![[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index](http://www.activistchat.com/images/ActivistChatStandsLogo.jpg) |
[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Views expressed here are not necessarily the views & opinions of ActivistChat.com. Comments are unmoderated. Abusive remarks may be deleted. ActivistChat.com retains the rights to all content/IP info in in this forum and may re-post content elsewhere.
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Oppenheimer
Joined: 03 Mar 2005 Posts: 1166 Location: SantaFe, New Mexico
|
Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2005 12:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dear Cyrus,
This will put things in better context than what has been reported.
Dear Morning light,
I think you base your suggestion on solid grounds, but don't worry about the US gov. not understanding what's up....try reading the last country report on human rights in Iran (as well as other nations) put out annually by the Dept of State, you case in point was covered in it.
Dear Amir,
Ahah! No wonder the mullahs are threatening fellow Muslim countries (a'la the footnotes to Antar's diatribe about wiping Israel and America off the map, (and any Muslim nation that recognizes Israel).
I guess they believe that the majority of Muslims globally are infidels, not practicing the letter of (their interpretation) of Islam.
So then we are back to the old debate, the majority that rejects terrorism, violence, 9 year old lovers....and view UBL as a drunk driver that's carjacked the religion of Islam....vs. those who claim they alone know (and practice ) true Islam, support jihadi's, rape 9 year olds, stone women, cut of body parts, have an agenda of wiping soverign nations off the face of the planet, and are seeking (and have some of) the means to do so.
Which is then the "true Islam" ????? I say majority rules....by common sense. After all, what is the Umma, except the community?
-------------
Interview With Barbara Slavin and Ray Locker of USA Today
Secretary Condoleezza Rice
Washington, DC
November 28, 2005
(3:25 p.m. EST)
MS. SLAVIN: Let's begin, I guess, with Iraq. You said last week you thought
you'd need fewer troops there next year than there are this year. If the next
Iraqi government comes in and requests a timetable for us to leave, would we
provide a timetable?
SECRETARY RICE: Well, we are clearly going to work with the new Iraqi
government when it is in place, but I would just note that Iraqi governments to
this point have felt the need for a multinational force. That's why they
requested the UN to provide a mandate for that force and then that mandate was
rolled over just very recently. So of course we're working with the Iraqis.
But the point that I was making was simply that Iraqi security forces are
getting better. And the President has always said that when Iraqis can stand
up, we'll be ready to stand down.
MS. SLAVIN: But there's a bit more pressure, it seems, coming certainly from
popular opinion in this country and also from the Iraqis in Cairo.
SECRETARY RICE: But clearly everybody wants this mission to succeed and so you
have to have an effects-based or results-based approach to any discussion of
how security is going to be provided. And it is increasingly provided by more
Iraqi forces in the lead, more Iraqi forces able to hold territory, Iraqi
forces securing the airport highway, for instance. And so they are taking more
and more of the functions.
MS. SLAVIN: But you do anticipate that there is going to be a drawdown next
year?
SECRETARY RICE: Well --
MS. SLAVIN: I mean, the Pentagon has said that, you know, it'll go back down to
138,000 certainly after the elections and then the hope is to get it down to
about 100,000 by the end of the year?
SECRETARY RICE: The President will take from his commanders their assessment of
what the conditions permit, what Iraqi security forces are capable of doing,
and then determine troop levels.
MR. LOCKER: I'd like to ask you about the EU developments today. There was one
of -- an EU minister saying there may be sanctions on some of the member
nations for hosting what they call the secret CIA prisons there. How has this
situation in the last couple weeks complicated your job in dealing with some of
the European countries?
SECRETARY RICE: Well, I've been very clear, as have other members of the
Administration, that we are fighting a war on terror, that there are demands of
that that we have to meet, that we have to meet in order to protect not just
ourselves but to protect others. Unfortunately, Europe has had its share now of
terrorist incidents, in Spain and in Great Britain. And so we are all working
together through law enforcement cooperations, intelligence cooperation, to try
and produce the very best outcome to protect innocent citizens. And I think
that is what we have to keep our eye on.
MS. SLAVIN: But these are prisons where terrible things have happened,
according to a number of accounts.
SECRETARY RICE: Well, first of all, I think we have to be careful in assessing
what is going on in detention. When you come to Abu Ghraib, nobody would by any
stretch of the imagination condone what happened at Abu Ghraib. People were
punished for it. People should have been punished for it. It was -- I don't
care whether you were operating under the Geneva Conventions or the President's
dictate; it was wrong. And so that was very, very clear.
There have been other cases where there have been reports of abuse. Those have
been investigated and will be investigated whenever those reports come up. And
I would just note that one of the really important differences that the world
is learning about how democracies deal with this, as opposed to how
dictatorships deal with it, is that in open societies where you have an open
press, where you have young soldiers who will go to their commanders and say
something wrong is happening there, as was the case in Abu Ghraib, that you
have checks and balances and you have protections against that kind of thing.
MS. SLAVIN: Do --
SECRETARY RICE: So yes --
MS. SLAVIN: If I can interrupt, because time is short.
SECRETARY RICE: Sure.
MS. SLAVIN: Do you agree with Vice President Cheney then that there should be
an exception for the CIA from certain international and -- international norms?
SECRETARY RICE: The President is --
MS. SLAVIN: And doesn't -- what does that do for our public diplomacy?
SECRETARY RICE: The President is going to, within our laws and within our
international obligations, do everything that he can to protect American
citizens -- and by the way, since the war on terrorism has no borders, when you
are acting against terrorists to protect Americans, you are very often acting
against terrorists to protect others as well. And so the President has been
very clear that that's not going to include torture. He's been very clear that
it is going to be within the limits of our laws and it's going to be within the
limits --
MS. SLAVIN: Then why the objection to the McCain --
SECRETARY RICE: We are working with Congress. As you know, Senator Graham has
also had legislation. I believe we need the Congress in this fight because this
is our joint responsibility to protect the American people and these are hard
issues. We haven't ever fought a war like this before. We've never fought a war
before where you are -- or certainly we don't, when we pick law enforcement
actions, where you can't allow somebody to commit the crime before you detain
them because if they commit the crime, then thousands of innocent people die.
MS. SLAVIN: You know, though, what this has done for public diplomacy efforts
and the way people are using this issue. Does that -- that has to concern you.
SECRETARY RICE: I do know how people are using the issue and I constantly
remind people that, first of all, we are in a difficult war against a new kind
of enemy and that we do have an obligation to protect our citizens as well as
protect other citizens; secondly, that the President has been very clear that
he will not countenance behavior and activities that are outside our laws and
outside our international obligations. And when something goes wrong, as it has
on occasion, as it did at Abu Ghraib, that's something that sickened all of us,
that we're going to be absolutely forthright about it and punish people who
engaged in it.
MS. SLAVIN: Let me ask you a couple other questions about Iraq and al-Qaida and
so on. As a result of the war and occupation, Iraq now has become a base for
al-Qaida, and Iran has also been strengthened in some ways. How does the United
States draw down forces and extricate itself from Iraq without further
strengthening al-Qaida and Iran?
SECRETARY RICE: Well, Barbara, I don't actually agree with the premise, so let
me go back to the premise of the question.
First of all, on Iran, Iran is a state with whom we -- with which we have
numerous problems: terrorism, democracy in Iran, a nuclear program that
everybody's concerned about. But I am not at all certain that the geo-strategic
circumstances of Iran have improved with a democratizing, pro-Western
Afghanistan on one border and a democratizing, non-theocratic but Shia-majority
Iraq on another border. So I question the premise that somehow Iran has been
strengthened.
Secondly --
MS. SLAVIN: Well, Al-Qaida certainly is doing a booming business lately.
SECRETARY RICE: Well, al-Qaida was doing a booming business since the mid-1990s
and finally al-Qaida is actually being challenged. And al-Qaida is being
challenged and of course they are recruiting and coming out and fighting, but
they are at least now being challenged. And if you want to talk about how you
deal with a specific al-Qaida cell on Monday of next week, that's one thing;
but if you want to talk about how you eliminate the ideology of hatred that
produced al-Qaida and will produce more al-Qaidas unless you eliminate it --
how you get, in other words, to a permanent peace -- then you have to have a
different kind of Middle East than the one that produced the ideology of hatred
that made those people fly airplanes into buildings.
So an Iraq that is a fundamental pillar of a different kind of Middle East may
indeed go through a period of time in which al-Qaida is a presence in Iraq. But
if you read Zawahiri, if you read Zarqawi, they know that the political process
that is underway in Iraq is, in fact, their worst nightmare. That's why they
threatened Iraqi citizens and then 8.5 million of them went out and voted in
January. That's why they threatened Iraqi citizens and 10 million went out and
voted for the referendum. And that's why they're still threatening Iraqi
citizens. Because they know that the political process is ultimately going to
be the death knell for their activities there.
MS. SLAVIN: Let me ask you a couple questions about internal things in the
State Department. There have been several reports by the -- your Office of
Inspector General, GAO and so on, talking about staffing problems abroad. The
number of hardship posts has more than doubled since before September 11th --
positions where people can't bring their families. Are you concerned that this
is creating battle fatigue at the State Department; it's going to be harder and
harder to fill these types of jobs? Six hundred of them, apparently.
SECRETARY RICE: Well, I'm certainly concerned about the well-being of our
people. I'm certainly concerned about hardship that our officers face. But I
recognize that we are at war and I recognize that the war on terrorism requires
us to be in places that are dangerous, that are not appropriate for families.
But the calling of the Foreign Service and the State Department is to serve the
interests of the country and to protect the interests of the country, and that
means sometimes being in very difficult places.
But I'm going to tell you something. I've been out to all those difficult
posts. I've been in Pakistan. I've been in Afghanistan twice. I've been in Iraq
twice -- well, three times in Iraq, but twice as Secretary. And there is no
higher morale in the posts around the world than when you go out to these
places where people know that, yes, they're on the front line in the war on
terrorism but they're also on the front line of history. And they feel it and
they see it and they understand it and they're committed to it.
And so yes, I worry a great deal about the well-being. We spend a lot of time
and money and effort on security for our people, but this is what we're called
to do.
MS. SLAVIN: There have also been some complaints from the union, from AFSA,
that the junior people are being brought into positions that normally have more
senior Foreign Service people and they say this is hurting morale. Is this
something that they've raised with you? Is this something --
SECRETARY RICE: Well, I said --
MS. SLAVIN: And then there's sort of a rap that you're kind of returning to the
Albright-Baker mode where you have a small circle of advisors and you're not
sort of reaching deep into the building like Colin Powell used to.
SECRETARY RICE: Well, it's -- you know, I have an open door policy. I think my
Assistant Secretaries are up here more than my own staff. You know, I see
everybody and when we're at staff meeting, if somebody needs to get in they can
come in.
