US and Iran: An Undeclared War in Iraq

Staff Writer

JEDDAH/BAGHDAD, 7 November 2004 — While the Bush administration routinely accused Iran of helping insurgents in Iraq, the real battle between Washington and Tehran over who will control Baghdad is taking place in the political arena. Both Iran and the United States are spending vast sums of money and exerting growing pressure on Iraqi political parties likely to do well in the projected elections.

The Bush administration began working behind the scenes as early as last July to coax its Iraqi allies into a coalition that could dominate elections scheduled for January.

US authorities in Washington and Iraqi politicians confirmed that top White House officials have told leaders of the six major parties that were on the US-appointed Iraqi Governing Council that it would be in the groups’ common interest to present a unified electoral slate.

The US effort to influence the parliamentary elections is highly sensitive, coming at a time when President Bush daily expresses his desire to bring liberty and democracy to a nation that for decades has known only authoritarian rule. But the White House move stems from concerns that neighboring Iran is using its money and influence to try to sway the elections in its favor.

US authorities disagree on the extent of Iranian efforts to influence the elections, but senior officials remain concerned about pro-Iranian candidates.

One US official in Washington said the administration now believes Iraq needs a “negotiated resolution … a scaled-back democratic process.”

Between the two conflicting key goals, “I see the arguments for stability now outweighing the calls for democracy,” said the official, who declined to be identified. The formation of a unified slate would further entrench the US-allied parties, which are mostly led by longtime exiles with dubious popular support and are still viewed with suspicion by many Iraqi citizens.

The six parties are the Iraqi National Accord, led by interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi; the Iraqi National Congress, led by former Pentagon favorite Ahmad Chalabi; two Shiite Muslim parties, Dawa, and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq; and two Kurdish parties, the Kurdistan Democratic Party and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan.

US officials hope that by fighting on a common slate in the January elections, the six parties would dominate at the expense of the dozens of independent parties that are expected to field candidates. They also hope that the two Shiite parties will draw votes that might otherwise go to groups with closer links to Iran, a theocratic republic where Shiites also are the majority.

There are some wild cards, including radical Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr, who launched several bloody anti-US uprisings. Sadr, widely suspected of receiving Iranian assistance, has disarmed his Al Mahdi militia, and said he will participate in elections.

The planned elections, hailed as a major step toward a new Iraq, are for a 275-member assembly that will write a new constitution. Voters will choose parties or alliances, not individuals, and the winners will be awarded seats based on the proportion of the vote they receive.

Electoral experts predict that to win a single parliamentary seat, a slate will need about 27,000 votes. With Iraq’s political landscape fractured among more than 150 parties, election specialists believe that even those independents that manage to gain a few seats may have little influence.

Some Iraqi politicians from other parties say that such a strong coalition would establish a new foreign-backed ruling class and short-circuit their hopes for a more open political environment.

“We’re afraid these parties will become six dictators,” said Jawad Obeidi, secretary-general of the independent Iraqi Democratic Congress. He predicted that most Iraqi voters would stay home if they suspected the process was producing no more than a “copy of the Governing Council.”

Senior White House officials say they believe that the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution and the Dawa Party can give Iraq’s Shiite majority the representation it expects, while screening out candidates with uncomfortably close ties to Iran.

At the same time, some US officials and outside experts acknowledge that the six parties have yet to win the respect of many Iraqis. Many view their members as outsiders who sat out the Saddam Hussein years in exile before returning with foreign backing to take control.

The six parties are in negotiations on forming the slate. Officials differ on the likelihood of a coalition being forged, because it would require a power-sharing agreement that inevitably would leave some with less influence.

Hani Idris, head of political affairs for Allawi’s Iraqi National Accord, said it was equally likely that more modest alliances would emerge — such as between the two Shiite parties or his party with the two Kurdish parties.

“Of course, if the big parties ally, they would dominate,” Idris said. “But I’m not saying there would be no space for the small parties.”

Several rules for the upcoming election were written to give independents a chance. Individual candidates can register themselves as a “political entity” by gathering 5,000 signatures and essentially present a party slate of one name.

Even if the top six parties do not unite, many observers expect they will be able to use their superior organization and insider status to remain the dominant force in Iraqi politics. “There are groups who will be left out. That’s what happens in elections,” says a Western diplomat in Baghdad. “The beauty is, they can learn from their mistakes and come back a year later and try again.”

Obeidi, of the Iraqi Democratic Congress, sounded willing to face the difficulties and learn the political ropes, with an eye on eventually loosening the major parties’ grip on power.

