Pictory

CDT...

stands for Central Daylight Time.

(Which is odd, because I thought JJ lives in California which is on PDT [Pacific Daylight Time])

What is CDT? (something

What is CDT? (something tells me it's a dumb question:D)

I appreciate the efforts and

I appreciate the efforts and the message is most welcomed but I don't think blaming anybody will ever bring a good result. We have to start acting for making this world a better place, we must bring the change into women's lives, what better moment than Mother's day? All women in the world should enjoy pure freedom, they deserve and need that.

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and Women's Day

Let us see...

The Shah divorced his first wife because Queen Fawzia, an egyptian, did not give birth to a son.

The Shah divorced his 2nd wife, Queen Soraya, because she could not have kids.

The Shah died from cancer and had to flee Iran as a result of his money worshipping orphan 3rd wife Queen Farah.

None of these 3 women were feminists.

The Shah was a racist. See:
//youtube.com/watch?v=DKYlvyZwHHU&feature=rel...

Anti Semetic:
//youtube.com/watch?v=hQgZ3oLp_WY&feature=rel...

and the Shah even said in an interview,"Women are wiked".

you can't make this stuff up.

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was the son of an uneducated Mazandarani. His father was from some dumb village. The Pahlavis must have been the Village idiots.

how this family came to power in Iran is just unbelievable.

roohat shad

Great man and great leader. his vision was to modernize, and make Iran a great country once again. sadly you can take a horse to the river but you can't force it to drink the water. the rest is history. perhaps we do deserve this sewer republic after all...

...bear4u

Well, you mix everything and include some insults to prove your points.

Let's set a couple of things straight first. You advised me to educate myself. This is the usual self-righteous tactic to sell a weak claim; but since you mentioned it, I assure you that I am far more educated than you can ever imagine. And I am educated enough to be realistic.

I never believed that shah was anywhere as clever or perfect as you try to accuse me of. I assure you that I am well aware of corruption, torture, etc. of the shah's regime. However my understanding of the extent of his misdeeds are based on the best available data than based on either ideology or emotions or self-righteousness.

Then you accuse me of praising the dead. Well this thread is about dead and you posted before I responded to. But I do praise whoever made any contribution to my country with a realistic eye to the events and without prejudice.

You also accused me of referring to iran as in dark ages. I was referring to the iran that reza shah inherited as being in the dark ages. That is an unpleasant fact, but a fact nonetheless for one who is familiar with that period.

Now, shah despite all his misdeeds was infinitely better than any day in mulla's regime. This is not a simple claim but it can be backed up by hard data from int data base. E.g., the iranian oil revenue from 1900 to 1979 totaled about $110 billion; and from 1980 through 2006 totaled about $550 billion. Of course, these numbers should be adjusted for inflation and population growth. So you see, your data about oil revenue is based on hearsay.

As I said, if there will be someone better than shah, I am all for it. But do you really believe that a near perfect person can rule iran. He will be kicked out on a dime by islamists, leftists, and all those who are waiting in line to take over the wealth of the country. So the choice was between shah and mulla and if you don't see how much better shah was for iran than mullas or leftists or likes, then there is nothing for us to discuss.

I only know that based on int data base, iran in 1979 had the same gdp as taiwan, turkey, and south korea. In 1979 all persian gulf states had a fraction of gdp of iran (mostly based on oil), despite all short-comings of the shah. All of those countries today are by far more prosperous than iran, with persian gulf states depending on oil revenue for only a small fraction of their income. One cannot deny facts based on hard data. And if you do not see the massive disaster that is going on in iran, then once again we are so far apart in extent of our empathy with the iranians inside that we have nothing in common to base our discussion on. You favor an ideology and fulfillment of your emotions and prejudices (and maybe idealism if good intentioned), I favor whatever is pragmatically best for a vast majority of people. Maybe in your world the islamic republic is not so bad, but in my world the islamic republic brought us nothing except disaster for the vast majority of people and a big historical mistake to replace shah's regime with what we have in hand today. Had shah's regime survived, with passing of shah, there was no chance whatsoever that we would be in such a dire situation today, 30 years later, even if we assume that pahlavi regime had not improved.

YOU SEE SETIZ

You see I was right a lot of people who back shah ASSUME they are more intelligent and educated than others. The first thing I need to mention since a lot of shah's supporters are particularly overloaded with intellient is that not liking shah's regime DOES NOT mean being supporter of IRI. But I do admit bad publicity and potitics of present government does give this image to any form of opposition.

