[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 ... 17, 18, 19 ... 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
espandyar



Joined: 15 Apr 2004
Posts: 236

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 1:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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

Sieze the moment.



Oppie Jan

Every coin has two sides,eventhough I appreciate your opptimistic approach I must remind you that one of the fundamental bases for Iranian nation to rise up against a barbarian IR is to be aware of the internation support. When Rice says We are not looking for regime change the avarage joe in Iran reads it as "they have closed the deal!!!"
This is how the Iranian mentality work and I doubt that they are far from the truth either and obviously they are not alone!

http://pajamasmedia.com/xpress/michaelledeen/2007/04/25/from_nro_today.php

April 25, 2007, 9:22 a.m.

Did Condoleezza Rice Try to Make a Secret Deal With the Mullahs?
A tense confrontation within the Bush administration over the release of the Irbil 5.


By Michael Ledeen

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, whose tenure at Foggy Bottom began with such energy and fine language about support for freedom in the Middle East, is begging the Iranian foreign minister to come to a “future of Iraq” conference in Egypt next week. She told the Financial Times that it would be a “missed opportunity” if Minister Mottaki didn’t show up.

In the same interview, she denied ever thinking about regime change in Iran. Our Iran policy, according to the secretary, is to “have a change in regime behavior.” Some day she will perhaps explain how any rational person can believe this cast of characters capable of changing behavior that has been constant for 28 years.

We are back to the days when Madeleine Albright went to international meetings hoping to get a one-on-one with an Iranian minister so she could apologize for past American sins and get on with the glorious business of striking a grand bargain with the mullahs. When that didn’t work, President Clinton did the public apology, and his administration trotted out a number of unilateral concessions. His vice president even made a secret deal with the Russians permitting them to sell weapons and supply expertise for the Iranian nuclear program. All for naught; the mullahs spat in our face and continued as before.

The delusion that one can settle our little disagreements with the Islamic Republic, if only the right people sit around the right conference table, has seized every administration since Jimmy Carter. Every president has sent emissaries to talk, and every administration has made demarches to Tehran. To date, the net result is hundreds of dead Americans. And yet the delusion persists. Each time it fails, the deep thinkers at Foggy Bottom manage to convince the secretary of State of the moment that we are just one small concession away from success, and by and large the secretary goes for it, just as Secretary Rice has.

That is part of the background to her public pleading for talks with the mullahs. The other part has to do with the release of the British sailors and marines from captivity in Tehran. It was obvious to anyone familiar with the methods of the Islamic Republic that the British hostages were ransomed; the only question was the dimension of the payoff to Iran. Part of the answer emerged almost immediately, when an officer in the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps magically appeared safe and sound somewhere in Iraq, and hotfooted it back home. Within hours, Iraqi officials were publicly hinting that the incarceration of the “Irbil 5” — more top IRGC intel officers captured by American forces, along with extensive documentation of their murderous activities in Iraq — would likely end quite soon. Why were they saying that?

The answer may be found between the lines of a story written shortly afterwards by one of Secretary Rice’s favorite journalists, Robin Wright of the Washington Post. It didn’t attract nearly the attention it deserved, perhaps because it was printed on Saturday, April 14 (full marks to Allahpundit over at Hot Air for spotting it). Here is what Robin Wright said:

After intense internal debate, the Bush administration has decided to hold on to five Iranian Revolutionary Guard intelligence agents (sic) captured in Iraq, overruling a State Department recommendation to release them, according to U.S. officials.

I’ve been told that “intense internal debate” is exactly right — it was one of the most contentious debates in quite a while. Wright reports that Vice President Cheney led the charge against Rice’s position, and I am told that Secretary of Defense Gates was equally adamant. This is reinforced by a statement by General Petraeus, to the effect that we intended to keep them and keep interrogating them as long as we had food and they had things to say. Moreover, I am told that the intensity of the debate was due to the fact that Rice was not merely recommending the release of the Iranians, but had informed the mullahs that we would release them.

That makes sense to me, because that promise — if indeed it was made — would help explain the release of the Brits. It would constitute the kind of swap the Iranians like to make, and it would have been a significant triumph for the mullahs: They had lost some of their key players in Iraq, and we would have paid them off as a favor to our British pals. Tony Blair would be able to claim straight-faced that he had made no concessions, and Condoleezza Rice would be able to claim, as she has of late in private conversation, that the Iranians had backed off.

You can be quite sure that the back-channel traffic between Washington and Tehran is full of new promises, if only the Iranians will come to Egypt and sit down with us. That would enable the secretary of State to save face when she makes her next concession. After all, we’re talking, aren’t we?

It’s too clever by half, and has obviously confused the president, who, in an interview with Charlie Rose, said we wouldn’t talk to them, but then again, perhaps we would (and Allahpundit spotted it again):

“What I’m not willing to do is sit down bilaterally with the Iranians,” he told PBS’ “The Charlie Rose Show.”

Later, he said Rice and Iran’s foreign minister might have bilateral conversations at the conference. “They could. They could,” Bush said.

President Ahmadinejad was quick to pounce on the confusion. Never mind the talks in Egypt; he pronounced himself ready to meet with Bush, and with journalists in the room.

It’s worse than too clever. It’s retreat and appeasement, and the Iranians know it. It flows from denial that the mullahs are at war with us, and lapses into the belief that this war can be resolved by the tried and failed methods of traditional diplomacy. It won’t work, as our soldiers know full well. Surge or no surge, Iraq cannot have decent security unless it is protected against the Iranians and their Syrian puppets bordering the other side of the country. The Irbil 5 know a whole lot about Iranian/Syrian activities, and hence about the terror network in Iraq — in fact, they ran it — and that knowledge can help us and the Iraqis. The very idea that those intelligence officers should be sprung is a slap in the face to every coalition soldier, and Gates and Cheney were quite right to fight it.

A small victory, to be sure. But it’s a lot better than it would have been if the secretary of State had had her way. Years from now she may be grateful for it.
_________________
Marze Por Gohar Party
Iranians for a Secuar Republic
ttp://www.marzeporgohar.org/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 4:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Reject Margaret Beckett Mullahs Appeasing Policy
As Jack Straw appeaser policy failed, Ms. Margaret Beckett as another Mullah appeaser will fail again because her vision is blinded by milking Iran’s resources and nothing else…..
Ms. Margaret Beckett like Dr. Rice use the term Diplomacy with Mullahs Terror master and Rapist master to justify their own bad policy and deed to ignore Iranian people demands for Free society, Secular Democracy, Human Rights and regime change.
There are many freedom-loving British men and women who will reject opportunist power hungry UK foreign secretary when they find out about her evil intention that she doesn’t really care about Women Rights and many fellow women like Ms. Kazami who raped, killed and she wish to talk with rapist Mullahs in the name of “commitment to diplomacy” with Mullah Rapists …. The following video clip says it all:




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

Sieze the moment.

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


Wednesday, April 25, 2007

Beckett: Ahmadinejad Shot Himself in Foot by Seizing British Soldiers

April 25, 2007
Yedioth Internet
Margaret Beckett



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

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

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

Iran cannot give away what it had no right to hold

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don't confuse diplomacy with weakness

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

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

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

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

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

The writer is the UK foreign secretary

link to original article

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3391778,00.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



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

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 6:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Every coin has two sides,eventhough I appreciate your opptimistic approach I must remind you that one of the fundamental bases for Iranian nation to rise up against a barbarian IR is to be aware of the internation support.


Exactly so, which is why I post....though sometimes I have reason to believe it flies in one ear and out the other without meeting anything solid in between....(chuckle, nothing personal and not directed at anyone in particular....just a general assessment.)

You all have a choice, you can either take my assessment of the situation as well informed, with a consistant track record of accuracy to back it up, along with all the personal efforts I've made to help this noble cause of freedom. Or you can believe an old, embittered former government employee who has consistantly like "chicken little" claimed "The ayattollah is dead" so many times that his credibility is totally shot to hell , not to mention things Ledeen has done in the past that the Iranian opposition community found totally questionable, and condemned him for.

(chuckle, now is That 100% accurate or not?)

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

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



If the average Joe Iranian were to understand the full ramifications of "behavior change" as I outlined it above in a recent post on this thread, there would be no question as to why the Sec. of State has urged the Iranians to attend the regional conference on Iraq.....to publicly discredit them and offer the proof of their crimes in Iraq for all the region's foreign ministers to witness in multilateral setting, regardless if any bi-lateral conversation takes place or not.

As far as any "deal" being struck, some "grand bargain" with terror as such, that is a falsly perpetuated illusion born of continued Anglophobia and continued at the expense of logic in the face of facts, much to the detriment of the Iranian opposition community, and their freedom agenda...as well as to the US's own Democracy agenda, and the hopes of many in the region seeking peace and stability.

This doubt you expressed on the part of "Joe Iranian" exists and I recognize that, but "Iranian Joe's" misconception serves only to perpetuate the regime's existance, and gives aid and comfort to their propaganda mechanisms.

Bottom line, either that doubt is erased, or the people will continue to compromised in their understanding and will to take action.

I believe that at the end of the day, as the Shah blamed Britan and the US for having caused the downfall of his reign, that looking in the mirror he could not avoid the truth that he could have done a few things differently himself.....

All those echos from the past as manifest by doubt expressed today in regards to western intent serve only to keep the Iranian people in a state of suspended animation, waiting for America's hammer to come crashing down upon the regime's pointy little heads, like so many lemmings being lead over oblivion's cliff by the regime, and becoming aware of it, cry out, "Save us!"

That's your job, to get them to realize they have the power to save themselves.

But as long as folks blame others for what is wrongly percieved as an unconcerned and essentially self serving foreign policy, they put a stick in the eye of those that support you in your aspirations for a free society, and empower the regime's continued existance thereby.


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

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

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

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


Leddeen contributed a few of his own in this regard,

I don't say this with any sense of optimism, nor pessimism, but as a statement of fact...period.

No one expects the regime to change behavior, their word means nothing, their deeds are as you one said "what you see is what you get" manifestation of the nature of the criminality at work.

What Joe Iranian needs to get right in his mind is that there are no illusions at play here in this respect.....all that Joe is witness to is part and parcel to:
Quote:
Done so that if war happens the mullahs will have to answer for it, for the choice was theirs having an alternative to choose from.


It's kind of ironic in a way that the Mullahs claim so confidently that " The Iranian people have been weaving carpets for thousands of years." yet they fool no one at this point. Yet when the US and allies take a subtle approach ( more subtle than a cruise missile, that is) the entire Iranian opposition community is left in a total state of confusion and despair, thinking somehow we are appeasing tyrany.

Well, get over it already! See it for what it is.....exactly what the opposition has been asking for, forever. International pressure being collectively and "relentlessly" applied.

Now sieze the moment and quit the collective malfunction of understanding, for the parameters have changed before your very eyes as I told Cyrus they would, months ago on this very forum.

Don't use Pelosi and Reid as an excuse to fail your nation, they don't make US foreign policy, the president does. Sec. Rice and Sec. Gates help implement it. If some like these two political nutjobs in my country have a "loser attitude", don't let that stop you from winning your freedom.

Just do it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 10:48 pm    Post subject: Why No Regime Change Policy For Iran But Iraq? Reply with quote


Why No Court-Martial For The Irbil 5 War Crimes ?????
Why The American Generals Did Not Court-Martial the Irbil 5 for war crimes, Killing American Soldiers, Killing Iraqi People and International Terror Activities Against freedom-loving Iranians outside Iran?
Why No Regime Change Policy For Iran But Iraq?


For first time Dr. Rice told clearly to the Financial Times that the Bush administration is not looking for a regime change in Iran but to "have a change in regime behavior."
Source: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/3f96545e-f0f9-11db-838b-000b5df10621,_i_rssPage=4e612cca-6707-11da-a650-0000779e2340.html


In an interview, Bush initially appeared to rule out any contact with Iran, a member of his "axis of evil."
"What I'm not willing to do is sit down bilaterally with the Iranians," he told PBS' "The Charlie Rose Show."
Later, he said Rice and Iran's foreign minister might have bilateral conversations at the conference. "They could. They could," Bush said. Source: http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Apr24/0,4670,BushIran,00.html


For first time we hear the past 6 years policy of the Bush administration that they were not looking for a regime change in Iran but to "have a change in regime behavior." As result of such a bad policy or intentional evil policy by Yes woman or Yes men, intentionally or unintentionally promoted Ahamadinejad with 1000 criminal records to become president , ignored insulting both Iranian and Israelis people while allowing EU, Russia, China playing game and Oil companies to milk Iran more and close your eye for increasing oppression and violating human rights by creating EU3 Nuclear discussion diversion game plan .

President Bush has clear understanding and accepted in his speech that the 69 million unarmed Iranian nation should be considered as hostage of estimated 700,000 Revolutionary Guards, Mullahs, Militia and other security forces (Taazi) are not in control of their destination and must be given the hostage status by UN Security Council. To understand this statistics better according U.S. Department of Justice • Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics “ In 2005, over 7 million people were on probation, in jail or prison, or on parole at yearend 2005 -- 3.2% of all U.S. adult residents or 1 in every 32 adults”
The 700,000 international Islamist criminals in Iran who are controlling Iranian nation as their hostages are less than 1 % of total Iran population and this is less than 3.2% criminals in USA and should be considered as small minority.

