Cyprus-Forum.com

[Tim Drayton]

That's right. A few years ago under the Shah, Iran was a free society with little adherence to Islamist.

Now it is a Pariah and an Islamic State with ties with Syria, Russia North Korea and Lebanon only

The Shah was a very sane man!

Shah of Iran: Jewish Power Control Banks, Media, Finances in U.S.

The Shah was a good man, and Iran was a secular country.
Now is a theocratic regime and women are a second class citizens.

That's correct Zenon!

But because the USA supported the Shah, the looneys support the current Islamic regime which has eroded Iran's secularism and pretty open and free society.

Since the Shah, you have public executions, women have to cover up whereas under the Shah women would wear bikinis and listen to rock, for which they are more likely to be stoned today.

USA supported the Shah because the Shah tried to keep Iran secular. Shah wasn't perfect, but he was certainly a leader of a more open and forward thinking Iran. An Iran that was friendly to the West as well, and a very moderate and progressive Iran too compared to the current Iran.

Isn't it ironic that the USA and other Western powers have given their full support for the past 35 years to a political movement whose goal is to overthrow the secular Republic in Turkey, where women have equal standing with men and there is a continental-style codified system of law, and take it back to the Middle Ages under Sharia law? Ideology doesn't really come into the equation much. They will support whoever they think it is in their interests to do so.

[Robin Hood]

Tim Drayton:

Isn't it ironic that the USA and other Western powers have given their full support for the past 35 years to a political movement whose goal is to overthrow the secular Republic in Turkey, where women have equal standing with men and there is a continental-style codified system of law, and take it back to the Middle Ages under Sharia law?

I know little about Turkey but even more ironic is a Christian country which allows immigrants to import Sharia law and set up their own Sharia Courts as a parallel legal system? That what is what has happened in the UK as well no-go areas for non-Muslims. They tolerate Muslim street patrols to impose Islamic values, they give in to demands that only Halal meat is served to children in schools .... irrespective of their religion. They allow schools a free reign to impose Islamic Laws on pupils, no mixed classes and girls have to wear head scarves? This works contrary to all the freedoms and religious tolerances that have been acquired over generations.

FGM has been banned in the UK for years and yet it still goes on. In all the years it has been illegal there has only ever been one conviction. The annual procession of young girls being sent back to Pakistan for treatment', happens every year and the authorities do nothing to punish the parents of these girls. This is what happens when Islam takes over in a religiously tolerant country and before they know it Islam has taken over and it is too late to stop it!

Maybe Trump is right to ban all Muslims and should add all the other Muslim countries to has list? But there should be a total ban on all Muslim practices that flout the host nations principals?

They will support whoever they think it is in their interests to do so.

Has anything changed? The US tolerate Saudi and all their Gulf friends because it suits them, and condemn Iran who are far freer in many ways than any of the Gulf States. The US wants regime change in Iran and has since WWII, because they want complete access to steal all their oil/gas and their many other natural resources !

[Paphitis]

Funny… everyone else got the impression that it was Australia put on notice!

In your dreams!

According to the media in Australia with newly leaked information, it was the Australian PM that put Trump on notice.

Trump described it as the worse phone call ever and was irate. But he was forced to abide by the agreement. Apparently, Australian PM is a wheeler and dealer too. A former Goldman and Sachs Investment Banker with qualifications and a Business man too when he owned an Internet Service Provider.

I don't think Trump will be looking forward to anymore phone calls from Australian PM.

[Paphitis]

Funny… everyone else got the impression that it was Australia put on notice!

No they put Australia in their place in the order of things as they were beginning to get self important ideas above their station...... Iran , they 'put on notice' but what that means is a bit vague.

So Australia got shirt-fronted...

Other way round. They were actually forced to abide by the agreement somehow according to The Fairfax Media.

Apparently a lot of things were discussed, the exchange got heated and Trump even asked for a bigger Australian Military commitment when the Australian PM politely said that Trump's wheeling and dealing and reneging brings into question Australia's current tempo or invilvement meaning that he was prepared to review it which caused Trump to hang up and head for Twitter!

[Paphitis]

That's right. A few years ago under the Shah, Iran was a free society with little adherence to Islamist.

Now it is a Pariah and an Islamic State with ties with Syria, Russia North Korea and Lebanon only

The Shah was a very sane man!

Shah of Iran: Jewish Power Control Banks, Media, Finances in U.S.

The Shah was a good man, and Iran was a secular country.
Now is a theocratic regime and women are a second class citizens.

That's correct Zenon!

But because the USA supported the Shah, the looneys support the current Islamic regime which has eroded Iran's secularism and pretty open and free society.

Since the Shah, you have public executions, women have to cover up whereas under the Shah women would wear bikinis and listen to rock, for which they are more likely to be stoned today.

