Cameron urges Israel not to attack Iran - Polidicks

[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19957218[/url] [quote=BBC News][B]The international community must show the "courage" to allow sanctions against Iran to work, UK Prime Minister David Cameron has said.[/B] European foreign ministers have agreed financial and trade restrictions aimed at increasing pressure on Iran to halt its nuclear programme. The PM said it was the right approach, adding he had advised Israel now was "not the time" to take military action. But he said nothing was "off the table" if Iran made "the wrong choice". The US and the EU have long suspected that Tehran is trying to develop a nuclear weapon, in contravention of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) But Iran has always denied any military motivation for the programme, insisting it is for civilian purposes only and within the terms of the NPT. [B]'Losing grip'[/B] European Union ministers meeting in Luxembourg on Monday agreed a further tightening of existing financial, trade and energy sanctions. In a speech to the United Jewish Israel Appeal in London, Mr Cameron said: "I have said to Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu that now is not the time for Israel to resort to military action. "Beyond the unpredictable dangers inherent in any conflict, the other reason is this: at the very moment when the regime faces unprecedented pressure and the people are on the streets; and when Iran's only real ally in Syria is losing his grip on power, a foreign military strike is exactly the chance the regime would look for to unite his people against a foreign enemy. "We shouldn't give them that chance. We need the courage to give these sanctions time to work." Last month, Mr Netanyahu warned the United Nations General Assembly that time was running out to prevent Iran acquiring sufficient enriched uranium to build a bomb. However, Mr Cameron said "relentless sanctions" were having a greater-than-expected impact. [B]'Banana republic'[/B] He said that as well as slowing the nuclear programme, oil exports had fallen by 45%, the value of the country's currency had fallen and inflation was soaring and could be as high as 50%. Mr Cameron said: "Most significantly, there are signs that the Iranian people are beginning to question the regime's strategy with even pro-regime groups protesting at the actions of the government. "It's mind boggling that the leaders of a nation so rich in oil have succeeded in turning their country into a banana republic desperately trying to put rockets into space while their people suffer. "The Iranian regime is under unprecedented pressure and faces an acute dilemma. They are leading their people to global isolation and an economic collapse. And they know it." The prime minister said Iran could end the pressure, adding: "In the long term, if Iran makes the wrong choice, nothing is off the table. A nuclear armed Iran is a threat to Israel. And a threat to the world. And this country will work unwaveringly to prevent that from happening."[/quote]

I don't really want Israel to attack but I also don't think these sanctions are doing anything to make the government of Iran change their minds.

"We will not support you unless there's a visible threat"

[QUOTE=Thom12255;38064545]I don't really want Israel to attack but I also don't think these sanctions are doing anything to make the government of Iran change their minds.[/QUOTE] Actually, there have been protests because the currency is devaluing so fast it is getting to the point of hyper inflation.

[QUOTE=Thom12255;38064545]I don't really want Israel to attack but I also don't think these sanctions are doing anything to make the government of Iran change their minds.[/QUOTE] Logisticially, it may force them to route funds from the nuclear program, and delay it for some time.

[QUOTE=NeonpieDFTBA;38064563]Actually, there have been protests because the currency is devaluing so fast it is getting to the point of hyper inflation.[/QUOTE] I don't think the Iranian government cares about it's people very much.

It's better to have sanctions, than to have a massive bombing campaign that will destroy their country for decades.

[QUOTE=Thom12255;38064545]I don't really want Israel to attack but I also don't think these sanctions are doing anything to make the government of Iran change their minds.[/QUOTE] Though why should they, especially when the advice to shut their nuclear campaign down comes from a country with a policy of nuclear opacity, has not signed the NPT themselves, and which intelligence points to them having hundreds of the weapons.

Yeah okay Cameron yup you go tell them to calm down okay yeah you just go sit back down okay Dave mate alright

[QUOTE=Thom12255;38064574]I don't think the Iranian government cares about it's people very much.[/QUOTE] Like the Libyan and Syrian governments didn't. people can often put up with repression, assuming the economy is okay. When the economy goes wrong, expect big issues for the regime.

[QUOTE=Nikota;38064578]It's better to have sanctions, than to have a massive bombing campaign that will destroy their country for decades.[/QUOTE] No instead you just destroy there economy which will still take ages to recover and would actually allow for the same shit on par with the run up to World War 2. Seriously did we actually learn nothing from the fucking Treaty Of Versailles? Both options are shitty as the next, the only upside of sanctions is that you don't have to directly kill anyone.

[QUOTE=Rocksalt;38064864]No instead you just destroy there economy which will still take ages to recover and would actually allow for the same shit on par with the run up to World War 2. Seriously did we actually learn nothing from the fucking Treaty Of Versailles? Both options are shitty as the next, the only upside of sanctions is that you don't have to directly kill anyone.[/QUOTE] Hehe... Treaty of Versailles... You do know Germany's economy did recover in the 1920's even with the treaty in place? It only collapsed due to the Wall Street Crash. I have wrote 3000 word essays on the Treaty of Versailles, rest assured, it was barely important towards the fall of Weimar. Ok I gotta go further. The reason the 'shit' happened on the run up to WW2 was because we stopped enforcing the treaty. So you're defeating your own argument.