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

Now President Bush should consider to clarify for both American People and Iranian people his past failed policy with a member of his "axis of evil" and answer many questions. Why the government should have spent over 500 billion dollars in Iraq war, allow over 20,000 American soldiers become wounded and over 2000 getting killed? What is the logic for all these mess in Iraq, regime change in Iraq but no regime change in Iran … ? Why we have not helped the 69 million unarmed Iranian nation as hostage of mullahs to become free? Why the commander in chief and American Generals did not punish Mullahs in Iran who are responsible for sending Arms and money to Iraq (Not 69 million Iranian people Hostages who are pro American)?

As Dr. Michael Ledeen informed public: “Did Condoleezza Rice Try to Make a Secret Deal With the Mullahs? A tense confrontation within the Bush administration over the release of the Irbil 5.” http://pajamasmedia.com/xpress/michaelledeen/2007/04/25/from_nro_today.php

Why is there even discussion about releasing of the Irbil 5 Terror Master when the Generals should send them to public Court-martial for Terrorist activities and war crimes ?

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

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

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

President Bush should consider to inform public what was his past 6 years foeign policy to avoid another Sixty years of failure?


Whether you are a public official, a senior executive, or just an ordinary person, it can be downright harmful to only listen to the yes men and yes women with secrecy obsession. Dissent is not only patriotic. It is worth listening to. In 2006 Election exit poll over 70% of American people lost their confidence on USA government policies and elected officials from both parties to do anything right because of yes women, yes men and lobbyists without any consideration for American National interest.

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

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


The following video clip says it all about past 6 years failed Diplomacy with Rapist Mullahs by Dr. Rice and others …. :



Last edited by cyrus on Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:13 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



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

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 12:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have a better idea Cyrus, let's just repatriate the Irbil 5 back to Iran without a trial and send a message as we do so....see, I figure if we simply air mail them back, dropping the mail from 35,000 ft above the Iranian Parliment....sans parachute....Mullahs'll have to clean up the mess THEY'VE made in Iraq, as the chickens come home to .....oopus...the sky is falling.....splat! But seriously, I think it's for the Iraqi gov. to put them on trial being that their crimes were carried out in soverign Iraq territory.

How do I say this politely? Ledeen is full of S-&-!-T, has no credibility with me at all, proving himself a self-serving political hack hanging onto the coattails of the Iranian opposition for his dear political life and the bread and butter on his table.....I ask nothing for my efforts, so can be bought by no one, and that makes me a truly dangerous and credible force for the truth.

By the way, thanks for proving some of my points.....believe what you wish at your own risk of shooting your own foot, all I've ever needed was time to prove my words correct, as has been the case on many previous occasions.

Being your friend in solidarity with Iranian freedom means telling you that you need to take a real hard and objective look at what works for you and at what doesn't, and I'm here to tell you that it flat isn't working, not the way you are going about this....

regards,

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



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

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why No Regime Change Policy For Iran But Iraq?

1. Iranians in the opposition have been insistant on doing this themselves without foreign intervention...(IE war)... for many years on.

2. Iranians in the opposition have long said that if attacked in an attempt to out the regime, that this would be exactly what the regime needs to strengthen its hand against the people, and ensure internal support.

3. Iranians in the opposition have asked for sanctions and freezing of assets, arms embargo against the regime as essential international support instead of military intervention.


Now what do you want Cyrus, now that the international community has honored your wishes, a war? Military intervention? Rice in so many words said to Fatima (and why you can claim her to be Tazzi for asking a fair question is beyond me) that this is something that should come from within (again agreeing with the Iranian opposition community long standing wishes in doing so), yet you accuse Ms. Rice of appeasement?

You wouldn't bother to read her statements unless I had bolded them....well now that is a responsible fellow....seeing as how staying informed is the only way you are ever going to understand anything other than what the media wants you to understand....and that my friend is a total and oblivious cop-out to activism itself regardless of whether you personally have lost faith....you are simply helping others lose the will to fight....get it?

I know, this sounds like a pretty harsh condemnation from a friend...and it is....but it is the truth as well, and son, I'm here once again to rip your blinders off, before you too take a dive over oblivion's cliff.

Thank me later, but do everyone a real service and get yourself an attitude makeover......Ms. Beckett is not responsible for the regime, the regime is responsible for the regime, and the regime is the criminal.

That is all other than to say this is the last time I want to have this conversation with you, as I personally expect better from an intelligent mind such as your's.

Take care,

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


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 7:58 pm    Post subject: My Response Reply with quote

Oppenheimer wrote:
I have a better idea Cyrus, let's just repatriate the Irbil 5 back to Iran without a trial and send a message as we do so....see, I figure if we simply air mail them back, dropping the mail from 35,000 ft above the Iranian Parliment....sans parachute....Mullahs'll have to clean up the mess THEY'VE made in Iraq, as the chickens come home to .....oopus...the sky is falling.....splat! .

Good idea, only problem if Irbil 5 dropped from 35,000 ft then air might become polluted with these viruses … They might need to send them to outer space to join …

Oppenheimer wrote:
But seriously, I think it's for the Iraqi gov. to put them on trial being that their crimes were carried out in soverign Iraq territory.

Non secular Iraqi gov with some members are connected to Mullahs, is the biggest joke of our time and failure.
WASHINGTON Apr 26, 2007 (AP)— Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, depicted the situation there as "exceedingly complex and very tough" and stated that he has not seen anything as bad as Iraq ….
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3083064

I Trust words of American Generals with high code of ethics more than some of elected officials who are connected to many interest groups that they are working against National Interest of American people....

Oppenheimer wrote:
How do I say this politely? Ledeen is full of S-&-!-T, has no credibility with me at all, proving himself a self-serving political hack hanging onto the coattails of the Iranian opposition for his dear political life and the bread and butter on his table.....I ask nothing for my efforts, so can be bought by no one, and that makes me a truly dangerous and credible force for the truth.


I don’t agree with your point of view regarding Dr. Ledeen recent article.
“Did Condoleezza Rice Try to Make a Secret Deal With the Mullahs? A tense confrontation within the Bush administration over the release of the Irbil 5.” http://pajamasmedia.com/xpress/michaelledeen/2007/04/25/from_nro_today.php
There are many good points in his article. We should not forget that No one is prefect and is right all the time.
Activists should listen to the truth, good reasons, good logic and don't spin for xyz ...

Oppenheimer wrote:
By the way, thanks for proving some of my points.....believe what you wish at your own risk of shooting your own foot, all I've ever needed was time to prove my words correct, as has been the case on many previous occasions.


My friend in past 28 years the FREE Iran Activists have no friend and no foot to shoot anyway . Only the top officials in high position have foot to shoot by themselves. Anyway as you can see in the following Dance Video clip it is possible to dance with one foot and that is what some officials are doing . This is just for you to laugh and enjoy this excellent dance performance:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnsz8Uc3enE

Oppenheimer wrote:
Being your friend in solidarity with Iranian freedom means telling you that you need to take a real hard and objective look at what works for you and at what doesn't, and I'm here to tell you that it flat isn't working, not the way you are going about this....

regards,

EJ


Thank you for your friendly advise. We are evaluating both dominating parties and key elected officials using the same following rules that you might agree with it.

Today Simple Rules For Evaluating Foreign Policy and Strategy

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

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


Oppenheimer wrote:
Why No Regime Change Policy For Iran But Iraq?

1. Iranians in the opposition have been insistant on doing this themselves without foreign intervention...(IE war)... for many years on.


Not True with over 1200 signatures for Petition 4: TRUE SECURITY BEGINS WITH REGIME CHANGE IN IRAN[ActivistChat]
Please don't confuse yourself with Mullahs Agents in washington who are acting as Iranian oppositions with lots of oil money from Mullahs.... Please see http://activistchat.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=8410
Please See:
The Mullahs' Voice
February 23, 2007
FrontPageMagazine.com
Kenneth R. Timmerman
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=27053

Oppenheimer wrote:
2. Iranians in the opposition have long said that if attacked in an attempt to out the regime, that this would be exactly what the regime needs to strengthen its hand against the people, and ensure internal support.

3. Iranians in the opposition have asked for sanctions and freezing of assets, arms embargo against the regime as essential international support instead of military intervention.

Too little too late after after 4 years
Oppenheimer wrote:
Now what do you want Cyrus, now that the international community has honored your wishes, a war?

Too little too late after after 4 years and Dr. Rice allowed EU3 play all kind of games with Mullahs.
Anyway FREE Iran Activists positions are defined in following petitions ...

Important ActivistChat Supported Petitions:

All Petitions ActivistChat Supports 30 Active Petitions For FREE Iran
Petition 1: Regime Change In Iran By Promoting Human Rights -July 8th, 2003[ActivistChat]
Petition 2: Kazemi: Expel the IRI from United Nations - July 24, 2003[ActivistChat]
Petition 3: A Plea for Justice Bam Earthquake Genocide[ActivistChat]
Petition 4: TRUE SECURITY BEGINS WITH REGIME CHANGE IN IRAN[ActivistChat]
Petition 5: A Plea For Support and Demonstration Attendance[ActivistChat]
Petition 6: United We Stand International Candlelight Vigil Public Invitation On September 11 To Remember Victims of All Human Tragedies and Hope For Peace and FREE Societies.[ActivistChat]
Petition 7: Free Iran and Regime Change[Ramin Etebar, M.D.]
Petition 8: Save Nazanin - With Over 200,000 Signatures[By Miss World Canada Nazanin Afshin-Jam]
Petition 9: Help Save Humanity's Cultural Heritage[Amil Imani is a poet, writer and ActivistChat Member]
Petition 10: Save the Precious Archeological Sites of Pasargad in Iran[SavePasargad.com]
Petition 11: Demanding To Prevent Terrorist Master Mahmood Ahmadinejad From Entering U.S.A. to Attend the UN General Assembly in New York in September[Majles Shora Hambastegi]
Petition 12: Expelling Envoys to the United Nations of the Islamic Republic[Majles Shora Hambastegi]
PETITION 13: Protesting Terrorist Ahmadinejad's Trip To U.S.A[SOSIRAN]
Petition 14: Demanding action against any nuclear adventures led by the mullahs in Iran and to FREE Iran and its people from this nightmare and tyranny[Majles Shora Hambastegi]
Petition 15: Gayteens Executions in Iran[COC Frank van Dalen]

Petition 17: Open Letter to the Lawyers of the World - Iranian Case[Shokooh Mirzadegi - Dr. Esmail Nooriala ]
PETITION 18: Denouncing Ahmadinejad's U.N. Visit[Roxanne Ganji]
PETITION 19: Chaos, Crisis Create Islamic Republic Illusions[Amil Imani is a poet, writer and ActivistChat Member]
Petition 20: ATTACK ON CENTER OF ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE[IOTM]
Petition 21: PERSIAN EMPIRE WAS OMITTED IN THE SCHOLASTI[The Global Concerned Scholars on SCHOLASTIC Conduct]
Petition 22: Defend Iran's territorial integrity from separatists[ROOZBEH FARAHANIPOUR marzeporgohar.org]
Petition 23: Defending the children of Iran's striking bus drivers[Shokooh Mirzadegi]
Petition 24: A Call to Protect Civil Rights for All Iranians By American Harvard University Students[American Harvard University Students ]
Petition 25: YES! TO WOMEN SPORTS FANS OF IRAN Over 109,675 Signatures[ALL IRANIAN SPORTS FANS and written by Kaveh Mahjoob and Daryoush Zahab]
Petition 26: Mission for Establishment of Human Rights in Iran - Protest the Legitimization of Islamic Regime by the United Nations[mehr.org]
Petition 27: Persian Gulf will remain persian[PersianBlog Community - Mehdi Boutorabi ]
Petition 28: Iranian Azarbaijanis Eternally Remain Integral Compatriots in Shaping The History and Life of IRAN[Professor Kaveh Farrokh, Independent Historian Scholar]
Petition 29: More atrocities against women in Iran[ SOS Iran]
Petition 30: Stop Legal Action Aganist Iranian Archeological Assets in the US[Shokooh Mirzadegi - Dr. Esmail Nooriala]
Petition 31: Save Malek Qorbani (Iranian Young Female) From Stoning To Death In Iran [Farshad Hoseini]
Petition 32: Stop bias on the Persian Gulf[Stefania ]
Petition 33: Save Malak Ghorbany from Death by Public Stoning [Lily Mazahery]
Petition 34: Free Ahmad Batebi[Mahshid Rasti]
Petition 35: Free Mohammad Majzadeh Ghaemmagmi[Monica Zandi, his cousin]
Petition 36: Reject Invitations to Khatami As Islamofascist Reformist Servant and Shirin Ebadi As “Muslim Women” . Are We Iranians or Muslims?[Activistchat]

Petition 37: A Plea for Justice - FREE Iran Real Cases Mock Trials Against Mullah Khatami, Khameni, Rafsanjani, Amadinejad ... As Islamic Fascists And For Crimes Against Humanity [Activistchat]
Petition 38: The University of St. Andrews awards Mr.Khatami an Honorary Degree![Dariosh Afshar]
Petition 39: Save Zahra kamalfar from violation in Iran and in Russia [Farshad Hoseini]

Petition 40: Petition 40: Liberty for Iran [Ali Mohebi]
Petition 41: Petition 41: Stop Internet censorship in Iran[Sensor-Free Iran]
Petition 42: National Referendum On The Faith Of The regime In Iran [Dr. Manouchehr Ganji]
Petition 43: Stop the dolphin and whale killings (brutal slaughter) in Taiji [Pedro Oliveira]
Petition 44: No Bombs, No Appeasement: Support the People of Iran's Struggle for a Secular, Peaceful Democracy [Amil Imani]
Petition 45: 300, an unethical movie picture[Dr. Hamed Vahdati Nasab ]
Petition 46: Boycott the Movie 300 [Mitra Dunn]
Petition 47: Power of Attorney to Dr. Dadkhah in relation to the impounding of Sivand Dam [Mitra Dunn]


Quote:
Military intervention? Rice in so many words said to Fatima (and why you can claim her to be Tazzi for asking a fair question is beyond me) that this is something that should come from within (again agreeing with the Iranian opposition community long standing wishes in doing so), yet you accuse Ms. Rice of appeasement?


