[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 

Under Rice, Powell's Policies Are Reborn
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index -> Noteworthy Discussion Threads
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Mon Oct 17, 2005 2:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oppenheimer wrote:
Dear Cyrus,

The following interviews should place things in context, coming from the original source, and I disagree with some of the charaterizations of circumstance in the articles above.


On-the-Record Briefing, London, England


Secretary Condoleezza Rice
London, England
October 16, 2005



QUESTION: I want to drag you back to Iran for a second because those of us who
have had no newspapers for two days have to write about it. How does Iranian
behavior in other areas, for example Iraq, affect your calculations on the
nuclear issue? And if the Iranians were willing to engage with the United
States, if the Europeans asked the United States to participate in these talks
more directly to make it a kind of other six-party process, how would the
United States feel about that? Is that an option?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, first of all, I think we are making headway on the
Iranian nuclear issue because the European Union and the United States are now
unified. And I read a number of your stories this morning and they're the same
stories you wrote before the last Board of Governors meeting, that Iran was
going to get away, there wasn't going to be -- and then the Iranians got a vote
that stunned them because, on the one hand, they expected people to stick with
them and they got Venezuela. They got nobody else. This is a long process of
diplomacy, but I think that the Iranians are in a position where they are going
to have to move toward an acceptable solution on their nuclear program in order
to hold any hope of maintaining integration into the international system. And
as I've said time and time again, Iran is not North Korea in terms of its
ability to remain isolated.

Now, as to the role of the United States, we've been supporting the
negotiations. I think that's the proper role for us. We have, if you remember,
when our European allies wanted us to make some steps so that they had, you
know, greater negotiating tools, we did that. And we're listening to them. But
as far as the broad-scale U.S. involvement in these -- in talks, I don't at
this point see that that would be productive. And the -- we have a lot of
issues with Iran, as you noted. Well, they're not just what they're doing with
Iraq, but human rights issues in terms of their own domestic developments and
of course terrorism more broadly, their support for terrorists and the
Palestinian rejectionists and so forth.

And the Iranians, I think, know what it is that they need to do. They're on the
wrong side of so many issues in the Middle East that it would not be hard for
them to come back -- or would not be hard for them to understand what they need
to do to come back.

We have -- let me emphasize, you know, we have had limited contacts with the
Iranians when it is necessary. We have tried to deliver messages to them about
this issue of IEDs in southern Iraq.

QUESTION: How?

SECRETARY RICE: We have channels through which to do it. You know we have a
Swiss channel, we have a New York channel. We have multiple channels. But we
use them sparingly and we use them pretty specifically for -- to deliver
messages.

We have under the auspices of the 6+2 in Afghanistan, Zal Khalilzad used to
have discussions with the Iranians, and I suspect Ron Neumann will do the same.

So it is not as if we aren't able to have contacts with the Iranians when we
need to communicate, but the question of broad-scale engagement with the
Iranians I think just doesn't make sense for us at this time.

QUESTION: You say that we are writing the same story, but actually this morning
the Iranians again said that they are not going to stop the fuel cycle. So we
didn't move actually from the last time. What do you expect to ask the British
this morning to help to go farther?

SECRETARY RICE: The British are doing everything that they can. The British,
the French. You heard the French. The EU-3 absolutely are clear that the IAEA
Board of Governors vote was an opportunity -- last time was an opportunity for
the Iranians to get back into negotiations, which, by the way, the Iranians
walked out of, back into negotiations to find an acceptable solution that
allows them to have civil nuclear power that does not raise questions of the
breakout for a nuclear weapons program. That's really the crux of the matter.

And we'll see where this comes out. We're still, what, almost six weeks from
the November 24th meeting. It's also the case that, as I said, we're not -- I'm
not one, and Jack Straw and I talked about this last night, to set deadlines
because that's not the way that diplomacy works. You look for movement, you
look to see whether or not there are promising solutions and ideas, you look to
see whether there are contacts that seem to be bearing fruit. And at a time of
our choosing, we'll push for referral.

QUESTION: You said last night -- yesterday that you would have an indication
between now and then, November 24th. You seemed to give that framework for
action, yet at the end you backed away from that time frame.

