[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 

U.S. is studying military strike options on Iran
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 7, 8, 9 ... 25, 26, 27  Next
 
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
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Tue Jul 04, 2006 1:27 pm    Post subject: Rules of greatness Reply with quote

Oppenheimer wrote:


Cyrus the Great didn't achieve what he did without taking risks, or pissing a few folks off in the process, and that will be the case in seeing a free Iran become manifest, but then this begs the question, " where's Cyrus today when we need him, and who'll stand up in his stead?"

Batabi?, RP?, someone not even Iranian to lead the charge to freedom?



Dear Oppie,
Thank you for your post.
- Unfortuantely I don't know anyone or any groups performed at the level to be considered as a kind of "Cyrus The Great" at this time, my current top candidate is Professor Richard Nelson Frye that I need to do more research about him . Cyrus The Great code of ethics and standard is very high, today we might find them among American officers and Generals ....
- Let me clarify you don't need to born in Iran to be Iranian, there are people who are borned in Iran that we don't consider them as Iranian, in this site we call them Taazi. The greatest Iranian who is alive that he might meet the high standard is Professor Richard Frye...

cyrus 1993 Rules of greatness wrote:

Rules of greatness throughout human History

http://activistchat.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=168

Greatness is not achieved by words but by hard work, difficult choices, actions and sacrifice. It takes more than intellect and general knowledge to make a leader ethical and moral. It takes courage and ethics. Certainly evolution's path towards greatness is not easy. The problem before us is how can courage and ethics be concentrated so that society can create ethical men, women and leaders. History has been dominated more often by unethical men and women who have rejected the principles of life "awareness" and embraced the principles of destruction (happiness without awareness and domination of some aspects of Machiavellian philosophy). Ethics are rules of optimal behavior. The ethics of life are the pursuit of awareness for ourselves and others. Awareness implies the ability to understand a problem domain (without dogma) and apply it to a solution domain, to predict and control. Our "total awareness" is measured by the extent to which we can predict and control our total environment -physical, biological and social. Ethical ends can only be achieved by ethical means.

In order to define rules of optimal behavior throughout human history, it is important to examine human emotion. Human emotions such as fear, hate, greed, jealousy, and anxiety are destructive and prevent expansion of awareness. The only human emotion that can serve a constructive purpose is love. "Love" is defined as the state of mind in which the welfare of other persons is sufficiently important to us that we are willing to sacrifice part of our own welfare for theirs. Love will be the binding force that will enhance the initial joining of the human societies. It is only through love that it becomes possible to achieve the intimacy of communication with persons, which enables us to amplify our individual awareness. Love makes it possible for the awareness of one to be communicated to others at the unconscious level. Only love and awareness give quality to human existence. It is only by understanding ourselves that we can eliminate all emotion except love.

The above brief description for greatness, ethics, and human emotions are used as a basic guideline to identify the most ethical and greatest political leaders throughout human history. One of the most difficult tasks involved in writing this is the relative importance of various political leaders. For this purpose the following moral and ethical criteria is chosen.

The primary evaluation criteria and rules of optimal behavior that it has been identified and selected are as follows:

· Was in position of high power (head of state).
· Influenced the world in a positive direction.
· Believed in Liberty & Justice for all.
· Proven record for high ethical and moral values.
· Despised cruelty.
· Non religious leader
· No thirst for bloodshed
· No interest to abuse their great power.
· Desired to change and create a better world.
· Positive effect on human history.
· Brave and was an icon for just principles.
· Their positive effects will be seen forever.
· Respect for human rights.
· World wide acceptance
· Icon of religious and cultural toleration.
· Belief that all men are borned equal.
· Had a great and innovative contributions toward human history.

If we examine and evaluate leaders throughout human history with the above criteria, we observe that some of the most powerful, successful and influential political leaders and empires of the past are the most ethical ones with total awareness, like Cyrus the Great, Thomas Jefferson, Gandi ....
Cyrus 1993


- "Iranian" is culture as Professor Richard Frye correctly stated.

Top Harvard University Scholar
Professor Richard Nelson Frye Lecture at UCLA Royce Hall - March 13, 2005

- Iranian is a culture.
- The second occupation of Iran By Muslims and Arabs happened again with the revolution.

Listen to an excerpt of the lecture - Real Audio (05:09)
Source URL: http://activistchat.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=28221#28221

Oppenheimer wrote:
n the last five years you have the "Quartet" (UN< US<EU<Russia)
The 6- party talks with the DPRK (North Korea) including China, the US, Russia, South Korea, Japan.
Russia/ NATO dialogue
US/Russia Nunn/Lugar expantion to secure fissile material in former Soviet Union states , as well as Russia (program initiated in early 90's)

Now one may rightly ask, "How's all this this get me a free Iran?"

Well, a pattern of working together has been established, if it hadn't, you wouldn't be seeing the EU stand firm in its demands of the IRI, you wouldn't see Russia and China demanding in chorus with the US for a swift answer to the offer proposed, nor the unity of purpose in putting the IRI to the test in the first place.


I am sorry I don't expect anything good out of Neo Colonialists Machiavellian Appeasers club (EU3, China, Russia ..) with poor record of human rights inside and Poor Support for Human Rights Outside (EU3)....

Despite 60,000 lobbyists in Washington there are still some hope good Americans and Generals with Cyrus The Great souls and code of ethics within US government who might save this country and the only Super Power from .....

Regards,
Cyrus
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



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

PostPosted: Wed Jul 05, 2006 2:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Strait up I agree it is hard to know what to expect, and what might be termed "good" is subject to one's relative point of view. However, I believe it is possible to anticipate that at the end of the day on the 12th of July, the global community (not just the P5+1) will have a clear picture of where things will be headed given the response (or lack of one) that the IRI has been called upon to give.

Since I do not anticipate that the IRI will agree to the terms of the proposal, "appeasement" becomes rather moot, as the issue will be brought to the Sec. Council for deliberations of "serious concequences" as Solana described it.

Meanwhile the regime seems to not be heading the call of many nations to come into compliance with international norms of behavior.
Question was raised at a whitehouse press briefing whether North Korea was trying to take the spotlight off Iran, to which it was considered a possibility, without confirmation.

Given that there was a high level IRI/DPRK meeting within the last month, I would consider it a definate probability, and I've noted in the past the curious timing of similar "distractions" by Syria as well.

-------Excerpt--------

Putin seeks to start anti-terror offensive
July 5, 2006

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20060705-015538-8154r.htm


From combined dispatches
MOSCOW -- Russian President Vladimir Putin asked parliament yesterday for the right to send soldiers and special forces anywhere in the world to fight terrorists, acting just days after having pledged to "destroy" the terrorists who killed five Russian diplomats in Iraq.
Moscow confirmed early last week that terrorists had killed four abducted diplomats, beheading two of them in an Internet video, after Russia refused their demand to leave the breakaway republic of Chechnya. A fifth diplomat was killed during the abduction June 3.
Russian security services last week offered a $10 million reward for the capture of the Islamic insurgents responsible for the killings.
According to a Kremlin statement, Mr. Putin yesterday went to the upper house of parliament, known as the Federation Council, to make his dramatic bid.
The Kremlin said he had requested the right to defend "the human rights and freedoms of citizens, the sovereignty of the Russian Federation, its independence and state integrity," by using security forces outside Russia.
Under the constitution, Mr. Putin must get permission from the Federation Council, which usually does his bidding, before sending troops abroad.
Federation Council Speaker Sergei Mironov had said two days ago that the chamber was ready to authorize Mr. Putin to use special forces and the agents of the GRU army intelligence service outside Russia.
Mr. Putin did not say the troops would be sent to Iraq. Nor was it clear whether the United States would object to Russian forces operating in the country or welcome any assistance in dealing with insurgents who for three years have kept Iraq on the edge of chaos.
The kidnapping of the Russians was claimed by the Mujahedeen Shura Council, an umbrella group that includes al Qaeda in Iraq and also was responsible for the killing of two abducted American soldiers late last month.

-------end excerpt--------


If I read this correctly, the Russian Bear has just woke up from hibernation, and woe unto the mullahs when Moscow confirms that Chechnen terrorist are being trained outside Tehran.

North Korea is launching so many missiles as "tests" one is given pause to wonder if little Kim is having opium induced paranoid halucinations he is actually under attack by the US Navy.
Which leads one to wonder further how far these halucinations may have progressed, perhaps to the point he thinks he's destroyed Japan and the US by now....(chuckle)...

Aye Cyrus, "nuclear giants and moral infants" indeed.


Quote:
- Unfortuantely I don't know anyone or any groups performed at the level to be considered as a kind of "Cyrus The Great" at this time, my current top candidate is Professor Richard Nelson Frye that I need to do more research about him . Cyrus The Great code of ethics and standard is very high, today we might find them among American officers and Generals ....


That is in the knowing the spark exists in every Iranian. And I find your statement causes a question to form....is then to be "Iranian" a state of mind and attitude?

Quote:
- Let me clarify you don't need to born in Iran to be Iranian, there are people who are borned in Iran that we don't consider them as Iranian, in this site we call them Taazi. The greatest Iranian who is alive that he might meet the high standard is Professor Richard Frye...



As I've said before, attitude is everything.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



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

PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 1:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Briefing En Route Paris, France

Secretary Condoleezza Rice
En Route Paris, France
July 12, 2006

http://www.state.gov/

SECRETARY RICE: All right. I'll just take your questions because we're going to run out of time here.

Yes.


QUESTION: Thank you. Madame Secretary, you and the President have often said that the world is a better and safer place without Saddam Hussein. Can we not say the same thing about Kim Jong-il and maybe even the clerics in Iran that it would be a better and safer place without them? And how do you explain the difference to the American people?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, the world will certainly be better when the people of all these countries, including North Korea and Iran, are able to express themselves in a democratically governed state that does not engage in terrorism and that doesn't seek either nuclear weapons or nuclear weapons technology leading to a nuclear weapon. So certainly the world will be better.
The fact is that Iraq is a special circumstance and you have to treat each case on its own merits. And in the case of Iraq, we were talking about a suspended state of war because we had been to war with Iraq 12 years ago. They had violated a series of UN Security Council resolutions. They had used weapons of mass destruction on their own people and in the region. They were continuing to aggressively challenge American forces as we tried to protect the region. So after the final resolution to give Saddam Hussein an opportunity to demonstrate that he was complying with his obligations, and when he didn't it was time for the credibility in the Security Council, credibility of the world, in order not to have the Iraqi people suffering under punitive sanctions that were doing very little to harm the regime, it was time to deal with that problem by military force.


But not every problem is dealt with in that way. And I think in both the cases of North Korea and now Iran, where we're going to Paris to discuss that case, what we've done is to rather patiently and consistently build a regional and/or international coalition to demonstrate to those states that they are only buying isolation by their behavior. So in international politics you have to have consistent principles, but the consistent application of those principles may not lead you to the same tactics.

QUESTION: You've talked about the credibility of the Security Council in the Iran context as well. In your view, is that where this is most likely headed if, as it appears, Iran isn't going to give you the answer you asked for this week?


