Announcement

**Parihaka** · 22 Sep 11,, 01:49

Text of Obama’s Speech at U.N.
IN ADDRESS TO THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY

United Nations

New York, New York

10:12 A.M. EDT

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Mr. President, Mr. Secretary General, fellow delegates, ladies and gentlemen: It is a great honor for me to be here today. I would like to talk to you about a subject that is at the heart of the United Nations — the pursuit of peace in an imperfect world.

War and conflict have been with us since the beginning of civilizations. But in the first part of the 20th century, the advance of modern weaponry led to death on a staggering scale. It was this killing that compelled the founders of this body to build an institution that was focused not just on ending one war, but on averting others; a union of sovereign states that would seek to prevent conflict, while also addressing its causes.

No American did more to pursue this objective than President Franklin Roosevelt. He knew that a victory in war was not enough. As he said at one of the very first meetings on the founding of the United Nations, “We have got to make, not merely peace, but a peace that will last.”

The men and women who built this institution understood that peace is more than just the absence of war. A lasting peace — for nations and for individuals — depends on a sense of justice and opportunity, of dignity and freedom. It depends on struggle and sacrifice, on compromise, and on a sense of common humanity.

One delegate to the San Francisco Conference that led to the creation of the United Nations put it well: “Many people,” she said, “have talked as if all that has to be done to get peace was to say loudly and frequently that we loved peace and we hated war. Now we have learned that no matter how much we love peace and hate war, we cannot avoid having war brought upon us if there are convulsions in other parts of the world.”

The fact is peace is hard. But our people demand it. Over nearly seven decades, even as the United Nations helped avert a third world war, we still live in a world scarred by conflict and plagued by poverty. Even as we proclaim our love for peace and our hatred of war, there are still convulsions in our world that endanger us all.

I took office at a time of two wars for the United States. Moreover, the violent extremists who drew us into war in the first place — Osama bin Laden, and his al Qaeda organization — remained at large. Today, we’ve set a new direction.

At the end of this year, America’s military operation in Iraq will be over. We will have a normal relationship with a sovereign nation that is a member of the community of nations. That equal partnership will be strengthened by our support for Iraq — for its government and for its security forces, for its people and for their aspirations.

As we end the war in Iraq, the United States and our coalition partners have begun a transition in Afghanistan. Between now and 2014, an increasingly capable Afghan government and security forces will step forward to take responsibility for the future of their country. As they do, we are drawing down our own forces, while building an enduring partnership with the Afghan people.

So let there be no doubt: The tide of war is receding. When I took office, roughly 180,000 Americans were serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. By the end of this year, that number will be cut in half, and it will continue to decline. This is critical for the sovereignty of Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s also critical to the strength of the United States as we build our nation at home.

Moreover, we are poised to end these wars from a position of strength. Ten years ago, there was an open wound and twisted steel, a broken heart in the center of this city. Today, as a new tower is rising at Ground Zero, it symbolizes New York’s renewal, even as al Qaeda is under more pressure than ever before. Its leadership has been degraded. And Osama bin Laden, a man who murdered thousands of people from dozens of countries, will never endanger the peace of the world again.

So, yes, this has been a difficult decade. But today, we stand at a crossroads of history with the chance to move decisively in the direction of peace. To do so, we must return to the wisdom of those who created this institution. The United Nations’ Founding Charter calls upon us, “to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security.” And Article 1 of this General Assembly’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights reminds us that, “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and in rights.” Those bedrock beliefs — in the responsibility of states, and the rights of men and women — must be our guide.

And in that effort, we have reason to hope. This year has been a time of extraordinary transformation. More nations have stepped forward to maintain international peace and security. And more individuals are claiming their universal right to live in freedom and dignity.

Think about it: One year ago, when we met here in New York, the prospect of a successful referendum in South Sudan was in doubt. But the international community overcame old divisions to support the agreement that had been negotiated to give South Sudan self-determination. And last summer, as a new flag went up in Juba, former soldiers laid down their arms, men and women wept with joy, and children finally knew the promise of looking to a future that they will shape.

