Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

lil'babykitten · Nov 10, 2003, 03:38 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3259005.stm

(Emphasis Mine)

Peace protesters planning a march to mark the US president's state visit next week say police are planning to seal off large parts of central London.

Campaigners are planning a "Stop Bush" protest march through central London on 20 November, but say the Metropolitan Police are trying to block them.

As President Bush and his wife are due to stay at Buckingham Palace, there has been speculation much of the Mall and Whitehall will be closed off along with parts of the City.

Scotland Yard says it is not revealing details of road closures yet for security reasons, but says it will facilitate lawful demonstrations.

But the Stop the War Coalition says it will not accept any route that avoids Parliament.

It follows a row between the Metropolitan Police and civil rights campaigners over the use of anti-terror powers against protesters at an arms fair in September.

Campaign spokesman John Rees told BBC London: "It seems as if they (the police) are going to comply with the White House's request to create an exclusion zone in central London during George Bush's visit.

So Bush is set for a visit to Britain. Understandably, when you have the Queen, Blair and Bush in one place, security is going to be tight. But it seems to me that blocking significant areas, denies the protesters their right to express their views- where they have a chance of being heard
I've heard the rhetoric from people like the foreign secretary-Jack Straw, about how people must be allowed to freely express their views etc etc. But the measures being taken speak otherwise.

Thoughts?

petehammer · Nov 10, 2003, 03:50 PM

Because, as we all know and others will post, protestors are terrorists.

If allowed to protest in front of cameras and near Bush they will be able to get through the crowds, through the Secret Service to the president in an attempt to kill him.

Thus, if you are protesting 1)America 2)Bush 3)Blair 4)The War on Terror 5)U.S. Foreign Policy, then you are likely a terrorist who needs to be removed from the area.

As we know from people's assertions on this board, the majority of protestors are aged 20-something and are virulently anti-semitic. Any chance to get to Bush they'll take.

If you are British and suspect one of your friends or loved ones is going to be participating in one of these protests, please contact the FBI or CIA. They'll be glad to assist in bringing down a terrorist threat.

>Sarcasm On [ ] Off [x]

eklipse · Nov 10, 2003, 04:05 PM

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Thoughts?

Saddam didn't tolerate protesters either.

swrate · Nov 10, 2003, 04:39 PM

Wherever HE visits he gets his special treatment. (Australia)
What are the corrupted contracts and promises done in exchange?

Ridiculous protection is, I guess the price to pay for "a safer world"

I read a banner lately on a Rep site saying something like: " Terrorists don't vote for Bush"

so, well I must be one

petehammer · Nov 10, 2003, 04:44 PM

All protestors are to report to one of these Death Camps right away. Did I say, "Death Camps?" I meant, "Exclusion Zones," where you will eat the finest meals, have access to the fabulous doctors, and be able to exercise regularly.

see: South Park.

BlackGriffen · Nov 10, 2003, 05:36 PM

Make way for the emperor!

Do you suppose that Bush will become as long lived a title as Caesar (titles with lineage from Caesar include Kaiser and Tsar)?

Will Bush say, "Even you, Powell?" when Colin Powell and Tom Daschle stab him to death on the stairs of the Senate?

<now leaving surreal mode>

I wonder if I'll get a visit from the jack-booted thugs for that one? Hopefully the suggestion that top officials would do the deed themselves would be outlandish enough that they would realize that I'm drawing a parallel between Bush and Julius Caesar (esp. Shakespeare's play). But you never can be sure with jackbooted thugs. They seem to get their jollies from "visiting" people.

I'll post anyway. I'll make sure to let you guys know if I get "visited."

BlackGriffen

kvm_mkdb · Nov 12, 2003, 02:41 PM

Even Scotland Yard is annoyed - they don't like curtailing freedom of speech and assembly:

American officials want a virtual three-day shutdown of central London in a bid to foil disruption of the visit by anti-war protestors. They are demanding that police ban all marches and seal off the city centre.

But senior Yard officers say the powers requested by US security chiefs would be unprecedented on British soil. While the Met wants to prevent violence, it is sensitive to accusations of trying to curtail legitimate protest.

http://www.thisislondon.com/til/jsp/...itemId=7602147

Unlike the arms trade, this is going to draw people from a much wider spectrum...

Mister Elf · Nov 12, 2003, 02:49 PM

Ever seen New York when there's a foreign dignitary in town? They stop everything because the Second Lowest Diplomat of Some Obscure Country wants to go to a Broadway show.

This is the President of the United States during wartime, he deserves a bit of security. I'm sure there have been assassinations by people posing as protestors, too.

m a d r a · Nov 12, 2003, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by Mister Elf:
........This is the President of the United States during wartime, he deserves a bit of security. I'm sure there have been assassinations by people posing as protestors, too......

no-one's saying there shouldn't be security. if you read the articles, the complaint is that any potential protestors are to be kept stupid distances away from bush. now. is this for genuine security reasons, or because it might not play well in the world media if there was seen to be considerable dissent against the US right in the backyard of your favourite lickspittle?

on another [but not unrelated note] BBC over here did an interesting report the other night in the course of which it emerged that the american TV networks have been banned from showing coffins arriving back from iraq, draped in the american flag as, apparently, this undermines morale on the homefront.

why do you americans just not get it, ever? these are exactly the same tactics you'd have been waxing apoplectic about if some dictatorship [whether a modern enemy or those good ol' reds] had used them.... "see how their leaders are protected from any visible dissent!".... "look how their media is censored so they don't hear the truth!"

no wonder so much of the rest of the world thinks "demaah-cracy" is just right-wing rule with a perfect smile and an orange tan.

Mister Elf · Nov 12, 2003, 03:39 PM

I'm not arguing with freedom to protest, but unless Scotland Yard wants to check every single protestor for weapons and/or other dangerous objects, then this is the best solution. Besides, why are the British protesting what an American President does? They can't vote for him/against him, why do they think he'll listen?

petehammer · Nov 12, 2003, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by Mister Elf:
I'm not arguing with freedom to protest, but unless Scotland Yard wants to check every single protestor for weapons and/or other dangerous objects, then this is the best solution.

Since it is more likely a non-protestor would be allowed closer access and thus a better chance to be an assassin, why not move everybody to these exclusion zones? Since you can't take the time to check (not just protestors but everybody) they should all be moved away. You can never be too safe.

If you wanted to hurt someone and knew that protestors were being moved far away, do you think you'd try to blend in or act like a protestor?

Besides, why are the British protesting what an American President does? They can't vote for him/against him, why do they think he'll listen?

Why do we care what Saddam Hussain did? Because it matters to the world. Our foreign policy is terrible and we are losing allies all over. We need to listen to other countries. But your point is clear: there is no evidence to make Britains think Bush will listen.

Mister Elf · Nov 12, 2003, 03:57 PM

Good point on the first issue. Anyway, he has an exclusion zone in the US too (for aircraft), so why not in britain?

m a d r a · Nov 13, 2003, 04:29 AM

Originally posted by Mister Elf:
........Besides, why are the British protesting what an American President does? .........

because he decides british foreign policy. to paraphrase RATM - "he says jump. we say how high?" or as new model army put it in '51st state':

"say what you like
it doesn't change anything
because the corridors of power
they're an ocean away"

lil'babykitten · 07:59 AM

Originally posted by Mister Elf:
Anyway, he has an exclusion zone in the US too (for aircraft), so why not in britain?

Because I think Britons still want to hang on to the idea of a democracy- you know, freedom of speech, all that stuff.

Lerkfish · Nov 13, 2003, 07:43 AM

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Because I think Britons still want to hang on to the idea of a democracy- you know, freedom of speech, all that stuff.

(sarcasm) yeah, those pansy pinko scum! how dare they value the ability of citizens to have a voice. Where do they think they are? Brits will have a voice if and when Dubya tells them they can. The nerve of those colonists...er....(/sarcasm)

Sherwin · Nov 13, 2003, 08:39 AM

Originally posted by m a d r a:
because he decides british foreign policy. to paraphrase RATM - "he says jump. we say how high?" or as new model army put it in '51st state'

Please don't tell me you subscribe to the idiotic thought processes happening on their notice board.

All of the protesters should be shot on sight. For being stupid. Like we don't already know their opinions so they have to form yet another protest to show them or something. Like, what's the point.

If you want to protest, go and vote for someone proper at the next election. Stupid protester dweebs probably voted Blair in - twice - so stop moaning when he (constantly) shows himself to be a slimy turd with no backbone.

petehammer · Nov 13, 2003, 08:49 AM

Originally posted by Sherwin:
All of the protesters should be shot on sight. For being stupid. Like we don't already know their opinions so they have to form yet another protest to show them or something. Like, what's the point.

So, I see you were against the civil rights movement in the U.S.

Unless you were being sarcastic. If not, what a true patriot you are! Yay, democracy!

Troll · Nov 13, 2003, 08:54 AM

Originally posted by Mister Elf:
I'm not arguing with freedom to protest,

What are you doing here? I thought you got 5 years?

Sherwin · Nov 13, 2003, 09:17 AM

Originally posted by petehammer:
So, I see you were against the civil rights movement in the U.S.

Didn't bother me either way. What goes on in the US is none of my business.

Originally posted by petehammer:
Unless you were being sarcastic. If not, what a true patriot you are! Yay, democracy!

The protesters had their say. Twice. They're called elections. That's how representative democracies work - not by way of protester mob rule.

kvm_mkdb · Nov 13, 2003, 09:22 AM

Originally posted by Sherwin:
All of the protesters should be shot on sight.

Fascist.

petehammer · Nov 13, 2003, 09:23 AM

Originally posted by Sherwin:
The protesters had their say. Twice. They're called elections. That's how representative democracies work - not by way of protester mob rule.

But rather by organized or elected mob rule.

I would like to re-emphasize the fact that you're for shooting protestors on sight, and have stated you are indifferent to blacks getting 1) the right to vote 2) civil liberties 3)stop getting lynched in the U.S.

And no, it doesn't matter if you don't live here.

I think you've made you're point pretty clear. There's really not much commentary I can add.

...except: wow.

Sherwin · Nov 13, 2003, 09:35 AM

Originally posted by petehammer:
But rather by organized or elected mob rule.

That's the way it works. If you'd like us to start running countries according to non-organised mob rule, then you're gonna get real scared real quick.

Originally posted by petehammer:
I would like to re-emphasize the fact that you're for shooting protestors on sight, and have stated you are indifferent to blacks getting 1) the right to vote 2) civil liberties 3)stop getting lynched in the U.S.

And no, it doesn't matter if you don't live here.

Yes, it does matter that I don't live there. I don't pay taxes there so I have no right to say how the place is run. What happens in your country is on you.

If US civil liberties should matter to me while I don't live there, shouldn't Iraqi civil liberties (i.e. getting rid of Saddam) matter to you if you don't live there?

So why, exactly, are you protesting against the very person who got rid of the main perp of Iraqi civil liberty violations?

Hypocrisy in action? Or have you just been reading too much Michael Moore?

petehammer · Nov 13, 2003, 09:48 AM

Originally posted by Sherwin:
If US civil liberties should matter to me while I don't live there, shouldn't Iraqi civil liberties (i.e. getting rid of Saddam) matter to you if you don't live there?

So why, exactly, are you protesting against the very person who got rid of the main perp of Iraqi civil liberty violations?

Hypocrisy in action?

Sigh.

Blacks and whites didn't go to WAR to bring about change. They brought about change through a non-violent revolution.

The pre-emptive WAR in Iraq killed 10,000 Iraqis. There were other ways to change that country. Being against the war doesn't mean you are against helping the Iraqi people.

Will Iraqis be better off now? Who knows? The country is in anarchy.

In any case, the ends do not justify the means. War was not the answer to bring about change. Look at Ghandi, MLK, or Jesus Christ. These are all men who believed in a goal and didn't feel a need to kill to get it.

Hypocrisy is present, and it is when people who do not care about the plight of blacks in the U.S. or the plight of many people across the globe suddenly care for the Iraqi people. There are many murderous dictators in the world, why aren't you out to liberate their people?

Neo-con warmongers have claimed this war as a humanitarian effort, yet have turned a blind eye to human rights violations world-wide and at home. That is hypocrisy.

Sherwin · Nov 13, 2003, 10:07 AM

Originally posted by petehammer:
There were other ways to change that country.

No, there weren't. And I've yet to hear anyone protesting about the war come out with a valid one.

Originally posted by petehammer:
Will Iraqis be better off now? Who knows? The country is in anarchy.

Is it possible for them to be worse off than they were?
Of course the country is in anarchy - this always happens after a dictatorship is overthrown.

Originally posted by petehammer:
In any case, the ends do not justify the means. War was not the answer to bring about change.

What was the answer? I'm still waiting for any anti-war person to suggest something valid.

You proclaim to care about the Iraqi people yet offer no form of help for them other than decrying anyone who helps in the best way they know how.

What was your plan to help them if you care so much?

