How bad was the Shah?

It would be well to consider this (from a letter in the Times Literary Supplement):

…I took (and still take) the view that “while the Shah’s government was undeniably corrupt and despotic, it was a non-starter in the regional, let alone the world, league of oppressive dictatorships”. The Shah had an ample supply of faults as a ruler, and many suffered as a result. But he was not Saddam Hussein.

The real reason for progressives’ hatred of the Shah is not what he did but that he was on our side.
Mark C.

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “How bad was the Shah?

  1. “The real reason for progressives’ hatred of the Shah is not what he did but that he was on our side.”
    Pathetic. Just pathetic.
    So, some dude writes that he doesn’t think the Shah was that bad. Therefore, progressives hate him because he was “on our side”. Can you actually find systematic examples of “Progressive” explaining this? Or did you just kind of make this up?
    Here’s what to do: find writers that you think are “Progressive” and show how they are engaging in logical fallacies, straw man arguments and other similar techniques to show a bias towards the Shah over Hussein.

  2. Just more slander.
    My objection had something to do with an institution called SAVAK. Oh, yes, and the fact that the Shah’s democratically-elected predecessor was removed in a US and British backed coup d’etat.
    What’s next, Mark–the rehabilitation of Augusto Pinochet?

  3. What is there to rehabilitate? Pinochet was a hero who crushed the evil Islamic fundamenta…. wait sorry, Communist conspiracy.
    John O’Sullivan, God love him, wrote the most honest article about Pinochet where he basically said, yeah, he killed people, but they were probably bad and the economy wasn’t bad for a while. In other words, the argument that Stalinists give for Castro with the names and ideologies changed.

  4. The comments all ready made demonstrate the “progressive Marxist” mindset. The Shah was so evil he killed one thousand of the number the mullahs did. He was evil, horribly evil therefore we should welcome the mullahs.
    Ah what? The lemmings who can’t understand history much less the news can’t seem to link the upsurge in world wide terrorism with the establishment of the progressive paradise that is Tehran.
    And we all know how much our politburo heroes love progressive people’s republics, especially those that specialize in feeding people into chippers.
    But rejoice comrades of Dzersinski Square! President BO is about to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and allow Iraq to become another people’s progressive republic in three of four years. And with the additional oil revenues who can doubt the future of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf.
    Especially when wind power, unicorn power, and magic pixie dust are the West’s prime power sources due to the unceasing efforts of the Luddite Left.
    All hail President 666. Yes we can.

  5. “All hail President 666. Yes we can.”
    Yeah, that had to be in there somewhere. The lunacy of the Right is beginning to ooze out all over.
    The Iranians certainly jumped out of the frying pan into the fire. That’s not the point. The topic here is the wonderful freedom-loving Shah, not the wonderful freedom-loving Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. For people who can think only in binaries, there’s no room for those of us who consider both of them to be bastards.

  6. “He was evil, horribly evil therefore we should welcome the mullahs.”
    Pure garbage. Where did I say we should hail the Mulahs? Your entire post was pure, unadulterated garbage. Unless of course you meant it as a sarcastic jab against the site, in which case, it is quite funny.

  7. “In other words, the argument that Stalinists give for Castro with the names and ideologies changed.”
    Sorry for going off topic, but the difference between Pinochet and Castro is the former is long gone and Chile is now a comfortable democracy. Cuba? The last I heard a Castro was still running the joint.

  8. “Sorry for going off topic, but the difference between Pinochet and Castro is the former is long gone and Chile is now a comfortable democracy. Cuba? The last I heard a Castro was still running the joint.”
    Excellent observation. Since I wasn’t defending Castro or arguing that his regime is a democracy, it has nothing to do with my point.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s