SECRETARY RICE: Obviously that's what we're going to determine this afternoon in the meeting and I want to wait to hear from Javier Solana firsthand about how he sees the situation. But certainly the indications are that Iran's response has been disappointing and incomplete. If that is indeed the case, we've always said that we were either on the path of negotiation or we're on the path to the Security Council. And the Vienna agreement is quite clear about this. Margaret Beckett was very clear about this when she outlined the Vienna agreement. And so we'll listen to Javier Solana, and if in fact we're not on the path of negotiations, if Iran -- Iranians have decided not to take that path, then we will have no choice but to return to the Security Council.


QUESTION: Madame Secretary, you were at the Security Council. You accepted to present to Iran an offer because you didn't have the support of Moscow and Beijing to sanctions. You accepted to present to Iran an offer of incentives because you didn't have the support of Moscow and Beijing to sanctions. You even proposed direct talks to them. Now that you have an incomplete and unsatisfying answer, do you think you have won the support of Russia and China?


SECRETARY RICE: Well, let's go through where we've been, because I would not characterize where we are now in exactly that way, Sylvie, so let me explain. It won't surprise you.


We started out in a situation 18 months ago or so where there was no international coalition about what to do about Iran. In fact, if anything during the trip that I took to Europe, I think it demonstrated that we and our allies were either not on the same page or perceived to be not on the same page.


We pulled together with the European 3, backed their negotiations with concrete steps by the United States, moved on then to solidify what was now an EU-3/U.S. consensus about what to do about Iran, moved through a series of IAEA Board of Governors steps culminating in a September resolution which in effect said that they were in noncompliance, a November meeting of the five -- of the six which referred it to the Security Council, and then having it in the Security Council after the Board of Governors resolution -- I'm sorry, the November, setting up the referral and then the referral taking place in February.


That allowed then the six to step back and to say, all right, we wanted to develop two clear paths here. This is what really came out of New York. Those two clear paths are: give the Iranians a really good offer so that they cannot say to the world and to their people that you're trying to deny them civil nuclear power or you are trying to weaken Iran, which has been the Iranian argument particularly to their own people. I think this proposal knocks down any notion that Iran did not have a reasonable alternative to continuing its current program in contravention of the international consensus and the Board of Governors resolution and the presidential statement in the Security Council.


On the other hand we said if they don't accept that offer, then we know that they are closing off the road of negotiations. We need to know whether negotiations are going to work. If they close that off, then we will turn to the Security Council. So that rather patient set of steps has gotten us to now.
What we have been able to do is to test whether the Iranians simply wanted a good path for negotiation or whether they're determined to defy the international community and move forward with a program that the Board of Governors and the international community find unacceptable.


Apparently, and I just want to say apparently, they have decided that they want to move ahead with a program that is unacceptable to the international community. That then means that we would be on the path of the Security Council.


So at each stage this consensus has been growing, from the EU-3 and the U.S. to the Russians and the Chinese joining that consensus, the Russians actually voting yes on the Board of Governors resolution, the entire international community represented by the Security Council voting yes on the presidential statement. And now we will see where we are tonight.


But the question of sanctions and what they should look like, we've gone through an extensive discussion of what might be available to us; and if in fact we go to the Security Council, we'll take our time in terms of putting together the best response from the Security Council in order to get the Iranians to reconsider their ways, because negotiation is still the best path and negotiation is still open. But when we go to the Security Council, I think the first thing is to make sure that the Iranians understand that the world considers a suspension to be mandatory, not voluntary, not just the presidential statement said it, but mandatory. And then we'll see. If the Iranians can't comply with that, then we'll see what else comes. So we're going to take our time to construct a set of responses that make clear to the Iranians what they are facing.
QUESTION: Madame Secretary, you seem to be indicating when you say "take our time" that there's still time for the Iranians to come back with a positive response. There's still a couple, maybe, weeks or months left. At what point do you think we've reached the point of no return?


SECRETARY RICE: Thanks, Elaine (ph), because I didn't intend to imply that there's still time in terms of going to the Security Council. But even if we are in the Security Council and the Iranians want to get off the track of the Security Council, of course the track of negotiation would always be there. But I think it's been pretty clear in the statements of the P-5+1, the statement of the G-8, that the time for Iran to give a clear indication that we're on the path of negotiation, not on the path of the Security Council, that time has come. And the indications are that decision is before us tonight in terms of which path we're on.


QUESTION: I think the way you've been phrasing it becomes clearer and clearer, but I just want to make doubly sure. When you say if they've rejected talks we have no choice but to return to the Security Council, are you saying that's the decision today; that at the end of tonight, if nothing happens that changes your mind, then we are definitely going to the Security Council?


SECRETARY RICE: Saul, I want again to hear from Javier Solana in considerable detail what he heard. I want to have a chance to discuss that with the members of the P-5+1. So I'm not going to try and prejudge that meeting. That would not be fair to any of us who are going to have that discussion tonight.


But I'm just laying out what the implications would be of different outcomes tonight. The implications have to lead one way or the other. That was the purpose really of the G-8 statement: that we now are in place where we have to have one path or the other. We've been going with two paths before us and hoping that the Iranians would choose the path of negotiation. But what we really have to know tonight is -- and we have to make a decision on tonight is -- which one are we on. And if we indeed have not received -- as I said the indications are but I want to hear fully -- if we've not received an answer from the Iranians that, yes, we're on the path of negotiation, then I think it's going to be pretty clear by process of elimination that we're on the path of the Security Council.
2006/T18-1



Released on July 12, 2006
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 4:35 pm    Post subject: Re: Briefing En Route Paris, France Reply with quote

Oppenheimer wrote:
Briefing En Route Paris, France

Secretary Condoleezza Rice
En Route Paris, France
July 12, 2006

http://www.state.gov/

SECRETARY RICE: All right. I'll just take your questions because we're going to run out of time here.

Yes.

QUESTION: Thank you. Madame Secretary, you and the President have often said that the world is a better and safer place without Saddam Hussein. Can we not say the same thing about Kim Jong-il and maybe even the clerics in Iran that it would be a better and safer place without them? And how do you explain the difference to the American people?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, the world will certainly be better when the people of all these countries, including North Korea and Iran, are able to express themselves in a democratically governed state that does not engage in terrorism and that doesn't seek either nuclear weapons or nuclear weapons technology leading to a nuclear weapon. So certainly the world will be better.
The fact is that Iraq is a special circumstance and you have to treat each case on its own merits. And in the case of Iraq, we were talking about a suspended state of war because we had been to war with Iraq 12 years ago. They had violated a series of UN Security Council resolutions. They had used weapons of mass destruction on their own people and in the region. They were continuing to aggressively challenge American forces as we tried to protect the region. So after the final resolution to give Saddam Hussein an opportunity to demonstrate that he was complying with his obligations, and when he didn't it was time for the credibility in the Security Council, credibility of the world, in order not to have the Iraqi people suffering under punitive sanctions that were doing very little to harm the regime, it was time to deal with that problem by military force.


But not every problem is dealt with in that way. And I think in both the cases of North Korea and now Iran, where we're going to Paris to discuss that case, what we've done is to rather patiently and consistently build a regional and/or international coalition to demonstrate to those states that they are only buying isolation by their behavior. So in international politics you have to have consistent principles, but the consistent application of those principles may not lead you to the same tactics.

QUESTION: You've talked about the credibility of the Security Council in the Iran context as well. In your view, is that where this is most likely headed if, as it appears, Iran isn't going to give you the answer you asked for this week?


SECRETARY RICE: Obviously that's what we're going to determine this afternoon in the meeting and I want to wait to hear from Javier Solana firsthand about how he sees the situation. But certainly the indications are that Iran's response has been disappointing and incomplete. If that is indeed the case, we've always said that we were either on the path of negotiation or we're on the path to the Security Council. And the Vienna agreement is quite clear about this. Margaret Beckett was very clear about this when she outlined the Vienna agreement. And so we'll listen to Javier Solana, and if in fact we're not on the path of negotiations, if Iran -- Iranians have decided not to take that path, then we will have no choice but to return to the Security Council.


QUESTION: Madame Secretary, you were at the Security Council. You accepted to present to Iran an offer because you didn't have the support of Moscow and Beijing to sanctions. You accepted to present to Iran an offer of incentives because you didn't have the support of Moscow and Beijing to sanctions. You even proposed direct talks to them. Now that you have an incomplete and unsatisfying answer, do you think you have won the support of Russia and China?


SECRETARY RICE: Well, let's go through where we've been, because I would not characterize where we are now in exactly that way, Sylvie, so let me explain. It won't surprise you.

We started out in a situation 18 months ago or so where there was no international coalition about what to do about Iran. In fact, if anything during the trip that I took to Europe, I think it demonstrated that we and our allies were either not on the same page or perceived to be not on the same page.


We pulled together with the European 3, backed their negotiations with concrete steps by the United States, moved on then to solidify what was now an EU-3/U.S. consensus about what to do about Iran, moved through a series of IAEA Board of Governors steps culminating in a September resolution which in effect said that they were in noncompliance, a November meeting of the five -- of the six which referred it to the Security Council, and then having it in the Security Council after the Board of Governors resolution -- I'm sorry, the November, setting up the referral and then the referral taking place in February.


That allowed then the six to step back and to say, all right, we wanted to develop two clear paths here. This is what really came out of New York. Those two clear paths are: give the Iranians a really good offer so that they cannot say to the world and to their people that you're trying to deny them civil nuclear power or you are trying to weaken Iran, which has been the Iranian argument particularly to their own people. I think this proposal knocks down any notion that Iran did not have a reasonable alternative to continuing its current program in contravention of the international consensus and the Board of Governors resolution and the presidential statement in the Security Council.


On the other hand we said if they don't accept that offer, then we know that they are closing off the road of negotiations. We need to know whether negotiations are going to work. If they close that off, then we will turn to the Security Council. So that rather patient set of steps has gotten us to now.
What we have been able to do is to test whether the Iranians simply wanted a good path for negotiation or whether they're determined to defy the international community and move forward with a program that the Board of Governors and the international community find unacceptable.


Apparently, and I just want to say apparently, they have decided that they want to move ahead with a program that is unacceptable to the international community. That then means that we would be on the path of the Security Council.


So at each stage this consensus has been growing, from the EU-3 and the U.S. to the Russians and the Chinese joining that consensus, the Russians actually voting yes on the Board of Governors resolution, the entire international community represented by the Security Council voting yes on the presidential statement. And now we will see where we are tonight.


But the question of sanctions and what they should look like, we've gone through an extensive discussion of what might be available to us; and if in fact we go to the Security Council, we'll take our time in terms of putting together the best response from the Security Council in order to get the Iranians to reconsider their ways, because negotiation is still the best path and negotiation is still open. But when we go to the Security Council, I think the first thing is to make sure that the Iranians understand that the world considers a suspension to be mandatory, not voluntary, not just the presidential statement said it, but mandatory. And then we'll see. If the Iranians can't comply with that, then we'll see what else comes. So we're going to take our time to construct a set of responses that make clear to the Iranians what they are facing.
QUESTION: Madame Secretary, you seem to be indicating when you say "take our time" that there's still time for the Iranians to come back with a positive response. There's still a couple, maybe, weeks or months left. At what point do you think we've reached the point of no return?


SECRETARY RICE: Thanks, Elaine (ph), because I didn't intend to imply that there's still time in terms of going to the Security Council. But even if we are in the Security Council and the Iranians want to get off the track of the Security Council, of course the track of negotiation would always be there. But I think it's been pretty clear in the statements of the P-5+1, the statement of the G-8, that the time for Iran to give a clear indication that we're on the path of negotiation, not on the path of the Security Council, that time has come. And the indications are that decision is before us tonight in terms of which path we're on.

QUESTION: I think the way you've been phrasing it becomes clearer and clearer, but I just want to make doubly sure. When you say if they've rejected talks we have no choice but to return to the Security Council, are you saying that's the decision today; that at the end of tonight, if nothing happens that changes your mind, then we are definitely going to the Security Council?

SECRETARY RICE: Saul, I want again to hear from Javier Solana in considerable detail what he heard. I want to have a chance to discuss that with the members of the P-5+1. So I'm not going to try and prejudge that meeting. That would not be fair to any of us who are going to have that discussion tonight.


But I'm just laying out what the implications would be of different outcomes tonight. The implications have to lead one way or the other. That was the purpose really of the G-8 statement: that we now are in place where we have to have one path or the other. We've been going with two paths before us and hoping that the Iranians would choose the path of negotiation. But what we really have to know tonight is -- and we have to make a decision on tonight is -- which one are we on. And if we indeed have not received -- as I said the indications are but I want to hear fully -- if we've not received an answer from the Iranians that, yes, we're on the path of negotiation, then I think it's going to be pretty clear by process of elimination that we're on the path of the Security Council.
2006/T18-1


Released on July 12, 2006


Oppenheimer wrote:

Cyrus wrote:

- Unfortuantely I don't know anyone or any groups performed at the level to be considered as a kind of "Cyrus The Great" at this time, my current top candidate is Professor Richard Nelson Frye that I need to do more research about him . Cyrus The Great code of ethics and standard is very high, today we might find them among American officers and Generals ....


That is in the knowing the spark exists in every Iranian. And I find your statement causes a question to form....is then to be "Iranian" a state of mind and attitude?
Cyrus wrote:
- Let me clarify you don't need to born in Iran to be Iranian, there are people who are borned in Iran that we don't consider them as Iranian, in this site we call them Taazi. The greatest Iranian who is alive that he might meet the high standard is Professor Richard Frye...


As I've said before, attitude is everything.

Dear Oppie,

Thank you for asking difficult and excellent questions and very informative post regarding the recent “Briefing En Route Paris, France Secretary Condoleezza Rice”.
Due to the fact that I don’t consider myself as qualified person to make the statement regarding your valid important questions therefore for answer I am referring you to the statement from Scholars and most brilliant Iranian minds.

According to Professor Mahjoob quoting from
Ferdowsi who is the father of Iranian Renaissance, neo-Iranian cultural awareness, and the Shahnameh is credited with the revival of Iranian identity.
Iranian = Meaning “Azadegan” = Freedom-Loving People

And according to the Professor Frye “Iranian” is a culture.
Based on above definition all freedom-loving people with the very high standard of code of ethics defined by Cyrus the Great, Darius The Great, Babak, Avicenna (Ibn Sina), Ferdowsi, Khayyam, Hafaz, Saadi, Rumi…. may consider themselves as Iranian. The Iranian is not associated with the birth place of a person or race … for example you might consider yourself as Iranian.

Ferdowsi Code Of Ethics:
The following is the highest level of code of ethics for all time defined for humanity from masterpiece of The Epic of Kings by Ferdowsi (935–1020) the World famous Persian (Iranian) poet. This is unmatched by anything that has been written before Ferdowsi :

“Crush not even the tiny ant that beareth a grain of
corn, for she hath life, and sweet life is a boon.”


I am deathless, I am the eternal Lord
For I have spread the seed of the Word.
Source URL: http://activistchat.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=7944

Oppenheimer wrote:
What in all of this I find most striking, and troubling example is the fact that many of the institutions he created in Persia didn't "take" , or weren't sustained, if you will, much beyond his lifetime.
This is not so suprising really because for institutions of democracy to become "tradition" requires generations to properly mature.
This was what I meant in my letter to Condi Rice in saying that "Democracy is not a finite destination, it evolves."

It is not surprising at all.




Iran, because of its size, population, cultural identity, resources and its location as a historical, geographic and an economic link between East and West over 7000 years, in addition today to bridging two vital centers of energy, namely; the Caspian Sea and the Persian Gulf assumes an importance greater than ever before.
If you read history of Iran all invasions and massacres by Arabs, Mongols and Turks you will be impressed how Iranians survived all chaos in past 2500 years.

The US founding fathers are lucky for the fact that US has been separated from Old countries and chaos by two oceans.


Oppenheimer wrote:
Briefing En Route Paris, France

Secretary Condoleezza Rice
En Route Paris, France
July 12, 2006

http://www.state.gov/

SECRETARY RICE: All right. I'll just take your questions because we're going to run out of time here.

Released on July 12, 2006


Based on my previous definition for "Iranian" I have strong objection to the excellent interview with Secretary Condoleezza Rice and other US officials use of word “Iranian” instead of “Ayatollahs” despite the fact that they are fully aware of all facts (this is considered as insult to Iranian people as hostage of Ayatollahs ) . Of course who cares how we the freedom-loving hard working people feel as long as we the FREE Iran Activists don’t have Political power or stolen Oil Money to spend in Washington or a Voice in congress …?

Regards,
Cyrus
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 5:27 pm    Post subject: Frustrated World Powers Send Taazi Regime to U.N. Reply with quote

Frustrated World powers send Islamist Taazi Occupying Force Controlling Iran to U.N.
By ANNE GEARAN, AP Diplomatic Writer
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060712/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear_10

PARIS - Frustrated world powers agreed Wednesday to send Iran before the United Nations Security Council for possible punishment, saying the Iranians had given no sign they would bargain in earnest over their disputed nuclear program.

The move amounted to calling Iran's bluff. Diplomats said recent meetings with Iran's nuclear negotiator have gone nowhere and it was clear Tehran hoped to play for time or exploit potential divisions among the six powers that have offered new talks.

The United States and other nations wanted Iran to say by Wednesday whether it would meet terms to begin negotiations on a package of economic and energy incentives in exchange for at least a short-term end to Tehran's program to enrich uranium.

The Security Council's permanent members said Iranian leaders had had long enough to respond.

"The Iranians have given no indication at all that they are ready to engage seriously on the substance of our proposals," French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said on behalf of the United States, France, Britain, Russia and China, the five permanent Security Council members, plus Germany and the European Union.

Though Russia and China signed on to Wednesday's statement, the two traditional commercial partners of Iran previously have opposed imposition of the toughest of sanctions.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov expressed his disappointment with Iran for not responding to the proposals. In a veiled warning that Russia could soften its opposition to sanctions, Lavrov said that if Tehran does not agree to return to negotiations "the Security Council will consider steps appropriate to the situation," the ITAR-Tass news agency reported.

If Iran agrees to the group's terms for negotiations, it would mean the first high-level face-to-face talks between the United States and Iran after more than a quarter century of estrangement.

The group that met in Paris on Wednesday represents the permanent, veto-holding members of the UN Security Council plus the European participants in previous failed nuclear talks with Iran. Tehran contends its nuclear program is aimed only at producing electricity, but the West fears it is hiding plans to build a bomb.

Expressing "profound disappointment," foreign ministers said, "we have no choice but to return to the United Nations Security Council" and resume a course of possible punishment or coercion that the powers had set aside in hopes of reaching a deal.

The group was pushing for an agreement before world leaders meet this weekend in Russia for the Group of Eight summit of leading industrial democracies. President Bush and other leaders are now expected to issue a strongly worded rebuke to Iran during the G-8 meeting.

Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, the Bush administration's chief negotiator on the Iran issue, said the U.S. is pleased by what it called strong action by the Security Council group.

"This is a significant decision that frankly reflects the disappointment and frustration of our countries over the lack of a serious response."

There was no immediate reaction from Tehran, which has repeatedly said it needs more time to consider proposals presented in early June.

Iran had ruled out responding this week to international incentives to suspend disputed portions of its nuclear program.

"The indications are that Iran's response has been disappointing and incomplete," Rice had reporters aboard her flight here.

Any real move to punish Iran at the Security Council is a long way off, but the group said it will seek an initial resolution requiring Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment. Debate could begin as soon as next week.

If Iran does not comply, the group said it would then seek harsher action. The group's short statement give no specifics, but it cited a section of the world body's charter that could open the door to economic or other sanctions.

The group said it could stop the Security Council actions at any time should Iran cooperate. The U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency has already told Iran it must put uranium enrichment and related disputed activities on hold, and doing so is the condition for opening negotiations on the incentives package presented to Iran last month.

Enrichment can produce fuel for a civilian reactor or fissile material for a bomb.

The European Union offered Iran a similar package of economic and trade incentives last year, but Iran rejected the proposal and ramped up nuclear activities including uranium enrichment that it had suspended during the European talks.

More is on the line now that Iran has moved closer to being able to build a nuclear weapon, and the United States has offered to bargain face-to-face.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



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

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 5:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Right about now Cyrus, I think intent has been clearly defined, and "frustrated" is probably the wrong adjective for the author of the article to use to describe the mindset at play here:


For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
July 12, 2006

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

Statement on Condemnation of Hizballah Kidnapping of Two Israeli Soldiers




Today Hizballah terrorists operating from Lebanon kidnapped two Israeli soldiers and launched rocket attacks against civilian targets in Israel. The United States condemns in the strongest terms this unprovoked act of terrorism, which was timed to exacerbate already high tensions in the region and sow further violence. We also hold Syria and Iran, which have provided long-standing support for Hizballah, responsible for today's violence. We call for the immediate and unconditional release of the Israeli soldiers.

Hizballah's terrorist operations threaten Lebanon's security and are an affront to the sovereignty of the Lebanese Government. Hizballah's actions are not in the interest of the Lebanese people, whose welfare should not be held hostage to the interests of the Syrian and Iranian regimes. We reiterate the international community's insistence that all parties in the region fulfill their obligations under UN Security Council resolutions 1559 and 1680, and cease all support for Hizballah.

# # #


-----------

Conclusion:

Hope folks have their seatbelts on, 'cause the car's got no brakes.


Antar's had a relaps of his unique case of foot in mouth disease.

They wanted answers to those "abiguities", well Lariajani didn't have long to wait.

I am reminded of the photo of a regime sponsored "death to America" parade, where some creative genius in the opposition rewrote one of the signs via photo shop so it read, " Hey USA! Please come kick our asses!"

