It doesn't matter what number people claim, none of it says anything about the Shah. It says something about his enemies though.

I think this is the part you don't get.

The difference is that with Saddam I actually saw with my own eyes that and why he was a monster, whereas with the Shah all I hear is stories told about him, mostly by people who hated his stance on women's rights or people who have never been in Iran or have some other personal problem with the great king.

I agree that Saddam was a monster and did not deserve to govern, but I disagree that the Shah somehow falls under the same category just because he also happened to run a country in the region.

Without the Shah the Soviet-Union would have been overrun by Germany and we wouldn't be here discussing whether the Shah was an evil fascist or a hero who deserves better than to be bad-mouthed by the likes of you and the mullahs.

For some reason the Shah's widow and his son, who both advocate democracy for Iran and would be happy with a republic simply don't seem so evil. And at no point did the Shah himself seem like the evil tyrant liberals make him out to be.

And that is still a lie. He never was the "golden boy" of the US and other western powers. He was always a major customer of France, China, and the Soviet-Union and their ally. In fact the US even helped Iran (as did Israel) in that war. Saddam Hussein and the mullahs deserved each other.

As for the Kurds, the oh-so-evil Shah supported them.

Oh, please. Judging from your words, there seem to be very few crimes on earth as well known as those committed by the Shah, so this is hardly a situation of turning a blind eye.

Whether our eyes saw the truth or merely what we want to see so that we don't feel bad for abandoning Iran to the mad mullahs is another question.

Why on earth would an evil tyrant have tried to give women the right to vote?

This does not excuse the oppression he carried out on his people later on.

Sure he was. He practically started his career in the employ of the CIA. As long as he was useful, he was in their good graces. Invade Iran and spark a war in which over 1 million were killed? No problem man, good on you! During that war he -was- provided chemical and biological agents from the U.S and other western powers. He used these weapons on the Iranians and the Kurds, which was overlooked so long as he was acting in our interests. Once his usefulness to us ended, then it was simply a matter of waiting for an excuse, which we found in the invasion of much smaller Kuwait.

Yes, and Saddam actively promoted a campaign to eradicate illiteracy and created one of the best health care systems in the middle east.... does that excuse his persecution of the Kurds and Shiia?

Well, I know a fellow from Iran who told me he's not too partial on the Shah. He's an engineer, married, his wife is just as progressive as they come. Now, both of them are not very partial towards the current government in Iran right now but they definitely agree the Shah needed to go. So, I too have talked to someone who's from there to get their account of things, people who are pro-women's rights and christian to boot.

He needs no excuse for other people's lies about him. I listed his accomplishments because they make the lies less plausible, not because I suddenly decided to accept the lies as facts.

That's a lie.

Incidentally, all the tanks I saw in Iraq were Russian. Can you name any evidence for the American involvement that I might be able to spot with my own eyes? I promise I'll look the next time I'm there.

Again this excuse mentality of yours. If the accused has an alibi, I assume you would dismiss it because it does not "excuse" the crime.

I would indeed assume that someone who promotes campaigns to eradicate illiteracy and creates a good health system probably isn't an evil tyrant.

However, I have actually seen (that's the part you don't get) evidence for his crimes, which means the character witness doesn't help any more.

Also note that I have seen evidence for his "campaign to eradicate illiteracy" and his "health care system" in Iraq.

The campaign was an Arabization campaign which the Kurds, Turkmen, and Assyrians hated and during which millions of people were forced out of their homes and into the mountains. I have heard the stories on location. They were eager to tell me.

And about the health care system, well, that's an interesting one. My Kurdish driver actually showed me the hospital Saddam Hussein had built in Arbil. He said that Saddam built it and destroyed it a few years later. And indeed I could see the evidence for that in the building with my own eyes. Some health care system it was. Saddam also took UN funds for Iraqi hospitals in the 90s to create an artifical crisis. Contrary to what many liberals believe the UN did not really starve children in Iraq, Saddam did.

