[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 

Who Killed the Bush Doctrine?
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  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: Fri Sep 30, 2005 2:55 pm    Post subject: Who Killed the Bush Doctrine? Reply with quote

Who Killed the Bush Doctrine?
September 30, 2005
Ha'aretz
Michael Rubin

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/631247.html

On January 20, 2005, George W. Bush outlined the goal of his second term. "It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world," he said. "All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you."

Less than a year later, the Bush doctrine is dead, the victim not of outside circumstances, but rather lack of will and ineptness. While Bush may be sincere, across the Middle East, his administration's willingness to sacrifice those seeking freedom has become legendary.

Take Libya: On March 12, 2004, Bush declared, "We stand with courageous reformers ... Earlier today, the Libyan government released Fathi el-Jahmi. He's a local government official who was imprisoned in 2002 for advocating free speech and democracy. It's an encouraging step toward reform in Libya. You probably have heard, Libya is beginning to change her attitude about a lot of things.

Actually, Libyan strongman Muammar Qadhafi had not changed. Two weeks later, Libyan security rearrested Jahmi. Across the Middle East, analysts saw Qadhafi's actions as a challenge to Bush. The President responded not by tying rapprochement to El-Jahmi's freedom, but with impotence. As El-Jahmi rots in prison, denied medical care for his diabetes, the U.S. Treasury Department grants waivers to allow billions of dollars of U.S. investment in Libya. According to the London-based Al-Hayat newspaper, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will endorse Qadhafi's reign with a November visit to Tripoli.

The liberation of Iraq demonstrated that after years of effete diplomacy, the White House meant what it said. Bush reversed that victory.

It should be no surprise that Qadhafi has since gone on a rampage. In May 2005, he imprisoned dissident writer Abdul Razzaq al-Mansouri. In June 2005, regime elements tortured to death dissident journalist Daif al-Ghazal. Hundreds of political prisoners remain in Libyan jails.

The Bush administration also fumbled Lebanon. On March 8, 2005, Bush spoke at the National Defense University. "Today I have a message for the people of Lebanon," he said. "Lebanon's future will be in your hands. The American people are on your side." Perhaps many Americans were, but not the State Department.

When Condoleezza Rice visited Lebanon on July 22, she met not only with the new Prime Minister Fuad Siniora, but also with pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud, the man whose quest for an extra-constitutional third term began the cascade that led to the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri and sparked the Cedar Revolution. Syrian television, Hezbollah's Al-Manar channel, and the Arabic-language satellite station Al-Jazeera all broadcast her handshake with the symbol of tyranny.

The Lebanese were not alone in their betrayal. Egyptians were aghast when, on September 11, new U.S. Ambassador Frank Ricciardone appeared on Egyptian television and declared, "Let me just reiterate the congratulations of the United States of America to Egypt for this great accomplishment. As you know, President Bush has telephoned President Mubarak ... to congratulate him and Egypt on the accomplishments of this past election."

Four days earlier, Mubarak had declared victory in elections marred by harassment of opponents, fraud, and the state's refusal to allow international monitors access. The Egyptian people, in protest, boycotted the polls. Voter turnout was only 20 percent. Rather than support the Egyptian people, the President's representative fawned on a dictator. Sometimes, silence can be the best response.

Embrace of autocracy has become the rule rather than the exception in U.S. foreign policy. At the request of the Palestinian Authority, the State Department banned Issam Abu Issa, a Palestinian anti-corruption activist slated to testify in the House of Representatives.

Bush declared during his 2005 State of the Union Address, "To the Iranian people, I say tonight, as you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you." But Rice appointed an ExxonMobil advisor who advised against aiding dissidents to cover the State Department's Iran policy planning portfolio.

Against the backdrop of Bush's indifference, Turkish democracy has taken a step backward. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has both ignored rulings of the Turkish Supreme Court and retaliated against plaintiffs. After Turkish businessman Mustafa Suzer won five lawsuits against the Turkish government for its illegal seizure of Kent Bank, Erdogan not only refused to abide by the court verdict, but he also ordered a travel ban on Suzer and, without any court order, sent bulldozers to demolish a restaurant on his property.

Emboldened by Washington's silence and frustrated at the constraints of an independent judiciary, the Turkish leader has used his parliamentary majority to lower the retirement age of judges so that he can replace nearly half of Turkey's 9,000 judges before the next election.

As they do with Bush, the chattering classes of Europe, Israel, and the American elite once criticized Reagan for his talk of the "Evil Empire" and his willingness to endanger detente for the sake of a few dissidents. Reagan was right, though, and more than two hundred million Soviets had a chance at freedom because of it.

Bush might have been equally successful. Images of Iraqis, Afghans, and Lebanese voting are more powerful than any terrorist car bomb or Al-Qaida video. Armchair experts may say Iraq's liberation emboldened terrorists. But the pages of Arabic newspapers like Al-Sharq al-Awsat and Al-Hayat now carry an unprecedented debate about democracy, which experts said could not happen. Liberals may be a minority in the Arab world, but they have begun to find their voice.

Rice may echo the President, but by embracing dictators, she has undercut the spirit of his message. Dissidents should not be treated as ornaments, to be displayed when convenient but kept at arm's length. They are the foundation of freedom. While Bush might once have been remembered for bringing freedom to 30 million Afghans and 25 million Iraqis, his legacy is fast becoming one of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Michael Rubin, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, is editor of the Middle East Quarterly.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Fri Sep 30, 2005 2:59 pm    Post subject: Re: Who Killed the Bush Doctrine? Reply with quote

cyrus wrote:
Who Killed the Bush Doctrine?


Rice may echo the President, but by embracing dictators, she has undercut the spirit of his message. Dissidents should not be treated as ornaments, to be displayed when convenient but kept at arm's length. They are the foundation of freedom.



Where is Bush Admin Islamist regime change policy?
Where is Bush Admin help for Iranian oppositions training and support to replace terror masters?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



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

PostPosted: Sat Oct 01, 2005 12:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Cyrus,

Recently there was posted a report of Khomeni's death, which proved to be inaccurate...now I read of the demise of the Bush doctrine....also premature, but then there are always those who curse the rain that makes flowers grow....


Princeton University's Celebration of the 75th Anniversary Of the Woodrow
Wilson School of Public and International Affairs


Secretary Condoleezza Rice
Princeton University
New Jersey
September 30, 2005

(3:00 p.m. EDT)

SECRETARY RICE: Thank you. Thank you very much. Madame President, other
distinguished members here on the dais, and especially to Anne-Marie Slaughter
who I know not just as a fine Dean of the Woodrow Wilson School but also as an
extraordinary scholar whose expertise I've tapped on a couple of occasions
since I've been Secretary, thank you for your leadership of this great
university and your leadership in this great school.

I am honored to be here today at Princeton. From George Kennan and John Foster
Dulles, to George Shultz and James Baker, and of course, Woodrow Wilson, many
renowned American statesmen have worn the orange and black.

I am especially honored to help all of you celebrate this historic 75th
anniversary of the Woodrow Wilson School. As a professor myself, I understand
how important it is to root the practice of statecraft in the study of
statecraft in the systematic examination of politics and history and culture
that the Wilson School offers to its students.

Ladies and Gentlemen: Seventy-five years ago, when this school was founded, it
was a difficult time when the world's democracies were like islands in a raging
sea. Adolph Hitler was planning his ascent to power in Germany and plotting his
conquest of Europe. And Joseph Stalin was consolidating his rule and building a
Soviet Union that would threaten the entire free world.

Today, however, democracies are emerging wherever and whenever the tides of
oppression recede. As President Bush said in his Second Inaugural Address, "The
best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world."

Now, to forge realistic policies from these idealistic principles, we must
recognize that statecraft can assume two fundamentally different forms. In
ordinary times, when existing ideas and institutions and alliances are adequate
to the challenges of the day, the purpose of statecraft is to manage and
sustain the established international order. But in extraordinary times, when
the very terrain of history shifts beneath our feet and decades of human effort
collapse into irrelevance, the mission of statecraft is to transform our
institutions and partnerships to realize new purposes on the basis of enduring
values.

One such extraordinary moment began in 1945 in the wreckage of one of the great
cataclysms in human history. World War II thoroughly consumed the old
international system. And it fell to a group of American statesmen --
individuals like Truman and Acheson and Vandenburg -- to assume the roles of
architects and builders of a better world.

The solutions to those challenges seem perfectly clear now with half a century
of hindsight. But it was anything but clear for the men and women who lived and
worked in those unprecedented change. Long after he was present at the
creation, Dean Acheson remembered the early years of the Cold War as cloudy,
and puzzling, and perilous. "The significance of events," he wrote, "was
shrouded in ambiguity and we hesitated long before grasping what now seems
obvious."

But despite the extraordinary nature of their time, the statesmen of that era
succeeded brilliantly. They conceived doctrines and created the alliances and
built the institutions that formed the foundation of a new international
system, one organized to defend freedom from the spread of communism.

The ultimate collapse of the Soviet Union initiated a new moment of
transformation. This was a glorious revolution, a cause for celebration
throughout Russia and Eastern Europe. The Warsaw Pact countries became the new
heart of NATO, and we transformed that alliance into one that Truman and
Acheson would never have recognized, but would certainly have applauded. Some
even thought that the engine of globalization might just make the possibility
of conflict remote.

But lurking below the surface, old hatreds were gaining new power. And on a
warm September morning, America encountered the darker demons of our new world.

People still differ about what the September 11th calls us to do. And in a
democratic society, that debate is healthy and just and right. If you focus
only on the attacks themselves and believe they were caused by 19 hijackers,
supported by a network called al-Qaida, and operating from a failed state --
Afghanistan -- then our response can be limited. The course of action presumes
that we are still living in an ordinary time.

But if you believe, as I do and as President Bush does, that the root cause of
September 11th was the violent expression of a global extremist ideology, an
ideology rooted in the oppression and despair of the modern Middle East, then
we must speak to remove the source of this terror by transforming that troubled
region. If you believe as we do, then it cannot be denied that we are standing
at an extraordinary moment in history.

Some would argue that this broad approach to the problem is making the world
less stable by rocking the boat and wrecking the status quo. But this presumes
the existence of a stable status quo that does not threaten global security.
This is not the case. A regional order that produced an ideology of hatred so
savage as the one we now confront is not serving any civilized interest.

For 60 years, we often thought that we could achieve stability without liberty
in the Middle East. And ultimately, we got neither. Now, we must recognize, as
we do in every other region of the world, that liberty and democracy are the
only guarantees of true stability and lasting security.

There are those who worry that greater freedom of choice in the Middle East
will only liberate and empower extremism. In fact, the opposite is true: A
political culture of transparency and openness is not one in which extremist
beliefs can ultimately thrive. Extremism is most dangerous when it lurks in the
dark and hides underground. When there is no political space for individuals to
advance their interests and redress their grievances, then they retreat into
the shadows to grow ever more radical and divorced from reality. We saw the
result of that on September 11th and now we must work to advance democratic
reform throughout the greater Middle East.

Now, to support democratic aspirations, we must be serious about the universal
appeal of certain basic rights. When given a truly free choice, human beings
will choose liberty over oppression; the right to own property over random
search and seizure. Human beings will choose the natural right to life over the
constant fear of death. And human beings will choose to be ruled by the consent
of the governed, not by the coercion of the state; by the rule of law, not the
whim of rulers. These principles should be the source of justice in every
society and the basis for peace between all states.

To support democratic aspirations, we must also promote democratic institutions
that function transparently and accountably. We must help all young democracies
to protect minority rights, to enforce the rule of law, and to build the
foundations of good governance, from a thriving economy and a vibrant civil
society, to a free media and opportunities for learning and for health for
their people.

To support the democratic aspirations, we must recognize that liberty still
faces opponents in our world. Some will never support the free choices of their
citizens because they stand to lose arbitrary powers and unjust privileges.
Others know that the ideology of hatred they espouse can only thrive in a
political culture of oppression and poverty and hopelessness. In a world where
evil is still very real, democratic principles must be backed with power in all
its forms: political, and economic, and cultural, and moral, and yes,
sometimes, military. Any champion of democracy who promotes principle without
power can make no real difference in the lives of oppressed people.

There are those who falsely characterize the support of democracy as
"exporting" democracy, as if democracy were somehow a product that only America
manufactures. These critics say that we are arrogantly imposing our principles
on an unwilling people. But it is the very height of arrogance to believe that
political liberty and democratic aspirations and freedom of speech and rights
for women somehow belong only to us. All people deserve these rights and they
choose them freely. It is not liberty and democracy that must be imposed. It is
tyranny and silence that are forced upon people at gunpoint.

We know that the march of democracy is not easy. We know that coming to terms
with the provision of these rights takes time. We know because of our own
history in which imperfect people put together institutions that allowed us to
strive everyday toward a more perfect union. But of course, in our 250 years,
we are still striving and as we look at others who are still striving, we owe
them our respect and our confidence that they, too, can achieve their
aspirations.

For years, the entire world talked about ending the Taliban's tyranny in
Afghanistan. But it was finally the United States, leading a coalition of
willing nations and brave Afghans that finally put an end to that regime's
persecution of its people. Although many challenges remain, Afghanistan has
amazed the world with its rapid progress toward democracy even as many people
begin to take it for granted.

For years, the entire world also talked about ending Syria's occupation of
Lebanon. But it was the United States and France, leading a broad international
coalition, with a UN Security Council mandate that together with Lebanese
patriots finally achieved the withdrawal of Syrian forces after the brutal
murder of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Since then, the Lebanese people
have held their first free elections in decades. And we are now supporting them
in the hard work of democratic reform that will continue long into the future.

For years, the entire world sought to make peace between Israel and the
Palestinian Authority, while overlooking the corrupt nature and terrorist links
of Yasser Arafat's rule. But President Bush refused to deal with Arafat and
encouraged the Palestinian people to undertake the democratic reforms they so
justly deserved. Since Arafat's death, the Palestinian people have elected a
president who calls for peace with Israel and recognizes the need to fight
terrorism. Now, if both Palestinians and Israelis meet their obligations, there
is a true opportunity for a lasting peace.

For years, the topic of reform was not even a part of our dialogue with Egypt
and Saudi Arabia. But President Bush insisted on having these difficult
discussions with our two oldest friends, in private and in public. Both
countries are now taking steps to greater political openness. Saudi Arabia held
imperfect municipal elections earlier this year because women did not vote. But
they have promised that they will vote in the future. Egypt held flawed but
landmark presidential election this summer in which there was, at least,
vigorous debate of the options before Egyptians. And they will turn to
parliamentary elections next year. Democracy, however, is more than a matter of
holding elections. And we therefore expect both Egypt and Saudi Arabia to begin
reforming the political institutions that are the key to lasting success for
any democracy.

And of course, for many years, the entire world talked about ending the tyranny
in Baathists Iraq. Despite 17 Security Council resolutions demanding that
Saddam Hussein stop oppressing his people, refrain from threatening his
neighbors and cease the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, he remained in
power. The United States and a large coalition of nations finally removed
Saddam Hussein. By any moral standards, the liberation of the Iraqi people was
long overdue.

Now, it was only two and a half years ago that Saddam Hussein was still in
control of Iraq. He was torturing his political opponents and he was plundering
the Oil-for-Food program and using the money to corrupt individuals and
institutions worldwide, while Iraqi children died of malnutrition and lack of
medicine. He was forcing male dissenters to witness the rape of their wives and
daughters. And he was shoveling the stale dirt of mass graves onto the latest
of his 300,000 innocent victims. A monster like Saddam Hussein could not be a
part of anyone's vision for a better Middle East.

Now, Saddam Hussein is gone and the Iraqi people have a more hopeful future. To
be sure, Iraqis still face a long, hard path to that hopeful future. Historical
changes of the scope and magnitude of this one are bound to be difficult. And
this is a country that rests on the major fault lines of religion and ethnicity
in the Middle East. It was held together for most of its history through
coercion and repression. Now, despite having known little but tyranny, the
Iraqi people are trying to govern themselves through politics, not violence;
through compromise, not conflict. Millions of Iraqis risked their lives to vote
last January. And their free representatives have drafted a constitution that
enshrines the principles of democracy and the equality of all Iraqis before the
law.

The United Nations having increased its presence in Iraq tenfold in just the
past year is helping to organize its constitutional referendum as well as the
elections that will follow at the end of the year. In both of these important
votes, American and coalition soldiers will join Iraq's security forces to
defend the Iraqi people's freedom of choice, whatever course of action they
favor.

There is a path to success and Iraqis are progressing along it. But they must
themselves maintain their commitment to the democratic political process and to
a life of cooperation and compromise rather than violence. We must help them to
fully develop their own security forces and they must build institutions that
sustain accountability and provides public services. For their part, Iraq's
neighbors must provide greater financial support and stronger diplomatic
support. And the international community must continue to stand firmly at
Iraq's side.

Now, clearly, the path is made more difficult by the brutal insurgency that
Iraqis face. Iraq's security forces are fighting its enemies vigorously,
coalition forces are helping and America's men and women in uniform are
performing heroically. Nearly 2,000 American servicemen and women have given
their lives to this mission. And our nation will always honor their names and
their sacrifice.

So let us be very clear about exactly who they and we are fighting. Some of the
insurgency is fueled by the same thugs and henchman who enforced Saddam
Hussein's tyranny for decades. They fight now to regain the unjust privileges
they once had. There are many others, however, foreign terrorists like Abu
Musab al-Zarqawi, who seek to ignite the very civil war that ordinary Iraqis
are trying so hard to prevent.

These terrorists target Iraqi children receiving candy from American soldiers.
They line up schoolteachers and execute them in their classrooms. They murder
hospital workers caring for the wounded. And they massacre innocent Muslims who
want to serve as policemen and soldiers and government officials in the new
Iraq. This is not some grassroots coalition of national resistance. These are
merciless killers who want to provoke nothing less than a full-scale civil war
among Muslims across the entire Middle East. And having done so, they would
build an empire of terror and oppression.

The choice we face in Iraq is, thus, stark. If we quit now, we will abandon
Iraq's democrats at their time of greatest need. We will embolden every enemy
of liberty and democracy across the Middle East. We will destroy any chance
that the people of this region have of building a future of hope and
opportunity. And we will make America more vulnerable. If we abandon future
generations in the Middle East to despair and terror, we also condemn future
generations in the United States to insecurity and fear.

Ladies and Gentlemen: We have set out to help the people of the Middle East
transform their societies. Now is not the time to falter or fade.

Only four years ago, the democrats of the Arab world were hiding in silence or
languishing in prison or fearing for their very lives. Now, from Cairo and
Ramallah, to Beirut and Baghdad, men and women are finding new spaces of
freedom to assemble and debate and build a better world for themselves and
their children. They most certainly have determined enemies. But they also have
determined defenders. And it is possible to envision a future Middle East where
democracy is thriving, where human rights are secure, and where hope and
opportunity are within the reach of these people.

I know that this vision can seem very distant at times, especially when we see
so many tragic images of death, of innocent Iraqis and Afghans, and of course,
Americans dying overseas. There are legitimate differences about the war we are
now fighting in Iraq and in a great democracy like ours, everyone has the right
to express those views freely.

But I hope that we can all step back and look at other extraordinary times and
though they are not perfectly parallel, they can help us to gain a perspective
on the challenges we face.

In 1989, I was lucky enough to be the White House Soviet specialist at the end
of the Cold War. It doesn't get any better than that. I was there for the
liberation of Eastern Europe; the unification of Germany; and for the
beginnings of the peaceful collapse of the Soviet Union itself. I saw things
that I never thought possible. And one day, they seemed impossible; and several
days later, they seemed inevitable. That is the nature of extraordinary times.

But as I look back now on those times, I realized that I was only harvesting
the good decisions that had been taken in 1947, in 1948, and in 1949. And
sometimes, I wonder how in the course of events, the course of the moment,
people like Acheson and Truman and Marshall and Vandenberg saw a path ahead.
After all, in 1946, the Germany Reconstruction was still failing and Germans
were still starving. Japan lay prostrate. In 1947, there was a civil war in
Greece. In 1948, Germany was permanently divided by the Berlin Crisis;
Czechoslovakia was lost to a communist coup. And in 1949, the Soviet Union
exploded a nuclear weapon five years ahead of schedule; and the Chinese
communists won their war. In 1950, a brutal war broke on the Korean Peninsula.

These were not just tactical setbacks for the forward march of democracy.
Indeed, it must have seemed quite impossible, that we would one day, stand at a
juncture where Eastern Europe would be liberated, Russia would emerge, and
Europe would be whole and free and at peace. If we think back on those days, we
recognize that extraordinary times are turbulent and they are hard. And it is
very often hard to see a clear path. But if you are -- as those great
architects of the post-Cold War victory were -- if you are true to your values,
if you are certain of your values, and if you act upon them with confidence and
with strength, it is possible to have an outcome where democracy spreads and
peace and liberty reign.

Because of the work that they did, it is hard to imagine war in Europe again.
So it shall be also for the Middle East.

Thank you very much.

2005/907



Released on September 30, 2005
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Sat Oct 01, 2005 1:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oppenheimer wrote:
Dear Cyrus,

now I read of the demise of the Bush doctrine....also premature, but then there are always those who curse the rain that makes flowers grow....

But if you believe, as I do and as President Bush does, that the root cause of
September 11th was the violent expression of a global extremist ideology, an
ideology rooted in the oppression and despair of the modern Middle East, then
we must speak to remove the source of this terror by transforming that troubled
region. If you believe as we do, then it cannot be denied that we are standing
at an extraordinary moment in history.

Some would argue that this broad approach to the problem is making the world
less stable by rocking the boat and wrecking the status quo. But this presumes
the existence of a stable status quo that does not threaten global security.
This is not the case. A regional order that produced an ideology of hatred so
savage as the one we now confront is not serving any civilized interest.

For 60 years, we often thought that we could achieve stability without liberty
in the Middle East. And ultimately, we got neither. Now, we must recognize, as
we do in every other region of the world, that liberty and democracy are the
only guarantees of true stability and lasting security.


Released on September 30, 2005


Dear Oppenheimer,
Thank you for your post. There is no question that Dr. Rice has brilliant mind and I agree with many things that she has said in past 10 months.
In the speech that you have posted she does not talk about Iran strategy and policy.
Due to the fact that you are following Free Iran case for democracy therefore please educate us with list of good actions by Bush Admin regarding Iran, helping Iranian people to change Islamist regime, replace it with free open society and secular democracy.
In past 5 years Bush Admin had many good words regarding freedom in Iran without any real actions.
Where is US policy regarding regime change in Iran?
How have they helped Iranian freedom?
Is supporting EU3 pro Mullah policy and EU3 bloody stupid games in Iran good policy for who?

I don't want to repeat myself, we are activist not politicians, we are looking for facts and real results and not beautiful words without results please educate us with what we don't know.

Today we have more political prisoners in Iran than 5 yeras ago, the regime executed more people, Zahra Kazemi .....
What has US done regarding FREE Iran that we can be proud of it today please educate us?

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



Joined: 03 Aug 2004
Posts: 91

PostPosted: Sat Oct 01, 2005 2:33 pm    Post subject: Not A Democrat, Just Sick And Tired Of Liars! Reply with quote

Not A Democrat, Just Sick And Tired Of Liars!

http://freeiranians.blogspot.com/

Ambassador H.H in response to jokes on GW wrote and asked me;” Have we Iranians enrolled in American Democratic Party?

If we have not, then why we are bashing G. W. Bush? With this kind of a nonsensical left wing propaganda against him?

The only person that we may have little hope to do some thing about our retched life out of our beloved land?! Since we all know that the DEMOCRATS are our staunch enemy! I simple refuse to distribute this e-mail without my personal comments.”


The short answer is no sir! As matter of fact I have a commendation letter from GW for my efforts on getting him reelected in his second term. Out of hatred for the sleazy Jimmy Carter and his moron national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, I avoid Democrats like a plague. Brzezinski Justified his Islamic Belt Project in his book in this manner "In fact, an Islamic revival - already abetted from the outside not only by Iran but also by Saudi Arabia - is likely to become the mobilizing impulse for the increasingly pervasive new nationalisms, determined to oppose any reintegration under Russian - and hence infidel - control." (p. 133).

The end results were Khomeini, IRI, Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Iran-Iraq war, several million deaths among Iranians Afghanis and Iraqis. Al Qaeda, and September 11 are the byproduct of the Green belt (Russian Beard) project. Where was our vigilance in late 70s?


Having grown up in the West, I don’t have the Persian inhibition, I do not worship ideals! On this year’s state of the union, Bush said” to the Iranian people, I say tonight: As you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you.” Yet he tells the congress urging them to hold off on the legislation concerning H.R. 282/S. 333 (http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/060105/members.html )! Similarly he fails other Middle Eastern nations (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/631247.html ). The president in the last state of the union said “Iran remains the world's primary sponsor of terror”, yet US sided with Iran last week in a secret vote to downgrade international police alerts calling for the arrest of Iranian officials wanted by Argentina for their alleged role in the 1994 bombing of the Argentina’s Jewish Center (http://forward.com/articles/4035)!

It seems to me that he is talking from both sides of his mouth. As one of his constituents I question his double talk and integrity until he gets it together.


Ramin Etebar, MD
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
espandyar



Joined: 15 Apr 2004
Posts: 236

PostPosted: Sat Oct 01, 2005 3:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Oppenheimer

I agree with Cyrus. As you see there has not been any ACTION supporting the democracy in Iran this is supporting my reply in the Ganji thread!

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



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

PostPosted: Sat Oct 01, 2005 3:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In the speech that you have posted she does not talk about Iran strategy and policy.
-------------

Well Cyrus,

I can't tell you how to interpret words...but I see Iran policy as fundementally a part of a broad strategy to win the war on terrorism...and just because the word Iran was not mentioned in that speech does not mean the speech did not include Iran in it's precepts.

There is something I think folks may wish to consider...look back a few years and take a good look at the total lack of cooperation between the west regarding Iran....this is not an instant thing...just as it was not an instant thing to defeat Hitler....but the allies chewed bits and pieces at a time off that regime...isolating, gaining concurrance in strategy, and denying influence (mostly by military means) and the same may be said to be true about the strategy with Iran today.

The IRI is surrounded, politically isolated, and increasingly so....its ally Syria has lost a base of opperations in Lebanon, and is facing ever greater pressure, as is the IRI.

What you have is a turning of the screws, and it's not delivered with a single political nuke...though at some point there is a fulcrum where diplomacy gives way to intervention.

And by diplomacy....this has many aspects....as Condi Rice illustrated.

All the powers at our disposal....including military. What does this tell you?

Have we simply said, "OK, we've finished, let's go home." ????

Not a freekin' chance my friend....S333 may simply have been delayed because circumstances in Iran have changed and as I read the bills, they are indeed outdated....including mention of support for a referendum....which never happened, nor will it while this regime exists.

Now should there be debate and passage of something inadequate to address the circumstance? You tell me.

I would not discount Democratic support either....not every Democrat is a John Kerry clone.

Since I happen to be a Democrat (voted for Bush BTW), I have some reason to know the score up on the Hill.

If anyone would take a good look at the failure of the Argentine investigation, it would be totally obvious why interpol could not support red flag being continued.

Blame the US if you wish, but we didn't botch the investigation and create legal confusion.

In the meantime, the task of the opposition is to pull itself together inside and outside Iran....be patient...play a good waiting game without going about this piecemeal in protest, as what will be required is an all out sustained effort, and your resources are being drained off by present tactics...as piecemeal protests are crushed and folks arrested.

I've been saying this for over a year now, and you only have the evidence before you to understand the truth and logic of what I say.

You've had some 850 protests in the time since the election, and every one has been crushed....If you folks are going to be effective, it must be nationwide, all at once, and well coordinated and timed to blend with international pressure being exerted.

November IAEA is one of those points.

There are two issues the west must contend with....the response of the IRI to any international support of opposition groups, and the question regarding Iranian support for the IRI, should military intervention be deemed necessary.

So maybe you could fill me in a bit more on those two aspects...and ways to overcome the inherent problems associated.

Regards,

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



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

PostPosted: Sun Oct 02, 2005 12:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Cyrus,

I do a bit more than simply follow the Free Iran case, as this letter will illustrate. My purpose here is that of a "bridge between cultures".

The traffic goes both ways, I simply hope I am a stong enough bridge to carry the weight of the message.

For those who've questioned my intent in the past, know that I do not receive a dime for doing so. It's not about money, it's about saving lives.

You may note the date, but there are some things that must remain non-public, such as personal contact info. Therefore the header is not complete, nor are names included.

I think you'll find that your concerns have been noted and passed on in my comments to the Dept. of State.

Regards,

Oppie



Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2005 2:42 PM
Subject: Re: ATT IRAN DESK


To: Iran Desk, US Dept. of State

Dear (---),

Forwarding this to you for consideration, and those it may concern.





Iran’s Supreme Leader orders unprecedented crackdown Mon. 12 Sep 2005







Iran Focus

Tehran, Iran, Sep. 12 – Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has ordered the head of the country’s judiciary to deal “decisively” with “elements creating disruption in society” and sentence them to “the most severe punishment that God has prescribed”, the semi-official daily Jomhouri Islami wrote in its Tuesday edition.

“Following a report by the Tehran Prosecutor’s Office to the chief of the judiciary which was later presented by him to the Supreme Leader, the Leader issued an order to deal decisively with trouble-makers”, the hard-line daily Jomhouri Islami quoted the head of Tehran’s Justice Department, Abbas-Ali Alizadeh, as saying.

“We must not even give these people the right to life”, Alizadeh said of those he called “trouble-makers”. He said special tribunals had been set up to deal expeditiously with these persons.

The report also added that Khamenei had ordered Judiciary Chief Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi to hand down “decisive, divine sentences to trouble-makers”. Iran’s clerical rulers often refer to public hangings, amputation of limbs, and other such punishment as “divine sentences”.

“It is necessary, with the cooperation of the Ministry of Intelligence and Security and the State Security Forces, to wage a fierce fight against such persons”, Supreme Leader Khamenei was quoted as saying.

The daily added that following the decree, Shahroudi called on judges to issue “more severe sentences” and to take more seriously the new “national security initiative” to punish “trouble-makers”.

Tehran’s top judge added that the judiciary planned to “create insecurity for trouble-makers” and “not give these people a right to life”.

Authorities routinely refer to anti-government activists or ordinary people deemed to act in un-Islamic ways as trouble-makers.








Interview With the New York Post Editorial Board

Secretary Condoleezza Rice
New York City
September 15, 2005



(excerpt)



QUESTION: In the President’s State of the Union message he basically said (inaudible) will be there to help you on it.



SECRETARY RICE: Well, the problem in Iran is that the train is going the other way right now. The hardliners have managed, I think, to – for the time being – silence any organized opposition and you have the sense that it’s difficult for the population, which is (inaudible) deeply dissatisfied with their government, but it’s difficult for the population to find someplace to adhere, you know, you need a focal point and I think they’re having -- there’s (inaudible) trouble in doing that.



But in Iran, we do have some democracy programs that we’re doing. They’re small and they’re doing them through nongovernmental organizations because we don’t want to give the government a reason to crack down on what little democratic activity there is in Iran.



The second point is that the Iranian people would – the United States Government is very popular with the Iranian people.



-----End Excerpt--------









On one hand Secretary Rice has a point when she says that American support may give cause to the regime for crackdowns, but the reality is they don't need an excuse, and they are actively suppressing any and all dissent in Iran regardless of the level of American support to the point where in a few years there won't be an opposition in Iran because they'll all be in mass graves or in some hell-hole of a prison.



The point I must stress here in terms of American credibility with those seeking and badly needing our support and that of the international community is that there are no halfway measures that may prove effective.



Big debate over effective US public diplomacy right now, and as I look at this in all its aspects with regards to Iran, both with the people and the government as separate tracks, I’ll be very blunt in saying that the war of ideas as it pertains to support for democratic change cannot be won unless full tilt effort in concrete ways to hold this regime to account along with total and uncompromising support is given to the people to effect change from within.



1. You risk losing the good will of the Iranian people if you don’t put pedal to the metal with support. As well as the credibility of the president’s statement to the Iranian people.

2. Halfway measures don’t produce results, whether that is on nuclear issues or human rights issues. Standing on principal cannot be with one foot.

3. The question of nationalistic pride over right to nuclear production is very debatable, as the people not only have no voice in the matter, but any poll to that effect must be regarded as suspect, as the farce of the Iranian election process proves.

4. Lots of anger in the Iranian community over the visa issue, and many cannot understand why if the man has been deemed unfit for visa for questions relating to terrorism, why he is not served a warrant for his arrest at this point.

5. I personally understand the complexities involved, and the strategy of letting him pretty well hang himself with his own words in the UN, as he did Saturday, and the issue surrounding a diplomatic approach in giving the IRI a chance to pull back from confrontation. But there are real and legitimate concerns within the opposition that the president’s words will not be acted upon in time to prevent the opposition in Iran from being totally crushed.

6. Confrontation, is in my mind inevitable, whether US efforts in diplomacy fail in multilateral setting is going to be dependant on the effect of a “full court press” in the UN Sec. Council with resolutions tabled on the nuclear dossier, the human rights dossier, and the terrorism dossier not just as separate issues, but intertwined, interdependent, with emphasis on “responsibility to protect”.

7. I believe that short of military confrontation the following suggestions in this letter to Ambassador Bolton reflect a great deal of thought put into this by the Iranian opposition, and present viable alternative options for consideration.



Best Regards,



(oppenheimer)





http://www.daneshjoo.org/article/publish/article_3326.shtml

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


September 7, 2005

The Honorable John Bolton,
United States Ambassador to the UN
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20520

Via Federal Express & Fax (202) 647-0244


Dear Mr. Ambassador,

On behalf of the membership of the "Student Movement
Coordination Committee for Democracy in Iran" (SMCCDI), and
the people of Iran who have striven so long for freedom of
speech, worship, assembly, a free press, civil liberties,
woman's rights, the application of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, and the rule of law; We
congratulate you on your nomination as America's Ambassador
to the UN.

Comes now this Iranian opposition group, to apprise you of
the facts, the conclusions and suggestions we have been
given to put forward herein this letter, as context to the
2005 UN Summit, and the pending address to the UN of the
Islamic Republic regime's appointed president, Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad, with the gravest concern for the welfare and
common good of all people, and generations to come...


"In Larger Freedom"

The body of evidence compiled over the long history of
the Islamic Republic's systemic methodology of torture,
political repression and murder of journalists and
dissidents; crimes against humanity including the past and
current crackdown on ethnic and religious minorities, and
"troublemakers" (i.e.: political dissidents of the regime);
applying a Gender Apartheid policy and sexual
discrimination against women; sponsoring and officially
engaging in terrorism (internally and externally), by its
leadership and proxy; suppression of the press, closing of
TV and newspapers as well as confiscation of satellite
dishes, the arrest of "bloggers" and the shutting down of
internet sites, arbitrary arrest and lack of "due process";
the denial of requested information to the UN Commission on
Human Rights (and its sub committees), the denial of access
and information to the IAEA, false declaration to various
UN committee; The failure to uphold the tenants of the UN
Charter signed by Iran in 1948 (in multiple aspects,
consistently and premeditative, and the long history of
denial, subterfuge, bribery, and false public statements on
the record in the UN we believe must be addressed in
totality, before the Security Council, along with other
issues and recommendations brought before the council
regarding this regime, to obtain a holistic solution to a
common threat.

We understand that the UN Commission on Human Rights
mandate covers only one aspect of the larger picture that
must be addressed, and while the "1503 procedure" states, "
No communication will be admitted if it runs counter to the
principles of the Charter of the United Nations or appears
to be politically motivated." and further states, "As a
rule, communications containing abusive language or
insulting remarks about the State against which the
complaint is directed will not be considered."

We believe it is essential that you and the Commission
understand that SMCCDI's intent is not "politically
motivated" in seeking greater freedom for Iran's people,
nor does any member aspire to become a representative of
any new political structure that may exist in a future free
Iran. It is important for us that you and the UN understand
the nature and precepts of SMCCDI as well as the long road
that has brought the opposition in general to the
conclusions and suggestions expressed herein.

While the 1503 procedure states that no "insulting
language" be used, the truth is different from opinion, and
evil is as evil does. Therefore, while the Islamic regime
will no doubt claim insult and injury to its reputation,
one must in all honesty; call it like one sees it being
manifest in action. Using logic over emotionalism, truth
over viewpoint, and ethics over all.

This is one of the reasons we welcome your tenure as UN
Ambassador, as you have the reputation of manifesting
tangible results, whether it be on UN reform, proliferation
of WMD, or state sponsors of terrorism. We wish to inform
you as a courtesy that a copy of this letter will be hand
delivered to the door of the UN, on September 14th, for
your kind inspection, while thousands of freedom loving
Iranians outside the UN protesting this regime cheer you on
as well as cheering on other free nations' representatives
as measures are taken to address the theocratic regime's
abysmal activities before the UN general assembly.

As you may face the incarnation of boycott and the
regime's answer to the aspirations of the Iranian people's
desire to self determination in the form of an evil man who
has come to power illegitimately; who comes to usurp the
chair of membership in the UN which is by right the chair
belonging to the Iranian people; Usurped by an unpopular
regime that has never held credence to the premise of the
UN charter, or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in
word or deed; we urge you, and all free nation's
representatives to address this issue of , and consider
wisely the matter of the regime's membership, as a matter
of UN reform.


Sir,

Our opposition movement (SMCCDI) is bound by a charter
formed on principals such as; Human Rights, Democracy,
separation of church and states, and free markets. We
believe these principals represent the most fair and
efficient means for humanity to realize its potential.

Ultimately, no repressive, intolerant regime can withstand
the spread of these ideals.
The Islamic Republic regime currently in power in Iran or
any Islamic variances that may exist there in the future
are no exception. By staying true to these values our
people's triumph is absolutely, positively, and undeniably
inevitable.

It is these precepts voiced by Secretary General Kofi
Annan; "Today, our challenge -- as it was for the founders
of the United Nations -- is to pass on to our children a
brighter legacy than that bequeathed to us. We must build
a future as envisioned in the UN Charter -- a future in
larger freedom"; that the Iranian opposition, and the
democracy movement in Iran is based upon, referencing the
Universal Declaration on Human Rights, so often among the
various opposition groups over these past years.

The horror of this evil regime's hypocrisy, and methodical
atrocities can only be likened to a daily Auschwitz for the
stain it brings on the honor of those who appease and
support and lengthen the life span of this barbaric and
tyrannical regime through silence, economic incentive,
"engagement" and illusion. Blind or not as they may be of
what is taking place in our country, or the intent of the
regime in many aspects that threaten the security of the
international community.
Nor can the international community, or any member of any
government that holds in their heart the values of freedom
continue to turn their back on these long standing issues,
and still call themselves human. Or allow this regime,
along with other human rights abusers to block necessary UN
reform of the human rights commission, or the draft
measures in reference on "responsibility to protect".

As a "test case" for UN reform, the Islamic Republic
regime qualifies in every conceivable way.

It is our hope placed in trust that you (as have the US
President and his Secretary of State and many members of US
Congress in the past) will illuminate the plight of our
people that have struggled to shrug off the oppressors and
theocratic chains which have bound the Iranian people for
so long. Chains which have silenced the voice of the people
in utterance, and stilled them with overwhelming force.
Chains denying the Iranian people a better future for our
children, and our children's children for over a generation
in this process

Speaking in regard to "International Woman's Day, March 8,
2005" the US Secretary of State said, "Freedom, the
protection of fundamental human rights, economic
opportunity and prosperity, equality and the rule of
law...these are all elements of the democratic process.
Women are integral to the process of building responsible
governments and democratic institutions. Women's
participation and empowerment at all levels of society will
be key to moving these new democracies forward."

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


Mr. Ambassador,

When one considers the IRI in totality, the abysmal human
rights record, its long-standing support for terrorism,
it's WMD programs in violation of signed agreements; logic
dictates that with or without referral by the IAEA, this
ideological and unelected regime should not just be
sanctioned, but booted out of the UN altogether for gross
violation of the UN charter, which the Iran Nation is a
signatory to, believing it to be criminally negligent for
any nation to support the continuance and aspirations of
the Islamic Republic system one day longer, and remaining
"seized of the matter." As Churchill put it, "Given the
choice between war and dishonor, Chamberlain chose dishonor
and got war."

To this point, the only leader of free nations who's had
that alternate vision of an Iran existing within the
community of nations..."in larger freedom", and had the
guts to voice the option is President George W. Bush...."..
and to the Iranian people I say tonight, as you stand for
your own liberty, America stands with you." The man
presented possibilities to people in so doing, as a
president will on occasion.

Those words of hope to our people must now be joined in
chorus among all free nations, standing in solidarity with
the tenets and premise of "in larger freedom". The freedom
from fear, from want, the hope to raise our children in
dignity and in religious freedom in a nation that is truly
secular and representative of the people's will.

We shall see if the UN honors the precepts of its founding
Charter, whether the EU, Russia, China and India will
continue to trade and negotiate with a tyrannical and
terrorist regime, and whether the UN membership comes
together in solidarity of it's founding principals to honor
the words of President Bush to the Iranian people.

If the UN cannot see fit to honor the tenets of its
founding by enforcing its Charter on members signatory to
it, we in the Iranian opposition will briefly bow our heads
in shame being witness to this, but only briefly as time is
short, and our heads will rise looking only forward, as our
feet continue to trod the path of freedom in process,
whether the international community supports us or not. But
whether this popular movement is successful, or crushed,
depends now upon free nation's support for the aspirations
of Iranian liberty.

It is self-evident that the international community cannot
live with terrorists, nor terrorist regimes in its midst.
There is but one solution to common security in larger
freedom.

To prevent war and/or civil war, the Islamic regime must
be disavowed by the UN as not legitimately representative
of the People of Iran, and held accountable for its
activities.
Nor can its newly unelected leader, self confessed to
having fired coup de grace bullets into political prisoners
after being tortured; under investigation for hostage
taking and other murders outside of the territory of Iran;
claim any "diplomatic immunity", nor be afforded any claim
by the regime under the rules of UN membership, nor be
granted same by the UN, or host nation, if the
investigation warrants prosecution.

We ask very simply that America, and every democratic
member nation of the United Nations, and their
representatives and leaders stand united with the Iranian
people now. Not as diplomats or representatives neither of
nations, nor even as members of the UN per se, but simply
as Humans. For this, and the hope of liberty and justice is
what binds all people, and the UN together in unity, under
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the premise
of the UN Charter.

Indeed, the Islamic Republic regime is engaged in terror,
torture and atrocity on a daily basis, and this
illegitimate regime dares to call itself Democratic, an
advocate of human rights, and protector of the oppressed
throughout the region. A cruel joke added onto the injury
to our nation's pride and heritage, as reportedly the
regime via a dam, will submerge the founder of Persia,
Cyrus the Great's tomb and the archeological sites of
Pasargad and Persepolice under water.
The only way our people can regain our honor, civil
liberties and the trust of the world for a WMD-free Iran
that seeks to provide a safer future for the world and
adheres to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is by
providing us, the people of Iran, the support for our
legitimate aspirations of liberty necessary to restore hope
to the land that Cyrus the Great brought Democracy to over
2500 years ago.

Those ancient precepts regarding freedom of worship,
individual right to own property, freedom from slavery,
representative government in a democratic "federalist"
government that respected the states rights to determine
local laws so long as they were consistent with the
inherent rights of the people, respecting territorial
integrity in the process, have proven themselves over time
and among many cultures. The UN has a replica of this vital
document on display in the entrance lobby. It is as if to
us, the regime intends to submerge the very tenets that
civilization was founded upon, honored and recognized in
the UN, on display. This is not just Persia's heritage
that is at stake, but mankind's, and we hope that a
resolution will be tabled and mandated to protect and
preserve this historical legacy for future generations.


Sir,

With the firm unanimous voice of the UN, and the pressure
that may be applied "in greater freedom" The UN may honor
the precepts of its founding principals, and reform itself
into an effective, cohesive, transparent instrument for the
common good of all men and women. But if not starting with
the "test case" the regime poses, where will, and when
will, UN reform becomes manifest in action and intent, "
being seized of the matter"? All reform must have some
gage or measure to assess its merit; we propose this as a
means to that end.

1. Implementation of full international economic and
military sanctions on the Islamic Republic regime via UN
Security Council resolution based on human rights, support
for terrorism, and this to be tabled with or without IAEA
board recommendation on the nuclear threat the theocracy
poses. These two issues alone should be viewed as
circumstance the world cannot turn it's back upon, at risk
of civilization itself.

Such measures should include coordination with oil
producing nations to ensure stable world supply while
sanction persists, as well as the halting of any and all
arms transfers to the Islamic Republic regime via the
Proliferation Security Initiative.

2. Full diplomatic sanction and closing of Islamic
republic's embassies worldwide, removal and deportation of
regime representatives, their agents and spies from all
nations.
Diplomatic sanction by the UN, revocation of UN membership
and removal of representation from this international forum
till such time as a legitimate interim government can be
established in Iran.

Note: We ask that concerns regarding lack of consular
functions as a result of this action be cooperatively
addressed, so as to continue to allow emergency visas to be
issued. (i.e. family emergencies, etc.) It may be possible
to retain the minimum consular functions, under tight
supervision, but they are well known in their recruiting
of, and issuing visa to potential martyrs and terrorists.

3. Freezing of any and all financial assets of the Islamic
Republic system, current and former leadership, and
corporate interests worldwide, till such time as a new
interim government can be established.

As well as allocation of portions of these assets now to
legitimate non-violent opposition groups inside and outside
Iran, to provide the tangible support needed while civil
disobedience becomes manifest in action. Only in this way
can this action be self-sustaining till it succeeds. Poland
couldn't have become free without support, nor can we, as
this is much to expect of a people under the boot of
repression for over a generation.

4. Repeated statements by world leaders publicly calling
for the leadership of the Islamic Republic regime to step
down peacefully, and to relinquish the government to the
hands and will of the Iranian people, and a UN monitored
"direct" referendum to choose a legitimate, representative,
secular government structure.

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

In addition, while SMCCDI does not speak for other groups
in the opposition, we believe it is vital for our efforts
to become coordinated in the formation of a working group
among leaders of opposition groups, in conjunction with
free nation's representatives to help facilitate and
coordinate all of the above measures in a roundtable "Forum
for the Future" of Iran.

The coordination of economic and military sanction,
freezing of assets, closing of embassies, banishment from
the UN General Assembly and other UN related institutions,
such as UNESCO, and other non-violent measures as may be
found worthy under international law will be overwhelming
to the Islamic Republic of Iran, providing solid legitimate
purpose and support among the people of Iran to effect
change from within.


Mr. Ambassador,

We have striven in our legitimate aspirations for liberty
for over two decades, and often frustrated as the pace of
those aspirations seem to be like that of traveling on the
back of a snail. The vast majority has therefore concluded
that any real democratic reform though legitimate election
or national referendum on the people's choice for a secular
political structure in Iran cannot be possible so long as
this evil ideological regime continues in power. Nor can
the international community relegate terrorism to the
dustbin of history while this regime remains in power.

While our aspirations include taking our future into our
own hands, we are convinced after this long in a most
pragmatic way, that those aspirations cannot be obtained in
isolation or silence, we need the entire international
community firmly by our people's side in word and deed if
the agenda the US president has laid out for global freedom
is to become manifest in Iran.

This noble endeavor in common cause does not require
military intervention, nor do we ask for, or seek this in
any form. The method of civil disobedience has a long
history of painful success throughout history, and with
international support will serve to liberate our people
from tyranny and the world from the blind ambitions of the
theocratic regime in a rather short period of time, if they
are implemented in full now, and in a coordinated and
simultaneous manner.

We in the opposition movement see the strong two-faced
diplomacy the Islamic Republic regime is engaged in, that
has not only caused nations to appease the regime with
offers of economic incentive, but that has caused others to
support their blind ambitions, through various means,
including silence and abstention of action on Human Rights
within the various mechanisms of the UN, sale and smuggling
of arms and WMD technology, and economic trade.

We see the effects of this diplomacy and blatant
propaganda on some members of the US Congress, various
governments and international think tanks, as well as the
IAEA. We see the confusion in policy that has been proposed
by former members of various governments, as well the many
cases in which the UN Commission on Human Rights failed in
the past to be unanimous in their condemnation of the
Islamic Republic regime's human rights record and we
strongly urge you and other free nations' representatives
to address their perceptions in this most grave and
dangerous illusion of providing "political benefit of the
doubt" that some members have apparently been following, as
soon as possible.

We, the membership of the Iranian opposition, among all
the various groups have no doubt of the regime's intent, or
continued activities as described and documented over a
long period of time. There are no "rogue elements" of the
regime involved in the transport of shaped munitions into
Iraq, no "rogue elements" of the regime training martyrs
for terrorism operations, recruiting them through public
advertisement, no "rogue elements" committing crimes
against humanity among our people. No "rogue element"
harboring al-quaida. These are fully supported by,
instructed by, and funded by the Islamic Republic of Iran
in whole, not in part, nor independent of its appointed
president's knowledge, and done so by mandate of the
Guardian Council.

Failure to address these grave issues now will be a
dereliction of the UN's founding mandate, and those member
states that fail to recognize this must answer to history.


In conclusion Sir,

It would therefore be in our opinion (reflective of the
1503 procedures), criminally negligent for members of the
UN Commission on Human Rights, and the UN Security Council
to fail to act on the body of evidence regarding security
issues and threats the IRI poses at this time to the
international community and of systematic human rights
abuse (in all aspects) by the Islamic Republic regime; due
to "political considerations" within their respective
nations who's Human Rights records are not the best, or
economic factors in trade with the regime playing a part in
debate, threat of veto, or abstention of moral
responsibility.

It would be quite logical therefore were the UN to
disavow any vote that was deemed "politically motivated" in
the Security Council, calling for a two-thirds majority
vote in the General Assembly to implement any resolution
not achieved in SC decision, along with GA voting on ending
any and all participation, membership and communication
from the Islamic Republic regime (other than answering to
charges brought), for the regime itself is in consistent
and conscious violation of multiple aspects of the UN
Charter, and the Universal Declaration on Human Rights that
the UN is founded upon.

It is for these reasons described herein (as well as the
fact that while Iran is an original signatory to the UN
charter, the current regime flaunts the tenets and is not
legitimately in an of itself, a signatory to it.), that we
have suggested revocation of UN membership through the UN
General Assembly by a two-thirds majority vote as may be
done under the governing rules of the UN, until such time
as a new interim government is established in its place
which will re-ratify Iran's adherence to the UN Charter and
rejoin the family of nations in good standing.

Whereas: "a consistent pattern of gross and reliably
attested violations of human rights and fundamental
freedoms exists." in multiple source documentation
independent of this letter.

Whereas: "communications may be submitted by individuals
or groups who claim to be victims of human rights
violations or who have direct, reliable knowledge of
violations."

Whereas: "each communication must describe the facts, the
purpose of the petition and the rights that have been
violated." And we have striven to do so.

Whereas: "domestic remedies have been exhausted", and it
is convincingly apparent that "solutions at the national
level have been ineffective" - "over an unreasonable length
of time."

We therefore respectfully ask that this letter also be
taken in this context as such a petition to provide proper
perspective to you, the Whitehouse, the UN member states,
President of the General Assembly Ping as well as to
Secretary General Annan on the issues we have addressed
herein with the gravest concern for the welfare of
humanity.

Regarding the security risk the regime poses to its
citizens through its WMD programs and intent in acquiring
this capability. We believe this too, constitutes a
violation of our basic civil liberties (having no voice in
the matter) and poses an unacceptable risk to the
population of Iran and the region through potential and
perhaps unavoidable catastrophic conflict, if the UN does
not act accordingly to prevent further tragedy now.


With gratitude

On behalf of SMCCDI,


Aryo B. Pirouznia (Movement's Coordinator)




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



Joined: 15 Apr 2004
Posts: 236

PostPosted: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

well having posted all that, can you state a single ACTION besides statements and speeches that the Bush admin has done to support democracy in Iran.

The least they could do in order to show that they side with the Iranians is that they could have used Islamic Republic instead of Iran:


Islamic Republic’s Nuclear Program and Persian Pride- By Mani Aryamand
http://marzeporgohar.org/index.php?l=1&cat=21&scat=&artid=644

Open letter to Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice from Roozbeh Farahanipour
http://marzeporgohar.org/index.php?l=1&cat=17&scat=&artid=566


Besides what measures have been takes to establish a real SECULAR democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan. Please do enlight me but as far as I have been following the events they both seem to have non-secular constitutions.

It seem that Islam is a tool that still can be used for short term purposes at least!

regards
espandyar
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Spenta



Joined: 04 Sep 2003
Posts: 1829

PostPosted: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I also agree that Bush hasn't done anything to help Iran. He encouraged an uprising and then abandoned the people, causing thousands to get jailed, tortured, killed and fleeing, its like he outed them for the IRI to arrest.

The most negative thing though, is this expectation that he will do something, when clearly he hasn't and most likely wont, that has paralysed the people.

Afghansitan was not a willpower thing for Bush there was major justification for it and the US did not commit as many troops. The bulk of the fighting was done by the Northern Alliance with the US supplying air cover. And the rebuilding of Afghanistan has been an international effort, not a Bush thing, there are probably more German and Scandinavian engineers rebuilding Afghanistan than there are Amercian ones.

The only thing Bush had a real committment to (as opposed to pandering to his conservative base), was Iraq, and that was probably about a 'competing with Daddy Complex'! On every other major Middle Eastern issue, he has proved time and time again, that he is no Reagan. Heck even on Iraq, he's faltering, proving once again, that he is no Reagan.

The sooner the Iranian people realise that, and stop hanging all their hopes on Bush, the better! And I've been saying that for a long time.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
espandyar



Joined: 15 Apr 2004
Posts: 236

PostPosted: Sun Oct 02, 2005 12:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well the sad part is that It seems that the Iranian people have no hope at all thank to impotent opposition and lack of IR policy.

Bush Admis is failing in Iraq as well and if IR is not dealt with real soon it will be too much to handle for US.

The only option that is beneficial to everyone( except the IR ofcourse) is regime change. However that seem to be off the table and the time is running out!

As Ferdosi said:
Cho Iran mabashad tane man mabad
bar in marzo o boom zende yek tan mabad.

If there is no Iran let it be no world. If the IR get it hand on the bomb which it will, the terrorist will have the bomb as well and guess who is the target.
We have shouted as loud as we could now let happen!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



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

PostPosted: Sun Oct 02, 2005 1:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't know if anyone here has bothered to read either the Afghan or Iraqi Constitutions, if they had I doubt if such jaundiced viewpoint would arise.

No justification Spenta? Has anyone here bothered to do any research at all?

You folks ever talk to any Afghans or Iraqis?

You want action.....pressure applied is action....you want war? Why not simply have the guts to say so?

Fact is the more basiji and rev guard Iran puts into Iraq, due to a desperate attempt to thwart progress the less the IRI can hide its intent using proxy terrorists....You all have seen this in the news....Besides the pressure exerted from outside on this regime, I have yet to see any coodinated effort from within Iran by the opposition itself....don't blame Bush for this....you all have lost faith in yourselves, and your ability to make a difference....so you blame this on others....for lack of action?

I asked two very important questions that the US gov is mulling over right now....and apparently no one here either has the capacity or the desire to look at the situation and provide an answer.

While external conditions may provide support, there seems to be a real lack of understanding about the effects on the IRI itself....and while the US has sanctioned Iran, we can only influence through diplomacy the attitudes and actions of other nations towards the IRI, we don't dictate to the world.

Some here think I guess there's this majic button Bush can push....where anyone who understands how a democracy works knows that any decision regarding "regime change" must be ratified by Congress,
just as any decision to intervene militarily must also be.

Is the lack of coordination and infighting among various opposition groups that has lead to piecemeal protests and the crushing of dissent Bush's fault? Is the resulting lack of "people power" to effect genenerate an overwhelming national strike and protest by millions of Iranians as essential to regime change the fault of one who hoped to inspire you to stand for your own liberty?

These are questions you must answer for yourselves, truthfully, and without bias or pride getting in the way of the answers.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
espandyar



Joined: 15 Apr 2004
Posts: 236

PostPosted: Sun Oct 02, 2005 2:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I don't know if anyone here has bothered to read either the Afghan or Iraqi Constitutions, if they had I doubt if such jaundiced viewpoint would arise.

No justification Spenta? Has anyone here bothered to do any research at all?

You folks ever talk to any Afghans or Iraqis?


I have not read the constitution and any information on that would be appreciated. However judging from the news I would guess that the constitution is not secular:
"29 year-old woman was stoned to death for committing adultery"

http://marzeporgohar.org/index.php?l=1&cat=17&scat=&artid=564

I have never witness stoning in western secular states, maybe you differ between a middle eastern secularism and western secularism Wink.

In fact i talk to Iraqis and Afghansevery time I meet them and they have different opinions so far I have not been able to conclude.




Quote:
You want action.....pressure applied is action....you want war? Why not simply have the guts to say so?


No, We dont want war. in fact we trying to prevent a war as Iranian sentiment can backfire on any agressor!

Quote:
Fact is the more basiji and rev guard Iran puts into Iraq, due to a desperate attempt to thwart progress the less the IRI can hide its intent using proxy terrorists....You all have seen this in the news....Besides the pressure exerted from outside on this regime, I have yet to see any coodinated effort from within Iran by the opposition itself....don't blame Bush for this....you all have lost faith in yourselves, and your ability to make a difference....so you blame this on others....for lack of action?


We have not lost faith in ourselfs. In fact Iran has survived invadors worse than IR. What can people do when britts US biggest ally sell top of the line riots gears to the IR ( Search the news not even a month old) to prevent dugs smugling!!!. Well our people are not stupid not have they lost their desire to live. What happens is that people start to do cultural activity in order to remain the Iranina culture alive. The below article is from Tehran by a girl born after the revolution. She speaks pure Persian and a is expert of cultural matters.

http://marzeporgohar.org/index.php?l=1&cat=21&scat=114&artid=657

She is one of the many who are active in cultural fight against the invadors. However this will not prevent the IR to target US and Israel on other hand neither is the riots gears send by US best ally.

The opposition ( in my view) are in 2 parts:

1. those who look into the regime for any changes even though their slogan is to topple the regime. These are the people who joined sazegara failed referendum project, same people made Ganji to a national Hero.
These are unfortunatly called opposition and when i say impotent opposition i am refering to these people. These are not only monarchist but republicans as well.

2. The real nationalistic opposition which might not be the best choice for the westerners as they are not willing to seel their country.
The same people are the weakest from the economical point of view. In my view they are doing whatever they can do.

There are no magic button Bush can push but he can arrange a solid Iran policy and act accordangly.

Sorry for misspells and typos!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Liberty Now !



Joined: 04 Apr 2004
Posts: 521

PostPosted: Sun Oct 02, 2005 2:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
the sleazy Jimmy Carter and his moron national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, ....
Brzezinski Justified his Islamic Belt Project in his book in this manner "In fact, an Islamic revival - already abetted from the outside not only by Iran but also by Saudi Arabia - is likely to become the mobilizing impulse for the increasingly pervasive new nationalisms, determined to oppose any reintegration under Russian - and hence infidel - control." (p. 133).

The end results were Khomeini, IRI, Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Iran-Iraq war, several million deaths among Iranians Afghanis and Iraqis. Al Qaeda, and September 11 are the byproduct of the Green belt (Russian Beard) project.



thank you Ramin jan. could you say that on C-Span by any chance? Wink
_________________
Paayande Iran
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Liberty Now !



Joined: 04 Apr 2004
Posts: 521

PostPosted: Sun Oct 02, 2005 2:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oppenheimer wrote:


You folks ever talk to any Afghans or Iraqis?

You want action.....pressure applied is action....you want war? Why not simply have the guts to say so?




ok, the know it all, whitewash it all guy,

hear me out: yes we've spoken to many iraqis lately and they are all shocked to see their country turning into another islamic republic!

they resent the fact that ayatollahs like sistani are invited to britain (promoted as khomeini was back in 1970) and that allies are counting on their words and ISLAMIC FATWA these days! (it scares the hell outta them. in case you haven't noticed)

They can't believe that women of Iraq now have to wear islamic HIJAB. even the christians! (great achievement there)

they are not used to this RELIGIOUS LAWS you've helped create for them.


it's time the administration listened to people of Iraq, especially the Iraqi women.

AND NO ! WE DON'T WANT A WAR IN IRAN !

HOW MANY TIMES SHOULD WE REPEATE IT TILL YOU GET IT INTO YOUR BRAIN DEAR?


and I have to add something else here (although you don't give a damn about iranians opinion):


People of Iran (and the oppositions) only asked one thing of the West, for the past 26 years; and it's NOT TO GIVE LEGITIMACY TO OCCUPIERS OF OUR COUNTRY.

and for 26 years the West has watched the massacres and enjoyed the lucrative deals in answer to our calls!

any wonder why the mullahs are still in power? ask your own policy makers.

(and stop making excuses, as if the IRI put a gun into your heads to accept it! don't play the hopeless victim's role! lol

I could so sympathize with the West for this mess. only if I didn't know they've created it to begin with.)
_________________
Paayande Iran
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 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 1 of 8

 
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