[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 ... 16, 17, 18 ... 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: Mon Apr 02, 2007 2:05 pm    Post subject: Former FBI Agent on Private Business in Iran Missing Reply with quote

Former FBI Agent on Private Business in Iran Missing
By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, April 2, 2007; 1:52 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/02/AR2007040200653.html?nav=rss_world

A former FBI agent has been missing in Iran since March 8, according to U.S. officials.

The unnamed former agent was on private business, but the United States is now sufficiently concerned about his welfare that the State Department today sent a formal message to Iran through Swiss intermediaries asking about his whereabouts and his situation. The Swiss Embassy represents U.S. interests in Iran.


The American was visiting Kish Island, an Iranian resort and "free trade zone" off the country's southwestern coast that does not require an Iranian visa to visit. He had traveled to Iran from the United Arab Emirates, U.S. officials said.

"We don't know where he is. We have no reliable information on him," a senior official said. "I would not characterize him as a hostage."

U.S. officials stress that the missing American was not working in any capacity for the U.S. government or any agency. His specialty at the FBI was not Iran, officials add.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 3:59 pm    Post subject: How to Fight Tehran Reply with quote

How to Fight Tehran
April 02, 2007
Frontpagemag.com
David Frum

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=27654

The Iranian seizure of 15 British naval personnel is an outrage--and an opportunity. Iran invaded Iraqi territorial waters, attacked British naval personnel enforcing resolutions of the UN Security Council and committed an act of piracy and kidnapping.

Iran then displayed its captives on national television and compelled them to read coerced political statements. It forced the captured female sailor to wear the Islamic hijab, a violation of her Geneva Convention right to practice her own religion.

These violent and lawless actions have shocked British and European public opinion. But they should not have surprised anyone.

Iran has routinely used kidnapping as a tool of state. It kidnapped eight British sailors in 2004, and 52 American diplomats in 1979-81. Iran's Hezbollah surrogates kidnapped Americans, Britons and others in Lebanon in the 1980s. They kidnapped Israeli soldiers in 2000 and again this past summer, triggering a war.

Iran has committed graver crimes too. Iranian agents have committed murder on the soil of the United States, France and Germany--and carried out mass-casualty terror attacks in Saudi Arabia and Argentina.

Today, Iran is racing to build a nuclear bomb, violating its commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. And too many in Europe shrug their shoulders.

This latest crisis, however, opens a chance to mobilize European opinion to action.

One of their own has been attacked and threatened with the prolonged abuse of its military personnel. The story will appear on television night after night after night. The longer it continues, the more British people and other Europeans will wonder: Is there anything we can do? And the good news is: Yes, there is.

The bullying, blustering bravado of the Iranians should not conceal the truth that Iran is massively vulnerable to international pressure. For example:



Iran's decrepit refineries cannot produce enough gasoline for Iranian drivers. So, although Iran is a major oil exporter, it must import 40 percent of its gasoline. An international embargo on gasoline sales to Iran would inflict severe distress. Earlier this month, Iran raised the (deeply subsidized) price of gasoline from 34 cents a gallon to 50 cents. Some in the regime are considering imposing rationing--a move that would badly damage what remains of the mullahs' popularity.

Iran's rusting industries, many of them state owned, depend heavily on parts and equipment imported from Germany. Two-thirds of these sales benefit from export credit guarantees from the German government. As of 2005, Germany had extended some US$6.2-billion worth of credit to Iran. That number has been cut in recent months. But if Germany were to follow Japan's lead and cut its credits to zero, Iranian companies would have to pay more for parts--and some would be forced out of business altogether. The Central Bank of Iran estimates unemployment at more than 12 percent. Many private economists think the real figure closer to 20 percent--and higher still for young Iranians.

The United States has maintained sanctions against Iranian oil and natural gas since 1979. The European Union, however, has continued to invest in Iran. The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that foreign companies, mostly European, have invested US$30-billion in Iran since 1996. Without this investment, Iran's oil and gas output would have faltered long ago. It's time now for Europeans to join the American ban on investment in Iran's energy sector. Such a ban would deal a painful blow to Iran's economy, which has little to sell beside oil and gas. Iran suffers an inflation rate over 20 percent, suggesting that the Iranian government is already overspending its oil and gas revenues. Squeeze those revenues, and you squeeze the regime.

Not all firms investing in Iran are European. Malaysia's Petronas and Russia's Gazprom both play major roles. Till now, firms doing business in Iran have been allowed to do business not only in the EU but also in the United States. It's time now to impose a secondary boycott, and to force firms like Petronas to decide: Either you do business with Iran or you do business with the rest of the planet. You choose.


Since 9/11, Europeans have pleaded with the U.S. to rely on sanctions and diplomacy rather than force. Fine. Let's see some sanctions then--real sanctions, not the wrist-slaps imposed till now.

Iran has been waging war on the world; it's time the world organized in countervailing self-defense. And if anything is needed to stiffen our collective will, let's broadcast one more time that image of Faye Turney, cloaked against her will in that black headscarf of subordination and humiliation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 7:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote


http://news.yahoo.com/photo/070403/481/lon10204031541&g=events/wl/032307iranbritnavy;_ylt=AmVPHx2mAOJB_wye.M9rTuhbbBAF
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 4:30 pm    Post subject: The real hostages were not released! Reply with quote

LONG LIVE THE QUEEN!

The Islamic Lodge of Mason's has prevailed!


Last week there were rumors that Ayatollah Mahdavi Kani, The head of Rohaniun Mobarez (ISLAMIC LODGE OF FREEMASON'S) canceled his Checkup appointment at ROYAL BROMPTON HOSPITAL in London and returned to Iran over night.

In addition to above, two former top Ministers in Rafsanjani and Khatami administration, holding British passports in holiday, canceled their plans and have returned home.

It seems the Hard-line Mullah's had kidnapped the British Sailors at the time when the British Backed, Mullah Conservatives were on holiday.

Once back from the New Year vacation, all was settled!

The Mullah's and HER MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT relationship goes back to 150 years!

THE SAGA CONTINUES!

MEANWHILE, THE IRANIAN PEOPLE (THE REAL HOSTAGES) ARE STILL MULLAH'S CAPTIVES!


Quote:

WHAT HAPPENED?

Below, please note the Kargozaran newspaper headline for Today! They are quoting from Parviz Davoodi, the First Secretary for the Iranian President, as saying with the current conditions in London, Hostages will not be released soon!

As you note, neither the newspapers nor President Ahmadinejad first secretary had no idea what was going on behind the curtains!

Within few hours, the view of the Mullah's regime changed? From the goodness of their hearts, released the British Hostages?

Who intervened on behalf of Mullah's to finish this circus?

Or, was it something that happened? Specially, since Mr. Tony Blair warned in advance "The next 2 days are most critical"

What was said and what deal was struck to have hostages released? Did the British inform US about their deal?

We just hope as usual, the interests of the Iranian people were not sacrificed in this deal with Mullah's!

COMPLETE REGIME CHANGE MUST BE THE ONLY OPTION ON THE TABLE

YARI NATIONAL GROUP OF NATIONALISTS
UNITED WE STAND. DIVIDED WE FALL
برای حل بحران تفنگداران انجام می شود

مذاکرات حساس ایران و انگلیس

داوودی؛ مسئله تفنگداران انگلیسی با جوسازی لندن به این زودی حل نمی شود

http://www.kargozaraan.com/Released/86-01-15/27.htm#33294

پرویز داودی معاون اول رئیس جمهوری در کنفرانس خبری خود در بوشهر و در پاسخ به این پرسش که آیا مقطع زمانی مشخصی برای حل مسئله تفنگداران بازداشت شده انگلیسی تعیین شده است یا نه؟ گفت؛ این بستگی به رفتار انگلیس دارد و قطعا اگر آنها بپذیرند تجاوز کرده اند و تضمین دهند این کار تکرار نمی شود و موضوع با روند منطقی پیش خواهد رفت ولی اگر انگلیس جوسازی ها را ادامه دهد مسئله به این زودی ها حل نخواهد شد.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 8:14 pm    Post subject: Here's a Way to Deal With the Scorpion Reply with quote

Here's a Way to Deal With the Scorpion

April 06, 2007
The Times
Amir Taheri
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article1620496.ece


While everyone should be happy that the 15 British servicemen are home from Tehran, it is, perhaps, too early to uncork the bubbly. For the undeclared war that the Islamic Republic has waged against Western democracies since 1979 is far from over. A reminder of this came just as the 15 captives boarded a plane for London, when gunmen linked to Moqtada al-Sadr, the Iraqi cleric working for Tehran, killed four British soldiers in Basra in an ambush.

Why did the mullahs decide to seize the hostages and why did they release them unexpectedly? Hostage-taking has been part of the Islamic Republic’s strategy since its inception in 1979. In the first months of its existence, the Khomeinist regime seized and quickly released hundreds of Western hostages. The policy reached a crescendo in November 1979 when Khomeinist “students” raided the US Embassy in Tehran and held its diplomats hostage for 444 days. Today a German businessman, a Canadian academic and a French researcher are captives of the mullahs.

The seizure of hostages is based on an ancient tradition first practised by early Islamic conquerors. The Arab general Saad Abi Waqqas realised that Muslim fighters were awestruck by the Byzantine soldiers in the early stages of Islamic conquests in the 7th century. He solved the problem by putting captured Byzantine soldiers on show to demonstrate that the “Infidel” were fragile men, not mythical giants.

The mullahs remembered the Abi Waqqas stratagem last summer amid growing rumours of an impending US attack on the Khomeinist regime. Their first aim was to capture some Americans. Last September, they set a trap for a platoon of GIs from the 101st Airborne Division patrolling the Iraqi border with Iran. The Americans had been led into the trap but after an intense shooting match with the Iranian force sent to capture them, they managed to flee to safety.

President Bush’s decision to change the rules of engagement for US forces in Iraq with the new “surge” strategy, allowing Americans to kill or capture any Iranian perceived as a threat, made it more difficult for the mullahs to do an Abi Waqqas. As a result, the British, whose rules of engagement prevent them from fighting Iranians even in self-defence, were chosen as the softer target.

By seizing the British almost at the same time as the United Nations Security Council was giving unanimous approval to fresh sanctions against Iran, based on a text written by British diplomats, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad achieved several objectives.

He showed that his regime could heighten tension any time. He told his Revolutionary Guards not to be unnerved by the talk of war with the “Infidel”. He enhanced his popularity among Arabs, who now regard him as heir to Nasser, and his dream of wiping Israel off the map. He also used the incident as a smokescreen for a purge of dissidents within the Establishment, putting several prominent figures on trial for “damaging state security”.

The seizure of the British naval personnel is the latest episode in a low-intensity war that the Islamic Republic has waged against the West for almost three decades. In this war, Iran has killed hundreds of Western, especially American and French troops, in suicide attacks in Lebanon and Saudi Arabia. More recently, its agents have killed at least 200 American troops and an unknown number of British soldiers in Iraq. Its influence against Nato in Afghanistan, against President Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan and against Lebanon and Israel, through Hezbollah and Hamas, are well known.

So far, the West’s response has been timid and occasional. The mullahs play a long-term game, acting as carpet-weavers, knotting one mischief at time, day in and day out. They know that their fragile regime, hated by a majority of Iranians, would not survive a full-scale clash with the West. This is why they deal their poison in small but steady doses, enough to weaken the foe but not too much to mobilise Western opinion in favour of full confrontation.

The debate on what to do about the mullahs hits a deadend because it is limited to two options: regime change or surrender. Those who blame the West for the world’s evils urge surrender, in atonement of sins supposedly committed against Iran over centuries. They hope that once the mullahs are given everything, they would start behaving reasonably. This argument ignores the fact that the Khomeinist regime’s political DNA would not allow it to act reasonably. A scorpion does not sting because it wants to misbehave but because it is programmed to do so.

When it comes to the regime-change option, the usual suspects who still cry for Saddam Hussein would be up in arms. President Ahmadinejad knows that no American or British leader can garner popular support for preemptive war against Iran.

The alternative, however, is not one of surrender or regime change. The Western democracies could give the Islamic republic a taste of its own medicine — and engage it in the kind of low-intensity warfare that Iran itself indulges in. The mischief must not be cost-free. It would be resisted though diplomatic and economic means as well as through support for the democratic and reformist forces inside Iran. Throughout history, adversaries end up by adopting aspects of each other’s strategy.

The Islamic Republic wants a Khomeinist Middle East. The “Infidel” want a democratic, pro-West Middle East. The two visions are incompatible. Eventually, one must win as the other loses. As the British celebrate the return of their hostages they would do well to decide which vision deserves support.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 7:54 pm    Post subject: Iran sending arms to Afghanistan, Iraq, Pace says Reply with quote

Mr. Gates is contradicting the statement by General Peter Pace.
Diplomacy With Mullahs will never work.....
Mr. Gates game will fail as EU3 failed.


Quote:
Iran sending arms to Afghanistan, Iraq, Pace says
Thursday April 19, 2007 (0314 PST)
http://www.paktribune.com/news/index.shtml?175574

WASHINGTON: Iran is shipping arms and explosives to Afghanistan, in addition to providing deadly armor-piercing bombs covertly to Iraqi insurgents, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said yesterday.
"It is not as clear in Afghanistan which Iranian entity is responsible, but we have intercepted weapons in Afghanistan headed for the Taliban that were made in Iran," Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace told reporters at a breakfast meeting.




Quote:

Gates: Diplomacy With Iran Progressing

http://www.jg-tc.com/articles/2007/04/18/ap/international/d8oj8qlg0.txt
By LOLITA C. BALDOR

TEL AVIV, Israel - Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Wednesday that diplomatic efforts to resolve the standoff with Iran over its nuclear program are working and should get a chance to succeed.

Both the U.S. and Israel accuse Iran of trying to develop nuclear weapons, which Tehran denies. Gates said many nations are "united in telling Iran what it needs to do with respect to its nuclear program."

The United States and its allies have led efforts to pass two U.N. Security Council resolutions punishing Iran for refusing to suspend uranium enrichment. That process can be used to develop nuclear weapons.

"We agreed it was important to deal with the Iranian nuclear problem through diplomacy, which appears to be working," Gates said at a news conference with Defense Minister Amir Peretz.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



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

PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 9:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Cyrus,

The source is always the best basis to draw conclusions from, as you get the whole enchilada in context. BTW, Gates is referring to the multilateral diplomacy, two unan. chapter VII UN resolutions, and the diplomacy involved in creating the consensus of nations to address the threat to global peace and security. It must also be taken as stated, in the context surrounding the subject matter discussed, or described as discussed in the following unedited press release.

Regards,

EJ

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

U.S. Department of Defense
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs)
News Transcript

On the Web:
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=3936
Media contact: +1 (703) 697-5131/697-5132 Public contact:
http://www.dod.mil/faq/comment.html
or +1 (703) 428-0711 +1


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

Presenter: Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates and Israeli Minister of Defense Amir Peretz April 18, 2007


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

Press Availability with Secretary of Defense Gates and Minister Peretz from the Israeli Ministry of Defense, Telaviv, Israel


MINISTER PERETZ: (In Hebrew): Good day to everyone. Mr. Secretary of Defense, we are happy to host you here in Israel. We are happy to have you here as a guest here in the Israeli Ministry of Defense. We are welcoming you two days after having marked Holocaust Remembrance Day in Israel. We are welcoming you a short time after celebrating the Passover holiday when we read the verse that in every generation our enemies try to destroy us. These are days of remembrance for the Jewish people. In a week's time we will celebrate our 59th Independence Day. It is symbolic to me that our meeting is taking place at this time. In our talk today and previously in Washington, we spoke, analyzed all the threats developing in the Middle East, the concern for stability, the joint war on terror. We examined our joint projects. We determined our working tracks in order to be prepared for every time threat - symmetrical and asymmetrical threats. We agreed on the vital need to continue to contend with the threat from Iran. In this generation, too, there is a nation that has declared that it wants to destroy the State of Israel. In your presence, Mr. Secretary, I would like to underscore the position of the State of Israel which determines that Iran is a threat not only to Israel but to the entire region and the free world. This is a problem that concerns your government, the governments of Europe and all the countries of the free world. Iran denies the Holocaust, openly declares its plans and intentions and we are sure that the free world, led by the United States, will not stand by.


I repeat our analysis that the year 2007 is critical for the diplomatic efforts in order to thwart Iran's nuclear program. I would like to congratulate the United States for its success in the Security Council and the Resolutions there in order to strengthen the sanctions on Iran, strengthen the diplomatic pressure in order to thwart its dangerous plans. The diplomatic track is preferable and it must be exhausted, but it is still not able to remove other options from the table. Israel and the United States, although they are distant geographically from one another, there is a huge ocean that divides us, however, our hearts are close and there are warm and strong ties between our nations and long, well established ties between our governments based on common interests. This relationship is based on shared values but also on mutual consideration of the interests of each state.


We must always bear in mind and never forget that the military has two purposes: to protect citizens in every way possible and also to create diplomatic expanse for international agreements and we are prepared for any opportunity that can advance negotiations and provide a diplomatic response to complement the military one. There is no military option that stands alone. As the Minister of Defense of the State of Israel I consider of supreme diplomatic importance and I would like to thank you for addressing and being aware of our needs and I want to thank you for your positive approach throughout this entire period. I think that today the Ministry of Defense and the Department of Defense are in a very important place where there is a common analysis and also an understanding of the responses that we can provide.


Thank you.


SECRETARY GATES: I was surprised to learn as I began to prepare for this visit that I was the first Secretary of Defense to visit Israel in almost eight years. I think the fact that I have come here in the end of my fourth month as Secretary illustrates the importance that I attach to our relationship with Israel. We had a good discussion and following up on our meeting in Washington last month. As the Minister has indicated we reviewed security challenges in the region - Syria, we also, as he suggested, talked at length about Iran and I stressed my view that it was important to deal with the Iranian nuclear problem through a diplomacy which appears to be working. We discussed the bilateral relationship and particularly the military-to-military relationship, which of course is longstanding.


We briefly discussed the opportunities presented by the peace process. I repeated for the Minister my view of the situation in Iraq at the present time.


Thank you.


QUESTION: Secretary Gates, you said that the diplomatic channel with Iran is working. How exactly? Did they stop or reduce their activity regarding the nuclear weapons? How the United States will act in face of an Iranian attack on Israel? And do you support, please, Bashar Al-Assad's regime in Syria, do you still think he can be a partner?


QUESTION (In Hebrew): You said that you have nothing to hide regarding the Second Lebanon War. Are you in favor of having your testimony made public immediately or in the coming days?


SECRETARY GATES: Well, first of all, with respect to the Iranian nuclear program and the diplomatic effort, I think first of all it's important that there have been two United Nations Resolutions, and that the international community is united in telling Iran what it needs to do with respect to its nuclear program. These things don't work overnight, but it seems to me clearly the preferable course to keep our focus on diplomatic initiatives and particularly because of the united front of the international community at this point. The United States has diplomatic relations with the Government of Syria. That doesn't mean we approve of much of anything that they do. Frankly, the Syrian activities both in allowing suicide bombers to cross their border into Iraq, where they kill both Iraqis and coalition partners, they are allowing them the re-supply of Hezbollah in Lebanon, and a variety of other activities are of great concern to us. Thank you.


MINISTER PERETZ (In Hebrew): After eight years the Secretary of Defense from the United States has come - an extremely friendly nation - to Israel to visit here in Israel during a very important period during a time where there are changes in the system of balances in the Middle East. Clearly, the citizens of Israel want to hear the results of the meeting, they want to hear what we discussed in our working meeting which was very important and covered many subjects on many areas. We presented our abilities, we presented our needs and we certainly examined the subjects that relate to cooperation between us. I am sure that there will be enough opportunities to discuss the internal matters that relate to the State of Israel today. Today the citizens of Israel want to hear how this meeting is one that is advancing important strategic responses in all the areas that are important to the State of Israel.


QUESTION: Dr. Gates, today 170 people were killed in Baghdad in a series of bombings, making it the most deadly day since the start of the Baghdad Security Plan. Do these attacks represent a failure of the security plan, and how do you stop these attacks leading to a new cycle of sectarian violence starting with Shi'ite revenge attacks?


SECRETARY GATES: I think we have anticipated from the very beginning and General Petreyas warned early on that as the Baghdad Security Plan began to take hold in Baghdad that the terrorists, that Al Qaeda, that the insurgency and others would attempt to increase the violence in order to make the plan a failure, or to make the people of Iraq believe the plan is a failure. So I think we have anticipated obviously the level of fatalities. Today was a horrifying thing. But I think it illustrates another point: these terrorists are killing innocent men, women and children who are Iraqis. They are killing their countrymen, and I think it is important to highlight their efforts to try and disrupt the process of a reconciliation, to try and prove the Baghdad Security Plan a failure, and we intend to persist to show that it is not.


QUESTION: How do you address the sectarian - the danger that the Shi'ites will respond?


SECRETARY GATES: Well, clearly, that is exactly what Al Qaeda and the insurgents want- -- I haven't seen the news reports, so I assume they were responsible, but then they have been responsible for most of the large-scale killings so far, and we can only hope that the Shia will have the confidence in their government and in the coalition, that we will go after the people that perpetrated this horror.


QUESTION: Is there a feeling of disappointment concerning the outcome of the recent war in Lebanon in the government, and did you personally expect Israel to do better in its fight against Hezbollah?


SECRETARY GATES: I am very happy to report that when the war took place, I was the President of Texas A& M University, and know only what I read in the newspapers, and that is not a basis with all due respect in rendering a judgment as an official.


QUESTION: A question for each of you. Mr. Minister, how concerned is Israel about the proposed sale of precision-guided munitions to Saudi Arabia, and do you feel that it would degrade Israel's military advantage in the region? Mr. Secretary, do you agree that security in the Middle East depends on standing up for democratic reforms, and if so, how do you square that idea with your decision not to raise the issue with President Mubarak today.


MINISTER PERETZ: (In Hebrew): The importance to preserve the IDF edge in facing all the threats in the Middle East is certainly a need that receives all the necessary backing from the United States and from the Secretary of Defense. We are examining the changes, we are analyzing the entire process, and of course, with every subject that comes up, we will establish working teams that will look into every question and all the implications. I have no doubt that the existing strategic understanding between Israel and the United States will ultimately decide.


SECRETARY GATES: With respect to your question on democratization, I would say that I think there are a variety of forms and a variety of ways in which the United States can make its views known on democratization. This has been a consistent policy of this Administration to promote democratization and I think that you'll find in the text of my remarks before the American Chamber of Commerce in Cairo today that I have addressed that subject.


Thank you.

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

-- News Transcripts: http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/
-- DoD News: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/dodnews.html
-- Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/dodnews.html#e-mail
-- Today in DoD: http://www.defenselink.mil/today/

-- U.S. Department of Defense Official Website - http://www.defenselink.mil/
-- U.S. Department of Defense News About the War on Terrorism - http://www.defendamerica.mil/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 4:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oppenheimer wrote:
Dear Cyrus,

The source is always the best basis to draw conclusions from, as you get the whole enchilada in context. BTW, Gates is referring to the multilateral diplomacy, two unan. chapter VII UN resolutions, and the diplomacy involved in creating the consensus of nations to address the threat to global peace and security. It must also be taken as stated, in the context surrounding the subject matter discussed, or described as discussed in the following unedited press release.

Regards,

EJ

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



Dear Oppie,

As you are fully aware all kind of Diplomacy with Terror and Torture masters failed completely and any officials who are talking about any form of Diplomacy with Mullahs (Direct or Indirect) and not complete regime change in Iran are deceiving themselves and public . The following video clip says it all:



Admission of failures by elected officials is the first step for new correct policy and strategy. As long as we don’t see Admission of failures in past 28 years by both Republicans and Democrats with new list of solid new policies and actions by US officials at all levels then we should expect more failures ….
After watching the above video do you see any good progress in past 6 years?
Regards,
Cyrus


Last edited by cyrus on Wed Apr 25, 2007 4:46 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:36 pm    Post subject: Reid: U.S. can't win the war in Iraq Reply with quote

Quote:
Reid: U.S. can't win the war in Iraq

By ANNE FLAHERTY Associated Press Writer
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/politics/4731633.html

WASHINGTON — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Thursday the war in Iraq is "lost," triggering an angry backlash by Republicans who said the top Democrat had turned his back on the troops.

The bleak assessment was the sharpest yet from Reid, who has vowed to send President Bush legislation calling for combat to end next year. Reid said he told Bush on Wednesday that he thought the war could not be won through military force and only through political, economic and diplomatic means.

"I believe myself that the secretary of state, secretary of defense and — you have to make your own decisions as to what the president knows — (know) this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday," said Reid, D-Nev.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



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

PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 4:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

While I believe that the cause of seeing an Iran whole, free, and a peace with itself and its neighbors, realizing the dreams of creativity and prosperity in acordance with the traditions of the rule of law and civil liberties Persia was founded upon long ago, and can only be realized with the concerted and principalled will of free nations acting in solidarity with one another, these dreams must be acted upon and realized by Iranians themselves as the primary catalyst for change, as the principal instigators of what must be first of all regime change Iranian style , by , for and of the people.

On the whole Cyrus I have to think that diplomacy is preferable to war. Appeasement of tyrany often leads to war, but diplomacy is not that. The Iranian theocracy and the US gov have had a long conversation. We talk at ( and I do mean " at" ) each other by many methods of communication, most of them hostile, slanderous, and derived of mistrust of intent.

One could hypotheticly live with the mullahs if they could only live with the rest of us heathen infidiles in peace and prosperity. And because they can't , they have brought the Iranian people neither. A whole host of ills derived from ill intent, fear deep rooted in ideological paranoia, as well as a meglomaniacal desire to contol. Control in all aspects and manifestations.

Well, now you have an international system that has been diplomaticly constructed from scratch in the past few years to deal with all the various crisis and problems the regime has intentionally created over the years. The whole focus of Sec. Gate's visit to Jordan, Egypt, Israel, Iraq, is to bring the whole region on board in telling the mullahs strait up..."You don't get to do that."

That's "Behavior Change", as policy....in a nutshell. And I don't think it's being conducted with a shread of support for the leading state sponsor of terror's continued existance as a government structure. It's a Darwinian thing, adapt, and get with the rest of us here in the 21st century, or be relegated to the dustbin of history, as an inevitable result of their failure to do so.

This thread might well be aptly renamed therefore" US is studying " Regime Change in Iran".