SECRETARY RICE: No, Robin, what I said is --

QUESTION: Is this open-ended?

SECRETARY RICE: No, Robin, what I said is we'll have another meeting on the
24th and that's a sort of natural time to assess where we are. But there is a
lot going on. Intensive discussions are going on not just between us and our
partners, but people are talking to the Iranians, people are talking to the
IAEA. There's a lot of discussion among members of the IAEA. Let's see what
emerges over this next period of time. And I'm just not going to tell people,
gee, on the 24th we all turn into pumpkins, we can't do anything more.

But I do think it's important to recognize that that's going to be a time --
don't you have that expression --

QUESTION: 31st, I was thinking, because of October.

SECRETARY RICE: Oh, I see, I see. Okay. Well, it's also for Thanksgiving.

We're not in a position -- we're in a position where we've got a lot of
consensus about what needs to be done and we just need to keep pressing to get
it done.

QUESTION: Can I just ask you a question about the timing again?

SECRETARY RICE: Yeah.

QUESTION: The November 24th meeting you've described as crucial.

SECRETARY RICE: Yeah.

QUESTION: In what sense is it crucial if it's not going to be a sort of --

SECRETARY RICE: Because it's the next time that we will have an opportunity to
have assessed what the impact and what the outcome has been of the last
meeting. But I think we'll have a sense of whether or not anything is moving
forward, whether there are ideas that are being pursued, whether contacts are
bearing fruit, whether it makes sense to continue to push diplomacy or whether
it makes sense to go to referral.

QUESTION: But the French said they wanted it to be a credible option at the
Security Council and it seems less credible after what the Russians said, at
least in public.

SECRETARY RICE: What the Russians said is that they still believe this should
be resolved within the IAEA framework. They said that at the time of their
vote. Nothing has changed. But again, the Russians abstained in that vote and
that abstention was a signal to everybody, including perhaps most importantly
to the Iranians, that this is a wait and see. And so everybody is engaged and
active in this period. I wanted to have discussions with the French and with
the British and with the Russians. But you know, Iran was important to our
discussions but we had equally extensive discussions on Syria and Lebanon. In
fact, that was the reason for the extended discussion with Lavrov. So we had a
lot to talk about.


Released on October 16, 2005


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


Dear Oppenheimer,
Thank you for your post.
We are not happy when US officials are using the word "Iranian" or "Iranians" when they should use "Islamist Clerical Regime" or "British Islamists". Dr. Rice who has access to top Secret US State Dept. documents knows very well who is ruling Iran. As we said many times in the past the 70 million Iranians are hostage to British Islamist Clerical Regime and Islamist Terror Masters (Hazbollah .....) therefore it is very unfair that some of the US officials don't differentiate between Hostage Takers and Hostages, or between Terror Masters and Victims, or between torturers and those who have been tortured, or between Rapists and those who have been raped. In past 27 years Iran never had a free election therefore we consider the Islamist Regime as illegitimate Anti Iranian regime. Jack Straw has proven that he is not friend of US why Dr. Rice has invited him to U.S.
The following News is from BBC, when are we going to open our eyes to the truth?
Quote:

BBC Persian World Service Reported (6/10/2003)



Jack Straw said that his country has a big difference with United States regarding Iran.
Jack Straw told Parliament foreign affair committee that UK is Against Regime Change In Iran.


Source:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/persian/iran/030610_v-britainiran.shtml

[size=18]


History will prove our points in future.

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



Joined: 26 Feb 2004
Posts: 1672

PostPosted: Mon Oct 17, 2005 3:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you Cyrus. Last night 60 minutes had a special on Afghanistan, and reported how production of opium under "British watch" has grown 3 fold. Yes, there is a big difference between US & British policy. Brits want to keep countries addicted, backward, and poor while they're looting the country, according to Azadi's article "Iran's dying" on this site, it explians very well that almost 70% of Iranians are addicted and are using the opium that comes from Afghanistan. And Brits deliberately turn a blind eye on this deadly import to Iran.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Liberty Now !



Joined: 04 Apr 2004
Posts: 521

PostPosted: Mon Oct 17, 2005 8:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

and Rice just gave him FULL SUPPORT on that ! lol

wouldn't even occur to her to check what is she supporting? what is UK policy towards Iran? Jack said it: NO REGIME CHANGE.

unless... they get khouzestan ofcourse!

these brits really know how to negotiate with U.S.

and every time the U.S ends up doing all the dirty work while Brits end up with the bigget share of the pie. guess we know who's the real boss here.
_________________
Paayande Iran
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Mon Oct 17, 2005 9:59 pm    Post subject: Why Iranian Don't Trust British Government and EU3? Reply with quote

blank wrote:
Thank you Cyrus. Last night 60 minutes had a special on Afghanistan, and reported how production of opium under "British watch" has grown 3 fold. Yes, there is a big difference between US & British policy. Brits want to keep countries addicted, backward, and poor while they're looting the country, according to Azadi's article "Iran's dying" on this site, it explians very well that almost 70% of Iranians are addicted and are using the opium that comes from Afghanistan. And Brits deliberately turn a blind eye on this deadly import to Iran.


Why Iranian Don't Trust British Government and EU3?

It seems US State Dept. and U.S officials forgot their own history of Idependence and they do not understand the danger of working with Jack Straw and the depth of anger among Iranians and the people in the Middle East againt Britain.

Reminder:

On December 25, 1776, General George Washington led his troops in a surprise attack against the British, who had settled into winter quarters in New Jersey. The American forces crossed the Delaware River at night and defeated the British troops first at Trenton and then at Princeton. These victories, although minor, dramatically improved the morale of the American forces.


History Of Bad British Policy Towards Iran In Past 60 Years

1) Anthrax Experiment In Kurdistan Of Iran In 1945 By British Forces

Quote:
Timeline: Anthrax through the ages
October 16, 2001 Posted: 9:01 PM EDT (0101 GMT)


http://edition.cnn.com/2001/HEALTH/conditions/10/16/anthrax.timeline/

(CNN) -- Although it's surfacing anew as a terrorist weapon, the deadly anthrax disease has plagued the world for centuries, with reports of it dating back to biblical times.

Anthrax is blamed for several devastating plagues that killed both humans and livestock. Soon after scientists learned more about it in the late 1800s, it emerged in World War I as a biological weapon.

Several countries, including Germany, Japan, the United States, the United Kingdom, Iraq and the former Soviet Union, are believed to have experimented with anthrax, but its use in warfare has been limited.

1500 B.C. -- Fifth Egyptian plague, affecting livestock, and the sixth, known as the plague of boils, symptomatic of anthrax

1600s -- "Black Bane," thought to be anthrax, kills 60,000 cattle in Europe

1876 -- Robert Koch confirms bacterial origin of anthrax

EXTRA INFORMATION
In Depth: The anthrax investigation


1880 -- First successful immunization of livestock against anthrax .

1915 -- German agents in the United States believed to have injected horses, mules, and cattle with anthrax on their way to Europe during World War I

1937 -- Japan starts biological warfare program in Manchuria, including tests involving anthrax

1942 -- United Kingdom experiments with anthrax at Gruinard Island off the coast of Scotland. It was only recently decontaminated.

1943 -- United States begins developing anthrax weapons

1945 -- Anthrax outbreak in Iran kills 1 million sheep

1950s and '60s -- U.S. biological warfare program continues after World War II at Fort Detrick, Maryland

1969 -- President Richard Nixon ends United States' offensive biological weapons program. Defensive work continues

1970 -- Anthrax vaccine approved by U.S. Food and Drug Administration

1972 -- International convention outlaws development or stockpiling of biological weapons

1978-80 -- Human anthrax epidemic strikes Zimbabwe, infecting more than 6,000 and killing as many as 100

1979 -- Aerosolized anthrax spores released accidentally at a Soviet Union military facility, killing about 68 people

1991 -- U.S. troops vaccinated for anthrax in preparation for Gulf War

1990-93 -- The terrorist group, Aum Shinrikyo, releases anthrax in Tokyo but no one is injured

1995 -- Iraq admits it produced 8,500 liters of concentrated anthrax as part of biological weapons program

1998 -- U.S. Secretary of Defense William Cohen approves anthrax vaccination plan for all military service members

2001 -- A letter containing anthrax spores is mailed to NBC one week after the September 11 terrorist attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center. It was the first of a number of incidents around the country. In Florida, a man dies after inhaling anthrax at the offices of American Media Inc.


Quote:
1942 -- United Kingdom experiments with anthrax at Gruinard Island off the coast of Scotland. It was only recently decontaminated.
1945 -- Anthrax outbreak in Iran kills 1 million sheep



At the end of WWII British forces occupied South of Iran and according to many eye witnesses the British forces using Masks experimenting with Anthrax in Sandaj suburbs and Kermanshah suburbs . According the Kurdish local people the British forces bought lots of potatoes and sheep to carry their experiments.
There was no need to test in such a big scale after second world war unless the British forces was as Evil as Germans in killing 6 million Jews. Today we donít know how many Kurdish people killed because of this Evil experiment by British Forces.
Khomeni and Mullahs who are British Agents are new Anthrax to destroy Iran youth population for cheap oil and other resources. You should not be surprised that drug is cheaper than cigarette in Tehran, the British Islamist Security forces are in charge of drug distribution in Iran to destory Iranian Youth.


2)
Click on Link or Image To See The Flash & Video Clip From Logan The Father of Terror Master: http://www.activistchat.com/mustget/index.html




Among the Iranian the memory of Dr. Mossadegh remains as a symbol of independence, Liberal Democratic values, and high moral and ethical values. Iranian people admire and respect Dr. Mossadegh as Americans love and respect Thomas Jefferson. The Iranian people admiration and respect for Dr. Mossadegh does not mean that he was prefect without any mistakes. Today many Iranians believe Reza Shah The Great, Father of Modern Iran, his son former Shah of Iran the Architect of Modern Iran, Dr. Mossadegh and Prime Minister Dr. Shapur Bakhtiar were all Iranian patriots and they have worked hard for the independence of our homeland and deserve our respect despite the fact that they have made number of mistakes in very difficult circumstances, like many other politicians and leaders throughout human history. We should ask ourselves who has not made any mistakes? Today we should learn from history, forget our artificial differences and concentrate to help our fellow Iranian people to free our homeland from Islamic Clerical Regime and replacing this regime with secular government by free referendum After Regime Change. Today Iranian people are demanding civil and political freedoms, separation of religion and government, equality and justice (especially for the Iranian women), the immediate liberation of all political prisoners and Free Referendum.

3) British government recommended Knomeni to US and helping Islamist regime in past 27 years.

4)
Quote:
Condoleezza Rice's Opening Statement

January 18, 2005
The Associated Press
Houston Chronicle
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/2997586

To be sure, in our world there remain outposts of tyranny and America stands with oppressed people on every continent ... in Cuba, and Burma, and North Korea, and Iran, and Belarus, and Zimbabwe. The world should apply what Natan Sharansky calls the ``town square test'': if a person cannot walk into the middle of the town square and express his or her views without fear of arrest, imprisonment, or physical harm, then that person is living in a fear society, not a free society. We cannot rest until every person living in a ``fear society'' has finally won their freedom.



Jack Straw is against the above statement by Dr. Condoleezza Rice.

Quote:


Jack Straw said that his country has a big difference with United States regarding Iran.
Jack Straw told Parliament foreign affair committee that UK is Against Regime Change In Iran.


Source:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/persian/iran/030610_v-britainiran.shtml



The real face of EU 3 in Africa:

Quote:

[size=18]Old Europe (Britain, France and Germany ) Africa Strategy, Historical Facts

In the year 1884, a bunch of Rich Old White Europeans representing all the great conqueror nations of Europe get together in Berlin at Chancellor Bismarck's request.
There, they hatch a plan, mapping out the best possible way to complete the task of colonizing Africa ( http://campus.northpark.edu/history/WebChron/Africa/BerlinConf.CP.html
), subjugating its peoples and stealing its vast store of natural riches.
Their plan succeeds.
The result? Barely four generations later, huge chunks of Africa are smoldering, blasted dead-zones where warlords play musical chairs on each other's corpses, and the security guards (mercenaries) who patrol Western-owned diamond mines, gold mines and oil fields basically lord it over much of the continent.
Soon, even those hired thugs won't be needed, as the laboratory-spawned AIDS virus does for Africa's native population what smallpox-infected blankets did for the indiginous peoples on the American cointinent.

