Bush in Britain

[Ziggurat]

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.

Keep in mind, though, that's not how it was interpreted by Saddam, and much of the Arab world, where free expression is an alien concept. Iraqi protests, for example, were never expressions of popular opinion, they only ever happened under the direct command and supervision of the Ba'ath party. When Saddam sees protests abroad, he takes that as a sign of support, whether it was intended as such or not. I'm not saying that keeping Saddam from this delusion trumps the protester's right to expression, but it's disconcerting how few protesters seemed to be aware of this inherent conflict in this activity, or tried to make sure that their message couldn't be interpreted as support (ie, cary signs calling for Saddam to comply with the UN next to their signs denouncing Bush).

Look around at the next protest you watch/go to: do you see anyone speaking out against the terrorists bombing red cross facilities? Do you see anyone calling on France to donate more money to reconstruction efforts? Many of the protetors really do have their hearts in the right place. But if I was thinking of protesting, I'd have to think very hard about how to do so without having my message coopted by those who really aren't interested in the wellfare of Iraq. And particularly now that the war is over, how does the public distinguish between protesters who only think Bush made a mistake in invading, and those who think we should pull out now? Because it's really not easy to tell the difference, and those hoping to be seen as the former may end up being mistaken for the later. Just keep that in mind when deciding how you want your voice to be heard.

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.

Saddam did not "barely" threaten his neighbors. He has started multiple wars with neighbors, costing the lives of hundreds of thousands of both his own people and those of surrounding countries. He tried to aquire nuclear weapons. Saddam was not "barely" a threat - he may not have posed the immediate threat that you think was required to invade, but don't delude yourself for a moment that he was only a minor threat.

 

[Skeptic]

Re: Re: Re: Bush in Britain

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.

Somehow, I get the feeling that the US president's entourage is a "prime terrorist target" regardless of how many national security advisors are with him.

Nah, that can't be it... the REAL reason terrorists would try to attack it is because of Bush STUPIDLY taking people YOU think are unnecessary with him, right?

Not that you actually know what these advisors are doing, or why they might be needed, or that they even existed before you read yesterday's paper... but you "know" it's stupid and Bush's fault.

Congratulations; you have passed the test for being a right-thinking, anti-war individual: whatever Bush does, sneeringly imply it's wrong and stupid, even if you don't have a clue what the hell you're talking about.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

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.

I think you are comparing apples and oranges. True, the mainstream Republican party would probably never allow the KKK to have a hand in one of their rallies. I seriously doubt the mainstream Democratic party would permit the likes of ANSWER at one of theirs. However, I do not think these protests are staged by 'mainstream' Democrats (since I think protests of that nature are at best futile, I have no firsthand experience and couldn't say for sure though). I think they are staged by far left groups. I also think there is no shortage of far right groups that would welcome the KKK with open arms, so the score is pretty even in that regard.

I have no personal animosity toward Bush. I know lots of people who do not like Bush's policies and do not agree with them but don't have anything against Bush personally. However, certain elements on the right have taken advantage of 'The War on Terror' to imply that anyone who does not think as they do, and who criticizes Bush in any way is a terrorist loving monster who wants to bring this country down. THAT is the source of my ire.

The day ANY president in any situation gets a free pass and no one closely examines or criticizes his policies, that is the day taht this country will have fully and truly turned against the principles on which it was founded.

 

[Tony]

However, certain elements on the right have taken advantage of 'The War on Terror' to imply that anyone who does not think as they do, and who criticizes Bush in any way is a terrorist loving monster who wants to bring this country down. THAT is the source of my ire.

Welcome to the world of politics, its exactly like those on the left who call anyone who doesnt think like them a "racist", "uncompassionate", "homophobe" and any number of buzzwords.. The only difference is the "unpatriotic" mumbo jumbo is a recent development, the "racist and ect." charges have been around for years. You reap what you sow.

 

[Crossbow]

...

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.

...

Excuse me, but Skeptic what are you talking about here?

