PAHLAVI
به زبان فارسی
PICTORY
LATEST MUSIC
SEARCH
History will be kind
e4e-YBM+mVDgi)!~~0_3.jpg "History will be kind")
31-Oct-2011
As I tried to pay close attention to both the gossiping women and the head-strong men arguing about Iranian history and politics, I took a good look around and carefully analyzed the people who filled the host's home with drinks, jokes and roars of laughter. These people had always been my image of the Persian culture and heritage. Thinking further, I had an interesting thought-a question,rather: what makes the Iranian people greatly different and exception in regards to their neighbors? My earliest and most immediate thought was Reza Shah the Great.
The common and numerously repeated modernizing actions of Reza Shah are all well-known and, perhaps, drilled into the heads of Iranians supporting and against the deposed monarchy. Roads, education, railways, security forces, secularism and westernization (if it can even be called that) are all common attributes given to Reza Shah. Although all of these advancements were, in fact, directly related to the reign and new system of Reza Shah, the most important attribute of Reza Shah is never written or mentioned; Reza Shah forcefully opened the minds of the Iranian public to make them see the world from which they had been repressed from for centuries.
As a general statement, the majority of Iranians against the reforms of Reza Shah argue that the fashion in which he implemented reform was brutal and far too strong-handed in nature. Such reforms, in particular, included women's emancipation, the weakening of the clergy, the dispersion of Iranian tribes, education reform and also the anti-communist feeling his government possessed. In Iran's particular circumstance, the majority of these strong-handed reforms are able to be justified when observing objectively.
The women of Iran had been confined to the home for centuries. As sheep and cattle, they were expected to obey their master and be dutiful. The extreme influence of Islam on the Iranian way of life had made Iran appear more as an Arab nation than the great empire of Cyrus the Great. When the veil was banned and women were forced to leave the home without covering themselves, they were forced into a necessary realization and awakening. Advocates of religious freedom see this act of Reza Shah's to have been highly inappropriate and offensive to reverent women of the Muslim faith. Stepping away from the boundaries of political correctness, it can be argued that such an assessment is far from the reality and true purpose that Reza Shah intended. As a father to the nation, Reza Shah had a responsibility to do what was necessary for the nation's progress. Integrating women into society was one such action towards progression. Old habits die hard and Reza Shah was the one who broke them. Iranian women who criticize this action of Reza Shah always seem to forget that it was that very action that has even allowed them to voice their opinions freely as individuals amongst the Iranian community today. As children are forced to go to school at an early age when they have no desire to do so, Reza Shah forced the women of Iran to integrate into society in order to create a better future.
Secularism and the weakening of the clergy as well as education reform all go under the same category. Before the kingship of Reza Shah, the clergy was a powerful entity supported financially by the government and believers. Common customs of the time show us that people's every-day lives were, in some odd way, connected to the clergy. People consulted the clergy regarding financial issues, social issues, blessings and other every-day happenings. Since the public was vastly connected to the clergy by a strong sense of faith, the government controlled the clergy by paying them large sums of money to support and back up the government. In essence, the clergy and the government were directly related. Reza Shah sought to gain the power of the clergy and replace Iranian religiosity with a sense of national pride. For this reason, maktabs,or religious schools, were shut down and modern education became mandatory for all children. Reza Shah wanted to educate the masses and loosen the grip on religious ideology. By forcefully taking the dependence on the clergy of the people away, Reza Shah created a new generation of less religious and innovative citizenry. Universities became accessible to the public and were no longer a luxury of royalty and nobility. Reza Shah's new nation was going to be a red rose amongst the thorny bushes of the Middle East.
Instead of criticizing Reza Shah, we must strive to understand the time in which he ruled, the motives he carried and the vision he saw for Iran. When we think of the banishment of the veil, we must think of the women of today and how greatly it has impacted them. When we think about the radical dismissal of the clergy, we must remember the the independence Iranians gained mentally and financially from an entity that only sought to generate money. When we think of the brutal dispersion of the Iranian tribesmen, we must remember that our boarders are still intact because of Reza Shah's forced assimilation of the tribesmen. As we ponder the injustices of the left wing citizenry of Iran who pledged their allegiance to the USSR, we must remember half of our preserved Azerbaijan and the sliver of the Caspian Sea we can still claim as Iranian waters. History will be kind and just to our King, Reza Shah the Great, who took Iran and created a proud culture, people and nation.
RECENT COMMENTS
IRANIANS OF THE DAY
| Person | About | Day |
|---|---|---|
| نسرین ستوده: زندانی روز | Dec 04 | |
| Saeed Malekpour: Prisoner of the day | Lawyer says death sentence suspended | Dec 03 |
| Majid Tavakoli: Prisoner of the day | Iterview with mother | Dec 02 |
| احسان نراقی: جامعه شناس و نویسنده ۱۳۰۵-۱۳۹۱ | Dec 02 | |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Prisoner of the day | 46 days on hunger strike | Dec 01 |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Graffiti | In Barcelona | Nov 30 |
| گوهر عشقی: مادر ستار بهشتی | Nov 30 | |
| Abdollah Momeni: Prisoner of the day | Activist denied leave and family visits for 1.5 years | Nov 30 |
| محمد کلالی: یکی از حمله کنندگان به سفارت ایران در برلین | Nov 29 | |
| Habibollah Golparipour: Prisoner of the day | Kurdish Activist on Death Row | Nov 28 |
No one is above criticsm, you'd know if you read Shahname
by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on Thu Nov 10, 2011 02:13 PM PSTDid you ever read Shahname? Or is my hallucination correct, you are not familiar with your own Iranian culture?
You got me
by BacheShirazi on Thu Nov 10, 2011 01:55 PM PSTYeah Ok, I'm a Arabic Mullah. =/
>Why should anyone take your views seriously that being the case, that you don't know your own culture?
Is it our culture to never critisise a former crown prince? Is that our culture?
Bache Shirazi I take it you never read the Shahname by ferdowsi
by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on Wed Nov 09, 2011 02:32 PM PSTWhy should anyone take your views seriously that being the case, that you don't know your own culture?
You sound more like an arabic mullah, than an Iranian.
BacheShirazi
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Wed Nov 09, 2011 01:42 PM PSTAs for emphasising pre Islamic culture, Reza Pahlavi is a man who gave every single one of his children Arabic names.
I suspect Farah had a lot to do with it as with promoting idiocy all over Iran.
Reza Pahlavi is a coward
by BacheShirazi on Wed Nov 09, 2011 08:42 AM PSTReza Pahlavi is a coward who is most likely doomed to continue his irrelevence. He has never made any real effort to start a anti regime movement inside Iran and most likely never will. The maximum he will do is go on some obscure Iranian tv or radio show that 19 people listen to. It shouldn't be the Iranian people's job to help Reza Pahlavi find his balls like some people suggest. Some of you seriously act like we owe Reza Pahlavi something.
As for emphasising pre Islamic culture, Reza Pahlavi is a man who gave every single one of his children Arabic names.
VPK's Question
by Siavash300 on Mon Nov 07, 2011 06:13 PM PST" if Reza Pahlavi takes over things will get back to normal. All you say is true and will become. However I do not know how that is going to happen. But still I guess we are going to find out! " VPK
The process of history goes toward monarchy and nothing else. As you see day by day pass Crown Reza Pahlavi become more and more favorite of Iranian people especially new generation. His modern ideas for new establishment is much differ with what we experienced for example 100 years ago. He is edcucated, westernized and wants all those goodies for his people. He is well mannered and best candidate for future of Iran. This is the way to go if you really wants to see Iran progress and modernized. Many poeple talks because of Oghdeh, which is destructive for our nation. Padeshahi is a system that our ancestors lived under that concept for over 5000 years. Our people are familiar with the notion of Padeshahi. Our people are not familiar to those western concepts such as democratic, etc. Mosavi, Ebadi and others that you mentioned are not going to hold up even if they win the power for a short period of time in Iran. It won't work as the totalitarian of mullahs has not worked so far and they imposed themselves on the people.
Now, what is the responsiblity of those who really love Iran? They should support Crown Reza Pahlavi take the office. Just sitting aside and to be critical doesn't accomplish anything except helping mullahs to stay longer in power. For example, promoting our traditional holiday such as Norooz and Charahshanbeh souri is the best tool to fight mullahs. Keep emphasizing on our ancient culture and history is a good way to get into the heart of our new generation. Reading "Shah Nameh" and promoting idea of Ferdowsi is the way to go and always remember General Franco (1940) walked over ruins of Barcelon into the Spain after 4 years bloody civil war and re-built the Spain as we see these days.
