Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (269548)	1/23/2006 5:28:11 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER	Respond to of 1571782

Re: At least [Kerry's] flipflopping was over serious issues like war.........Bush's flipflopping was over which would be his drug of choice........ Speaking of Flip-Flop Kerry, look at how he's currently huckstering the Iranian crusade to India: January 23, 2006 Nuclear Deal and Iran Complicate Efforts by U.S. and India to Improve Ties By SOMINI SENGUPTA [...] In a nod to India's growing strategic importance, Mr. Bush is willing to support peaceful Indian nuclear ambitions, even as Washington has taken steps to try to prevent other countries, like Iran and North Korea, from advancing their nuclear programs. In particular, Washington would like India's help in isolating Iran, a traditional Indian ally, as Iran tries to jump-start its nuclear ambitions. For India, which has long positioned itself as a leader of nonaligned developing countries, and which has competing interests of its own, the choice is not an easy one. Iran is among India's most important energy suppliers, and talks are under way to build an ambitious $4 billion pipeline to transport Iranian natural gas to India, via Pakistan. Commenting on the three-way tango, The Business Standard, an English-language daily, published an editorial last week that asked bluntly: "Is supporting the U.S. a good option? If not, what other option is there?" This is where both the United States and India begin to feel the burden of democracy. In both countries, legislators are equally exercised by the Iran standoff. The United States wants India's support to refer Iran to the United Nations Security Council when the issue goes before the International Atomic Energy Agency on Feb. 2. Last September, India voted along with the United States when Iran came up before the agency, a part of the United Nations, but India's leaders have since been noncommittal. Congress is closely watching how India casts its vote this time, with members saying that it could influence whether they support the Indian nuclear deal. "It is extremely important that we know India will stand united with us in that effort," Senator Kerry, a Democrat of Massachusetts, said in an e-mail message this week. At the news briefing on Friday, Mr. Saran sidestepped a question on how United States lawmakers would view India's stance on Iran, saying he sensed strong bipartisan support for "a much stronger U.S.-India relationship" on Capitol Hill. Questions are bubbling from within the Indian Parliament about the virtues of locking arms with the United States, at the expense of Iran. A coalition of leftist parties, led by the Communist Party of India (Marxist), has all but threatened to cripple his government should Mr. Singh side with Washington. In the United States-India nuclear negotiations there are several sticking points. For the United States, the red-flag issues include how many nuclear reactors will be operated under its desired safeguards, and whether they will be run that way forever. The Indians point out that their civilian and military nuclear facilities have never been segregated. Any future segregation would have to be done in a manner that its government regards to be "necessary for our strategic program," according to a senior official who refused to be identified because of the delicate nature of diplomatic negotiations. Should India not vote to report Iran to the Security Council next month, argued George Perkovich, vice president for studies at the Washington-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, it could imperil India's own credibility as a stalwart of nonproliferation. On Friday, Mr. Saran once again cautioned that "confrontation should be avoided" with Iran. Sitting on his right, Mr. Burns, the under secretary of state, criticized Iran for having "crossed so many international red lines." [...] nytimes.com