[Lt_Apple]

The shah was not a good leader,.

He certainly was a better leader than the crazies now in power. Under the Shah's progressive rule, women not only had the vote, but many other rights. The economy was much better under the Shah than it is now under the current deranged Islamists.

the revolution happend when the economy failed cause he made the country rich to fast. the system couldnt keep up. Iran failed because the Shah improved the economy too much!? I'll bet that the vast numbers of impoverished and miserable Muslims, throughout most of the Middle East, would love a strong economy rather than the misery that they now face because of the greedy, corrupt, mindless current leaders.

He was educated in switzerland and had a western imperial mentality. Islamic Imperialism is far worse than American imperialism. Under Islamic Imperialism, vast populations are enslaved and cruelly treated. American Imperialism has resulted in the liberation of many countries throughout Europe as a result of American sacrifices in World War II and during the Cold War against the USSR.

Islamic Imperialism has resulted in a Middle East that is mired in the stone ages. If it weren't for Western technology and knowhow, most countries in the Middle East probably wouldn't even have electricity, televisions, computers, refrigeration, etc.

Westerners that came to Iran had diplomatic immunity, a fat low life from England could kill an Iranian and get away with it. The Shah had many Islamic and communist enemies. I'm glad that Westerners were able to help him against his deranged enemies. It's just too bad that Jimmy Carter was put into a position of power. His refusal to support the Shah has resulted in Iran sent back into the violent, backward stone ages, and the entire world at risk of increased terrorism and destruction.

That realy shows hes incompitense. The educated Iranian people always wanted democrasy, the only ones supporting the shah where peasents and uneducated people, uch like the mullah supporters today, listen to all the goverment says. That's not true. The Shad had many educated supporters, who appreciated the great improvements that he had made to Iran and to individual rights. His enemies consisted of those that were duped by the communists and the deranged Islamists, into believing that they were much better off without individual rights.

It will be a long, long time before there are any other democracies, in the Middle East, besides Israel. The vast numbers of Muslims have been indoctrinated into believing that their misery is good for them, and that they will all get great rewards. However, here is the catch. Muslims can only collect on the 99 virgins, AFTER THEY DIE. Muslims can only collect on an eternity of riches and rewards AFTER THEY DIE!! What a scam, and most Muslim believe that lie. Most Muslims believe that they should cover up their women, and not enjoy sex, because they will have all of the sex they desire AFTER THEY ARE DEAD!! Have you ever seen a corpse making out with another corpse?

The shah had hes savak, wich was like the gestapo, they had gangsters raping and killing people critizising the dictatorship. As we witness in Iraq, Muslims prefer to kill each other, and blow up each other's families rather than be free. There are many good Muslims in this world, but the vast majority of them have been indoctrinated so much that they cannot think for themselves. If only the Shah's regime had outlived him, the entire Middle East could have evolved into peaceful, progressive countries with individual rights somewhat equal to the West. The Shah had to rule with an iron fist because of his savage and deranged enemies.

The shah was much much better than the islamic mullah dictatorship of today, but not even close to good. I think that if you did a little more research, and read many differing opinions, you would eventually agree with me that the Shah was an exceptional leader. If there were more Shahs throughout the Middle East, the entire region would be vastly better than it is now.