NationStates Jolt Archive

This is just out of curiosity. Seeing as that mostly what we talk about are guns, God, gays, blah blah blah, I figured this would be something at least kind of different. This is the first thread, to my knowledge, on the Shah. That said, what is your opinion of him on a scale from 1 to 10 (1 being the worst, 10 being the best)?

Bleh, if this was a poll on Bush it'd have over 100 replies by now. :(

This is just out of curiosity. Seeing as that mostly what we talk about are guns, God, gays, blah blah blah, I figured this would be something at least kind of different. This is the first thread, to my knowledge, on the Shah. That said, what is your opinion of him on a scale from 1 to 10 (1 being the worst, 10 being the best)?

The Shah of Iran was a pro-American puppet whose repressive policies caused enormous blowback to America in the form of the Iranian revolution and the rise of the Ayatollah Khomeini, one of the most dangerous men the world has ever known, sparking off the Iran-Iraq war which we were unfortunately obliged to support Saddam Hussein in.

Yeah, Shah gets a one. Glad that bastard's dead. Hopefully we can send Hussein to meet him soon in hell and we can watch SAVAK duke it out with the Saddamites.

im ignorant, what was the Shah like?

The Shah of Iran was a pro-American puppet whose repressive policies caused enormous blowback to America in the form of the Iranian revolution and the rise of the Ayatollah Khomeini, one of the most dangerous men the world has ever known, sparking off the Iran-Iraq war which we were unfortunately obliged to support Saddam Hussein in.

Thanks for sharing, but how does being pro-American make him an American "puppet?"

I don't know much about the Shah, except that Iran still practices just about every form of discrimination towards women, gays, and just about every religion except Islam.

I don't know much about the Shah, except that Iran still practices just about every form of discrimination towards women, gays, and just about every religion except Islam.

Under the Shah, women had the right to vote, religious freedom was respected, and Iran was a secular state.

Thanks for sharing, but how does being pro-American make him an American "puppet?"

LOL, he was installed and supported by the Nixon Administration after it ousted Prime Minister Mossadeq. Savak was created by the CIA. The Shah was a result of the overblown threat of communism used as a smoke cloud to hide the truth, which is: American oil companies took over almost half of Iran’s production. U.S. arms merchants moved in with $18 billion of weapons sales over the next 20 years. That was the whole point of installing the Shah. We funded his whole regime and kept him in power so that he would open Iran's lucrative and untapped nationalist economy to the west, not to mention the vast oil resources. I mean for chrissakes, Savak was trained by the CIA.

Under the Shah, women had the right to vote, religious freedom was respected, and Iran was a secular state.

You refuse to acknowledge SAVAK. Typical. But I won't let anyone else who reads this thread be swayed by revisionist history. This is what SAVAK was:

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iran/savak/

Does that sound like Democracy to you?

LOL, he was installed and supported by the Nixon Administration after it ousted Prime Minister Mossadeq. Savak was created by the CIA. The Shah was a result of the overblown threat of communism used as a smoke cloud to hide the truth, which is: American oil companies took over almost half of Iran’s production. U.S. arms merchants moved in with $18 billion of weapons sales over the next 20 years. That was the whole point of installing the Shah. We funded his whole regime and kept him in power so that he would open Iran's lucrative and untapped nationalist economy to the west, not to mention the vast oil resources. I mean for chrissakes, Savak was trained by the CIA.

It was the Eisenhower Administration, actually.

You refuse to acknowledge SAVAK. Typical. But I won't let anyone else who reads this thread be swayed by revisionist history. This is what SAVAK was:

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iran/savak/

Does that sound like Democracy to you?

I never said it was a democracy. I simply said women had the right to vote, there was religious freedom, and it was secular.

It was the Eisenhower Administration, actually.

I stand corrected.

The Shah of Iran was a pro-American puppet whose repressive policies caused enormous blowback to America ...

How to turn a thread with good educational possibilities into an anti-American thread. Thanks a lot.:headbang:

I never said it was a democracy. I simply said women had the right to vote, there was religious freedom, and it was secular.

Honestly, I think you're painting an overly rosey picture of the situation, and I think you have alterior motives for doing so. I mean, back in HItler's Germany, the trains ran on time! If we wanted, we could all focus on that little rosey tidbit and forget about the fact that Hitler put 6 million innocent people to death, couldn't we?

