Post-revolution polls in Egypt

Virus said:
Better than most in the region.
Click to expand...

Which of his contemporaries would you describe as worse than he was?

And Fereydoun Hoveyda certainly considered him a brutal megalomaniac who might have started as a "moderate", but long before the time of the '79 revolution had become an unpredictable, ruthless dictator who considered himself a new Cyrus the Great (complete with elaborate ceremonies praising him at a specially-built "Persepolis"), with the murderous SAVAK under his personal control.
 
Virus said:
Nasser, Saddam, Assad, Khomeini.
Click to expand...

How were they worse?

Though I note that Saddam didn't take control until after the Shah was overthrown, and Khomeini was not the same kind of secular autocrat that the Shah was supposedly a superior example of. Even Hafez al-Assad was better than Khomeini.
 
Virus said:
They were totalitarians.
Click to expand...

How does that make them worse than the Shah, a hereditary autocrat who ruled far longer than any of them, and who had parades of soldiers in historical costume praise him for being the ruling heir to a 2,500-year-old empire...when he wasn't doing things like using the SAVAK to torture and murder his opponents or dissolving all political parties in favor of his own single mandatory-membership Rastakhiz Party (complete with a Rastakhiz Youth wing!)?

EDIT: Hoveyda described it like this:

The dissolution of political parties and the creation of the single Rastakhiz party in 1975 was practically the last straw. Many responsible people, including my brother [the Prime Minister of Iran], were agreed that the Shah was making a big mistake, but such was his ascendancy that everyone gave way.

...

It was also intended to be an instrument for the political education of the people. But the party was run from the top downward; it had no popular roots. Iranians were invited to rally round it, and they did so, but only because they were afraid of calling attention to themselves if they did otherwise. I have a clear memory of the Foreign Ministry's instructions in this matter. I was sent a register in which to enter the names of any of the embassy staff who "wished" to join. All of them signed their names, silently, and with glum expressions.
Click to expand...

That doesn't bear a slight resemblance to the usual pattern in totalitarian states, to you?
 
Last edited:
He didn't sponsor international terrorism, commit genocide or try to wipe Israel off the map.
 
What happened to "they were totalitarians"? The metrics in your post above seem oddly disconnected from that initial assertion.

And how did each of the dictators so named (plus Sadat! I forgot Sadat, sorry!) do each of those new things, while Pahlavi did not? And how does that relate to your initial claim that they were totalitarians, while (presumably, via implication) Pahlavi was not?
 
ANTPogo said:
What happened to "they were totalitarians"? The metrics in your post above seem oddly disconnected from that initial assertion.

And how did each of the dictators so named (plus Sadat! I forgot Sadat, sorry!) do each of those new things, while Pahlavi did not? And how does that relate to your initial claim that they were totalitarians, while (presumably, via implication) Pahlavi was not?
Click to expand...

I never said Sadat. Never said Mubarak either.
 
Cleon said:
As you look at these young people who are courageously standing up to SCAF repression, how can anyone think they'll stand idly by while Saudi-style sharia is implemented? Ikhwan has to know that, too.
Click to expand...

Unless a significant pct of the military sides with the demonstrators- as was the case against Mubarak- or defects, the opposition will not be able stand up to a Sharia regime determined to use overwhelming force to, as they will describe it, protect the democratic will of the people. International players might be uninterested in putting themselves in the position of interfering with, or even removing, a democratically elected government.
 
Last edited:
Undesired Walrus said:
The Shah was a moderate autocrat?
Click to expand...

Absolutely, he was Western aligned, bought Western arms and kept the oil flowing. That's much better than those other poopy-heads who caused problems

Saddam used to be a moderate autocrat (particularly when he was acting as a bulwark against Iran) but then rapidly became unmoderate when he invaded Kuwait.

If they're on our side they're a moderate autocrat (like, for example the Saudis) who are in the process of implementing democracy albeit on an unknown timescale and who currently are ruling their nations with benign paternalism :rolleyes:

If they're not on our side then they are ruthless dictators crushing the will of the people beneath the jackboot of oppressive indifference.
 
The Don said:
Absolutely, he was Western aligned, bought Western arms and kept the oil flowing. That's much better than those other poopy-heads who caused problems

Saddam used to be a moderate autocrat (particularly when he was acting as a bulwark against Iran) but then rapidly became unmoderate when he invaded Kuwait.

If they're on our side they're a moderate autocrat (like, for example the Saudis) who are in the process of implementing democracy albeit on an unknown timescale and who currently are ruling their nations with benign paternalism :rolleyes:

If they're not on our side then they are ruthless dictators crushing the will of the people beneath the jackboot of oppressive indifference.
Click to expand...

Interesting. When Saddam was considered an american ally I remember Pacifica radio and other progressive outlets producing piece after piece exposing him for the monster he was. After he came to be considered an enemy these same progressive media organizations presented him in quite a different light.
 
The Don said:
Absolutely, he was Western aligned, bought Western arms and kept the oil flowing. That's much better than those other poopy-heads who caused problems

Saddam used to be a moderate autocrat (particularly when he was acting as a bulwark against Iran) but then rapidly became unmoderate when he invaded Kuwait.

If they're on our side they're a moderate autocrat (like, for example the Saudis) who are in the process of implementing democracy albeit on an unknown timescale and who currently are ruling their nations with benign paternalism :rolleyes:

If they're not on our side then they are ruthless dictators crushing the will of the people beneath the jackboot of oppressive indifference.
Click to expand...


Shah or Khomeni. Who would you rather live under?
 
Virus said:
Didn't say they weren't contemporaries. I said they weren't totalitarians.
Click to expand...

You didn't, actually. You simply never mentioned them at all. Nor did you mention the rulers of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, or Libya.

You also haven't answered my questions regarding why you consider the rulers you named to have been "totalitarian", while the megalomaniacal, paranoid autocrat who used his own personal secret police to suppress opposition via torture and murder and who was at the head of his own one-party state (with that party used for top-down rule, political indoctrination, and that everyone had to belong to if they wanted to avoid suspicion) was not totalitarian.
 
Last edited:
Virus said:
Shah or Khomeni. Who would you rather live under?
Click to expand...

Nasser or Shah, who would you rather live under? Please be specific as to why.

EDIT: Members of my family, both Muslim and non-Muslim, have been living in Egypt for over a hundred years. I don't recall any of them ever moving to Iran at any point during that period.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom