[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 ... 23, 24, 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
Oppenheimer



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

PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 12:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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


THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. In the life of all free nations, there come moments that decide the direction of a country and reveal the character of its people. We are now at such a moment.

In Iraq, an ally of the United States is fighting for its survival. Terrorists and extremists who are at war with us around the world are seeking to topple Iraq's government, dominate the region, and attack us here at home. If Iraq's young democracy can turn back these enemies, it will mean a more hopeful Middle East and a more secure America. This ally has placed its trust in the United States. And tonight, our moral and strategic imperatives are one: We must help Iraq defeat those who threaten its future and also threaten ours.

Eight months ago, we adopted a new strategy to meet that objective, including a surge in U.S. forces that reached full strength in June. This week, General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker testified before Congress about how that strategy is progressing. In their testimony, these men made clear that our challenge in Iraq is formidable. Yet they concluded that conditions in Iraq are improving, that we are seizing the initiative from the enemy, and that the troop surge is working.

The premise of our strategy is that securing the Iraqi population is the foundation for all other progress. For Iraqis to bridge sectarian divides, they need to feel safe in their homes and neighborhoods. For lasting reconciliation to take root, Iraqis must feel confident that they do not need sectarian gangs for security. The goal of the surge is to provide that security and to help prepare Iraqi forces to maintain it. As I will explain tonight, our success in meeting these objectives now allows us to begin bringing some of our troops home.

Since the surge was announced in January, it has moved through several phases. First was the flow of additional troops into Iraq, especially Baghdad and Anbar province. Once these forces were in place, our commanders launched a series of offensive operations to drive terrorists and militias out of their strongholds. And finally, in areas that have been cleared, we are surging diplomatic and civilian resources to ensure that military progress is quickly followed up with real improvements in daily life.

Anbar province is a good example of how our strategy is working. Last year, an intelligence report concluded that Anbar had been lost to al Qaeda. Some cited this report as evidence that we had failed in Iraq and should cut our losses and pull out. Instead, we kept the pressure on the terrorists. The local people were suffering under the Taliban-like rule of al Qaeda, and they were sick of it. So they asked us for help.

To take advantage of this opportunity, I sent an additional 4,000 Marines to Anbar as part of the surge. Together, local sheiks, Iraqi forces, and coalition troops drove the terrorists from the capital of Ramadi and other population centers. Today, a city where al Qaeda once planted its flag is beginning to return to normal. Anbar citizens who once feared beheading for talking to an American or Iraqi soldier now come forward to tell us where the terrorists are hiding. Young Sunnis who once joined the insurgency are now joining the army and police. And with the help of our provincial reconstruction teams, new jobs are being created and local governments are meeting again.

These developments do not often make the headlines, but they do make a difference. During my visit to Anbar on Labor Day, local Sunni leaders thanked me for America's support. They pledged they would never allow al Qaeda to return. And they told me they now see a place for their people in a democratic Iraq. The Sunni governor of Anbar province put it this way: "Our tomorrow starts today."

The changes in Anbar show all Iraqis what becomes possible when extremists are driven out. They show al Qaeda that it cannot count on popular support, even in a province its leaders once declared their home base. And they show the world that ordinary people in the Middle East want the same things for their children that we want for ours -- a decent life and a peaceful future.

In Anbar, the enemy remains active and deadly. Earlier today, one of the brave tribal sheikhs who helped lead the revolt against al Qaeda was murdered. In response, a fellow Sunni leader declared: "We are determined to strike back and continue our work." And as they do, they can count on the continued support of the United States.

Throughout Iraq, too many citizens are being killed by terrorists and death squads. And for most Iraqis, the quality of life is far from where it should be. Yet General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker report that the success in Anbar is beginning to be replicated in other parts of the country.

One year ago, much of Baghdad was under siege. Schools were closed, markets were shuttered, and sectarian violence was spiraling out of control. Today, most of Baghdad's neighborhoods are being patrolled by coalition and Iraqi forces who live among the people they protect. Many schools and markets are reopening. Citizens are coming forward with vital intelligence. Sectarian killings are down. And ordinary life is beginning to return.

One year ago, much of Diyala province was a sanctuary for al Qaeda and other extremist groups, and its capital of Baqubah was emerging as an al Qaeda stronghold. Today, Baqubah is cleared. Diyala province is the site of a growing popular uprising against the extremists. And some local tribes are working alongside coalition and Iraqi forces to clear out the enemy and reclaim their communities.

One year ago, Shia extremists and Iranian-backed militants were gaining strength and targeting Sunnis for assassination. Today, these groups are being broken up, and many of their leaders are being captured or killed.

These gains are a tribute to our military, they are a tribute to the courage of the Iraqi security forces, and they are the tribute to an Iraqi government that has decided to take on the extremists.

Now the Iraqi government must bring the same determination to achieving reconciliation. This is an enormous undertaking after more than three decades of tyranny and division. The government has not met its own legislative benchmarks -- and in my meetings with Iraqi leaders, I have made it clear that they must.

Yet Iraq's national leaders are getting some things done. For example, they have passed a budget. They're sharing oil revenues with the provinces. They're allowing former Baathists to rejoin Iraq's military or receive government pensions. Local reconciliation is taking place. The key now is to link this progress in the provinces to progress in Baghdad. As local politics change, so will national politics.

Our troops in Iraq are performing brilliantly. Along with Iraqi forces, they have captured or killed an average of more than 1,500 enemy fighters per month since January. Yet ultimately, the way forward depends on the ability of Iraqis to maintain security gains. According to General Petraeus and a panel chaired by retired General Jim Jones, the Iraqi army is becoming more capable -- although there is still a great deal of work to be done to improve the national police. Iraqi forces are receiving increased cooperation from local populations. And this is improving their ability to hold areas that have been cleared.

Because of this success, General Petraeus believes we have now reached the point where we can maintain our security gains with fewer American forces. He has recommended that we not replace about 2,200 Marines scheduled to leave Anbar province later this month. In addition, he says it will soon be possible to bring home an Army combat brigade, for a total force reduction of 5,700 troops by Christmas. And he expects that by July, we will be able to reduce our troop levels in Iraq from 20 combat brigades to 15.

General Petraeus also recommends that in December we begin transitioning to the next phase of our strategy in Iraq. As terrorists are defeated, civil society takes root, and the Iraqis assume more control over their own security, our mission in Iraq will evolve. Over time, our troops will shift from leading operations, to partnering with Iraqi forces, and eventually to overwatching those forces. As this transition in our mission takes place, our troops will focus on a more limited set of tasks, including counterterrorism operations and training, equipping, and supporting Iraqi forces.

I have consulted with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, other members of my national security team, Iraqi officials, and leaders of both parties in Congress. I have benefited from their advice, and I have accepted General Petraeus's recommendations. I have directed General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker to update their joint campaign plan for Iraq, so we can adjust our military and civilian resources accordingly. I have also directed them to deliver another report to Congress in March. At that time, they will provide a fresh assessment of the situation in Iraq and of the troop levels and resources we need to meet our national security objectives.