Thanks for sharing, but how does being pro-American make him an American "puppet?"
They installed him.

How to turn a thread with good educational possibilities into an anti-American thread. Thanks a lot.:headbang:


Prove that the Shah wasn't an American puppet. I challenge you.

They installed him.

Re-installed him.

Re-installed him.
That doesn't make him any less of a US-puppet.

I never said it was a democracy. I simply said women had the right to vote, there was religious freedom, and it was secular.
That's like saying the elections in Iraq (pre-invasion) were free and fair. They could vote, but only for one person.

Honestly, I think you're painting an overly rosey picture of the situation, and I think you have alterior motives for doing so. I mean, back in HItler's Germany, the trains ran on time! If we wanted, we could all focus on that little rosey tidbit and forget about the fact that Hitler put 6 million innocent people to death, couldn't we?

Most of the time I see historical figures in black and white. The Shah is one of the few that I see in gray. On one hand, SAVAK was brutal, he was extremely repressive, there's no questioning that. On the other hand, he did permit many personal (including religious) freedoms, brought Iran into the 20th century, and did a lot for the poor. So basically he's a two-sided coin. One side, good, the other bad. Whether the bad outweighs the good or vice versa, though, is up to one's own perspective.

That doesn't make him any less of a US-puppet.

It's funny how whenever the U.S. installs someone, that someone is always considered a "puppet," but whenever the U.S.S.R. or someone else installs someone, that other someone is not considered a puppet. What's up with that?

He had a fine toilet.

He had a fine toilet.

So did Saddam.

*Shrug*

How to turn a thread with good educational possibilities into an anti-American thread. Thanks a lot.:headbang:
It brings a tear to my eye.

It's funny how whenever the U.S. installs someone, that someone is always considered a "puppet,"
Yes wierd. Isn't it? Especially since we all know the US doesn't installs/supports ruthless dictators. Only the others do that.
but whenever the U.S.S.R. or someone else installs someone, that other someone is not considered a puppet. What's up with that?
They are considerd puppets. Just not US ones.

It's funny how whenever the U.S. installs someone, that someone is always considered a "puppet," but whenever the U.S.S.R. or someone else installs someone, that other someone is not considered a puppet. What's up with that?

Because when the defunct USSR installed someone, he was a total nutcase. Puppet doesn't quite go far enough in that case lol.

Yes wierd. Isn't it? Especially since we all know the US doesn't installs/supports ruthless dictators. Only the others do that.

I never said they didn't. Ever hear of a bastard named Ngo Dinh Diem?

They are considerd puppets. Just not US ones.

I know a lot of people on NS who are extremely hypocritical and consider U.S.-installed governments 'puppets,' but not Soviet-installed ones. I'm glad you see differently.

I never said they didn't. Ever hear of a bastard named Ngo Dinh Diem?
Yes. Charming fellow.



I know a lot of people on NS who are extremely hypocritical and consider U.S.-installed governments 'puppets,' but not Soviet-installed ones. I'm glad you see differently.
Just beeing realistic.

Yes. Charming fellow.

The Hitler of Indochina (Ho Chi Minh and Pol Pot were the Stalins).

Prove that the Shah wasn't an American puppet. I challenge you.

Why? The burden or proof is on you. If you make a statement, then prove it. If you do, I am man enough to accept it.

Didn't Britain help the U.S. re-install the Shah?

Why? The burden or proof is on you. If you make a statement, then prove it. If you do, I am man enough to accept it.

Le sigh I will repost the same link I posted on the last page which explains it. Obviously, you didn't feel the need to read it, or maybe you just like to have things repeated for you:

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iran/savak/

Do be a dear and read the whole page before making more uninformed statements.

The Hitler of Indochina (Ho Chi Minh and Pol Pot were the Stalins).

How do you classify Castro?

How do you classify Castro?

The Mussolini of Latin America?

*Shrug*

I usually just refer to him as a no-good son of a bitch who should roast on a hot skillet in hell.

I'd say that the shah gets a low score, a three. He was a crappy guy, who held crappy policies, but he was far from being the worst.

But as the US installation of the shah, we must notice that the primary reason was probably misunderstanding, not some insane conspiracy involving US oil. When the CIA learned that Mossadeq was going to nationalize British oil, the US panicked. The US thought a thousand things, ranging from a fear that the Russians were about to buy off Mossadeq (specifically in a secret deal that had not been uncovered at the time) so as to be able to seize the oil of Iran.