So True VPK
by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on Mon Nov 07, 2011 09:46 AM PSTThe people that are citizens of the republics of Greece, Italy, India and Ireland are learning the hard way. Maybe a thorough national raping is on the cards for Iran by corrupt politicians looking to get what they can for themselves and their friends for the short time they are in power, who knows.
MG
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Mon Nov 07, 2011 09:41 AM PSTPoliticians are all corrupt but not bankrupt. You don't get bankrupt robbing a nation. On the contrary you get rich.
Anyway I would settle for a South Korean type system any day over IRI. You and my good friend Arj are dreamers. You want the best but I will accept something half decent. I already said on another blog:
Karroubi; Ebadi; Pahlavi any of them will be better than IRI.
Mash you may have some points,
by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on Mon Nov 07, 2011 09:39 AM PSTI hallucinate that the peoples will, will be a crucial factor for the west and that in Irans case a republc can not be imposed. It must be freely chosen and watch the level of skepticism this time around as the world media down plays irans traditions for a republic. My hallucination is the monarchy will make a strong grass roots come back once machine guns are lifted. Not unlike what happened in both Italy and the UK when the monarchy was removed by revolution.
As much a Ghajars' restoration was possible in Iran of the 40's
by Mash Ghasem on Mon Nov 07, 2011 09:27 AM PSTSo is the possibility of a Pahalavi re-emergence in Iran of the early 21st century: None,zero, zilch.
If our esteemed monarchists haven't noticed: US, NATO and the 'West' have been very busy creating two(not just one, but two) Islamic Republics in either side of Iran. IR is the best gift West has gotten for Iran, and all it wants to do with it, is to modify it's 'behaviour,' or at most replace it with a Green 'alternative' of Musavy and Sazgara types of bankrupt 'politicians,'
The political-economy fo Cold War, back then required monarchy as an ally to face USSR. With Cold War gone and capitalist accumulation on top of the agenda, the 'republican' form is now the optimal form of government for what the 'West' has in mind. The entire episode of 1979 in Iran was meant to lead and turn 'shah's Iran,' into some kind of a S. Korean type system. But it lead to Islamic Republic of Hell.
So as dear Arj, put it so well: Keep on dreaming.
P.S. Amirparvis: " I hallucinate." Yes you do, indeed!
How is that possible? Hmmmmmmm
by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on Mon Nov 07, 2011 09:21 AM PSTMaybe.... perhaps..... the possibilty.... that most of the people living in Iran.... the young generation.... blame their parents for their hardships and loss of freedom.... and wish their parents had been loyal iranians that reciprocated 1/1,000,000 th what the shah and his team had done for their country.
At some point propaganda from intellectuals will eventually run its course and the popularity of Irans traditions I hallucinate will come back in strength. In the future the only way a new constitution & government can be formed is by an internationally observed referendum, so all Iranians voices can be heard not just idealists, but also pragmatists.
Dream on!
by Arj on Mon Nov 07, 2011 08:48 AM PSTMonarchy in Iran is a dead horse whose kicking and beating would not bring it back to life! Now, keep dreaming of Americans bombing Iran, restoring Pahlavi dynasty and crowning RP! After all, as the old Persian saying goes: "Arezo bar Javanan (I mean old people) eib nist!"
But on a serious note, how is that even possible?! Just like Mojahedin who have already chosen the Rahber for the future of the entire nation, you have chosen one too? The irony is that even RP himself does not have the audacity to claim he wants to be a king! Moreover, if you have constitutional monarchy in mind, how is he going to be in charge to "fix" things? He either has to be an autocrat, like his father, to have the power to be in charge, or if yield to constitution, he would merely be a figure head!
So, if he is after real power to change anything in Iran, he has to represent a political inclination and take part in due prcess of democratic elections to become the head of state (president) for a term or two (as long as the constitution allows), and step down at the end of his tenure! But, if he is to mix the real power and the figurehead role (absolute monarch), he'll be in for a surprise uphill battle! For our people already have an "Agha Bala Sar," and in all likelyness will not bow to another one!
Siavash
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Sun Nov 06, 2011 11:03 AM PSTI am in agreement that if Reza Pahlavi takes over things will get back to normal. All you say is true and will become. However I do not know how that is going to happen. But still I guess we are going to find out!