Spliffdaddy · Nov 13, 2003, 10:27 AM

Originally posted by Sherwin:
That's the way it works. If you'd like us to start running countries according to non-organised mob rule, then you're gonna get real scared real quick.

Yes, it does matter that I don't live there. I don't pay taxes there so I have no right to say how the place is run. What happens in your country is on you.

If US civil liberties should matter to me while I don't live there, shouldn't Iraqi civil liberties (i.e. getting rid of Saddam) matter to you if you don't live there?

So why, exactly, are you protesting against the very person who got rid of the main perp of Iraqi civil liberty violations?

Hypocrisy in action? Or have you just been reading too much Michael Moore?

*SMACKDOWN*

Spliffdaddy · Nov 13, 2003, 10:28 AM

Originally posted by Sherwin:
No, there weren't. And I've yet to hear anyone protesting about the war come out with a valid one.

Is it possible for them to be worse off than they were?
Of course the country is in anarchy - this always happens after a dictatorship is overthrown.

What was the answer? I'm still waiting for any anti-war person to suggest something valid.

You proclaim to care about the Iraqi people yet offer no form of help for them other than decrying anyone who helps in the best way they know how.

What was your plan to help them if you care so much?

*SMACKDOWN*

(again)

You dolts better leave this guy alone. He's killing you.

maxelson · Nov 13, 2003, 10:34 AM

A most pretty but shallow argument.

And inconsistent. You got a consistent argument? When are we going to Saudi? Will we get there before the extremists? Iran? North Korea? Is this a one at a time democratization, or should we just steamroll the rest of the unwashed world?
One of those things Spliffy is so fond of spouting is personal responsibility. YOU take control of YOUR OWN situation. DON'T lokk for a handout because you don't deserve one. People are basically good, but, you know, you gotta take responsibility for your own welfare. Eeeeeexcept if you live halfway 'round the world, apparently.
What? What's the problem? WE did it, didn't we? We ditched OUR oppressive and brutal regime. How come we have to take out everyone elses?

NOW. As we ALL know, this was not even a true consideration for this war.
AND YOU have yet to explain to ME how this is legitimized. THAT is NOT the stated reason for WAR.

If this were an administration with whom you were less than enamored, you would be SCREAMING for impeachment.

Tell me again about the oppressed... and what we are doing about it all over the world. Is this policy? Who's next?

Spliffy? Sherwin?
Go ahead. Let's see that smackdown at work.

You people are killing no one. But you can feel free to hug that assertion close. Kinda pathetic, but run with it.

Spliffdaddy · Nov 13, 2003, 10:39 AM

too late to redeem yourselves.

Any retaliation seems desperate and pointless after a pair of back-to-back *SMACKDOWNS*

Life be's that way sometimes.

maxelson · Nov 13, 2003, 10:46 AM

I see. Whenever you resort to "pointless to argue I win" statements, I can just safely assume that YOU HAVE NONE.

ahem.

smackdown.

have a nice day.

Spliffdaddy · Nov 13, 2003, 10:48 AM

um. ok.

maxelson · Nov 13, 2003, 10:52 AM

that would be non reply number two. I must really have you on the ropes.

that kind of response is kinda annoying huh? all in good smack fun.

Spliffdaddy · Nov 13, 2003, 11:14 AM

Everything I do is for fun, really. I come here to get *SMACKEDDOWN*, just like the rest of you. It's no fun to always win (trust me) and it's no fun if everybody agrees with your opinion (not that I would know).

There's not anybody here that I don't like...but there are quite a few folks I disagree with. It's what keeps me coming back. Sometimes I rub people the wrong way, I admit it. Something about the "tone of my posts". The only advice I can offer is to imagine me sitting here laughing my ass off while I'm reading and posting - because better than 98% of the time, that's exactly what I'm doing.

This is some of the best entertainment on the internet. Yet a handful of people still treat it like a tedious chore.

All in good fun should be this forum's motto.

Sherwin · Nov 13, 2003, 11:15 AM

Originally posted by maxelson:
A most pretty but shallow argument.

Actually Max, my point to all this before it got sidetracked is that the people who're protesting will almost certainly vote Blair back in at the next election.

What do they do about the whole situation? Do they join the Labour party and vote Blair out? No, they'd rather protest like pissed-off teenagers. Do they vote for another party at the general elections? No, because their dogmatic political conscience doesn't allow them to.

A lot of people who're organising this march against war have no problem with supporting animal rights groups when they murder scientists performing vivisection in their everyday work. Caring individuals? Nope. They just want the political landscape changed and will try to use every available method to do so. I'm not sure they've yet sussed out what they want it changed into, mind. The majority of these people aren't interested in democracy - they're interested only in getting their own way (even if they don't actually know what their own way is yet, other than it being "not what the current people are doing").

Here, at least, the march has nothing to do with war. It's to do with anti-Americanism. If the Iraq situation hadn't emerged those same people would be out on the streets of London protesting in exactly the same way about something else Bush had done. Same thing, different reasons. If the other guy had won they'd be out protesting against him too.
I put it down to a lack of skate parks, personally.

maxelson · Nov 13, 2003, 11:42 AM

Well. I'd agree with part one of your argument and extend it one step further: we are no different.

As for Anti Americanism- well, I think it is a pretty good excuse, but I don' think it washes. My simple reason for saying so is the wide spread nature of it.
Simple ANti Americanism cannot account for the huge wave we have seen since ... well, since 9/11. Wave of sympathy turned to a wave of ill will. Now. SInce the unexamined life ain't worth living, we should ask- and never do- what are WE doing to contribute to it? Is that question worth looking at?

And spliffy- like you said- all in good fun... most of the time. Some topics are not really worth laughing at, though. Lately, I am in no mood to laugh at my countries actions- those of which I approve and those I don't.
Talking about it is important. Helps folks learn and understand.

Of course, I do not despise you either. At least you come with a shaker of salt. Took me a bit to learn it, but I'm there. Entertainment, sure. Sometimes. Sometimes it is in the same way Rush is entertainment. Same way Dr. Laura is... uh... a doctor... and entertaining.
Just another form of conversation. And sometimes it is for reasons other than entertainment.

Sherwin · Nov 13, 2003, 12:05 PM

Originally posted by maxelson:
As for Anti Americanism- well, I think it is a pretty good excuse, but I don' think it washes. My simple reason for saying so is the wide spread nature of it.
Simple ANti Americanism cannot account for the huge wave we have seen since ... well, since 9/11. Wave of sympathy turned to a wave of ill will.

It's fashionable. It's grown out of the anti-globalisation movement and it's the thing to do. The thing responsible for the wave of anti-Americanism is the same thing responsible for Justin Timberlake selling records. Peer pressure. The few nutcases who usually organise marches against everything that moves tend to shout louder than the rest of us and the public listens. Peer pressure kicks in and suddenly it's cool to be anti-American.

Nobody ever stops to think that war is a necessity to bring about stable political and social systems - no stable sizeable culture has ever got where it is without paying for that stability in blood. They just keep with the "war is bad, m'kay?" because it's fashionable and because most people don't have the depth or breadth of thought required to think of events at a national or international level.

War does indeed suck. But it's a necessity to achieve certain aims. There's no alternative.

Originally posted by maxelson:
Now. SInce the unexamined life ain't worth living, we should ask- and never do- what are WE doing to contribute to it? Is that question worth looking at?

The problem with this is, if I'm understanding your statement correctly, that the people marching against Bush simply don't have a better way of doing things lined up. Bitching and screaming about everything is all well and good if one has a replacement policy. To bitch and scream without replacement plans (as most protesters do, as this is the very nature of protesters) is just plain immature.

If just one of those people on the anti-Bush march can offer me a viable alternative solution, I might change my opinion.

maxelson · Nov 13, 2003, 12:21 PM

Originally posted by Sherwin:
It's fashionable. It's grown out of the anti-globalisation movement and it's the thing to do. The thing responsible for the wave of anti-Americanism is the same thing responsible for Justin Timberlake selling records. Peer pressure. The few nutcases who usually organise marches against everything that moves tend to shout louder than the rest of us and the public listens. Peer pressure kicks in and suddenly it's cool to be anti-American.

Nobody ever stops to think that war is a necessity to bring about stable political and social systems - no stable sizeable culture has ever got where it is without paying for that stability in blood. They just keep with the "war is bad, m'kay?" because it's fashionable.