“Yes, they may be terrible elections, and the next ones will be terrible too,” he said. “But one day they’ll improve.”

Posted on Sun, Nov. 07, 2004

`Chatter' hints of strike on Iran's nuclear sites

[Excerpt]

By Daniel Sneider

Counterterror specialists look for ``chatter'' in Islamic extremist circles preceding an attack. There is a lot of chatter going on today in Washington -- only this time, it is about an American attack on Iran.

In seminars and hallways, there is eager anticipation of an airstrike against Iran's nuclear facilities. Sure, the talk goes, we may not get all those buried nuclear labs. But a few waves of cruise missiles and bombers will set Iran's program back several years, enough time to pursue regime change in Tehran.

The Iran buzz is loud enough to have prompted an unusual statement by British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw on Thursday that any attack on Iran would be ``inconceivable.'' In a message meant for Washington and for countrymen nervous about joining yet another war, Straw added: ``I don't see any circumstances in which military action would be justified against Iran, full stop.''

Package of concessions

Straw spoke as negotiators from Britain, France and Germany were about to meet in Paris with the Iranians. The Europeans are offering a package of concessions, from trade to nuclear power plants, to get Iran to agree to an indefinite suspension of its program to enrich uranium.

The ability to enrich uranium is not in itself proof of a nuclear weapons program but it would put Iran only months away from being able to build a bomb. Iranian leaders, while denying any interest in nuclear weapons, portray the enrichment program as a matter of national security.

``The centers of global power, who wish to monopolize the entire world, are opposed to any development which helps a nation to achieve national independence, self-reliance and national strength,'' Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said at Friday prayers in Tehran.

Despite the tough talk, however, Iran's negotiators have hinted they may be ready for suspension of their program, though not indefinitely.

Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, was eagerly awaiting the outcome of those talks -- still ongoing at press time. He is currently drafting a status report on Iran's nuclear program, to be issued Nov. 12, ahead of an IAEA meeting Nov. 25. The report will confirm that Iran has been experimenting with all phases of the nuclear fuel cycle but that there is still no concrete evidence of a link to a weapons program.

Bush administration hard-liners are dismissive of ElBaradei and of the European-led talks. They expect the talks to fail -- while refusing repeated entreaties from ElBaradei and the Europeans to directly engage the Iranians. They aim to head to the United Nations Security Council to impose sanctions against Iran.

But the case against Iran is far from clear and unlikely to gain full support, including from Russia and China. If the sanctions bid fails however, those Bush officials will argue that the United Nations has once again wilted in the face of a proliferation threat, a la Iraq.

ElBaradei continues to trust President Bush's assurances, given to him personally, that the United States sees only a diplomatic solution to this problem.

But he did not hesitate, in an address delivered Thursday to Stanford University's Center for International Security and Cooperation, to draw sharp lines with the Bush administration. ...

DANIEL SNEIDER is foreign-affairs columnist for the Mercury News. His column appears on Sunday and Thursday. You can contact him at dsneider@mercurynews.com.

Iran’s nuclear program technically irrevocable: MP

Tehran Times Political Desk
TEHRAN (MNA) –- MP Heshmatollah Falahatpishe said here Sunday that Iran’s nuclear program is technically irrevocable.

The Islamic Republic can now be considered as one of a handful of countries that possess a nuclear fuel cycle, Falahatpishe told the Mehr News Agency.

Referring to efforts by the U.S. to approve a second protocol to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) on depriving countries that lack a nuclear fuel cycle from gaining access to this technology, the MP said that the U.S. intends to test this protocol for the first time on Iran.

Pointing to Washington’s strong pressure on Europe in its nuclear negotiations with Iran, he said Britain, Germany and France need to gain the U.S. approval in order to meet their commitments in practice. The EU trio failed to abide by the commitments made at the Tehran agreement because they have not received an approval from the U.S., he commented.

Over these years Europe has lost many interests in Iran because of the U.S. sanctions, however, it will not allow such an issue to happen again and will therefore continue to negotiate with Iran until a final settlement is made, he explained.

Member of the Majlis National Security and Foreign Policy Committee predicted that Europe will probably not sidestep further negotiations with Iran. The European states should reach an agreement with Iran that would be defensible against the U.S. in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors session, he noted. On recent news over a proposed draft bill on banning production of nuclear weapons, the MP said “I have not personally seen the (draft) bill but (I) believe our experience, commitments, conventions and Islamic and humane beliefs are strongly opposed to the production of nuclear weapons, and therefore we are needless of such a law.”