One year ago, the people of C�te D’Ivoire approached a landmark election. And when the incumbent lost, and refused to respect the results, the world refused to look the other way. U.N. peacekeepers were harassed, but they did not leave their posts. The Security Council, led by the United States and Nigeria and France, came together to support the will of the people. And C�te D’Ivoire is now governed by the man who was elected to lead.

One year ago, the hopes of the people of Tunisia were suppressed. But they chose the dignity of peaceful protest over the rule of an iron fist. A vendor lit a spark that took his own life, but he ignited a movement. In a face of a crackdown, students spelled out the word, “freedom.” The balance of fear shifted from the ruler to those that he ruled. And now the people of Tunisia are preparing for elections that will move them one step closer to the democracy that they deserve.

One year ago, Egypt had known one President for nearly 30 years. But for 18 days, the eyes of the world were glued to Tahrir Square, where Egyptians from all walks of life — men and women, young and old, Muslim and Christian — demanded their universal rights. We saw in those protesters the moral force of non-violence that has lit the world from Delhi to Warsaw, from Selma to South Africa — and we knew that change had come to Egypt and to the Arab world.

One year ago, the people of Libya were ruled by the world’s longest-serving dictator. But faced with bullets and bombs and a dictator who threatened to hunt them down like rats, they showed relentless bravery. We will never forget the words of the Libyan who stood up in those early days of the revolution and said, “Our words are free now.” It’s a feeling you can’t explain. Day after day, in the face of bullets and bombs, the Libyan people refused to give back that freedom. And when they were threatened by the kind of mass atrocity that often went unchallenged in the last century, the United Nations lived up to its charter. The Security Council authorized all necessary measures to prevent a massacre. The Arab League called for this effort; Arab nations joined a NATO-led coalition that halted Qaddafi’s forces in their tracks.

In the months that followed, the will of the coalition proved unbreakable, and the will of the Libyan people could not be denied. Forty-two years of tyranny was ended in six months. From Tripoli to Misurata to Benghazi — today, Libya is free. Yesterday, the leaders of a new Libya took their rightful place beside us, and this week, the United States is reopening our embassy in Tripoli.

This is how the international community is supposed to work — nations standing together for the sake of peace and security, and individuals claiming their rights. Now, all of us have a responsibility to support the new Libya — the new Libyan government as they confront the challenge of turning this moment of promise into a just and lasting peace for all Libyans.

So this has been a remarkable year. The Qaddafi regime is over. Gbagbo, Ben Ali, Mubarak are no longer in power. Osama bin Laden is gone, and the idea that change could only come through violence has been buried with him. Something is happening in our world. The way things have been is not the way that they will be. The humiliating grip of corruption and tyranny is being pried open. Dictators are on notice. Technology is putting power into the hands of the people. The youth are delivering a powerful rebuke to dictatorship, and rejecting the lie that some races, some peoples, some religions, some ethnicities do not desire democracy. The promise written down on paper — “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights” — is closer at hand.

But let us remember: Peace is hard. Peace is hard. Progress can be reversed. Prosperity comes slowly. Societies can split apart. The measure of our success must be whether people can live in sustained freedom, dignity, and security. And the United Nations and its member states must do their part to support those basic aspirations. And we have more work to do.

In Iran, we’ve seen a government that refuses to recognize the rights of its own people. As we meet here today, men and women and children are being tortured, detained and murdered by the Syrian regime. Thousands have been killed, many during the holy time of Ramadan. Thousands more have poured across Syria’s borders. The Syrian people have shown dignity and courage in their pursuit of justice — protesting peacefully, standing silently in the streets, dying for the same values that this institution is supposed to stand for. And the question for us is clear: Will we stand with the Syrian people, or with their oppressors?

Already, the United States has imposed strong sanctions on Syria’s leaders. We supported a transfer of power that is responsive to the Syrian people. And many of our allies have joined in this effort. But for the sake of Syria — and the peace and security of the world — we must speak with one voice. There’s no excuse for inaction. Now is the time for the United Nations Security Council to sanction the Syrian regime, and to stand with the Syrian people.

