![[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index](http://www.activistchat.com/images/ActivistChatStandsLogo.jpg) |
[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 |
ViaHHakimi
Joined: 22 Jul 2004 Posts: 142
|
Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 5:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mr. President,
We were saying & indicating the dilemma of Fundamentalism which is handy work of your precedesor, ex President Jimmy Carter & the clan, since 1979, with no avail.
Clean up your own administration from refusenics first!?
H.H.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush: Militants Seek to Intimidate World
By TOM RAUM, Associated Press Writer 28 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - President Bush accused Islamic militants on Thursday of seeking to "enslave whole nations and intimidate the world" and charged they have made Iraq their main front.
"The militants believe that controlling one country will rally the Muslim masses, enabling them to overthrow all moderate governments in the region and establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia," Bush said. The president has been stepping up his defense of his Iraq policy in the face of declining public support for the war and a crucial test in Iraq with the Oct. 15 constitutional referendum.
In a speech before the National Endowment for Democracy, Bush likened the ideology of Islamic militants to communism. And he said they are being "aided by elements of the Arab news media that incites hatred and anti-Semitism."
"Against such an enemy, there's only one effective response: We never back down, never give in and never accept anything less than complete victory," Bush declared.
He spoke as recent polls show declining American support for the war that has thus far claimed more than 1,940 members of the U.S. military. His Iraq policy faces a crucial test in Iraq's Oct. 15 referendum on a new constitution, a vote that Bush has said terrorists will try to derail.
"We are facing a radical ideology with immeasurable objectives to enslave whole nations and intimidate the world," Bush said.
Bush said the terrorists are aided by corrupt charities that direct money to terrorist activities and nations, such as
Iran, calling them "allies of convenience" that back terrorists.
Countering claims that the U.S. military presence in Iraq is fueling radicalism, Bush noted that American troops were not there on Sept. 11, 2001. He said Russia did not support the military action in Iraq, yet a terrorist attack in Beslan, Russia, left more than 300 schoolchildren dead in 2004.
"The terrorists regard Iraq as the central front in the war against humanity. And we must recognize Iraq as the central front in our war on terror," he said.
"Our commitment is clear — we will not relent until the organized international terror networks are exposed and broken and their leaders held to account for their acts of murder," Bush said.
The president said that no one should estimate the difficulties ahead, nor should anyone be pessimistic about U.S. efforts to battle terrorism.
"With every random bombing. And with every funeral of a child, it becomes more clear that the extremists are not patriots, or resistance fighters," Bush said. "They are murderers at war with the Iraqi people themselves."
Bush also took on war critics in the United States.
"There's always a temptation in the middle of a long struggle to seek the quiet life, to escape the duties and problems of the world and to hope the enemy grows weary of fanaticism and tired of murder," he said.
But Bush vowed to not to retreat from Iraq or from the broader war on terrorism. "We will keep our nerve and we will win that victory," he said. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
Oppenheimer
Joined: 03 Mar 2005 Posts: 1166 Location: SantaFe, New Mexico
|
Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Daily Press Briefing
Sean McCormack, Spokesman
Washington, DC
October 6, 2005
(excerpt)
Okay. Barry Schweid.
QUESTION: The White House touched on it briefly but really wasn't ready for a
full answer, and maybe in the hours since there's more here. There are reports
in Britain involving the Prime Minister that Iran and Hezbollah are responsible
for a lot of terrorism activity in Iraq, new accusations. The thinking here, I
thought, was that Syria, while not exclusively the facilitator, was the number
one channel for these fighters to get into Iraq. Do you have anything on what
has been coming out of London? It's a --
MR. MCCORMACK: There are a bunch of questions in that one question. Let me take
the immediate one concerning press reports. There have been numerous press
reports out of London concerning the idea that Iran via some intermediary,
potentially Hezbollah, supplied material, know-how for IEDs that in one case
resulted in the deaths of British soldiers.
Prime Minister Blair has answered questions about this. He has, I think, given
as complete a readout of the state of the British investigation of the
particular matter of the deaths of the eight British soldiers and who might
have been responsible and who might have supplied the materials as well as the
know-how. He did mention that there were real concerns regarding Iran and
potentially Hezbollah. So I leave it to his remarks for a description of
exactly what connection, if any, there is between the deaths of the British
soldiers and Iran and Hezbollah.
For our part, certainly we share those concerns. We stand with the British
Government as they investigate this matter. We have over time talked about the
importance of Iraq's neighbors playing a positive role in Iraq's development
along the pathway to greater stability, prosperity and democracy. We have urged
Iraq's neighbors to play that role in a transparent way with respect for Iraq's
sovereignty. There have been some concerns about Iranian attempts to exert
various influences in Iraq. We have spoken out about those.
You mentioned Syria. Our military commanders on the ground have expressed
serious concern about Syria and infiltration of foreign fighters across the
Syrian border. That remains a very serious concern for us. We have spoken out
repeatedly against -- about that. Certainly, there are some concerns about Iran
and I think the Iraqis are dealing with the Iranians and urging them to
establish a transparent relationship with the Iraqi Government that is based on
mutual respect.
QUESTION: I mean, you've spoken out pretty specifically about what you believe
Syria is or is not doing in terms of allowing insurgents to cross the borders.
Do you believe -- regardless of whether they were involved -- the Iranians were
involved in this particular incident with the British soldiers, do you believe
that Iran is arming the insurgency?
MR. MCCORMACK: What I would say is we have previously expressed some concerns
about Iran's activities in trying to exert influence in Iraq in a variety of
different manners, and beyond that I'm just not going to -- I'm not going to go
any further.
Yes, sir.
QUESTION: A question on Iran. Today, there was an article in The Wall Street
Journal about the high-level meeting at the White House on deciding how to deal
with the Iranian Government. Your reaction to it, please?
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I will say that there is no change in our policy with
respect to Iran. I think that over the past, if anything, over the past weeks
and months you have seen an even tougher-minded U.S. policy as well as a
tougher-minded policy from the international community with respect to Iran's
behavior. So we -- this is a regime that is seeking nuclear weapons, that
supports terrorism and that oppresses its people. So -- and I think that what
we are seeing from the Iranian regime now in these past several weeks, and most
especially when you take a look at President Ahmadi-Nejad's recent speech at
the UN, you see this regime kind of revealing its true face and, you know,
continuing its defiance of the international community. So there is no change
in U.S. policy.
QUESTION: What about the idea of opening up an Interests Section in Tehran, as
it was said in the article?
MR. MCCORMACK: Again, Secretary Rice, senior policymakers in the U.S.
Government, are not broadening U.S. diplomatic engagement with Iran. There are
already existing diplomatic channels that are long established and well known.
We have an Interests Section in Tehran in which the Swiss Embassy represents
our interests. They have an Interests Section here in Washington and there is
representation at the UN.
So, again, let me be very clear that Secretary Rice and senior policymakers in
this government are not broadening diplomatic engagement with Iran. There are
those existing diplomatic channels. If we have a need to convey information
through a diplomatic channel, we already have channels at our disposal.
QUESTION: Just a quick follow-up. Is there any difficulty in getting your
message to Iran that you know of? Is there any need for normal diplomatic
contact -- what you'd have normally with a normal country?
MR. MCCORMACK: I think that, again, we have these diplomatic channels. As I
said, senior policymakers aren't looking -- are not broadening those diplomatic
channels. So if we need to get a message across, there are numerous ways to do
that. I've outlined some of those. We can also do them in public.
Yes.
QUESTION: A quick follow-up, can you comment on the specific line in The Wall
Street Journal article that says the State Department is circulating a document
that proposes expanding the contacts and it's considering a list of incentives,
that there's actually this document being circulated, even if there is no
policy change yet?
MR. MCCORMACK: What I would say is that Secretary Rice, senior policymakers are
not contemplating any new incentives, any incentives for Iran to change its
behavior. Iran, through its own actions, has isolated itself and I think it is
now up to Iran to demonstrate that it wants to reverse the course that it is
currently on, and that is a course of greater isolation from the international
community.
-------------end excerpt-----------
Dear Cyrus,
This should negate any negative assumptions generated by the Wall Street Journal article....
The discussion that is underway is I believe much in the Iranian people's favor...
"Many ActivistChat members in this forum believe that the “War On Terror” is UNWINNABLE and the world peace can not be achieved as long as the Unelected Islamists Terror and Torture Masters are in power in Iran. The terror state and fear society can not create stability.
Our question might be, is President Bush sharing the same view as ActivistChat members or not, what are the key differences if any?"
Cyrus, I believe the answer to that is self-evident in the afirmative.
Even the Brits have woken up to the fact.
"and what is the US policy and strategy to change illegitimate, corrupt , and unpopular Islamist regime in Iran in near future? Past 27 years has proven that the Iranian people by themselves can not change the brutal Islamist regime."
In the speech preview by the whitehouse spokesman yesterday, he described it as an "educational" speech to the American public...to help define the parameters in the war on terrorism.
This was obviously not a "policy" speech per se...though its foundations rest on the National Security Posture of the United States, which I posted here.
The practical "how to get there from here" discussion at top levels are ongoing, both at a national and international level.
One thing you can rest easy about is that the testimony and ideas of solution offered by various members of the opposition have gone to the highest levels of the US gov, and that they are factored into those discussions. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
Oppenheimer
Joined: 03 Mar 2005 Posts: 1166 Location: SantaFe, New Mexico
|
Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 6:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Source:
http://www.number-10.gov.uk/
Tony Blair:
Good Afternoon everyone. First of all can I extend a very warm welcome to President Talabani here in Downing Street. We were just saying that the first time we met together here was actually in December 2002.
Jalal Talabani:
I asked you to come back.
Tony Blair:
You asked us to come back, and we did. And I just want to say a few words before asking the President to say a few words, and then take some questions.
Saddam Hussein was removed from power over two years ago now. For the last two years in Iraq there has been a process that has been supervised by the United Nations, with full international and UN support, to try to ensure that after the removal of Saddam and the brutal dictatorship that he represented, that the Iraqi people could have a proper functioning democracy in which people of all religious faiths, and all different ethnic backgrounds, could come together in a new dispensation for Iraq.
Since that time, it has obviously been extremely difficult because of the security situation, but it is important that we understand what is the problem that is being caused. The problem that is being caused is that some people don't want that democratic process to succeed, they don't want the will of the Iraqi people to determine the future of Iraq, they want it to be determined either by outside influences, by global terrorism, by various militias and armed groups. And I think whatever people, and obviously this is a matter of future controversy, felt about the decision to remove Saddam, in these past two years there really has been only one side to be on, and that is the side of the Iraqi people, 8.5 million of whom voted in the January elections and who now want to be able to participate in the December elections and decide their future, as I said at my Party Conference speech, in the same way that we do here.
And to those people who believe that somehow democracy is something that is a western construct that can't be applied in the Middle East or different parts of the world, it is worth just remembering that in those January elections, in their millions people came out to say no actually we want this too. They did it in Afghanistan a few weeks ago, and that is why I think it is so important that we stay the course and see this through, to help the Iraqi people get the democracy they so self-evidently want, and to say their will and the democratic will of the people should determine the future of Iraq, not acts of terrorism or people in armed gangs trying to wreck the stability of the country.
Now of course the very purpose of that terrorism is to create division, we know this, this is the purpose of terrorism everywhere and in Iraq it is very particular, it is to put Sunnis against Shias, it is to make people think that there is no future in a stable Iraq, that people should just go back to the old way of doing things because the future is so bleak. And we have got to have the confidence and the ultimate optimism that says no we are not going to allow the human spirit to be suppressed in this way, and its desire for freedom, we are going to allow people the same democratic rights in Iraq that we take for granted here.
So this is what this is now about, and we are partners for the new Iraq in trying to achieve this change. All of us know that we have to build up the capability of the Iraqi forces, which we are trying to do, and all of us know also that the purpose of the multinational force, with as I say the support of the United Nations, the purpose of it is to remain in order to achieve that, not in order to be there for strategic interests, or any of this stuff about occupation or any of the rest of it, that is not what it is about at all, what it is about is making sure that we remain until the Iraqi forces are capable of securing their own country and so that Iraq is then capable of becoming a proper functioning and sovereign democracy, as it should be.
Now that is where I think democrats everywhere, whether in Iraq or in this country, have a common cause and we intend to stay with you for as long as you need us, for as long as you want us, to see that cause through.
Thank you Mr President and welcome to you and your colleagues.
Jalal Talabani:
Thank you Mr Prime Minister. It is a great honour for me to stand here and represent the youngest democracy in the world. I came here to tell Prime Minister Blair thank you, thank you for liberating us from dictatorship, and thank you for helping us build our democracy, a new Iraq. With the help of our allies, the people of Iraq are now free, they are enjoying all kinds of democratic rights. We are - Iraqis - building a democracy from the ruin of a country shattered by a brutal dictatorship. Saddam's Iraq was a concentration camp above ground and a mass grave beneath it.
Your sons and daughters freed us from that nightmare. The people of Iraq will always be grateful for the leadership you showed, Mr Prime Minister, and for the courage and dignity of your troops. We will never forget it, we will never forget it.
Today's Iraq is being built on dialogue, compromise and equality. It will be based on inclusion, not exclusion. Next week, for the first time in the history of Iraq, my fellow citizens will vote on a draft constitution. It contains many values that Iraqis have fought and sacrificed for it, it lays a new foundation for their country, a foundation based on the values of democracy and freedom.
On this issue, Iraqis defied the terrorists and the suicide bombers and elected for the first time in free elections, an elected parliament. That election was a milestone in the history of Iraq and in the history of the Middle East. Next week's referendum will be another one. Our efforts and your democracy are under attack by the same fanatics who celebrated the crimes of September 11 and London on July 7. They are the same murderers who killed 89 Iraqi Muslims yesterday as they prayed on the first day of Ramadan. Those who think that terrorism in Iraq is a result of the multinational presence there are wrong. The terrorist activities started before, even in this country and the United States. The supporters of Saddam Hussein and the foreign terrorists of al Queda cannot stand the idea of democracy in the heart of the Middle East, that is why the continued presence of British and American troops is absolutely vital for us.
Here I say thank you to the people of Great Britain and those who have family and friends serving in Iraq. Thank you for their courage, thank you for your fortitude. Your commitment to the cause of democracy in Iraq, your help in training our security forces, will help us stand on our feet and run our own country. To those who are calling for a pull-out of the troops from Iraq, I say we too want to see an end to the presence of the multinational force, but the actions of the terrorists are keeping them there. An early pull-out would be a catastrophe for the people of Iraq and for the cause of democracy and it will be a win for terrorism. We say we will set no timetable for the withdrawal of the troops, a timetable will only help the terrorists to think they can defeat us and impose their will on us and on you. Neither you in the free and democratic world, nor we in Iraq, can afford to abandon the cause of democracy and hand Iraq to the terrorists.
Mr Prime Minister, with your help we will never allow Iraq to become a new haven for al Queda, or a source of instability for the region and for the world.
Thank you.
Question and answer sessionQuestion:
Prime Minister, some very serious allegations have been made, implicating Iran, but they were made behind closed doors and were made anonymously. Are you prepared to publicly back those accusations, implicating Iran in the murder of British soldiers? And to you Mr President, the same question really, do you believe Iran is implicated in the murder of British troops and if so why, why are they doing this?
Tony Blair:
First of all let me just dispose of one part of one conspiracy theory. There is nothing premeditated about this. There has been, and I will tell you exactly what I know about this situation because at some point in time we were going to have to have this discussion, we might as well have it now. But let me just tell you exactly what I know. What is clear is that there have been new explosive devices used, not just against British troops but elsewhere in Iraq. The particular nature of those devices lead us either to Iranian elements or to Hezbollah, because they are similar to the devices used by Hezbollah that is funded and supported by Iran. However we cannot be sure of this at the present time. But I want to make it very, very clear, and this has been made clear to the Iranian government and I will make it clear again, the British forces are in Iraq under a United Nations mandate today. We are there with the support of the United Nations-backed Iraqi government.
There is no justification for Iran or any other country interfering in Iraq, neither will we be subject to any intimidation in raising the necessary and right issues to do with the nuclear weapons obligations of Iran under the Atomic Energy Agency Treaty. So I am telling you exactly what I know, there are issues there, it is a discussion that has been going on for the past few months because of our concern at the situation, we cannot be sure, I am just telling you what we know. What we know is that the devices are of a similar nature to those used by Hezbollah and there are certain pieces of information that lead us back to Iran, but I am not saying any more than that, we cannot be sure of this, but I hope you have got from what I have said a very clear message on this.
Jalal Talabani:
We are very much concerned and worried about the news we have about the device which was discovered. And ... talked to some Iranian brothers, they denied it, they say we are not doing anything against Iraqi people or against multinational forces because we want to see Iraq stable and we are not ready to bring our differences with the United States to inside Iraq. We will go into more investigations to know what is the real source of the terrorist actions which were against the British forces in the south.
Question:
Mr President, I wanted to ask you about the referendum coming up in Iraq. Violence is escalating in Iraq, how will the constitution help to deter this violence? And also we have seen some divisions about the drafting of the constitution, how can it help to unite the Iraqi people at this time?
Jalal Talabani:
Well the constitution is drafted by a committee representing the Iraqi National Assembly and some friends outside the National Assembly. We try to get the universal support for this constitution and gather all the Iraqis around it. Unfortunately we are not able to convince everyone, and I think in a democratic society it is impossible to convince everyone. Now the referendum will decide the future of the constitution. I hope it will be adopted, accepted by the majority of the Iraqi people. As to the violence, I think the violence in Iraq is not going to be increased, on the contrary it is going to decrease. Only the car bombs are going on, now many areas that were under the control of terrorists, they are ... from them, they have no control now on any Iraqi towns. The last town was Talafa, which was easily liberated from the terrorists. The terrorists now are using the suicide and car bombs against the people, but the big majority of Iraqis are determined and decided to participate, even those who are against the draft of the constitution, they are going to participate in the elections but say no in the election. As terrorists could not prevent us from participating in the January election, when more than 8.5 million Iraqis voted for the new National Assembly, I think they will fail to prevent Iraqis to participate in the referendum for the constitution.
Question:
I hear what you say about what you say about the Iranians being premeditated, but inevitably the American rhetoric on Iran has been much harder than the British and much more public in the past. Inevitably there are going to be those who say you have been leant on by the White House.
Tony Blair:
Leant on by the White House, how do you mean?
Question:
Well that the Americans would like you to speak in a much more bellicose way about the Iranians, the same as they have.
Tony Blair:
I don't think that is true at all actually. You know the European negotiation with Iran over the nuclear weapons capability has been strongly supported by America. Look, I am just being open with you. What has happened is there has been a discussion over this, because obviously we have been checking what devices are being used against British forces, and because of the particular nature of this there are links back to Iran, we can't be sure of it, but obviously I have been concerned about this myself for some time, but we want to be sure. But what people have got to know is that is has nothing to do with anyone else, it is to do with the British interest, what Iran has got to know is that this is a UN-backed mission in Iraq now. British troops, American troops, the multinational force are there with the support of the United Nations and the support of the first Iraqi government to come out of democratic elections.
Now that is the case and therefore there is no justification for any country, Iran or any other country in the region, interfering or encouraging terrorism against our forces there. And if it is also the case that they are trying to make some point about the negotiation over the nuclear weapons issue in respect of Iran, as I said earlier, we are not going to be intimidated on that. Now as the President rightly said, the Iranians deny all this completely, as you know, I think they have been out denying it today. Obviously we will continue our investigation on it. But as I said to you, I don't think it is harmful in a sense for this issue to be discussed now, but I have to say to you that I don't think anybody knew it was going to be raised in this way. Having said that, as I say, there is no particular harm in having the discussion.
Question:
I have a question for you Prime Minister. Putting aside the allegation that Iran is behind the attacks on British troops in southern Iraq, how implicated politically speaking Iran is in Iraq, bearing in mind what the Saudi Foreign Minister said about this.
Tony Blair:
Remind me of that again.
Question:
He just said that Iran is very heavily implicated in Iraq and they should stop doing so. A question for you Mr President ...(not interpreted)
Tony Blair:
Who is going to give me the translation on that one?
Jalal Talabani:
He is asking about the differences between me and the Prime Minister of Iraq is now solved or not.
Tony Blair:
That seems to me a question that indicates that Iraq is becoming a thriving democracy, when those kinds of questions are put.
I will tell you exactly what I think about the situation in Iraq, and I think this is the important thing that is not clearly understood yet enough in countries like our own, in the rest of Europe, possibly even in the United States. Look, I have just been saying this to our Iraqi colleagues, for all sorts of reasons Iraq is the testing ground in many ways for the future of the whole of the Middle East. What the Iraqi people want is a democracy. The United Nations has said they should have a democracy. Now who wants to stop them having a democracy? These foreign Jihadists do of course, with their extremism and their perversion of the true doctrine of Islam, they don't want a democracy in Iraq, they didn't want one in Afghanistan, they don't want one in Iraq, they don't want one anywhere.
The former Saddam elements, they don't want a democracy either because that doesn't suit them. Also some other countries next door to Iraq, maybe they worry for their own people, what is it going to be like if you have a free Iraq that decides its future by free votes, that is run by the rule of law, that has a free press and a proper system of deciding decisions according to the will of the people. So I think for all sorts of reasons there is every element that is anti-democratic in the Middle East that wants to stop this country getting on its feet. Now what I say to our own people here, and to others in Europe, and America and elsewhere is that is the very point in time when we are being tested when we stand up and are counted, we don't let these people down at this point, we finish the job, we see it through. Why? Because when they get their democracy, that will be a blow against this global terrorism and these anti-democratic elements everywhere, not just in Iraq.
Now maybe for the Iraqi people it is tough that this is the case that this is what has happened, but that is the way it is, and it is not us that are creating this situation. Look, the President said this a moment or two ago and he is absolutely right, the fact is the idea that these terrorists and insurgents are fighting the presence of the multinational force, their terrorism is the reason why the multinational force has to stay, until the Iraqi forces are capable of handling their own security, which we are building up the whole time. So we have got to, at every single level, expose these elements that are trying to destroy a new Iraq getting on its feet and realise this is a battle now for the future of Iraq, for the future of the region, and I actually believe for the future security of the world. So it is important.
Now as I say I am not going to say any more about the Iranian situation than I have said already, and again I would just emphasise to you what happened yesterday I think is perfectly understandable because people feel very strongly about this, who are living their lives in Iraq and are worried about security there. There is nothing premeditated about raising it, but this is the fact, this is what we are up against. And my point is that when you are up against these types of forces that are trying to impose their will, against the will of the Iraqi people, we don't fold up and go away, we don't run away from that situation, we stand up to it and do so as long as the Iraqi people and the Iraqi government want us to. And they are the people in the end who will say look, this is the moment now, we can handle our own security, you can leave, and then we do because there will be the sovereign government, they are now, after the December elections if everything goes through and it works out right, there will be a sovereign democratically elected government in Iraq for the first time. What possible justification is there for anyone, outside or inside Iraq, interfering with that process. And then we are there serving in that situation, they tell us what to do and when to go, and if they tell us to go, we go. If they want us to stay to help the last elements of the build-up of the Iraqi forces be put in place, then we stay for that purpose. But that is why this is a common battle, the international community is one battle. We were divided over the original decision to remove Saddam, that is true, that is history, but the future is one in which we shouldn't be divided, we should be on the same side.
Jalal Talabani:
Thank you Mr Prime Minister, if you permit me to comment on this question also.
Tony Blair:
Yes, you had better ...
Jalal Talabani:
The presence of multinational forces in Iraq is not occupation. We have many examples in the world, you see American forces in Germany, in Japan, in many countries, it is not occupation. The presence of the multinational forces, according to the decision of the United Nations and according to the will, and desire, and demand of Iraqi people, with your permission I will repeat when we met here years ago, I came and told him that when I was still in college I participated in many demonstrations asking the British to go back, to go back home, and now I am coming to ask you please come back, and come back to rescue us from the worst kind of dictatorship, and they did it, but they did it very well. But to finalise success, to build a democratic federal united independent strong Iraq, we still need them, and then we will be able ... celebrate your departure, but now we are in need of you to stay there in Iraq until we will finish the terrorist crimes against our people.
Full translation to come
Tony Blair:
We didn't get the translation, but I assume what you were saying was that it was all a nasty rumour got up by the media, that is what we always say in these circumstances and occasionally it is true. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
Oppenheimer
Joined: 03 Mar 2005 Posts: 1166 Location: SantaFe, New Mexico
|
Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 11:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Iraq speaker blames Iran for murders of Shiite clerics: report Wed. 5 Oct 2005
AFP
KUWAIT CITY - Iraqi parliament speaker Hajim al-Hasani has accused Iran of being behind the assassination of two top Shiite Muslim clerics in Iraq in 2003, a Kuwaiti newspaper reported.
"Baghdad has conclusive evidence of Iran's involvement in the assassination of Ayatollah Mohammed Baqer al-Hakim and Abdul Majid al-Khoie," he was quoted as saying by Islamist sources, Al-Anbaa said in its Thursday edition.
The accusation came during a meeting between Hasani, a Sunni Muslim, who left Kuwait on Wednesday after a four-day visit, and a number of Kuwaiti Islamist MPs, the daily said.
"Hasani told the MPs that Iran saw that Hakim and Khoie did not serve its future interests in Iraq ... because of their firm position on Iraq being an Arab country," the paper quoted the sources as saying.
Hakim, former leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), was killed in a massive car bombing in late August 2003 in the Shiite holy city of Najaf that cost more than 80 lives.
Khoei, a moderate who had cooperated with the British and US governments while in exile, was stabbed to death in April 2003 in Najaf, another Shiite holy city.
An Islamist MP who attended the meeting confirmed the Al-Anbaa report to AFP.
During the meeting, Hasani also charged that Iran was behind a number of bombings in Iraq aimed at escalating tension in the war-ravaged country, the paper said. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
cyrus Site Admin
![](http://www.activistchat.com/WTC/images/icyruswithclynder.gif)
Joined: 24 Jun 2003 Posts: 4993
|
Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 2:16 pm Post subject: Bush Ups Ante For Iran, Syria in Terror War |
|
|
Bush Ups Ante For Iran, Syria in Terror War
By MEGHAN CLYNE - Staff Reporter of The Sun
October 7, 2005
WASHINGTON - President Bush yesterday condemned Syria and Iran for collaborating with terrorists, warning that the regimes "deserve no patience from the victims of terror."
Mr. Bush delivered his comments as part of a broad address that made the case for remaining firm in the war on terror, particularly in Iraq. He also defined the nature of the enemy America faces and outlined his strategy for defeating it.
The president disclosed that America and its allies have disrupted at least 10 Al Qaeda terrorist plots since September 11, 2001, including three attacks planned for inside America. "We've stopped at least five more Al Qaeda efforts to case targets in the United States, or infiltrate operatives into our country," he said.
And Mr. Bush lashed out at "elements of the Arab news media that incite hatred and anti-Semitism, that feed conspiracy theories and speak of a so-called American 'war on Islam' - with seldom a word about American action to protect Muslims in Afghanistan, and Bosnia, Somalia, Kosovo, Kuwait, and Iraq."
Speaking at the Ronald Reagan Building and addressing the National Endowment for Democracy - an institution established under President Reagan, and instrumental in supporting dissident movements that helped bring an end to the Soviet empire - Mr. Bush also framed the battle against radical Islam as heir to America's historic struggles against other murderous ideologies, particularly communism. He compared terrorists like Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to their dictatorial predecessors, citing Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot.
Mr. Bush expressed confidence, however, that Marxism's fate would also be the terrorists'. "Islamic radicalism, like the ideology of communism, contains inherent contradictions that doom it to failure," he said in his remarks, attended by Secretaries Rice and Rumsfeld and the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace.
Less than two weeks before liberated Iraqis vote on a new constitution, Mr. Bush also reminded Americans that "the terrorists regard Iraq as the central front in their war against humanity."
Public-opinion polls have indicated flagging support for the war effort, and recent months have brought increased protests, including a large anti-war demonstration here late last month.
Mr. Bush, however, appeared unfazed yesterday, saying those who believe America would be made safer by "cutting our losses and leaving Iraq now" cling to "a dangerous illusion" and suffer from a "self-defeating pessimism."
Looking ahead, President Bush singled out Syria and Iran, labeling them "allies of convenience" with radical Islam, and calling them "enemies of civilization" that "use terrorist propaganda to blame their own failures on the West and America, and on the Jews."
President Bush also stressed how much the ultimate victory over radical Islam would depend on the popular thirst for freedom in the Middle East, praising the work of Afghans and Iraqis in providing military security for their countries alongside American troops, and encouraging democratic reform in Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
"We're standing with dissidents and exiles against oppressive regimes," Mr. Bush said, "because we know that the dissidents of today will be the democratic leaders of tomorrow."
The president of the Reform Party of Syria, Farid Ghadry, said it was "wonderful" that Mr. Bush singled out Syria as a sponsor of terrorism and expressed his support for dissidents trying to bring about democracy there and throughout the Muslim world.
"President Bush is on the right side of history," Mr. Ghadry, reached yesterday in Washington, said. "We moderate Muslims suffer as much from extreme Islam as anyone else, except we suffer more because we know our religion is a peaceful religion."
President Bush also urged those who carry the banner of mainstream Islam not to allow fundamentalists to pervert it to justify violence. "The time has come for all responsible Islamic leaders to join in denouncing an ideology that exploits Islam for political ends, and defiles a noble faith," he said.
As Mr. Bush explained America's support for the worldwide spread of freedom, opponents wasted little time in dismissing his remarks.
Senator Kennedy, a Democrat of Massachusetts, issued a statement less than an hour after the president's speech in which he labeled the remarks "foolish."
"It is abundantly clear that staying the course is the wrong course for America," Mr. Kennedy said, also faulting the president for speaking publicly about foiled Al Qaeda plots. "Such statements," he added, "can only goad Al Qaeda into trying harder."
A New York-based Iranian activist, Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi, said yesterday that the president's speech "gives people hope."
The issues involved in bringing moderation and secularism to Iran, Ms. Zand-Bonazzi said, "must transcend the American anti-Bush clamor."
"The masses in the Middle East seeking democracy and secularism find that this stance of the president, this language, and his constant hammering away at the issue is beyond helpful - it's completely correct," Ms. Zand-Bonazzi said.
Mr. Ghadry added that President Bush's remarks were important in that they provided vital moral support to those in the Middle East who want to bring about reform.
"This kind of call will encourage them," he said of the president's speech. "I commend him for that."
Oppenheimer wrote: | President Discusses War on Terror at National Endowment for Democracy
Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center
Washington, D.C.
10:07 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. (Applause.) Thank you all. Please be seated. (Applause.) Thank you for the warm welcome. I'm honored once again to be with the supporters of the National Endowment for Democracy. Since the day President Ronald Reagan set out the vision for this Endowment, the world has seen the swiftest advance of democratic institutions in history. And Americans are proud to have played our role in this great story.
Our nation stood guard on tense borders; we spoke for the rights of dissidents and the hopes of exile; we aided the rise of new democracies on the ruins of tyranny. And all the cost and sacrifice of that struggle has been worth it, because, from Latin America to Europe to Asia, we've gained the peace that freedom brings.
In this new century, freedom is once again assaulted by enemies determined to roll back generations of democratic progress. Once again, we're responding to a global campaign of fear with a global campaign of freedom. And once again, we will see freedom's victory. (Applause.)
Vin, I want to thank you for inviting me back. And thank you for the short introduction. (Laughter.) I appreciate Carl Gershman. I want to welcome former Congressman Dick Gephardt, who is a board member of the National Endowment for Democracy. It's good to see you, Dick. And I appreciate Chris Cox, who is the Chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and a board member for the National Endowment of Democracy, for being here, as well. I want to thank all the other board members.
I appreciate the Secretary of State, Condi Rice, who has joined us -- alongside her, Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld. Thank you all for being here. I'm proud, as well, that the newly sworn-in Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the first Marine ever to hold that position, is with us today -- General Peter Pace. (Applause.) I thank the members of the Diplomatic Corps who are here, as well.
Recently our country observed the fourth anniversary of a great evil, and looked back on a great turning point in our history. We still remember a proud city covered in smoke and ashes, a fire across the Potomac, and passengers who spent their final moments on Earth fighting the enemy. We still remember the men who rejoiced in every death, and Americans in uniform rising to duty. And we remember the calling that came to us on that day, and continues to this hour: We will confront this mortal danger to all humanity. We will not tire, or rest, until the war on terror is won. (Applause.)
The images and experience of September the 11th are unique for Americans. Yet the evil of that morning has reappeared on other days, in other places -- in Mombasa, and Casablanca, and Riyadh, and Jakarta, and Istanbul, and Madrid, and Beslan, and Taba, and Netanya, and Baghdad, and elsewhere. In the past few months, we've seen a new terror offensive with attacks on London, and Sharm el-Sheikh, and a deadly bombing in Bali once again. All these separate images of destruction and suffering that we see on the news can seem like random and isolated acts of madness; innocent men and women and children have died simply because they boarded the wrong train, or worked in the wrong building, or checked into the wrong hotel. Yet while the killers choose their victims indiscriminately, their attacks serve a clear and focused ideology, a set of beliefs and goals that are evil, but not insane.
Some call this evil Islamic radicalism; others, militant Jihadism; still others, Islamo-fascism. Whatever it's called, this ideology is very different from the religion of Islam. This form of radicalism exploits Islam to serve a violent, political vision: the establishment, by terrorism and subversion and insurgency, of a totalitarian empire that denies all political and religious freedom. These extremists distort the idea of jihad into a call for terrorist murder against Christians and Jews and Hindus -- and also against Muslims from other traditions, who they regard as heretics.
Many militants are part of global, borderless terrorist organizations like al Qaeda, which spreads propaganda, and provides financing and technical assistance to local extremists, and conducts dramatic and brutal operations like September the 11th. Other militants are found in regional groups, often associated with al Qaeda -- paramilitary insurgencies and separatist movements in places like Somalia, and the Philippines, and Pakistan, and Chechnya, and Kashmir, and Algeria. Still others spring up in local cells, inspired by Islamic radicalism, but not centrally directed. Islamic radicalism is more like a loose network with many branches than an army under a single command. Yet these operatives, fighting on scattered battlefields, share a similar ideology and vision for our world.
We know the vision of the radicals because they've openly stated it -- in videos, and audiotapes, and letters, and declarations, and websites. First, these extremists want to end American and Western influence in the broader Middle East, because we stand for democracy and peace, and stand in the way of their ambitions. Al Qaeda's leader, Osama bin Laden, has called on Muslims to dedicate, quote, their "resources, sons and money to driving the infidels out of their lands." Their tactic to meet this goal has been consistent for a quarter-century: They hit us, and expect us to run. They want us to repeat the sad history of Beirut in 1983, and Mogadishu in 1993 -- only this time on a larger scale, with greater consequences.
Second, the militant network wants to use the vacuum created by an American retreat to gain control of a country, a base from which to launch attacks and conduct their war against non-radical Muslim governments. Over the past few decades, radicals have specifically targeted Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, and Jordan for potential takeover. They achieved their goal, for a time, in Afghanistan. Now they've set their sights on Iraq. Bin Laden has stated: "The whole world is watching this war and the two adversaries. It's either victory and glory, or misery and humiliation." The terrorists regard Iraq as the central front in their war against humanity. And we must recognize Iraq as the central front in our war on terror.
Third, the militants believe that controlling one country will rally the Muslim masses, enabling them to overthrow all moderate governments in the region, and establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia. With greater economic and military and political power, the terrorists would be able to advance their stated agenda: to develop weapons of mass destruction, to destroy Israel, to intimidate Europe, to assault the American people, and to blackmail our government into isolation.
Some might be tempted to dismiss these goals as fanatical or extreme. Well, they are fanatical and extreme -- and they should not be dismissed. Our enemy is utterly committed. As Zarqawi has vowed, "We will either achieve victory over the human race or we will pass to the eternal life." And the civilized world knows very well that other fanatics in history, from Hitler to Stalin to Pol Pot, consumed whole nations in war and genocide before leaving the stage of history. Evil men, obsessed with ambition and unburdened by conscience, must be taken very seriously -- and we must stop them before their crimes can multiply.
Defeating the militant network is difficult, because it thrives, like a parasite, on the suffering and frustration of others. The radicals exploit local conflicts to build a culture of victimization, in which someone else is always to blame and violence is always the solution. They exploit resentful and disillusioned young men and women, recruiting them through radical mosques as the pawns of terror. And they exploit modern technology to multiply their destructive power. Instead of attending faraway training camps, recruits can now access online training libraries to learn how to build a roadside bomb, or fire a rocket-propelled grenade -- and this further spreads the threat of violence, even within peaceful democratic societies.
The influence of Islamic radicalism is also magnified by helpers and enablers. They have been sheltered by authoritarian regimes, allies of convenience like Syria and Iran, that share the goal of hurting America and moderate Muslim governments, and use terrorist propaganda to blame their own failures on the West and America, and on the Jews. These radicals depend on front operations, such as corrupted charities, which direct money to terrorist activity. They're strengthened by those who aggressively fund the spread of radical, intolerant versions of Islam in unstable parts of the world. The militants are aided, as well, by elements of the Arab news media that incite hatred and anti-Semitism, that feed conspiracy theories and speak of a so-called American "war on Islam" -- with seldom a word about American action to protect Muslims in Afghanistan, and Bosnia, Somalia, Kosovo, Kuwait, and Iraq.
Some have also argued that extremism has been strengthened by the actions of our coalition in Iraq, claiming that our presence in that country has somehow caused or triggered the rage of radicals. I would remind them that we were not in Iraq on September the 11th, 2001 -- and al Qaeda attacked us anyway. The hatred of the radicals existed before Iraq was an issue, and it will exist after Iraq is no longer an excuse. The government of Russia did not support Operation Iraqi Freedom, and yet the militants killed more than 180 Russian schoolchildren in Beslan.
Over the years these extremists have used a litany of excuses for violence -- the Israeli presence on the West Bank, or the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia, or the defeat of the Taliban, or the Crusades of a thousand years ago. In fact, we're not facing a set of grievances that can be soothed and addressed. We're facing a radical ideology with inalterable objectives: to enslave whole nations and intimidate the world. No act of ours invited the rage of the killers
-- and no concession, bribe, or act of appeasement would change or limit their plans for murder.
On the contrary: They target nations whose behavior they believe they can change through violence. Against such an enemy, there is only one effective response: We will never back down, never give in, and never accept anything less than complete victory. (Applause.)
The murderous ideology of the Islamic radicals is the great challenge of our new century. Yet, in many ways, this fight resembles the struggle against communism in the last century. Like the ideology of communism, Islamic radicalism is elitist, led by a self-appointed vanguard that presumes to speak for the Muslim masses. Bin Laden says his own role is to tell Muslims, quote, "what is good for them and what is not." And what this man who grew up in wealth and privilege considers good for poor Muslims is that they become killers and suicide bombers. He assures them that his -- that this is the road to paradise -- though he never offers to go along for the ride.
Like the ideology of communism, our new enemy teaches that innocent individuals can be sacrificed to serve a political vision. And this explains their cold-blooded contempt for human life. We've seen it in the murders of Daniel Pearl, Nicholas Berg, and Margaret Hassan, and many others. In a courtroom in the Netherlands, the killer of Theo Van Gogh turned to the victim's grieving mother and said, "I do not feel your pain -- because I believe you are an infidel." And in spite of this veneer of religious rhetoric, most of the victims claimed by the militants are fellow Muslims.
When 25 Iraqi children are killed in a bombing, or Iraqi teachers are executed at their school, or hospital workers are killed caring for the wounded, this is murder, pure and simple -- the total rejection of justice and honor and morality and religion. These militants are not just the enemies of America, or the enemies of Iraq, they are the enemies of Islam and the enemies of humanity. (Applause.) We have seen this kind of shameless cruelty before, in the heartless zealotry that led to the gulags, and the Cultural Revolution, and the killing fields.
Like the ideology of communism, our new enemy pursues totalitarian aims. Its leaders pretend to be an aggrieved party, representing the powerless against imperial enemies. In truth they have endless ambitions of imperial domination, and they wish to make everyone powerless except themselves. Under their rule, they have banned books, and desecrated historical monuments, and brutalized women. They seek to end dissent in every form, and to control every aspect of life, and to rule the soul, itself. While promising a future of justice and holiness, the terrorists are preparing for a future of oppression and misery.
Like the ideology of communism, our new enemy is dismissive of free peoples, claiming that men and women who live in liberty are weak and decadent. Zarqawi has said that Americans are, quote, "the most cowardly of God's creatures." But let's be clear: It is cowardice that seeks to kill children and the elderly with car bombs, and cuts the throat of a bound captive, and targets worshipers leaving a mosque. It is courage that liberated more than 50 million people. It is courage that keeps an untiring vigil against the enemies of a rising democracy. And it is courage in the cause of freedom that once again will destroy the enemies of freedom. (Applause.)
And Islamic radicalism, like the ideology of communism, contains inherent contradictions that doom it to failure. By fearing freedom -- by distrusting human creativity, and punishing change, and limiting the contributions of half the population -- this ideology undermines the very qualities that make human progress possible, and human societies successful. The only thing modern about the militants' vision is the weapons they want to use against us. The rest of their grim vision is defined by a warped image of the past -- a declaration of war on the idea of progress, itself. And whatever lies ahead in the war against this ideology, the outcome is not in doubt: Those who despise freedom and progress have condemned themselves to isolation, decline, and collapse. Because free peoples believe in the future, free peoples will own the future. (Applause.)
We didn't ask for this global struggle, but we're answering history's call with confidence, and a comprehensive strategy. Defeating a broad and adaptive network requires patience, constant pressure, and strong partners in Europe, the Middle East, North Africa, Asia and beyond. Working with these partners, we're disrupting militant conspiracies, destroying their ability to make war, and working to give millions in a troubled region of the world a hopeful alternative to resentment and violence.
First, we're determined to prevent the attacks of terrorist networks before they occur. We're reorganizing our government to give this nation a broad and coordinated homeland defense. We're reforming our intelligence agencies for the incredibly difficult task of tracking enemy activity, based on information that often comes in small fragments from widely scattered sources, here and abroad. We're acting, along with the governments from many countries, to destroy the terrorist networks and incapacitate their leaders. Together, we've killed or captured nearly all of those directly responsible for the September the 11th attacks; as well as some of bin Laden's most senior deputies; al Qaeda managers and operatives in more than 24 countries; the mastermind of the USS Cole bombing, who was chief of al Qaeda operations in the Persian Gulf; the mastermind of the Jakarta and the first Bali bombings; a senior Zarqawi terrorist planner, who was planning attacks in Turkey; and many of al Qaeda's senior leaders in Saudi Arabia.
Overall, the United States and our partners have disrupted at least ten serious al Qaeda terrorist plots since September the 11th, including three al Qaeda plots to attack inside the United States. We've stopped at least five more al Qaeda efforts to case targets in the United States, or infiltrate operatives into our country. Because of this steady progress, the enemy is wounded -- but the enemy is still capable of global operations. Our commitment is clear: We will not relent until the organized international terror networks are exposed and broken, and their leaders held to account for their acts of murder.
Second, we're determined to deny weapons of mass destruction to outlaw regimes, and to their terrorist allies who would use them without hesitation. The United States, working with Great Britain, Pakistan, and other nations, has exposed and disrupted a major black-market operation in nuclear technology led by A.Q. Khan. Libya has abandoned its chemical and nuclear weapons programs, as well as long-range ballistic missiles. And in the last year, America and our partners in the Proliferation Security Initiative have stopped more than a dozen shipments of suspected weapons technology, including equipment for Iran's ballistic missile program.
This progress has reduced the danger to free nations, but has not removed it. Evil men who want to use horrendous weapons against us are working in deadly earnest to gain them. And we're working urgently to keep weapons of mass destruction out of their hands.
Third, we're determined to deny radical groups the support and sanctuary of outlaw regimes. State sponsors like Syria and Iran have a long history of collaboration with terrorists, and they deserve no patience from the victims of terror. The United States makes no distinction between those who commit acts of terror and those who support and harbor them, because they're equally as guilty of murder. (Applause.) Any government that chooses to be an ally of terror has also chosen to be an enemy of civilization. And the civilized world must hold those regimes to account.
Fourth, we're determined to deny the militants control of any nation, which they would use as a home base and a launching pad for terror. For this reason, we're fighting beside our Afghan partners against remnants of the Taliban and their al Qaeda allies. For this reason, we're working with President Musharraf to oppose and isolate the militants in Pakistan. And for this reason, we're fighting the regime remnants and terrorists in Iraq. The terrorist goal is to overthrow a rising democracy, claim a strategic country as a haven for terror, destabilize the Middle East, and strike America and other free nations with ever-increasing violence. Our goal is to defeat the terrorists and their allies at the heart of their power -- and so we will defeat the enemy in Iraq.
Our coalition, along with our Iraqi allies, is moving forward with a comprehensive, specific military plan. Area by area, city by city, we're conducting offensive operations to clear out enemy forces, and leaving behind Iraqi units to prevent the enemy from returning. Within these areas, we're working for tangible improvements in the lives of Iraqi citizens. And we're aiding the rise of an elected government that unites the Iraqi people against extremism and violence. This work involves great risk for Iraqis, and for Americans and coalition forces. Wars are not won without sacrifice -- and this war will require more sacrifice, more time, and more resolve.
The terrorists are as brutal an enemy as we've ever faced. They're unconstrained by any notion of our common humanity, or by the rules of warfare. No one should underestimate the difficulties ahead, nor should they overlook the advantages we bring to this fight.
Some observers look at the job ahead and adopt a self-defeating pessimism. It is not justified. With every random bombing and with every funeral of a child, it becomes more clear that the extremists are not patriots, or resistance fighters -- they are murderers at war with the Iraqi people, themselves.
In contrast, the elected leaders of Iraq are proving to be strong and steadfast. By any standard or precedent of history, Iraq has made incredible political progress -- from tyranny, to liberation, to national elections, to the writing of a constitution, in the space of two-and-a-half years. With our help, the Iraqi military is gaining new capabilities and new confidence with every passing month. At the time of our Fallujah operations 11 months ago, there were only a few Iraqi army battalions in combat. Today there are more than 80 Iraqi army battalions fighting the insurgency alongside our forces. Progress isn't easy, but it is steady. And no fair-minded person should ignore, deny, or dismiss the achievements of the Iraqi people.
Some observers question the durability of democracy in Iraq. They underestimate the power and appeal of freedom. We've heard it suggested that Iraq's democracy must be on shaky ground because Iraqis are arguing with each other. But that's the essence of democracy: making your case, debating with those who you disagree -- who disagree, building consensus by persuasion, and answering to the will of the people. We've heard it said that the Shia, Sunnis and Kurds of Iraq are too divided to form a lasting democracy. In fact, democratic federalism is the best hope for unifying a diverse population, because a federal constitutional system respects the rights and religious traditions of all citizens, while giving all minorities, including the Sunnis, a stake and a voice in the future of their country. It is true that the seeds of freedom have only recently been planted in Iraq -- but democracy, when it grows, is not a fragile flower; it is a healthy, sturdy tree. (Applause.)
As Americans, we believe that people everywhere -- everywhere -- prefer freedom to slavery, and that liberty, once chosen, improves the lives of all. And so we're confident, as our coalition and the Iraqi people each do their part, Iraqi democracy will succeed.
Some observers also claim that America would be better off by cutting our losses and leaving Iraq now. This is a dangerous illusion, refuted with a simple question: Would the United States and other free nations be more safe, or less safe, with Zarqawi and bin Laden in control of Iraq, its people, and its resources? Having removed a dictator who hated free peoples, we will not stand by as a new set of killers, dedicated to the destruction of our own country, seizes control of Iraq by violence.
There's always a temptation, in the middle of a long struggle, to seek the quiet life, to escape the duties and problems of the world, and to hope the enemy grows weary of fanaticism and tired of murder. This would be a pleasant world, but it's not the world we live in. The enemy is never tired, never sated, never content with yesterday's brutality. This enemy considers every retreat of the civilized world as an invitation to greater violence. In Iraq, there is no peace without victory. We will keep our nerve and we will win that victory. (Applause.)
