Should We Restore The Iranian Monarchy?

Watch
The Dictator
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#1
Thanks to Ayatollah BBC and the treacherous President Carter, in 1979 an evil revolution brought the present Islamic theocracy to power.

Should we invade and restore the Iranian monarchy?
0
reply
Chicken.M.
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#2
Report 6 years ago
#2
I think we should install communism there.
0
reply
Swanbow
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3
Report 6 years ago
#3
Literally anything is better than having some fanatical extremist cleric being the Supreme Leader.
1
reply
viddy9
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#4
Report 6 years ago
#4
(Original post by The Dictator)
Thanks to Ayatollah BBC and the treacherous President Carter, in 1979 an evil revolution brought the present Islamic theocracy to power.

Should we invade and restore the Iranian monarchy?
Are you seriously claiming that the BBC were responsible for installing the Iranian theocracy?

And, absolutely not. Invading, first of all, will simply cause a massive amount of death and destruction.

Secondly, the Western-backed dictatorship, or monarchy, was brutal and committed numerous human rights violations.

It was evil and was rightly opposed by many revolutionaries in 1979, who were not evil but were fighting for democracy.

Given that your profile name is "The Dictator", perhaps you don't understand the concept.

If we were to invade, we should install a social democracy which promotes liberty, equality and social justice. We could go back in time and reverse the US-British coup which led to the overthrow of Iran's democratically elected leader in 1953.
0
reply
whorace
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#5
Report 6 years ago
#5
They already have a monarchy in all but name. They are effectively a feudal society, with the monarch and clerics at the top, who force everyone else to behave as they would like.
0
reply
The Dictator
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#6
(Original post by viddy9)
Are you seriously claiming that the BBC were responsible for installing the Iranian theocracy?

And, absolutely not. Invading, first of all, will simply cause a massive amount of death and destruction.

Secondly, the Western-backed dictatorship, or monarchy, was brutal and committed numerous human rights violations.

It was evil and was rightly opposed by many revolutionaries in 1979, who were not evil but were fighting for democracy.

Given that your profile name is "The Dictator", perhaps you don't understand the concept.

If we were to invade, we should install a social democracy which promotes liberty, equality and social justice. We could go back in time and reverse the US-British coup which led to the overthrow of Iran's democratically elected leader in 1953.
Mossadegh was a Soviet agent who nationalised oilfields belonging to the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. We were within our rights to throw him out. I have no regrets about that episode and Britain should not apologise.

The Shah was an enlightened despot who modernised his nation, dragging it into the 21st century and granting rights for women and oppressed minorities, now reversed by the diabolical Islamist theocracy. The revolutionaries of '79 may have had good intentions, but among them were crazed Marxists and Islamists who had long been suppressed by the Shah and wanted to create hell on earth. Iran would be a modern, progressive country right now if the Shah were still in power.

And "social democracy" is a stupid system.

Yes I am claiming that the BBC were behind the Iranian Revolution. It was all part of a US-backed conspiracy to overthrow secular regimes in the Middle East and replace them with Islamist ones, as a "Green Belt" to keep the Soviets at bay. Hence why the Shah was abandoned by his erstwhile friends in the United States, under the spineless dog Carter, with Ayatollah BBC broadcasting pro-revolutionary propaganda.

There will be death and destruction, but the most hateful anarchy and destruction is preferable to the stability of an Islamist dictatorship. The price will be worth it. Many will die, but we will see Iran through to freedom and prosperity, and the mullahs will be brought down, one by one, and shot by firing squad, one by one, a fitting punishment for their crimes against the Iranian people.

The Shah was a good man with a vision for his country. Perhaps Iran would be a Western-style liberal democracy today, or at least well on its way to it. The Shah should have been more ruthless, but instead he left his country and allowed the mullahs to destroy Iran's ancient pre-Islamic heritage, which his uneducated, illiterate and savage people, steeped in the propaganda of the mullahs, could not possibly understand. His people did not deserve him. The Shah has been my hero since I was 11 years old. He was probably the greatest leader the Middle East has had since Cyrus. You should be ashamed of yourself for spouting such ridiculous propaganda against a great man. Stop reading BBC propaganda and actually read for yourself what this man did for his people.
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7
Report 6 years ago
#7
(Original post by The Dictator)
Thanks to Ayatollah BBC and the treacherous President Carter, in 1979 an evil revolution brought the present Islamic theocracy to power.

