[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great
Views expressed here are not necessarily the views & opinions of ActivistChat.com. Comments are unmoderated. Abusive remarks may be deleted. ActivistChat.com retains the rights to all content/IP info in in this forum and may re-post content elsewhere.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

International Religious Freedom Report 2005
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index -> Noteworthy Discussion Threads
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 11:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Oppenheimer,
Oppenheimer wrote:

The alternative to diplomacy is a war.


You are looking at it in the black and white, without considering there are 1000s of gray colors between black and white.

Oppenheimer wrote:

Thje US isn't perfect Cyrus, if we had supported Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawl, there would have been no Taliban to remove by force, some suggest that had Carter had his wits about him, the mullahs would never have siezed control of Iran.

The US must do better than what we have done so far, the following is from President Bush who is the only person who has access to all top secret information:

President Bush wrote:
In November 2003 at the National Endowment for Democracy, President Bush outlined a forward strategy for freedom in the Middle East. He said that "sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe -- because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty." In his 2005 Inaugural Address, the President reiterated America's support for the people of the broader Middle East and North Africa in their fight for freedom. "We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler in every nation: The moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right." President Bush spoke directly to the Iranian people in his February 2, 2005, State of the Union Address, saying: "As you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you."


The above statement by President Bush shows that the President has very good understanding of what is the right strategy but for some unknown reasons he is moving too slow, he is relying too much on EU 3 that I don't trust them based on facts and history.


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



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

PostPosted: Sun Nov 13, 2005 12:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Cyrus,

Historicly when diplomacy fails, the end result is hostilities, that may seem black and white to you, but it is a fact.

What has gotten folks in trouble in the past are those "realist" shades of grey that have allowed tyrannies to continue, and I refer to the president's statement on this..

Maybe you are thinking in other terms regarding the grey areas, but I think by the end of this month things will become crystal clear regarding where things stand.

Since the president does have a lot more info than you or I, I am not one to pre-judge his rationale for addressing the IRI at "a time of our choosing" .

I can point to some factors that might be at work, like the EU, Russia, and China all being on the same page, so there's unaniminity in any Sec.council resolution, and that diplomacy is ongoing as we speak.

Other things are being considered as well which may play into the mix, which I know we'll be hearing about in due course.

All I can say is wait for it....it won't be long.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Sun Nov 13, 2005 11:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Oppenheimer,
Oppenheimer wrote:

Historicly when diplomacy fails, the end result is hostilities, that may seem black and white to you, but it is a fact.


Your statement true regarding Iraq and Afghanistan, because the free world waited too long until US did not have any other option except war in Afghanistan. If we have done the right thing at the right time in Afghanistan (in early 90s) then the war would not have been necessary.

Oppenheimer wrote:

What has gotten folks trouble in the past are those "realist" shades of grey that have allowed tyrannies to continue, and I refer to the president's statement on this..

Maybe you are thinking in other terms regarding the grey areas, but I think by the end of this month things will become crystal clear regarding where things stand.

I don’t consider Not acting as those "realist" shades of grey. Yes I agree “by the end of this month things will become crystal clear regarding where things stand.”

Oppenheimer wrote:

Since the president does have a lot more info than you or I, I am not one to pre-judge his rationale for addressing the IRI at "a time of our choosing" .

True, hope President execute correct option.

Oppenheimer wrote:

I can point to some factors that might be at work, like the EU, Russia, and China all being on the same page, so there's unaniminity in any Sec.council resolution, and that diplomacy is ongoing as we speak.

Other things are being considered as well which may play into the mix, which I know we'll be hearing about in due course.

All I can say is wait for it....it won't be long.

Yes we need to wait and see, and if we don’t agree always reserve the right to protest in spirit of James Madison.

“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external (Journalists, Activists and Bloggers) nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions. “
The Federalist No. 51 (James Madison).



My position is as follows:
1) Winning War On Terror Starts With Mafia Islamist Regime Change and Establishing FREE Society in Iran Before It Becomes too Late. The G8 has waited for too long for purely selfish interest. The US and EU3 are partially responsible for supporting Mullahs and Islamist regime in past 27 years in the name of stability ….
It is US morale obligation to help remove evil islamist regime from power ASAP and help Iranian people to establish Free society, Secular government and punish Islamist terror network…..

2) Iranian people can decide about Nuclear Energy and the Nuclear Enrichment program after the regime change when they have established secular democracy, Free society and when they have stable system of government, untill then Iran can not have any kind of Nuclear program under Islamist regime control in any form and shape. The Islamist Regime in Iran is not elected by Iranian people and G8 should not negotiate with the illegitimate regime which has taken 70 million Iranian people as their hostage

3) If US solution regarding Iran participates the British government in the process, the possibility of another big mess will be high as we have seen it in Iraq. I am saying it in advance as we have said about Iraq and we were right.

4) Human Rights, Free Society and Secular Democracy must be the main keys to any decision making processs regarding the Iran solution.

Yes, we have to wait and see.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



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

PostPosted: Mon Nov 14, 2005 6:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Oppenheimer,
Oppenheimer wrote:

Quote:
Historicly when diplomacy fails, the end result is hostilities, that may seem black and white to you, but it is a fact.



Cyrus Wrote:
Quote:
Your statement true regarding Iraq and Afghanistan, because the free world waited too long until US did not have any other option except war in Afghanistan. If we have done the right thing at the right time in Afghanistan (in early 90s) then the war would not have been necessary.



Dear Cyrus,

You can take any conflict in history and apply my statement to it, and it will stand correct, as a true statement.

There was a lot of diplomacy in regards to the Afghan civil war in the 90's, a ceasefire and arms embargo was entered into in 96, and subsequently immediately violated by the Taliban.

But this is a whole different subject that I could give you pages of detail on if you wish....I do know the history, my friend.

Oppenheimer wrote:

Quote:
What has gotten folks trouble in the past are those "realist" shades of grey that have allowed tyrannies to continue, and I refer to the president's statement on this..


Quote:
Maybe you are thinking in other terms regarding the grey areas, but I think by the end of this month things will become crystal clear regarding where things stand.


You wrote:

Quote:
I don’t consider Not acting as those "realist" shades of grey.


Then what are those grey areas you think offer solutions? I have read your list of "to do" items, but they are not grey areas.

See, it is precisely "not acting" in a military intervention, that is the purpose of diplomacy.

Sometimes it only delays the inevitable, as with the lead-up to many conflicts throughout history...Neville Chamberlain's "peace in our time." being one of those diplomatic moments of utter failure and lack of vision.

No one is suggesting you not protest a lack of vision Cyrus, my gov.'s gotten an earfull from me over the years....solutions along with the concerns....and a few "exit options and "lessons from hstory" thrown in for good measure.

It is not my place to tell my government what to do in wartime, and analysis is best given in broad general stategic formula as assesment of political probability, as my government knows more in specifics what can or cannot be achieved in a given set of circumstance. However, It is possible to extrapolate possibility as a function of probable outcome of implementation of a strategic course of action with a defined goal....in this case the stability and larger freedom of the Mideast.

Those letters, as well as almost 700 posts on your forum to date may not be "dry analysis", as it factors in a number of political variables as seen from this citizen's point of reference.
But then objectivity can be hard to come by where it concerns family, or politics, as we are all human beings, and of a species prone to emotions, at the expense of logic.

"Logic over emotionalism, Truth over viewpoint, Ethics over all."
These are my words here in quotes, words I do my best to live by, words of advice given to President Bush back in October 2001 before the bombs started falling.

But he got this as well before then......

>Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 03:41:03 -0600
>To: secretary@state.gov
>From: Eric Jette <ejette@cybermesa.com>
>Subject: "Powell doctrine"-Exit options
>
> Dear Mr. Secretary,
It seems logical to me when looking at the rebuilding of Germany and Japan after WW2, why we haven't been targets of terrorism by these
former enemies, it may also be logical to view the rise of Hitler as a direct result of the sanctions imposed opon Germany at the end of WW1.
I agree that the war that has been declared opon us will take time, and cost much to win. I hope you will forgive my being so bold as to propose
the following;
Based opon the fact that the people of Afghanistan have no self-determination of their fate, and are at the mercy of the Taliban(or who-ever controls them), and given the fact so many are abandoning the country in fear, it seems to me that this mission must be a liberation, not a reprisal, I mean by this that we perform surgery-heal the patient(Afghanistan).
In order to retain support, especially throughout the Arab world, for a sustained presence in the region, it will be necessary to address the humanitarian needs of the refugees immediately to;
A.Show compassion in the midst of our wrath.
B.To prevent further human suffering due to terrorist acts opon us.
I will base the following on the assumption that the military surgery undertaken will remove the cancer in a similar fashion as in WW2-unconditional surrender.(*)
Given the resulting void in government structure, and to avoid setting up what might be viewed as a "puppet" government, I propose this as an alternative:
Restore the government prior to the Soviet invasion, most of that ruling family is in exile.(although a monarchy,it held democratic ideals despite the influence of the Soviets and had no clue about the Soviet agenda until too late) . I have only my gut instinct to go on,but the "northern alliance" might agree to this as it would bring the country full circle, bringing hope again and the ability to function as a distinct political entity in the U.N.
In addition I believe that the whole premise by which we may safely exit the situation with the goals in hand is this;
If the average Afghan citizen can say they're better off than they were before the Taliban took over, and having the world's help rebuilding, not only will the world respect us, but we'll give them nothing to hate us for in the future.
The massive response with food, shelter, clothing to the refugees prior to any action against the Taliban or bin Laden will immediately let the
world know without a doubt that we consider them victims of terrorist aggression, and that our mission is to rid them of this and restore sanity.
If we do this right, the long term prognosis will be a full recovery from a terminal illness. Afghanistan may need a decade of peace to achieve this.
The stability necessary for this can only come from the people's desire to be at peace, and a hope for the future.

--------end excerpt---------


The rest was personal...


Been at this "freedom thing" awhile now Cyrus, doesn't mean I'm right 100% of the time, no one is, nor is any government for that matter.

But I've put a heck of a lot of thought into your issues of concern as well as factoring in a lot of global context, as well as regional factors at work.

Sometimes reading your posts....re reading on many ocasions...I sometimes think you think the US is just twiddling its thumbs, waiting for the inevitable, or whenever the EU gets it's act together...whichever comes first.

Well, if that is what you actually think, then I would say with conviction that you are very mistaken.

Remember what I said awhile back about "three yards and a cloud of dust."?

In any case, I trust my gut....consider the above letter....I didn't have time to do the kind of research I've done over the years on Iran....that letter was pure gut instinct, with a little help from an Afghan friend who I'd had a good debate among friends with, a few days running after 9/11.
The header date has not been altered. It was received and read the same day.

Parallel thinking perhaps, but not too shabby for a week's work...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



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

PostPosted: Mon Nov 14, 2005 6:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Saban Forum Closing Session


Secretary Condoleezza Rice
Jerusalem
November 13, 2005

SECRETARY RICE: Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Well, first of all,
thank you, Haim, for that generous introduction and thank you to you and to
Cheryl for what you do through this organization and through this forum to
support and promote Israeli-American dialogue. I'd like to recognize Ambassador
Indyk for his role in this. And to all of you who have participated in this
dialogue, I only wish that I could have been to hear the fine panels that have
taken place. But it is this kind of vision and leadership and generosity that
are helping to make the Saban Center and this annual forum such a critical
contribution to peace and understanding. The United States and Israel, of
course, share history and share interests but most of all we share values and
because we share values, our friendship will always be strong and deep and
broad.

(Applause.)

As I look out tonight at this audience, I see many businessmen and academics
and statesmen and even a few journalists who are -- somehow made it on to the
guest list -- (laughter) -- and I see that there's a depth of historic
partnership that really does bridge -- as Prime Minister Sharon said, not just
our governments but our people and that is what is represented here.

I am honored, too, by the many distinguished members of the Israeli Government
who are here, including former Prime Minister Barak, Vice Premier Peres --
thank you very much for being here -- and of course, Prime Minister Sharon.
Thank you, Mr. Prime Minister, for your wonderful address but also for your
leadership of this great country and for your friendship for America.

I would like to thank former Secretary of State James Baker who on behalf of
President Bush -- 43, not President Bush 41 -- is leading our delegation here
and it's a delegation to the events attending the 10th Anniversary of Yitzhak
Rabin's assassination. It's a delegation that reflects every branch of the
government. There are members of our Congress here, Supreme Court Justice
Stephen Breyer is here. And I want to thank all of you and the many private
citizens from the United States who have come as well.

I want to recognize one person, however, and his wife and that's Jim Wolfensohn
and Elaine. Jim was planning was on a very nice retirement in Jackson Hole
after his work at the World Bank and we said, well, we have another small task
for you and he has been thoroughly and completely involved since then. Thank
you very much, Jim.

(Applause.)

When I first came to Israel, I said that it was like coming home to a place I
had never been. And, indeed, I am always happy to return here to Jerusalem,
which is an especially powerful place to be for someone like me who holds deep
religious beliefs. This visit, of course, to Jerusalem is also marked by the
memory of sorrow because tomorrow, along with many of you, I will attend the
memorial service honoring Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who was tragically
assassinated a decade ago.

Yitzhak Rabin represented the pioneer spirit of the Israeli heartland -- the
impatient optimism and rugged determination that helped Israel to turn its
barren soil green and to build a new home in its native land and indeed to take
up arms when it was necessary against all who denied this nation's right to
exist. And when Israel needed to secure its independence and repel attackers
along many fronts, Yitzhak Rabin distinguished himself on the field of battle.
And when Israel needed leadership, they summoned him to serve democracy and he
distinguished himself in the halls of government. And when Israel needed a
vision of peace, Yitzhak Rabin distinguished himself at the negotiating table.

He was a man who was a pioneer and a warrior and a statesman and a peacemaker.
And he approached all of his callings, especially that of peace, with tenacity,
and aplomb and a gritty realism -- but also with hope and trust and an abiding
idealism.

After risking death so many times in war, it was for the cause of peace that he
ultimately gave his life. And despite the heroic efforts of many individuals
since that time, the past decade has seen much pain and disappointment.
Terrorists have claimed the lives of over one thousand innocent Israelis and
injured thousands of others -- men and women and children who simply wanted to
enjoy a pizza or catch a bus or celebrate Passover.

And the Palestinian people have suffered, too. They too have mourned the loss
of innocent life. They too have been deprived of days that are normal, filled
with peace and opportunity. And now, and for many years to come, they must work
to overcome a legacy of corruption and violence and misrule by leaders who
promised to fulfill their people's dreams, but instead preferred arbitrary
power over democratic progress.

In the face of so much suffering, it is at times difficult to remain hopeful.
But, ladies and gentlemen, I believe deeply when future observers are in a
position to know the full history of this conflict, they may point back to this
present moment as a time when peace became more likely, not less likely; when
peace began to seem inevitable, not impossible -- for the last several years
have seen deep changes in this region, changes conducive to real progress.

Today, we have hope for peace because the international community is united in
its historic struggle against terrorism. People in the Middle East are also
speaking more clearly against terrorism. And they are rejecting the bankrupt
belief that national struggles or religious teachings legitimize the
intentional killing of innocents.

As we have seen in the aftermath of the vicious attacks in Jordan -- and let me
join the Prime Minister in extending our condolences to the people of Jordan --
an attack in which dozens of people were killed and wounded and many more
harmed because their personal lives were turned upside down by this attack.
Fortunately, now, leaders and clerics and private citizens are stepping forward
and taking to the streets and calling this evil by its name. This is a profound
change and there are others.

We have hope for peace today because people no longer accept that despotism is
the eternal political condition of the Middle East. More and more individuals
are demanding their freedom and their dignity. Mothers and fathers are saying
that they want their children to be engineers, not suicide bombers; that they
want their children, daughters as well as sons, to be voting citizens, not
docile subjects. There is now growing agreement that democracy is the only path
to stability, to real legitimacy and to lasting peace.

Of course, many skeptics still question whether freedom will truly lead to more
peace in this region. I believe that it will. We have seen that when
authoritarian governments cannot ensure justice and security and prosperity for
their people, they look for false legitimacy and they blame their failures on
modernity or on America or on the Jews.

We have also seen that when people are denied freedom to express themselves,
when they cannot advance their interests and redress their grievances through
an open political process, they retreat into shadows of alienation to be preyed
upon by fanatical men with violent designs. We are not naïve about the pace or
the difficulty of democratic change. But we know that the longing for
democratic change is deep and urgently felt.

And when we look at a nation like Iran, we see an educated and sophisticated
people who are the bearers of a great civilization. And we also see that as
Iran's Government has grown more divorced from the will of its citizens, it has
become more threatening, not less threatening. No civilized nation should have
a leader who wishes, or hopes, or desires, or considers it a matter of policy
to express that another country should be pushed into the sea. It is simply
unacceptable in the international system.

(Applause.)


Now, it's given real freedom to hold their government accountable. It is
doubtful that the majority of Iranian people would choose to deepen their
country's international isolation through these incendiary statements and
threatening policies. But more than anything, ladies and gentlemen, we have
hope for peace because these moral and philosophical changes in the Middle East
are leading to democratic progress in the region itself. Men and women are
standing up for their fundamental freedoms. They are pressuring states with
long habits of authoritarian rule to open their political systems.


One decade after Yitzhak Rabin's murder, it is clear that the strategic context
of the Middle East has changed dramatically and this is a hopeful development
that can make Israel more secure, peace more possible, and America more secure.

During this time, really only in the last two years -- the blink of an eyelash
in history -- the Government of Libya has made a fundamental choice to give up
its weapons of mass destruction and to rejoin the community of nations. Egypt
has had a presidential election and parliamentary elections under new
constitutional rules. Saudi Arabia has taken initial steps toward political
openness. And Kuwait has granted its women citizens the right to vote. The
people of Lebanon have reclaimed their country after three decades of Syrian
military occupation. They have held free elections. They are pursuing
democratic reforms. And the international community is united in our defense of
Lebanon's rights as an independent, sovereign nation.

The Government of Syria has increasingly isolated itself from the international
community through its support for terrorism, its interference in the affairs of
its neighbors, its destabilizing behavior in the region, and its possible role
in the murder of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. And the recent speech by
President Asad only reflects and reinforces the Syrian Government's current
isolation. And the United Nations is now holding Syria to account for its
disturbing behavior.

And we have hope for peace because Saddam Hussein is no longer terrorizing his
people, threatening his region and paying the families of suicide bombers.

(Applause.)

Instead, Saddam Hussein is sitting in an Iraqi prison, awaiting trial for his
many crimes. The Iraqi people, after decades of tyranny, are now attempting to
govern themselves through compromise, not conflict. They have freely voted
twice. They have written and ratified a constitution. And the vast majority of
Iraqis are now working through the democratic process to avert the very civil
war that terrorists like Zarqawi wish to ignite.

But perhaps the most extraordinary and hopeful change of recent years has been
the growing consensus, led by the United States, that we must support the
chorus of reform now resounding throughout the Middle East.

On Saturday, I was in Bahrain for the second meeting of the Forum for the
Future, a partnership for political, economic, and social reform between the
G-8 nations and members of government and civil society in the broader Middle
East.

We had a conversation about political participation and women's rights and the
rule of law -- a conversation unthinkable just a few years ago -- and a
conversation that must soon include Israel.

The changes of the past decade are quite remarkable, then, in the strategic
context of the Middle East. And those changes are also transforming the debate
about the Israeli-Palestinian issue. In 2002, President Bush recognized that
the Palestinian leadership at the time was an obstacle to peace, not a force
for peace; and he encouraged the Palestinian people to begin opening their
political system. The President laid out an historic vision of two democratic
states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security and he
made it the policy of the United States.

Now, the Palestinian people are finally undertaking the democratic and economic
reforms that have long been denied to them. They have elected a president,
Mahmoud Abbas, who openly calls for peace with Israel. And for our part, we are
helping them, providing $350 million to help them build the institutions of a
democratic future. This movement toward democracy in the Palestinian
territories and across the Middle East has also changed the debate here, in
Israel, about the sources of security.

Because this nation no longer lives in fear of enemy tanks attacking from the
east, we now hear it said, among most Israelis, that a peaceful and democratic
Palestinian state is essential to Israel's security. And this new thinking led
to new action in August when Israel chose to disengage from Gaza and the
northern West Bank.

Prime Minister Sharon: President Bush and I admire your personal courage, your
leadership and the crucial contribution to peace that you are making.

(Applause.)

Disengagement was a testament to the character and the strength of Israeli
society, especially to the men and women of the Israeli Defense Forces and the
police service, whose noble conduct during this painful event set a standard to
which all democratic nations should aspire. And the effective cooperation
between Israelis and Palestinians was both impressive and inspiring.

Disengagement can be a great step forward on the path to a different Middle
East. It creates an opportunity for the Palestinians to secure their liberty
and build a democratic state. At the same time, the changing nature of the
Middle East can reinforce the democratic aspirations of the Palestinian people
and deny the enemies of reform their favorite excuse for coercive rule and
unconscionable violence. These positive developments will not jeopardize
Israel's security; they will enhance it. After all, true peace is that which
exists between peoples, not just between leaders.

Now, if Palestinians fight terrorism and lawless violence and advance
democratic reforms -- and if Israel takes no actions that prejudge a final
settlement and works to improve the daily lives of the Palestinian people --
the possibility of peace is both hopeful and realistic. Greater freedom of
movement is a key for Palestinians, from shopkeepers to farmers to restaurant
owners and for all seeking early easier access to their economic livelihood.

And let us be very clear about one other matter: Dismantling the infrastructure
of terrorism is essential for peace because in the final analysis, no
democratic government can tolerate armed parties with one foot in the realm of
politics and one foot in the camp of terrorism.

(Applause.)

This is the vision before us in the roadmap. And I look forward to our
engagement to move it forward. But there are other responsibilities, too.
Israel's neighbors must demonstrate their concern for peace not only with
rhetoric but with action. We encourage them -- Egypt to enhance its cooperation
with Israel on basic security issues. And we call on all Arab states to end
incitement in their media, cut off all funding for terrorism, stop their
support for extremist education, and establish normal relations with Israel.

(Applause.)

We look to Arab states also to help revitalize the Palestinian economy because
the Palestinians are a talented and well-educated people with great potential
for prosperity. They cite greater economic opportunity as their most urgent
desire. They deserve a chance to have it.

And so the responsibilities of peace, like the benefits of peace, will be
shared among all parties. And peace must be more than a mere process if it is
to summon our strength and demand our sacrifice. Peace must be a calling that
stirs our very souls, a vision that is not only local but regional as well; a
vision in which the sons and daughters of Israel are secure in their homeland
and at peace with their neighbors.

The world saw a passing glimpse of this vision ten years ago when unprecedented
numbers of Arab leaders journeyed here to see Yitzhak Rabin laid to rest in the
land of the prophets. And today, we want to continue advancing that vision.

It should be a Middle East where democracy flourishes and the non-negotiable
demands of human dignity form the foundations of citizenship. We envision a
Middle East where all men and women are secure in their persons and in their
property, with equal opportunities for prosperity and justice. And we will
continue to envision and work toward a future when all the people of the Middle
East may gather in this great ancient city, not to mourn a fallen hero, but to
build a common future.

Thank you very much.

(Applause.)

###

2005/T19-15



************************************************************
See http://www.state.gov/secretary/ for all remarks by the Secretary of State.
************************************************************
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Mon Nov 14, 2005 12:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Oppenheimer,

Oppenheimer wrote:
Sometimes reading your posts....re reading on many ocasions...I sometimes think you think the US is just twiddling its thumbs, waiting for the inevitable, or whenever the EU gets it's act together...whichever comes first.


If the Bush Admin have a classified grand schema for FREE Iran, then in next few weeks we will see Free Society and Secular Democracy in Iran !!!!

Due to the fact that public does not have access to classified documents therefore the public decides based on what Media are reporting. Today 65% of US voters are not happy from US government performance regarding the War On Terror progress ……

Regarding Iran the result that we see today from Media is not very encouraging I am looking at Bush Admin performance in past 5 years in terms of Human Rights, Free Society, Secular Democracy and Islamist Regime Change policy framework.

Whether the following items are called “Act of War” or “aggressive diplomacy” or “idealist policy” or “Realist Policy” does not matter. We are evaluating the President Bush Admin by the following framework and wish them victory.

Evaluation Criteria and Framework :
1) Winning War On Terror Starts With Mafia Islamist Regime Change and Establishing FREE Society in Iran Before It Becomes too Late. The G8 has waited for too long for purely selfish interest. The US and EU3 are partially responsible for supporting Mullahs and Islamist regime in past 27 years in the name of stability ….
It is US morale obligation to help remove evil Islamist regime from power ASAP and help Iranian people to establish Free society, Secular government and punish Islamist terror network…..

2) Iranian people can decide about Nuclear Energy and the Nuclear Enrichment program after the regime change when they have established secular democracy, Free society and when they have stable system of government, untill then Iran can not have any kind of Nuclear program under Islamist regime control in any form and shape. The Islamist Regime in Iran is not elected by Iranian people and G8 should not negotiate with the illegitimate regime which has taken 70 million Iranian people as their hostage

3) If US solution regarding Iran participates the British government in the process, the possibility of another big mess will be high as we have seen it in Iraq. I am saying it in advance as we have said about Iraq and we were right. The British Colonial power in the Middle East has very bad reputation and US government should not associate itself with the colonial power without any credit . The sons and daughters of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and ..... are freedom-loving liberators not Neo British Colonialists. The Bush Admin should not have invited the British Neo Colonialist to Iraq and give them the key for milking oil from Basra, Iraq …..

4) Human Rights, Free Society and Secular Democracy must be the main keys to any US decision making processes regarding the Iran solution. Iran must become free now and US should apply maximum resources for freeing Iran.

5) Whether the US can get the EU, UN, Russia or China support or not, the Islamist regime change must happen ASAP. Even if the only super power should do it alone.

Yes, we have to wait and see what is the Grand Schema.

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



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

PostPosted: Mon Nov 14, 2005 2:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
If the Bush Admin have a classified grand schema for FREE Iran, then in next few weeks we will see Free Society and Secular Democracy in Iran !!!!

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

Dear Cyrus.....chuckle.....Man you are one impatient patriot!

I don't know, but when it comes to miracles....you can only anticipate them....not expect them.

For the only one that could turn Iran into a free society and a secular democracy inside a couple weeks would have powers far greater than any mere mortal..

On the other hand....maybe the media and the public are so caught up in the instant gratification of on-demand consumerism that they expext instant results from foreign policy.

Let me ask you a question....do you ever see half the stuff I post from Condi Rice or the President's statements in the media?

Other than a sound-bite now and again?

OK, given that I think in advance that answer has to be "no" , do you think the public is well informed on things?

The president does not make policy based on public opinion polls, Cyrus.

There's a good reason for that.

Half the media reports I see, I simply take with a grain of salt, unless I happen to know that they are based on the truth....and even then that depends on the source's reliability.

That's why I post the entire context to things, so folks can make a better assesment.....used to drive the anti-Bush crowd nuts when I was spending my time on Washingtonpost.com forums.

I was booted off that forum after exposing the Washington post's creative editing of an interview with Colin Powell by the WP's editorial board, in a line by line analysis between the official transcript, and the excerpts they had published, that had twisted and spun the meaning of his words.

But that's another story.

I'll tell you what I see as a couple internal parameters inside Iran that factor in to why the regime is so afraid of UN sanctions.

1. The flight of capital in Iran is at an all time high, accelerated by Antar's diatribe against Israel and the US. To the point where the regime is about to close down its stock market to stop the hemoraging.

2. The regime exports a lot of crude, but hasn't the refining capacity to take care of its own needs, and must import gasoline, and other refined petroleum products. Sanctions would indeed bring Iran to a grinding halt, economicy.

3. All the "quiet diplomacy" going on, that the press is speculating about, tells me one thing....that the US is doing the prep-work neccessary to bring this regime to account in the UN. As a house painter, I can tell you for certain that the quality and longevity of my work is totally dependent on doing the prep work correctly, and it takes time to do it right.
In the case of "Iran policy" it has taken years of effort on the US part to bring things to this point where (and the regime itself has helped) the concurrence among nations moving toward the policy of support for the Iranian people's aspirations for liberty is now seen as not just a viable alternative, but that it is essential to a long-term solution to the threat this regime poses to the global community.

The people of Iran are coming to a certain realization as well, that this regime is pushing the west to the brink of war, and this is why 200 billion in assets have flowed out of Iran since Antar took office.

"investment is a coward" as it has been said....free nations are coming to the realization that their long-term investments in Iran, are better placed in the Iranian people rather than its government run industry.

China's well known pragmatism in economic dealings (overlooking a lot of things this regime is doing) has to take into account the overall picture that is now being presented. Sure they need Iran's energy supplies, but to get into deals with an unstable regime is a very risky venture.

And so this is just one example why I see a change in mindset happening, in that the investment made in the people of Iran is today all nation's best economic investment, if they want a stable trading partner in Iran.

In the short-term, it's going to be a very bumpy ride for the Iranian people over this next year.

In conclusion, it is inevitable that this regime will collapse from within, under the weight of its own isolation, and the west is getting set to give it that final nudge off the international stage.

Giving them an excuse to start a war is not an option, if they use a UN security council resolution againt the regime, as an excuse, the IRI will be taken down in short order.

But all the threats, coersion, and intimidation made by the regime won't alter the decision, Saddam tried this and look what it got him. Bribing won't work either, the exposure of the oil for food scandle has made it very hard for any nation to abstain from its moral responsibility to secure the safety of the global community, for simple economic reasons.

IF...and I say IF the regime fully capitulates, and does back-flip after back flip to do everything demanded of it by the west, then it might buy time externally, but having lost total face and credibility with it's fanatical supporters in doing so, would suffer an inevitable downfall.

I do not see the regime coming out of its present situation intact....no matter how things transpire.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Mon Nov 14, 2005 10:23 pm    Post subject: Waiting 3 Years Is Not Called Impatient Reply with quote

Waiting 3 Years Is Not Called Impatient

Dear Oppenheimer,

Oppenheimer wrote:

Man you are one impatient patriot!

I don't know, but when it comes to miracles....you can only anticipate them....not expect them.


In President Bush State of the Union message to Congress on Jan. 29, 2002, he said :"Iran aggressively pursues these weapons [of mass destruction] and exports terror. ... States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic."

3 years later the axis of evil Mullahs select Ahmadinejad with 1000s of blood on his hand as president of Islamist regime. Crushing any opposition and violate all aspects of human rights ….

It is not correct to say that I am impatient.
When president speaks is based on facts received from intelligence community with 100s of billion dollars budget . It is fair to expect good results after 3 years or explanation why their grand schema failed ……
I assume President will inform the nation in few weeks what is his plan……? and How much should we wait to please UK ....? then we can discuss whether we agree with it or not……

Oppenheimer wrote:

The president does not make policy based on public opinion polls, Cyrus.


Agree, but the Free nation is expecting result after 3 years.
CNN reporting today: http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/14/bush.poll/index.html

Poll: Bush approval rating slumps to all-time low
Beset with an unpopular war and an American public increasingly less trusting, President Bush faces the lowest approval rating of his presidency, according to a national poll released Monday. He also received all-time lows in three other categories -- terrorism, trustworthiness and the Iraq war -- in the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll.

Oppenheimer wrote:


I'll tell you what I see as a couple internal parameters inside Iran that factor in to why the regime is so afraid of UN sanctions.

1. The flight of capital in Iran is at an all time high, accelerated by Antar's diatribe against Israel and the US. To the point where the regime is about to close down its stock market to stop the hemoraging.

2. The regime exports a lot of crude, but hasn't the refining capacity to take care of its own needs, and must import gasoline, and other refined petroleum products. Sanctions would indeed bring Iran to a grinding halt, economicy.

3. All the "quiet diplomacy" going on, that the press is speculating about, tells me one thing....that the US is doing the prep-work neccessary to bring this regime to account in the UN. As a house painter, I can tell you for certain that the quality and longevity of my work is totally dependent on doing the prep work correctly, and it takes time to do it right.
In the case of "Iran policy" it has taken years of effort on the US part to bring things to this point where (and the regime itself has helped) the concurrence among nations moving toward the policy of support for the Iranian people's aspirations for liberty is now seen as not just a viable alternative, but that it is essential to a long-term solution to the threat this regime poses to the global community.



There are some good points, but the Strategy that worked in Soviet Union might not apply to the regime that runs by Islamist thugs and Terrorists…..


The following question by our fellow American Patriot and ActivistChat Member Mr. Mark Dankof is a very good question to be answered by President Bush:

Mr. Mark Dankof wrote:

Can the land of Cyrus, Darius, Rumi, Hafez, and Khayyam--and the nation of Washington, Jefferson, and Madison--ever be reclaimed for their respective peoples in such a lamentable age?


Whether the following items are called “Act of War” or “aggressive diplomacy” or “idealist policy” or “Realist Policy” does not matter. We are evaluating the President Bush Admin by the following framework and wish them victory.

Evaluation Criteria and Framework :
1) Winning War On Terror Starts With Mafia Islamist Regime Change and Establishing FREE Society in Iran Before It Becomes too Late. The G8 has waited for too long for purely selfish interest. The US and EU3 are partially responsible for supporting Mullahs and Islamist regime in past 27 years in the name of stability ….
It is US morale obligation to help remove evil Islamist regime from power ASAP and help Iranian people to establish Free society, Secular government and punish Islamist terror network…..

2) Iranian people can decide about Nuclear Energy and the Nuclear Enrichment program after the regime change when they have established secular democracy, Free society and when they have stable system of government, untill then Iran can not have any kind of Nuclear program under Islamist regime control in any form and shape. The Islamist Regime in Iran is not elected by Iranian people and G8 should not negotiate with the illegitimate regime which has taken 70 million Iranian people as their hostage

3) If US solution regarding Iran participates the British government in the process, the possibility of another big mess will be high as we have seen it in Iraq. I am saying it in advance as we have said about Iraq and we were right. The British Colonial power in the Middle East has very bad reputation and US government should not associate itself with the colonial power without any credit . The sons and daughters of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and ..... are freedom-loving liberators not Neo British Colonialists. The Bush Admin should not have invited the British Neo Colonialist to Iraq and give them the key for milking oil from Basra, Iraq …..

4) Human Rights, Free Society and Secular Democracy must be the main keys to any US decision making processes regarding the Iran solution. Iran must become free now and US should apply maximum resources for freeing Iran.

5) Whether the US can get the EU, UN, Russia or China support or not, the Islamist regime change must happen ASAP. Even if the only super power should do it alone.


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



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

PostPosted: Tue Nov 15, 2005 2:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
If the Bush Admin have a classified grand schema for FREE Iran, then in next few weeks we will see Free Society and Secular Democracy in Iran !!!!

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

Dear Cyrus.....chuckle.....Man you are one impatient patriot!


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

Hey Cyrus,

Please don't mistake my sense of humor as an insult, I was commenting on the timeline of your expectation that a couple weeks would see a secular democracy in place.

As for the last three years, you've seen a lot of prep work done, so it's not like the US is sitting around, there's a lot at stake Cyrus. You and I both know that.

Nothing worth doing happens overnight. Especially in foreign affairs.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Tue Nov 15, 2005 6:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oppenheimer wrote:


Quote:
If the Bush Admin have a classified grand schema for FREE Iran, then in next few weeks we will see Free Society and Secular Democracy in Iran !!!!

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

Dear Cyrus.....chuckle.....Man you are one impatient patriot!


-----------------
Hey Cyrus,

Please don't mistake my sense of humor as an insult, I was commenting on the timeline of your expectation that a couple weeks would see a secular democracy in place.

As for the last three years, you've seen a lot of prep work done, so it's not like the US is sitting around, there's a lot at stake Cyrus. You and I both know that.

Nothing worth doing happens overnight. Especially in foreign affairs.


Dear Oppenheimer
"Few weeks" is used as a humor for laughing where everything is open ended .

Oppenheimer wrote:

3. All the "quiet diplomacy" going on, that the press is speculating about, tells me one thing....that the US is doing the prep-work neccessary to bring this regime to account in the UN. As a house painter, I can tell you for certain that the quality and longevity of my work is totally dependent on doing the prep work correctly, and it takes time to do it right.


Lets use your example of house painting:
If you agree with a schedule and budget for house painting project and then you don’t meet your schedule and tell your customer later that you have spent all the budget for prep work, what do you think it will happen?

If you say that you have open ended schedule and budget for house painting project then who is going to sign up contract with you?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



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

PostPosted: Tue Nov 15, 2005 8:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Cyrus,

I bill my client by time and materials, I don't bid the job prior to doing it.

Lots of times there's more than meets the eye on a project, and so billing the client exactly for the hours worked, and they are paying for materials, it is fair to them and fair to me, no matter how long the job takes.

The bottom line is that when the client wants the job done right, they call me, if they want a half-assed quickie blow-and-go job, and quality isn't a concern, I tell them politely to find some one else.

Reason being is that I have a reputation to uphold, and my work's quality is my best ambassador, as I get all my work via word of mouth.

Most of my work is done on private homes worth over a million (US dollars), art galleries, and for interior designers.

In 20 years, I have yet to have one complaint, and many satisfied clients who've not only gotten more than they expected, but have referred me on to other work because of it.

The Free Iran project is not a blow and go proposition, the prep work has to be done right, because it has to be right the first time.

Don't fault the US for taking a very comprehansive approach, even though it's taken time to do the prep work bringing other nations in concurrence with US position. a lot of lives are at stake if this effort fails, and diplomacy is (including whatever action in the UN) lacking due to the proper prep work in gathering evidence, coordinating response, etc.

If Bush's poll numbers bother you, think of this... President Truman (one of the US's most repected presidents today) left office at the end of his term with only a 25% favorable rating.

This is the guy who dropped the bombs that ended WW2, set in motion the Marshal plan for the rebuilding of Europe after WW2, went into the Korean war under UN mandate, and was the first president of the cold-war.

He made a lot of difficult decisions, and pissed a whole lot of folks off in the process, but the EU would not now be a free collection of democracies if it hadn't been for those decisions.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Sun Nov 27, 2005 9:52 pm    Post subject: US to Reach Out to Iran in Bid to Quell Iraq Unrest Reply with quote

US to Reach Out to Iran in Bid to Quell Iraq Unrest

November 27, 2005
AFP
Times of Oman

http://www.timesofoman.com/newsdetails.asp?newsid=22484
WASHINGTON -- President George W. Bush has asked US Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad to reach out to Iran for assistance in subduing the unrest in Iraq — the first high-level US contact with Tehran in decades, Newsweek magazine reported yesterday. “I’ve been authorised by the president to engage the Iranians,” Khalilzad told Newsweek in its edition set to hit newsstands today. “There will be meetings, and that’s also a departure and an adjustment,” he said in an interview with the magazine.

ABC television confirmed the proposed US approach to Iran on its This Week programme yesterday, reporting that Khalilzad was to make direct contact with the Iranian government about the ongoing insurgency in Iraq.

The contact would be the first high-level communication at the senior level between Washington and Tehran since relations ruptured in 1979.

Meanwhile, Britain, France and Germany agreed yesterday to hold talks with Iran on resuming negotiations which broke down in August about the country’s disputed nuclear programme, a British spokesman said.

“I can confirm that a letter has been written by the three foreign ministers offering to have talks about restarting the negotiations on the nuclear issue,” a spokesman for Prime Minister Tony Blair said in Barcelona, where Blair was attending a Euro-Mediterranean summit.

Earlier Iran’s official Irna news agency said ambassadors of the so-called EU3 countries handed over a letter accepting a resumption of the talks in December, quoting a statement issued by Iran’s Supreme National Security Council.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Morning Light



Joined: 12 Oct 2005
Posts: 54

PostPosted: Sun Nov 27, 2005 10:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There is a limit to how much Bush can hurt Islamofacists.

Nonetheless I do wonder how much more zelous Bush would be if he read about how the IRI made the marriage age for girls 9.

I am sure if he read about that crime against humanity of the IRI Bush would be especially outraged, all decent people who know about the IRI pro-Child Rape laws would be outraged if they knew about it.

Perhaps that can be part of a possible information campaign, telling people about the way the IRI has made it legal to rape nine year old girls.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AmirN



Joined: 23 Sep 2005
Posts: 297

PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 1:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Morning Light, you must know where the age of nine comes from. The great Prophet, Mohammad, took as a wife young Aisha, whom he had sexual relations with at the age of nine.

The IRI must be applauded for following the great Prophet's example. After all, we know that he was infallible.

I am not surprised by the IRI. What surprises me is why all the other moslems of the world have not chosen to follow the great Mohammad's example.
_________________
I am Dariush the Great King, King of Kings, King of countries containing all kinds of men, King in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenian, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage

Naqshe Rostam
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Morning Light



Joined: 12 Oct 2005
Posts: 54

PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 12:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

However non-muslims are not bound by anything Prophet Mohhamad did or said, and would be horrified if they knew about the legality of raping nine year old girls in Iran.

You can go to any major Western City, except Israe (Iranian Israelis decided to try the random asking in Israel's big cities, and 1/5th of Israelis know) and go into the street to randomly ask westerners if they know about Irans laws supporting child rape, only a few people you ask will know about them, which is a problem.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index -> Noteworthy Discussion Threads All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group