[removed]

[removed]

Iran got a change of leadership, it did not get democracy.

In my mind.

The estimates you're referring to I believe go up to 80,000 tonnes.

It's hard to extrapolate the exact number since a lot iron production in the Empire at the time were done by small-scale private operations that was spread all over. I think 50,000 tonnes is probably close to what was actually produced for an economically strong state like the RE with a population of 50 million. We know Roman iron smelters were especially good at their craft, running bloomery furnaces that had nominal yields of 20 kg of processed bar iron per furnace run at the upper end.

Assuming 8 men worth of labour needed for smelting/processing 15 kg of bar iron per furnace run, 100 furnace runs per year with spare days in between for processing the bloom, repairing furnaces, restocking, and rest - to produce 50,000 tonnes of iron a year will require an estimated manpower of ~270,000 men. Which will account for ~0.54 percent of a population of 50 million (or 1 worker per 185 people). A bit high but not an impractical ratio given how important of a commodity iron was. At 30,000 tonnes of iron per year, that ratio goes down to 0.32%, or 1 worker per 312 people. My guess is the actual production at peak was 20,000-50,000 tonnes per annum.

The revolution was a big tent group that included Islamists, a spectrum of leftists, and people who wanted a system more similar to what was proposed in the Revolution of 1906. The term Islamic Republic was vague enough to appeal to a lot of different people. The US letting the deposed Shah into the country for medical treatment and the ensuing hostage crisis hardened anti-Western views and gave legitimacy to the theocrats. The clerical establishment were able to maneuver their way into more and more power from 1979 until the end of the 80s through a variety of tactics.

> Nobody ever "wants" democracy when in an autocratic state. What they want is what democracy promises, a change of leadership.

... may I ask what the distinction between the two is, in your mind?

I couldn’t remember the exact notes i took some middle Eastern history classes years ago. I remember the Shah being essentially a puppet for the west but you had a lot more detail then I could remember off the top of my. During the revolution wasnt the shah in the states for a cancer treatment?

Thanks for that tidbit. I still hate his guts, but will do so for actual reasons.

This is hilarious. He looks like a taxi driver in Brooklyn, lol. They spent thousands to reveal that he looks like some random white dude.

He cheers against them in soccer. Y’all are ate up.

[removed]

This is close to what I had assumed, people just wanted to get rid of the Shah, they saw Khomeini as a leader and rallied behind him, even if in hindsight that wasn't a very good idea. Also I hadn't considered that the following war had helped cement the new government, but it does make a lot of sense. Thank you for the answer.

[removed]

He's the one Catholics pray to find lost objects, no?

I don’t make excuses for my racist grandmother, I’m not making excuses for Cromwells genocide.

He was the leader. He is responsible for all actions of his subordinates. If they did under his watch, he’s responsible.

Cool. Now tell us how they’re wrong. Provide sources.

[removed]

When my dad was young at the time of the revolution he participated in the protests in rasht and later in tehran. From the things he told me, it seemed like everyone knew what they didn't want, which was the shah. But they weren't too clear on what happened after they got rid of him because they thought it couldn't get worse. And people insisted on doing it no matter who they united with. After the revolution, khomeini quickly squashed a lot of the people and groups that aided in the revolution and the war helped the ir become permenant.

Edit: (forget the permenant, i'm optimistic about the new revolution)

Nobody ever "wants" democracy when in an autocratic state. What they want is what democracy promises, a change of leadership.

Khomeini was popular, but how do people learn that their opinion is positive about him? They don't know him. They've never met him. They were Muslims and knew that he was a religious leader, and that's all they needed.

Until the mid-1970s, Pahlavi had been Western-aligned. The West had destroyed Iranian democracy to install him as autocrat, and everyone was happy. Well, except the Iranians, but who cared about them?

Pahlavi was becoming extremely unpopular after the White Revolution, but while-ever Iran was prosperous and liberal, the people would be happy. Well, they weren't. Pahlavi was seen as a Western lackey, a stooge, he lacked authority of his own, was a Washington puppet and not a Persian leader. They questioned whether Westernisation was really progress.

They saw lots of impoverished Persians, yet Tehran was teeming with extremely rich foreigners. This was Pahlavi's public face in Iran by around 1977.

The USSR saw an opportunity to remove one of America's allies (this was a strategic victory for the USSR) and channelled a lot of support to left-leaning Islamic guerrilla forces, such as the People's Mujahideen. They rejected far-right conservative Islam, seeing religion as a tool to empower the people, not oppress them. They still exist today, as Khomeini turned on them the moment he had power.

That particular period of time does extend from the 1200’s right up until this very morning though.

In conclusion, while Oliver Cromwell and the Puritan government that he led did not outright ban the celebration of Christmas, they did take steps to regulate and suppress its celebration, as part of their efforts to promote a more austere and religious lifestyle. These efforts were eventually reversed after the restoration of the monarchy in 1660, and Christmas and other holidays once again became widely celebrated in England.

We have many examples of how human soft tissue appears on the average person, assuming this individual had no more able deformities this would be fairly accurate. We have no idea what dinosaur soft tissue would have looked like, that’s what makes accurate dioramas of them from nothing but their bones so difficult. Also human soft tissue and the way it attaches to bones is a very different study from feathers on dinosaurs, a better comparison would be trying to say what human hair looked like from just our bones and no other frame of reference.

In the Name of the Almighty [God] Provisional Government of Islamic Revolution The Interior Ministry Referendum Election Ballot Age-old [monarchial] regime change to Islamic republic, the constitution of which will be approved by the nation — Yes or No? This was the question and the big majority was supporting it

Tony, Tony, look around / Something's lost that can't be found.

My non-Catholic (fallen-away Unitarian, even) mother found a diamond earring that fell out of her ear lobe in the yard using this time-honored prayer!