Showing posts with label Gordon Brown. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gordon Brown. Show all posts

Friday, April 23, 2010

In UK election debate Liberal Democrat Clegg shines again.

Although not so clearly a winner this time around he still seemed to do very well and was perhaps even best. The Conservative leader improved quite a bit. Although Clegg wants to distance UK policy somewhat from following the US line on foreign policy he still did not commit to any immediate withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan. He is just making some rhetorical flourishes to woo the anti-US anti-Afghanistan voters. This is from npr.


In U.K. Debate, Outside Candidate Shines Again
by THE ASSOCIATED PRESS


Nick Clegg proved he wasn't a one-hit wonder in Britain's second election debate Thursday, holding his own against Labour's Prime Minister Gordon Brown and the Conservatives' David Cameron over thorny issues such as Afghanistan, the Catholic sex-abuse scandal and the special relationship with the United States.

An initial poll gave Clegg a slight edge in the debate, but it appeared to be close to a three-way tie. Still, Clegg managed to keep some of his political stardust -- respondents said the Liberal Democrats' 43-year-old leader seemed the most honest.

Clegg shook up the race last week, emerging as a clear winner after giving a smooth and confident performance in Britain's first U.S.-styled election debate and boosting his party's profile.

Thursday's debate came as dozens of anti-war protesters and other activists clashed with police outside the studio hosting the prime-time duel. Pro-Palestinian groups outside protested Israeli incursions in Gaza. Others held placards that read "Troops Home!" There are some 10,000 British troops still stationed in Afghanistan.

It was the closest Britain has come to the famous 1960 Nixon-Kennedy debate -- every grimace and blemish were seen in high-definition television format. The candidates' performances make the razor-close May 6 election even harder to predict.

Polls suggest that no party will win an outright majority. That situation could turn the Liberal Democrats into a kingmaker, bartering with both Labour and the Conservative for things they want -- namely electoral changes that could weaken Britain's traditional two-party system.

Rivals Compared To Children

Brown was on the attack for most of the debate, ridiculing Clegg and Cameron -- both 16 years his junior -- and at one point comparing them to his children. He also lashed out at Clegg, accusing him of being anti-American, and going after Cameron for being "anti-European."

"These two guys remind me of my two young boys squabbling at bathtime, squabbling about referendums on the EU when what we need is jobs and growth and recovery," said Brown, 59. "I'm afraid David is anti-European, Nick is anti-American and both are out of touch with reality."

Clegg, whose Liberal Democrats voted against the U.S.-led Iraq war and who has questioned British "subservience" to U.S. interests, denied he was anti-American, but said Britain should reevaluate how it deals with its trans-Atlantic ally.

"It's an immensely important special relationship, but it shouldn't be a one-way street," he said. "We shouldn't always do what our American friends tell us to do."

An automated telephone poll taken by ComRes after the debate showed that 2,691 viewers favored Clegg by a tiny margin. About a third of viewers believed that Clegg won the debate, while 30 percent believed that Brown or Cameron won. The margin of error for that sample size is plus or minus 2 percentage points.

Cameron, who gave a lackluster performance in last week's debate, appeared to learn from his mistakes -- he looked directly at the camera and seemed more confident Thursday. He almost lost his temper when he accused Brown of allowing campaign leaflets that suggested a Conservative government would cut benefits for the elderly.

"These lies you are getting from Labour are pure and simple lies," he said. "I have seen these lies and they make me very, very angry."

Divisive Issues

Both Labour and the Conservatives voted for Britain to go to war in Iraq, a stance that has hurt them with anti-war sentiment still strong in Britain. The Labour Party, which has been in power for 13 years, lost many seats in the 2005 general election when voters cast protest ballots against Tony Blair's decision to lead Britain into Iraq.

Afghanistan, the latest nettlesome mission, in which 280 British troops have died, is now one of Britain's longest and most costly conflicts, draining government coffers as the country tries to recover from its worst recession since World War II.

Clegg criticized the strategy in Afghanistan and said troops needed better equipment. The party would support other operations if they were in the interests of Britain but, "If you put soldiers into harm's way, you either do the job properly or don't do it at all," he said.

