GWBush demo
Posted by: Rasher on 17 November 2003
Is it better to turn out and protest - which may be mistaken for anti-American feeling, or stay away and express dissatisfaction towards Tony Blair?
I am worried that anti-USA feeling may be expressed which is exactly the opposite to my views - the American people have been duped too. If it helps ensure GW's departure in the next Pres Elects, then I'm all for it.
Whaddayathink? Especially you over there on the other side of the pond? How would you read the protest?
I am worried that anti-USA feeling may be expressed which is exactly the opposite to my views - the American people have been duped too. If it helps ensure GW's departure in the next Pres Elects, then I'm all for it.
Whaddayathink? Especially you over there on the other side of the pond? How would you read the protest?
Posted on: 18 November 2003 by matthewr
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
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
Posted on: 18 November 2003 by domfjbrown
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.
Posted on: 18 November 2003 by Rasher
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.
Posted on: 18 November 2003 by Justin
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
Posted on: 18 November 2003 by Justin
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
"'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
Posted on: 18 November 2003 by matthewr
"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"
Blair was trying really hard to get a vote through the UN and didn't much care how he did it but it was very obvious that when push came to shove he would back Bush and attack with or without UN support. He had no interest in further inspections and repeatedly said as much.
You could argue that he would have gone along with a French and Russian compromise deal -- in fact he would probably have been delighted at such an outcome -- but as Bush had made it plain there could be no compromise he made no credible attempt to make such a deal. All his deal making and all that "we're workiong really hard at the UN" stuff was trying to get the UN to agree to the US ultimatum not trying to get the US to agree to a UN compromise.
Matthew
Blair was trying really hard to get a vote through the UN and didn't much care how he did it but it was very obvious that when push came to shove he would back Bush and attack with or without UN support. He had no interest in further inspections and repeatedly said as much.
You could argue that he would have gone along with a French and Russian compromise deal -- in fact he would probably have been delighted at such an outcome -- but as Bush had made it plain there could be no compromise he made no credible attempt to make such a deal. All his deal making and all that "we're workiong really hard at the UN" stuff was trying to get the UN to agree to the US ultimatum not trying to get the US to agree to a UN compromise.
Matthew
Posted on: 18 November 2003 by Rasher
We will never know Matthew.
Judd- Bush is NOT taking the brunt from us...you are wrongly thinking that we have let Blair off the hook, and that just is not the case. Believe me.
Judd- Bush is NOT taking the brunt from us...you are wrongly thinking that we have let Blair off the hook, and that just is not the case. Believe me.
Posted on: 18 November 2003 by ErikL
Rasher,
I don't think anyone's asked- why are you so concerned about how the protest will be perceived in the US? The #1 news channel here is FOX, so the whole thing is likely to be in the shadow of Paris Hilton and Laci Peterson coverage. Nobody will even notice.
Start practicing your egg throws. Your goal should be a 15" spread at 100'.
I don't think anyone's asked- why are you so concerned about how the protest will be perceived in the US? The #1 news channel here is FOX, so the whole thing is likely to be in the shadow of Paris Hilton and Laci Peterson coverage. Nobody will even notice.
Start practicing your egg throws. Your goal should be a 15" spread at 100'.
Posted on: 18 November 2003 by David Stewart
I really don't see any point in wasting time or effort on anti-Bush demonstrations. All it does is provide a major job opportunity for every small-time thief and n'er do well in London. A lot of ordinary people will suffer as a direct result of this and with the barely adequate policing resources we already have on the streets, I perceive no worthwhile justification for making the problem worse.
Just ignore Bush - he'll go away and then you can all focus your criticism back where it should be on the present incumbent of No 10. Judd's right, our PM makes his own decisions, he's a big boy now and will have to take responsibility for his actions at the next election.
David
Just ignore Bush - he'll go away and then you can all focus your criticism back where it should be on the present incumbent of No 10. Judd's right, our PM makes his own decisions, he's a big boy now and will have to take responsibility for his actions at the next election.
