Forum Rules (Everyone Must Read!!!)

1] What you CAN NOT post.

You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this forum to post any material which is:
- abusive
- vulgar
- hateful
- harassing
- personal attacks
- obscene

You also may not:
- post images that are too large (max is 500*500px)
- post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or cited properly.
- post in UPPER CASE, which is considered yelling
- post messages which insult the Armenians, Armenian culture, traditions, etc
- post racist or other intentionally insensitive material that insults or attacks another culture (including Turks)

The Ankap thread is excluded from the strict rules because that place is more relaxed and you can vent and engage in light insults and humor. Notice it's not a blank ticket, but just a place to vent. If you go into the Ankap thread, you enter at your own risk of being clowned on.
What you PROBABLY SHOULD NOT post...
Do not post information that you will regret putting out in public. This site comes up on Google, is cached, and all of that, so be aware of that as you post. Do not ask the staff to go through and delete things that you regret making available on the web for all to see because we will not do it. Think before you post!

2] Use descriptive subject lines & research your post. This means use the SEARCH.

This reduces the chances of double-posting and it also makes it easier for people to see what they do/don't want to read. Using the search function will identify existing threads on the topic so we do not have multiple threads on the same topic.

3] Keep the focus.

Each forum has a focus on a certain topic. Questions outside the scope of a certain forum will either be moved to the appropriate forum, closed, or simply be deleted. Please post your topic in the most appropriate forum. Users that keep doing this will be warned, then banned.

4] Behave as you would in a public location.

This forum is no different than a public place. Behave yourself and act like a decent human being (i.e. be respectful). If you're unable to do so, you're not welcome here and will be made to leave.

5] Respect the authority of moderators/admins.

Public discussions of moderator/admin actions are not allowed on the forum. It is also prohibited to protest moderator actions in titles, avatars, and signatures. If you don't like something that a moderator did, PM or email the moderator and try your best to resolve the problem or difference in private.

6] Promotion of sites or products is not permitted.

Advertisements are not allowed in this venue. No blatant advertising or solicitations of or for business is prohibited.
This includes, but not limited to, personal resumes and links to products or
services with which the poster is affiliated, whether or not a fee is charged
for the product or service. Spamming, in which a user posts the same message repeatedly, is also prohibited.

7] We retain the right to remove any posts and/or Members for any reason, without prior notice.


Members are welcome to read posts and though we encourage your active participation in the forum, it is not required. If you do participate by posting, however, we expect that on the whole you contribute something to the forum. This means that the bulk of your posts should not be in "fun" threads (e.g. Ankap, Keep & Kill, This or That, etc.). Further, while occasionally it is appropriate to simply voice your agreement or approval, not all of your posts should be of this variety: "LOL Member213!" "I agree."
If it is evident that a member is simply posting for the sake of posting, they will be removed.

8] These Rules & Guidelines may be amended at any time. (last update September 17, 2009)

If you believe an individual is repeatedly breaking the rules, please report to admin/moderator.
See more
See less

Nuclear War-fear

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    Iran Will Strike First In Case The Usa Uses The Territory Of Azerbaijan

    Yerevan, April 25. ArmInfo. 'American intelligence groups are at work in Azerbaijan against Iran,' stated in on interview to 'Al-Ahram' newspaper, Egypt, Ali Larijani, head of the Supreme National Security Council of Iran.

    He stated that the American special services use the territories of Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan against Iran. According to him, in case the military actions unfold, Iran may strike a blow at the Baku-Tbilisi-Seyhan oil pipe line and the oil objects of Azerbaijan. This was informed by
    "All truth passes through three stages:
    First, it is ridiculed;
    Second, it is violently opposed; and
    Third, it is accepted as self-evident."

    Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)


    • #12
      Azeri Paper Says Baku To Join Us-led Attack On Iran

      Yeni Musavat, Baku
      2 May 06

      An Azerbaijani opposition newspaper has said that Azerbaijani
      President Ilham Aliyev has made a commitment during his recent visit
      to Washington to take part in possible attacks on Iran. Yeni Musavat
      quoted an unnamed foreign diplomat as saying that Azerbaijan would be
      certainly involved in possible strikes at Iran but that this was not
      spelt out to prevent any terror or other attacks on Azerbaijan. The
      following is an excerpt from Teymur Turanci's report in Azerbaijani
      newspaper Yeni Musavat on 2 May headlined "Washington secrets" and
      subheaded "Ilham Aliyev's commitments to the USA in Yeni Musavat";
      subheadings have been inserted editorially; ellipses as published
      throughout the text:

      They are overdoing it as if they had no feeling of humbleness or
      responsibility. [Azerbaijani President] Ilham Aliyev's visit to the
      USA has turned into the epic of Koroglu [an epic hero of Azerbaijani
      medieval folklore] that dominates TV screens all day long.

      "Apparently remarkable" meeting

      It is not about disliking someone. With all of its apparent signs the
      visit was indeed remarkable for Ilham Aliyev and his administration:
      his greatest success during his presidency was the meeting with
      Mr Bush. You may also know that Ilham Aliyev has not done anything
      palpable for almost three years. What he can is to hold meetings and
      demonstrate his ability to speak English to foreign leaders.

      [Passage omitted: criticism of praise for the visit]

      So, what is the essence of the Bush-Aliyev summit, which is apparently
      remarkable, and will this meeting be important to Azerbaijan and
      the region? What did the presidents talk about during that meeting
      and the visit in general? Why did Bush remember Ilham Aliyev three
      years later? What kind of commitments did our leader take there on
      Karabakh? Were there any other commitments? Why did Mr Bush pat on
      his [Aliyev's] shoulder and made a "well-done" gesture? What did that
      mean? Generally, does the opposition have behind-the-scenes details
      of the Bush-Aliyev meeting?