Throughout the region, we will have to respond to the calls for change. In Yemen, men, women and children gather by the thousands in towns and city squares every day with the hope that their determination and spilled blood will prevail over a corrupt system. America supports those aspirations. We must work with Yemen’s neighbors and our partners around the world to seek a path that allows for a peaceful transition of power from President Saleh, and a movement to free and fair elections as soon as possible.

In Bahrain, steps have been taken toward reform and accountability. We’re pleased with that, but more is required. America is a close friend of Bahrain, and we will continue to call on the government and the main opposition bloc — the Wifaq — to pursue a meaningful dialogue that brings peaceful change that is responsive to the people. We believe the patriotism that binds Bahrainis together must be more powerful than the sectarian forces that would tear them apart. It will be hard, but it is possible.

We believe that each nation must chart its own course to fulfill the aspirations of its people, and America does not expect to agree with every party or person who expresses themselves politically. But we will always stand up for the universal rights that were embraced by this Assembly. Those rights depend on elections that are free and fair; on governance that is transparent and accountable; respect for the rights of women and minorities; justice that is equal and fair. That is what our people deserve. Those are the elements of peace that can last.

Moreover, the United States will continue to support those nations that transition to democracy — with greater trade and investment — so that freedom is followed by opportunity. We will pursue a deeper engagement with governments, but also with civil society — students and entrepreneurs, political parties and the press. We have banned those who abuse human rights from traveling to our country. And we’ve sanctioned those who trample on human rights abroad. And we will always serve as a voice for those who’ve been silenced.

Now, I know, particularly this week, that for many in this hall, there’s one issue that stands as a test for these principles and a test for American foreign policy, and that is the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

One year ago, I stood at this podium and I called for an independent Palestine. I believed then, and I believe now, that the Palestinian people deserve a state of their own. But what I also said is that a genuine peace can only be realized between the Israelis and the Palestinians themselves. One year later, despite extensive efforts by America and others, the parties have not bridged their differences. Faced with this stalemate, I put forward a new basis for negotiations in May of this year. That basis is clear. It’s well known to all of us here. Israelis must know that any agreement provides assurances for their security. Palestinians deserve to know the territorial basis of their state.

Now, I know that many are frustrated by the lack of progress. I assure you, so am I. But the question isn’t the goal that we seek — the question is how do we reach that goal. And I am convinced that there is no short cut to the end of a conflict that has endured for decades. Peace is hard work. Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the United Nations — if it were that easy, it would have been accomplished by now. Ultimately, it is the Israelis and the Palestinians who must live side by side. Ultimately, it is the Israelis and the Palestinians — not us –- who must reach agreement on the issues that divide them: on borders and on security, on refugees and Jerusalem.

Ultimately, peace depends upon compromise among people who must live together long after our speeches are over, long after our votes have been tallied. That’s the lesson of Northern Ireland, where ancient antagonists bridged their differences. That’s the lesson of Sudan, where a negotiated settlement led to an independent state. And that is and will be the path to a Palestinian state — negotiations between the parties.

We seek a future where Palestinians live in a sovereign state of their own, with no limit to what they can achieve. There’s no question that the Palestinians have seen that vision delayed for too long. It is precisely because we believe so strongly in the aspirations of the Palestinian people that America has invested so much time and so much effort in the building of a Palestinian state, and the negotiations that can deliver a Palestinian state.

But understand this as well: America’s commitment to Israel’s security is unshakeable. Our friendship with Israel is deep and enduring. And so we believe that any lasting peace must acknowledge the very real security concerns that Israel faces every single day.

Let us be honest with ourselves: Israel is surrounded by neighbors that have waged repeated wars against it. Israel’s citizens have been killed by rockets fired at their houses and suicide bombs on their buses. Israel’s children come of age knowing that throughout the region, other children are taught to hate them. Israel, a small country of less than eight million people, look out at a world where leaders of much larger nations threaten to wipe it off of the map. The Jewish people carry the burden of centuries of exile and persecution, and fresh memories of knowing that six million people were killed simply because of who they are. Those are facts. They cannot be denied.