Never let it be said, there wasn't a lighter side to the second Iranian revolution....when folks get around to writing this chapter in Iranian history.

See Cyrus, I do know the secret to the Iranian people's ability to survive what history has wrought, it's that irrrepressible sense of national humor.

If I follow the logic of the sages you cited, conversly that all freedom loving people are considered Iranian, then it follows logicly that a vast portion of the global population can be considered Iranian, The entire USA, EU, Austrailia, Japan, and every single Free nation on Earth would thus logicly be considered to be Iranian.

Well now...(chuckle) if you follow my logic for a moment as I delve deaper into this notion, it would seem that Iran has already "taken over the world", so therefore, there is nothing left for the mullah's to do except go back to the mosques, suck their thumbs, and wait for the mahdi.

But then you see, they suffer from the terrible afliction of the rich and brain-dead, the blindness that comes from pride and egotism is nothing compared to the myopia that they dictate the terms of reality.

Whereas reality dictates the terms of existance.

Well noted above that the world could better live without little Kim and the IRI, and from the standpoint of the human condition that if one can think it, it's likely to occur at some point in the future as an operative probability. Not including all the other factors that must contribute to the inevitable conclusion in leaders minds that the problem cannot be solved with these governments, so new governments are needed that will abide by international standards and commitments.

It's odd to think that if hostilities ensue, it will be described by the press as the result of "frustration", when in fact it would come as a result of a very dispasionate logical neccessary collective action to eliminate a threat to global peace and security, with either North Korea or Iran, or both at the same time if need be.

For the mullahs, the big trigger point has always been Sec. Council action...IRI response shows that they in fact arn't concerned...why? Because before any sanctions can be implemented, it will seem moot as they start a shooting war to put an end to diplomacy.

If little Kim wants to join the party, I'm sure Mr. Rumsfeld's next udated sat. photo of NK at night will no longer be virtually black (no city lights) north of the DMZ....

Part of it is internal with the IRI....the pressure from outside on the nuclear issue has splits happening in the regime, and a growing internal revolt, the economy in the pitts, it all stacks up on a historical basis to suggest the most probable course of action for any regime in similar position would be:

Starting a convienient little war to change the parameters.


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



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

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 3:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

July 13, 2006

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

President Bush and German Chancellor Merkel Participate in Press Availability
Town Hall
Stralsund, Germany
12:34 P.M. (Local)


President's Trip to Germany and Russia


CHANCELLOR MERKEL: (As translated.) Ladies and gentlemen, I am delighted to be able to welcome the President of the United States here to Stralsund yet again. We had a lengthy conversation right now in the Office of the Mayor. We felt very much at home here in this beautiful city. We talked about all of the different issues on the global agenda.

We shall, later on, see a little bit more of the countryside here, of the city itself. I am really pleased to be able to show to the President of the United States how matters have developed here, with some problems still existing, but also with problems we've coped with quite successfully. And it's such a great thing to have this lovely weather for our visits.

Just now, in our talks, we talked at great length about international issues. Unfortunately, there are quite a lot of problems that we need to deal with and for whose solution we feel responsible. The first and foremost, on top of the agenda is certainly Iran. The international community actually submitted a very substantial, very fundamental offer to Iran, starting from the firm view that Iran should not be in possession of a nuclear weapon, but that, on the other hand, Iran should have -- should know good development. So far we have not received any sort of reaction from the Iranian leadership as to how their position is on this offer.

And this is why it was only consistent that yesterday the foreign ministers decided yet again to show clearly, also through a resolution in the U.N. Security Council, that should Iran not in any way reply to this offer and accept this offer, we, unfortunately have to embark on a new course. The door has not been closed, but Iran must know that those who have submitted this offer are willing -- and this is the success of yesterday's meeting -- Russia, China, the E3, and the United States of America -- all of them together are willing to act in concert and to show this clearly through their action in the Security Council.

We also addressed the very disturbing situation in the Middle East, and it fills us with concern and we have also stated clearly that everything needs to be done in order to come back to a peaceful resolution. We need to remind all of us again how this escalation started, with the kidnaping of a soldier, through rockets -- for the firing of missiles against Israeli territory. And we can only urge all parties, appeal to all parties to stop, to cease violence and to also release the kidnaped soldier, and to stop this firing of missiles at Israeli territory.

We would like to appeal to the powers in the region to see to it that further escalation is warded off, and that, first and foremost, the root causes of this conflict are removed. And only in this way will a negotiating process become possible again. We have every interest in seeing the Lebanese government be strengthened and this government being able to pursue its policies in a sensible and secure environment.

We also addressed matters of trade, global trade. Here we -- and I'm saying this from a German perspective -- have a common interest in seeing this world round be a successful one, this world trade round. But that means there has to be movement on all sides. And we're expecting a reasonable, sensible offer by the G20, because this is where movement is necessary. Europe and others have submitted far-reaching proposals, and we would like to explore every possibility of these negotiations, but that means, as I said, movement on all sides. And here I see that the G20 has to deliver.

We also addressed those issues that will be on the agenda at the G8 in St. Petersburg. Here, first and foremost, energy policy, secure energy supply, was at the top of the agenda. We addressed African issues, Darfur and the Congo mission. We, as Germans, as you know, have taken out a commitment as regards Congo. We also, however, see the situation in Darfur as a threatening one.

We found that there is a lot that we agree on, as regards our common responsibilities, responsibilities that we see for the two of us the world over. And I, for one, think that as regards, for example, Iran, this responsibility ought to be shouldered by more and more countries -- that goes for Russia, that goes for China. It will only be if we act in concert that we will be able to vanquish the tyrants, remove dictatorships and contain those who sponsor terrorism. And Germany would like to give its contribution to that.
PRESIDENT BUSH: Chancellor, thank you very much. Thanks for the invitation. This is a beautiful part of the world, and Laura and I are so honored to come to your constituency and meet some of the friendly people who live here. I remember you coming to the Oval Office, and you said, if you are coming to Germany, this is the part of Germany I want you to see. And now I can see why you suggested it. I'm looking forward to the feast you're going to have tonight. I understand I may have the honor of slicing the pig.

We had a good discussion -- it's more than a discussion, it's really a strategy session, is the way I'd like to describe it. We talked about a lot of subjects. We talked about the Middle East and Iran, and I briefed the Chancellor on North Korea. We talked about Iraq and Afghanistan, as well.

But when we talked about the issues, it's important for you to understand we're really trying to figure out how to work together to solve problems. And I appreciate -- appreciate the Chancellor's judgment a lot. It's an interesting conversation, you know, when you toss out what may seem to be a problem that's insoluble, and all of a sudden, two people start thinking about how to solve it, solve the problem. And that's what we're doing.

You know, on the Iranian issue, for example, the last time that we were together we talked -- spent a lot of time on Iran, and the Chancellor was wondering whether or not the United States would ever come to the table to negotiate with the Iranians. You made that pretty clear to me that you thought it was something -- an option we ought to consider, which I did. And I made it clear to the Iranians that if they were to do what they said they would do, which is to stop enrichment in a verifiable fashion, we're more than pleased to come back to the table.

There's no question that this issue can be solved diplomatically, and there's no question that it can be solved diplomatically with Germany and the United States strategizing as how to solve it. And I want to thank the Chancellor's leadership on this issue. It's really important for Europe to speak with one common voice. And it's important for Angela and myself to work with Vladimir Putin, which we will do at the G8, to continue to encourage him to join us in saying to the Iranians loud and clear, we're not kidding, it's a serious issue, the world is united in insisting that you not have a nuclear weapons program.

We talked about the Israeli-Palestinian and Israeli issues with Hezbollah, and our common desire to work together to help bring peace to that troubled region.

My attitude is this: There are a group of terrorists who want to stop the advance of peace. And those of -- who are peace-loving must work together to help the agents of peace -- Israel, President Abbas, and others -- to achieve their objective. You got to understand when peace advances, it's in the terrorists' interests in some cases to stop it. And that's what's happening.

We were headed toward the road map, things looked positive, and terrorists stepped up and kidnaped a soldier, fired rockets into Israel. Now we've got two more kidnapings up north. Hezbollah doesn't want there to be peace. The militant arm of Hamas doesn't want there to be peace. And those of us who do want peace will continue to work together to encourage peace.

We talked about North Korea. I assured the Chancellor that I'm committed to the six-party talks and that the five of us in the six-party talks will work to convince North Korea to come back to the table. I'm hopeful that we can get some U.N. action on North Korea.

We did talk about Doha, the trade round, and it's -- look, these trade rounds are difficult to negotiate with; we've all got our own interests. But the good news is we do share a common desire to open up markets. Germany is a great exporter. It's in Germany's interest that tariffs be reduced around the world. It's in our interests that tariffs be reduced around the world. And I committed to what I told the world back last September, we will reduce agricultural subsidies. But all we want is fair treatment when it comes to market access.

I'm optimistic we can still get something done on the Doha Round. It's going to take work, but G8 is a good place for us to continue the dialogue, and we will.

And I guess that's about all -- we discussed a lot of things, in other words. And thank you for having me. I'm looking forward to that pig tonight. (Laughter.)

I'll be glad to answer a couple of questions. Do you want to start her off?

Q Chancellor, you spoke about charting a new course as regards a response to the Iranian conflict. What new course will that be? You talked about the results of the foreign ministers' meeting where they will appeal to the Security Council. What sort of action will there be? Again, just a resolution that only demands certain things, or is the objective a resolution that will then actually threaten sanctions of a specific nature? This question is also addressed to the President.

CHANCELLOR MERKEL: Well, essentially what we're talking about here is not a totally new process, it's just another phase. We have waited patiently whether Iran will examine this offer and in which way it will react. So far we have not had any sort of reliable reaction. And for us, the precondition for talks has always been suspension of the enrichment activities, and a precondition for talks has always been, well, we will then, under the circumstances, not react with sanctions. But through this common action, we are now making clear, because we are not receiving a reply, that there will be a concerted action and that there will be specific steps. And we're defining what steps these will be if Iran continues to let us wait with its response.

So we wanted to demonstrate yet again that the international community is willing to show resolve to pursue this strategy further in every direction. Iran has received a proposal that I think is a very substantive one, a very good one, one that is good for the development of its own country, of its own interests -- is in its own interests. But if Iran should not reply, if they think they can prevaricate in the hope of the international community being split, then this proves them wrong. And this is why I am so happy about the conclusion of that meeting of the foreign ministers.

PRESIDENT BUSH: This notion that the Iranians must understand that they can't wait us out and can't hope to split a coalition -- and so the first step is to go to the United Nations and speak with as common a voice as possible.

Your question really is, how fast should the process move along? And my attitude is, the answer to that is, it should move as fast as necessary to make it effective, which is a non-answer, admittedly. But the truth of the matter is, diplomacy takes a lot of work, and there are different interests involved here. We do share a common goal of no nuclear weapon and no program. And, by the way, we've already sanctioned Iran, so we've got a different position than others. It's easy for me to espouse sanctions, since it's already a fait accompli. But we understand other nations have got -- there's a pace to this diplomacy. And I assured the Chancellor that the United States will continue to work to make sure the process is steady as it moves forward.