The one thing I believe we should do it to be ready. If Americans do overthrow IRI we must push for a return of Reza Pahlavi. A constitutional Monarchy will be the best system. The an-tellectuals will oppose it. But they have lost credibility with people.
Reza Pahlavi will need to remind people how good it was under his father. No wars for 38 years. Great relations with all nations. Iranians respected all over the world. Iran the most powerful nation in Persian Gulf region. With no threat from Israel; Saudi or anyone. The naysayers will talk about "Brutal Dictatorship". We should respond "Prove it!". The opposition will say "Shah was tyrannical" we should respond "Who burned Cinema Rex and blamed it on him".
Basically for each accusation there needs to be a response. To remind people that 2 tomans used to buy you a book which now costs over 2000 tomans! That eggs did not cost 9 $ a carton. Bring reality into the picture and hard facts.
Ask people: do you want prosperity or promises. Do you want to risk some untested approach or the sure thing. Yes there should be a democratic parliament but we will need a leader at least for a period to guide the nation to the right path.
The one thing I hope will happen is that Reza Pahlavi would not hold to power. Iran will need to be guided to the right path. But after that the King needs to move out of the way and let people run their own affairs. Or the power will corrupt him like all others.
Our goal: Re-establishing monarchy in Iran
by Siavash300 on Sun Nov 06, 2011 10:26 AM PSTOur ancestors introduced "padeshahi" as a politcal system to the history of mankind for the first time. We are proud of that. Shah has been the symbol of unity, integrity and strength of our nation throughout history.
Yes, VPK million of Iranians are on the same page and it is monarchy. Once Crown Reza Pahlavi take the office, things will go back to normal. We gain our respect back. I am sure that poster in Texas will come down then. We live in harmony, peace and love with all of our neighbores including state of Israel as we did during shah's days. No war threat from Israel, Saudi, and U.S once crown Reza take the office. No harassment from other countries. We work together to make a better Iran under hegemoney of our king Reza Pahlavi. We walk toward progress and modernization as it was the wish of Reza shah the Great. It is common knowlege Reza Khan never took his booth out, worked 24/7 for Iran. His frequent expression was : I make Iran better than France that French people come and regret. God bless his soul. Patriatic soldier who loved Iran and died for Iran.
پاینده و سر بلند باد سرزمین آریایی ما ایران در اهتزاز باد پرچم ۳ رنگ شیرو خورشد ماAmirparviz
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Sat Nov 05, 2011 05:43 AM PDTFirst of all I like you and apologize for getting a bit harsh. But now we at least agree that he was aware of the illness well before 1979. That he was under care of doctors And he was taking medication for it.
I am not going to argue 1973 or 1974. Nor will I argue fatal or not. Because I don't know those. Shah in my opinion should have prepared a care taker government just in case. Then abdicated in favor of Reza Pahlavi in 1976.
That is my view and you are welcome to disagree. My view is that same as you and Siavash that we should have retained Pahlavi. It is the method we may differ on. Do you two agree that we are on the same side? With minor differences.
Well said Siavash300
by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on Fri Nov 04, 2011 08:48 PM PDTBlamers just don't get it.
After 32 years... still don't get it.
by Siavash300 on Fri Nov 04, 2011 08:29 PM PDTIt was Nov. 1979 when students in the line of Khomaini took over U.S embassy. All leftists were taking side with Islamist supporting the action saying it was anti-imperialism. It started with Ashraf Dehghan and then Paykar and then Fadaeyan (minority) then Fadaeyan (majority) then tudeh members .......got executed by Islamic gang, they realized it was NOT anti imperialism. The left didn't get it.
In summer 1978, all women organizations supported khomaini. The magazine "zan-e-rooz" put a big picture of a modern, fashinable Iranian woman with designer scarf and designer outfit marching on Taj street in Tehran showing her clinch fist against shah.
In march 1980 day of woman, the same crowd were being beaten up and some got stabbed by Islamists who were in power at that time. Those women didn't get it.
Jebh-e-Meli who was supportive of Khomaie and thinking they will get rid of khomainie once shah leave the country found what a mistake they did once islamist kick them out of government. Pahlavi street name was changed to Mosaddeq street at begining. Once mullahs stablized they change the name to Vali Asar. Later on their leaders such as Daruish Forohar and his wife savagely killed in their resident in Tehran. Jebh-e- Melli and their supporters didn't get it.
