Iranian Alert -- DAY 50 -- LIVE THREAD PING LIST

The regime is working hard to keep the news about the protest movment in Iran from being reported.

From jamming satellite broadcasts, to prohibiting news reporters from covering any demonstrations to shutting down all cell phones and even hiring foreign security to control the population, the regime is doing everything in its power to keep the popular movement from expressing its demand for an end of the regime.

These efforts by the regime, while successful in the short term, do not resolve the fundamental reasons why this regime is crumbling from within.

Iran is a country ready for a regime change. If you follow this thread you will witness, I believe, the transformation of a nation. This daily thread provides a central place where those interested in the events in Iran can find the best news and commentary.

Please continue to join us here, post your news stories and comments to this thread.

IAEA legal experts expected in Iran, Kharrazi

Tehran, July 29, IRNA -- Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi said on
Tuesday that a group of legal experts from International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) will visit the Islamic Republic of Iran in the coming
days.
"Legal experts from IAEA are expected to brief us about issues
consistent with the additional protocol. Then respective officials
will take final decision", he told reporters.
IAEA Head Mohamed ElBaradei has urged the Islamic Republic of Iran
to sign the Additional Protocol to non-proliferation treaty (NPT).
The protocol grants short-notice access to nuclear installations
of the member states by the IAEA inspectors.
Asked about whether or not the progress made in negotiations on
legal regime of the Caspian Sea among the five neighboring states has
satisfied Iran, Kharrazi said that the negotiations met part of
Iranian demand and the other part remained to be resolved in the
continued negotiations.
"The negotiations should proceed to include the other part of
Iranian demands in the final platform," Kharrazi said.

http://www.irna.ir/en/tnews/030730210707.etn01.shtml

When the author and the rest of the naysaying, doubting,Anti-Bush,pro-democratic party, "gotcha", "don't care how the majority of Americans feel" media...

I think you misunderstood the article. The author has some criticism for President Bush, but he doesn't criticize him for being "unilateral" and "simplistic" and a "Texas cowboy"--on the contrary, he's saying he's not "unilateral" etc. enough! IOW, he wants him to be more Republican. That's hardly the way a Rat talks!

And he doesn't criticize President Bush specifically; rather, he objects to "decades" of politically correct foreign policy, going all the way back to Carter. He is saying President Bush should not let his decisions be shaped by this ugly "tradition"--that he should uncompromisingly pursue a pro-American, pro-freedom policy, no matter how loudly the PC crowd scream.

Well, that's my take, anyway. I don't know who this Onkar guy is, but Front Page Magazine certainly isn't a leftist rag. Just take a brief glance at their home page to see for yourself.

"The first phase in this process was the toppling of the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq. But - as Judith Yaphe of Washington's National Defense University explains - the neo-con agenda extends well beyond Baghdad: 'I think that Iran, yes, is clearly the target that many of the neo-cons have in mind. First we're going to do Iraq - and then there's Iran, and there's Syria.'"

Anybody know this yo-yo Judith Yaphe?

She spoke before my American Legion chapter right after 9/11. My wife asked her (Yaphe) whether she felt the 9/11 attack was motivated by the fundamental religion of Islam?

Her reply was, "America has many enemies around the world and especially in the Middle East but as to religious motives, I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE READING TO GET THAT OPINION."

What a hateful liberal blame-America loser. Feed her to the pigs!

My criticism with the piece begins at the last 3 paragraghs. Up until then, no problem.We've had do-nothing presidents. It's his conclusions that I disagree with.
President Bush (and Rumsfeld,et al) are trying their best to push ahead with their plans to try and make the world a safer place and rid it of terrorism and nuclear threats.
"...when Bush does strike at militant Islam, he does so only haltingly. Morally unsure of his right to protect American lives by wiping out the Taliban and al-Qaeda, Bush feared in Afghanistan world disapproval over civilian casualties."
His complaint is that,Mr.Bush "does so only haltingly". That is because they are forced to look over their shoulders all the time because of people in Onkar's profession jumping at every opportunity to report (whether true or not)(exaggerated) civilian casualties..."
I repeat:
"If the press and news media would try printing stories that would HELP any of these situations, we'd get rid of the terrorists a lot faster.They could be printing articles and editorials that are patriotic, uplifting, affirming, supportive,and encouraging."
The quote you referred to from my response to the piece, was in response to the author's statement that Mr. Bush was "morally unsure of his right to protect American lives". What an ASSumption! I don't believe Mr. Bush's morals are foggy in any way. He states this as if it's fact. AND doesn't understand that our foreign policy doesn't operate in a vaccuum. Every move the White House makes is criticized and scrutinized by the media. A media that for the most part, does it's best to try to undermine every decision Mr. Bush makes. Is the author so naive as to suggest that the White House can go off and make plans on it's own and carry them out without anyone else finding out? They have senators and congressmen feeding the press Intelligence secrets all the time. AND the press has no problem printing every detail, every rumor. It's not just some "PC crowd". We're not talking about Hollywood and environmentalists. The media shapes the way people think. That's why they repeat a non-story for 10 days in a row; "Flood the zone". If the White House just went full speed ahead and never looked back, the media(and politcal foes) would be screaming for impeachment every day, non-stop. And eventually they'd get it. What would be the point of that foreign policy?
The press,the media are the enemy of the success on the war on terrorism. It's not the White House and it's not President Bush.

(I'm familiar with Front Page mag. and the Ayn Rand Institue.)

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.