Do you have any data to support your claim that A.N.S.W.E.R. is a Stalinst Group?

 

[Tony]

Do you have any data to support your claim that A.N.S.W.E.R. is a Stalinst Group?

Do you really not know, or are you just being obtuse?

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Welcome to the world of politics, its exactly like those on the left who call anyone who doesnt think like them a "racist", "uncompassionate", "homophobe" and any number of buzzwords.. The only difference is the "unpatriotic" mumbo jumbo is a recent development, the "racist and ect." charges have been around for years. You reap what you sow.

And that sh!t is just as irritating. So is the charge that anyone who supports Bush wishes to make this country into a police state. Many people for some reason can't get it through their thick, stupid, skulls that you can have a difference of opinion on matters of politics and still have the best interests of the country in mind. People are stupid in that regard.

Oh, and while the SPECIFIC charges (i.e. racist, fascist, whatever) that political enemies throw at each other change from time to time, even a cursory study of history shows that we Americans have been gleefully indulging in this irritating practice of poo throwing since day one of our republic. For that matter, I would bet that if you went back to ancient Athens, you'd see Greeks doing the same d@mn thing, though I admit that this is only a hunch. It's not a matter of reaping what you sow, it's a matter of people commiting the same stupidity over and over and over again. It is something that we need to work on as a species. It is as bad as religion in my opinion.

I HATE politics. This practice is one of the reasons why.

 

[Tony]

And that sh!t is just as irritating. So is the charge that anyone who supports Bush wishes to make this country into a police state. Many people for some reason can't get it through their thick, stupid, skulls that you can have a difference of opinion on matters of politics and still have the best interests of the country in mind. People are stupid in that regard.

Oh, and while the SPECIFIC charges (i.e. racist, fascist, whatever) that political enemies throw at each other change from time to time, even a cursory study of history shows that we Americans have been gleefully indulging in this irritating practice of poo throwing since day one of our republic. For that matter, I would bet that if you went back to ancient Athens, you'd see Greeks doing the same d@mn thing, though I admit that this is only a hunch. It's not a matter of reaping what you sow, it's a matter of people commiting the same stupidity over and over and over again. It is something that we need to work on as a species. It is as bad as religion in my opinion.

I HATE politics. This practice is one of the reasons why.

You're preaching to the choir brother. I'd just like to add, that the reverse is also true. Politics also tends to sugar-coat ugly issues.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

You're preaching to the choir brother. I'd just like to add, that the reverse is also true. Politics also tends to sugar-coat ugly issues.

Yes it does. People prefer a pretty lie to an ugly truth so politicians know this. Then a bizaare form of natural selection takes place, the politicians who dress their lies up the prettiest are successful while those who tell ugly truths tend to fall by the wayside.

I recently wrote a paper on how the Enlightenment in Europe affected the way our government took shape after the Revolution. One thing I learned was that many European politcal philosophers belived the ideal form of government was an 'enlightened dictator' who ruled by decree but worked toward everyones best interests rather than toward his own self aggrandizement. They felt this exactly because it would get around the problems we are discussing. Sometimes I think they had a point, except for the fact that an 'enlightened dictator' is somewhat less likely than a flying pig. I guess you just can't win in some fields.

 

[CapelDodger]

from Ziggurat:

When Saddam sees protests abroad, he takes that as a sign of support, whether it was intended as such or not.

You assume Saddam's ignorance of Western politics, for no good reason as far as I can see. He's a politically astute psychopath, and has had a lot of contact with the West (both the political and business worlds; remember how chummy the West was during the Iran-Iraq war). He's perfectly aware that protesters are not his supporters, and he doesn't he care. He sees them as an expression of public opinion which puts pressure on democratic governments. He clearly misreads how important that is - there's a tendency for dictators to under-estimate the ability of democratic governments to get things done when they want to. But he's not fresh out of the tent.

 

[Ziggurat]

from Ziggurat:

You assume Saddam's ignorance of Western politics, for no good reason as far as I can see.

There are plenty of reasons to believe he doesn't understand the west. He's surrounded by yes-men, he's enveloped himself in a cult of personality - I'm not even sure he understood most Iraqis, he was so insulated in his own delusions of grandeur. And his actions also indicate he doesn't understand us. Before GW1, he made no serious moves to withdraw his forces from Kuwait or provide for a safe retreat, he basically left them there to get slaughtered. That was a stupid mistake, and it's either because he's an idiot (which isn't much better considering how reckless he was) or because he didn't really think we'd attack. There have also been suggestions that Saddam may have been trying to bluff about his current WMD capacity to make us unwilling to attack him this time. If that's what happened, that was a major mistake, this time possibly the fatal one.

He's a politically astute psychopath, and has had a lot of contact with the West (both the political and business worlds; remember how chummy the West was during the Iran-Iraq war).

He has had contact with western polticians and businessmen who come to him to do business. He has no contact with the workings of western democracy. And neither did his legion of yes-men.

He's perfectly aware that protesters are not his supporters, and he doesn't he care. He sees them as an expression of public opinion which puts pressure on democratic governments. He clearly misreads how important that is - there's a tendency for dictators to under-estimate the ability of democratic governments to get things done when they want to. But he's not fresh out of the tent.

You may be correct that we cannot tell exactly how he interpreted protestors. But whether he percieved them as supporters, or merely "useful idiots" who would obstruct his opponents, he read the protests as being beneficial to him. And that is something protesters should be mindful of - again, I'm not saying they should necessarily refrain from protesting, but it would be wise to display a little more balance to those protests (Joe Conason of Salon.com, for example, was opposed to the war but suggested before the war that protesters also march outside the Iraq embassy to demand that Saddam comply with the UN).

 

[Skeptic]

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

Read the article. Bizzare. It seems to me, though, that the reason that he was prosecuted for "inciting racial hatered" mainly because his protest shirt had a swastika on in. IIRC, in most of Europe there are draconian laws against displaying the swastika under ANY circumstances. Good thing the chrages were dropped.

 

[Skeptic]

Excuse me, but Skeptic what are you talking about here?

Do you have any data to support your claim that A.N.S.W.E.R. is a Stalinst Group?

Well, for starters, they are identified as such in the newest issue of "The Atlantic", where I got this information from, and they usually have good fact-checking.

 

[Skeptic]

For that matter, I would bet that if you went back to ancient Athens, you'd see Greeks doing the same d@mn thing, though I admit that this is only a hunch.

I am not an historian, but I have read Herodotus, and am now reading Tuchydides' THE PELEPONESE WAR and Tacitus's ANNALS and HISTORIES (which "I Claudius" is based on, by the way).

Your hunch is spot-on.

Mob politics, back-biting, flaterry, treason, shady deals, corruption, losing wars because you fight with your allies over absurd matters of protocol as the enemy is at the gates... you name it, they did it.

Did you ever watch "cops" for that feeling of "Whew! That isn't me! How could he be THAT stupid?!" Most reading of history--of virtually any time or place--gives you that feeling, although with less car crashes, profanity, or rap music.

Human nature, evolved over millions of years to suit a tribal society of 100 or so hunter-gatherers, simply doesn't fit well with the demands of a society of 10,000 citizens, like ancient Greek cities, let alone 10,000,000, like ancient Rome, or 300,000,000, like the USA.

If human nature will ever change, it will take literally hundreds of thousands of years. No chance of changing it in 100, 1000, or 10,000 years... which is the critical flaw in all utopistic philosophies, from fascism to communism.

 

[richardm]

IIRC, in most of Europe there are draconian laws against displaying the swastika under ANY circumstances.

I think that it's just Germany that has the really strict laws on displaying swastikas.

 

[BillyTK]

Read the article. Bizzare. It seems to me, though, that the reason that he was prosecuted for "inciting racial hatered" mainly because his protest shirt had a swastika on in. IIRC, in most of Europe there are draconian laws against displaying the swastika under ANY circumstances. Good thing the chrages were dropped.