For the following reasons:

1. One must take as a given that "miliary strikes" as the current title has it, would not be "limited" in nature, by the very fact that full scale conflict would be the inevitable result, and that short of removing the leadership in Iran from power and influence, the conflict would continue.
I also take it as a given that the covert acts, the indirect and direct acts of ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity including mass murder on a scale approaching genocide being perpetrated by this regime with every car bomb the Rev. Guard supply the explosives for in Iraq and Afghanistan is "Causus Beli" for whatever action deemed neccessary to put a halt to it.

2. The parameters of the situation have changed, as the regime has spurned and wasted all reasonable international efforts to seek resolution and coexistance, and exhausted diplomacy very consistantly and with intent.

3. Sen. Reid fails to understand that the fastest rout to peace and the return of the troops is to fully support their mission to the hilt, without playing politics or with a "loser attitude". Fails to understand that you can't take a miltary option off the table with Iran, simply because it's leadership is hell bent on taking it's population over oblivion's cliff by starting a war with the US.

They might just succeed.

It is true that the US cannot "win" this for the Iraqis, they must stand up for their right to live in peace, as must Iranians themselves, for freedom to mean anything at all to them.

The global framework now in place to deal with the " Iranian Problem" came about mostly as a result of mindsets being changed by Iranians themselves, both from concerted effort by the Iranian opposition community to expose the regime for its criminal nature, and by the regime itself by simply being itself, that of a criminal nature. Mindsets that have come to the realization that the regime itself is the problem, the various crisis it promulgates regionally would not be intractable if the regime in Tehran were not around to fuel their fire.

Giving the regime a diplomatic "exit option" in leaving the door to open to table talk is one the international system must provide, in keeping with the rule of law, and spirit of the UN charter.
Done so that if war happens the mullahs will have to answer for it, for the choice was theirs having an alternative to choose from.

I don't believe I would call that "appeasement". Sound diplomatic strategy requires time for next steps to evolve as a matter of course via greater international engagement of concequence and action. Not a pre-destined course, but one of choices, realizations and causal manifestation of the effects of diplomacy in getting to multilateral solutions.

This is what I believe underlies the current US policy, one that has brought Russia and China into concurence with shared awareness of the regime's nature and moved with intent to combat it via UN resolution.
Something the "experts" said was not going to happen, with many Op-Eds written on the subject.

Would it be so outrageous to suggest that if the last option is the only one left, that Russia and China would join with the US and NATO militaries to make it the quickest, most overwhelmingly effective regime change in history, w/ UN sec. council mandate? And with the blessings of the rest of the Arab League, sans Syria and Iran?

I think not.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



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

PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 4:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

( Bolded in reference to previous post)


Remark at the Young Global Leaders Policy Roundtable


Secretary Condoleezza Rice
East Auditorium
Washington, DC
April 19, 2007

(9:45 a.m. EST)

SECRETARY RICE: Thank you very much. Thank you.

Well, first of all, thank you very much, Klaus, for coming. We first met when I
was the provost of Stanford University and Klaus brought the World Economic
Forum to Stanford for an extraordinary session. It was a wonderful session. And
you have done so much to bring people of the world together from many different
walks of life. You have embodied a principle that I hold very dear, which is
that peace and prosperity are not just the work of government, they are the
work of all people from all walks of life.
And so thank you very much for doing
that and for representing that so well, and I'm just honored to have you here
with us. (Applause.)

I'd also like to thank you very much, Karim, for being here. We've had a long
association. And we are also joined by the current Ambassador of Jordan, Prince
Zeid. Thank you very much for being here.

And I just want to underscore what Klaus has said. I'm very lucky to have Dina
Powell working with me. She is exemplary of what it is to be American, really,
someone who is from an Egyptian family who is fully and completely American,
but I think with a very great deal of pride in her heritage. And so thank you,
Dina, for what you're doing. (Applause.)

Now, I have to start by saying that you are one day going to experience
something that I am experiencing now, which is that in the blink of an eye you
go from being a young global leader to being an old one. (Laughter.) And I used
to sit in many forums like this where I was considered to be an up-and-comer,
and then all of a sudden one day you have come -- (laughter) -- and then I
guess after that you go. (Laughter.) So enjoy being a young global leader now.

You are, though, very, very special people from all walks of life. I know that
you are representative of entrepreneurs, some of you are academics. I
understand that there are people here from civil society. There are people from
all walks of life. And that's why I wanted to come and be with you. Because as
I have said, we in government can do a lot, but we can't do everything. Indeed
the desire for greater democracy, for greater freedom, for greater prosperity
for all of the world's people has to come from the hearts and minds of all of
us around the globe.

It is a time when those efforts are very much needed because the international
system is going through a great historic transformation. And great historic
transformations are difficult. They are by their very nature disruptive. They
are by their very nature disconcerting. They are by their very nature somewhat
frightening. And we are in one of those times when the international system is
remaking itself. But I just want to say to you that at times like this it is
important to focus, of course, on the great challenges that we face, but also
to focus on the great opportunities because great opportunities for change do
not come in times of the status quo. They come in times when change is
underway.


I am very grateful that Klaus mentioned the efforts that we're making in the
Middle East. President Bush is a firm believer that change in the Middle East
is long overdue and that it can, in fact, bring about a more stable world if
the Middle East itself is truly stable. Not false stability, but stability
built on more open societies, more prosperous societies, the forward march of
democracy, the belief that the non-negotiable demands of human dignity are such
that every man, woman, and child deserves the right to be free, that there are
no places in the world where tyranny is okay. Because wherever you are, you are
human and human beings have a natural desire to be free.

I've heard people say from time to time, why is America trying to impose
democracy? I say, we're trying to do nothing of the sort. You don't have to
impose democracy; you have to impose tyranny. What you do with democracy is to
support those who within their own indigenous circumstances are trying to bring
about freer societies. I think if you talk to people around the world and you
get away from abstract concepts like democracy and you ask questions like do
you want to have a say in who will govern you? People will say yes. Do you want
to be able to educate your children, your boys and your girls? People will say
yes. Do you want to be able to worship as you wish, in line with your
conscience not in line with the dictates of the state? People will say yes. Do
you want to be free from the arbitrary, secret knock of the state at your door
on any given evening? People will say yes. Do you want to be able to have the
information that a free press can bring? People will say yes.

In fact, it's not a cultural issue; it is a human issue to want to have control
of your own life. And America says this, I think, from a perspective not of
arrogance, not that we have all done it right, but rather from a sense of
humility in how long and hard our own democratic journey has been. In fact,
when the Founding Fathers -- one of them Thomas Jefferson, my predecessor many
times removed, the First Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson -- when that
Constitution was written, that Constitution made my ancestors three-fifths of a
man. Slavery existed still in this country for another more than a hundred
years. And so from our perspective, we know that change is difficult and that
high-minded principles don't always mean that you're living up to them.

In fact, it was not until -- it was still during my lifetime that in my native
South of the United States, Alabama, in my lifetime that the vote was finally
secured for all people. It was very difficult for black Americans to vote in
the South until the Voting Rights Act of the early 1960s. So we know that it's
hard, but it is very much worth it. And there is no place -- I am quite
confident -- that people don't want freedom.

We've been through a long list of the world assuming, well, perhaps it really
won't work in Africa because Africa is too tribal. But now if you look across
Africa you see people exercising their democratic rights and, as a result, you
see better and better leadership in Africa, governments that are emerging from
civil war giving their people the vote and becoming more stable. It used to be
said, well, it won't work in Latin America, a continent in which there were
coups, juntas, the military in control. But now if you look at Latin America,
in fact, the countries of Latin America -- with one exception, Cuba -- are, in
fact, being governed by democratic systems and are having peaceful transfers of
power.

It was even said at one point, well, of course, Russians don't really care
about democracy. But they do, because to have a say in what you are able -- in
who will govern you and how you will live your life, is a very human emotion.
And so when we talk about the forward march of democracy and trying to support
democratic processes, I think we're talking about something that is actually
quite natural.

Now, it's not enough to have elections. Democracies have to be well governed,
democracies have to have institutions, they have to be able to provide for
their people, they have to have security; all of those things are true. But
unless you start from the premise that well-governed democratic states are what
we should be seeking, I think you'll be without a compass.


Now, we're going to continue our efforts in the Middle East. And one of the
most important efforts that I think we're making is on behalf of the two-state
solution to finally have the Palestinian people have their own state and to
finally have the Israeli people have the security that will come from having a
democratic neighbor. (Applause.) We will continue those efforts. I think we
have an opportunity and it is an opportunity that we will fully pursue.

Let me just close by saying that sometimes in the tremendous upheaval that
comes with great historic times, I'm sure it is easy to lose sight of the end
point and to think to yourself will it ever happen that there will be a
Palestinian state. Will it ever happen that the Iraqi people will live together
in democracy and peace? Will it ever happen that Afghanistan, having overthrown
the Taliban, will become a mature democracy?

Well, I am a student of international history and I recognize that so many
things that seemed impossible at one moment, years later seem as if they were
just inevitable. This building that you're in, this part of the building, is
actually the part of the building in which George Marshall had his office. It's
the part of the building in which people like Acheson and Nitze, the architects
of American policy after World War II, worked. And on any given day after World
War II, they came in and faced problems that must have made it seem as if
democracy was in retreat. They faced in 1946 not questions about whether
Eastern Europe would be communist, but questions about whether Western Europe
would be communist, when the Communist Party won 48 percent of the vote in
Italy and 46 percent of the vote in France. They faced questions about how to
keep two million Europeans from starving in 1947, the genesis of the Marshall
Plan. They faced in 1947 a civil war in Greece and civil conflict in Turkey. In
1948 the Berlin crisis divided Germany permanently. In 1948 Czechoslovakia, the
last of the non-communist East European countries, fell to a communist coup. In
1949 the Soviet Union exploded a nuclear weapon five years ahead of schedule,
the Chinese communist won and in 1950 the Korean War broke out.

Now, if you had told people at that time that just a mere 40 years later, a
then-young global leader named Condoleezza Rice would be lucky enough to be the
White House Soviet specialist at the end of the Cold War and to participate in
the liberation of Eastern Europe, the unification of Germany, the beginning of
the peaceful collapse of the Soviet Union, people would have said, "You're out
of your mind." And so when people tell you what isn't possible in international
politics, tell them to stay focused on what is possible. If you stay true to
your values, if you see opportunity not just crisis, and if you are determined
to make statecraft work for peace, prosperity and democracy, it's amazing what
those outcomes can be.


So thank you very much and I'm happy to take a few of your questions.
(Applause.)

ASSSISTANT SECRETARY POWELL: First His Royal Highness.

SECRETARY RICE: Yes, yes, yes. Your Royal Highness.

PRINCE ZAID: Madame Secretary, thank you so much for meeting with us and for
providing us such a thoughtful and compelling presentation. Eleven years ago in
Bosnia, arguments were put forward for the partitioning of the country in the
absence of what seemed to be a better political alternative and such was the
violence in that country. Ultimately, these arguments were rejected both on
practical and on moral grounds. Having said that, in Washington today there
seems to be a renewed interest in this sort of argument where Iraq is
concerned. And for those of us living in the neighborhood, it does make us
nervous. Could you give us your reactions to these sorts of arguments.

SECRETARY RICE: Yes. Well, thank you. It's a very good question, Your Royal
Highness. I do not see, first of all, that it is practical and secondly, since
I don't see Iraqis who seem to be interested in such a solution, I don't think
that it is moral. The Iraqis are having a very difficult struggle. They are
struggling to overcome differences that have been beneath the surfaces,
differences that have been suppressed, differences that have been dealt with by
oppression or by violence and they're trying to find a way to deal with their
differences politically. But they have set up institutions in which they can
all act to overcome those differences as Iraqis. Whether as Sunnis or Shia, or
Kurds or Turkmen, they come together within these democratic institutions. And
already a lot of Iraqis showed tremendous fortitude and courage in voting 12.5
million strong to be one Iraq and to have those institutions. It is not for any
outside power to say that they should not have a unified state. It would be bad
for the region but most especially it would be bad for Iraqis.

Now, I know that there are violent people from all of the communities,
extremists, who do not want to see the Iraqis have an opportunity to settle
their differences politically. But it's my strong belief and I think it's the
belief of the Iraqis as well that unless they have the opportunity to work
within these institutions, they cannot settle their differences by any means
other than repression. So it is -- if you say they shouldn't try all Iraqis
within these institutions, then you are really saying, well, they'll have to go
back to violence and tyranny and that just isn't.

Now, a lot of Iraqis have lost their lives and a lot of coalition. Americans,
in particular, have given their lives in this struggle. But if we look first at
what could be, an Iraq that has institutions, that will come over time to
represent all Iraqis; it's not going to happen overnight. But the fundamentals,
the foundation is being laid. Reconciliation will probably come first through
laws, but it will come over time through social interaction of the people. This
would be an Iraq that would make a fundamentally different kind of Middle East
in which the model is for democratic change, not for repression. The final
point is that of course for the region, there is a lot at stake because an Iraq
that has a foundation for peace and democracy is an Iraq that can be a
stabilizing force. An Iraq that is permitted to degenerate into chaos will have
a terrible effect on the region. And I think that is why I look forward to the
conference of neighbors that will take place in Sharm el-Sheikh at the
beginning of May because it seems to me to speak to a recognition by Iraq's
neighbors that this young democracy needs to be supported by the neighbors.

