[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 

US VP: Iran president a "strange duck" (interviews

 
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
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Sat Jan 21, 2006 1:59 am    Post subject: US VP: Iran president a "strange duck" (interviews Reply with quote

(excerpts of interviews relevent to Iran with US VP Cheney)

source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/

Interview of the Vice President by Hugh Hewitt
Via Telephone
The Hugh Hewitt Show

Q One of threats to the economy, of course, oil back up about $66, $67 per barrel. A lot of that is related to Iran's recklessness and the capriciousness and outright strangeness of their leader and his statements, and today reports that they are moving assets around. Have you been involved in planning a response to Iran going nuclear, Mr. Vice President?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, the Iranian issue has been a problem that's been on the table here for some time now. We've been working obviously and most recently through the EU3, the Europeans -- the Germans, the Brits, and the French -- in an effort to persuade the Iranians not to go down this road. That effort is still underway. Obviously, to date, it has not been successful. And the problem has gotten more pronounced since Mr. Ahmadinejad became President and began to make some of the more outrageous statements that he's made.

One of things I think about when we talk about the economic consequences of a potential confrontation or crisis over the Iranian nuclear program -- of course, people start to worry about oil again -- the thing I keep thinking about, it would be great if we had ANWR online. That would be another million barrels a day that would a U.S. production that would reduce our dependence on foreign sources.

And it's unfortunate that in spite of the effort of several years and passage through the House, we've not yet been able to get ANWR approved through the Senate. That's exactly one of the reasons why we need an effective energy policy that does reduce our dependence so that we are not sort of capable of being blackmailed when confronted with something like an irresponsible Iranian government.

Q Two nights ago, Senator Clinton said Iran must not be, in absolute terms, allowed to have nuclear weapons. Do you agree with that absolutism on the bar, Mr. Vice President?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I think everybody agrees that the world would be better off and safer and more secure, if the Iranians do not have nuclear weapons. The question is, how do we get to that point? And it's easy to make a statement, obviously, say that we've been working, the President's been working, Secretary Rice, to achieve a diplomatic result here, and hopefully we'll ultimately be successful. I expect there will be a meeting of the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency here within a couple of weeks, and ultimately potential referral of the whole matter to the U.N. Security Council.

Q Does America keep a military option on the table, Mr. Vice President?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: No President should ever take the military option off the table, if I could put it in those terms. I think it's important that all options are on the table. And that's not a predictor of anything, it's just as a general proposition. When you're dealing with important issues like this, you don't want to take any options off the table.

Q Have you been involved in any planning, with regards to that, Mr. Vice President?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I won't go beyond where I am, Hugh.

--------------------

Interview of the Vice President by Neil Cavuto, FOX News
FOX Studios
New York, New York

Q In the meantime in the region, Iran is sticking to its guns. The nuclear program -- whether for peace or other purposes -- continues. Would the United States ever act unilaterally if the rest of the world doesn't help out on this?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, this is an international problem, and we've emphasized the importance -- that it's not just a U.S. problem. In fact, if the Iranians develop nuclear weapons and especially in light of the new government, Mr. Ahmadinejad, who is the duly elected President, and by all accounts deemed even by his fellows in the region to be a pretty strange duck, has -- that would be of concern for everybody.

And I think the important thing here -- one of the important things is that this has been approached on an international basis. Our friends in Europe, the Brits, the French, and the Germans, the EU, have been very actively involved in attempting to deal with this problem. And we've supported them.

Q But the Chinese and the Russians, as you know, sir, have not -- at least in taking it to the Security Council. They've maybe shown cold feet lately. I guess, what I'm asking is would the United States, if there's division in the ranks of the major powers, or those even members of the Security Council, ever do what it did it in Iraq and act --

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I think it would be a mistake to go back and predict what might or might not happen based on what happened in some other country in the past. The fact of the matter is it is a problem for the world if the Iranians have nuclear weapons, especially with a government headed up by the kind of individual that's there today.

Q But what if they ignore it?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: You can ask lots of what ifs, and I try to avoid answering hypothetical questions. We are working aggressively to avoid that -- having that situation arise. We're doing it in conjunction with friends and allies, with those in the region, as well as our friends in Europe. And there's a procedure to go through here. The International Atomic Energy Agency has been involved, and I think doing a pretty good job. There will be a meeting of the board of governors of the IAEA here in a couple of weeks, and then the likelihood is that eventually it gets referred to the U.N. Security Council.

..........

Q You know, Hillary Clinton made some comments, as I'm sure you're aware, too, on Iran, first of all, faulting your administration for downgrading the threat, then a couple of days earlier, saying that the Republican Congress is "run like a plantation." What do you make of her?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I don't know her all that well --met her a few times.

Q What do you think of the comments about the plantation?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I thought they were out of line. I thought Laura Bush captured them rather effectively when she said they were ridiculous.

Q And what do you think of the administration dragging its feet on Iran?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I don't think that's true at all. I think we're there dealing with these issues and have been now for five years. And I just -- obviously, I disagree with Senator Clinton.

--------------------

Interview of the Vice President by Larry Kudlow, CNBC
Grand Hyatt New York
New York, New York

Q Okay, shifting gears slightly but still on the international beat, Iran -- it's becoming a big financial market issue, as well as all the international security issues. Realistically, is there a way the United States and the allies can prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I think it's important that we seek that objective. I don't think we want a nuclear-armed Iran. I don't think that's in anybody's interest -- either in the region or on a global basis. We've been working very closely with the European allies -- the Brits, the Germans and the French have been actively involved in this effort.

You've got a couple of concerns -- one is just a nuclear-armed Iran would be a problem. But then you add to that the dimension of the newly elected President of Iran, Mr. Ahmadinejad, who is hard to believe in terms of some of the more outrageous statements he's made in recent months, calling for the destruction of Israel, threatening a course of action that, obviously, would be a -- be devastating in terms of its consequences. So I think the U.S., as well as our friends and allies -- we're working hard on this problem. We'll continue to do so. But I do think we need to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons to a nation like Iran.

Q Is there a military option on the table as Secretary Rumsfeld has hinted, as Senator John McCain has proposed? Is there a military option in this?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: No President should ever take the military option off the table. Let's leave it there.

Q The other issues are, regarding a possible sanctions campaign, a naval blockade, pinpoint air attacks, whatever, a lot of people in the financial community are very worried about $70 ,$80, $90, $100 barrel of oil, which could have some very negative consequences, obviously, for the economy -- indeed, the world economy. What's your thinking on that? Is that something that is in your plans, a contingency that might have to deal with triple-digit oil?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, the way I think about it, Larry, is that the problem here is of sufficient magnitude that it needs to be dealt with. But I also would emphasize that we're attempting to do that through diplomatic means. Now, whether or not there would be a spike in the price of oil if, in fact, there's some kind of a crisis with Iran, it's entirely possible. But I think the consequences of that would be less significant than the consequences of haven't Mr. Ahmadinejad armed with nuclear weapons, able to threaten virtually anybody he wants to threaten, and conceivably even contemplate the use of nuclear weapons. That would be a major crisis.

So I think -- again, I'd like to emphasize that people need to stay calm, cool, and collected here as we deal with this problem. But it is a problem. As John McCain and Condi Rice and others have said, it does need to be dealt with, and we're dealing with it.

Q You mentioned the Iranian verbal attacks on Israel. If Iran and any of its client terrorist organizations that it sponsors were to attack, much as Hitler attacked Poland in 1939, would the United States come to the military assistance of its longtime ally Israel?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I don't think there's any question but what we would support Israel under those circumstances. I think any administration would.

Q And that would include military assistance?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Obviously, we would support our friends in Israel under those circumstances were they attacked.

Q Sir, is there any way to get at this Iranian issue by helping the pro-democracy groups inside Iran, by bringing U.S. officers. Some have said we could use the Swiss embassy as a haven. Others have said private non-governmental groups and that sort of thing. Is there a way to undermine the current regime by helping out the pro-democracy groups?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I think it's a matter of long-term policy. The United States wants to support the democracy proponents in Iran. One of the more hopeful things about the situation in Iran is you've got a whole younger generation that is very interested in the West, and the United States, that, I think, finds the current theocracy that governs in Iran distasteful, would like to see a change in their own government. And obviously, a change in policy would follow if there were to be such a change.

What mechanism might lead to those kinds of changes over time, how long it would take and so forth, those are all open questions at this point. But clearly, I think the outside world has an interest in seeing true democracy come to Iran instead of the kind of system they have now.

Now, of course, nobody can run without the approval of the clerics at the very top. And you have an unelected group at the very top, senior mullahs, if you will, in Iran, who dominate the country, who support Mr. Ahmadinejad, who have been involved in supporting Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations. I think long-term it's not in the interest of the Iranian people that that regime continue down that course.

Q Would the administration be willing to have diplomatic relations with Iran? Some analysts in this country have said we should try to reconnect them with the United States, somehow do business with them? Is that possible?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: It's been impossible, in effect. In the past it has been very hard to communicate with them. They -- and of course, they have a track record that means they have, in fact, been staunch supporters of terrorism. And now they're obviously in the business of trying to develop their own nuclear weapons. Under the circumstances, it's not clear what would be gained by having normal relations, if you will, with Iran. They need to change their policies if they want to be treated by the international community as a full member of the world community.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
espandyar



Joined: 15 Apr 2004
Posts: 236

PostPosted: Sat Jan 21, 2006 9:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

What a dissapointment!!!! What a shame!!

The lack of Iran regime change policy and the impression that it is a a few unelected and not the entire regime which is the problem!

What ever happens to the world it is well deserved!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Sat Jan 21, 2006 11:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
One of the more hopeful things about the situation in Iran is you've got a whole younger generation that is very interested in the West, and the United States, that, I think, finds the current theocracy that governs in Iran distasteful, would like to see a change in their own government. And obviously, a change in policy would follow if there were to be such a change.


Dear espandyar,

Hi there, hope you are well and had a Happy New Year.

My interpretation of the above quote is that when he talks about "a change in policy would follow.." he is refering to the change in policy of the Iran nation "if there were to be such a change" in the government of Iran, via the people.

If you noted my comment in the "25 year hostage thread" regarding the State dept spokesman's comment when asked if "regime change" was policy...replied "we seek a change in behavior of the regime."

I noted for clarification that the anouncement of such a major shift in US policy would be one that the president himself would make...meaning not through a spokesman to a reporter's question.

That anouncement may come sooner than you might think, as the State of the Union speech is always a major policy speech by a president, and it's only my hunch, but I can't think of a better time to anounce "regime change", just before the IAEA meets....

Would the regime view it as 'interference in their internal affairs" ? without a doubt. Would they view it as an "act of war" ? most probably.

But then they have already declared war on the US haven't they?...Israel wasn't the only nation to be "wiped off the map".

Now that the EU3 negotiations are at a "dead end" and "next steps" in a "new phase of diplomacy" bringing the matter to the UN for "coercive" diplomatic efforts, there really isn't much reason not to declare "regime change" as policy.

But then, that will be "at a time of our choosing."

So, just because it hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it won't...would anyone have known last year at this time we'd be where we are now?

I don't know, but I'll tell you where I think we'll be a year from now...

Celebrating a world free from mullacratic stupidity.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
espandyar



Joined: 15 Apr 2004
Posts: 236

PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 8:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you Oppie and happy new year to you too and I hope that your wishes comes true for the sake of all of us Smile

Quote:
"we seek a change in behavior of the regime."


