George Bush - UK Next Week

[Highfields Seagull]

I guess I'll just have to disagree with your interpretation of democracy looney.

I believe in a pluralist democracy which entails more than voting in a government at the ballot box every 5 years. Protests, and demonstrations (not bullying and intimidation) have a full part to play in this interpretation of democracy, as do other forms of expressing your point of view on matters.

 

[Bare]

Thanks again for the welcomes.
I really don't know who it was, he/she posted a thread and I read it and decided to sign up. Might be good to see how the other half thinks and lives.
I live in Northern California, in the foothills just outside of Sacramento. It's funny people all over the world hear California and the first thing they think of is Hollyweird. No, where I come from, we all carry six-guns and settle disputes the old fashion way.
We all know why the war happened, so the question is, What are we going to do with it now? We can't walk away. That's out of the question. If we left now with the unfinished business that is there in Iraq, it would be a blood-baath. The preasure in the region for the present mission to fail is enormous. Bush and Blair are stubborn about this and justifiably so. If there was a way that I could relieve the pressure so that the mission succeeds, I'd do it.
As our former Speaker of the House, Tip Oneal said, "All politics is local." With that advise perhaps we should start with the local counsels. Much as they are now.

 

[Gwylan]

Peace in the region will not come cheap or easy. We're talking what? 8K-10K years of death and destruction and we aim to mediate that in 1-2 years.

Bollocks. Until the Second World War, there were large and prosperous Jewish communities in Cairo, Damascus and Baghdad (probably other places in the Middle East as well). There was no trouble between muslims and jews, each respecting each other's view.

The tensions in the region only emerged after Israel's seizure of Palestinian lands and the displacement of the indigenous Palestinians. Although, it's true to say that successive arab leaders have fannned the flames to ensure that a localised problem became a wider one. Add to that, the discovery of oil and its exploitation by US companies (and creation of great wealth inequality) and you have a heady cocktail
However, the Middle East problem is only about 60 years old. (unless you're talking in wider terms and are referring to the Turkish question that bothered Disraeli and Gladstone - but that's not really the same thing, we still see the fallout of that issue in former Yugoslavia though).

 

[alan partridge]

We all know why the war happened, so the question is, What are we going to do with it now?

see. this is what i was talking about. i'm sorry it is not good enough to just say it's happened, lets deal with the now. ofcourse the present situation needs to be dealt with, that's blindingly obvious. BUT questions need to be raised about why it happened and answers need to be given. they can't just be waved away as irrelevant cos they're not.

 

[Sorrel]

As one of the people who demonstrated against the war earlier in the year, I thought I'd give my views. You can imagine I'm unwashed and that I don't have a job if it makes you feel better.

I'm not that bothered about Bush coming here. In my opinion leaders should visit different countries rather than just worry about their own, and so this sort of thing is seems fine. I know it's a State visit, but to be against that you have to be against the monarchy, and I'm in favour of keeping (a slimmed down) version of that.

I support both the right of the protesters to be seen and heard, and some of what they are protesting about. However, I won't be protesting myself. My problem was (and remains) with Tony Blair, who I feel was not honest about the whole Iraq business, and adopted the policy he did because it was in Britains interests to go along with the USA.

I don't want to protest against George Bush, as really that's the Americans job to do that if they don't like him. I can see why he is unpopular, especially his governments links with business, but apart from Guantanamo Bay I don't think there's much he's doing that is against human rights, which is what I'm bothered about.

I'm prepared to give the USA the benefit of the doubt over Iraq at the moment. If they started killing civilians as the Israelis do, then I wouldn't support them, but they're behaving much better to the Iraqis than the Israelis do to the Palestinians. If they stick to tbeir word and leave, then that's ok.

 

[Bare]

Gwylan, you make some valid points. If I can clarify a bit further, Moslims and Jews have been at each other since their religions began, if the Bible is any record of History. With the Jew being the more passive of the two.
Like all passages translated from the old, there are some left to interpretation. Passages written in the Toran refer to a "turn the other cheek," "don't strike back" sort of thing. Some Jews believe it refers to a "forgiving, don't carry a grudge" attitude, others take a more literal translation.
Throughout the ages the Jew has been the 'whippin-boy,' the 'redheaded step-child, the scapegoat for any and all to relieve their frustrations. This culminated during the Holocaust. Stalin even had a hand it it. At that point many Jews declared, "Never again."
When they moved into Israel they took that attitude with them. With a few exceptions they've been a reactive people. Responding to threats and aggression as opposed to creating it. These people have vowed to never be a victim again and they will stay where they are.
IMHO and it may be cruel to say this but I think the passive Jews were killed during the Holocaust leaving only the aggressive Jew to proliferate the future. I've had the prerogative to talk to a Polish Jew who fought Romel and invaded the beachs in Normandy and two others who were Partisans. Plus many Moslims on both sides of the issue. I think a lot of the Middle-East problems could be solved if the Jew went passive and was willing to be kicked out of the area. Fat chance that'll ever happen.
Alan Partridge, I hear you. Perhaps I was bit hasty.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Too many unnecessarily long posts on this thread

'Bush'n'Blair - f*** 'Em Up' is all you need to know

Both invaded a sovereign state in clear contravention of international law - and both are war criminals.

At least Bush's motives were honest - he was sponsored by the oilmen. Blair is up Bush's shitter without a paddle



The protestors had the moral high ground before the unlawful invasion of Iraq - and they'll sure as hell have the moral high ground next week irrespective of whether the Met beat the shit out of them or not. Which they surely will. Just remember the images of next week come next polling day - then Vote Labour if Gordon Brown is in power, or stay home watching Countdown if
Tony B.Liar is.
And Looney, as always, can eat shit and die aye?

 

[BUTTERBALL]

I'd prefer Kate Bush

 

[Beach Hut]

Unashamedly bounced to the top.

Now dickbrain has arrived - any further opinions ?

 

[Dandyman]

Just to stir things up a bit, I got an email this morning from a friend in California who is begging us to "protest Bush".

 

[Bare]

Yes, but be nice about it. Don't get arrested.

 

[Faldo]

Just got in from town (my office is just off Trafalgar Square).

Lots of police about, and a fair few protesters - all seemed amicable, but if Im honest, I didnt bother getting too close to the area.

From what I hear though, apparantly tomorrow is the big day for protests.

 

[NMH]

If George Bush would like to add something honest into his rhetoric (which seems to be that the danger is even more evident now that we have over-run Iraq and found no weapons - struggling to convince us in his 'perpective warping of convenience') he might let everyone know that this is ANOTHER VIETNAM where a bunch of SUITS with no real clue of international (or national) politics, orchestrate poor doofus voluntary military persons until the losses are significant enough to call it a day, and that he has 'Bushwacked' Blair into following this tack to strengthen allied relations regardless of how many of our kids get killed by their kids.

 

[Bare]

The main difference between Iraq and Viet Nam is Nam was foughtby the politcians and Iraq is fought by Generals.

GWB and the rest learned their leasons well.

 

[Zeitgeist]

The main difference between Iraq and Viet Nam is Nam was foughtby the politcians and Iraq is fought by Generals.

GWB and the rest learned their leasons well.

OMG!!!!...........Wars have NEVER been fought by either politicians or Generals, only young kids on the front line! The difference between the two wars IS, Vietnam was fought by kids who were conscripted to a place they should never have been in. The kids getting killed in Iraq aren't conscripts!

Learned their lessons??.......I don't f***ing think so!

 

[NMH]

OMG!!!!...........Wars have NEVER been fought by either politicians or Generals, only young kids on the front line! The difference between the two wars IS, Vietnam was fought by kids who were conscripted to a place they should never have been in. The kids getting killed in Iraq aren't conscripts!

Learned their lessons??.......I don't f***ing think so!

True, and it's stranger for the fact that most of the volunteers joined up thinking there was very little chance of them going to fight in a war ! Loads of them joined to get a trade, or "be all that they could be" to raise their self-esteem and gain education while getting paid for it.
The military ads on tv glamourise things a bit, and these kids didn't think about the risks - I'm pretty sure most of them don't join to be political pawns or mercenaries invading and fighting on foreign soil while the President tells the enemy to "bring it on" and tells Arabic people that it's a "crusade" . That's very cavalier of him as he sits in the White House while another parent's kids are dying in the sand for America.

I'd like to see this over and with positive results for our side as much as any republican pro-Bush zealot would, but what next?
The surrounding Arab nations are hardly going to sit restfully and respect a US-arranged leadership in Iraq, and the Iraqi people will be in the same boat as before except divisory factions will run riot without iron-fisted rule (i.e. same as saddam hussein).

Everyone with any knowledge of Iraqi affairs knows that Chalabi guy to be a crook who ripped his own people off (creating his own bank, loaning the reserves to his other companies, then splitting the scene as a wanted man, considered a criminal by Saddam ) then did a runner, and he's the person touted by our leaders to make inroads and head the new Iraq ??

Some things don't compute .

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

I have from before during and after agreed with the liberation of Iraq and agree with the ongoing capaign against terrorism. Cue abuse as I do not seem to agree with anyone about anything on NSC at the moment.

 

[CHAPPERS]

GG - I am in agreement, i think the liberation of Iraq had to happen. We fuckied up by not finishing the job after the 1st gulf war and bit the bullet and went back to do it a few years alter.

If a lot of protestors had their way nothing would ever change in the world ever and tyrants like Hussein would still be getting away with killing thousands of people and opressing millions.

 

[Albion Dan]

Get a grip.

The USA are now doing major Oil deals with Equatorial Guinea in Africa pouring billions of dollars into the country, However the President keeps all the money and his people stuill live in ridiculous poverty.

The man is a tyrant in every sense of the word and his people suffer big time. The US are turning a complete blind eye because they are getting what the oil they want.

This was broadcast on their state radio:

State radio recently declared that President Obiang was like God. He can kill without anyone calling him to account and without going to hell, it said. At last the big man arrived. The US State Department says there's little evidence that oil wealth is used for the public good but his people do not protest and if anyone did, the President's Moroccan bodyguards are always on hand to protect him.


I cannot believe that so many of you still buy all that liberation for the good of the people bullshit, if it were true surely they should not deal with this arsehole?

In fact it disturbes me that so many people can be so dense and gullible!

 

[CHAPPERS]

Get a grip.

The USA are now doing major Oil deals with Equatorial Guinea in Africa pouring billions of dollars into the country, However the President keeps all the money and his people stuill live in ridiculous poverty.

The man is a tyrant in every sense of the word and his people suffer big time. The US are turning a complete blind eye because they are getting what the oil they want.

This was broadcast on their state radio:

State radio recently declared that President Obiang was like God. He can kill without anyone calling him to account and without going to hell, it said. At last the big man arrived. The US State Department says there's little evidence that oil wealth is used for the public good but his people do not protest and if anyone did, the President's Moroccan bodyguards are always on hand to protect him.


I cannot believe that so many of you still buy all that liberation for the good of the people bullshit, if it were true surely they should not deal with this arsehole?

In fact it disturbes me that so many people can be so dense and gullible!

I don't think its dense and gullible. It's not as if you have all the facts at hand.

People who think like you (not personalising here mate just people that seem to think everything America does is oil related and wrong) would probably have a problem with them if another Hitler came about (who i liken to Saddam) and tried to take him out.