Yes.

QUESTION: Thank you very much. I must start by saying that I'm from Zimbabwe.
Adam Mutambara (ph). I'm one of the opposition leaders. I want to start by
expressing our gratitude to the United States Government for supporting us, in
particular last month when we were brutalized, tortured and arrested. But my
emphasis today is to say we need more than democracy in Africa. In other words,
democratic existence is a necessary but not sufficient condition for progress.
We want Zimbabwe, for example, to be a peaceful, democratic and prosperous
nation. What we want in Africa is African countries becoming knowledge economy
driven, technology driven, globally competitive economies.

What policies are we putting in place to promote technology transfer into
Africa, to promote free and fair trade between Africa and the U.S., to promote
value-added manufacturing in Africa? When we are successful, Secretary, we
would want Zimbabwe to be exporting IT products, technology products to the
U.S. In other words, we are saying where are we committing a little bit of
economic suicide on the part of the U.S. because we want to be competing
against you and also being your equals in the long run.

SECRETARY RICE: That's good. Yes. Yes.

QUESTION: Thank you very much.

SECRETARY RICE: Thank you very much. That's great. (Applause.) Well, first of
all, thank you for your courage as a member of the opposition in Zimbabwe.
Zimbabwe is a story that I think the world should be more focused on.
Particularly the countries of the region need to be more focused on what is
going on in Zimbabwe. The people of Zimbabwe I think did not fight for
independence only to find themselves in a position of repression. And so you
will have our support and we have spoken out.

I'd love to have Zimbabwe as a competitor internationally. I think that the
United States has always had a view that free trade is not a zero-sum game,
that in fact you can grow all economies through free trade. And it's why the
United States and this President, but really American presidents for decades
now have been strong proponents of free trade. In Africa in particular, we have
had programs that recognize that democracy is a necessary condition, but not
sufficient to be able to deliver for people. And so we've begun to talk more
and more about democracy and development.

We have through the African Growth and Opportunity Act made it possible for a
product to come into the United States. And I have seen in some cases when I
visited Africa how that's affected and helped promote small business. We have
been very involved in education in Africa which after all with an educated
population you can compete better in the international economy. The United
States has almost quadrupled official development assistance to Africa over the
term of this presidency because we believe that trade, aid and foreign direct
investment have to go together to improve people's lives.

Finally, with the Millennium Challenge Account, which I dearly hope one day, if
governance can be improved, that Zimbabwe would be a possible candidate for
that kind of program, we have been rewarding governments that are involved in
good governance, that are fighting corruption, that are investing in their
people with really rather large development compacts that are -- you might be
interested as members of -- some of you as members of civil society -- that are
actually developed between the United States, the government and civil society
as to how to help to alleviate poverty.

So I think in Africa, we've been working very hard to try to make the link
between development and democracy because you're right, democracies perhaps
even more than non-democratic forms of government have to be able to deliver
for their people because when people cast their vote, they expect that the
government is going to be able to deliver for them. And so this link between
democracy and development is very important.

Yes, yes.

SECRETARY RICE: And I think they're going to -- do you have a mike?

QUESTION: Thank you, Secretary Rice. First of all, I'd like to applaud you on
your great efforts to recognize and empower women worldwide and I thank you for
that. I'd like to get your thoughts on what some of the greatest needs are
worldwide for women, but I'd also like you to comment on the fact that the
U.S., although we've come a long way, we still have a long way to go. Unlike
many countries, we've never had a woman in our highest office and just this
week, the Supreme Court dealt a severe blow to women's reproductive rights. So
if you could comment on both of those things. Thank you.

SECRETARY RICE: Yeah. Well, look, we have a system for -- a democratic system
for dealing with the most difficult social issues. And people are on different
sides of these debates. And it is why we have a system that allows this to be
worked both through legislation and through the courts. Americans will and can
make their views known and will do so, I'm quite certain of it. I mean, I have
my own personal views. But the important thing is that we have a democratic
system in which these issues can be addressed. And that goes to the first part
of your question.

First, women have to have rights. If you can't vote, you can't exercise your
own -- on behalf of your own freedoms. You have to be able to vote. Secondly,
you have to be able to run for office. And I do think in some countries now
this is being recognized, I was in Kuwait recently and one of the nicest gifts
I ever got was a t-shirt from the Kuwaiti women that said "Half a democracy is
not a democracy at all," just after they'd gotten the right to vote. And it's
very exciting. They were talking about running for office and they are going to
run for office. And they ran for office. Some didn't -- none won, but they are
organizing themselves now across gender lines to try and win votes. I think
that's extraordinarily (inaudible).

It also takes change socially for women to be able to prosper. In too many
places, even if education is available to girls, sometimes family attitudes are
such that girls' education is not valued as highly as the education of boys.
And so this has to be worked at the level of society too, which is why civil
society groups are so important.

So yes, we have a long way to go, but I would start by giving everybody the
right to vote. I would move toward making certain that people know they can
hold whatever office they wish. I would make certain that women are being
educated and that their families are supportive of that and that there are not
barriers to women reaching and fulfilling their potential.

But it's a very interesting point; even though it's true we've not had a woman
yet elected president and I now see women presidents in a number of parts of
the world, parts of the country, I think it will happen. But do you realize
that it has been 10 years, and if I go my full term it will have been 12 years,
since the United States of America had a white male Secretary of State? We had
Madeleine Albright, followed by Colin Powell, followed by me. (Applause.) So
we're making progress.

STAFF: Two more --

SECRETARY RICE: Yes, two more quick questions, yes.

QUESTION: Fatima --

SECRETARY RICE: Yes, Fatima, yes.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.) I am from Iran. As you told about democracy, we wish
democracy too, but my question is do you think America can bring democracy by
war?

SECRETARY RICE: No. America cannot bring democracy by any means. Only people in
the region can bring -- in the country can bring democracy. What we can do is
to help support people who want to bring democracy, speak out for them, provide
opportunities for training, opportunities for people to come and visit here.

Sometimes, as was the case in Afghanistan and also in Iraq, the overthrow of
dictators presented those people with an opportunity to build democracy. And
that can happen, but we can't even -- we can't deliver democracy in Afghanistan
or Iraq or anyplace. That has to come from within.

But if I can just say a word about Iran; I really do look forward to the day
when Iran and the United States can have good relations. The Iranian people are
a great people, a great culture, a culture far, far, far older than that of the
United States, a culture that has contributed so much to human knowledge and to
human progress. We have been fortunate to have some people-to-people exchanges
as of late. We had a wrestling team in Iran. We've had people here who are
disaster relief workers. And it's important that our people -- because we
respect greatly the Iranian people and we simply want for the Iranian people
what we want for people all over the world, which is to have the ability to
express themselves, to choose their leaders, to have women prosper.

And so I'm so glad that you're here and I hope that you know that whatever
differences we may have with the Iranian Government, we want to work them out
through diplomatic means. We would like to see the Iranian people have access
to technology for a civil nuclear program, but in a way that does not cause
proliferation risks. That is why the international community has been concerned
about enrichment and reprocessing. But the Iranian people and the American
people should be friends and I look forward to the day that relations between
our governments permit that to take place.


Last question, yes.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, as someone who's not American but who loves America
and who spent four years at Stanford, a place you know very well, I hope you
can forgive me for asking you a frank question. I was very moved by your words
about democracy in the Middle East and I think many of us who believe very
deeply in the universality of democratic values were very moved by these words
and also by what President Bush has had to say on a number of occasions,
including his State of the Union address when he got reelected.

We've been very concerned, though, recently about whether the deeds of America
match its lofty rhetoric in this regard because democracy, after all, and the
support for democracy requires sacrifice. It requires tradeoff. Sometimes, it
requires accepting people for a while who we don't like in order to allow
democracy to de-legitimize them and de-popularize them and of course, we're all
very familiar with how effective democracy is at doing that.

And also, recognizing that ultimately, the only way we're really going to
defeat terrorism, as President Bush and yourself have indicated, is through
liberating and modernizing societies in the Middle East. So my question to you
is whether we really have what it takes to actually make those tradeoffs and
take the difficult decisions and sacrifices that supporting democracy requires.

SECRETARY RICE: Yes. Well, thank you and we -- the United States under
President Bush has been more vocal and more devoted to this cause than I think
at any other time in our history, but we're not perfect. We're not always going
to make the right decisions. We will always make decisions that we thought were
right. And so we have to recognize that these are complicated times. I think
our responsibility is to speak out for these principles, to support those who
want to speak out for those principles, never to think that stability is
somehow a tradeoff for democracy. Because I think the problem we've had in the
Middle East in the past is that stability, or false stability, was really
giving rise underneath to very bad circumstances, virulent extremism which was
just underneath the surface, because healthy political forces didn't have
anywhere to go in authoritarian circumstances, and so we have to work our way
through those. I would never say that everything that we've done would -- has
been good in this cause, but it has always been in good faith.

The goal, though, is going to have to be that people of the region will also
take this up, and I think that's probably for me one of the most heartening
aspects of this. When I go to countries around the Middle East and activists in
those countries say to me, "Secretary Rice, you're not talking about democracy
enough," I think that's great. That's what I want to hear, because people
recognize that they have a responsibility themselves and that America can
support that, but it is really their responsibility also to promote for
democracy.

So I think it's going to be a generational issue, a struggle. But it is
something that we have begun. It is something that should have been begun a
long time ago and it is something to which America will remain committed,
because people around the world who expect that of us need to be able to know
that we will really be there and continue to advocate for those issues.


Thank you. Last question. Yes. Ukraine.

QUESTION: My name is Igor Sheshenkov (ph), from Kiev, from Ukraine, and I would
like to bring some more European perspective to our discussion. In your
strategic plan for 2007-2012, one of the priorities were this energy security
in Europe.

SECRETARY RICE: Yes.

QUESTION: And the diversification of sources, transparency and some other
things. Do you have any particular plans how to do that?

SECRETARY RICE: Yes. Well, it's a very important issue -- energy security and
energy diversification -- and it's important for a couple of ways -- reasons.
First of all, no one should be in a position in which oil and gas can be used
as a political weapon, and the only way to be sure that you're not is to have
alternative sources of oil and gas. And so we are working with the Europeans.
This is also something that Europe really needs to worry about -- not just
Ukraine, not just Georgia, but Europe -- on energy security, on issues of
energy diversification, extremely important for that purpose.

By the way, it's not aimed at anyone. I know that sometimes it is spoken that
the United States is trying to deny Moscow, for instance. And no, that's not
the point. Everybody should be able to have multiple sources. There is plenty
of need for energy resources that we can have diversification of energy sources
and it will serve us all well.

It is also important that that diversification not just mean diversification of
oil and gas resources, that is, carbon-based resources, but also
diversification to alternative fuels. Because if we are going to improve our
environmental stewardship on something like climate change, we're going to have
to have alternatives to a carbon-based economy. And so when President Bush was
in Brazil just last month, he was -- and when President Lula was then at Camp
David, they launched this bio-fuels diversification project, alternative fuels.
Brazil has been a leader in ethanol-based energy supply. We're going to work
with them, particularly in our own hemisphere, to make alternative fuels
commercially available through technology, commercially viable through
technology, and that will be extremely important to diversifying energy supply
and to improving economic stewardship.

And so this area is one that to me is at the core of further economic progress,
political independence for countries and harmony between countries. One of the
issues that we will have if there cannot be alternative sources for China, for
India, is no matter what the so-called developed countries do in terms of
carbon-based fuels, we will never see an improvement in the environment because
of the rapid growth of China and India. But we can't tell China and India don't
grow; they have to be able to grow. So we have to make these technologies
available. And the United States has something called the Asia Pacific
Partnership on Climate and Energy with South Korea, the United States,
Australia, China, India. There are others who are interested. We need more
partnerships like that around the world so that diversification is both supply
of oil and gas in the near term but also diversification to alternative fuels
in the longer term.

Thank you very much, and thank you all for being here. It's been a pleasure to
be with you. (Applause.)

2007/303


Released on April 19, 2007

************************************************************
See http://www.state.gov/secretary/ for all remarks by the Secretary of State.
********************************************************************************
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 3:33 pm    Post subject: Dr. Rice Failed The Test Cases Reply with quote

Reject Dr. Rice Failed Diplomacy Mess With Mullahs
Dr. Rice also told the Financial Times that the Bush administration is not looking for a regime change in Iran but to "have a change in regime behavior."


Dr. Rice Failed The Test Cases For The Cause Of Freedom, Secular Democracy, Free Society, The Cause Of Liberation from Islamist Mafia Tyranny, Human Rights, Women Rights For Détente With Islamist Mafia Terror Masters and Appeasing Mullahs ….

Dear Oppenheimer,
Thank you for your post and highlighting the key points of Dr. Rice statement otherwise I would not care to read it because FREE Iran Activists have given up long time ago because they did not deliver what they said in many speeches (no good deed) …. Our major difference with Secretary Dr. Rice and President Bush Admin in past 6 years is regarding the fact that the great majority of Iranian people are asking for Secular Democracy, Free Society, Human Rights and complete removal of Islamic Hostage-Takers, Invaders and Occupiers of Iran and President Bush Admin is talking about Democracy not Secular Democracy and ignore Iranian people demands even after their clear failure in Iraq while they were playing EU3 Iran delay game without any good results….. EVEN Dr. Rice is planning to meet with the Taazi Mullahs Terror, Torture masters and Rapists in near future http://www.ft.com/cms/s/3f96545e-f0f9-11db-838b-000b5df10621,_i_rssPage=4e612cca-6707-11da-a650-0000779e2340.html . Dr. Rice is planning to meet with Taazi foreign minister of Mullahs against the wishes of freedom-loving Iranian people…. It is very sad that Dr. Rice invites Fatima Taazi the possible pro IRI lobbyist agent to ask question from her while non of the freedom-loving Iranian women or Secular Iranian Women Activists in Washington have the same chance to ask questions. Dr. Rice vision of Democracy will fail because she is not faithful to the following 8 points. Iraq is very good example of bad deed to allow Islamists to run the Iraqi government in the name of non secular pro Mullah Islamist Mafia Democracy …..

Today Simple Rules For Evaluating Policy and Strategy

Our future expectations from policy makers and leadership are defined with new set of test cases for foreign policy evaluation criteria to be able to measure success and failure results more easily. Our recommended test cases and criteria are based on Cyrus The Great Spirit, the American founding fathers vision, spirit of freedom, US constitution and defined as follows:

1- Have a secular democracy purpose
2- Have a Human Rights purpose
3- Have a Free Society purpose
4- Have a primary effect to increase freedom at global level.
5- Have the element of War Of Ideas to expand public awareness, education and expansion of truth.
6- Have an element of Freedom of Choice
7- Applying the U.S.A. Supreme Court accepted "Lemon test," to foreign policy decisions, strategy and conduct. According to the "Lemon test," in order to be constitutional, a law or public act must: a) Have a secular purpose. b) Have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion. c) Not result in excessive governmental entanglement with religion.
8- Move towards better unified global fair Justice System.



I think any US Admin foreign policies from (Right, Center, Left) that does not pass the above generic test cases, will not be very successful in long term, despite the fact that might look good for special interest group in short term (Iraq, Iran, …..)

Dr. Rice also told the Financial Times that the Bush administration is not looking for a regime change in Iran but to "have a change in regime behavior."

It is time that Dr. Rice should explain to American people why the government should have spent over 500 billion dollars in Iraq, allow over 20,000 American soldiers become wounded and over 2000 being killed to appease Mullahs Terror and Torture masters? What is the logic for all these mess in Iraq and Iran … ? The following video clip says it all about past 6 years failed Diplomacy with Rapist Mullahs by Dr. Rice and others …. :




Good Luck Dr. Rice with your failed diplomacy with Islamist Scorpion Occupiers Of Iran (Taazi) For Over Past 28 Years ....

Whether we are a public official, a senior executive, or just an ordinary person, it can be downright harmful to only listen to the yes men and yes women with secrecy obsession. Dissent is not only patriotic. It is worth listening to. In 2006 Election Exit Poll over 70% of American people lost their confiedence on USA government and elected officials from both parties to do anything right because of yes women, yes men and lobbyists.

We the Free Iran Activists, Iranian-American, American-Iranian like great scholar Professor Richard Nelson Frye from Harvard University are committed to Greatness of United States of America and Iran based on Secular Democracy , Free Society, Human Rights and as American Founding Fathers expected of us as responsible people we are going to be critical of elected officials from any political parties when they are moving in the wrong direction to please few lobbyists in Washington or EU3 against long term National Interest of American people.

ActivistChat Guideline Item 13 wrote:
We are Free Iran Activists and Watch Group monitoring high government officials, Journalists , writers and scholars words and their actions based on the following direction from James Madison:
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men! over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions. "
The Federalist No. 51 (James Madison).



If you replace few words in the Lyrics "They Don't Care About Us By Michael Jackson" then it becomes very similar situation of freedom-loving Iranian people story in past 28 years.

_________________________________________
NOW Watch They (EU3 - Russia - China - UN ) Don't Care About Us By Michael Jackson

All I Want To Say Nobody Care About Us

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3455858773403474477&q=Michael+Jackson
_______________________________


Michael Jackson wrote:
Artist: Michael Jackson Lyrics
Song: They (Neo Colonialists Appeasers EU3 - Russia - China - UN ) Don't Care About Us Lyrics


skinhead, deadhead, everybody gone bad
situation, aggravation, everybody allegation
in the suite, on the news, everybody dog food
bang bang, shock dead, everybodys gone bad.

chorus:
all i wanna say is that
they don't really care about us (For Human Rights)
all i wanna say is that
they don't really care about us (For Human Rights)

beat me, hate me, you can never break me
will me, thrill me, you can never kill me
chew me, sue me, everybody do me
kick me, hike me, don't you black or white me

chorus

tell me what has become of my life
i have a wife and two children who love me
i am the victiom of (police) Islamic Fascists brutality and Neo Colonialists Appeasers (EU3 - Russia - China) Blood Oil Lobbyist In Washington , now.
i'm tired of being the victim of hate,
you're rapin' me of my pride
of for god's sake
i look to heaven to fulfill its prophecy....
set me free

skinhead, deadhead, everybody gone bad
trepidation, speculation, everybody allegation
in the suite, on the news, everybody dog food
Iranian (black) man, black mail, throw the brother in jail

chorus

tell me what has become of my rights
am i invisible cause you ignore me?
your proclamation promised me free liberty, now.
i'm tired of being the victim of shame
they're throwing me in a class with a bad name
i can't believe this is the land from which i came.
you know i really do hate to say
the government don't wanna say
but if Cyrus The Great (roosevelt) was livin',
he would't let this be, no no.

skinhead, deadhead, everybodys gone bad
situation, speculation, everybody litigation
beat me, bash me, you can never trash me
hit me, kick me, you can never get me

chorus

some things in live they just don't wanna see
but if Cyrus The Great (martin luther) was livin'
he wouldn't let this be

skinhead, deadhead, everybody's gone bad
situation, segregation, everybody allegation
in the suite, on the news, everybody dog food
kick me, hike me, don't you wrong or right me

chorus


For more clarification please see below.

Regards,
Cyrus
ActivistChat wrote:


Open Letter Sample Draft 2:
Condemn Hostage Taking, Declare Iranian Nation & Culture As Hostage Of Islamist Scorpion Occupiers Of Iran (Taazi) For Over Past 28 Years


To: UN, Journalists, Free World Leaders, News Media CNN, BBC, AP, AFP , Reuters UN officials, and Freedom-loving Activists and Bloggers


As world is learning about the facts behind 15 British Navy personnel hostage crisis who were blindfolded, bound and subjected to “constant psychological pressure” during their 13 days in captivity, we condemn Revolutionary Guards illegal actions and at the same time declare the Iranian nation and her oldest culture as hostage of Islamist Scorpion occupiers of Iran for over past 28 years . As recent hostage Royal Marine Captain Chris said "Let me be absolutely clear: from the outset it was very apparent that fighting back was simply not an option," now the free world leaders should have better understanding and accept that the 69 million unarmed Iranian nation as hostage of estimated 700,000 Revolutionary Guards, Mullahs, Militia and other security forces (Taazi) are not in control of their destination and must be given the hostage status by UN Security Council. To understand this statistics better according U.S. Department of Justice · Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics “ In 2005, over 7 million people were on probation, in jail or prison, or on parole at yearend 2005 -- 3.2% of all U.S. adult residents or 1 in every 32 adults”
The 700,000 international Islamist criminals in Iran who are controlling Iranian nation as their hostages are less than 1 % of total Iran population and this is less than 3.2% criminals in USA and should be considered as small minority.

Hostage-taking has been part of the Revolutionary Guards and Islamic Republic’s strategy since its inception in 1979. In the first months of its existence, the Khomeinist regime seized and quickly released hundreds of Western hostages. The policy reached a crescendo in November 1979 when Khomeinist “students” raided the US Embassy in Tehran and held its diplomats hostage for 444 days.

In the case of Bam Earthquake or Clerical genocide, they are responsible for over 30,000 death in Bam because the clerical regime supported a racketeering scheme that entailed seizing large chunks of land in Bam that would be used to build poorly designed and badly constructed houses and shops, subsequently issuing fatwas (religious opinions) that canceled previous orders of the Shah's government, which had banned such development in the earthquake-prone city. Iranian people call urgently on the UN and leaders of the free world to set up a committee to investigate the involvement of the clerical regime in crimes of Bam genocide, crimes of conspiracy to commit genocide and crimes against humanity according to the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and established International Law.

The Iranian people experienced the footsteps of Taliban in Iran with the same technique of hostage taking by using Sivand Dam to start flooding water as a tool to take Pasargad as their hostage that can be used for their evil intentions. The Islamist Scorpion Invaders and Occupiers Of Iran, Hostage-Takers, Terror/Torture Masters, and virus of Iranian society are set to destroy a major part of humankind's cultural heritage unless they are stopped. Please listen to the last clamor of Pasargad in the open letter to the world by http://www.savepasargad.com/ - If nuclear bombs endanger the lives of human beings, such acts of cultural genocide are actually just other sorts of destructive weaponry that annihilate the intellectual and spiritual lives of humans. Only those who have done what they were supposed to do now would not be ashamed in the eyes of the future generations.

Over the past 28 years the Islamic regime's agents, courts, judges and vigilantes have all committed acts of: murder, stoning, torture, assault, theft, destruction of property, arson, perjury, falsification of testimonials and material evidence, illegal surveillance, kidnapping, rape, blackmail, fraud, obstruction of justice, conspiracy to commit all of the above crimes, cover-ups and every other form of butchery and depredation.

It is the irony of history that in the land of Cyrus The Great, the birthplace of the first charter of the “Rights of Nations” and the “Declaration of Human Rights” over 2500 years ago, there is today no respect for human and civil rights by the Islamic regime. Cyrus, who was exceptionally tolerant of local religions and local customs and against slavery, is famous for freeing the 42,000 Jewish captives and allowing them to return to their homeland. His name appears twenty two times in the Bible. Were it not for Cyrus, it seems at least possible that the Jewish people would have become extinct in the fifth century BC. Unfortunately, present day Iran is ruled by a small group of Islamic Mafia Clerics who are the embodiment of evil and have no respect for Human Rights in this land which is the birthplace of Darius The Great, Babak, Avicenna (Ibn Sina), Ferdowsi, Khayyam, Hafaz, Saadi and Rumi. Iranian people need the help and full support from the leaders of the free world to destroy hostage takers with minimum bloodshed.


Iranian Culture In Few Words:
Good Words, Good Thoughts, Good Deeds.
"Crush not even the tiny ant that beareth a grain of corn, for she hath life, and sweet life is a boon."
From The Epic of Kings Masterpiece By Ferdowsi (935-1020) the world famous Persian (Iranian) poet.

Who Is a Taazi?
Being a Taazi is a frame of mind. Being a Taazi is a reflection of one's heart. Genetics have nothing to do with it. One is not born a Taazi by race or place of birth. One becomes a Taazi by choice.
A Taazi is someone who holds the nomadic Bedouin way of life and code of ethics above that of common human decency. A Taazi is someone who is willing to die and kill in the name of Allah. A Taazi is someone who has turned a deaf ear to his own heart and only listens to the call of hate and violence. A Taazi is someone who feels compelled to carry the Bedouin Barbarian Bylaws to ever-expanding spheres of servitude.


Islamic Barbarian Theocracy: Invaders and Occupiers of Iran Refer To It As TAAZI:
The name Islamic Republic of Iran is a misnomer. There is nothing Iranian about this regime, and these terrorists should not be allowed to use the word " Iran " to describe their regime. From now on, we the people refuse to refer to this illegitimate, tyrannical, barbaric, immoral, and foreign occupying force as "IRI," and will simply refer to it as the Islamic Republic, which is the epitome of all that is Taazi. The best examples of traitor-Taazis are the pro-Islamic Republic Taazis.

We appreciate the correct and honest statement by the President of the United States who has access to all confidential and top secret US government documents and demand the same clarity from other G8 leaders and condemn any kind of appeasement of hostage takers for short term profit taking and more trades with Taazi forces.

President Bush said:
“The same is true of Iran , a nation now held hostage by a small clerical elite that is isolating and repressing its people. The regime in that country sponsors terrorists in the Palestinian territories and in Lebanon -- and that must come to an end.”

"Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe, because in the long run stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty,"

WE, the undersigned, as members of the civilized freedom-loving people of the world protest and demanding from responsible journalists, writers, scholars and free world leaders to be fair with understanding about truth by differentiating Iranian people from TAAZI ruling class. Call urgently to refer to Iran and Iranian people correctly in their statements, News Reports headline, articles and recognize the following facts:
- Iranian is a culture.
- Iranian people should be declared as hostages and prisoners of TAAZI Islamofascist Clerical Regime without any control over the key decisions and their own destination.
- Iran has lost her Sovereignty as nation in past 28 years under Taazi occupation.
- " Iran Says" in the News report must be changed to "TAAZI Says"
- President-elect Ahmadinejad in News report must be changed to "TAAZI President Ahmadinejad" or "TAAZI President-thug Ahmadinejad"
- Iran 's Foreign Minister, in News report must be changed to TAAZI Foreign Minister .
- Freedom-loving Iranian people are considering the TAAZI Islamofascist as illegitimate system.
- Iranian people are declaring any contracts with the TAAZI Islamofascist as illegitimate and it is subject to review after Iran becomes FREE nation.
- Freedom-loving Iranian people are declaring the TAAZI as Terror/Torture Masters and ask the FREE world not to negotiate with Terrorists and Hostage Takers.
- Freedom-loving Iranian people are declaring the TAAZI Islamofascist Clerics and their TAAZI Supporters as a small minority and the Virus of Iranian Society.
- Freedom-loving Iranian People condemn wasted 20 Billion Dollars TAAZI Islamofascist Nuclear adventures that are not peaceful and is used by the TAAZI Mad Mullahs, TAAZI Revolutionary Guard, Terror and Torture Masters as an instrument for taking the Iranian people and world as their hostages.


Marcus Mabry wrote:

Think Again: Condoleezza Rice
By Marcus Mabry May/June 2007
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/users/login.php?story_id=3781&URL=http://www.foreignpolicy.com
“Condi Is a Bush Loyalist”
For now. One of the secrets to the spectacular rise of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is that every boss she has ever worked for was convinced that she shared his worldview. And each, after she left his employ, was left scratching his head as he saw Rice make a 180degree turn away from the core beliefs he thought they shared. It happened with former National Security Advisor (NSA) Brent Scowcroft, who thought Rice was a rockribbed realist only to see her become the most ardent acolyte of idealist President George W. Bush and his “Freedom Agenda.” It even happened with former Stanford University President Gerhard Casper, for whom Rice served as provost and vice president—Stanford’s number two—and with her college political science professor Alan Gilbert, a leftist who says of Rice, “[Her interest] wasn’t really Great Power realism. If I had to put her in a category, I’d say she was closer to Marxist.”

More surprising than Gilbert’s assertion that Rice was a radical is the frequency with which you hear the same refrain: Across the political spectrum, many of Rice’s former bosses now question whether she ever identified with them at all. Rice’s central philosophy is power—not realist or idealist or Marxist, but personal power. She does what she has to in order to achieve it in whatever situation she finds herself, and, throughout her career, some would argue, opportunistically conformed to her mentors’ opinions in order to rise. “She did this with me and...



Oppenheimer wrote:
( Bolded in reference to previous post)


Remark at the Young Global Leaders Policy Roundtable


Secretary Condoleezza Rice
East Auditorium
Washington, DC
April 19, 2007

(9:45 a.m. EST)

SECRETARY RICE: Thank you very much. Thank you.

Well, first of all, thank you very much, Klaus, for coming. We first met when I
was the provost of Stanford University and Klaus brought the World Economic
Forum to Stanford for an extraordinary session. It was a wonderful session. And
you have done so much to bring people of the world together from many different
walks of life. You have embodied a principle that I hold very dear, which is
that peace and prosperity are not just the work of government, they are the
work of all people from all walks of life.
And so thank you very much for doing
that and for representing that so well, and I'm just honored to have you here
with us. (Applause.)

I'd also like to thank you very much, Karim, for being here. We've had a long
association. And we are also joined by the current Ambassador of Jordan, Prince
Zeid. Thank you very much for being here.

And I just want to underscore what Klaus has said. I'm very lucky to have Dina
Powell working with me. She is exemplary of what it is to be American, really,
someone who is from an Egyptian family who is fully and completely American,
but I think with a very great deal of pride in her heritage. And so thank you,
Dina, for what you're doing. (Applause.)

Now, I have to start by saying that you are one day going to experience
something that I am experiencing now, which is that in the blink of an eye you
go from being a young global leader to being an old one. (Laughter.) And I used
to sit in many forums like this where I was considered to be an up-and-comer,
and then all of a sudden one day you have come -- (laughter) -- and then I
guess after that you go. (Laughter.) So enjoy being a young global leader now.

You are, though, very, very special people from all walks of life. I know that
you are representative of entrepreneurs, some of you are academics. I
understand that there are people here from civil society. There are people from
all walks of life. And that's why I wanted to come and be with you. Because as
I have said, we in government can do a lot, but we can't do everything. Indeed
the desire for greater democracy, for greater freedom, for greater prosperity
for all of the world's people has to come from the hearts and minds of all of
us around the globe.

It is a time when those efforts are very much needed because the international
system is going through a great historic transformation. And great historic
transformations are difficult. They are by their very nature disruptive. They
are by their very nature disconcerting. They are by their very nature somewhat
frightening. And we are in one of those times when the international system is
remaking itself. But I just want to say to you that at times like this it is
important to focus, of course, on the great challenges that we face, but also
to focus on the great opportunities because great opportunities for change do
not come in times of the status quo. They come in times when change is
underway.


I am very grateful that Klaus mentioned the efforts that we're making in the
Middle East. President Bush is a firm believer that change in the Middle East
is long overdue and that it can, in fact, bring about a more stable world if
the Middle East itself is truly stable. Not false stability, but stability
built on more open societies, more prosperous societies, the forward march of
democracy, the belief that the non-negotiable demands of human dignity are such
that every man, woman, and child deserves the right to be free, that there are
no places in the world where tyranny is okay. Because wherever you are, you are
human and human beings have a natural desire to be free.

I've heard people say from time to time, why is America trying to impose
democracy? I say, we're trying to do nothing of the sort. You don't have to
impose democracy; you have to impose tyranny. What you do with democracy is to
support those who within their own indigenous circumstances are trying to bring
about freer societies. I think if you talk to people around the world and you
get away from abstract concepts like democracy and you ask questions like do
you want to have a say in who will govern you? People will say yes. Do you want
to be able to educate your children, your boys and your girls? People will say
yes. Do you want to be able to worship as you wish, in line with your
conscience not in line with the dictates of the state? People will say yes. Do
you want to be free from the arbitrary, secret knock of the state at your door
on any given evening? People will say yes. Do you want to be able to have the
information that a free press can bring? People will say yes.

In fact, it's not a cultural issue; it is a human issue to want to have control
of your own life. And America says this, I think, from a perspective not of
arrogance, not that we have all done it right, but rather from a sense of
humility in how long and hard our own democratic journey has been. In fact,
when the Founding Fathers -- one of them Thomas Jefferson, my predecessor many
times removed, the First Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson -- when that
Constitution was written, that Constitution made my ancestors three-fifths of a
man. Slavery existed still in this country for another more than a hundred
years. And so from our perspective, we know that change is difficult and that
high-minded principles don't always mean that you're living up to them.

In fact, it was not until -- it was still during my lifetime that in my native
South of the United States, Alabama, in my lifetime that the vote was finally
secured for all people. It was very difficult for black Americans to vote in
the South until the Voting Rights Act of the early 1960s. So we know that it's
hard, but it is very much worth it. And there is no place -- I am quite
confident -- that people don't want freedom.

We've been through a long list of the world assuming, well, perhaps it really
won't work in Africa because Africa is too tribal. But now if you look across
Africa you see people exercising their democratic rights and, as a result, you
see better and better leadership in Africa, governments that are emerging from
civil war giving their people the vote and becoming more stable. It used to be
said, well, it won't work in Latin America, a continent in which there were
coups, juntas, the military in control. But now if you look at Latin America,
in fact, the countries of Latin America -- with one exception, Cuba -- are, in
fact, being governed by democratic systems and are having peaceful transfers of
power.

It was even said at one point, well, of course, Russians don't really care
about democracy. But they do, because to have a say in what you are able -- in
who will govern you and how you will live your life, is a very human emotion.
And so when we talk about the forward march of democracy and trying to support
democratic processes, I think we're talking about something that is actually
quite natural.

Now, it's not enough to have elections. Democracies have to be well governed,
democracies have to have institutions, they have to be able to provide for
their people, they have to have security; all of those things are true. But
unless you start from the premise that well-governed democratic states are what
we should be seeking, I think you'll be without a compass.


Now, we're going to continue our efforts in the Middle East. And one of the
most important efforts that I think we're making is on behalf of the two-state
solution to finally have the Palestinian people have their own state and to
finally have the Israeli people have the security that will come from having a
democratic neighbor. (Applause.) We will continue those efforts. I think we
have an opportunity and it is an opportunity that we will fully pursue.

Let me just close by saying that sometimes in the tremendous upheaval that
comes with great historic times, I'm sure it is easy to lose sight of the end
point and to think to yourself will it ever happen that there will be a
Palestinian state. Will it ever happen that the Iraqi people will live together
in democracy and peace? Will it ever happen that Afghanistan, having overthrown
the Taliban, will become a mature democracy?

Well, I am a student of international history and I recognize that so many
things that seemed impossible at one moment, years later seem as if they were
just inevitable. This building that you're in, this part of the building, is
actually the part of the building in which George Marshall had his office. It's
the part of the building in which people like Acheson and Nitze, the architects
of American policy after World War II, worked. And on any given day after World
War II, they came in and faced problems that must have made it seem as if
democracy was in retreat. They faced in 1946 not questions about whether
Eastern Europe would be communist, but questions about whether Western Europe
would be communist, when the Communist Party won 48 percent of the vote in
Italy and 46 percent of the vote in France. They faced questions about how to
keep two million Europeans from starving in 1947, the genesis of the Marshall
Plan. They faced in 1947 a civil war in Greece and civil conflict in Turkey. In
1948 the Berlin crisis divided Germany permanently. In 1948 Czechoslovakia, the
last of the non-communist East European countries, fell to a communist coup. In
1949 the Soviet Union exploded a nuclear weapon five years ahead of schedule,
the Chinese communist won and in 1950 the Korean War broke out.

Now, if you had told people at that time that just a mere 40 years later, a
then-young global leader named Condoleezza Rice would be lucky enough to be the
White House Soviet specialist at the end of the Cold War and to participate in
the liberation of Eastern Europe, the unification of Germany, the beginning of
the peaceful collapse of the Soviet Union, people would have said, "You're out
of your mind." And so when people tell you what isn't possible in international
politics, tell them to stay focused on what is possible. If you stay true to
your values, if you see opportunity not just crisis, and if you are determined
to make statecraft work for peace, prosperity and democracy, it's amazing what
those outcomes can be.


So thank you very much and I'm happy to take a few of your questions.
(Applause.)

ASSSISTANT SECRETARY POWELL: First His Royal Highness.

SECRETARY RICE: Yes, yes, yes. Your Royal Highness.

PRINCE ZAID: Madame Secretary, thank you so much for meeting with us and for
providing us such a thoughtful and compelling presentation. Eleven years ago in
Bosnia, arguments were put forward for the partitioning of the country in the
absence of what seemed to be a better political alternative and such was the
violence in that country. Ultimately, these arguments were rejected both on
practical and on moral grounds. Having said that, in Washington today there
seems to be a renewed interest in this sort of argument where Iraq is
concerned. And for those of us living in the neighborhood, it does make us
nervous. Could you give us your reactions to these sorts of arguments.

SECRETARY RICE: Yes. Well, thank you. It's a very good question, Your Royal
Highness. I do not see, first of all, that it is practical and secondly, since
I don't see Iraqis who seem to be interested in such a solution, I don't think
that it is moral. The Iraqis are having a very difficult struggle. They are
struggling to overcome differences that have been beneath the surfaces,
differences that have been suppressed, differences that have been dealt with by
oppression or by violence and they're trying to find a way to deal with their
differences politically. But they have set up institutions in which they can
all act to overcome those differences as Iraqis. Whether as Sunnis or Shia, or
Kurds or Turkmen, they come together within these democratic institutions. And
already a lot of Iraqis showed tremendous fortitude and courage in voting 12.5
million strong to be one Iraq and to have those institutions. It is not for any
outside power to say that they should not have a unified state. It would be bad
for the region but most especially it would be bad for Iraqis.

Now, I know that there are violent people from all of the communities,
extremists, who do not want to see the Iraqis have an opportunity to settle
their differences politically. But it's my strong belief and I think it's the
belief of the Iraqis as well that unless they have the opportunity to work
within these institutions, they cannot settle their differences by any means
other than repression. So it is -- if you say they shouldn't try all Iraqis
within these institutions, then you are really saying, well, they'll have to go
back to violence and tyranny and that just isn't.

Now, a lot of Iraqis have lost their lives and a lot of coalition. Americans,
in particular, have given their lives in this struggle. But if we look first at
what could be, an Iraq that has institutions, that will come over time to
represent all Iraqis; it's not going to happen overnight. But the fundamentals,
the foundation is being laid. Reconciliation will probably come first through
laws, but it will come over time through social interaction of the people. This
would be an Iraq that would make a fundamentally different kind of Middle East
in which the model is for democratic change, not for repression. The final
point is that of course for the region, there is a lot at stake because an Iraq
that has a foundation for peace and democracy is an Iraq that can be a
stabilizing force. An Iraq that is permitted to degenerate into chaos will have
a terrible effect on the region. And I think that is why I look forward to the
conference of neighbors that will take place in Sharm el-Sheikh at the
beginning of May because it seems to me to speak to a recognition by Iraq's
neighbors that this young democracy needs to be supported by the neighbors.

Yes.

QUESTION: Thank you very much. I must start by saying that I'm from Zimbabwe.
Adam Mutambara (ph). I'm one of the opposition leaders. I want to start by
expressing our gratitude to the United States Government for supporting us, in
particular last month when we were brutalized, tortured and arrested. But my
emphasis today is to say we need more than democracy in Africa. In other words,
democratic existence is a necessary but not sufficient condition for progress.
We want Zimbabwe, for example, to be a peaceful, democratic and prosperous
nation. What we want in Africa is African countries becoming knowledge economy
driven, technology driven, globally competitive economies.