I see your illiteracy campaign and your health system and raise you one racist Arabization campaign, a hospital with bullet holes, and a million dead children in those excellent hospitals you speak of.

And he told you about the 300,000 victims? Because that would be a better source then an author who makes money with those numbers.

The american reverse psychology corps tricked the russians into support the people that the CIA REALLY wanted to support...

"arms deals"
noun, plural
A magical way for nationalist dictators to be armed and supported by the United States and end up with Russian and French weapons. This is not considered odd.

http://citizenleauki.joeuser.com/article/81628/The_American_Liberal_Dictionary

it should have some notes about time travel... like that time "the CIA put the shah in power... more than 10 years after he started ruling".

It's in there:

"Shah"
title
The one-time CIA-supported (see "CIA") ruler of Iran who ruled since 1941 after being put into power in a CIA-initiated coup in 1953.

Added this: "A committed fascist the Shah allowed the UK and US to send weapons and other provisions to the Soviet Union during World War II thereby severely hurting the German resistance (see "resistance") against allied fascism."

yes but this is shah specific, I was thinking something about time travel in general. its not the only occurance of time traveling evil faschist westerners oppressing the poor freedom fighters via time travel.

Remember the Bush machine? It's a type of cloaking device used by pro-western evil tyrants to vanish bodies. It neatly explains why George Bush killed hundreds of thousands if Iraqis and how the Shah murdered 300,000 Iranians without a trace of so many bodies.

In general use of time machines is very common among liberals. The PLO was founded, in 1964, to resist the occupation of the territory taken by Israel in 1967. Arab anti-Semitism, which lead to cooperation with the Nazis in the 1930s and 1940s was caused by Israel's oppression of Arabs in the 1950s. The Shah came to power in 1942 via a CIA-sponsored coup in 1954. And, as you might have heard, Hamas' war against Israel, which caused Israel to close the borders to Gaza, was a reaction to Israel closing the borders.

Why is it a lie? His career pretty much started in earnest with the overthrow of Qassim in 1963. Throughout the 60's and 70's he was seen as an anti-communist by the CIA, therefore worthy of their support.

Again, so long as he acted in what were considered our interests, we didn't give one hoot that he was a monster.

And the part that you don't get, is I'm not disputing -one- -single- -iota- of Saddam's crimes! Not one.

Ah, yes, indeed. The fact that you went somewhere as a tourist for two weeks, more than two decades after such programs existed clearly gives you superior knowledge on this subject!

In regards to the poor downtrodden Shah, coupled with the fact that you seem to believe personal empirical evidence is the only acceptable form, how much time have you spent in Iran?

Qassim overthrew the king and withdrew from the pro-western Baghdad Pact and allied Iraq with the Soviet Union.

The Baathists overthrew Qassim. Before that happened was the episode where the US backed an attempt to assasinate Qassim where Saddam was apparently involved. And he was an anti-communist.

But it would be another few years before Saddam took power and the CIA had nothing to do with that or with his later rule.

Actually, it's the talking to people that does.

It's obvious that your own knowledge if Iraq's history is severely wanting. I suppose you can get it from books and the news. But you tend to read opinion pieces rather than history books from what I have seen in the past.

You tell me about a campaign to eradicate illiteracy. People who lived through it told me what it was really about. Why should I believe you and not them?

Any empirical evidence would be nice, anything but simple claims.

I have never been in Iran. My word is as good as the word of the people who claim that the Shah killed 300,000 people. But I can rely on two things: I assume that claims must be proven before they become an argument for or against something and I cannot imagine how one can vanish that many bodies so easily.

It has also been my experience that those who really did murder to so many people are usually quite proud of it and will happily confirm it when asked. The Shah and his widow never struck me as particularly bloodthirsty.

I just don't have this thing where I could look at some other human being and think that he is an evil mass murderer without any evidence for it.