      [Passage omitted: Opposition also has details of the visit]

      It has emerged that Ilham Aliyev was strongly criticized at all
      meetings, including the talks with George Bush. He was blamed for
      failing to fulfil the commitments to the USA on democracy and human
      rights and to carry out reforms, as well as for establishing special
      relations with Russia and Iran against the will of the USA. It is
      not accidental that immediately after the meeting with George Bush,
      Azerbaijani ambassador to the USA Hafiz Pasayev told people close to
      him that "the meeting with Bush was abnormal".

      [Passage omitted: media mounted pressure on Aliyev in Washington]

      US terms accepted

      It was demanded that he [Aliyev] make big concessions.

      "Aliyev agreed to everything that the USA demanded he should do. Bush
      would not have patted on his shoulder if the USA had not had everything
      it wanted...," a source told us.

      "This meeting should be viewed in the context of Aliyev's special
      relations with Russia and Iran. Of course, US officials knew that
      Aliyev had received Moscow's instructions before visiting the USA. But
      they explained to him there that decisions had already been made with
      Russia on some global issues, as well as on where his country needed
      to be strategically..."

      The source said that Bush intentionally invited Aliyev to Washington
      at a time when developments were at their peak.

      "It was possible to 'break' him at that time and the USA did so. He
      was invited to the USA at a most desperate time when he was left
      face-to-face with Iran's pressure after three years' of international
      humiliation. Eventually, Ilham Aliyev:

      1. made a commitment to be involved in attacks on Iran;

      2. agreed in principle to the deployment of NATO troops in Azerbaijan
      (on the pretext of protecting the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline
      [carrying oil from the Caspian to world markets through Georgia
      and Turkey]);

      3. wholly agreed to the US plan on Nagornyy Karabakh and accepted all
      the compromises (under this plan, the occupied districts bordering
      Iran are to be returned to Azerbaijan, negotiations are to continue on
      other districts and Baku is to agree to a referendum on the status of
      Nagornyy Karabakh. In other words, Nagornyy Karabakh actually becomes
      a second Armenian state.); and

      4. reaffirmed written commitments to carry out radical democratic
      reforms in his country and administration, purge his team, start
      dialogue with the opposition, observe human rights and release all
      political prisoners."

      We have other details as well, but we will not disclose them for the
      time being. But I must say that Aliyev's brave statement that "I am
      here not to make commitments" has made many suspicious. The muallim
      [form of address] has in fact made a lot of commitments.

      Washington relies on Azerbaijan

      Azerbaijan will be certainly involved in [possible] attacks on Iran
      as a party. This is not being spelt out in order not to worry Iran
      and to prevent any terror or other attacks in Azerbaijan. Our source
      said in this regard: "Once the first strikes are launched on Iran and
      its central authorities are paralysed, both Baku, Tbilisi and Ankara
      will have their roles in the ensuing parts of the operation...

      Let us finish our article by our question to the source: "Why does the
      USA have all contacts with Ilham Aliyev, the head of an antidemocratic
      regime, and make him stronger?" [Passage omitted: general remarks]

      Our foreign diplomat replied: "The USA needs airports at this
      stage. Permission to use them is given by Ilham Aliyev..."

      When saying goodbye, our respectable diplomat added a postcript to
      our article.

      "The work conducted with the democratic opposition will be apparent
      immediately after the Iranian operation... I want you to know that the
      USA actually stakes on Azerbaijan and the Azerbaijanis in the person
      of Ilham Aliyev in the upcoming operation. The Azerbaijanis will be the
      main reference force in the Iranian issue. We are talking here about 40
      million people [Azerbaijanis living in Iran and in Azerbaijan proper]."
      "All truth passes through three stages:
      First, it is ridiculed;
      Second, it is violently opposed; and
      Third, it is accepted as self-evident."

      Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)


      • #13
        Peres Warns Iran for Threatening Israel

        Peres Warns Iran for Threatening Israel By LAURIE COPANS, Associated Press Writer
        Tue May 9, 2:10 AM ET

        JERUSALEM - Israeli Vice Premier Shimon Peres warned Iran that it could be threatened with destruction if it continues to vow to destroy Israel.

        "Be careful with your threats," Peres told Channel 1 TV on Monday. "Those who threaten to destroy are in danger of being destroyed."

        Israel has grown increasingly concerned in recent months by calls from Iran's leader to wipe Israel off the map and Iran's determination to continue its nuclear program. The West believes Iran is trying to develop a nuclear weapon and has moved to impose sanctions against the country in the U.N. Security Council. Iran says its enrichment of uranium is meant for peaceful purposes.

        Peres, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, drew unusually stiff criticism from an analyst on Israel's state television, Yoav Limor, for talking of destroying another country.

        "There is a broad consensus that it would have been better if Peres had not said this, especially now," Limor said. "I'm quite sure Israel does not want to find itself in the same insane asylum as (Iranian President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad."

        Last week, a top Iranian Revolutionary Guards commander said Israel would be Iran's first retaliatory target if attacked by the United States. Peres also reacted to that comment with a warning of his own: "Remember that Israel is exceptionally strong and knows how to defend itself."

        Peres did not say Monday who should act against Iran if it continues with its nuclear program, but implied military action should be led by the United States, pointing to the recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Israeli officials have indicated that Israel would join any international operation against Iran.

        In 1981, Israel launched an air strike to destroy an unfinished Iraqi nuclear reactor. Experts have said such a pinpointed strike against Iran would not be possible, because Tehran's nuclear facilities are intentionally dispersed throughout the country, some of them hidden underground.

        Peres urged China and Russia to join Western efforts to impose sanctions on Iran so military action could be avoided. The two countries thus far have been reluctant to back such proposals.

        "We can prevent all of this threat, without weapons, if there will be unity," Peres said.
        "All truth passes through three stages:
        First, it is ridiculed;
        Second, it is violently opposed; and
        Third, it is accepted as self-evident."

        Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)


        • #14
          Baku-jeyhan And The Geopolitical Interests (analysis)

          Armen Manvelyan

          12.05.2006 14:20
          "Radiolur" [ArmRadio]

          Mass media report that Turkish Prime Minister Rajab Tayib Erdoghan
          invited US President George Bush to participate in the official
          ceremony of opening Baku-Tbilisi-Jeyhan pipeline to be held July 13
          at Jeyhan port. The invitation was sent to the White House through
          US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

          The response of the American side is not known so far. It is noted,
          however, that Washington has promised "to participate in the ceremony
          on the highest possible level."

          It should be noted that still a year ago Baku-Jeyhan pipeline was
          officially opened. Then it was asserted that everything was ready and
          in autumn 2005 the first oil carrier loaded with Azeri oil would leave
          from the port of Jeyhan. Despite the fact that a year has passed from
          that day, Azeri oil has not even reached Jeyhan, which means that it is
          still early to expect entry of oil carriers to this Mediterranean port.

          It should be noted that the pipeline is of great political importance
          for the real owners of it, i.e. Americans, who constructed it
          proceeding primarily from political considerations. In this regard,
          it is important just for the foreign policy of Armenia to correctly
          comprehend and evaluate the political value of the program. We should
          note that both underestimation and overestimation of the project are
          equally dangerous, since it can result in incorrect understanding
          of the political developments in the region and the struggle between
          the heavy powers around these. Speaking about the politicization of
          Baku-Jeyhan, we should first of all understand that the White House
          is interested in the pipeline primarily as an alternative route for
          exporting oil from the Caspian region, which will allow Washington
          to reduce the so-called pipeline dependency on Russia. That is to say
          that directing the oil flows to Baku-Jeyhan from Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan
          and later from Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, the US attains not only
          economic, but also complete political control over these countries.

          >>From the geopolitical perspective Central Asia is of strategic
          importance for official Washington, and Baku-Jeyhan is the means
          through which the US can subject the countries of the region to its
          interests. It should be noted that this region has nothing to offer
          to the world except for oil and gas, therefore domination over this
          branch means control over these countries. Hence, the United States
          conceives Baku-Jeyhan as the most essential factor in the gradually
          strengthening struggle between the US, Russia and China. What is
          the most attractive for the United States in Central Asian region
          is its geopolitical location. It's not a secret that the region
          neighbors four possible rivals of the US, i.e. China, India, Russia and
          Iran. Therefore, considering these countries as possible competitors,
          number one superpower of the world aspires to exert control over
          a region, from where it can threat its potential enemies. In this
          geopolitical game the South Caucasus and the Baku-Jeyhan pipeline
          are mere links to help the US make its control more complete.
          "All truth passes through three stages:
          First, it is ridiculed;
          Second, it is violently opposed; and
          Third, it is accepted as self-evident."

          Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)


          • #15
            US Considers Strikes on Iran from Azeri Territory

            11.05.2006 15:58 GMT+04:00
            /PanARMENIAN.Net/ UN former nuclear weapons inspector Scott Ritter stated the US Administration considers strikes upon Iran from the territory of Azerbaijan. In his words, after acquainting oneself with military maps, it will be clear that deploying troops in Azerbaijan is extremely important for the US. «US command is extremely interested in deployment of forces in that South Caucasian country. Why is this important? It is Iran's neighbor. The shortest route to Teheran lies below the Caspian, where the army plans an offensive to,» the expert noted.

            Ritter supposes that the military believe they can fulfill this mission and they plan implementing it. «They got political instructions from the commander-in-chief to fulfill that task. No one should doubt US President, his closest circles and the military prepare to war with Iran,» Scott Ritter emphasized, reports American Patriot.
            "All truth passes through three stages:
            First, it is ridiculed;
            Second, it is violently opposed; and
            Third, it is accepted as self-evident."

            Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)


            • #16
              Azerbaijan is a combination of absolute monarchy and primeval paganism:

              Azeri press digest


              Real Azerbaijan writes about the propagation of the personality cult of Heydar Aliyev (Azeri president in 1993-2003 — REGNUM). The daily says: “After coming into power in 1993 and rejecting liberal values and social democracy ideas, Heydar Aliyev began propagating his own authoritarian ideology. In fact, this quasi-ideology is not based on any basic political ideology and is just designed to acknowledge the beatified messianism of Aliyev and his heirs. This ideology harmoniously combines elements of absolute monarchy and primeval paganism. Its basic rule is primeval worship of the cult of Power itself and its only historical achievement is the victory over public institutions, public consciousness and national dignity.”

              Real Azerbaijan notes that there are all possible prerequisites for development of political Islam in the country: “Unruly authorities, gangster-policemen, pan-national depression and overall degradation – this all is pushing tens of thousands of young and battle-worthy Azeris into mosques. They prefer the justice of Allah to the voluntarism of Heydarism. In fact, they have no third option. The headquarters of political parties have become a place where they wash their political corpses. Every day more and more youths are assembling in mosques and are replenishing the shafi, hambali, shiah and wahabi communities. Looming large in the horizon is the image of thousands of young people inspired and amazed by the heroism of the Chechen mojaheds and dreaming to bring the Chechen Islamic revival to Azerbaijan. The authorities are sleeping and failing to see from their democratic camp (where power is still in the hands of Aliyev’s authoritarian clones) the dawn of new Islamic politicians…”

              On May 9th Azerbaijan was admitted into the UN Human Rights Council for three years, reports 525th Daily. Also admitted were Bangladesh, China, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Cuba, Mexico, Canada, Germany and Switzerland. Azerbaijan was nominated by the UN Eastern-European Regional Group. Six countries were admitted from this group. Despite application Armenia was denied membership.

              The opposition Azadlyg bloc does not believe in Azerbaijan’s admission into the UN Human Rights Council. “If confirmed, this fact will prove that the UN is collapsing. The admission of Azerbaijan and other totalitarian countries into the Council will become a step towards the UN’s collapse,” says leader of the Party of the People’s Front of Azerbaijan Ali Kerimli. (Azadlyg)

              Azerbaijan-Armenia. Karabakh

              “The present moment is crucial for the Karabakh peace process,” Russian co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group Yuri Merzlyakov says in an interview to Azeri Press. He says that the time is ripe for agreement. “We must not miss such a crucial moment. We will hardly have a better one,” says Merzlyakov. He does not specify what the MG’s new proposals are about. He just says that there are many proposals and they concern some details of the “Prague process.”

              The key reason why the speaker of the Armenian parliament has broken away from the government coalition is his party’s wish to run in the parliamentary and presidential elections, the leader of the Party of Democratic Reforms, MP Asim Mollazade says about the resignation of Armenian Parliament Speaker Artur Bagdassaryan and the crisis in the Armenian government. He says that what is going on in the Armenian government is just preparations for parliamentary and presidential elections. Mollazade can already see the forces who seek to run in the elections, and even acting Armenian President Robert Kocharyan will take part in the race. “The political parties are beginning to fight for the presidential seat. One of the key reasons of Bagdassaryan’s resignation is his wish to run in the elections as opposition,” says Mollazade. He also notes that the Kocharyan government is greatly responsible for no-progress in the Karabakh peace process.

              Commenting on the present situation in Armenia, Azeri political expert Rasim Musabekov says that every time the Armenians have to make some unfavorable decision in the Karabakh peace process, they feign internal tensions to gain time and to evade the decision. What is going on in Armenia now may well be the case; but it may as well be not. “In any case, it has already become a tradition that whenever the talks get unfavorable for the Armenians, they allege internal problems,” says Musabekov.

              Commenting on the Armenian parliament speaker’ joining the opposition, Musabekov says that Kocharyan can hardly be removed now as all Armenia’s force structures are presently controlled by the Kocharyan-Sarkisyan tandem (president and defense minister — REGNUM). He does not expect serious chaos either. “This is a two-way process. People are really sick with the present situation in Armenia and the democratically elected authorities will be forced to search for ways-out. One way-out is to solve problems with Azerbaijan,” says Musabekov. He does not expect that the present tensions in Armenia will result in any changes in the government. “Kocharyan will use its levers to split the former speaker’s party and to preserve the parliamentary majority, which proves that his regime is already getting weak,” says Musabekov. (Trend)

              Well-known political scientist Zardusht Alizade says that the Armenian parliament speaker did not resign on his own will. “I suppose there was some agreement. Perhaps, it was a response to Russia’s pressure, particularly, to the rise in the Russian gas tariff. Armenia wants to show that if Moscow continues its economic pressure, the number of anti-Russian forces in Armenia may grow. This is a game,” says Alizade. He does not think that the present political developments in Armenia will have any influence on the Karabakh peace process. (Trend)

              “Armenia is the US’ second ‘favorite’ after Israel. Since 1992 the US has granted that country almost $1.6 bln,” reports Zerkalo daily. “Now the White House is planning to give Armenia $7 mln more so it can hold democratic parliamentary and presidential elections in 2007-2008. Some sources says that the US has already agreed to grant Armenia $235 mln from the Millennium Challenge fund. This money will be given stage by stage within 5 years and will be spent mostly on construction and restoration of rural roads and improvement of irrigation. The program will cover almost 75% of countrymen. By 2010 their total monthly profit will amount to $36 mln and by 2015 to $113 mln.

              John Evans (US Ambassador to Armenia — REGNUM) says that in order to further enjoy financing Armenia should closely comply with the free marker economy principles. Thus, if before the war of 1973 the US provided Israel with $3 bln a year, this means that each citizen of that country got $500. It would be interesting to know how much of the US tax payers’ money goes into the pockets of people living in Armenia, a country we are at war with.”

              The daily says: "Balancing between Moscow and Washington, they in Yerevan prefer making no much noise about the US assistance so as not to annoy their mighty ally. They get no less from Russia too – in the form of money transfers by Armenian labor migrants to their families. Let alone the financial-economic concessions by the Russian government. All this is the fruits of the “complimentary policy” of the Kocharyan-Sargsyan tandem. Although it’s a big question if they will enjoy these fruits for long. Presently, Armenia’s establishment has split into pro-Western and pro-Russian camps. The question is who will beat who. Both camps are strong. They in Moscow closely follow the pro-Western tendencies in Armenia and react to them from time to time.

              For example, when the Vardan Oskanyan (Armenian FM — REGNUM) spoke about "the priority of Armenia’s relations with NATO, Armenian President Robert Kocharyan said to Golos Armenii right away that Yerevan will not join NATO but will abide by the CIS Collective Security Treaty. Thus, until the present pro-Russian authorities are changed, there will be no enlargement of relations with NATO. Nevertheless, many experts believe that with the quickly changing geo-political situation in the South Caucasus, the parliamentary elections 2007 in Armenia may become the climax of the political struggle between the pro-Western and pro-Russian trends…

              The US’ approach towards Azerbaijan is a bit different. Here it has different priorities: cooperation on security and against terrorism; various energy projects; South-West energy corridor; Trans-Caspian gas projects; democracy development. Obviously, Washington’s interests in Azerbaijan are wider and more serious. All this was pointed out during President Aliyev’s recent visit to Washington, when the White House proclaimed Azerbaijan as its political, economic and even military partner. Asked about Azerbaijan’s involvement in the anti-terror operations in Iraq, Aliyev said that “Azerbaijan will preserve and, if need be, enlarge its presence in Iraq until the operation ends.” In this light, the Washington strategists cannot but see the whole destructive and even provocative nature of Armenia’s foreign policy, which is strongly restricting the White House’s activities in the South Caucasus. So, by increasing their financial assistance they may well be trying to win Armenia over from Moscow… (Zerkalo)

              Around Iran

              “Quite against its will, Azerbaijan is being drawn into very thick of the regional processes, which are not all very safe for it. At the present stage, Baku has been given the role of mediator (mostly veiled) between the US and would-be regional power Iran; but Tehran has not forgiven Baku some of its steps and statements,” says Zerkalo.

              Between the lines of its interview with Jalal Mohammadi, an Iranian expert known for his close terms with the Iranian president, Zerkalo sees quite interesting moments of Iran’s policy on Azerbaijan. The daily notes that they in the West regard Mohammadi’s statements as Tehran’s official stance.

              Excerpts from Mohammadi’s interview to Zerkalo:

              Zerkalo’s sources in Tbilisi confirm the media rumors that Georgia and the US have reached some agreement on the use of Georgia’s Black Sea waters in case of military aggression against Iran. In the US-Iranian conflict Azerbaijan is assigned another role.

              The leader of the Islamic revolution ayatollah Khomeini said in his time that if the US decides to start a war against Iran, it will face an all-round war. For me all-round war means that all sides supporting the aggressor will get their deserts.

              The well-known incident during the 2nd Congress of World Azeris has been followed by some veiled tension between Baku and Tehran. Is Tehran harboring a grudge against Baku?

              A bit earlier, after the exchange of visits by our presidents, there was a positive atmosphere between Tehran and Baku. But the anti-Iranian speeches during the 2nd Congress of World Azeris have shown how shaky Azerbaijan’s Iranian policy is and have given ground for distrust. Iran recognizes Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity and the fact of occupation of Nagorno Karabakh, while Baku allows some suspicious people to speak against the territorial integrity of Iran. Such statements allow Armenia and other unfriendly countries to actively undermine our cooperation. Iran’s response to speeches questioning its territorial integrity will become known later

              You mean Israel. But the Jewish lobby supports Azerbaijan in vital issues, particularly, it opposes the Armenian lobby.

              A group of Azeri politicians think that by cooperating with the Jewish lobby and Israel they can effective fight the Armenian lobby. The illusions that the Nagorno Karabakh conflict can be resolved with the help of the Jewish lobby have gone. No single inch of the occupied land has been liberated as a result of the 15-year Baku-Jerusalem cooperation. Obviously, those politicians are not aware of the priorities of the world politics. The Western Empire has two wings: the Armenian and the Jewish lobbies.

              One of the reasons the US has given up the idea of “color revolution” in Azerbaijan is its Iranian policy and the role it gives to Baku in it. Before its serious dialogue with Iran, the White House is afraid to shatter the stable political situation in neighboring Azerbaijan.

              First, Baku has made appropriate conclusions from the Georgian and Ukrainian events and has cleared its government from officials that could support “the colored.” Besides, the Azeri opposition is weak and not popular. Nobody in Azerbaijan supports it except the US Embassy in Baku. However, the US is not as omnipotent as it seems: it has failed to pave the way for “color revolution” in Azerbaijan. Of course, the White House’s motive might also be that Azerbaijan is Iran’s neighbor, that both are Shiah countries, that they have much in common in culture and history.

              The unresolved Nagorno Karabakh conflict is also an obstacle for the White House. That’s probably why the West is in such a hurry to resolve it?

              The West is in a hurry because of the internal problems in Armenia and Azerbaijan, Azerbaijan’s international relations and the geo-political situation. These factors make it even harder to resolve the conflict. One can’s liberate occupied territories at the negotiating table. Of course, war claims lives and causes moral and financial damages. You can’t help it, the world is unfair. Many countries use the Azeri-Armenian conflict in their interests. They try to keep up the status quo and are by no means interested in its resolution. France, Russia and Turkey – all of them want the conflict to go on. Turkey links the Armenian-Azeri conflict with Armenian-Turkish relations and its internal problems. By brandishing the fact of Nagorno Karabakh occupation, Ankara is just trying to prove Armenia’s aggressive policy and to protect itself from the psychological and political pressure of the Armenian lobby who demands that it recognize the Armenian Genocide in the Ottoman Empire…

              “Azerbaijan has not yet decided how to act in case of sanctions against Iran,” says Echo. “What should Azerbaijan do if America and most of the world’s civilized countries restrict their cooperation with Iran?” Member of the commission on international issues of the Azeri parliament Akram Aylisli says: “Azerbaijan will not accept such sanctions inasmuch as it is too close to Iran. Azerbaijan must not do that, but politics are politics, if America starts pressuring, we may well acquiesce. Though, we may as well not allow America to pressure us. I think Azerbaijan must do its best to stay neutral in this issue. Neutrality is the only way-out for us. Iran has very ancient statehood traditions. It may forgive America, who is stronger and very far, but it will not forgive us, I am sure it won’t.”

              “Azerbaijan understands that nuclear arms in the hands of Iran are a serious threat for the region, but believes that this problem should be solved by peaceful, political and diplomatic means,” says MP Asim Mollazade. “In this situation our country should act like all international organizations are acting. Azerbaijan is not a big country or super-power, whose decisions may influence the situation. It is for the UN Security Council to decide in political way – to apply sanctions against Iran or not.”

              Deyerler analytical portal’s public opinion poll among 100 public and political figures of Azerbaijan has shown that most of them are against Azerbaijan’s involvement in the anti-Iranian coalition. They main question was: “Should Azerbaijan take part in the anti-Iranian coalition in case of military actions?” The survey was held from May 1st to May 11th 2006. The respondents were to answer: “yes,” “no,” “don’t know.” As a result, 27% said “yes,” 60% “no,” 3% “don’t know” and 10% refused to answer at all.


              “Rich in oil and gas, Azerbaijan has great potential for increased energy exports. With Azerbaijan, we (the US — Trend) should continue to assist in opening a southern corridor for oil and gas transit to Europe, but also work with the Azerbaijan government to promote transparency in the energy industry and development of alternatives to oil and gas,” Trend reports Richard G. Lugar, chairman of Foreign Relations Committee of US Senate as saying during the hearing of the nomination of Anne Derse as US Ambassador to Azerbaijan.

              “Last August, I traveled to Azerbaijan where I met with President Aliyev. I discussed with him the opportunities and challenges facing his country and urged him to hold free and fair parliamentary elections”, — Lugar said. Lugar also recalled the visit of President Ilham Aliyev to Washington. “We had a candid conversation about democracy, the status of the Nagorno-Karabakh region, and Azerbaijan’s relations with neighbors, including Russia and Iran. I emphasized that U.S. relations with Azerbaijan have a promising future”, he said.

              “Azerbaijan is located in a tough neighborhood. I commend its efforts to interdict terrorists transiting its territory and to combat indigenous terrorists and terrorist financing”. “After September 11, 2001, Azerbaijan quickly granted overflight rights and intelligence support to the United States and offered the use of its bases for Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. It was also among the countries that supported Operation Iraqi Freedom. It was also among the countries that supported Operation Iraqi Freedom”, Lugar said.

              Permanent news address:
              14:29 05/19/2006
              Mamed Suleymanov
              "All truth passes through three stages:
              First, it is ridiculed;
              Second, it is violently opposed; and
              Third, it is accepted as self-evident."

              Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)


              • #17
                Iran says Western proposal 'positive'

                By ALI AKBAR DAREINI and GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writers
                29 minutes ago

                TEHRAN, Iran - Iran and the United States had a rare moment of agreement Tuesday, using similar language to describe "positive steps" toward an accord on a package of incentives aimed at persuading Tehran to suspend uranium enrichment.

                Diplomats said the incentives include a previously undisclosed offer of some U.S. nuclear technology on top of European help in building light-water nuclear reactors. Other incentives include allowing Iran to buy spare airplane parts and support for joining the World Trade Organization.

                Tehran is under intense international pressure to accept the deal in exchange for putting on hold a uranium enrichment program that the West fears could lead to the creation of nuclear weapons.

                Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, said the proposals had "positive steps" but that talks were needed to clear up ambiguities. Iran promised to study the proposals seriously, but gave no timeframe for a response.

                And Bush, using the same language, said Iran's initial response "sounds like a positive step."

                "We will see if the Iranians take our offer seriously," the president said in Laredo, Texas. "The choice is theirs to make. I have said the United States will come and sit down at the table with them so long as they are willing to suspend their enrichment in a verifiable way."

                One diplomat in Vienna described the U.S. offer of nuclear technology as particularly significant because it would, in effect, loosen a decades-long American embargo on giving Iran access to "dual use" technologies — equipment with both civilian and military use.

                Crucially, the deal does not demand that Iran outright give up its uranium enrichment program — only suspend it, although likely for a long time. Two earlier diplomatic initiatives by Europe and Russia crumbled over the past year because each demanded Iran scrap enrichment completely — a stumbling block because of the program's wide popularity with the Iranian public.

                Iran's leaders fiercely defend their nuclear program as a source of intense national pride, and say the purpose of the enrichment program is to create fuel for electricity — not nuclear weapons, as the U.S. claims.

                Enrichment is the centerpiece of a nuclear program that the Iranian government has touted as a technological achievement, proving Iran is on a level with developed Western nations. Iran has dismissed past demands that it give up its right to enrichment as an arrogant insult from Western nations afraid of a high-tech Muslim nation. But it has signaled it would accept some limits.

                For the West, enrichment is the center of fears over Iran's intentions. Enrichment can produce either material for a nuclear warhead or fuel for a nuclear reactor.

                The latest proposal was revealed a week after Washington changed strategy on Iran and — in an apparent acknowledgment that it lacked support for sanctions against the Islamic republic — conceded to entering into direct talks with Iran under certain conditions. The latest proposal appeared to be even more of a concession on the Bush administration's part — a major attempt to sweeten the package for Iran in a bid to win concessions over the nuclear program.

                Most importantly, the United States is now offering to provide Iran some nuclear technology, diplomats in Vienna told The Associated Press. They spoke on condition of anonymity in exchange for discussing some details of the package.

                It had been known that the deal included European offers of help in building light-water nuclear reactors for a peaceful energy program. But there had previously been no suggestion the Americans would also agree to help build a nuclear program for a country they frequently paint as a threat to world security.

                John Wolfsthal, a nonproliferation analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said any such offer would be tied to strict monitoring conditions.

                "Iran has to be fully compliant in terms of inspectors on site, cameras and tracking equipment," Wolfsthal said. "All that is standard operating procedure with countries with light-water reactors."

                In Washington, State Department Sean McCormack declined to go into specifics of the proposal. He said diplomacy "is at a sensitive stage" and the United States wants Iran to have a chance to review the proposal without having it discussed publicly.

                He refused to offer a time frame, but said the Iran's timetable to consider the package was "weeks, not months."

                Asked about reports that the offer of Western technology includes U.S. technological assistance, McCormack said: "Well, I've seen a lot of reports flying around the past couple days about what may or may not be in this package. I would just caution everybody, until we actually are able to discuss what is in the package in public, take reports with a grain of salt."

                U.S. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity in exchange for discussing details, said that the United States and Europe agreed to back Iran's membership in the World Trade Organization,

                The United States would also lift some sanctions — including allowing Iran to buy the much-needed airplane parts — and join with Europeans in direct negotiations with Iran over the future of Iran's nuclear program.

                Diplomats said Monday that the United States additionally agreed to open the door for Europe to sell Tehran new Airbus planes. Iran's commercial fleet is largely made up of Boeings purchased before the 1979 revolution, and Tehran frequently complains that the U.S. ban on parts has undermined safety. U.S. pressure has also prevented Iranian attempts to purchase new Airbus aircraft.

                European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana presented the package to Iranian officials Tuesday in Tehran.

                "The proposals contain positive steps and also some ambiguities, which must be removed," Larijani said afterward.

                Larijani did not identify the ambiguities but said he discussed them with Solana and that more talks would be required. "We hope we will have negotiations and deliberations again after we have carefully studied the proposals," he said.

                Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said Iran would give the proposals "careful study" and then "we will inform our friends of Iran's views."

                Solana said of the meeting: "I have a feeling that it has been very, very constructive," and said the two sides would have more contacts in the coming days.

                In the talks, Solana also "carried a message" about potential penalties if Iran refuses the offer. But he withheld telling the Iranians the specific threats — including the possibility of U.N. sanctions — so as not to jeopardize the "positive" atmosphere, said one diplomat in Vienna.

                If Tehran does not accept, the package threatens Iran with a travel ban against its ruling religious leaders and government officials involved in the nuclear program, plus a freeze of Iranian financial assets abroad, U.S. officials and diplomats in Vienna have said.

                The current package's lack of a demand for scrapping enrichment entirely could prove key, said Iranian political analyst Mostafa Kavakebian, who predicted Iran would accept temporary suspension of uranium enrichment but would reject any permanent halt.

                In past days, Iranian leaders have combined tough talk with signals that they are open to a deal — perhaps an attempt to portray to the Iranian public that they remain firm, even as they consider reversing their refusal to suspend enrichment.


                Jahn reported this story from Vienna, and Dareini from Tehran. AP correspondent Anne Gearan contributed from Washington.
                "All truth passes through three stages:
                First, it is ridiculed;
                Second, it is violently opposed; and
                Third, it is accepted as self-evident."

                Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)


                • #18
                  The "Secret" can be discussed now?

                  Tolga KORKUT

                  BÝA, Turkey
                  June 12 2006

                  Opposition CHP deputy Elekdag prepares to table nuclear bombs issue
                  at Parliament: "We don't need them, let's send them back". Global
                  BAK's Mater: "Secret decree is still kept secret. Agreement may have
                  been automatically extended".


                  BÝA (Istanbul) - The presence of 90 American nuclear bombs at the
                  Incirlik Air Base in the Southeast Turkish province of Adana is being
                  brought before parliament by the country's main opposition Republic
                  Peoples Party (CHP) deputy and former Turkish ambassador to the United
                  States, Sukru Elekdag.

                  In an exclusive interview with bianet last week, Elekdag said no
                  justification could be made by civilian or military authorities to
                  retain these weapons after the Cold War and that, in his view, their
                  presence delivered a blow to the regional political prestige of Turkey.

                  Elekdag is calling on the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) to
                  explain if there is any valid military purpose in still allowing these
                  weapons to be held in Turkish soil despite the end of the Cold War.

                  "In 1991 father Bush made a historical statement and said 'there is no
                  such threat. We are withdrawing all of our land tactical missiles in
                  Europe.' Then they said 'air to surface bombs will stay for a while
                  and we will liquidate them'. But these were all forgotten. It is only
                  now that it's revealed what these weapons really are.

                  Previously it was impossible to prove this. Authorities were neither
                  saying yes or no," Elakdag explained.

                  Noting that Turkey itself was not under any threat, Elekdag said
                  "These weapons that are under USA control are not necessary. If there
                  is a reason, let us know. If there is not, they should be taken out
                  of the country".

                  Elekdag added, "Middle East countries are concerned over the existence
                  of these weapons. The new strategy of the USA is a pre-emptive
                  strategy. In other words, to strike the source of a danger it sees
                  without waiting. This, as in Iraq, leads to disaster".

                  "We do not want to Iran to be nuclear armed. This issue has three
                  actors, the USA, Israel and Iran. There is only one way out in solving
                  this tension," he said. "The Middle East should become a nuclear free
                  zone. Turkey should revitalise this draft".

                  He said, however, that "it cannot support this with nuclear weapons.

                  Being the secretary of the Islamic Conference Organisation, Turkey
                  could take the responsibility of such a project at the level of the
                  United Nations on a legal platform. It is difficult, but this is the
                  only way out".

                  Elekdag said that for his part, he now planned to bring the United
                  Nations Convention to Prevent the Spread of Nuclear Weapons on the
                  agenda of the Turkish Parliament.

                  "I will reveal the arbitrary way the USA is enforcing this
                  convention. If we do not want the 21st century to b the century of
                  disaster, we have to enforce this convention fastidiously. Otherwise,
                  other countries will revive the nuclear armament projects that they
                  had shelved".

                  Asked whether he would work together with non-governmental
                  organisations already active on the issue, Elekdag said "I need to
                  consider this. I do not know what their agenda is. I need to find
                  this out. I am not against necessary defence measures being taken.

                  Whatever required should be done. But I do think that there is no
                  defence justification related to nuclear bombs".

                  Mater: Agreement between Pentagon and Chief of Staff

                  Tayfun Mater, spokesman for the Global Peace and Justice Coalition
                  (Kuresel BAK) that has been involved in a prolonged struggle for the
                  closure of Incirlik air base and for the Council of Ministers to
                  disclose a secret decree pertaining to its use, regards Elekdag's
                  upcoming initiative as a positive development but warns "these
                  agreements are in reality between the Pentagon and the [Turkish]
                  Chief of General Staff office. I do not think that they will openly
                  be brought to Parliament".

                  Mater told bianet that despite this, they would continue to do
                  everything within their capacity to force Ankara to disclose the
                  secret decrees under which Incirlik is controlled and used.

                  He explained that despite going through the Right to Obtain Information
                  and even filing cases, they could not learn of the Council of
                  Ministers secret decree on Incirlik. "We never received a reply to
                  our application for Information. The Council of State rejected our
                  case for the decree to be annulled. And because this case was secret,
                  we were not shown the decree" Mater explained.

                  He added that the agreement related to the base should have been
                  extended to June 5, 2006 "but no information was leaked out. It might
                  be that the text says somewhere that if there is no objection, the
                  agreement is automatically extended. The original text of the decree
                  has still not been disclosed."

                  Gerger: We'll live with nuclear bombs without rooted changes

                  Renown Turkish writer and one of the founding member of the Turkish
                  Human Rights Association, Dr. Haluk Gerger said that the presence
                  of nuclear weapons in Turkey has been an open secret since the 1950s
                  and added "but in Turkey, as long as the situation doesn't change in
                  the Chief of General Staff determining policies, there will both be
                  nuclear bombs and CIA torture planes".

                  Gerger explained to bianet that US nuclear weapons were deployed to
                  Turkey in the second half of the 1950s both under NATO agreements
                  and bilateral agreements with the United States.

                  "These bombs are owned by the US. They can only be used under the
                  ratification of the President of the USA. If Turkey does not want
                  these weapons, it needs to review the NATO agreements and bilateral
                  agreements with the USA. Not all NATO members accept nuclear weapons
                  on their soil" he said.

                  Gerger argued, however, that Turkey did not have the political
                  willpower to review these texts.

                  "The USA deployed nuclear weapons to the Middle East region first
                  through Turkey. Then by aiding Israel and turning a blind eye. The
                  third entry was with Iran under the Shah" Gerger said.

                  "The peace movement and socialist movement have always voiced their
                  objections. But a meaningful objection never turned out. Opposition
                  parties might have used the issue occasionally but when they came to
                  power, they continued to support nuclear bombs. Today there is still
                  not a serious objection. The CHP does not have a program that says
                  'I'll get the nuclear bombs out of the country if I come to power'."

                  Gerger concluded that unless there were rooted changes in Turkey,
                  the continue would continue to host nuclear bombs. "Unless there is a
                  true democracy in Turkey, neither social opposition nor governments
                  can influence this kind of strategic military issues. The Chief of
                  General Staff will decide".

                  Bombs "only just" on political agenda

                  More than a year has passed since the American National Resources
                  Defense Council (NRDC) organisation disclosed in its February 9, 2005
                  dates report that there were 90 nuclear weapons at Adana's Incirlik
                  air base and a total of 480 throughout Europe. The original report
                  was published by bianet on February 10.

                  Yet months before this, on December 9, 2004, CHP Adana deputy Tacidar
                  Seyhanhad submitted a motion to Defence Minister Vecdi Gonul in
                  parliament related to the presence of nuclear and chemical weapons
                  at Incirlik base.

                  In his short reply to the motion on January 13, 2005, Gonul said
                  "the answers contain information classified secret. Because of this
                  a a response cannot be given"

                  Information pertaining to the bombs came to the media and political
                  agenda only after a May 17 press statement on the issue by Greenpeace
                  General Director Dr. Gerd Leipold.

                  Many NGOs including Kuresel BAK, Human Rights Association and
                  Greenpeace have staged a number of activities in Turkey for information
                  on the nuclear weapons in Incirlik to be disclosed and to have access
                  to the Secret Incirlik Decree under which the base is operated.

                  Close to many of the world's potential trouble spots and only a jump
                  away from Iraq, Armenia and Iran, Incirlik Air Base is an important
                  base in NATO's Southern Region. As a prime staging location, Incirlik
                  offers extensive runway facilities and aircraft shelters. It also
                  serves as a regional storage center for war reserve materials. The
                  heavily guarded base hosts hundreds of US personnel, US and Turkish
                  civilian employees and contractors.

                  EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. -- A B-1B Lancer from the global power bomber combined test force here drops a Joint Standoff Weapon during a recent test mission. The test marked the first time the JSOW has been dropped from the long-range bomber. (U.S. Air Force photo by Steve Zapka)

                  "All truth passes through three stages:
                  First, it is ridiculed;
                  Second, it is violently opposed; and
                  Third, it is accepted as self-evident."

                  Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)


                  • #19
                    Its just a matter of time, U.S. will take over the world !
                    Since they are the only country that can do it.Therefore they shell

                    The Lancer waits
                    "All truth passes through three stages:
                    First, it is ridiculed;
                    Second, it is violently opposed; and
                    Third, it is accepted as self-evident."

                    Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)