While there wasn't solid evidence, this was an era of paranoia and fear. We saw the big red dog trying to break out of the containment ring in a new area. In a most dangerous area, right next to the oil supply of the west. If the Russians got the Middle East, the cold war was lost. Perhaps you can see the fear that was felt by the CIA guys, folks who are trained to see a ghost in every shadow.

So we installed a guy who we thought wouldn't sell out to the Soviets no matter what. It was not so much that he supported US interests, as he was against Soviet interests. That's what it was.

I never said it was a democracy. I simply said women had the right to vote...
oximoron

LOL, he was installed and supported by the Nixon Administration after it ousted Prime Minister Mossadeq. Savak was created by the CIA. The Shah was a result of the overblown threat of communism used as a smoke cloud to hide the truth, which is: American oil companies took over almost half of Iran’s production. U.S. arms merchants moved in with $18 billion of weapons sales over the next 20 years. That was the whole point of installing the Shah. We funded his whole regime and kept him in power so that he would open Iran's lucrative and untapped nationalist economy to the west, not to mention the vast oil resources. I mean for chrissakes, Savak was trained by the CIA.
don't overlook the role of M16 in all this. Britain was, after all, the spark. Truman didn't go for it, but Eisenhower okayed the op after the british essentially begged him to. anglo-iranian tradin company or somesuch nonsense, i recall. operation ajax and all that rot.

I was VERY merciful, I gave him a two because he has a kick-ass name.

They installed him.

Lol, when you put it that way, you make it sound like he's computer software or something. ;)

I can't wait until The Parthians sees this. He's probably the only other guy in NS besides me who respects the Shah. And since he's Iranian, I'm sure he knows far more about the subject than any of us.

I met some people in Cuernavaca a few years ago who worked in the place he stayed before his death. He was a big spender and a good tipper apparently.

Like most other tyrants and authoritarian figures he was a decent human being in private. The problem with him was that he tried to drag Iran kicking and screaming into the 20th century, no matter what. And it was this no matter what, not acknowledging dissent and trying to stifle it sometimes brutally, that eventually lead to conflict and strife within the country.

We all know what happened as backlash.

Under the Shah, women had the right to vote, religious freedom was respected, and Iran was a secular state.

The Shah of Iran was a brutal monarch dictator. Just because he was friendly to the west, he still treated his people no better than Saddam did.

My opinion is that he's been dead for quite a while.

The Shah of Iran was a brutal monarch dictator. Just because he was friendly to the west, he still treated his people no better than Saddam did.

He wasn't as bad as Saddam. Not by a longshot. In terms of bodycount and brutality, Saddam surpasses the Shah by quite a lot.

I met some people in Cuernavaca a few years ago who worked in the place he stayed before his death. He was a big spender and a good tipper apparently.

Like most other tyrants and authoritarian figures he was a decent human being in private. The problem with him was that he tried to drag Iran kicking and screaming into the 20th century, no matter what. And it was this no matter what, not acknowledging dissent and trying to stifle it sometimes brutally, that eventually lead to conflict and strife within the country.

We all know what happened as backlash.

Many of the Shah's victims (the key word is many, not all, and perhaps not even most) were Islamofascists like the Asshola Khomeini, or subversive Soviet-oriented scum utterly deserving of what they got. And while I don't agree that innocent (innocent as not including the aforesaid people) people who opposed the Shah should have been jailed or killed, I can't say I feel 100% sorry for them, because they wanted Iran to be a backward, puritanical, Third World hellhole instead of a 20th century industrial and military powerhouse.

He wasn't as bad as Saddam. Not by a longshot. In terms of bodycount and brutality, Saddam surpasses the Shah by quite a lot.

Well, perhaps he wasn't quite as bad as Saddam, but he was bad. Just like Saddam was not the worse dictator in the world when we went to war with him either. Still doesn't negate the fact that the Shah was a brutal dictator.

Well, perhaps he wasn't quite as bad as Saddam, but he was bad. Just like Saddam was not the worse dictator in the world when we went to war with him either. Still doesn't negate the fact that the Shah was a brutal dictator.

No, it doesn't.