The fifth element of our strategy in the war on terror is to deny the militants future recruits by replacing hatred and resentment with democracy and hope across the broader Middle East. This is a difficult and long-term project, yet there's no alternative to it. Our future and the future of that region are linked. If the broader Middle East is left to grow in bitterness, if countries remain in misery, while radicals stir the resentments of millions, then that part of the world will be a source of endless conflict and mounting danger, and for our generation and the next. If the peoples of that region are permitted to choose their own destiny, and advance by their own energy and by their participation as free men and women, then the extremists will be marginalized, and the flow of violent radicalism to the rest of the world will slow, and eventually end. By standing for the hope and freedom of others, we make our own freedom more secure.
America is making this stand in practical ways. We're encouraging our friends in the Middle East, including Egypt and Saudi Arabia, to take the path of reform, to strengthen their own societies in the fight against terror by respecting the rights and choices of their own people. We're standing with dissidents and exiles against oppressive regimes, because we know that the dissidents of today will be the democratic leaders of tomorrow. We're making our case through public diplomacy, stating clearly and confidently our belief in self-determination, and the rule of law, and religious freedom, and equal rights for women, beliefs that are right and true in every land, and in every culture. (Applause.)
As we do our part to confront radicalism, we know that the most vital work will be done within the Islamic world, itself. And this work has begun. Many Muslim scholars have already publicly condemned terrorism, often citing Chapter 5, Verse 32 of the Koran, which states that killing an innocent human being is like killing all humanity, and saving the life of one person is like saving all of humanity. After the attacks in London on July the 7th, an imam in the United Arab Emirates declared, "Whoever does such a thing is not a Muslim, nor a religious person." The time has come for all responsible Islamic leaders to join in denouncing an ideology that exploits Islam for political ends, and defiles a noble faith.
Many people of the Muslim faith are proving their commitment at great personal risk. Everywhere we have engaged the fight against extremism, Muslim allies have stood up and joined the fight, becoming partners in a vital cause. Afghan troops are in combat against Taliban remnants. Iraqi soldiers are sacrificing to defeat al Qaeda in their own country. These brave citizens know the stakes -- the survival of their own liberty, the future of their own region, the justice and humanity of their own tradition -- and that United States of America is proud to stand beside them. (Applause.)
With the rise of a deadly enemy and the unfolding of a global ideological struggle, our time in history will be remembered for new challenges and unprecedented dangers. And yet the fight we have joined is also the current expression of an ancient struggle, between those who put their faith in dictators, and those who put their faith in the people. Throughout history, tyrants and would-be tyrants have always claimed that murder is justified to serve their grand vision -- and they end up alienating decent people across the globe. Tyrants and would-be tyrants have always claimed that regimented societies are strong and pure -- until those societies collapse in corruption and decay. Tyrants and would-be tyrants have always claimed that free men and women are weak and decadent -- until the day that free men and women defeat them.
We don't know the course of our own struggle -- the course our own struggle will take -- or the sacrifices that might lie ahead. We do know, however, that the defense of freedom is worth our sacrifice. We do know the love of freedom is the mightiest force of history. And we do know the cause of freedom will once again prevail.
May God bless you. (Applause.)
END 10:47 A.M. EDT |
|
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
espandyar
![](http://marzeporgohar.org/images/mpgarm.gif)
Joined: 15 Apr 2004 Posts: 236
|
Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 3:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Impressive speech I must say!
Lets see how fast state department gets to work, if they get to work at all that is ![Rolling Eyes](images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif) |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
blank
Joined: 26 Feb 2004 Posts: 1672
|
Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 4:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What is sad, is that Europe(ans) never will or want to learn from their past mistakes...you can call it dumb, idiotic or whatever else.
They saw the signs of Hitler coming to power & did nothing, until they were under his regime and had to ask help from US to gain their freedom back. They saw Stalin and Communism coming to power, did nothing, until half of the world was under the communisim and they had to go through the cold war and again ask US for help. Now we are in a very different war that is "ideological" war, by muslims that have declared jihad on every free nation. Again EU is sitting on their ass and not only they're not helping the US, but because of their financial gain, they are blocking any action against Iran/and terrorisim; until literally the blood is running in their streets, then they will run to big papa US... |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
Oppenheimer
Joined: 03 Mar 2005 Posts: 1166 Location: SantaFe, New Mexico
|
Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 6:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dear Cyrus,
Wish I had written that speech....but I simply posted it...(chuckle).
I've only got one thing to say to Ted Kennedy if I ever meet him...and that is, "Senator, you have consistantly dishonored your brother's memory and legacy over the years."
President John F. Kennedy was a man who fought hard for freedom and supported resistance to tyrany. A man who would not back down in the face of evil designs of regimes that sought to enslave millions and threatened the world, and civilization itself with destruction at the push of a button. A man who faced down the ideological intent with the same guts president Bush has used over the last four years, yet Ted Kennedy would...in political partisanship.. would void himself upon the American public with blatent hypocracy and vitrol, whore himself out to special interests..., and abandon his brother's principals in favor of political preference and favors.
This is Ted Kennedy's legacy in contribution to America's freedom and security, and that of the world's.
Safe to say that the State Dept. has been very active over the years in support of President Bush's foreign policy, and anyone fair minded and objective enough would be able to see that for themselves.
What is upcoming now:
Briefing on His October 10-14 Trip to Brussels and the Balkans
R. Nicholas Burns, Under Secretary for Political Affairs
Washington, DC
October 7, 2005
(excerpts)
UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: Yeah, exactly. I want to talk about my trip to the
Balkans, but first let me say that Secretary Rice called Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei
this morning to congratulate him and to congratulate the International Atomic
Energy Agency on the Nobel Peace Prize that was awarded to both the
organization and to Dr. ElBaradei personally. They had a very good talk and I
think that Adam will be putting out a statement in just a couple of moments
that will reflect how pleased we are to see this honor bestowed on Dr.
ElBaradei and the IAEA.
I'm here to brief you on United States policy in the Balkans. I'll be making a
trip next week to NATO where we'll have conversations on the Balkans, on
Afghanistan and on Iran. And then I'll be going to Sarajevo and Pristina and
Belgrade.
..................
QUESTION: Under Secretary Burns, just to switch tack for a second, are you
going to be having any discussions in Europe on Iran and that whole process?
And this is a second question, the Nobel Prize to the IAEA, the United States
has always not been totally warm to what's been going on in terms of the IAEA,
in terms of Iraq and inspection systems there. Do you see it as a bit of a
rebuff to the U.S. attitudes earlier to the IAEA?
UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: On the contrary, Secretary Rice reached out to Dr.
ElBaradei this morning because we have great respect for him. We are genuinely
pleased that this very important international institution is being recognized
by the Nobel Committee in Oslo. It's well deserved and they've done fine work
and they're doing fine work on Iran. To go back to your first question, we were
very pleased at the vote at the IAEA Board of Governors meeting in Vienna two
weeks ago because it showed that there is certainly a majority of countries on
that Board and in the world that are concerned about Iran's nuclear intentions.
Iran is an issue that has -- that's at the forefront of our diplomatic agenda.
I know Secretary Rice when she was in New York discussed Iran and the great
majority of the nearly 50 meetings that she had over those 11 days in New York,
it comes up in a lot of her conversations, not just with European foreign
ministers but ministers from other parts of the world.
We are concerned by the actions of the Ahmadi-Nejad government. Here's a
government that has come into power and it asserts it has a right to the
sensitive aspects of a nuclear fuel cycle. He said three times in his speech in
New York that they have a right to enrich and reprocess. No one in the world
agrees with him, with the possible exception of Venezuela. But if you ask even
those countries that abstained on the resolution in Vienna, they don't want to
see Iran achieve the ability to enrich and reprocess.
There's a great effort underway -- and I'll certainly be talking to the
European leadership about this in Brussels on Tuesday -- a great effort
underway to consolidate the international coalition and to convince Iran that
it ought to suspend uranium conversion, it ought to -- which is underway now at
the Iranian plant Isfahan -- that Iran should return to the negotiations with
the EU-3 and Iran should seek a peaceful, diplomatic solution and the solution
should be that Iran shall not have access to a nuclear fuel cycle on Iranian
territory. No one trusts Iran to have that.
And we were impressed by the size of the vote against Iran at the IAEA as well
as by the conviction of even those countries that abstained, that they don't
wish Iran to proceed further. If you add to that, Iran's leading support for
terrorist groups in the Middle East and its abysmal human rights record, this
is a country that is a major concern of the United States and of our partners
worldwide in Asia as well as in Europe. So Iran is high on our agenda and I
know the Secretary deals with this on a daily basis. And I'll certainly be
having talks in Europe about this as well.
Yes.
QUESTION: Can I follow up on Iran?
UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: Yeah.
QUESTION: I would say the talks are at best stalled, but there is a proposal
out there from South Africa that could change the dynamic. What do you think
about altering the negotiating system to include that proposal?
UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: We support the European-3: Britain, France and Germany.
We support their negotiations. We believe those negotiations should be resumed.
I'm not actually aware that there is a formal proposal by another country.
QUESTION: Well, one more on that.
UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: Sure.
QUESTION: I mean, I understand you support the EU-3 but if those talks are
stalled and the South Africans are willing to use their kind of good offices,
if you will, to kind of jump start them and maybe they would be a greater --
they would have some influence in the outcome. Isn't the outcome what's more
important?
UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: Again, I'm not aware and I follow this issue every day
of any other formal proposal out there.
QUESTION: But South Africa --
UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: But I am aware of this: The Iranians unilaterally broke
off their negotiations with the Europeans in August and it's our position that
the Iranians should return to those talks, suspend uranium conversion at
Isfahan and seek a negotiated settlement and not seek to, in essence, thumb
their nose at the international community, which is what they've been doing.
QUESTION: Well, wait -- one more -- the Iranians say that they broke off the
negotiations with the EU because they felt that the EU wasn't negotiating in
good faith. So if there are other parties that are willing to join the process
-- I understand you say that there may not be a formal one by South Africa. But
you have said in the past that, you know, that South Africa is kind of
interested in finding out where things are and is taking a greater interest in
the process. If other parties are willing to kind of help out, are you saying
that you don't want that help?
UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: The Iranians had exactly one country with them in
Vienna: One -- Venezuela. So the Iranians can say what they want but the
message from the international community has been and will continue to be, they
have to go back to their talks with the European Union. Those talks hold great
promise. The European Union has put serious proposals on the table. We support
that process.
Yes.
QUESTION: Could you give us a sense of the interagency discussions here about
Iran policy? And can you address The Wall Street Journal report about a State
Department memo considering new options in our approach to Iran?
UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: No. No, we normally don't talk about our interagency
consultations because we prefer to conduct them in private, which is the best
way to conduct interagency discussions. I have no comment on this. I think Sean
dealt admirably with questions on The Wall Street Journal article yesterday. So
I'll leave it with Sean.
QUESTION: Can you give us your sense, then, of -- if we're going to be pursuing
a tougher approach or if there's any room for engagement with Iran?
UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: I will say this -- as Sean said yesterday -- I know
Secretary Rice believes that given the actions of the Iranian Government over
the last two months, the new Iranian Government, we will continue to have a
very tough-minded approach to Iran. And there is no discussion of overtures or
of any kind of olive branches being extended to the Iranian Government. We have
a policy that is clear and the Secretary believes that policy is succeeding. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
cyrus Site Admin
![](http://www.activistchat.com/WTC/images/icyruswithclynder.gif)
Joined: 24 Jun 2003 Posts: 4993
|
Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 7:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dear Oppenheimer,
Oppenheimer wrote: | Dear Cyrus,
Wish I had written that speech....but I simply posted it...(chuckle).
I've only got one thing to say to Ted Kennedy if I ever meet him...and that is, "Senator, you have consistantly dishonored your brother's memory and legacy over the years."
President John F. Kennedy was a man who fought hard for freedom and supported resistance to tyrany. A man who would not back down in the face of evil designs of regimes that sought to enslave millions and threatened the world, and civilization itself with destruction at the push of a button. A man who faced down the ideological intent with the same guts president Bush has used over the last four years, yet Ted Kennedy would...in political partisanship.. would void himself upon the American public with blatent hypocracy and vitrol, whore himself out to special interests..., and abandon his brother's principals in favor of political preference and favors.
This is Ted Kennedy's legacy in contribution to America's freedom and security, and that of the world's.
|
Agree with you, hope someone educate Senator Kennedy and Senator Kerry, they are wrong regarding Islamist Terror Masters in Iran.... I am not Democrat or Republican I am only a Human Rights Activist and try to look at every issue by itself. I think President Bush speech was impressive and correct, hope state Dept. execute correct policy regarding Iran to change the regime with minimum bloodshed and within short period of time. Based on what I know I think it is very possible if US execute correct plan and strategy.
Oppenheimer wrote: |
UNDER SECRETARY BURNS:
If you add to that, Iran's leading support for
terrorist groups in the Middle East and its abysmal human rights record, this
is a country that is a major concern of the United States and of our partners
worldwide in Asia as well as in Europe. So Iran is high on our agenda and I
know the Secretary deals with this on a daily basis.
|
Your post regarding the interview with UNDER SECRETARY BURNS gives some level of comfort that shows the state Dept. under Dr. Rice leadership is working very seriously on the Islamist regime issue. I and many ActivistChat members don't have any trust on EU3 or UN to do the right thing regarding Iran, the events and EU3 progress in past 3 years was not good.
Regards,
Cyrus |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
Oppenheimer
Joined: 03 Mar 2005 Posts: 1166 Location: SantaFe, New Mexico
|
Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dear Cyrus,
As a Democrat (registered), I find Ted Kennedy and John Kerry an embarassment...'nough said.
Jack Straw said recently that hostilities with Iran were "inconceivable"...well, he may be the only person on Earth that isn't considering that possibility right now.
Way things are going, The IRI will produce that result inside of a year, unless they do a complete "about face"...and I doubt if they are willing to lose face in the process.
The west is still pushing for some rationality on the part of the IRI, as a military solution is the last resort...
With no apparent results.
I believe the IRI has badly miscalculated....and as the events are now unfolding in rapid progression, I do not know that the Iranian opposition has time left to deal with the regime with only financial and moral support from the US...you and I both know that would take awhile.
Longer than I think circumstance will allow. So, the support that will be forthcoming will involve a number of different forms to create the conditions for "regime change".
If you read Bush's speech carefully...this is as close as he's come to actually using the phrase, in context with the meaning of his words.
But, as with Iraq and Afghanistan, "regime change" as policy (and as the Iranian opposition defines it) comes only when the diplomacy is exausted, and those other soft measures of effecting a change in the pattern of behavior of a regime have failed. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
ViaHHakimi
Joined: 22 Jul 2004 Posts: 142
|
Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 9:25 pm Post subject: Re: Bush Ups Ante For Iran, Syria in Terror War |
|
|
cyrus wrote: | Bush Ups Ante For Iran, Syria in Terror War
By MEGHAN CLYNE - Staff Reporter of The Sun
October 7, 2005
WASHINGTON - President Bush yesterday condemned Syria and Iran for collaborating with terrorists, warning that the regimes "deserve no patience from the victims of terror."
Mr. Bush delivered his comments as part of a broad address that made the case for remaining firm in the war on terror, particularly in Iraq. He also defined the nature of the enemy America faces and outlined his strategy for defeating it.
The president disclosed that America and its allies have disrupted at least 10 Al Qaeda terrorist plots since September 11, 2001, including three attacks planned for inside America. "We've stopped at least five more Al Qaeda efforts to case targets in the United States, or infiltrate operatives into our country," he said.
And Mr. Bush lashed out at "elements of the Arab news media that incite hatred and anti-Semitism, that feed conspiracy theories and speak of a so-called American 'war on Islam' - with seldom a word about American action to protect Muslims in Afghanistan, and Bosnia, Somalia, Kosovo, Kuwait, and Iraq."
Speaking at the Ronald Reagan Building and addressing the National Endowment for Democracy - an institution established under President Reagan, and instrumental in supporting dissident movements that helped bring an end to the Soviet empire - Mr. Bush also framed the battle against radical Islam as heir to America's historic struggles against other murderous ideologies, particularly communism. He compared terrorists like Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to their dictatorial predecessors, citing Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot.
Mr. Bush expressed confidence, however, that Marxism's fate would also be the terrorists'. "Islamic radicalism, like the ideology of communism, contains inherent contradictions that doom it to failure," he said in his remarks, attended by Secretaries Rice and Rumsfeld and the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace.
Less than two weeks before liberated Iraqis vote on a new constitution, Mr. Bush also reminded Americans that "the terrorists regard Iraq as the central front in their war against humanity."
Public-opinion polls have indicated flagging support for the war effort, and recent months have brought increased protests, including a large anti-war demonstration here late last month.
Mr. Bush, however, appeared unfazed yesterday, saying those who believe America would be made safer by "cutting our losses and leaving Iraq now" cling to "a dangerous illusion" and suffer from a "self-defeating pessimism."
Looking ahead, President Bush singled out Syria and Iran, labeling them "allies of convenience" with radical Islam, and calling them "enemies of civilization" that "use terrorist propaganda to blame their own failures on the West and America, and on the Jews."
President Bush also stressed how much the ultimate victory over radical Islam would depend on the popular thirst for freedom in the Middle East, praising the work of Afghans and Iraqis in providing military security for their countries alongside American troops, and encouraging democratic reform in Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
"We're standing with dissidents and exiles against oppressive regimes," Mr. Bush said, "because we know that the dissidents of today will be the democratic leaders of tomorrow."
The president of the Reform Party of Syria, Farid Ghadry, said it was "wonderful" that Mr. Bush singled out Syria as a sponsor of terrorism and expressed his support for dissidents trying to bring about democracy there and throughout the Muslim world.
"President Bush is on the right side of history," Mr. Ghadry, reached yesterday in Washington, said. "We moderate Muslims suffer as much from extreme Islam as anyone else, except we suffer more because we know our religion is a peaceful religion."
President Bush also urged those who carry the banner of mainstream Islam not to allow fundamentalists to pervert it to justify violence. "The time has come for all responsible Islamic leaders to join in denouncing an ideology that exploits Islam for political ends, and defiles a noble faith," he said.
As Mr. Bush explained America's support for the worldwide spread of freedom, opponents wasted little time in dismissing his remarks.
Senator Kennedy, a Democrat of Massachusetts, issued a statement less than an hour after the president's speech in which he labeled the remarks "foolish."
"It is abundantly clear that staying the course is the wrong course for America," Mr. Kennedy said, also faulting the president for speaking publicly about foiled Al Qaeda plots. "Such statements," he added, "can only goad Al Qaeda into trying harder."
A New York-based Iranian activist, Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi, said yesterday that the president's speech "gives people hope."
The issues involved in bringing moderation and secularism to Iran, Ms. Zand-Bonazzi said, "must transcend the American anti-Bush clamor."
"The masses in the Middle East seeking democracy and secularism find that this stance of the president, this language, and his constant hammering away at the issue is beyond helpful - it's completely correct," Ms. Zand-Bonazzi said.
Mr. Ghadry added that President Bush's remarks were important in that they provided vital moral support to those in the Middle East who want to bring about reform.
"This kind of call will encourage them," he said of the president's speech. "I commend him for that."
|
Quote: | Senator Kennedy, a Democrat of Massachusetts, issued a statement less than an hour after the president's speech in which he labeled the remarks "foolish." |
(This is the same honorable idiot Senator who in 1979 called Khomeini a SAINT), (then who is foolish Honorable Senator Kennedy?)- H.H.
