[OT}The Shah of Iran was: Mixed combat units

Everybody please pardon for picking up an off-topic subject...

Ryan paints an extremely optimistic view of the Shah of Iran's rule.
It's
equally, if not more, plausible, to draw quite a different picture.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ryan M Gill" <rmgill@mindspring.com>
> I have to wonder given that Iran went through a golden age earlier
last
century where
> they had an extremely egalitarian form.

Maybe egalitarian in terms of (official) gender relations. Hardly in
terms
of political or economic equality.

> Sadly this all went away with  the rise of the religious state. A
strong
and just king was required
> to have such a culture of open-ness.

Pardon me, but this reads like a tale from the Arabian nights. A few
things
to consider:

- During most of his reign, the Shah had a Guerilla war against the
Kurds on
his hand.
- His secret police, the SAVAK (?), had a nasty reputation in dealing
with
political dissent, and had had this reputaion since (at least) the late
1960's, 15 years before the revolution.
- His father had come to power in a military coup against an elected
president, Mossadegh
- At the end of his reign, the economy was in a shambles, in spite of
the
oil wealth of the country
- Not only did the large poor class support the revolution, even the
Bazaar
merchants were so fed up with the Shah that they suppotred Chomeini.

> One has to wonder if some nations like Malaysia or Morroco would
become
more open and just than
> say what the IF is seen to be in the theoretical future. Islamic
> culture does have a place for egalitarian forms and protocols, it's
> just not predominantly likely with the current trend in politics.

Quite right.

Greetings
Karl Heinz