Knowing what we know now, Should we have removed the Shah of Iran

[Lewis the Pike]

in 1953?

I am of the opinion that when the US stepped into foreign policy via the CIA we set ourselves on a road we are still involved in.

[JimBob]

No one gives a sh*t but you; it was 56 freakin' years ago. It's Saturday afternoon, go kick someone's dog, piss on their lawn, etc.; you're burning daylight.:rollseyes:

[OSUchris]

in 1953?

I am of the opinion that when the US stepped into foreign policy via the CIA we set ourselves on a road we are still involved in.

No, unfortunately Iran would have been a much different country if we didn't intervene. He was really a more Turkish example of a middle eastern leader (i.e. leading as a secular rather than a religious leader). Unfortunately most of our issues w/ the middle east are due to leaders of the past (and sometimes present) not taking time to understand the region and the differences prior to trying to force a western/Christian mind set on the people.

Now go kick someone's dog... :)

[Lewis the Pike]

No one gives a sh*t but you; it was 56 freakin' years ago. It's Saturday afternoon, go kick someone's dog, piss on their lawn, etc.; you're burning daylight.:rollseyes:

Why do you think we are in conflict with so much of the Muslim world JB??

I agree it was 56 years ago, but I doubt no one gives a crap.
---------------------------------------------
I believe it was an important point in the history of the United States and World History.

I'd rank it with the Bombing of Pearl Harbor and the Assination of Franz Ferdinand.

----------------------------------------------
And I went to the gym, beach, grandmas, booked a show and read the paper...

[snuffy]

It may be different, but how different is a good question. The English were already there jacking things up. The Philby family and oil were already a problem.
By the 1920's actions were being taken that would define the modern use of "Geo-Political consequents".

[CowboyJD]

Why do you think we are in conflict with so much of the Muslim world JB??

I agree it was 56 years ago, but I doubt no one gives a crap.
---------------------------------------------
I believe it was an important point in the history of the United States and World History.

I'd rank it with the Bombing of Pearl Harbor and the Assination of Franz Ferdinand.

----------------------------------------------
And I went to the gym, beach, grandmas, booked a show and read the paper...

I think it was a whole lot less important than you want to make it. The area is an inherently and has been for a long time. Fundamental Islamism would have arisen in response to the establishment of Israel and the rise Wahhabism in the early 20th Century Saudi Arabia. You add U.S. Oil dependence into the mix and there you go....you're right back where we are now whether the Shah was supported by the U.S. or not.

[CaliforniaCowboy]

naw... I think Carter should have lined their border with tanks and planes and stood up to the fools; and cooked thier goose right then and there.... they gave up those hostages in a heart beat when Reagan took office.

Honestly, I think it's just a matter of a little more time; their economy is in big trouble, their population is largly under 25 and highly educated... AND unemployed.

We just have to make sure they they collapse (or revolt) before Isreal bombs them; which I give about 6-8 months toward.

[JimBob]

naw... I think Carter should have lined their border with tanks and planes and stood up to the fools; and cooked thier goose right then and there.... they gave up those hostages in a heart beat when Reagan took office.

Honestly, I think it's just a matter of a little more time; their economy is in big trouble, their population is largly under 25 and highly educated... AND unemployed.

We just have to make sure they they collapse (or revolt) before Isreal bombs them; which I give about 6-8 months toward.


Uh, right, Carter squatted to pee.:wow2: Fortunately, Netanyahu won't bother to suffer the current fool.

[FloridaPoke]

You guys obviously aren't talking about the last Shah, Reza Pahlavi. He was very much liked and supported by the US, and absolutely we would live in a different world today than if he hadn't been deposed and overthrown in the Iraninan Revolution in 1979 (my Senior Yr at OSU) by the Ayatollah Khomeini. The US had nothing to do with his ousting, and in fact were sickened by it.........as he had modernized the country and its culture much like Jordan.

We have an infrequent poster here on OSS (superag) who could tell you chapter and verse as he was a personal friend of the Shah's and did significant business with him in the modernization of Iran's Agriculture industry. The Shah and his wife liberalized women, took the veils off.....and women were dressing in mini skirts and wearing makeup. Women were being educated at the same level as men. He was bringing Iran to the West at such a rapid pace that the Ayatollah and his radicals couldn't stand it.

In 1979, between U of Tulsa, OU, OSU and UCO, we had over 15,000 Iranian students living and going to school in Oklahoma alone. The irony was that it was the Shah who supported their "going west" to get educated. Yet, these dumbasses were the same ones protesting on the front lawn of the OSU library to overthrow the Shah......

The day he left Iran in exile was the day that radical Islamism took root. If anything, knowing what we know now, the US should have intervened to protect the Shah........but unfortunately, in order to bring a country like that out of the dark ages, he did in fact have to rule with an iron fist.....he did have to "take out" plenty of adversaries.....and the US was not going to go into a country like Iran and support a guy who had also been accused of genocide.

