|
[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.
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
cyrus Site Admin
Joined: 24 Jun 2003 Posts: 4993
|
Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2004 11:18 am Post subject: Wrong Again Dr. Z.! |
|
|
Dears,
Just few days ago I criticized Dr. Z. Brzezinski, & called him Mad Polish idiot, who happens to be Professor of a University?!
Now please read the attachment to find out how right I was with my views concerning the whole sham of the
So-called, Council on Foreign Relations of New York, and their “Task Force”.
Idiocy has no limit, even if it comes from a University Professor!? And that kind of University Professors you can find only in America!?
How these mad people could get to the rank of University Professorship, god alone knows?
Regards,
Hashem Hakimi
By: Bijan R. Kian
President
National Organization
Iranian American Republican Council
Former Director
State of California
Office of Foreign Investment
July 19th, 2004
Subject: Fw: Wrong Again Dr. Z.! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
redemption
Joined: 30 Dec 2003 Posts: 1158 Location: California
|
Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2004 3:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mr. Hakimi -
I know of many University professors who are extremely Anti-American and only care about their grants and their egos. It is not shocking to me that Brezenski is pushing this type of possible, it fits his mo perfectly.
Hakimi - you have a fun sense of humor, please post more.
-r _________________ IRANIANS UNITE
PERSIA LIVES ON!!
FREE IRAN NOW! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cyrus Site Admin
Joined: 24 Jun 2003 Posts: 4993
|
Posted: Sat Jul 31, 2004 12:59 pm Post subject: U.S. Needs New Way of Dealing with Iran |
|
|
Saturday, July 31, 2004
U.S. Needs New Way of Dealing with Iran
July 30, 2004
Newsday
Danielle Pletka
Source: http://iranvajahan.net/cgi-bin/news.pl?l=en&y=2004&m=07&d=31&a=3
Every few years, with regularity, a prominent research institution comes along to recommend that the United States re-engage with Iran.
The gist of such reports usually follows the same line: Isolation just isn't working; reformists (or sometimes they're called moderates or pragmatists) need Washington's help in the battle against hard-liners; the country is not (nor will it ever be) on the verge of a new revolution; and only relations with the United States will provide incentives for better behavior.
This month, it was the Council on Foreign Relations that sounded the call in a 79-page report from a task force chaired by former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski and former CIA Director Robert M. Gates.
Given the seriousness of the threat Iran poses, fresh ideas from the Council on Foreign Relations and elsewhere are, of course, welcome. Iran, after all, is Terror Central: It has become an operational headquarters for parts of al-Qaida, continues to sponsor Hezbollah and Hamas, and senior officials remain under indictment in U.S. courts for masterminding the 1996 bombing in Saudi Arabia of the Khobar Towers military housing complex, in which 19 Americans died.
According to U.S. and European officials, the regime also remains bent on acquiring nuclear weapons and is well down the road to doing so.
Clearly, U.S. policy in Iran has been a failure. Its problems have persisted notwithstanding four years of tough talk from the Bush administration, a continued embargo on U.S. investment and virtual diplomatic radio silence. It's time to try something new; on that much, we can agree with the pro-engagement groups.
But that's where our agreement ends. They insist, in the face of evidence to the contrary, that dialogue and trade would succeed where a hard line has failed. Yet dialogue and trade are the hallmarks of Europe's fruitless engagement of Iran. Neither European diplomatic outreach nor cordial trading relations have achieved results.
Carrot-and-stick offers, like a proffered "trade and cooperation agreement" in exchange for a stand-down on nuclear proliferation, have also failed. Engagement is a proven bust.
The fact is neither tough love nor tough talk will achieve results in Iran because decision-makers in the government are committed to supporting terrorism, developing nuclear weapons and annihilating Israel. Any opening from the United States will only lend credibility to that government and dash the hopes of a population that, according to reliable polls, despises its own leadership.
So what to do? President George W. Bush has taken the first step by making clear that the Iranian clerical regime is anathema to U.S. national security. But we're not likely to invade for a variety of practical reasons, among them a shortage of troops and an absence of targeting information about Iran's nuclear sites. Nor can we count on Iran's weary and miserable population to rise up unaided and overthrow its oppressors; virtually all analysts agree that's not about to happen. Instead, a new three-part policy is needed.
First, the administration must ante up promised support for the Iranian people. Just as we supported Soviet dissidents, we must use the tools at our disposal to embarrass the regime for its abysmal human-rights abuses, rally behind dissident student groups and unions and let them know that the United States supports their desire for a secular democratic state in Iran.
Second, the administration must persuade the European Union and the International Atomic Energy Agency to stand firm in their confrontation over Iran's nuclear program. Iran has made commitments to end the production and assembly of nuclear centrifuges. It has reneged on those promises, and the next step is for the IAEA to refer the matter to the UN Security Council. There is quiet talk of economic sanctions in European capitals; the EU must know that a failure to follow through would mean an Iranian nuclear weapon within a few years.
Finally, the United States must lead in the containment of Iran.
Iranian weapons imports and exports should be interdicted; financial transfers to terrorists must be identified and confiscated; terrorists traveling into and out of Iran should be aggressively pursued and eliminated.
We have seen that engagement with the current leadership of Iran would not achieve policy change; all it would do is buy an evil regime the time it needs to perfect its nuclear weapons and to build a network of terrorists to deliver them.
Danielle Pletka is vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. This is from the Los Angeles Times. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
eski
Joined: 20 Jun 2004 Posts: 157 Location: Washington State, U.S.A.
|
Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2004 4:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have contacted all of my legislators on this matter. Have you? Don't delay! Freedom and the chance at a peaceful Middle East are at stake.
The Carter Administration has done enough to screw things up over in Iran and we really don't want their help again. _________________ Liberalism is NOT a political philosophy.
It IS a MENTAL DISORDER! (Michael Savage)
Those who forget their history are condemned to repeat it. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
redemption
Joined: 30 Dec 2003 Posts: 1158 Location: California
|
Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2004 9:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
eski wrote: | I have contacted all of my legislators on this matter. Have you? Don't delay! Freedom and the chance at a peaceful Middle East are at stake.
The Carter Administration has done enough to screw things up over in Iran and we really don't want their help again. |
It kind of makes me sick though that it's actually Carter that we bash or gets a bad rap.. It is essentially/ and was essentially the people around carter that fucked everythign up - not carter himself.. _________________ IRANIANS UNITE
PERSIA LIVES ON!!
FREE IRAN NOW! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
blank
Joined: 26 Feb 2004 Posts: 1672
|
Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2004 4:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, but don't forget he was the one that made the final decision......... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
stefania
Joined: 17 Jul 2003 Posts: 4250 Location: Italy
|
Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2004 5:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
he was the main accountable for that--than there are the others. _________________ Referendum AFTER Regime Change
"I'm ready to die for you to be able to say your own opinions, even if i strongly disagree with you" (Voltaire) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|