The key first step is, common goal, which is no nuclear weapon or program, and united message to the Iranians. I truly think they're trying to wait us out. They think it's a matter of time before people lose their nerve, or a matter of time before different interests are able to influence the process. And I think they're going to be sorely mistaken. I think they're going to be disappointed that this coalition is a lot firmer than they think.

It is in our interests to make sure they don't have a weapon. It would be dangerous if the Iranians had a nuclear weapon. And that's a recognizable fact now. So I appreciate the Chancellor's position on this.

Yes, Terry.

Q Madam Chancellor, Mr. President. Terry Hunt with the AP. Looking ahead to St. Petersburg, I'd like to ask you, do you think that Russia is honoring human rights and democratic freedoms and has a responsible approach to energy security?

And, Mr. President, were you surprised by President Putin replying to Vice President Cheney's criticism, saying that it was an "unsuccessful hunting shot?"

PRESIDENT BUSH: Did I think it was a clever response? It was pretty clever. Actually, quite humorous -- not to dis my friend, the Vice President. I don't know, do you want to start with this? I'd be glad to -- (laughter.) No, I think our job is to continually remind Russia that if he wants to do -- have good relations, that she ought to share common values with us. We share common values -- free press is a common value we share. And I've expressed my opinion to President Putin. You might remember my visit with him in Slovakia where I was quite pointed in my concerns about whether or not there is a free and vibrant press in Russia. We share concerns about the ability for people to go to the town square and express their opinions, and whether or not dissent is tolerated, whether or not there's active political opposition.

And so I will continue to carry that message. My own view of dealing with President Putin, though, is that nobody really likes to be lectured a lot, and if you want to be an effective person, what you don't go is scold the person publicly all the time; that you remind him where we may have a difference of opinion, but you do so in a respectful way, so you can then sit down and have a constructive dialogue.

And that's exactly how I'm going to continue my relations with President Putin. I'll be firm about my belief in certain democratic institutions; I'll be firm in my belief about the need for there to be an active civil society and NGOs should be allowed to function in Russia without intimidation. But I'm also going to be respectful of the leader of an important country. And I may not tell you exactly what I talked to him about in private. And I would hope that he wouldn't tell you what he talks to me about in private.

But, yes, we've got issues. Listen, we've got common problems that we need to work together to solve -- North Korea and Iran are two. And we've also got -- I hope he continues to understand that it's in his country's interest to implement the values that Germany and Russia -- Germany and the United States share.

CHANCELLOR MERKEL: Well, first as to the issue of energy security, I can safely say that, looking at Germany over the past few decades, Russia has always proved to be a reliable supplier of energy. They have always abided by the treaties that we signed. But we would wish -- and I've addressed this with the Russian President -- that they actually bring the energy charter to its completion, that is to say, commit themselves to it, because then we would have a greater degree of certainty and security that we understand our common commitments on this.

As regards -- a strategic link between Russia and Europe, obviously, is of tremendous importance. It's important because we need energy supplies from Russia. And this is why we shall work towards Russia accepting that charter, that energy charter, so that we get a legitimate charter that is also based on contracts. But again, it has to be said that Russia has always been a reliable supplier.

As to democracy and human rights, during my visit to Russia I met with a number of representatives of non-governmental organizations. We discussed what is desirable, what ought to be there as regards Russia's further development, and what needs to be addressed, time and again, and let me tell you that I talked to the President about these issues.

I think also we ought to have an open, confidential dialogue. We should not sort of speak loudly and in public about certain issues; that we have different ideas about how a pluralist society, a democratic society ought to work; that there ought to be a strong opposition is certainly one of the realities of life. There are differences of opinion between Russia and the European Union. We would wish for Russia to embark on a path that leads to a lively and very pluralistic political landscape, that they enter into a dialogue with their civil society, which is at yet not there, for many reasons.

But we would like to share with them also the experience that we've made with democracy, that pluralism in a democracy, last but not least, actually enhances stability in a country. And that is an experience that we have made, and that is a very strong force which drives reform processes forward. For example, we've seen that in German unity. It's sometimes complicated to bring those decision-making processes forward in a democracy, but then you receive the necessary legitimacy. And that is the experience that informs us in our talks.

Q A question addressed to you both. You talked about the Middle East, and what is your assessment of the military action of Israel in Lebanon? The French Foreign Minister already said it is disproportionate. Does that give you cause for Europe or the United States to intervene?

And apart from the pig, Mr. President, what sort of insights have you been able to gain as regards East Germany? -- (inaudible) --

CHANCELLOR MERKEL: Neither have I, but apparently a camera team was there when it was shot. So apparently it is already there, physically. (Laughter.) I hope it's actually roasting; otherwise we won't be able to eat it tonight.

Well, as to the violence in the Middle East, particularly as regards Lebanon, I think that one needs to be very careful to make a clear distinction between the root causes and the consequences of something. So we started here from a case of kidnaping of a soldier, and one of the other root causes also is the activity of Hezbollah. And it's most important for the Israeli government to be strengthened, but it is also clearly shown that these incursions, such as the kidnaping of soldiers, is not acceptable.

And the parties to that conflict obviously have to use proportionate means, but I am not at all for sort of blurring the lines between the root causes and the consequences of an action. There has to be a good reaction now, not from the Israeli government, but from those who started these attacks in the first place.

PRESIDENT BUSH: -- to help calm the situation, we've got diplomats in the region. Secretary of State Rice, who is here, is on the phone talking to herf counterparts. I'll be making calls.

I gave you my initial impression earlier, and that is that it's a sad situation where -- when there is a very good chance for there to be a two-state solution enacted -- that is two states living side-by-side in peace -- it's really sad where people are willing to take innocent life in order to stop that progress. As a matter of fact, it's pathetic.

And having said that, Israel has a right to defend herself. Every nation must defend herself against terrorist attacks and the killing of innocent life. It's a necessary part of the 21st century.

Secondly, we -- whatever Israel does, though, should not weaken the Siniora government in Lebanon. We're concerned about the fragile democracy in Lebanon. We've been working very hard through the United Nations and with partners to strengthen the democracy in Lebanon. The Lebanese people have democratic aspirations, which is being undermined by the actions and activities of Hezbollah.

Thirdly, Syria needs to be held to account. Syria is housing the militant wing of Hamas. Hezbollah has got an active presence in Syria. The truth of the matter is, if we really want there to be -- the situation to settle down, the soldiers need to be returned, and President Assad needs to show some leadership toward peace.

To answer your question about the involvement, we will be involved diplomatically, and are involved diplomatically.

Steve.

Q Thank you, sir. Just to follow up --

PRESIDENT BUSH: Follow up on?

Q On both of these. Does it concern you that the Beirut airport has been bombed? And do you see a risk of triggering a wider war?

And on Iran, they've, so far, refused to respond. Is it now past the deadline, or do they still have more time to respond?

PRESIDENT BUSH: I thought you were going to ask me about the pig.

Q I'm curious about that, too. (Laughter.)

PRESIDENT BUSH: The pig? I'll tell you tomorrow after I eat it.

The Iranian issue is -- will be taken to the U.N. Security Council. We said that we have -- to the Iranians, we said, here's your chance to move forward, and we'd like a response in a reasonable period of time. And we meant what we said. One of the important things about moving toward the Security Council, it shows that when we say something, we mean it. In order for -- to help solve these problems, you just can't say things and not mean it. And so when we spoke, we said, reasonable period of time; weeks not months -- that's what we explained to the Iranians. They evidently didn't believe us. And so now we're going to go to the Security Council, and we're united in doing that.

Q Their deadline has passed --

PRESIDENT BUSH: Their deadline passed, right. That's why we're going to the U.N. Security Council.

Q -- have time?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Oh, they've got plenty of time. I mean, the U.N. Security Council, they've got time to react. They've got time to make a decision. By the way, it's their choice. We've made our choice. It's the Iranian choice. And as Angela mentioned, there was an offer put on the table, a reasonable offer for them to make the choice as to the way forward.

And our choice is, look, we want to have relations with you, but you're not going to have a weapon or the capacity to make a weapon. It would be incredibly dangerous if we -- five years from now, Iran shows up with a nuclear weapon and threatens people in the neighborhood, and they're going to say, where were you? What were you doing during that period of time? And that's what we're working on.

And so time -- that's -- when we said, weeks not months, we meant it. And now we're heading to the U.N. Security Council. They can show up any time and say, wait a minute, now we'd like to go back and negotiate, now -- take a look at the interests. We're not precluding any further negotiations with the Iranians.

In order for us to come to the table, however, what they must do is verifiably show that they're not enriching, like they said they would do earlier. This is not a -- this is not a new statement by them. They agreed to this in Paris. All we're asking them to do is to honor what they said they would do in the past in a verifiable fashion.

The rest of your four-part question?

Q Sorry about that, sir.

PRESIDENT BUSH: That's okay, it just -- it's a bad habit.

Q Does the Beirut -- the attack on the Beirut airport, does that concern you, and are you concerned about triggering a wider Middle East war?

PRESIDENT BUSH: As I mentioned, my biggest concern is whether or not actions taken will weaken the Siniora government. Democracy in Lebanon is an important part of laying a foundation for peace in that region. We have worked really hard to get Syria out of Lebanon -- U.N. Resolution 1559, and it's follow-up Resolution 1680 were manifestations of the work of the international community to get Syria out of Lebanon. We've always felt that a democracy in Lebanon is important for the Lebanese people, and it's important for the region.

So the concern is that any activities by Israel to protect herself will weaken that government. And we have made that -- or topple that government -- and we've made it clear in our discussions.

Having said all that, people need to protect themselves. There are terrorists who will blow up innocent people in order to achieve tactical objectives. In this case, the objective is to stop the advance of peace -- which is a remarkable statement, isn't it? Willing to kill to stop peace.

We have a good chance to get a two-state solution, two democracies living side-by-side in peace. It is a clear and achievable vision. There is a way forward called the road map to achieve that vision. What will prevent that vision from being achieved is -- are terrorist activities, and that's what you're seeing taking place.

Thank you all.

CHANCELLOR MERKEL: Thank you.

END 1:03 P.M. (Local)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



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

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 3:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Remarks on Iran, North Korea, and the Middle East


Ambassador John R. Bolton, , U.S. Permanent Representative to the United
Nations
Remarks at a Security Council Stakeout
New York City
July 12, 2006

AMBASSADOR BOLTON: Okay let me just take a minute at the beginning. On the
subject of Iran, I think you're all aware of the statement made by the Perm
Five foreign ministers, Perm Five plus Germany, in Paris. Obviously we will be
consulting here beginning this afternoon to carry out the direction that the
foreign ministers have given us because of the disappointing and inadequate
response from the government of Iran. The first step will be to make mandatory
the suspension of uranium enrichment activities. And as I say we'll be
consulting as to how to pick back up where we left off essentially at the end
of May. So that's basically all I can say at the moment although we hope to
move as quickly as possible, possibly within the next few days, but I think
realistically, early next week. We hope to do that fairly expeditiously since
the foreign ministers have issued their statement.