David luck , the leader of KKK flied out to participate in conference in Tehran with AhmadiNegad who was bad mouthing jews. Clueless american was thinking he found a partner in middle east who hate jews and niggers as he does. He didn't get it.
There are many people after 32 years don't get it.
Mohamad was being stoned by jews 1400 years ago and he refers to that day the worse day of his life. That is the root of hate from jews by muslims. Palestine is an execuse for that historical hate. Westerners such as KKK leader doesn't know these historical facts and interpreted Ahmadinegad statement as "anti semantic' and racist components. Poor guy didn't know this people didn't think the way westerners were thinking. He just don't get it.
Taking over embassy has nothing to do with imperialism and communism. These Islamic gang has foundamental hate from civilized world and westerners because of barbaric way of Islamic thinking. The huge difference between Islam which belong to nomad tribe of bare feet desert arabs with christianity which is the foundation of western world. The westerners just don't get it. On the other hand, some Iranians had been homeless around the world begging from foregin coutries for visa still don't get it. They blame their predicament on shah. They still don't understand these issues never existed once shah was on power and will never happen once crown Reza take the office.
Ba Mehr,
Siavash
De Nile is a river in Egypt, this one is accurate
by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on Fri Nov 04, 2011 07:35 PM PDTThe Shah indirectly detected his own cancer when, during a skiing
trip in 1974, he felt a lump in the left upper portion of his abdomen.
It turned out to be an enlarged spleen and led the French doctors, Dr.
Jean Bernard and Dr. Georges Flandrin, to diagnose a form of cancer of
the lymph system that resembled chronic lymphocytic leuke-mia and was
called Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemia.
The cancer was kept in check with chlorambucil from 1974 in Iran
through his two months in Egypt, where he arrived on Jan. 16, 1979, and
during his two-week stay in Morocco. But shortly after he landed in the
Bahamas on March 30, his odyssey took on a new dimension. He developed
swollen lymph nodes on the left side of his neck, and Dr. Flandrin
diagnosed a new - and usually fatal - form of cancer called Richter's
syndrome.
During the last five years of his reign, the Shah took an anticancer
drug prescribed by two French doctors who commuted frequently to Teheran
to supervise his medical care, though it is not clear that he knew he had cancer.
My view: He knew he was ill, he did not know it was fatal, or the name for it and it did not affect him at work until the year of the actual revolution. His weight and diet had been normal all the time until then. I think his doctors had something to do with him not knowing until it was too late.
Yes it does
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Fri Nov 04, 2011 07:15 PM PDTGo down a bit on the article to note number 5.
The shah's cancer was diagnosed in 1973 and hidden from the public in subsequent years. The battery of chemotherapeutic agents used to treat Muhammad Reza Shah included steroids (used to treat his bouts of hepatitis) ...
Amirparviz you are in denial. You have created a myth in your mind and refuse to see reality. I am really tired of this debate because it goes no where.
Remember I have no reason to make it up or to lie about it. You may remain in your fantasy or be in the real world. I make no difference to me.
Sir if anyone is dreaming it is you.
Your Link says nothing about him knowing he had cancer in 1973
by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on Fri Nov 04, 2011 06:06 PM PDThe had no clue he had cancer until much later. He was functioning fine for years after until 1977 no problems workwise as far as I know. When he knew he was not able to cope it too late, year of the revolution. Your statement, "if he was (so wonderful) there would not have been a revolution." is a shocking blame statement. It is blame on a person that lost because his loss occured for the reason that he was betrayed. You know he had a pact with the USA. You know he couldn't even get tear gas or plastic bullets and the US sent Huyser to neutralize the military. You have difficulty swallowing that he was no dictator, now you blame him for the revolution, yeah right, all the people of Iran were perfect, it was the shah.
Being a Dreamer is not a bad thing, it has good uses in other areas. The problem with Iranians is they can't criticize someone and say they don't like a person or discuss the things that they are not happy about without saying untruths like he is a dictator. Communicating lies helps no one.
Dear Arj
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Fri Nov 04, 2011 05:22 PM PDTI got your drift. However Iranian Monarchy was not as democratic as it. The best would have been a system with a REAL parliament. But with a King more than a figurehead. The constitution gave him real power.
My argument is that even that would have been good enough to save Iran. The ideal thing was that after Shah was gone his son would give up more power. That sort of like the King of Spain did. Give up power and let it go fully democratic.
Shah
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Fri Nov 04, 2011 05:07 PM PDTWas diagnosed in 1973 and started treatment. It required powerful drugs that affected his mind. Here is the link with information:
//www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/sick_m...
I am just telling you the facts. I have very good information that Shah did smoke in 1978. Maybe stress of the situation got to him. But he was staying up all night chain smoking. I know these because of very highly placed individuals.
It is best to not make up things that fit our preference. Yes it would be great if Shah was as wonderful as Amirparviz says. But if he was there would not have been a revolution. The facts are that Shah was a mixed bag.
Rer abdication
by Arj on Fri Nov 04, 2011 04:23 PM PDTDear VPK, I don't think if you caught my drift! If there were a constitutional system, the viceroy would not have been able to empower Islamists or any other political current! For the viceroy's role -- in a constitutional system -- is not to interfere in political struggles, but rather such official and formal state affairs as appointing senate members, inaugurating nation's parliament, ratifying new legislations, approving new governments...
He did not know he was ill until 1978
by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on Fri Nov 04, 2011 04:07 PM PDTHis doctors didn't tell him he'd cancer until after he left iran. Yes you find a replacement when you can't perform but he did not know until it was too late. His wife was out and his son was too young, he had several experienced and trusted officials, but he could not give them authority in the conditions iran was in.
My Favourite comment on the shah was by a Polish Journalist, speaking english to Iranians in a hotel lobby Iran who were saying we can't stand the Dictator, he replied in English, you're ignorant, if he was a dictator I wouldn't be here with all these foreign journalists and you wouldn't be able to say the type of things you are saying in this room, you have no idea what a dictator is. I've been looking for that video on you tube since, when i find it I'll put it up for you VPK. My Liberal Professor at University in a political leadership class I was taking said, the shah was clearly not a dictator, and jimmy carter betraying him under those pretences was a tragedy.
VPK & others Go to the political department of any liberal uiversity, call the professors and tell them you are wrting an article for IC and ask them to give their opinions on the shah and the issue of being a dictator and to explain the reasons they give for what they say, many of you will have a rude awakening.
Regarding Abdication
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Fri Nov 04, 2011 02:27 PM PDTNobody asked Shah to abandon his family or his nation. You got to give up your job when you are no longer able to do it. Shah was not able to do his job. He was sick and that is it. Therefore he should have abdicated.
Farah would have been a horrible person to make regent. I would have picked Hoveyda or Bakhtiyar; heck even one of the generals. Farah did more to empower Islamists and *** things up than most.
The problem was lack of a democratic parliament but it was not hopeless. Shah knew he is sick in 1973 and had time to plan abdication. But instead he held on. I am sorry but he messed up. I give him credit for good work and blame for mess up.
Tiger what are you saying?
by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on Fri Nov 04, 2011 02:17 PM PDTYour comments show up blank for me on my computer?
Arj I hope you don't mind me using you to make important points
by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on Fri Nov 04, 2011 02:16 PM PDTMy comments while they answer you, are not meant for you, they are meant for others to think and grow.
Re what?!
by Arj on Fri Nov 04, 2011 02:11 PM PDTDear AMPFSM, I have no idea what you are talking about, but whatever makes you happy and brings you joy!
.
by Tiger Lily on Fri Nov 04, 2011 02:11 PM PDT.
Arj re abdication
by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on Fri Nov 04, 2011 08:51 PM PDTThat would make sense if what people said about him, based on ignorance, their own personal agenda's and the influence of the world media saying it, had a basis of truth in it. Since he was no Dictator, based on never using absolute power, And since unlike many many other countries I can mention he never invaded Iraq and he never invaded Afghanistan and since He never set up his own governments in Iraq and Afghanistan now would be the correct time to start pointing fingers at who the real dictators are and which systems of government they do represent.
Lets consider Jimmy Carter, and every president up to and including Barack Obama, using his execution drones in other people countries today killing innocent civilians and lets put on our list PM James Callaghan and every PM up to the current one Cameron. (so blair and all others) lets consider on our list for dictatorship, unlawful acts and using absolute power.
If Shah had abdicated, that would have been the most moronic thing to do among a nation of people where every other person was acting like a traitor to Iran, I personally would never leave my wife and young children unprotected among a group of dictators pursuing power for its own sake, if i knew I was dying.