Apparently. But so too is it severely wanting for the British and seemingly nonexistent for the U.S administration that went in guns blazing in 2003. Had they paid more attention to history, I doubt the British would have been so keen to repeat imperial misadventures in both Iraq and Afghanistan. (The british had large military forces in both countries over a century ago, and it eventually backfired on them) To be fair, if the U.S had played it's cards right they could have still invaded and mostly avoided the next 6 years of bloodshed. Those who do not learn from history, are doomed to repeat it!

This is what you are missing my good fellow, and you have pointed it out yourself- he was anti-communist. Therefore, in cold war terms he was an acceptable ally for us. Pinochet was "anti-communist" and so we turned a blind eye while his secret police caused thousands of folks to disapear. Remember, the height of Saddam's crimes against the Kurds were carried out in the mid to late 80's which was also the height of his good relations with the west. And just because you saw hulks of Soviet tanks doesn't mean that therefore that is the only thing given to Iraqis by foreigners. It has been well documented and is not a matter of debate in any legitimate circles, that indeed the U.S did give anthrax and chemical weapons to Iraq at the same time that they were using chemical weapons on the Kurds.

So long as he did what we wanted, we didn't give two rips about the plight of the kurds!

So, what exactly has been your experience? Because history speaks to the contrary. Almost in every documented case of genocide, there is never massive bragging or publication of the fact but instead it is swept under the carpet or downplayed as much as possible by the perpetrators.

The Soviets killed millions in their purges and there was never any proud confirmation but more of a stonewalling of journalists and foreigners.

Between 1915 and 1917, (it is believed) between 1.5 and 2 million people of Armenian ethnicity perished in the desert, on a forced deportation from the Grand Vizier back when there still was an Ottoman Empire.

Today, Turkey still denies anything seriously bad happened. Where is the 'proud confirmation' you speak of?

What about the wars in the Congo? While not a concentrated campaign of genocide, it is an accepted estimate that the conflict related deaths (disease and famine which are the worst killers in most wars) have claimed over 5 million in the last decade. That clearly biased, liberal hate-mongering group, the International Red Cross, reported that in 2006 approximately 1,250 people died per day of war related causes.

And, did we hear a peep about it in the media? Not really.

When you say "did what we wanted", are you referring to the time he financed terrorism against Israel, threatened Kuwait and Saudi-Arabia, kept Iraq solidly on the side of the Soviet Union, and bought weapons from France, the Soviet Union, and China?

Actually, what usually happens is that the events are acknowledges but explained: the purges were necessary to get rid of western agents, those people died because of starvation caused by the Chinese nationalists, they were only Jews... there are many such explanations.

I think you are confusing the perpetrators with the people who later exhibit the phenomenom of not being proud of those actions and hence denying them.

Stalin was quite open about murdering people. It was a part of his power.

Turkey does acknowledge that all those people died, just not that it was a genocide.

Incidentally, that was not the "Grand Vizier", it was the Young Turks (who replaced the Ottoman Empire for a few years). But they are not in power any more and the modern Turkish state, whatever other reasons it might have to deny that that was a genocide, is not the perpetrator any more than the Federal Republic of Germany committed the Shoah.

Did I ever say that the media care about these things? Have you found nothing to add to the discussion and hence decided to make up points of view for me so you can argue against those???

You again talk of "good relations with the west". When exactly did Saddam have "good relations with the west"?

And as for the blind eye we turned regarding Pinochet, I don't think Fidel Castro's crimes are as well reported and openly discussed in the west as Pinochet's.

No, but it is difficult to believe you when all the visible evidence suggests that you are wrong.

You see, if you told me that Saddam was America's ally and I went there and saw lots of US weapons left by him, I would believe you. But instead you need lots of elaborate explanations for how Saddam was America's good friend and somehow ended up with nothing to show for it, all of it just because you insist that they must have been good friends.

You know, there is a difference between seeing evidence for X and concluding X and claiming Y and explaining why there is no visible evidence for Y.

And that has been "well documented" by whom, exactly?

(And what the heck would Anthrax be good for? I am not an expert on biological weapons, but I assume it could be fairly difficult to release Anthrax onto a larger population, especially since a vaccine is easily available.)