...

We're not supposed to notice when history re-writes itself.....

So when the day comes that we finally have our first Madam President, will it then be called herstory?

Well here's the thing, see;

The Shah was never the -legitimate- ruler of Iran, only inasmuch as Saddam Hussein was the legitimate ruler of Iraq. Why?

Because the only reason he was put in power was because he was the "Crown Prince" or basically the second in command at the time his father was deposed. If he hadn't been crown prince, the brits would have found someone else to be their puppet.

The only reason he was the crown prince was because in the early 1920's his daddy basically overthrew the constitutional monarchy and declared himself absolute ruler.

So, his daddy destroyed democracy in country to create an absolutist government and declare himself king. Then when daddy turned against the Brits (and Soviets, they had a BIG part to play as well) his son, who was far more maleable, was put in power. Just over a decade later he was instrumental in crushing democracy yet again when he deposed the democratically elected prime minister and took the country back to an absolutist government back again.

So, a -really- good example would be is if this  happened:

Saddam Hussein comes to power through overthrowing the democratically elected government of his nation, and declares  himself king. A few decades later he is no longer useful to the powers that be so they decide to invade and depose him. Since these major powers -at the time- were busy fighting bigger fish, after they get rid of him they can't afford a large scale occupation so they need a domestic solution that won't cause too many ripples in the existing power structure, so they put one of his sons in power (a son whose only claim to legitimate power is because his dad overthrew the gov. earlier) A few years later the nation gets another constitutional monarchy setup but the prime minister (who was democratically elected by the people) makes the decision to nationalize the oil companies. This is wildly unpopular with the foreign countries who have major investments in country and so they fund a coup to abolish the democratically elected government and install uday or qusay as the absolute monarch yet again.

That would about sum it up pretty well! The "Shah" was never entitled to rule Iran anymore than an armed thug is who takes power by force.

The title says "FBI says Saddam's weapons bluff aimed at Iran".

Am I missing something? Where does the FBI say anything about Bush lying?

It says Saddam wanted everyone to think he had WMD's so he wouldn't appear vulnerable. Where does it say he based that desire on anything Bush said?

The FBI doesn't say anything about the existence of time machines either.

I think you are missing something.

As any liberal can tell you: Saddam's weapons bluff == George Bush's lie

The late Shah's father was declared Shah by the Iranian parliament in 1925. The late Shah himself became Shah because the allies needed an anti-Nazi ruler in Iran because Iran was needed as a way to bring weapons, amunitions, and food to the Soviet Union. It is not unheard of that the son of a king becomes the new king.

If Iran hadn't had an anti-Nazi ruler, the Soviet Union might have fallen to the Nazis or made a seperate peace, prolonging the war in Europe and ultimately prologing World War II.

Luckily the "illigitimate ruler", the Shah, was there and Iran was on the allies' side. If that is a problem for you, we won't find common ground here.

If Saddam had declared himself king of Iraq and had then proceeded as a force of good in a war against darkness, had promoted religious tolerance and promoted equal rights for women, I would have as much respect for him as I have for the late Shah.

Heck, if YOU had come to power in Iran in 1941, using any means that are not much more violent than how others do it and then proceeded to fight the Nazis (if you get the chance) and treat Bahais like human beings, I would accept you as legitimate ruler of Iran and do ANYTHING in my power to keep you in that position.

The war in eastern Europe was among the most brutal ever fought. The Shah's accomplishment was that he made it shorter and helped the allies to win. We can argue about whether Stalin was much better than Hitler. He was not. But at least the Soviet system was somewhat self-correcting, the Nazi regime, based on a death cult rather than even communism, was likely not.

Eh... happens occasionally. Takes me a few days to adapt to a new reality.

Oh, and Arty...

As ruler of Iran, if you nationalised forests and implemented a land reform; created a public health care system for villages and started a system for workers to own part of factories, I'd happily support you; because I like a good left-wing reform movement.

I hope you wouldn't declare your own rule illigitimate though.

(My problem with the modern left is not their socialism as such, it's their racism, their love of imperialism, their anti-Semitism, and their rejection as fascist of any ruler who doesn't agree with their racism, imperialism, and anti-Semitism.)

I'm not arguing 1941 with you one little bit. All I was saying was, that the only reason he came to power in 1941 is because his daddy seized power in the 1920's, AND the brits and soviets were so busy fighting the Nazis that they didn't have the time or resources to occupy Iran in a colonial administration.

Where we disagree is this:

He wasn't so much declared Shah as they surrendered power to him. They did this because he lead a military campaign in the years previous to take power, forcibly remove the previous monarch and install himself. Therefore, neither he, nor his son, had any legitimate claim to power

Perhaps. Nevertheless "seizing power" is the usual methods for monarchs to become monarchs. It is also the usual method for a country to become a republic.

Without someone seizing power, no human being would ever have power over another.

You can doubt the legitimacy if seizing power per se, but it is weird to doubt the legitimacy of exactly this dynasty based on that.

We have been through this.

The fact that both the late Shah and his father modernised Iran, fought the Nazis, implemented land reform, advocated and implemented equal rights for women, promoted religious tolerance, allowed for a high level of personal liberty, and created a public healthcare system totally legitimises the Shah's rule in my book.

I happen to believe in a few principles of just government. Republicanism (i.e. insistence that form of government must be a republic) is not one of them. Democracy, for me, is just a useful tool to work towards the other principles. But equal rights for women, religious tolerance, a somewhat just system of land ownership, a high level of personal liberty, and a basic public healthcare system are, for me, principles of just government.

Any individual or group who can stay in power, implement those principles, and do so while killing or torturing fewer people than the alternative regimes would, is the legitimate government.

I'll give you examples:

Imperial government of Germany between 1870 and 1919: Was legitimate because it worked towards equal rights for women to some extend, promoted religious tolerance, implemented some level of justice in the land question, and offered a healthcare system better than most other countries'.

Weimar Republic government: Was legitimate for the same reasons. The fact that it replaced an existing legitimate government speaks against it though.

The would-be communist governments that could have replaced Wimar: Were illegitimate because they refused to promote personal liberty or a just system of land ownership (control of all the land by a communist dictator is not "just"). They were also anti-religious which fails them on the religious tolerance test.

Hitler's government: Was illegitimate since it killed and tortured more than the alternatives, didn't respect religious tolerance, didn't promote personal liberty, didn't implement a public healthcare system (which must be open to all races and religions to be accepted here), replaced an existing legitimate government, and didn't respect women's rights as man's equals.

The Federal Republic: Is legitimate since it replaced an illegitimate government etc.

East Germany: Was illegitimate since it didn't implement a just system of land ownership (that feisty communist dictator again), didn't respect personal liberty, and killed and tortured more than the Federal Republic obvious alternative.

You see? It's fairly simple.

It should also be noted that Mohammed Mossadegh, the elected and then fired Prime Minister, who was allegedly ruler of Iran until the CIA overthrew him to bring the Shah to power,

1. Never blamed the USA for the "coup".

2. Was a monarchist and loyal supporter of the Shah.

3. Was a convinced anti-communist.

4. Supported the Shah's policies and land reform (and even voluntarily gave up his own land holdings).

5. Was used by the communists and Islamists as a symbol for their cause after his death and has since then been ignored by the Iranian regime after the revolution.