The Jewish people have forged a successful state in their historic homeland. Israel deserves recognition. It deserves normal relations with its neighbors. And friends of the Palestinians do them no favors by ignoring this truth, just as friends of Israel must recognize the need to pursue a two-state solution with a secure Israel next to an independent Palestine.

That is the truth — each side has legitimate aspirations — and that’s part of what makes peace so hard. And the deadlock will only be broken when each side learns to stand in the other’s shoes; each side can see the world through the other’s eyes. That’s what we should be encouraging. That’s what we should be promoting.

This body — founded, as it was, out of the ashes of war and genocide, dedicated, as it is, to the dignity of every single person — must recognize the reality that is lived by both the Palestinians and the Israelis. The measure of our actions must always be whether they advance the right of Israeli and Palestinian children to live lives of peace and security and dignity and opportunity. And we will only succeed in that effort if we can encourage the parties to sit down, to listen to each other, and to understand each other’s hopes and each other’s fears. That is the project to which America is committed. There are no shortcuts. And that is what the United Nations should be focused on in the weeks and months to come.

Now, even as we confront these challenges of conflict and revolution, we must also recognize — we must also remind ourselves — that peace is not just the absence of war. True peace depends on creating the opportunity that makes life worth living. And to do that, we must confront the common enemies of humanity: nuclear weapons and poverty, ignorance and disease. These forces corrode the possibility of lasting peace and together we’re called upon to confront them.

To lift the specter of mass destruction, we must come together to pursue the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. Over the last two years, we’ve begun to walk down that path. Since our Nuclear Security Summit in Washington, nearly 50 nations have taken steps to secure nuclear materials from terrorists and smugglers. Next March, a summit in Seoul will advance our efforts to lock down all of them. The New START Treaty between the United States and Russia will cut our deployed arsenals to the lowest level in half a century, and our nations are pursuing talks on how to achieve even deeper reductions. America will continue to work for a ban on the testing of nuclear weapons and the production of fissile material needed to make them.

And so we have begun to move in the right direction. And the United States is committed to meeting our obligations. But even as we meet our obligations, we’ve strengthened the treaties and institutions that help stop the spread of these weapons. And to do so, we must continue to hold accountable those nations that flout them.

The Iranian government cannot demonstrate that its program is peaceful. It has not met its obligations and it rejects offers that would provide it with peaceful nuclear power. North Korea has yet to take concrete steps towards abandoning its weapons and continues belligerent action against the South. There’s a future of greater opportunity for the people of these nations if their governments meet their international obligations. But if they continue down a path that is outside international law, they must be met with greater pressure and isolation. That is what our commitment to peace and security demands.

To bring prosperity to our people, we must promote the growth that creates opportunity. In this effort, let us not forget that we’ve made enormous progress over the last several decades. Closed societies gave way to open markets. Innovation and entrepreneurship has transformed the way we live and the things that we do. Emerging economies from Asia to the Americas have lifted hundreds of millions of people from poverty. It’s an extraordinary achievement. And yet, three years ago, we were confronted with the worst financial crisis in eight decades. And that crisis proved a fact that has become clearer with each passing year — our fates are interconnected. In a global economy, nations will rise, or fall, together.

And today, we confront the challenges that have followed on the heels of that crisis. Around the world recovery is still fragile. Markets remain volatile. Too many people are out of work. Too many others are struggling just to get by. We acted together to avert a depression in 2009. We must take urgent and coordinated action once more. Here in the United States, I’ve announced a plan to put Americans back to work and jumpstart our economy, at the same time as I’m committed to substantially reducing our deficits over time.

We stand with our European allies as they reshape their institutions and address their own fiscal challenges. For other countries, leaders face a different challenge as they shift their economy towards more self-reliance, boosting domestic demand while slowing inflation. So we will work with emerging economies that have rebounded strongly, so that rising standards of living create new markets that promote global growth. That’s what our commitment to prosperity demands.