I dont think I understand your point, Is the above statement a positive standfor our cuase ?

Thank you in advance!
_________________
Marze Por Gohar Party
Iranians for a Secuar Republic
ttp://www.marzeporgohar.org/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 2:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear E,

I'll post the excerpt here for your review, and yes in his general remarks ( not being a announcement of a change in policy as I indicated...that's for the president to do) I would say it is quite supportive of the Iranian people and their aspirations for freedom.

There's other statements I've posted (by Ambassador Fried specificly on US/EU relations ...as a topic) that point to conversations with the EU in regards to support for civil society, and the opposition....those discussions are a matter of quiet diplomacy...

Now is the time for the Iranian people to stand up...en mass...a million or two people on the streets of Tehran ....marching on Parliment...

I tell the opposition in totalality... this as surely as the sun rises tommorrow....show me this, and I'll show you "regime change", with the full backing of the free nations of the world.

pass it on....

----------------------



Daily Press Briefing
Sean McCormack, Spokesman
Washington, DC

Thursday, January 19, 2006

(excerpt)

QUESTION: The United States and Iran signed an agreement on January 19, 1981,
exactly 25 years ago regarding the release of 52 hostages held in Iran at that
time for more than 14 months. One of the general principles of that agreement
was the pledge of non-intervention in Iranian affairs by the U.S. Government.
My question: Is that pledge still valid and is there any contradiction between
this pledge and supporting the aspiration of the Iranian people by the United
States Government, as President and Secretary of State said many times that
they're supporting the Iranian people?

MR. MCCORMACK: We continue to abide by our commitments by outlined by the
Algiers Accord, but I don't see any contradiction between that commitment to
abide by our treaty commitments and supporting the aspirations of the Iranian
people. They have gotten a regime that they don't deserve.

Iran for centuries was at the crossroads of civilization. It is a great
culture, it is a great people and it is a great country. And what they have now
is a regime that has taken steps over the course of the years and accelerated
those steps in recent months that have served to isolate Iran from the rest of
the world. And that isolation is continuing to increase to the point where in
the near future, I expect that Iran will find itself -- the Iranian regime will
find itself before the Security Council for violations of its obligations under
the Nonproliferation Treaty. So this Iranian regime is taking the Iranian
people 180 degrees opposite where the rest of the region is headed. The rest of
the region is headed towards a direction of greater political freedoms. Those
include opening up political systems for greater participation. It's a greater
investment by those populations. Freedom of speech, freedom of press and
economic freedoms. These are all things -- these are all things that we believe
all people desire, including the Iranian people.

So we have made statements in the past you can go back to, beginning with
President Bush's statement on July 12th of 2002, saying that we stand with the
Iranian people in their aspirations for a better way of life, for greater
freedoms, greater economic prosperity. But that is for the Iranian people to
determine what course their political system takes.

QUESTION: Are you going toward change in the political system in Iran, a change
of regime, or just you want some -- I mean, you want radical change or --

MR. MCCORMACK: What we've called for is a change in the behavior of the Iranian
regime. This is a regime that is, as I said, 180 degrees opposite where its
neighbors are headed. It's a state sponsor of terror. It continues to oppress
its own people. One recent example is the regime has forbidden the playing of
classical music, Beethoven, in Iran. And it is also pursuing weapons of mass
destruction, in this case nuclear weapons, in contravention of its treaty
obligations.

So what we're looking for from the Iranian regime is a change in behavior. And
you know, the Iranian regime points to the fact that it had an election. Well,
this is an election where even before anybody was able to put a piece of paper
in a ballot box, more than 1,000 candidates that said that they wanted to run
in the presidential election were taken off or forbidden from running. They
were forbidden from running by a small group of people who actually run Iran,
who actually control the levers of power in Iran. That isn't a democratic --
that is not the democratic way of governing.

QUESTION: Then you're not calling for an overthrow of the regime?