[Lewis the Pike]

I really need to edit my titles better;

I meant install the shah, not removed....geez

[FloridaPoke]

I really need to edit my titles better;

I meant install the shah, not removed....geez

I see. Then I suggest we still get our history correct. The last Shah's father (same name) became shah in 1925 after overthrowing the last Shah of the Qajar dynasty (Iran had been under Shah's of different dynasties going back to 1500 AD......and under monarch kings going back to 1500 BC).

The Brits and the Russians invaded Iran and forced the elder Shah to abdicate to his son, and the sole motivation is they believed (and they were correct) that the younger Pahlavi would be easier to get along with and more pro Western influence.

It seems every time someone discusses massive changes that occured with events that surrounded WWII, where the UK, the US and Russia were all involved, the US CIA (or OSS) somehow gets involved whether it has any basis in fact or not :(

[FloridaPoke]

The birth of radical Islam is a very recent event. Most arab nations (both pre-Islam and post-Islam) were ruled by Kings (and in most cases dictators), and there was a clear separation of Church and State. The Dictators ruled and they let the Clerics run the Mosques. Yet, the Clerics were limited in power because there was a King.

It was only in the late 70's and early 80's where the Clerics started to take control and cause problems.

[CaliforniaCowboy]

The birth of radical Islam is a very recent event. Most arab nations (both pre-Islam and post-Islam) were ruled by Kings (and in most cases dictators), and there was a clear separation of Church and State. The Dictators ruled and they let the Clerics run the Mosques. Yet, the Clerics were limited in power because there was a King.

It was only in the late 70's and early 80's where the Clerics started to take control and cause problems.

I don't belive that is true, at least not to the extent that you are presenting it... radicals, clerics, dictators, kings... makes no difference.

These folks have been fighting and trying to take land and everything else that doesn't belong to them going back to Alexander the Great and before... The Ottoman Empire... the attack of US shipping in 1780's... our paying tribute to them to the tune of 10% of our total US budget, etc. etc.

We've just now started "calling" them radicals, simply as a means to placate the rest of their religious zealots... those were not "radicals" cheering in the streets of every major city when the WTC towers fell...

[FloridaPoke]

I don't belive that is true, at least not to the extent that you are presenting it... radicals, clerics, dictators, kings... makes no difference.

These folks have been fighting and trying to take land and everything else that doesn't belong to them going back to Alexander the Great and before... The Ottoman Empire... the attack of US shipping in 1780's... our paying tribute to them to the tune of 10% of our total US budget, etc. etc.

We've just now started "calling" them radicals, simply as a means to placate the rest of their religious zealots... those were not "radicals" cheering in the streets of every major city when the WTC towers fell...

I agree, but there is a huge difference between a dictator power monger who wants to take land and build his empire because he can (e.g., the Ottomans) and someone who wants to wipe out someone in the name of Allah and the Koran. Maybe the sames end result, but a vastly different motivation.

[BackHomePoke]

[QUOTE=FloridaPoke;65339]

In 1979, between U of Tulsa, OU, OSU and UCO, we had over 15,000 Iranian students living and going to school in Oklahoma alone. The irony was that it was the Shah who supported their "going west" to get educated. Yet, these dumbasses were the same ones protesting on the front lawn of the OSU library to overthrow the Shah......

QUOTE]

During the 70's first at Northwestern in Alva then at Phillip's in Enid, my mom was very involved in helping some of the Iranian students adapt and have American faimilies. Through the years, we would have them over for supper and take small trips with them, go to the lake etc. Many times they would spend the holidays at the house and sometimes stay with us over breaks when the dorms were closed. One student that we came very close to had a little brother that they had to get out of Iran right when many of the unrest was begining. He came to live with us while we were in Enid during his Senior year of high school. When he got there, he spoke almost zero english and would have a book to translate what he needed. His family was very rich over there owning jewelry stores part owners in shopping centers etc. They pretty well lost everything during the overthrow of the Shah. You are right in the fact that no one really liked the Shah but once he was removed the went back in times to more of the dark ages.

[CaliforniaCowboy]

I agree, but there is a huge difference between a dictator power monger who wants to take land and build his empire because he can (e.g., the Ottomans) and someone who wants to wipe out someone in the name of Allah and the Koran. Maybe the sames end result, but a vastly different motivation.

I still think you're mincing words...

The Ottoman "Empire", with satellite power over Tripole and the other surrounding countries relied on "piracy" to extort money and slaves from others. When Jefferson and Adams went to negotiate with them, they asked why they were attacking American shipping, and they responded, "because you are infadels".

Adams said at that time that we would either have to fight them or pay them forever; he advocated paying them, and Jefferson advocated fighting them. When Jefferson became President, he sent the Marines to Tripoli to end the piracy and payments (which is what the Marine song is about).

Call it "imperialism" or "radicalism", there is no difference in reality from what I have read and heard.

[FloridaPoke]

Big difference between imperialism and radicalism. The British empire, the Roman empire and others were just as emperial as the Ottomans. And just because they were imperialistic, it had nothing to do with their race or religion, it was because they had the power and wanted to use it......because they knew they could get by with it.

[GoPokes83]

http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/7445/shahnuclearplants.jpg