To combat the poverty that punishes our children, we must act on the belief that freedom from want is a basic human right. The United States has made it a focus of our engagement abroad to help people to feed themselves. And today, as drought and conflict have brought famine to the Horn of Africa, our conscience calls on us to act. Together, we must continue to provide assistance, and support organizations that can reach those in need. And together, we must insist on unrestricted humanitarian access so that we can save the lives of thousands of men and women and children. Our common humanity is at stake. Let us show that the life of a child in Somalia is as precious as any other. That is what our commitment to our fellow human beings demand.

To stop disease that spreads across borders, we must strengthen our system of public health. We will continue the fight against HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. We will focus on the health of mothers and of children. And we must come together to prevent, and detect, and fight every kind of biological danger — whether it’s a pandemic like H1N1, or a terrorist threat, or a treatable disease.

This week, America signed an agreement with the World Health Organization to affirm our commitment to meet this challenge. And today, I urge all nations to join us in meeting the HWO’s [sic] goal of making sure all nations have core capacities to address public health emergencies in place by 2012. That is what our commitment to the health of our people demands.

To preserve our planet, we must not put off action that climate change demands. We have to tap the power of science to save those resources that are scarce. And together, we must continue our work to build on the progress made in Copenhagen and Cancun, so that all the major economies here today follow through on the commitments that were made. Together, we must work to transform the energy that powers our economies, and support others as they move down that path. That is what our commitment to the next generation demands.

And to make sure our societies reach their potential, we must allow our citizens to reach theirs. No country can afford the corruption that plagues the world like a cancer. Together, we must harness the power of open societies and open economies. That’s why we’ve partnered with countries from across the globe to launch a new partnership on open government that helps ensure accountability and helps to empower citizens. No country should deny people their rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion, but also no country should deny people their rights because of who they love, which is why we must stand up for the rights of gays and lesbians everywhere.

And no country can realize its potential if half its population cannot reach theirs. This week, the United States signed a new Declaration on Women’s Participation. Next year, we should each announce the steps we are taking to break down the economic and political barriers that stand in the way of women and girls. This is what our commitment to human progress demands.

I know there’s no straight line to that progress, no single path to success. We come from different cultures, and carry with us different histories. But let us never forget that even as we gather here as heads of different governments, we represent citizens who share the same basic aspirations — to live with dignity and freedom; to get an education and pursue opportunity; to love our families, and love and worship our God; to live in the kind of peace that makes life worth living.

It is the nature of our imperfect world that we are forced to learn these lessons over and over again. Conflict and repression will endure so long as some people refuse to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Yet that is precisely why we have built institutions like this — to bind our fates together, to help us recognize ourselves in each other — because those who came before us believed that peace is preferable to war, and freedom is preferable to suppression, and prosperity is preferable to poverty. That’s the message that comes not from capitals, but from citizens, from our people.

And when the cornerstone of this very building was put in place, President Truman came here to New York and said, “The United Nations is essentially an expression of the moral nature of man’s aspirations.” The moral nature of man’s aspirations. As we live in a world that is changing at a breathtaking pace, that’s a lesson that we must never forget.

Peace is hard, but we know that it is possible. So, together, let us be resolved to see that it is defined by our hopes and not by our fears. Together, let us make peace, but a peace, most importantly, that will last.

**Dreadnought** · 22 Sep 11,, 16:56

Thinking Hugo has a pretty twisted view as usual. The words of someone that declares himself ruler (dictator) for life carries little weight in a Democratic world.

**Dreadnought** · 22 Sep 11,, 17:55

NEW YORK (CNN) -- On the eve of his address at the U.N. General Assembly Thursday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared his country to be "a new model for life to the world."

He also said that the United States might be willing to "highjack" the Middle East uprisings, according to Iran's state-run news agency IRNA.

Ahmadinejad's appearance at the United Nations in New York comes a day after two U.S. hikers, held in an Iranian prison for more than two years, were released.

Wednesday evening, Ahmadinejad met with a group of U.S. university students, and then gave an interview to Iranian satellite television.

His office provided translated quotes from both.

The Iranian leader said "that the world is in need of change, and Marxism, liberalism, humanism and the West could not solve man's problems," his office said. Ahmadinejad added that "relying on its culture and rich civilization," Iran is "the only nation" that "can offer a new model for life to the world."

He told the students "that the U.S. may be willing to highjack the regional uprisings but a stormy movement is under way," IRNA reported.

"Elsewhere in his speech, he said that the U.N. was set up with the objective of preventing bullying in the world, but this did not happen," IRNA reported.

Ahamdinejad also gave an interview to New York Times Op-Ed columnist Nicholas Kristof in which he discussed the dispute over Iran's nuclear activities. He said that if the United States gave Iran 20% enriched uranium, "we will cease the domestic enrichment of uranium of up to 20% this very week. We only want the 20% enrichment for our domestic consumption. If they give it to us according to international law, according to IAEA laws, without preconditions, we will cease domestic enrichment."

Many countries, including the United States, believe Iran is trying to create a nuclear weapons program, but Tehran insists its activities are only to provide energy for the country.

Yet another who passed out face down in the cool aid.

**Dreadnought** · 23 Sep 11,, 17:10

Any wonder why so many think he's an asshole and many wont have a problem if military measures must be taken against them for UNSC violations?

WASINGTON -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says that as an engineer he's sure the twin towers were not brought down by jetliners.

Ahmadinejad, in an interview with The Associated Press, says it would have been impossible for two jetliners to bring down the towers simply by hitting them. he says some kind of planned explosion must have taken place.

Ahmadinejad stopped short of saying the United States staged the disaster 10 years ago. But he says there are questions the world should resolve, and noted there are doubters in the United States as well.

Ahmadinejad was denied his request last year to visit the site of the World Trade Center collapse. He says he's not making another attempt this year. He's in New York City for the U.N. General Assembly

Ahmadinejad: Twin Towers Couldn't Have Been Toppled By Two Planes

**Doktor** · 23 Sep 11,, 17:55

The same man that said the holocaust never happened.

**Dreadnought** · 23 Sep 11,, 19:43

As an Engineer? Judging by the trash that spews from his mouth I bet the only thing he could possibly Engineer is a thumb up his ass. If that.

**J`ve** · 23 Sep 11,, 19:47

Eisenstadt: Sure, Iran is aggressive -- but does that make them craaaazy?
Posted By Thomas E. Ricks Wednesday, September 14, 2011 - 12:06 PM

The Marine Corps University's recently published monograph titled, The Strategic Culture of the Islamic Republic of Iran, brings to light an unconventional viewpoint on Iranian grand strategy. Its author, Michael Eisenstadt, dispels the myths surrounding Iranian policy while providing an in-depth analysis of the creative calculus the regime uses when making its decisions at home and abroad. It is this calculus that the United States must solve in order to achieve more effective engagement.

Eisenstadt makes the case that the Iranian regime operates in a very pragmatic, calculated manner as opposed to the image of an "irrational, 'undeterrable' state with a high pain threshold," that its leadership likes to portray. Being able to see past the rhetoric of holocaust denial, destruction of Israel, and fears of a nuclear apocalypse, which Iran intentionally uses to paint itself as a fearsome enemy, will be key to making tangible diplomatic progress.

In his view, the image of Iran as an irrational actor is overblown -- but the idea that Iran seeks to become a regional power capable of exerting influence over the entire region and becoming the guardian of Islam is real. Iranian defense planning is formed around this goal, as well as to deter potential adversaries and to achieve self-reliance from the outside world.

The argument that, "The Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) is an unconventional adversary that requires unconventional approaches in planning, strategy and policy" is underscored by the fact that the conventional method of sanctioning to change behavior has done nothing to stop uranium enrichment.

The unconventional approach suggested by Eisenstadt suggests a rewriting of the policy manual on Iran. The United States must spend less time countering Iranian hard power and more time countering its even stronger soft power, pay more attention to the effectiveness of Iranian psychological warfare, and brainstorm better ways to pierce the veil of Iranian ambiguity. Once more of these unconventional tactics are implemented, the end of the 32-year diplomatic stalemate may finally come within reach.

Eisenstadt: Sure, Iran is aggressive -- but does that make them craaaazy? - By Tom Ricks | The Best Defense

**bigross86** · 23 Sep 11,, 19:53

Like Netanyahu said: "Some of you left what that man said that. You all should have left"

**Chogy** · 23 Sep 11,, 22:29

Ahmadinejad also maintained that Western "weather control technology" was stealing Iran's rain, or at the very least, denying them rain.

**Dreadnought** · 24 Sep 11,, 06:10

Originally posted by Chogy View Post

Ahmadinejad also maintained that Western "weather control technology" was stealing Iran's rain, or at the very least, denying them rain.

Cool Aid, for those that want to drink.;)

**Dago** · 24 Sep 11,, 06:50

Sarkozy Speech at the United nations

When we met here in this very place last September, who among us could have imagined that in barely one year, the world, already convulsed by an unprecedented economic crisis, would have undergone such changes?

In a few months, the Arab Spring has given rise to extraordinary hope. Crushed by oppression for all too long, Arab populations were able to lift their heads and demanded the right to be free at last. With only their bare hands, they confronted violence and brutality.

To those who proclaimed that the Arab-Muslim world is by nature hostile to democracy and human rights, the young Arabs offered the most eloquent denial.

Ladies and gentlemen, my dear colleagues, we do not have the right to disappoint the hopes of the Arab people. We do not have the right to shatter their dreams.

For if their hopes were dashed, it would vindicate the fanatics who have not renounced their desire to set Islam against the West by stirring up hatred and violence everywhere.

It was a call for justice that shook the world, and the world can�t respond to this call by perpetuating an injustice.
This miraculous spring of the Arab peoples imposes upon us a moral and political obligation to finally resolve the Middle East conflict. We can�t wait any longer! The method used up to now � and I am choosing my words carefully � has failed. We must therefore change our method!

We must stop believing that a single country, even the largest, or a small group of countries can resolve so complex a problem. Too many crucial players are being sidelined for our efforts to succeed.

I would like to say that nobody imagines the peace process can happen without Europe; nobody imagines it can happen without all the permanent members of the Security Council; nobody imagines it can happen without the involvement of the Arab states that have already chosen peace. A collective approach has become essential to creating trust and providing guarantees to each of the parties.

True, peace will be built by the Israelis and the Palestinians. No one else. And no one can expect to impose it on them. But we must help them.
The method is no longer working.

Together let us acknowledge that setting preconditions for negotiation meant dooming ourselves to failure. Preconditions are the opposite of negotiation. If we wish to enter into negotiations, which is the only way forward for peace, there must be no preconditions. Let us change our methods!

All the elements of a solution are known: from the Madrid Conference of 1991 to President Obama�s speech of 19 May, the road map, the Arab peace initiative and the parameters agreed on by the European Union. So let us cease our endless debates on the parameters and begin negotiations, on these bases.

Let us adopt a specific and ambitious timetable.
In 60 years, we have not moved forward by even one centimetre. Doesn�t that oblige us to change our methods and timetables?

*One month to resume discussions;
*Six months to reach an agreement on borders and security;
*One year to reach a definitive agreement.

And France proposes to host a donors� conference this autumn so that the Palestinians can complete the construction of their future state.
France wants to say that you must not seek a perfect solution from the outset, because there are no perfect solutions! Let us choose the path of compromise, which is neither a renunciation nor a disavowal, but which will allow us to move forward, step by step.

For 60 years now, the Palestinians have been waiting for their state. Hasn�t the time come to give them hope? For 60 years now, Israel has suffered from being unable to live in peace. For 60 years now, there�s been the still-nagging question of peaceful coexistence between Palestinians and Israelis.
We can�t wait any longer to take the path of peace!

Let�s put ourselves in the place of the Palestinians. Don�t they have the right to demand their own state? Of course they do! And who cannot see that a democratic, viable and peaceful Palestinian state would be, for Israel, the best guarantee of her security.