I don’t accuse Dr. Rice of appeasement her actions and advise to president in past 7 years speak for itself.

For first time Dr. Rice told clearly to the Financial Times that the Bush administration is not looking for a regime change in Iran but to "have a change in regime behavior."
Source: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/3f96545e-f0f9-11db-838b-000b5df10621,_i_rssPage=4e612cca-6707-11da-a650-0000779e2340.html

Please don't spin for her, after 6 years she has her own records that speak for itself. Dr. Rice failed in Iraq policy, Iran Policy and War on Terror policy ....
I wish she would have been successful in all of them but the truth can not be ignored ....

Oppenheimer wrote:
You wouldn't bother to read her statements unless I had bolded them....

Dr. Rice deeds does not match her words. Dr. Rice has discredited herself for some of reasons will be defined below.

Oppenheimer wrote:
well now that is a responsible fellow....seeing as how staying informed is the only way you are ever going to understand anything other than what the media wants you to understand....and that my friend is a total and oblivious cop-out to activism itself regardless of whether you personally have lost faith....you are simply helping others lose the will to fight....get it?

I know, this sounds like a pretty harsh condemnation from a friend...and it is....but it is the truth as well, and son, I'm here once again to rip your blinders off, before you too take a dive over oblivion's cliff.

Thank me later, but do everyone a real service and get yourself an attitude makeover......Ms. Beckett is not responsible for the regime, the regime is responsible for the regime, and the regime is the criminal.

That is all other than to say this is the last time I want to have this conversation with you, as I personally expect better from an intelligent mind such as your's.

Take care,

EJ


Now lets review Dr. Rice Performance as National Security Adviser, Secretary Of State, and Top Adviser to President:

1) Dr. Rice as top adviser and confident of President Bush had key responsibilities for past 6 years failures in foreign policies.

2) Sept 11 happened When Dr. Rice was National Security Adviser:
Condoleezza Rice and Richard Clarke, in testimony before the 9/11 commission, gave differing views of events leading up to September 11, 2001.

Condoleezza Rice and Richard Clarke, in testimony before the 9/11 commission, gave differing views of events leading up to September 11, 2001.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/08/clarke.rice/index.html

3) For first time after 6 years we hear from Dr. Rice that their past 6 years policy of the Bush administration was based on the fact that they were not looking for a regime change in Iran but to have a change in regime behavior. As result of such a bad policy or intentional evil policy Iraq policy and War on Terror policy failed.

4) Afghanistan was military success but not political win because of bad non secular policy of Khalilzad is reporting to Dr. Rice ..

5) Hamas allowed to participate in election because of bad non secular policy ..
6) Iraq policy failed because of non secular policy and non secular Iraqi constitution, allowed Iraqi election before we establish secure Free society and State Dept. allowed the Mullahs to interfere .....

7) For Iraq We should listen to Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, depicted the situation there as "exceedingly complex and very tough" and he has not seen anything as bad as Iraq ….
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3083064

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml
Cool ....

My conclusion Dr. Rice might be very good Stanford Professor in Russian studies but after over 6 years as National Security adviser and State Dept. Secretary and top adviser to president for defining Iraq, Iran and War on Terror policies , we can say Dr. Rice has failed in all of them due to her poor judgment and pushing for non secular democracy before establishing secure Free Societies in Iraq and Afghanistan and not helping Iranian people to change the regime .....

cyrus wrote:

Why No Court-Martial For The Irbil 5 War Crimes ?????
Why The American Generals Did Not Court-Martial the Irbil 5 for war crimes, Killing American Soldiers, Killing Iraqi People and International Terror Activities Against freedom-loving Iranians outside Iran?
Why No Regime Change Policy For Iran But Iraq?


For first time Dr. Rice told clearly to the Financial Times that the Bush administration is not looking for a regime change in Iran but to "have a change in regime behavior."
Source: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/3f96545e-f0f9-11db-838b-000b5df10621,_i_rssPage=4e612cca-6707-11da-a650-0000779e2340.html


In an interview, Bush initially appeared to rule out any contact with Iran, a member of his "axis of evil."
"What I'm not willing to do is sit down bilaterally with the Iranians," he told PBS' "The Charlie Rose Show."
Later, he said Rice and Iran's foreign minister might have bilateral conversations at the conference. "They could. They could," Bush said. Source: http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Apr24/0,4670,BushIran,00.html


For first time we hear the past 6 years policy of the Bush administration that they were not looking for a regime change in Iran but to "have a change in regime behavior." As result of such a bad policy or intentional evil policy by Yes woman or Yes men, intentionally or unintentionally promoted Ahamadinejad with 1000 criminal records to become president , ignored insulting both Iranian and Israelis people while allowing EU, Russia, China playing game and Oil companies to milk Iran more and close your eye for increasing oppression and violating human rights by creating EU3 Nuclear discussion diversion game plan .

President Bush has clear understanding and accepted in his speech that the 69 million unarmed Iranian nation should be considered as hostage of estimated 700,000 Revolutionary Guards, Mullahs, Militia and other security forces (Taazi) are not in control of their destination and must be given the hostage status by UN Security Council. To understand this statistics better according U.S. Department of Justice • Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics “ In 2005, over 7 million people were on probation, in jail or prison, or on parole at yearend 2005 -- 3.2% of all U.S. adult residents or 1 in every 32 adults”
The 700,000 international Islamist criminals in Iran who are controlling Iranian nation as their hostages are less than 1 % of total Iran population and this is less than 3.2% criminals in USA and should be considered as small minority.

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

Now President Bush should consider to clarify for both American People and Iranian people his past failed policy with a member of his "axis of evil" and answer many questions. Why the government should have spent over 500 billion dollars in Iraq war, allow over 20,000 American soldiers become wounded and over 2000 getting killed? What is the logic for all these mess in Iraq, regime change in Iraq but no regime change in Iran … ? Why we have not helped the 69 million unarmed Iranian nation as hostage of mullahs to become free? Why the commander in chief and American Generals did not punish Mullahs in Iran who are responsible for sending Arms and money to Iraq (Not 69 million Iranian people Hostages who are pro American)?

As Dr. Michael Ledeen informed public: “Did Condoleezza Rice Try to Make a Secret Deal With the Mullahs? A tense confrontation within the Bush administration over the release of the Irbil 5.” http://pajamasmedia.com/xpress/michaelledeen/2007/04/25/from_nro_today.php

Why is there even discussion about releasing of the Irbil 5 Terror Master when the Generals should send them to public Court-martial for Terrorist activities and war crimes ?

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

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

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

President Bush should consider to inform public what was his past 6 years foeign policy to avoid another Sixty years of failure?


Whether you are a public official, a senior executive, or just an ordinary person, it can be downright harmful to only listen to the yes men and yes women with secrecy obsession. Dissent is not only patriotic. It is worth listening to. In 2006 Election exit poll over 70% of American people lost their confidence on USA government policies and elected officials from both parties to do anything right because of yes women, yes men and lobbyists without any consideration for American National interest.

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

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


The following video clip says it all about past 6 years failed Diplomacy with Rapist Mullahs by Dr. Rice and others …. :



Last edited by cyrus on Thu Apr 26, 2007 11:36 pm; edited 10 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: Thu Apr 26, 2007 10:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cyrus wrote:


Oppenheimer wrote:
Why No Regime Change Policy For Iran But Iraq?

1. Iranians in the opposition have been insistant on doing this themselves without foreign intervention...(IE war)... for many years on.


Not True with over 1200 signatures for Petition 4: TRUE SECURITY BEGINS WITH REGIME CHANGE IN IRAN[ActivistChat]
Please don't confuse yourself with Mullahs Agents in washington who are acting as Iranian oppositions with lots of oil money from Mullahs.... Please see http://activistchat.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=8410
Please See:
The Mullahs' Voice
February 23, 2007
FrontPageMagazine.com
Kenneth R. Timmerman
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=27053

Oppenheimer wrote:
2. Iranians in the opposition have long said that if attacked in an attempt to out the regime, that this would be exactly what the regime needs to strengthen its hand against the people, and ensure internal support.

3. Iranians in the opposition have asked for sanctions and freezing of assets, arms embargo against the regime as essential international support instead of military intervention.

Too little too late after after 4 years
Oppenheimer wrote:
Now what do you want Cyrus, now that the international community has honored your wishes, a war?

Too little too late after after 4 years and Dr. Rice allowed EU3 play all kind of games with Mullahs.
Anyway FREE Iran Activists positions are defined in following petitions ...

kind of games with Mullahs.


I see, so then US policy should simply be towards the Mullahs, " F^@k it, nuke-em and let God sort it out." eh?
Too late for anything else right....? Yeah right. Now you've simply insulted me, and manifest a loser attitude. Look, at least have the courage to answer my question, DO YOU WANT A WAR OR NOT? YES OR NO? IF NOT, TRUST THAT THE APPROACH BEING TAKEN TODAY IS THE ONLY PEACEFULL OPTION THAT LEADS TO REGIME CHANGE!

Look Cyrus, feast your eyes on this once again, because it made one hell of a difference to the international community, and has affected the overall approach taken to establish the international pressure being exerted today on the regime....not withstanding all the petitions you listed, this embodied the wishes of the opposition, and don't ever again confuse ME with some mullah's agent in Washington! If you don't understand the approach being taken today, this should buy you a clue, as essential elements Bolded have been or are gradually being put into place via UN resolution, with more on the way, incrementally over time:

The "Student Movement Coordination Committee for Democracy
in Iran" (SMCCDI)
_______________________


January 27, 2005

The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States of America
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC - 20500

Via Federal Express

C/c: Fax (202) 456-2461
       e-mail: president@whitehouse.gov
                  vice.president@whitehouse.gov


    Dear Mr. President,

    On behalf of the Student Movement Coordination
Committee for Democracy in Iran (SMCCDI), and the good
people of our nation who have striven so long for freedom,
we wish to extend our most sincere and humble thanks and
gratitude for the words you spoke in celebration and
support of freedom for all people. Words ringing out
clearly as the liberty bell itself, when as a witness
described, "It rang as if it meant something.".


    Mr. President, be assured that the reverberations of
the ringing clarity of your words have been heard in our
country, and indeed they mean something.
Something extraordinary, for there is again hope in the
eyes of our people that they may shrug off the oppressors
and theocratic chains which have bound the people for so
long. Chains which have silenced the voice of my people in
utterance, and stilled them with overwhelming force. Chains
denying the Iranian people a better future for our
children, and our children's children for over a generation
in this process.


   Mr. President, SMCCDI's constant public support for both
yourself, your correct vision, and your policies as
reflected in our last letter of Feb.16, 2004 has been
consistently well founded, just as millions of Iranians
were correct in supporting you and placing their hopes in
your re-election. Our resources and weight of public
 support were lent as well to help you defeat your
challenger who, backed by some very controversial
fundraisers of Iranian origin in the process, was pushing
for official ties with the Islamic Republic of Iran. This
was of great concern to our people, both here in the US and
in Iran. The overwhelming majority of Iranians in the US
supported you in this re-election, and have been rewarded
by your words of support for doing so.


   Mr. President,  Our opposition movement (SMCCDI) is
bound by a charter formed on principals such as; Human
rights, Democracy, separation of church and states, and
free markets. We believe these principals represent the
most fair and efficient means for humanity to realize its
potential. Ultimately, no repressive, intolerant regime can
withstand the spread of these ideals.

The Islamic Republic regime currently in power in Iran or
any Islamic variances that may exist there in the future
are no exception. By staying true to these values our
triumph is absolutely, positively, and undeniably
inevitable.


   Mr. President, We the people of the Iranian opposition
groups both within Iran and spread among many free nations,
including the future leaders you spoke of contained within,
can serve not only as a force for freedom and change, but
as a bridge between our two peoples. To serve in the
process of creating a new political structure for the
Iranian people, and a new beginning for Iran and America, a
beginning founded on values, mutual trust, respect,
long-term interests and friendship.


  Mr. President, We take the truth in your words to be
self-evident, and those words honor the ideals of your
great civil rights leader, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
expressed in the following:    "Today there is no longer a
choice between violence and non-violence. It is either
non-violence or non-existence. I feel that we've got to
look at this total thing anew and recognize that we must
live together. That the whole world now it is one--not only
geographically but it has to become one in terms of
brotherly concern. Whether we live in America or Asia or
Africa we are all tied in a single garment of destiny and
whatever effects one directly, effects one in-directly."


   Mr. President, we the people of Iran, are faced not only
with the chains of political and religious oppression,
poverty, despair, drug abuse, and lack of civil liberties.

We of the opposition should have been able to jointly
prepare a correct and specific program during these last
years. We need now to seize these current internal and
external opportunities that exist, to free our country and
respond to our people's legitimate aspirations, and to the
world's concerns.
And through this, we hope to create a coordinated effort to
obtained the necessary moral and financial support that
will lead to the downfall of the Islamist Republic regime.

Inherently, we seek to bring our nation full circle with
the best parts of our cultural heritage, and the values and
freedoms in which Persia was founded upon. These same
principals form the basis of commonality between our two
cultures today. However, those that have usurped and
distorted our traditions must be removed from power and
denied influence in any new political structure that may
rise from the ashes of our despair, as the fires of freedom
light the darkest corners of our nation, and create the
light of hope in the eyes of the Iranian people.

   Mr. President, The "sham" reforms brought to us over the
years by questionable individuals who are hoping only to
save part of their backwarded ideology have proven
themselves unworthy of the cultural traditions and precepts
that Cyrus the Great founded Persia upon over 2500 years
ago. Those ancient precepts regarding freedom of worship,
individual right to own property, freedom from slavery,
representative government in a democratic
"federalist" government that respected the states rights to
determine local laws so long as they were consistent with
the inherent rights of the people, respecting territorial
integrity in the process, have proven themselves over time
and among many cultures.

These same sham reformers who have continued to allow the
stoning of women,  continued under the laws of the Islamic
Republic regime to regard our women as worth exactly half
that of a man in their courts, continued to deny our women
their god given rights, disenfranchising half the
population in the process in all aspects of their civil
liberties. Nor can they be allowed to influence the future
we seek. Those that have been party to the denial of human
rights can not be tolerated as being any part or party to
our political future. Nor partake (i.e. Nazi party-post WW2
not allowed), in any part of any new secular government
chosen by the people, of the people, and for the people to
initiate a US/UN monitored direct constitutional referendum
mandated and ratified through the process of forming a new
political structure and the rule of law which it must
ascribe to.


    Sir, It is the women, suffering under gender apartheid
conditions, who represent a large part of the opposition,
and will make a major contribution through their degree of
knowledge, and political and civil maturity to the
democratic and peaceful revolution we seek to manifest, as
well as to a future democratic Iran. We cannot carry such
baggage or the individuals who continue to deny women their
place in society in this process of regaining our freedom
and their equality in the process.


   Mr. President, We in the opposition movement see the
strong two-faced diplomacy the Islamic Republic regime is
engaged in, that has not only caused nations to appease the
evil regime with offers of economic incentive, but that has
caused others to support their blind ambitions.

We see the effects of this diplomacy on some members of
Congress, government and international think-tanks, the UN
and the IAEA. We see the confusion in policy that has been
proposed by former members of various governments, and we
strongly urge you to address their perceptions in this most
grave and dangerous illusion of "engagement" that they have
been following, as soon as possible. For them to continue
to do so would amount to purchasing those chains that hold
us in bondage.

We believe it would be criminally negligent for any nation
to support the continuance and aspirations of the Islamic
Republic regime one day longer.

In the founding of a new political structure in a free,
secular, and democratic Iran, through our people's voice,
having international support for our cause, only then will
the international community rest assured that the threat
the Islamic Republic regime poses to all of us, is gone for
once and for all. The state of the internal parameters
existing today inside Iran, are such that they are ripe for
democratic revolution.


   Mr. President, We believe the minor problems resulting
in splits among opposition groups can be resolved by your
eloquent inaugural speech and your continued moral and
logistical support. Now is the time for us to come together
and face the dangers.

Not the least of which is the danger that the opposition
movement itself faces from regime elements located all over
the world. In much the same way Saddam targeted his
opposition, we face those same threats, both physically and
politically at home and abroad by the following methodology
of the Islamic Republic regime:
Distract, Deceive, Discredit, Discourage, and Dismember the
opposition, wherever it may be found. How these methods
manifest itself in action, is varied, effective, and
coordinated by the theocratic regime through it's agents,
and proxy. Including targeted assassinations on our future
leaders.

These methods of threat and intimidation must be addressed
if your words and bond of moral and financial support are
to become manifest by our action in a positive and
effective manner to bring a quicker end to this evil
regime.


   Sir, We face a common threat, and I stress that in no
way do we seek any form of military intervention to obtain
the freedom we aspire to achieve.

In our method of civil disobedience, we require the firm
moral support in action by the international community, and
the financial backing to follow through of our own accord,
to help millions of Iranian workers and citizens take their
nation back, through peaceful protest and strike.

The solutions we may find together in dialogue between our
two peoples and within the opposition groups resulting in
the coordination of our efforts and actions in the face of
a common enemy, hinge on a unified moral stance within the
community of nations to halt any and all support for the
Islamic Republic regime, it's terrorist allies, and its
economic and political base.


 
   Mr. President, Never before has a foreign leader taken
such a noble and realistic position in support of the
Iranian people and for people everywhere who have suffered
for so long in despair and isolation.

We offer to you these prayers of suggestion in the hope
they may be considered by your Administration, Congress,
the American people, America's Allies and friends, the UN,
and people of all nations.

These suggestions are based on two tracks. The isolation of
the Islamic Republic regime, and the essential moral and
financial support needed by legitimate non-violent
opposition groups to move on the opportunity that now
exits.
Together, in a coordinated way, we will achieve
success. God willing.

  1.   Implementation of full international economic and
military sanctions on the Islamic Republic regime via UN
security council resolution
based on human rights, support
for terrorism, and this to be tabled with or without IAEA
board recommendation on the nuclear threat the theocracy
poses. These two issues alone should be viewed as
circumstance the world cannot turn it's back upon, at risk
of civilization itself.  Such measures should include
coordination with oil producing nations to ensure stable
world supply while sanction persists, as well as the
halting of any and all arms transfers to the Islamic
Republic regime.


Note: We believe it is unwise to continue nuclear power
discussions until such time as secular government ratified
by the people in Iran comes to power. And rest assured Mr.
President, any new government, abiding by the rule of law,
can and will work with the IAEA in full cooperation to
implement the safeguards and protocols, to address all
aspects and concerns regarding the peaceful use of atomic
power, and to dismantle any and all existing programs that
may violate them.

  2.   Full diplomatic sanction and closing of Iranian
embassies world-wide, removal and deportation of regime
representatives, their agents and spies from all nations.
Diplomatic sanction by the UN, and removal of
representation from this international forum till such time
as a legitimate interim government can be established in
Iran. Iran is party to the 1948 UN charter, yet not having
been a signatory the Islamic Republic regime is abysmally
derelict in it's adherence to the provisions contained
within it.

Note: We ask that concerns regarding lack of consular
functions as a result of this action be cooperatively
addressed, so as to continue to allow emergency visas to be
issued. (i.e. family emergencies, etc.) It may be possible
to retain the minimum consular functions, under  tight
supervision, but they are well known in their recruiting
of, and issuing visa to potential martyrs and terrorists.
As well, We feel it is unwise to allow the Islamic Republic
regime to maintain a UN staff of aprox. 400 "diplomats",
who consistently violate the 12 mile limit, engage in
activities not associated with diplomatic function, and
pose a threat to US interests and Iranian opposition groups
located in the US.

  3.    Freezing of any and all financial assets of the
Islamic Republic regime, their current and former
leadership, and corporate interests world-wide,
till such
time as a new interim government can be established. As
well as allocation of portions of these assets now to
legitimate non-violent opposition groups inside and outside
Iran, to realize the goals, and to provide the tangible
support needed as civil disobedience becomes manifest in
action. Only in this way can this action be self sustaining
till it succeeds.

  4.   Repeated statements by world leaders publicly
calling for the leadership of the Islamic Republic regime
to step down peacefully, and to relinquish the government
to the hands and will of the Iranian people.

  5.   The coordinated post-regime rebuilding of vital
social institutions and infrastructure of democracy should
be implemented now. The training of judges, civil servants,
police, etc. The Iranian exile community can provide the
talent, initially and there are many more inside Iran
supporting the opposition who will answer the call to
service as the situation permits. This will speed up the
post-regime process, and greatly enhance stability in the
interim government.

  In addition, while SMCCDI does not speak for other groups
in the opposition, we believe it is vital for our efforts
to become coordinated in the formation of a working group
among leaders of opposition groups, in conjunction with
free nation's representatives to facilitate and coordinate
all of the above measures.
To facilitate this, we would humbly request that you grant
audience to the opposition's young leaders, be they
Monarchist, Republican, Democrat, moderate, left, or right
as may be represented by their group's opinions, allowing
them to express their thanks and support for the greater
Middle East project, in a roundtable "Forum for the Future"
of Iran.



   Mr. President, The proposed sanctions to be implemented
will represent a hardship for our people residing in Iran,
and we will most certainly face violent opposition toward
our civil disobedience actions. But the hope that will
sustain the millions of workers and government employees
that will rise and shut down the functioning of the Islamic
Republic regime while the sanctions persist, will cause
their will to succeed to hold firm. It is our hope that the
resolve and support of the international community will
stand firm as well.

We believe these measures are warranted under current
international law, and various resolutions in the UN
regarding human rights, and state sponsors of terrorism.
 

   Mr. President, God willing with your help and through
our own efforts, along with those supporting our efforts
via moral and logistical support, we will light a fire as
well, and sustain that fire in the minds of all nations.

Your words have warmed the hearts of the Iranian people,
just as they burn those who fight our progress. And one
day, this untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest
corners of our nation. That day is fast upon us, and we ask
that all free nations move as suggested without delay,
"seized of the matter", in order to aid us in this noble
endeavor.


  
  Sincerely Yours,


  On behalf of SMCCI,

  Aryo B . Pirouznia (Movement's Coordinator)




                         SMCCDI
    5015 Addison Circle #244 Addison Texas 75001 (USA)
        www.daneshjoo.org ; www.iranstudents.org
    Tel: +1 (972) 504-6864 ; Fax: +1 (972) 491-9866
           E-Mail: smccdi@daneshjoo.org
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



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

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 10:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Again from the Source:


Presenter: Commander, Multinational Force-Iraq Gen. David Petraeus April 26, 2007 10:00 AM EDT