MR. MCCORMACK: What we're calling for is a change in the behavior of the
Iranian regime.

Yes.

QUESTION: Iranian President Ahmedi-Nejad is in Syria today and the two
countries seem to close rounds. They said that they reject the pressure exerted
on Iran about nuclear -- its nuclear program and they support the resistance
against -- the Palestinian resistance against Israel. Do you have any comment
on this?

MR. MCCORMACK: I think the general comment that I made about Iran finding
itself -- the Iranian regime finding itself in complete -- going in completely
the opposite direction from the rest of the region, there's actually one
exception to that, and that's Syria. Syria is going right along with them, 180
degrees opposite from where the rest of the region is headed.

These are both oppressive, authoritarian regimes. They both support -- are
state sponsors of terror. You mentioned the fact that they apparently -- I
haven't seen the statement -- apparently take pride in the fact that they are
continuing to support Palestinian rejectionist groups. Well, this is, again, in
direct contradiction to where world opinion is headed. I would refer you back
to recent statements from the Quartet, which includes the United States, the EU
and the UN. These statements call upon Damascus to close down the offices of
Palestinian rejectionist groups and to shut off support for those groups.

So instead, what we see -- what we see from these two -- the leaders of these
two regimes is actually taking pride in that. You know who is actually
suffering the most from the Syrian actions and the actions of the Iranian
Government? It's the Palestinian people, the people that they supposedly say
that they are fighting on behalf of. What they are doing, in effect, is
thwarting the will of the Palestinian people for a better future, for a more
peaceful future, for a democratic future.

So again, I think that all you can say about the fact that these two -- the
leaders of these two regimes have gotten together is the fact that all it does
is highlight the fact that they themselves are isolated from the rest of the
world. Syria is currently under UN Security Council resolution and I expect in
the not too distant future, Iran will find itself before the Security Council.
So in essence, they do have a lot in common but it's a sad comment on the fact
-- it's a sad comment that these two great peoples now find themselves
increasingly isolated from the rest of the world because of the actions of
their leaders.

QUESTION: But don't you think that Iran and Syria can influence what's going on
in the area? I mean, they have many -- they have influence in Iraq, in Lebanon
and, of course --

MR. MCCORMACK: I think, certainly over time, we have seen that the march of
freedom is stronger than any oppressive authoritarian regime and that
ultimately the fact that you have people around the region calling for greater
freedoms, calling for more investment in their own political processes so they
can elect leaders that reflect their will, will ultimately have much more
influence over Syria and Iran than vice versa.

Yes.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
espandyar



Joined: 15 Apr 2004
Posts: 236

PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 3:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you oppie

I had this conversation with one of my french freinds, were I for the first time got engage into a disscussion about regime "behavior change"!
Prior to that i had not seen anything in this reagrds in american papers.
Could the french have apart in this ? who knows!!

Anyways, Behaviour change of the regime make no sense! behaviour change to me is equals to reforms! The Islamic Regime is behaving the way it lay its foundation and any change in behaviour would mean change in foundation. The regime is never going to change its "behaviour". Simply you get what you see!
This behaviour argument - in my view- is like being in a closet. They want a regime change but they dont dare to mention it hence behaviour change...

I hope you see what I mean.



Quote:
I tell the opposition in totalality... this as surely as the sun rises tommorrow....show me this, and I'll show you "regime change", with the full backing of the free nations of the world.

pass it on....


I fully agree with you that this is the time for a sign from Iranian people.
100% with you on that! However, dont you think the regime knows this?
How can Iranian people with their bare hands rise against the best equipment available to IR?
How can Iranian people whom for such aloong time heard that US is behind them take this one seriously?
I am aware of the timing but how can people who are totaly cencured get aware of this?

I tell you what needs to be done, support the oppsition groups to at least organize the movement.Without organization it will not be possibe, any uprising will be crushed!

If you give me the resources to such organizing and I dont get a uprising then shame on me but until then dont expect any standing up for obvious reasons.....