As to the ability to -- the need to recruit people for positions, I've never
thought that time in rank was the only qualification for doing a good job. Now,
I think you will find that the great majority of positions are being filled in
the way that people would have expected if you were looking at people going
through the ladder. But yes, on occasion, I do reach out or Assistant
Secretaries reach out and go for -- to look for fast-rising officers who have
different experiences.
I will note that being in places like Baghdad or Kabul tends to give people
different skill sets and very often they come back and they serve, and they
serve at a slightly more elevated position than they might otherwise. That also
happens in time of war.
MS. SLAVIN: Let me ask you a little bit about your relationship with President
Bush and how it affects how you do your job. Hanan Ashrawi, you know, the
former education minister in Palestine, said that she had more faith in your
delivering on the Middle East because she said -- there's an expression in
Arabic -- she said, "Powell was a bird chirping outside the flock," is the way
she put it.
Do you feel that this position that you have, the closeness to the President,
gives you greater leverage? How would you compare your role in formulating
foreign policy to that of Dick Cheney or Rumsfeld or Colin Powell?
SECRETARY RICE: Well, first of all, Colin Powell was a great Secretary of
State. He had a wonderful relationship with the President. I got to see it up
close and personal, which many people didn't, and it was one of respect and one
where the President listened to him and where, as a result, he did a superb
job.
And you know my relationship with the President is a very good one. We've been
together a long time. I have enormous admiration for the willingness of this
President to take difficult and bold steps at a time when I think the world
requires difficult and bold steps. And I'm just grateful that I have an
opportunity to try and help implement these policies. This is a good team.
And are there debates? Yes. Are there disagreements? Yes. But there's one thing
that people all understand, which is the President is the President and he is,
after all, the only one who was really elected to this position.
MS. SLAVIN: You seem to have more leverage, though, on some issues. I don't
know if this is just because it's second term. Chuck Hagel said at the Council
on Foreign Relations the other week that Colin Powell was succeeding in
abstentia and he pointed to some of the changes he'd made on policy toward
North Korean, Iran in particular.
SECRETARY RICE: I think that the changes are overstated. The six-party talks
come out of policies that the President and Colin Powell pursued and that
six-party framework was really solidified in that period. We've been able to
press it forward and perhaps to do some things with it that were not done
before, but that structure has been in place and was working well before --
when I was National Security Advisor, well before I became Secretary.
MS. SLAVIN: Right. But certainly if you look at positions on civilian nuclear
power, there's an acknowledgement that North Korea can have it at some point,
and Iran there's been quite a substantial shift. I recall talking to you just
on the trip a month or so ago, where you were very leery of the notion that
Iran could continue converting uranium into uranium hexaflouride. Now, my
understanding is the U.S. is supporting a Russian proposal that would allow
Iran to continue to convert.
SECRETARY RICE: I think, Barbara, on that trip I remember precisely what I
said. I think I said that the fuel cycle, in total, is a difficult -- is a
problem, but that everybody recognizes that the real problem is uranium --
enrichment and --
MS. SLAVIN: You talked about stockpiles of UF6.
SECRETARY RICE: Yes. Well, I said that if there were a proposal that would
allow the Iranians access to large stockpiles of UF6, that that would be a
problem, on their territory, that that would be a problem. So we'll see where
the Russian proposal comes out. We're prepared to see if the Russians can
explore something that may bring the Iranians around to the recognition that
they cannot enrich and reprocess on their territory, that they have a
credibility problem with the international community as to the fuel cycle.
We'll see whether it works. But we do have the votes for a referral to the
Security Council at a time of our choosing.
MS. SLAVIN: It wasn't of our choosing last week.
SECRETARY RICE: No, we decided there was time for the -- that there should be
time for the Russians, who wanted the opportunity to explore this, to have a
chance to explore it. So "at a time of our choosing" means at a time of our
choosing.
MS. SLAVIN: On Iran, your old colleague Abbas Milani has suggested, others have
suggested, that we should really change our whole policy toward that country if
we want to promote democracy there, that we should have targeted sanctions
instead of blanket sanctions. There have been suggestions, I believe, for
opening a U.S. visa office, putting Americans there, not making Iranians go all
the way to Dubai; let Americans, Iranian Americans, send money, NGOs operate
there. Are these some of the proposals that you're considering and how far
along are they?
SECRETARY RICE: Well, obviously nobody has a desire to isolate the Iranian
people. That's not the point. The problem is that the Iranian Government is one
that pursues policies that are antithetical to the interests of the United
States and interests of a stable Middle East.
If you look at Iranian policies, you look at a country -- we've just talked
about the nuclear issue -- where nobody trusts them in terms of peaceful uses
of nuclear energy and therefore people are trying to design a way that they
cannot have a fuel cycle. You have a state that is supporting Palestinian
rejectionists at a time when the --
MS. SLAVIN: But --
SECRETARY RICE: Well, now you'll just have to let me finish. The Palestinian
rejectionists at a time when they are -- when Abu Mazen is trying to do quite
the opposite, Hezbollah at a time when Lebanon is trying to emerge from Syrian
occupation, not to mention an Iranian President that talks about wiping other
countries off the map and an Iranian population that's trapped in a political
system that going backwards, not forwards.
MS. SLAVIN: So how do you help them going forwards? Isn't it through some kind
of targeted engagement, the sort that we have not used with the Iranians?
SECRETARY RICE: I find it hard to see what engagement at -- broad engagement
would accomplish with the Iranians because it's very clear that Iran is on a
path that is different and contrary to the path that most people want to see
the Middle East take at this point.
MS. SLAVIN: You've given Zalmay Khalilzad permission to discuss with his
Iranian counterpart the Iraq situation. What about having a contact group, a
formal contact group in which the Iranians could participate, and perhaps
broadening those discussions to other issues, as has been suggested by a number
of people?
SECRETARY RICE: Well, the Iranian contact with Zal Khalilzad in Afghanistan
through the 6+2 process was actually very useful on some very limited grounds
and it was useful. We think it could be useful in Iraq on some limited grounds.
But again, this is on quite narrow issues that are definable and that do not, I
think, run the risk of granting legitimacy to a government that doesn't deserve
legitimacy.
QUESTION: Have these talks or contacts begun between Zal and Iranians?
SECRETARY RICE: I don't -- yeah, I'm not sure. Zal has the guidance to do it
when it makes sense. So I haven't checked in.
QUESTION: Can we turn to North Korea, if I could, just quickly? There was a
short round. Things don't seem to be going very quickly. I mean, while the Bush
Administration has been in office, the North Koreans may have developed enough
plutonium for another six bombs.
How long does it go on like this? Is there any other option that we can use to
influence the North Koreans or concern that this process just doesn't seem to
be going anywhere fast?
SECRETARY RICE: Well, we are making -- we are doing other things. For instance,
we are working with others in the Proliferation Security Initiative to deal
with the potential for shipments of WMD-related materials, and on at least one
very highly publicized occasion we made a very good hit leading ultimately to
the -- I think to reinforcing the Libyan decision. That was a North Korean
shipment. We have, of course, made very clear that we intend to deal with banks
that are dealing in illicit proceeds for North Korea. So we're not sitting
still while the six-party talks continue.
But I think the six-party talks themselves, first of all, have solidified a
consensus at least among the five about North Korea's -- about the only path
ahead for North Korea, which is to have -- to abandon its nuclear weapons
programs if it wishes to fully access the international system. And there is
now a statement of principles to which the parties are agreed, and when the
North Koreans have tried to veer off those principles, others have brought them
back to those principles. So I think you have a starting place with those
principles for negotiation. But it will have to make more progress --
QUESTION: Are you going to invite a couple of the North Korean negotiators to
New York to discuss the sanctions, the bank issue? I understand that there's a
proposal to have them come to New York to continue talks and --
SECRETARY RICE: I think that we are prepared to tell the North Koreans what are
laws are, but they know what they're doing. They don't need to have a bilateral
on how to stop counterfeiting other people's money. Just stop doing it.
QUESTION: Let me ask you, on the political front, I've been told that some
Republican strategists are approaching you or would love for you to acknowledge
that you might want to run for some sort of office in 2008. You're the --
SECRETARY RICE: Let's go back to North Korea. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: You're the only senior member of the Administration who has positive
-- who has, you know, positive -- above 50 percent favorable ratings in the
polls at this point. And they see you as, if not a Presidential candidate, then
as a Vice Presidential candidate. If these people come to you -- are they
coming to you?
SECRETARY RICE: Barbara, I am very busy trying to be Secretary of State. You've
traveled with me. You know I don't have time for such things. No, I -- it's not
my calling in life.
QUESTION: I've got to ask you this. I've got to put this on the record. And
that is you are a size 6 in designer clothes. Yes?
SECRETARY RICE: Some secrets cannot be disclosed. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: And American women want to know where you get your clothes, what your
favorite designers are. I've sized you up and figure Akris Punto and some
Armani and I'm not sure of the others. This is a really significant question
for the women of America --
SECRETARY RICE: I cannot confirm --
QUESTION: Struggling to be -- (laughter) --
SECRETARY RICE: I cannot confirm or deny. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Struggling to be a size 6 after the age of -- yes.
SECRETARY RICE: What age is that? (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Fifty. I think those of us who are above the age of 50 should be
proud of it.
There was one other thing I have to sneak in. This has been driving me crazy
and I just need an answer. I wanted to ask you this three years ago. Please.
The NSC did a study in 2002, February 2002, that showed that the most
successful post-war stabilization programs, occupations, were when you had a
high ratio of troops to locals. Kosovo, Bosnia, were the successes; places
where you didn't have that were failures. Why did you disregard your own study?
SECRETARY RICE: First of all, there was no study. There was an effort to look
back over various metrics to see how different missions had been carried out in
the past. And all of that information was available to decision makers and --
QUESTION: Did President Bush --
SECRETARY RICE: All of that information was fed into the process. But, Barbara,
when you go into a situation like Iraq, you take Iraq on its own terms. And
General Franks would come in and he would brief the plan, and I can't tell you
how many times the President asked, are the forces adequate to -- or
appropriate to the plan that you are drawing up? And he was told yes, it--
QUESTION: Do you think in hindsight that was such a great decision?
SECRETARY RICE: I think --
QUESTION: And do you regret some of the chaos that occurred?
SECRETARY RICE: Barbara, I'm a very big believer that big historical
circumstances are difficult by their very nature. I would be the first to say I
am sure that there are many things that could have been done better. There are
many things that were not done well. There will be things that turn out to have
looked like mistakes that will turn out to have been great successes, and
things that looked like great successes but will turn out to have been
mistakes. I am enough of an historian to know that those are judgments that can
only be made well after the fact when you know how things turned out.
Ultimately, what we have to focus on is the strategic path. And that strategic
path is to have nothing that throws the Iraqis off the political path that
they're on toward a permanent government, and so far they've marched along it
really quite smartly; to do nothing that causes the Iraqis to be incapable of
resolving their differences within political institutions, and so far they seem
capable of doing that; and finally, that leaves Iraqis in charge of their own
security and their own political future, and they are getting there.
But I've said many times -- look, I am quite certain that when the history is
written a lot of wrongs are going to have been done and probably I'll even,
when I go back to Stanford in three and a half years --
QUESTION: You're pretty conclusive about that.
SECRETARY RICE: I can guarantee you I will probably oversee dissertations that
look at that. But, you know, the key now is that I think we have a way forward
that the Iraqis have confidence in, and that's probably the most important
thing is that the Iraqis have confidence in this way forward.
QUESTION: Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
SECRETARY RICE: Thank you. Thank you. Great to see you.
Released on November 29, 2005
************************************************************
See http://www.state.gov/secretary/ for all remarks by the Secretary of State.
************************************************************ |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
Oppenheimer
Joined: 03 Mar 2005 Posts: 1166 Location: SantaFe, New Mexico
|
Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2005 12:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dear Cyrus,
This will put things in better context than what has been reported.
Dear Morning light,
I think you base your suggestion on solid grounds, but don't worry about the US gov. not understanding what's up....try reading the last country report on human rights in Iran (as well as other nations) put out annually by the Dept of State, you case in point was covered in it.
Dear Amir,
Ahah! No wonder the mullahs are threatening fellow Muslim countries (a'la the footnotes to Antar's diatribe about wiping Israel and America off the map, (and any Muslim nation that recognizes Israel).
I guess they believe that the majority of Muslims globally are infidels, not practicing the letter of (their interpretation) of Islam.
So then we are back to the old debate, the majority that rejects terrorism, violence, 9 year old lovers....and view UBL as a drunk driver that's carjacked the religion of Islam....vs. those who claim they alone know (and practice ) true Islam, support jihadi's, rape 9 year olds, stone women, cut of body parts, have an agenda of wiping soverign nations off the face of the planet, and are seeking (and have some of) the means to do so.
Which is then the "true Islam" ????? I say majority rules....by common sense. After all, what is the Umma, except the community?
-------------
Interview With Barbara Slavin and Ray Locker of USA Today
Secretary Condoleezza Rice
Washington, DC
November 28, 2005
(3:25 p.m. EST)
MS. SLAVIN: Let's begin, I guess, with Iraq. You said last week you thought
you'd need fewer troops there next year than there are this year. If the next
Iraqi government comes in and requests a timetable for us to leave, would we
provide a timetable?
SECRETARY RICE: Well, we are clearly going to work with the new Iraqi
government when it is in place, but I would just note that Iraqi governments to
this point have felt the need for a multinational force. That's why they
requested the UN to provide a mandate for that force and then that mandate was
rolled over just very recently. So of course we're working with the Iraqis.
But the point that I was making was simply that Iraqi security forces are
getting better. And the President has always said that when Iraqis can stand
up, we'll be ready to stand down.
MS. SLAVIN: But there's a bit more pressure, it seems, coming certainly from
popular opinion in this country and also from the Iraqis in Cairo.
SECRETARY RICE: But clearly everybody wants this mission to succeed and so you
have to have an effects-based or results-based approach to any discussion of
how security is going to be provided. And it is increasingly provided by more
Iraqi forces in the lead, more Iraqi forces able to hold territory, Iraqi
forces securing the airport highway, for instance. And so they are taking more
and more of the functions.
MS. SLAVIN: But you do anticipate that there is going to be a drawdown next
year?
SECRETARY RICE: Well --
MS. SLAVIN: I mean, the Pentagon has said that, you know, it'll go back down to
138,000 certainly after the elections and then the hope is to get it down to
about 100,000 by the end of the year?
SECRETARY RICE: The President will take from his commanders their assessment of
what the conditions permit, what Iraqi security forces are capable of doing,
and then determine troop levels.
MR. LOCKER: I'd like to ask you about the EU developments today. There was one
of -- an EU minister saying there may be sanctions on some of the member
nations for hosting what they call the secret CIA prisons there. How has this
situation in the last couple weeks complicated your job in dealing with some of
the European countries?
SECRETARY RICE: Well, I've been very clear, as have other members of the
Administration, that we are fighting a war on terror, that there are demands of
that that we have to meet, that we have to meet in order to protect not just
ourselves but to protect others. Unfortunately, Europe has had its share now of
terrorist incidents, in Spain and in Great Britain. And so we are all working
together through law enforcement cooperations, intelligence cooperation, to try
and produce the very best outcome to protect innocent citizens. And I think
that is what we have to keep our eye on.
MS. SLAVIN: But these are prisons where terrible things have happened,
according to a number of accounts.
SECRETARY RICE: Well, first of all, I think we have to be careful in assessing
what is going on in detention. When you come to Abu Ghraib, nobody would by any
stretch of the imagination condone what happened at Abu Ghraib. People were
punished for it. People should have been punished for it. It was -- I don't
care whether you were operating under the Geneva Conventions or the President's
dictate; it was wrong. And so that was very, very clear.
There have been other cases where there have been reports of abuse. Those have
been investigated and will be investigated whenever those reports come up. And
I would just note that one of the really important differences that the world
is learning about how democracies deal with this, as opposed to how
dictatorships deal with it, is that in open societies where you have an open
press, where you have young soldiers who will go to their commanders and say
something wrong is happening there, as was the case in Abu Ghraib, that you
have checks and balances and you have protections against that kind of thing.
MS. SLAVIN: Do --
SECRETARY RICE: So yes --
MS. SLAVIN: If I can interrupt, because time is short.
SECRETARY RICE: Sure.
MS. SLAVIN: Do you agree with Vice President Cheney then that there should be
an exception for the CIA from certain international and -- international norms?
SECRETARY RICE: The President is --
MS. SLAVIN: And doesn't -- what does that do for our public diplomacy?
SECRETARY RICE: The President is going to, within our laws and within our
international obligations, do everything that he can to protect American
citizens -- and by the way, since the war on terrorism has no borders, when you
are acting against terrorists to protect Americans, you are very often acting
against terrorists to protect others as well. And so the President has been
very clear that that's not going to include torture. He's been very clear that
it is going to be within the limits of our laws and it's going to be within the
limits --
MS. SLAVIN: Then why the objection to the McCain --
SECRETARY RICE: We are working with Congress. As you know, Senator Graham has
also had legislation. I believe we need the Congress in this fight because this
is our joint responsibility to protect the American people and these are hard
issues. We haven't ever fought a war like this before. We've never fought a war
before where you are -- or certainly we don't, when we pick law enforcement
actions, where you can't allow somebody to commit the crime before you detain
them because if they commit the crime, then thousands of innocent people die.
MS. SLAVIN: You know, though, what this has done for public diplomacy efforts
and the way people are using this issue. Does that -- that has to concern you.
SECRETARY RICE: I do know how people are using the issue and I constantly
remind people that, first of all, we are in a difficult war against a new kind
of enemy and that we do have an obligation to protect our citizens as well as
protect other citizens; secondly, that the President has been very clear that
he will not countenance behavior and activities that are outside our laws and
outside our international obligations. And when something goes wrong, as it has
on occasion, as it did at Abu Ghraib, that's something that sickened all of us,
that we're going to be absolutely forthright about it and punish people who
engaged in it.
MS. SLAVIN: Let me ask you a couple other questions about Iraq and al-Qaida and
so on. As a result of the war and occupation, Iraq now has become a base for
al-Qaida, and Iran has also been strengthened in some ways. How does the United
States draw down forces and extricate itself from Iraq without further
strengthening al-Qaida and Iran?
SECRETARY RICE: Well, Barbara, I don't actually agree with the premise, so let
me go back to the premise of the question.
First of all, on Iran, Iran is a state with whom we -- with which we have
numerous problems: terrorism, democracy in Iran, a nuclear program that
everybody's concerned about. But I am not at all certain that the geo-strategic
circumstances of Iran have improved with a democratizing, pro-Western
Afghanistan on one border and a democratizing, non-theocratic but Shia-majority
Iraq on another border. So I question the premise that somehow Iran has been
strengthened.
Secondly --
MS. SLAVIN: Well, Al-Qaida certainly is doing a booming business lately.
SECRETARY RICE: Well, al-Qaida was doing a booming business since the mid-1990s
and finally al-Qaida is actually being challenged. And al-Qaida is being
challenged and of course they are recruiting and coming out and fighting, but
they are at least now being challenged. And if you want to talk about how you
deal with a specific al-Qaida cell on Monday of next week, that's one thing;
but if you want to talk about how you eliminate the ideology of hatred that
produced al-Qaida and will produce more al-Qaidas unless you eliminate it --
how you get, in other words, to a permanent peace -- then you have to have a
different kind of Middle East than the one that produced the ideology of hatred
that made those people fly airplanes into buildings.
So an Iraq that is a fundamental pillar of a different kind of Middle East may
indeed go through a period of time in which al-Qaida is a presence in Iraq. But
if you read Zawahiri, if you read Zarqawi, they know that the political process
that is underway in Iraq is, in fact, their worst nightmare. That's why they
threatened Iraqi citizens and then 8.5 million of them went out and voted in
January. That's why they threatened Iraqi citizens and 10 million went out and
voted for the referendum. And that's why they're still threatening Iraqi
citizens. Because they know that the political process is ultimately going to
be the death knell for their activities there.
MS. SLAVIN: Let me ask you a couple questions about internal things in the
State Department. There have been several reports by the -- your Office of
Inspector General, GAO and so on, talking about staffing problems abroad. The
number of hardship posts has more than doubled since before September 11th --
positions where people can't bring their families. Are you concerned that this
is creating battle fatigue at the State Department; it's going to be harder and
harder to fill these types of jobs? Six hundred of them, apparently.
SECRETARY RICE: Well, I'm certainly concerned about the well-being of our
people. I'm certainly concerned about hardship that our officers face. But I
recognize that we are at war and I recognize that the war on terrorism requires
us to be in places that are dangerous, that are not appropriate for families.
But the calling of the Foreign Service and the State Department is to serve the
interests of the country and to protect the interests of the country, and that
means sometimes being in very difficult places.
But I'm going to tell you something. I've been out to all those difficult
posts. I've been in Pakistan. I've been in Afghanistan twice. I've been in Iraq
twice -- well, three times in Iraq, but twice as Secretary. And there is no
higher morale in the posts around the world than when you go out to these
places where people know that, yes, they're on the front line in the war on
terrorism but they're also on the front line of history. And they feel it and
they see it and they understand it and they're committed to it.
And so yes, I worry a great deal about the well-being. We spend a lot of time
and money and effort on security for our people, but this is what we're called
to do.
MS. SLAVIN: There have also been some complaints from the union, from AFSA,
that the junior people are being brought into positions that normally have more
senior Foreign Service people and they say this is hurting morale. Is this
something that they've raised with you? Is this something --
SECRETARY RICE: Well, I said --
MS. SLAVIN: And then there's sort of a rap that you're kind of returning to the
Albright-Baker mode where you have a small circle of advisors and you're not
sort of reaching deep into the building like Colin Powell used to.
SECRETARY RICE: Well, it's -- you know, I have an open door policy. I think my
Assistant Secretaries are up here more than my own staff. You know, I see
everybody and when we're at staff meeting, if somebody needs to get in they can
come in.
As to the ability to -- the need to recruit people for positions, I've never
thought that time in rank was the only qualification for doing a good job. Now,
I think you will find that the great majority of positions are being filled in
the way that people would have expected if you were looking at people going
through the ladder. But yes, on occasion, I do reach out or Assistant
Secretaries reach out and go for -- to look for fast-rising officers who have
different experiences.
I will note that being in places like Baghdad or Kabul tends to give people
different skill sets and very often they come back and they serve, and they
serve at a slightly more elevated position than they might otherwise. That also
happens in time of war.
MS. SLAVIN: Let me ask you a little bit about your relationship with President
Bush and how it affects how you do your job. Hanan Ashrawi, you know, the
former education minister in Palestine, said that she had more faith in your
delivering on the Middle East because she said -- there's an expression in
Arabic -- she said, "Powell was a bird chirping outside the flock," is the way
she put it.
Do you feel that this position that you have, the closeness to the President,
gives you greater leverage? How would you compare your role in formulating
foreign policy to that of Dick Cheney or Rumsfeld or Colin Powell?
SECRETARY RICE: Well, first of all, Colin Powell was a great Secretary of
State. He had a wonderful relationship with the President. I got to see it up
close and personal, which many people didn't, and it was one of respect and one
where the President listened to him and where, as a result, he did a superb
job.
And you know my relationship with the President is a very good one. We've been
together a long time. I have enormous admiration for the willingness of this
President to take difficult and bold steps at a time when I think the world
requires difficult and bold steps. And I'm just grateful that I have an
opportunity to try and help implement these policies. This is a good team.
And are there debates? Yes. Are there disagreements? Yes. But there's one thing
that people all understand, which is the President is the President and he is,
after all, the only one who was really elected to this position.
MS. SLAVIN: You seem to have more leverage, though, on some issues. I don't
know if this is just because it's second term. Chuck Hagel said at the Council
on Foreign Relations the other week that Colin Powell was succeeding in
abstentia and he pointed to some of the changes he'd made on policy toward
North Korean, Iran in particular.
SECRETARY RICE: I think that the changes are overstated. The six-party talks
come out of policies that the President and Colin Powell pursued and that
six-party framework was really solidified in that period. We've been able to
press it forward and perhaps to do some things with it that were not done
before, but that structure has been in place and was working well before --
when I was National Security Advisor, well before I became Secretary.
MS. SLAVIN: Right. But certainly if you look at positions on civilian nuclear
power, there's an acknowledgement that North Korea can have it at some point,
and Iran there's been quite a substantial shift. I recall talking to you just
on the trip a month or so ago, where you were very leery of the notion that
Iran could continue converting uranium into uranium hexaflouride. Now, my
understanding is the U.S. is supporting a Russian proposal that would allow
Iran to continue to convert.
SECRETARY RICE: I think, Barbara, on that trip I remember precisely what I
said. I think I said that the fuel cycle, in total, is a difficult -- is a
problem, but that everybody recognizes that the real problem is uranium --
enrichment and --
MS. SLAVIN: You talked about stockpiles of UF6.
SECRETARY RICE: Yes. Well, I said that if there were a proposal that would
allow the Iranians access to large stockpiles of UF6, that that would be a
problem, on their territory, that that would be a problem. So we'll see where
the Russian proposal comes out. We're prepared to see if the Russians can
explore something that may bring the Iranians around to the recognition that
they cannot enrich and reprocess on their territory, that they have a
credibility problem with the international community as to the fuel cycle.
We'll see whether it works. But we do have the votes for a referral to the
Security Council at a time of our choosing.
MS. SLAVIN: It wasn't of our choosing last week.
SECRETARY RICE: No, we decided there was time for the -- that there should be
time for the Russians, who wanted the opportunity to explore this, to have a
chance to explore it. So "at a time of our choosing" means at a time of our
choosing.
MS. SLAVIN: On Iran, your old colleague Abbas Milani has suggested, others have
suggested, that we should really change our whole policy toward that country if
we want to promote democracy there, that we should have targeted sanctions
instead of blanket sanctions. There have been suggestions, I believe, for
opening a U.S. visa office, putting Americans there, not making Iranians go all
the way to Dubai; let Americans, Iranian Americans, send money, NGOs operate
there. Are these some of the proposals that you're considering and how far
along are they?
SECRETARY RICE: Well, obviously nobody has a desire to isolate the Iranian
people. That's not the point. The problem is that the Iranian Government is one
that pursues policies that are antithetical to the interests of the United
States and interests of a stable Middle East.
If you look at Iranian policies, you look at a country -- we've just talked
about the nuclear issue -- where nobody trusts them in terms of peaceful uses
of nuclear energy and therefore people are trying to design a way that they
cannot have a fuel cycle. You have a state that is supporting Palestinian
rejectionists at a time when the --
MS. SLAVIN: But --
SECRETARY RICE: Well, now you'll just have to let me finish. The Palestinian
rejectionists at a time when they are -- when Abu Mazen is trying to do quite
the opposite, Hezbollah at a time when Lebanon is trying to emerge from Syrian
occupation, not to mention an Iranian President that talks about wiping other
countries off the map and an Iranian population that's trapped in a political
system that going backwards, not forwards.
MS. SLAVIN: So how do you help them going forwards? Isn't it through some kind
of targeted engagement, the sort that we have not used with the Iranians?
SECRETARY RICE: I find it hard to see what engagement at -- broad engagement
would accomplish with the Iranians because it's very clear that Iran is on a
path that is different and contrary to the path that most people want to see
the Middle East take at this point.
MS. SLAVIN: You've given Zalmay Khalilzad permission to discuss with his
Iranian counterpart the Iraq situation. What about having a contact group, a
formal contact group in which the Iranians could participate, and perhaps
broadening those discussions to other issues, as has been suggested by a number
of people?
SECRETARY RICE: Well, the Iranian contact with Zal Khalilzad in Afghanistan
through the 6+2 process was actually very useful on some very limited grounds
and it was useful. We think it could be useful in Iraq on some limited grounds.
But again, this is on quite narrow issues that are definable and that do not, I
think, run the risk of granting legitimacy to a government that doesn't deserve
legitimacy.
QUESTION: Have these talks or contacts begun between Zal and Iranians?
SECRETARY RICE: I don't -- yeah, I'm not sure. Zal has the guidance to do it
when it makes sense. So I haven't checked in.
QUESTION: Can we turn to North Korea, if I could, just quickly? There was a
short round. Things don't seem to be going very quickly. I mean, while the Bush
Administration has been in office, the North Koreans may have developed enough
plutonium for another six bombs.
How long does it go on like this? Is there any other option that we can use to
influence the North Koreans or concern that this process just doesn't seem to
be going anywhere fast?
SECRETARY RICE: Well, we are making -- we are doing other things. For instance,
we are working with others in the Proliferation Security Initiative to deal
with the potential for shipments of WMD-related materials, and on at least one
very highly publicized occasion we made a very good hit leading ultimately to
the -- I think to reinforcing the Libyan decision. That was a North Korean
shipment. We have, of course, made very clear that we intend to deal with banks
that are dealing in illicit proceeds for North Korea. So we're not sitting
still while the six-party talks continue.
But I think the six-party talks themselves, first of all, have solidified a
consensus at least among the five about North Korea's -- about the only path
ahead for North Korea, which is to have -- to abandon its nuclear weapons
programs if it wishes to fully access the international system. And there is
now a statement of principles to which the parties are agreed, and when the
North Koreans have tried to veer off those principles, others have brought them
back to those principles. So I think you have a starting place with those
principles for negotiation. But it will have to make more progress --
QUESTION: Are you going to invite a couple of the North Korean negotiators to
New York to discuss the sanctions, the bank issue? I understand that there's a
proposal to have them come to New York to continue talks and --
SECRETARY RICE: I think that we are prepared to tell the North Koreans what are
laws are, but they know what they're doing. They don't need to have a bilateral
on how to stop counterfeiting other people's money. Just stop doing it.
QUESTION: Let me ask you, on the political front, I've been told that some
Republican strategists are approaching you or would love for you to acknowledge
that you might want to run for some sort of office in 2008. You're the --
SECRETARY RICE: Let's go back to North Korea. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: You're the only senior member of the Administration who has positive
-- who has, you know, positive -- above 50 percent favorable ratings in the
polls at this point. And they see you as, if not a Presidential candidate, then
as a Vice Presidential candidate. If these people come to you -- are they
coming to you?
SECRETARY RICE: Barbara, I am very busy trying to be Secretary of State. You've
traveled with me. You know I don't have time for such things. No, I -- it's not
my calling in life.
QUESTION: I've got to ask you this. I've got to put this on the record. And
that is you are a size 6 in designer clothes. Yes?
SECRETARY RICE: Some secrets cannot be disclosed. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: And American women want to know where you get your clothes, what your
favorite designers are. I've sized you up and figure Akris Punto and some
Armani and I'm not sure of the others. This is a really significant question
for the women of America --
SECRETARY RICE: I cannot confirm --
QUESTION: Struggling to be -- (laughter) --
SECRETARY RICE: I cannot confirm or deny. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Struggling to be a size 6 after the age of -- yes.
SECRETARY RICE: What age is that? (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Fifty. I think those of us who are above the age of 50 should be
proud of it.
There was one other thing I have to sneak in. This has been driving me crazy
and I just need an answer. I wanted to ask you this three years ago. Please.
The NSC did a study in 2002, February 2002, that showed that the most
successful post-war stabilization programs, occupations, were when you had a
high ratio of troops to locals. Kosovo, Bosnia, were the successes; places
where you didn't have that were failures. Why did you disregard your own study?
SECRETARY RICE: First of all, there was no study. There was an effort to look
back over various metrics to see how different missions had been carried out in
the past. And all of that information was available to decision makers and --
QUESTION: Did President Bush --
SECRETARY RICE: All of that information was fed into the process. But, Barbara,
when you go into a situation like Iraq, you take Iraq on its own terms. And
General Franks would come in and he would brief the plan, and I can't tell you
how many times the President asked, are the forces adequate to -- or
appropriate to the plan that you are drawing up? And he was told yes, it--
QUESTION: Do you think in hindsight that was such a great decision?
SECRETARY RICE: I think --
QUESTION: And do you regret some of the chaos that occurred?