If shah was a good politician why did he used so many strange phrases such as red or black. Why didn't he just said communists or extrimist muslems. A good leader must talk in such a way that nearly everyone understand him. Every leader refers to freedom and democracy but shah refers to all of this "great civilization". Did you ever wondered him who was continously drumming about 2500 years of acheivements then he insists on great civilization. There is no doubt in my mind that Iran's history is shinning in world history. But then why shah's beleive was in fact opposing to what he was preaching. You are following a dead man's political beleif who wanted to offer us great civilization and then strangely enough was overthrown by backward mullah, uneducated and unable to do politics. What king Korosh, Darush and many others gave us in centuries shah was aiming to give us in his mortal life. But then he was so weak he had to use phrases such as red and black. Not even mentioning maybe he insulted all of us by telling us he was giving us civilization. I bet you never saw it that way did you. It reminds me of the expresion we have, kareyat shakh va dom nadarade. Simply shah was not up to it.

You mentioned freedom, what good this freedom does if only applied to some people. What we had then is similar to what we have now it was class freedom. Now mullahs' family are benefiting from this freedom.

you are correct basic freedom and that what his government was offering for the amount oil income we had. They ALSO did have torture and murder. If you considering not being able to eat in public in Ramadan as lack of freedom then yet need to look at your political understanding. Freedom is more important of ramadan laws. But then hezbolah is not famous for public relations at all. Just to know if you leave in an islamic state it is a good idea to respect some of their law. By the way this is part of democracy, everyone most respect each others wishes.

You mentioned prostitution but it is happening every where including countries with brand names as first world. There was prostitution during shah too but then population was much lower it would not show as much as today.

I do agree earnings are at their minimum. Then no one beleives mullahs understand ecconomy. Maybe shah should have taken it easy on mullahs' earning so that they would not now collect everything for themselves. You should know shah and his father particularly hated mullahs. It is also true present system do not earn as much from oil due to trade restriction they have.

For your information I lived there for several years recently I have seen a lot with my own eyes.

I am sadden for shah's supporters, like yourself, who refer to our great history of 2500 years then you mentioned "For a country like iran, coming from dark ages at the turn of the 20th century". So mr IQ what do you exactly believe in. Everything we have from history was given to us by shah. We lived in dark ages then shah saved us. Please go and politically educate yourself how is this possible.

Shah was a dictator, if you like so are mullahs. In fact mullahs are black dictators. But we should open our minds and try to solve our problems. By worshiping a dead dictator what is the difference between you, who refer to Iran's history as dark ages, and those fanatics who beat themselves with chains for emam Hossain, not much is there.

You see.

Finally he meant totally something else when he was referring to great civilization. I am sure about it because no one, not even his best supporters ever mention. He was overthrown because of it. I let you to find out what it was unless someone else mention it.

Happy new year and may god and ahoramazda shine in our hearts.

amirkabear4u

You are obviously a pseudo amir kabir since you still do not know what shah meant by "great civilization".

Well since you obviously do not know what it meant, I will just list a few signs of many things that it meant.

It meant very basic social freedoms for the vast majority of iranians to decide how to dress without ending up dead in the corner of a prison. I know that does not have much meaning for you, but you are probably neither a female nor living in iran to "get" the meaning of this super basic freedom that we had and we did not appreciate.

It meant very basic freedom for the majority of iranians to practice whatever religion and to whatever extent that they wanted, instead of being subjected to torture and murder for the minorities of iran who lived there perhaps longer than many members of the invading population throughout iranian history. It meant the freedom to practice your religion to the extent that your god-given mind desires instead of being arrrested and jailed if you were seen eating on a day during ramadan.

It meant the peace of mind for the vast majority that they can work to have food on their table at a minimum without resorting to selling bodies of their young daughters and wife as the only source of income.

It meant availability of jobs for a large population of citizens so they would not have resort to drug addiction and depression.

It meant a handsome $2500 per capita income which is now diminished by a factor of 2.5 when the oil industry income has ballooned by five fold.

It meant a country that we could all live in and participate in its progress instead of some 4 million of us living abroad simply because our country is a country no more for us.

And it meant so many other things, hard for someone living in the comfort of the west to empathize with.

For a country like iran, coming from dark ages at the turn of the 20th century, every little bit counted, let it of social or economic nature. Every little bit economic and social justice, not matter how imperfect, was an endeared piece of the great civilization for someone coming out of the dark ghajar era. Alas that those wise revolutionaries did not even want us to have that little bit of the "great civilization" or maybe we did not deserve it when we screamed that we wanted shah out and mullas in.

Not too difficult to understand, or is it that you still don't get it? If you still don't get it, maybe you should move back to iran to see what you cannot absolutely tolerate there, yet did not appreciate when it was not a major issue during shah's reign, the alleged dictator.

