This poem by a 14 year-old Iranian , expresses the feeling of many Iranians about the US big-stick policy toward Afghanistan and Iraq. Titled "You See No One, You Hear No One,", it was published widely in Iranian newspapers and magazines. It was also selected to be published in UN Observer on Valentine's Day.
A Letter to George W Bush
By Hossein Mostafavi Kashani
You see no one, you hear no one
You are an important person!
So important TV shows you every night,
You hold the microphone
And you talk important words,
So important even Satan listens with a gaping mouth.
Only the flies don't take you very seriously,
And while you talk
They are busy with their usual work.
They search for dirty, stinking things
And then they rub their hands together
while saliva drips from their mouths.
Flies don't have a president
but some of them are very important,
So important TV shows them every night.
But they don't have a microphone,
And unlike you they are not all dressed, making speeches,
But with dirty hands and legs,
They move on Afghani children's lips and eyes,
The same children on whom you drop bombs
And then send them food parcels.
By the way, how long has it been since you saw a fly?
How many years has it been since you read a poem?
Would you recognize the breeze if it passes you by one day?
Just think! When you were a child, like all other children,
you saw a fresh rose whenever you looked in the mirror.
But now you see an important person
Who will die one day
Even if he is the president of America.
If you were to ask your heart
It would say it doesn't want to beat in your chest
And be the runway for all the planes
that bombard cities and towns.
For God has created the heart
Only for love.
So have pity on your heart even if you can't pity anyone else.
It is an apple that will burst one day
And suddenly you will find yourself
Standing before the gate of paradise, begging
the pieces of your heart
from every single person you killed.
But no one sees you
No one hears you just as you neither see nor hear any person
on TV every night.
You only hold a microphone, and say big words
Because you are the president of America
And a very very very important person!
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 69
What sort of human and humane compassion do we EACH need to understand the anguish and pain and anger of this youngster and to understand and forgive -- IF POSSIBLE -- the actions of a 'very very important person', who this youngster sees as essentially 'EVIL'? Will he, the youngster, grow up to be a terrorist, or a saint? We see here in microcosm the clash NOT of civilizations but the more mighty clash of HUMAN VALUES worthy of civilized persons and states, and VIOLENCES against GOD's intents.
There is, I think, perhaps coming from the souls and minds and hearts of OUR young (who live in places like Iraq) WHO HAVE SUFFERED AND WHO 'WONDER WHY?' , a new and possibly fruitful direction developing, that may become ubiquitous and pervasive. It will likely point to the need for a UNIVERSAL and ESSENTIAL MORALITY (above and beyond notions of some extant religious doctrines) and come to see the blessedness and sanctity of all human LIFE (troops AND civilians).
Todays' NEEDS are those that direct us ALL toward modes of RESPECTING and DISCUSSING, rather than thinking that POLITICS and ACTIONS OF VIOLENCE ever give LONG-TERM answers to ANY important EARTH WIDE QUESTIONS. MORAL LAW must point us FAR BEYOND, sometimes thoughtless and error prone 'important people'.
May ALLAH/GOD give you Peace (and NOT early death), Hossein Mostafavi Kashani. May you find ways to live and love within the lovingnesses and safeties of your communities and your parents' caring deep concerns.
Dick
Welcome to the neoCON world of shakers and movers holding the microphones as leaders of mankind setting the examples for the future of us all ... what a wonderful world we live in ... what a future awaits us ... the flies will love it.
I wouldn't put something like this past Ahmedinejad.
Let's not bring God or religion into an already contentious discussion. Let's keep it about the real world and about real people.
Mr. Bush is just an American President. He's not evil or malicious, like you assert. He's just trying to do his best, like all Presidents do. I think he sent our military into Iraq with a decent and honorable goal in mind. When things there devolved into a complex and difficult situation, he didn't just pull out and leave the Iraqi people hanging. He tried to introduce a form of government that he knew in his heart would make a difference there : representative Democracy. After all, what else would he have attempted to introduce? More dictatorship? No, the people had already had their fill of that.
The young child in Iran who wrote this poem may be sincere in his desire for peace, but the problem is, he's being used as a tool by a deluded Iranian leader. It won't be the first time that someone in the Iranian government has clamored for legitimacy, and not gotten it. But using children to push your agenda is pretty low - even for Ahmedinejad.
Maybe THAT is the problem … the religious view of God ???
I am always reading between the lines in my attempt to understand where people are coming from, especially those such as yourself that so disagree with what I would call normal compassionate views, which you liken to call 'liberal' with disgust as you liken yourselves proudly to 'conservatism'.
Then the rest of your comment follows with very nice compassionate thoughts about the nice well meaning sincere guy 'your' leader really is … so it would appear that you do have some amount of compassion buried within somewhere … at least for your own 'kind', your fellow 'well-meaning' conservatives …
How is it that you can be such an apologist for your own and so condemning of the 'other' sides of the issues … is it really your belief that things are only black and white, that your leader is the good guy in the white hat and the other's is the bad guy in the black hat ??? My guys good, theirs bad !!!
Why would you want to leave God and religion out of it all ??? Is it because you realize that the views of God and religion are a part of the problem ? Or is it just simpler and less complex to do so ?
God is NOT the problem … religion may well be a great part of it though … but those are due to the mindsets of people that define God and religions based upon their own ideas of good and evil along with it's contentions.
That is the problem, the ignorance of the people involved, not God or what religion is supposed to be … only what it has become, very divisive. With the followers of 'their' religions acting like only they are good, only they have God, only they will be saved because only they have the truth … ONLY they !!!
So I suppose if you can leave God out of the matter completely, it just comes down to the good guys and the bad guys in the most simplistic basic terms … your 'guy' and theirs.
With that kind of thinking one never has to think about giving the other guy the benefit of the doubt … never ! It become as simple as it can be, winner/loser, good/evil, you and yours VS all others … all you have to do is build a big wall to keep them away … or go to their place and kill them all off … simplistic answers …
What say you Bret ???
I find it disturbing that an American President has said publically, "God told him to invade Iraq." Earlier, in 1999, when he was campaigning he also said to others (including his biographer) repeatedly he needed to have a war in order to have a successful Presidency.
I want you to understand me on this issue, very clearly : its not that I think a discussion with God in it is bad......I don't. But we're on Gather, a public forum, where I'm not going to bring the Bible or God or religion into the discussion, because all that does is heat the rhetoric unnecessarily. That's why I keep my discussions secular in nature.
The recent history of the United States would tend to contradict the "I need a war to have a successful Presidency" statement. Look at Vietnam. Didn't that war almost completely ruin Johnson and Nixon?
When and where did Mr. Bush say this, Clarke?
"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said to me: 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He said, 'If I have a chance to invade….if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency." Herskowitz said that Bush expressed frustration at a lifetime as an underachiever in the shadow of an accomplished father. In aggressive military action, he saw the opportunity to emerge from his father's shadow. The moment, Herskowitz said, came in the wake of the September 11 attacks. "Suddenly, he's at 91 percent in the polls, and he'd barely crawled out of the bunker."
In 1999, Herskowitz had struck a deal with the campaign of George W. Bush about a ghost-written autobiography, which was ultimately titled A Charge to Keep : My Journey to the White House, and he and Bush signed a contract in which the two would split the proceeds. The publisher was William Morrow. Herskowitz was given unimpeded access to Bush, and the two met approximately 20 times so Bush could share his thoughts. Herskowitz began working on the book in May, 1999, and says that within two months he had completed and submitted some 10 chapters, with a remaining 4-6 chapters still on his computer.
" Bush had no interest in or knowledge of other countries. He wanted "a successful Presidency" and to prove he was as good as his father. The foreign policy was designed by Cheney et al. At the time of the Iraq invasion, he wasn't even aware there were Sunnis and Shia in Iraq or who they were."
Come on Clarke. Mr. Bush took office in 2001, and was receiving NSA and CIA briefings daily.........plus NIEs. I think you're projecting your false idea that Mr. Bush was uninformed. 9/11 Commission testimony from Clarke and Rice refute your assertions completely.
You're saying that by late 2002 Mr. Bush was 'out of the loop'? Not likely.
The internet, and Gather in particular, is not a place where God should be used to 'one-up' your fellow man. I respect him far too much to do that.
Arguing the facts without invoking his name is much more satisfying anyways.
"Mr. Bush is just an American President. He's not evil or malicious"
How can you know such a thing ? Is there some unseen hand preventing an unstable or immoral person from deceiving people into voting for him ? What if he IS lacking in some essential capacity to empathise with others ?
Please realize, ALL reputable psychology and psychiatric studies agree that there are between 4% and 10% of our population who are devoid of compassion entirely, and do not mug old ladies BECAUSE they might get caught. That means there are MILIONS of such walking time bombs, and no guarantees of any kind that the man currently holding office is not one of them. And yes, they all learn to say they care about others, they are not stupid, just unfeeling.
You are perfectly justified in drawing your own conclusions on that man's character, but so too those you think you are shaming or convincing by blanket admonitions that they ought to refrain from speaking of what they feel about this fellow. They ought not refrain, but speak out loudly if they believe him to be immoral.
How the hell else can we know we are not alone in our disgust ? Would it not have been wonderful if Germans spoke freely of their perceptions of Hitler before it was too late, and he seized indisputable power ? We ought not wait to see if he is a madman, if we begin to suspect it's true. WE are the ultimate protectors of our own liberty, and must guard it with vigor and conviction. The consequences of waiting to be sure are too grave to trust to fate alone.
Bush has never understood what was taking place in Iraq. The succession of different reasons and objectives announced haven't matched the reality of the situation or brought results promised.
But when he said publically in Egypt a few years ago, that "God told me to invade Iraq," that's scary - it's messianism and delusion
How can I know that Mr. Bush is not evil or malicious? I can't, in the same way that you can't know that he is.
However, if he were truly evil and malicious, he would have unleashed the nuclear arsenal already.
I tend to think that American Presidents feel they're called to do this difficult work out of civic duty. Republicans or Democrats - I feel that same level of duty, from both sides of the aisle.
And John, I've never said that we shouldn't discuss Mr. Bush or his administration. The only admonition I've ever given (on another thread) is that we should respect the OFFICE of the President, no matter how much we dislike the man occupying it. I spoke out because I see no respect being given for the office these days, by the Left. It's shameful and has no place in public discourse.
"However, if he were truly evil and malicious, he would have unleashed the nuclear arsenal already"
I have seen reports that several (I believe six) general officers involved in the region submitted a statement of their intention to resign if Mr. Bush proceeded with air strikes on Iran, utilizing "tactical" nuclear weapons. It would seem likely that such an intention was on the verge of being enacted at that point. He has, quite clearly contemplated and ordered the planning of such strikes, so there is simply no point in absolving him of malevolent tendencies on that basis.
Of course we ought to respect the "office" of President, but not to the point of turning a blind eye to one who seems to be defaming it. If we were discussing something like bribery or politically motivated spying, such as Mr. Nixon's crew seems to have engaged in, I would agree on this need for respect of the office being prominently important, but we are discussing the possibility of wholesale destruction of our republic and possibly catastrophic world conflict. We cannot "wait and see" as if decorum were the primary concern.
This ain't no party.
There's no way a nuclear strike is going to happen. Contrary to what you guys on the Left like to believe, Mr. Bush is a pretty smart guy. He isn't going to risk it all for something like that.
John, don't kid yourself. There is no respect for the office of the President given in todays public discourse, and it's because the crazed Left has made it so. I shake my head in disgust, because I never treated President Clinton this way, even when he was caught with his pants down.............so to speak....lol.
Look anytime there is a war or military conflict the nuclear option is always part of the discussion. Why? Because it's there.......Under what circumstances might their use be warranted. Are there any tactical military targets that could only be penetrated by a small tacticial nuke? What might our response be a nuclear detonation by the other side. Would you feel better if these options weren't discussed and suddenly say some country like ..ummmm I dunno Iran maybe lobbed a nuke into Iraq at one of our bases......Would you find comfort in the fact that everyone in charge looked at each other and said "Hell never considered THAT! Now what do we do??" These are the military leaders of our country and they have trained their entire life to make just these decisions. The biggest problem faced by the military is a political system that is so intrusive that it literally forces them fight at half power or 1/3 or just little enough to make it a fight. Don't want to overwhelm the other side then we might look like bullies. If WWII were fought today these same people would be calling the soldiers who were lauded as heroes then as war criminals and murderers today. When Sherman said "War is Hell" he wasn't being flip or glib. He was using the most accurate metaphor he could come up with. Combat is mankind at it's most base and primal, to try to somehow to civilize the act of killing and destruction by making "rules" is the height of stupidity. It is/was a rare soldier who was at Normandy who felt the need to share the experience with anyone who wasn't there. The fear and the horror are unimaginable to any of us who have never experienced it. To pass judgement on those who are thrust into that situation and criticize how they do the job we have entrusted them is hypocrisy at it's zenith.
As George Kennan has observed years ago, just war principles mean little without a commitment to keep civilian casualties to the absolute minimum -- "and this, if necessary, even at the cost of military victory." The just war tradition requires that "victory" alone cannot be the overriding goal. Kennan continues:
"For victory itself, even at its apparent best, is a questionable concept. I can think of no judgments of statesmanship in modern times where we have made greater mistakes -- where the relationship between calculations and results have been more ironic -- than those which related to the supposed glories of victory and the supposed horrors of defeat. Victory, as the consequences of recent wars have taught us, is ephemeral; but the killing of even one innocent child is an irremedial fact the reality of which can never be eradicated."
Are you so ignorant as to imagine Iranians do not have satellite TV and the Internet and a diverse electorate and media? Iran has never said it wished nuclear weapons. It supports nuclear non-proliferation As for what you claim Ahmadinejad said, you might have checked to see if it was true or a deliberate distortion of his words.
You obviously have not been in Iran or have any knowleige of its culture and society. And you quote more distorted statements. It is common knowledge that Iran formally offered to recognize Israel in 2003, and the United States refused to reply to the proposal. You probably have never seen prize-winning Iranian films or read the works of contemporary writers available in the West; read its press and magazines available in English and other languages.
The 14 -year old is the son of a fine poet, Farideh Hassanzadeh known as "Mostafavi," whose work is available in translations. Women writers have been as popular as men writers. Contemporary women writers like Roya Pirzad, Fariba Vafi, and many others have won the famous literary prizes. The books of women writers reach 20th or 30th edition within a short time. Among film directors, women like Rakhshan Bani Etemad, Samira Makhmalbaf, and Tahmine Milany have achieved international success and fame. And some of the best playwrights have been women, too. More women than men attend the univesities.
The greatest contemporary women poets are Forough Farrokhzad and
Simin Behbahani from the 1940s and 1950s. Fine literature, even in translation.
In an excerpt from a longer poem, Forough Farrokhzad says:
"All our neighbors are planting
bombs and guns
in their gardens instead of flowers
I fear the time
which has lost its heart."
During the imposed Iraq- Iran war (1980-88), many soldiers carried a piece of her verse:
"Remember the flight
the bird is mortal."
"What might our response be a nuclear detonation by the other side."
Well as every single thinking human being knows; Utter devastation of large chunks of Iran. So OBVIOUSLY the Iranians would never even contemplate such a foolish thing. It is you who are so silly as to do that.
Do you honestly think it is necessary to PUT those weapons on the table? There is no need of any kind to speak of their use unless such use is being contemplated. To imagine there is a need to remind ANYONE of what this nation could do to ANY adversary if it opened that door is blatantly ridiculous. Rattling those sabers is terrorism, plain and simple.
"The president of Iran says publicly and repeatedly that his desire for a nuclear weapon is superseded only by his lust for removing every jew from the middle east"
Care to produce a legitimate copy of any one of those repetitions ?
Until you do, you are simply reciting propagandist non-sense. You see a film of the man speaking, and a voice tells you what he is saying, and like a lemming you march off believing you heard it with your own ears.
Such a simple thing, that truth stuff. It means not making assumptions based on what an interested party tells you is happening. Even if that means you make no assumptions at all.
When I hear stuff, which I do, I say something like - "Oh, that's a good idea. I think I need to hear that direction at least two more times, though - and then if it feels right, I'll find a way to accomplish it." I learned that the hard way. Thank God I didn't have access to any amount of money, troops, and equipment to make war anywhere on the planet! Nor did I have a rich, powerful daddy to compete with! Nor did I have people calling me "the Texecutioner!"
GWB apparently does hear those directions he says he does. Any intuitive worth her salt will tell you that you have to discern low-vibrational directions from high-vibrational ones. Then you must use your Good Will and your Free Will Choice to choose your actions - including the act of negotiating with God [read the story of Job in the Old Testament].....To choose the action which will serve the highest good of all.
It's a poker game; a test......
Important to note the purpose GWB has served, world-wide: because of his loose-cannon warmongering style, there are peacemakers coming out of their closets all over the planet.
It is somewhat remarkable that those who would not take someones word on virtually anything of significance, would so blithely assume that person is telling the truth about something as impenetrable as his discussions with God. One does have to wonder why such a nebulous matter warrants assumed honesty, rather than the customary skepticism. One does have to wonder, if one is to be fully honest with oneself . . .
"It is common knowledge that Iran formally offered to recognize Israel in 2003, and the United States refused to reply to the proposal."
This is common knowledge? Among what populace?
I definitely didn't know about it. What was the total context of Iran's recognition of Israel as a state in 2003?
This sounds fishy. What did Israel have to do to gain Iran's recognition?
This sounds completely out of character for Iran. Please explain.
"What did Israel have to do to gain Iran's recognition?"
From what I read; Nothing. It was the restoration of diplomatic relations with us that they asked for.
Israel and Iran have had ongoing high-level negotations for years. Israel owes Iran billions of dollars for oil, and it is near to reaching a settlement on that debt. But there has always been trade between them. Ordinary Iranians and Israeli Iranians travel back and forth between the two countries without restrictions.
Iran was offering to recognize Israel if the Israelis did what in return?
This seems counter-intuitive. Why wouldn't the Israelis take the Iranians up on such an easy offer? Sounds like there's more to this..........
"Sounds like there's more to this.......... "
Yes, of course. That's what Clarke and others are trying to tell you; Things are NOT as we have been led to believe. There is severe manipulation of information about who is doing what, and why. We are being fed propaganda for nefarious purposes, which must be set aside if one is to understand what is in reality happening in the world. Just who is "friendly" and who is attempting to exploit these complex situations for their own purposes is not something which can be determined by watching the snippets of highly selective major media telecasting. We are being deceived into supporting patently unfair and violent activity by certain folks who have their own interests at heart, not yours and mine, or the average Israeli's or Palestinians or Iranian's, or anyone else's. Just those manipulators. We are being "played" by con men.
So what was it that Iran wanted in exchange for Israel's recognition as a state?
They wanted out of the doghouse. They wanted to talk to us.
Do you actually know? Or are you just taking this opportunity to pontificate?
So far you haven't increased my knowledge base, even though I've asked the same question twice.
I specifically want to know : what was it that the Iranians wanted from the Israelis? Why would they offer recognition to a state they've always sought to destroy? What did the Israelis have to do to receive this Iranian recognition? And why would the Israelis turn down such an offer? Were the Iranians asking something repugnant and impossible for the Israelis to do?
Have you checked out the document ? I cannot speak for Iranian leaders, I'm just telling you what I think they asked for, and offered.
I read the Arab peace plan when it was fresh and new, and I just re-read it. It calls for the Israelis to withdraw from all the Arab lands taken in the Six Day War...........I don't think that's likely to happen, do you?
The overall goals of the document seem pretty good, but this 'withdrawal from Arab lands' seems to be the stumbling point. That obviously means giving back the Golan Heights and the West Bank. That doesn't seem likely to me.
I suppose if I were Israel, I probably wouldn't want to give those lands up either. Syria, Egypt and Jordan all teamed up to eradicate Israel from the map. Not exactly a nice act on their part, wouldn't you agree?
So my premonition that Iran was making a hollow gesture was right. Its not just about signing a document. Its about giving back war wins. I knew there was a catch.
Kinda "shifty" of you to bring up other statements and act as if that is what Iran offered in the 2003 proposal, don't you think ?
Currently, most experts are saying that offer is virtually the same as what the US is now demanding of Iran before negotiations can resume. It's pretty much accepted by everyone watching this dance that the earlier offer was rejected because the fellas in the White House believed Iran was on the verge of a political collapse, not because the offer was less than gracious. If that is so, it is no wonder that folks like Colin Powell were aghast at the snub. In retrospect, it appears to have been a major screw up. It is now WE who are in a weak bargaining position, and I fear these hot-heads will resort to further confrontational maneuvers to cover their asses. Pathetic, and utterly ruinous for our reputation in international circles.
OK since you put it that way it all makes perfect sense to me. Obviously the same shadow groups that mistranslate the actual words of Iran's true leaders, the mullahs, in this particualr case have found a 14 year old boy who wrote a little poem and decided for reasons, as yet undisclosed, that this particualr piece of writing would be accurately and promptly translated for consumtion to the world...
Who's calling who uninformed here?? You have absolutely got to be kidding?/ Is this Gather's version of Punk'd? Even Ashton Kutcher wouldn't try to convince people of something so absurd on it's face was true.
Here on Gather the rightwing is famous for their insistence on debating the past 'facts' ... of course the only allowable 'fact' to them are just 'theirs', usually those that have been prepared by 'their' think tanks and distributed by 'their' media (FOX and the multitudes of radio talk jocks that are the common source of all of 'their' information called 'fact') ...
Seriously folks, how the hell are we ever going to accomplish anything at that rate ??? It is the oldest trick in the book, divide and conquer ... our 'masters' have divided us and we conquer ourselves via the incessant arguments we call debates about past histories while the masters go about their merry unconcerned way cooking up new events for us to quibble about reactively.
The masters are proactive, the followers are reactive ... these 'debates' prove it !!!
We have the far reaches of our opposing extremes of polarization being allowed to speak for all of us and we in the center who could probably agree on something and accomplish something as a joint venture in confronting our masters, are just led down the paths of further ongoing polarization nullifying any potential power we could use to make our world better ...
We use the example of GWB to feel that we may know as much as those leaders because it is obvious to most that GWB is sure not an intellectual elite ... but for most, they still prefer to think that he is the best we have I guess ... they will never allow that there really are people pulling his strings that are evidently smarter ... too many 'facts' tell them otherwise ...
Just like the various RELIGIONS have their own 'facts' which they call 'truth' of their dogmas and creeds ... things that are supposed to speak to the eternal and the truth of everything ... the 'gospel' ... just a bunch of other groups using historical past information to argue with each other and increasingly even kill each other ...
Folks, you had better all begin (at least) to open to your own INtuitions where the real Spirit of God attempts to speak to us firsthand ... cutting right through all of the BS of so-called 'facts' ...
We have that gift available to us ... we have but to begin to seek it and trust it ... it will give us the needed information to figure things out for ourselves rather than rely on our masters who would want it just as it is ...
How often have you claimed the "liberal media" does precisely the thing you now try to paint as a ridiculous conspiracy theory ?
I tire of the non-sense. OBVIOSLY, if the sort of truncated summations spoken of what our own leaders say can be misleading, it is pure obstinance to believe such snippets of complex statements which must pass through interpreters on both ends of the game, are not quite likely to be overblown by our sensationalizing media. And if you really think that process is not heavily influenced by the ongoing simplistic portraits of people and events we are fed as if reality itself, you are really being naive.
I think you've seen enough examples of this sort of thing to know there is a huge potential for misleading coverage. Go find out for yourself whether what this or that person said has been accurately represented please, before you so casually call that possibility wacky. It's disingenuous to treat others so crudely, as well as being pompous. Speak to me as an intelligent human being, or don't waste your breath, and I will try to do the same.
"Kinda "shifty" of you to bring up other statements and act as if that is what Iran offered in the 2003 proposal, don't you think ?"
What "other statements", John?
I simply wanted to know what Iran was offering the Israelis in exchange for recognition of Israel as a state. No shiftiness. And I thought we were talking about the original 2002 Arab peace plan, so I went back and took a look at it...........that's all. So what are you talking about?
"Currently, most experts are saying that offer is virtually the same as what the US is now demanding of Iran before negotiations can resume."
John, I think you're confusing the players and the issues.
What do you think the U.S. wants from Iran, and why? What negotiations are you referring to?
What's with all this "divide and conquer", "masters", and all the other nut-speak? There is no conspiracy here. I just wanted to know what we were talking about. Facts are a good thing, Jerry. I asked for a few.
Enough with the pontificating. I just wanted some answers.
Google this : 2006 letters from the Iranians to the USA
In regard to settlement of the Palestine question , Iran's position is that it will support any agreement that the Palestinians decide to make with Israel. Iran's position on limiting nuclear proliferation and arms reduction is in conformity with the UN's efforts to reduce and eliminate nuclear weapons.
"So what are you talking about?"
The 2003 offer.
"What negotiations are you referring to?"
The direct negotiations currently being held at bay by our government, pending compliance by Iran with virtually the same concessions they offered in 2003. The direct negotiations on all matters Iran has been asking for all along. It's "us" who won't agree to talk.
Churches in America wrote President Bush because they were worried we were going to invade Iran. I read it.
Looks like they were worried back in February 2006. Nothing at all has happened since then. Sounds like the churches were worried for no reason. An invasion isn't going to happen, and that's pretty obvious.
So what exactly was your point?
Churches do this kind of stuff all the time.
As far as I can tell, the Iranian "offer" is the 2002 Arab peace plan. And the Arab peace plan calls for Israel to give back what it won in the Six Day War...........the Golan Heights and the West Bank. Do you see any possibility of the Israelis making such a move in the future? I haven't heard of it.
The "negotiations" the U.S. seeks with Iran are a very separate issue. We just want them to stop making nuclear material and allow the IAEA inspectors in.
Two separate issues.
Iran is running covert proxy wars in Lebanon, Gaza, Iraq, and now Afghanistan. They may not have directly invaded anyone in the region, but they're hardly the poor victims of aggression they're purporting to be.
CNN had two specials on Iranian proxy wars in the region last week.
The United States' invasion of Afghanistan was successful because of Iran's assistance. In Berlin, working closely with the Americans, Khalilzad and Crocker (subsequently our ambassadors), the Iranians planned it and persuaded the Northern Alliance to fight the Taliban; then, Iranian generals worked with American generals on the ground in Afghanistan to defeat the Taliban. The United States expressed its gratitude; but subsequently Bush made his "axis of evil" speech and called for regime change in Iran.
Iran did not oppose the United States overthrow of Saddam and has supported the current Iraqi government. We need Iran's help in Afghanistan and Iraq now : they know it and we know it. The Iraq Study Group recommended we negotiate with Iran. The Iranians have made proposals for Iranian-Iraqi-US cooperation.
Iran has gained from having its chief enemies, the Taliban and Saddam removed. It is now concerned about Iraq's collapse into civil war and regional chaos. Iran has a friendly government in Baghdad thanks to the US and does not wish to see it fall. However, our continued occupation in Iraq is threatening stability in the region. Iran does not want a civil war in Iraq that would send refugees into its nation or involve other nations, such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia, in the conflict in Iraq.
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson has proposed the US work to have an all-Muslim international peacekeeping force and negotiate with Iran and Syria in an attempt to bring more stability to the region: "We cannot do the hard diplomatic work in Iraq until our forces are withdrawn. When 61 percent of the Iraqi people say it's okay for troops in Iraq, American troops, to be shot, it is wrong. When 70 percent of the Iraqi people say they want Americans out -- Sunni and Shiite -- by the end of the calendar year, the time has come to withdraw our forces."
General Sir Michael Rose told the BBC's Newsnight programme: "It is the soldiers who have been telling me from the frontline that the war they have been fighting is a hopeless war, that they cannot possibly win it and the sooner we start talking politics and not military solutions, the sooner they will come home and their lives will be preserved." Asked if that meant admitting defeat, the general replied: "Of course we have to admit defeat. The British admitted defeat in North America and the catastrophes that were predicted at the time never happened."The catastrophes that were predicted after Vietnam never happened. The same thing will occur after we leave Iraq." General Rose is a former SAS commander and head of UN forces in Bosnia.When he was asked if he thought the Iraqi insurgents were right to try to force the US-led coalition out, he replied: "Yes I do. As Lord Chatham [the politician William Pitt, the Elder, who, in the second half of the 18th century called for a cessation of hostilities in the colonies and favoured American resistance to the British Stamp Act] said, 'if I was an American - as I am an Englishman - as long as one Englishman remained on American native soil, I would never, never, never lay down my arms'. The Iraqi insurgents feel exactly the same way. I don't excuse them for some of the terrible things they do, but I do understand why they are resisting the Americans."
Iranians have been captured on the battlefield in Iraq with weapons, money, and explosives. They have no love for the Iraqi government.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1282215,00.html
http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=1692347&page=1
Iran has also been caught shipping arms and explosives to the Taliban :
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/06/document_iran_c.html
Clarke - come on, this is Iran we're talking about here. Not North Dakota. These guys have hated us for years, and they will continue to oppose anything we do in the region, no matter what we do.
They are neither peaceful, nor able to be negotiated with. That's probably why we haven't done much of that in the recent past with them.
I don't really have to go into the Gaza/Hamas or the Lebanon/Hezbollah situations, do I? Those have already been shown numerous times to be Iranian backed proxy wars.
The extent of your ignorance is perhaps a personal expanding phenomenon, like a virus. I hope you seek and find a cure.
Since when were Palestine or Lebanon "proxy wars"? Hizbollah and Hamas were founded as resitance movements against foreign occupation. Since then, Hizbollah and Hamas have become national political parties. They are no longer resistance movements. It is incorrect, according to international law, to term them "terrorist orgainizations. Most nations do not accept such a label for them.
There was more than one letter?
Was it very different than the first one?
Again, is this anything unusual for churches to do? Why would I have been interested in this? How does this affect the conversation we were having?
Could it be that I completely reject your notion that Iran is just an innocent bystander? We don't just have a definitional disagreement, Clarke. Iran is a terrorist state. I know it, and you know it. You may have even traveled to the region, but so have I.
The term 'Proxy Wars' was one I picked up from Wolf Blitzer on CNN………but I go along with his assessment. A Proxy War is one that you don't fight with your own army. Instead, you hire people, or provide 'advisors' to another country, to do what you want them to do……….usually covertly. In Iran's case, it's so they can deny any involvement.
In the early 80's, members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard went to Lebanon to organize Hezbollah as an army. In 1982, in their first 'clash' with U.S. forces, they helped kill over 200 Marines involved in a peaceful mission in Beirut.
We've all seen what Hamas is all about in the last few weeks in Gaza. They may be a political party, but they're backed by a lot of guns and a lot of hatred. They've reduced Gaza to a slum, with almost no business and no commerce. These days they can't run their fleet of garbage trucks or keep the electricity flowing. It's pure chaos.
Like it or not, Hamas and Hezbollah ARE most definitely terrorist organizations, even though they've now infiltrated their way into extremely weak, nearly defenseless governments. Iran's money buys lots of loyalty in a region without cash.
Most likely if you look deep enough you can even find a 'translation' given to better backup your own contentions ... as is the case about the words used by Ahmadinejad about the real meaning VS the US media meanings about Israel and or Zionism being removed from a map etc ... major differences there with completely unrelated meanings spun twisted and distorted to make him look bad when there was no reason ... same as the statements about the Jews during WW2 that were also propagandized out of context and meanings ... a popular thing to do now a days to help inflame people like yourself towards war with Iran and Muslims in general by our so-called 'leaders' with their neo-CON agendas you folks so support and are so apologetic about.
I haven't counted the number of childish comments you have made on this page in regard to others', mine included. It is plain you are incapable of mature, critical reasoning, study and research. The junk you post is not worthy of attention .
Iran is a terrorist state whether you like them or not............for the reasons I previously stated.
You didn't really think you could put a bunch of Pro-Iranian stuff on Gather without meeting resistance, did you?
This is not the first thread where BW's posts have led to this conclusion.
I have never written anything in regard to dealing with the Iranian government that could be characterized as "Pro-Iranian."
In regard to the United States' relations with Iran, it has been observed for more than a decade by several of our leading analysts and fore ign policy-makers on that it was in our best interest to work toward establishing normal relations with Iran and recognizing its valid interests in the region; and that our failure to pursue numerous opportunities to do so has been because of poor judgement and misguided policy aims.
Unfortunately, an aggressive, misguided policy of regime change toward Iran still persists among some factions in our government, although there are indications that other responsible factions are aware that our status in the region and globally will be best served by accepting Iran's status in its region and negotiating with it on a realistic basis of our mutual interests.
Through our own doing,since 2001, we have placed ourselves in the position of needing Iran's cooperation. We will have to pay for it in order to work toward better relations. Longer term, a prosperous Iran can increase stability in the region and support the interests of the West.
Thanks for your input.
I've read your work before on Iran. You do seem rather pro-Iran. Making a positive case that Iranian proxies in the region - Hezbollah and Hamas, for instance, convinces me that you think these are just well-meaning but misunderstood entities. How else should I take it when you say such things? What Westerner that can remember the 1982 Marine bombings in Beirut wouldn't speak up about that?
Clarke, I want you to understand where I'm coming from. I travel to the region a few times a year on business, and Iranian/American tension has been thick ever since the 1979 Revolution. I talk to Kuwaitis, Jordanians, and Lebanese all the time about this - it's coffee shop talk. They know what's going on, and its no secret.
Recent Iranian revelations also make me, and anyone interested in the region, extremely nervous.
I too have traveled a bit in my life and attempted to communicate with the people ... I have found that it is about like living here and communicating with foreigners coming here ... each person has a view point and it is not always expressed the same depending upon the persons views one is communicating with.
The point being ... in any place at any time there will be at least two opposing viewpoints ... we will have our own also, and how we communicate will depend upon may things associated ... to just say I have been there and communicated really does not say much when when you get right down to it ... you may well have missed out on that 'differing' viewpoint ... even purely by chance ... there is never any guarantee that you will have come back with everything there is to know ... you may have talked to the 'wrong' people ... or they may not have known what they were talking about ... or ... or ...
I'll be in Jordan, Egypt and Kuwait...........possibly Israel (if I have time) at the end of this month. Business is the reason, of course.
I get a lot of exposure to the people, so its fun to have political discussions in coffee houses (the social gathering places of the 35+ crowd in the Middle East..........internet cafes are the hangouts of the 30 and under crowd there).
Funny, but Iranians are viewed with mild suspicion in most of the Arab world. Its nothing overt........you have to ask a lot of questions to uncover this bias. They are seen as a kind of 'big brother' in the region. I'm still not sure why.
I'll tell you this much - the food is incredible!
All I know of the Iranians is what I read, that being that they consider their Persian heritage far superior to that of the Arabs ... maybe even the Arabs have some respect for that rather than resentment ... that probably depends upon how they each come across to each other though.
Enjoy the trip, I look forward to a report upon your return.
The travel is fun, but exhausting sometimes. However, the exhaustion is made up by being able to meet really great people. They energize me.
I wish more Americans could go there and see what's really happening in that part of the world. The Iranians are not seen as part of the solution - they're seen as obstructionists. Everyone I've ever talked to (even Iranians) have said that Iran has designs on being the power broker in the region, and that the Americans and British have ruined their franchise.
Iran has never been conquered. Iranians are very proud. Some would say too proud. They seem to see themselves as the only legitimate country in the area.........just my impression from talking to people who know Iranians - and from talking to a few Iranians too.