SECRETARY RICE: Barbara, I'm a very big believer that big historical
circumstances are difficult by their very nature. I would be the first to say I
am sure that there are many things that could have been done better. There are
many things that were not done well. There will be things that turn out to have
looked like mistakes that will turn out to have been great successes, and
things that looked like great successes but will turn out to have been
mistakes. I am enough of an historian to know that those are judgments that can
only be made well after the fact when you know how things turned out.
Ultimately, what we have to focus on is the strategic path. And that strategic
path is to have nothing that throws the Iraqis off the political path that
they're on toward a permanent government, and so far they've marched along it
really quite smartly; to do nothing that causes the Iraqis to be incapable of
resolving their differences within political institutions, and so far they seem
capable of doing that; and finally, that leaves Iraqis in charge of their own
security and their own political future, and they are getting there.
But I've said many times -- look, I am quite certain that when the history is
written a lot of wrongs are going to have been done and probably I'll even,
when I go back to Stanford in three and a half years --
QUESTION: You're pretty conclusive about that.
SECRETARY RICE: I can guarantee you I will probably oversee dissertations that
look at that. But, you know, the key now is that I think we have a way forward
that the Iraqis have confidence in, and that's probably the most important
thing is that the Iraqis have confidence in this way forward.
QUESTION: Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
SECRETARY RICE: Thank you. Thank you. Great to see you.
Released on November 29, 2005
************************************************************
See http://www.state.gov/secretary/ for all remarks by the Secretary of State.
************************************************************ |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
cyrus Site Admin
![](http://www.activistchat.com/WTC/images/icyruswithclynder.gif)
Joined: 24 Jun 2003 Posts: 4993
|
Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2005 6:25 pm Post subject: Re: US to Reach Out to Iran in Bid to Quell Iraq Unrest |
|
|
cyrus wrote: | 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.
|
Dear Oppenheimer,
“There will be meetings, and that’s also a departure and an adjustment,” he said in an interview with the magazine.
Can you explain what does it mean?
Thanks,
Cyrus |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
Oppenheimer
Joined: 03 Mar 2005 Posts: 1166 Location: SantaFe, New Mexico
|
Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 1:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dear Cyrus,
This will put things in better context than what has been reported.
Dear Morning light,
I think you base your suggestion on solid grounds, but don't worry about the US gov. not understanding what's up....try reading the last country report on human rights in Iran (as well as other nations) put out annually by the Dept of State, you case in point was covered in it.
Dear Amir,
Ahah! No wonder the mullahs are threatening fellow Muslim countries (a'la the footnotes to Antar's diatribe about wiping Israel and America off the map, (and any Muslim nation that recognizes Israel).
I guess they believe that the majority of Muslims globally are infidels, not practicing the letter of (their interpretation) of Islam.
So then we are back to the old debate, the majority that rejects terrorism, violence, 9 year old lovers....and view UBL as a drunk driver that's carjacked the religion of Islam....vs. those who claim they alone know (and practice ) true Islam, support jihadi's, rape 9 year olds, stone women, cut of body parts, have an agenda of wiping soverign nations off the face of the planet, and are seeking (and have some of) the means to do so.
Which is then the "true Islam" ????? I say majority rules....by common sense. After all, what is the Umma, except the community?
-------------
Interview With Barbara Slavin and Ray Locker of USA Today
Secretary Condoleezza Rice
Washington, DC
November 28, 2005
(3:25 p.m. EST)
MS. SLAVIN: Let's begin, I guess, with Iraq. You said last week you thought
you'd need fewer troops there next year than there are this year. If the next
Iraqi government comes in and requests a timetable for us to leave, would we
provide a timetable?
SECRETARY RICE: Well, we are clearly going to work with the new Iraqi
government when it is in place, but I would just note that Iraqi governments to
this point have felt the need for a multinational force. That's why they
requested the UN to provide a mandate for that force and then that mandate was
rolled over just very recently. So of course we're working with the Iraqis.
But the point that I was making was simply that Iraqi security forces are
getting better. And the President has always said that when Iraqis can stand
up, we'll be ready to stand down.
MS. SLAVIN: But there's a bit more pressure, it seems, coming certainly from
popular opinion in this country and also from the Iraqis in Cairo.
SECRETARY RICE: But clearly everybody wants this mission to succeed and so you
have to have an effects-based or results-based approach to any discussion of
how security is going to be provided. And it is increasingly provided by more
Iraqi forces in the lead, more Iraqi forces able to hold territory, Iraqi
forces securing the airport highway, for instance. And so they are taking more
and more of the functions.
MS. SLAVIN: But you do anticipate that there is going to be a drawdown next
year?
SECRETARY RICE: Well --
MS. SLAVIN: I mean, the Pentagon has said that, you know, it'll go back down to
138,000 certainly after the elections and then the hope is to get it down to
about 100,000 by the end of the year?
SECRETARY RICE: The President will take from his commanders their assessment of
what the conditions permit, what Iraqi security forces are capable of doing,
and then determine troop levels.
MR. LOCKER: I'd like to ask you about the EU developments today. There was one
of -- an EU minister saying there may be sanctions on some of the member
nations for hosting what they call the secret CIA prisons there. How has this
situation in the last couple weeks complicated your job in dealing with some of
the European countries?
SECRETARY RICE: Well, I've been very clear, as have other members of the
Administration, that we are fighting a war on terror, that there are demands of
that that we have to meet, that we have to meet in order to protect not just
ourselves but to protect others. Unfortunately, Europe has had its share now of
terrorist incidents, in Spain and in Great Britain. And so we are all working
together through law enforcement cooperations, intelligence cooperation, to try
and produce the very best outcome to protect innocent citizens. And I think
that is what we have to keep our eye on.
MS. SLAVIN: But these are prisons where terrible things have happened,
according to a number of accounts.
SECRETARY RICE: Well, first of all, I think we have to be careful in assessing
what is going on in detention. When you come to Abu Ghraib, nobody would by any
stretch of the imagination condone what happened at Abu Ghraib. People were
punished for it. People should have been punished for it. It was -- I don't
care whether you were operating under the Geneva Conventions or the President's
dictate; it was wrong. And so that was very, very clear.
There have been other cases where there have been reports of abuse. Those have
been investigated and will be investigated whenever those reports come up. And
I would just note that one of the really important differences that the world
is learning about how democracies deal with this, as opposed to how
dictatorships deal with it, is that in open societies where you have an open
press, where you have young soldiers who will go to their commanders and say
something wrong is happening there, as was the case in Abu Ghraib, that you
have checks and balances and you have protections against that kind of thing.
MS. SLAVIN: Do --
SECRETARY RICE: So yes --
MS. SLAVIN: If I can interrupt, because time is short.
SECRETARY RICE: Sure.
MS. SLAVIN: Do you agree with Vice President Cheney then that there should be
an exception for the CIA from certain international and -- international norms?
SECRETARY RICE: The President is --
MS. SLAVIN: And doesn't -- what does that do for our public diplomacy?
SECRETARY RICE: The President is going to, within our laws and within our
international obligations, do everything that he can to protect American
citizens -- and by the way, since the war on terrorism has no borders, when you
are acting against terrorists to protect Americans, you are very often acting
against terrorists to protect others as well. And so the President has been
very clear that that's not going to include torture. He's been very clear that
it is going to be within the limits of our laws and it's going to be within the
limits --
MS. SLAVIN: Then why the objection to the McCain --
SECRETARY RICE: We are working with Congress. As you know, Senator Graham has
also had legislation. I believe we need the Congress in this fight because this
is our joint responsibility to protect the American people and these are hard
issues. We haven't ever fought a war like this before. We've never fought a war
before where you are -- or certainly we don't, when we pick law enforcement
actions, where you can't allow somebody to commit the crime before you detain
them because if they commit the crime, then thousands of innocent people die.
MS. SLAVIN: You know, though, what this has done for public diplomacy efforts
and the way people are using this issue. Does that -- that has to concern you.
SECRETARY RICE: I do know how people are using the issue and I constantly
remind people that, first of all, we are in a difficult war against a new kind
of enemy and that we do have an obligation to protect our citizens as well as
protect other citizens; secondly, that the President has been very clear that
he will not countenance behavior and activities that are outside our laws and
outside our international obligations. And when something goes wrong, as it has
on occasion, as it did at Abu Ghraib, that's something that sickened all of us,
that we're going to be absolutely forthright about it and punish people who
engaged in it.
MS. SLAVIN: Let me ask you a couple other questions about Iraq and al-Qaida and
so on. As a result of the war and occupation, Iraq now has become a base for
al-Qaida, and Iran has also been strengthened in some ways. How does the United
States draw down forces and extricate itself from Iraq without further
strengthening al-Qaida and Iran?
SECRETARY RICE: Well, Barbara, I don't actually agree with the premise, so let
me go back to the premise of the question.
First of all, on Iran, Iran is a state with whom we -- with which we have
numerous problems: terrorism, democracy in Iran, a nuclear program that
everybody's concerned about. But I am not at all certain that the geo-strategic
circumstances of Iran have improved with a democratizing, pro-Western
Afghanistan on one border and a democratizing, non-theocratic but Shia-majority
Iraq on another border. So I question the premise that somehow Iran has been
strengthened.
Secondly --
MS. SLAVIN: Well, Al-Qaida certainly is doing a booming business lately.
SECRETARY RICE: Well, al-Qaida was doing a booming business since the mid-1990s
and finally al-Qaida is actually being challenged. And al-Qaida is being
challenged and of course they are recruiting and coming out and fighting, but
they are at least now being challenged. And if you want to talk about how you
deal with a specific al-Qaida cell on Monday of next week, that's one thing;
but if you want to talk about how you eliminate the ideology of hatred that
produced al-Qaida and will produce more al-Qaidas unless you eliminate it --
how you get, in other words, to a permanent peace -- then you have to have a
different kind of Middle East than the one that produced the ideology of hatred
that made those people fly airplanes into buildings.
So an Iraq that is a fundamental pillar of a different kind of Middle East may
indeed go through a period of time in which al-Qaida is a presence in Iraq. But
if you read Zawahiri, if you read Zarqawi, they know that the political process
that is underway in Iraq is, in fact, their worst nightmare. That's why they
threatened Iraqi citizens and then 8.5 million of them went out and voted in
January. That's why they threatened Iraqi citizens and 10 million went out and
voted for the referendum. And that's why they're still threatening Iraqi
citizens. Because they know that the political process is ultimately going to
be the death knell for their activities there.
MS. SLAVIN: Let me ask you a couple questions about internal things in the
State Department. There have been several reports by the -- your Office of
Inspector General, GAO and so on, talking about staffing problems abroad. The
number of hardship posts has more than doubled since before September 11th --
positions where people can't bring their families. Are you concerned that this
is creating battle fatigue at the State Department; it's going to be harder and
harder to fill these types of jobs? Six hundred of them, apparently.
SECRETARY RICE: Well, I'm certainly concerned about the well-being of our
people. I'm certainly concerned about hardship that our officers face. But I
recognize that we are at war and I recognize that the war on terrorism requires
us to be in places that are dangerous, that are not appropriate for families.
But the calling of the Foreign Service and the State Department is to serve the
interests of the country and to protect the interests of the country, and that
means sometimes being in very difficult places.
But I'm going to tell you something. I've been out to all those difficult
posts. I've been in Pakistan. I've been in Afghanistan twice. I've been in Iraq
twice -- well, three times in Iraq, but twice as Secretary. And there is no
higher morale in the posts around the world than when you go out to these
places where people know that, yes, they're on the front line in the war on
terrorism but they're also on the front line of history. And they feel it and
they see it and they understand it and they're committed to it.
And so yes, I worry a great deal about the well-being. We spend a lot of time
and money and effort on security for our people, but this is what we're called
to do.
MS. SLAVIN: There have also been some complaints from the union, from AFSA,
that the junior people are being brought into positions that normally have more
senior Foreign Service people and they say this is hurting morale. Is this
something that they've raised with you? Is this something --
SECRETARY RICE: Well, I said --
MS. SLAVIN: And then there's sort of a rap that you're kind of returning to the
Albright-Baker mode where you have a small circle of advisors and you're not
sort of reaching deep into the building like Colin Powell used to.
SECRETARY RICE: Well, it's -- you know, I have an open door policy. I think my
Assistant Secretaries are up here more than my own staff. You know, I see
everybody and when we're at staff meeting, if somebody needs to get in they can
come in.
As to the ability to -- the need to recruit people for positions, I've never
thought that time in rank was the only qualification for doing a good job. Now,
I think you will find that the great majority of positions are being filled in
the way that people would have expected if you were looking at people going
through the ladder. But yes, on occasion, I do reach out or Assistant
Secretaries reach out and go for -- to look for fast-rising officers who have
different experiences.
I will note that being in places like Baghdad or Kabul tends to give people
different skill sets and very often they come back and they serve, and they
serve at a slightly more elevated position than they might otherwise. That also
happens in time of war.
MS. SLAVIN: Let me ask you a little bit about your relationship with President
Bush and how it affects how you do your job. Hanan Ashrawi, you know, the
former education minister in Palestine, said that she had more faith in your
delivering on the Middle East because she said -- there's an expression in
Arabic -- she said, "Powell was a bird chirping outside the flock," is the way
she put it.
Do you feel that this position that you have, the closeness to the President,
gives you greater leverage? How would you compare your role in formulating
foreign policy to that of Dick Cheney or Rumsfeld or Colin Powell?
SECRETARY RICE: Well, first of all, Colin Powell was a great Secretary of
State. He had a wonderful relationship with the President. I got to see it up
close and personal, which many people didn't, and it was one of respect and one
where the President listened to him and where, as a result, he did a superb
job.
And you know my relationship with the President is a very good one. We've been
together a long time. I have enormous admiration for the willingness of this
President to take difficult and bold steps at a time when I think the world
requires difficult and bold steps. And I'm just grateful that I have an
opportunity to try and help implement these policies. This is a good team.
And are there debates? Yes. Are there disagreements? Yes. But there's one thing
that people all understand, which is the President is the President and he is,
after all, the only one who was really elected to this position.
MS. SLAVIN: You seem to have more leverage, though, on some issues. I don't
know if this is just because it's second term. Chuck Hagel said at the Council
on Foreign Relations the other week that Colin Powell was succeeding in
abstentia and he pointed to some of the changes he'd made on policy toward
North Korean, Iran in particular.
SECRETARY RICE: I think that the changes are overstated. The six-party talks
come out of policies that the President and Colin Powell pursued and that
six-party framework was really solidified in that period. We've been able to
press it forward and perhaps to do some things with it that were not done
before, but that structure has been in place and was working well before --
when I was National Security Advisor, well before I became Secretary.
MS. SLAVIN: Right. But certainly if you look at positions on civilian nuclear
power, there's an acknowledgement that North Korea can have it at some point,
and Iran there's been quite a substantial shift. I recall talking to you just
on the trip a month or so ago, where you were very leery of the notion that
Iran could continue converting uranium into uranium hexaflouride. Now, my
understanding is the U.S. is supporting a Russian proposal that would allow
Iran to continue to convert.
SECRETARY RICE: I think, Barbara, on that trip I remember precisely what I
said. I think I said that the fuel cycle, in total, is a difficult -- is a
problem, but that everybody recognizes that the real problem is uranium --
enrichment and --
MS. SLAVIN: You talked about stockpiles of UF6.
SECRETARY RICE: Yes. Well, I said that if there were a proposal that would
allow the Iranians access to large stockpiles of UF6, that that would be a
problem, on their territory, that that would be a problem. So we'll see where
the Russian proposal comes out. We're prepared to see if the Russians can
explore something that may bring the Iranians around to the recognition that
they cannot enrich and reprocess on their territory, that they have a
credibility problem with the international community as to the fuel cycle.
We'll see whether it works. But we do have the votes for a referral to the
Security Council at a time of our choosing.
MS. SLAVIN: It wasn't of our choosing last week.
SECRETARY RICE: No, we decided there was time for the -- that there should be
time for the Russians, who wanted the opportunity to explore this, to have a
chance to explore it. So "at a time of our choosing" means at a time of our
choosing.
MS. SLAVIN: On Iran, your old colleague Abbas Milani has suggested, others have
suggested, that we should really change our whole policy toward that country if
we want to promote democracy there, that we should have targeted sanctions
instead of blanket sanctions. There have been suggestions, I believe, for
opening a U.S. visa office, putting Americans there, not making Iranians go all
the way to Dubai; let Americans, Iranian Americans, send money, NGOs operate
there. Are these some of the proposals that you're considering and how far
along are they?
SECRETARY RICE: Well, obviously nobody has a desire to isolate the Iranian
people. That's not the point. The problem is that the Iranian Government is one
that pursues policies that are antithetical to the interests of the United
States and interests of a stable Middle East.
If you look at Iranian policies, you look at a country -- we've just talked
about the nuclear issue -- where nobody trusts them in terms of peaceful uses
of nuclear energy and therefore people are trying to design a way that they
cannot have a fuel cycle. You have a state that is supporting Palestinian
rejectionists at a time when the --
MS. SLAVIN: But --
SECRETARY RICE: Well, now you'll just have to let me finish. The Palestinian
rejectionists at a time when they are -- when Abu Mazen is trying to do quite
the opposite, Hezbollah at a time when Lebanon is trying to emerge from Syrian
occupation, not to mention an Iranian President that talks about wiping other
countries off the map and an Iranian population that's trapped in a political
system that going backwards, not forwards.
MS. SLAVIN: So how do you help them going forwards? Isn't it through some kind
of targeted engagement, the sort that we have not used with the Iranians?
SECRETARY RICE: I find it hard to see what engagement at -- broad engagement
would accomplish with the Iranians because it's very clear that Iran is on a
path that is different and contrary to the path that most people want to see
the Middle East take at this point.
MS. SLAVIN: You've given Zalmay Khalilzad permission to discuss with his
Iranian counterpart the Iraq situation. What about having a contact group, a
formal contact group in which the Iranians could participate, and perhaps
broadening those discussions to other issues, as has been suggested by a number
of people?
SECRETARY RICE: Well, the Iranian contact with Zal Khalilzad in Afghanistan
through the 6+2 process was actually very useful on some very limited grounds
and it was useful. We think it could be useful in Iraq on some limited grounds.
But again, this is on quite narrow issues that are definable and that do not, I
think, run the risk of granting legitimacy to a government that doesn't deserve
legitimacy.
QUESTION: Have these talks or contacts begun between Zal and Iranians?
SECRETARY RICE: I don't -- yeah, I'm not sure. Zal has the guidance to do it
when it makes sense. So I haven't checked in.
QUESTION: Can we turn to North Korea, if I could, just quickly? There was a
short round. Things don't seem to be going very quickly. I mean, while the Bush
Administration has been in office, the North Koreans may have developed enough
plutonium for another six bombs.
How long does it go on like this? Is there any other option that we can use to
influence the North Koreans or concern that this process just doesn't seem to
be going anywhere fast?
SECRETARY RICE: Well, we are making -- we are doing other things. For instance,
we are working with others in the Proliferation Security Initiative to deal
with the potential for shipments of WMD-related materials, and on at least one
very highly publicized occasion we made a very good hit leading ultimately to
the -- I think to reinforcing the Libyan decision. That was a North Korean
shipment. We have, of course, made very clear that we intend to deal with banks
that are dealing in illicit proceeds for North Korea. So we're not sitting
still while the six-party talks continue.
But I think the six-party talks themselves, first of all, have solidified a
consensus at least among the five about North Korea's -- about the only path
ahead for North Korea, which is to have -- to abandon its nuclear weapons
programs if it wishes to fully access the international system. And there is
now a statement of principles to which the parties are agreed, and when the
North Koreans have tried to veer off those principles, others have brought them
back to those principles. So I think you have a starting place with those
principles for negotiation. But it will have to make more progress --
QUESTION: Are you going to invite a couple of the North Korean negotiators to
New York to discuss the sanctions, the bank issue? I understand that there's a
proposal to have them come to New York to continue talks and --
SECRETARY RICE: I think that we are prepared to tell the North Koreans what are
laws are, but they know what they're doing. They don't need to have a bilateral
on how to stop counterfeiting other people's money. Just stop doing it.
QUESTION: Let me ask you, on the political front, I've been told that some
Republican strategists are approaching you or would love for you to acknowledge
that you might want to run for some sort of office in 2008. You're the --
SECRETARY RICE: Let's go back to North Korea. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: You're the only senior member of the Administration who has positive
-- who has, you know, positive -- above 50 percent favorable ratings in the
polls at this point. And they see you as, if not a Presidential candidate, then
as a Vice Presidential candidate. If these people come to you -- are they
coming to you?
SECRETARY RICE: Barbara, I am very busy trying to be Secretary of State. You've
traveled with me. You know I don't have time for such things. No, I -- it's not
my calling in life.
QUESTION: I've got to ask you this. I've got to put this on the record. And
that is you are a size 6 in designer clothes. Yes?
SECRETARY RICE: Some secrets cannot be disclosed. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: And American women want to know where you get your clothes, what your
favorite designers are. I've sized you up and figure Akris Punto and some
Armani and I'm not sure of the others. This is a really significant question
for the women of America --
SECRETARY RICE: I cannot confirm --
QUESTION: Struggling to be -- (laughter) --
SECRETARY RICE: I cannot confirm or deny. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Struggling to be a size 6 after the age of -- yes.
SECRETARY RICE: What age is that? (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Fifty. I think those of us who are above the age of 50 should be
proud of it.
There was one other thing I have to sneak in. This has been driving me crazy
and I just need an answer. I wanted to ask you this three years ago. Please.
The NSC did a study in 2002, February 2002, that showed that the most
successful post-war stabilization programs, occupations, were when you had a
high ratio of troops to locals. Kosovo, Bosnia, were the successes; places
where you didn't have that were failures. Why did you disregard your own study?
SECRETARY RICE: First of all, there was no study. There was an effort to look
back over various metrics to see how different missions had been carried out in
the past. And all of that information was available to decision makers and --
QUESTION: Did President Bush --
SECRETARY RICE: All of that information was fed into the process. But, Barbara,
when you go into a situation like Iraq, you take Iraq on its own terms. And
General Franks would come in and he would brief the plan, and I can't tell you
how many times the President asked, are the forces adequate to -- or
appropriate to the plan that you are drawing up? And he was told yes, it--
QUESTION: Do you think in hindsight that was such a great decision?
SECRETARY RICE: I think --
QUESTION: And do you regret some of the chaos that occurred?
SECRETARY RICE: Barbara, I'm a very big believer that big historical
circumstances are difficult by their very nature. I would be the first to say I
am sure that there are many things that could have been done better. There are
many things that were not done well. There will be things that turn out to have
looked like mistakes that will turn out to have been great successes, and
things that looked like great successes but will turn out to have been
mistakes. I am enough of an historian to know that those are judgments that can
only be made well after the fact when you know how things turned out.
Ultimately, what we have to focus on is the strategic path. And that strategic
path is to have nothing that throws the Iraqis off the political path that
they're on toward a permanent government, and so far they've marched along it
really quite smartly; to do nothing that causes the Iraqis to be incapable of
resolving their differences within political institutions, and so far they seem
capable of doing that; and finally, that leaves Iraqis in charge of their own
security and their own political future, and they are getting there.
But I've said many times -- look, I am quite certain that when the history is
written a lot of wrongs are going to have been done and probably I'll even,
when I go back to Stanford in three and a half years --
QUESTION: You're pretty conclusive about that.
SECRETARY RICE: I can guarantee you I will probably oversee dissertations that
look at that. But, you know, the key now is that I think we have a way forward
that the Iraqis have confidence in, and that's probably the most important
thing is that the Iraqis have confidence in this way forward.
QUESTION: Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
SECRETARY RICE: Thank you. Thank you. Great to see you.
Released on November 29, 2005
************************************************************
See http://www.state.gov/secretary/ for all remarks by the Secretary of State.
************************************************************ |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
Morning Light
Joined: 12 Oct 2005 Posts: 54
|
Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 12:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oppenheimer
To a large extent it really doesn't matter what the US Government knows, what matters is what the ordinary people know in the US.
If you go out on the streets of America you will find that almost nobody knows about Iran's Pro-Child Rape laws.
If Americans were to learn about them, and be made to imagine their own Nine Year Old Daughters being torn away from them, married off to a Pedophile, and raped by that Pedophile whenever he gets into the mood, then you would soon see the Democrats become a lot more anti-Islamist, and even the Republicans would go further to the right in the fight against Islamism.
It isn't just Americans that need to learn, the French are just as ignorant, as are most Western Nations. Italy and Israel are both relatively well informed about what the IRI does to the Iranians, but even the Italians and Israelis can really use some reminders.
Amir I think you forgot that some of the more economically powerful (By virtue of their vast oil resources alone) Muslim Nations like Saudi Arabia have the same pro-Child Rape laws that Iran does.
To everyone, what is most scary of all is the way the cool thing on college campuses is Islamists, and the uncool things are Israel, The West, and well what the Islamists hate Kafirs. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
AmirN
![](http://www.livius.org/a/iran/persepolis/apadana-northstairs-relief/darius_s.JPG)
Joined: 23 Sep 2005 Posts: 297
|
Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 1:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Morning Light,
Quote: | Amir I think you forgot that some of the more economically powerful (By virtue of their vast oil resources alone) Muslim Nations like Saudi Arabia have the same pro-Child Rape laws that Iran does.
|
True, true, very true. But no, I didn't forget. I said I was surprised that not ALL the moslems of the world had followed the great Prophet's example. I am quite aware that in some Moslem nations, in addition to the IRI, some do in fact carry out such crimes. On an aside note, I wonder if this has anything to do with Michael Jackson's move to Bahrain.
Oppenheimer
Quote: | Ahah! No wonder the mullahs are threatening fellow Muslim countries (a'la the footnotes to Antar's diatribe about wiping Israel and America off the map, (and any Muslim nation that recognizes Israel). |
Tabari VII:97 -“The next morning, the Jews were in a state of fear on account of our attack upon the enemy of Allah. After the assassination, the Prophet declared, ‘Kill every Jew.’”
Qur’an 8:39 -“So, fight them till all opposition ends and the only religion is Islam.”
Bukhari:V1B2N25- “Allah’s Apostle was asked, ‘What is the best deed?’ He replied, ‘To believe in Allah and His Apostle Muhammad.’ The questioner then asked, ‘What is the next best in goodness?’ He replied, ‘To participate in Jihad, religious fighting in Allah's Cause.’”
Qur’an 9:38- “Believers, what is the matter with you, that when you are asked to march forth in the Cause of Allah (i.e., Jihad) you cling to the earth? Do you prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? Unless you march, He will afflict and punish you with a painful torture, and put others in your place. But you cannot harm Him in the least.”
Ishaq:364 -“Muslims, take not Jews and Christians as friends. Whoever protects them becomes one of them, they become diseased, and will earn a similar fate.”
Quote: | I guess they believe that the majority of Muslims globally are infidels, not practicing the letter of (their interpretation) of Islam. |
Exactly. And sadly, they are right. And their "interpretation" is not really debatable. It is based upon their scriptures, and the hateful message is indisputable. How can one dispute the interpretation of "Kill every Jew?" Nothing is left to the imagination or interpretation when it comes to such a statement. We might as well submit that Hitler's Mein Kampf was open to interpretation, and actually had a peaceful and loving ideology. We might as well submit that Monkey Boy's poster "A World Without Zionism" is open to interpretation.
Quote: | So then we are back to the old debate, the majority that rejects terrorism, violence, 9 year old lovers....and view UBL as a drunk driver that's carjacked the religion of Islam....vs. those who claim they alone know (and practice ) true Islam, support jihadi's, rape 9 year olds, stone women, cut of body parts, have an agenda of wiping soverign nations off the face of the planet, and are seeking (and have some of) the means to do so. |
Yes, my friend, the debate marches on.
Quote: | Which is then the "true Islam" ????? I say majority rules.... |
The majority usually does rule…if you are talking about a democracy. But as we all know, in a dictatorship, the majority does not rule. The rule of one person, or group of a small number of people rules.
Let us for a minute consider religion. I refer to Judeo/Christian/Islamic religion of monotheism. Let us consider the one divine omnipotent God, the particular messenger or prophet he sent us (Moses, Jesus, or Mohammad), and the particular Holy Book.
Are any of these religions founded upon a democracy? And I’m not asking whether they “agree with” the concept of democracy. I’m asking, did they “form” from a democratic process?
Did God and his messenger (take Mohammad) hold a conference with the people of this earth, and after consulting with the majority, decide what “the rules of conduct” ought to be? Did the Holy Book(s) materialize as a result of a democratic committee, an electoral process? Or did God, in his infinite wisdom, decide its content and its rules and recommendations, and convey it to us through his “messenger?”
Therefore, when it comes to matters of religion, the majority definitely does not rule. The majority is irrelevant when it comes to the word of God. Religion is obviously a dictatorship. God had literally "dictated" his word to us, via his Messenger, into his Book. God, his Messenger, and his Book rule.
According to Islam, there is but one God, Allah, and Mohammad is his Messenger. Can we all agree on that?
Now, the spoken word, the written word (Qur’an), and the deeds of the Messenger Mohammad must be the consequence of Allah’s inspiration and revelation. THIS IS THE WHOLE PREMISE OF RELIGION. THAT WE OUGHT TO FOLLOW THE RELIGION OF ISLAM BECAUSE IT IS THE WORD OF MOHAMMAD, WHICH IN TURN IS THE WORD OF GOD.
If we assume for a minute that Mohammad or the Qur’an is fallible, then the basic premise by which Islam was created is nullified. Not one word, whether written or spoken, and not one deed can be contested. For if any one is contested, they can all be contested. And then, what are we left with? A sham, a lie, a charade, an illusion, a mockery.
The above references were the words, recommendations, and deeds of the Prophet Mohammad. Based on those words and recommendations, some conclusions may be drawn:
IF HE, THE MESSENGER OF GOD, had sex with a 9 year old, why shouldn’t we?
IF HE, THE MESSENGER OF GOD, said that we should kill all the Jews, why shouldn’t we, if we are Moslems?
IF HE, THE MESSENGER OF GOD, said that after the acceptance of Allah and Mohammad, the next noblest thing is Jihad, why should we not all take up Jihad against all the infidels?
IF HE, THE MESSENGER OF GOD, said that if we as the Believers, or Moslems, do not march against the enemies of Islam (the Jews, Christians, and all the remainder of the non-Moslems of the world), that we will be punished by Allah by a painful torture, why should we not march?
IF HE, THE MESSENGER OF GOD, said that those who protect the Jews and Christians will earn a similar fate as them (the Jews), why should we protect them?
Do you see what’s going on here? The entire basis for a religion such as Islam is the infallibility of God, and his messenger Mohammad. This is the minimum message that must be accepted if one is to accept Islam.
Islam is not a “theory,” made by man – at least, not according to Islam. It is an absolute truth; an absolute fact. So, we cannot change and modify it as we see fit, like we do with a theory. We must accept it all, or accept none of it.
Do you see then, that it is a house of cards? You pull one card, and the rest come tumbling down. _________________ 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 |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
Oppenheimer
Joined: 03 Mar 2005 Posts: 1166 Location: SantaFe, New Mexico
|
Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 2:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: | Dear Oppenheimer,
“There will be meetings, and that’s also a departure and an adjustment,” he said in an interview with the magazine.
Can you explain what does it mean? |
Dear Cyrus,
Finally got my box working right again, had some trouble of late with this dinosaur.....gave it a swift kick in the hard drive....now it's behaving....
As for your question, I think the answer is very simple and strait forward.
Up till now, the US has not had a conversation with the IRI directly about it's interferance in Iraq..
As you know, we do, and have had limited contact on very specific issues as the need arises....the Bam earthquake relief.....the Bonn process in the formation of an Afghan interim government....
To name a couple specifics that come to mind..
If you want to get a good take on US Iran policy, I posted a topic with that header.....a major policy speech.
I think you'll find it to be just, and appropriate.
regards,
Oppie |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
Oppenheimer
Joined: 03 Mar 2005 Posts: 1166 Location: SantaFe, New Mexico
|
Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 2:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
ML,
I have no objection to the average citizen becoming more informed, I just think that from most that I know and interact with....even those who are anti-Bush, anti-Iraq war, by and large they know these following things:
The IRI is the biggest sponsor of terrorism.
