Bush's visit to Britain

[The Viceroy]

Well, 1 protestor so far ..

Whats the guesses on figures for tomorrow ??

Im guessing ..

Police say 25,000
STWC say 850,000



Apparently the radical islamic group al-Muhajiroun has advised its members to stay away, fearing a real possible terrorist attack.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3275907.stm

I hope thats just precautionary advice

[child of Thor]

nice article!

Not only do i have to worry about an attact on the president, but i may atleast take some satisfaction that if a u.s. security agent shoots me - they will be tried in a british court, if their actions are proven to be criminal!!



well i'm going anyway - i think this is all propaganda to breed fear(which is the new way of controlling the population in US and UK ) to keep some people away

But yes i'm glad he is coming - it may be the final nail in Mr Blairs coffin and even though i dont think George Bush gives a damn about how many people turn up to protest - atleast i'll feel better for being there.

[The Viceroy]

Final nail in Blairs coffin ?? how so ?

[child of Thor]

well i dont like getting into these type of discussions cause everyone has their opinion and it rarely changes, still i'm looking into the future through my crystal ball and i see Mr Blair getting all 'smoochy' with Bush during the visit - lots of 'we'll stand and fall together' types stuff yada yada
The problem being alot(most?) people know that we were basicaly lied too - to get us into the war, its not a feeling i like very much. And since then i just have a problem believing him, IMHO i dont think this weeks charade with the U.S. President will actualy make me feel any different about him - it most likely will make it worse as i have to put up with u.s. style 'pom pom' speeches and lots of slightly sickening flag waving(in this context).
Thats all...........but its my personal feelings on this so i'm not expecting to sway anyone - just my two cents(ah! i'm americanised! ).

[Sandman]

Actually yes. The world that Bush wants may not be what you want, but in the end he definetly wants a world of laws and an association of nations. Before then he wants to democratize the ME, so you get countries that will follow the laws.

Bush has hardly been a stellar example of bringing a world of laws into being. He's dismissed Kyoto, the ICC, and various other international projects on spurious grounds, applied tariffs to steel, and misled the other members of the Security Council into believing that he'd seek a second resolution.

How do you know he 'definitely' wants a world of laws when he has been practising unilateralism?

The idea that he wants to democratise the ME so it will follow the laws makes no sense. Why not articulate the laws first so then he can act upon them? Because he doesn't want laws that restrict American power, that's why.

When Lloyd George and Clemenceau stabbed the American president in the back at Versailles, they doomed the world to the horrors of World War II. I wonder what Chirac and Schroeder's betrayal of the American president will bring the world this time around?

When America failed to join the League of Nations, they contributed to that organisation's weakness. I wonder what America's betrayal of international institutions will bring this time around?

[The Viceroy]

Have you ever liked Blair ?

Although I can agree, for those people who dislike Bush, and don't really approve of Blair appearing "Shoulder to Shoulder" .. that it ain't going to make them more .. but what is your credible alternative ??

The tories will be just as pro American, the Lib Dems at least do put up some kind of resistance to this kind of stuff, but will people feel so strongly to vote for them ???

I personally doubt it.

When it comes to it, even MikeH says he'll vote Labour likely in the next election (for his own reasons .. not war related) .. but that to me just states that people don't feel so strongly to actually put their vote for the lib dems .. when they do .. I will accept it.

Blair will be voted in once more, another 5 years

[child of Thor]

The Viceroy, yes i voted Blair in and remember that feeling like things will only get better Sort of like when englad had that run in Euro96(was it?). So the disapointment i now feel is even worse.
And you bring up an interesting point about the choice for an alternative - i believe its exactly the same on the other side of the Atlantic, who can really be seen as an alternative to Bush by the voting public?
Coincidence? Or just part of a cunning plan?

It will interesting to see how all of this will be looked at in hindsight over the years to come. I've gone from a fairly non-political animal to one who now has an active interest in just what our governments do in our names, which has got to be a good thing

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Adam Smith
Nice try at ducking the issue.

Roland's a lawyer. Ducking issues is what he gets paid for.

[Tripledoc]

How come all Hindis hate Muslims?

[Ned]

Originally posted by problem_child


You poor gullible propaganda recepticle, and you sound so earnest, like you really beleive this kind of stuff. Bless your little cotton socks.

problem_child, if we both had a the same set of facts, we could seriously debate the issues. However, it is very clear that the Europeans are being fed nothing but spin and propaganda on Iraq. The truth is that Iraq is on the whole a major success. The problem areas are somewhat confined to the Sunni triangle where less than five thousand of the old regime countinue the resistance. But even here, the number of Iraqi's informing on the resistance is growing. Today's news is that their leader (not Saddam, but #6 on the deck of cards) is negotiating a surrender.

The new Iraqi security forces are now taking the field. The governing council is moving to adopt a basic law and to conduct elections. The "occupation" is scheduled to end next June.

What I just said is in dramatic contrast with the "facts" as "known" by most of the European posters. You would rather discuss the "failure" and "debacle" of Iraq. But, how can we discuss that when it conflicts with the facts on the ground.

As I predicted. The Europeans will strongly disagree with what I have said with total self assurance. However, how confident are you that you are getting the truth and not propaganda?

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Ned
problem_child, if we both had a the same set of facts, we could seriously debate the issues. However, it is very clear that the Europeans are being fed nothing but spin and propaganda on Iraq.

I read New York Times, L. A Times, and listen to the VOX POP here on Apolyton. Still I would say their spin on it is that the war is going badly. Many Americans are tired of the crap too.

You might say that the war is going well according to the present plan, which is a different plan from what they had yesterday, and the day before yesterday. Naturally if it was a goalkeepers plan to let the ball pass then that might be termed a succes by him, but I don't think his team-mates would think that.

[Ned]

MikeH, in what way did Blair lie to you? If the intelligence supported what he said, he was not lying. If it did not, he was.

So, what was the intelligence available to Blair when he gave to Parliament and the British people? How did Blair lie?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sandman

The idea that he wants to democratise the ME so it will follow the laws makes no sense. Why not articulate the laws first so then he can act upon them? Because he doesn't want laws that restrict American power, that's why.

Sandman, what the US wants is democratic governments that protect human, civil and political rights rather than trample on them. I hope you share this overall objective. I hope you do not support fascism and Islamo-fascism.

But your idea that the US could simply lay down the law and have other nations simply voluntarily accede to them is somewhat ridiculous if you think about it for a few seconds. What fascist regime will voluntarily give power to the people?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Is it acceptable for governments to lie to their people to do something which in the long run may benefit them?

Actually, I think it is. If the action has benefits in the long run and the leaders had to lie to realize those benefits, I think history vindicates them.

Bush has hardly been a stellar example of bringing a world of laws into being. He's dismissed Kyoto, the ICC, and various other international projects on spurious grounds, applied tariffs to steel, and misled the other members of the Security Council into believing that he'd seek a second resolution.

Once, again, just because he doesn't like your 'laws' doesn't mean he is against a world of laws.

How do you know he 'definitely' wants a world of laws when he has been practising unilateralism?

Well that's mostly what he talks about. A world of democracies who fight against terror. An outlawing of terrorism by the countries of the world who will fight together against it.

The idea that he wants to democratise the ME so it will follow the laws makes no sense. Why not articulate the laws first so then he can act upon them? Because he doesn't want laws that restrict American power, that's why.

He already has. The laws that Western countries follow with respect to terrorist groups, at the very least, are laws that he has backed. Democratization of the ME will help lead to these laws, seeing as most terrorist groups seem to be based there.

[MikeH]

When it comes to it, even MikeH says he'll vote Labour likely in the next election (for his own reasons .. not war related) .. but that to me just states that people don't feel so strongly to actually put their vote for the lib dems .. when they do .. I will accept it.

I'm voting for my local MP, not for Blair/Kennedy and the way my constituency goes it's possible that the Conservatives might win it and Howard is even more of a sneaky manipulative lying weasel than Blair. I'd take blair as the lesser of two evils. But I'd only vote labour for my current MP, if the local party have their way and depose her there's no way I won't vote lib dem.