He further warned that raising such issues would only prop up doubts on Iran’s nuclear program expressed by the West.

Falahtpishe strongly criticized the initiators of the “inexpert” proposed bill and their attempt in collecting signatures for the plan during the Majlis holidays. -Iran-EU talks positive

Meanwhile MP Hamid Reza Hajbabayi said that Iran’s delegation in Vienna has made positive negotiations with the European sides.

The only way to move forward is a show of flexibility on the side of Europeans, Hajbabayi told the MNA.

He added that the negotiations will reach a deadlock if the European countries don’t back from their proposal that Iran should maintain a sustained suspension of its nuclear enrichment program.

“We had announced earlier that Iran’s redline in negotiations are the nuclear fuel cycle and a complete halt to uranium enrichment activities as stressed by the Supreme Leader and other relative officials,” the MP said.

He further explained that Europeans want Iran to suspend uranium enrichment at the time of negotiations and without certain timing whereas Iran believes a certain period of time should be determined for suspension.

Europeans want unlimited suspension which in fact means passing Iran’s redlines, Hajbabayi asserted.

November 07, 2004

Europe Reconsiders Muslims In Wake Of Filmmaker's Murder

AP religion analyst Brian Murphy reports that tensions are rising between mainstream European society and the growing Muslim community in its midst, especially after the brutal murder of Theo Van Gogh, the Dutch filmmaker who criticized Islamic practices with regards to women. More Muslim threats against Dutch politicians followed the murder, and Europeans are beginning to ask themselves whether Muslims can ever be assimilated into their communities:

But those big issues fade on the streets of many European centers. Here — even in places like tolerant Amsterdam — it's often expressed as a gnawing feeling that militant factions in Islamic immigrant communities are gaining ground and chipping away at values such as free speech and secular politics.
"There is a general feeling that a social collision is becoming inevitable," said Jan Rath, co-director of the Institute for Migration and Ethnic Studies at the University of Amsterdam. "People think it's been building for years and now finally coming to the surface."
The landmarks along the way included the 1989 death threat "fatwa," or religious edict, against British writer Salman Rushdie for alleged insults to Islam in "The Satanic Verses," the rise of neo-Fascist movements, the assassination of Dutch anti-immigrant politician Pim Fortuyn in 2002 and France's ongoing showdown with Muslims over a ban on headscarves and other religious apparel in schools.
"My impression is the European voices that say, `Everyone is equal, but we are more equal than Muslims,' are growing," Rath said.

Curiously, we seem to have avoided the same kinds of confrontation with Islam in America that the Europeans have experienced, probably because the immigration levels have not been as heavy here. But I think there may be other reasons as well, having to do both with the relative lack of the nanny state and a tradition of religious freedom. For all of the talk about how Bush's election victory portends the establishment of Jesusland, the truth is that America has always been more welcoming of all religious faiths and has been less bound by religious traditions, and especially sectarian conflict, than Europe.

Europeans have faced off against Muslim invasions in centuries past, and Muslims still carry the memories of Islamic ascendancy on the Continent. That history drives the conflict in the Balkans to this day, and the long memory of Islam guarantees that any co-existence with Christian or secular Europe will necessarily be an uneasy one at best. With extremists and terrorists calling for the reconquest of Andalusia and Muslims agitating for their own European state in Kosovo and elsewhere, both sides have awoken to the fact that Islam is not about free assimilation with other cultures.

What lessons can America learn from this? Bear in mind that Islam never had any foothold in the Western Hemisphere, and so the historical issues that cause so much turmoil in Europe have no counterpart here. However, until mainstream Islam speaks out against such ambitions and tactics with a strong and clear voice -- which they have yet to do -- we should monitor our own immigration policies from Islamic nations and ensure that we do not have our own flood of agitators to band together and cause civil disruption.

The Muslims that emigrate here tend to do so because they work for a living, as we lack the vast social programs of Europe and survival requires hard work. That tends to turn people pragmatic instead of giving them too much time to radicalize and organize. It probably also attracts those Muslims more inclined to working hard instead of rabble-rousing. We need to maintain those policies while keeping a close eye on those we allow to migrate to the US. For Europe, that option closed many years ago, and now they have to decide whether to cut off immigration altogether or to surrender to the inevitable overwhelming influence of Islam in two or three decades.