An audience member asked whether the leaders backed Pope Benedict XVI's visit to Britain in September, and if they supported the church's stance on the sex-abuse scandal, condoms, homosexuality and stem cell research.

All three men said they supported the visit, which is due to cost taxpayers some $22.5 million.

Cameron was most definitive, however, on other differences with the church, saying the church has "very serious work to do to unearth and come to terms with some of the appalling things that have happened."

Clegg, a former member of the European Parliament, once backed Britain adopting the euro and has talked about forging stronger ties with Europe. He stressed Thursday that Britain needs cooperation from other European countries if progress is to be made on terrorism, immigration, climate change and bank regulation.

Cameron has long been a euro-skeptic and stood apart from both Clegg and Brown on Thursday when he suggested again there should be a referendum allowing British people to decide how they feel about being a part of the European Union.

Clegg is unlikely to become prime minister because Britain's electoral system is not proportional so parties must win the majority of districts not the popular vote. This puts smaller and newer parties at a disadvantage. Most core voters still either vote Conservative or Labour.

Candidates managed to get across their campaign mantras throughout the debates -- with the Conservatives warning that a hung Parliament and a coalition government could hurt the pound and Britain's credit rating and Brown insisting that a government shake-up could jeopardize an economic recovery.

The British electorate has reached an all-time low for trust in politicians after an expenses scandal last year tarred all three major parties.

Sunday, January 3, 2010

UK to hold conference on Yemen intervention.

Remember how the Soviets got involved in Afghanistan. The government they were propping up asked for help. Now the UK who have lost most of their empire are again trying to please the new Global Cop in hope that the lap dog will be thrown some goodies. So far the US has been using clandestine operations-now out in the open and also used technology that does not put any US troops at risk. If things become even more disrupted in Yemen as is quite likely the US may become directly involved with troops.
Notice that there are umpteen news reports about Yemen in the last few days and more and more stories about the failed bombing attempt being connected to Al Qaeda in Yemen. This all presents a perfect rationale for intervention. There is no need for media control in the US. The media just follows along giving prominence to official pronouncements and then yakking with experts and their own panels to make sure the issue penetrates the rather thick and distracted mass mind. No doubt the US is already looking about for allies in renewed intervention and lo and behold there is the UK. After Bush and Blair come Obama and Brown. Perhaps Obama gave Brown a nudge to start the ball rolling or perhaps Brown just thought it was a great idea to help out Obama by holding this conference.


UK summit to discuss intervention in Yemen
Fri, 01 Jan 2010 17:48:27 GMT
Font size :

Britain said Friday it plans to hold an international summit on fighting "extremism" in Yemen as the Arab nation smolders in flames of a civil war fueled by foreign intervention.

"Gordon Brown has invited key international partners to a high-level meeting in order to discuss how best to counter radicalization in Yemen," the premier's office said in a statement.

"The prime minister will host the event on 28 January in London," said the Downing Street statement.

It said the meeting would focus on identifying and providing the Yemeni government's needs for fighting 'extremism,' and coordinating assistance for areas most at risk of radicalization.

This is while a joint Saudi-Yemeni military offensive has killed hundreds in the north of the impoverished — but oil-rich — Arab state, leaving tens of thousands of Yemeni civilians displaced and on the verge of a humanitarian disaster.

Southern Yemen recently received a taste of the north's ordeal as Yemeni forces reportedly backed by US military pounded what Washington and Sana'a call al-Qaeda militants in Yemen.

The British premier's call for the high-level meeting, nonetheless, seems to have been triggered by an alleged attempt by a Nigerian man to attack a plane upon landing in the United States on Christmas Day.

US media soon floated reports which raised suspicions that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, 23, received training to blow up the Amsterdam-Detroit flight from an al-Qaeda bomb maker in Yemen.

The meeting is scheduled to "stand alone" but run "in parallel" with an international summit on Afghanistan, also scheduled for January 28. The event is expected to be attended by senior ministers or leaders from some 43 nations.