Wow, all the options have been picked. I don't see that too often in my General polls. :D

Many of the Shah's victims (the key word is many, not all, and perhaps not even most) were Islamofascists like the Asshola Khomeini, or subversive Soviet-oriented scum utterly deserving of what they got. And while I don't agree that innocent (innocent as not including the aforesaid people) people who opposed the Shah should have been jailed or killed, I can't say I feel 100% sorry for them, because they wanted Iran to be a backward, puritanical, Third World hellhole instead of a 20th century industrial and military powerhouse.
They were traditional islamists, but they weren't as radicalized as they are now. However, thanks to the Sha's policies, they became radicalized and united. That was a very bad mistake.

I agree that their vision of Iran was backwards, but if the Sha had been wiser in recognizing the importance of their views and looked for a better way to carry forward his reforms instead of just trying to stomp any opposition, then Iran would be a modern islamic state, like Turkey or maybe even better.

its so hard to decide how bad bad is. i couldnt give him a 1 since that would put im in the same league as hitler stalin and pol pot.

he did try to modernize iran, something the people there today miss, especially the young people.

he did have those nasty death squads.

so i decided on a 3

Bleh, if this was a poll on Bush it'd have over 100 replies by now. :(

Since the events surrounding the late Shah of Iran happened when I was a mere child and before 99% of the posters who write here were even born, I am not surprised at the lack of response you are receiving.

He was an evil capitalist and puppet of the USA whose brutality was directly responsible for the Islamic Revolution and the rise of Khomeini.

My opinion stands. The Shah is still dead.

Under the Shah, women had the right to vote, religious freedom was respected, and Iran was a secular state.

:mad: :mad: :mad:

What nut-job private school did you get your eductaion from? Please, make it stop, I'm laughing so hard my spleen will burst if I don't stop.

The Shah was:

1) Not even the actual Shah. He had not one drop of royal blood in him. He was a hopped-up little army Captain who seized power from the chaos left behind by war. He just called himself the Shah so he could legitimize his coup.

2) Ever heard SAVAK? The Shah's secret police, they taught the Ayatollah's cronies everything they ever needed to know about oppression and a knock on the door in the middle of the night

3) Religious tolerance my ass! Thousands of Suffis, Shia, Bahais and others were executed at the begining of the Shah's "peaceful reign"

Fuck the Shah and the horse he rode in under. :upyours:

:mad: :mad: :mad:

What nut-job private school did you get your eductaion from? Please, make it stop, I'm laughing so hard my spleen will burst if I don't stop.

The Shah was:

1) Not even the actual Shah. He had not one drop of royal blood in him. He was a hopped-up little army Captain who seized power from the chaos left behind by war. He just called himself the Shah so he could legitimize his coup.

2) Ever heard SAVAK? The Shah's secret police, they taught the Ayatollah's cronies everything they ever needed to know about oppression and a knock on the door in the middle of the night

3) Religious tolerance my ass! Thousands of Suffis, Shia, Bahais and others were executed at the begining of the Shah's "peaceful reign"

Fuck the Shah and the horse he rode in under. :upyours:


Watch it, getting close to flame territory here.

The Mussolini of Latin America?

*Shrug*

I usually just refer to him as a no-good son of a bitch who should roast on a hot skillet in hell.
Castro? He ain't good, but he's far from the worst leader out there. I don't imagine he gets the most favourable press in the US andohmygod before anyone takes that as a cue for a rant, it's not meant to be read as a slur on the US. Every national press has its peculiar biases, it's only natural.

The Shah was, as far as I can make out, a deeply corrupt individual with few redeeming qualities. Preferable to what followed, perhaps. I seem to recall that his predecessor (and here's where my knowledge is really starting to get very woolly) was pretty decent.

Watch it, getting close to flame territory here.
True enough. I should've counted to 200 before I posted. I know a lot of people whose families were hurt as much by the Shah as by the Ayatollahs. Seeing someone call the Shah a good guy is akin to seeing someone call Stalin "not a bad chap"

LOL, he was installed and supported by the Nixon Administration after it ousted Prime Minister Mossadeq. Savak was created by the CIA. The Shah was a result of the overblown threat of communism used as a smoke cloud to hide the truth, which is: American oil companies took over almost half of Iran’s production. U.S. arms merchants moved in with $18 billion of weapons sales over the next 20 years. That was the whole point of installing the Shah. We funded his whole regime and kept him in power so that he would open Iran's lucrative and untapped nationalist economy to the west, not to mention the vast oil resources. I mean for chrissakes, Savak was trained by the CIA.

