Roozbeh_Gilani

VPK

Bakhtiar claimed that the military's sudden declaration of neutrality came as a complete shock to him and his cabinet because he believed they would've had the situation under control and prevented the Khomeinists from getting as far as they did because there was a momentum building for Bakhtiar and what he was trying to do. We will now never know but Huyser, NATO and the Carter administration have a lot of explaining to do because we would be precisely where you indicated if the Iranian military had not wussed out and been neutralized by traitors, on the one hand, and total lunatics, on the other.

thanks

mash ghasem khan thanks for the link.

Maziar

سروده‌های «ویکتور خارا»

//www.parand.se/ra-shamlo-victor-jara.htm

Siavash

Is 100% right. If the military had overthrown Khomeini; saved Iran "democrats" would say that. The Iranian people had a chance for "democracy" but it was foiled. By horrible military dictators.

The one difference would be that most of us will be in Iran now. We would be enjoying the fruit of their "dictatorship". Peace and prosperity would be around. Iran would be respected and even the various professors be living in Iran. Well I rather have that over the Islamic democracy we have now! How many time to we need to be taken. Now we got Pan Turks and other *** trying to break us. With idealists again falling for it. Not me I rather have a Mihan Parast military dictator over any of these.

So long VPK 

What if "Nojeh coup" was successful

What if the patriatic officers back by U.S toppled stinky mullahs in summer of 1980 and they were able to re-established monarchy as we had before? The country would have been saved from the bloody hands of mullahs. Our people wouldn't suffered as they did during last 32 years.

   Oh.... Wait a minute.... The same people who are targeting U.S foreign policy would have come online and whinnying with a loud voice......

".....Look we had democratic government in the world that came to power for the first time by the will of Iranian people and it was overthrown by U.S back puppets. Iran would have been like paradise if U.S wouldn't interfer in summer of 1980. U.S is bad that didn't allow Iranians feel FREDOM for the first time in their history. It was all about U.S greed.!!!!!!!.".

Ha Ha Ha it sounds like a joke but that would have been anti americans people's logic. Enough is enough my friends. I think we became smarter since mullahs stayed in power. They precisely showed Iranians the paradise that mossdeq was about to show them in 1953. Iranians missed the boat in 53, but they catch the boat in 79. 

 We lost the most precious youths in un-marked mass graves, but we became smarter. That was the price we paid.  

Re dictators

Dear VPK, what difference does it make if a dictator is a hypocrite or a bonafide douchebag? He would still be a prick who forces his will on people regardless! Moreover, what kind of a party founder would not join the party he's just created?! And lastly, there are kings with term limits. They're called presidents!

MG and Siavash

I agree Rastakhiz was a bad idea. But it was not "hypocrisy" in the normal way. If Shah wanted everyone to join exept himself it would be hypocrisy. But if he too joined it would not. It was dictatorship and forcing people against their will that I agree with. Bad idea and gave his opponents lots of ammo. But it also meant little. If you are all members of a party then what does it mean? A party membership should mean choice of an ideology.

When everyone is automatically a member it means nothing. The party membership card becomes like a national id. No one will benefit or suffer from it because everyone is a "member". Basically the party becomes a joke.

This kind of action is proof that leaders should have term limits. Even a King or rather specially a King. Because as they get more powerful and older they lose it. The same is happening to VF. Is out of touch with people.

Padeshahi v.s North koreans, Cubans escapes.

"either a  passport to leave the country , or  automatic party membership: was going up against that also considered hypocrisy," Mash Ghasem

No that is NOT hypocisy. Hypocrat says somenting and act something else. When shah gave a choice to have passport or become member of the party compeletly democratic based on our history of our nation. Their ideas and wishes  had historically crystalized in the existance of the shah at the top of the pyramid. Shah has always been symbol of strength, integrity of the nation. Iran history has been intimated with history of Padeshahi. Padeshah as a father of the nation. The heart of the nation is connected closely to the heart of the shah. When shah tears dropped on the day that he was leaving  on Mehrabad airport, the nation went through deep depression. All those bloodshed, war, destruction of the country were the result of those tears. Similary there is a saying that fishes has shah Mahi and when the shah mahi gets caught or die, all fished comes to the surface of the water and willing to die. I hear that story as a child, I don't know how occurate is that story.