And I think that is a cop out. No offense.
I think it is quiter convenient and, like religion, goes a long way to dismissing responsibility.
"They don't like us because it is hip to not like us". Completely dismisses any complaint that may be legit.
Again- just because you or I don't care for the critique- or that we disagree with the protest- does not mean it has no merit.
I think your explaination conveniently shuffles off some serious responsibility and, quite frankly, is an argument Rove would make. It is a spin argument. And it is part of the reason we are disliked: we don't feel as if anyone else's opinion has merit. Only difference between now and then is this: now we ACT on that lack of heed. And I think it fuels the sentiment.
I am not saying it is all legit. It sure as shite is not. But: the sentiment of the majority of the planet seems to believe that the Bush Administration has lied fairly consistently; has ignored the global democratic process and has created a world that is far less safe than the one we had 3 years ago.
And, depending upon what polls you prefer, more or less half of this country believes the same.

And that's not worth examining? Screw politics for a second: look at what IS.

War does indeed suck. But it's a necessity to achieve certain aims. There's no alternative.

BS. This is a mindset. We have created this mindset over thousands of years. We can change it. We won't, but we can.

The problem with this is, if I'm understanding your statement correctly, that the people marching against Bush simply don't have a better way of doing things lined up. Bitching and screaming about everything is all well and good if one has a replacement policy. To bitch and scream without replacement plans (as most protesters do, as this is the very nature of protesters) is just plain immature.

No. This is exercise in free speech. You seem to think that if you don't have a better answer, you should shut up. I disagree.
Mitt Romney wants to build an overpass to releive traffic going over to the Sagamour Bridge on the Cape. Nice. Good for him. It will help out the touristas quite a bit, and, I suppose, the tourist industry there.
Now. I drive 128 and the Mass Pike every day. Once- just once, I'd like Mitt to sit in my shotgun seat to see what the average guy- the guy who is part of an army which powers the entire state economy- goes through just to get to work. Now. Have I got an answer to the traffic issue I war every day? Nah. I don't. Because we HIRE LEADERS WHO ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE THE ANSWERS. AND DO OUR COLLECTIVE WILL. I won't ask a gas station attendant to run my cron scripts. It IS legitimate to ask those folks whom we have HIRED to DO the jobs with which they are charged.

If just one of those people on the anti-Bush march can offer me a viable alternative solution, I might change my opinion.

How bout just asking those in power to do their jobs?

thunderous_funker · Nov 13, 2003, 01:07 PM

Everybody knows that your right to petition the government ceases once the votes are counted. Its total authoritarian rule until the next election. Why don't people get it?

daimoni · 01:00 PM

.

maxelson · Nov 13, 2003, 01:57 PM

I shore doo wish thet safe house would hurry teh feck up and get built.

Sherwin · Nov 13, 2003, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by maxelson:
How bout just asking those in power to do their jobs?

That's what they've been doing.

Of course, us armchair politicians with access to the vast amounts of intelligence data that our leaders use are well placed to know exactly what's going on. So we should protest.

We know better because we study all the relevant data while they're sitting there browsing the Internet and watching TV news. So we should protest.

(this was going to be a long post but I gave it up as being a little pointless)

Sherwin · Nov 13, 2003, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by daimoni:
Note that most Americans did not vote for Bush II.

Note also that 99% of the British population won't be on that protest march either.

petehammer · 02:34 PM

Note also that 20% of Britons approve of Bush's handling of Iraq (60% strongly disapprove). Bush was also tied with Saddam for biggest threat to world peace.

And I hate to tell you protest attendance is ALWAYS lower than the voting populace. Shocking, huh!

Scotland Yard expects 60,000 to 80,000 demonstrators.

Sherwin · 02:45 PM

Originally posted by petehammer:
Note also that 20% of Britons approve of Bush's handling of Iraq (60% strongly disapprove).

Note that 100% of Britons have no say in what Bush does.

Originally posted by petehammer:
And I hate to tell you protest attendance is ALWAYS lower than the voting populace. Shocking, huh!

And I hate to tell you that the percentage of the electorate not voting for the winning candidate in any election is almost always the majority.

petehammer · Nov 13, 2003, 02:45 PM

Note that 100% of Americans have no say in what Saddam does.

Whoops! Looks like your argument fell apart.

Sherwin · Nov 13, 2003, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by petehammer:
Note that 100% of Americans have no say in what Saddam does.

Whoops! Looks like your argument fell apart.

No, I agree with that. Generally, I think they should've been left alone to sort their own mess out.

(I didn't vote for Blair, I don't support foreign military intervention, I don't support foreign aid and I don't support housing refugees.)

My beef in this thread is with the idiot protesters who all want to save the world but moan when someone actually tries to.

thunderous_funker · Nov 13, 2003, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by Sherwin:
My beef in this thread is with the idiot protesters who all want to save the world but moan when someone actually tries to.