The principle guiding my decisions on troop levels in Iraq is "return on success." The more successful we are, the more American troops can return home. And in all we do, I will ensure that our commanders on the ground have the troops and flexibility they need to defeat the enemy.

Americans want our country to be safe and our troops to begin coming home from Iraq. Yet those of us who believe success in Iraq is essential to our security, and those who believe we should begin bringing our troops home, have been at odds. Now, because of the measure of success we are seeing in Iraq, we can begin seeing troops come home. The way forward I have described tonight makes it possible, for the first time in years, for people who have been on opposite sides of this difficult debate to come together.

This vision for a reduced American presence also has the support of Iraqi leaders from all communities. At the same time, they understand that their success will require U.S. political, economic, and security engagement that extends beyond my presidency. These Iraqi leaders have asked for an enduring relationship with America. And we are ready to begin building that relationship -- in a way that protects our interests in the region and requires many fewer American troops.

The success of a free Iraq is critical to the security of the United States. A free Iraq will deny al Qaeda a safe haven. A free Iraq will counter the destructive ambitions of Iran. A free Iraq will marginalize extremists, unleash the talent of its people, and be an anchor of stability in the region. A free Iraq will set an example for people across the Middle East. A free Iraq will be our partner in the fight against terror -- and that will make us safer here at home.

Realizing this vision will be difficult, but it is achievable. Our military commanders believe we can succeed. Our diplomats believe we can succeed. And for the safety of future generations of Americans, we must succeed.

If we were to be driven out of Iraq, extremists of all strains would be emboldened. Al Qaeda could gain new recruits and new sanctuaries. Iran would benefit from the chaos and would be encouraged in its efforts to gain nuclear weapons and dominate the region. Extremists could control a key part of the global energy supply. Iraq could face a humanitarian nightmare. Democracy movements would be violently reversed. We would leave our children to face a far more dangerous world. And as we saw on September the 11th, 2001, those dangers can reach our cities and kill our people.

Whatever political party you belong to, whatever your position on Iraq, we should be able to agree that America has a vital interest in preventing chaos and providing hope in the Middle East. We should be able to agree that we must defeat al Qaeda, counter Iran, help the Afghan government, work for peace in the Holy Land, and strengthen our military so we can prevail in the struggle against terrorists and extremists.

So tonight I want to speak to members of the United States Congress: Let us come together on a policy of strength in the Middle East. I thank you for providing crucial funds and resources for our military. And I ask you to join me in supporting the recommendations General Petraeus has made and the troop levels he has asked for.

To the Iraqi people: You have voted for freedom, and now you are liberating your country from terrorists and death squads. You must demand that your leaders make the tough choices needed to achieve reconciliation. As you do, have confidence that America does not abandon our friends, and we will not abandon you.

To Iraq's neighbors who seek peace: The violent extremists who target Iraq are also targeting you. The best way to secure your interests and protect your own people is to stand with the people of Iraq. That means using your economic and diplomatic leverage to strengthen the government in Baghdad. And it means the efforts by Iran and Syria to undermine that government must end.

To the international community: The success of a free Iraq matters to every civilized nation. We thank the 36 nations who have troops on the ground in Iraq and the many others who are helping that young democracy. We encourage all nations to help, by implementing the International Compact to revitalize Iraq's economy, by participating in the Neighbors Conferences to boost cooperation and overcome differences in the region, and by supporting the new and expanded mission of the United Nations in Iraq.

To our military personnel, intelligence officers, diplomats, and civilians on the front lines in Iraq: You have done everything America has asked of you. And the progress I have reported tonight is in large part because of your courage and hard effort. You are serving far from home. Our nation is grateful for your sacrifices, and the sacrifices of your families.

Earlier this year, I received an email from the family of Army Specialist Brandon Stout of Michigan. Brandon volunteered for the National Guard and was killed while serving in Baghdad. His family has suffered greatly. Yet in their sorrow, they see larger purpose. His wife, Audrey, says that Brandon felt called to serve and knew what he was fighting for. And his parents, Tracy and Jeff, wrote me this: "We believe this is a war of good and evil and we must win even if it cost the life of our own son. Freedom is not free."

This country is blessed to have Americans like Brandon Stout, who make extraordinary sacrifices to keep us safe from harm. They are doing so in a fight that is just, and right, and necessary. And now it falls to us to finish the work they have begun.

Some say the gains we are making in Iraq come too late. They are mistaken. It is never too late to deal a blow to al Qaeda. It is never too late to advance freedom. And it is never too late to support our troops in a fight they can win.

Good night, and God bless America.

END 9:18 P.M. EDT
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 12:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Oppie,

Without any question Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker is very qualified person and far better than previous U.S. Ambassador in Iraq. Cleaning the current big mess in Iraq is not an easy task for anyone.
As we said many times in the past 4 years, they can not make any good progress in Iraq as long as the Islamist regime in Iran is in power. As long as the Bush Admin does not accept Secularism as the key solution to many of problems in Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan I don’t expect any good result in near future. Current Bush Admin and next President policy will fail based on the following rules. Nothing new in President Bush speech and Bush Admin have no interest to use the following rules to define new policy and strategy.


ActivistChat wrote:
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.




Have you ever heard President Bush talk about Secularism ?


______________________________________________________

These questions are for President Bush and all of the 2008 presidential candidates.
What is their definition of Secularism ?
What is their level of commitments to apply the following 5 rules in every day decision making process?

Have a secular democracy, Human Rights, Free Society, Stop Global Warming elements and Finally their Morale Support to remove all Religious and ideological based Governments as a main source of creating fear society and Terror in past 28 years .....

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



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

PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 12:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

What I hear him talking about is people having the basic respect for one another to live with their various beliefs and accept each others beliefs as their right , under the rule of law.

If you read the Iraqi Constitution, you find a federalist democratic government, and I see nothing in it that would in any way allow for a theocracy to come into existance...

Really, we arn't in the buisiness of telling folks what kind of nation to build for themselves, it is their turf, they own it, they have to live with each other on it.

It will be the same for Iranians to choose, if it comes to that.

Would you really have it any other way?

Best,

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


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 7:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

AmirN wrote:

Political Shortsightedness: A Repeat Offender

Political nature has, by slavery of shortsightedness, dictated numerous courses that have in retrospect found to be not only fallacious but also immoral. Although thousands of such examples can be cited throughout history, only three such examples will be given in this article. These three are picked, because all involve the US as a party and are relatively recent.

1. The Mujahedin

As Afghanistan was invaded by the Soviet Union, Islamic fundamentalists rushed in from the region to defend the predominantly Islamic nation from the advancing infidel. The task seemed almost lost from the beginning, as a rag-tag band of impoverished and unorganized fighters attempted to defy one of the world’s two superpowers of the time.

Fortunately for them, that once supreme superpower was tenaciously antagonistic towards the other, which meant that the other superpower was always looking to undermine anything the other did. The US was therefore not far away from this conflict between the Mujahedin of Afghanistan and the Infidels of the USSR.

Shortsighted political nature dictated that the US should support the enemy of its enemy. Such action may prove beneficial for the present and immediate future, but it is not always the soundest recourse if the long-term future is considered.

Shortly, the US was knee deep in fighting this proxy war with the USSR. US funding, military training, military supplies, and logistical support were placed at the fingertips of the Warriors of God, in order to punish and repel the Communists. Within those ranks was, of course, the blooming Osama bin Laden. The training and support that was given to these Mujahedin helped them expel the Soviets, and placed them at a powerful position within Afghanistan, and later, globally as Al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda, the groomed puppy of the US, would grow up to rabidly bite the hand that fed it years later. The scar of that bite is now visible in Manhattan, and on the psyche of every American.

2. Saddam

Hostage taking, chants of “death to America,” and the vow to extend fundamental Islamic Revolution throughout the world was enough to scare the US into picking another junkyard dog to fend off the now hostile Iranians. Political nature, again through shortsightedness, dictated an allegiance with a shady character – Saddam.

Financial, military, and logistical support again poured into the hands of a criminal in order to combat a greater perceived threat. What’s worse and unforgivable is that a blind eye was turned to an utterly immoral occurrence: the use of chemical weapons by Saddam against Iranians. Don Rumsfeld visited Saddam personally, shook his hand, and gave him a nod of approval with his beady little eyes. That photograph, along with the countless others of disfigured bodies of Iranians and Kurds from chemical attacks, will forever haunt the psyche of every Iranian, if not every human.

Years later, with a slight change of political climate, the once again rabid dog that the US kept as a pet was identified for what it truly was, and was itself attacked. However, by that time, that Iraqi dictator had already done too much damage, and the wrongs of the past could not be rectified.

3. The Islamic Republic

In the present we are potentially witnessing the once again political shortsightedness and desperation of US policy. In its attempt to deal with the error of example #2, the US went to war with Saddam’s Iraq. After 4 years of turmoil and occupation, the US has found itself chasing shadows. A demoralized US constituency and Congress demands every day that the US abandon its efforts in Iraq, which appear fruitless to most.

Out of the fiasco of this Iraqi invasion has emerged an Islamic Republic with more power and boldness than ever. It is a vicious cycle, whereby the civil turmoil leads to loss of US authority and influence, which leads to more Islamic chaotic authority, which enables further civil turmoil and so forth.

In its predicament, the US appears to be reaching at straws. The political need for immediate gratification has apparently influenced the man who once called the IR part of an Axis of Evil to reconsider his call for outright demolition of that axis, and simply ask that the axis kindly reorient its angle. This is echoed in the words of Rice, who said that the Bush administration is not looking for a regime change in Iran but to “have a change in regime behavior."

Political shortsightedness knows no bounds. The historical errors of the US follow each other, and it seems that one has actually led to another. To change stance with regard to such a regime will only prolong the inevitable showdown of the US with the Mullahs. Such prolongation and retreat will only lead to the emergence of a more powerful, determined, and emboldened enemy to face in the future.

Elected politicians have a responsibility to not only serve and protect their nation, but to follow a moral path. Many a times have politicians allowed morality to take a back seat to their shortsighted goals. Every time, such a policy has proven to be a mistake both pragmatically as well as morally. This is why elected officials need to be held to a higher moral standard and of higher philosophical character than what is currently deemed acceptable.

Aligning itself with the likes of Mujahedin and Saddam has been a pragmatic and moral mistake. The immoral enemy of my enemy ought not be my friend. Why? First, because morality must be a main goal in and of itself. Second, because the immoral enemy of my enemy will eventually come after me once our common enemy has been neutralized. History is a witness to this.

I have cited two examples of the past, where the US’ need for immediate gratification proved disastrous in the long term. Currently, the third example is unfolding. It is too late for the first two, but the third error in the making can yet be averted, should the US choose to reconsider its currently charted course with respect to Iran.

A rabid dog will bite by nature. One cannot tell it to change its biting behavior, and expect to safely lie down next to it after making such a statement. A rabid dog must be neutralized. Requests and appeals made to it will be in vain. An axis cannot change its angle, and a dog cannot cease to be rabid.


1) ActivistChat Definition of Secularism and Democracy is similar to the Iranian Scholar Professor Esmail Nooriala Farsi lecture. Secularism in current usage is generally complete separation of Government from Religion and any Ideology (i.e Marxism). Democracy without Secularism and Secular Parties has only one time usage as we had seen Nazi Party , Khomenist (Tazi) In Iran and very recently by Islamist Hamas Party in Palestine and repeated many times in past history in many countries
No religious Parties should be allowed in true secular system of government.

Oppenheimer wrote:

Really, we arn't in the buisiness of telling folks what kind of nation to build for themselves, it is their turf, they own it, they have to live with each other on it.



When US government spending Billions to occupy Iraq for any reasons, then US has every rights to write Secular Constitution and setup a framework that we know it works.
Election before establishing security, free society is useless ...
If someone has a Cancer we don't tell them become Physician and then treat your Cancer .....

Oppenheimer wrote:


If you read the Iraqi Constitution, you find a federalist democratic government, and I see nothing in it that would in any way allow for a theocracy to come into existance...



Who is running broken Iraqi government ?
Al Malaki, many Mullah's agents ..... Please watch CNN 360 ...


ActivistChat wrote:
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.




Have you ever heard President Bush talk about Secularism ?


______________________________________________________

These questions are for President Bush and all of the 2008 presidential candidates.
What is their definition of Secularism ?
What is their level of commitments to apply the following 5 rules in every day decision making process?

Have a secular democracy, Human Rights, Free Society, Stop Global Warming elements and Finally their Morale Support to remove all Religious and ideological based Governments as a main source of creating fear society and Terror in past 28 years .....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



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

PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 10:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
When US government spending Billions to occupy Iraq for any reasons, then US has every rights to write Secular Constitution and setup a framework that we know it works.


No Cyrus, I strongly dissagree, We do not have the right to write other's Constitution for them....we can provide blueprints of those that have worked for others over time, to help them construct one that the people may ratify of their own free will......and that sir , is exactly what we did. It's exactly what the Afghan and Iraqi people did.

I strongly suggest that you or any Iranian would not be very happy with the US in a post-regime war torn Iran, if we were to dictate to You how to govern your country.

I hope I am crystal clear on this one.....

If we did, we'd be acting in a facist manner, not respecting the principals of a free society and the will of the people and their right to self determination.

You sit and think about this for a spell, and I think you'll see I am right.

If the Afghan people and the Iraqi people can look beyond the past to have accomplished what they have since their liberation, and for the most part they have or they wouldn't have chosen democracy.....then perhaps it is time for Iranians to do the same thing, don't you think?

