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