Which people used to have a government that supported the Shah of Iran?

[Boojatta]

[MrModerate]

1. Many Iranians sucked at the public teat in the Shah's Iran . . .

Including much of the government, both leaders and rank-and-file. Also, the Shah was recognised by almost the entire world as legitimate leader for 25 years or so.

[Boojatta]

2. Three people voted for "Just Americans." I'm wondering whether they're

joking or whether they can explain their point of view.

[MrModerate]

3. Side effect of how we teach history in America, I'd guess. n/t

[ShortnFiery]

8. The Shah was a Brutal Dictator who abused his people and ...

ruled with an iron fist a la Saddam Hussein.

That bastard was pure evil. Many Iranians remember and WILL NOT forgive our CIA for overthrowing a democratic leader and helping to install this MONSTER.

What? The Shah was an arrogant thug of the worst order. :puke:

[slaveplanet]

18. yep, one of his less harmful rituals

was marching the population out in the burning sun to worship his motorcade.

This is the guy the CIA installed for the oil companies to replace the democratically elected guy who only a short while before was all the rage, even appearing on the cover of Time magazine as man of the year in 1951.

but not playing along with big oil and offering to use your petroleum resources to help your own people will get you labelled a commie.
And it'll get you a special ordered CIA coup de etat.

Way to win the hearts and minds ehh...

you bet the thug Shah had US support.

[Boojatta]

4. Kick

[Wilber_Stool]

5. The world did recgnize him as leader but

when it came time for his exile, not one country on the planet wanted him.

[Boojatta]

6. Kick #2

[A-Schwarzenegger]

7. I think you could have worded it more confusingedly if you tried.

[Boojatta]

9. What about the wording is confusing?

If you identify the problem then maybe I can make progress towards a solution.

The point is that the US used to have a government that supported the Shah of Iran. Is that a reason for Iranians to say that today America is a Great Satan?

Well, if Iran used to have a government that supported the Shah of Iran, then maybe Iranians have reason to say that today Iran is also a Great Satan.

[ShortnFiery]

10. The main reason that The Shah was overthrown was that he

like our Dear Leader became more powerful to the point of Absolute Ruler. Over the years he steadily seized power away from the government and ruled a corrupt cabal of insiders. No, "the rank and file" lived in abject poverty while those CONNECTED to The Shah lived an opulent lifestyle.

I doubt that you would find anyone save for some EXILES here in the USA that would wish to go back to the totally corrupt monarchy of The Shah of Iran. :puke:

[A-Schwarzenegger]

11. Most people are giving an answer which you think is either a joke

or hard to defend. Why do you think that is?

It might just be me. You ask which "people" had a "government"
that supported the Shah, but the people of Iran had a government that
supported the Shah, unless you think that the government could have
been unwillingly controlled by the Shah for decades, which makes me
wonder what you mean by "government" itself, if you consider the Shah
and the Iranian government somehow at odds for all that time, which you
don't seem to be saying, by your reaction to the answers, but maybe
not. I think your point (and I'm still not sure what it precisely is)
might be muddled by the indirect (and to me confusing) poll.

[ShortnFiery]

12. Hello! The Shah and his insiders were The Government.

The "illustrious" Shah was power hungry and corrupt. The wealth was concentrated to HIS inner circle and Secret Police. He was one brutal bastard who RULED the Country. What Government? He was an absolute MONARCH. :(

On Edit: No disrespect to you personally for I concur: this poll makes little sense. :hi:

[A-Schwarzenegger]

14. Hello! Read before you post.

What in my post makes you think I believe the Shah was
not the govt.? Sheesh.

[ShortnFiery]

15. Sheesh, I was getting all turned around and no, I don't get "the govt"

stuff that you said.

But yeah, I admitted my mistake when you seemed to be more confused than supportive of some sort of government.

Understood. Point taken. ;)

[A-Schwarzenegger]

17. Thanks. Peace.

I was trying to explain my confusion and can see where
my explanation was just as confusing as my confusion,
which is kind of what I wanted in order to make my point,
and so I shouldn't have been surprised at what I got, which
I was.

[ShortnFiery]

19. Yes, I apologize for being rough around the edges, I just don't want

some people to re-write history as it being "The Good Old Days" when The Shah was Monarch.

Yes, I misinterpreted and I'm sorry bout' that. :blush: ;)

Thanks for being gracious when I jump too quick.

[Warren DeMontague]

13. I have one word for anyone who says we're in charge of "Bringing democracy

to the Middle East"


..."Mossadegh"!

(gezundheit.)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mossadegh

[Hatalles]

20. Damn straight.

As Brian Whitaker calls it, the US Gov't is interested in "docility, not democracy" in the Middle East.

Here's Palast on Mossadegh:

"In the 1950’s, Mossadegh, the elected president of Iran, nationalized the oil companies. Then the US and Britain went on a successful campaign to overthrow his elected government, and if you read the CIA documents, which have now been declassified… the Shah of Iran who took over actually didn’t want to overthrow the elected government. He was scared. So the CIA said what we have to do is activate the Islamic mullahs who have been out of politics—activate them and convince them that democracy is un-Islamic. So, that’s right in those documents, at the National Security Archives… The CIA created this fanatic Muslim anti-democratic bent. It was a creation to get rid of the elected government which had taken over the oil companies… "

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3641043830777908106&q=palast+big+oil&hl=en

[Hatalles]

21. dupe

[LostinVA]

16. I'm confused by the wording, too