Oh yeah. I forgot that invading/occupying Iraq was about saving the world.

You seem to have very limited grasp of what is actually happening in the world and what people are actually arguing about.

lil'babykitten · Nov 13, 2003, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by Sherwin:
My beef in this thread is with the idiot protesters who all want to save the world but moan when someone actually tries to.

Idiot protesters? why is that?
No doubt that there are some that just go and protest because it is 'fun' and 'cool'. BUT, the organisers of such events are serious, intelligent people who are trying to get a legitimate point across. They are also people who have a strong belief in the power of protest-and why shouldn't they? The February demonstration was the biggest one Britain has ever seen and did well in so far as putting the politicians in an extremely awkward position. They also raised another interesting point regarding 'democracy'-seeing as though the majority of the British public were against the War, yet the government still went ahead. Who exactly were they representing? Perhaps they should re-think how democracy is working in their own country before pretending to install one somewhere else.

It should also be noted that the organisers of such events do not leave it at the occasional national demos. They are engaged in plenty of other activities/movements to get their views heard by the 'decision makers'. They face an extremely difficult government this time however, since Blair seems to be representing Bush's wishes rather than the people he should be representing.

As for the alternative you keep asking about it was plain and clear at the time. The inspections were the most effective they had ever been. The inspection team headed by Hans Blix were reporting progress-they were not ready to leave Iraq and as we heard from Blix himself afterward he was not happy with Bush (and Blair's) impatience. They were in a rush for what? the 'imminent threat'? We now know that was a lie. So why so fast?
The 'humanitarian' argument they like to use now is BS-they didn't give two sh1ts about that. If they were so worried why wasn't that the primary motivation for going to war and 'liberating' Iraq?

Don't be so quick in brushing off all the protesters as 'idiots'- they do think about what they are doing and they do have a point, an important point at that. A quick search and you can find their reasoning behind the upcoming protest:

* They lied to us about weapons of mass destruction
* They defied public opinion to take us to war
* They are trampling on the democratic rights of the Iraqi people.

Millions of people in Britain will be outraged that George W Bush has been invited for a three-day state visit to Britian. He will be feted, wined and dined and treated as a great statesman rather than the war criminal he is.
It is a disgrace that Tony Blair is once again ignoring public opinion to entertain his friend at our expense.
We were lied to about the war. Not a single WMD has been found. There is great instability in Iraq and no sign of any moves towards a democratic society. An illegal war is being followed by an illegal occupation.
The majority of people in Britain now believe that the war in Iraq was not justified. They realise that they were lied to about this war and the Bush visit is a slap in the face to them.

And now we have 'exclusion zones'- at the request of American officials!

/end rant.

eklipse · Nov 13, 2003, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Oh yeah. I forgot that invading/occupying Iraq was about saving the world.

It was. At least it was today. Tomorrow it will have been about something else.

Confuzzled yet?

swrate · Nov 13, 2003, 03:55 PM

Originally posted by Sherwin:
No, I agree with that. Generally, I think they should've been left alone to sort their own mess out.

(I didn't vote for Blair, I don't support foreign military intervention, I don't support foreign aid and I don't support housing refugees.)

My beef in this thread is with the idiot protesters who all want to save the world but moan when someone actually tries to.

So why, exactly, are you protesting against the very person who got rid of the main perp of Iraqi civil liberty violations?

- are that very person ----and his board----respecting the ir civil liberties?

http://www.swans.com/library/art7/jlind002.html

I support life and freedom

thunderous_funker · Nov 13, 2003, 04:05 PM

Originally posted by swrate:
So why, exactly, are you protesting against the very person who got rid of the main perp of Iraqi civil liberty violations?

- are that very person ----and his board----respecting the ir civil liberties?

http://www.swans.com/library/art7/jlind002.html

I support life and freedom

It will be confusing to anyone who continues to believe that the choices facing the world in 2003 regarding Iraq were limited to 1) US/UK invasion/occupation and 2) the status quo.

The other popular misconception on the issue is that it is better to do "something" (even if it leads to horrific unintended consequences) than to do "nothing" (the misapprehention that nobody in the Western world was doing anything at all in connection with Iraq before the war).

These gross micharacterizations of the problem and its possible solutions are largely to blame for the accrimony and partisan bickering that have replaced reasoned discourse on the subject.