David
Posted on: 18 November 2003 by matthewr
David,
To not protest against a man reponsible for starting a major war becuase of a potential increase in the risk of minor property theft seems perverse to say the least.
You also seem unaware that Bush's main motivation for a *state* visit at this time is to help get himself re-elected next year and so those who really do wish he will "go away" if only for the sake of world peace and stability have a strong interest in making a protest and any objections based on cost and disruption would better be directed towards Bush not the protesters.
Matthew
To not protest against a man reponsible for starting a major war becuase of a potential increase in the risk of minor property theft seems perverse to say the least.
You also seem unaware that Bush's main motivation for a *state* visit at this time is to help get himself re-elected next year and so those who really do wish he will "go away" if only for the sake of world peace and stability have a strong interest in making a protest and any objections based on cost and disruption would better be directed towards Bush not the protesters.
Matthew
Posted on: 18 November 2003 by ejl
A first-rate new documentary video on the war here:
http://www.buzzflash.com/premiums/uncovered.html
Cutting and highly recommended.
Eric
http://www.buzzflash.com/premiums/uncovered.html
Cutting and highly recommended.
Eric
Posted on: 18 November 2003 by David Stewart
Matthew,
You and I taking opposing views. I see no useful benefit being gained from a bunch of people throwing eggs at the presidential cavalcade - you think otherwise - so be it! but don't go away with the impression that it will achieve anything - it won't.
Frankly you might just as well write letters to the White House for all the difference it'll make to the politicians. Do you think they're totally unaware there are dissenters out there?
Against that we have to balance the increased risk to people and property from taking police off of normal duties to watch George's back. You feel this is justified I don't.
I suspect if you get home though and find it's your place thats been burgled whilst you were busy chucking eggs you'll feel pretty silly and very angry - justifiably so!
In a worst case scenario if the f**k-wits from Al-Quaeda take this as an opportunity to launch a terrorist bomb attack in the UK, whilst the boys in blue are distracted elsewhere, any demo is going to look like a pretty sad indulgence!
David
You and I taking opposing views. I see no useful benefit being gained from a bunch of people throwing eggs at the presidential cavalcade - you think otherwise - so be it! but don't go away with the impression that it will achieve anything - it won't.
Frankly you might just as well write letters to the White House for all the difference it'll make to the politicians. Do you think they're totally unaware there are dissenters out there?
Against that we have to balance the increased risk to people and property from taking police off of normal duties to watch George's back. You feel this is justified I don't.
I suspect if you get home though and find it's your place thats been burgled whilst you were busy chucking eggs you'll feel pretty silly and very angry - justifiably so!
In a worst case scenario if the f**k-wits from Al-Quaeda take this as an opportunity to launch a terrorist bomb attack in the UK, whilst the boys in blue are distracted elsewhere, any demo is going to look like a pretty sad indulgence!
David
Posted on: 18 November 2003 by matthewr
David,
That was, if you'll forgive the frankness, a spectacularly dumb post.
Matthew
That was, if you'll forgive the frankness, a spectacularly dumb post.
Matthew
Posted on: 18 November 2003 by ErikL
Judd said: "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 blah, blah, blah..."
You sound like you drank the Kool-Aid of the neocons at The Project for the New American Century (Wolfowitz, Perle, Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc). Have you, then? Where else do we need to project military dominance, or else crumble?
You sound like you drank the Kool-Aid of the neocons at The Project for the New American Century (Wolfowitz, Perle, Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc). Have you, then? Where else do we need to project military dominance, or else crumble?
Posted on: 18 November 2003 by Justin
quote:
Originally posted by Ludwig:
You sound like you drank the Kool-Aid of the neocons at The Project for the New American Century (Wolfowitz, Perle, Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc). Have you, then? Where else do we need to project military dominance, or else crumble?