USA supported the Shah because the Shah tried to keep Iran secular. Shah wasn't perfect, but he was certainly a leader of a more open and forward thinking Iran. An Iran that was friendly to the West as well, and a very moderate and progressive Iran too compared to the current Iran.

Isn't it ironic that the USA and other Western powers have given their full support for the past 35 years to a political movement whose goal is to overthrow the secular Republic in Turkey, where women have equal standing with men and there is a continental-style codified system of law, and take it back to the Middle Ages under Sharia law? Ideology doesn't really come into the equation much. They will support whoever they think it is in their interests to do so.

The truth of the matter Tim is that the West place its interest ahead of anything. The reality is it doesn't concern us too much if the regime is secular, progressive or not. It's just in the Shah's case, this was the most forward thinking and progressive regime and also very secular compared to the Islamist Theocracies that followed the Shah.

On that occasion the Stars and the moon lined up in our favour so that we can claim a moral high ground.

As to Turkey, I'm not convinced that Turkey enjoys the immense support it once did. It is a NATO member but I think Turkey is starting to push the Coalition's buttons and upsetting everyone particularly when it comes to the Kurds. If Turkey has its way, the Coalition has lost because they want to destroy our most viable and strongest ground ally in Syria.

[Robin Hood]

Funny… everyone else got the impression that it was Australia put on notice!

No they put Australia in their place in the order of things as they were beginning to get self important ideas above their station...... Iran , they 'put on notice' but what that means is a bit vague.

So Australia got shirt-fronted...

Other way round. They were actually forced to abide by the agreement somehow according to The Fairfax Media.

Apparently a lot of things were discussed, the exchange got heated and Trump even asked for a bigger Australian Military commitment when the Australian PM politely said that Trump's wheeling and dealing and reneging brings into question Australia's current tempo or invilvement meaning that he was prepared to review it which caused Trump to hang up and head for Twitter!

Well ... of course you would know that .... but it is at odds with any other report. Only you seem to have this information!

[Tim Drayton]

USA supported the Shah because the Shah tried to keep Iran secular. Shah wasn't perfect, but he was certainly a leader of a more open and forward thinking Iran. An Iran that was friendly to the West as well, and a very moderate and progressive Iran too compared to the current Iran.

...

The truth of the matter Tim is that the West place its interest ahead of anything. The reality is it doesn't concern us too much if the regime is secular, progressive or not.

Well, precisely, all world powers act in their own interest. So the statement: 'USA supported the Shah because the Shah tried to keep Iran secular' doesn't really hold water. The USA put the Shah in and kept him there because they believed he was the man to look after their interests there. Iran may have been secular under the Shah, but it was also a dictatorship with a feared secred police and an atrocious human rights record, including widespread torture.

[Lordo]

any old dictatorship will do so long as they do two things.

1. they buy western weapons
1. they sell their resources to the west on the cheap.

i do like this sort of civilisation.

[Paphitis]

USA supported the Shah because the Shah tried to keep Iran secular. Shah wasn't perfect, but he was certainly a leader of a more open and forward thinking Iran. An Iran that was friendly to the West as well, and a very moderate and progressive Iran too compared to the current Iran.

...

The truth of the matter Tim is that the West place its interest ahead of anything. The reality is it doesn't concern us too much if the regime is secular, progressive or not.

Well, precisely, all world powers act in their own interest. So the statement: 'USA supported the Shah because the Shah tried to keep Iran secular' doesn't really hold water. The USA put the Shah in and kept him there because they believed he was the man to look after their interests there. Iran may have been secular under the Shah, but it was also a dictatorship with a feared secred police and an atrocious human rights record, including widespread torture.

The statement is true to a certain degree. The West supported the Shah because it was secular but more importantly it was open and friendly to the West. Yes in other countries, the West supports Theocracies which are not in the slightest open, progressive or forward thinking.

Yes, as he was considered a friend, then it was in our interest for him to remain.

I am aware of the police state back then. But the society was also a lot more liberal and free socially. You just couldn't be seen to be involved in any subversive activities that undermined the Shah. So it just depends on what you prefer as the better option. Do you prefer Sharia Law, Public hangings, stoning of women or do you prefer the Shah's Police State where you can just about do anything other than criticize or embarrass the Shah. I would pick the Shah 100 times over.

He was 100 times better than the Ayatollah Kmoneini. Iran would have been 100 times better off under the Shah.

[Paphitis]

any old dictatorship will do so long as they do two things.

1. they buy western weapons
1. they sell their resources to the west on the cheap.

i do like this sort of civilisation.

The price of resources is dictated by the open market and depends on supply and demand.

We just want sources of supply, preferably as cheap as possible. But it's not as if we have any choice on the price. If it's dear, we have to lump it and business has to adjust.