I will mention this to the MPG board in the upcoming annual meeting next week and I hope that we can get the world signs but without help it will be a hard task!

Regards!
espandyar
_________________
Marze Por Gohar Party
Iranians for a Secuar Republic
ttp://www.marzeporgohar.org/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 6:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I fully agree with you that this is the time for a sign from Iranian people.


What's important to remember is that I don't state what I do to produce a "sign" for the int. community. What you and the entire opposition need to produce is a situation whereby you produce a "sign" to your fellow Iranians that "we can do this, by the numbers" and help those who are opposed yet afraid to act that not only is their safety in numbers, but that they may loose their fear in the process.

You put a million on the streets on the first day, 5 million will join by the end of the week if those initial million are willing to take what gets thrown at them by the regime... for as long as it takes....this is no "protest action" this involves a takeover of Parliment, radio and TV stations, police and goverrnment buildings....the calling for true sons of Iran to abandon their support for the mullahs...for the Rev. Guard to join the people via broadcast....and it is based on "live free or die" as a premis of the reality of the situation, not a theory or nice words, waiting for outside financial support, or any other....failure to act on your own behalf.

If you can't get a million to act...don't. I've seen too many piecemeal protests crushed to think you could do it with any less than this.

I won't sell you fairy tales, they'll throw everything they've got at it.

Quote:
However, dont you think the regime knows this?


They count on instilling fear to control the people, to keep them as sheep.

Quote:
How can Iranian people with their bare hands rise against the best equipment available to IR?


even an elephant can be overcome by army ants on the march.

Quote:
I am aware of the timing but how can people who are totaly cencured get aware of this?


Again, by the numbers...you tell ten people, those ten tell ten each, and so on...in less than a month a good percentage of the people in Iran itself will get the message: Azadi ( a start date) and let's say that is Feb 22...a million on that date, 6 mill by the first of March, 10 mil by the week following....spreading to the entire country.

If Cyrus is correct in his estimation that 95% of the population opposes the mullah's regime....you'll have your revolution.

Quote:
How can Iranian people whom for such aloong time heard that US is behind them take this one seriously?


I can't tell you whether to take this american's assessment as the truth or not...that is for you folks to decide for yourselves....you do this for yourselves, not us, not for the west ...but for yourselves.

If the following is (as I believe it to be) a true and correct assessment of regime intent, then you have all the incentive you need.

Now I said "i'll show you regime change" ...more importantly you will realize it for yourselves.

as I'm not selling fairy tales the attempts by the regime to crush this will not only be viewed by free nations as a "crime against humanity" but will be responded to as such.

-----------

You and I both know the IRI wants a war, not just to bring the people on the side of the Mullah, but to galvinize the entire world's Muslim population against the west in jihad.

They don't care if they take a "hit" , or even lose it technicly if it speeds up the return of the Mahdi...they figure if they push the west to attack, they've won the hearts and minds of not only the people of Iran, but the world's Muslims as well. And in the end, the west will lose big time.

If the west doesn't buy into their game, they have another option....

What better way to start a "holy war" than to use the Iranian people as martyrs in a "so-called" nuclear strike on Iran , and blame it on Israel and the US?

To cover their asses, the Mullahs have stated "We don't need nuclear weapons, our religion does not allow us to have them."

That's true enough, it doesn't....thus no Muslim would believe they would nuke their own people.

At which point, they would be perfectly "justified" in wiping Israel off the map, launching the Bannana peeler via missile, terrorism opps world wide, and that's how they figure they will take down America, not only politically and economicly via the anger directed at the US via the "criminal suprise attack using WMD by the great satan" , but physically as well, including the EU as its allies. They are rapidly isolating themselves on purpose in preparation to close borders as the bannana peeler is virulent, and would pose a threat to them as well unless they were totally isolated from all contact, travel, etc. and honestly, perhaps not even then...weaponized and probably airborn transmittable initially, person to person thereafter. A virulent hemoragic feaver ....a lot like ebola....

