<< Robert, if I take your view on the Shah literally, it means he was okay because he was a U.S. ally. >>
Naturally, I prefer regimes that are friends of America. What is your preference?
OTOH, my view of the Shah is that he was an exceptional leader, who modernized Iran, allowing women many more rights than normal, for a middle eastern country. Religious minorities also had much more freedom, under the Shah.
The Shah's worst policy, was his brutal political repression. But, after witnessing the hordes of ignorant, violent Middle Easterners, I don't blame the Shah for keeping the inmates at bay.
<< So if you think that's okay, then what it really does is punches a big hole in your argument; namely, that any government, no matter how corrupt or UNrepresentative, is still okay as long as it is pro U.S. >>
Absurd. If the Shah was still the leader of Iraq, the Iraqis would be far better off today, and there would be more peace in the Middle East. |
