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 : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SiouxPal who wrote (115942)	9/19/2007 12:43:12 PM
From: T L Comiskey	Respond to of 361543

Abizaid: World Could Abide Nuclear Iran By Robert Burns The Associated Press Monday 17 September 2007 Every effort should be made to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, but failing that, the world could live with a nuclear-armed regime in Tehran, a recently retired commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East said Monday. John Abizaid, the retired Army general who headed Central Command for nearly four years, said he was confident that if Iran gained nuclear arms, the United States could deter it from using them. "Iran is not a suicide nation," he said. "I mean, they may have some people in charge that don't appear to be rational, but I doubt that the Iranians intend to attack us with a nuclear weapon." The Iranians are aware, he said, that the United States has a far superior military capability. "I believe that we have the power to deter Iran, should it become nuclear," he said, referring to the theory that Iran would not risk a catastrophic retaliatory strike by using a nuclear weapon against the United States. "There are ways to live with a nuclear Iran," Abizaid said in remarks at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank. "Let's face it, we lived with a nuclear Soviet Union, we've lived with a nuclear China, and we're living with (other) nuclear powers as well." He stressed that he was expressing his personal opinion and that none of his remarks were based on his previous experience with U.S. contingency plans for potential military action against Iran. Abizaid stressed the dangers of allowing more and more nations to build a nuclear arsenal. And while he said it is likely that Iran will make a technological breakthrough to obtain a nuclear bomb, "it's not inevitable." Iran says its nuclear program is strictly for energy resources, not to build weapons. Abizaid suggested military action to pre-empt Iran's nuclear ambitions might not be the wisest course. "War, in the state-to-state sense, in that part of the region would be devastating for everybody, and we should avoid it - in my mind - to every extent that we can," he said. "On the other hand, we can't allow the Iranians to continue to push in ways that are injurious to our vital interests." He suggested that many in Iran - perhaps even some in the Tehran government - are open to cooperating with the West. The thrust of his remarks was a call for patience in dealing with Iran, which President Bush early in his first term labeled one of the "axis of evil" nations, along with North Korea and Iraq. He said there is a basis for hope that Iran, over time, will move away from its current anti-Western stance. Abizaid's comments appeared to represent a more accommodating and hopeful stance toward Iran than prevails in the White House, which speaks frequently of the threat posed by Iran's nuclear ambitions. The administration says it seeks a diplomatic solution to complaints about Iran's alleged support for terrorism and its nuclear program, amid persistent rumors of preparations for a U.S. military strike. Abizaid expressed confidence that the United States and the world community can manage the Iran problem. "I believe the United States, with our great military power, can contain Iran - that the United States can deliver clear messages to the Iranians that makes it clear to them that while they may develop one or two nuclear weapons they'll never be able to compete with us in our true military might and power," he said. He described Iran's government as reckless, with ambitions to dominate the Middle East. "We need to press the international community as hard as we possibly can, and the Iranians, to cease and desist on the development of a nuclear weapon and we should not preclude any option that we may have to deal with it," he said. He then added his remark about finding ways to live with a nuclear-armed Iran. Abizaid made his remarks in response to questions from his audience after delivering remarks about the major strategic challenges in the Middle East and Central Asia - the region in which he commanded U.S. forces from July 2003 until February 2007, when he was replaced by Adm. William Fallon. The U.S. cut diplomatic relations with Iran shortly after the 1979 storming of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. Although both nations have made public and private attempts to improve relations, the Bush administration labeled Iran part of an "axis of evil," and Iranian leaders still refer to the United States as the Great Satan. -------

To: SiouxPal who wrote (115942)	9/19/2007 1:41:09 PM
From: Skywatcher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 361543

Blackwater down The U.S. needs to avoid the perception of 'victor's justice' as it investigates the security contractor. September 19, 2007 By the tragic killing of eight Iraqis during a shootout around a U.S. Embassy convoy, Blackwater USA, the private contractor that protects U.S. diplomats in Iraq, has created a huge legal, diplomatic and political mess. It was, however, a predictable mess. The Iraqis have grown more and more frustrated by what they see as the impunity with which private contractors have harmed civilians. And the Americans have done too little to regulate and control the contractors, who likely now outnumber U.S. troops in Iraq. The accusation that the Blackwater security guards mistakenly opened fire on Iraqi civilians is devastating. But no matter what misdeeds Blackwater personnel may have committed in the past, the guards must be considered innocent unless proved guilty in a court of law. According to the State Department, the contractors operate under the same rules of engagement as the department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security personnel. These rules are more defensive and circumscribed than those that govern U.S. military operations in Iraq, but they still permit the use of deadly force. It is possible that the Blackwater personnel erred, yet still acted legally within rules of engagement that are in need of an overhaul. Either way, the United States had best do everything possible to avoid the appearance of "victor's justice," lest it further embitter an Iraqi population already chafing under a heavy foreign military presence. As of Tuesday, the Americans and the Iraqis were conducting separate investigations, a first giant step in the wrong direction toward sorting out this tragedy. If the two investigations produce two different sets of facts, justice will undoubtedly fall to politics, leaving both the U.S. and the Iraqi public dubious about the fairness of the outcome. A joint U.S.-Iraq investigation would test a strained relationship, given that official U.S. reports have concluded that much of the Iraqi police force is corrupt, sectarian or incompetent. But it would be far better than competing inquiries. Iraqis also resent one of the legacies of the U.S. occupation -- Order No. 17, which was signed in 2003 by Coalition Provisional Authority head L. Paul Bremer III and exempts U.S. security contractors from prosecution in Iraq. That order can be superseded at any time by legislation passed by the Iraqi parliament. Washington would be wise to tell Baghdad that it would accept such legislation, and it should make equally clear that if a joint investigation concluded that Blackwater guards violated Iraqi law, it would permit them to go on trial in Iraq. Meanwhile, we needn't wait for the results of the investigations to know that the massive, poorly regulated, poorly controlled and even downright secretive outsourcing of key military and security jobs to private contractors has gone too far. Congress is overdue for some oversight, and should seize this moment to demand it.