It is far safer to look to others to blame than it is to look at the real reasons why mullahs continue to oppress in Iran.

And that sir, unoquivicably is the biggest hurdle the Iranian people face.

Sure the US has made mistakes, so have lots of nations.....don't make the mistake of placing your destinies in anyone else's hands except your own.

That doesn't mean you are alone. It means you and the Iranian people must accept responsibility for your future, act in the present, and the past?...well, that isn't something to get stuck upon if you'all are to move forward, now is it?

Take care,

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


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 6:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oppenheimer wrote:
Quote:
When US government spending Billions to occupy Iraq for any reasons, then US has every rights to write Secular Constitution and setup a framework that we know it works.


No Cyrus, I strongly dissagree, We do not have the right to write other's Constitution for them....we can provide blueprints of those that have worked for others over time, to help them construct one that the people may ratify of their own free will......and that sir , is exactly what we did. It's exactly what the Afghan and Iraqi people did.

Take care,

EJ


Yes, we strongly disagree ....

1. Long before Congress to Wakeup & Speakup many ActivistChat members have said from the beginning that the US should not have invaded Iraq while the Mullahs were in power in Iran. We were right, Bush Admin, Tony Blair and Congress were wrong ....
2. After Afghanistan US should have focused on regime change in Iran by helping Iranian people to eradicate Islamists in Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia , Egypt …..(Mullahs are head of Snake that US and UK helped to create them in Middle East to fight communism since 1976 (Carter) …) We were right and Bush Admin and Tony Blair were wrong ....
3. Bush Admin team is against Secularism according ActivistChat definition and they have illusion that they can solve complex political and social problems by flawed faith based initiatives both nationally and internationally … After 7 years we were right and Bush Admin, Tony Blair were wrong ....

4. After occupation of Iraq Bush Admin were not faithful to Brilliant American founding fathers and Secularism principle and created big mess in Iraq that even the best General, best army in the world and best minds can not resolve the created Can of Warms …
5. Both Democrats and current Bush Admin Iraqi focused solutions will fail as long as Mullahs are controlling Iran and Iraq …. Despite the facts that one of the best General is in charge of Iraq ……
6. Those people in Bush Admin who compare today Iraq with past American history are making big mistakes …
7. Bush Admin will never listen to Secularists, good reasons and they do what they want with bigger possible future mess in Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi, Egypt …
8. According to recent CNN poll results in Pakistan, bin Laden has a 46 percent approval rating. Musharraf's support is 38 percent. U.S. President George W. Bush's approval: 9 percent. Is Bush Admin loosing War on Terror ?http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/11/poll.pakistanis/index.html
9. According to many poll results over 80% of Iranian people were pro American and due to the facts that Bush Admin did not help them for regime change in Iran in past 7 years the US is loosing this support in fast rate ....

10. What was the Secretary Rice's logic for her actions regarding Mr. Majid Kavousifar who was detained at the US Embassy, turned over to UAE Police who in turn handed him over to Mullah's agents (2005) for Torture and finally Execution? (News source: VOA on Thursday, August 2, 2007 ) Condi Rice action does not match president Bush statement on June 16, 2005 “And to the Iranian people, I say: As you stand for your own liberty, the people of America stand with you." Experience has shown that the silence might not be a correct choice or solution to resolve possible bad mistakes or bad leadership judgments or bad policy decision ..... Condi Rice should explain why? For more information: http://activistchat.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=31554#31554

11. I have no faith for Bush Admin to do anything right regarding Iran, Iraq .. and we have given up with Bush Admin ....

12. Read this post in 2 years from now and see who is right and who is wrong?

13. Over 3700 American Soldiers killed and over 27000 injured to create al-Maliki government for Mullahs, and Ahmadinejad laugh ... ??????
Nouri al-Maliki Is A Mullah's Servant with Ties

Iraq's Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki (L) and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wave to journalists as they attend an official meeting in Tehran August 8, 2007. (Xinhua/Reuters Photo)

14. Where is the Bush Admin promised support of Iranian people to change the regime ?

15. President Bush his administration and Congress trusted and listened to Tony Blair and Jack Straw as best ally of US and never listened to Iranian Americans specialist advise who knew about Eu3, China and Russia Iraq’s traps for US….


16. President Bush Admin and Congress never asked and used massive Iranian American community expert resources advise how to deal with Islamists … Iranian-American specialists with 1400 years of Islam experience were far superior than those Americans who read few books about Islam and suddenly become expert and top advisers to US government to milk ….

17. I am deeply sorry for brave American forces who should serve in Iraq to deal with Can Of Warms created by Bush Admin, Congress .... who don't know what to do ....

18. I am afraid US government is repeating Sassanid Empire mistakes .....

19. Religious Freedom may exist only in countries which are based on true Secular Democracy. Religious governments and parties don't respect Religious Freedom.
US State Dept. wrote:
International Religious Freedom Report 2007
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2007/90210.htm
Released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor

Good report without list of tough actions against Mullahs in Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi ... talking to Mullahs and appeasing them is not considered as tough actions and very bad message ....

My assessment is based on facts , my judgment, Secularism principles and following rules:

What is Secularism? wrote:
Must Watch Video What is Secularism? (by R.G. Ingersoll)

TCPHumanist is reading from one of the greatest orators in the Golden Age of Freethought, Robert G. Ingersoll.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_G._Ingersoll
Colonel Robert Green Ingersoll (August 11, 1833 – July 21, 1899) was a Civil War veteran, American political leader and orator during the Golden Age of Freethought, noted for his broad range of culture and his defense of agnosticism.


ActivistChat wrote:
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.






Have you ever heard President Bush talk about Secularism ?


______________________________________________________

These questions are for President Bush and all of the 2008 presidential candidates.
What is their definition of Secularism ?
What is their level of commitments to apply the following 5 rules in every day decision making process?

Have a secular democracy, Human Rights, Free Society, Stop Global Warming elements and Finally their Morale Support to remove all Religious and ideological based Governments as a main source of creating fear society and Terror in past 28 years .....

___________________________________________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
blank



Joined: 26 Feb 2004
Posts: 1672

PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 6:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It is sounding more & more like Iran.....

http://www.therant.us/staff/fsalvato/09072007.htm


A Single Reason for US Intervention in Iraq

USA Frank Salvato, Managing Editor
September 7, 2007

“It is as useless to argue with those who have renounced the use of reason as to administer medication to the dead.”
– Thomas Jefferson

As progress continues to be made in every aspect of the Iraqi conflict – militarily, socially and politically – the debate among the ideologically entrenched here in the United States rages on. This is in large part due to the positioning of candidates from all political parties in preparation for the 2008 elections. There is an intense desire to look both peace-loving and hawkish on the issue of the Iraqi front in the overall war against Islamofascist aggression. This is not an easy task when they are simultaneously declaring their support for the soldiers in the field and questioning the value of the mission and how well it is being executed. Meet the two-faces of the political panderer. Not very attractive, are they?