The Shah actually managed to get American oil companies a smaller share with more going to Iran. Mossadeq never sucessfully did that. Secondly, SAVAK, between 1968-1978 arrested a TOTAL of 3,000 people, who were all Communists or Religious extremists. He was great, and resposible for modernizing Iran and making it stronger. My parents loved him, and I think he was the 2nd greatest ruler of modern Iran after his father Reza Shah.

But why is it acceptable to arrest people for being communists?

But why is it acceptable to arrest people for being communists?

In the Cold War years, it was, more often than not, the Communists who set the rules-of-engagement. You probably weren't old enough to remember Tianenmen, or Prague Spring, or the Cultural Revolution... and I doubt your teachers went over Kruschev's famous "We will Bury YOU" speech at the U.N.
the times were scary-the U.S. and britain were both betrayed at high levels by Soviet spies (Kim Philby, the Rosenbergs, others), Soviet-Communism or Maoist Communism were the two flavours available, and at the time, both loudly advocated 'armed struggle' and 'Revolution' (read: Civil War, with all the trimmings). Developing nations like Iran were particularly susceptible in the 1950's through the 1970s... yOu have to understand what the world was like during that era, 'Communist' meant Spies, Sabotuers, and Assassins out to topple Western and Western-friendly regimes for the Soviets.

The paranoia was almost as solid at times as the threat-and it motivated not just the Americans, but anyone that did not want to choose between obeying Moscow, or obeying Beijing.

In some places, run by Autocratic forms, the expedient (not necessarily moral) method of preventing those spies, sabotuers, and assassins, is to jail people who act on behalf of the powers that sponsor them-fear of Revolution, in other words.

He was a corrupt bastard. He gets a 2. (He's not as bad as Hitler.)

Thanks for sharing, but how does being pro-American make him an American "puppet?"
Well, he was installed by America.

True enough. I should've counted to 200 before I posted. I know a lot of people whose families were hurt as much by the Shah as by the Ayatollahs. Seeing someone call the Shah a good guy is akin to seeing someone call Stalin "not a bad chap"

Hmmm. Stalin. Not a bad chap.

His routine was graceful and well timed, but his dismount was a bit shakey.

I have to go with an 8.

My opinion stands. The Shah is still dead.
IN YOUR OPINION!

:mad: :mad: :mad:

What nut-job private school did you get your eductaion from? Please, make it stop, I'm laughing so hard my spleen will burst if I don't stop.

Direct attacks against other NationStates players are not allowed.

The Downmarching Void: Official Warning - Flamebait.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

... Still doesn't negate the fact that the Shah was a brutal dictator.
The Shah is worse than Saddam.
if If had to the chance to magically negate the birth of either the shah or Saddam...

I would negate the Shah. no question about it.

....Thousands of Suffis, Shia, Bahais and others were executed at the begining of the Shah's "peaceful reign"

Fuck the Shah and the horse he rode in under. :upyours:not my choice of words...but efectively reflects my feelings

The Shah is worse than Saddam.
if If had to the chance to magically negate the birth of either the shah or Saddam...

I would negate the Shah. no question about it.
Are you serious? We are still finding mass graves in Iraq, remnants of the Saddam regime. Sure, SAVAK was pretty brutal but is nothing compared to their Iraqi counterparts.

Yes, the Shah is still dead.

Are you serious? We are still finding mass graves in Iraq...says whom? the US Army.?

Yes, the Shah is still dead.

Aye ... but he does a hell of a double sowcow.

Are you serious?
absolument

... Sure, SAVAK was pretty brutal but is nothing compared to their Iraqi counterparts.and how would you know?

did you get Gallup to poll the torture victims?

and how would you know?

did you get Gallup to poll the torture victims?

They deserved it, like RB said, they were either religious Kooks or commies working against Iran.

They deserved it...thats what hitler said...

Ironically, the reason why the Shah was deposed and then reinstalled was because of an oil dispute there. The people deposed him wanting to have a government that was supposed to nationalize the oil companies there but then we reinstalled him.

A good book to read on the last days of the Shah's rule is this:

Wings Over Persia (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1412001072/qid=1114479737/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-3036331-8394315?v=glance&s=books)

Yes, the Shah had American pilots for his personal air travel system.

