| Submit your comments on this article |
| Britain |
| Cameron: We have a year to tackle Iran |
| 2007-05-23 |
| Iran could be able to build a nuclear bomb in less than a year and confronts the world with one of its most "urgent" threats, David Cameron said yesterday. In his first detailed statement on Iran, the Conservative leader urged the Government to mobilise the United Nations Security Council and the European Union to impose tougher sanctions on Teheran. "Every week, every month that goes by brings Iran closer to possessing a nuclear weapon," said Mr Cameron. "We have to recognise that the next Government of this country could face continuing violence in Iraq and Afghanistan and the prospect of a nuclear armed Iran." Mr Cameron declined to rule out supporting military action against Teheran's nuclear facilities. But he stressed the drawbacks, saying that "Iran having a nuclear weapon would be calamity but military action could be calamitous". Iran is defying three United Nations resolutions by continuing to enrich uranium at its nuclear plant in Natanz. This highly sensitive process could be used to manufacture weapons-grade uranium. Once it has enough of this essential material, Iran could build a nuclear bomb. The Government's efforts to stop Iran from reaching this point were not working, said Mr Cameron, and a new package of "penalties and incentives" was needed. In particular, he said that an arms embargo should be imposed on Iran. The key figures running its nuclear programme should be banned from travelling and their overseas assets frozen. But the measures suggested by Mr Cameron would take years to impose real costs on Iran. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's regime plans to complete its nuclear facility in Natanz by the end of this month. |
| Posted by:Pappy |
| #4 You have one option - military intervention - that "could" be calamitous (15-35%), and another option that is 100% guaranteed to be calamitous. Yet using the first option to prevent the second option is considered "unacceptable". YJCMTSU - these people are total idiots. Unless something drastic happens, the West will slowly crumble, like the Roman empire, and for the same reason - the inability to make hard decisions and stand by them (spilling blood and treasure to ensure a future for our children). They're not traitors - that's being too nice to them. They are mindless jellyfish, unable to do anything but be carried along by the waves of self-generated "wisdom". |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2007-05-23 15:17 |
| #3 David Cameron knows all he has to do is just talk big and sit back, in his 'Catbird Seat' while Israel stews over it's options in the near future. The Brits are indeed 'poodles' top down, And I take any pronouncements out of that nation, with a grain of salt. Lets just see how many brits go to Israel to help the valiant country ward off the 'dogs of war'. Yea...I thought so! |
| Posted by: smn 2007-05-23 05:55 |
| #2 You know, sometimes things are simpler that they seem on the surface. Of course, an awesome military strike is, ..., eh, awesome, and usually discouraging to the recipient to pull off further shit. But if there's no will for that, how about some Rod from God? Or about as many as neded to reduce the Natanz centrifuge facility to smithereens. Probably 5-10 could do it. |
| Posted by: twobyfour 2007-05-23 02:46 |
| #1 But he stressed the drawbacks, saying that "Iran having a nuclear weapon would be calamity but military action could be calamitous". Quit mincing about you deficient pusillanimous git! How could any military action be remotely as "calamitous" as the mad mullahs acquiring nuclear weapons? But the measures suggested by Mr Cameron would take years to impose real costs on Iran. In other words: Non-military measures are certain to be ineffective. Perish the thought that they might have to admit such a thing to themselves. Heaven forfend that America might actually be right. [gasp] |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-05-23 02:23 |