Should we invade and restore the Iranian monarchy?
Probably not.

While Iran is a country which requires western occupation, i think the monarchy has been gone too long.
0
reply
The Dictator
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#8
(Original post by Rakas21)
Probably not.

While Iran is a country which requires western occupation, i think the monarchy has been gone too long.
Obama sips tea with Rouhani whilst the mullahs laugh. They know that the West is weak. There can be no appeasement with this Islamic USSR.
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9
Report 6 years ago
#9
(Original post by The Dictator)
Obama sips tea with Rouhani whilst the mullahs laugh. They know that the West is weak. There can be no appeasement with this Islamic USSR.
Truth be told i'm uncertain what we should do with Iran given their oil reserves.

The fact that the government sponsors terrorism is unacceptable but it does seem to want to work with us now and their oil reserves could have a beneficial impact. Their allegiance to Russia troubles me but it may be worth treating them like China for a while and seeing how they react to more success.

That said, i would not object should the west develop the resolve to do what is required in the Middle East.
0
reply
The Dictator
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#10
(Original post by Rakas21)
Truth be told i'm uncertain what we should do with Iran given their oil reserves.

The fact that the government sponsors terrorism is unacceptable but it does seem to want to work with us now and their oil reserves could have a beneficial impact. Their allegiance to Russia troubles me but it may be worth treating them like China for a while and seeing how they react to more success.

That said, i would not object should the west develop the resolve to do what is required in the Middle East.
They DON'T want to work with us. All they are doing is paying lip service to the vacuous notions of "peace" and "cooperation" whilst funding killers and crazed fanatics across the Middle East. It is called "taqiyya" in Islam. Their religion sanctions them to lie for advantage. You should not be so naive. They will slowly but surely get hold of an empire, and when nukes are on the shores of the Mediterranean, then we will begin to take them seriously.
0
reply
viddy9
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#11
Report 6 years ago
#11
(Original post by The Dictator)
Mossadegh was a Soviet agent who nationalised oilfields belonging to the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. We were within our rights to throw him out. I have no regrets about that episode and Britain should not apologise.
No, you weren't within your rights. You intervened in the affairs of a sovereign nation in the name of greed, against a democratically elected leader who wanted to use his country's resources to help his country's people.

Your apologetics are disgusting; Mossadegh was not a Soviet agent and in fact disliked socialism.

(Original post by The Dictator)
Iran would be a modern, progressive country right now if the Shah were still in power.
What do you mean by "modern" and "progressive"? To me, both terms imply democracy, first and foremost, and the Shah was a tyrant who was responsible for the torture and deaths of thousands of people.

(Original post by The Dictator)
And "social democracy" is a stupid system.
Tell that to the Scandinavians who enjoy high standards of living.

(Original post by The Dictator)
Yes I am claiming that the BBC were behind the Iranian Revolution. It was all part of a US-backed conspiracy to overthrow secular regimes in the Middle East and replace them with Islamist ones, as a "Green Belt" to keep the Soviets at bay. Hence why the Shah was abandoned by his erstwhile friends in the United States, under the spineless dog Carter, with Ayatollah BBC broadcasting pro-revolutionary propaganda.
Please, provide evidence for these assertions. Delusional diatribes aren't going to change anyone's mind.

(Original post by The Dictator)
The Shah was a good man with a vision for his country.
A good man who was responsible for brutal torture and murder? You've got a horribly twisted view of morality.

(Original post by The Dictator)
The Shah should have been more ruthless, but instead he left his country and allowed the mullahs to destroy Iran's ancient pre-Islamic heritage, which his uneducated, illiterate and savage people, steeped in the propaganda of the mullahs, could not possibly understand.
Iranians are incredibly well-educated, and seeing as you brought up women's rights, women make up more than 60% of the student body in Iran in universities today and has the highest female to male level of enrollment in the world.