TO ALL POLITICAL EINSTEINS

What did shah meant by great civilization? Do any of those shah boot lickers, who claim seen the light of his leadership, know what he meant!!!!

Setiz...

That's because JC gets zero sex, and isn't part of the human race.

You are right. He's as predictable as a sunrise at dawn.

Not you again J.C. with a new name or two.

I recognize you with any name JC, as nothing else but sex and race comes out of your mouth and all your logic is based on sex and race. If you want sex, go read about tehran chief of police. It is mixed with power, wealth, and hypocrisy as well.

That is so wonderful and refreshing to know that pahlavis were sexist, racist, and anti-Semite. I am so glad that they were so western! I wish they were still there so we could see a bit more of sex, race, and anti-whatever in place of all these killings by their replacement, the IRI.

But, wait a minute: how do you say anti-Semite in persian? Oh I forgot, there is no original equivalent word in persian for it! That says it all.

eyval!

khoob gofti dariush jan.

The Pahlavi Shahs were sexist, racist, and anti-semitic...

The Pahlavis were sexist, racist and anti-semitic. Thank God that the Pahlavi dynasty will never again be of any significance anywhere in the Universe. Thank God. And God bless America for telling the Shah to get the hell out of Iran in January 1979.

Thank you Setiz

With the information you provided, I was finally able to look her up on the internet. The picture they showed of her makes her look absolutely gorgeous.

You are correct, she only had a daughter with the Shah and did remarry. They did not mention her having anymore children in her second marriage.

However, the reasons for the divorce were under strange circumstances. Her family's version was that she left Iran due to her health. The version you mention is probably the Shah's version.

She simply did not give birth to a male heir. She may not have wanted to have anymore children.

We all know his second wife Soraya was unable to have children and hence the divorce.

PS: Rosie is doing okay. I will let her know of your kind wishes.

 Happy Nooruz!

Solh va Doosti (paz a vosotros)

Nadia

Well...

Kaveh: thanks, we need to constantly remind people of what really happened. Only the truth will set us all free, hopefully.

Nadia: first wife divorced and died a few years ago if I am not mistaken. Princess Shahnaz is from first wife and rumors say that her inability to bear another child was the reason for the divorce. Of course as you may know his wife's father was overthrown from the crown of egypt few years after shah's marriage to his daughter, Princess Fouziyeh.

P.S.: How is rosie doing? Wish her well...

Whatever happened

to the Shah's first wife. I know why the divorce took place with the second wife but I have never heard if his first wife died or if there was a divorce?

Solh va Doosti (paz a vosotros)

Nadia

Setiz

Very well said.

bloodypeckinpah

Lying does not neutralize your inherent hatred towards the shah. The source of your anger is somewhere else. You said:

I was a High School student during the revolution and remember every minute of it. everyone was sick and tired of suppression, Savak. torture, corruption, living in fear, lack of freedom, and not having a say in anything and being treaded as a subhuman (not much different now though) Let's not forget that there was not a real government in Iran, it was a One man show, The country was run by the the Shah and his family like a company, it was their private company and they could do anything they wanted with it. and nobody dared to say anything about it. you remember what happened if you dared, don't you? and every one of the Pahlavi Family was above the law, so the revolution was not a mistake, it was People's will to get rid of a ruthless and corrupt dictatorship and replace it with a Democratic government.

Do you really want someone to believe any of this? Maybe those who were either not there during shah's regime, or are still leftist, or are still islamist, or do not want to take responsibility and accept their mistakes would only echo your words.

A high school student was afraid of suppression, torture, and savak in shah's regime? Give me a break. Be honest now after 30 years.

Iran was not iraq or saudi arabia. Nobody cared what you were doing unless you openly and actively opposed the shah. I do not defend his actions but I balance it with realities of iran and what he did for the country that he inherited, a defeated and broke country. And for your information, there is no evidence whatsoever that shah tortured or killed any high school student. That only become fashionable with the coming of the 13th emam. Lies brought us where we are, lies by leftists, by islamist, and by so-called intellectuals. Unless you want the current system to last for ever, we need to set emotions aside and tell the truth to ourselves about the good and the bad. A vast vast majority of iranians had not contact with savak ever and therefore were not subject to torture and oppression. Of those who were vocal, 99% of them turned out to be opportunists and turned out to be worst than shah when they seized power.

Yes, shah was not perfect, and I like so many iranians wish we could have a perfect government. But the fact is that we proved not to be ready for a better government than shah's when 98% of us, the iranian PEOPLE, voted for islamic republic with none bothering to ask what they were voting for. They voted for islamic oppression to replace shah's regime. The responsibility lies on the people.

