Was Shah good for Iran?

[dan4reason]

He was tyrannical. Just look at the videos I have links to. You can use these videos to see others which will give you further evidence to show that the Shah was just another 3rd world dictator and there is no point in praising him.

[Sonart]

.

You can use these videos to see others which will give you further evidence to show that the Shah was just another 3rd world dictator and there is no point in praising him.

Ah, be he was OUR 3rd world dictator.

.

[Matt W]

Was the Shah good for Iran. Well. As GHook has said, he had some good ideas. However, his methods alienated & radicalised his people, and lead to the Iran we see today. So it's a fairly obvious answer: No.

[GHook93]

Was the Shah good for Iran. Well. As GHook has said, he had some good ideas. However, his methods alienated & radicalised his people, and lead to the Iran we see today. So it's a fairly obvious answer: No.

I doubt just his method and alienation policy lead to to the radicalization of Iran. They were already radicalized. The Shah bumped out the oppression after he was nearly assassinated. Like many dictators he started down the slippery slope trying to oppress your internal enemies, but many times its hard to see who the enemy is.

I am not saying that the Shah was the best for the country and maybe I should have made the title of the thread differently, but I merely thing between the Islamic Ayatollah rule and the secular Shah's rule, the secular Shah's rule was the less of both evils 10 fold and the Iranians would have been better off if the Shah didn't get couped!

[GHook93]

YouTube - Shah of Iran on the Issue of TortureYouTube - Shah of Iran and Corruption in the CountryYouTube - Iranian Revolution (Feb 1979)YouTube - 1979 Islamic Revolution of Iran, "Fall of a Tyrant"
The Shah was bad for Iran. So was the radical islamic government. I hope you agree.

What are you trying to show with this clip? My interpretation is to beware of false prophets. Ayatollahs have brought the heaven on earth that they promised. They have brought the same oppression of the people, weak economy that they complained of under the Shah. It is ironic nowadays that a good portion of the youth of Iran want to oust the religious radicals in charge of the country and to break their isolationism!

Radical Islamic Government was bad for Iran. Shah not as bad!

[dan4reason]

I will put forward the argument that the Shah was worse. This is because of his corruption and the fact that the radically put more responsibilty in the people's hands. I agree with the Shah's political policies more that with the Ayatolla's. The argument that the Iranians were already radical is absurd. Their democratic government(which was overthrown with the help of the CIA) was not nearly as radical as today's government. Their government is so radical because the reign of the tyrannical shah destroyed their trust in western ideas. They made their new government in hatred of the American puppet.

[Matt W]

I doubt just his method and alienation policy lead to to the radicalization of Iran. They were already radicalized. The Shah bumped out the oppression after he was nearly assassinated. Like many dictators he started down the slippery slope trying to oppress your internal enemies, but many times its hard to see who the enemy is.

I am not saying that the Shah was the best for the country and maybe I should have made the title of the thread differently, but I merely thing between the Islamic Ayatollah rule and the secular Shah's rule, the secular Shah's rule was the less of both evils 10 fold and the Iranians would have been better off if the Shah didn't get couped!

The phrase 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions' comes to mind. Regardless of what he wanted to do, the way he did it screwed the country up and alienated his people. Brute force gets you nowhere.

[dan4reason]

I think that democracy is the greatest jewel in a country. The Shah was terrible for Iran. He would be willing to hurt his people for the interest of the US goverenment.

[Median]

The shah was not good for iran, supported by the US to further Us interests in the mid-east, any positives are immediately counteracted and nullified by this fact.

The same reason having saddam out of power and dead now is no excuse for going to war wrongly in the first place with iraq.

[dan4reason]

I would compare the Shah to Saddam. He was tyrannical, and Saddam was not exactly, religious. He tolerated Christians, and did not really enforce muslim law, but he was very corrupt, and did not appreciate resistance and democracy.

[Sonart]

.

I would compare the Shah to Saddam. He was tyrannical, and Saddam was not exactly, religious. He tolerated Christians, and did not really enforce muslim law, but he was very corrupt, and did not appreciate resistance and democracy.

An interesting comparison. Even more interesting is that at the height of the 60's and 70's Cold War, the Shah was our powerful but corrupt puppet client state, while Saddam was the Soviet's powerful but corrupt puppet client state.

.

[dan4reason]

It is an accurate comparison. There are some differences, but their main traits are the same.