Sic Semper Tyrannis

I apologize everyone

for the missing words and errors in the blog.   It looks like I uploaded a rough draft as opposed to the "cleaned up" version.  It was then featured and I couldn't correct it.

Vildemose

Who is the lady in your avatar? 

Sorry for being a fuzul 

Dear Mammad

To respond to a couple of your points:

 What do you think would have happened if Shah had killed Khomeini? Someone else would have replaced him. It is absurd to think that murdering Khomeini would have solved Shah's problems.

I am not suggesting that the Shah should have killed Khomeini in 1979. He should have killed him in the early 1960's, when he was a minor figure.  True that Shah's problems would not have been all resolved, but a great deal of it would have.  Because "replacing" Khomeini would not have been as easy as you suggest.  To be an effective leader, good or bad, one needs to have charisma, which, in and of itself, pretty unique.  Khomeini was a phenomenon, in the same way as Adolf Hitler and George Washington.  He could not have just been replaced by another akhoond.  There were, in fact, many more much radical, and in a weird sense, "more effective" akhoonds around who never made it as big as Khomeini, such as that bacteria, Navab Safavi.  

If Shah had gotten rid of this stain on humanity, Khomeini, and a few of his followers as they surely would have sprouted up, and perhaps even closed the "hozeyeh elmiyeh" for a decade or so, we wouldn't be where we are today.  The Seyyed Ghotb and Shariati style plague would not  have been as effective, Shah himself would have died in 1980 anyway, and his son would have been forced into democratic reforms by a progressive Iranian society.

As for Libya, I  don't believe in the doomsday scenario of Al-Qaeda taking over.  With all due respect, that's just fear mongering.  There is a danger, however, and that is in the tribal nature of the Libyan society, and the challenge will be to reconcile all ofbthese different tribes into a functioning government.  But we shall see. 

Dear Dr. Ala

I guess I will take that as a compliment...sort of.  The part about "mind teaser" that is.  I guess that's one step up fron mind numbing.  So, it's kind of good, no? 

Anyway, as to  your points, I agree with some of your points about the military industrial complex's influence on U.S. domestic and foreign policy.  No argments there.  But we can't blame everything on the West. Eisenhower talked about the military industrial complex, but another U.S. president, Harry Truman, also had a sign on his desk that said "the buck stops here."   In the ME  in general, the buck never stops anywhere.  It's always someone else to blame.  And that is the single most problematic aspect of our culture.

And I agree with you that Ghaddafi and his son, Mutassim, should have been kept alive.  Have you seeen pictures of his son captured alive and then executed?  Pretty sad, even for a dictator. The new Libyan government should have shown that it does not conduct itself the same way as the old regime.  After all, isn't that what they were fighting for?  But I disagree that the West had anything to do with his summary execution.   That's just a crazy conspiracy theory.  People were just in aheat of the battle, they had too much hate forthe guy, etc.

Thanks for the comment. 

Thanks AO for another mind teaser....

There are good dictators and there are bad dictators.  The bad dictators used to be good dictators, almost all of them.   Political dictators come and go, but economic dictators such as Exxon/Mobile, Lockheed, and similar companies stay much longer and continue to destroy the weak countries.

Isn’t in ME culture to be respectful to dead?  According to Arabs, a dead body must be buried right away.  So why keep the body?  Why show or take picture(s) of dead body (in my view, it is a sign of sickness).

When Kaddafi was caught, he was injured but not dead.  Keeping him alive would have helped ME/Libya but hurt Western countries  Kaddafi had many secrets which would have hurt the west.  Him being dead, now the western banks such as HSBC (another economic dictator) will keep his money/holdings. 

Economic dictators make money in destroying and then will take money from poor Libyans to build it.  Libyans are going to pay dearly for all these bombs.  Even xxx which was not involved much wants billions of dollars in Libyan oil.

Global corporate economic dictators should recognize that their support of political dictators will ultimately be detrimental to their interests.  Without removing economic dictators, ME past will get repeated (IMHO)

"The Shah was toppled because people got tired of him; because"

Mamad-Agha, how do you know?

You yourself stated under another post while ago that you were born in mid 50's, went to Tehran university in the late 60's and early 70's and came to US in mid 70's and have been living here ever after!?

Could you share with us how you know of people's discontent in Iran that resulted in the overthrown of the Shah!?

If by discontent of people you are implying the discontent of a bunch of rebel students without a cause then and old-fart without a cause now, then I agree with you 150%!

There is no disagreement on the shortcomings of the Shah and his regime but Iranian people didn't topple him and you know it!

It was the Anglo-American establishment who did it!

Please don't indulge yourself, okay!

Iranian people don't have the competence to pull up their proverbial tumbon let alone plan, direct, and execute such a masisve effort, if you know what I mean!

Ghaddafi, an idiot, a dictator? sure. A coward?! hardly!

        He said he will fight to the end and will die on his land! He did! He could have escaped but he stood and fought an unfair battle!

        As always the history is not the battle of good and evil. It's more like the battle between bad and ugly!

        Coward is Malek Hossain of Jordan. Rulers of Kuweit and others. YOu can count Shah among them perhaps...

AO JaAn: They are not only

AO JaAn: They are not only cowards but also incredibly stupid. Why did Saadam, Mubarak, and Ghadaffi or Bashar thought/think that they even had a chance of winning in the end no matter how brutal they get. 

You think Khamnei et al would be that stupid too??I want them to be cowards and leave before killing thousands like these idiots.

"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." - Louis D. Brandeis

Amazing how some people jump!

Amazing how those who want military intervention in Iran, or at the minimum sanctions that will kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people in Iran a la Iraq in the 1990s, jump in as soon as I say a word that sounds to them like, "aha, gotch ya!!"

Artificial intelligence:

The man whose writing has revealed the artificiality of his intelligence (!), jumps in with absurd statements. I neither liked Ghaddafi nor the Shah. Both were dictators, and both had to go, and did. The Shahollahis believe that the Shah had made Iran a heaven; he had not, but he had done some good things. Likewise, Ghaddafi did many good things for Libya. For those who do not know: Ghaddafi built the best water distribution system in the world for Libya. He brought women into the society; he built universities, and he drastically reduced the gap between the rich and the poor. The rate of infant mortality in Libya is the lowest in all of Africa. Its health care system is - or was - one of the best. That is what I was referring to.

The bloodshed in Libya has to do with Ghaddafi shooting at his own people, but a lot, much more with NATO intervention. And, yes, I am a nationalist-religious man and a leftist in my social views, and absolutely positively proud of it. A leftist-nationalist like me prefers a home grown dictator to a puppet "democrat" coming to power through bombing by NATO, if these are the only two choices. I cannot put it any clearer than this. You do not like it? Tough!

Master of hollow and inconsequential rhetoric, AMIR1973:

Call me anything you want. I could not care less. The more you attack me, the better. I have clearly indicated where I stand, what I believe in, and what I advocate. Unlike what you seem to think, making political comments is not the same as taking part in a popularity contest! How about you? You hide behind a bogus name, and advocate sanctions from the comfort of your home in the West without thinking or caring about their consequences. And, I am sure you consider yourself the embodiment of courage, because you talk about it with so much authority!

AO:

What do you think would have happened if Shah had killed Khomeini? Someone else would have replaced him. It is absurd to think that murdering Khomeini would have solved Shah's problems.

The Shah was toppled because people got tired of him; because in addition to his system being corrupt, he himself had become the worst dictator. This is precisely similar to the VF regime, which will someday be removed for precisely the same reason.

To imply that the killings in Libya had nothing to do with NATO intervention, CIA, MI6 and French operatives on the ground, and the Al-Qaeda's Libya branch that will soon come to power, not to mention the tribal nature of the Libyan society in which the western and easter part have historically been rivals, but had to do only with Ghaddafi - whose rule was indeed a dictatorship - is beyond absurdity. I am sorry for being blunt.

Mammad

The most courageous act by a leader is to leave his ego aside

and do whatever it takes to avoid unnecessary bloodshed in his hoemleand.  And if that means that he has to give up power, that's what and ethical and caring leader would do.  That is exactly what the Shah did.

And I agree with Amir1973 - Shah's biggest mistake was not mowing down these pieces of filth, the mullahs.  How many of these viruses were there anyway?  500 important ones?  He should have just thrown them in a sewer somewhere and got it over with.  If he had done so, we would have avoided the death of more than a million Iranians post 1979 through executions and the war which the IRI brought upon our nation. 

Shah's biggest crime was NOT killing Khomeini

The single most bloody act of the Shah by far (in terms of numbers of lives who would be lost in the future as a consequence) was his decision to spare Khomeini's life rather than to execute him, as he richly deserved. The key lesson here is: killing Islamist terrorists can save countless innocent lives.

