We have changed but war has not. Technological advantages lead our society to believe we can win wars by surgically extracting enemy life as opposed to crushing its host society.

Mao Zedong has a famous maxim "The insurgent must move amongst the people as a fish swims in a pond". Some might conclude that his is a proportional analogy and suggest the pond be drained. But the “people to pond” analogy is really about ideology. The combatant that offers a more palatable ideology to the people can walk among them. My point is that WE must be able to move amongst the people as a fish swims in a pond if we want to succeed with our current tactics. WE are the freedom fighters! We have to express our ideology in a way that wins real allies in Iraq. Putting a friendly Iraqi Government uniform on an enemy to meet a bullshit quota only makes it harder for our soldiers to sort out friendlies from foes. I sincerely hope that there is a plan to deal with today’s terrorists and tomorrow’s ideological foes.

I had high hopes for Putin when he became president and in a way I still do. He's battling massive corruption and a bull headed system. Unfortunately his situation isn't going to change as long as he continues giving handouts to his society from the golden pot of Russia's huge oil revenues. The high petro-prices aren’t going to last forever! By doing this handout thing he's maintaining a welfare state and those tend to breed Mad Corruption. He's squander Mad Money... He needs to follow the line of Peter the Great but instead of building a world class navy on European ideas; he should build a world class economy on American ideas! Just a thought...

Federalism is the theory or advocacy of federal political orders, where final authority is divided between sub-units and a center. Unlike a unitary state, sovereignty is constitutionally split between at least two territorial levels so that units at each level have final authority and can act independently of the others in some area. Citizens thus have political obligations to two authorities. The allocation of authority between the sub-unit and center may vary, typically the center has powers regarding defense and foreign policy, but sub-units may also have international roles. The sub-units may also participate in central decision-making bodies. Much recent philosophical attention is spurred by renewed political interest in federalism, coupled with empirical findings concerning the requisite and legitimate basis for stability and trust among citizens in federations. Philosophical contributions have addressed the dilemmas and opportunities facing Canada, Australia and Europe, to mention just a few areas where federal arrangements are seen as interesting solutions to accommodating differences among populations divided by ethnic or cultural cleavages yet seeking a common political order.

Now you may or may not agree with this idea but let's go through the scenario together and discuss the problems Iran would face with federalism. Obviously this is not a comprehensive list but if one were generated, a follow-up list could be created to mitigate the negative impacts of each potential problem. Take for instance, the creation of an inter-provincial cooperation committee designed specifically to coordinate inter-provincial projects.

1. Economic: Distribution of revenue from petroleum resources
2. Inter-federation trade under the Bazaar system
3. Representation: In the federal architecture how would ethnic groups be represented
4. Language maintenance vs. dominance [media and arts funding based on ethnicity]
5. Police and military integration to prevent corruption
6. Provincial favoritism [equal opportunity | affirmative action]
7. Provincial specific laws as opposed to federal laws [would Sharia still be a factor?]

These are just rough ideas but with them we can now start the kind of dialogue that could lead to the equal empowerment of Iran's populace so that the ethnic tensions you describe are less of an issue. But while I find no problem working out a basic solution to the problems you describe here, it is my experience that the majority of the inhabitants of Iran, consider themselves “Iranian”. Regardless of the province from which there people originate they do not see your issue as a central concern if they view it as a concern at all.

I wonder how many Iranians on the street are aware of the laptop the CIA acquired with full specs for a nuclear warhead and the means to forge and HEU sphere? Iranians know the media is run by the state but if you ask the populace, "is more electricity good" they are going to say yeah sure! The media in Iran is framing our President as a war criminal, what do you suppose they broadcast about their nuclear program? I can imagine things like "The Great Satan wants to keep the Iranian people from fulfilling their destiny by preventing 'you' from having peaceful electricity". When we get serious about confronting the Iranian government, the Iranian people will respond in kind.

I have thick skin... don't worry about it. More importantly, I don't have the impression you disagree with me. I was referring to the United States, also referred to as the world’s only super power, as the [world's] most able nation. The power originates from the fact that free people have the power and ability to hold detailed and productive conversations about our collective future. The more freedom a society has the more productive they are… typically. Free Republic is a great platform to leverage in order to connect, agree and or agree to disagree and thereby generate intellectual products. The free world's Iran problem is huge and if you look at what is being proposed to address it I think you'll find that you can quickly become an important part of the solution. The first step is frustration and anger at the Iranian government of which you've already taken. The second step is to offer a solution or find one you deem acceptable.

But please let me correct something. In my reply to you earlier I definitely misspoke... if you decide to engage in the debate about how to resolve these problems you will be serving the entire community of free nations, not just the United States. It is in all of our interests to solve these problems. To one of your earlier comments, I can only say that an FR tagline being born yesterday does not suggest its owner was. I look forward to reading your comments.

Non-Racism in Iran: One of the reasons that Iran is a completely non-racist society, unlike India where they have caste system or US is the structure of Iranian population. Every ethnic group lives in a separate province. Persians in South and North East and Azeris in North West. That is how every ethnic group has maintained its identity for thousands of years. The Azeri regime policies will lead to a completely racist society where people will be judged on the color of their skin and how much Persian or Azeri heritage the mixed race people will exhibit. It will reproduce the American society in Iran complete with racism and its divisions. The Azeri policies will lead to Azeris ending up as second class citizens and will promote racism against Azeris by other ethnic groups. Also most Anti-Arab propaganda by Azeris is to cover up the similarities of Azeri Turkish facial features with Arabs even though Azeris are not related to Arabs in anyway.

You're fighting on the wrong side in a world desperate to globalize. The walls between cultures are coming down and if you can't hold fast to your identity in the midst of it then I suspect your last recourse is in history books. Fighting racism is a just cause but don't use more racism to do it. The only way to defeat it is to integrate. It's not easy to do of course but the rewards are palpable. Take the U.S. for example; Americans originate from every corner of our planet. Within our communities there are subcultures that live freely, side by side with others in peace. Free to move and trade! Free to create their own communities or integrate with others but all the while, American. It is this formula that has made the United States the most able nation in the world. Why would you want to hold Iran back by advocating racial apartheid?

Nothing is more powerful on earth than its most able nation in solidarity to achieve a common goal. I think Newt's suggestions show that he is engaged on this issue and willing to take a leadership role. You'd serve these United States well if you'd turn off your sarcasm and take our state of emergency seriously. What do you suggest our nation do to end the threats the free world face with regard to Iran?

F14, I do not speak for the MEK and have not gone anywhere. I've been posting about other topics but am well aware of the history of Iran and her political groups. If you'd like, we could converse about other Iranian groups but the only one you're interested in is the MEK. You brought the MEK topic up again and if you recall in one of our earlier conversations, I mentioned that when you're wrong about something I promised to let you know you're wrong, as a friend of course. It's clear from your posts that you have a personal and particularly emotional understanding of Iran's history. In this case you’re wrong and I think it is important to correct the record.

But before you start to slander again, please know that I'm trying to be particularly civil... note that I didn't comment earlier on how you so casually announced the opinions of the majority of Iranians both inside and outside Iran. Apparently you don't know that you do not believe the Iranian people should be democratically represented, only spoken for. I’m curious as to where and how you attained the special ability to know what the majority of Iranians want and don't want. Were you born with it or did you train really hard? I thought only one man had the power to dictate what the Iranian people want and don’t want, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenie. If you’re him… WOW! I never would have imagined a fascist dictator could appreciate a forum like FR!

F14: Those protestors were MEK members - A Marxist Islamist group which is hated by majority of Iranians inside and outside of Iran: btw, what’s your point?!

humint: 6323cd, I’d like to make clear that F14 is mistaking in this case, the protesters in your picture are not members of the MEK. To your point, back in 1977, the geopolitical environment was very different than it is today. The sentiments of 77 are not particularly relevant now. Those sentiments were popular, “bottom up” and originated with U.S. support for the Shah. The sentiments of 77 have subsided for a number of reasons that include but are not limited to, contemporary demographics combined with the fact that these days, anti-Americanism is officially enforced in a “top down” fashion.

Worker’s strikes, ethnic unrest, newspaper closings, blogger arrests and student’s protests are measurements of internal restiveness. Each are well documented by the wire services however these stories rarely make the MSM. Massive demonstrations [between 5,000 to 25,000 Iranian expatriates] against the Iranian regime have occurred outside of Iran in Brussels, Berlin, Paris, Washington DC, New York and Los Angeles in the last five years. The scope of unrest goes far beyond Iranian students whom you imply will protest anything and everything. Recall that these are students living under dictatorship and have every reason to be in the streets demanding change.

I suggest you point your exceptional analytical powers toward Islam as it is applied and find targets for your assaults there. For example the Iranian regime and its fascist theocratic government are a target not because of the Koran, but because of their interpretation of the Koran. In sheer defiance of Iran’s Shiite Muslim’s true leadership, the ideologically backward Ayatollah Khomeini redefined the role of Islam in Iran. Valeyat e-Faqhee or rule by Supreme Islamic Leadership is an anathema to much of the world’s Muslim population. Democracy dissidents in Iran are primarily Muslim!

To find tangible solutions and define Americas enemies in the coming wars I believe we must look to the roots of how religion is applied in our politics and theirs. To that end I posted Islam, Democracy and Iran. I do not portend that I or anyone else has all of the answers. I don’t think you do either but there has to be a path to finding the right answers and that path has to be one we can all live with. After reading this work, I have a strong suspicion that you’re not on it.

In late July 2005 Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani said the Shihab-3 contained a range of 1,930 kilometers, a major increase from the previous version of the missile, which had a range of 1,300 kilometers. He said the Shihab-3 developed and tested in 2004 significantly increased the range of the missile. Shamkhani was quoted by Radio Farda as saying that the liquid-fuel Shihab could also be fitted with a nuclear warhead.

NEWS FLASH - Iranian Ayatollah Finds WMD Plans Online: HOW STUFF WORKS, How Nuclear Bombs Work

MoD names British soldier killed in Basra roadside blast: Richard Norton-Taylor - Tuesday November 22, 2005 - The Guardian

The British soldier killed by a roadside bomb in Basra on Sunday was named last night as Sergeant John Jones, 31, from 1st Battalion, the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers. He is the 98th British soldier to have died in Iraq since the invasion in 2003. ...Nine British soldiers were killed in roadside bomb attacks over the summer. British officials have accused Iran of supplying the hi-tech, improvised explosive devices used in the attacks - a charge denied by Tehran. There are also fears that radical Shia militias have infiltrated the police in Basra.

Francisco De Goya - Execution of the Rebels of the 3rd of May, 1808

1999 Student uprising in Iran: Click on image to see a short film

This is great news! Our diplomats are making great progress toward building the essential concensus required to resolve this crisis. In my opinion, the Iranian government's nuclear weapons ambitions coupled with their propensity to fund and commit terror is the most destabilizing behavior in the world today. Problems this big needs a concious commitment by the community of free nations to resolve them. Thanks for posting...

1. Take out Arabic words from your language as much as possible.
2. Do not listen to any speaker who uses too many Arabic words, especially the Mullahs.
3. Try to explain for as many as possible people around you, starting from the family members, and extending to the people you meet at work place, neighborhood and so on and take any occasion to explain that Iranians are not Arabs.
4. Explain your Iranian sentiments about the nomadic Arabs who invaded Iran in every occasion.
5. Do not let the issues about Islam, as a religion, which is like any other, block your view about the barbaric Arabs who plundered Iran and changed the fate of a civilized nation to the course of nomadic Arabs.
6. Find new ways to do this task and let others know them.

These points presuppose the root cause of Iran’s problems are an identity crisis. I agree, but the identity you intend to supplant and thereby resolve the crisis is that of the Persian Empire. From your description of the Persian Empire you focus on the good concepts of Persian origin. These concepts were progressive in their time but have since been articulated and implemented far more efficiently in contemporary times. So why is your source identity still the Persian Empire? Is it just because it’s Persian? If it is then I suggest you work a little harder to identify your unique world view. If you extend the scope and definition of your “identity” while linking it to contemporary global reality, more people, Arabs included may be able to live with your plan. Considering the number of years Iranians have been integrating with their Arab neighbors, Arabs must be able to live with your plan.

If you can’t do these things and only seek to split those who speak Farsi from those who speak Arabic then you believe in segregation. Two contemporary American figures from very different backgrounds, Malcolm X and George Wallace believed in segregation. Although both developed your argument much better than you’ve done here, both were very very wrong. They too were suffering from an identity crisis. Segregation is not in step with the greater American effort to achieve more social freedom and establish equal opportunity. The founding fathers of the United States charted a course for liberty and segregation, in other words apartheid, is off course. Although they knew that they could not fully implement liberty for all at that time, they framed the necessary latitude for successive generations to achieve it. Now what I’m describing here is not cultural relativism, it is an effort to achieve understanding through ideological, historical and political similarities. By all means, come up with your own examples to help develop your point. To that end, they need not be American references.

Without getting too far ahead of you… let’s future think the results of your plan once successfully implemented. This is of course just an analysis technique and is purely hypothetical. In your scenario Iranians are generally rejecting Arabs in Iran and those Iranians who have integrated with them. Secondly all non-Iranians now know that Iranians aren’t Arabs. How does this new environment you’ve intellectually created facilitate human rights in Iran, eliminate the terrorist threat emanating from Iran and quell Tehran’s nuclear weapons ambitions? Apartheid politics are as ideologically bankrupt as the politics of Islamic fascism. I predict a future as unstable as the present if your plan is implemented. Unless you’ve intentionally left out the connection between your plan and desirable results, I suggest you reformulate your plan. Good luck!

SOURCE:

Vienna, Nov. 24 – Several thousand Iranian exiles braved the winter snow and rallied on Thursday outside the headquarters of the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog in Vienna to call for the immediate referral of Tehran’s suspected atomic weapons file to the Security Council to face economic sanctions and a comprehensive oil embargo.

...Two former Iranian nuclear scientists who defected from Tehran several years ago, Alireza Assar and Manouchehr Fakhimi, warned the international community in their addresses during the rally that the world faced a serious threat of being confronted with a nuclear-armed Iran.

This site has great info the lenses of the MSM will never see. I've been following US-Iran issues for more than a few years and admittedly it's not easy to sift through the myriad of experts, groups and commentary to find tangible solutions. The story you pointed me to is good because the Iran policy Committee (IPC) has compiled a detailed list of tangible solutions. I've read much about NGOs and Think Tanks like the IPC. Their influence on democratic decision making is extreemly positive and I think the IPC has all the right stuff to help our representatives and President make great decisions. At a minimum the IPC has strengthened the President’s hand by expanding his list of tangible options. Thanks for the link...

I bet the Iranian government remembers this: SAS commandos storm the Iranian Embassy in 1980 © BBC

ALONG THE ISRAEL-LEBANON BORDER - At a remote Israeli outpost along the northern border with Lebanon, every day is a potentially deadly game of cat and mouse, with the terror group Hezbollah only yards away, flying its flags. Israeli soldiers in high-tech observation stations monitor cameras and sensors around the clock. The situation became even more volatile, when in November and again on Monday, Hezbollah surprised the Israelis by launching unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs, that flew over Israeli towns and returned safely to Lebanon. The leader of Hezbollah bragged at a rally that the unmanned surveillance plane, called Mirsad 1, can be rigged with explosives and flown deep inside Israel.

Two things Amir, first the saying goes "fight fire with fire" not "fight fascism with fascism". Second philosophical objections do not manifest as genocidal threats. It’s imposable to defend a bankrupt ideology Mr. Mohebian so I'm not sure why you would try. Germany is still on the map yes, but Hitler and his henchmen where purged by the forces of freedom. Germany wasn't the problem, it was its leadership...

I've spent more than a few holidays on duty but on this Thanksgiving Day I'm sitting on my couch watching football. But I can't help thinking about all of the fine men and women who are keeping the free world free and adding Iraq to the family of free nations. God bless you for your service in the cause for freedom. You nation stands, or in this individual’s case sits, with you.

US officials have in recent months shared with experts from the IAEA and other countries classified details of tens of thousands of pages of technical information recovered from a stolen Iranian laptop. The documents, written in Farsi and obtained last year, are said to reveal experiments with warhead designs characteristic of nuclear devices.

Here's the clincher. If the Iranian people ascribe responsibility for their current situation to the policies of the West, then by default they're role is inconsequential. Western policies, sometimes hurtful and other times helpful are primarily a reaction to the policies of the Iranian regime. This is typically how liberal democracies formulate their foreign policies. Reactionary policies, no matter what their origin are inconsistent. While "patients" is the word of the day while a democratic consensus is developed on how best to confront the Iranian regime, the Iranian people's nationalism should not be a roadblock to a decisive policy that pressures the country into changing for the positive. Then, leaning towards me and lowering his voice, he said with quiet intensity: "Stick together. Understand what is happening in Iran. Have a consistent policy." Great advice Mahmoud but when the pressure builds up on the regime and the Iranian people, put the blame where it belongs, on the Iranian regime.

Europe must be prepared to wave a big stick (the threat of economic sanctions, for it is Europe, not the US, that has the trade with Iran) [This first part sounds good but...] and America a big carrot (the offer of a full "normalisation" of relations in return for Iranian restraint).

The author must have slept through U.S. Iran-policy during the Khatami years beginning in 1997. Hello!!! We're still trading rugs, pistachios and other goods with Iran to the tune of $150Mil annually thanks to Clintonian "avoid conflict at all costs" politics which included other, more shortsighted gestures beyond sanctions relief. The truth is every single American carrot, and there have been many, offered to Tehran has been accepted without the agreed upon reciprocations. Iranian politicians do not conduct foreign policy as we understand it in the West. Their international relations agenda serves the Supreme Leader’s ambition to create an Islamic empire. Thus far they’ve managed to extort concessions from the West while increasing their Islamic fundamentalist footprint across the ME and Europe. Although some of the authors experiences are worth reading, particularly his conversations with Iranian youths assuming he transcribed them genuinely, his conclusions are definitely disconnected from reality…

Here’s a connection to Iranian reality for you beyond this author’s ephemeral experience… Back in June of this year there was a large official banner near Vali-e Asr Square. It was campaign propaganda and it read “Ahmadinejad: The freedom that exists in Iran does not exist any where else in the world” There was graffiti scribbled underneath it and it read “Freedom to Kill”

F14 - do you agree with me on this or have you become a vocal advocate for appeasement of the world's most active state sponsor of terror? Feel free to jump in and think about your homeland's future at anytime... That is what these forums are for, are they not?

1. condemns, in the strongest terms, Ahmadinejad's outrageous and despicable threats and demands that he repudiate them;
2. calls on the United Nations Security Council and all civilized nations to condemn and reject these statements and to censure Iran for its statements and for its policies aimed at destroying Israel;
3. further calls on the United Nations Security Council and all civilized nations to consider measures to deny Iran the means to carry out its threats and to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons; and
4. reaffirms the unwavering alliance between the United States and Israel and reasserts the commitment of the United States to defend the right of Israel to exist as a free and democratic state.

S333 -Sense of Congress Regarding Diplomatic Assistance- It is the sense of Congress that--

1. support for a transition to democracy in Iran should be expressed by United States representatives and officials in all appropriate international fora;
2. representatives of the Government of Iran should be denied access to all United States Government buildings;
3. efforts to bring a halt to the nuclear weapons program of Iran , including steps to end the supply of nuclear components or fuel to Iran , should be intensified, with particular attention focused on the cooperation regarding such program--
   • between the Government of Iran and the Government of the Russian Federation; and
   • between the Government of Iran and individuals from China, Malaysia, and Pakistan, including the network of Dr. Abdul Qadeer (A. Q.) Khan; and
4. officials and representatives of the United States should—
   • strongly and unequivocally support indigenous efforts in Iran calling for free, transparent, and democratic elections; and
   • draw international attention to violations by the Government of Iran of human rights, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, and freedom of the press.

I am under no illusion as to the scale of the problem. It's huge, but the fiber and soul of the American public IS freedom. Freedom of speech is paramount to our identity. I believe that just as natural corrections occur in a "free market economy" so too will there be natural corrections in "free market of information". To say that it will occur naturally is not to suggest individuals like you and I should sit back and wait… I am suggesting that hard work, faith in, and support for our American ideology will empower us to deliver a truth capable of supplanting the true American scourge, irresponsibility!

The truth and our commitment to it has been the engine that has thrust the United States into our current role as the world’s most capable nation. Any person who forsakes the truth in favor of lies deserves to be assaulted with the truth, hence an ensuing war of ideas. Our founding fathers knew that on any ideological battlefield, with free speech, Americans would always have the high ground. You and I sir, have the high ground… what should we do with it?

My tagline came to me when I found this destructive malignment of genius.

I’m glad you asked about it. The story behind my tagline is long so forgive me… Donald Rumsfeld, in 2004 tried to provide a Copernican concept to the American people but found himself without a vehicle to deliver it. The MSM was unable to translate the ideological depth of Mr. Rumsfeld’s high-level explanation of the situation in Iraq at the time. What he said, I imagine, is virtually impossible to understand in a shallow sound bite therefore his detractors seized on his quote as an error in leadership. Not because it wasn’t genius, but because they were incapable of understanding him through MSM sound bites. Do an internet search on “unknown unknowns” and you’ll find the ignorant misrepresentations of the quote I’m referring to. The quote:

"As we know, there are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know."

Our Secretary of Defense, God bless him, gave the American people the ultimate “big picture” in all that the human mind has encountered and ever will ever encounter. The true genius, in my opinion is contained in the last part of his quote; “concepts” we don’t know we don’t know. The humility required to admit that not only does an authority figure not know something, but also admit that there exists uncharted “intellectual real estate” is nothing short of genius and a requirement for democratic leadership. Citizens and volunteer armies agree to be led through trust developed by integrity! We all know leaders cannot fully manifest the future they describe and we envision. Leaders should not be held responsible for taking actions that lead to a future that is not identical to our best wishes. A leader is accountable only to his or her word and vision!

Pragmatically, posting this quote has taken it back [in terms of cyber space] from the ignorant detractors who used it against Rumsfeld. This FR page will likely show up in similar searches for key words as the ones I used to find what encouraged me to make my tagline. But more importantly, we should take a step in an ideological direction for a moment. In our human experience, we come to know that we don’t know we don’t know concepts when we truly start to explore the world and society around ourselves. Without exploration there can be no rationalization for that which we don’t know we don’t know. You know things that I don’t. You’ve experienced things that I haven’t. This exchange can introduce us both to concepts we don’t know we don’t know. In feeding you my experience I humbly hope to extend your scope of understanding and responsibility by revealing to you something you didn’t know you didn’t know. I’m sure you’ll return the favor in another post, at a later date. Thanks in advance...

You say reliable, I say verifiable...

The entrance to Khojir region is through a military road, passed Azmayeh T-junction, just before Gazal Park. There is a military check point at the entrance to the highway. The other entrance is through Tehran-Parchin expressway, which is exclusively for military use. In addition to the extension of Babai expressway, the regime has built many other major roads in the area.

If he's wrong the world could find out very quickly if the Iranian government was willing to open its doors to IAEA inspectors. The fact is the Iranian government is non-compliant with the IAEA! Not because it can't keep its secrets but because it is out of step with the community of free nations. The Supreme Leader is walking his country into a very dark age. He must take responsibility for his ideological failures and allow the Iranian people to determine their own destiny by stepping down.

In terms of carrots and sticks you may view American policy toward Pakistan as all carrots but I assure you we are on the same side. Diplomatic incentives to reform are the first line of defense and you've asked that they be removed from the table... I caution that your formula is a recipe for perpetual war. In terms of India's responsibility, yes fighting Pakistani Islamic fundamentalists fits well within the scope of India's physical security responsibility. The equipment provided as incentives to Pakistan is not directly supportive of Pakistani terrorism, in fact they serve as wedge between Islamic radicals and a structured and responsible Pakistani military.

It looks like we may have to agree to disagree but through dialogue with my Indian friends, they have come to see the very difficult situation my nation is in and have offered their patients and assurance that India and the United States are on the same side in the GWOT.

I'm not sure that I agree with this approach. Attacks on critics under the circumstances inadvertently validate the criticism, not because it’s true but because the criticism is repeated multiple times in the process of attacking it. In the viewers mind the criticism becomes more familiar and familiarity is often mistaken for truth. To counter critics of the war President Bush should give a speech that develops an appropriate context to refute the criticism…

I was discussing this topic with [family/friends] and described to them the types of terror attacks occurring in Iraq and the type of instability one should expect as a dictator falls. The context for the war should be put in terms of progress of freedom of expression and in terms of the number of new newspapers and television stations now open and so on. Improving the Iraqi infrastructure to support freedom will bring real stability to Iraq. Right now the administration is focusing on turning the war over to the Iraqis and this is OK but it keeps the debate centered on “physical security” and casualties.

What Iraq needs is ideological security and that is what we’re working for. Ideological security is at the heart of winning the GWOT. The goal is stability through freedom which is not directly proportional to stability through troops and x-number of Iraqi police. Iraq under Saddam was more stable than today… but who cares, that was oppression and isolation. The context President Bush needs to refute his critics does not sit with argumentative attacks on critics but annihilating his critics arguments with the realities associated to any society transitioning from an oppressed society to a free society.

humint: Great Idea - Count me in!

Walkingfeather: I just posted a vainity with that idea but it looks like it got pulled for some reason.

humint: On second thought I can see why this is a "no-no". If FR were to become a central source for financially rewarding individuals for behavior, it would transform into a completely different animal. Although some individuals deserve the award you are talking about, FR is probably not the right forum to do it. If you start it outside of FR, let me know. Thanks,

Great Idea - Count me in!

Intelligence is not always the problem although in some cases it is. I'd say most of us are too busy to seek the truth in all things. So we must prioritize, time manage and seek the truth to save us, our families, our country and our world from the most dangerous of lies. What the [Democrats | Liberals | Terrorists]) are doing is distorting our ability to determine the truth among the priorities our President has laid out for our country. But there is a big difference between Terrorists and those who have a separate vision for our future. In this case I believe the Democrats are just flat wrong and they are using an amoral tactic to take authority from our President. They are hurting all of us in the process but they are not terrorists.

Terrorists would have our entire vision of life, [Liberal Democracy] destroyed... And that is why the President's priority should be our priority. I wish that this was his priority before September 11 but it was not. But that’s the past and we must now focus on the future. To the best of our ability we should know about and be comfortable with the Global War on Terror. Winning this war will be a great moment in history for everyone, not just Americans. People of all faiths and nations will look back on this war and know that free minds and their confidence made our world stronger.

The difference between these things, [freedom of expression | free-flow of information | state controlled media | privately owned media] is clear. These institutions are essential but we are looking at a problem much bigger than can be addressed casually. But let’s give it a shot anyway. When it comes to information there is no process to guarantee quality. There is a clear reason for this… Scenerios are a good way to analyze so let’s get started.

You implicitly suggest the media is engaging in criminal enterprise. Say we were to send a reporter to jail for one month for reporting a lie. The lie probably didn’t originate with that reporter so their editor is also to blame. OK, send the reporter and the editor to jail for one month. The source for the story originated the lie so the journalist must be compelled to turn over the name of the source so that they too can serve a month in jail. Because so many journalist copy and paste more than any FREEPER I know, all of those within the media industry who propagated the lie would also face a one-month prison term. You might be thinking, sounds good so far…

At the other end of this scenario, who is reporting the news? Let’s guess that 50% of what we read as fact is not and that 1% of that is an outright lie. That estimate says 50% of what we read is true. If 50% of all journalists are doing time in prison for propagating a lie, then that’s 50% less news for me to read! If 50% of new production is off, we’re all only going to be getting 25% truth from the information remaining.

The point is, a free press is the best media in the world and in it there will be garbage. Restriction on the press leads to things much worse than you are witnessing here. We are the only BULL S#1T detectors that matter and it is incumbent on US, the consumer to weed out truth from lies. It is incumbent on US, the consumer, to find the true source of information. When and if we do, we tend to share the truth by writing about it, posting it here on FR and discussing it with our friends and family. The media is under no obligation to tell the truth but as an American Citizen, you are obligated to call it like you see it! You did here but I think you went overboard. Our enemies restrict freedom of the press, not us.

This is not true... what would you have the U.S. do that it is not doing now? Invade Pakistan? The priority list of global terrorist threats dictates that both India and Pakistan be our allies in the GWOT. How can we make both nations allies in this struggle to win the GWOT and build enough mutual trust to become strong allies? If you don’t have an answer then I have to assume you’re putting your regional politics above global politics and to your own country's detriment.

SOURCE

• John Batchelor: How to read this demonstration of goodwill by the Tehran regime?
• Alireza Jafarzadeh: Well John, demonstration of goodwill? Absolutely not. I think it’s exactly the opposite. I think that Iran feels that the screws are tightening and more revelations are coming. There was this document from the United States government that was released months ago and there have been revelations after revelations by the Iranian opposition so they thought that if they come up with this document to supposedly show their good will, then it might convince some people that their intentions are benign but I think the fact that… first of all, Tehran’s claim that this document was obtained in an unsolicited way, provided by the notorious nuclear scientist of Pakistan A. Q. Khan…
• John Batchelor: In other words, A. Q. Khan, a man who we know associates with money making and selling nuclear technology, out of the goodness of his heart or just because he spontaneously feels like mailing out a document that one day could be linked to making nuclear bombs sends it to Iran and they didn’t ask for it. It just shows up.
• Alireza Jafarzadeh: exactly, and the interesting thing is…
• John Batchelor: It could happen; it could happen [laughter]
• Alireza Jafarzadeh: [laughter] Well the point is that even by their own admission, they say that it was A. Q. Khan who provided this to them in 1987. The question arises; first of all, it was A. Q. Khan who actually traveled to Iran twice in 1986 and 1987, earlier this year I appeared on your show and I said that A. Q. Khan had met three commanders of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards when he was in Iran in 1987. That’s exactly when, exactly the same period that Iran says A. Q. Khan gave this document to them. If it were provided in an unsolicited way, why did A. Q. Khan meet with three generals in the Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) at the Brigadier General level? I have a name, Brigadier General Mohamed Islami and they discussed nothing about nuclear energy but clearly about a nuclear weapons program. Second, if this was the case, why has Iran not provided this document to the IAEA since the inspections started?

5.5 to 35 million internet users over the next five years!?!? That's 700% more bloggers and internet dissidents to oppress. I wonder if they have a plan to build prisons at the same pace?

I agree with what you're saying and I think I can imagine where you're coming from... my Mr. Burns post earlier was all in good humor. Seriously though, I bet trying to balance our relations with so many countries, each with their own unique, deep seated opinions and theories of American foreign policy [half of which are "straight out of a Tom Clancy novel" kind of conspiracy theories] is extremely difficult. My estimation is that the there are times that are really satisfying and no one hears a word about them and others where something goes a little bit wrong and the press is drooling for the story. Personally, I’m looking forward to the day when Iran drops its nuclear ambitions, stops supporting international terrorism and joins the community of nations. I believe it unlikely that Iran will do these things with its current government but as you say, we are all entitled to our own opinions.

I am of the opinion that our great nation cannot have too many partners for peace! Although I don't know your quality of work, I'll assume you do great work so I can simply say, keep up the great work!

I did my part! Best of luck until the poll closes... it looks like you've already won this competition and luck had nothing to do with it. Great Work!!!

Ex-Ce-lent, the Iranians will get there power plants and bombs...

OUTSTANDING - Empower the Iranian people economically Ahmadinejad! This is the first vocal step in the right direction you've ever taken... But I'll only truly believe it when I see it implemented! You should start with the Awhazi Arabs…

IAEA Report Card: 32% out of 100%...

or

1. Upcoming IAEA Board of Governor's Meeting
2. U.S. Reserves Right to Refer Iran to UN Security Council
3. International Consensus About Iran's Pursuit of Nuclear Weapons
4. U.S. Seeking Diplomatic Course Within IAEA on Iran
5. EU-3 Efforts Lacking Iranian Participation / U.S. Encourages
6. Diplomatic Solution

QUESTION: There's an Iranian exile who's given a news conference today and making what he calls revelations about Iran's nuclear programs, that they're twofold, mainly: that Iran has this very extensive network of underground tunnels to hide its missile production; and that North Korea is helping in that production. So my questions are do you -- does the U.S. Government share the thought that these things are actually going on and have you asked the IAEA to examine them?

MR. MCCORMACK: I haven't seen the news conference that you're referring to. We have -- we and the rest of the world, I think, have seen as the Iranians seek to sort of drip out piece by piece their nuclear program, and I would say doing so grudgingly; that this is a program that is covert, it's hidden from sight and it's hidden through a variety of different means. As for these specific reports, I can't speak to them, Saul. I don't know. There's been a certainly, a very mixed record in terms of some of these groups in talking about so-called revelations about Iran's nuclear programs, but you know, I can't speak to these particular allegations.