[QUOTE=Thom12255;38064895]Hehe... Treaty of Versailles... You do know Germany's economy did recover in the 1920's even with the treaty in place? It only collapsed due to the Wall Street Crash. I have wrote 3000 word essays on the Treaty of Versailles, rest assured, it was barely important towards the fall of Weimar. Ok I gotta go further. The reason the 'shit' happened on the run up to WW2 was because we stopped enforcing the treaty. So you're defeating your own argument.[/QUOTE] It gave Hitler the spark he needed to get people on his side, it's a pretty similar situation to what we're doing to Iran right now, slamming sanction after sanction on them and saying it's for the good of the region. Someone's gonna stand up and say, "look how they treat you the people, they don't care about you, they're willing to let you all starve because they're worried about our nuclear program!" Regardless of the actual tangible effect of the treaty economically it gave people what they needed to make bad shit happen.

[QUOTE=Rocksalt;38065030]It gave Hitler the spark he needed to get people on his side, it's a pretty similar situation to what we're doing to Iran right now, slamming sanction after sanction on them and saying it's for the good of the region. Someone's gonna stand up and say, "look how they treat you the people, they don't care about you, they're willing to let you all starve because they're worried about our nuclear program!" Regardless of the actual tangible effect of the treaty economically it gave people what they needed to make bad shit happen.[/QUOTE] No it didn't, no one gave a flying fuck about the Treaty of Versailles apart from idiots. The Nazi Party came to power in 1933 due to the bungling of the President and Weimar Government. People were disillusioned with democracy and with a poor economy to go along with it they fell for the charismatic leader who promised to save them. The Treaty of Versailles was talked about by the Nazi's a lot yes but it's like us saying "but the Republicans started the Iraq war" nowadays, no one really cares, it's just a rallying call, people did not vote for the Nazi's just because of the Treaty of Versailles which had been getting drawn back and more kind ever since 1919. The Treaty of Versailles never destroyed the German Economy. The German Economy in 1923 suffered Hyper-Inflation due to the Government's inflation policies after the war to make it seem like the economy was weak so they didn't have to pay so much back in Reparations. Once the Ruhr went on strike they immediately lost most of their revenue and currency became worthless. This was fixed almost immediately as soon as the strike ended and the policies of the government were changed. After that the economy grew and returned to pre-war levels. It only hit the shit after the Wall Street Crash which was also when the Nazi's increased their power in the Reichstag. The Treaty of Versailles was not a big deal. Please never use it as the base of your platform. Most Historians would laugh at you.

[QUOTE=Thom12255;38064895]Hehe... Treaty of Versailles... You do know Germany's economy did recover in the 1920's even with the treaty in place? It only collapsed due to the Wall Street Crash. I have wrote 3000 word essays on the Treaty of Versailles, rest assured, it was barely important towards the fall of Weimar. Ok I gotta go further. The reason the 'shit' happened on the run up to WW2 was because we stopped enforcing the treaty. So you're defeating your own argument.[/QUOTE] It wasn't everyone that stopped the support of the Treaty. Britain didn't care for it in the first place, and by the 1920's, it's only true supporters were France and Russia, both wanting Germany as part of their own empire.

[QUOTE=Moustacheman;38066215]It wasn't everyone that stopped the support of the Treaty. Britain didn't care for it in the first place, and by the 1920's, it's only true supporters were France and Russia, both wanting Germany as part of their own empire.[/QUOTE] You've actually got be stumped. As far as I knew France just wanted Germany to get pummelled into the dust in the early 20's when a right-wing government was elected who thought the terms were not harsh enough. Russia spent that time helping Germany by pass restrictions of the treaty such as training military troops in Russia instead of Germany. Russia and Germany were actually good friends before Hitler came along. But yea the support for the treaty disappeared in mostly the 1930's, Germany wasn't pushing too hard to get past the treaty in the 1920's. I guess this thread is now about the reasons for the fall of Weimar democracy.

[QUOTE=Thom12255;38066249]You've actually got be stumped. As far as I knew France just wanted Germany to get pummelled into the dust in the early 20's when a right-wing government was elected who thought the terms were not harsh enough. Russia spent that time helping Germany by pass restrictions of the treaty such as training military troops in Russia instead of Germany. Russia and Germany were actually good friends before Hitler came along. But yea the support for the treaty disappeared in mostly the 1930's, Germany wasn't pushing too hard to get past the treaty in the 1920's. I guess this thread is now about the reasons for the fall of Weimar democracy.[/QUOTE] Well thanks for the correction on Russia, mate. I do remember that Britain protested much of the treaty, due to it being able to allow France to grow larger, as they knew they would if Germany disbanded.

[QUOTE=Moustacheman;38066288]Well thanks for the correction on Russia, mate. I do remember that Britain protested much of the treaty, due to it being able to allow France to grow larger, as they knew they would if Germany disbanded.[/QUOTE] The British people did want Germany to pay but overall the Government at the time didn't push as hard as they said they would. But yeah, Britain got what they wanted and then France came in and kept pushing for it to be harsher as they lost more. Britain was much more open to treaty changes than France ever was which hurt our relations.