The SAVAK is nothing compared to the religious police there now. They recently executed a handicapped girl for being a prostitute even though her mother forced her to be one and did not charge anyone else involved. Now that is sad as the victims are guilty there.

They deserved it, like RB said, they were either religious Kooks or commies working against Iran.thats what hitler said..."they were either religious kooks or commies working against Germany"

The SAVAK is nothing compared to the religious police there now.How would you know? ... Gallup poll?

thats what hitler said..."they were either religious kooks or commies working against Germany"

No, thats what he imagined, the enemies of the Shah's government were a danger to Iran and the middle east. They needed to be locked up or they would cause problems.

...They needed to be locked up...they needed to be locked out and their nails pulled from their fingers?

... the enemies of the Shah's government were a danger to.... the enemies of the Shah's government were a danger to the Shah.

What's your opinion of the late Shah of Iran?

Snappy dresser. Good listener. Generally good-natured except when being brutal. Above-average dancer. Decent reformer compared to the ass-hats that took his place. Not bad looking, but should have switched to contacts - those glasses were dorky. He was also very good at scrabble.

they needed to be locked out and their nails pulled from their fingers?

There is no proof of tortures of that nature.

There is no proof of tortures of that nature.
then...maybe this picture is fake...photoshoped or something?

http://rwor.org/a/1241/images/1241-fingernail.jpg
Torture device used by U.S.-backed Iranian secret police to pull out fingernails of detainees

LOL, he was installed and supported by the Nixon Administration after it ousted Prime Minister Mossadeq. Savak was created by the CIA. The Shah was a result of the overblown threat of communism used as a smoke cloud to hide the truth, which is: American oil companies took over almost half of Iran’s production. U.S. arms merchants moved in with $18 billion of weapons sales over the next 20 years. That was the whole point of installing the Shah. We funded his whole regime and kept him in power so that he would open Iran's lucrative and untapped nationalist economy to the west, not to mention the vast oil resources. I mean for chrissakes, Savak was trained by the CIA.
My siggy supports and approves this post.

Well, women have the right to vote in Iran now. In fact, there are more female representatives in the Iranian govt. than in the U.S. govt.
It is definetely a different society, but it is actually quite pleasant. People hate the American govt, but LOVE Americans. I was doted on when I went to Tehran, and I hope to go back some day.
The Shah ruled pretty brutally, and Savak, good ol' Savak did not endear him to many. Of course, the Ayatollah's created thier own oppressive police upon thier takeover, so....

In the Cold War years, it was, more often than not, the Communists who set the rules-of-engagement. You probably weren't old enough to remember Tianenmen, or Prague Spring, or the Cultural Revolution... and I doubt your teachers went over Kruschev's famous "We will Bury YOU" speech at the U.N.
the times were scary-the U.S. and britain were both betrayed at high levels by Soviet spies (Kim Philby, the Rosenbergs, others), Soviet-Communism or Maoist Communism were the two flavours available, and at the time, both loudly advocated 'armed struggle' and 'Revolution' (read: Civil War, with all the trimmings). Developing nations like Iran were particularly susceptible in the 1950's through the 1970s... yOu have to understand what the world was like during that era, 'Communist' meant Spies, Sabotuers, and Assassins out to topple Western and Western-friendly regimes for the Soviets.

The paranoia was almost as solid at times as the threat-and it motivated not just the Americans, but anyone that did not want to choose between obeying Moscow, or obeying Beijing.

In some places, run by Autocratic forms, the expedient (not necessarily moral) method of preventing those spies, sabotuers, and assassins, is to jail people who act on behalf of the powers that sponsor them-fear of Revolution, in other words.
Thanks. I understand the above, I was more looking for The Parthians to justify him/herself, which they kind of did later on (in much the way I imagined they would).

I remember Tiananmen. Horrible.

...both advocated 'armed struggle' and 'Revolution' (read: Civil War, with all the trimmings)....*replyed to*

...Thanks. I understand the above, I was more looking for The Parthians to justify him/herself....You cant have Revolution without armed struggle...
el Che knew that, Mandela knew that, Franklin knew that, Washington knew that, Bolivar knew that,

and they all heroes.