While factions of our society debate the pros and cons of US military intervention in Iraq the facts presented for the initiation of efforts there have always stood clearly defined. They were laid out in no uncertain terms, and in order of priority, by President Bush before the United Nations General Assembly on September 12, 2002:

▪ Violation of UN Security Council Resolution 688: Human rights violations and the torture, rape and murder of political opponents and ordinary citizens, including the genocide of the Iraqi Kurds.

▪ Violations of UN Security Council Resolutions 686 and 687: The refusal to release prisoners of war captured during the Gulf War.

▪ Violations of UN Security Council Resolutions 687 and 1373: The refusal to disassociate with terrorist organizations and the facilitation of terrorist entities within and traveling across Iraq borders.

▪ Violations of UN Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 678, 686, 687, 688, 707, 715, 986 and 1284: Refusal to cease development programs for weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, and refusal to allow UN inspectors uninhibited access to any and all weapons development programs.

In summary: genocide, refusal to return prisoners of war, enabling of terrorists and their organizations, refusal to cease WMD development programs and refusal to allow verification of said cessation.

You will notice the obvious absence of the anti-war Progressive-Left’s favorite myth, that the US invaded Iraq because the “neo-cons” said they had stockpiles of WMD. That’s because the WMD argument was manufactured by anti-Bush politicos and spin doctors, disseminated by an agenda-driven media and promoted by the anti-war Progressive-Left. It was always about the issue of WMD development and verifying the successful destruction of not only the existing WMD – WMD that the UN documented and verified Hussein had – but the long-range missiles he had to deploy them. It was always about the programs and the “grave and gathering threat” those programs posed.

That being said, the only reason that should have ever been required by the UN, the American people and/or the free world for deposing Saddam Hussein’s regime was the first reason – human rights violations and mass murder to the point of genocide.

The idea that somehow deposing a tyrannical ego-maniac like Saddam Hussein, a despot who held the most contrived elections this side of Venezuela, who systematically eliminated his political and ideological opposition by torturing, maiming, raping and murdering them – in genocidal numbers – the idea that dispatching this regime from power was somehow the wrong thing to do is confounding to me.

To all of the anti-war, Code Pink, MoveOn.org types among us – and so too to the Libertarian isolationists – I ask and will continue to ask, especially with regard to the US mission in Iraq: When did genocide become acceptable to you, not only as Americans but as human beings?

When did freedom and liberty become non-essential for all but Americans?

When did feigning outrage over terrorists being humiliated, over panties being place on murderers’ heads, replace the moral and ethical responsibility to accurately define and confront real torture?

When did it become acceptable to ignore, and through indifference tacitly condone, real atrocities and crimes against humanity?

Maybe it all began with Rwanda when Madeleine Albright and the Clinton Administration disgracefully condemned almost a million people to death because Rwanda wasn’t a “strategic interest?”

Or perhaps it was Darfur, when the touchy-feely, multi-culti patrons of the One-Worlder Church of the United Nations allowed their bureaucratic “priests” to drag their feet, wringing their hands over protocol and making sure they weren’t treading on Sudanese “sovereignty” while the Sudanese government empowered the Janjaweed Islamofascist militias to slaughter hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children.

Certainly it wasn’t Bosnia, where we did intervene on the false pretense of “stopping genocide” and where we still have troops.

When did American’s lose the will to stand up for what is right? When did we decide it was acceptable to stand by, onlookers, witnesses to crime taking place without realizing the moral obligation to act in an effort to stop the madness?

Perhaps it was when we started to employ the exceptionally inane, politically correct practice of snobbishly poo-pooing the idea that there was – definitively – good and evil in the world. Maybe we started diminishing our collective moral and ethical character when we opted to embrace the cowardly exoneration that moral relativism and ideological convenience afford.

Americans, throughout our short history, have always believed that standing up for what is right, that defending the weak, that coming to the aid of those in danger is the right thing, the moral, necessary and ethical thing to do. Those willing to put their lives on the line in support of this basic belief honor and personify the American ideal. Frankly, this unselfish attribute is most likely the chief reason that nations turn to the United States for help in times of crisis, be it a crisis brought about by natural disasters, as in the cases of earthquakes and tsunamis, or man-made, as in the cases of Islamofascism and totalitarian oppression.

The reality of the situation is that Saddam Hussein was slaughtering his own people and he hated the United States with a seething passion. To believe that he was simply sitting on the other side of the world hating us from afar is fantasy. To believe he was not a “grave and gathering threat” is sheer stupidity.

But a belief more outrageous and more dangerous than all of the kumbaya, anti-war, and “give peace a chance” theories and convictions combined is the false notion that the world will be a safer and less violent place should the US Military and Coalition Forces leave the Iraqi battlefield pre-maturely. That thought is simply suicidal and is so for one overriding reason, aggressive Islamofascists declared war and are waging war on us. Iraq is – by declaration of none other than Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahri themselves – the central battlefield in this war. To pretend that we aren't at war simply because we don’t want to be or because we are adhering to wishful ideology over the simple reality of the matter is very, very dangerous.

It is well past time that we, as a people, acknowledge that violent Islamofascists have declared war on us. We must condemn those who refuse to acknowledge this reality as weak willed and visionless. We must face the singularly important truth of this challenge – ugly and difficult as it may be: we have to win this conflict or there is a very good possibility our nation will cease to exist as we know it.

Although defeatists and isolationists will always have a plethora of inadequate excuses for running away from doing what is morally and ethically right, we as a people can ill-afford to follow their lead.

While it may be the constitutional right of the weak and the scared to ignore reality, defying the existence of evil as it approaches, it is the moral and ethical obligation of the strong, the visionary and the truly American to stand up to evil and tyranny wherever it exists.
***************************
Frank Salvato is the vice president and executive director of Basics Project a non-profit, non-partisan, 501(C)(3) research and education initiative. He also serves as the managing editor for The New Media Journal. His writing has been recognized by the US House International Relations Committee and the Japan Center for Conflict Prevention. His organization, Basics Project, partnered with America's Truth Forum in producing the first ever national symposium series addressing the root causes of radical Islamist terrorism with events taking place in Washington DC, Las Vegas, NV and scheduled to take place in additional locations across the country. Mr. Salvato has appeared on The O'Reilly Factor on FOX News Channel and is the host of the NMJ Radio show broadcast global on NetTalkWorld global talk radio and broadcast live on BlogTalk Radio. He is a regular guest on The Right Balance with Greg Allen on the Accent Radio Network, syndicated on over 25 stations nationally and on The Captain's America Radio Show catering to the US Armed Forces around the world, as well as an occasional guests on radio programs across the country. His opinion-editorials are syndicated nationally and he is occasionally quoted in The Federalist. Mr. Salvato is available for public speaking engagements.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



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

PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ok Cyrus,

You wish to give up? I think before you do so, you might consider whether any pressure at all would be on the mullahs right now if Mr. Bush wern't in office. Hell, Ahmanutjob would have had a nuke to use by now....

Polls don't determine US policy, nor do they play much part in my thinking on Iran, or any other subject for that matter. While I may take note of them, I have a policy of never trusting their accuracy.

Hey Blank,

Thanks for posting the article, I hadn't heard that quote from Thomas Jefferson before, kinda sounded like Mark Twain in its sarcastic wit.

Yes indeed, folks look to the US to perform miracles in their lives, but we are not God, nor is it our sole role in the world to provide those miracles, yet if anyone bothers to look at the vast amount of humanitarian aid flowing out of this nation to those in dire need, we have shouldered a huge load of the global total for a very long time.
Yet some can and will insist the US be used as an excuse for the failure of other nations to uphold their responsibilities to their own people.

This I find to completely illogical and without reason.

Best,

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


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2007 4:59 pm    Post subject: US General: Arrested Iranian an Intelligence Agent Reply with quote

AFP wrote:
US General: Arrested Taazi an Intelligence Agent

October 03, 2007
AFP
Khaleej Times Online

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=data/middleeast/2007/October/middleeast_October41.xml&section=middleeast&col=

BAGHDAD -- A Taazi arrested by US forces in Iraq’sKurdish region had been involved in Teheran’s intelligence operations in Iraq for more than a decade, an American general said on Wednesday.

‘Multiple sources’ had also implicated him in providing weapons to ‘Iraqi criminal elements in the service of Iran,’ US military spokesman Major General Kevin Bergner told a news conference in Baghdad.

On September 20, US troops raided a hotel in Sulaimaniyah in the autonomous northern autonomous region and seized Mahmudi Farhadi, claiming he was a member of the Quds Force, the covert operations arm of Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guards.

Iran condemned what it called the ‘unwarranted’ arrest of a businessman it said was in Iraq at the invitation of the Kurdish regional government, and lodged a strong protest with the authorities in Baghdad.

Iraqi President Jalal Talabani has slammed the arrest as illegal and demanded Farhadi’s release.

And on September 24, Iran shut its frontiers with Iraq in protest, causing mayhem at the border and major economic losses to traders in the Kurdish region.

Bergner insisted on Wednesday that the detainee was a Quds Force operative.

‘Farhadi was the officer in charge of the Zafar command, one of three subordinates of the Ramazan core of the Quds Force,’ Bergner said.

‘As Zafar commander, he was responsible for Quds Force operations in north-central Iraq, including cross border transfers of weapons, people and money.

‘We also know that for more than a decade he was involved in Iranian intelligence operations in Iraq,’ he added, without elaborating.


Last edited by cyrus on Fri Oct 05, 2007 2:48 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 2:47 pm    Post subject: US Forces Kill 25 Taazi-linked insurgents in Iraq Air Strike Reply with quote

AFP wrote:
US Forces Kill 25 Taazi-linked insurgents in Iraq Air Strikes

October 05, 2007
AFP
Andrew Gully
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071005/wl_afp/iraqunrest_071005125222;_ylt=A9G_R3YaPwZHdSwB.AxX6GMA


BAGHDAD -- A double US air strike near the Iraqi city of Baquba on Friday killed around 25 suspected Taazi-linked insurgents, the military said, but Iraqi officials said women and children were among the dead.

A US military statement said the operations targeted an Taazi-linked commander believed to be smuggling weapons across the border from Iran, accused by the Americans of fuelling the sectarian conflict in Iraq.

US aircraft killed an "estimated 25" insurgents and destroyed two houses after a heavy firefight near Baquba, 60 kilometres (35 miles) north of Baghdad, during which rebels fired rocket-propelled grenades, it said.

"There were two air strikes; one helicopter, one fixed-wing. There was continued fighting between the two air strikes," US military spokesman Major Winfield Danielson later told AFP.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 11:54 am    Post subject: Petraeus says Iran stoking Iraq violence Reply with quote

Reuters wrote:



General Petraeus says Iran stoking Iraq violence
By Dean Yates
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071007/ts_nm/iraq_dc_24

EAST OF BAQUBA, Iraq (Reuters) - The U.S. military commander in Iraq has stepped up accusations that Iran was stoking violence in Iraq and said Tehran's ambassador to Baghdad was a member of the Revolutionary Guards Qods force.

Washington accuses the force, the elite unit of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, of inciting bloodshed in Iraq and of training and equipping militias who have attacked U.S. troops.

General David Petraeus, speaking at a U.S. military base about 30 km (20 miles) from the Iranian border on Saturday, said Iran was giving advanced weaponry to militias in Iraq.

"They are responsible for providing the weapons, the training, the funding and in some cases the direction for operations that have indeed killed U.S. soldiers," Petraeus told a small group of reporters when asked if the Iranian government was responsible for killing U.S. troops.

"There is no question about the connection between Iran and these components, (the) attacks that have killed our soldiers."


ABC News wrote:


US steps up accusations against Taazi Thugs


http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/08/2053458.htm?section=world

General David Petraeus claims Iran's Ambassador to Iraq, Hassan Kazemi-Qomi, belongs to the secretive Quds force. This is an elite unit of Iran's revolutionary guard - a force believed to be behind not just some of the violence in Iraq, but also propping up groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.

General Petraeus took aim at the ambassador while touring a US military base near the Iranian border.

"The Quds force controls the policy for Iraq. There should be no confusion about that either," he said.

"The ambassador's a Quds force member. Now he has diplomatic immunity and therefore he is obviously not subject, and he is acting as a diplomat."

"There is no debate that the individuals who we have detained are Quds force members, and the individual detained in northern Iraq," he said.

"Let's be very clear about this. We have absolute assurance of who he is, what he has done in the past, what he has provided in terms of accelerants, what his position is in the Quds force.

"Again, these are not in question."




Quds is a Taazi word and not Persian word. Quds force is not considered as Iranians and General Petraeus is free to consider any options against Mafia Taazi Thugs of Mullahs. All forces of Mafia Taazi Thugs of Mullahs are considered as foreign invaders and occupiers of Iran and enemy of Iranian people.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:04 pm    Post subject: US will continue to work with Russia on Iran nuclear threat: Reply with quote

International Herald Tribune wrote:
Nuclear-armed Iran risks 'World War III,' Bush says
By Brian Knowlton Published: October 17, 2007

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/17/asia/prexy.php?WT.mc_id=rssfrontpage

WASHINGTON: President George W. Bush said Wednesday that he thought Russia still wanted to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. But stepping up his own rhetoric, the president warned that for Tehran to possess such a weapon raised the risk of a "World War III."

That comment, made during a 45-minute news conference, came as reporters probed for the president's reaction to a warning Tuesday by President Vladimir Putin of Russia against any military strikes on Iran to halt the nuclear work it has continued in defiance of much of the world. Iran says the program is purely peaceful.

"If Iran had a nuclear weapon, it'd be a dangerous threat to world peace," Bush said. "So I told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested" in ensuring Iran not gain the capacity to develop such weapons.

"I take the threat of Iran with a nuclear weapon very seriously," he said.

The United States has said it is pursuing a diplomatic approach to Iran, including the threat of a new round of United Nations sanctions, but has refused to rule out military action to halt Iran's nuclear program, which it believes might be used covertly to develop nuclear weapons.

Today in Americas
Support wanes in U.S. for Turkey genocide voteGlobal warming starts to divide Republican contendersLifers as teenagers, now seeking second chanceBut in Tehran on Tuesday, Putin said, "Not only should we reject the use of force, but also the mention of force as a possibility."

Asked Wednesday about photos that showed a seemingly cordial meeting in Tehran between Putin and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Bush said he was loath to read too much into photographs and wanted to hear Putin's own "readout" of the meeting.

Proposed new UN sanctions against Iran, pressed in particular by the United States and France, have so far been blocked by Russia, which holds a veto on the Security Council and wants further dialogue with Tehran.

But Putin has gone further, questioning what evidence the Americans and French have for asserting that Iran intends to make nuclear weapons.

When President Nicolas Sarkozy of France visited Putin in Moscow early this month, Putin said: "We don't have information showing that Iran is striving to produce nuclear weapons. That's why we're proceeding on the basis that Iran does not have such plans."

Sarkozy said the two might "not have quite the same analysis of the situation."

France has argued that aggressive moves toward multilateral sanctions against Iran are the best way to avoid military against Iran.

And while Putin says that Russia is taking Iran's descriptions of its program at face value, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently asserted that Iran was lying to UN inspectors.

Bush, seeking to explain his relationship with a man whom he once said he viewed as a trusted ally against terrorism - but who has since led his country in steadily more authoritarian directions - said that he and Putin "don't agree on a lot of issues."

Still, he said, it was vital to maintain an open and candid relationship that allowed each man to speak his mind.

The president nonetheless acknowledged American frustrations at trying to influence Russia.

"In terms of whether or not it's possible to reprogram the kind of basic Russian DNA, which is a centralized authority," Bush said, "that's hard to do."

The best he could do, the president said, was to try to make it clear that it is in Moscow's interests to have good relations with the West, and an open and democratic government.


Quote:

US will continue to work with Russia on Iran nuclear threat: Bush


http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071017/wl_mideast_afp/usrussiairanbush_071017171716

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US President George W. Bush on Wednesday said he will continue to work with Russian President Vladimir Putin on ways to defuse Iran's nuclear program which, if allowed to proceed, could lead to "World War III."

"We've got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel," Bush said at a White House press conference after Russia cautioned against military action against Tehran's suspect atomic program.

"So I've told people that, if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon," said Bush.

Bush said he was not worried by growing Russian ties to US nemesis Iran, and was convinced that Washington and Moscow take a similar view on Tehran's nuclear program.

"He (Putin) recognizes it's not in the world's interests for Iran to have the capacity to make a nuclear weapon, and they have been very supportive in the United Nations," Bush said at a White House press conference.

The US president's remarks came as Putin and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wrap up a landmark summit in Iran, at which the Russian leader put forward a proposal to break the deadlock over Iran's nuclear program.

No further details were given on Putin's proposal, which was made during his talks with Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

"I'm looking forward to getting President Putin's read-out from the meeting," Bush said.

"The thing I'm interested in is whether or not he continues to harbor the same concerns that I do," Bush added.

"I will continue to work with Russia as well as other nations to keep a focused effort on sending Iran a message that you will remain isolated if you continue your nuclear weapons ambitions," the US president said.

Bush said he remained as convinced as ever that Iran intends to build a nuclear weapon, despite its assertions that it is pursuing a peaceful nuclear energy program.

"I believe they want to have the capacity, the knowledge in order to make a nuclear weapon, and I know it's in the world's interest to prevent them from doing so," the US leader said.

"It's important for the Iranian people to know we harbor no resentment to them," Bush added.

"We're disappointed in the Iranian government's actions, as should they be. Inflation is way too high. Isolation is causing economic pain.

"This is a country that has a much better future. People have got a much better -- should have better hope inside Iran than this current government is providing them."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 10:41 am    Post subject: Bush raises specter of 'WWIII' if Iran gets nuclear arms Reply with quote

USA Today wrote:

Bush raises specter of 'WWIII' if Iran gets nuclear arms


By David Jackson, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — President Bush planned to talk to reporters Wednesday about domestic issues. Instead, he spent the news conference mostly on foreign affairs, including his blunt assessment that a nuclear-armed Iran could lead to "World War III."
"I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing" the Iranians from gaining the means to make nuclear weapons, Bush said.

Bush also urged Turkey not to send more troops into northern Iraq, and refused to comment on reports that Israel attacked a Syrian nuclear plant receiving North Korean help. He played down criticism of his policy on Iran from Russian President Vladimir Putin and of his management of the war in Iraq by one of his former generals.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:51 pm    Post subject: US Military: Intercepted Afghan Weapons Came From Iran Reply with quote

US Military: Intercepted Afghan Weapons Came From Iran
By VOA News
18 October 2007
http://voanews.com/english/2007-10-18-voa39.cfm

The top commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan says weapons intercepted in the country last month originated in Iran.


General Dan McNeill (file photo)
U.S. Army General Dan McNeill said Thursday NATO forces stopped a convoy from Iran on September 5 in western Afghanistan. He said the convoy contained a number of advanced technology improvised explosive devices.

McNeill said it is hard to believe that a shipment of hi-tech explosives could have originated in Iran and come to Afghanistan without the knowledge of the Iranian military.

U.S. leaders have accused Iran of arming the Taleban insurgency in Afghanistan, a charge that Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has denied.

Taleban insurgents have increased their use of suicide and roadside bombs against foreign and Afghan troops.

In other news, NATO officials say nine soldiers were wounded Wednesday when Taleban rebels ambushed a patrol in the southern Afghanistan province of Kandahar.

And at least four Afghan police officers were killed and three others wounded when a roadside bomb exploded near Afghanistan's border with Pakistan in the eastern province of Khost.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 4:37 pm    Post subject: Regime Change In Iran Is The Key To Stability .... Reply with quote

Admitting to A Problem, Root Causes and Accepting Mistakes Are The Best Steps Toward Finding A Better Solution In Future
Are They Hearing Us After 30 Years Of Islamist Mess?
7007 ActivistChat



ActivistChat 2001 Vision wrote:

Regime Change In Iran Is The Key To Stability ....

No one group of people are more familiar with the concept of terrorism in the name of God and Islam than the Iranians, who for many years have been the biggest victims of these Islamic Mafia terrorists. Persia or Iran has been invaded twice by Islamic Mafia barbarian invaders in past 1400 years.