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

DoD News Briefing with Gen. Petraeus from the Pentagon


GEN. PETRAEUS: Well good morning. It's good to be with you all, and nice to see some familiar faces here this morning. My purpose this morning is to provide a short update on the situation in Iraq, including a brief description of the operational environment, the challenges Iraq faces, and the status of our operations, and then to take your questions. This is similar to my briefings to the House and Senate yesterday afternoon, but without the classified information that I provided to them, obviously.
The operational environment in Iraq is the most complex and challenging I have ever seen -- much more complex than it was when I left last in September 2005, and vastly more complex than what I recall in Central America, Haiti and the Balkans in previous tours in those locations.
The increase in sectarian violence in 2006 following the Samarra Mosque bombing did enormous damage, literally tearing the fabric of Iraqi society, changing the demographics of Baghdad neighborhoods, and displacing millions of Iraqis.
Today, members of al Qaeda, extremist militias and Sunni insurgent groups seek to destroy what Iraqi leaders are trying to build. Political parties with ethnosectarian interests, limited governmental capacity, and corruption add additional challenges, and exceedingly unhelpful activities by Iran and Syria, especially those by Iran, about which we have learned a great deal in the past month, compound the enormous problems facing the new Iraq.
The situation is, in short, exceedingly challenging, though as I will briefly explain, there has been progress in several areas in recent months despite the sensational attacks by al Qaeda, which have, of course, been significant blows to our effort and which cause psychological damage that is typically even greater than their physical damage.
Iraq is, in fact, the central front of al Qaeda's global campaign and we devote considerable resources to the fight against al Qaeda Iraq.
We have achieved some notable successes in the past two months, killing the security emir of eastern Anbar province, detaining a number of key network leaders, discovering how various elements of al Qaeda Iraq operate, taking apart a car bomb network that had killed 650 citizens of Baghdad, and destroying several significant car bomb factories. Nonetheless, al Qaeda Iraq remains a formidable foe with considerable resilience and a capability to produce horrific attacks, but a group whose ideology and methods have increasingly alienated many in Iraq.
This group's activities must be significantly disrupted, at the least, for the new Iraq to succeed, and it has been heartening to see Sunni Arabs in Anbar province and several other areas turning against al Qaeda and joining the Iraqi security forces to fight against it. That has been a very significant development.
The extremist militias in Iraq also are a substantial problem and must be significantly disrupted. There can be no sustainable outcome if militia death squads are allowed to lie low during the surge only to resurface later and resume killing and intimidation.
There have been some significant successes in this arena as well, including the detentions -- detention of the heads of the Sadr secret cell network, the Iraqi leader of an explosively formed projectile network from Iran, the former deputy minister of Health and his facility protection security force brigadier, who had effectively hijacked the Ministry of Health, and a national police officer accused of torture, with several of these detained by Iraqi forces.
Sunni insurgents and the so-called Sunni resistance are still forces that must be reckoned with, as well. However, while we continue to battle a number of such groups, we are seeing some others joining Sunni Arab tribes in turning against al Qaeda Iraq and helping transform Anbar province and other areas from being assessed as lost as little as six months ago to being relatively heartening. We will continue to engage with Sunni tribal sheikhs and former insurgent leaders to support the newfound opposition of some to al Qaeda, ensuring that their fighters join legitimate Iraqi security force elements to become part of the fight against extremists, just as we reach out to moderate members of all sects and ethnic groups to try to drive a wedge between the irreconcilables and the reconcilables, and help the latter become part of the solution instead of part of the problem.
There are also a number of challenges in the area of governance that the embassy and Multinational Force Iraq are helping the Iraqis to address. It is in fact important to recall that the government of Prime Minister Maliki is Iraq's fourth government in as many years. Moreover, it is not a government of national unity. Rather, it is one comprised of political leaders from different parties that often default to narrow agendas and a zero-sum approach to legislation.
That is one reason that progress on key laws has been slow, though there has been some progress. The budget law, the base hydrocarbon law approved by the Council of Ministers, the emergency powers law and so forth have all been noteworthy. And it is in fact just noteworthy to acknowledge, as Ambassador Negroponte did yesterday, just what Iraq has achieved since he served there as the ambassador in 2004, with respect to its elections, its constitution, its government and so forth. I believe Prime Minister Maliki and many other Iraqi leaders are committed to achieving more in this area in the months ahead.
Though its institutions are slowly developing, Iraq still suffers from a lack of the governmental capacity needed to put Iraq's oil revenues to work sufficiently for all its people. In view of this, we are working hard, together with the U.S. embassy again, to help strengthen institutions, doubling the number of Provincial Reconstruction Teams, establishing a law and order task force, developing an energy fusion cell, and increasing emphasis on ministerial mentorship.
The focus of Multinational Force Iraq is, of course, on working with our Iraqi counterparts to help improve security for the people of Iraq in order to give Iraqi leaders the time and space they need to come to grips with the tough political issues that must be resolved. Resolution of these issues is the key to the achievement of reconciliation among the various ethnic and sectarian groups, political parties and leaders in order to achieve a lasting solution to Iraq's problems.
We are still in the relatively early stages of our new effort, about two months into it, with three of five Army surge brigades and two additional Marine battalions on the ground, and the remainder of the additional combat forces scheduled to be operating in their areas by mid-June.
Baghdad is the main effort, and we continue to establish joint security stations and combat outposts in the city and in the belts around it. The presence of coalition and Iraqi forces and increased operational tempo, especially in areas where until recently we had no sustained presence, have begun to produce results. Most significantly, Iraqi and coalition forces have helped to bring about a substantial reduction in the rate of sectarian murders each month from January until now in Baghdad, a reduction of about two-thirds. There have also been increases in weapons caches seized and the number of actionable tips received.
In the Ramadi area, for example, U.S. and Iraqi forces have found nearly as many caches in the first four months of this year as they found in all of last year.
Beyond this, we are seeing a revival of markets, renewed commerce, the return of some displaced families and the slow resumption of services, though I want to be very clear that there is vastly more work to be done across the board and in many areas, and I again note that we are really just getting started with the new effort.
I am well aware that the sense of gradual progress and achievement we feel on the ground in many areas in Iraq is often eclipsed by the sensational attacks that overshadow our daily accomplishments. While the enemy's effectiveness in carrying out such attacks has been reduced by our operations to some degree, there clearly are still far too many of them, and we obviously are focusing heavily on actions to identify and dismantle the networks that carry out car bomb and suicide vest attacks and their supporting infrastructure.
Our achievements have not come without sacrifice. Our increase in operational tempo, location of our forces in the populations they are securing and conduct of operations in areas where we previously had no presence, as well as the enemy's greater use of certain types of explosive devices, have led to an increase in our losses. Our Iraqi partners have sacrificed heavily as well, with losses generally two to three times ours or even more.
Indeed, while some Iraqi forces remain a work in progress, there should be no question that Iraq's soldiers and police are fighting and dying for their country, and a number of them have impressively shouldered their part of the burden of the fight against al Qaeda and the other enemies of the new Iraq. To help them progress, we have steadily been increasing the number of transition teams, the train and equip effort, and steadily strengthening the partnership programs between our forces and Iraqi elements.
The situation in Iraq is, in sum, exceedingly complex and very tough. Success will take continued commitment, perseverance and sacrifice, all to make possible an opportunity for the all-important Iraqi political actions that are the key to long-term solutions to Iraq's many problems. Because we are operating in new areas and challenging elements in those areas, this effort may get harder before it gets easier.
Success, in the end, will depend on Iraqi actions. As I noted during my confirmation hearing, military action is necessary but not sufficient. We can provide the Iraqis an opportunity, but they will have to exploit it.
During Secretary Gates' recent visit to Iraq, we agreed that in early September, Ambassador Ryan Crocker and I would provide an assessment of the situation in Iraq with respect to our mission and offer recommendations on the way ahead. We will be forthright in that assessment, as I believe I have been with you today.
Finally, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank all Americans for their support of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, Coast Guardsmen, and civilians serving in Iraq. Our young men and women in uniform deserve the recognition that Tom Brokaw accorded them when he described them as America's "new greatest generation." It's a privilege to serve with them again.
Thank you. And I look forward to your questions.
Q You say that Iraq is now the central focus of al Qaeda's worldwide effort. Are you saying that al Qaeda in Iraq is now the sort of principal enemy of the U.S. forces stationed there? Before it was Shi'a groups. And do you see that al Qaeda in Iraq -- do you see any evidence that it is linked internationally to bin Laden? How many foreign fighters are actually there?
GEN. PETRAEUS: First of all, we do definitely see links to the greater al Qaeda network. I think you know that we have at various times intercepted messages to and from. There is no question but that there is a network that supports the movement of foreign fighters through Syria into Iraq.
It is something we can, you know, keep some track of in a broad way. Obviously, when we can get the final 50 meters, if you will, we then take action against it.
It is clearly the element in Iraq that conducts the sensational attacks, these attacks that, as I mentioned, cause not just horrific physical damage -- and which, by the way, have been increasingly indiscriminate. Secretary Gates noted the other day that al Qaeda has declared war on all Iraqis, and I think that that is an accurate statement. They have killed and wounded and maimed countless Iraqi civilians in addition to, certainly, coalition and Iraqi security forces, and they have done that, again, without regard to ethnosectarian identity.
That significance of al Qaeda in the conduct of the sensational attacks, the huge car bomb attacks against which we have been hardening markets, hardening neighborhoods, trying to limit movement and so forth -- those attacks, again, are of extraordinary significance because they can literally drown out anything else that might be happening.
As I mentioned, we generally in many areas -- not all, but in many areas -- have a sense of sort of incremental progress. Again, that is not transmitted at all. Of course it will never break through the noise and the understandable coverage given to it in the press of a sensational attack that kills many Iraqis.
So this is a -- you know, it is a very significant enemy. I think it is probably public enemy number one. It is the enemy whose actions sparked the enormous increase in sectarian violence that did so much damage to Iraq in 2006, the bombing of the Al Askari mosque in Samarra, the gold-domed mosque there, the third holiest Shi'a shrine. And it is the organization that continues to try to reignite not just sectarian violence but ethnic violence, as well, going after Iraqi Kurds in Nineveh province and Kirkuk and areas such as that, as well. So again, I think a very, very significant enemy in that regard.
Q Number of foreign fighters?
GEN. PETRAEUS: I wouldn't hazard I guess. What I will say is that there are certainly dozens of foreign fighters who do come into the country on a monthly basis; again, sometimes more, sometimes less, depending on the state of the network.
It is obviously a network that we do focus on and try to disrupt very considerably.
Michael.
Q (Off mike.) What would be the -- in your assessment as a military man, what would be the consequences on the ground in Baghdad if the United States was to pull back from its security mission in the capital by the fall, withdraw its forces, say, to the forward- operating bases in the capital and maybe withdraw from Iraq by the summer of '08? I'm not asking you about congressional legislation, about timelines. I'm asking you for your military assessment of the effects on the ground if the U.S. were to end its security mission in Baghdad in the fall, in terms of insurgent activity, the vulnerability of the population and sectarian violence.
GEN. PETRAEUS: I have, as you know, in fact tried to stay clear of the political minefields of various legislative proposals and so forth. And I think, you know, the commander on the ground's job is to understand the mission he's given, make the request for the forces that are needed to accomplish that mission and then identify the risks, if you will, when all those forces may not be provided those resources. We are doing what we're doing, increasing our forces, in response to an increase in sectarian violence that took place in the year 2006. And it continued into January, when in fact sectarian murders were still very, very high in Baghdad. And that doesn't imply that they are at an acceptable level now, but they are about one-third what they were, say, as recently as January.
We believe that the presence of our forces and Iraqi forces in neighborhoods, the focus on the so-called extrajudicial killing, EJK, cells is at least in substantial part a reason for the reduction in these sectarian killings. So I think it's -- depending on where we are in September, of course, and I think that's a key question: How much progress can we make? My sense is that there would be an increase in sectarian violence, a resumption of sectarian violence, were the presence of our forces and Iraqi forces at that time to be reduced and not to be doing what it is that they are doing right now.
And I think again that carries through. In each case you have to make some assumptions about where you think you might be at that time. You could have some optimistic assumptions; you could have some pessimistic assumptions. And then that would determine, I think, what the result would be in terms of the resumption of insurgent activity, extremist activity in terms of the various death squads.
By the way, I'm not talking about the run-of-the-mill Jaish al- Mahdi, by the way. I'd like to distinguish between just sort of the young men with guns on the streets at various points in time and these extremist cells, which are the ones that cannot exist as they did in the past if Iraq is to have a sustainable situation at some point in time down the road.
Right here.
Q General, Lolita Baldor with AP. You said just now that things are likely to get -- may get worse before they get better. What kind of progress are you seeing or do you expect to see over the next couple of months that you think you'll be able to make this assessment in September? And if the Iraqi government does leave for a recess, which the secretary has asked them not to, will that postpone or impair your ability to make this assessment in September or just stall any improvements there?
GEN. PETRAEUS: Well, we're going to make the assessment in early September. That's a commitment that Ambassador Crocker and I have made. By the way, we are determined to continue to operate as Ambassador Khalilzad and General Casey did -- one team, one mission -- and to carry on the embassy and Multinational Force Iraq literally linked arms as we do that.
But we have committed to make that assessment in September. We think that's the appropriate time to make it. It will be a time at which we will have had our additional forces on the ground for several months, all of them operating in the areas in which we intend to deploy them. We will have seen additional Iraqi security forces -- I forget the exact number that is being trained just in the month of May that will graduate from this greatly expanded institutional training capacity of the Iraqis. I think it's in the order of 7,000 to 9,000 in the military alone. But we can get that to you later. So they will have been, you know, beefed up continually during this time. There's additional equipment continually flowing to them. I note, by the way, they have well over 2,500 up-armored humvees alone now, a mech division, a wheeled armored vehicle brigade, and so forth.
So again, all of this will have gone on. And then on the Iraqi governmental side, they will have had a number of additional days -- meetings of the Council of Representatives. Our additional Provincial Reconstruction Teams will have been at work, the budget execution focus, the Rule of Law Task Force, and so forth.
We'll have seen whether in fact our efforts in these areas have helped produce the kind of progress that they're designed in fact to produce and to see if there is an exploitation of the opportunity that we believe our soldiers and Iraqi soldiers and police will have provided to the Iraqi governmental leaders to come to grips, again, with some of these really tough legislative issues.
Secretary Gates made pretty clear, I think, about the expectations that -- you know, that -- given the hard work of our soldiers and the Iraqi soldiers, that one would certainly hope that the Iraqi legislators would match that with their own hard work. That's our expectation. They want their country to succeed, needless to say, and it's going to require them obviously coming together to make the kind of progress that we think is important.
Yes, Tom.
Q You talk about continued commitment and perseverance and sacrifice, and you also say, as we've heard for years now, success will depend on the Iraqis. And I'm just wondering, do you anticipate high levels of troops -- American troops in Iraq -- let's say, 100,000 or thereabouts -- for years to come?
GEN. PETRAEUS: I'm not -- I wouldn't try to truly -- to anticipate what levels would be some years down the road. I think that my predecessor at various times -- a number of people have noted the length of commitment that has been required, and historical cases are somewhat similar to this, although every case is absolutely unique, and the challenges here, as I mentioned, are enormous, with huge regional implications as well.
It is an endeavor, again, that clearly is going to require enormous commitment and commitment over time. But beyond that, Tom, I don't want to get in to try to postulate how many brigades or when we would start to do something like that, so --
Q (Off mike) -- U.S. troops?
GEN. PETRAEUS: Oh, I wouldn't even -- I'm not going to hazard that kind of thing, so -- hi, Barbara.
Q Hi. The car bombs that you talked about, the spectacular attacks -- number one, do you have any way to tell us how much they have increased, perhaps, since the first of the year? Do you have any evidence of Iranian involvement at this point in any of these networks that are doing these massive car bombs?
And you spoke about Iran being extremely unhelpful. You said you had new information in the last month. What you have learned about Iran's involvement?
GEN. PETRAEUS: The Iranian involvement has really become much clearer to us and brought into much more focus during the interrogation of the members -- the heads of the Qazali network and some of the key members of that network that have been in detention now for a month or more.
This is the head of the secret cell network, the extremist secret cells. They were provided substantial funding, training on Iranian soil, advanced explosive munitions and technologies as well as run of the mill arms and ammunition, in some cases advice and in some cases even a degree of direction.
When we captured these individuals -- the initial capture, and then there have been a number of others since then -- we discovered, for example, a 22-page memorandum on a computer that detailed the planning, preparation, approval process and conduct of the operation that resulted in five of our soldiers being killed in Karbala.
It also detailed -- there are numerous documents which detailed a number of different attacks on coalition forces, and our sense is that these records were kept so that they could be handed in to whoever it is that is financing them. And there's no question, again, that Iranian financing is taking place through the Quds force of the Iranian Republican Guards Corps.
As you know, there are seven Quds Force members in detention as well. This involvement, again, we learned more about with the detention of an individual named Sheibani, who is one of the heads of the Sheibani network, which brings explosively formed projectiles into Iraq from Iran. His brother is the Iranian connection. He is -- was in Iraq. And that has been the conduit that then distributes these among the extremist elements again of these secret cells and so forth.
Those munitions, as you know, have been particularly lethal against some of our armored vehicles and responsible for some of the casualties, the more tragic casualties in attacks on our vehicles.
So I think that's what has taken place.
Sure.
Q May I formally ask you: What is your assessment at this point? Do you believe that the central government of Iran, Ahmadinejad himself, perhaps, is, number one, aware of this, supporting it, directing it? What is the central government involvement? Could this level of activity possibly take place without the Iranian leadership knowing about it?
And just as another point, do you see any involvement beyond EFPs? Are they now involved in these spectacular suicide car-bomb attacks?
GEN. PETRAEUS: I don't think we have found a link to the spectacular car-bomb attacks, which we believe are generally al Qaeda and elements sort of connected to al Qaeda. Typically, in fact, still we believe that, oh, 80 to 90 percent of the suicide attacks are carried out by foreigners. That's a network, again, that typically brings them in through Syria and is again a major concern and certainly a hope that Syria will crack down on the ability of people to come through their airport and so forth and then be brought into Iraq.
With respect to how high does it go and, you know, what do they know and when did they know it, I honestly cannot -- that is such a sensitive issue that -- and that we do not -- at least I do not know of anything that specifically identifies how high it goes beyond the level of the Qods Force, Commander Suleiman. Beyond that, it is very difficult to tell -- we know where he is in the overall chain of command; he certainly reports to the very top -- but again, nothing that would absolutely indicate, again, how high the knowledge of this actually goes. So --
Q General Petraeus, you said that things may get worse before they get better in this effort. Can you expand a little on what the American and Iraqi public should be potentially braced for?
And are higher U.S. casualties inevitable as a result of your new approach? You mentioned that your losses have gone up since you moved into the neighborhoods. Is that likely to continue? Is that something they should also be braced for?
GEN. PETRAEUS: I mentioned this because as you move into areas that you've not operated in before, as you contend with elements that were in those areas that in some cases were not challenged -- I mean, there are some element -- areas that were -- that had become, to some degree, sanctuaries for certain extremist organizations.
As that takes place, I think there is a very real possibility that there's going to be more combat action and that, therefore, there could be more casualties, and that's really all that I am implying with that. I don't want that to become the central message of this by any means.
But I think that when you are expanding your forces, when you're expanding your forces' presence, when you are going into areas that have been very lightly populated with coalition forces in the past, that there is going to be more action. And as we take on elements again that in some cases were unchallenged, that that will take place. And certainly Iraqi forces will be our partners in all of that and have been all along so far.
Q General, a clarification and then a question. In regards to this 22-page memorandum that you said was seized in one raid, was that in reference to the number of American soldiers who were sort of ambushed and kidnapped and then killed?
GEN. PETRAEUS: Yes.
Q And were you saying that there was evidence of Iranian involvement in that operation? I just want to be clear.
GEN. PETRAEUS: No. No. No. That -- first of all, that was the operation that you mentioned, and we do not have a direct link to Iranian involvement in that particular case.
Q And then, my question, regarding the fact that you said any success depends largely on the Iraqi government. Yet when what appears to be a key part of the early surge strategy is the erection of this -- what you called the concrete caterpillar, the 12-foot wall, that separates Sunni and Shi'a --
GEN. PETRAEUS: Yeah, this is not to separate Sunni and Shi'a.
Q Okay.
GEN. PETRAEUS: Let me use my point of personal privilege here to interject that. Let me just explain, in fact, if I could, and then I'll actually give you a chance to finish that question, Nick, if I could.
The concrete caterpillar, the Arizona creeper, whatever you want to call it, there really are a number of these throughout Baghdad. It is part of an overall effort that is designed to make neighborhoods, markets, areas of congestion safer for the Iraqis who live in those areas, work in them, shop in them and so forth.
I think I mentioned that it includes Operation Safe Neighborhood, Operation Safe Market.
Safe Market is one that -- where we focused first on the two biggest markets in Iraq -- the Shorja market and the Jadriya market. These have tens of thousands of Iraqis in them during their peak hours on a daily basis, and they were subject to car bombs before the Baghdad security plan began. And so with the Iraqis we sat down, and they designed a way of putting barriers around it so that you could limit access to it by vehicle. And they actually shut it off to vehicles during the hours that the market is in full swing, and they can only go in during the early-morning hours to set up and then after the market's closed to tear down and take out the trash and so forth. That's been done now for a vast number of markets, not just in Baghdad but in other cities as well.
There are similar efforts ongoing to enable better control of vehicular movement, checkpoints all over Baghdad. There's a proliferation of checkpoints. They've become increasingly elaborate to provide better through-put, better protection for the Iraqi soldiers who typically are the ones that are manning these.
Another effort: There is a Safe Neighborhood Initiative. Again, a number of different neighborhoods, and you can actually focus on where they need to be. You can look at the density, the plots if you will, of where there are sectarian murders taking place. And you array that for a week, for a month, what have you, and you can identify the areas in which there are cells operating.
And so when you're going to then go into that neighborhood, clear it, and clearing takes a long time. It's taking us 19 days just to clear Mansour district alone, for example, one of the central districts in Baghdad. You then have to be able to hold it, or else it is -- the clearing operation was not of enduring value. You can't hold it if you cannot control access to and from that particular neighborhood.
In most cases, actually, the neighbors welcome that kind of barrier plan or walls or what have you. And in many cases this has given the confidence to people in those neighborhoods to return to them, because now they are actually walled off from bad guys, from extremists, and that is what it is that we are trying to wall off. In some cases the walls are indeed along sectarian faultlines; in some cases they are just walling off neighborhoods that are mixed neighborhoods. Again, it depends on the geography of the neighborhood, not on the sectarian demographic breakdown.
The issue in this case, and the reason Adhamiya became a cause for concern is because it is a very old neighborhood, as many of you know who have been there, and it has one of the historic Sunni-Arab shrines in Iraq in it, a very old mosque. And that raised sensitivities that access to that was being walled off, and so forth. And so there was consideration given; our commanders with Iraqi commanders have looked hard, how can you achieve, again, population control without having some kind of obtrusive barrier, and so forth. And that is ongoing now.
So that's what it is that Iraqis and we are trying to do. By the way, a large number of the work is being done by Iraqis, Iraqi contractors and some Iraqi military engineer units, and then other is being done by U.S. engineer elements.
But go ahead --
Q Yet it also raised strong objections from Prime Minister Maliki. So how successful can U.S. military operations be if they are subject to being politically undercut by the Iraqi government?
GEN. PETRAEUS: Well, I think it would be worth -- I think that that's probably worth seeking clarification on because there's been a little bit more of a meeting of minds I think on that in recent days.
Right here.
Q General, you talked about a Baghdad clock and a Washington clock. Can you explain what you mean by that? And is it your assessment that this war can be won on anything close to that Washington clock, and how would you envision -- what would that victory look like?
GEN. PETRAEUS: Yeah, sure. You know, what I've said is that there's a Washington clock ticking -- and actually, to be fair to those in Washington, it's an American clock. And -- but that clock is moving and it's moving at a rapid rate of speed, and it reflects the frustration, impatience, disappointment, anger, and a variety of other emotions -- feel about the pace in Iraq and the situation in Iraq. And, you know, I am not immune to those emotions either, having given over two and a half years of my life to it, and watched a number of our soldiers give the last full measure of devotion to it. So we want to see faster progress, and again, that is understandable that that clock is moving pretty rapidly.
The Baghdad clock, for all the reasons that I mentioned, is not moving as rapidly. It is not enough, for example, to go to Prime Minister Maliki, who I do believe, as I mentioned, is someone who wants to lead and serve all Iraqis, but it's not enough to go to him.
He's not the Prime Minister Tony Blair of Iraq. He does not have a parliamentary majority. He does not have his ministers in all of the different ministries. They are from all kinds of different parties. They sometimes sound a bit discordant in their statements to the press and their statements to other countries. It's a very, very challenging situation in which to lead.
And so, as I mentioned to some of the congressional leaders yesterday in fact, we need to encourage and provide that -- those emotions to all Iraqi leaders, the key leaders of the key parties of the key blocs of the Shi'a, Sunni, Kurds and so forth, and again, the key elements within those blocs and leaders in the Council of Representatives, leaders of the presidency, leaders of the -- again, that is what is necessary. And they're all going to have to work together to make progress.
That's a tall order, but that is what does have to happen. They understand it. I think that a number of them are determined to do what is necessary to achieve resolution of these very difficult issues, but again, I make no bones about the challenges that are involved there.
Q You've mentioned a number of positive trends, most notably the reduction in sectarian violence, but there are negative trends.
GEN. PETRAEUS: And I mentioned those too, I think. Yup.
Q Could you give us some numbers to go with those that are an equivalent with the numbers you've given us for the reduction in sectarian violence?
GEN. PETRAEUS: Okay. No, but, actually, I think the level of violence has roughly been -- depending again on how you calculate these things -- but by our consistent method, the level of violence has generally been unchanged. There was a dip for a while --
Q (Off mike) --
GEN. PETRAEUS: Throughout the country -- that there was a dip for a while. It was coming down and that these sensational attacks of the past couple of weeks, and a couple of these chlorine bomb attacks, just because of the sheer number of people that end up going to a hospital, even though they may then immediately come out, in the case of the chlorine bomb attacks, tends to run those up.
So we have not seen a corresponding drop in the level of violence statistics that we have seen in the sectarian murder statistics.
The reason I focused on the latter, though, is because it is a very important metric for neighborhoods. I mean, if your neighborhood is subject to the kind of extrajudicial killing that plagued Baghdad as recently as January and still does plague some neighborhoods, obviously you cannot focus on much other than just survival. And of course that's what caused this displacement of, really, millions of Iraqis over the course of the last couple of years. And it is something that again you have to drive down if again there's to be the degree of confidence that can help them gradually put a few stitches back into the fabric of a society that has been torn by sectarian violence.
Q What about car bombs? Can I ask you about car bombs?
GEN. PETRAEUS: Well, that -- I factored that in there. I don't know that there's been an appreciable change, actually, in that. Again, it tends to be quite fluctuating. You know, the last couple of days, for example -- the previous two days after the horrific attack on our 82nd Airborne Division soldiers -- actually, it was backed down somewhat -- but again, it just tends to go in cycles, and we have not seen a definitive trend that I could report to you in that regard.
Yeah, right here.
Q Thanks. Sir, you said that success ultimately depends on the Iraqi government, and there's a reasonable chance that they won't come through with what they need to do, given all the complexities that you've laid out. What can you tell the American people? Why is it worth the continued sacrifice on the chance that the Iraqi government won't hold up this end of the bargain? And one of the things that I hear from people who are for the withdrawal or the phased redeployment is, how much worse can it get than it has been -- in 2006, 34,000 civilian dead?
GEN. PETRAEUS: Well, I think again it does come down to the implications of various options. And it can get much, much worse than it was. Right now it is -- I think it's fair to say a good bit better, but again, I am not trying in any way, shape or form to indicate that this is a satisfactory situation whatsoever.
I did mention again one metric that I think is an important one, it's one that we happen to focus on literally with our forces. But there are others -- again, the car bombs, and I did in fact identify that as one that has shown an area in which we obviously have to focus even more effort, because it has inflicted horrific casualties on Iraqis in particular.
So again, I think you have to ask, you know, just as I responded to Michael Gordon's question, what are the implications of various options? What do you think would happen? Of course, that depends on some assumptions about the situation, when it is that you carry out the various options. And I think that that's hugely important as one, again, thinks of these different notions for the way ahead.
Yeah, in the back there.
Q
General, if sectarian killings are coming down, are you seeing any evidence of people moving back into their old districts and Sunnis and Shi'as starting to live together again?
And secondly, your recommendations in September, are you willing to countenance the idea that you may have to say to the president, this is not working, we should pull troops out, or are you more likely to say things are not going well, here are the adjustments and strategies we need to make?
GEN. PETRAEUS: Well, on the latter one, I mean, I have an obligation to some wonderful young men and women in uniform, and a lot of civilians, by the way, who are serving in Iraq and who deserve a forthright assessment from the folks at the top about the situation on the ground, and that's what I'm going to provide.
Now, with respect to returnees, we're seeing small numbers, and that's, I think, what you heard me say in the statement. Again, I don't know that you would yet call it a trend. We have seen, again, some neighborhoods that were really depopulated, in which there have been the early signs of returns.
We have seen -- I mean, you look at a place, for example, like Dura, the Dura market down in East Rashid in Baghdad, a real difficult area, perhaps one of the toughest in all of Baghdad. I went on a couple of patrols the day after I took command back in February, and candidly, I was sort of shocked at what I saw in terms of what sectarian violence had done to Baghdad. And the Dura area in particular struck me because there was not a single shop open at all; and there now are -- I think it's over 200 and literally climbing every day.
The reason is because Iraqi and coalition soldiers hardened that market, located Iraqi and U.S. combat outposts right in the center of the market, and then on its periphery. And in fact, I walked through that area with a CNN reporter, in fact, a few weeks ago, and it has continued to expand over time down there despite attacks.
So there's a degree of resilience there as well.
But that's what we are seeing. And again, too soon, I think, to call that a trend, too soon to say that what we've done in just the first couple of months has -- with our Iraqi partners, again, enabled them to stitch together the fabric of society that was so torn.
Right here. Right.
Q General, the commander of Camp Cropper has been relieved and imprisoned for allegedly aiding the enemy. One, can you provide any more information about this? And two, to what do you attribute the apparent continuing problems with detainee operations?
GEN. PETRAEUS: He actually, I think, gave up command actually last fall, as I understand it. And I'm aware of his charges. But he is actually in Kuwait, which is where the case is being carried out. And as with any case that is ongoing, a senior commander can't comment because of the concern over command influence. And that's really where I'd have to leave that. I think that the command there has provided the details on the charges. Again, this is something that took place quite some time back, actually well before I came on the scene, and that's about all I know about that.
Q What can you say about --
GEN. PETRAEUS: With respect to the detainee operations, I think actually that we have learned an enormous amount the very hard way. I -- but I do think that we did make a number of corrections in the wake of Abu Ghraib and some of the other problems that we have had with detainee operations. We believe that those operations are quite humane. And obviously they're in somewhat marked contrast to those of al Qaeda and the extremists, who indiscriminately attack civilians and coalition and Iraqi security forces.
I saw the report by UNAMI, and we believe that there are numerous factual inaccuracies in that that actually need correct. And I'd actually welcome the opportunity to discuss this a little bit.
The administrative review process that MNF-I uses is really quite robust, and it has multiple checks and balances. The specific procedures that are followed by Multinational Force Iraq are based on those in the Fourth Geneva Convention, and they're well-rooted in generally accepted law of war principles, all of this supplemented and guided by the field manual that was published this past year, which governed the treatment of detainees, interrogation and so forth.
There is no 60-day period during which detainees are not allowed counsel, although normally there's a 30-day window before which visitors are allowed, although exceptions can be made in the case of an attorney.
After that, an individual can see his attorney. MNF-I maintains Detainee Assistance Center at its theater detention facilities, which again have come light years from where we were in the early days, but which, frankly, still need continued improvement, particularly in the sense that in some cases we have detainees who are truly maximum security type detainees, and we have to improve the facilities, in fact, to accommodate some of those individuals.
The Detainee Assistance Center facilities, the services are available to all detainees. We have the capability to refer a detainee to the Iraqi Bar Association, where he can obtain an attorney at the detainee's expense. Furthermore, the Iraqi government provides defense counsel to any detainee at no expense to the detainee at the time a detainee's case is referred to an investigative hearing at the Central Criminal Court of Iraq -- a process that, as you know, has been ongoing for some time. And additionally, a defense counsel will continue to be provided throughout all subsequent stages of that particular process.
Q General, last week -- you spoke about the progress in Anbar. Last week, Major General Olson, one of the leaders of the PRT efforts, raised a question about the Anbar effort, saying that the military has empowered tribal leaders potentially at the expense of democratic governance. I wonder if you think that's the case, and whether you would say at this point achieving stability and security and safety in Anbar has to be a greater priority than, you know -- than democratic governance.
GEN. PETRAEUS: Yeah, first of all, I didn't see that statement. I'd be somewhat surprised if it's -- is it the Rick Olson who's the PRT -- or who is --
Q Yeah. He was just saying that bringing the tribes in obviously had its good effects, but it also potentially undercuts the -- you know, what will hopefully be the elected government of Anbar province.
GEN. PETRAEUS: Well, look, I think first of all that the tribal elements of Iraq are a fact of life, and that what Iraq eventually will have is some form of government that at least listens to and incorporates the views of tribes and sheikhs, particularly in an area like Anbar province. Now, it varies when you're in cities; the tribal influence is less.
But I think that, candidly, a mistake that we may have made in early days was not to pay enough attention to these very important elements of Iraqi society, which still play a very, very key role and are really, you know, a lot more than I think sort of the stereotypical view of tribes. I mean, each tribe generally has a construction company, an import-export business, and a trucking company as well. I mean these are entrepreneurs as well as tribes, and they provide a variety of services to the members of their tribes.
So I think, again, that what results in Anbar province will actually have the features of democratic governance representing the citizens of Anbar province and being responsive to them.
But among those elements to whom they are responsive will be certainly the sheikhs and the leaders of the major tribes in that area, because of the allegiance that the people give to them.
Anbar province made the progress that it did because of the courageous action of some sheikhs who said, enough, to the killing by al Qaeda of their brothers, sons, sheikhs and so forth. It started with Sheikh Sattar near Ramadi, working with Colonel Sean MacFarland. He came to Colonel MacFarland and said, I'd like to join the coalition in fighting against al Qaeda, and they made a pretty courageous choice. He volunteered some of his young men to be part of the Iraqi police structure, and it literally just started to ripple on out from there, with each sort of contiguous tribe joining in the same fashion. And what you have now is a very, very significant movement.
By the way, that tribal movement is now turning into a political movement. And Sheikh Sattar had a meeting with a number of the tribal leaders just, I think it was, last week, where they came together to discuss when provincial elections are held, as the process moves forward in Anbar province, should this effort that has been focused largely on helping the security forces be moved forward also as somewhat of a political movement? And in fact, Prime Minister Maliki went out there, as I think you know, to Ramadi and met with not just the governor or the provincial council but also with the sheikhs and with the leaders of the Iraqi security forces.
Again, none of this would have been possible without these sheikhs, particularly the early ones, taking a very courageous stand at a time that was actually very, very dangerous, and has now enabled the Iraqi and coalition forces in partnership to largely clear Ramadi, which only two months or two-and-a-half months ago was largely al Qaeda central. And just to get to the governance center, you literally had to fight your way downtown.
Q Just to follow up, General, do you think the tribes are -- are they working with the U.S. military or are they working with the central Iraqi government? And if the U.S. was to reduce its presence in Anbar, would that -- would these gains erode, with the --
GEN. PETRAEUS: Well, again, we have been very careful to ensure that these individuals are incorporated in Iraqi security force formations. As you may know, just a few months back, six months certainly back, when the call went out for volunteers for the 7th Iraqi Army Division, a division from about Ramadi on out into Western Anbar, there were just -- I think it was less than the fingers on these two hands who volunteered that day. And then subsequent one, there were a few more. Well, most recently there were 2,000 young Anbari men who showed up to volunteer for that when they had a recruiting drive at Habbaniya, I think it was. So there has been an enormous shift.
By the way, I found the same enthusiasm in Western Nineveh province, an area that I knew from the first year there with the 101st Airborne Division, met with the sheikhs of the Shammar tribe up there.
And these are individuals who sadly in the period of the most intimidation by al Qaeda of Sunni Arabs in the fall of 2004 and well into 2005, the period when they boycotted the election and so forth, and really now know that they lost out -- we could not get volunteers from those particular tribes. Now they want to help form new battalions and so forth.
Now, this is not just because they want to fight against al Qaeda. It is also because of a very good and realistic appraisal of this situation, and that is that the Sunni Arabs lost out by not participating in the past. They lost influence in government. They lost influence, if you will, or participation, jobs in the Iraqi security forces, and I think they now recognize that they need to participate, they want to participate. And that is a very, very important development, again. And once again, this never could have -- the progress in Anbar would not have happened without that.
If you now trace down the Euphrates River Valley and start out at al Qaim and Husaybah and walk your way on in and Haditha, Hit, Ramadi, and then over towards the Fallujah area, you get all the way until past Ramadi. This is not to say al Qaeda's still not trying to blow up newly in-place police stations in Ramadi, they did it the other day; nor that they are taking any of this lying down.
In fact, the areas around Fallujah are still quite problematic and are areas where the new Marine battalions -- this is an example of an area that I talked about, where we had not had a sustained presence in the past, where we are now able to have a sustained presence because of our additional forces and because of the expansion of Iraqi security forces in Anbar province. And we're going to expand in some other areas in that area here in the months ahead as well.
So that's the dynamic that's going on, and I suspect in truth that Rick probably did not mean quite the way that you may have characterized that, Julian.
Thanks.
Yes?
Q Sir, could you elaborate a little bit more on the benchmarks you'll be reviewing in your September assessment that even Joe Six-pack or armchair generals could understand? Is it possible that the number of spectacular attacks could continue throughout the summer, and yet you still see progress -- effort to buy time for the Iraqi government?
GEN. PETRAEUS: Yeah, I -- this is something we've actually been working on a good bit, and in fact, we gave to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs yesterday a set of what we are sort of thinking about. Now I need to do more coordination.
Ryan Crocker and I are proceeding on this. We need to do some more ciphering on this and do some more thinking on it. But, you know, we provide an enormous wealth of detail right now that goes into the 9010 Report, the quarterly report that goes into weekly joint staff metrics and a whole variety of other submissions.
And with respect to that, we will probably focus on four areas: security, economics, politics/governance and rule of law.
In the security arena, you're looking at, you know, what is it that would show you that you have been able to achieve, to help the Iraqis achieve greater population security? What about the influence of militias and what about the progress of the Iraqi security forces?
When you look at the -- sort of the economic arena, again, we're looking for things that show that the Iraqis are into this big-time, which we believe they are, but also show that our approach is having the effect that we hope that it will have. But in the economic arena, how are they doing spending their money?
As you know, last year, the Iraqis did not spend some $10 (billion) to $12 billion of their budget for -- a year in which the International Monetary Fund was going to allow them to run a 5 percent deficit, which is common for countries that are sort of coming out of the situation in Iraq -- which Iraq finds itself. So this is very important, that they in fact spend the money that they have for all Iraqis, for the good of them.
And as you know, much of what is done for Iraqis, the whole social safety network, which is very substantial but which is torn and frayed in a variety of different locations where the security situation's been tough, this is all done through the ministries. And so they've got to spend their money. So we'll look at how are they doing in spending the budget, in particularly what about the capital investment account? They're good at spending salaries; the question is, are they buying the equipment, making the improvements, the construction and so forth.
What about banks? How are the banks doing? Are they reopening? And an interesting phenomenon, by the way -- there is now private banking in Iraq for the first time, I believe, ever, or at least certainly in a few decades. And I noted -- I just saw where there's private banks in Kirkuk. There's, believe it or not, a private bank, I think, in Ramadi or in someplace in Anbar province, maybe Haditha.
So again, how are they doing -- how are the provinces doing in receiving their money and, again, in spending it? Is the government doing all that it can for all provinces and all Iraqis?
Politics and governance -- obviously there we're talking about progress on key legislation. I've talked about that. You're looking at what about if there are some malign actors in some places in government? I mentioned that the deputy minister of Health was detained with the -- at the direction of the prime minister, I believe -- certainly his support, the head of the facility protection security forces -- that kind of activity, again, is what we're looking on there, and then just sort of the progress in the development of governmental capacity, ministry development.
And then in the rule of law, how is progress on the development of the criminal justice system, their detention facilities and system -- which is a big, big challenge and they have had big problems in that, as you know, in the past, particularly during the period when sectarian -- where certain Iraqi security force elements really were hijacked by sectarian militias as well. How is the Rule of Law Green Zone coming along and other initiatives, the circuit rider judicial effort and some of these things? So again, that's roughly what we're looking at.
As I mentioned, we just first gave a first draft pre-decisional think piece to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs yesterday. The Joint Staff and everybody else will work it. Ambassador Ryan Crocker and I need to do some more work on it as well, and then we will move it forward.
Q (Off mike) -- progress are less than obvious to a person in the United States, much less Iraq or Europe. Is it possible that these things could improve while spectacular bombing attacks still occur in parallel?
GEN. PETRAEUS: Well, I think first of all -- look, I think you have to be realistic and acknowledge there is going to be a continuation of some level of sensational attacks. In an environment where to prevent those, you know, the Iraqi and coalition forces have to protect everything and they only have to attack one thing, some of that is going to happen. I used the analogy the other day of Northern Ireland, which some of you are very familiar with and in which for some decades there was a level of violence that actually the Northern Ireland citizens learned to live with, really.
And actually, to be fair to the Iraqis, I mean they're an exceedingly resilient people. I actually the other night was talking to one of your colleagues from The Washington Post and talked about this idea that there is -- you know, we feel this incremental progress; it's very difficult to demonstrate. In fact, the progress is interesting, because it's a negative. It means nothing happened, in most cases. In other words, there were not sectarian murders. Whether that is newsworthy before it goes on for several weeks is obviously arguable.
But anyway, so what I asked was, "Hey, come on, it's about dusk, let's go -- we'll fly around the city a little bit." And we flew around. And so -- I mean, it was unbelievable.
This is a day in which I think there was a car bomb in Iraq, some of Iraq's seven million citizens were affected by that, but you could not have told that from what we saw over the city. There were three big amusement parks operational. I'm talking about, you know, roller coaster kinds of -- these are not just a couple little merry-go-rounds in small neighborhood parks. Restaurants in some parts of the city were booming. Lots of markets were open. The people were on the street. There were -- there had to be a thousand soccer games ongoing. They're watering the grass in various professional soccer fields -- the soccer leagues.
You know, all of this is actually so foreign, I think, in the mind of most people who see the news and of course do see that day's explosion or something like that. And actually there is a city of seven million in which life goes on, and again, citizens are determined to carry on with their life.
Just one more, please.
Q General, I'm sorry. I have to try one more time on the 22- page memo, because it seems like the first time you mentioned it, you said you found it in the computer of the cell that was dealing with Iran.
GEN. PETRAEUS: Right.
Q And I thought you said that they were saving it in order to demonstrate to their Iranian patrons that they --
GEN. PETRAEUS: That's our speculation. Now, what I --
Q (Off mike.)
GEN. PETRAEUS: No, what I said to Mik was, we did not -- we have not seen evidence of direct Iranian involvement in that case. If you said -- I mean, in other words, coaching them on how to do it, telling them to do it or what have you. Again, we don't --
Q Or bragging, then, reporting back about an operation --
GEN. PETRAEUS: Yeah. We think -- again, this is speculation, but I think it is fairly logical speculation. We think that records are kept so that the individuals that carry out these attacks can demonstrate what they're doing to those who are providing the resources to them, providing the additional funding, training, arms, ammunition, advanced technologies and so forth. So --
Q Not necessarily involvement in that specific operation? From the Iranians, I mean.
GEN. PETRAEUS: Again, not direction, not -- again, we just can't confirm it. I can't say it wasn't there either, but we did not find, if you will, a direct fingerprint to it.
Thank you all very much.
Q But there is a connection between that group and the Iranians?
GEN. PETRAEUS: Oh, there's no question that the Qazali network is directly connected to the Iranian Qods Force, received money, training, arms, ammunition, and at some points in time even advice and assistance and direction. So --
Q And they're the ones who carried out the Karbala attack?
GEN. PETRAEUS: Yes. That network's members did carry out that.
Thanks. Great to see you all again.
Q Thank you.
Q Thank you, General.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



