Posted on 05/01/2006 10:43:03 PM PDT by FairOpinion
Tell you what...find even one post of mine that supports or is complimentary of the mullahs and I'll quit FR forever. That's a very safe statement for me to make since I know that you can't. Use my own words not some wishful spin of yours.
Here's an example of my mention of the current regime, from my post #74..."And, using the regime that the iranians got stuck with as an argument for why they should have kept the shah is a straw-man. They thought they would do better and got screwed. Nobody knew what was coming."
I'll repeat it for the slower among you...they got screwed when the mullahs came in. That's supportive of the mullahs? Only to the shahistas.
None of you give any concrete contradiction of the CIA's assessment of reza or the sequence of events in 1953. Only one among you even addressed it and that was to say that it was unimportant...That is what speaks volumes.
frednerks says..."An American may criticise Carter ad nauseum, but it's a rare American that's prepared to accept his/her nation's complicity - therefor the Shah must continue to be vilified."
The rare American who criticizes his nation's involvement in overseas politics? What planet are you on? (Australia...ok, that explains it.) This country is over-flowing with citizens who do just that. And, show us any post by any freeper that exonerates the US in this.
Carter was the POTUS and (as one of you stated) "allowed" the shah to be thrown out. The bottom line is that it was the shah's own people who did the throwing. Anyone who thinks that the iranians threw him out simply because Carter wanted them to insults the iranian people.
Nope, sorry girls, my point has been clear from the beginning...your majesty was a puppet, a weakling and a despot. Were there worse? Sure. Did the iranians screw themselves by letting the mullahs in? Sure. But that doesn't erase his history. And, as long as you all try to miseducate and propogandize here in an effort to garner American support for the puppet's spawn I will be around. Take care.
You seem to be under the delusion, that you alone know that the Brits and U.S. ousted Mossadeq and replaced him with the Shah. That's pretty elementary and doesn't require a lot of reading to find out.
SO, the Shah's back in power, it's 1953....now let's take a look at what he did for his country while he was there. Do you have any clues what he did? I doubt it, because that's where your Persian history seems to go on vacation, until 1979. It may take some extended searching and maybe talking to Iranians who lived under the Shah will reveal a lot you are ignorant about, as far as the many improvements made in their country during that time. It isn't something you learn in school or even from Wikipedia.
Why is that? Well, the MSM hates the Shah. (you have that in common) Ocassionally the media makes reference to the Shah modernizing Iran, but that's pretty vague. (and their idea of fair and balanced reporting) Ocassionally they let slip that the literacy rate skyrocketed (though they try not to use such glowing terms to describe the increased numbers). That's about all the positive info you get from the MSM about the Shah. Other than that he's a bogeyman who Carter was right not to support. They repeat the Iranian regime's lies about the Shah. (no surprise there)
Well, that gets Carter off the hook. Heaven forbid they should ever let slip that had Carter given the Shah the help he asked for to put down the Communist and Islamic uprising, we probably wouldn't be fighting a war on terrorism right now.(sshhhh, that's a secret. Don't tell the public) And let's not foget that an 8 yr war started by Saddam, that killed and injured millions of Iranians and Iraqis, never would have happened, had the Pahlavis stayed in power.
Do you have any idea how involved the Soviets (our enemy, but not Jimmy's) were in getting rid of the Shah? Ever notice what the Soviets did at the end of 1979 after they successfully got rid of him and our embassy was taken over and we were totally occupied with that? They invaded Afghanistan. Coincidence? Hardly.
Know anything about the anger from the muslim clerics toward the Shah because he took away a lot of their money and power?
Our friend and extremely important ally, the Shah, asked for help from then President Carter to put down the mounting Soviet orchestrated rebellion. Carter was advised by Kissinger and his own National Security Adviser, Brzezinski, to help the Shah. (Brzezinski wasn't happy about the Soviets involvement, though in the end he acquiesced). Jimmy (never-met-a-communist-he-didn't-like) Carter, ignored them and helped to usher in Khomeini.
Now, were the Soviets and Khomeini successful in buying off and whipping up 10's of thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands)of people? Yes. Were there Millions who didn't agree with the mob who would have REALLY appreciated help from the U.S.? Yes. Could Carter have helped change history in a good way rather than the disastrous way he did? YES.
BTW - I didn't say you were shilling for the mullahs
"Scion"
Having been educated in England I have a comprehensive vocabulary and know what this word means. Your comment has completely lost me as I do not recall addressing this.
Somehow I am not in the same orbit as you are.
"Scion" again
I looked up the comment #92
Of course I challenged you. You said that the late Shah's son taking over over would be another dictator taking over from his dictator father.
Or that his taking over from the Mullahs would be replacing one dicator with another.
And your equating the "dictatorship" of the late Shah or the potential one of his son with what (not who) is ruling Iran today - is so outrageous that it resembles comparing the Queen of England's rule with that of Pol Pot in Cambodia and his genocide. And trying to b alance themas an equal consideration!
Sadly you haven't a clue about who the late Shah was nor what his son would be NOR what is really going on in Iran.
But - you do have the right to say waht you have said - even if it is off the radar of reality.
Get a grip. I was equating the son of the Shah with his father, not the Mullahs. Apparently your excellent education leads you to read too much between the lines.
Reza Pahlavi has been talking about this for YEARS. It's starting to have a real "the South will rise again!" quality to it.
We had a very good refugee plan ("aid and succor") set up prior to the invasion of Iraq and most of it wasn't needed as few people fled Iraq into neighboring countries.
I realize you have more knowledge of Iran than I do, but what I'm speaking of is a power vacuum, not an "aid and succor" vacuum.
Because of the iron fisted rule of the mullahs there are no viable opposition figures in Iran to rally the people into a cohesive group to restore order. Reason Masoud was assassinated just before 9/11, to forestall any Afghanis from coalescing around him afterwards as Afghanistan faced the inevitable blowback from the U.S.
I have talked with an Iranian on-line (assuming he wasn't a secret police plant or a fraud), and what impressed me most was his nationalism. There is a sense of national honor there that can be violated if we are forced to preemptively bomb Iran.
My great hope is that the CIA is building enough secret cells in Iran of opposition Iranians who give consent to the bombing ahead of time if it becomes necessary, so they can help direct public opinion afterwards. And I hope the cells have enough moderate, level headed people in them who have already gotten their power strugggles over before the bombing so that they can put forth a hierarchy of leaders to rally the people afterwards and organize the restructuring plan which hopefully they will already have developed.
Yea, Shah! Boo, Carter!
FYI
Carter Sold out Iran 1977-1978
Chuck Morse
As if a light were switched off, the Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlevi, portrayed for 20 years as a progressive modern ruler by Islamic standards, was suddenly, in 1977-1978, turned into this foaming at the mouth monster by the international left media. Soon after becoming President in 1977, Jimmy Carter launched a deliberate campaign to undermine the Shah. The Soviets and their left-wing apparatchiks would coordinate with Carter by smearing the Shah in a campaign of lies meant to topple his throne. The result would be the establishment of a Marxist/Islamic state in Iran headed by the tyrannical Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. The Iranian revolution, besides enthroning one of the worlds most oppressive regimes, would greatly contribute to the creation of the Marxist/Islamic terror network challenging the free world today. At the time, a senior Iranian diplomat in Washington observed, President Carter betrayed the Shah and helped create the vacuum that will soon be filled by Soviet-trained agents and religious fanatics who hate America. Under the guise of promoting human rights, Carter made demands on the Shah while blackmailing him with the threat that if the demands weren’t fulfilled, vital military aid and training would be withheld. This strange policy, carried out against a staunch, 20 year Middle East ally, was a repeat of similar policies applied in the past by US governments to other allies such as pre Mao China and pre Castro Cuba.
Carter started by pressuring the Shah to release political prisoners including known terrorists and to put an end to military tribunals. The newly released terrorists would be tried under civil jurisdiction with the Marxist/Islamists using these trials as a platform for agitation and propaganda. This is a standard tactic of the left then and now. The free world operates at a distinct disadvantage to Marxist and Islamic nations in this regard as in those countries, trials are staged to show the political faith of the ruling elite. Fair trials, an independent judiciary, and a search for justice is considered to be a western bourgeois prejudice.
Carter pressured Iran to allow for free assembly which meant that groups would be able to meet and agitate for the overthrow of the government. It goes without saying that such rights didn’t exist in any Marxist or Islamic nation. The planned and predictable result of these policies was an escalation of opposition to the Shah, which would be viewed by his enemies as a weakness. A well-situated internal apparatus in Iran receiving its marching orders from the Kremlin egged on this growing opposition.
By the fall of 1977, university students, working in tandem with a Shiite clergy that had long opposed the Shahs modernizing policies, began a well coordinated and financed series of street demonstrations supported by a media campaign reminiscent of the 1947-1948 campaign against Chinas Chiang Ki Shek in favor of the agrarian reformer Mao tse Tung. At this point the Shah was unable to check the demonstrators, who were instigating violence as a means of inflaming the situation and providing their media stooges with atrocity propaganda. Rumors were circulating amongst Iranians that the CIA under the orders of President Carter organized these demonstrations.
In November 1977, the Shah and his Empress, Farah Diba, visited the White House where they were met with hostility. They were greeted by nearly 4,000 Marxist-led Iranian students, many wearing masks, waving clubs, and carrying banners festooned with the names of Iranian terrorist organizations. The rioters were allowed within 100 feet of the White House where they attacked other Iranians and Americans gathered to welcome the Shah. Only 15 were arrested and quickly released. Inside the White House, Carter pressured the Shah to implement even more radical changes. Meanwhile, the Soviets were mobilizing a campaign of propaganda, espionage, sabotage, and terror in Iran. The Shah was being squeezed on two sides.
In April 1978, Moscow would instigate a bloody coup in Afghanistan and install the communist puppet Nur Mohammad Taraki. Taraki would proceed to call for a jihad against the Ikhwanu Shayateen which translates into brothers of devils, a label applied to opponents of the new red regime in Kabul and to the Iranian government. Subversives and Soviet-trained agents swarmed across the long Afghanistan/Iran border to infiltrate Shiite mosques and other Iranian institutions. By November 1978, there was an estimated 500,000 Soviet backed Afghanis in Iran where, among other activities, they set up training camps for terrorists.
Khomeini, a 78-year-old Shiite cleric whose brother had been imprisoned as a result of activities relating to his Iranian Communist party affiliations, and who had spent 15 years in exile in Bath Socialist Iraq, was poised to return. In exile, Khomeini spoke of the creation of a revolutionary Islamic republic, which would be anti-Western, socialist, and with total power in the hands of an ayatollah. In his efforts to violently overthrow the government of Iran, Khomeini received the full support of the Soviets.
Nureddin Klanuri, head of the Iranian Communist Tudeh Party, in exile in East Berlin, stated, The Tudeh Party approves Ayatollah Khomeinis initiative in creating the Islamic Revolutionary Council. The ayatollahs program coincides with that of the Tudeh Party. Khomeinis closest advisor, Sadegh Ghothzadeh, was well known as a revolutionary with close links to communist intelligence. In January 1998, Pravda, the official Soviet organ, officially endorsed the Khomeini revolution.
American leaders were also supporting Khomeini. After the Pravda endorsement, Ramsey Clark, who served as Attorney General under President Lyndon B. Johnson, held a press conference where he reported on a trip to Iran and a Paris visit with Khomeini. He urged the US government to take no action to help the Shah so that Iran could determine its own fate. Clark played a behind the scenes role influencing members of Congress to not get involved in the crisis. Perhaps UN Ambassador Andrew Young best expressed the thinking of the left at the time when he stated that, if successful, Khomeini would eventually be hailed as a saint.
Khomeini was allowed to seize power in Iran and, as a result, we are now reaping the harvest of anti-American fanaticism and extremism. Khomeini unleashed the hybrid of Islam and Marxism that has spawned suicide bombers and hijackers. President Jimmy Carter, and the extremists in his administration are to blame and should be held accountable.
Chuck Morse Is the author of Why I’m a Right-Wing Extremist
www.chuckmorse.com
Given the time and place, Kerry might have acted exactly the same...methinks the Democrats are owned body and soul by the ideology of Karl Marx.
I guess it was a little late in the century to line the royal family up and have them shot, a la the bolshevik murder of the Czar and his family...
"find even one post of mine that supports or is complimentary of the mullahs "
===
Your SILENCE about the Mullahs is defeaning.
Let's assess the number and viciousness of your posts about the Shah, you are even blaming the Iranian people and compare that with your total lack of criticism of the Ayatollahs, who created this radical Islamic state, from where terrorism sprang forward.
It was the radical Islamicist who "threw the Shah out" -- again, you are misrepresenting history.
I understand your misgivings but Iraq and even Afghanistan are so different that they would tend to mislead you and your online person's nationalism - regardless of his provenance - was probably quite real. Reformists want Iran to change peacefully over time. Pro-Mullah persons don't want change and insist that Ira n has a RIGHT to have nuclear capability - weapons included. Others drape themselves in nationalism to protect family members who might die in an attack.
The other side of this coin is that this nationalism does not translate into anti-US fervor if we bomb the elite military units into smithereens. There, all comparisons with other regional countries ends.
The vacuum you mention will be filled and steps have already been taken by many groups to try to ensure this. Including a replacement power structure. Which will NOT and cannot be in any way connected to or include the Mullahs.
The biggest problem as you well state - is the lack of a figurehead/leader. The only one that seems to be around is the late-Shah's son - Reza Pahlavi, who actually has a considerable following and support inside Iran.
My personal take is that he has been chosen by the West to fill the vacuum till institutions can be built up and administrative authority can be organized - leading to eventual referendums and elections.
He will have a thankless and almost impossible mission since the populace will expect miracles from him (or anyone else who fills the vacuum).
Hoping for moderate leadership or moderation ignores the aspect that Iran HAS nukes, will have even more in the very near future and the people in charge right now believe and DESIRE apocalypse and global destruction as their spiritual guiding principles.
With the damage they can do with nuclear weaponry and the financial devastation they can create with their oil weapon (read the Mullah Threat NOt Sinking In on http://www.antimullah.com to get a feel for this) we cannot allow traditional political action to evolve as a real life solution.
The vacuum will be the smallest sized problem if we do not do the things that will create it.
AGAIN - Iran is nothing like Iraq either in the ingredients for the recipe nor the end result that the recipe intends to "cook".
We facea sitautio where we have to think outside the box and for this reason avoid trying to equate or compare what we do there with what we have done elsewhere. Niether the shoe nor the clothing of the other efforts fit.
"Shilling for the Mullahs?
Of course you are! Except you do not get paid or controlled by them.
If what you so knowingly and purposefully repeat ad nauseam about the "terrible" Shah (your unjustified personal hang up) corresponds to the verbal diarhea spouted by the Mullahs - and you know it matches - then regardless of what wiggle you adopt, you ARE "shilling" for them.
The same "duck" that walks and quacks like theirs but you hide behind a technicality of doing it off your own ignorance rather than at their behest.
You promote their PR line and verbiage almost verbatim, so call it what you wish. Your actions and words - knowingly - mirror theirs and thus are no different than if you were "officially" shilling for them.
So shilling may be the wrong word but your actions speak louder than terminology when they so faithfully support the Mullah positions.
Your duck walks and quacks like the Mullah ones - and you know and revel in it. Apparently it's called being a troll.
In looking at your record of posts - as you suggested you have often had to spit our shoe leather and on occasion an apology, so your tendency is to resemble the "ugly American" of the novel of that name.
You underline your tendencies , too, by stating you disagree with everything our Presdient has done in the last 18-months. You change direction with the wind. Except for some event back in 1950, where your mind has become stuck.
I don't know who near and dear to you suffered retribution at the hands of the Shah and Savak but your whole emotional profile here smacks of having supported or still supporting some radical student, Iranian Communist or self-proclaimed "nationalist" in the long gone past and never getting over it.
Nor getting, assimilating and accepting thirty years of data about the Shah since that time that makes you sound so ignorant and simply a troll instead of a reasoned, factual debater.
I wonder if it is that kind of biased, limited mindset that has people upset at law enforcement officers of the kind you appear to represent.
::chimes in::
While I certainly support regime change in Iran, this is the part that concerns me.
The biggest problem as you well state - is the lack of a figurehead/leader. The only one that seems to be around is the late-Shah's son - Reza Pahlavi, who actually has a considerable following and support inside Iran.
I really hate to paraphrase Stalin, but how many divisions does Reza command? I understand that he has popular support, but that doesn't translate directly into political or military power. While he may certainly be elected to a stable rule once Iran is able to freely elect its leaders, he doesn't have a government to command yet. And whatever government-in-exile he does command does not have a military to enforce its will.
To put it simply: man cannot govern on popularity and force of will alone. How would Reza hold Iran together after the Mullahs are gone? How will the Emperor maintain control without the bureaucracy? I guess that fear could keep the local systems in line... but fear of what battle station?
< /gratuitous Star Wars reference >
Not if the 400,000 elite were destroyed. Then the people would kill off the mullahs. Insurgency for whom and for what? Nothing and nobody to fight for.
Check out "Iran - Final Solution" searching on FR or at http://www.antimullah.com"
Everything you say makes sense. There will be quite a number of former officers who will volunteer and enough non-elite military to provide a "royal guard".
Why I said an NGO as part of the mix, was to have mercenaries as royal bodyguards as was the case with President Karzai. we sent about 70 highly trained military to guard him (some still on final leave from their military units). A friend of mine was one of these so I got a lot of firfst hand feed back.
Seventy is only an inner core. You could hire a few thousand to start with and then regenerate the IMperial Guard. Ex-Pat volunteers would swell those ranks, too.
He has also mentioned contingents of the Revolutuionary Guards deserting and joining him. I do NOT believe that but the regular military, which has looser ties to the Mullahs would.
Then there is/are ..... (not open source)
Remember, however, that my comments are based on an eradication of 400,000 elite Pasdars Rev. guards), Basijis and Ghods Brigade personnel and all weaponry down to to side arms by massive - very targetted bombing. In a orthodox (Stalin) take over he wouldn't stand a chance. At the same time he cannot officially condone destruction of the country's treasure - of any kind - nor the spilling of his peoples' blood. I can.
Interesting to note that you are among those who accuse the US of ousting the bum but neglect to mention that we (not his people) did put him there in the first place. We actively put him there via operation Ajax. He was our puppet.
As I wrote above, you just don't get it but I am certain that you don't want to.
Bullshit. Every word.
I challenged all you shahistas to find one word I've ever written in support of the mullahs. You can't so you shout that the words I haven't written are proof. Sorry gladys, the world doesn't work that way.
My offer still stands...put up or shut up. Until then I'll be here with facts about your masjesty.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.