GWBush demo

I read it as against George Dubya, not the US, though to be fair they had a fair ammount to answer for before Bush even got in - they are after all one of the biggest polluters, the only superpower, and hold much of the world's wealth, while having a fairly low percentage of the world's population.

Like you say though, they too were duped - quite why Tony can't remove his tongue from George's bottom is beyond me. Where the *President* of the US goes, we're bound to follow.

Funny thing is that he, at least the way I see it, wasn't even let in democratically - he couldn't accept that someone else might well be more popular in the voters' eyes... So does that make him a dictator?

I'd love to be there with some rotten eggs - pity I won't be.

Any intelligent UK citizen though would realise that the Americans are in the same boat we are - governed by morons.

__________________________
Make your choice, adventurous Stranger;
Strike the bell and bide the danger
Or wonder, till it drives you mad,
What would have followed if you had.

We've got Bush House surrounded ?

Citizen Fritz innit:

Graham Ricketts

And Bush says "I've heard some ridiculous rumours about you - apparently they have been saying that you may be the king one day".
(sorry - nicked that from Private Eye this week).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rasher:
Whaddayathink? Especially you over there on the other side of the pond?

---

People here are expecting it. The protests may be taken more seriously simply because it is the British, traditionally America's staunchest allies.

Many Americans feel exactly the same way as the protesters. For example, I was a reluctant supporter of the war, but I now feel betrayed, duped and embarrassed. However, Americans respect the office of president (if not the person) and will rally round one who comes under attack overseas.

Davie

Davie - Exactly! So if we protest, do consider that good or bad? A hit at the American people?
We do not have your patriotism of course - we didn't ask for our monachy, but you made your own system yourselves, and I respect the difference.

Lob a smelly rotten egg or two for me, will ya?

quote:

---

Any intelligent UK citizen though would realise that the Americans are in the same boat we are - governed by morons

---

What does that say about ourselves (I have to admit I voted too) in both country's since we elected them? (well sort of in the case of Bush)

Mind you that does'nt take away from the terrifying feeling that here we have two small boys who stuck a firework throught the letter box and then were surprised when the house caught fire.

GEOFFP

Would it not be great to try and convince GWB to beat David Blaine's record in the perspex box ?

Now that WOULD be magic !!!!

I personally love to see other countries around the globe protesting little bushy boy. He is a moron and that is why he actually had appeal here. He appealed to the 'common' person here in the US. He spoke on their level. This is very frightening.

Rasher,

Go protest the f*cker.

Repeated illustrations of this administration's disasterous foreign policy slowly erode support at home -- except at the fringes.

Yet another Italian/French/Turkish/.... mass protest with GB burned in effigy? And now England???

Eric

This is all very sad. If you don't agree with the war, why the hell don't you take a little responsibility for the actions of your own government. I think it is a little unfair fro you to claim that the US is the world's only super-power. By all accounts, the UK is just as powerful where it counts, and that means it had the power (if not the will or forsight to elect somebody who would carry ist true agenda) to make its own decisions regarding Iraq. The French said NO. The Germans said NO! The Russians said NO! You said yes. Take some fucking responsibility for that.

What was it, chaps? Was it W's charisma? His charm, perhaps? Maybe his powerful faculties of persuasion were simply too much for you and your elected officials COME OFF IT. You know as well as the rest of us do that W is a half-wit and has always been one. Your ELECTED PM and parlament went into Iraq because THEY believed in what the US was doing there. To claim that our dim-witted president was able to pull a fast one over on you people is disengenuous at best.

The British public need to take some freaking responsibility for its OWN government undertaking an action against the popular will of its own people. Instead, your hypocrasy will be brought to the fore this week as we contrast the swells of tens of thousands of you taking to the streets this weekend to protest a moron from Texas while your own leadership is given almost a "free pass" on the very same issues and decisions. And, of course, the irony of all of this comes down in large part to the origin of key intelligence -intelligence that your elected leaders provided.

Somebody needs to give you hell for this. The honest among you will recognize your profound hypocrasy and missplaced blame in this matter and start to take a little bit of responsibility for the decisions of your elected leaders in taking you into a war that was unpopular. On the other hand, I hope the riteous among you will see this war for what it was - the liberation of a people pressed under the crushing weight of tyrany, torture, fascism and the greatest deprivation of basic human rights people have seen since the gas chambers of Auswitz. That none among you is willing to see the suffering of millions as justification alone for the stirring of those who are strong to come to the aid of those who are weak reflects unbridled anti-Americanism at best, and unforgivable complacency at worst.

