Bush's visit to Britain

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ned
HO, Admit it. You are a socialist and would oppose anything Bush does or did on general priniciples?

Roland is a socialist? The guy who termed Alan Greenspan a pinko?

[DanS]

Interesting poll numbers...

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1087545,00.html

[Imran Siddiqui]

And it's pretty clear that Wilson meant more than the pre-existing stuff like the laws of the sea when he was talking about his 'world of laws'.

He was also taking in 1919, before the Geneva Conventions, the Law of the Sea codification, etc. So perhaps he didn't mean more than those precepts.

What's the 'humanitarian law'? That could mean anything.

IMO, a world of laws doesn't entail a far stronger world government than we have now; the UN.

Humanitarian law is encapsulated mainly by the 4 Geneva Conventions on Human Rights but also some other treaties.

Yes, once again in YOUR opinion a 'world of laws' means A. Doesn't mean that 'world of laws' must mean A.

My point was a high-ranking US official expressing the opinion that Turkey was TOO democratic

So? Backing 'democracy' doesn't mean total democracy. There is a reason most Americans say that the US is a republic, not a democracy, because we don't like TOO much democracy.

The problem with that is that a democratic 'regime' has no innate reason to be friendly with the US. And I'm pretty sure he places 'friendly' before 'democratic' when deciding how to pursue America's interests.

Perhaps, but it also seems you are unaware of the democratic peace theory, which at its loosest (to prevent pages long argument on DP Theory) says that democracies tend not to use force against each other, definetly compared to democracy-autocratic, or autocratic-autocratic dyads.

I wouldn't say prosecute. More like locked in jail with the key thrown away.

So SA throws some people in jail because the US put some pressure. It ignores the Saudi government basically ignored the Wabbhist threat for years and a vast majority of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi nationals.

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by Adam Smith
I am not at all pleased with US foreign policy. But to those who protest Bush's visit ... to those who protest the war ... to those who opposed UN sanctions on Iraq ... what alternative do you offer for dealing with regimes who have undertaken agression against their neighbors? Who murder, torture, and gas their citizens? I've asked this question before, and have yet to receive plausible answer.

You asked for an alternative to the Iraq policy. Well, how about the policy that seems ok for the other 100 similar regimes out there? Why do you take Iraq as a sort of model? It won't be repeated. It was based on special circumstances, and America is way too weak to repeat that exercise. An alternative to US policy has to be in comparison to the cozying up to those regimes, not to overthrowing them.

You mentioned Myanmar, I mentioned Uzbekistan. I'm not dodging the issue, but I do not accept the flawed way in which you represent the situation. It's not about some US offensive for democracy. I hope you don't beleive in those fairytales.

And finally, my initial response was to your troll against the EU that you edited out later.

As for policy. We will have to deal with those regimes finding some sort of modus vivendi. Some guidelines:
- We should not support them with money, military or security cooperation except for clear quid pro quos. That would eg mean no financial support for Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Yes I know the risks.
- Economic relationships can soften up regimes while trade sanctions usually don't work. But we should still annoy them about human rights, even if that means losing a contract or two.
- Humanitarian intervention in failed states
- Military force against states that wage a war of aggression

And now it's the Iraq problem. Military force to overthrow a regime? Well that's fine with me. It's even fine with me if the motives are totally corrupt as long as the outcome is right.

The problem with Bush's war is that it was born dead as a political exercise, and all that will remain is a ME more ****ed up than before, and an arab world that hates the west more than before. The only positive may be that the Iraqis may get to live under a less evil regime. Unless it goes down in civil war.

If it should have had one chance to survive, it would have reqired much better preparation. A serious take on the Israel/Pal problem - Bush dropped Mazen when Sharon and Arafat squeezed him to secure the Likudnik vote in the US. A serious international mandate - if the Bushies had made concessions before that they have to make now anyway, it would have been much broader. A political role for the UN and a timetable for a complete US withdrawal - so it does not look like a colonialist adventure (which it is at its heart IMO). And have a plan what to with Iraq once it's occupied apart from dealing round the pork.

That would still have been a risky endevour, but one that I could sympathy with. But the Bush admin is way too incompetent and corrupt to have any chance here.

[Ancyrean]

By the way, according to this news on cnn.com , George W. Bush will be the first American president to make a State visit to Britain...

Accordingly, a state visit seems like one with more ceremony, so this particular visit presumably has the extra character of celebrating for the first time in a particular fashion the time-honoured and historicly strong special relationship between the two countries...

Would this in any way add another dimension to what has been disucssed in this thread (would this convince anyone to join the protests or get out of them, for example?)

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Ned
In posts a couple of weeks ago, I inquired whether anyone in Europe and Canada could get FOX or MSNBC? No one could. The people of Europe seem to have no access to media with that is not in the leftist spin mode except for perhaps a few, marginal right-wing hate rags that probably give nothing but spin in the other direction.

I live in France and I get both (though admittedly I never watch them; with something like 30 news channels, I have 28 better ones). I am fairly sure that anyone with SKY in the UK gets them, and if I remember correctly I got them when living in Germany.

As for the London protests, I have a question:

Assume that there are terrorisms in the UK with WMD (such as a deadly biological weapon) which could be released in London killing everyone withing 10 miles of the parade. Would it be worth the terrorists while to release it, killing the 2 heads of state who oppose them most, or would it be better to not release it since it would kill all of Bush/Blair's UK opposition?

Hmmm....probably a good idea to stay out of London.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by DanS
Interesting poll numbers...

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/...087545,00.html

From the article.

The survey shows that public opinion in Britain is overwhelmingly pro-American with 62% of voters believing that the US is "generally speaking a force for good, not evil, in the world".

What a fantastically silly question to put to people. Have the world really sunk that low? It all comes down to evil and good once again. Intent is of no matter. It is the factual and objective outcomes of political decisions which people should base their judgments on.

How can a nation be a force by the way? How can a nation be good or evil?

[MikeH]

Of course America isn't a force for evil, what a ridiculous question. That doesn't mean everything it's government decides to do is the best choice.

[Drake Tungsten]

Assume that there are terrorisms in the UK with WMD (such as a deadly biological weapon) which could be released in London killing everyone withing 10 miles of the parade. Would it be worth the terrorists while to release it, killing the 2 heads of state who oppose them most, or would it be better to not release it since it would kill all of Bush/Blair's UK opposition?

Al Qaeda and others wouldn't give a **** about killing the protestors. We're all heathen Westerners who deserve death in their eyes, even the useful fools.

[child of Thor]

America could be a force for good in the world, more than any other country, and not just because it has a big military/economy - but because it has a kind of historic clean slate if you like, compared to the 'old world' powers of europe/asia.

Its a new country in that sense and really could just show the whole human race the way forward for a better future for humanity.

Sadly IMHO it's starting to really look like wanting to play the 'Empire' from the starwars movies, rather than the 'Rebels', which i feel is more in its nature(i am no expert on america though- just the ideal i guess?).

I really hope the people of America can see this is their real destiny and take up the challange. Rather than let it slide into a petty 'them and us' future.

To me that furture looks bleak, full of fear and constraints on the freedoms we have enjoyed as citizens of a democracy so far. Dont let paranoia ruin yours and our destinies, please.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by child of Thor
To me that furture looks bleak, full of fear and constraints on the freedoms we have enjoyed as citizens of a democracy so far. Dont let paranoia ruin yours and our destinies, please.

Sorry you've been putting up with those laws longer than we have and we aren't able to do anything about your government.

/me is pointedly ignoring the mention of the Democratic Peace theory.

[Solly]

It'd be interesting to see the response if a plane is crashed right into the hordes of protestors..perhaps the threat might be brought home to them then.

[Adam Smith]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler You asked for an alternative to the Iraq policy. Well, how about the policy that seems ok for the other 100 similar regimes out there?

My point is that the policy, whatever it is, does not appear to work well for these regimes either.

Why do you take Iraq as a sort of model? It won't be repeated.

Iraq is a recent example of complete failure of existing diplomatic framework. Balkans would have been just as good an example. Who knows what we will get with NK.

An alternative to US policy has to be in comparison to the cozying up to those regimes, not to overthrowing them.

My point, again, is that I don't see exsiting alternatives working well.

You mentioned Myanmar, I mentioned Uzbekistan. I'm not dodging the issue, but I do not accept the flawed way in which you represent the situation. It's not about some US offensive for democracy. I hope you don't beleive in those fairytales.

Flawed in what way? If the only grounds for judging foreign policy is whether it serves that nations immediate interest, then there can be no criticism of any nation's policy.

And finally, my initial response was to your troll against the EU that you edited out later.

My initial understanding was that the EU had taken no action. I did a google search and found that the EU had taken some minimal action with respect to visas. That bit of text should not have appeared in the original post. Taking time to get the facts can't be considered a troll.

As for policy. We will have to deal with those regimes finding some sort of modus vivendi. Some guidelines:
- We should not support them with money, military or security cooperation except for clear quid pro quos. That would eg mean no financial support for Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Yes I know the risks.

The difficulty I see here is that circumstances cahnge her much more quickly than regimes do. Eg Egypt, and not just for terrorist reasons. The quid pro quo then becomes anything but clear. This is a blunt instrument, much like fiscal policy.

- Economic relationships can soften up regimes while trade sanctions usually don't work. But we should still annoy them about human rights, even if that means losing a contract or two.

Examples? This appears to suffer from the basic group action problem. It is beneficial to act within the group, but even more beneficial to act outside the group. This certainly applies to contracts. May also apply to Mugabe in Paris, in violation of EU travel ban, though who knows what the French interest was in permitting such a trip.

- Humanitarian intervention in failed states

This may even work, but only after crisis has been reached.

- Military force against states that wage a war of aggression

Again, consensus is difficult to achieve. Eg., Balkans, First Gulf War.

And now it's the Iraq problem.....
The problem with Bush's war....
If it should have had one chance to survive....
That would still have been a risky endevour, but one that I could sympathy with. But the Bush admin is way too incompetent and corrupt to have any chance here.

You seem to have forgotten that I began my initial post by saying that I am not at all pleased by US foreign policy.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
It'd be interesting to see the response if a plane is crashed right into the hordes of protestors..perhaps the threat might be brought home to them then.

But commies aren't cowards. It's only capitalists who fear death. Hence the paranoia.

[MikeH]

A plane crashed into the hordes of protesters would prove their point that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq haven't helped reduce the threat of terrorism.