UK's Brown won't rule out military action in Iran

[Freddie Stubbs]

Source: Reuters

By Sophie Walker

LONDON (Reuters) - British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said on Monday he would not rule out military action against Iran, but believed a policy of sanctions could still persuade Tehran to drop its disputed nuclear program.

"I firmly believe that the sanctions policy that we are pursuing will work, but I'm not one who's going forward to say that we rule out any particular form of action," Brown told a news conference, when asked if he would rule out a military strike against Iran.

The United Nations Security Council has imposed two rounds of sanctions since December on Iran for failing to halt uranium enrichment, a process which can produce fuel for power plants or material for warheads. A third sanctions resolution is being considered.

Western powers suspect Iran's activities are secretly aimed at producing atom bombs. Tehran says its nuclear program is for purely peaceful ends, such as electricity generation.



Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL2343370620070723?feedType=RSS&rpc=22&sp=true

[Javaman]

1. one poodle to be replaced by another. wonderful. nt

[kevin4589]

2. May be other countries should not rule out military options against U.K.

May be other countries should not rule out military options against U.K.

[LeftishBrit]

10. They don't.

[conspirator]

3. Attacking Iran would be a bad move for the UK. really bad n/t

[LeftishBrit]

9. Yes, it would.

And I don't think it's going to happen.

[bemildred]

4. Gee, who could have predicted this? nt

[stormymonday]

5. Nearly half a million of Brown's citizens currently have no piped water

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6912650.stm

Obviously he needs a war to distract them

[Megahurtz]

6. Sounds Like He's Been

kissing BushInc. ass.

[truebrit71]

7. Um, for all of you bashers what is it about "I firmly believe that the sanctions policy that we are

....pursuing will work" dont' you get?

Let's give the guy a break...he is still having 10 Downing Street fumigated from the prior infestation...How about we throw his arse into the "poodle" category when he actually does something worthy of the label, m'kay?

[TheBaldyMan]

12. you mean like not pulling British troops out of Iraq,

continuing to

• privatise defence companies and giving no-bid contracts to Halliburton, Bechtel and KBR
• supply EU citizens details without warrant on a routine basis to US security services
• allow CIA rendition flights to use UK airports and airspace
• maintaining the embargo on Gaza
• refusing to ditch our one-sided extradition treaty with the US

I could go on but remember that last year when El Gordo ha in depth discussions with the US administration BushCo declared that they were more than comfortable knowing that he was likely to be the next PM.

I hate to disillusion you but the scum sucking bastard already is America's lap-dog, he was before he took the reins of power. That list isn't complete and doesn't include domestic policy.

[truebrit71]

13. He's been in power how long now? I think he deserves a little more time to unwind the crap...

...that was put into place by the prior poodle...

In the meantime has he, since taking over, done ANY of the things you suggest he has done...?

[TheBaldyMan]

14. It's a question of what he hasn't done, it's more of the same

Blair exercised the "Royal prerogative" to put the troops into Iraq. Brown could use the same power to bring them home. Blair committed at least a brigade size force to be deployed in Iraq until the Americans pull out. Brown has not even mentioned a withdrawal date. How long into the planned 50 year occupation will you wait until you call Brown a poodle?

[truebrit71]

15. How.Long.Has.He.Been.In.Power?

Aren't there some rather pressing issues right now that might be getting more of his attention...like, Oh, I dunno, off the top of my head, FUCKING FLOODING EVERYWHERE???

Jeebus...give the guy some time....

[TheBaldyMan]

16. too.fucking.long.by.far

he can delegate handling the floods to the environment secretary.

The fact remains that the unbroken line of RW Prime Ministers and policies goes Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown. Twenty-eight years of Thatcherism, the last ten with a majority that Maggie could only dream about. It is not going to change until Labour remembers where its real interests lie.

It doesn't lie with a debt of £20 million and talk of severing union links. Time is one thing Brown doesn't have.

[truebrit71]

17. Whom else would you prefer then?

Jeez the guy has barely gotten the stench of Blair out of the upholstery and you're painting him with the same brush...

A little harsh don't you think?

[TheBaldyMan]

19. sry if I seem strident TB but I don't think I'm being too harsh at all

Brown is a REALLY hot button issue with me since reading the 2007 budget report in April. I haven't been too impressed with his performance as Chancellor as a whole.

Wait and see, you'll probably be worse than me once he's been in post for a few months.

Give him his due, he's a smarter operator than Blair, not as slick in the PR stakes but he is a political animal. That's one of the reasons I'm so hard on him now, he does know better.

[LeftishBrit]

8. So far, it's just politician-speak

'I firmly believe that the sanctions policy that we are pursuing will work, but I'm not one who's going forward to say that we rule out any particular form of action,"'


That hardly sounds as though he's planning a war imminently. Politicians rarely *do* 'rule out any particular form of action'.

Maybe he'll be a Bush-poodle, and maybe he won't. Right now, he's got his hands full, with the floods in many parts of Britain.

BTW, I'm not a huge fan of his, to put it rather mildly; but I think that it's important not to assume that any leader who does not explicitly endorse total pacifism (and few leaders do) is necessarily going to start a war tomorrow. I would bet quite a lot of money that Brown would ONLY get involved in military action if the UN endorses it; not unilaterally with Bush.

[T_i_B]

20. "That hardly sounds as though he's planning a war imminently."

That hardly matters when so many on here are in such a rush to go into headless chicken mode about the littlest thing.

[defendandprotect]

11. Well. . . that didn't take long --

Last night, I happened to be watching C-span/Brian Lamb interview of Randall Robinson -- who I think wrote "The Debt" which should really, really be made into a movie . . .

He has a new book out on Haiti -- "Unbroken agony" -- about the 2004 coup on Aristide --
kidnapped -- and basically told he should flee by Colin Powell --

Artistide sat it out and got kidnapped by US and taken off to . . . Africa . . Central?

Many nations in the Caribbean would have taken him in but US didn't want him in area because of his popularity --
So nations were warned --

That's our diplomacy -- !!!

Threats --

Doesn't look like one-superpower -- one world order -- pax Americana is going to take very long.
They drop like flies --

[wuushew]

18. I don't see how one drops bombs without committing murder

What is true for the individual is true for the state.

Lethal force is only ethically used while attacked by a belligerent force.


What is sad is that a certain war with a non-friendly state may in actuality kill more people than the number killed hypothetically by a limited nuclear strike.