Bush bashes Tory leader!

[notyoueither]

No, Ned, they are speaking their hearts. They are the best friends the US ever had. They are willing to tell you when you've ****ed up, but they aren't saying that everything you do has ****ed up as some knee jerk reaction. We should all hope for friends who will be honest with us when we go astray. It might hurt to hear it. It might smart to acknowledge going wrong, but real friends would not be that if they stayed silent.

[Ned]

They don't sound like friends. They are bashing Blair just as the Demo's here bash Bush. They do not have the best interests of America or Britain at heart. They are simply playing politics.

That is not to say that there are some conservatives who would have taken a different course. But there is an expression in the US that hindsight is always better. Our "friends" are second guessing what Bush did because our intelligence turned out to be faulty. That is just unfair.

[notyoueither]

Or they are not happy with torture of people who never should have been prisoners? Maybe they are unhappy with how the whole ****ed up thing went down, and they blame Tony for not standing up when he should have? Maybe, along with sizable numbers of their populations, they don't want to go blindly along with whatever Bush wants to do in the ME without some careful thought and good diplomacy first?

Maybe they are trying to tell you something. Maybe they are trying to tell you that not even the US can get away with acting the way Bush has led it to act.

[notyoueither]

Not and have any friends left at all (other than those who can be bought).

[Ned]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Or they are not happy with torture of people who never should have been prisoners? Maybe they are unhappy with how the whole ****ed up thing went down, and they blame Tony for not standing up when he should have? Maybe, along with sizable numbers of their populations, they don't want to go blindly along with whatever Bush wants to do in the ME without some careful thought and good diplomacy first?

Maybe they are trying to tell you something. Maybe they are trying to tell you that not even the US can get away with acting the way Bush has led it to act.

Oh, come on now. Bush had nothing to do with Abu Gharaib. Nothing. What you are saying here is completely unfair.

True, there are problems in Iraq caused by the Sunni's and by the likes of Sadr. The Sadr problems seems to be ending because we confronted him. I have a feeling that the Sunni resistance in Falluja is next.

[notyoueither]

re Abu G. Bull!

Intelligence guided the interogations. You think enlisted came up with that crap? In what kind of crackerjack box army?

Administration flaks were writing memos defending torture.

I might support a Conservative party, but I'm not a moron.

[Ned]

There is a Schlessinger report out that agrees that MI was involved. However, the real problem was the so-called "night shift" that operated at that time to avoid detection. There was nothing about what happened there that was consistent with "policy."

[Berzerker]

Whaleboy -

I think the penny is dropping that Gulf War II had nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.

I think it has alot to do with terrorism, the message is clear - don't **** with us and don't help those who do...

The procurement of weaponry is a matter for the intelligence services, if anything the fog of war makes it easier to acquire those weapons as the intelligence services are stretched in trying to fight a needless altercation. As for creating a nuke, the danger is vastly overstated considering how chronically difficult it is to do so.

Create? No, just procure... And the war on terrorism has at least 2 fronts - prevent that procurement and eliminate the people who want a nuke to use on us.

Just as me saying "I don't think you have the right to say certain things" is free speech, but used to attack the notion of free speech.

That's quite a leap, Bush told the guy he can't criticise Blair? No, he was told Bush doesn't want to hear him speak any more.

That's fine, but I don't think that you have the whole rationale covered IMHO. Bush has the right, in his personal life, to the same freedom of association as the rest of us, but freedom of association does not lead to effective government. If, for example, an governmental institution like a school was to arbitrarily expell students on the basis of pro or anti-war on Bush's whim, that would not be an efficient or valid course of action, I think we can all agree there.

Bush ain't a student or teacher, he's the CinC during a war and he doesn't have to offer opponents of that war his ear.

With another party, he, as a man in a position of political power (and that is the key thing) has introduced punitive consequences for one particular opinion over another (compounded by the fact that Howard is an opposition MP in another country), to effectively say "we don't want you saying that, and we'll take measures against you if you do".

The measure was a refusal to listen, not force him to keep quiet.

Because of their position in power, it is unacceptable to take those measures, though they are fine to disagree. What I would have done is attempt to refute Howards points instead of getting arsey about it.

Why are you responding to questions I posed to Kuci and ignoring what we were talking about? This is about whether or not Bush's action violates some libertarian principle and you're debating the efficacy of his actions.

[Berzerker]

re Abu G. Bull!

Intelligence guided the interogations. You think enlisted came up with that crap? In what kind of crackerjack box army?

Administration flaks were writing memos defending torture.

I might support a Conservative party, but I'm not a moron.

I can't believe anyone thinks a few guards thought this stuff up and used it on their own. They even brought their own whips and ladies underwear

Ned - that report comes from a man who was quite upfront about his bias even if he didn't mean to expose it. Concluding that the policy went higher, maybe even Rumsfeld, would have caused severe damage to the President and the war on terror according to Schlesinger. So, would this guy do that or would he fudge the truth to avoid this severe damage?

[CerberusIV]

I can't find it now but there was a political update piece on the BBC website a couple of months ago about Tony Blair refusing to have regular meetings with Michael Howard. Apparently meetings between the PM and Leader of the Opposition on a weekly basis used to be the norm. Blair did meet William Hague and Ian Duncan-Smith but dropped the meetings when Howard became Tory leader. So GW is still just following Tony's lead on the big issues.

[Drake Tungsten]

I think it has alot to do with terrorism, the message is clear - don't **** with us and don't help those who do...

Spot on.

[Whaleboy]

I think it has alot to do with terrorism, the message is clear - don't **** with us and don't help those who do...

Which has... what exactly to do with Iraq? Am I missing something? How would you define ****ing with you? Am I ****ing with you by expressing a contrary opinion and refuting the logic behind the WoT? Should I thus be "shut up" accordingly or have such passive measures taken against me, measures nonetheless?

Create? No, just procure... And the war on terrorism has at least 2 fronts - prevent that procurement and eliminate the people who want a nuke to use on us.

And you don't think that demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the culture with which you profess to deal? Prevent the procurment and eliminate SPECIFIC individuals, fine, that's why you have the intelligence agencies. The military is a tactical agent, the elimination or forceful modification of other nation states, large monolithic organisations (unlike cell-structures that are modular and best dealt with by covert means) and the defense of your nation from the aforementioned threats. Aircraft carriers can do nothing against suicide bombers.

If you "eliminate" people on an arbitrary basis in terrorist organisations, three more pop up to join them, and you succeed only in further alienating the Islamic world, thus perpetuating and escalating the conflict. Work out your enemy, terrorism (in which case use intelligence), Islam (in which case use armies) or Kerry (in which case sling mud).

That's quite a leap, Bush told the guy he can't criticise Blair? No, he was told Bush doesn't want to hear him speak any more.

Quite an irrational reaction for a world leader. Sure in his private life he can listen to whom he wants, but in a public role refusal to hear (or in this case meet... a more abstract message he has sent, namely that he in person is not welcome, not merely his opinions) is tantamount to a sanction upon the basis of expressed opinion.

Bush ain't a student or teacher, he's the CinC during a war and he doesn't have to offer opponents of that war his ear.

I do not believe the USA to be at war. Hostilities in Iraq have ceased, and there are no states with which the USA is militarily quarrelling at the moment that I am aware of. Covert operations alone? That is not a state of overt war. I fail to see how his role as commander in chief is primary to his role as president and political representative of his nation to the world, including opinions and counter opinions regarding that nations actions.

As for denying his ear, Howard seems like a strange choice. A refusal to see representatives of the peace movement, I can understand, but it seems that Bush is denying Howard the opportunity to visit as a punitive measure to in retaliation for Howards attack on Blair, on Iraq, which on two levels is irrelevant to the WoT... in other words a punitive act of political convenience or the typical Bush measure of scare tactics and manipulation by intimidation (see the article I linked to earlier in this thread).

The measure was a refusal to listen, not force him to keep quiet.

That does not address my point. My point was in regards to Bush the president, not Bush the man. Latterly I don't give a **** about. He has introduced a punitive measure (symbolic since he is already aware of Howards views thus this becomes a measure of cordiality) against Howard for his expressing of his opinion.

Why are you responding to questions I posed to Kuci and ignoring what we were talking about? This is about whether or not Bush's action violates some libertarian principle and you're debating the efficacy of his actions.

You raise a point publically, I answer those points publically. If you just want Kuci to answer, then PM or email him. His actions by consequence or utility do not violate any libertarian principle, however by intent do violate the notion of potential free speech. That is only relevant for Bush the man, not Bush the president, whereupon his actions are unacceptable in my view.

[Imran Siddiqui]

No, Ned, they are speaking their hearts. They are the best friends the US ever had. They are willing to tell you when you've ****ed up, but they aren't saying that everything you do has ****ed up as some knee jerk reaction. We should all hope for friends who will be honest with us when we go astray. It might hurt to hear it. It might smart to acknowledge going wrong, but real friends would not be that if they stayed silent.

The best friends will tell you that they think you are wrong and won't just blow smoke up your ass.

[MRT144]

The best friends will tell you that they think you are wrong and won't just blow smoke up your ass.

word

[MrWhereItsAt]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

No, Ned, they are speaking their hearts. They are the best friends the US ever had. They are willing to tell you when you've ****ed up, but they aren't saying that everything you do has ****ed up as some knee jerk reaction. We should all hope for friends who will be honest with us when we go astray. It might hurt to hear it. It might smart to acknowledge going wrong, but real friends would not be that if they stayed silent.

The best friends will tell you that they think you are wrong and won't just blow smoke up your ass.

Exactly. If instead of criticising certain US government decisions (and I stress this has nothing to do with US politics) on the International level, if every country whose Government and/or people were not hoping to convince Bush and co. of their being wrong and instead just wanted to pour scorn on them, the US would have a lot more 'enemies' than it does now. NZ would be one, yet there we are, contributing to the counter-terrorist activities in Afghanistan. Just not military operations in Iraq.

We disagree on many things, but we still support the US in all matters we find beneficial, correct, multilateral and justified- because we are friends and allies. In fact, if the US Admin didn't take such things as our country being anti-nuclear as a major personal snub for some reason, we'd be as close as the US and Oz are.