Quote: | "It is abundantly clear that staying the course is the wrong course for America," Mr. Kennedy said, also faulting the president for speaking publicly about foiled Al Qaeda plots. "Such statements," he added, "can only goad Al Qaeda into trying harder." |
(As if Al-Qaeda is waiting for permission from Senator Kennedy, whether they can resume the act of genocide such as 9/11 !? ) - H.H. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
cyrus Site Admin
![](http://www.activistchat.com/WTC/images/icyruswithclynder.gif)
Joined: 24 Jun 2003 Posts: 4993
|
Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 10:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dear Oppenheimer,
Quote: | UNDER SECRETARY BURNS:
There's a great effort underway -- and I'll certainly be talking to the
European leadership about this in Brussels on Tuesday -- a great effort
underway to consolidate the international coalition and to convince Iran that it ought to suspend uranium conversion, it ought to -- which is underway now at the Iranian plant Isfahan -- that Iran should return to the negotiations with the EU-3 and Iran should seek a peaceful, diplomatic solution and the solution should be that Iran shall not have access to a nuclear fuel cycle on Iranian territory. No one trusts Iran to have that. |
In addition to the above other weapons of the mass destruction, clear human rights voilations, selecting group of well known WANTED International terrorists as president and cabient members also must be on the agenda.
BIG NO To Any Iran's Nuclear Program Under Illegitimate Islamist Regime Control (It is dangerous, expensive, against Iran's National Interest, Not Needed by FREE Iran, only Mad Mullahs needs atomic bomb, other weapons of mass destruction to stay in power and take 70 million Iranian people and the world as their hostage)
most probably the weapons of mass destruction that we did not find it in Iraq, now is in Iran.
Sakharov told us over 30 years ago very clearly:
The connection Sakharov saw between the violation of human rights and international violence has become increasingly recognized. Scholars find that nations with broad and solid political rights (that is, democracies) have rarely if ever warred on one another. But repression at home often leads to conflict abroad and International Terrorism.
Oppenheimer wrote: | Dear Cyrus,
But, as with Iraq and Afghanistan, "regime change" as policy (and as the Iranian opposition defines it) comes only when the diplomacy is exausted, and those other soft measures of effecting a change in the pattern of behavior of a regime have failed. |
Agree diplomacy should be exausted, but with this fundemantal question, are they willing to leave the power peacefuly or not because as long as the Islamist regime is in power there is no peace in the region and nobody is safe?
We know what is their answer, they have mission from god to terror, create hell, create Islamic Empire, and kill all people who don't agree with them. As President Bush said it correctly they wish to create Islamist Empire (Big Mess).
Regards,
Cyrus |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
Oppenheimer
Joined: 03 Mar 2005 Posts: 1166 Location: SantaFe, New Mexico
|
Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 11:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am not Democrat or Republican I am only a Human Rights Activist and try to look at every issue by itself.
---------
Dear Cyrus,
And worthy of my respect you are sir, for that position. One thing about taking things in context as I do, is that sometimes I see folks very "Iran centered" in terms of what overal US policy means...where sometimes the broad policy is not associated, or lost in inference when the word "Iran" is not directly associated in various policy statements by name.
Take the word "militant" in Bush's speech....Without directly refering to the mullahs by name...but I think the meaning is not lost in context...as least from the reaction I've read so far.
As for policy briefs...those are generated on a regular basis as circumstance dictates....and obviously the circumstances inside Iran as well as their external relations have changed significantly.
It is often said that US policy never changes....well Cyrus...it sure as hell adapts. So whoever posed "engagement" as an idea has just had his brief tossed into the circular bin....i.e. the wastbasket.
IRI isn't about to shut down reprocessing, which is the only way the EU will resume negotiations BTW, and since sanctions are not going to be totally effective in implemented either by the EU themselves or via UN resolution...though that debate will happen I believe.....as well as a freeze by Russia and other nations in nuclear respects....a financial freeze may also be forthcoming....in light of already mandated UN resolutions calling for the freezing of assets by entities supporting terrorism, including state sponsors.
Canada is introducing a resolution in the General Assembly for the third strait year regarding human rights abuses in Iran, and it strong legs to it.
As I said before, this is the "turning of the screw, not a single political nuke."
And as for politics, it seems sometimes that folks will oppose anything Bush says or does, regardless of its correctness, simply because Bush stated it, or is for it.
Well, that's Democracy for you...."the worst form of government ever conceived by man, save all other forms."
-Winston Churchill
Every once in awhile, the Brits do get it right....(chuckle).
But my GOD ! it takes a lot of work saving their asses from having a Nevile Chamberlain moment.
Lool!
Sorry for that Jack...just speaking my mind, as we Yanks are prone to do on occasion.... |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
Oppenheimer
Joined: 03 Mar 2005 Posts: 1166 Location: SantaFe, New Mexico
|
Posted: Sat Oct 08, 2005 12:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Cyrus Wrote:
"Agree diplomacy should be exausted, but with this fundemantal question, are they willing to leave the power peacefuly or not because as long as the Islamist regime is in power there is no peace in the region and nobody is safe?
We know what is their answer, they have mission from god to terror, create hell, create Islamic Empire, and kill all people who don't agree with them. As President Bush said it correctly they wish to create Islamist Empire (Big Mess)."
-----------------------
Well, that may come down to a 48hr choice to pack bags or suffer "serious concequences" , and as with Saddam, I give that happening the same odds as a snowball in hell surviving the experience.
It really may depend on millions of Iranians finally realizing they have a simple choice, remove the regime because of the fine mess they've gotten the people into (being stuck in the middle), or the choice of the consequences of war.
The strategy the US and allies has taken is one of not being seen to be eager to go to war (which is true enough), and so it mitigates IRI propaganda among the Iranian population that (as Bush so eloquently put it)....
Like the ideology of communism, our new enemy pursues totalitarian aims. Its leaders pretend to be an aggrieved party, representing the powerless against imperial enemies. In truth they have endless ambitions of imperial domination, and they wish to make everyone powerless except themselves.
......so it must be that the Iranian opposition not feed or ferment this rhetoric and false dogma....for if war happens, the Iranian people have only the IRI to blame for it.....and regardless of any past mistakes the west has made (and I hope HHakimi hears me loud and clear).............. To further feed the regime's rhetoric in this manner would detract from the opposition's effectiveness in motivating the people to rebel and force regime change.
Undestand the regime's tactics clearly on this....I've been trying very hard to make this clear to one and all for some time....now you know why...not from my lips...but from the president's. The regime has played off "the victim card" and divided the opposition that secumbs to that notion.
Divided faith and understanding between those who seek freedom, and those who support your aspirations for it.
I do not say this to "whitewash" history....but now is not the time to have that conversation of the past, nor continue it one day longer...and this must remain the case until the regime is removed.
I say this for the health of the opposition, to meet the threats the IRI poses to you with one voice...one purpose...in strength of unity.
Not for the sake of avoiding history, but to change history that is being made today, and what will be in the future, for the good of all people.
ba sepaas,
Oppie |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
Oppenheimer
Joined: 03 Mar 2005 Posts: 1166 Location: SantaFe, New Mexico
|
Posted: Sat Oct 08, 2005 1:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
October 7, 2005
Press Briefing by Scott McClellan
(excerpt)
Go ahead, Goyal.
Q Scott, two questions. One, yesterday the speech by the President on war against terrorism was great speech. And, also, he warned number of countries --
MR. McCLELLAN: Thank you, we thought so, too.
Q -- he warned number of countries who are harboring, helping, supporting terrorists, including Osama bin Laden. Does he know now where is -- which country is holding Osama bin Laden or harboring and helping those terrorists and --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, if we knew where he was, we would go and get him, I can assure you of that. We are working very closely with governments in the region to pursue al Qaeda leaders and bring them to justice. We have made significant progress in dismantling and disrupting the al Qaeda network. But there are others that step up and fill some of those voids that are -- they're not as experienced, while the leaders like Osama bin Laden and Zawahiri, are on the run, there are others out there that seek to do harm to the civilized world. They have no regard for innocent human life.
This is a terrorist network that has a very clearly defined strategy. They want to drive us out of the Middle East, they want to create a safe haven in the Middle East, and then they want to topple governments in the broader Middle East, and eventually, a goal is the destruction of Israel, as well.
It is a war that is difficult, but it is a war we are winning and it is a war that we will win. The President knows that. But it is a war, and we must continue to take the fight to the enemy, we must continue to work to spread freedom and democracy. The President had a very good conversation with the Prime Minister of Hungary earlier today. And he talked about the war on terrorism and the importance of succeeding and the importance of what we're working to accomplish in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, and what that means to our long-term peace and stability.
Q On Iran, after India's vote (inaudible), at the IAEA against Iran, as far as nuclear weapons and technology concern. Yesterday, President also warned Iran supporting terrorism in Iraq. And, also, yesterday, Prime Minister Blair, in a news conference (inaudible) Iraqi president also confirmed that Iran is helping those terrorists --
MR. McCLELLAN: A question came up about that yesterday. What's your question today?
Q So what President think about that?
MR. McCLELLAN: We have a number of concerns about the regime in Iran. We stand on the side of the Iranian people who want greater freedom. We have a number of concerns about a regime that is more interested in pursuing nuclear weapons than they are in providing their people with the rights and the freedoms that they deserve. We have concerns about a regime that wants to move in a direction opposite of the rest of what the Middle East is doing. And we have expressed those concerns. We support the efforts of the Europeans to resolve the nuclear issue in a diplomatic way.
Iran is a country that has a long history of supporting terrorism. Iran showed the international community that all of us should be concerned with some of their comments at the United Nations. We will continue to stand with the Iranian people who seek greater freedom.
And Iraq is important. Building a democratic and free and peaceful Iraq is critical to advancing freedom throughout the region. It will serve as an example for the rest of the Middle East. And the President has talked about that at length.
----------------------
Now if this doesn't define the parameters of regime change, just as you pointed out Cyrus, I really don't know how much more defined it can get....it's like they've read your mind.....(chuckle).
And who knows...maybe someone just follows this forum up there in the West wing....Lool!
Stranger things have happened...... |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
|
|
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
|