REPORTER: On Gaza, where do you stand on?

AMBASSADOR BOLTON: Before we go to Gaza is there anything else on Iran?

REPORTER: Do you have any text yet on Iran?

AMBASSADOR BOLTON: No.

REPORTER: In the statement, particularly the two paragraphs that refer to the
agreement of the P-5 + Germany on a mandatory resolution referenced in the
second paragraph referencing Article 41, do you see in those two paragraphs a
real move and significant moves on the part of China and Russia on the position
they held on this whole, sort of the incentive package was presented and where
you left off here?

AMBASSADOR BOLTON: I think that when the foreign ministers met in Berlin on the
first of June that they closed some of the differences that existed, that we
had found in negotiations here in New York. And that's one reason why the
foreign ministers' meeting was significant. It was that meeting, of course,
that agreed on presenting Iran with a very stark choice. Down one path, they
could proceed and have a different relationship with the United States and
others, if they chose to suspend their uranium enrichment activities. Down the
other path, lay increasing international isolation and increased economic and
political pressure from the Security Council and elsewhere. They have, the
Iranians have effectively chosen the second path, so I think in that sense the
foreign ministers laid the groundwork at their June meeting, and this is now
reflected in their statement, and I hope will be reflected here in New York in
quick action on that subject.


REPORTER: Ambassador, what's the nature of the consultations this afternoon? Is
it P-5 and also you said you expected something early next week but I wasn't
sure weather you meant negotiations or a vote early next week?

AMBASSADOR BOLTON: Well, we would hope to be able to move to a decision on the
resolution early next week. We need to get together and review the specifics of
what the ministers have agreed to, but certainly I think they've given a very
clear direction and I would hope we could move expeditiously. We do think that
we should try to resolve the North Korea question first because of the
imminence of the problem caused by the North Korean missile launches. So we'll
be talking this afternoon both about Iran and N. Korea, and of course the
Middle East situation as well.


REPORTER: On North Korea, you wanted a response in the beginning, a decisive,
unified, swift response. It hasn't been decisive, not unified and certainly not
swift. How long are you willing to wait? I understand you're waiting for a
response.

AMBASSADOR BOLTON: Are you a critic of the United Nations?

REPORTER: How long are you willing to wait before you present?

AMBASSADOR BOLTON: I think that we've made progress. I'd like to sound
optimistic in the sense that China and Russia started from the position that
they wanted to repeat the 1998 response to North Korea, which was a press
statement, which we found weak and inadequate. They've since moved to a
Presidential Statement and now today they've concluded that they're prepared to
negotiate on the text of a resolution. We would like to move quickly, as I say,
we would be looking to try to reach a decision within a couple of days, but I
would just mention again, as I did the other day, it took the Security Council
two weeks to respond to the Taepodong 1 launch, so I think we've made-we've
closed the gap. The Russians and the Chinese moved a far piece, not quite
enough, but we're going to continue to work on it. Linda.

REPORTER: Ambassador, regarding Iran, you said that the first step was to make
it mandatory that Iran should stop enriching uranium but do you expect that in
this upcoming resolution that would be the single demand without a threat of
sanctions?

AMBASSADOR BOLTON: No, I think we would make it clear, and this is what we need
to go through the consultation process about, that Iran has a limited fixed
period of time to do that based on what the ministers have agreed. And then I
think the next step if they fail to comply would be to go to economic
sanctions, no question about that.


REPORTER: Can you tell us what are the elements of resolution on Iran that you
would like to see?

AMBASSADOR BOLTON: Well, we were working on it at the end of May. And I think
we'll return to it in some form. Obviously the circumstances have changed
somewhat, but along the lines of what the ministers indicated what I've said
based on what we were looking at then.

REPORTER: Could you tell us what they are though?

AMBASSADOR BOLTON: To make the requirement that Iran suspend all uranium
enrichment activities mandatory.


REPORTER: And on the Middle East if the current resolution is put to a vote
tomorrow as the Qataris have said what will be the American position? Will
there be a veto?

AMBASSADOR BOLTON: Well, like any prudent ambassador in New York I've requested
instructions from Washington. And when I get those instructions I will
implement them tomorrow. But it certainly remains our position that there is no
need for this resolution and we've expressed that, we've expressed that
publicly and we've said so in the negotiations.

REPORTER: What's your response then to the Secretary General's apparent
impatience that the Council has yet to take a stand?

AMBASSADOR BOLTON: What did he say?

REPORTER: Well, he said it was time for the Council to take a position on this
issue and in your highly respected personal opinion what would you think of the
resolution now before the Council? You've asked for instructions but clearly
you must have your own views on it.

AMBASSADOR BOLTON: I certainly do which is why I have asked for instructions to
make sure that I carry out the policy of the United States Government. No, I
will not because I'm waiting for instructions and you'll see them tomorrow if
the Qataris put it to a vote. This is after all an issue for member governments
to decide and if the sponsors push ahead tomorrow then the Council will take a
vote and we'll see what happens. I just have time for one or two more. I want
to get somebody who hasn't asked a question yet.

REPORTER: How has the North Korea issue, the splits that you've seen over North
Korea, how does that complicate getting back to Iran picking up on a subject
that you had splits on before? And then separately, but also linked, do you see
that one nation is taking cues from the other on how it moves forward?

AMBASSADOR BOLTON: Well, I think both the question of how the Council handles
North Korea and the question of how the Council handles Iran constitute
important tests for the Council. And it constitutes another test to see if the
Council can do two things simultaneously or in fact given the Middle East
situation, three things simultaneously. And I don't know the outcome of that,
but I do think that one cannot deny in the case of Iran and North Korea that
they are certainly watching each other and they are watching how the Security
Council performs. The reason this is an important test of the Security Council
is to see whether the Council can handle the threat of the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction. This is not an abstract question, can the Council
pass a Resolution about why WMD proliferation is a threat to international
peace and security. This is a question of whether the Security Council can
handle two concrete cases. Two cases of rogue states that are seeking nuclear
weapons and ballistic missile development capabilities that threaten peace and
security in their region and peace and security on a worldwide basis. During
the Cold War, the Council was basically sidelined. The question now in looking
at the threats we confront is whether the Council can act effectively or
whether member governments will have to take major responsibility for the
protection of their innocent civilian populations outside of the Council.

REPORTER: Does the U.S. support Israeli operations in southern Lebanon?

AMBASSADOR BOLTON: I think that Secretary Rice has made clear that the
kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers is an act of terrorism. It was an act
committed across an international border. Israel clearly has the right to act
in self-defense and that appears to be what they are carrying out at the
present time. Okay, thank you very much.

Released on July 12, 2006

************************************************************
See http://www.state.gov for Senior State Department
Official's statements and testimonies
************************************************************
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



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

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 11:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

On Iran, Giving Futility Its Chance

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/12/AR2006071201874.html?nav=hcmodule

By Robert Kagan
Thursday, July 13, 2006; Page A23

Let's imagine, and this is purely hypothetical, that President Bush has already decided that he will not leave office in January 2009 without a satisfactory resolution of the Iranian nuclear problem. Let's imagine that he has already determined that if he cannot obtain Iran's agreement to dismantle its nuclear weapons program voluntarily and verifiably, then he will order some form of military action to destroy as much of that program as possible before he leaves. Let's imagine that he has resolved not to end his two terms in office the way Bill Clinton ended his, by leaving every major international crisis -- from Iraq to Iran to North Korea to al-Qaeda -- for his successor.

Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that Bush had made such a decision. What would he be doing right now? The answer is that he might be doing exactly what he is doing.


He might be engaging in a prodigious and extended diplomatic effort to bring together the international community and, failing that, America's leading democratic allies in a unified effort to convince the Iranians that they should voluntarily give up their pursuit of nuclear weapons.

And he would have learned from his Iraq experience that, to be successful in the present, profoundly unserious international environment, a diplomatic effort requires two things: evident sincerity and almost infinite patience.

Bush would be sincere, and convincingly so. For his ideal outcome really would be a diplomatic solution in which Iran voluntarily and verifiably abandoned its program. He would know that such an outcome, in addition to benefiting the world, could completely reshape his image and ensure his legacy as a successful leader. He would also know that the military solution is fraught with danger and, indeed, could end badly. He would genuinely like to avoid it if at all possible. It really would be a last resort, to be used only when diplomacy failed. Therefore, Bush would send his diplomats out and want them to succeed. He would not be bothered by press reports that he had abandoned "cowboy diplomacy" and given in to the "realists" at the State Department.

And Bush would be patient. He would know that when dealing with the international community, including America's European allies, it is necessary to demonstrate that the diplomatic option has been tried and has failed. For the Europeans this means trying not once, not twice, not three times, but again and again and again and again, because at the end of the day they don't want to take any action against Iran. They must be brought along, step by tiny step, ever marginally closer to a decision until finally they must either come along or explicitly and embarrassingly retreat from their own public commitments. Bush would know he can be patient, because he does not need a resolution this month or even this year. He can keep pressing on the diplomatic front until a time of his choosing, at which point he can bring the matter to a head.

If this were Bush's strategy, he would know very well that the diplomatic track is likely to fail. He would know that Iran is unlikely to give up its program and accept the kind of intrusive inspections necessary to verify any deal. He would also know that the international community, at the end of the day, will probably refuse to support serious punitive actions against Iran. Even the European allies, let alone Russia and China, will balk at any sanctions that really have a chance of hurting the Iranian leadership. The Europeans will try to carry out a kind of Zeno's diplomacy, moving halfway toward decisive action, then another quarter of the way, then an eighth, then a sixteenth, and on and on, to avoid choosing between their two worst options: taking action against Iran, or visibly and embarrassingly retreating from taking action against Iran.

The likely failure of diplomacy would not deter Bush from pursuing it, however. If and when it failed, he would be able to choose the military course, and no fair person could accuse him of not having tried to bring the world along to do what had to be done. At least he would know in his own mind that he had sincerely given diplomacy a chance. And when he ordered the strike on Iran, he would know that, whatever else could be said about him, he would not go down in history as the man who let the mullahs have the bomb.

It's just a theory.

Robert Kagan, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and transatlantic fellow at the German Marshall Fund, writes a monthly column for The Post.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 12:58 am    Post subject: Steps To Avoid Major War With Iran Reply with quote

G8 &UN Steps To STOP WAR With Iran
and Stop Taazi Terror Masters


Free Iran, Secular Democracy and FREE Society

We the freedom-loving people of the world condemn world wide Islamist Clerical terrorism and the vast majority of freedom-loving Iranian people support the right of Israel to exist and all of Iran's Middle Eastern neighbors, as well as the United States, to live in peace and security. We condemn Islamist Clerical regime in Iran to destabilize the region and to frustrate the aspirations for free society, secular democracy and peace in the region, Recently in Gaza, elements of Hamas launched rocket attacks against Israeli territory and abducted an Israeli soldier. In Lebanon, Hizbollah, in violation of the Blue Line, attacked Israel from Lebanese territory and killed and captured Israeli soldiers. Both Hamas and Hizbollah have initiated the start of war against Israel to divert G8 attention from their Clerical Terror Masters in Iran. There is no secret that the corrupt Clerical Terror Masters in Iran who have taken 70 million Iranian people as their hostage in past 27 years are using stolen Iranian people Oil money for creating Islamist terror and crisis both inside and outside Iran to survive for few more years . ActivistChat supports disarming Hizbollah , Hamas, Islamist Militia in Iraq and total sanctions of Islamist clerical regime which is controlling Iran and no to appeasing Mullahs and submission to Terror Masters in Tehran. ...
.

Our Demand From G8 and UN:
We demand from G8 and UN to deal with this unelected and undemocratic regime strongly with a comprehensive set of measures. The measures that we recommend and strongly advocate and support are as follows:
* Declare top Islamist Clerical Regime leadership as Wanted International Criminals against humanity and asking for their arrest anywhere.
* Stop, with immediate effect, all international trades with the undemocratic Islamic “Republic” of Iran.
*Stop the purchase of oil from Iran and refrain from signing any new contracts and renewal of any existing ones.
* Blockade Iran’s ports in the Persian Gulf and possibly the Caspian Sea allowing passage of food and medicine.
*Stop all IRI satellite TV and Radio programming to the outside world.
* Cease all Mullahs personal assets outside Iran including its support organization .
* Freeze IRI assets outside of Iran and impose prohibition on investment, a travel ban, and asset freezes for government leaders and nuclear scientists.
* Worldwide announcement to all nations that any deals and contracts made with IRI (Islamic Republic of Iran) by any entity is null and void. The IRI does not represent Iranians.
* Publicly identify known IRI agents, arrest and prosecute their agents abroad as promoters of international terrorism and abusers of human rights. Shut down all illegal unregistered agent organizations representing IRI interests, their lobbyist and apologists.
* Close or limit Islamic Republic’s embassies and its activities including travel limits on Iranian diplomats.
* Expel IRI representatives from UN since the IRI constitution is contrary to the UDHR (Universal Declarations of Human Rights).

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



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

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 1:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Captive Nations Week, 2006
A Proclamation by the President of the United States of America a Proclamation


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


The best hope for peace is the expansion of freedom throughout the world. During Captive Nations Week, we reaffirm our commitment to advancing liberty, protecting human rights, and helping people realize the great promise of democracy.

In proclaiming the first Captive Nations Week in 1959, President Dwight Eisenhower said that "the citizens of the United States are linked by bonds of family and principle to those who love freedom and justice on every continent." Over the past five decades, the force of human freedom has overcome hatred and resentment and overthrown tyrants in nations around the globe. Freedom is on the march, and today more people live in liberty than ever before.

The advance of freedom is the story of our time, and we have witnessed remarkable democratic progress in recent years. The people of Afghanistan elected their first democratic parliament in more than a generation. The people of Kyrgyzstan drove a corrupt regime from power and voted for democratic change. Ending 16 years of civil war and interim governments, the people of Liberia were able to go to the polls, electing Africa's first female president. The courageous citizens of Iraq reached yet another important milestone in their journey towards democracy by forming a national unity government based upon the constitution they approved last October. In Lebanon, citizens recovered their independence and chose their members of parliament in free elections. That newfound independence has come under attack in recent days from terrorists and their state sponsors, who see freedom and democracy as a threat. The United States and its allies will stand with those in Lebanon who continue to struggle for their independence and sovereignty and who refuse to give over their country to extremism and terror.

At this critical time in the history of freedom, no nation can evade the demands of human dignity. In countries like Iran, North Korea, Belarus, Burma, Syria, Zimbabwe, and Cuba, governments must become accountable to their citizens and embrace democracy. The desire for freedom is written in every human heart, and we can be confident that in this century freedom will continue to prevail.

This week is also an opportunity to honor those who have stood against oppression and advanced the fundamental right of all to live in liberty. The courage and sacrifice of these men and women reflect the fact that tyranny can never destroy the desire to be free. Inspired by their example, we will carry on their work to help others realize the universal gift of liberty and to spread the light of democracy to every corner of the world.

The Congress, by Joint Resolution approved July 17, 1959 (73 Stat. 212), has authorized and requested the President to issue a proclamation designating the third week in July of each year as "Captive Nations Week."

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim July 16 through July 22, 2006, as Captive Nations Week. I call upon the people of the United States to reaffirm their commitment to all those seeking liberty, justice, and self-determination.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this thirteenth day of July, in the year of our Lord two thousand six, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-first.

GEORGE W. BUSH

# # #
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



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

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 4:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Cyrus,

The coming week will determine whether the war instigated by the Iranian regime via Hizbolla only days after its re-referal to the UN Sec. Council, following some ten weeks of intensive arms build-up to prepare Hizbollah to act as a distraction to delay further action in the UN, becomes a full-blown region-wide conflict involving major powers against Syria and Iran.

For both Syria and Iran, the choice is clear, escalate the conflict to a regional level or sit back and watch hezbollah become nuetered, as UN 1559 becomes implemented by force of arms and the will of the international community.

I believe they will choose to escalate (or rather, the IRI will ), and boatloads of Americans and others evacuating the war zone make for a very tempting target. One that if attacked in any way would with certainty bring the wrath of the US down in full force.

It's easy to start a war, and almost impossible to stop one in its tracks.
But there are ways, and the means are being debated. Unfortunately this war is like a wildfire set in tinder dry conditions and a strong wind to fan it.
There's a point where it takes on a life of its own, and is impossible to predict or control and generates its own wind, becoming a firestorm.

If that happens, it could very well put the entire region back a thousand years (which would probably suit the mullahs just fine, but they won't be around to be witness to it.)

Something I wrote (privately to one of the members, not posted) back at the end of April came to mind, and I include the following excerpt with a couple notations:

Even left-wingnuts protesting Bush for the war in Iraq are convinced the mullahs are capable of nuking their own people to make it look like the US did it....and since no one trusts IRI's word on anything anymore, even the Gulf States are likely to say to the mullahs "do you want a Rad suit and a broom to clean up your own mess?" rather than join them in some holy war started by deception.

which seems to be the case today in the sense that Arab states have pinned the blame squarely where it belongs, on hizbollah and its backers

Thing is, it only takes one to start a war....one bullet in the cae of WW1..One crazy mullah's boy with a anti-ship missile...believer of the regime's propaganda that it is a regional power...and dying to prove it..not realizing there's enough firepower in the region to vaporize Iran, leaving nothing but a scooped out smoking/glowing crater where Persia used to exist.

Iranian Rev. Guard fired c-803 anti-ship missile, hitting Israeli frigate.

For that matter, what's to prevent another nation from nuking Iran to make it look like US did it, or just simply saying "screw it...let's do it....we'll blame it on the mullahs, they are morally capable of any atrocity."

Given the circumstance today, the stage seems set for it.

Pretty harsh reality for Iranian dissidents (and the people) .....rise up and die at the hands of the regime, or do nothing and die at the hands of the regime.

Anyway you slice this cake, the regime has given you (the Iranian people) a reason to act now....en mass...by the millions.

Safety in numbers is an opperative phrase..

Hope you'll pass on my hopes that they'll do this by the numbers, and not fail in freedom's march....Starting Yesterday!

The fellow's reply:

Quote:
I don’t know how long the people will tolerate this situation, maybe indefinitely!

There must be a plan B, if not the whole world is screwed.

The way I see it, the people are hopeless, weak with apathy as well as financially broke!



If this indeed be the case Cyrus, then please trust there is plan B, C, D......to prevent the nightmare above from becoming manifest.
But as I've often said I believe it is important that Iranians themselves deal with the regime to regain lost honor.

One of the ways Cyrus the Great won so many victories was to threaten war and when the leaders and generals gathered in one place to discuss their response they were all taken out at once.

An Iranian fellow I know once asked, "What's America gonna do, take them (the mullahs) out while they're on the toilet?"

I said, " As long as you remember to flush it afterwards, anything's possible."

By the way, in case there is question as to any outside support for "separatists", or a "breakup of Iran" as policy, as some even in the opposition have suggested....forget it....it's a myth.

Nor should anyone be complacent in thinking we'll simply take care of your problem for you (and our own in the process) for there is only a limited number of options short of total war. Those options require the self-empowerment of the Iranian people to act in a timely manner to complete the job.

We can change the circumstances, but we can't just hand people freedom in this case. It must be taken unto one's self as a nation.

As for the paralysis of the Iranian people, that too is understood and steps are in process to level the playing field.

Without vaporizing it, I should add.


-Oppie
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 11:34 am    Post subject: FBI eyes Hizbollah in US as tensions with Iran rise Reply with quote

FBI eyes Hizbollah in US as tensions with Iran rise

By Caroline Drees, Security Correspondent
Tue Jul 18, 5:07 PM ET
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060718/us_nm/security_hizbollah_usa_dc_2


NEW YORK (Reuters) - The FBI is trying to ferret out possible Hizbollah agents in the United States amid concerns that rising U.S.-Iranian tensions could trigger attacks on American soil, FBI officials said.

Relations between Washington and Tehran, which soured after the 1979 Islamic revolution, have deteriorated further recently over Iran's nuclear program and its support for Hizbollah, the militant Islamic group whose capture of two Israeli soldiers last week prompted Israel to launch retaliatory strikes in Lebanon.

American law enforcement officials are concerned the Lebanon-based Hizbollah, which has so far focused on fund-raising and other support activities inside the United States, could turn to violence in solidarity with Iran.

"If the situation escalates, will Hizbollah take the gloves off, so to speak, and attack here in the United States, which they've been reluctant to do until now?" said William Kowalski, assistant special agent in charge of the FBI in Detroit.

Detroit is home to one of the largest Muslim communities in the United States.

"Because of the heightened difficulties surrounding U.S.-Iranian relations, the FBI has increased its focus on Hizbollah," said FBI spokesman Paul Bresson in Washington.

"Those investigations relate particularly to the potential presence of Hizbollah members on U.S. soil."

There is no specific or credible intelligence pointing to an imminent U.S. attack by Hizbollah, which the United States considers a terrorist group, Bresson added.

But Iran's Hizbollah -- which claims links to the Lebanese group -- said on Tuesday it stood ready to attack U.S. and Israeli interests worldwide.

FBI Director Robert Mueller told reporters in Toronto that agents were keeping a close eye on Hizbollah, especially "when the international situation heats up."

AMERICAN MUSLIMS WORRY

Muslim American groups worry that fear of Hizbollah violence in the United States could again cast an unwelcome spotlight on their community, which has often felt a target of surveillance or discrimination since the September 11 attacks.

Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Washington, said his advocacy group fielded almost daily complaints from Muslims who felt singled out or intimidated by government officials.

Muslim American groups say that while they support fighting against terrorism, they are concerned the focus is unfairly on them.

"There are individual concerns that the government does interviews with individuals, with kind of subtle threats that they could be arrested or deported if they don't cooperate. That is really the concern for a lot of these groups right now," said Salam al-Marayati, head of the Los Angeles-based Muslim Public Affairs Council.

"That fact in itself will alienate, frustrate and perhaps even push these young people further to the margins, which creates a very problematic situation for all of us," he said. "In a way, this is becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy."

Marayati, who consults regularly with government officials, said they were listening to his concerns, but should do more to show Americans that their Muslim compatriots are just as determined as they are to fight terrorism.

"Since the relationship is not publicized, people think we're not contributing and Muslims continue to be seen as a problem in our society as opposed to part of the solution," he said.

(Additional reporting by Lynne Olver in Toronto)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



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

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 12:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mideast riddle: How long will Iran stand as Hezbollah's big brother?
The Associated Press, July 19, 2006

TEHRAN, Iran

http://www.tkb.org/NewsStory.jsp?storyID=131228


Iran does nothing to hide its support for the Hezbollah militia it helped create in Lebanon.

The group maintains an office on Tehran's premier boulevard. Its fist-and-weapon emblem is modeled after the symbol of Iran's mighty Revolutionary Guard.

Iran's ruling clerics often single out Hezbollah for prayers and issue praise for its unwavering campaign against Israel.

But beyond the public declarations of support the trail linking the Shiite theocracy and the Shiite guerrilla fighters grows colder.

Iranian leaders have never fully disclosed the levels of financial and military help funneled to Hezbollah strongholds since it was established in the early 1980s

Iran's religious leaders also send confusing signals about how deeply it is involved in drawing up Hezbollah strategy _ including the incursion into Israel last week that touched off the worst Arab-Israeli fighting in 24 years.

Such questions have taken on major significance as the confrontation widens and diplomatic moves for a cease-fire might increasingly call on the offices of Hezbollah's proxies _ witness Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki postponement Wednesday of a trip to India so he would be available in the region.

Iran denies Israeli claims that it has dispatched advisers from the Revolutionary Guard, the military pillar of Iran's Islamic Revolution, and says it has not directly supplied longer-range missiles that have reached deep into Israeli territory.

Regardless, Iran has been outspoken about its support for the Islamic guerrillas in their fight with Israel even while denying a direct role in the fighting.

But in a signal that Iranian hands can pull Hezbollah strings, Tehran's foreign minister said during a visit to Syria last week that a cease-fire was possible if Israel released Hezbollah prisoners. Then a key parliamentarian said no place in Israel was safe from Hezbollah attacks.

The evidence leads many analysts in Iran and abroad believe Tehran remains firmly at the helm of all important Hezbollah decisions, including the cross-border attack and abduction of two Israeli soldiers.

"The relationship between Hezbollah and Iran is like the close relationship between Israel and America," said Mashaallah Shamsolvaezin, head of a political research group in Tehran and an expert on Lebanese affairs.

"Iran is Hezbollah's big brother," he said.

Iranian officials don't dispute that role even as they deny a role in the current fight.

But that appears unlikely to Larry Haas, an expert on Hezbollah at the Georgetown Public Policy Institute in Washington.

"Hezbollah simply would not have taken the brazen steps to create murder and mayhem without the assent _ if not the actual steering _ from Tehran," he said.

But to what end? Political analysts offer several opinions.

Many believe Iran wanted to raise Hezbollah's profile as the Islamic world was focused on the Palestinian group Hamas.

The group has come under punishing Israeli raids and attacks in retaliation for an ambush last month from the Gaza Strip in which Hamas raiders took an Israeli soldier captive.

Iran also could be looking, analysts suggest, to expand its power in Lebanon after Hezbollah's other key sponsor, Syria, was forced to pull its forces from the country last year.

Some _ including Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert _ have publicly asked if Iran set Hezbollah in motion to deflect attention from its disputed nuclear program during the G-8 summit last week in Russia.

An Iranian specialist agreed.

"The crisis has caused the world to forget Iran's nuclear activities at least for the time being," said Tehran-based political analyst Saeed Leilaz.

Lebanese Hezbollah officials in Tehran refused requests for interviews. A Hezbollah aid coordinator in Iran, Ahmad Doulatabadi, would only say: "Hezbollah has 70 million members in Iran. Every Iranian is a supporter."

He declined to discuss whether Iran was sending missiles or other military support.

Hezbollah, or Party of God, was formed in the early 1980s in Lebanon after Israel's invasion in a bid to root out militant factions. Hezbollah's Shiite Muslim founders took inspiration from Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution and pledged allegiance to its leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

Iran _ the world's largest Shiite nation _ became a generous patron, opening a huge flow of money, arms and aid. Estimates put Iranian donations at $10 million to $20 million a month.

During its early years, Hezbollah was synonymous with suicide attacks, foremost for the 1983 attack on the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut that killed 24 American servicemen. An nearly simultaneous bombing killed 56 French peacekeepers.

Hezbollah also kept up a running battle against Israel's 18 year occupation of southern Lebanon, until the Jewish state pulled its troops out in 2000.

The U.S. State Department says Hezbollah is a terrorist organization and lists its chief patrons, Iran and Syria, among state sponsors of terrorism.

In Lebanon, Hezbollah has built support by funding schools, clinics and charities. In recent years it took a political role and now holds 11 seats in the Lebanese parliament and two Cabinet posts.

Iran has been always in the background. Posters of Khomeini and his successor, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, are common in Hezbollah offices and homes of backers.

Revolutionary Guard liaison officers are in constant contact in Lebanon, although Iran never publicly admitted their presence.

A vivid sign of the deep links appeared in 2001 at an anti-Israel conference in Tehran that include Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah and Khaled Mashaal, a Syrian-based Hamas leader.

Nasrallah fell to his knees and kissed Khamenei's hand.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad _ a former Revolutionary Guard commander _ reportedly met in Syria in January with Imad Mughniyeh, a senior Hezbollah intelligence official.

Mughniyeh is among fugitives indicted in the United States for the 1985 hijacking of a TWA airliner in which a U.S. Navy SEAL was killed.

Despite Iran's refusal to publicly disclose the extent of its Hezbollah links, the evidence suggests the ties have grown during the current fighting.

On state television, a Revolutionary Guard officer gives military-style briefings _ complete with topographical maps that mark Hezbollah missile strikes in Israel _ to explain the group's tactics.

At a pro-Lebanon rally in Tehran on Tuesday, members of the Revolutionary Guard stood under the yellow Hezbollah banner. A 21-year-old student, Samad Doustmohammadian, wore a white shroud symbolizing readiness to be a Hezbollah suicide bomber.

The Iranian-based wing of Hezbollah said as many as 2,000 fighters were ready to leave for Lebanon if Khamenei asked, said Iranian Hezbollah spokesman Mojtaba Bigdeli.

"We think that this is the beginning of the third world war and we are ready," he said.

(bm/srh)

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

Comment:

Quote:
Lebanese Hezbollah officials in Tehran refused requests for interviews. A Hezbollah aid coordinator in Iran, Ahmad Doulatabadi, would only say: "Hezbollah has 70 million members in Iran. Every Iranian is a supporter."


Although this statement above is totally false, it reflects the mindset that considers 70 million people as martyrs to be sacrificed for an ideology, and thus if this is not proof that the IRI is capable of the things I spoke of in my previous post, I don't know what is.

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



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

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 11:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=7959

Hundreds of Iranian troops fighting in Lebanon
Wed. 19 Jul 2006
The New York Sun

BY IRA STOLL - Staff Reporter of the Sun

Hundreds of Iranian Revolutionary Guard personnel are on the ground in Lebanon fighting Israel, security sources say.

"I have no doubt whatsoever that they are there and operating some of the equipment," an Arab diplomatic source told The New York Sun yesterday.

Another foreign source, based in Washington, said the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps contingent in Lebanon is based in Beirut and in the Bekaa Valley. He said the troops usually number a few dozen, but that the size of the force increased in connection with the hostilities that have broken out between Israel and Iran's proxy, Hezbollah, over the past week.

The sources said the Iranians had directly operated a radar-guided C–802 missile that Iran acquired from Communist China and that hit an Israeli navy missile boat off the coast of Lebanon on Friday, killing four Israeli seamen.

"This was a direct message to the Israelis that we are fighting the Iranians here," the Arab diplomatic source said.

The Iranian Revolutionary Guard's mission in Lebanon includes keeping custody of Zalzal missiles and drones, or unmanned aerial vehicles. A report by an Israel-based research group, the Intelligence & Terrorism Information Center, identifies the units of Iran's Revolutionary Guard "deployed and active in Lebanon" as the "Al-Quds Force." The Lebanon-based Iranian force "provides military guidance and support for terrorist attacks against Israel," the report says.

President Bush has openly blamed Iran, along with Syria, for sponsoring Hezbollah, but he has stopped short of identifying the presence of Iranian troops in Lebanon. Tomorrow, a senior National Security aide to Mr. Bush, Elliott Abrams, and the undersecretary of state, Nicholas Burns, will chair a meeting at the White House for at least 10 Iranian opposition organizations. The White House has hinted to those invited that President Bush may stop by.
The Iranian government has cheered Hezbollah's actions while at the same time publicly denying the presence of Revolutionary Guards in Iran.

Clearing the Iranian Revolutionary Guard from Lebanon has emerged as an unstated, but significant, Israeli war aim. Israelis also are hoping for tougher American and international sanctions on Iran and Syria as punishment for the Iranian and Syrian roles in Hezbollah's kidnapping of Israeli soldiers and raining of missiles on Israeli cities.

The Arab diplomatic source described the leader of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, as "totally subservient" to Iran. "How more forceful can I put it?" he said.

In New York on Monday, Senator McCain, a Republican of Arizona who sits on the Armed Services Committee, said the Iranians had supplied Hezbollah with arms, equipment, training, and 10,000 rockets. He said he did not see how Hezbollah would have captured Israeli soldiers without "the tacit agreement and maybe support of the Iranians." And Mr. McCain said Iranians have "very heavily penetrated" southern Iraq, "including sending in terrorists" and equipment for the bombs known as improvised explosive devices.

The Hezbollah offensive against Israel followed a summit in Damascus. Reports vary on whether the meeting was attended by Sheik Nasrallah himself or by one of his top political aides, Sheik Hussein Khalil. Others said to be present include the head of Syrian military intelligence, Assef Shawkat, and the Iranian national security adviser, Ali Larijani, who is one of the many high-ranking Iranian officials who have been shuttling between Damascus and Tehran.

The president of the Reform Party of Syria, Farid Ghadry, who opposes the regime in Damascus, said there are indications that Hezbollah and the Iranians and Syrians recently attacked a Lebanese army base, signaling they are expanding their campaign beyond Israeli targets.
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
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 7, 8, 9 ... 25, 26, 27  Next
Page 8 of 27

 
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