[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great
Views expressed here are not necessarily the views & opinions of ActivistChat.com. Comments are unmoderated. Abusive remarks may be deleted. ActivistChat.com retains the rights to all content/IP info in in this forum and may re-post content elsewhere.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

President Bush promises to aid Revolution in Iran

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index -> News Briefs & Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
aryabakhtiar



Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 17

PostPosted: Fri Jul 16, 2004 11:46 pm    Post subject: President Bush promises to aid Revolution in Iran Reply with quote

Down with Kerry and his bloodsucking Islamic Republic apologists!... Support our STUDENTS SUPPORT PRESIDENT BUSH! VOTE FOR KERRY I S TREASON!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/login.php?grid=15,28&uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.timesonline.co.uk%2Farticle%2F0%2C%2C3-1181969%2C00.html%3Fgavalidate&gareason=login

Re-elected Bush would act to foment revolt, says senior official

THE US will mount a concerted attempt to overturn the regime in Iran if President Bush is elected for a second term.

It would work strenuously to foment a revolt against the ruling theocracy by Iran’s “hugely dissatisfied” population, a senior official has told The Times.

The United States would not use military force, as in Iraq, but “if Bush is re-elected there will be much more intervention in the internal affairs of Iran”, declared the official, who is determined that there should be no let-up in the Administration’s War on Terror.

To what extent the official, known to be hawkish, was speaking for the White House was unclear, but his remarks are nevertheless likely to cause alarm in Europe. He hinted at a possible military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities, saying that there was a window of opportunity for destroying Iran’s main nuclear complex at Bushehr next year that would close if Russia delivered crucial fuel rods. To destroy Bushehr after the delivery would cause huge environmental damage. The rods would allow the Iranians to obtain enough plutonium for many dozens of nuclear weapons, he said.

The official also stepped up the pressure on Britain, France and Germany to take a tougher line on Iran, voicing the disdain within the Administration for the Europeans’ attempt to defuse the Iranian nuclear threat through diplomacy. Britain had joined the effort in order to demonstrate its European credentials, he said. France and Germany had teamed up with Britain because they realised that the pair of them could no longer run Europe alone.

Washington believes that the trio has been embarrassed by Iran’s failure to hold good to a deal it struck with the Iranian regime last October. Iran pledged to give UN inspectors the freedom to make snap inspections, and also to suspend uranium enrichment.

Since then, some members of the Administration have begun referring in private to Britain, France and Germany as “the Tehran three”, and to Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, as “Jack of Tehran”.

If the Europeans fail to get Iran to back down at a meeting this month, the US wants to close the gap between the rival diplomatic approaches and refer Iran to the United Nations Security Council.

Russia is due to deliver the first shipment of nuclear fuel to Iran early next year for insertion into the reactor at Bushehr before the end of the year.

Despite that, the official believes that “it is not impossible to get Russia to see it our way” and back a UN resolution that would “raise the international saliency” of Iran’s nuclear ambitions. He is convinced that Iran is afraid of a “conveyor belt” that would lead inexorably to sanctions and even military action.

Iran is one of the three members of President Bush’s “axis of evil” and has further angered Washington with its covert interference in Iraq since the end of last year’s war to topple Saddam Hussein.

The official dismissed suggestions that Washington would hesitate to seek regime change in Iran, given the problems it has encountered in Iraq, and Colin Powell, a restraining influence as Secretary of State, will not be serving a second term. It is less clear how the Administration could foment a revolution without uniting Iranians against “the Great Satan”.

The official claimed that more than its dislike of the mullahs, the Iranian population was dissatisfied with an economy that did not have jobs for the young: 60 per cent of the population is under 24.

There is little organised opposition inside the country and financing it directly or through front organisations would probably play into the hands of the mullahs anyway.

At present the US relies on about a dozen Farsi satellite television and radio channels in the San Fernando Valley, California. They beam pirate broadcasts to the estimated seven million Iranians with illegal satellite dishes.

Last year Washington also set up a Persian-language Voice of America programme that is broacast into Iraq. The internet offers another channel for US propaganda, but efforts to impose stiff sanctions or fund anti-Government exile groups have been frustrated by a Republican split over the relative merits of confrontation or engagement.

Despite the US threats one of Iran’s top ruling clerics vowed yesterday that the Islamic republic would continue to pursue its controversial nuclear programme. “We are resolute. It is worth achieving it at any cost,” Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, head of the Guardians Council, said.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Spenta



Joined: 04 Sep 2003
Posts: 1829

PostPosted: Sat Jul 17, 2004 12:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Magar een 4 sal ke president boodeh che kardeh ke agar dobareh elect besheh meekhad bokoneh?

What has he done in the last 4 years that he's been president, that he now wants to do if re-elected?

Quote:
To what extent the official, known to be hawkish, was speaking for the White House was unclear,


You can say that again. Bush backed off from regime change in Iran, becasue of the threat of tens of thousands of Basij, Hezbolah, Hamas, Revolutionary Guards, Ansar, and other terrorists fleeing a revolutionary Iran into Iraq armed to the teeth, thus totally destabilising Iraq. As bad as the Mullah$ my be with their interfering in Iraq now, everyone knows its nowhere near as bad as it will be when the state sponsor of terrorism in Iran collapses and runs away looking for a new home in Iraq. The way they see it, its contained now. This will also be the case for the next presidential term as well, since Iraq will take a long time to stabilise!


Quote:
Since then, some members of the Administration have begun referring in private to Britain, France and Germany as “the Tehran three”, and to Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, as “Jack of Tehran”.

If the Europeans fail to get Iran to back down at a meeting this month, the US wants to close the gap between the rival diplomatic approaches and refer Iran to the United Nations Security Council.

Russia is due to deliver the first shipment of nuclear fuel to Iran early next year for insertion into the reactor at Bushehr before the end of the year.


Europeans may be embarrassed, but they are not going to give the pleasure of "you were right" to Bush, politically it would be disastrous for them at home to bow to Bush. They may be able to publicly unite with the US under Kerry against Iran without too much electorate fallout at home, but not with Bush, that would be political suicide for them at home.


Quote:
There is little organised opposition inside the country and financing it directly or through front organisations would probably play into the hands of the mullahs anyway.


Bullshit! There was a very organised opposition inside of Iran who risked everything listening to George Bush, and rose up against the Mullah$ only to get deserted by the US in their hour of need. They were wiped out, executed, killed, tortured, maimed, imprisoned, and destroyed. Just like the way Bush Senior enticed the Iraqi opposition to rise up against Saddam, and then abandoned them to be slaughtered by Saddam.

Bush Junior enticed the Iranian opposition into rising up so that they could be identified and wiped out by the Mullah$!



Quote:
At present the US relies on about a dozen Farsi satellite television and radio channels in the San Fernando Valley, California. They beam pirate broadcasts to the estimated seven million Iranians with illegal satellite dishes.


With $50 Million dollars earmarked for the Cuban Opposition, and hundreds of millions of dollars that went to the Iraqi opposition over the course of the years, a measley $1.5 million for the Iran Freedom Foundation barely even covers the expenses for one satellite station, now leave alone all 7. And with US troops in IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN, ON EITHER SIDE OF IRAN'S BORDERS, YOU'D THINK THEY COULD HELP BROADCAST KRSI'S SATELLITE SHORTWAVE SIGNAL, BUT NO ITS BEING JAMMED!

These satellite stations exist because of the money, blood, sweat, hardwork and dedication of Iranians! And most Iranians with satellites are not receiving them now, because they are being jammed!

Quote:
There is little organised opposition inside the country and financing it directly or through front organisations would probably play into the hands of the mullahs anyway.


Funny how thats never the case when it comes to hundreds of millions of dollars annually for years for the Iraqi opposition, or $50 million for the Cuban opposition this year, but its only an issue when it comes to Iran. Neither Iraq or Cuba have had the repeated mass protests of Iran, but supposedly they have a bigger opposition worthy of funding, gimme a break. Yeah, right, and let me guess you have a bridge to sell to Iranians too?

Anyways the Republican split on Iran has to do with the oil lobby. Halliburton has already done $90 million in biz with the Mullah$, and they would like to hit the Billions with the Millionaire Mullah$. They see the Mullah$ as desperate to stay in pwoer as China was after Tiannemon Square, and that means there will be billions and billions of dollars to be had by the west.

The Mullah$ have been doing biz with the Republicans since Reagan, and there is a whole lot of trading hi$tory between them!

As for the Neo Cons, they have lost much legitimacy with the Iraq stretegic disaster. Iraq is not going to be stable for years to come, and it will continue to take up all of US's resources to keep it from falling into the hands of the terrorists. They had a chance to make a difference and they blew it, big time!

I recently read the very long New Yorker piece on Chalabi. It was an extremely wellwritten, and exahustively researched piece. I have to say, I'm impressed with Chalabi's persistance for over a decade in freeing his country (and making lots of money while at it), and its really imrpessive how he convinced the government of the US to do his bidding. You gotta give it to the guy, its impressive. How many foreignors successfully conivnce the US government to do what they want? Not too many, so you gotta give credit to Chalabi. Reading the article made me also realise, how many vast resources the US can employ when its serious about helping an opposition, even when it doesn't
exist in the case of Chalabi. That makes you realise how unserious they have been about Iran.

But in the aftermath of the Iraq strategic disaster, I look at the Neo Cons, and where do they stand? Ultimately, there is only 3 possible explanations for their blunder, and none of them are good. Either they really are greedy oil robbing barons, or they really are puppets of Israel, or worst yet, they got hustled by a Middle Eastern Charlatan! And if they were so easily hoodwinked and swindled by a Middle Eastern charlatan like Chalabi with such devastating results, then how the h.e.l.l. are they going to take on the Mullah$ ? Lets face it, the Mullah$ can eat Chalabi for lunch! Any way you look at, they don't look good!

PS. Bush's legacy machine has already gone into action. If re-elected Bush's priority will continue to be Iraq, because of his legacy. And Bush's legacy is more important than world politics. Iran will be dealt with in the same framework that it has for the last 4 years. I don't expect any major changes.

And what about Iran?

People in Iran are starting to realise how they were abandoned by Bush. This is the best news yet! They are no longer waiting for the US to do anything, because they know it ain't going to happen. Slowly, they are starting to realise, they are on their own! And what comes from that, will ultimately free Iran!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Spenta



Joined: 04 Sep 2003
Posts: 1829

PostPosted: Mon Jul 19, 2004 11:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

And in case you people are still convinced that I'm some kind of hopeless, clueless liberal ... here's Michael Ledeen with the same criticisms and the same conviction, that a re-elected Bush wouldn't do anything.

If anyone helps Iran, be it Bush or Kerry, it will not be because of their policies, but rather some act of fate that forcefully leaves them with no choice but to sanction the Mullah$ and aid the people of Iran in their struggle for freedom, or esle its more detente or rapproachment, regardless of whether Kerry or Bush ends up in the White House! !

Quote:
Those of you who have followed along these little therapy sessions of mine know of my despair regarding this administration's fecklessness concerning the mullahs. It has pained me enormously, especially because I still believe that this president has a solid understanding of the evil of the Islamic Republic, despite the efforts of the State Department — even after the departure of Haas — to convince him that a really good deal is just minutes away. I have been reduced to begging "faster, please," but I have long since recognized that nothing would happen until after the elections (a potentially suicidal policy). Now the London Times has found a nameless someone in the Bush administration who promises that a second term for W. would bring vigorous support of democratic revolution in Iran, and decisive action against the atomic project. It is beyond me why anyone would take seriously such claims, given the fact that after four years in office this administration still has no Iran policy, and the deputy secretary of State, Richard Armitage, has never backed off his claim that Iran is a democracy, nor has he been gainsaid by any other top official. I certainly hope the Times is right, but I have my doubts. I'm afraid we're not going to get serious about Iran without another 9/11.- Michael Ledeen


http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen200407190838.asp
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index -> News Briefs & Discussion All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group