Many, also, are involved in activist movements against the theocratic institutions today, and would object to any Western intervention.

Your contempt for the Iranian people allows you to justify the death and destruction that would ensue from a Western military intervention. Yet, if you look at other military interventions, they've gone horribly wrong. The Iraq War led to sectarian violence and the rise of ISIS, for example.

You claim to care about the Iranians and want to liberate them from theocracy, and yet you'd fail to listen to their views if, God forbid, you ever became the leader of the UK.

This is typical imperialistic nonsense. One minute you claim to care for the people; the next, you claim to know what's best for them and will use violence to enforce it. It's not just you, but other people, even in this thread, and it simply refutes your claim to care about democracy when you endorse such a viewpoint and justify anti-democratic measures taken by Western powers.

(Original post by The Dictator)
His people did not deserve him. The Shah has been my hero since I was 11 years old.
No, they didn't deserve a man who squandered the country's wealth and tortured and killed political opponents.

Good for you.

(Original post by The Dictator)
You should be ashamed of yourself for spouting such ridiculous propaganda against a great man. Stop reading BBC propaganda and actually read for yourself what this man did for his people.
I don't think there's been a single leader who didn't do some good. However, to claim that Iran was better off after its democratically elected leader was overthrown and replaced with a man who tortured and killed political opponents and ostentatiously squandered the country's wealth is to engage in apologetics.

You're the propagandist. You're not interested in the truth; you're interested in promoting your childhood hero.
0
reply
BioStudentx
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#12
Report 6 years ago
#12
(Original post by viddy9)
No, you weren't within your rights. You intervened in the affairs of a sovereign nation in the name of greed, against a democratically elected leader who wanted to use his country's resources to help his country's people.

Your apologetics are disgusting; Mossadegh was not a Soviet agent and in fact disliked socialism.



What do you mean by "modern" and "progressive"? To me, both terms imply democracy, first and foremost, and the Shah was a tyrant who was responsible for the torture and deaths of thousands of people.



Tell that to the Scandinavians who enjoy high standards of living.



Please, provide evidence for these assertions. Delusional diatribes aren't going to change anyone's mind.



A good man who was responsible for brutal torture and murder? You've got a horribly twisted view of morality.



Iranians are incredibly well-educated, and seeing as you brought up women's rights, women make up more than 60% of the student body in Iran in universities today and has the highest female to male level of enrollment in the world.

Many, also, are involved in activist movements against the theocratic institutions today, and would object to any Western intervention.

Your contempt for the Iranian people allows you to justify the death and destruction that would ensue from a Western military intervention. Yet, if you look at other military interventions, they've gone horribly wrong. The Iraq War led to sectarian violence and the rise of ISIS, for example.

You claim to care about the Iranians and want to liberate them from theocracy, and yet you'd fail to listen to their views if, God forbid, you ever became the leader of the UK.

This is typical imperialistic nonsense. One minute you claim to care for the people; the next, you claim to know what's best for them and will use violence to enforce it. It's not just you, but other people, even in this thread, and it simply refutes your claim to care about democracy when you endorse such a viewpoint and justify anti-democratic measures taken by Western powers.



No, they didn't deserve a man who squandered the country's wealth and tortured and killed political opponents.

Good for you.



I don't think there's been a single leader who didn't do some good. However, to claim that Iran was better off after its democratically elected leader was overthrown and replaced with a man who tortured and killed political opponents and ostentatiously squandered the country's wealth is to engage in apologetics.

You're the propagandist. You're not interested in the truth; you're interested in promoting your childhood hero.
Women don't have equal rights in Iran unfortunately. They aren't allowed to get a divorce unless the man desires, they aren't allowed to go to football staidums, it is legal for husbands to hit their wives, a womans testimony in court is half a mans, and there are many other laws I could mention. Just pointing out one statistic doesn't prove your point at all. And I don't see the correlation between women rights and their percentage in university. Especially as Iran is a country which "changes science" to suit the Qur'an and Islam.
0
reply
viddy9
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#13
Report 6 years ago
#13
(Original post by BioStudentx)
Women don't have equal rights in Iran unfortunately. They aren't allowed to get a divorce unless the man desires, they aren't allowed to go to football staidums, it is legal for husbands to hit their wives, a womans testimony in court is half a mans, and there are many other laws I could mention. Just pointing out one statistic doesn't prove your point at all. And I don't see the correlation between women rights and their percentage in university. Especially as Iran is a country which "changes science" to suit the Qur'an and Islam.
No, they don't, but my main point was about the level of education of the Iranian people: the statistics I cited were simply an interesting tangent, given that many societies with poor women's rights records have a high rate of female illiteracy.
0
reply
BioStudentx
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#14
Report 6 years ago
#14
(Original post by viddy9)
No, they don't, but my main point was about the level of education of the Iranian people: the statistics I cited were simply an interesting tangent, given that many societies with poor women's rights records have a high rate of female illiteracy.
I'm Iranian myself and education in Iran is a little.... different to what you'd expect. I wouldn't even class it as education - more like indoctrination and brainwashing. Despite what the Shah did he is better than the current rule over Iran. More people are being killed under the current regime than there were under the shah. And Iran could have become a great power. The shah would have eventually left and Iran would have evolved into a powerful, democratic country.
0
reply
viddy9
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#15
Report 6 years ago
#15
(Original post by BioStudentx)
I'm Iranian myself and education in Iran is a little.... different to what you'd expect. I wouldn't even class it as education - more like indoctrination and brainwashing. Despite what the Shah did he is better than the current rule over Iran. More people are being killed under the current regime than there were under the shah. And Iran could have become a great power. The shah would have eventually left and Iran would have evolved into a powerful, democratic country.
Thanks for your input.

I agree that the current regime is worse than under the Shah, but I see no reason to believe your assertion that Iran would have become a paradise if it had waited long enough under the Shah.

And, this thread is about intervening militarily to bring back the Iranian dictatorship as it existed under the Shah, which not only presents us with a false dichotomy, but implies that the negative consequences of doing so would not outweigh the positives, which I completely disagree with.

Moreover, Iran did have a democratically elected leader as I've pointed out above, and he was overthrown by the Shah. Iran was undoubtedly better off under Mossadegh than under the Shah, so a more logical approach would be to call to restore democracy in Iran, not a tyrannical dictator who put his own interests above the interests of the people.
0
reply
BioStudentx
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#16
Report 6 years ago
#16
(Original post by viddy9)
Thanks for your input.

I agree that the current regime is worse than under the Shah, but I see no reason to believe your assertion that Iran would have become a paradise if it had waited long enough under the Shah.

And, this thread is about intervening militarily to bring back the Iranian dictatorship as it existed under the Shah, which not only presents us with a false dichotomy, but implies that the negative consequences of doing so would not outweigh the positives, which I completely disagree with.

Moreover, Iran did have a democratically elected leader as I've pointed out above, and he was overthrown by the Shah. Iran was undoubtedly better off under Mossadegh than under the Shah, so a more logical approach would be to call to restore democracy in Iran, not a tyrannical dictator who put his own interests above the interests of the people.
I agree with everything you've said above ^.
0
reply
The Dictator
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#17
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#17
(Original post by viddy9)
No, you weren't within your rights. You intervened in the affairs of a sovereign nation in the name of greed, against a democratically elected leader who wanted to use his country's resources to help his country's people.

Your apologetics are disgusting; Mossadegh was not a Soviet agent and in fact disliked socialism.



What do you mean by "modern" and "progressive"? To me, both terms imply democracy, first and foremost, and the Shah was a tyrant who was responsible for the torture and deaths of thousands of people.



Tell that to the Scandinavians who enjoy high standards of living.



Please, provide evidence for these assertions. Delusional diatribes aren't going to change anyone's mind.



A good man who was responsible for brutal torture and murder? You've got a horribly twisted view of morality.



Iranians are incredibly well-educated, and seeing as you brought up women's rights, women make up more than 60% of the student body in Iran in universities today and has the highest female to male level of enrollment in the world.

Many, also, are involved in activist movements against the theocratic institutions today, and would object to any Western intervention.

Your contempt for the Iranian people allows you to justify the death and destruction that would ensue from a Western military intervention. Yet, if you look at other military interventions, they've gone horribly wrong. The Iraq War led to sectarian violence and the rise of ISIS, for example.

You claim to care about the Iranians and want to liberate them from theocracy, and yet you'd fail to listen to their views if, God forbid, you ever became the leader of the UK.

This is typical imperialistic nonsense. One minute you claim to care for the people; the next, you claim to know what's best for them and will use violence to enforce it. It's not just you, but other people, even in this thread, and it simply refutes your claim to care about democracy when you endorse such a viewpoint and justify anti-democratic measures taken by Western powers.



No, they didn't deserve a man who squandered the country's wealth and tortured and killed political opponents.

Good for you.



I don't think there's been a single leader who didn't do some good. However, to claim that Iran was better off after its democratically elected leader was overthrown and replaced with a man who tortured and killed political opponents and ostentatiously squandered the country's wealth is to engage in apologetics.

You're the propagandist. You're not interested in the truth; you're interested in promoting your childhood hero.
Human beings are greedy. It's natural. Bottom line: Mossadegh stole the oil resources belonging to the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. He was a thief and a villain. Furthermore, "democratically-elected" doesn't make a damn difference to me because I detest democracy for good reason. It is the tyranny of the mob and puts the individual at the mercy of the majority. Take Iraq, which is going downhill precisely because we introduced democracy. We should have occupied it for decades and made it Westernised. The oil resources did not belong "to the people". They belonged to the people that discovered them.

The Shah actually had a shockingly low number of political prisoners compared to the current regime. Also, conditions in prisons were much better than they are now.

He was modern and progressive. His father, Reza Shah, seized power from the decadent Qajar monarchy and dragged the country into the 21st century, angering the religious clerics in the process who were losing all their privileges of tyrannising over the people. He was not a perfect man either, but was one of a few notable Westernising despots around the region (Ataturk in Turkey, and Amanullah Khan in Afghanistan, who was turfed out by a reactionary uprising by his own people, like the Shah). When Mohammad Reza took the helm in 1941, he continued the good work of his father, liberating women, encouraging private enterprise and launching reforms in the "White Revolution" to bring about a revolutionary change in education, reducing illiteracy rates and bringing education to the people of Iran. Anything this Islamic Revolution has achieved has been on the back of the Shah's achievements. I hope you go and live in modern-day Iran and enjoy being harassed by the Islamist militias that the government uses to suppress its citizens. Modern-day Iranians are finding out more about the Shah and are warming to his legacy. Many Iranians are nostalgic for those times, and would be shocked and appalled at your ignorance.

Ah, the old "Scandinavia and socialism" argument...Scandinavia is not socialist. Their high standards of living are owed to the fact that they have one of the world's freest market economies. Their high standard of living is in SPITE of the crippling levels of taxation which they have, something which forced them to cut back on their monstrous welfare state in the 1990s.
http://www.cityam.com/article/139465...andinavia-rich

And the Iraq War, as I have said, did not lead directly to the rise of ISIS. The US troops in Iraq actually crushed the insurgency from terrorist groups during the mid-2000s. This crisis is occurring because the US ABANDONED the country and withdrew their troops, and because they introduced democracy too soon in a country clearly not ready for it. Democracy is one-man, one-vote, and does nothing to protect the long-oppressed minorities of the Middle East. It simply replaces one tyranny with another, except the democratic tyranny is an elected one, elected by the majority who wish to have the freedom to oppress and exploit the minority as revenge for the hard time Saddam gave them. This rather prescient article gives us more information.
http://capitalismmagazine.com/2003/0...-another-iran/

I never said I cared about democracy. I hate it. As for my profile name, that is partly a joke and partly because I used to be a totalitarian socialist (I now consider myself a libertarian conservative with neo-conservative inclinations in foreign policy, mostly thanks to Christopher Hitchens and Barry Goldwater).

But yes, I hate democracy. I do not think it is necessarily a bad system in itself, but I do not see it as an absolute, and it almost always leads to a tyranny of the majority in practice. Democracy, balanced with free markets, works well, as with the Scandinavian countries you just cited. And even then, the democratic element tends to erode the capitalistic element, because people seem to like voting for higher taxes in spite of their horrific effects.

I rightly have contempt for the people in a region that have yet to act like civilised human beings. I do not paint all Iranians with the same brush, and acknowledge that there are those who see the evil that has happened to their country and wish to make a change. The Shah was an enlightened autocrat, and a good man at heart. He was overthrown by unenlightened, backward thugs who imposed their hellish religion on all walks of Iranian life. His people did not deserve him, because they could not appreciate their pre-Islamic history, which is infinitely superior to their post-Islamic history, stretching back all the way to the days of Cyrus.
0
reply
The Dictator
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#18
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#18
(Original post by BioStudentx)
I'm Iranian myself and education in Iran is a little.... different to what you'd expect. I wouldn't even class it as education - more like indoctrination and brainwashing. Despite what the Shah did he is better than the current rule over Iran. More people are being killed under the current regime than there were under the shah. And Iran could have become a great power. The shah would have eventually left and Iran would have evolved into a powerful, democratic country.
Amen.
0
reply
Illiberal Liberal
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#19
Report 6 years ago
#19
(Original post by viddy9)
If we were to invade, we should install a social democracy which promotes liberty, equality and social justice. We could go back in time and reverse the US-British coup which led to the overthrow of Iran's democratically elected leader in 1953.
Do you think Iran is 'ready' for a (presumably secular?) social democracy? I think the next Iranian regime/constitution will remain Islamically influenced (and probably dominated), until the youth come to exert more influence and Iran develops (economically).

(Original post by The Dictator)
Mossadegh was a Soviet agent who nationalised oilfields belonging to the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.
Source? Nationalising their oil fields is just cause for invading a country?

The Shah was an enlightened despot who modernised his nation, dragging it into the 21st century and granting rights for women and oppressed minorities, now reversed by the diabolical Islamist theocracy. The revolutionaries of '79 may have had good intentions, but among them were crazed Marxists and Islamists who had long been suppressed by the Shah and wanted to create hell on earth. Iran would be a modern, progressive country right now if the Shah were still in power.
I largely agree with this, but think that a large part of the opposition to the Shah was because of national sentiment against fast-paced Westernisation. I think this has now changed with the much more secular/liberal youth, mind.

The Shah was a good man with a vision for his country. Perhaps Iran would be a Western-style liberal democracy today, or at least well on its way to it. The Shah should have been more ruthless, but instead he left his country and allowed the mullahs to destroy Iran's ancient pre-Islamic heritage, which his uneducated, illiterate and savage people, steeped in the propaganda of the mullahs, could not possibly understand. His people did not deserve him. The Shah has been my hero since I was 11 years old. He was probably the greatest leader the Middle East has had since Cyrus. You should be ashamed of yourself for spouting such ridiculous propaganda against a great man. Stop reading BBC propaganda and actually read for yourself what this man did for his people.
I agree with large parts of what you say, but there's no denying that he supressed large parts of the Iranian population in disproportionate ways. I think that Iran wasn't ready for the pace of Westernisation under the Shah at the time, but that Iran's interests were always the priority for the Shah, it's just a shame that his record is blemished by some of his despotic behaviour.

0
reply
flibber
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#20
Report 6 years ago
#20
(Original post by The Dictator)
Amen.
Do you like Machiavelli?
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Should the school day be extended to help students catch up?

Yes (58)
29.15%
No (141)
70.85%

Watched Threads

View All