The First Invasion of Iran by Islam: happened approximately 1400 years ago by Arabia's Islamic barbarians, who in the name of God, Brotherhood and Equality, aimed to conquer and plunder. We have learned that there is a striking similarity between the WTC Terrorist attack and the burning of Tees-fun library by primitive Islamic fanatic invaders. 1400 years ago, a great collection of books was kept in the Persian empire's Library at Tees-fun, which was the first or second biggest center of art, literature, and science in the world. This vast collection of books was set ablaze and destroyed by Arabian Invaders, setting World's clock back by at least 400 years. The Saudi Arabian terrorists who murdered thousands on September 11th, who were still living their million-old dream of many wives and barbarically primitive ideas, are shockingly similar to the barbarians who invaded Persia with the slogan of brotherhood and equality, but delivered only hate, burning, stealing , raping of women (non-believers) and forced marriage in the name of God and Islam.

According the book, THE IRANIANS PERSIA, ISLAM AND THE SOUL OF A NATION by Sandra McKay " A tour de force of intellectual comprehension, summary, and balance." -- Washington Times Pg 46.

"Finally on a day in June 637, the Sassanian commander, Rustam, reluctantly opened the battle. But the Saddanian army, like Sassanian society had grown ponderous. With its spirit drained off in the futile campaigns against Byzantium, the famous Persian cataphracts became clumps of fat, immobile men battlin a swarm of wasps. The heavily armed cavalry with its supporting elephants which had punished Romans and Byzantines proved powerless against the Arabs on swift camels who attacked and then withdrew into the desert. Over three days, the two sides engaged. On the fourth, the Persians' reluctant commander, Rustam, died. His army went into pell-mell retreat, leaving the Sassanian Empire open to invasion.
In 638, the vaulted palace at Ctesiphon, the physical embodiment of late Sassanian art and knowledge, fell to the Arabs. Its fabulous prizes dazzled the poor, unlearned tribesmen of the Arabian Peninsula. A life-size camel crafted of silver and a golden horse with emerald teeth and a garland of rubies draped around its neck were only two among the hundreds of objects of art that passed from the cultured hands of the Sassanians into the rough, callused hands of Arab warriors. The incredible carpet, "Spring of Khosrow," went to Mecca where Islam's religious leaders, disdainful of
material posessions, cut it into pieces. The destruction wreaked by the ignorant Arabs went on. The massive libraries so carefully collected by the
Sassanian kings scattered in the capricious wind of the Arab edict:

If the books herein are in accord with Islam,
then we don't need them.
If the books herein are not in accord with Islam,
then they are kafir (of the infidel)
"

For avoiding SEPT 11 has the US officials in past 25 years as the only progressive Super Power in the world made the same mistakes as Persian Sassanians Empire ?

Most recently, Wahhabist Saudi Arabian fanatics, in the guise of friendship, have entered the US and plotted against innocent civilians in the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave. Unfortunately, history has shown us that this is the deceitful nature of primitive Wahhabist Saudi Arabian culture, which has not been changed for centuries for many different reasons. According to many US sources it has become clear that Saudi Arabia is the main financier of the Wahhabist doctrine of global jihad against non-believers (terrorism) and they have used Mosques and Madrasas everywhere to brainwash innocent poor children from the age of 5 with extreme hate for their backward, and primitive objectives. Unfortunately President Carter, Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski (From Harvard University), Margaret Thatcher , Jack Straw and British secret service supported the Wahhabist doctrine and Islamic fanatics as a primitive system of government from early 1979. Hope one day Sept 11 NY courts investigate these crimes against humanity. At the same time we should recognize there are major differences between primitive Wahhabist Saudi Arabian Islamic culture and Egytian, Syrian, Lebanon ....... culture.

In order to eradicate Islamic Terrorism we must learn from our mistakes without any dogma and make a correction to the future foreign policy of USA. Hiding facts about our past politician mistakes or their evil intentions from American people in the name of national interest is against spirit of our brave hero General George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Is Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski graduate of Harvard University with good knowledge of history and Isalm partially responsible for what happened in Sept 11?

Did Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski know the following facts about Islam or Not ?

"If the books herein are in accord with Islam,
then we don't need them.
If the books herein are not in accord with Islam,
then they are kafir (of the infidel)"

Did we ignore Saudi Arabian Islamic fanatics , Saudi Arabian Royal family, repressive clerical Mafia regime in Iran, Talban regime and other religious fanatics for too long?


The Second Invasion of Islam was by Khomeni along with British blessing with the goal to plunder Iran's resources. Khomeni and his team of SS Clergymen (Khameni, Rafsanjani, Khatami ....) succeeded with the slogan of freedom, liberty and free oil for all, in deceiving the masses with the help of BBC Farsi. Khomeni's profile (described in detail by Dr. Masud Ansari's Book: 67 Massacre) is very similar to that of Saddam Hussein. Khomeni, the most deceitful British agent would never have been able to deceive the Iranian people without the help and blessing of the complex British and French advisors, as well as their secret services and they are equally responsible for Iran's disaster. As a result of this second invasion by fanatic Islam, over the last two decades, Iran has suffered over 1 million war casualties, the destruction of many cities, thousands of political executions and prisoners, the rape and execution of young girls in prison, the stoning of women, the loss of social freedoms, the theft of billions of dollars by Rafsanjani , SS Clergymen and his terror Mafia gangs, a massive exodus of Iranian refugees throughout the world, the hostage crisis, and the demise of a 200 year old friendship between Iran and US, reducing Iran's status from most advanced developing country with countless contributions to world history not to mention founding the first declaration of human rights, to the ugly International Islamic Terrorist Mafia Support Headquarters! Today, Iranians throughout the world are making their voices heard, from every corner of Iran and from every countries abroad, the Iranian people are telling the world they no longer need Islam and the Mullahs.

The repressive Mafia clerical dictatorship regime in Iran is based on Animal Farm Novel by George Orwell. "We pigs (Islamic Clerical Mafia regime in Iran and their supporters Britian, France, German, Russian, Chinese governments) are brainworkers. The whole management and organization of the farm depend on us. Day and night, we are watching over your welfare. It is for your sake that we drink that milk and eat those apples." While this swinish brotherhood sells out the revolution, cynically editing the Seven Commandments to excuse their violence and greed, everyone once again left hungry and exhausted, no better off than in the days when humans ran the farm. "

Great majority of Iranian people are sick and tired of Islamic Mafia regime interfering with every aspect of their life both inside and outside their home and defining their political system. The people of Iran stated many times Goodbye to Islam as a system of government, Goodbye to Terror Mafia, Goodbye to Thieves, Goodbye to Hate, Goodbye to the Mullahs of Arabia occupation(taazi), Goodbye to Traitors, Goodbye to Enemies of Peace and Harmony among all Civilizations .....

Are They Hearing Freedom-loving Iranian People or Free World has other agenda ...
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 ... 23, 24, 25, 26, 27  Next
Page 24 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