Very revealing post by our IRI nuke defending apologist Mammad

Amazing analysis, justification and whitwashing by someone who still blindly advocated for change from within.

The IRI Islamist sympathizer writes: 

 "He was a dictator (although not as bad as a lot of other dictators, because he also did many good things for his people), but compare him with the last dictator who fled Iran!"

The Shah did a million times more for Iranians than this rag tag terrorist thugh Qaddafi. 

Mammad compares Qaddafi who killed his own people (thousands dissapeared) through out his 40 year rule to the Shah who killed dozens through out his rule prior to the revolution.

How many mass graves were found in Iran as a result of the revolution? 

This just shows how ugly and disgusting your politics are professor. 

Classic leftist thinking. Amazing! 

ME leaders come from ME people who are culturally barbaric!

The late Shah of Iran despite his grudge-holding critiques could have/should have continued his rule by putting down the subversives!

He didn't because killing was not his intent!

Yesterday's violent and barbaric killing of Qaddafi (and I am not a fan of his) reminded me of the brutal murder and dragging on the street of the police officers by the hands of the criminal thugs right after the collapse of the Shah's regime in February 1979. Nobody knew whether the police officers were guilty of any crime or not!

I still vividly remember the steam arising from the warm body of one of the police officers in the cold February of 1979 in Karaj.

I want to puke at the middle east and its entire barbaric cultures.... Iranian or others! 

Sorry if I have offended anybody!

"Brave" Saddam also died in his own country

Compare him with the Shah, and you'll see that the level of violence and brutality meted out by Saddam, Qaddafi, and of course Emam Khomeini is exponentially greater than that of the late Shah's regime -- there is literally no comparison between the terrorism and mass executions of those regimes and that of the Shah. Of course, for those enamored with the various cults and trash ideologies of Khomeinism, anti-Westernism, Shia "liberation theology" (courtesy of Ali Shariati), Baathism, Nasserism, Qaddafi-worship, etc -- such moral and intellectual concerns are irrelevant.

Mammad

It takes a lot of courage and love for one's country to do what the Iranian Shah did.

How can people possibly compare those power hungry, dictatorial bastards who sacrificed thousands of their compatriots just so they stay in power with that decent and honourable man who'd left everything he loved and cherished to avoid bloodshed and killing of his people.

Mammad- Thanks for the compliment and the comment but

the last dictator fled Iran so that Iran doesn't turn into Libya.  Good for Ghaddafi for keeping his word.  At what cost though?  Destruction of the country and thousands dead?  The Shah fled to avoid the destruction of his beloved land.  Have you seen pictures of Sirt?  You count this as a good thing that Ghaddafi stcuk to his word?!!

Middle East centred, OK

Now, ME apart. Am not sure that the North Korean or the Cuban would be more courageous or would act any differently given the same circumstances.

IMHO. If the Prophet himself (whoever, whichever) descended upon them in a form of the red, shining star they'd probably run for the nearest bunker, too. Wouldn't surprise me if Khamenei had one, they all do.

the relevance and irony of

the relevance and irony of ghadafi dying like a rat in a blocked up sewage pipe is that he called his opponents rats.  but i can see how someone who supports dictatorship in his own country would like to find the positive in ghaddafi's character in the way he died.

Ghaddafi died in his nation

Ghaddafi stayed in Libya, even though he could have escaped to Algeria along his family, and got killed there. He had vowed to die in Libya and did. The fact that he was hiding in some pipe or whatever it was is not relevant. He was a dictator (although not as bad as a lot of other dictators, because he also did many good things for his people), but compare him with the last dictator who fled Iran!

While you can write about what you can AO, but I believe you can use your considerable intelect in more useful ways. Just my humble opinion.

Mammad

But Hitler didn't kill himself

As an American taxpayar

I really wish these guys take my advice and finish themselves off.  Seriously, why should I pay for the routine...you know what I am talking about--get the Navy Seals trained for a month, send in helicopters, waste a bunch of ammunitaions, including the bullet that lands in their foreheads...why should I pay for that?  Or in Lybia's case, cruise missles, etc.  Come on D-bags,  you know where you're going to end up.  Just do it the easy way and do what uncle Adolf did.  Wrap it up and call it a day.