Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi vs Ayatollah Khomeini

[Hifly]

Anyone with intelligence (and who doesn't have some deep underlying religious conviction which prevents them from voting for a secularist) will vote for Pahlavi. Especially since this forum cares about LGBT rights. And anyone who identifies as left-wing should be ashamed to vote for Khomeini.
 

[Anna Komnene]

Pahlavi was better even though that isn't saying much.

I've done a lot of research on women in Iran, and Khomeini is one of the worst things that ever happened to them.  He was pretty much a monster.

[Hifly]

Pahlavi was better even though that isn't saying much.

I've done a lot of research on women in Iran, and Khomeini is one of the worst things that ever happened to them.  He was pretty much a monster.

Indeed - Pahlavi's support for and provision of Women's Rights is one of the reasons as to why so many uneducated and delusional folk joined the Islamic Revolution. The Pahlavi dynasty provided for, inter alia, the expansion of the electoral law to provide for full universal suffrage and widespread educational opportunities were implemented for women (not to forget the abolition of the veil).

[Lief 🗽]

The Shah obviously. Though obviously the correct option in 1979 was Mansoor Hekmat.

[Hifly]

The Shah obviously. Though obviously the correct option in 1979 was Mansoor Hekmat.

What about Shapour Bakhtiar?

[Lief 🗽]

The Shah obviously. Though obviously the correct option in 1979 was Mansoor Hekmat.

What about Shapour Bakhtiar?

Yeah, if I had to make a serious choice, it would probably be him.

[Anna Komnene]

Pahlavi was better even though that isn't saying much.

I've done a lot of research on women in Iran, and Khomeini is one of the worst things that ever happened to them.  He was pretty much a monster.

Indeed - Pahlavi's support for and provision of Women's Rights is one of the reasons as to why so many uneducated and delusional folk joined the Islamic Revolution. The Pahlavi dynasty provided for, inter alia, the expansion of the electoral law to provide for full universal suffrage and widespread educational opportunities were implemented for women (not to forget the abolition of the veil).

Yes, although many of the people that took part in the Islamic Revolution were young women that were turned off by what they thought were vacuous "western" values.  They thought that the Shah focused too much on forced cultural liberation while ignoring basic needs like clean water and decent housing.  They thought they could be anti-western and anti-imperialist while still being pro feminist, and Khomeini was quick to accept them into his ranks because it made the movement much stronger.  When Khomeini reversed policy and betrayed women in the early 80s, there was a lot of protests from the same women that supported him in the revolution.  And he basically saw to it that they were murdered, tortured, and raped for their efforts.

[Beet]

Pahlavi.... the Cinema Rex fire was a complete travesty. It just went to show how people were going to blame the regime no matter what happened. In reality that incident should have taken the wind from the sails of the Islamists, instead of putting it into them.

[Cassius]

The Shah. He had a few questionable policies (redistributing portions of land away from the aristocracy was one) but in general, he seemed like a decent, and most importantly, pro-western figure.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The Shah. He had a few questionable policies (redistributing portions of land away from the aristocracy was one) but in general, he seemed like a decent, and most importantly, pro-western figure.

lol

[Cassius]

The Shah. He had a few questionable policies (redistributing portions of land away from the aristocracy was one) but in general, he seemed like a decent, and most importantly, pro-western figure.

lol

Is wikipedia biting me in the backside again?

[Antonio the Sixth]

The Shah. He had a few questionable policies (redistributing portions of land away from the aristocracy was one) but in general, he seemed like a decent, and most importantly, pro-western figure.

lol

Is wikipedia biting me in the backside again?

It's just pretty hilarious (yet also sad) that, among all the horrible things Palavi did, the only thing you manage to point out is actually pretty good.

[RogueBeaver]

Pahlavi, obviously.

[Hifly]

It pains me to watch the manner in which Iran has fallen to the clerical dogs and as a result of which so much development that was happening and could have continued to progress, both social and economic, has been prevented.

Who on earth voted for Khomeini in this poll?

[Cassius]

The Shah. He had a few questionable policies (redistributing portions of land away from the aristocracy was one) but in general, he seemed like a decent, and most importantly, pro-western figure.

lol

Is wikipedia biting me in the backside again?

It's just pretty hilarious (yet also sad) that, among all the horrible things Palavi did, the only thing you manage to point out is actually pretty good.

Well, I guess we see the world in completely different and irreconcilable ways.

[H. Ross Peron]

The Shah but Mossadegh is preferable to either of them,

[Donerail]

It pains me to watch the manner in which Iran has fallen to the clerical dogs and as a result of which so much development that was happening and could have continued to progress, both social and economic, has been prevented.

Who on earth voted for Khomeini in this poll?

I did, in protest of your Simfanesque fetishization of Pahlavi. The better of two options, certainly; in any way a good option, absolutely not.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

The Shah. He had a few questionable policies (redistributing portions of land away from the aristocracy was one) but in general, he seemed like a decent, and most importantly, pro-western figure.

lol

Is wikipedia biting me in the backside again?

It's just pretty hilarious (yet also sad) that, among all the horrible things Palavi did, the only thing you manage to point out is actually pretty good.

Cassius literally supports feudalism?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The Shah but Mossadegh is preferable to either of them,

and in 1979 Bakhtiar continuing in power was probably the best realistic option, or at least better than either of those given here.

[TDAS04]

The Shah but Mossadegh is preferable to either of them,

[Indy Texas]

The Shah. He had a few questionable policies (redistributing portions of land away from the aristocracy was one) but in general, he seemed like a decent, and most importantly, pro-western figure.

lol

Is wikipedia biting me in the backside again?

It's just pretty hilarious (yet also sad) that, among all the horrible things Palavi did, the only thing you manage to point out is actually pretty good.

Well, I guess we see the world in completely different and irreconcilable ways.

They weren't really "aristocracy" in the European sense. Middle Eastern cultures have never had any kind of landed gentry or titled nobility because it would have been a threat to the absolute monarchs and emperors that ruled that region for most of history. There was the king/shah/emir and then there was everyone else; some of the "everyone else" had quite a bit of money and others lived in squalor, but socially speaking, Islamic societies were extremely egalitarian throughout history compared to their western neighbors in Europe with their dukes and viscounts, and compared to their eastern neighbors in India with their rigid caste system.

But whether you agree with it or not, it was a bad long-term move politically speaking. When things turned ugly in Iran, the Shah lost support in the rural areas fastest. The wealthy rural Iranians disliked him for parceling up their lands; the poor rural Iranians disliked him for declining to humor their backward views on things like education and women's rights.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The Shah. He had a few questionable policies (redistributing portions of land away from the aristocracy was one) but in general, he seemed like a decent, and most importantly, pro-western figure.

lol

Is wikipedia biting me in the backside again?

It's just pretty hilarious (yet also sad) that, among all the horrible things Palavi did, the only thing you manage to point out is actually pretty good.

Cassius literally supports feudalism?

The problem with reactionaries is that you never know for sure how far back in time they want to bring us.

[MATTROSE94]

The Shah but Mossadegh is preferable to either of them,

[Simfan34]

Finally, I can cast my vote for Shahanshah Ayramehr.

[Incipimus iterum]

The Shah