Tony Blair is one of the greatest statesmen of my time. Let us not forget his words:

""Let us say one thing. If we are wrong we will have destroyed a threat that, at its least, is responsible for inhuman carnage and suffering. That is something I am confident history will forgive."

"If our critics are wrong, if we are right as I believe with every fibre of instinct and conviction I have that we are, and we do not act, then we will have hesitated in the face of this menace when we should have given leadership; that is something history will not forgive."

Judd

You keep convincing yourself my friend, let's just hope he pays his London Congestion Charge with all those motors ?
Fritz Keepin it real

Graham Ricketts

Chaps

Do you honestly think that Blair or Bush are concerned what protesors think. They are just wasting their time.

Still it just proves that they love making noises without achieving anything.

Regards

Mick

The protestors are moaning about something that has already happened and they cannot affect what is going to happen in Iraq. No one will take any notice of them at all.

That is entirely different from customer care issues.

Regards

Mick

Both governments were elected by the people to do a job and they are doing it.

I suspect Blair will still win the next election, so why should he worry about what the protestors think. Votes count, protestors don't.

Regards

Mick

I think that Justin makes some very valid points. I think the war was a terrible mistake, but let's not forget who got the UK into it, and make sure we hold him accountable at the next general election!

If I wanted to commit any kind of crime in London, I'd do it during the visit. There's going to be no policemen around except at the demo!

Mick: I'm not so sure about Blair winning the next time. He's majorly pissing off practically everyome who may vote labour, while sucking up to those who never will. Dropping the fox hunting bill is the last straw for me - and I've been giving him the benefit of the doubt for ages now. The thought of Howard as Prime Minister makes me quite ill though - so I *may* repent when push comes to shove.



Regards

Stephen

Judd – Good points certainly, and I agree with you largely. I don't accept that the war was justified though. Our protest towards Blair here is well underway and there can be no denying that he is being given a very rough ride. There is no letting him off the hook – don’t imagine that for a moment. But it is Bush that I am particularly interested in here though, with Thursdays visit, and it will embarrass Blair enormously. You seem to take this as a protest against the USA as a whole (or Superpower as you put it), and I'm not sure that is the intention. That is why I asked. I wouldn't want that.

Mick - My mother tells me that protests are a waste of time - all politicians are the same anyway - it will never make any difference - the world is doomed anyway so why bother - .......
So, being born was just a waste of time then, eh?
Generations of people have fought for the right to vote, to protest, to elect a democratic government...it wasn't just gifted to us. As a matter of fact, just look at what we are talking about here - the USA!! They took it for themselves and made the country from scratch. Wrote the constitution and took it from there. Try and be proud of what we have and why we have it.

Judd – Just while I’m on the subject – France I believe to be the reason we went to war in the first place when we did.
Discussions at the run up to conflict were concentrating on the option of going to war or waiting for a decision from the UN. Here, we were waiting and Blair was stalling Bush in order to allow the UN to do their thing and decide – and the general feeling here is that we would abide by the UN decision. No-one ever imagined that the UN option would disappear and the UN fall apart so publicly – all because France said that they would not support a war no matter what the UN decision. This undermined the UN position and they fell apart, leaving no option other than to go to war because the process had started and only the UN could stop it. France brought forward the start of the war. They were not instrumental in stopping it!!

Rasher,

Your analysis of the French position is the one peddled by Bush and Blair and the majority of the media. What Chirac actually said was:

"There could, effectively, be a majority of nine votes or more for a new resolution, one which would authorise war. If that was the case, then France would vote 'no' . . . because she considers tonight that there is no reason to wage a war to reach the goal we set ourselves, that is the disarmament of Iraq."

At the time -- and even more so in retrospect -- this appeared to be a perfectly reasonable statement but somehow it was spun into "France has said they will never sanction a war on Iraq".

The process collapsed becuase Bush had decided that were going to attack when we did and essentially delivered an ultimatum to the UN. Its was very obvious that most countries preferred to give more time to inspections and Bush just ignored this and decided to let Powell and Blair have one more chance at trying to atrifically create a secutity council majority via bridbery and coercion.

You can argue that if we had gone along with the majority view we would have reached this impasse again in another 3 months but its wrong to say the process collapsed becuase France refused to allow any cush resolution ever.