IIRC, the charge of racial hatred was originally in respect of the US flag with the words "F*ck Bush" written across it; when evidence was being gathered, police went onto the US airbase to find if anyone had felt racially persecuted from seeing the flag. Of course this charge had to be dropped because "American" is a nationality, not a race or ethnicity, and this is the reason why the charge relating to the swastika will have to be dropped

In the UK, displaying a swatika is not in and of itself a crime. However to display a swastika in an area with a large proportion of ethnic minorities—because of the association with nazism and the "Final Solution"— does come under the "incitement to racial hatred" laws, provided intentionality can be proven. This is typically not hard, because the people who like to show off their swastikas tend to do so in just such areas, and seem willing to go to lengths to find areas to do so in.

On the one hand my libertarian instincts say that people should be allowed to display whatever banners and symbols they so wish wherever and whenever they choose, as long as they accept the consequences of their actions; on the other hand, the liberal in me values rule of law over rule of force, and as so there should be recourse through the law to deal with such actions. As theis incident shows, there's always the potential to abuse these laws, but as this incident also shows, there's also legal redress to counterbalance these abuses.

On an aside, UK "lefty" comedian Mark Thomas had lent his support to what became known as the "F*ck Bush" Campaign by encouraging people to send postcards with the "racially threatening" flag on one side and space for their names and addresses on the other side, to be sent to the police officers in charge of the case. The principle was that if the protester was to be charged with incitement, then anyone who sent the card would have to be summonsed as well. IIRC thousands of postcards were sent, some from as far away as Israel and Japan. I've no idea if this had any bearing on the decision to not prosecute...

 

[Matabiri]

School pupil "strike"

There was a girl on the radio this morning trying to justify calling for school pupils to walk out and protest against Bush's visit. At one point she said, "I think we learn more from things like, um, this than by sitting in a maths lesson for an hour," and the presenter LET HER GET AWAY WITH IT!

What? What are you going to learn?

 

[Matabiri]

I think that it's just Germany that has the really strict laws on displaying swastikas.

There's a WWI memorial near Lochnagar which has swastikas all round its base, from when they were a symbol of life...

Very poignant seeing it now.

 

[sophia8]

here's one person's experience at an anti-war rally in London:

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

The Iraqis had come with placards reading "Freedom for Iraq" and "American rule, a hundred thousand times better than Takriti tyranny!"
But the tough guys who supervised the march would have none of that. Only official placards, manufactured in thousands and distributed among the "spontaneous" marchers, were allowed. These read "Bush and Blair, baby-killers," " Not in my name," "Freedom for Palestine" and "Indict Bush and Sharon."

Strange - I distinctly remember, after the march, acres of newsprint devoted to showing some of the hundreds of funny and inventive home-made placards on display. One of us here is suffering from false-memory syndrome.

In fact, I had some friends go on that march - they reported a very positive experience. Nobody tried to take their home-made placards away, nobody got heavy, they didn't see any heaviness. However the crowd was VAST - stragglers were still marching into Hyde Park after everyone had finished speaking, six or more hours after the march started. There just couldn't have been enough "tough guys" to keep even a small part of the protestors toeing whatever the party line was supposed to be. So those pro-US Iraquis simply needed to move to another part of the crowd. (Away from the TV cameras perhaps?)
EDIT to add: Or they could have used a mobile picture-phone to email their views and pictures of their placards to the BBC, like these people did.

 

[rikzilla]

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.

One can't help but wonder how many anti-Saddam rallies were held before the fellow was so rudely ushered from office?

The fact remains that islamo-fascists of all stripes take heart from the anti-Bush protesters. You may not be pro-Saddam/Al-Qaeda yourself, but that makes little difference in the overall effect that your protest would have.

The famous Arab saying is that "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." That makes the anti-Bushies defacto friends to Saddam, Osama, and every wacked out religious nut in the Middle East.

It's objectively true, no matter what you may believe to the contrary.

-z