If only the world were so easy, I guess. Where we can help, we should. That we do not is a matter of political will regarding the expenditure of blood and money. I will never understand ultra-leftist ideology which proclaims the ontological priority of the "rights" of oppressors to oppress and the "rights" of those oppressed to be oppressed.
judd
Posted on: 18 November 2003 by David Stewart
Matthew,
I despair, I make some perfectly valid points and the best you can do is dismiss them as "spectacularly dumb". Even by your standards that response does seem to be somewhat lacking in intellectual rigour
Be that as it may, life is far too short to waste it arguing with someone too myopic to even consider views that run contrary to their own preconceptions, so I'll go and listen to some music and leave you to enjoy sole occupancy of the moral high ground.
David
I despair, I make some perfectly valid points and the best you can do is dismiss them as "spectacularly dumb". Even by your standards that response does seem to be somewhat lacking in intellectual rigour
Be that as it may, life is far too short to waste it arguing with someone too myopic to even consider views that run contrary to their own preconceptions, so I'll go and listen to some music and leave you to enjoy sole occupancy of the moral high ground.
David
Posted on: 18 November 2003 by ErikL
Why are there seemingly intelligent Americans who are completely misinformed and whose stance is that we invaded Iraq (and Afghanistan) to free the people from oppression? It was a wonderful and politically convenient side effect, but by no means should we confuse it with any primary objectives set forth by our politicians. That would be dreamy and rosey, but void of the truth. Wolfowitz and company spelled out the objectives for neocon foreign policy since 1992- note the complete lack of verbiage pertaining to acting for the good of opressed peoples in any of the key documents (Wolfowitz's early "Defense Planning Guidance", the first letter from the thinktank I mentioned, etc). If people followed the Iraq situation since 1991, they would easily understand that the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were simply selfish acts to displace "threats" (?) to the US and our allies and to make a statement to other failed states. Again, some of the effects are truly wonderful, without question, but let's not taint the political facts with moral posturing.
Ludwig, believer in freedom, diplomacy, and the truth
Ludwig, believer in freedom, diplomacy, and the truth
Posted on: 18 November 2003 by Berlin Fritz
I've just spent a fairly heavy Bohemian evening with a good friend of mine (even though he's from Providence RI) and the name of Winston Churchill didn't arise once ?
Fritz the Cat
Graham Ricketts
Fritz the Cat
Graham Ricketts
Posted on: 19 November 2003 by Berlin Fritz
From poor President's son, roughing it with other underprivelaged kids in the playground coridoors of the Whitehouse, being forced to drink cheap moonshine, and take dodgy medicinal powders thru having no medicaid cover. Yes you struggled hard with the Texan baseball team that was given you, you showed your real business prowess by running it into the ground financially, spurring both College and Military servitude you battled on that poverty stricken road to the Governorship of the Lone Star State itself. But then as if in a Dream, Dad said; "Son,"it's all the way or nothing"
so by yet another stroke of luck in your God -gifted career a Federal Judge pronounced you President of the United States of America, and now you're having tea with the Queen of England, you've come a long old way George, a long old way, Oh, and don't feed the pigeons, innit: Fritz:
Also a believer in Freedom, Democracy, and Truth, but knowing realistically that in American Political life they cannot exist.
Conan the Republican will now say two words !!
Graham Ricketts
so by yet another stroke of luck in your God -gifted career a Federal Judge pronounced you President of the United States of America, and now you're having tea with the Queen of England, you've come a long old way George, a long old way, Oh, and don't feed the pigeons, innit: Fritz:
Also a believer in Freedom, Democracy, and Truth, but knowing realistically that in American Political life they cannot exist.
Conan the Republican will now say two words !!
Graham Ricketts
Posted on: 19 November 2003 by domfjbrown
quote:
Originally posted by Justin:
Implicit in your statement is the notion that removal in 1991 was certainly justified. Why not in 2003?
I've got no issue at all with someone taking that muppet (Madass) out; it's the method of how they got IN that worries me, since in 2002 it wasn't exactly a pretty and simple "yes" from everyone that counted, like in 1991 (then again, I'm probably wrong here - I was only 15 when they announced war in 1991).
quote:
Originally posted by Justin:
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?
He doesn't - he gets my blame over pollution (read Kyoto), but on this war, I'd say that in many respects Blair is worse since he's been proven to be a blatant liar on much less than a fudged weapons report that led to war. The real big gripe I have against Bush is the slightly iffy situation re the voting and recounting before he got in, but than that's not my concern as I don't live in the US.
My concern is that if Blair DOES get in again (can people really be that thick!?) we in the UK will be totally screwed. Mind you, when the Tories got back in in 1992, I was shocked and appalled considering all their screw ups with poll tax etc, so I guess anything's possible.
Perhaps a time to let Lib Dem, Monster Raving Loonies, or someone else (please NOT the BNP) have a turn at f***ing up Britain for a change. Tory and Labour have consistenly managed it for decades.
As for Al Queda doing something on the day, well, I'd not be a bit surprised if something happens. Thank god I don't live in London is all I have to say - one small bang on the Tube and the whole lot'd cave in...
__________________________
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.
Posted on: 19 November 2003 by Mick P
Dom
You seem to be rather unhappy theses days, moaning about something all the time.
The country is not in a mess, in fact it is quite healthy and most of us have never had it so good. There are more consumables sold today than ever before. Therefore we have more goodies to play with.
So stop bloody whinging.
Regards
Happy Mick
You seem to be rather unhappy theses days, moaning about something all the time.
The country is not in a mess, in fact it is quite healthy and most of us have never had it so good. There are more consumables sold today than ever before. Therefore we have more goodies to play with.
So stop bloody whinging.
Regards
Happy Mick
Posted on: 19 November 2003 by matthewr
David,
Ok lets have a look at what you said.
"but don't go away with the impression that it will achieve anything - it won't"
Why not? What if it convinces a couple of previously neutral people to look again at the arguments for and against the war in Iraq? Surely that's someting?
On the wider issue are you saying protest never achieves anything? Ever?
What if the government passed a law saying anyone called David will be hit in the face with a cricket bat once a month. Would you protest? If there was a "March of a Million Davids" through London would you join the march or perhaps just buy some soothing lotion to help with the post face hitting discomfort?
Dumb Rating: 7/10
"Frankly you might just as well write letters to the White House for all the difference it'll make to the politicians. Do you think they're totally unaware there are dissenters out there?"
Do you think people protest because they believe Bush will suddenly think "Gee maybe I should look at this whole Iraq business again"?
Or does protest perhaps have something to do with getting media coverage of particular issues and views, convincing others, aftecting elections, parliamentary votes, etc?
Dumb Rating: 8/10
"Against that we have to balance the increased risk to people and property from taking police off of normal duties to watch George's back"
This is dumb for a few reasons.
1. The security required for a visit of the President of the USA is enormous and is largely related to terrorist/assasination threat not protesters. Of course there is an extra reuqirement for policing the demo but by logical extention of your argument the best thing would be for Bush not to come at all.
2. The police force is obviously limited in resources but it is designed to be able to cope with exceptional peaks like this. Granted if you are burgled today the police might not be around until next week to take your statement but if you are attacked in the street this week and someone phones 999 someone will come and help you very quickly.
3. Its just a completely bizarre argument to claim that people shouldn't make a democratic protest becuase somebody else might have their video knicked. Its like saying we shouldn't have joined the war against Nazi Germany becuase Denmark might invade while we weren't looking.
Dumb Rating: 8/10
"I suspect if you get home though and find it's your place thats been burgled whilst you were busy chucking eggs you'll feel pretty silly and very angry - justifiably so!"
I would be angry for sure but I wouldn't be so stupid as to think that if the police hadn't been policing a protest I would not have been burgled.
Dumb Rating: 10/10
Also, FWIW, I would never throw eggs at someone as its irresponsible dangerous and illegal.
"In a worst case scenario if the f**k-wits from Al-Quaeda take this as an opportunity to launch a terrorist bomb attack in the UK, whilst the boys in blue are distracted elsewhere, any demo is going to look like a pretty sad indulgence!"
