• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

And the Jihad continues...

Crossbow said:
Sorry sir, but you still do not get it.

The Shah was first put onto the throne in 1941.
In 1951 the Shah was forced to flee Iran and when he returned to take power again in 1953 it was after the Iranian military crushed (literally) the opposition.
Then in 1979, the Iranian military was not enough to crush the revolt.

While there were religious elements in both revolts, there was also a great deal popular resentment going on.
Click to expand...

In 1941 the Shah was put into power because the Allies, in fighting WWII, needed Iran’s railways to get supplies into Russia. The oil didn’t hurt the war effort either. Previously, Iran had been a pawn of the Great Game between Britain and Russia.

Crossbow said:
As for those reforms you speak so fondly of, you should be aware that they are the sorts of things that should have been done in Iran decades before the Shah came along. Furthermore, he made sure to institute only the reforms that would not take any power from him.

Note 1: you my not know it, but dictators often make small concessions and gestures, and then call them "reforms". Doing so in small doses allows them to show how much they care about their people without causing the ruler to give up any real power.
Note 2: shortly after his second exile, the Shah wrote a book called Answer to History in which he blamed the SAVAK, the failure the White Revolution, and upon Hoveyda administration for the revolution. And note, the Shah himself did NOT list religious fever as a cause of the revolution.
Click to expand...


I disagree that the White Revolution was just window-dressing. The reforms were very real with real benefits for the Iranians. I agree that many of the reforms were not enough, were ineptly implemented, or were subject to corruption.
 
Correa Neto said:
After reading headscratcher4's post, one can't help but ask why it seems some policy makers have not learned the lesson...

Edited for clarity & correct a poster's name
Click to expand...


Because, except for France (which is required to remember and still be grateful/beholden to the United States after the passage of over 60 years :) ), history is bunk, to quote Henry Ford.
 
demon said:
No, it absolutely does not.

Iran's SUPREME leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons, This is extremely pertinent but is largely ignored by the western media.
Click to expand...

Oh, well that settles it then. If the Mullahs say so, it must be true. :oldroll:
 
Mycroft said:
In 1941 the Shah was put into power because the Allies, in fighting WWII, needed Iran’s railways to get supplies into Russia. The oil didn’t hurt the war effort either. Previously, Iran had been a pawn of the Great Game between Britain and Russia...
Click to expand...

Because, among other things, the Shah's father (the first Shah, a army general who toppled the old regime obstensibly on an Attaturk model) was fond of Germans (and Hitler in particular). Britan wanted to control the oil, the Shah's father wanted to control it. Shah's father goes off into exile in South Africa, teenage Shah assumes Peacock throne.




Mycroft said:
I disagree that the White Revolution was just window-dressing. The reforms were very real with real benefits for the Iranians. I agree that many of the reforms were not enough, were ineptly implemented, or were subject to corruption.
Click to expand...

Had democracy been encouraged in Iran...for example, if the elected government of Mossedeq had been allowed to rule...what ever "reforms" the white revolution (driven by one man) might not have been necessary, as they would have come quicker and more easilly with a parlimentary system...all speculation, of course.

By the same token, had the Shah not run a police state which cracked-down on political oposition and criticism, many smart young people might have found a civil avenue for their discontent, concerns about justice and corruption of society and not found "religion" as the only available avenue for dissent...speculation of course.
 
headscratcher4 said:
Because, among other things, the Shah's father (the first Shah, a army general who toppled the old regime obstensibly on an Attaturk model) was fond of Germans (and Hitler in particular). Britan wanted to control the oil, the Shah's father wanted to control it. Shah's father goes off into exile in South Africa, teenage Shah assumes Peacock throne.
Click to expand...

Yes.

headscratcher4 said:
Had democracy been encouraged in Iran...for example, if the elected government of Mossedeq had been allowed to rule...what ever "reforms" the white revolution (driven by one man) might not have been necessary, as they would have come quicker and more easilly with a parlimentary system...all speculation, of course.
Click to expand...

If the elected government of Mossedeq had been allowed to rule and had nationalized Iran's oil, would that government have lasted or would have been toppled again by Brittan or the Soviets? I certainly sympathize with Iran and how it was ruthlessly exploited by British Petroleum, but isn’t it also true that Iran needed to be built up so it could stand against this kind of foreign domination?

headscratcher4 said:
By the same token, had the Shah not run a police state which cracked-down on political oposition and criticism, many smart young people might have found a civil avenue for their discontent, concerns about justice and corruption of society and not found "religion" as the only available avenue for dissent...speculation of course.
Click to expand...

I think your speculation is certainly the optimal way things should have gone, but I think it presumes Iran would have been left alone without foreign interference for these things to happen. The Shah, I think, walked a tightrope in allowing foreign profiteering, keeping foreign interference to a minimum, while simultaneously building up Iran. I certainly don’t claim he was the best thing that ever happened to Iran, only that he was far better than many of the more likely alternatives.

Just my opinion, of course. I’m sure Crossbow will mock me some more for it. :)
 
"Oh, well that settles it then. If the Mullahs say so, it must be true."

Seems a Fatwa from the Supreme Leaders or Iran is only true when you can use it as another stick to beat Musilms with...well ain`t that s suprise?

Mycroft:
"...Ayatollah Khomeini, who issued the Fatwa against Salmon Rushdie."

"Cat Stevens on any watch list, but this "peace activist" is also on record for speaking in support of the death threat against Salman Rushdie..."

"Well, Salman Rushdie showed that Muslim estremists anywhere will condemn you to death for nothing."
 
a_unique_person said:
IIRC, the current situation is they have till the end of August to let the UN in to inspect areas they don't want inspected. What happens after then, I don't know.
Click to expand...

I think what happens then is Iran will recieve a strongly worded letter from Kofi.
 
Mycroft said:
I don’t understand your purpose. Are you claiming all monarchies are merely symbolic and that I’m wrong in claiming the Shah is not comparable with Spain or Denmark?
Click to expand...

You were speaking of real monarchies where the monarch actually rules.

Which of those real monarchies are comparable to the Shah's rule?

You have a list. Go ahead.
 
Mycroft said:
CFLarsen said:
You were speaking of real monarchies where the monarch actually rules.

Which of those real monarchies are comparable to the Shah's rule?

You have a list. Go ahead.
Click to expand...


For what purpose?
Click to expand...

Okay, just as I thought, no answer to the "For what purpose" question. That request goes into the round file with all the other requests for pointless time wasters.
 
CFLarsen said:
You were speaking of real monarchies where the monarch actually rules.

Which of those real monarchies are comparable to the Shah's rule?

You have a list. Go ahead.
Click to expand...
Try Saudi Arabia, where they have the King's police, and the Church police, to keep people in line and close the shops in time for prayers. There, a real monarchy, autocratic rule, rag heads, oil, and police keeping an eye on you, and an appetite for modern American weapons thrown in as a kicker. The Saudi king has trouble with clerics, but he hasn't had them all killed yet for his own reasons. King Henry II he isnt'.

DR
 
Mycroft said:
Okay, just as I thought, no answer to the "For what purpose" question. That request goes into the round file with all the other requests for pointless time wasters.
Click to expand...

I can understand why you are so eager to find a reason not to give examples.

The purpose is naturally to see if your comparison has merit. If your point doesn't have merit...well...
 
CFLarsen said:
I can understand why you are so eager to find a reason not to give examples.

The purpose is naturally to see if your comparison has merit. If your point doesn't have merit...well...
Click to expand...

Except the issue was that I ws not comparing Iran to European Monarchies as you claimed. :confused:

Whatever.

I'll tell you what; how about if you leave me in charge of making my own arguments. Then, if you disagree and want to rebut something, you can go ahead an make up whatever little lists you think will do the job.

Fair?
 
I'll tell you what: How about you answering the question?

The list comprises of more than just European monarchies (obviously, you didn't check). If we exclude those, you are of the opinion that these monarchies are comparable to the Shah's rule?

Cambodia
Japan
Lesotho
Nepal
Thailand
Tonga

Fair?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom