President George Bush Kicking A$$

[_JS]

I think I already clarified my statement.  Oppressive ruler perhaps.  Dictator, I think not

Explain.

Define dictator and tell us how the Shah was not a dictator. Please tell us who wasa dictator.

[Plane]

I think I already clarified my statement.  Oppressive ruler perhaps.  Dictator, I think not

Explain.

Define dictator and tell us how the Shah was not a dictator. Please tell us who wasa dictator.

I disagree with Sirs a little , the Shah was a king , he sponsored a secret police that was a law of its own subject to no other , so I don't think it unfair to say he was a dictator.

On the other hand he was not an enemy of the US.

The jokers that replaced him are dictatorial and are enemys of the US , where is the improvement?

[Amianthus]

Define dictator and tell us how the Shah was not a dictator. Please tell us who wasa dictator.

The Shah was a hereditary monarch.

[sirs]

Define dictator and tell us how the Shah was not a dictator. Please tell us who wasa dictator.

The Shah was a hereditary monarch.

Thank you Ami.  I also would add that in my book a Dictator largely comes to rule via military force or coersion

[hnumpah]

The Shah was a hereditary monarch.

Ah, yes, the second ruler in his line, after his father overthrew the previous ruler. His father, by the way, was later forced to abdicate in his sons favor by the US and Britain. Just so we're clear how he came to rule the country.

None of which makes him less of a despot.

"The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" h

[_JS]

Define dictator and tell us how the Shah was not a dictator. Please tell us who wasa dictator.

The Shah was a hereditary monarch.

Thank you Ami.  I also would add that in my book a Dictator largely comes to rule via military force or coersion

Oh, I can handle that one Sirs.

The Shah of Iran came to power through not one but two military coups!

First was the Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran in 1941. And while your buddy Ami tried to bypass the dictator rule with a nice little family monarchy, the reality was that it was the USSR and the UK that got Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi to replace daddy dearest after Soviet and British troops entered Tehran and Papa Pehlavi was told to flee or else! (He fled to South Africa).

The Second Coup was the overthrow of Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq in 1953 through a CIA operation called AJAX. It was a military coup and replaced the democratically elected government of Iran with a dictatorship (or whatever it is you intend on calling it).

So we've met your military and coercion criteria twice!

Now, care to try again. Or were you wrong?

[Amianthus]

Ah, yes, the second ruler in his line, after his father overthrew the previous ruler. His father, by the way, was later forced to abdicate in his sons favor by the US and Britain. Just so we're clear how he came to rule the country.

And his father overthrew a guy that had done the same to his predecessor.

If you go back in time, that's a fairly consistent theme for gaining the throne in Iran.

[sirs]

So we've met your military and coercion criteria twice!  Now, care to try again. Or were you wrong?

I'm wrong that he wasn't a dicator in the normal sense of what I consider a dictator to be, though I'm not wrong in that he wasn't ruling over a terrorist sponsoring nation, nor was he advocating terrorist activities

[_JS]

Ah, yes, the second ruler in his line, after his father overthrew the previous ruler. His father, by the way, was later forced to abdicate in his sons favor by the US and Britain. Just so we're clear how he came to rule the country.

And his father overthrew a guy that had done the same to his predecessor.

If you go back in time, that's a fairly consistent theme for gaining the throne in Iran.

And that makes him less of a dictator....how exactly?

I know where this is leading. Semantics.

Everyone here with any semblance of historical knowledge about the Shah of Iran during the 1960's and 70's knows that the man was a ruthless dictator. The SAVAK were a terrorist organization as well. They just happened to prefer terrorizing their own people.

Yet, we're supposed to play this little game so Sirs doesn't have to admit that he was absolutely and completely wrong. Anyone with a remote smattering of common sense can see that.

What interests me more is that this is how so many people are today. We have become a people unwilling to admit that we make mistakes. I don't recall with whom the argument was with, but I stumbled upon a theology that operated around the notion that no Christian could do anything awful. This is a modern twist on Pelagianism, a heresy from long ago. Obviously Christians can do wrong and more importantly we do make horrible mistakes or even purposefully do wrong. That is sinning. To refute that is to remove the purpose of Golgotha, to essentially remove the purpose of the Messiah completely.

I find the entire neurosis amazing and incredibly fascinating to observe.

[Amianthus]

And that makes him less of a dictator....how exactly?

I know where this is leading. Semantics.

Of course. When people through around terms in an effort to dehumanize other people ("Bush is Hitler") the argument will eventually move over to semantics. What do you expect?

[Plane]

[The Second Coup was the overthrow of Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq in 1953 through a CIA operation called AJAX. It was a military coup and replaced the democratically elected government of Iran with a dictatorship (or whatever it is you intend on calling it).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat


That is an interesting story , but wasn't it a British show untill the last months when Americans got involved ?

[Cynthia]

Define dictator and tell us how the Shah was not a dictator. Please tell us who wasa dictator.

The Shah was a hereditary monarch.

Right again.

[Cynthia]

A dictator like the Shah would be welcomed in today's world. Time is relative and the old story "It Could Be Worse" comes to mind.


It doesn't matter whether or not the Shah was a dictator or a King with grand power....he was not nor will he ever be known as bad as what we see in the world today. 

Debate semantics all you want....the Shah had a chance to make his country a game player...and that isn't such a bad thing when you consider the alternative? A game slayer the likes of which we have certainly seen since the time of such a dictatorship-the Shah.

Sure the Savak was the "KGB" of Persia in her day....but to compare the Savak to today's definition of terrorists doesn't fit.
The Savak was no less invasive than the CIA or our FBI.....for example Jim Morrison of the Doors was monitored by the latter...my god, Come on....


Hell, I was monitored by the SAVAK when I was married to Amir.

Bloody terrorists? Maybe in terms of a swift death to some in the day...but nothing like a swift death to women and children in northern Iraq. And why? Because they simply existed, and  believed in life??!!
....The Kurds in the neighborhood of Saddam.  Now THAT'S a dictator.

Pooch has a first hand knowledge of Iranian culture. I have more of afamilial relation to the culture and the revolution in the day.

but, I do know that there was more hope for people while the Shah was in power..unless one thinks that Marx was a positive influence for his own generation of folk. We see how far Lenin and Marxism has taken the world.
The Shah does not deserve to be put in the same box as they.

Yet, we brush aside those REALLY BAD ASS dictators in our history except for Hitler. What happened to Iran was a damn shame in the late 70's. A damn shame. . . no one knows how good it was before the fall of the Shah except for those who were free to be.

Lost time. Lost time.

[Plane]

A dictator like the Shah would be welcomed in today's world. Time is relative and the old story "It Could Be Worse" comes to mind.

Indeed , one of the places that was worse was Chechnia , which has been worse in a big way and still is.

Perhaps the Soviets would not have been as bad if they took over Iran as they were in Chechnia , but it is unlikely that they would have been better than the Shah.

The Shah tried to build a Social security system , modernise the society , increase the share of oil profit that stayed in Iraq and several other things that no American would accept as excuse for the political abuse  , but what tok over from him was one of the worse alternatives.

[_JS]

A dictator like the Shah would be welcomed in today's world. Time is relative and the old story "It Could Be Worse" comes to mind.

Ask the Iranians whether the Shah would be welcome or not. Such statements hold great arrogance.