Posted on 02/02/2005 9:17:20 PM PST by DoctorZIn
Top News Story
President Bush Stands with the Iranian People
Excerpts of the Presidents State of the Union speech discussing Iran (Courtesy of RealPolitics.com):
Today, Iran remains the world's primary state sponsor of terror - pursuing nuclear weapons while depriving its people of the freedom they seek and deserve.
We are working with European allies to make clear to the Iranian regime that it must give up its uranium enrichment program and any plutonium re-processing, and end its support for terror.
And to the Iranian people, I say tonight:
As you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you.
Human Rights Issues are Mullahs Achile heal and weakness point
uh duh! can you IMAGINE what a democrat u.s. president would have said or done?
nothing.
the democrats have stood in solidarity with every terrorist and totalitarian government in the world.
Yep... Unofrtunately the number of drug addicts is growing in Iran. And this is what Mullahs wanted for the youths there. The regime wants the youth to be busy with drugs so that they can screw up the country more.
You know, a weak society can't rise and ask the leaders to step down or give up.
The regime will be gone by mid 2006
I am an Iranian freeper...
To be honest, that channel didn't have many viewers in Iran. Because Mr. Soor esrafil didnt know any thing but insulting others even his opponents.
I hate to disagree, but I know many inside Iran who loved him...
I believe some did, every anchor or channel has fans. But if you want to know the youths' idea on him, I can tell you that he is not a very likeable figure in Iran among students or youngsters. He was loved among exiled Iranians in LA or the US. And some old generation guys (over age of 55 liked him a lot).
I believe, the Iranian youths need education on the values of freedom and democracy. The LA based TV stations should be like classes for the people inside of Iran. I have never seen those channels trying to teach some thing good to the Iranian people. All they use is coarse language against any one who is against them.
European Union Foreign and Security Policy representative Javier Solana, right, talks with Iran's Vice-President and head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation Gholamreza Aghazadeh in Solana's office at the European Council headquarters in Brussels, Tuesday Feb. 1, 2005. Iran has suspended enrichment activities _ which can produce both nuclear fuel and the core of atomic weapons _ during the talks, but has repeatedly insisted the freeze will be of short duration. (AP Photo/Geert Vanden Wijngaert)
Iran has the military might to deter attacks against it, Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani said, after President George W. Bush said he would not rule out military force against Iran over its nuclear program. 'We are able to say that we have strength such that no country can attack us because they do not have precise information about our military capabilities due to our ability to implement flexible strategies,' the semi-official Mehr news agency quoted Shamkhani as saying on January 18, 2005. Iran's Shahab-3 missile is seen in this September 21 file photo. Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/Reuters
Workmen wearing protective clothing walk away from the Russian-built Bushehr nuclear power reactor under construction in southwestern Iran during an organized media visit to the plant on March 11, 2003. President Bush said on Monday he would not rule out military action against Iran if that country was not more forthcoming about its suspected nuclear weapons program. Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/Reuters
The United States has rebuffed pleas to join a European diplomatic drive to persuade Iran to give up any ambitions to add nuclear bombs to its arsenal, U.S. officials and foreign diplomats say. For months, Britain, France and Germany have hoped to improve their bargaining power with the Islamic republic by involving Washington in a proposed accord over an end to its uranium enrichment activities. This September 16, 2002 satellite image shows facilities in Natanz, Iran believed to be part of a previously unknown segment of Iran's nuclear program. Photo by Isis, Digitalglobe/Reuters
Same here.
I would happily donate my money to their cause if I knew where to send it.
"The regime will be gone by mid 2006"
Khashayar,
Good to see you again.
I have 2 questions for you. What did you think of the President's remarks? And if you know anyone else there who heard, or has since read them, what do they think about the State of the Union address?
Something's in the works.
Hello all,
Let me expand on my thoughts on last night's State of the Union speech on go from there.
First, I was suprised by Bush's mention of Egypt and Saudi Arabia, especially the latter. Democracy is dangerous for the Islamic kingdom, because you may very well have the equivalent of Osama bin Laden as Prime Minister. Soon after that you'll have oil prices in triple digits. The radical Islamicists only have another decade or so to use the "oil weapon" effectively. By 2020, the United States and the rest of the world, will, hopefully, be coverting the economy from oil-based to hydrogen-based. The conversion will take multiple decades. I would personally like to see some sort of democratic Saudi Arabia where the royal family, or some segment of it, retains power. Far from ideal, I know. Despite Saudi support for terrorism, and their atrocious treatment of their own people, today's government is better than what might happen. The fear is that Al-Queda might topple the regime. The question is, what would be left of the world economy at the point?
I wasn't really surprised with what Bush said about Iran. I mean, he had to say that. My very first thought was - that's all??? To be honest, I've been disappointed with the White House on the Iranian issue. Never mind when I hear the administration seeming confident about diplomacy resolving the nulcear issue. I mean, how many times does Iran need to say that they aren't giving up their nukes? And it's bordering on idiocy to think that you can get Iran to give it all up. If we are going diplomatic with Iran, then why not with bin Laden? Or Zarqawi?
I suppose there may be a justified fear that if we push the mullahs too hard too fast, they may do something rash like invade Iraq and slaughter thousands of American troops. I fully expect Iran to go all-out before their end comes. They saw what happened to Saddam. Saddam's only chance was WMD attacks on coalition forces before the war started or in the first few days. But for some reason that is still difficult to understand, he sent all the nasty stuff to Syria.
But one thing that was highly accurate and very good to hear was Bush saying that Iran is the #1 terrorist state. Syria is Iran's subsidary, in effect.
DoctorZin, as far as the hope that Europe would sever in fairly quick order most/all commerical contacts with Iran is very doubtful in my opinion. Consider that Europe gets a lot of oil from Iran. China gets even more. China would never go along with any UN action, and would stop it, thanks to their veto power. Any interruption in the Iranian oil supply would have drastic effects on their economy. We could single-handedly destroy China's economy, but I'll save that for another time. Hint: think Cuba.
The most effective thing we can do is to place an oil embargo around Iran. John Loftus says the regime would collapse within 3 weeks. 3 weeks or not, the regime can't stay afloat for long without their oil revenues. I'm hoping that's one of the main purposes of Rice's and Bush's trips to Europe. The embargo can't work without Europe (the UN will never approve it), and if Europe says no, then it's probably mid-2005 by then. Israel will be living in terror. It's widely believed that by the end of 2005, Iran will be very close to a nuclear weapon, if they've don't have one by then.
The White House gives the impression that they don't think that this is a critical, time-sensitive issue. We can't keep waiting. This isn't Ukraine. And American troops can't leave Iraq until Iran and Syria are neutralized.
Regime change in 16 months or so is terrifying. We can't wait that long.
The very best option is the oil embargo. The only problem is that Euros probably won't sign on to the plan. And call me cynical if you wish, but I bet most, if not all, of the companies that were doing business with Iran and are now, or will, pull out of Iran, aren't doing so because they feel guilty about the human rights abuses going in in that country. They are doing it, I think, to perserve future profitable opportunities. It's doesn't look good to be doing business with Iran. It may very well be an afteraffect of the Oil-for-Food scandal, even though this situation is completely different.
We can wait for democracy, like Ukraine. But when we are dealing with hostile regimes, waiting too long can be very costly. Take Hitler's Germany, for instance. The horrors of World War II did NOT have to happen.
Nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists is unacceptable.
Whatever it takes.
Nice to hear from you!
I think the speech was strongly made and done.
The people gets the speech through internet and foreign based media in Persian language. But I expected Bush to talk more than one line on Iran. However, it was great to hear that US stands by Iranian people in their quest for their freedom. And it was nice to see that he knows the differences between Iran & Syria. The way he talked to us was much better and warmer than Arab nations and states. I appreciate it.
Many Iranians are encouraged by that speech, I believe.
First Diplomacy, then WAR!
Remember that it took 9 months to get ready before going to war with Saddam. Give it a time, plz.
Thanks for your compliments!
Iranians had a great level of freedom before 1979 and it is okay, we will gain it again because PERSIANS deserve freedom and we have been a free nation for centuries.
Forgot to say that HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES are Achilles Heel of the Regime in Tehran. That is the best point to attack at and weaken the Mullahs more and more day by day!
By the way, is the language Persian or is it Farsi? I have always been told it is Farsi.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
