• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Bush in Britain

Tricky

Briefly immortal
Tricky
Joined
Nov 24, 2001
Messages
43,750
Location
The Group W Bench
I have a friend in England who is planning to join some of the protests scheduled ("sheduled", he says) to coincide with Bush's visit to the Isles.

Are any of our other UK folks planning to create a public nuisance... um... I mean engage in civil disobedience? What do you have in mind?
 
Yep, everyone has to show solidarity with Saddam.
 
Tricky said:
I have a friend in England who is planning to join some of the protests scheduled ("sheduled", he says) to coincide with Bush's visit to the Isles.

Are any of our other UK folks planning to create a public nuisance... um... I mean engage in civil disobedience? What do you have in mind?
Click to expand...

Clearly Bush must be doing something wrong in the public relations field to be so unpopular. Perhaps he should ask the French President for tips to improve his popularity;)

quote
_______________________________________________________

"French security officials put the crowd figures at around 500,000, but Algerian security sources said about 1.5 million turned out on Sunday, French news agency AFP reported.

They cheered as President Chirac drove from the city airport to the centre of town in an open-top limousine with Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika.

To catch a glimpse of the French leader, many went to great lengths, hanging off lampposts and trees or packing apartment balconies.

_______________________________________________________

It will be interesting to see how big a crowd the protestors get. November is a damp depressing month in London and people aren't really in the mood for a good riot. On the other hand a few burning police cars can cheer up even the greyest autumn day:D.
 
Tony said:
Yep, everyone has to show solidarity with Saddam.
Click to expand...

You know, it IS possible to be anti-Bush AND anti-Saddam.

This whole "if you criticize Bush you must be rooting for Saddam/Al-Qaeda" line of thinkning that is becoming so prevalent in this country is really, really irritating.
 
Nyarlathotep said:

You know, it IS possible to be anti-Bush AND anti-Saddam.

This whole "if you criticize Bush you must be rooting for Saddam/Al-Qaeda" line of thinkning that is becoming so prevalent in this country is really, really irritating.
Click to expand...

I agree, but there's a reason people keep talking about it. I see it on this very board, with posters claiming things like Bush is the worst dictator ever. That kind of extreme really does amount to sticking up for Saddam, though I do agree opposing Bush is not synonymous with supporting Saddam (and similarly, supporting the invasion is not synonymous with supporting Bush). Regarding protests in England, here's one person's experience at an anti-war rally in London:

http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/240
 
Ziggurat said:


I agree, but there's a reason people keep talking about it. I see it on this very board, with posters claiming things like Bush is the worst dictator ever. That kind of extreme really does amount to sticking up for Saddam, though I do agree opposing Bush is not synonymous with supporting Saddam (and similarly, supporting the invasion is not synonymous with supporting Bush). Regarding protests in England, here's one person's experience at an anti-war rally in London:

http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/240
Click to expand...

You will always have that kind of extremism and hyperbole from one side or the other regardless of who is in power. As much as I hate it, it is the nature of politics.

I loathe Bush, I don't agree with his policies, I didn't vote for him last time and, barring a head injury, I sure as hell won't vote for him next time. I really resent the implication that somehow this makes me a bad American who support evil dictators and monstrous terrorists. It pi$$es me off, quite frankly. I realize that not all bush supporters do this, but enough of them do for it to really aggravate me.
 
wollery said:
From the looks of it no one will be able to get anywhere near him!
Click to expand...
"The President's security team are reportedly concerned about anti-war protests and want an exclusion zone across a large part of the capital while he is staying."

Ah yes, "Free Speech Zones". Welcome to Shrub's America wollery.
 
I don't think that many on these boards think of GWB as a "dictator". Idiot, yes. Liar, yes. Friend of right wing fanatics, anti environmentalists, big business special interests, yes, but not a dictator. We all know that he could be removed in one year. But I am glad to see that the people of the UK, our greatest ally, have shown such a strong front in opposing Bush. It indicates that his policies have not done a good job of uniting our allies behind us. This provides yet another example of his failed international policy. Even the countries whose governments support us, especially England and Australia, have alienated a large segment of their people. (I suppose Italy will be next.) If the US cannot even count on their allies to support them then what can it count on?

For the record, I believe the US should never have invaded Iraq, but now that they have, they must stay and clean up the mess. It is a stupid bloody waste, but pulling out now would be an even greater crime than the invasion. We are damned to try to bring peace to this hellhole because Dubya bet that he could do a better job than the despot who was there. He'd better make good on that bet or the US will be a big loser.
 
This whole "if you criticize Bush you must be rooting for Saddam/Al-Qaeda" line of thinkning that is becoming so prevalent in this country is really, really irritating.

Indeed. However, surely you agree that Saddam was very happy with all the "anti-war" protests when he was in power? For all intents and purposes, every protestor that went there WAS helping Saddam.

Intentionally? No. But for some people, pathological hatered of Bush is such that they'd support ANYBODY who opposes him--including the Iraqi tyrant--and opposed ANYTHING he does, just to be against "the chimp"/"the shrub"/whatever the latest "cool" protest name against him.
 
Skeptic said:
Indeed. However, surely you agree that Saddam was very happy with all the "anti-war" protests when he was in power? For all intents and purposes, every protestor that went there WAS helping Saddam
Click to expand...
Helping? Perhaps, in the sense that they were opposing the invasion. But it is wrong to suppose that this means they wer supporting him. The merely preferred other means of opposing him. It is ludicrous to propose that we must break the rules in order to preserve the rules.

Skeptic said:
Intentionally? No. But for some people, pathological hatered of Bush is such that they'd support ANYBODY who opposes him--including the Iraqi tyrant--and opposed ANYTHING he does, just to be against "the chimp"/"the shrub"/whatever the latest "cool" protest name against him.
Click to expand...
Perhaps some have a pathalogical hatred of Bush. Perhaps some have a pathalogical hatred of Saddam. I tend to think that wise people eschew "hatred" in favor of rationalism. In my opinion, Bush chose an irrational course to remove Saddam, one that will be detrimental to the world. I would encourage others to protest such behaviour. I also agree that Saddam did a lot of things detrimental to the world. I also oppose that behavior. But the behavior of the dictator of a tinpot country who could barely threaten it's neighbors is far less serious than the behavior of the leader of the "free world" who has the largest military in the world at his command. I think that with great power comes great responsibility. (Thank you, Spiderman.)
 
Tricky said:
I have a friend in England who is planning to join some of the protests scheduled ("sheduled", he says) to coincide with Bush's visit to the Isles.

Are any of our other UK folks planning to create a public nuisance... um... I mean engage in civil disobedience? What do you have in mind?
Click to expand...

I think they could combine the protest with a "right to bear arms" protest like RichardG just had. Kill two birds with one stone.
 
Re: Re: Bush in Britain

a_unique_person said:


I think they could combine the protest with a "right to bear arms" protest like RichardG just had. Kill two birds with one stone.
Click to expand...

Heck why not combine it with an anti-monarchy protest?

While it would be possible to shut-down London in the manner requested, I find the arrogance implicit in the request itself breathtaking. If Bush is that damned worried about his safety outside of the US, then stay at home. And what kind of lunatic takes 150 national security advisors on tour with him - if that isn't making his entourage a prime terrorist target, I don't know what is.

Personally, I think the Brits should suspend Bush in a transparent box above the Thames and let people throw hamburgers at him.
 
Re: Re: Re: Bush in Britain

reprise said:


Heck why not combine it with an anti-monarchy protest?
Click to expand...

Hmmm.... Bush, Bliar and the Queen in one place? Three birds with one rotten tomato? let me check my diary........
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Bush in Britain

Jon_in_london said:


Hmmm.... Bush, Bliar and the Queen in one place? Three birds with one rotten tomato? let me check my diary........
Click to expand...

Remember: At Blair in the Strand is worth two at the Bush :D
 
Perhaps Bush should take the John "two jags" Prescott approach to dealing with protestors.
prescott_punch.gif
 
from Jon_in_london:
Bush, Bliar and the Queen in one place?
Click to expand...
And Jack Straw. And those bloody corgis. And Phil the Greek. Probably not Gordon Brown, though. I feel a conspiracy theory coming on ... You heard it here first.
 
You will always have that kind of extremism and hyperbole from one side or the other regardless of who is in power. As much as I hate it, it is the nature of politics.

I dunno. In the USA, the republicans and the right in general will not think of allowing the far right--the KKK, the American Nazi party, etc.--to join them. The left, however, in its anti-war marches, DOES allow A.N.S.W.E.R. (a Stalinist group) or half a dozen other nutcase groups to march with them.

Imagine the outrage if, say, the head of the Republican Party said something like: "well, yes, some KKK members showed up in robes in our rally, but just because we disagree with them on some things doesn't mean we have a common ground to oppose the deomocratic party's tax-and-spend policies". Yes the left excuses the presence of ANSWER and others in just such terms.

And don't tell me this is a matter of "free speech"--as the article Ziggurat published shows, there was rather ruthless supression of it during the rally for those who didn't agree with it.

The fact that ANSWER & co. were allowed, and even encouraged, showed the real issue in question was NOT "anti-war" or "peace", but merely hatered of Bush, personally, for whatever reason.

The reason, I think, is that Bush--and the "neo-conservative revolution" in particular--signifies to them the fact that they are irrelevant, and they hate that. How come all those STUPID people had to vote AGAINST the candidate I like?!, they think to themselves. The epitome of this attitude is the New York socialite who claimed the war on Iraq couldn't possibly be popular--nobody she knows supports it.
 
I'd be there to protest against Bush, except I'm a bit concerned of being accused of incitement to racial hatred (warning: offensive language; guidance of a mature adult should be sought). That and some errands I've got to run for Saddam this weekend :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom