'Arcy "negotiated an oil concession with Mozaffar al-Din Shah Qajar of Persia" whereby "the Shah received £20,000 (£2.1 million today),[2] an equal amount in shares of D'Arcy's company, and a promise of 16% of future profits." If that money wasn't spent on the people of Iran, that isn't the fault of the British, or the company.

As weaker nations, especially from the middle half of the twentieth century, began to take control of their own nations, they not unnaturally sought to make the systems fairer. When attempts to re-negotiate agreements failed, some of the by not not so weak nations did what the powerful nations had done in the first place - seized control of the natural resources.

So this makes it okay? I contract with you to come onto my land and spend a fortune looking for something. Then, after you are nearly bankrupt, you find the asset, I contract with you for payments on the asset, and I now claim it is all mine simply because I am a poor negotiator? What kind of thinking is that?

Quote:
And did he not think that seizing the assets of another country might cause some hard feelings

Did the British government not think that seizing the assets of another country might cause some hard feelings when they first did this?
Britain didn't seize the assets; they negotiated deals for them. The Iranians got untold millions of pounds for an asset they couldn't even get to, and didn't even know they had, until the British found it.

Quote:
Did Iran at that time have the ability or technology to take advantage of the oil beneath the sands?

Once they had control of their own natural resources, they had the wherewithal to pay for what they could not do themselves.
Again, the Iranians didn't have control of their own natural resources. They didn't even know it was there until the British discovered and developed it. And the only reason they had the wherewithal to pay for anything was because the British paid the agreed upon price in the contracts.

Quote:
Did Mossadegh see an opportunity because of the weakened state of G.B. and decide to serve himself by seizing those assets?

He probably did see such a opportunity, just as Britain had earlier seen the opportunity to take advantage of the weak state of Persia.
The British didn't take advantage of anyone. They entered into negotiations. If the Iranians were terrible negotiators on their own behalf, it wasn't in Britain's interest, or even good sense, to correct the mistakes of the Iranian leaders.

Did he do it to serve himself or his country? I don't know, but his country would have benefited if he had been successful.


Quote:
Only a month earlier, Britain had just come out of the Korean War effort with 87,000 British troops taking part, and over 1,000 British servicemen losing their lives, not to mention all that happened in WWII. Oil would have been a major factor in reconstructing the society of G.B., so choking off that supply might have been a factor in taking action in Iran.

Britain's problems were Britain's, not Iran's.
I disagree. Had there been no contract, this would have been true. But once they entered into an agreement between the two countries, their economic futures became linked.



We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
BobShilling
Posted: Sunday, February 10, 2019 4:18:17 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/1/2018
Posts: 570
Neurons: 3,843
Location: Beroun, Stredocesky, Czech Republic
You and I will never agree on this, FD.

My view is that when the peoples of formerly undeveloped countries come to realise that the leaders of their countries decades ago were forced/cajoled/bribed/cheated into agreements that were to their long-term disadvantage, then they have an absolute right to insist on new agreements. If they cannot obtain a satisfactory agreement, then they have a right to claim back their resources.

I won't be able to convince you of this any more than you will be able to convince me that I am wrong. So, I'll leave it there.
FounDit
Posted: Sunday, February 10, 2019 5:28:52 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 10,306
Neurons: 53,413
BobShilling wrote:
You and I will never agree on this, FD.

My view is that when the peoples of formerly undeveloped countries come to realise that the leaders of their countries decades ago were forced/cajoled/bribed/cheated into agreements that were to their long-term disadvantage, then they have an absolute right to insist on new agreements. If they cannot obtain a satisfactory agreement, then they have a right to claim back their resources.
I would absolutely agree with you IF they were forced/cajoled/bribed, or cheated, but that wasn't what happened here. They negotiated and received untold millions of pounds for not only access to, but a share of, the profits.

That said, I can see why they would want to negotiate new agreements once they saw how lucrative the oil became. But who is to say that what they were receiving was not enough, and that it wasn't greed on their part that took over? That is what so often happens when power and money mix.

But if they could not get the deal they wanted, they could certainly lay claim to the resources that have been found. What they cannot do, however, is lay claim to the infrastructure that was built to access that resource. That did not belong to them.

I won't be able to convince you of this any more than you will be able to convince me that I am wrong. So, I'll leave it there.

That's probably true, since your initial post appears to take the position that the Iranians were somehow forced/cajoled/bribed, or cheated, and I don't see that at all.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
towan52
Posted: Monday, February 11, 2019 10:30:49 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/28/2012
Posts: 1,785
Neurons: 192,953
Location: Midland, Texas, United States
Yes, there is a parallel in the 18th century treatment of the colonies by the British. It was, of course perfectly reasonable for the Crown to want some payback for keeping the colonists safe during the French-Indian wars. But the wicked colonials took exception to this and nationalised the whole group of colonies. Eventually the Brits (with Russian assistance) put Donny John Trump in as Shah with John Bolton at the head of the Special Police! Whistle

"Of all the liars in the world, sometimes the worst are your own fears. ~ Rudyard Kipling "
FounDit
Posted: Monday, February 11, 2019 10:53:57 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 10,306
Neurons: 53,413
towan52 wrote:
FounDit wrote:
towan52 wrote:
I think you must be mellowing, young sir! New Zealand was a hypothetical choice but I would be interested in the results! There comes a time when sufficient anecdotal evidence becomes statistically significant. I haven't watched Fox since the election night when the presenters led the cameras down to the Fox research center because they couldn't believe that Obama had won! d'oh!


Mellowing? Why I'm always mellow, sir ... well, most of the time ... about 99% anyway.

By the time I collect enough anecdotal evidence for it to become statistically significantly, we both may be too old to remember why I was doing it. We may have to settle for a tiny sample. I did print out an unlabeled world map today in anticipation of my endeavor (and debated with myself whether or not snacks would be required).

Presenters led the cameras down to the Fox research center? What presenters do you mean? I never stay up to watch election results so I was unaware there were "presenters". I'm happy to get my sleep and wait 'til the next morning to find out if I am to be momentarily happy or disappointed.

Like I said, I'm almost always mellow.


Maybe you should add Yemen and Iran as they've been in the news recently?


Okay. I'll do that. And just for a lark, how about you ask some of your British friends back home if they can locate Delaware, Vermont, or Iowa on a map with no labels? Should be interesting, also.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
towan52
Posted: Monday, February 11, 2019 2:31:42 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/28/2012
Posts: 1,785
Neurons: 192,953
Location: Midland, Texas, United States
FounDit wrote:
Okay. I'll do that. And just for a lark, how about you ask some of your British friends back home if they can locate Delaware, Vermont, or Iowa on a map with no labels? Should be interesting, also.


Are those countries in South America? - just kidding! That would be a bit like comparing oranges and apples (Rutland, Huntingdonshire & Wiltshire?), anyway they would just google it!

"Of all the liars in the world, sometimes the worst are your own fears. ~ Rudyard Kipling "
FounDit
Posted: Monday, February 11, 2019 3:07:14 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 10,306
Neurons: 53,413
towan52 wrote:
FounDit wrote:
Okay. I'll do that. And just for a lark, how about you ask some of your British friends back home if they can locate Delaware, Vermont, or Iowa on a map with no labels? Should be interesting, also.


Are those countries in South America? - just kidding! That would be a bit like comparing oranges and apples (Rutland, Huntingdonshire & Wiltshire?), anyway they would just google it!


Well, Rutland, Huntingdonshire & Wiltshire might be said to be the equivalent of our "counties", but since we have some states that are as large as European countries, I think it's a fair comparison.

Btw, I asked a few people at lunch today about New Zealand, Iran and Yemen. No one had any trouble with New Zealand, but everyone said Yemen was "somewhere around the Arabian Peninsula? somewhere near Qatar? and Iran was (with a general circular movement of the hand) somewhere around the Middle Eastern area. At least they were in the right area of the planet. That's pretty good for an American, right?



We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Jyrkkä Jätkä
Posted: Thursday, February 14, 2019 4:55:45 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/21/2009
Posts: 42,441
Neurons: 452,675
Location: Helsinki, Southern Finland Province, Finland
Try this for fun and interest:

Find the United States from map

With Google you can find more such games from around the world.

I got 44 out of 50 with States ;-)


In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.
Jyrkkä Jätkä
Posted: Thursday, February 14, 2019 5:02:26 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/21/2009
Posts: 42,441
Neurons: 452,675
Location: Helsinki, Southern Finland Province, Finland
Game of Europe ;-)


In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.
FounDit
Posted: Thursday, February 14, 2019 1:48:57 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 10,306
Neurons: 53,413
Jyrkkä Jätkä wrote:
Game of Europe ;-)


I guess I didn't do so well. I got only 55% of them. Some of the smaller places really got me, like Andorra, montenegro and Slovenia.

We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2008-2019 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.