What policies are we putting in place to promote technology transfer into
Africa, to promote free and fair trade between Africa and the U.S., to promote
value-added manufacturing in Africa? When we are successful, Secretary, we
would want Zimbabwe to be exporting IT products, technology products to the
U.S. In other words, we are saying where are we committing a little bit of
economic suicide on the part of the U.S. because we want to be competing
against you and also being your equals in the long run.

SECRETARY RICE: That's good. Yes. Yes.

QUESTION: Thank you very much.

SECRETARY RICE: Thank you very much. That's great. (Applause.) Well, first of
all, thank you for your courage as a member of the opposition in Zimbabwe.
Zimbabwe is a story that I think the world should be more focused on.
Particularly the countries of the region need to be more focused on what is
going on in Zimbabwe. The people of Zimbabwe I think did not fight for
independence only to find themselves in a position of repression. And so you
will have our support and we have spoken out.

I'd love to have Zimbabwe as a competitor internationally. I think that the
United States has always had a view that free trade is not a zero-sum game,
that in fact you can grow all economies through free trade. And it's why the
United States and this President, but really American presidents for decades
now have been strong proponents of free trade. In Africa in particular, we have
had programs that recognize that democracy is a necessary condition, but not
sufficient to be able to deliver for people. And so we've begun to talk more
and more about democracy and development.

We have through the African Growth and Opportunity Act made it possible for a
product to come into the United States. And I have seen in some cases when I
visited Africa how that's affected and helped promote small business. We have
been very involved in education in Africa which after all with an educated
population you can compete better in the international economy. The United
States has almost quadrupled official development assistance to Africa over the
term of this presidency because we believe that trade, aid and foreign direct
investment have to go together to improve people's lives.

Finally, with the Millennium Challenge Account, which I dearly hope one day, if
governance can be improved, that Zimbabwe would be a possible candidate for
that kind of program, we have been rewarding governments that are involved in
good governance, that are fighting corruption, that are investing in their
people with really rather large development compacts that are -- you might be
interested as members of -- some of you as members of civil society -- that are
actually developed between the United States, the government and civil society
as to how to help to alleviate poverty.

So I think in Africa, we've been working very hard to try to make the link
between development and democracy because you're right, democracies perhaps
even more than non-democratic forms of government have to be able to deliver
for their people because when people cast their vote, they expect that the
government is going to be able to deliver for them. And so this link between
democracy and development is very important.

Yes, yes.

SECRETARY RICE: And I think they're going to -- do you have a mike?

QUESTION: Thank you, Secretary Rice. First of all, I'd like to applaud you on
your great efforts to recognize and empower women worldwide and I thank you for
that. I'd like to get your thoughts on what some of the greatest needs are
worldwide for women, but I'd also like you to comment on the fact that the
U.S., although we've come a long way, we still have a long way to go. Unlike
many countries, we've never had a woman in our highest office and just this
week, the Supreme Court dealt a severe blow to women's reproductive rights. So
if you could comment on both of those things. Thank you.

SECRETARY RICE: Yeah. Well, look, we have a system for -- a democratic system
for dealing with the most difficult social issues. And people are on different
sides of these debates. And it is why we have a system that allows this to be
worked both through legislation and through the courts. Americans will and can
make their views known and will do so, I'm quite certain of it. I mean, I have
my own personal views. But the important thing is that we have a democratic
system in which these issues can be addressed. And that goes to the first part
of your question.

First, women have to have rights. If you can't vote, you can't exercise your
own -- on behalf of your own freedoms. You have to be able to vote. Secondly,
you have to be able to run for office. And I do think in some countries now
this is being recognized, I was in Kuwait recently and one of the nicest gifts
I ever got was a t-shirt from the Kuwaiti women that said "Half a democracy is
not a democracy at all," just after they'd gotten the right to vote. And it's
very exciting. They were talking about running for office and they are going to
run for office. And they ran for office. Some didn't -- none won, but they are
organizing themselves now across gender lines to try and win votes. I think
that's extraordinarily (inaudible).

It also takes change socially for women to be able to prosper. In too many
places, even if education is available to girls, sometimes family attitudes are
such that girls' education is not valued as highly as the education of boys.
And so this has to be worked at the level of society too, which is why civil
society groups are so important.

So yes, we have a long way to go, but I would start by giving everybody the
right to vote. I would move toward making certain that people know they can
hold whatever office they wish. I would make certain that women are being
educated and that their families are supportive of that and that there are not
barriers to women reaching and fulfilling their potential.

But it's a very interesting point; even though it's true we've not had a woman
yet elected president and I now see women presidents in a number of parts of
the world, parts of the country, I think it will happen. But do you realize
that it has been 10 years, and if I go my full term it will have been 12 years,
since the United States of America had a white male Secretary of State? We had
Madeleine Albright, followed by Colin Powell, followed by me. (Applause.) So
we're making progress.

STAFF: Two more --

SECRETARY RICE: Yes, two more quick questions, yes.

QUESTION: Fatima --

SECRETARY RICE: Yes, Fatima, yes.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.) I am from Iran. As you told about democracy, we wish
democracy too, but my question is do you think America can bring democracy by
war?

SECRETARY RICE: No. America cannot bring democracy by any means. Only people in
the region can bring -- in the country can bring democracy. What we can do is
to help support people who want to bring democracy, speak out for them, provide
opportunities for training, opportunities for people to come and visit here.

Sometimes, as was the case in Afghanistan and also in Iraq, the overthrow of
dictators presented those people with an opportunity to build democracy. And
that can happen, but we can't even -- we can't deliver democracy in Afghanistan
or Iraq or anyplace. That has to come from within.

But if I can just say a word about Iran; I really do look forward to the day
when Iran and the United States can have good relations. The Iranian people are
a great people, a great culture, a culture far, far, far older than that of the
United States, a culture that has contributed so much to human knowledge and to
human progress. We have been fortunate to have some people-to-people exchanges
as of late. We had a wrestling team in Iran. We've had people here who are
disaster relief workers. And it's important that our people -- because we
respect greatly the Iranian people and we simply want for the Iranian people
what we want for people all over the world, which is to have the ability to
express themselves, to choose their leaders, to have women prosper.

And so I'm so glad that you're here and I hope that you know that whatever
differences we may have with the Iranian Government, we want to work them out
through diplomatic means. We would like to see the Iranian people have access
to technology for a civil nuclear program, but in a way that does not cause
proliferation risks. That is why the international community has been concerned
about enrichment and reprocessing. But the Iranian people and the American
people should be friends and I look forward to the day that relations between
our governments permit that to take place.


Last question, yes.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, as someone who's not American but who loves America
and who spent four years at Stanford, a place you know very well, I hope you
can forgive me for asking you a frank question. I was very moved by your words
about democracy in the Middle East and I think many of us who believe very
deeply in the universality of democratic values were very moved by these words
and also by what President Bush has had to say on a number of occasions,
including his State of the Union address when he got reelected.

We've been very concerned, though, recently about whether the deeds of America
match its lofty rhetoric in this regard because democracy, after all, and the
support for democracy requires sacrifice. It requires tradeoff. Sometimes, it
requires accepting people for a while who we don't like in order to allow
democracy to de-legitimize them and de-popularize them and of course, we're all
very familiar with how effective democracy is at doing that.

And also, recognizing that ultimately, the only way we're really going to
defeat terrorism, as President Bush and yourself have indicated, is through
liberating and modernizing societies in the Middle East. So my question to you
is whether we really have what it takes to actually make those tradeoffs and
take the difficult decisions and sacrifices that supporting democracy requires.

SECRETARY RICE: Yes. Well, thank you and we -- the United States under
President Bush has been more vocal and more devoted to this cause than I think
at any other time in our history, but we're not perfect. We're not always going
to make the right decisions. We will always make decisions that we thought were
right. And so we have to recognize that these are complicated times. I think
our responsibility is to speak out for these principles, to support those who
want to speak out for those principles, never to think that stability is
somehow a tradeoff for democracy. Because I think the problem we've had in the
Middle East in the past is that stability, or false stability, was really
giving rise underneath to very bad circumstances, virulent extremism which was
just underneath the surface, because healthy political forces didn't have
anywhere to go in authoritarian circumstances, and so we have to work our way
through those. I would never say that everything that we've done would -- has
been good in this cause, but it has always been in good faith.

The goal, though, is going to have to be that people of the region will also
take this up, and I think that's probably for me one of the most heartening
aspects of this. When I go to countries around the Middle East and activists in
those countries say to me, "Secretary Rice, you're not talking about democracy
enough," I think that's great. That's what I want to hear, because people
recognize that they have a responsibility themselves and that America can
support that, but it is really their responsibility also to promote for
democracy.

So I think it's going to be a generational issue, a struggle. But it is
something that we have begun. It is something that should have been begun a
long time ago and it is something to which America will remain committed,
because people around the world who expect that of us need to be able to know
that we will really be there and continue to advocate for those issues.


Thank you. Last question. Yes. Ukraine.

QUESTION: My name is Igor Sheshenkov (ph), from Kiev, from Ukraine, and I would
like to bring some more European perspective to our discussion. In your
strategic plan for 2007-2012, one of the priorities were this energy security
in Europe.

SECRETARY RICE: Yes.

QUESTION: And the diversification of sources, transparency and some other
things. Do you have any particular plans how to do that?

SECRETARY RICE: Yes. Well, it's a very important issue -- energy security and
energy diversification -- and it's important for a couple of ways -- reasons.
First of all, no one should be in a position in which oil and gas can be used
as a political weapon, and the only way to be sure that you're not is to have
alternative sources of oil and gas. And so we are working with the Europeans.
This is also something that Europe really needs to worry about -- not just
Ukraine, not just Georgia, but Europe -- on energy security, on issues of
energy diversification, extremely important for that purpose.

By the way, it's not aimed at anyone. I know that sometimes it is spoken that
the United States is trying to deny Moscow, for instance. And no, that's not
the point. Everybody should be able to have multiple sources. There is plenty
of need for energy resources that we can have diversification of energy sources
and it will serve us all well.

It is also important that that diversification not just mean diversification of
oil and gas resources, that is, carbon-based resources, but also
diversification to alternative fuels. Because if we are going to improve our
environmental stewardship on something like climate change, we're going to have
to have alternatives to a carbon-based economy. And so when President Bush was
in Brazil just last month, he was -- and when President Lula was then at Camp
David, they launched this bio-fuels diversification project, alternative fuels.
Brazil has been a leader in ethanol-based energy supply. We're going to work
with them, particularly in our own hemisphere, to make alternative fuels
commercially available through technology, commercially viable through
technology, and that will be extremely important to diversifying energy supply
and to improving economic stewardship.

And so this area is one that to me is at the core of further economic progress,
political independence for countries and harmony between countries. One of the
issues that we will have if there cannot be alternative sources for China, for
India, is no matter what the so-called developed countries do in terms of
carbon-based fuels, we will never see an improvement in the environment because
of the rapid growth of China and India. But we can't tell China and India don't
grow; they have to be able to grow. So we have to make these technologies
available. And the United States has something called the Asia Pacific
Partnership on Climate and Energy with South Korea, the United States,
Australia, China, India. There are others who are interested. We need more
partnerships like that around the world so that diversification is both supply
of oil and gas in the near term but also diversification to alternative fuels
in the longer term.

Thank you very much, and thank you all for being here. It's been a pleasure to
be with you. (Applause.)

2007/303


Released on April 19, 2007

************************************************************
See http://www.state.gov/secretary/ for all remarks by the Secretary of State.
********************************************************************************


Last edited by cyrus on Wed Apr 25, 2007 2:55 pm; edited 13 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 10:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why Should Women Activists Condemn House Speaker Ms. Nancy Pelosi For Appeasing Islamist Fanatics, Submission to Islamist Rules and Insults To Free Spirit of American Women ?
cyrus wrote:
Jamal Saidi/Reuters wrote:




http://news.yahoo.com/photo/070404/photos_ts/2007_04_04t002618_284x450_us_syria_usa_pelosi

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wears a veil as she visits the tomb of John the Baptist inside the Umayyad mosque in Damascus April 3, 2007. (Jamal Saidi/Reuters)


Ms. Nancy Pelosi as private citizen has every right for wearing veil in any place as tourist however as House Speaker Ms. Nancy Pelosi who is in third ranking position after President and Vice President in hierarchy of power according US constitution should not wear a veil in her official visit to Syria. This is considered as submission to Islamist fanatic rules, signal of appeasing Islamists and weakness.
Ms. Nancy Pelosi bad judgement was against the spirit of the American founding fathers vision, spirit of freedom, secular democracy, free American Women, free society, women struggle against fanatic Islamist rules. We hope House Speaker Ms. Nancy Pelosi learn something from Iranian women fight for freedom please watch the short video clip or read comments from Freedom-Loving American women in "Save Nazanin petition".

We should consider to condemn House Speaker Ms. Nancy Pelosi strongly based on the following simple rules defined below, détente with fanatics, appeasement of Islamists, bad judgement and ask for her apology from American People.

