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: Machaon who wrote (19750)	3/12/2003 12:52:36 PM
From: thames_sider	Respond to of 25898

I agree to some extent, up to the last sentence... I don't think the Savak are missed by very many, and given their population profile probably only a minority can even recall the Shah. Other than that, his rule was OK if not inspired: certainly good by modern ME standards, although as I recall (I was only young when it fell) highly corrupt. Note also that the Shah was a Western ally because we'd put him onto the throne in the first place. As for 'greatest leaders the Middle East ever had'... well, maybe since colonialism, but this is a short and not very honourable list...

To: Machaon who wrote (19750)	3/12/2003 1:54:35 PM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 25898

Most Iranians probably miss the good old days of the Shah Many folks yearn for the good old days... While in the West, Stalin is seen simply as a monstrous dictator, the view in Russia remains divided, as a survey by the Public Opinion Foundation showed last month. Thirty-six percent of those polled said Stalin did more good than bad for the country, 29 percent said the opposite and the rest were unsure, Interfax reported. Ah...the good ol' days. jttmab

To: Machaon who wrote (19750)	3/12/2003 4:52:43 PM
From: Art Bechhoefer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 25898

Robert, if I take your view on the Shah literally, it means he was okay because he was a U.S. ally. He was also a very well educated man, but when it came to government, he was as authoritarian as the present government, if not more so. The Shah ran a repressive, police type state that happened to be friendlier to the U.S. than the present one. 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. Congratulations on your myopia! Art