Cyprus-Forum.com

[Robin Hood]

USA supported the Shah because the Shah tried to keep Iran secular. Shah wasn't perfect, but he was certainly a leader of a more open and forward thinking Iran. An Iran that was friendly to the West as well, and a very moderate and progressive Iran too compared to the current Iran.

...

The truth of the matter Tim is that the West place its interest ahead of anything. The reality is it doesn't concern us too much if the regime is secular, progressive or not.

Well, precisely, all world powers act in their own interest. So the statement: 'USA supported the Shah because the Shah tried to keep Iran secular' doesn't really hold water. The USA put the Shah in and kept him there because they believed he was the man to look after their interests there. Iran may have been secular under the Shah, but it was also a dictatorship with a feared secred police and an atrocious human rights record, including widespread torture.

The statement is true to a certain degree. The West supported the Shah because it was secular but more importantly it was open and friendly to the West. Yes in other countries, the West supports Theocracies which are not in the slightest open, progressive or forward thinking.

Yes, as he was considered a friend, then it was in our interest for him to remain.

I am aware of the police state back then. But the society was also a lot more liberal and free socially. You just couldn't be seen to be involved in any subversive activities that undermined the Shah. So it just depends on what you prefer as the better option. Do you prefer Sharia Law, Public hangings, stoning of women or do you prefer the Shah's Police State where you can just about do anything other than criticize or embarrass the Shah. I would pick the Shah 100 times over.

He was 100 times better than the Ayatollah Kmoneini. Iran would have been 100 times better off under the Shah.

So ..... when were you there then? How many Iranians that remember the glorious dictatorship of the Shah, have you ever met? None .... you spout ill-informed propaganda.

[Robin Hood]

USA supported the Shah because the Shah tried to keep Iran secular. Shah wasn't perfect, but he was certainly a leader of a more open and forward thinking Iran. An Iran that was friendly to the West as well, and a very moderate and progressive Iran too compared to the current Iran.

...

The truth of the matter Tim is that the West place its interest ahead of anything. The reality is it doesn't concern us too much if the regime is secular, progressive or not.

Well, precisely, all world powers act in their own interest. So the statement: 'USA supported the Shah because the Shah tried to keep Iran secular' doesn't really hold water. The USA put the Shah in and kept him there because they believed he was the man to look after their interests there. Iran may have been secular under the Shah, but it was also a dictatorship with a feared secred police and an atrocious human rights record, including widespread torture.

The statement is true to a certain degree. The West supported the Shah because it was secular but more importantly it was open and friendly to the West. Yes in other countries, the West supports Theocracies which are not in the slightest open, progressive or forward thinking.

Yes, as he was considered a friend, then it was in our interest for him to remain.

I am aware of the police state back then. But the society was also a lot more liberal and free socially. You just couldn't be seen to be involved in any subversive activities that undermined the Shah. So it just depends on what you prefer as the better option. Do you prefer Sharia Law, Public hangings, stoning of women or do you prefer the Shah's Police State where you can just about do anything other than criticize or embarrass the Shah. I would pick the Shah 100 times over.

Strange for some one to say that expresses adoration of the Saudi regime and the barbaric society they have there? You even expressed that they are wonderful people, smart and that you wanted to live there! Another failure of credibility. You change records more often than a Juke Box!

He was 100 times better than the Ayatollah Kmoneini. Iran would have been 100 times better off under the Shah.

Who is 'Kmoneini' ? .... that is how well informed you are, you can't even spell his name.

If Iran had remained under the Shah, as you suggest, they would have eventually suffered the same fate as Iraq, Libya and Syria! The Shah having fallen out with the US, would have turned to Russia, with whom Iran shares a common border.

Australia should be warned ..... when you fall out with the US and fail to do what they tell you to do ...... regime change is just around the corner!

[Tim Drayton]

Over the years, I have encountered quite a few secular-minded Iranian exiles, and they do indeed hanker after the days of the Shah as opposed to the Islamofacism of today's Iran. On the other hand, I am sure there are plenty of religious fanatics in Iran nowadays who support the way things are.

[Robin Hood]

Over the years, I have encountered quite a few secular-minded Iranian exiles, and they do indeed hanker after the days of the Shah as opposed to the Islamofacism of today's Iran. On the other hand, I am sure there are plenty of religious fanatics in Iran nowadays who support the way things are.

Iranian Exiles? They are mainly the Elite and SAVAK that fled when they realised the writing was on the wall. They would think that wouldn't they. I had the opportunity to talk to those that remained. It is not as you describe Islamofascism, but most Iranians are devout Muslims and they take their faith seriously, this is something westerners do not understand. Their religion is more than just Church on Sunday; in their world first comes God (Allah) everything else is subordinate to that. It makes for a far more moral society in general than we are used to.

Yes, most I spoke to miss some of the freedoms and many would like to copy the lifestyle of the West. But on the other hand they do not like, nor could they accept, the decadence of western society. As a 'Westerner' I can see their point. Even when I was there the restrictions were being relaxed ..... slowly they move away from Theocratic donation.

These excesses of freedom in the west have been abused! We no longer have rules that ensure an ordered society. In Iran drugs are a big no-no, caught with them or using then, you can kiss goodbye to freedom for a long time. There is no sexual freedom, girlie magazines, night clubs, no gambling and porno is definitely not accepted. ....... in the west they tend to go to bed and don't even know their sex partners name. Very rarely happens in Iran because the punishment is severe. People tend to play by the rules.

The only time I have ever been threatened by an'Islamofascist' was in Saudi when I was marched of by the customs man in Jeddah Airport for having a CTO poster of a priest painting an Icon! The only word I could understand was 'Christian' ..... and he spat on the floor every time he uttered the word. But .... hey this is the world your mate Paphitis idolises and admires!

Given the choice of either Iran or Saudi ..... Iran wins hands down. A much more educated and cultured people.

[repulsewarrior]

Indeed, i remember, good years, my University days, with friends from all over the Eastern Med, including Iran; how many Iranians were lucky to travel, thanks to the Shah's Iran...

...and then, the horrible happened, one of my friends disappeared; a photographer, it was said that he took photos he "shouldn't have", and it was not long after that things changed.

Equals and opposites, that's what you get with reactions.

[Robin Hood]

Indeed, i remember, good years, my University days, with friends from all over the Eastern Med, including Iran; how many Iranians were lucky to travel, thanks to the Shah's Iran...

...and then, the horrible happened, one of my friends disappeared; a photographer, it was said that he took photos he "shouldn't have", and it was not long after that things changed.

Equals and opposites, that's what you get with reactions.

Very true. But It is always bad to generalise and paint all with the sane brush though?

I once attended a course in the UK and we had four Iranians on it. Their expenses made mine look very mean. They were all nice guys but even then they were not 'ordinary', their English was perfect and they clearly came from a privileged background that was obvious. It was some 15 years later, after the revolution that I went to Iran and yes, never having been outside Europe before, it was definitely a shock to the system. :

[miltiades]

My own views on Iran.
A nation that carries out public executions with crowds enjoying the macabre spectacle is a barbaric nation. Cranes are used for hanging those sentenced to death by sharia courts.

Long live the west and long may our culture continue to thrive.

[Tim Drayton]

I believe in the inevitability of human progress and the Middle East can and will leave the Middle Ages behind at some time. We have witnessed a crisis of modernisation in this part of the world which has produced a reaction in which the attempt is made to resurrect a lost past. You cannot ignore the modern and post-modern world on an integrated and wired-up planet, however, and progress will resume.

[Get Real!]

My own views on Iran.
A nation that carries out public executions with crowds enjoying the macabre spectacle is a barbaric nation. Cranes are used for hanging those sentenced to death by sharia courts.

Whereas injecting them with poisons while strapped to a gurney with a smaller audience of around 50, is civilized and preferred!

You pitiful spaghetti-brain…

[Get Real!]

I believe in the inevitability of human progress and the Middle East can and will leave the Middle Ages behind at some time. We have witnessed a crisis of modernisation in this part of the world which has produced a reaction in which the attempt is made to resurrect a lost past. You cannot ignore the modern and post-modern world on an integrated and wired-up planet, however, and progress will resume.

You mean a material progress right (for whatever it's worth )… or did you assume that 2 billion Muslims will abandon Islam and join your aimless atheist club?