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

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 10:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

P.S.

I stand by my opinion of Ledeen, who has been proven wrong on so many occasions and made so many mistakes in assessment because of his long established biased animosty towards the State Dept. , that nothing he says about what goes on in the upper echelons of Government can be believed, for he consistantly fails to apply objectivity, and poses speculation as fact.....Time you started to realize this Cyrus.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 11:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oppenheimer wrote:
P.S.

I stand by my opinion of Ledeen, who has been proven wrong on so many occasions and made so many mistakes in assessment because of his long established biased animosty towards the State Dept. , that nothing he says about what goes on in the upper echelons of Government can be believed, for he consistantly fails to apply objectivity, and poses speculation as fact.....Time you started to realize this Cyrus.


All I am saying there are many good points in this article by Dr. Ledeen .
“Did Condoleezza Rice Try to Make a Secret Deal With the Mullahs? A tense confrontation within the Bush administration over the release of the Irbil 5.” http://pajamasmedia.com/xpress/michaelledeen/2007/04/25/from_nro_today.php

I am not in any position to make a Judgment regarding Dr. Ledeen possible biased animosty towards the State Dept.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



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

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 11:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Monday, April 16, 2007

Nouri Nixing Tehran's Tyrants

April 16, 2007
New York Post
Amir Taheri



A few months ago, Wash ington circles saw Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki as "Tehran's man" in Baghdad. Today, Tehran circles label him "Washington's man" in Baghdad. Maliki's government has the unenviable task of keeping the Americans in, when they don't want to stay - and the Iranians out, when they want to come in.

Some Americans blame Maliki for doing nothing to hasten the departure of U.S. troops, for not decreeing a blanket pardon of Baathists (regardless of what they did during four decades of despotic domination), and for rejecting federal schemes that could lead to the disintegration of the Iraqi state.

They also criticize Maliki because he refuses to share out Iraq's oil income as if it were loot among thieves.

These American critics want Maliki to throw Iraq to the wolves so that Jack Murtha and Michael Moore can prove that toppling Saddam Hussein was wrong.

Maliki's Khomeinist critics in Tehran have their own beef.

The Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) recently called Maliki "too pro-Arab." In plain language, that means he emphasizes the Arab identity of the majority of Iraqi peoples - rather than their sectarian affiliation, as Tehran would prefer.

Last month, Ali Khamenei, the top mullah in the Khomeinist system, attacked Maliki in a roundabout way. He recalled that many leaders of the new Iraq spent years in Iran as exiles, and he implied that it was payback time. Last week, the mullahs showed their anger by refusing to let Maliki's plane pass through Iranian airspace on its way to the Far East.

Maliki has offered no favors to the mullahs. He visited half a dozen capitals in the early stages of his premiership - but pointedly avoided Tehran. He also turned down Tehran's offer of hosting a regional conference on Iraq, preferring to hold the exercise in Baghdad and then, later this year, in Cairo.

Maliki has also given the green light to a crackdown on Shiite militias and death squads, serving notice that the war of the sectarians must end. Within the next few weeks, he is expected to further anger Tehran by dropping from his Cabinet all five Sadrist ministers, who are beholden to the Iranian regime.

Tehran indicated its displeasure by activating its networks in Iraq to organize last week's demonstrations in Najaf.

Despite months of pressure from Tehran, Maliki has also refused to scrap the maritime-inspection mission of the Coalition forces under a mandate from the United Nations Security Council. (The 15 British sailors captured by Tehran last month were operating on that mission.)

Tehran wants the mission terminated for two reasons:

* First, it wants to impose total control on the Shatt al-Arab, a waterway between Iran and Iraq, thus violating the 1975 Algiers agreement that established the thalweg (the deepest channel in the river) as the frontier.

This would quickly translate to Iranian control of access to Iraq's 75-kilometer-long Persian Gulf coastline - turning the Iraqi ports of Basra, Um-Qasar, Al-Bakr and Fao into strategic hostages.

* Second, the Islamic Republic fears that the United Nations might, at some point, use the inspection mechanism against the Islamic Republic in the showdown over the nuclear issue. (Recent Security Council resolutions would allow the monitoring of Iranian naval traffic in the Gulf to continue from Iraqi bases even after the U.S.-led Coalition has left.)

The Maliki government has also made moves to reassert Iraqi sovereignty over chunks of the border with Iran that had become no-man's land or seized by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRCG).

Shortly after Saddam Hussein's fall, the IRCG captured the Zaynalkosh salient, some 700 square miles, and built a number of fortifications there. The Maliki government has refused to accept this open theft of Iraqi territory.

Tehran is also sore that the Maliki government has re-imposed visas for Iranians, making it more difficult to smuggle Khomeinist agents among thousands of pilgrims who travel to Iraq each day.

Worse still, the Maliki government has arrested, or acquiesced in the arrest of, almost a dozen senior IRGC officers, including two generals still held by the Americans in Baghdad.

The most important cause of Tehran's anger, however, is Maliki's strategic vision of Iraq's relations with the Western democracies.

The mullahs want Iraq to become a theater of historic humiliation for the West, especially the United States. They hope to see the Americans running away, not withdrawing in the context of an agreement with a friendly Iraqi government. They want the credit for chasing away the Americans to go to Tehran and its Iraqi allies, notably Muqtada al-Sadr.

Maliki, however, wants the U.S.-led coalition out of Iraq only when the new Iraq is capable of defending itself against its enemies, including the Khomeinist regime in Tehran. Beyond that, he wants to maintain a strategic partnership with the Western democracies in the interest of Iraq's economic development.

Both the mullahs and the Jack Murtha Democrats hate Maliki because he is working to prevent their respective dreams from coming true.

The mullahs dream of that "last U.S. helicopter" taking off from a Baghdad rooftop, spelling the end of American hopes of bringing decent government to Iraq.

The Murtha Democrats may not want a humiliating American defeat in Iraq but would like something that looks like one. Only perceived defeat in Iraq would give their party something with which to unite its base and make a bid for the White House next year.

It may be a coincidence. However, each time Democrats throw a poisonous arrow at Maliki, they are followed by mullahs doing the same the next day. Maybe Maliki is doing something right?

Iranian-born journalist and author Amir Taheri is based in Europe.

link to original article


http://www.nypost.com/seven/04162007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/irans_evil_game_opedcolumnists_peter_brookes.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



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

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 12:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I am not in any position to make a Judgment regarding Dr. Ledeen possible biased animosty towards the State Dept.


How many articles of his have you posted on site? If you, as I have, have noted that he virtually never fails to fault them, then you would have a rational basis for the judgement I have reached as well.

In fact, this particular article is a work of fiction. They would not have been released from US custody direct to the Iranians without first being handed over to the Iraqis, and then it would be an Iraqi decision to repatriate them. Again, their activities took place on soverign Iraqi terrotory. There is a legal protocol in place, one that Ledeen obviously niether understands, nor has any interest in for it totally invalidates the premis of his fiction that some kind of "deal" with the mullahs is afoot.

Time you stop letting Ledeen play you folks like puppets on strings.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 9:33 am    Post subject: 'Mullah's Quds Force Helped Kill 5 US Troops in Iraq' Reply with quote

For first time Dr. Rice told clearly to the Financial Times that the Bush administration was not looking for a regime change in Iran but to have a change in regime behavior.
Source: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/3f96545e-f0f9-11db-838b-000b5df10621,_i_rssPage=4e612cca-6707-11da-a650-0000779e2340.html

WAKE UP - the following is the Dr. Rice past 6 years bad policy outcome of change in regime behavior:

Quote:
'Mullah's Quds Force Helped Kill 5 US Troops in Iraq'

Source: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=81780
US General David Petraeus, head of the coalition forces in Iraq, accused Iran's secretive Quds Force Thursday of helping an armed network that killed five US soldiers in January in the Shiite shrine city of Kerbala. Petraeus acknowledged in Washington that a complex and "very tough" situation existed in Iraq, but also accused Iran's Quds Force of helping an Iraqi network to murder five US soldiers in Kerbala


cyrus wrote:
IRAN: 150,000 WOMEN DETAINED FOR BREAKING DRESS CODE

http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level_English.php?cat=Security&loid=8.0.408604684&par=0
Tehran, 26 April (AKI) - Some 150,000 women have been detained in Iran for violating strict new Islamic dress code rules, the country's top police officer has announced. "During the first four days [since the code came into effect] we have picked up 150,000 women who were not properly veiled, but many of them were released after they signed an admission of guilt and a formal apology," General Ismail Ahmadi Moghaddam told journalists. An unspecified number of the women taken into custody were also forced to undergo psychological counseling, Moghaddam said.


Quote:

The following video clip says it all about past 6 years failed Diplomacy with Rapist Mullahs by Dr. Rice and others …. :


Dr. Rice is begging from these small minority Taazi dummies for meeting ...
Ambassador Hakimi wrote:

یاران،

جامعه مسلمان هر چه خر تر برای آخوندان بهتر!
به لینک زیرنگاه کنید و بشنوید چگونه دارند مردم را خر میکنند تا بیش از پیش سوء استفاده کنند!
اگر مسلمانی این است که اینها نشان میدهند، دلیل رویگردانی مردم ما از مسلمانی همین گفتار و کردار های ابلهانه است!
اینها هنوز بر این تصورند که مردم ما در 1400 سال پیش زندگی میکنند؟

کجاست یک ارزن شعور؟

هاشم


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6940866201547866295&hl=en
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
espandyar



Joined: 15 Apr 2004
Posts: 236

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2007 8:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Oppie

With all due respect Cyrus did only point out some past behaviour of the US admin.How that is a looser attetude is beyond me.
He is not alone of realizing the failure of the Bush foregin policy, I too share his view.For the record the majority of Iranian opposition groups and activist no longer concider US the same way they did for 4 years ago.

You fail to highlight the most important factor that reveals the attitude of US admin, MORAL suport and FINANCIAL support!!!
as for moral we see how apeasment ( that is how we see it) is on he table and the financial support was never meant for the real opposition groups as they were not even concidered. This too is aligned with the not regime change purpose but rather change of behavior as the people who got the funds are in fact fractions of the regime.
The monetary isolation is also meant for change of behavior as without the moral and financial support to the opposition groups it cannot lean towards the regime change option but again change of behavior.

Regards
_________________
Marze Por Gohar Party
Iranians for a Secuar Republic
ttp://www.marzeporgohar.org/
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 ... 17, 18, 19 ... 25, 26, 27  Next
Page 18 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