Skip to comments.Need Help..Was the Shah of Iran Pro-American--chat
Posted on 10/20/2004 12:20:16 PM PDT by Sybeck1
Hello, in a debate with someone on another board and require your resourses the exchange is as follows:
Sybeck: Bin Laden is strawman at this point. The WOT isn't over if he showed up tommorrow. It includes the thugs in Iraq, Beslan, Bali and elswhere.
I really wish Bush would have said that he is not worried about UBL, but UBL should be worried about the US. I watched Mail Call on the History Channel with Gunney last night and showed the fighting that is going on still today with the Taliban remnants. Part of the Bush Doctrine is to destroy governments who harbor terrorists.
We have the true leader of terrorism in the area surrounded, Iran. We have troops in Iraq in the west, Afganistan in the east. With pro America governments in both of these, the mullahs in Iran might face civil war. We are in affect fighting a proxy war with Iran now.
Oh, this is a great ad, by the director of Airplane and Naked Gun:
[ October 20, 2004, 09:14 AM: Message edited by: Sybeck1 ]
Dunsel: Sybeck, I'm not sure how our deployment of troops in Iraq & Afghanistan equates to surrounding Iran, especially since our troops in those countries seem to be busy enough dealing with insurgencies there. Also, I have no confidence in the governments of those counties - whether in their loyalties or in whether they have the loyalties of the people. We had the frienship of Iraq and Iran at various points in history and eventually found ourselves on the shit-lists of each. The Soviets had a friendly government in Kabul for years - unfortunately, its mandate went little further than Kabul. We can't forget either that Afghanistan and Iraq are also surrounded by countries of dubious loyalty if not outright hostility - Saudi, Syria, Pakistan and who knows how many post-soviet republics, and again there are the insurgencies in Iraq & Afghanistan. If anybody is surrounded, it's not Iran...
Sybeck: We had a good ally in the area until President Peanuthead went with the world in deposing the Shah of Iran: http://www.americanewsnet.com/cmntrs/cmntrs04.htm
Since then the area has been a vacuum of Islamfacisism.
Today we are fighting Iran in Iraq: http://www.kurdishmedia.com/news.asp?id=5612
Here's where their preparing to attack in Ramadam in Iraq
We are fighting Iran by proxy in Iraq. Terrorists are in fact coming from all over the area because they don't want ELECTIONS in January.
Dunsel: Sybeck, I spent much of last spring reading "Iran Iraq, War in the Air, 1980-88", which is this huge book on the first Gul War. It's a huge read by two guys who seem to have done their leg work on the region, including the initial Islamic revolution that took down the Shah. Acc. to Wikpedia, the Shah endured two oustings - including one in the 1950's by a nationalist Minister. US & British intel brought the Shah back in a move that became a rallying point with the Islamists 25 years later. Apparently, Mr. Peanuts took the heat for the fall of the Shah, when it's clear that he had little enough support at home keeping him up. I wouldn't classify as an ally a guy who calls himself "King of Kings" and relies on secret state police to ensure domestic tranquility through intimidation and torture.
As a child during fall of the Shah can anyone give better knowledge than myself on this? Thanks
The US proped up the Shah, Carter pulled out the props and allowed radical Islam to take over the country
Yes, the Shah we a very good ally in the region. That's why Iran still has F-14s, F-4s, Hawk missiles, etc. We sold them to Iran as they were our best friend until Peanut Head.
Carter listened to FRANCE.
Carter "lost" Nicaragua the same way....
The Shah, a leader propped up by the U.S., needed medical treatment. Carter allowed him to come the the US, which ignited pent up unrest fanned by Khomeini which I believe led to the hostage situation.
Change "nationalist" to "Communist puppet of the Soviets" and you will start to get on the right track.
The Shah was a loyal ally of the US until he was betrayed by Jimmy Carter (who was rewarded by his new friend via the embassy hostage crisis.
That is exactly what Bush did say except he mangled it as he is wont to do.
And, yes, we not only propped up the Shah but we installed him basically. It was one of the CIA's great accomplishments(?), effected by a CIA officer by the name of Kermit Roosevelt, grandson of Teddy.
I won't completely deny that, but it was primarily the Left that was shouting that the Shah was a monster. The evidence of his monstrosity was never overwhelming. When Khomenini came to power, the smackdown in Iran was much greater, with a large body count. But the human rights concerns vanished.
The Shah's single biggest crime was being pro-American.
You should know what the other side (Khomeini) was like too:
He was and that's why they wanted him out!
Iran questions ping
I thought Kohmeini was still livin large in Paris at that time. The "student movement" was fired up for change, but they didn't plan for anything to replace the Shah's government & Kohmeini swooped in to fill the vacuum.
If the Shah would have stayed in power, Iran would likely be a democracy today. In spite of his flaws he is much better than anything that Middle East or Iran has today perhaps with the exception of Jordan. In any case, he was overthrown not because of his human rights abuses (which have been wildly overexaggerated by the current regime in Iran) but because he was promoting silly "western" ideas like women's rights, etc. Needless t say, this did not go over well with the radicals. Also, I don't think his failing health helped matters much.
Having said that, Carter really f'd upped on Iran and completely misunderstood the intentions of the clerics. That was the beginning of the war that we are currently fighting.
The Shah was noted by many at the Pentagon in the 70's for being a better ally than Israel in that neck of the woods. Bear in mind that Israel blew the hell out of a US Navy ship in '68 and the US curtailed joint manuevers for quite a while thereafter.
The Shah was so trusted that Iran was allowed to purchase F-14 Tomcats and Phoenix missiles - a weapons platform Israel was never allowed to have.
Iran also was allowed to purchase Federal Reserve currency printing technology - which the US has sold to no one else - ever.
The US owed the Shah a debt of honor and when the man came to the US for medical help we allowed it. As we should have. He was our friend in the region and the filthy, evil, despots who overthrew him have been our enemies for centuries.
The Islamists (if you could even call them that in the 1950s) didn't give a damn about the Shah regaining the throne. In fact, they likely preferred him to the Soviet (read atheist) puppet that held power before.
What pissed Khomainie(sp?) and eventually got him booted from Iran, was the Shah's moves to modernize and Westernize Iran. The biggest bitch from the Islamists -- really fundamentalist Shiites -- was the Shaw's granting civil rights to women. He had seperation of "Church & State" not Sharia law or Islamic courts. That drove them absolutly nuts.
"Iran also was allowed to purchase Federal Reserve currency printing technology "
With which the new (current) regime printed hundreds of millions in US currency.