I wonder what happens if people are given a choice between islamic republic and shah's regime today to live under, now that they have tasted both. And yes we need to compare him against islamic republic since iran is not Switzerland, and as we have seen there are strong forces, mostly internal, that are so self-serving that would not allow a better regime to take root in iran. Criticizing shah for his misdeeds is quite valid, but dismissing his regime without offering a better pragmatic alternative within the realities of iran is insane. The realities which attracted 17 million people to vote for ahmadinejad and another 15 million vote for rafsanjani in the last election by choice, neither of them qualified to run a stable let alone a country in 21st century. That is the reality of iran, not a dream in the comfortable life of an ivory tower in the west.

we have not forgotten

Right on my man, Thank you. finally somebody with the correct vision of history. Because Jomhouri Eslami is bad therefore the shah' regime was good. this logic is only for people with short memory or low I.Q. Let's not forget that {Sage zard bradare shogale}. and let's not forget that the whole Iran wanted the revolution and everybody thought it was going to be better. everybody believed nothing could be worse than the shah's regime. I was a High School student during the revolution and remember every minute of it. everyone was sick and tired of suppression, Savak. torture, corruption, living in fear, lack of freedom, and not having a say in anything and being treaded as a subhuman (not much different now though) Let's not forget that there was not a real government in Iran, it was a One man show, The country was run by the the Shah and his family like a company, it was their private company and they could do anything they wanted with it. and nobody dared to say anything about it. you remember what happened if you dared, don't you? and every one of the Pahlavi Family was above the law, so the revolution was not a mistake, it was People's will to get rid of a ruthless and corrupt dictatorship and replace it with a Democratic government. Give the Shah more time for what? The shah was so off base that even almost a year after the revolution in his book he still writes about (The Unholy alliance between Red and black. he blamed everyone from red and black to Jimmy Carter to oil Cartels, British Intelligent service, CIA, every one but himself. he thought the mullas going to open the way for the Communist! how wrong he was. and could someone please tell me what the hell was THE GREAT CIVILIZATION?!
but unfortunately Khomeini lied and deceived the people and mullas stole the revolution. Is it really wise to chose the bad over the worse? why not want a better one, a free, just and democratic government. why not indeed.

PS

What did he meant by towards great civilization!!!!!!!??????

A lot of people on this site

A lot of people on this site are rather unfamiliar with the level of religiosity of people in small towns. Had shah allowed freedom for the mullas, the same end would have resulted even sooner. In small towns, people were not against shah for his corruption or savak, but for his progressiveness, e.g., in providing freedom and education for women, for playing music on radio and TV. etc.

Spot on. Khomeini capitalized on the intrinsic misogynistic sentiments of Iranian society and turned people against progress and modernism where the people felt their way of life was being threatned by progress.

May his soul rest in peace

A great man with great vision, to bad he was not given the time he needed to turn Iran to the eutopia he wanted Iran to be.

Shah

at least in the past women were allowed to name their children what ever name they wanted and have oppertunity to live like a normal woman .If you did not have any thing with politics life was good and you knew that you have a future. But now there is no freedom for any thing exept prostotution(sigheh)

Iremember ...

You are literally wrong on most of what that you have said. If you just hate shah and like to rant against him then that is fine; but if you want to make an educated comment then you are almost entirely wrong. But let me say where you are right first without making this too long:

Yes, shah did not allow opposition.

Yes, shah had political prisoners and torture and all of that dirty stuff.

Yes, shah had corruption in his regime.

All of the above is his responsibility and should be criticized for. However, the rest of what you have said is simply incorrect. The following is based on reliable data from int database.

1. Iranian GDP was at the same level as Taiwan, S. Korea, and Turkey in 1978. So it was really not bad at all. Today it is far less than any of those 3.

2. Income per capita was around $2500. Today it is around $1000.

3. Khomeini claimed that shah killed 600,000 in his prisons. Baghi was put in charge to collect savak documents to prove that after the revolution. His article is on the net claiming that khomeini's number was exaggerated by a factor of 1,500, including those killed on the street, but excluding those killed during the revolution.

4. Khomeini claimed that shah and his family took $20B. Shortly after the revolution, islamic republic reduced its claim to $6B, but failed to provide any proof despite full access to iranian bank and oil records. I have not seen any reliable document as to the exact amount that shah took for his personal and family use, but if the same level of exaggeration (1,500 x) is taken into account here as well, then the amount of shah's take is not out of the ordinary. Besides, anything near a billion dollar is just too much to hide and not being able to trace rather easily.