They want nukes in the worst way, for the worst possible reasons.
Their human rights record is abysmal.
They have no respect for women in general.
Iranians are by and large well educated.
Iran is one of the cradles of civilization.
Mullahs are in charge. Mullahs stone womwn. Mullahs cut off body parts.
The world would be better off without mullahs in charge.
"regime change" in Iran is a popular idea, as long as it doesn't involve a war to obtain it.
Regime change in Iran is essential to a safe and secure world.
war is the last option......and some don't consider it an option.
Regime change from within is favored by over 90% of those I've personally asked over a couple years now.
A good third are aware of the taking of multiple (and very young) wives.,..(especially US womwn are aware of this).
People's awareness in general of Islam after 9/11 has increased, as well as the issues involved. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
Oppenheimer
Joined: 03 Mar 2005 Posts: 1166 Location: SantaFe, New Mexico
|
Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 2:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dear Amir,
SOooo many questions! not enough time......but let me clarify something...when I said "majority rules"....I was talking in terms of how a belief is practiced...(or not practiced, as the case may be). Not in the "democratic" sense, though it is indeed a mater of individual choice, as "jihad" is "not compulsory"...if I understand a certain Pakistani imman's interpretation of it correctly.
So then we can agree on one thing so far....that the majority of Muslims have in practice of their faith....ingnored certain aspects of which are not compatible with their individual stance on having a conversation with Allah.
Here's logic:
Mohammed was human....Mohammed was "allah's prophet"
To err is human....in all things.
Including knowing the word of God.
Or puting it text form....
I do not take your premis that all the cards will fall flat if I pull that one out.....they may fall into a diferent looking pile , resembling a differnt structure....(and by logic) a different interpretation of what Islam is in the 21st century, as opposed to the 7th.
Think where The Roman Catholic Church was at, 700 years ago
EU was in the "dark ages" ......
Thing about change (or an idea) is that it invariably goes through these three following stages:
1. It is ridiculed
2. It is violently opposed
3. It is then finally accepted as self-evident.
I think I've answered all your questions if you think about it. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
AmirN
![](http://www.livius.org/a/iran/persepolis/apadana-northstairs-relief/darius_s.JPG)
Joined: 23 Sep 2005 Posts: 297
|
Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 8:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: | I have no objection to the average citizen becoming more informed, I just think that from most that I know and interact with....even those who are anti-Bush, anti-Iraq war, by and large they know these following things:
The IRI is the biggest sponsor of terrorism.
They want nukes in the worst way, for the worst possible reasons.
Their human rights record is abysmal.
They have no respect for women in general.
Iranians are by and large well educated.
Iran is one of the cradles of civilization.
Mullahs are in charge. Mullahs stone womwn. Mullahs cut off body parts.
The world would be better off without mullahs in charge.
"regime change" in Iran is a popular idea, as long as it doesn't involve a war to obtain it.
Regime change in Iran is essential to a safe and secure world.
war is the last option......and some don't consider it an option.
Regime change from within is favored by over 90% of those I've personally asked over a couple years now. |
Well said. I completely agree.
Quote: | People's awareness in general of Islam after 9/11 has increased, as well as the issues involved. |
I don’t agree with that completely. Although awareness has increased after 9/11 compared to before, it is far from the realities of Islam. People here still do not have a comprehensive understanding of Islam.
Quote: | ......but let me clarify something...when I said "majority rules"....I was talking in terms of how a belief is practiced...(or not practiced, as the case may be). Not in the "democratic" sense, |
Yes, you were clear to me from the beginning; I understood what you meant. In terms of how a belief is practiced.
But my point is still the same. My point is this. That we cannot judge a religion based just on how it is “practiced” by the followers. We have to judge it based on what it says. And what this religion itself says is quite clear. This is where you and I obviously differ.
BECAUSE Islam did not arise from a democratic process, we also cannot judge it based on a democratic standard; the standard of what the “majority” practice. We must judge Islam by…Islam. And what is Islam, if not what Islam says? And where do we find what Islam says? The Qur’an, of course, in addition to everything else that the creator of Islam, Mohammad, said and did.
Quote: | it is indeed a mater of individual choice, as "jihad" is "not compulsory"...if I understand a certain Pakistani imman's interpretation of it correctly. |
I ask, who is a better authority on whether jihad is compulsory or not according to Islam? A Pakistani imam, or Mohammad himself, the creator of Islam?
Quote: | ....that the majority of Muslims have in practice of their faith....ingnored certain aspects of which are not compatible with their individual stance on having a conversation with Allah. |
So, they have “ignored” that which they did not find “compatible with their individual stance on having a conversation with Allah” or convenient. Can one really claim that one is practicing a specific religion, if one has chosen to “ignore” certain parts of it? Who is he to decide which part is OK, and which part can be…discarded? God himself has specifically told him what to do. He now ignores some of that? How can he possibly think that he can have a better conversation with Allah by ignoring certain commands which Allah himself has given him?
Do you see the inconsistency? The contradiction? The breakdown of logic which occurs if one claims he can be a “better follower of Islam” if one ignores certain aspects of Islam?
Quote: | Here's logic:
Mohammed was human....Mohammed was "allah's prophet"
To err is human....in all things.
Including knowing the word of God.
Or puting it text form.... |
There is some breakdown in that logic. Mohammad was indeed human. But when he became “Allah’s Prophet,” he became more than just human. He was elevated to the position of having “direct knowledge of Allah’s desires.” Which ordinary human can make such a claim?
To err is indeed human. But in all things? No. And certainly, if one claims that he has presented the word of God, and he has been God’s instrument in this presentation, how could God have allowed him to err?
If God wanted to truly convey his word to us, would he do it via a human, who in the process of this conveyance had erred? This omnipotent God, could not even get his “correct” message to mankind? If God did so, it seems that humans are not the only creatures who “err.” So, either God did not allow Mohammad to err when he was conveying his word, or in fact Mohammad had nothing to do with God. And if Mohammad had nothing to do with God, then all of Islam is a sham, a lie.
Islam is entirely based on the fact that Mohammad claimed to be God’s messenger. And the message is Islam. If we do not accept Mohammad to have conveyed God’s message, how can we possibly accept Islam?
I also contend that your statement regarding “Mohammad’s human errors” is limited only to non-Moslems such as yourself. I cannot imagine any Moslem agreeing with you about Mohammad being a simple human that “erred” in his construction of the Qur’an, and that his word was not the true word of God. That would be complete blasphemy and heresy according to every Moslem. And since your logic cannot be accepted by any Moslem, how can it be used to explain the “practice of Islam” by Moslems?
Quote: | I do not take your premis that all the cards will fall flat if I pull that one out.....they may fall into a diferent looking pile , resembling a differnt structure... |
So I ask, is a pile of stone and lumber called a house? Is a pile of steel and rubber an automobile?
Similarly, once the house of cards falls over, it is no longer a house of cards. It is a pile of cards, as you said. And so, when you pull out one card from the “house of cards of Islam,” and they all tumble down, you have a pile of cards, which is no longer Islam. What you have is a pile of lies, which were built upon the initial foundation of lies, all of which now stands as a pile.
Quote: | Think where The Roman Catholic Church was at, 700 years ago |
Yeah. Don’t get me started about the Roman Catholic Church either…
Although, we are dealing with a slightly different beast here. From what I know, Jesus himself did not preach death and destruction. Quite the opposite, actually. What happened was that the “religious authorities,” i.e. Popes, took it upon themselves to “interpret” the teachings of the Church to promote death and destruction.
So here we have the opposite. The religion itself, which was created by Christ, did not promote such malevolence. But its subsequent followers (what came to be called the Roman Catholic Church) did. So, according to your logic, Christianity itself was evil, because of the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Holy Wars, etc. because its followers practiced it as such. I would say that to judge Christianity is to judge what Christ taught, not what subsequent “Christians” did. And so, I would say that it was the subsequent followers who undertook the deeds of the Crusades, etc who were evil, not Christianity itself.
I am not really trying to defend or promote Christianity. There are many other points of dispute I have with Christianity as well, but I won’t go into that right now. But, there was a big difference between Jesus’ and Mohammad’s teachings. And so the religion that each formed is very different.
To judge a religion, look at what the person who created that religion practiced and preached. Not the practices of the subsequent “followers.” For who knows and represents that religion better than the person who created it?
Quote: | Thing about change (or an idea) is that it invariably goes through these three following stages:
1. It is ridiculed
2. It is violently opposed
3. It is then finally accepted as self-evident. |
This is true of some ideas of change, but not all. Not even most.
Let me give you an example. What better than Islam:
1. It was ridiculed
2. It was opposed (I don’t know about violently)
3. It was accepted by many, (I don’t know about self-evident)
4. It was violently imposed upon many others who did not buy into 3.
5. It spread like wildfire, because of 3 and 4.
6. It was finally checked and contained after the Battle of Tours
7. It continued to struggle against its infidel enemies, though unable to crush them
8. It continued its hate ideology, though from a position of weakness, not strength
9. It continued to ridicule all others
10. It continued to violently oppose all others
11. It is now being sugar coated by many who now are either unable or unwilling to carry on the senseless killing, and chose to conveniently “re-interpret” it in a way that gives them escape from what it truly demands of them: total submission, jihad, to kill or be killed
12. It is carried on by also many who are true to its founding principles of war and jihad
13. It is being recognized by more and more people for its hypocrisy, and the garbage it really is _________________ 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 |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
Morning Light
Joined: 12 Oct 2005 Posts: 54
|
Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 1:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: | I have no objection to the average citizen becoming more informed, I just think that from most that I know and interact with....even those who are anti-Bush, anti-Iraq war, by and large they know these following things:
The IRI is the biggest sponsor of terrorism.
They want nukes in the worst way, for the worst possible reasons.
Their human rights record is abysmal.
They have no respect for women in general.
Iranians are by and large well educated.
Iran is one of the cradles of civilization.
Mullahs are in charge. Mullahs stone womwn. Mullahs cut off body parts.
The world would be better off without mullahs in charge. |
That is good, but I think you are seriously underestimating the plague of Cultural Relativism in public opinion which is what translates to action. I have talked to enough people to know that the whole Cultural Relativism theory is not to be underestimated. The only way to defeat that theory is with the cold hard facts. It is good to hear that most Americans didn't fall for the Islamofacist propaganda, however European support is also needed, because a revoloution will be hard with moronic Russians Brits and French selling weapons to the IRI. The only Europeans nation I could think of that has the majority of it's population informed about the IRI and ready to fight it is Italy (Unless you count Israel as part of Europe). Turkish relations with the IRI should also be explored. |
|
Back to top |
|
![](templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif) |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|