The only long-term solution that ensures the peace and stability of all these regions, Southwest Asia included, is the reduction of radicalism through the introduction of truly representative democracies in Arabia. Only by reducing the radical fervor at its source will Europe be secure in the long run. Shortsightedness, America-envy, and a twisted sense of political correctness -- along with a healthy dose of plain, old-fashioned cowardice -- keeps the old guard of Europe from seeing this. Until Europe as a whole develops the political will to solve the illness instead of decrying its symptoms, the murder of Theo Van Gogh will just be the first in a long string of asymmetrical attacks on Europe's will to resist the ummah and the dhimmitude radical Islamists have planned for them.

Clash of Civilizations

by 'Cicero' at November 4, 2004 07:03 PM

The last moments of Theo Van Gogh at the hands of an Islamofascist killer creates an interesting portrait of our times. The name 'Van Gogh' is synonymous with Western culture, tied to an era that some argue was the greatest period of art in the West, with much Eastern influence. And in 2004, Vincent Van Gogh's great grandnephew, having made a film about how women are mistreated under Islam, is shot repeatedly, then stabbed.

Theo Van Gogh's last piteous pleadings before his Islamic killer might very well be the words of modern Europe grappling with its rising tide of Muslims on the Old Continent: "Don't do it. Don't do it. Have mercy. Have mercy!"

It's hard to read about Van Gogh's fate and not draw a symbolic parallel between his death and the decline of Europe as a whole. The death of Van Gogh at the hands of a jihadist---in Amsterdam, no less---underscores the cultural divide that socialist European nations are nurturing while in their quest to keep Europe safe for Muslims. Van Gogh was a filmmaker and columnist who appears to have epitomized a secular, post-modern liberal view of the world. He spared no religion his derision; he once mocked a prominent Dutch Jew, referred to Jesus as the rotten fish of Nazareth, and called a radical Muslim politician Allah's pimp. All three Abrahamic religions received his wrath, rightly or wrongly. But only one broke out the koummya and sliced his throat.

Perhaps a state funeral is in order, to lament Europe's passing. Theo Van Gogh the Younger might have been an opinionated, unbridled and uncouth liberal art lunatic who needed to know his limits with Islamofascism's medieval sensibilities; or he might be a hero and martyr to what's left of an enlightened Europe, in a steep decline. Or perhaps he was simply both.

Rest in Peace, Theo.

11/7/2004: Dutch Muslim: "Murder is Normal"

From Zacht Ei, an interview with a Muslim from Amsterdam, following a sermon in which the imam of a local mosque denounced the Islamic assassination of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh: “Murder is normal.”

Third man: This man (the imam) has given his personal response. He’s not expressing everyone’s point of view. I say, if he (Mohamed B., the murderer) wouldn’t have done it, I could have done it, or somebody else would have done it. Because, that man (Van Gogh) went too far. He had all the possibilities.
Interviewer: You mean, it’s self-evident that it has happenend?
Third man: It’s very self-evident. He had his freedom of speech, but he has never tried to start a discussion or debate. He called Muslims goat f-ckers. He received all attention to express that Muslims...
Interviewer: So the murder was in fact a just act?
Third man: That’s my opinion. Not everybody’s opinion, but that’s my opinion. It is just.
Interviewer: But you do agree this doesn’t fit the way we think in the Netherlands?
Third man: It’s not about the way we think. I’m married myself to a Dutch woman. I have five children who have been raised here in the Netherlands. If you try to insult their mother, then this reaction is very normal.
Interviewer: But don’t you think that murder can’t ever be considered normal?
Third man: Murder is normal. Why wouldn’t murder be normal? What happens in Iraq? What do the Americans do to the Iraqis? Did the Iraqis ask for that? That’s murder as well, and everone has accepted that. Everyone thinks that’s ‘deadly normal’.

Van Gogh suspect 'the perfect Jihad recruit'

From Expatica, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:

AMSTERDAM — Dutch media's attention turned on Friday to profiling the suspected killer of filmmaker Theo van Gogh, with one report claiming Mohammed B. was a "dream candidate" for extremist Jihad recruiters.
Newspaper Trouw said second-generation Moroccan immigrant youths are being targeted by Islamic extremists who hope to recruit them for Jihad, or holy war.
One of the characteristics of the recruiters is that they isolate youths from their family and friends. There was nothing out of the ordinary with Mohammed B. until he allegedly fell into the hands of extremists.

B. reportedly became strongly religious in 2003, and as a fundamentalist Muslim he was a target for jihad recruiters. Extremists look for Muslim youths from second-generation immigrant families who speak Dutch well and are well educated.
The perfect candidate would be going through an identity crisis with little hope in society. They would, for example, have a criminal record. They would also have strong views about the oppression of Muslims....
B. had also carried out volunteer work for some time for the Stichting Eigenwijks, an organisation of co-operative residents in Amsterdam Slotervaart.
But B. started placing increasing demands on his work situation in view of his faith, eventually making it impossible for him to continue working for the foundation, newspaper De Telegraaf reported.
The foundation said B. refused to serve alcoholic drinks, and his opposition to being involved in activities where both men and women were present was eventually considered "incompatible" with his function. The foundation and B. decided to part ways.
Eigenwijks helped a group of youths from Overtoomse Veld in Amsterdam to set up a workgroup in 2001. The group was concerned with the lack of adequate solutions put forward after Moroccan youths sparked riots in the suburb in April 1998.
The workgroup successfully involved youths in a series of activities, and B. was instrumental in the group's work. He was also part of the editorial team of the neighbourhood newspaper Over 't Veld.
Eigenwijks — which said it would be closely involved in repairing community damage inflicted by Van Gogh's murder — said it had regretted the fact that B. stopped working with the workgroup as he applied himself further to his faith. He "slowly ended all other social activities".

Agreement close on atom deal with Iran

By Robin Gedye, Foreign Affairs Writer
(Filed: 08/11/2004)

Iran appeared yesterday to have reached a tentative deal with Britain, France and Germany that would avert the threat of United Nations sanctions over its nuclear programme.

The provisional agreement, hammered out during two days of talks in Paris, has still to be approved by Teheran's clerical leadership as well as by the European governments.

Construction work continues at the Arak nuclear facility

If approved, it would defuse the growing crisis over Teheran's ambitious atomic programme, which America and Britain believe serves to mask a secret project to build nuclear weapons.

America has long pressed for the International Atomic Energy Agency to refer Iran to the UN Security Council after a series of violations of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.

Under the deal Iran would freeze all nuclear fuel enrichment and reprocessing activities until it has reached a final agreement over economic, technological and security incentives.

As part of a final agreement Teheran would abandon any nuclear activities considered to have the potential to be "weapons-related'', diplomats said.

"The discussions were protracted and very difficult, but we reached provisional agreement on a range of issues designed to build mutual confidence and keep measures in place that both sides can develop," a Foreign Office spokesman said.

Washington wanted to send Iran's case to the Security Council after a previous agreement unravelled in summer.

Iran reneged on a pledge to stop making enrichment centrifuges - the equipment used to make nuclear fuel but which the West fears can also be used to make material for nuclear weapons. It has also defied IAEA appeals not to start producing uranium hexafluoride, the gas fed into enrichment centrifuges.

Two Issues Could Hinder Deal to Freeze Iran's Nuclear Program

[Excerpt]

By Dafna Linzer

Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, November 8, 2004; Page A21

NEW YORK, Nov. 7 -- A European deal to freeze Iran's nuclear program, provide the Islamic republic with lucrative trade incentives and avoid sanctions by the U.N. Security Council could be signed by midweek if two critical issues can be quickly resolved, U.S., European and Iranian officials said in interviews Sunday.

Iran has refused to accept a full suspension on all its nuclear-related work and wants a commitment from France, Britain and Germany that a second stage of negotiations will be wrapped up within six months. The European trio wants the later negotiations to be open-ended and expects Iran to maintain a total suspension during that process, diplomats from Britain and France said on the condition of anonymity.

If the deal goes through, European powers have promised Iran a diplomatic and economic package along with a guarantee that it will not be referred to the Security Council, where it could face sanctions.

"If this is approved by all four parties, we will witness an important change in Iran's relations with Europe and much of the international community in [the] not-too-distant future," Iranian negotiator Hossein Mousavian told Iranian television Sunday.

The Bush administration has pushed unsuccessfully for nearly two years to get Iran to the Security Council and has refused to participate in public diplomacy with Tehran. But without proof of a nuclear weapons program, or evidence that Iran is breaking international law, allies have refused to go along with Washington's strategy.

Instead, Britain, France and Germany have devoted the past year to negotiation and compromise with Iran. Talks have been rocky at times but could produce a deal within days.

If negotiations fall apart, Washington expects the Europeans to back its quest for action by the council, Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton wrote in a letter Friday to his counterparts in Paris, London and Berlin, U.S. officials said.