As for freedom, we all know that we were free for everything except openly opposing him. I have a couple of points here.

(1) Opposition covered a very narrow part of population of the country, far less than a fraction of one percent. The rest were after their daily chores and had no intention of being political even if it was allowed.

(2) A large portion of the opposition had personal ambitions and personal agenda. Their argue with shah was not for iran, rather for themselves. Most of these IRI leaders were prisoners of shah at one time or the other; and we all know what they did to iran once they got the chance. The same is true of the leftists.

(3) A lot of people on this site are rather unfamiliar with the level of religiosity of people in small towns. Had shah allowed freedom for the mullas, the same end would have resulted even sooner. In small towns, people were not against shah for his corruption or savak, but for his progressiveness, e.g., in providing freedom and education for women, for playing music on radio and TV. etc.

(4) True opposition whose aim was betterment of iran was a tiny minority. Unfortunately shah failed to separate this tiny minority from the rest until when it was too late when bakhtiar was placed in charge.

So, again, there are many people who are genetically against the shah, but provide little alternative or objective argument. Name calling and vulgarity alone would not help here. At some point we have to be objective and accept the facts, the good, the bad, and the ugly, before we can plan for a better future.

We should also recognize that the characteristics of the shah's regime (corruption, tendency to maintain rule, unwelcoming of opposition, ...) are part of any government, even in democracies of the west; so dismissing shah simply because he was not perfect is not a realistic expectation or correct way of evaluating his rule.

Thank you Nader jan. The

Thank you Nader jan. The Truth is like a broken mirror and everyone holding a piece of that mirror belives he/she is holding the Truth but he/she really is not.

I learned a great deal from our little exchange and you have inspired me to continue to seek and learn. Truth is elusive and those who claim they have the *whole truth* are typically wrong. Have a wonderful night.

Dear Anonymousk...

Fair enough!

I don't like to sound and act like a dictator myself and claim "righteousness". Standing firm on what I believe also does not mean that I am absolutely right about the issues.

Everyday is a learning process... 

Dear Nader: I'm under no

Dear Nader: I'm under no illusion or delusion to think that things were ideal during the Shah's reign; far from it. And I'm in no way going to minimize your realities and experiences that have formed your opinions. There are multiple realties and each are equally valid, however, they are not always the best tools to measure anything in a meaningful way. As in scientific method, any comparative analysis should start with a baseline.

I don't know if you lived through the Quajar period but all I'm saying is that Pahlavi's regime performance should be compared to what he was given at the outset of his dynasty. That's why I asked Mr. Kaveh if he could provide us with data on the situation in Iran before the Pahlavis.

I'm in full agreement with you on the stifling political environment and hence, the ignorance of the masses about the mullahs. The Shah should have at least educated his citizens on the periods when the mullahs were an intergral part of the Iranian society. The mullahs were on the Shah's payroll until a few years prior to the revolution and when he stopped their money, all hell broke lose...and here we are!

We have not forgotten!

We should not forgot that Shah was a dictator who sold his country to foreigners for personal power and fortune. His priority was not to serve his people but to maintain his absolute rule with the help of foreigners. Under his rule, there was no political freedom and absolutely no democracy. The majority of the population was illiterate, poor, and neglected despite the abundance of natural resources (oil) and all the international support that he had. The state of national productivity such as industry and agriculture was primitive, and the country was dependent for almost everything even food to feed just 30M people. We had the dreadful SAVAK and a strong army not to defend the country against the external enemies but to silence our own people. Prisons were full of mistreated political prisoners, and corruption was widespread.

Just because the mullahs are the same (or perhaps worse), it doesn't mean that shah was an angel. Just a reminder, especially, for the younger generation who think the old days were so rosy.

Dear Anonymousk...

I quote you; "I wasn't even alive during the revolution but since I have researched extensively to find out what really happened"...

Reading about intercourse is not the same as having real sex!

Ask about the history from people who lived it. Perhaps then you'll be able to draw a more vivid conclusion.

The "fact" remains that Shah was greatly responsible about this huge historical mishap. Yes, we had mini skirt, vodka and Shiraz art festival, yet when shit started to hit the fan, no one had any clue about the newcomers because WE WERE NOT ALLOWED to take part in political process of things.

 So much for freedom of thought!

I stand firm on what I said. I did not read about it, I lived through it!

Javid Shah .

Dorod be ravane pak Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi Shah Irandost va pedare mardom Iran.
Ke yek ghatreh ashkesh mamlakati ra suzand.ma be ow bad kardim.
va natije an ra ham didim.
Javid Shah, Payandeh Iran.