This is an equally good argument for, say, banning all large rock concerts, sporting events, etc. all of which require police presence.
Dumd Rating: 8/10
So like I said. Spectacularly dumb.
Matthew
Ok lets have a look at what you said.
"but don't go away with the impression that it will achieve anything - it won't"
Why not? What if it convinces a couple of previously neutral people to look again at the arguments for and against the war in Iraq? Surely that's someting?
On the wider issue are you saying protest never achieves anything? Ever?
What if the government passed a law saying anyone called David will be hit in the face with a cricket bat once a month. Would you protest? If there was a "March of a Million Davids" through London would you join the march or perhaps just buy some soothing lotion to help with the post face hitting discomfort?
Dumb Rating: 7/10
"Frankly you might just as well write letters to the White House for all the difference it'll make to the politicians. Do you think they're totally unaware there are dissenters out there?"
Do you think people protest because they believe Bush will suddenly think "Gee maybe I should look at this whole Iraq business again"?
Or does protest perhaps have something to do with getting media coverage of particular issues and views, convincing others, aftecting elections, parliamentary votes, etc?
Dumb Rating: 8/10
"Against that we have to balance the increased risk to people and property from taking police off of normal duties to watch George's back"
This is dumb for a few reasons.
1. The security required for a visit of the President of the USA is enormous and is largely related to terrorist/assasination threat not protesters. Of course there is an extra reuqirement for policing the demo but by logical extention of your argument the best thing would be for Bush not to come at all.
2. The police force is obviously limited in resources but it is designed to be able to cope with exceptional peaks like this. Granted if you are burgled today the police might not be around until next week to take your statement but if you are attacked in the street this week and someone phones 999 someone will come and help you very quickly.
3. Its just a completely bizarre argument to claim that people shouldn't make a democratic protest becuase somebody else might have their video knicked. Its like saying we shouldn't have joined the war against Nazi Germany becuase Denmark might invade while we weren't looking.
Dumb Rating: 8/10
"I suspect if you get home though and find it's your place thats been burgled whilst you were busy chucking eggs you'll feel pretty silly and very angry - justifiably so!"
I would be angry for sure but I wouldn't be so stupid as to think that if the police hadn't been policing a protest I would not have been burgled.
Dumb Rating: 10/10
Also, FWIW, I would never throw eggs at someone as its irresponsible dangerous and illegal.
"In a worst case scenario if the f**k-wits from Al-Quaeda take this as an opportunity to launch a terrorist bomb attack in the UK, whilst the boys in blue are distracted elsewhere, any demo is going to look like a pretty sad indulgence!"
This is an equally good argument for, say, banning all large rock concerts, sporting events, etc. all of which require police presence.
Dumd Rating: 8/10
So like I said. Spectacularly dumb.
Matthew
Posted on: 19 November 2003 by herm
quote:
Originally posted by Matthew Robinson:
Also, FWIW, I would never throw eggs at someone as its irresponsible dangerous and illegal.
And a waste of egg resources.
Posted on: 19 November 2003 by Former member
quote:
Originally posted by herm:
And a waste of egg resources.
Very true. And what about baby chickens' right to life, liberty and happiness? Oh, the inhumanity of it all.
Alan - in need of an omelette
Posted on: 19 November 2003 by domfjbrown
quote:
Originally posted by Mick Parry:
Dom
You seem to be rather unhappy theses days, moaning about something all the time.
I've always been a moaner; but recently I've got worse due to the ridiculous discorrelation between house prices and wages, general crime rates and the fact that in the last 10 years I've seen this country turn into a dump.
Oh - and the fact that I'm REALLY p*ssed off with my job - in fact, despite the fact I owe loads in student debt/etc, I'm on the verge of walking out. See how far they get when the one person who maintains their bought-on-the-cheap crappy phonebook system storms off - tossers...
Rant over (and I'll try to stop moaning for a bit too!).
If I do walk out though, there'll be a lot of low rent hifi and records up for grabs...
__________________________
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.