Otto von Bismarck was the principal architect of the Berlin Conference.
This is the same Old Europe that killed 6 million Jews in WWII


Last edited by cyrus on Tue Oct 18, 2005 1:32 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Liberty Now !



Joined: 04 Apr 2004
Posts: 521

PostPosted: Mon Oct 17, 2005 10:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

thanks dear Cyrus.

and here's our Ahvaz:





the big shot ayatollahs in power in Iran have had long standing ties with the british. their leader khomeini was on british payroll in Najaf, and so were most of the fascist madmen in power today.

they have given our beloved country to Brits & EU in a silver platter, and will give away more, including Khouzestan !

It's time we expose the ayatollah-british links, and stand against such policies, no matter what it takes.

U.S will continue to support fascist biritsh policies in Iran, as Rice reminded us lately.

we are all on our own. it's a war between the people of Iran and british backed fascist ayatollahs.
_________________
Paayande Iran
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



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

PostPosted: Mon Oct 17, 2005 11:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"We are not happy when US officials are using the word "Iranian" or "Iranians" when they should use "Islamist Clerical Regime" or "British Islamists". Dr. Rice who has access to top Secret US State Dept. documents knows very well who is ruling Iran."

--------

Noted Cyrus, but I think it's clearly understood she's talking about the IRI, not the people of Iran....and she has been very specific on a number of occasions when refering to the people, or the government if the two are talked about in the same interview period.

"mullah's regime" might be a better way to put it, though...

--------

Cyrus, one may sum up the difference in foreign policy thus:

With the US...you're dealing with a bull in a china shop.....with the Brits, a fox in a henhouse....

But don't let this simplistic way of looking at it stop you from apreciating the very subtle and patient foreign policy the US has been engaged in with issues surrounding Iran.

65 years after the fall of Pax Britanica, or the British empire....they are today still suffering the last vestiges of a real bad hangover from colonialism.

Try to be patient with them....as Churchill once said, "Upon stumbling across the truth, one manages somehow to pick themselves up, and carry on."

And so it is that the Brits have had some serious shocks of late, starting with the London bombings....and maybe I'm the only one here who's convinced the tide has changed...so be it if that's the case.

But it has....it just isn't instantaneous....and I think there's too much expectation that it should be.

But this too is understandable from those impatient for freedom.

I don't know if you watch football (American football, not soccer)

But in that game you have four plays to move the ball 10 yards, if you don't you turn it over to the other side, if you do, you have another 4 plays to get another ten yards, in a field that is a hundred yards long between goals.

So the strategy over these past few years is like getting to each first down, and everytime the ball moves the press gets frenzied, because as it's been said, "Three yards and a cloud of dust" , so that's what happens with press reporting....everyone is speculating on where the ball's going to be spotted.

It should be noted that many championships have been won in three yards and a cloud of dust.....but it isn't nearly as definitive or intantaneous in scoring, as a long-bomb pass completed into the end zone.

Remember president Bush's words after 9/11 when he said that the war on terror would be fought "at a time and place of our choosing" That was a couple weeks before we started opperations in Afghanistan.

So don't buy into what the press thinks is Condi Rice's "capitulation" (if that's a good interpretation of what I'm reading) on IAEA referal by saing "at a time of our choosing".....remember that the US can be subtle when it wants.

Think how that phrase was referenced to the original, and you have a different take on it altogether.

In fact it implys that we could call for referal tommorrow if that was deemed appropriate...but again, giving every chance for diplomacy to work puts the US in a much stronger position if it fails to get results.

"3 yards and a cloud of dust" ....that's what I'm looking at right now.

It's in quotes because that's exactly how Condi Rice put it awhile back, and as you may know...one of her pet "dream jobs" is to become the commisioner of the National Football League.

In any case, everytime the dust settles, the ball's a little further down the field with the IRI looking to be backed up against their own goal.

regards,

Oppie


Last edited by Oppenheimer on Tue Oct 18, 2005 1:13 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



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

PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 12:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

So Liberty, do you think the Brits had a hand in the bombings in Ahvaz?
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 -> Noteworthy Discussion Threads All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
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