You cant have Revolution without armed struggle...
el Che knew that, Mandela knew that, Franklin knew that, Washington knew that, Bolivar knew that,

and they all heroes.
I'd amend that to 'you can't defend a revolution without armed struggle', perhaps.

He was an evil capitalist and puppet of the USA whose brutality was directly responsible for the Islamic Revolution and the rise of Khomeini.

Please stay off of my threads, troll. Thanks.

then...maybe this picture is fake...photoshoped or something?

http://rwor.org/a/1241/images/1241-fingernail.jpg
Torture device used by U.S.-backed Iranian secret police to pull out fingernails of detainees

Please don't post pics like that in my threads. Provide a link, instead. Or at least post a warning before the pic.

The Shah actually managed to get American oil companies a smaller share with more going to Iran. Mossadeq never sucessfully did that. Secondly, SAVAK, between 1968-1978 arrested a TOTAL of 3,000 people, who were all Communists or Religious extremists. He was great, and resposible for modernizing Iran and making it stronger. My parents loved him, and I think he was the 2nd greatest ruler of modern Iran after his father Reza Shah.

People forget that Mossadeq was a dictator, and that he flushed Iran's economy completely down the toilet. Whatever faults the Shah had, at least he brought Iran into the 20th century and made it a powerhouse.

People forget that Mossadeq was a dictator
Blimey, was he? I'll have to go check that...

Blimey, was he? I'll have to go check that...

Toward the end of his reign, he became dictatorial.

Everybody has a bad day, the Shah was no exception. But listen, let me tell you what I think about the Shah. . .I think I don't know if 1 or 10 is good or bad!

Everybody has a bad day, the Shah was no exception. But listen, let me tell you what I think about the Shah. . .I think I don't know if 1 or 10 is good or bad!

1=bad
10=good

1=bad
10=good

cool, I voted 8.

I think people don't like the Shah because they have been told he was bad for a long time. Now as to why they think the people who replaced him are good, well that does be a mystery.

People forget that Mossadeq was a dictator....Bullshit.

back in HItler's Germany, the trains ran on time!


*Shakes head*

That one is the Mussolini excuse, not hitler.

Bullshit.
He was at least crazy, with no view of reality.

Bullshit.

It's true. He did become dictatorial toward the end of his reign, a fact our communist media never wants to admit.

You cant have Revolution without armed struggle...
el Che knew that, Mandela knew that, Franklin knew that, Washington knew that, Bolivar knew that,

and they all heroes.

You group Guevarra with Mandela??? are you on crack?

Nelson Mandela-sat quietly in his cell, writing essays and doing his damnedest to appear Ghandian, Guevarra was an overgrown teenager with a Beret and a beard! He's so far from the class of men like Nelson Mandela (who managed to achieve Moral victory in-spite-of, not because-of, the violence in Soweto and other places) as to be an insult.

That doesn't even begin to touch on the insult of comparing that prick to Ben Franklin, who refused power when it was offered, and contributed many things outside the realm of Politics. (Franklin was a Scientist who did serious work, Guevarra was a communist pseudo-rambo who wrote unintelligible diatribes. Franklin discussed and favoured Liberty, which is life without asking Mother-may-I of the Government. Guevarra supported a system that requires central control of every major and most minor decisions...)

Back on topic, though: The Shah was an authoritarian dictator, no question about that-if you compared his regime to the ones surrounding, he was actually pretty mild and benevolent. If you compare him to the U.S., Britain, or West Germany, he was a brutal monster as a ruler-but compared to the systems in neighbouring states, he was moderate.

That moderation permitted the Khomeni sponsored Revolution. (Check out "Anatomy of a Revolution" at your local library. The pattern in Iran fits the same ones shown in that book.)

... with no view of reality.the Shah's reality was to surrender his country oil to Foreign Interests...and to Torture and kill when the people complained about his treason..

... a fact our communist media never wants to admit.(asuming you are from the US) even if "your" media is great for entertainemt

when its about world news and world history... "your" media is a huge disgrace...it stinks to a unsoportable degree...

too bad its my media too :(

The Shah was an authoritarian dictator, no question about .... If you compare him to the U.S., Britain, or West Germany, he was a brutal monster ...You cant dissociate the Shah from the US...

the US installed him...the US is responsible, along with all the Shahs, Duvaliers, Pinochets, Marcos, and all the other monsters...


and yes the USSR are monsters too.