Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Before I get censored here by the gays and fascists, I want to remember Mossadegh; a freedom loving, secularist, democratic Iranian. That is until Americans put a stop to it.
Most people today probably think that Iran was always in the grip of Islamic fundamentalists and before that in the grip of the Shsh but, as the video reveals, that is not accurate. Although I was a teenager at the time, I remember the Iranian power struggle that brought the Shah to power. He was a romanticized figure in the West, especially his marriage to the wife who eventually bore children for him. That was highly covered in the West as was her pregnancy that followed the marriage. The pomp was akin to what the Brits do today when there is a royal marriage.
Before I get censored here by the gays and fascists,
Quote:
I want to remember Mossadegh; a freedom loving, secularist, democratic Iranian.
Getting 1 out of 3 is a total fail in my opinion. The Shah was a secularist, you got that one right. But regardless of one's political poison, how anyone can call the head of a hereditary monarch, which traces its origins to a coup d'tat, and that overthrew a democratic government as being either freedom loving or democratic is simply astounding.
Getting 1 out of 3 is a total fail in my opinion. The Shah was a secularist, you got that one right. But regardless of one's political poison, how anyone can call the head of a hereditary monarch, which traces its origins to a coup d'tat, and that overthrew a democratic government as being either freedom loving or democratic is simply astounding.
There has to be an understanding that Iran is not America and the Iranian people aren't the American people.
The Shah was pretty much the best you were going to do without swinging towards a theocracy (or communism which lord knows the US never would have let happen).
The Shah was pretty much the best you were going to do...
Assuming the you is the U.S. I fail to see how was is best for the U.S. can even be considered what is best for Iran and as history and current events clearly demonstrate, the Shah was not in the U.S. long term interest or Iranians for that matter.
Getting 1 out of 3 is a total fail in my opinion. The Shah was a secularist, you got that one right. But regardless of one's political poison, how anyone can call the head of a hereditary monarch, which traces its origins to a coup d'tat, and that overthrew a democratic government as being either freedom loving or democratic is simply astounding.
Mossadegh wasn't the Shah.
He was the Prime Minister, who drove the Shah out of Iran, was trying to set up Iran as a democratic parliamentary republic, and got overthrown thanks to Ike and Churchill with the Shah restored.
As for the Pahlavis: they were military dictators in monarchical trappings.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
