Britain to tighten Iran sanctions, send more troops to Afghanistan
- added June 16, 2008
- 9 responses
-
-
-
- current89
- added this
-
-
- related topics
-
- News and Politics (39476)
- World (2626)
- Current News UK (1467)
- Britain (867)
- Gordon Brown (173)
- Afganastan (20)
Bush and Brown talked about International affairs including Iran, and Afghanistan. It seems Bush and Brown have much in common.
--------------
LONDON — After talks with President Bush, Prime Minister Gordon Brown promised tougher measures in Iran and Afghanistan, saying that Britain would freeze the assets of Iran’s biggest bank and increase its troop strength in Afghanistan.
Appearing with Mr. Bush at a new conference, he sought to speak directly to the Iranian people, saying that Tehran’s refusal to resolve international concerns over its nuclear activities would only lead to further isolation.
“Our message today to the Iranian people is that you do not have to pursue the path of confrontation,” he said during a press conference with Mr. Bush.
End of Excerpt
Source: New York Times
--------------
LONDON — After talks with President Bush, Prime Minister Gordon Brown promised tougher measures in Iran and Afghanistan, saying that Britain would freeze the assets of Iran’s biggest bank and increase its troop strength in Afghanistan.
Appearing with Mr. Bush at a new conference, he sought to speak directly to the Iranian people, saying that Tehran’s refusal to resolve international concerns over its nuclear activities would only lead to further isolation.
“Our message today to the Iranian people is that you do not have to pursue the path of confrontation,” he said during a press conference with Mr. Bush.
End of Excerpt
Source: New York Times
-
Sky News is reporting Gordon Brown has confirmed that 230 troops will be sent to Afghanistan, and will "bring Britain's troop commitment in the country to around 8,030 by spring 2009 - nearly double the number in Iraq."
I think it's time Britain turned its attention to this very seriously. What happens to British involvement in Afghanistan when Bush is gone and the US turns its attention elsewhere? -
Withdrawing troops from Iraq and sending them straight back to Afghanistan, I think without the US stood by our side, the situation in Afghanistan could be very different. See what it's like for a soldier going to Afghanistan in this Current Vanguard pod. -
Creepy. America=England... England=America
-
and these two men also have shadows-i had a question for George Bush's shadow, but someone spoke over me. it was clever, but they were quick to interupt. to be so illuminated is to also cast a shadow upon the rest of us. The shadow knows. I'm embaressed to say this, but yes, the clock stikes, secondhand swift and callus. Those shadows, shall we delve?
-
perhaps russia's experience in afghanistan might enlighten the US and England about how , even if you roll in enough gear to kill every man woman and child there you still won't win , but i gather neither gov't really wants to learn anything from russia these days .
some say iraq is another vietnam , just wait until things ramp up in afghanistan . -
What right does Britain have to freeze the assets of Iran's biggest bank? This will serve only to exacerbate the already delicate diplomatic situation. How very ironic that he goes on to say that they do not have to 'pursure the path of confrontation'.
And what of 'international concerns over its nuclear facilities'? The two most destructive forces currently on this planet are Britain and the states, both of which have proven themselves more violent than Iran, and both of which have large quantities of nuclear weapons.
To date, Iran hasn't had any major safety issues with nuclear power either.
bah. hypocrites -
When PM Brown said that Iran didn't have to pursue the path of confrontation, he simply meant that GWB would take care of it for them.
Login/Registration is required to add a response.