Much of the terms for the Euro-Iranian accord were worked out in two days of meetings that ended Saturday in Paris.

U.S. officials briefed by the three European countries said they believe the deal will go through if Iran accepts a full suspension. Currently, Iran is pushing for an exemption on an early step in the uranium conversion process.

Although the exemption would leave Iran far away from being able to make bomb-grade uranium -- and Iran has said it has no intention of doing so -- it would still get a push in that direction, said David Albright, president of the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security.

"It would still be a significant step forward and too easy for Iran to conduct the next conversion step in secret," Albright said.

U.S. officials said they will continue to lobby European allies over the next several days to push for the full suspension and an open-ended negotiating period. The officials discussed the negotiations on the condition of anonymity.

"The Iranians will have to give on the timing and the parameters of a suspension," one official said. "Our hope is that the Europeans will agree with that."

Washington also wants more aggressive U.N. inspections, to monitor Iran's compliance with the deal. Legally, Iran isn't obligated to such inspections, but in the past two years, it has granted inspectors access to enrichment facilities and military sites they asked to see.

France, Britain, Germany and Iran signed a similar deal in October 2003; it fell apart within six months, mostly because the terms of the suspension were loosely defined. Iran had also expected European help, which didn't come, in getting its file closed with the International Atomic Energy Agency.

A new deal needs to be worked out soon so the IAEA can verify Iran's suspension before the agency's board meets to discuss Tehran's case on Nov. 25. The IAEA has told parties involved that it will need at least 10 days to complete the work. ...

DoctorZin Note: I just received this from a student inside of Iran.

I thought our readers would get a kick out of it.

GOD BLESS AMERICA!

There are a few things that those who have
recently come to our country, and apparently some native Americans, need to understand.

First of all, it is not our responsibility to continually
try not to offend you in any way. This idea of America being
a multicultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity.

As Americans, we have our own culture, our own society,
our own language, and our own lifestyle. This culture,
called the "American Way" has been developed over
centuries of struggles, trials, and victories by millions
of men and women who have sought freedom.

Our forefathers fought, bled, and died at places such as Bunker Hill, San Juan, Iwo Jima, Normandy, Korea, Vietnam...

We speak English, not
Spanish, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or
any other language.

Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society --
learn our language!"

"In God We Trust" is our national motto.
This is not some off-the-wall, Christian, Right Wing, political slogan -- it is our national motto. It is engraved in stone in the House of Representatives in our Capitol and it is printed on
our currency. We adopted this motto because Christian men
and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation
and this is clearly documented throughout our history.

If it is appropriate for our motto to be inscribed in the halls
of our highest level of Government, then it is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools.

God is in our pledge, our National Anthem, nearly every
patriotic song, and in our founding documents. We honor
His birth, death, and resurrection as holidays, and we turn to Him in prayer in times of crisis. If God offends you, then I
suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture and we are proud
to have Him.

We are proud of our heritage and those who have so
honorably defended our freedoms. We celebrate
Independence Day, Memorial Day, Veterans Day,
and Flag Day. We have parades, picnics, and
barbecues where we proudly wave our flag.

As an American, I have the right to wave my flag, sing my
national anthem, quote my national motto, and cite my pledge whenever and wherever I choose.

If the Stars and Stripes offend you, or you don't like
Uncle Sam, then you should seriously consider
a move to another part of this planet.

The American culture is our way of life,
our heritage,
and we are proud of it.

We are happy with our culture and have no desire
to change, and we really don't care how you did things
where you came from. Like it or not, this is our country,
our land, and our lifestyle.

Our First Amendment gives every citizen the right to express
his opinion about our government, culture, or society,
and we will allow you every opportunity to do so. But once
you are done complaining, whining, and griping about
our flag, our pledge, our national motto, or our way of life,
I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great American freedom:

THE RIGHT TO LEAVE!

Another thing: To those who do complain about the usage of words like 'God' and 'American' and speaking the language of our great nation, TRY GOING TO ANOTHER COUNTRY AND SPEAK AGAINST WHAT YOU DON'T LIKE. YOU WILL MORE
THAN LIKELY END UP JAILED OR EVEN KILLED.

In America, you take your right to complain for granted.

The more patriotism that is removed from where our children
are taught, the less our children will learn about what it is
to be an American and our nation's spirit will slowly be killed.

Keep patriotism alive.

If you agree, pass this onto other Americans!
(I'M SURE YOU DO !)

It is time to take a stand!
God Bless America and our Military and Veterans!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.