 Europe has different history and different social structure. Those people always determinded their own history and destiny. No comparison between Iran history and Europe. It is like comparing apple with orange. Marx idea was the production of the western world and stays in western mentality. No place in the Iranian mentality with ancient history of over 5000 years monarchy. Similary mao idea is distictively different with classical work of marx or Lenin, especially in the area of Materialism Dialictic. His approach is compeletely different with what Marx was saying because of the argicultural nature of China. Antagonistic in the mind of Mao has been twisted as a war between rural area with urban area. What Marx was saying as a creation of antagonist which comes from the within, has been twisted as conflict between villiage with the city in Mao's theory. (Thesis, anti thersis, Synthesis). Marx use the example of egg, but Mae use the example of surronding cities by villiagers from outside. Compeletely is different with what Marx was saying.  All his idea had been conceptualized in his famous books "4 philosophical literatures" and "new democracy".  The whole idea has been titled "moeist". We can conclude, each country has different socio structural forms that has been rooted on it's own culture/ traditions.  

P.S Fascist is the mullahs who says become part of us or to get executed. Shah was given choice to leave the country. so that was not considered fascist. people had choice.

Freedom of choice is different from being caught up in Cold War

mentality.

Shah was a fascist, deep down inside: hence his Rastakhiz party, his last great gift to the nation . Now, when he offered either a  passport to leave the country , or  automatic party membership: was going up against that also considered hypocrisy, or responsible citizenship?

Arj is too kind and diplomatic with Milani. Milani has 'transformed' from being a rather stupid "revolutionary," of the maoist genre: trying to surround the cities from countryside!, to a rather obtuse, mainstream, corporate "Hoover Institute" academcian.

All anyone  wants to say about limitations of socialism, capitalism is not exactly at the height of its functionality! Historically speaking all democratic gains, rights and laws in Western Capitalist countries were won, are maintained and shall be guaranteed throught the struggles of workers and popular classes. 

May First occured in Chicago. March 8th originated from New York. Paris Commune was in France, and of course, November, November Don't Forget the 5th of November, you could continue the list for almost every single country in Eurpoe, and Americas. 

Sorry to burst your bubble, but no more Cubans are swiming over, rather reforms are occuring, and taking place inside Cuba, with significant implications.

Last but not least, as far as Chile: there were also experiments with methods of workers' managment and control during Allende's short, tragic administration. 

"Hypocrisy" is different from freedom of choice, change of heart

"How does criticizing Shah (or any other entity) amount to wrecking the nation?" Arj

No one claims criticizing shah wrecking the nation. What wrecking the nation is "hypocrisy". To be pro west and criticizing shah for being pro west. That wreck the nation. Milani was living in U.S and was critical of shah for being pro western countries. Similary the sheikh who is boycats drinking starbucks coffee by saying it belongs to Jews and he had a starbucks coffee for his breakfast in morning. The sheikh who marches on streets of Tehran chanting:  "death to america" and at the same time he is trying to get a U.S visa for his children or himself. That wreck the nation. It is commonly called "Hypocrisy"

 " Milani's right to change his views and live wherever he wishes to live! " Arj

Of course, no one blame anyone for changing the heart. Changing the heart is something and being hypocrit is something else. Vivid example is people who are highly talking about "Allendeh democratic government" and his buddy Fidel Castro, but they are not willing to live under those democratic government even one day of their lives. They prefer to live in U.S or other part of the free wold and only talk about "democratic government. We have experssion in Farsi saying: death is good for the next door neighbore child, not for my child". Democratic government is good for others,not for me. I rather to live and enjoy western country and just talking highly of Cuba and Allendeh Demcratic govenment.  These people choose to be silent about Cuban immigrants  who are swimming across the ocean going to America. Poor Cubans japerdize their lives to reach to the "free world". Followers of Allendeh democratic government prefer NOT to say anything about them. We should adimre those stood by their idea. They migrated to Soviet Union such as Hossain Judat, Kianori, Maryam Firooz, Farajolah Mizani (AKA : Javanshir), Teemsar Nasiri, Rabie, Khosrodad. They followed what they believed and stood by their idea till the end of their lives. NOT 2 face rats who change their views based on their personal gain and benefits.    

Sorry, my error

I misread. I should've written "liking" as opposed to "backing".

I know the guy is no longer a lefty, but going by his expressed views (admittedly only the ones that I've read & seen in some video clips) I can't say his views would be that palatable to right-wing extremism, as I understand them.

So, I'm curious as to who we mean by right-wing extremists? Do we mean ultra-nationalists/xenophobes? Because despite, not being as anti-Shah as some would like (and as he used to be), Milani remains very critical of the Shah's reign. I certainly would not describe his book on MRP as pro-Shah.

RB

You are reading too much in my post. I know a lot of Iranians some are hard core right wingers. No conspiracy of "backing Milani". The few that I spoke to seemed to like him a lot. That is all. No "backing" in any other sense.

I'm intrigued!

Who are these right-wing extremists backing Milani?

converts

Dear VPK, you're absolutely right, Milani is liked by the right wing extremists. As you guessed correctly, the reason for this love affair is his drastic change of views from a somewhat leftist to a right wing pundit! As a matter of fact, Reagan himself used to be a leftist in his youth, but not only he later on became a right wing advocate, but he actually served as a spy for the quasi-fascist Joe McCarthy and testified in his inquisitional tribunals to implicate many of his former leftist friends in hollywood and wrecked many lives. Hence he became the darling of the right wingers!

Indeed, converts are more eager to prove their loyalty to their new masters, hence their sentimental partiality and ideological bias in reassessing the past! That is exactly why I don't find them a reliable judge of history, for they can't be judicious!

Dear Arj

Based on things you say I spoke to some right wing friends. They seem to love Milani. So I am a bit puzzled. I do not know a lot about him. But if these guys like him the he must not be much of a "lefty"'.

As the people I spoke to hate anyone to the left of Reagan :-) I am puzzled has he changed so much. Obviously he has the right to live in USA as long as it is alright by US. I have no problem with it. As I guess neither does American immigration.

As far as recent academic biographies of the Shah go...

This book is a far more superior piece of work than Milani's recent book.

PS - If anyone wants a copy of Afkhami's book, write me privately, I have a fully scanned PDF of the whole book.  

Re his books

Dear VPK, I don't buy his books either but for a whole different reason! :) Last one I read of him (Mo'ama-ye Hoveyda) was a loaner from a friend of mine, and I found his depiction of Hoveyda implausible and a bit too fictional! Then again, if the main character of a book is too ordinary, no one would buy it out of boredom!

However, my comment regarding his domicile was not ncessarily directed at you, but addressing a general trend of character assassination based on relating one's views to his/her choice of residence (a basic human right), and holding that against them! Yes, he used to be a leftist of some sort who for whatever reason changed his views and now lives in the U.S. Even if he didn't change his views, IMHO he still had the right to live wherever he wished to. Otherwise it would be like IRI whose supporters jump at its critics and make it their business to tell them to leave and move to the West! I personally do not live in the U.S. and do not approve of the policies of either IRI or the U.S., yet would reserve the rights of those who do and wish to express their opinions!

نگاهی به کتاب "شاه" نوشته عباس میلانی- فخرالدین عظیمی

 
//tarikhirani.ir/fa/news/1/bodyView/763/

Arj Jan

Milani is welcome to live in the Great Satan all he wants :-)  Write his books; make his money and pay taxes! I am not opposed to his book just won't buy one! By all means publish or as they say in academia: publish or perish :-)

Re Milani

How does criticizing Shah (or any other entity) amount to wrecking the nation? If the nation was so wobbly to wreck by mere critical views of a few academicians, it must've had bigger problems to begin with! I personally do not condone Milani's views for I believe he's too lenient on Shah in his writings. Especially, as a "liberal democrat" he should emphasize more on illegality of Shah's chokehold in running the state affairs, whereas according to constitutional guidlines he was supposed to be a traditional monarch and let the three branches of government run the country!

Nevertheless, I support Milani's right to change his views and live wherever he wishes to live! Moreover, he is a part of the U.S. corporate media anyway, hence living in U.S.! Why should it matter anyway?!

Siavash jaan

I'm totally with you on countries like Russia and China, or rather their rulers, always looking to deal with any vile outfits, like the IR, to line their own pockets and win influence.

But is it any surprise? China is a totalitarian state which does not tolerate any dissent. Through economic growth it has managed to stave off mass protests so far. But in order for Chinese CP to maintain its grip on power they are forever standing against any international measures to condemn regimes like the IR, because the Chinese CP know one day it will be their turn to answer for their suppression of internal freedoms.

Russia, theoretically a democracy since the fall of the Soviets, is really nothing of the kind. It is essentially a criminally/mafia backed elected dictatorship.

Both China and Russia have shown that will put down any challenge to their rule. We've seen it Chechnya, in parts of Georgia, in Tibet and parts of Western China. But they have been far cleverer than the US. Although they both have their own "Islamist" problems, internationally speaking, they have sat to one side and watched the US get itself into the messes of Iraq and Afghanistan, take all the flack, but at the same fight the Islamists, which has resulted in less focus and support for their own Islamist problems.

So, it's no wonder these countries are more than happy to make deals with resource rich tyrannies like the Islamic Republic.

"Put your money where your mouth is" American expression

Thanks R.B , Hirre for the informative links you posted. Thanks VPK for his contibution. Please just look at some of these comments here on this site, you will see what I am talking about. One view is always scurtinizing and critical of U.S foreign policy,but never mention anything about "Chinesse money hungery" cold hearted people and their treaty with ruling mullahs in Iran. That view divert people's attention from the real issue. Ruling mullahs and million dollars goes to Chinesse pocket is real issue. Have you seen any literature on that regard? No, my friends, but there is literature about U.S investement in Afghanistan!!!!. China was making deal with criminal mullahs when our dear sister NEDA was shot and killed. Any treaty was shown here? NO, but there is U.S investment in Afghanistan. huh. I get it now.

Speaking highly of Dr.Mosaddeq Democratic government.... Did I say Mosaddeq.? sorry.... I meant "Dr. Allendeh Democratic Government" and his buddy Fidel Castro,  but the same people are not willing to live even one day in Cuba and under those so called "Democratic government". What a hypocrisy. To make it sounds like U.S is the only country on the face of earth who is looking for her interest around the world, NOT China, NOT Russia.

Do you see the politic behind that? How about ruling mullahs in Iran. Are they looking for their interests around the world? Have you guys seen any documents or literatures to show mullah's greed from the same people who are critical of U.S foreign policy?  NO. so what is going on in here? At least Obama spoke out about the murder of NEDA in his speech.

Did Russia, China or any other nations including whole arab world speak out in memory of dramatic assassination of Neda? Of course NOT.

Any idea what treaty China was making with ruling mullahs when Neda was murdered?  Do you see any document in that regard?

How about Russia who were supportive of these Islamic criminals and has always had eyes on warm water of Persian gulf. Any literatures in that regard? NO.

So my friends what is going on here?

Re securing resources

Dear RB, with reagards to peaceful vs the militarily ways of securing foreign energy resources, it paints a better picture if viewd in the context of strategic, geopolitical competitions. In other words, securing regional energy resources is only a part of the game while fending off the competition, dominating the region under control and expanding the sphere of influence are other incentives for military intervention! I doubt if anyone but few in the U.S. administration expected the Iraq and Afghan wars take as long and cost as much as they have! Certainly not the Pentagon folks headed by Rumsfeld who thought "it would take days or at most weeks" and "it pays for itself through the sale of Iraqi oil!"

Indeed, eversince the Reagan adminisration, there where those who advocated domination of ME's resources once the Soviet Union is out of the picture and America becomes the sole superpower. Later in mid-90s, the blue print for The Greater Middle East project was center of focus in the agenda for PNAC (Project for the New American Century) advocates who were later known as the Neocons that eventually took over the Pentagon and the entire Bush Administration. The likes of Rumsfeld, Pearle, Wolfowitz, Feith... who had aboslutely no military training, yet managed to sell two costly wars to American people while the only skeptic and ironically a decorated soldier, Colin Powell was forced to resign!

Regarding Milani

Not that I mean to defend everything the guy did, but he did have the courage of his convictions during Shah's rule when he was imprisoned for his views.

Also, I'm pretty sure he changed his views years before he wrote his books and made any money out of them. The guy had/has enough open-mindedness and sense of fairness not to feel bitter (despite his imprisonment) and see the good things and the bad things before the Revolution and what a mess we are in now.

Milani is one of the most implacable opponents of the IR.

Abbas Milani

Yes, he was a lefty critic of the Shah before the Revolution, but as he has very openly stated many times, he has changed his views and is now a supporter of secular liberal democracy.

It is funny how they do that! When it is time to wreck the nation they are there. Then run off to write a book and "change their mind". As long as there is money to be made why not write a book? Yes and send them kids to an American school.

Why not? That is most definitely hypocrisy. Always on the side that benefits them. Never willing to stick around; reaping the result of their disasters. Just run off and let their victims clean up the mess. Great guy Abbas!

RB well said

There must be cheaper/more sensible ways of securing energy sources other than spending trillions of dollars,

Yes, it would be construction of some renewable plants. Wind; Solar; and Geothermal not to mention others. For example friends of mine in New England are increasingly using "Pellet Burning" inserts to heat their homes. Costs between 2/3 to 1/3 of other sources. It is all made in USA and does not require military. 

As Vildermose and I showed before there are new Solar plants being made. China is leading in photovoltaic. It is not that hard and a lot cheaper.

Siavash jaan

Regarding Abbas Milani specifically, I wouldn't call him a hypocrite. Yes, he was a lefty critic of the Shah before the Revolution, but as he has very openly stated many times, he has changed his views and is now a supporter of secular liberal democracy.

People can change their minds and views without being regarded as hypocrites.

I recently read his book on Shah and imho, it is one of the most balanced, best researched books on the matter. He is still critical of some of Shah's policies and mistakes, but also gives credit to some of the good things Shah instigated in Iran.

Having said that, I agree with you on the wider point of hypocrisy of some politically minded Iranians who have taken up residence and comfortable lives in the West, while continuing to denounce the West for pretty much everything and (most hypocritical of all) being ideologically against it.

Siavash300

Always remember that in case of history you really need to look at the majority of data to form any conclusion. For someone being against the shah with the little information they had back in the 60-70's was not unusual. Now that we have almost all of the data other conclusions can be made...

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbas_Milani

Dear Roozbeh, Hypocrisy hurts our nation.

"From Karl Marx, To Trotsky, Lenin and our own Ali Shariati, once in troble would find no better place of refuge than the heart of despicable capitalism, England" Roozbeh

During 19 century there was not socialist country that Marx travel. If I am not mistaken Trotsky took refuge in Mexico where he had extra marital affair with Freda Carla, the wife of Diago, the most famous Mexican artist and painter. Lenin also took refuge in Finland and Shariati spend his final days in Syria where he was buried.

 Anyway, I wanted to discuss about hypocrisy that hurts our nation big time. One of the most confused guy was Abbas Milani. This guy was very critical of shah back in 70's. He was promoting idea of Marx and Lenin in Tehran university publically and he was detaineed by Savak many times prior revolution for his tendency toward eastern block countries. He was critical of shah for being pro western countries. Revolution took place in 1979. Many left the country after revolution including Abbas Milani. Guess what country he choosed to travel? It was not Russia or China. It was America. So what happened to all those marxist idea? He seatlled in Northern California.  So why this guy was critical of shah being pro America?

Not only he immigrated to America. He even went futher than shah did. He married an american woman by the name of "Jean"who helped him to write his recent book. At least shah didn't marry American woman. Shah married 3 times and all his wives were from Middle East. This guy even went further than shah in his feelings toward the west. This kind of confused and hypocrit people hurts our country very bad. Similar situation is in current regime. The guy chanting "death to America" and tries to send his children to America for education. We see many of these kind of people on this site as well.

Sincerely,

Siavash

Arj jaan

Thanks for your well constructed thoughts. By and large I agree with your points, though from an economic perspective I believe the wars in Afghanistan have been disastrously expensive for the Americans. There must be cheaper/more sensible ways of securing energy sources other than spending trillions of dollars, not to mention loss of countless lives/alienating so many other nations in the process.