Let�s put ourselves in the place of the Israelis. After 60 years of war and terrorist attacks, don�t they have the right to demand guarantees for this long-awaited peace? Of course they do! And I emphatically say to you that if anyone, anywhere in the world, were to threaten the existence of Israel,

France would immediately and wholeheartedly stand by Israel�s side. Threats against a UN member state are unacceptable and will not be accepted.
Today we are facing a very difficult choice. We�re all well aware � and let�s put an end to the hypocrisy and one-off diplomacy � we�re all well aware that Palestine can�t obtain full and complete recognition of the status of United Nations member state in the immediate future.

The first reason for this is the lack of trust between the main parties. But let�s be honest with ourselves: who doubts that a veto at the Security Council will engender a cycle of violence in the Middle East? Who doubts that?

Yet must we rule out an intermediate stage? Why not consider offering Palestine the status of United Nations observer state? That would be an important step forward; it would mean bringing an end to 60 years of inaction, a state of inaction that favours the extremists. We would be restoring hope to the Palestinians by making progress towards the final status.

To mark their determined commitment to a negotiated peace, the Palestinian authorities should, in the framework of this approach, reaffirm Israel�s right to exist and to security. Furthermore, they should pledge to avoid using this new status to undertake actions incompatible with the continuation of negotiations.

My dear colleagues, we have no other choice: inaction and deadlock, or an intermediate solution that would help restore hope to the Palestinians, with the status of observer state. At the same time, Israel should observe the same restraint � she should refrain from any actions that jeopardize the final status.
The ultimate goal is of course the mutual recognition of two nation states for two peoples, established on the basis of the 1967 borders, with agreed and equivalent exchanges of land.

Let this General Assembly, which is empowered to do so, decide to move forward, decide to release itself from the fatal trap of paralysis, decide to reject the missed opportunities and failed attempts to revive the process! Let us change our methods! Let us change our mentality!
Let each party make the effort to understand the other�s reasons, their sufferings and their fears.

Let each party open its eyes and be ready to make concessions.
In conclusion � and I say this with deep and sincere friendship for the Palestinian people � I want to say to the Palestinians: think of the Israeli mothers grieving for their family members killed in terrorist attacks. They feel the same pain as the Palestinian mothers told of the brutal death of one of their loved ones.

I want to tell the Israeli people, with deep and sincere friendship: listen to what the young people of the Arab Spring have been crying. They�ve been crying, �Long live freedom!� They haven�t been crying, �Down with Israel�. You can�t remain motionless when this wind of freedom and democracy is blowing through your region.

Once again, I say this with deep and sincere friendship for these two peoples who have suffered so much: the time has come to build peace for the children of Palestine and the children of Israel. It would be all too devastating if the UN General Assembly did not take advantage of the opportunity presented by the Arab awakening to democracy to resolve a problem that has hounded these two peoples, who are in any case fated to live alongside one another. If we adopt a compromise solution, we will restore trust and restore hope.
And I solemnly say to the representatives of all nations: we must assume this historic responsibility. It is the UN General Assembly that is bringing about this rendezvous with history.

Let us reassure Israel and give hope to the Palestinian people. The solution is on the table. Let us choose a compromise solution over deadlock, because while deadlock might satisfy everyone here, it will create violence, bitterness and resistance that will endanger the Arab awakening. France tells you that this tragedy must cease for a simple reason � it has gone on for far too long.
Thank you

**BD1** · 24 Sep 11,, 08:51

Originally posted by Chogy View Post

Ahmadinejad also maintained that Western "weather control technology" was stealing Iran's rain, or at the very least, denying them rain.

and you are forgetting the Secret Squirrel Spy Ring Iranian Police Smash Squirrel Spy Ring | Home | Sky News

**Aryajet** · 26 Oct 11,, 23:31

Those so called leaders who will not act the way they preach must be dragged to the center of main square and beaten by heavy construction equipment.

Announcement

Letter from President Hugo Chavez to the Secretary General of the United Nations

Letter from President Hugo Chavez to the Secretary General of the United Nations

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment