Ralph,

Thanks for the link. Understanding risk is essential.

THE REPORT OF THE COMMISSION TO ASSESS THE THREAT TO THE U.S. FROM ELECTROMAGNETIC PULSE ATTACK

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/security/has204000.000/has204000_0.HTM

As it pertains to a WMD capable state like Iran (chem.,bio, and even a nuke or two (aquired by hook or crook-NK would sell anything and the IRI and NK have long standing contact) which must be at this time considered, and factored into any equasion;
The primary goal is to render any capability of launch on warning null and void, if hostilities ensue, having been deemed unavoidable.
Otherwise the IRI has the means at this time to create hell on Earth in the mideast, and will do so.

So, as this global war on terrorism is a "war like no other", there still remains certain strategic options left over from the cold-war era...but not necessarily in the traditional method that we ended WW2.

EMP as an option may be effective start to more conventional opps, and cover all the bases that limited strikes on nuclear facilities posed by some "experts" fail utterly to deal with.

Personally, if there's another way to do so without massive civilian casuaslties, I'm not aware of it.
EMP would take out missile guidance, radar, communications, the total electrical grid, and just about anything with a circuit board.

The study done and the hearing above talks about the threat to the US, and it's interesting to note that the IRI has been doing some unusual "successful" missile tests.

However, what can be done to us once can be done to them 50 times over and we can be back the next day to do it again, followed on by all the conventional means necessary to remove the regime, and a bucket load of humanitarian aid as well.

Mr. Gingrich's bluster offers no practical way of disarming Iran or North Korea -- such a risky undertaking would require massive military strength on the ground, which we have wasted in Iraq. And don't forget Pakistan, which has the bomb: the radicals are a heartbeat away from controlling it.

Mr. Gingrich also needs to understand the nature of our new enemies. "Networks and Netwars: The Future of Terror, Crime, and Militancy" should be on his reading list.

Here's a link:

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1382/index.html

Most of my post wasn't aimed in your direction, but I think it is important that we differentiate between the occupation, which should stop, and the survival of the state of Israel, which shouldn't be in question. I do favor a return to the 1967 borders and possibly internationalizing Jerusalem, as this would force Hamas and Hizballah to come out and state their true objectives, rather than hiding behind an intermediate one that is an acceptable position to gain credibility and strength.

The right of return is a no-go. Doing so would be a death warrant for Israel, as the Arab population would overwhelm the Jewish population, strain all services and resources, etc.

Why not press Israel harder? The short answer is both domestic politics and a recognition of the shortcomings of the Israeli political system make it extremely difficult (I think the domestic issue is in part obvious and in part very controversial so I'll limit the following explanation to Israeli politics).

Israel is a parliamentary democracy which greatly limits its ability to act decisively. Never has a party controlled the Knesset, Labor coming the closest under Mier in the '70s. Given the need to build coalitions to build a government, power is disporoportionately in the hands of minority parties, normally those with a few votes who are dead set on one issue such as keeping the territories. These people can be as fanatical in their politics as Hamas, and liekwise will not yeild to pressure. If the government succombs to our pressure, these parties will move for no confidence, end the government, and we will be left starting all over from scratch. Personally, I think if they'd adopted a system closer to ours than the British, the conflcit could have ended years ago, but then I am a proponent of a strong two party system.

"We need to destroy their appeal and marginalize them, not necessarily destroy the groups themselves by force."

I agree completely, and this is where a lot of Muslim commentators have stressed that dealing and resolving the issues that plague any particular conflict is an extremely important step to take. If you take away the Israeli occupation, you break away a huge chunk of support that is with Hamas and Hizbullah only because they symbolize resistance to an occupation.

To digress a little and vent, while support for the existence of Israel by the U.S is understandable, I fail to see why it cannot differentiate between its legitimate and justified support against the destruction of Israel as a nation, and support for settlements and continued annexation of land. When the Arab states have offered full recognition to Israel in return for a return to the 67 borders, why was there no pressure put on Israel to accept? Support for Israel has gone beyond just support for "existence"; it is more like support for expansion.

Also how is it morally and ethically justified to refuse the right of return to Palestinian refugees? The argument that it would alter the Jewish nature of the state of Israel is completely immoral. It is the advocating of ethnic cleansing. If our goal is to promote interfaith harmony, acceptance and tolerance globally, who thinks that this sort of deliberate demographic adjustment will promote anything but hatred?

Fascism is an attempt to build a cult of the state to foster the followership of people in a strongly secular society. Islamist movements seek to destroy secular society and the modern notion of nation states along with it, bringing the world together under a global Islamic state. That's a theocratic movement, not a fascist movement.

Israel is the catalyst for problems in the Middle East because it represents the last vestage of Western colonialism that has opressed the Arab peoples for nearly 1,000 years (in their eyes). In 950 The Abbasid Caliphate was the greatest and most advanced empire in the world, covering more land than the Roman Empire at its zenith. It was a center of culture and commerce, bridging East and West while maintaing the legacy of Greek and Roman society while Europe went through the dark ages. Then, the one-two punch of the Crusades and the Mongul conquest destroyed it, the center of the Arab world moved to modern Turkey (then widely recognized as part of Europe), while the Arabs became pawns in a global power struggle with one ouside government after another exploited the people and the Islamic faith bby co-opting it with other cultures.

Salafism in Arabia and Radical Shi'ite Islam in Iran are both reactions to this history (the Safavids adopted Shi'ite Isam to take advantage of Ottoman opression of Shi'ites)), and Israel is the last, great, visible symbol of this legacy they hope to destroy, being a result of the British partition that retianed a distinctly Western government with Western backing in the US and the UK. As long as it remains it is a constant reminder and an impediment to the restoration of Islam, in their eyes. That's what drove the early conflict, not Muslim vs. Jew, but Arab vs Zionist (there used to be a distinction). unfortunatley for the Arabs, they lost the Arab-Israeli conflict in the early 1970's, allowed it to morph into a natinalist movement for palestine, and now have embraced the religious war to keep the conflict going, further radicalize the populus, and expand the war to Iran and the far reches of the Islamic world. Whoever takes it out becomes the de-facto leader of the Islamic movement.

This is why they hate Israel, and it is why they hate us. To them, it is merely an extension of Western influence and a continuing reminder tha we hold the power and we dictate the terms to them. This is humilating to a once great society, and they want us humiliate the way they have been for centuries. Until that history and that mentality seeps through to the popular conscious and the conscious of those driving US policy, we will have no hope in this struggle because we still won't even know where to begin fighting it. Spreading democracy, while a noble goal, does nothing in the short term and could likely be counterproductive. We need to learn to see the whole board and act accordingly.

Abandoning Israel is not the solution, either. Israel is our ally, not a colony, and has every right to exist. It would have been nice if different decision had been made in the past, if the Brits had not promised the teritory to both people and done a better job transitioning prior to their departure when controlling that territory was no longer strategically important to them, but that's in the past. Just as we can't undo the Iraq war, we can't undo this. The key is to reduce the radical neature of the fight, undercut the fanatical elements on both sides, and work toward a long term alasting peace, one that will require concessions by both sides. More war won't bring that about, it would be like pouring gasoline on a fire.

lart from above wrote:

"The very word "Islamofascism" is an attempt to equate Islamic movements with historical fascism, i.e. Nazism, which is just an attempt to demonize the opposition and excuse the lack of attempt to negotatiate peace."

Lart,

Merriam-Webster defines fascism as "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition"[1].

A recent definition is that by Robert O. Paxton:

"Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion." [2]
------------------------

Now Read This Public Letter:

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

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

September 7, 2005

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

Via Federal Express & Fax (202) 647-0244

Dear Mr. Ambassador,

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

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

"In Larger Freedom"

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sir,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Ambassador,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sir,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Ambassador,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In conclusion Sir,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With gratitude

On behalf of SMCCDI,

Aryo B. Pirouznia (Movement's Coordinator)

SMCCDI
5015 Addison Circle #244 Addison, TX 75001 (USA)
Tel: +1 (972) 504-6864; Fax: +1 (972) 491-9866;
E.Mail: smccdi@daneshjoo.org
www.daneshjoo.org ; www.iranstudents.org

-------------------

" If the shoe fits, wear it"

The Islamic Republic of Iran fits the definition of a facist state and its leadership fits the definition of "Islamic facists"

-------------------
President Discusses Foreign Policy During Visit to State Department

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/

(excerpts)

"Responsibility for the suffering of the Lebanese people also lies with Hezbollah's state sponsors, Iran and Syria. The regime in Iran provides Hezbollah with financial support, weapons, and training. Iran has made clear that it seeks the destruction of Israel. We can only imagine how much more dangerous this conflict would be if Iran had the nuclear weapon it seeks."

.....

"People have got to understand -- and it will take time, Andrea, it will take time for people to see the truth -- that Hezbollah hides behind innocent civilians as they attack. What's really interesting is a mind-set -- is the mind-sets of this crisis. Israel, when they aimed at a target and killed innocent citizens, were upset. Their society was aggrieved. When Hezbollah's rockets killed innocent Israelis they celebrated. I think when people really take a look at the type of mentality that celebrates the loss of innocent life, they'll reject that type of mentality."
......

"And the fundamental question for this country is, do we understand the stakes and the challenge, and are we willing to support reformers and young democracies, and are we willing to confront terror and those who sponsor them? And this administration is willing to do so. And that's what we're doing."

......

"But, as well, there's a diplomatic mission that needs to be accomplished. The world must now recognize that it's Iranian sponsorship of Hezbollah that exacerbated the situation in the Middle East. People are greatly concerned about the loss of innocent life, as are the Americans -- American people. We care deeply about that, the fact that innocents lost their life. But it's very important to remember how this all happened. And Hezbollah has been emboldened because of its state sponsors."

.......

"And so the task is more than just helping the Siniora government; the task is also -- and the task is not just America's alone, the task is the world's. And that is to continually remind the Iranians of their obligations, their obligations not to develop a nuclear weapons program, their obligations not to foster terrorism and promote terrorism.

And we'll continue working with our partners to do that, just that."

......(end excerpts)....

A reader's note to the President:

Until the IRI firebug is put out of buisiness, the world will be continually putting out brush fires.

The Iranian solutions stated above in the public letter are key to doing so.

Although they have political arms, the main thrust of Hamas and Hizballah are their military wings and they are hardly defensive in nature. Hamas was founded by the Gaza wingo of the Muslim Brotherhood and its charter calls for the destruction of the state of Israel and its replacement with an Islamic state. Hizballah, likewise, was founded in 1982 with the dual missions of destroying Israel and extending the 1979 Islamic Revolution to Lebanon. Like many sophisticated terrorist organizations (the IRA, the Tamil Tigers, etc), they have developed a strong political arm to try to achieve their objectives on multiple fronts and to shape their image, but the core of these groups cannot be forgotten. Negotiation with them directly likely won't work, empowering rival groups and building support from moderates while negotiating with governments is the way to go to undercut them. We need to destroy their appeal and marginalize them, not necessarily destroy the groups themselves by force.

Editing error, closing should read

The roots of terrorism are the suffering of the Palestinians and the radical teaching of religious demagogues in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. We need to deal with these, and with the opposite but equally radical fundamentalists in Israel and America, to ensure our safety and security in the long term.

I agree with commens above that there are different levels of warfare.

There's been a lot of chatter about "terrorism" and "non-state actors", but these concepts cloud our thinking. It confuses the nihilism of Al-Qaeda with the defensive-resistance character of movements like Hamas or the Iraqi resistance. It ignores the positive accomplishments and political roots of groups like Hamas and Hezbollah; because these groups have political roots, they are somewhat subject to diplomatic negotiation. It draws a moral distinction between car bombing and aerial bombardment, while anti-US groups in the Middle East see this as a purely technological difference, where they hold the high moral ground over the west because they are killing fewer civilians than the US and Israeli forces. The very word "Islamofascism" is an attempt to equate Islamic movements with historical fascism, i.e. Nazism, which is just an attempt to demonize the opposition and excuse the lack of attempt to negotatiate peace. Conversatives obsess about this group or that group having in its "charter" a statement about the "destruction of Israel" as though this were a statement of genocidal intent, when from a Muslim perspective, these statements are merely a response to the western effort to push them out of their lands with Jewish settlers, and it is merely a negotiating point that they will not surrender their claims until their claims are addressed in a permanent settlement based on mutual respect. Almost all Muslim countries and group acknowledge the reality of Israel's continued existence within its pre-1967 borders. Even Hamas has agreed to acknowledge and respect agreements which indirectly offer this recognition. Most importantly, the West continues to ignore the way that the ongoing occupation of Palestinian territory is a continuing clarion call to resistance on the part of all Muslims. While it is true that some groups have become so radicalized that they will be fueled by their own delusional rhetoric, most Muslim states and groups would quiety celebrate a peaceful settlement, and even the radical groups would find their sources of support would evaporate once the injustice that fueled their cause was resolved. Diplomatic solutions to the related problems are like treating cancer with aspirin; short-term relief will not address the underlying problem.

Terrorists isolate themselves from their societies, but guerilla movements depend on the support of the populations they live in. Sometimes they use similar tactics, but tactics that work to deal with terrorist threats are almost useless in thwarting guerilla actions.

Peace usually requires compromise, not victory. Military force can be used for short-term responses to provocations, they can neutralize specific and identified threats, and they can help provide stability. But military forces are ill-equipped to defeat guerrilla forces. The key to guerrillas' success is that they hold the support of their people because their tactics cause less harm than those they oppose. Politics and diplomacy are essential tools in dealing with guerrillas. By addressing the same issues and causes the guerrillas claim to speak for, but doing it in a more positive and humane manner, the West can drain the guerrilla's power far more effectively than any number of "precision" air strikes. When Clinton was president, groups like Al-Qaeda could never be more than a handful of crackpots; only when Bush's failure of intelligence allowed the crackpots to speak for the entire Islamic world did the terroritsts become really a significant force. The roots of terrorism are the suffering of the Palestinians and the radical teaching of religious demagogues in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, and their opposite but equally radical fundamentalists in Israel and America, to ensure our safety and security in the long term.

Michael, I agree with your analysis about how to approach the situation (wrt winning the "passive support" over). It is something moderates in the Islamic world have been screaming themselves hoarse about. Something else that needs to be done is avoiding blanket statements about dealing with "Islamic Terrorism" or "Islamic Fascists". While it is true that, at this time in history, the majority of places we see oppression and violence in are Islamic countries, distinctions must be made between each conflict. Each conflict has its own dynamics and complexities and you cannot approach it with the sort of generalized approach that neo-cons have been advocating.

For example, Pakistan's problems are not of an Islamic ideology that wants to destroy America and Israel and take over the world; they are deep rooted social issues that have festered over time and metastasized into visceral customs like honor killings, marriages to the Quran, etc. The Palestinians and the Lebanese societies, for the most part, are secular. Hizbullah, keeping in mind the diverse nature of Lebanon's population, has resisted the urge to impose strict Islamic law in the region under its control. Hamas, after winning power, made pains to point out that their focus was not on imposing strict Islamic law, but better governance. These movements exist because of the political situation in the region; the fact that they are Islamic in nature is beside the point. Islam was not the driving factor in their establishment; Israeli occupation is. The sooner we look at each conflict in light of its own particular dynamics and resolve the root causes behind it, the sooner ideologies like Al-Qaeda (the only "movement" that draws from multiple conflicts and perceived injustices around the world) can lose its ideological underpinnings.

Jihadists aren't fascists. Fascists is based in jingoism, militarism, and corporatism, three ideas that don't work with global jihad based on covert warfare designed on bringing down nation states.

As for large scale terror attacks requiring large sums of money, maybe you should examine the recent terror plot, or go examine the tactics of the early IRA or Maoist rebels. It doesn't take much money to get a lot of done when terrorism is the tactic. The goal of a terrorist isn't to militarily defeat an enemy, it's to cause terror leading to paralysis and undermining confidence. For that, a terror attack need neither be successful or particularly elaborate (in fact, less elaborate and often therefore less expensive is better).

To acquire long range missiles like Hizballah and to use them agaisnt Israel requires funding and territory, but they could do that without the Iranians if they wanted to, numerous individuals and international organizations have far more dollars available than does the nation of Iran, and can funnel it to terrorists far better anyways.

Besides this those countries and those weapons aren't the same thing we face in our enemies in the al Qa'eda network, who rely in improvised explosives or suicide bombs aimed at large groups. Taking out Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Pakistan, etc. ad nauseum will do nothing to stop that threat. Bringing down a jetliner, hitting a subway, or spreading a small chem agent requires more brainpower than money, it's just a matter of finding a vulnerability.

This gets back to finding their center of gravity and attacking it, while using the military to keep active terrorists at bay. The CoG is the support network and the moderate populus. Unless we do more to turn them against the terrorists, this will never end. Right now, we're turning Lebanon into a pile of rubble, and when the dust settles Hizballah will plant their flag on that pile. Hitting Iran to try to weaken them might reduce the missile threat in the short term, but will only empower Hizballah in the long term while strengthening al Qa'eda and marginalizing moderate Arab leaders. Not in our interest at all (never mind that we don't have the forces to do it now even if we wanted to).

as a part of public policy that needs to be rescinded....

how can you trust countries that say one thing and do another?

how can you call people that oppose you terrorists but you use strike forces that employ terrorist actions as a regular part of your operations....

in fact you call your terrorists Special Ops, and give them special schools, called "School of the Americas," google that

The United States of America, doesn't represent the people of the United States of America it represents the riches t 1/3 of 1% and the Military Industrial Complex and

international elitist/monied/royals

our government is being run for the fun and profit of our complicit congress and the pork barrel fun club.....comity

Alaskas "Bridge to Nowhere," that Oklahoma
senatory wanted the funds given to Katrina victims, his motion was resoundingly defeated in the senate

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable [inalienable] Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...."

is this how your government is treating you, or ar e they treating you like trash, that gets their leavings?

.

I think some readers here are making a mistake about the nature of Islamofascism. Iran etc believe that it is their holy destiny to dominate the world, which is currently dominated by Western countries such as the USA. Sure Israel *exacerbates* this, but it is not the sole reason for it. If it were, you would not have Zarqawi talking about Islamic destiny to take over SPAIN (... b/c it was once a Muslim country, and before Armageddon, Muslims believe it must be returned to Muslim hands).

For real guys ... read the Koran before you start making comments about what the Arab street thinks and believes. You cannot waltz in having perhaps only read a couple of Bible passages as a kid, and attempt to reconcile our Judeo-Christian Western morals to a COMPLETELY different moral code in the East.

Secondly, Michael (first poster) makes an eloquent analysis but a fatal error in logic: large-scale terrorist attacks are impossible without benefit of the almighty dollar. In the case of most terrorist groups, this is provided directly by states sponsoring terrorism (Iran and Syria giving Hezbollah $100m/year for example). Hezbollah etc would have little more than rock-throwing capability if it were not for state sponsors ... this is a big part of Gingrich's point in why we should attack state sponsors. Terrorism can do MUCH less harm without the big bucks that go into planning/training for major events.

Hilal wrote:
"I think what you need to do is ask why do Muslims take arms and fight America or Israel.
All human beings are essentially have same motives and would react in similar manner when they are subdued. You ask your forefathers why they fought the British to gain their independence or the Spanish fought the Muslims or Jews fought the British in Palestine.
It is time the Americans become a little bit awaken and look at others as simply human beings like themselves."

Dear Hilal,

If it were as simple as a cause of independance, Muslims would have gained it, having removed the tyrants that have ruled them for years, abolished monarchy, and clerical absoltist theocracy long ago in favor of a truly representitive system of governance, that better served the Umma.

Fact:, the majority of Muslims worldwide live in democracies today, and thrive in that environment, prosper in buisiness, raise their children in peace, and pose no threat to the social fabric but instesd have contributed to a positive coexistance among cultures.

To use victimization as an excuse to justify religious intolerance is to obscure the truth.

Fact: America is the world's largest doner of humanitarian aid to the Palestinian people.

Fact: America supports a contiguous Palestinan state and offered a Roadmap to achieve it. All parties signed on to it.

Fact: Americans have fought in wars of liberation of Muslim people ( 1st gulf war, Balkans, Afghan/Soviet conflict, WW2-North Africa, Iraq , Phillipines, Indonesia.

Fact: American diplomacy prevented nuclear war between Pakistan and India in 2002 saving millions of Muslim lives in the process.

Fact: American Disaster relief efforts in Bam (Iran earthquake), Pakistan , Tsunami relief in South Asia...to name a few recent examples.

Fact: Since 2001 American military action has enabled aprox 55 million Muslims to choose for themselves a representive government structure based on constitution and cultural values as ratified by the people, having removed regimes that had subdued them in totalitarian bondage.

Yeah, it's a real good question why Muslims take up arms against America.

It's simple, some Muslims recognise that America has no ill intent towards Islam itself, while others use Islam as an excuse to hate all that is not Islamic, and offer the excuse of American support for Israel as evidence to involve us in an age old conflict. Israel too is not immune to having played the "victim card" with the US.

Since you raise another topic of debate by inference, I will address the core issue directly, as I did years ago, nothing has significantly changed regarding it, save there are some new actors on the stage at this point.

"When I consider the difference (by definition) between a terrorist and a freedom fighter, The targeting of civilians, and the methods employed may serve. The philosophy behind our revolution, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence, was born from resistance to oppression with "live free, or die." being at the core of it. As Hamid Karzai recently intimated, this is the Afghan jihad, the true jihad, to be free to live in correctness with one another. That jihad lies in one's heart, the struggle to live a correct life, in the eyes of the Creator of all. The commonality of the basic truths behind all the major religions of the world, is apparent to me, who could be so arrogant to think that they were the only ones chosen by God?
The reasons behind the Palestinian uprising are similar, it is the methods employed that are objectionable by any standards of civilization, and they must realize them as self-defeating."
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002
Ejette -"Isotope Road"

STREET DIPLOMACY:

I once was in New York near the UN in 1989, and had stopped at one of those famous sidewalk hotdog carts just across the street from UN headquarters.
I noticed a Hasidic Jew and a Palestinian , both dressed in traditional garb, having a polite but intense debate.
Being a tourist, I did what tourists are prone to do, I asked them for directions....having got them and giving thanks, I paused in leaving, turned around and asked them this:

"Sirs,excuse me, but I couldn't help but to overhear some of your conversation, and would you allow this humble American Bhuddist to ask a question of you both?"
They looked at each other and the Jew said, "Sure, why not?"
So I gestured over at the UN building and said, "How is it that the two of you can stand here and have such a civil conversation, and your countrymen in the Mideast cannot do likewise?"

They looked at each other, and the Jew asked the Palestinian, "You want to answer that?" So the Palestinian replied to me, "That is because we are on nuetral territory here."

"Ah, I understand now". I said, "But tell me please, if the conflict between your peoples continues, at what point does this cease to be nuetral territory and the conflict reaches our shores?"

They had no answer in that moment between us, so I wished them good luck in resolving it, thanked them for thier time, and went on my way.

-----------------end-------

I'm going to take a small liberty with your statement Hilal, and place it more correct terms....hope you don't mind my doing so.

"It is time the human race become a little bit awaken and look at others as simply human beings like themselves."

Perhaps I should add, "We're all dysfunctional talking monkeys, now everyone please just get over it."

American and western civilization must have enemies that can perpectually challenge and threat them. dangerous and dead threat is the fundamental element to improve a creature to be more perfect in its evolving course,same thing will happen to American. Science, technic and the methods of governing the world will be more perfect in the course to deal with the challenge and dangerous. So you will thank your enemies, their existing and threat are permanent motives to make this world perfect.

"The method of the Islamic world in its attempt to expel invaders (U.S., Israel) is a particularly insidious method in that it gambles the invaders will not have the will to kill many innocents to prevail"

On the contrary, I can assure you that the majority of the people in the Islamic world have the opposite view with respect to the "civilized" tactics being used by the U.S and Israel. Enslaving the Palestinians in ghettos, bulldozing children and women over, using overwhelming force without any respect for civilian casualties and adopting collective punishment as a policy show Muslims that indeed Israel (and the U.S by association) have no qualms about maiming and murdering innocent civilians. The more one sided U.S support and policy towards Israel becomes, the more this view point is enforced. I would say that opinions like yours are a part of the problem. You seem to fall into the category of those who view the West (specifically the U.S), its policies and those who support its policies as being paragons of "nobility" and "righteousness". The world is not black and white. There is no stark contrast between good and evil. Even those who could be called overwhelmingly "evil", adopt certain policies and ideals that to certain sections of the world would seem noble and perhaps even outweigh their "evil".

The "method" of the Islamic world is one that is borne out of frustration at the sole super power of the world stonewalling legitimate criticism of Israel and giving it room to do as it pleases. Until the U.S reigns in its rabid dog and forces it to make peace on equitable terms with the Arabs, people will fight the perceived injustice with whatever means they can. The U.S population needs to stop being fed this tripe of "jealousy of our liberties and freedoms" and discuss some of the genuine issues that fester in the Muslim world, especially blanket support for any and all Israeli policies.

I think what you need to do is ask why do Muslims take arms and fight America or Israel.
All human beings are essentially have same motives and would react in similar manner when they are subdued. You ask your forefathers why they fought the British to gain their independence or the Spanish fought the Muslims or Jews fought the British in Palestine.
It is time the Americans become a little bit awaken and look at others as simply human beings like themselves.

COMPLAINTS:

Paul wrote:
"I haven't seen any really intelligent attempts to analyze "the terrorist threat", and distinguish nuisance-events such as car-bombings, grand nuisance events such as plane bombings, strategic nuclear terrorism, or rogue links that give feared nation-states like Iran and Korea nuclear technologies."

Cyrus wrote:
"Why shouldnt Iran have a nuclear bomb as well, a second bomb capacity? Maybe "unthinkable" for the US, swon what?"

Folks, If you don't do the research, you'll simply remain victims of your own illusions, and never get past crisis to find solutions.

CRISIS:

While the vast majority of the press and American public was focused on the 9/11 commision hearing, another hearing happened without much notice or fanfare.

The truth lies here....

THE REPORT OF THE COMMISSION TO ASSESS THE THREAT TO THE U.S. FROM ELECTROMAGNETIC PULSE ATTACK

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/security/has204000.000/has204000_0.HTM

....and in their own words:

On February 14, 2005 a leading member of Iran's Hizbollah, Hojjat-ol-Islam Baqer Kharrazi after years of silence delivered a harsh speech against the reformists and the administration in Iran, Iran Emrooz reported.

"I kept silent over the past 14 years, because Hizbollah needed to be restructured and I was busy with training the forces. Although no Iranian media reflected Hizbollah leaders' recent meeting with head of Iran's State Expediency Council, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, I should say we elaborated on Hizbollah's activities for Rafsanjani in detail and the former president was amazed with our progress." Kharrazi claimed.

"We don't need any guardian. And if necessary we will select our own president, ministers and parliament members. For without the Hizbollah forces the Islamic Revolution will collapse from within." the hardliner added.

Referring to the Sunni population in Iran's western, eastern and southern borders, Kharrazi said: "Presently the country's borders are controlled by Sunnis. We have to counter their growth in the country."

On Iran's nuclear issue, Kharrazi noted: "We have oil, gas and all other natural resources and thus we don't need interaction with other countries. We are able to produce atomic bombs and we will do that. We shouldn't be afraid of anyone. The US is no more than a barking dog"

Let me repeat myself, If you don't do the research, you'll simply remain victims of your own illusions, and never get past crisis to find solutions.

What I describe herein was not the action of a "barking dog" 60 years ago, but of a nation at war. And let no one now have any illusion that the war on terror, supported by many nations and many UN resolutions is any less grave to the "larger freedom" ensconced by the UN charter, and civilization itself, than 60 years ago.

It took America just 27 months to build an industry from scratch, based on designs from scratch, building a city from scratch to build a bomb from scratch, with only theories to go on, in the middle of the largest and most costly war in history. Yet we did this and ended that war that had cost 50 million lives up to that point with the weapon that no one knew would even work at the time it was being produced.
 Now Iran has had at least 18 years, lots of help from other nations, black market smugglers, and their scientists have had proven designs to work with. It's not because their scientists aren't as smart as America's, or that they lack the raw materials, the technological capability or the will to build it, that prevented them from doing so. Fact is, the only reason I can think of is that containment by western nations has been up to this point fairly successful even with the smuggling, and outside help they've had. But it has its limits, and the limit has been reached.

DENIAL:

Andy wrote:
"As an American, I think we are dealing with World political problems which are not ours. They don't threaten American interests but we made them American headache. This kind of policy created danger for American civilian and military lives."

REALIZATION:

"Today there is no longer a choice between violence and nonviolence. It is either nonviolence or nonexistence. I feel that we've got to look at this total thing anew and recognize that we must live together. That the whole world now it is one--not only geographically but it has to become one in terms of brotherly concern. Whether we live in America or Asia or Africa we are all tied in a single garment of destiny and whatever effects one directly, effects one in-directly."
-Excerpted from a 1967 interview of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. by Arnold Michaelis.

If there is one thing about people that's a given, it's that they can only change themselves. You can try to understand them, change their circumstances, try to point the roads to peace, but in the end, they must want it for themselves, knowing what the alternatives are.

Paul wrote:
"I once had a friend who used a faux-Zen aphorism, "Don't just do something, stand there!" to explain the nuance between those who advocate immediate decisive action as a policy or a solution, those who are more prone to act out their feelings, and those that see with true insight and then act minimally, calmly, and hopefully effectively."

Well Paul,let me offer you this koan, since having been a practicing Bhuddist for some 20 years, there's nothing faux about it, or anything else that follows.

"When Battleships give way to Sailboats, how does the world realize its true self?"

In Buddhist training, a student is given a Koan, a question to meditate on and
learn understanding of the source of all things, life being dualistic in nature, this is the essential struggle for enlightenment.

The above is such a Koan, or "life question".

Sometimes a conscious mind can construct great changes, with a single question, asked at the right moment, to the right people.

But words are all too often giving way to the sword,silenced in utterance,and stilled with overwhelming force. Words of good will, with hope for the future.

-----------

I had composed the above koan for Sec of State Colin Powell, to use as he saw fit for inspiration on his travels (wonder if that's why the Japanese PM was singing Elvis to Pres. Bush...*chuckle*...)

In any case when I got a "thank you" back, I asked the person at State who'd sent the note if they'd forward the following on up...she agreed to.
A little "dated" , but I think that lends a bit more of an interesting aspect to today's events and the unanimously passed UN Sec council resolution on Lebanon testerday.


SOLUTIONS:

The Chinese symbol for "Crisis" is composed of two elements, one means "danger" the other, "opportunity".
One must continue to find opportunities for resolution in the face of danger.
This too is part of diplomacy with teeth.

Subj: Re; A citizen's perspective on crisis
Date: 3/25/02 5:47:58 PM Mountain Daylight Time
From: Ejette
To: vicepresident@whitehouse.gov

To: The Honorable Vice President, of these United States.

Dear Mr. Cheney:
I am given the understanding that you are considered to be one of the best "listeners" in government. I hope Mr. Zinni's efforts have an impact, and I hope this citizen's words here will as well.
In a nutshell, as one email can't contain all the details, I'd like to outline an idea, of several separate crisis solutions simultaneously undertaken, to win the war on terrorism, and resolve a few grave problems at the same time.

1. Terrorism as a thing of the past.

a. A Mideast settlement, and lasting peace must be had. Mindsets must change.

b. Recognition of individual's inalienable to worship in peace.

c. Land disputes among nations must be resolved in an independent world court.

d. All citizens of all nations must be afforded participation in their respective
governments, and have voice in it.

e. The right to take issue before the world court, by those groups renouncing former terrorist activity, as self defeating and unethical forevermore, should be allowed a different platform for resolution on the issues concerning them, and those they take issue with.

f. Diplomatic pressure from the majority of nations will help resolve dispute, and
build trust for arbitration of conflicts.

-----end excerpt-----

Subj: Re: A plan to help Mr. Zinni "close the deal"
Date: 3/30/02 1:05:13 PM Mountain Daylight Time
From: Ejette
To: president@whitehouse.gov, vicepresident@whitehouse.gov, secretary@state.gov

To: the Honorable George w. Bush, Richard Cheney, and Colin Powell:

Dear Friends,
I have written many email letters since the attacks of Sept 11, in them, consistently, I have asked for, and stated the need for a reassessment of US policy regarding Israel and the Palestinian uprising.
In light of current events, I am writing to you again to offer an idea on how the US may regain the initiative, and help Mr. Zinni "close the deal" on Mideast peace.
I've been up most of the night studying for the State Dept. written exam in April, when a lightbulb went off in my head and on further consideration, and sleeping on it, I think it may be of some interest to you.

I think it's apparent that without a "buffer force" in place to separate the parties to the Mideast conflict, Mr. Zinni's efforts will be in vain. Arafat needs physical help to control terrorism, Israeli troops and Sharon's policies are not the answer, neither should we place an American peace keeping force in Palestine.
Who then? Why not a peace keeping force composed of Saudi, Egyptian, and other moderate Arab nations that support the Arab league's summit resolution, re: Normalized Relations with Israel?

The advantages:
1. They will be accepted by the Palestinian civilian population, as welcome.
2. This forestalls any attempt by the Arab nations to arm and supply the Palestinians.
3. Terrorist orgs. like Hamas will have no excuse to continue, as Israel's incursions will cease.
4. Pullback of Israeli forces in accordance with Mr. Zinni's initiatives will be achieved, as will the halting of
terrorist activity.
5. With the cessation of hostilities, and a solid security found, the negotiations will have a chance.
This has been a consistently stated requirement, by all parties. Incursions or terrorism, regardless.
6. The whole world community is looking to America to take the initiative, and find a solution, the Arab nations
have asked us to do more, let us ask them to assist us, and help keep the peace till a final settlement can
be negotiated. This is an opportunity to work closely with the Arab world to see a positive outcome, one we
have supported publicly in the Saudi's plan. Closer ties and greater understanding with Arab nations will be
the result.
7. Israel will have peace and quiet, as will the Palestinians. A much needed respite from terror and death.

The Disadvantages:

1. Israel may get nervous about how effective Muslim troops will be to stop the terrorists, and if they would
eventually pose a risk to Israel themselves.
In answer, I say that if this continues much longer, Israel will not only become at war with all the
Arab world, but suffer dozens of suicide bombers on a daily basis, if not hundreds.

2. Coordination may be an issue among the peace keeping force themselves.
In answer, I say let the UN oversee their deployment and role in implementation. The US may play a
logistical role, in support of diplomacy.

I hope this brief outline does the trick, and I think the Arab nations will give it a shot, there aren't many alternatives out there left to implement, and they've committed themselves to a peace process, lets offer them a partnership to see it happen, Sharon has snubbed our reasonable requests. He'll probably get pretty bent out of shape with this.

Oh well, he's been as ineffective as Arafat, in stopping violence. Time to take a new tack, for a new century.

---------end excerpt--------

MMMmmm, guess sometimes it just takes time for folks to deal with a dysfunctional situation....

"Most of the wars fought there were as much about the struggle between Egypt and Syria for domination of the region as they were about the survival or destruction of Israel. If it weren't there, something else would be the catalyst, and yes Iran would still be seeking to build a bomb for the same reason, they want the power on the world stage that comes with it."

Bummer!!

What region in the world does not have power struggle? Who does not want to be influential in the world? What is wrong with that?

It is so moronic to argue that since Arabs fight among themselves therefore keep their lands occupied.

Nuclear proliferation in Iran is due to Israel. If Israel did not have nuclear weapons, why Iran would go to such a length to acquire nuclear weapons?

Israel is a the point of focus for the power struggle in the Middle East, has been since its inception. Most of the wars fought there were as much about the struggle between Egypt and Syria for domination of the region as they were about the survival or destruction of Israel. If it weren't there, something else would be the catalyst, and yes Iran would still be seeking to build a bomb for the same reason, they want the power on the world stage that comes with it. Relocating or caving on the subject of Israel won't solve anything and is certainly not in our interest.

Right on Jim!!

I am encouraged to see comments which reflect what I have been thinking: that the British partitions of 1946 were fundamentally flawed and that Israel should be somewhere else. 60 years of military conflicts should be enough to convince us that this experiment has not gone well. Except for the emotional attachment to holy sites (which certainly could be resolved) and the defense industry, which profits enormously from every conflict in the Middle East, every reasonable argument would indicate that Israel would be much better off in Wyoming, Montana, Canada or Australia. Imagine what Israel and Israelis could do if they were not forced to spend $10 billion yearly on defense. And imagine what the challenges in the Middle East would like if these territorial conflicts no longer existed.

I am tired of the "US and its enemies" and liked Holbrook more than Gingrich. What is wrong with Iran? Iran is cultivating a radical rhetoric and makes troubles in Iraq, so what? The US have currently a not less radical rhetoric and make troubles in Iraq as well. Dont blame Iran, for example, for Israels idiotic response to the "Hezbollah thread", that was less a thread than Israel wants to make us believe. Why shouldnt Iran have a nuclear bomb as well, a second bomb capacity? Maybe "unthinkable" for the US, swon what? I am tired of Gingrich and Co, Gingrich was 1996, now is 2006.

I think Newt Gingrich represents thinking which is irrelevant in modern era. His cavalier thinking takes inspiration from the wars of the past, sees glory in those victories and advocates policies of the past. If he had choice, he might be living in that era too. World is more complex today. It needs new fresh thinking and careful thinking.

As an American, I think we are dealing with World political problems which are not ours. They don't threaten American interests but we made them American headache. This kind of policy created danger for American civilian and military lives.

There was a recent research paper published by Harvard University professors who explained that Israel lobby is responsible for influencing policy makers to devise such policies which clash with American interest. Israel lobby has played American congress and political establishment to fight wars for Israel.( see http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html ) This has to change. We must support Israel but not at the cost of our own national interest.

Israel problem seems to be unrecoverable. It has been 60 years and there is no solution in sight. If it was not for Israel, would Iran even be making Atom bomb?

I agree with daniel, that Israel should be migrated to USA (or may be to South America).

I agree that the world did *not* change substantially after the iconic 9-11 event, and that 9-11 was simply a loud, and now over-used data point that helps many mis-analyze current events. Not long ago of course it was politically incorrect to say so.

I haven't seen any really intelligent attempts to analyze "the terrorist threat", and distinguish nuisance-events such as car-bombings, grand nuisance events such as plane bombings, strategic nuclear terrorism, or rogue links that give feared nation-states like Iran and Korea nuclear technologies.

Quite frankly, I think all such classes of events are different and require different solutions, and of course there are many refinements of these types of terrorism.

Along with mis-analyzing the nature of the threat is the tendency to conflate the actors. More and more it is becoming convenient to dub any actor against the US as a "terrorist" regardless of whether they are insurgents whose behavior is consistent with simply resisting an occupying power, or whether they are a more organized militia -- civilians bearing arms, or whether they are more strategic, decentralized, such as al qaeda.

The artless and ineffective analysis and response of those like Gingrich who advocate the pure military approach whether it be the pure military approach to political discourse or the pure military approach to foreign policy is becoming clear in Iraq. In the face of this clarity those advocates simply become more angry, confusing anger and aggression with resolve and effectiveness.

Many above have rightly point out how "enemies" have adapted their responses, surprisingly effectively, to our doctrine of overwhelming force. At the very least, I would hope and expect our pure military advocates to at least call for a new style of force.

I once had a friend who used a faux-Zen aphorism, "Don't just do something, stand there!" to explain the nuance between those who advocate immediate decisive action as a policy or a solution, those who are more prone to act out their feelings, and those that see with true insight and then act minimally, calmly, and hopefully effectively.

This latter methodology is called "skillful means". I see very little skillful means in US foreign policy these days.

Finally, the simplistic solution called "diplomacy" also seems to oversimply and understate those combinations and methodologies needed to influence foreign outcomes.

I am not necessarily arguing that those who advocate "diplomacy" are advocating skillful means.

"But the United States must also understand, and deal with, the wider consequences of its own actions and public statements, which have caused an unprecedented decline in America's position in much of the world and are provoking dangerous new anti-American coalitions and encouraging a new generation of terrorists."