So, How do we prevent this? The semi-predictable path of the UN has already been assessed and anticipated by the regime...they have factored this into their planning, thus the pushing of the west to go that rout...."no option is off the table" etc..etc...etc....lot of "war talk" prior, as we see today....

Outrageous you say? Perhaps, but in the given situation which is outrageous itself today, I know darn well another nuclear option has been explored already....and far more devastating. The "Boomers" of several nations are no doubt parked right off the Iranian coast as I write this.

You've probably seen the French president's comments by now.....all of it plays into the mullahs planning for the bigest lie of all.

The only way the Iranian people can take their destiny into their own hands, and change the equasion in favor of peace, is to put at least 2 million people on the streets of Tehran within thirty days, keeping them there 24/7 in shifts...wearing down the regime forces from lack of sleep if nothing else, taking over parliment, calling for "regime change" , and if that happens, the int. community would have to back them up with the moral support of free nations.

If the opposition could get its act together to create this, the people would lose their fear of the regime, despite everything the regime would throw at them, and the bloodshed they'd cause....the world would have no other moral option but to support them in that case, totally....via "responsibility to protect".

A protest of that magnitude would spread out to the entire country, and it would be highly suspect if a nuke suddenly went off in the middle of that....and would undermine the mullah's claim the west was responsible.

The Iranian people have nothing left to lose at this point except their lives...better to die fighting for their freedom than to be victims of the regime's big lie .....
--------------

E,

2 nukes were delivered intact to the regime in 2004 (North Korea probable point of origin) the regime took them apart for production purposes, to copy and then reassemble...I can't tell how I know this...
But it's the truth....according to a recent report, they may "test" by March 20. I don't know whether that's the case, but my assesment above is not based on that report anyway....a lot of research and source info that I can't get into....there's enough in the public eye to give this assessment all the credibility it needs I think without me getting into further detail of the regime's intent.

There are worse things than Nukes the IRI has in stock...they are fast isolating themselves in preparation for the use of the biologicals as a "response" to the above scenario they create themselves, or as a response to an actual attack, if the west feels it has no other option.


All I can say more is that as an American , one who has been on a number of forums like this one, as one who stands with the Iranian people's aspirations for freedom....not only do I understand those doubts you express on behalf of the opposition generally, I've taken an immense amount of crap over the years personally because of them, not from you personally but in general terms, by and as I've experienced it.

I'll stand on a track record of accuracy, and the assesment as delivered here.....again it is up to others to judge its merits.

Ba sepaas,

Oppie
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
espandyar



Joined: 15 Apr 2004
Posts: 236

PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 12:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Oppie

Iam heading for LA for the annual MPG meeting and Iam short of time. I will reply once Iam back!

Regards
espandyar
_________________
Marze Por Gohar Party
Iranians for a Secuar Republic
ttp://www.marzeporgohar.org/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2006 1:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=1785

DEBKAfile Exclusive: Moscow believes Iran has developed a large nuclear device in its “preliminary stage.”

January 31, 2006, 8:11 AM (GMT+02:00)

Russian FM Sergei Lavrov put this information before the five permanent UN Security Council and Germany, which Tuesday night, Jan. 30, agreed for the first time to haul Iran before the UN body over its nuclear program. According to Lavrov, Russian intelligence estimates that Iran is now capable of detonating this non-weaponized nuclear device, or in other words carrying out its first nuclear test.

---------------------

Dear E,

My thinking is why would they test if they have already stated they arn't building bombs? No, what this implies is that the nightmare scenario I illustrated above is a greater possibility than a test....

If the Russians are tellin us that the IRI has the capability NOW, that means they are worried about it as much as we are. Because they also know the kind of biologicals the IRI has in stock....the one I spoke of came from Russian labs originally.

Follow my logic?
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