Also in hindsight given the complete lack of WMD in Iraq the policy of continuining inspections was of course entirely correct.

Matthew

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justin:
This is all very sad. If you don't agree with the war, why the hell don't you take a little responsibility for the actions of your own government. I think it is a little unfair fro you to claim that the US is the world's only super-power. By all accounts, the UK is just as powerful where it counts, and that means it had the power (if not the will or forsight to elect somebody who would carry ist true agenda) to make its own decisions regarding Iraq. The French said NO. The Germans said NO! The Russians said NO! You said yes. Take some fucking responsibility for that.

---

Urm, actually Judd, none of us got a choice - or if we did, I didn't hear about it. As for Labour being elected, well, more people voted for Pop Rival than in the last general election - and most of the people who whinge loudest about Labour didn't even vote. Sorry but no vote - no voice, so put up and shut up... Hmmmph!

We were lied to by Blair, and I should have made it clear that I wasn't JUST blaming the US as those cretins at Labour Towers are equally to blame (or maybe even more so). I voted Green as a protest vote - I could see through labour like they were made of glass, back when they were BSing about how great they'd be if they got into power.

The fact Blair got a second chance is beyond me - if he gets a third our country is REALLY screwed.

If Blair and Bush stood together, I'd be perfectly happy to lob extra eggs - with concrete in - as I'm sick of seeing that toothy git's smarmy grin. We could play 0's and X'z on his ivories, with extra points for an eye pop. Bush will just get the rotten, non-concrete filled egg.

I won't retract my comment about America being the only superpower though - the UK has bugger all in comparison when it comes to weaponry, shipping etc; if someone in America wanted, they could do almost whatever they liked, provided nukes were kept out of the equation. It's a simple matter of fact...

Of course, if our countries had done the job PROPERLY in 1991 all of this would be moot...

__________________________
Make your choice, adventurous Stranger;
Strike the bell and bide the danger
Or wonder, till it drives you mad,
What would have followed if you had.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matthew Robinson:
The process collapsed becuase Bush had decided that were going to attack when we did and essentially delivered an ultimatum to the UN. Its was very obvious that most countries preferred to give more time to inspections and Bush just ignored this and decided to let Powell and Blair have one more chance at trying to atrifically create a secutity council majority via bridbery and coercion.

---

C'mon Matthew, that's not fair. Blair was trying really hard to put the brakes on at the time. There is no evidence to suggest that Blair would have joined Bush against the UN at that time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by domfjbrown:

Of course, if our countries had done the job PROPERLY in 1991 all of this would be moot...

---

This is the smartest thing that you've said. I could not agree more. And for this, blaim is squarely placed on the shoulders of Senior for a stupid decision (though, of course, I'm certain the irony of this is that the decision to leave Saddam in power in 1991 probably WAS at the behest of countries like France and Russia - perhaps they are equally to blaim for this.

But the issue goes right to the heart of the matter. Implicit in your statement is the notion that removal in 1991 was certainly justified. Why not in 2003? Nothing had changed in the 12 years (arguably it got worse). Your complaint is not one of principle, but rather of execution. If so, so be it. I don't happen to think the war is being conducted well either. We'll see.

But I will not accept this notion of US domination over the process. It matters not a hoot that we possess a superior conventional force on land and at sea. The UK effectively has veto power over all major engagements, if not vis-a-vis the US, then certain with respect to the UK itself. You didn't have to be in Iraq if you didn't want to. But, apparently (unlike our president), your PM took an action manifestly against the popular will of the electorate. Why, then, does our president take the brunt of your criticism?

Judd

Oh, and this makes me laugh:

"'Interior Minister Otto Schilly removed the stop on decisions in the cases of asylum applicants from Iraq. A similar instruction was already issued by the SPD politician's ministry in mid-September to the Federal Bureau for the Recognition of Foreign Refugees. Earlier, because of the Iraq war, the bureau stopped sending decision letters to asylum applicants for months. The ministry now justifies the resumption of decisions on asylum cases with the statement that "at the time and in the near future political persecution in Iraq can be ruled out.'

The political persecution - that certainly existed earlier in Iraq - can now be ruled out? And who do we have to thank for this good news? Certainly not that naive, stupid Texan, that neo-conservative striving to rule the world, that slave to capitalism controlled by the oil industry, that unpopular ... George Bush?"

The Germans crack me up.
Judd