Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : DON'T START THE WAR -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (14309)	3/1/2003 1:03:19 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

I think trying to imagine alternate scenarios is interesting. Why be amused at mentioning the Shah beside the Ayatollah? If we hadn't supported the Shah, the Ayatollah might never have come to power. Of course. The Shah was supported by the US (and our support for him had nothing to do with Israel but with wanting a proxy allied to us to be the dominant military power in the Persian Gulf) and US support for the Shah, in turn, made him look like a Westernizing puppet of America in his domestic enemies eyes. The Shah was a force for Westernizing Iran. He pushed land reform, transferring a lot of land from hereditary land holding families (one of which was named Khomeini) to peasants. He pushed secular education, social liberation for women. And of course, his secret police arrested, imprisoned, and tortured his domestic enemies. He was hated for all of these things. After the Shah was overturned, the secret police changed their name and began arresting, imprisoning, and torturing a different set of people.