BORDERS

bijanam ...

I see! We have to give credit to Dariush though that the only reference that he presented proves nothing but that mullas had another $100M-$131M (or up to $400M in 2008 dollars) of iranian wealth to swallow, waste, or donate to their idols in lebanon, iraq, and felestin; although this is a mere spare change for the 200,000 moft-khor mullas and their criminal activities compared to some $1T of iranian wealth that they have plundered for their unholy objectives in the past 30 years.

This is what is referred to as "tofe sar baalaa" in persian.

Viva iran!

Anonymouss

You must be new to this site to continue responding to this Dariush guy. You say,

"You really don't see flaws in your position, do you?"

This guy is so blinded with hatred and so closed minded that can't see the day light.

Don't dignify him with a response, he is not worth it.

Still exaggerating...

Go back and re-read my previous comment. I already answered you "before" your presented your evidence AND your evidence is consistent with MY guess, but your conclusion is bogus.

Shah had two sources of assets:
(1) lands from his father: some divided to peasants in white revolution, the rest transferred to pahlavi foundation, and then transferred to alavi foundation and then swallowed by mullas. What you showed me did not belong to shah anymore. It did belong to reza shah though, the value of which would have been much lower during reza shah's time.
(2) commissions on oil contracts -- nobody knows how much it was. So whatever you say is your number, not fact. So you proved nothing!
Again, you don't seem to understand how much $1B is and how hard it would be to hide any such amount. How come none of the arab princes can hide their assets and he could hide it for 30 years? As for jewlery, it did not belong to him, all major items were backings of iranian money and all remained in iran when he left. I cannot believe that you are so opinionated yet uninformed about how pahlavi's government worked.

So your only reference showed that pahlavi foundation had $100M in 1976 which now belongs to mullas. The rest are your conclusions based on nothing but your opinion.

You see dariush: you live in an ideological bubble of accusations and view the world as your ideology dictates, not as it is. That is your entitlement. But if you talk to people in iran, your kind is of diminishing size and value. Specially, the children of revolution, born after 1979, have no hatred for the shah since they did not know him. They can only evaluate him based on hard evidence which you have provided none. The only evidence that you provided was that reza shah had confiscated 7,000,000 acres of land. That I accepted already, and your reference showed that that did not belong to M.R. shah anymore in 1979.

I showed you the statistics that 69% of iranians now have favorable view of the shah, and that can only increase with passing of all ideologue revolutionaries.

You really don't see flaws in your position, do you?

Anonymouss

Didn't I say even if I provide document you don't accept it.
You and shah claim his wealth was in $100 million in 1980, but the link I attached reported his wealth just in real estate in 1958 was $100 million Dollars in 1958-1961. His foundation in 1962 had $100 to $131 million in New York. If you add his bank accounts in U.S. , Swiss and other places and his other real estates, jewelries, and the money he transferred before leaving Iran and etc it will be in billions. Of course he is not going to admit that in 1980. Then add the wealth people around him stole.

I told you you are not good with numbers either! Do you see?
You say you are a nationalist. OK. I really hope so. It was my mistake. Are you happy now?

You don't have to lie....

You really need to stop accusing people and improve your reading and rationalizing skills. Except for your very last point, you are misquoting and accusing me again.

Yes, arguing with you is useless, simply because (1) you think that you represent iran and thus (2) whatever you say should be accepted with no challenge or counter argument.

Everything that you say about me in your last comment is pretty much incorrect, yet you base your conclusions on those accusations. You are lying about me in front of me, and you expect me to accept your lies about iran's past?

The % I refer to are some of the numbers I have been arguing with Pahlavi lovers. But they say shah was perfect and did nothing wrong. They ask for proof and when I give proof, they say it is fabricated. I found your views the same as Pahlavi lovers!

Well, I do not know what percentages you are talking about? Your 50%? A high-school kid would laugh at it, let alone the educated bunch in the west. Even your referenced article was amazingly close to what I had just said in my previous comment and proved how exaggerated your numbers were. You don't even put your own reference numbers in perspective to see your errors.

As for references, you have to see where they are coming from and if the author has a so-called bone against pahlavis -- which most iranian authors can have -- and where his/her sources are. For example, we "know" now for a fact that Amnesty International numbers from 70's about shah's crimes were totally wrong. There is no quarrel in that since even reliable IRI sources accept that now. You know why they were wrong? Because they were based on hearsay from 70's leftists and islamists who had some agenda in mind; they were not based on any on-site observation then. That is why Amnesty International does not accept any hearsay data anymore. They know they were fooled about iran's past.

The only reference that you gave me was the one about pahlavi foundation. I cannot swear about its truthfulness, but I can accept that the numbers could be ball-park correct. Assuming that article's content is correct, that does not demonize shah at all, but rather vindicate him. And as I said, even though every king prior did the same, nonetheless, it is a negative point for reza shah.

As for pahlavis being perfect. Maybe you are again attaching something to someone to prove your unprovable point (as you did with me), but I never said that pahlavis were perfect. There is no perfect human being, let alone a ruler. But both pahlavis were definitely saints and perfect "compared to" any IRI leader from khomeini to ahmadinejad. I guess this is what bothers you since you still believe that IRI is not so bad.

Just as Zionists blame the world for what happened, Pahlavis and Pahlavi lovers blame all Iranians for what happened to them including nationalists, communists, mojahedin, fadais, men, women, children, elderly, Turks, kurds, Lords, fars and....

Are you talking about yourself here? It was YOU who said you did not want me -- a nationalist -- not the other way around. You still do not see that you are lying, do you?

And again, you are changing the subject to cover up for your inability to rationalize. You have heard about "goriz ra beh karbala zadan"? That is what you are doing.

Your comments are based on empty emotions and ideology and therefore are not necessarily factual.

Anonymouss

The % I refer to are some of the numbers I have been arguing with Pahlavi lovers. But they say shah was perfect and did nothing wrong. They ask for proof and when I give proof, they say it is fabricated. I found your views the same as Pahlavi lovers!
Just as Zionists blame the world for what happened, Pahlavis and Pahlavi lovers blame all Iranians for what happened to them including nationalists, communists, mojahedin, fadais, men, women, children, elderly, Turks, kurds, Lords, fars and....
Going back and forth with you/them is waist of time!

wondering...

I thought we could focus on the issues and discuss objectively, and now I see that you are going back on throwing rhetoric dariush-style.

What you are saying is only true in two respects, value of dollar (a factor of about 3 in 30 years) and iranian oil revenue (about 3 times larger in adjusted dollar). The latter attracts a lot more thievery. But executive pay in US has nothing to do with iran. Executive pay is so large because the value of US assets grew rapidly in 90's (in adjusted dollar) due to its high economic activities. That was NOT the case within iran. The value of iranian assets actually decreased to a minimum around 1998, when iran asked for a mere $300M loan from world bank to be able to complete various metro projects. Since then it has been increasing. Iranian assets are highly correlated with oil price (the main source of income for iran). That is not the case for the US. So using US assets to justify thievery in iran is not a fair way of analysis.

As for what you said about shah, I again sense some inherent hatred. I told you about my position, and why and when I preferred shah and monarchy. Now you bash him, fine, but I cannot respond to pure rhetoric. Making accusations is easy, but unless and until you are more specific it has no value. I can only comment on specific accusations, and I may even agree with some of his short-comings as I did in response to dariush.

Only emotionless truth and honest comparative analysis can be a guiding light for us. Pure hatred does not get us anywhere; although you are entitled to exercise such hatred as you please.

Shah vs. Mullah wealth

Not to barge in, but you are comparing 1970's monetary standards with 2008. In the 1970's Iran's population was 28 million, it's 70 million now. Here in the US executive pay was approaching $200K, and now they are in hundreds of millions or a billon in some cases.

Argue against the IRI, but supporting a monarchy is a losing porposition. Shah may have been beneficiary for a big percentage of families in Tehran, but he was fiscally irresponsible for Iran nor did he have any real charisma to lead Iran to its independance.

More information...

While we are complaining about assets of shah, it is worth noting a few bits of information about assets of mullas. The same mullas who represent god and his prophet and are entitled to impose their will on the people. The same mullas who peformed a sermon for around 100 tomans, about $15, before the revolution.

For those who visit iran, ayatollah rafsanjani's family compound is worth visiting. You will not be allowed to get anywhere close to it, but you can go around it. I am not good at estimating land area, but just make sure to time how long it tales to go around it.

And make sure to look at the high rises being built by ayatollah gharaati in northern tehran. They are hard to miss, as they are brand new, higher than surrounding, and very shinny, and often white in color. And while you are at it, have a dinner at one of his hotels, e.g., hotel aseman.

And to put all these in perspective, a piece of land around 5000 meters in a top location in tehran was recently sold for 32 billion tomans ($32 M) for building new high rises.

And the question is: okay shah was a thief, and IRI came in to get rid of the thief, but were did all these men of God get all that money and how did they end up being in business of lands and buildings and hotels and on and on. God must have been very kind to them and blessed them with all that wealth.

Now ask yourself: who was the biggest thief, the shah (one family) or the mullas (lots of families)?

Dariush...

I only glanced on the report that you posted; it is from 1976 (see bottom of page) and seems void of any agenda. It says that the assets were valued between $100M and $131M and also says that lands were valued at $100M. That is a tenth of billion dollars, not 50 billion dollars that you claimed. Now you see how off your scale of numbers are?

Also, do you know who owns pahlavi foundation now? answer: mullas do, renamed it as alavi foundation and nobody knows what they do with their assets. Pahlavi foundation used to support iranian students as the report says to come to west and become commies and oppose the shah! I have not seen any deserving student being supported by alavi foundation now, but maybe there are and I do not know them.

Dariush...

Dariush: You are really going haywire. You are again accusing me of things that I have not said, or pulling numbers out of your hat and throwing them at me that are impossible to accept except maybe by some uneducated crowd of 1979. I am sorry, but I am simply not that naïve to buy into your claims without proof. None of the stuff that you said deserves an answer since they are so naïve, outrageous, and erroneous, but I respond to them anyway.

I don’t know what this 50/50 is about. But 50% of Iranian wealth was north of $50 Billion dollars. That by itself shows how bad you are with numbers. The richest man in 1980’s had a total wealth of between 1 and 2 billion dollars (now it is much more of course). I cannot accuse you of lying, but if you are not, and you really believe in what you say, then you are really badly uninformed/misinformed. Even Khomeini, the emam of liars, claimed that shah had stolen about $6 billion, which he could not prove it later. People laugh at you dariush when you say things like that. As they say “Yek chizi begou keh begonjeh”. It appears that you are hotter than hot anti-shahis: see here starting at time 2:50.

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMDURscaGf4&feature...

And when did I say that he stole 49%. Either you are making it up or …?

As for shah’s land, Reza shah was a commoner. Watch carefully what I am about to say to see how fair I am. All the kings would register the lands that had no owner, and sometimes agricultural lands of villages (unjustly) to their names. Yes, reza shah had no inheritance of his own that I know of, so I believe that he registered country’s lands in his own name. All ghajar kings did that too. That was not right but was common. M.R. shah undid that almost entirely during white revolution and when he formed pahlavi foundation to provide scholarship for Iranian students among other things. When he left iran, he did not have much land that I know of in his name. By the way, khomeini opposed the land reform then.

Your discussion about his personal life is not relevant. It is none of anybody’s business how he lived. I do not know if he had any wives besides the three that we know of, and you do not either, except that you assume that he had and I have no opinion of it one way or the other. And for your information, all kings had a big appetite in that department, and so do some mullas (for both sexes!). In my last trip to iran, someone was swearing that he knows that ayatollah khamenei had relation with a man in his teenage years. I believe that as much as I believe your gossip about shah without proof. But who cares?

Again dariush, you make a claim that you cannot justify and then based on that you make a conclusion which is bound to be incorrect. If you want the truth about shah’s wealth, here is the absolute truth until I see some evidence: “WE DO NOT KNOW!” My best sincere guess is that it could be anywhere between $1 million and $1 billion (for all his family). This is a pure guess. It cannot be more than $1 billion simply because it is way too much to hide in any shape or form. That turns out to be less than 1% of total Iranian oil revenue during his entire regime, not your 50%. The other day I read an article about wealth of Ansari (one of shah’s ministers) to be “known” to be around multi millions (I do not recall the exact number, I think it was around 5 or 6 million dollars but I am not sure), but the same article was about where his wealth was invested and how he came to have this wealth. The article was saying that he earned his wealth from his business in USA earned after he came to America in 1979.

My point: any large number is impossible to hide for 30 years. But anything that you claim is simply wrong and only ideological and accusational: we simply do not know.

Again, you say “You monarchies consider all Iranians your enemy, since regardless of what political group Iranians were, they united and kicked you out.”

Dariush: this is really non-sense that you are saying. Funny that you accuse me of saying what you yourself just said in your previous comment that you wanted me out because I was monarchist and supposedly not of same ideology as you are. No wonder other people ganged up on you on the other thread, because you still live in 1979: accuse and destroy or expel. Yes, Iranians united and kicked out monarchy (not me though), only to replace it with the inferior islamists. Now they know they made a BIG mistake. Ask any middle age Iranian and they long for the good old days. Ask any young Iranian, and (s)he tells you that their parents always speak of the good old days. I showed you the statistics and you continue to live in 1979. Yes, in 1979, 98% voted for Islamic republic, but at least 69% of them now know that they made a bad mistake. That is a fact.

For your information, I want a country run by nationalists with a fully transparent system of government who focuses on improving the disastrous conditions inside iran on an equal basis, not Palestinians, not Iraqis, not anyone else. A country ruled by what all Iranians have in common, their nationality, a government based on nationalism rather than ideology, no islam, no mao, no marx, no Lenin; only iran. I want a country to be proud of. I want a country in 21st century, not in 7th century. I respect religion but hate imposition based on religion. Religion belongs to homes, between individual and his god, period. I do not have any ideology and do not consider iran and Iranians to be servants of any ideology, including islam. All and everything else should be second-class to iran and Iranians. We were Iranians before we became moslims; that is a fact.

I preferred monarchy over Islamic republic, simply because it was a far far better system for the people, despite its short-comings. Now, with the experiences of the past 30 years, if you do not agree with me, then I am confident that something is wrong: either you are uninformed, or you are cursed by hatred for the shah, or you are an ideologue who assumes that Islamic values should be forced upon people and mullas (or a variation of their rule) have the god-given right to rule and impose themselves on people. I swear to god that god does not need intermediary to impose his rules or identify his enemies and punish them. God is well aware of who does what and well capable of punishing whoever he wants to be punished. All these self-proclaimed representatives of god are charlatans in service of their own ambitions and nothing else. That is what Christian pastors are, that is what Jewish rabbis are, and that is what Islamic Mullas are. How can you say that Islamic republic committed “some” crimes when in 1988, there were 10 to 12 executions in evin every half an hour, for eight hours, some as young as 13 years old, day after day. Some only preceded by 15 minutes of trial in front of a mulla without any lawyer or representative defending the accused.

I preferred Monarchy to be improved the way bakhtiar wanted to do. I would have gladly accepted any system, including Islamic republic, that could bring us out of dark ages of ghajar or better days of pahlavis into a decent progressive country. Not a country in constant fight with others, involved in dirty works of imprisonment, torture, closure of magazines, never-ending executions, constant harassing of youth, … while its per capita income has been on decline continuously since 1979 (with some fluctuations of course).

Our argument here is about past. Otherwise I feel that the days of monarchy are past. Even if monarchy had survived, with passing of the shah in 1980, prince reza had to rule quite differently and thus we would not have been in such a disaster now. There are so many examples: look at any arab monarchy, from maghreb to Persian gulf states; almost all of them are more prosperous than iran, all of them were behind iran in 1979, and all of them have had rulers far more greedy and far more inhumane than shah was, yet the Mecca of young Iranians today are arab sheikhdoms in Persian gulf since reaching any country in the west has become so difficult. Have you wondered why?

Wake up dariush, remove the curse of khomeini and his self-serving god and his bogus religion from your soul, and cleanse yourself of his lies and his deceits and his blanket hatred for everyone who opposed him; then and only then we can argue things rationally rather than emotionally. If you want to remain in your cocoon of ignorance, then stick to your guns. If you want the truth and really care about iran, then throw away your ideology and your hatred and at least try to question the truthfulness of the lies that you have been fed for the past 30 years.

BTW, I am well aware of David Barsamian and his work that you posted. He is a real good guy (of Armenian descent I should add). He also has a recent book on the same subject.

Interesting

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmYY8ED4Ab0&feature...

Anonymouss and Others

I read this information a month ago among Pahlavi sites and thought it was a Pahlavi site since I spent hours reading. But I found it today and it was not a Pahlavi site. However it doesn't matter. The report has been made in 1961 by an American reporter and had nothing to do with politics. The land he inherited was 7,000,000 Acres not Hectares!

//www.aliciapatterson.org/APF001975/Crowe/Cro...

Anonymouss

Your polls are the same polls that say U.S. is number 12 and Iran is number 169 out of 169 countries for human rights violation. So I let people judge the polls.
You claim to be good with numbers.
When I tell you shah was splitting the wealth of Iran 50/50 meaning 50% shah and darbar and 50% 30 million Iranian. You argue it was 49% shah not 50%. Showing neither you get the point nor you are good with numbers.

Since this is about territories and kings,
I give you another number!
I googled pahlavis and in one of the Monarchy's sites said Mohammad Reza Pahlavi distributed a lot of the lands (left for him by Reza shah )to farmers as he did with lands belonged to other feudals. Good.

As this Monarchy's site, say there were 1000 villages, a total of 7,000,000 (that is million) Hectares of land that was left for MOHAMMAD REZA AHAH from REZA SHAH'S will.

Now the questions are:
where did Reza shah get all these lands from?
How many people did he kill or made homeless to take all these lands?
He had 4 wives and 11 children as recorded. How much did they received each?
How much his other relatives and friends got?
How much people in darbar around Reza shah received?
How many wives and children did he had, not recorded and how much did they received?

You claim Islam is unfair letting men have more wives, but all these kings have had number of wives themselves. So what happened?
I don't see much difference in the look of this king and mullahs, except he has jewlery all over him, while Iranians were starving!

You claim to be good with numbers. I leave that to you to figure, but don't come telling me they deserved it and it was their salary!
The same goes to billions of dollars shah himself transferred from Iran for his children!
You monarchies consider all Iranians your enemy, since regardless of what political group Iranians were, they united and kicked you out. Therefore you label them communists, Islmists, Arabs and etc. Your goal is to divide Iranians anyway you can by using their believes, names, culture and etc.
What matters is what we stand for not our names and colors. If koorosh was a great king, it was for his justice and what he stood for, not his name.

Esteghlal

Anonymouss;

You address valid points that a perfect society must address, but since our community is still trying to patch the rift brought upon us by the revolution, today’s circumstances demand our focus to be put on the genesis and broad tactical practices of the opposing governments.

Uncle Sam has a beef to settle with Iran's clergy because they found a way to remove it's grip away from Iran's pockets. You can sum up Uncle Sam’s senile strategy to "Be Free or I will kill you" and the polls the west produces for people like you are from it’s partnering nations; France and Britain and countries that are under US military and economic rule, such as Germany, Japan, South Korea and the Saudi Arabia’s alike.

Arafat was a corrupt version of Fidel Castro. He remained a great con artist until his death ultimately forced his hand. Jordan is another western agent, as is Egypt. Iran’s focus on Israel is a confirmation of Iran’s expansion of influence and it’s focus to limit US dominance in the region.

When you visit Iran, the facts are much different than what you and I have been fed by the media for the past 30 years. I’m not disagreeing with you that Iran’s current leadership has made many bad deals and bad decisions, or elements of it’s rule have engaged in criminal activity, but we have the issues here in the US. 400 million of us are still paying for the white color crimes of the .com era that has followed a fair share of issues in financial, oil, insurance and telecom industries. This is an on going challenge in any system, we just try to work hard as human beings to improve the systems.

Turning the discussion into a monarch vs. IRI, ultimately plays into the hands of vultures that want to rip off Iran’s resources for their own personal gains. Therefore, when a foreign power is making advances on Iran, an absence of support from us is identical to throwing baby Iran out with the bath water.

Thanks to the web, and the hard work of Mr. Iranian.com and contributors like Mr. Madadi, we have a forum to reflect back on our past to help us develop a unified approach toward the landscape ahead. This is not only good for the people of Iran, but it’s also a great contribution for the advancement of our adopted communities which we are so well qualified to render. After all, under 30 years of bashing the national identity of our community, we are showing the fabric of our spirit with remarkable colors.

p.s. Western grip on turkey is under a great deal of pressure as well, so take their content with a grain of salt.

Dariush...

Read your comments and see how childish and empty they are. You misquote me or do not understand me at all and then your only counter-argument is that I am monarchist. I know you do not understand numbers, but let me tell you that you are in minority camp. You have no logic but ideology and vulgarity. You yourself admit that some of your comments are so bad (and thus void of logic) that even the moderators block them. Need I say more?

In the latest phone poll taken from turkey from inside iran, just about few months ago, one of the questions was "are you better off today in IRI or during the shah's regime?". Here is the statistics from the responses to that particular question:

(1) 14% said they were better off today in IRI.

(2) 69% said they were better off in shah's regime.

(3) 7% gave no answer or said their condition were about the same.

You entitled yourself to represent "iranians" and did not want me in iran and that I was chasing after my tail. The above statistics tell us that on the contrary, a vast majority of "iranians" do not want likes of YOU and prefer US, the accused monarchists, over islamists. It seems like your tail is between your legs while being pushed out of iran, sooner or later, not mine.

I gave you clear responses, backed up with data; and what was your answer, accusations and rhetoric. I have news for you: iranians are getting smarter day by day and thus the market for your type of argument is shrinking in size on a day by day basis. Nobody cares if you are right or wrong, but if you cannot articulate and reason it, it may have been worth something in 1979, but it is not worth anything in 2008.

wondering...

You are changing the subject. I am well aware of the role of foreigners (west or east) and how they protect and advance their interests. That was not what I was arguing with driush about. Dariush is an islamist at heart (if you read his other postings on other threads as well), accusing me of being a monarchist simply because I was saying that "comparatively" shah regime was a far far better regime for iran than mullas have been if one uses an objective evaluation of the two rather than ideological or emotional.

I read your comment. I am not disputing anything that you have said except the last paragraph that you you said:

Like or not, the mullah’s have advanced Iran’s interest and influence much better than the Shah and it appears the Qajars ever did.

On the face of it, you are right; BUT if you dig a bit deeper, one can realize that their influence is based on "other's" interest. Remember Arafat? He got khomeini's friendship AND iranian fund as soon as IRI was established UNTIL iran-iraq began when he changed side and sent his thugs to fight on behalf of saddam.

A more recent example is the case of india and china. IRI signed unprecedented agreements for oil and natural gas delivery with india and china in a rush just prior to UNSC vote. You know what happened? Both voted for iran sanctions in UNSC against iran's interest. You know why? Because india only used their good relation with iran as a bargaining chip in dealing with US in acquiring nuclear technology. And China valued their trade with US as a far more profitable enterprise than their relation with iran. Did you know that shah "never" signed any long-term agreement with anyone for oil or gas delivery because he knew that with prices rising, long-term contract weakens iran's position in acquiring a fair compensation, and any such deal would not be in the interest of iran; but IRI is signing 25-year contract let-and-right in exchange for influence which has been rarely delivered.

I can give you so many similar examples that mullas essentially "purchased" influence that was never delivered when influence mattered. Is this the kind of influence that you, as an iranian, would endorse?

My point: all countries look after their interests. Iran's influence is not out of respect for iran, but based on what is good for others. That is an influence which is far too expensive and short-lived. But if you look at respect, iran had far more respect during shah's regime than now. Poll after poll, amongst people from europe to moslim countries, show that the two most distrusted/dangerous countries in the world are perceived by the people being iran and israel. Now you be the judge if that is any influence worth having.

As for the dead in iran-iraq war. I do not dispute anything that you have said. I can only add three points:

(1) In international affairs, realistically and unfortunately, there is no morality. Relations are based on national interest. Remember that all arab countries, including palestinians, (except for syria and maybe libya) supported saddam in any way that they could. So blaming others, while maybe justified, is fruitless. WE should be wise not to put us in a position to provoke the anger of the rest of the world; and that is exactly what IRI is doing on a daily basis. We cannot change the world, but we can change our own behavior. Even today, IRI is willing to endanger iran because they want to interfere in a matter that has nothing to do with iranians who have to struggle to have food on their table. That is simply not in the interest of iranians and iran with so many problems to face. That also has had no impact on resolving arab conflict.

(2) Khomeini was a man of vengeance. He was so dead against shah under the cover of siding with people, and did not rest until shah was gone. He had the exact same attitude about saddam since saddam expelled him from iraq. Please go back and look at khomeini's talks prior to the war, it is a duplicate of what IRI is saying about israel today (the victims were then iraqi shia). He did that while he was killing shah's well-trained army personnel by dozens. These two parameters, compounded by greed, criminality, and mis-judgment of saddam, led to the war.

(3) 2 years into the war, saddam forces were pushed back and saddam offered to stop the war and even pay for the damages. Arab countries also supported a cease fire. That was when casualties were less than 100,000. Khomeini REFUSED.

Now you be the judge and place the blame where you thing it belongs, and you be the judge if the kind of influence that IRI is buying is to the advantage of typical iranians inside iran. Thank you for your comment.

Anonymouss

As I had said before, those who are not man enough to condemn west and others for their crimes against Iran and other, have no business to condemn IRI!
At least shah had a little guts to do that, Which he gained through helping the Jews and was first country in the region recognized Israel as a state otherwise .....
Unlike shah you leftover Monarchies are only kissing.
I don't like to make personal attacks, but when people like samsam1111 and parthian and you start attacking others Who are fair and polite like sadegh, Mammad, Abarmard and others I take it personally. So treat others as you like to be treated!
You are lucky some of my postings are intercepted.

balanced judgement

Anonymouss,

I think the point here is to have an intelligent discussion, so if this topic boils your blood,, stop here and don’t read the rest of this post. If not, a rational debate without making accusatory comments or statements may be the productive approach. Note:

-Darius and wondering are in fact two separate people. We’ve never even met. However,
-We both would like to encourage you to find out what the industrial military complex is, how it fuels the economic engine, and whose pockets it benefits. .
-We like for you to know why we went into Iraq and why we are now barking at Iran, and what the capitalist systems’ economic multiplier effect (recession) has to do with it all.
-Given that you have an issue with the 50,000 killed by the mullahs, we like for you to explain why you think 500,000 innocent Iranian lives lost under the smoke screen of getting rid of tyranny or fascism is not considered criminal by your standards.
-We like for you to know that the majority against aggression toward Iran are not the agents of the IRI or under the influence of the IRI. They are simply experienced and smart people that understand cash flow and what imperialist powers do when they are running out of cash.
-We are also nationalists and like to see Iran’s progress as a nation regardless of who is at the helm, be it Qajar, mullah or Anonymouss.

You seem confident about your skills with numbers, but you are turning a blind eye to the past 5 years and 500,000+ civilian deaths, 4000 US military deaths not to mention 30,000 severely disabled veterans. Forget the fact that what started all this killing was 20 Saudis (not Iranians or Iraqis) who attacked the world trade center. You are also holding Khomeini responsible for Saddam’s offensive military move into Iran, and you seem totally unaware of the role US and France played in that war.

Like or not, the mullah’s have advanced Iran’s interest and influence much better than the Shah and it appears the Qajars ever did. And yes, they are ruling with an iron fist and making a fortune in the process, just like Bush and Clinton and the rest of the US congress have. But for you to hold a higher value for your hatred of the IRI than Iran’s innocent population and it’s infrastructure, makes you a prime candidate for a real awakening. So wake up before the roses dry up on you.

Dariush

You say no one has committed any crime toward Iran except Saddam and IRI. You also consider 500,000 dead from war in Iran by IRI and west had nothing to do with it.
Pahlavi/Monarchy foot prints are all over your postings!
Iranians don't want you, live with it!

Don't you see what a joke your arguments are. First you mis-quote me and then reject my argument becuase YOU think that I am Monarchist. And finally you talk on behalf of "iranians" as if you own them and they are captives of what YOU think, and thus you speak on behalf of them as if they are slaves with no mind of their own.

You do not provide a shred of counter-argument. You even twist (or lie) what I said which is right in front of you.

I did not say "no one has committed any crime toward Iran except Saddam and IRI". I said, NOBODY has harmed iran as much as IRI and saddam in the past hundred years. There is a big difference between what I said and what you accused me of saying (or maybe your english is only as good as your logic). If I am wrong, come up with an objective quantitative data and I will accept that, not just empty claim. As for the role of west or east, Mars or Venus, they are all after their national interests; I wish IRI was that way too - then I would have been on their side too.

And let me see, are you blaming the shah for the war? Now this is really novel and is telling that you are not even aware of the causes of the war. For your information, iran considered the accord between shah and saddam to be valid (becuase it was to iranian advantage) and saddam considered it invalid due to change in iranian regime. I bet you did not know that right before saddam marched in, he asked for the copy of the accord that shah had signed in 1975 and tore it in front of journalists. And I bet you did not know that the purchased arms by shah are still working in iranian army - tanks and planes. I bet you do not know that in the iranian air show of a few weeks ago, the only planes flying were repainted F-14's that shah had purchased - the same planes which were involved in iran-iraq war.

You are so out of date buddy. The difference between you and I is that, you are a hostage of your ideology and a prisoner of what likes of khomeini fed you. You keep repeating them like a parrot without ever questioning their validity. I work with numbers and logic, and decide only based on reliable data rather than emotions and ideology.

And then you speak on behalf of "iranians" as if you represent them and tell me that "iranians" do not want me, the exact same technique that khomeini used, only to tell the same "iranians" later that they did not matter [khomeini, Qom, 1980], but only islam mattered, and then mass-murder the same "iranians". I wonder what your plans are for the "iranians" whom you talk on their behalf. Your position is so weak that you cannot even back it up with any evidence except for rhetoric. You are also a hypocrite since you blame everything on west, yet consider west good enough to accommodate you, but iranians inside iran are not good enough to benefit as you do from what west has to offer.

I am not Monarchist, but if you believe that I am, fine, so be it if that is the only defense that you can offer to invalidate my argument. Being a monarchist has turned from a shame in 1979 to a pride in 2008 any way, as it offered the best days for majority of iranians, based on not your type of rhetorics, but hard numbers from the international database on the internet; alas that you do not understand numbers, right?

Anonymouss

You say no one has committed any crime toward Iran except Saddam and IRI. You also consider 500,000 dead from war in Iran by IRI and west had nothing to do with it.
Pahlavi/Monarchy foot prints are all over your postings!
Iranians don't want you, live with it!
Keep running after your tail in circle!

laughing

Dariush said:
We all know IRI has committed some crimes due to whatever which is nothing in comparison to west and Israel.

I can't believe these! "committed some crimes"... what did you want them to do, set the country on fire. You seem to be sitting on a soft love-seat... "some" crimes, after causing death of some half-a-million iranians (in war or prisons), and oppressing the rest, while robbing them, and creating enemies. And who else harmed us as much that you follow the lip service of IRI to show that they only committed "some" crimes. You DO have problem with numbers buddy. Sorry to disappoint you, but no other foreign country (except for saddam) has been as criminal towards iranians. Learn to look at the numbers and use them objectively rathen than blindly falling for IRI propaganda in service of their unholy goals.

and one more thing...

you also changed the subject to shah and monarchy... whatever shah was, with ALL his short-comings, he was hugely better than ANY leader in islamic republic. Once again, numbers do not lie. But you seem to have serious problem in dealing with numbers anyway.

Calling someone monarchist was bad in 1979. It is so no more, since that awful shah brought the majority of iranians that best days that they had in a generation or two. It is all about relative comparison of the two regimes; nothing is absolute. Free yourself from the 1979 hatred and propaganda and you will see the sun shining and facts becoming more clear.

Dariush/wondering

I do not know if you guys are the same or different but you both seem to be off track yourselves. but let me respond separately.

wondering: i have no idea what you are talking about. you change the subject as dariush does. if you believe in the right of iranians for self-determination independent of any foreign or domestic ideological influence, then we are in fact on the same side. I would, however, count on the islamic republic leaders worse than any external enemy since it has never cared about iranians in the past 30 years; if you do not see this, then we are on different sides of the issue, but I am right because I have piles of evidence of IRI mass murders and robbing of iranian wealth by none but the islamic leaders that you may not see or may not care to see.

Dariush: see above. but YOU claimed that islamic republic defended iran. this is outrageous and a sign of either lack of analytical skill or prejudice; that is the most criminal regime that iran has seen for a long long time. defended iran by executing some 50,000 youth in its prisons, staging iran-iraq war by mismangement of foreign affairs, spending $380 million in lebanon in a single year in pursuit of their ideology, ... If you are referring to iran-iraq war, then first that was staged by khomeini, second the iranian youth defended iran NOT the islamic republic (khomeini executed the best of trained iranian armed forces personnel as much as he could), third IRI had an offer on the table to stop the war after 2 years but that criminal khomeini wanted to continue. If that is called defending iran, then you are far from knowing anything about value of the lives lost in that useless war and the harm that iranians are still enduring as a result.

When you take crimes of IRI into account, IRI is the biggest enemy of iran, foreign or domestic, unless you have serious problem with law of numbers and cannot look at issues quantitatively. No matter how emotional you are, you cannot be objective until you see numbers of IRI crimes and compare then against what other perceived enemies have done. Only saddam is in the same ball-park as IRI when you look at the numbers. Numbers do not lie, prejudiced humans do. There may or may not be enemies who may or may not have plans for iran, but the only enemy who is harming, robbing, and harassing iranians on a daily basis, day in day out, at this very moment is the islamic republic. That is a fact that simply cannot be covered up by prejudice or ideology.

Be careful, you may be unconsciously influenced by your prejudices inflicted on you by mullas left over from mid-70s. Get rid of the IRI spell and learn how to work with numbers before consumed by opinions.

Wake up dude...

islamic republic is not protecting anyone against any enemies; they create enemies for distraction and survival, they are only protecting their power center and control of wealth. you are still in denial, or maybe never cleased from brainwash by islamist. islamic republic which has been keilling iranians for 30 years now; none of those enemies that you have in mind (except for saddam) come even close to the atrocities of islamic republic against iranians. If you are living in the comfort of your cocoon in territories of what you call enemies does not make you velayate faghihe for iranians, to speak on their behalf based on your ideology. If you have not seen iran, i have, and i have asked many young people who cannot even feel safe on streets of tehran from the harassment of islamic thugs if they consider west or even esrael more of their enemy or the fascist islamic leaders, and nine out of ten do not even hesitate to scream and point to islamic thugs as their number one daily enemies, and none consider felestinians any more of their friends than saddam was.

Wake up and smell the roses. Not too many people are still a fan of the islamic ideology and fall for these tricks again and again. the number one enemy of iran and iranians have been and are the islamic republic for the past 30 years. and with the exception of saddam, compared to the islamic republic everyone else looks awfully friendly and benign.

Anonymouss

You are off the track.
The subject here was the Iran's borders and sovernty. We all know IRI has committed some crimes due to whatever which is nothing in comparison to west and Israel. I do support them for defending Iran's borders and her right to science and technology, but I do not support them for unjust treatments of minorities, women, and political prisoners. In fact I don't think there should be any political prisoners in Iran. If IRI were Arabs they would hand the country to Iraq not fight them. Just as you hand her to British and America. They are Muslim Iranians just as christian Iranians and others, except they are in majority.
You say boro ghavi sho.......
Isn't that what they are doing? Or are you talking strong like shah was? If shah had any power at all, it wasn't his, it was America's. Without America's support he had nothing, neither military power nor public support.
Some of you Monarchies never get it! Do you?

reconsider your comments.

Anonymouss;

You seem to believe that 70 million people are in Iran tied inside of a torture chamber, and are taken totally hostage by a couple of million mullahs and their hit squads.

You are also suggesting that anyone who takes a nationalist position which the mullah’s can shield behind is automatically a brainwashed, uninformed Islamist or IRI agent, regardless of weather the bullying by the west to stop science and progress of Iran is legal, just or otherwise.

You probably also believe that anti-missile interceptors or laser guided missals are flawless and only take out the bad guys, and leave everything else untouched.

I can’t see what your argument has to do with this particular discussion about Qajars, but since you are so found of literacy, please note that your source of education needs great overhaul and recalibration as you couldn’t be more incorrect about this landscape.

The people of Iran are not the pushovers you seem to think they are. They are in fact among one of the most politically savvy cultures of our era, and should be given the room and the respect to deal with their political circumstances within their own communities. There is also a majority contingent of non religious Iranians who are nationalists with grander views who happen to value Iran infrastructure and the lives of its innocent. An approach you may want to consider.

You must be joking.

Daiush said: And the IRI who some of you hate so much is standing firm in protecting what is left from Iran against Arabs, west, east and others.

Islamic republic is protecting who? Islamic republic is ONLY protecting their own source of power and wealth and does not give a dam about iran or iranians. These bunch have executed tens of thousands of iranians and plundered close to a trillion dollars of iranian assets in 30 years for all sorts of causes that have nothing to do with iran or iranians. They are the biggest enemy of iran in the last 100 years along with saddam. They ARE the enemy from within. Maybe you should look at the iranians in their prisons or iranian assets in their bank accounts or working for arab causes before your claim such outrageous uneducated claim or lie. Or are you really so indifference or blind towards what IRI has been doing to iran and iranians for the last 30 years, or are you deaf to what islamic republic leaders have been saying in the past 30 years and endangering iran for no reason except for keeping treasonous mullas in charge of iranian prison with all iranians as prisoners.

You must be one of those hard-core islamists who has nothing else to say, or are badly uninformed while enjoying the easy life in the west. Press on for your ideology and keep selling iran and iranians for islam as your master emam khomeini said in Qom in 1980: "being nationalist and worshiping iran is the same as paganism. Islam is what matters." and he said about war iran/iraq war that he caused by his incompetence: "if only one iranian survives along with islam it is sufficient for islam." In other words, he was willing to sacrifice all iranians for his bogus cult. That is a stain of shame that cannot be erased from the face of every and all islamists who sold iran for their ideology.

Fatollah: Bravo. Some still think that IRI is the best thing that happened to iran and the only thing with iranian roots. That only says how uninformed and prejudiced they are about the iranian revolution which was cooked by none but foreign elements, from najaf to beirut, and from belfast to west berlin; they all had hands in iranian revolution, only that islamists apparently do not know, or think that iran and iranians must remain second-class citizens to their islamic ideology. People of iran were only the fool sheep in it as followers yelling on the streets for a foreign element, period. We have not heard the full story about iranian so-called revolution, but once we know it, the 1953 coup would look like a child play in sophistication and foreign influence compared to 1979 coup which was led by none but an unholy alliance of arab, marx, and mao worshipers with an international scale.

Boro ghavi sho agar raahate jahaan talabi,
keh dar tabiate aalam zaeef paymaal ast.

Dear Benjamin M. I liked

Dear Benjamin M.
I liked Fath-Ali Shahs picture, if I am not mistaken! He is awesome! His regin coincided with the emerging Western Colonial powers! His efforts to keep Britain and Russia at bey did not work and thus failed! But he tried! By the way, even M. Reza Shah has admitted and recognized this fact! But, it is very wrong of you to think that Reza Shah was installed by the Brits! You forget the fact that Reza Shah was removed by them forcefully, why? And no he did not have a chance! He tried to keep the Brits and Russians at bey, and he failed miserably! Now, if M. Reza Shah was put to power by the Brits or this time Americans in 1953, then it is also true that the very same people manipulated you to revolt against him! Why? The world press made Khomeiny for what he was not! The leader of the Iranian revolution. Thus, he was made in France, does this make Khomeiny an agent of foreign powers? Or was the Shah of Iran an agent for foreign powers? I think not! You live in America, that is fine, it is not so long a go the good old US of A also dictated Western Europe until Sovjet Union collapsed. Now, how could democracies of Western Europe put up with that? How come M. Reza Shah was the only Nokar that the USA had! Can someone elaborate? The point is "boro ghavee sho ke dar Jahan-e tabeeat hagh-e zaeef ... and you know the rest!

Stop Crying

Stop crying for what happened and learn from it! Today west is trying to partition Iran by charging the Iran's Kurds, Iran's Turks and neighboring Arabs against Iran. And the IRI who some of you hate so much is standing firm in protecting what is left from Iran against Arabs, west, east and others.
The same selfish and unwise people who contributed to the loss of some of Iran's states then also exist today, and their position and siding with Iran's enemies may result in losing even more states from Iran.