Concerns are growing that the same fate as those of Afghanistan and Iraq, suffering violence despite years of foreign military presence, might await Yemen's Muslim nation.

Monday, October 8, 2007

Brown will back air strikes on Iran

This is from the telegraph. Gordon Brown is following in Tony Blair's pawprints as a lap dog of Bush. This is another of those preparatory psy-ops articles preparing the public for an attack on Iran but notice the target has changed as the Petraeus article too acknowledges. THe plan now is to emphasize that Iranians specifically the now "terrorist" Revolutionary Guards are in effect orchestrating if not directly involved in the killing of US and UK troops. These moves are so transparent it is amazing that there is so little skepticism about these articles.

Gordon Brown 'will back air strikes on Iran'
By Tim Shipman in Washington
Last Updated: 1:52am BST 08/10/2007



Gordon Brown has agreed to support US air strikes against Iran if the Islamic republic orchestrates large-scale attacks by militants against British or American forces in Iraq, according to senior Pentagon officials.

Frontline: Our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan
Washington sources say the Prime Minister has been informed of US plans to launch limited air and special forces raids against Revolutionary Guard bases.

advertisementAfter talks with President George W Bush in July, Mr Brown left US officials with the belief that Britain was "on board" for a military response — but only if Iran was proved to be behind a big militant attack or another stunt similar to the kidnapping in March of British sailors.

The US wants Britain's Special Air Service Regiment to take part in special forces raids inside Iran and has requested help from the Royal Navy to combat Iranian retaliation in the Gulf. But no decisions have been made.

Mr Brown made clear to Mr Bush that he would not support a campaign to destroy Iran's nuclear programme and bring about regime change in Teheran.

But Pentagon officials say he did indicate he would be prepared to back strikes in certain circumstances.

Vincent Cannistraro, a former White House intelligence chief in close contact with senior Pentagon officials, said: "The British understand there's a possible need to strike — not strategic bombing of nuclear sites but facilities in Iran in support of Iraqi elements. This understanding was reached shortly after Brown took office."

The threat of action has been passed to the Iranian government and is credited with slowing the flood of Iranian weapons into Iraq.

The suggestion that Mr Brown has discussed air strikes will anger critics who believe Tony Blair was too quick to approve military action against Iraq.

A Downing Street spokesman said: "While we won't comment on the specifics of conversations between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States, this is not a version of events we recognise."

A source close to Mr Brown said the two had talked about Iran but "we have not had this conversation".

Monday, July 23, 2007

Brown won't rule out military action in Iran

Gordon Brown is following in the footsteps of Tony Blair and also adopting the same stance as Bush on Iran. I wonder what help Britain would provide? Air support?

Brown won't rule out military action in Iran
Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:31PM BST
By Sophie Walker

LONDON (Reuters) - 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 programme.

"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 programme is for purely peaceful ends, such as electricity generation.

Iran held talks with the U.N. watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) this month to clear up outstanding questions about its nuclear activity and improve IAEA inspectors' access to its enrichment plant.

This, say some European diplomats, has prompted the six big powers working on the issue -- the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany -- to quietly put off until September efforts to toughen existing sanctions, in hopes Iran's improved cooperation with the IAEA may defuse the standoff.

Brown said he believed the current sanctions were having an effect, but he thought there would still be a third resolution.

"There will probably be a third resolution in relation to Iran soon ... I appeal to the Iranian authorities to understand the feelings that other countries have about the development of a nuclear weapons programme," he said.

French Foreign Ministry deputy spokesman Denis Simonneau told an online briefing it was necessary to maintain "a message of firmness" until Iran suspended sensitive activities.

"This new (U.N. sanctions) resolution, which we would like to be firm, should clearly indicate to Iran that its obstinacy is leading to its increased isolation, which is bad for its economy, its population and its openness to the world."

(Additional reporting by Jon Boyle)


© Reuters 2006.

US will bank Tik Tok unless it sells off its US operations

  US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said during a CNBC interview that the Trump administration has decided that the Chinese internet app ...