Today Simple Rules For Evaluating Foreign Policy and Strategy

Our future expectations from policy makers and leadership are defined with new set of test cases for foreign policy evaluation criteria to be able to measure success and failure results more easily. Our recommended test cases and criteria are based on Cyrus The Great Spirit, the American founding fathers vision, spirit of freedom, US constitution and defined as follows:

1- Have a secular democracy purpose
2- Have a Human Rights purpose
3- Have a Free Society purpose
4- Have a primary effect to increase freedom at global level.
5- Have the element of War Of Ideas to expand public awareness, education and expansion of truth.
6- Have an element of Freedom of Choice
7- Applying the U.S.A. Supreme Court accepted "Lemon test," to foreign policy decisions, strategy and conduct. According to the "Lemon test," in order to be constitutional, a law or public act must: a) Have a secular purpose. b) Have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion. c) Not result in excessive governmental entanglement with religion.
8- Move towards better unified global fair Justice System.




Outrage American Women wrote:

Freedom-Loving American Women Outrage To Save Nazanin As A Victim Of Islamic Fascists Occupiers Of Iran


277120. Emma Goddard
Horrible. Woman like Nazanin are being terribly degraded in society. We are people too, and woman rights are STILL a problem all over the world. It's not possible to "allow" rape. Rape is sex at your own will, meaning you can't "allow" a person to rape you. So many men tell you to dress a certain way and to just look a certain way in general so that others do not think unwell of us or in Nazanin's case, attempt sexual engagement with us. If men are telling us to do that, then they should themselves take account for their actions too. Disgusting. America

277119. Sabrina Van
Asveld Please don't let this travesty called "justice" in Iran be carried out. No woman, wherever she comes from, deserves to be held accountable for the horror she endured. If her attackers cannot keep their hormones on check, she does not have to suffer for that. She is the victim, she's not at fault.
USA



277395. Catherine Garrison
Your laws are sick and unfair. Without women there would be no men. Without men there would be no war. Why do you allow one huma being to abuse another? Why do you abuse women? Women should be honored and cherished for the loving caring people they are. They are not at the root of evil in the world - men are - our prisons are full of them. They rape, they kill, they abuse, they are the authors and creators of WAR. The world would be so much more beautiful it were run by women - and some day it will be if the men don't destroy it first - men like George Bush and Sadam - God would frown upon them, and upon you for killing this innocent creature for defending herself. I suppose you think all women should just lay down and be raped without objection. Judgement day will come in heaven or hell. Heaven is full of women, hell is full of men.
USA

259563. Victoria
Sellers This is crazy, hanging someone for defending herself?! Everyone in the world should sign this.

259558. Maninouth Thipphavong
How can leaders of a country allow such an injustice to simply pass on? Are you blind men or are you merely filled with contempt for all women? What would you have done if it was your own child helpless in sucha situation? This will not end here, people around the world will not just watch this and then let it disappear. We will not forget. No one ever forgets the grave injustices done by such cruel men. Be merciful, and even Allah will forgive you.
United States of America

259524. Katie Heisinger
i read this story in a seventeen magazine and i felt so sorry for so i immediately went to this site to sign the petition
United States of America

260060. Roozbeh Rajaei
To kill a person is truly to spit in Nature/God’s eye. To kill a child, is just inexcusable and pure Evil. We, Iranians/Persians, as a nation have disgraced our heritage/history of being people of high tolerance, morals, and intelligence by allowing such atrocity to take place. We, inhabitants of Earth, have disgraced everything holy, sacred and natural about being and possessing innocence by allowing such atrocity to take place in the world. Lets show each other and who ever that may be watching, that we as a nation of this world, we as the people of this world are not savages and that our ability to Love casts a great shadow over our ability to hate. USA

260013. Christina Stoltz
I don't think it is right that they are going to hang her just because she was defending herself!!! Also I do not think that a man's life should be worth more than a womens!!! Everyone should be treated the same!! USA

259965. Kath Seymour
To carry out this sentence would be a horrendous injustice. The whole world would be horrified at such cruel , barbaric injustice against someone who is both a minor and an undefended girl acting in self-defence. I urge all authorities involved to do whatsoever is possible to revert this unbelievable sentence. May God save and bless Nazanin and every child or woman like her.
Canada

259824. Lakeisha
I think that this is absolutely outrageous and a tragedy. An individual deserves the right to protect themeselves despite their gender. Im only one person, but I hope that I can in some way contribute to saving Nazanin.
United States of America

260207. Lisa Olsen
Will a female child receive a fair trial in Iran? If she is lost, the loss will felt by all women and children in every part of the world where oppression of women still exists

261091. Jonathan Krull Thou shalt not be a victim. Thou shalt not be a perpetrator. Above all, thou shalt not be a bystander. Dr. Martin Luther King: "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly." Thoreau: "Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison."
USA
______________________________________________
272143. Candace D.
Nazanin & Nazanin, I am posting this message on MySpace so I can let people know about this. It's a shame that this will happen to a girl who was tring to defend herself and niece!! It just shows how unfair Iran can be. Don't worry Nazanin & Nazanin, people will sign this petetion to save your life. People have to even sign a petetion just to save someone's life. Thank you for bringing this topic up in Seventeen magazine. I promise you both, that she will live.
USA
_____________________________________________
Source URL:
http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?Nazanin&1

268008. R. Porter
This madness must end! How many times must innocent victims continue to be victimized. Sentencing must be carried out on the perpertrators not the victim. The world must respond and stop this insanity. Unfortunately these types of crimes are happening all around the world to women,more often than we hear about. I am tired of hearing the excuse, that is their culture. No ones culture should place any one human being above another. We should be all treated equal under the law, regardless of religious affiliation. Laws should and must be based on human rights, and not what religious views you hold. Please save Nazanin!
Canada

267904. Debbie Snow
Killling someone for defending themself against rape is a disgrace. In my opinion she is a very brave woman, and I only hope that I have the courage to defend myself if I am ever in the same situation.
Canada
_________________________________________________________


268125. Nicole SKursky
With the war in Iraq occurring, most people seem to believe that nothing that happens in the Middle East is significant. My own friends believe that Iraq should be atomically bombed for the sole reason that there MIGHT be terrorists residing in the country. Women are the strongest people, yet receive the least respect and the least amount of rights. They are just as diligent and hardworking as men and deserve all the same and equal rights that men just seem to naturally be born with. Nazanin is a powerful woman. He struggled through one of the hardest situations a girl may be faced with. Though she killed a man, she responsible for the life of her niece and most importantly, the life of herself. My heart goes out to her. United States

268098. Yasamin
why are woman still mistreated! i don't understand, as an iranian i believe that when i go to iran with my family i should feel safe and not scared to go out because if i do some men will try to abuse me or my family. Am i supposed to accept that ? am i supposed to accept that i should do nothing about it! what about self defense, i mean they were raping her! she used defense what was she supposed to do just let it happen? it honestly disgusts me, makes me sick to the bone, and i hope that something is done about this injustice!

268073. Trisha
Its unbelievable that this can happen just for defending her life and her niece'. Shes only 17. Life is too short to be holding her in prison for something that was not intentially ment to happen.
Canada

268062. Natalie Rossi
This story has really touched my heart! I can't believe they treat women like this for trying to protect themselves! I hope everything is fixed for the better! Luck!

267849. Jennifer B. Griffith
Self-defense is allowable by all religious laws, even if it results in the death of the attacker. She was defending herself AND her niece, and this is justifiable.
USA

272431. Lynn McCann
This petition is proof that the common person can postively impact the life of someone in need.
United States

272781. Ona Lucas
Time to educate those men about women. Where would they be without women. Women give birth, without them there would be no population for one thing . It's time for us to communicate assertively with that Country about Human Rights especially Women's Rights.
Canada

272750. BETTY KINGSLEY
Just give me 5 minutes with those guys, they will never rape again. What kind of idiot makes these laws?!! I would have done the same thing. Makes you want to pack your bags and teach someone a lesson.

273003. Karin Ryan
I am at a loss for words, please let Nazanin live!!!

272693. Paul Norris
She's getting punished why?? What options did she have? I guess the 'proper' thing to do in her situation would have been to get rapped and then taken the 100 lashes and considered her self lucky, what kind of thinking is this?? This brave girl needs our support, imagin how she must feel right now, how frustrating it must be to be a woman in that country. Canada

272633. Lisa Selinger
This is an absolute outrage. Happenings such as this makes you really grateful to live in a great place like Canada. I hope you can save her. Canada
--------------------------------------


ActivistChat Supported Petition 8 to Save Nazanin
Sign the Petition -
View Current Signatures


http://www.petitiononline.com/Nazanin/petition.html


Click To WATCH THIS Superb DOCUMENTARY Video
http://www.bodog.tv/spotlight/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
espandyar



Joined: 15 Apr 2004
Posts: 236

PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 10:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.bbc.co.uk/persian/iran/story/2007/04/070423_an-rice.shtml

US not for regime change in Iran ( you dont say!) but change of behavior!
_________________
Marze Por Gohar Party
Iranians for a Secuar Republic
ttp://www.marzeporgohar.org/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



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

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 11:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Regime Change as policy will be enacted the moment open hostilities ensues, on the battlefield. Till then, "behavior change" offeres the Iranian people the opportunity to do Regime Change Iranian style, with pressure being applied on the regime from free nations.

Sieze the moment.

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


Wednesday, April 25, 2007

Beckett: Ahmadinejad Shot Himself in Foot by Seizing British Soldiers

April 25, 2007
Yedioth Internet
Margaret Beckett



Earlier this month, 15 Royal Navy sailors and marines were released. They had been seized by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard while on patrol in Iraqi waters under a UN mandate and held for 14 days. It was a relief to all of us – above all for their families and colleagues, but also for the many in London and in our embassy in Tehran who worked tirelessly towards bringing them home.

The Government will draw lessons from those two weeks. But make no mistake. This was a victory for patient and determined diplomacy. We got our people out, we got them out unharmed, and we got them out relatively quickly. That was and has to be the measure of success. In going down this route we have shown that those who in the initial stages of the crisis confused diplomacy with weakness were wrong in their analysis and wrong in their advice.

By building support among our allies and Iran’s neighbours we put a consistent and ever tighter squeeze on the Iranian regime. In the end, its best option was to look for a quick way out from an unhappy situation of its own making.

Iran cannot give away what it had no right to hold

With their gloomy predictions about the failure of diplomacy proving misjudged, some commentators have turned to arguing that we have handed a victory of another kind – in world opinion – to the Iranian regime. Wrong again, I’m afraid.

No one was fooled for long by the circus performance laid on by the Iranians, from the staged and scripted confessions to President Ahmadinejad’s shameless exploitation of our personnel for the cameras. Their release was not a gift to the British people. Iran cannot give away that which it had no right to hold.

Take the time to look beneath the surface and it is clear that, in fact, the Iranian regime has done itself a great disservice. They hoped to turn this into some kind of nationalistic rallying call. But most Iranian citizens clearly wanted the crisis to be speedily resolved.

Western commentators can fall into the trap of underestimating the sophistication of the Iranian people. Iranians are no dupes: They are well aware of the problems that their government is facing in delivering on domestic promises of jobs and growth, and recognize the taking of our personnel as a possible diversionary tactic.

Iran has scored the same own goal across the region and throughout the international community. Countries in the region are already fed up with Iran’s interference in the affairs of others: In Iraq where Iranian elements want to destabilise the democratically-elected government; in Lebanon through its funding of Hizbullah – which has again set itself to bring down an elected government; and in its support for Palestinian rejectionist groups.

Now by illegally seizing our servicemen and then by denying any consular access, Iran has simply laid bare its contempt for international norms. For those who may have been beguiled by Iran’s justification for rejecting the authority of the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA) and the United Nations (UN) on the nuclear issue, this latest reckless act should raise fresh doubt.

Don't confuse diplomacy with weakness

Iran is already feeling the heat of international consensus on its nuclear ambitions. Irresponsible antics on the international stage will only increase that. Iran is now facing a 60-day deadline to comply with UN Security Council Resolution 1747, which reiterates the Security Council’s requirement for Iran to suspend its sensitive nuclear activities.

At the heart of that requirement is the anxiety about Iran’s uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities, secretly developed (as they now admit) for nearly 20 years and where questions put to them patiently and meticulously by the IAEA director general for the past four years still remain unanswered.

As with the recent crisis over our personnel, we are committed to taking the diplomatic route over Iran’s nuclear ambitions. We have and will continue to apply consistent, determined and graduated pressure on Iran to comply with the UN. At the same time we will keep holding out the attractive package on offer if Iran is prepared to comply with its international obligations by suspending its enrichment-related, reprocessing and heavy water related activities.

We have maintained cohesion among the international community, including an impressive unanimity in the Security Council, when our critics said it was impossible to achieve. Already Iran's access to technology has been cut off and its assets and financial transfers, essential for its procurement networks to operate, are being frozen. We hope that, as in the case of the Royal Navy personnel, sense will prevail in Tehran and the Iranian government will return to the negotiating table on the nuclear file.

The international community is applying relentless pressure. It comes from a strength of consensus that the Iranians have consistently underestimated. That international cohesion is the best weapon in our armoury and it will only stick if we maintain our patient and determined approach. But, again, no-one – above all the Iranian regime itself – should confuse that commitment to diplomacy with weakness.

The writer is the UK foreign secretary

link to original article

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3391778,00.html
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 ... 16, 17, 18 ... 25, 26, 27  Next
Page 17 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