Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site fisher.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!astrovax!fisher!david
From: david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Context of the Debate
Message-ID: <317@fisher.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 21-Sep-84 10:33:34 EDT
Article-I.D.: fisher.317
Posted: Fri Sep 21 10:33:34 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 25-Sep-84 21:07:12 EDT
References: <1052@ihuxm.UUCP> <1866@ucbvax.ARPA>  <1316@sdcrdcf.UUCP>
Organization: Princeton Univ. Statistics
Lines: 27

>>>the Shah of
>>>Iran, who, despite the claims of Khomeni, was a very good ruler,
>>>	Wayne

>>I would recommend
>>that you read some of their reports on political repression in Iran
>>during the Shah's rule.  You might find there evidence of a few more
>>things he did wrong.
>>Sophie Quigley

>I'm afraid Sophie's right Wayne; I'm sure that, according to her defn.
>no one has ever been a good ruler.  But Sophie, consider this: don't
>you think that he was probably the best ruler Iran ever had, and is the
>best that could be hoped for today?
>	sdcrdcf!alan

Quvum, the Prime Minister immediately  after World War II, was adept
diplomatically at preserving Iranian independence from Soviet
intrusion. Also, Mossadegh (spelling?), the Prime Minister overthrown
by the CIA to install the Shah, was superior to the Shah, both in
manevering the Iran diplomatically and not needing to torture as an
instrument of rule domestically. There, that's two modern examples.
Of course, the Shah was the (marginally) best ruler since 1954, but of
course it's easy to the best when you are virtually the only...

					David Rubin
			{allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david