Bush in Britain

[JamesM]

Re: 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!

Oh gawd, I heard that too. The urge to punch the radio very hard was almost overwhelming. I take some comfort from the fact that Verity faces a lifetime of embarrassment as an adult whenever a tape of the interview gets wheeled out by her family.

Tsk, kids eh?

 

[sophia8]

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.

So, nobody is to publicly criticise any government policy, because that would be giving comfort to the enemy???? So, how do you propose that critics make their views known?

The famous Arab saying is that "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Actually, that phrase was coined by the 4thC BC Hindu philosopher Kautilya, in his work Arthasastra .

 

[Nyarlathotep]

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

So in other words we should blindly follow along with anything that the president wishes, never question it and never criticize it, because doing so is comforting to our enemies.

That is your postion taken to its logical conclusion.

 

[rikzilla]

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.

How very sadly true.

But not only would the "enlightened dictator" be a rarity....what of his son or heir? In truth we'd need a succession of "flying pigs" before that pretty fantasy could ever work!

-z

 

[mummymonkey]

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

I see in the Scottish section of that site they have 'Tree Week' followed by 'Anti-Bush afternoon protest'.
Double standards or what?

 

[rikzilla]

So in other words we should blindly follow along with anything that the president wishes, never question it and never criticize it, because doing so is comforting to our enemies.

That is your postion taken to its logical conclusion.

Yes,

I understand...and indeed it's a problem. But ideally in America we are supposted to have a "loyal" opposition. During times of war with our soldiers deployed abroad, I believe in the old tradition of leaving our dissent at the shore's edge.

In my own humble opinion, were I to be against Bush, I'd leave off on the public protesting, and vote him out of office at the earliest opportunity. In the meantime I'd work for candidates whose policies I do agree with.

There are other alternatives to being a fellow-traveller with people who do not have our nation's best interests at heart.

But hey, you need to do what you think best. It's a free country and I would not begrudge you your rights to do what you think is best. But do you really think it's best to take actions which will give hope to our enemies in wartime? That's the question you have to answer...as long as the guy in the mirror can live with it then I guess it's what you ought to do.

-z

 

[Nyarlathotep]

How very sadly true.

But not only would the "enlightened dictator" be a rarity....what of his son or heir? In truth we'd need a succession of "flying pigs" before that pretty fantasy could ever work!

-z

Yep, that's a good point. The founding fathers pretty much believed that even the best government would become corrupt given enough time. That's why we have elections with such frequency. Even that was something of a compromise, if Jefferson had gotten his way, every law on the books, every governmental office, even the constitution itself would have expired and the government would be rebuilt from scratch every nineteen years.

 

[rikzilla]

Actually, that phrase was coined by the 4thC BC Hindu philosopher Kautilya, in his work Arthasastra .

I thought that I'd heard that there was an earlier source for this... but I think the first time I ever heard it was from a Leon Uris novel I was reading. I've also heard it attributed to other Arab sources, but I do thank you for the information.

-z

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Yes,

I understand...and indeed it's a problem. But ideally in America we are supposted to have a "loyal" opposition. During times of war with our soldiers deployed abroad, I believe in the old tradition of leaving our dissent at the shore's edge.

In my own humble opinion, were I to be against Bush, I'd leave off on the public protesting, and vote him out of office at the earliest opportunity. In the meantime I'd work for candidates whose policies I do agree with.

There are other alternatives to being a fellow-traveller with people who do not have our nation's best interests at heart.

But hey, you need to do what you think best. It's a free country and I would not begrudge you your rights to do what you think is best. But do you really think it's best to take actions which will give hope to our enemies in wartime? That's the question you have to answer...as long as the guy in the mirror can live with it then I guess it's what you ought to do.

-z

Yes but by that same logic even voting against Bush is giving comfort to our enemies. If Bush were sucessfully voted out of office, or even if he wasn't but the opposition made a strong showing, that would give just as much comfort to our nations enemies because it would show that our nation is split in regards to its policies. So what is the difference?

Personally, I don't join protest marches, I think they range from ridiculous at worst to futile at best. However I don't think what they are doing is unpatriotic because one of the foundations of this country is the right to speak out against the government and they are merely exercising that right. This nation will always have enemies and any criticism of its leaders will always give comfort to those enemies. It is, unfortunately, one of the prices you pay for the freedom to criticize the government.

 

[Ziggurat]

So those pro-US Iraquis simply needed to move to another part of the crowd. (Away from the TV cameras perhaps?)

In other words, they could go somewhere where they woudn't be heard by a larger audience.

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.

The BBC will print whatever slant they decide to take, and I see no reason to think they'd be interested in printing pro-Bush or pointedly anti-Saddam statements. And I'm not impressed with what they went with. I'll give a run through:

1) A person who thinks the war is wrong, but doesn't say why. Granted, there isn't much room here to say much, but that's rather central to the problem: how effectively are you really conveying YOUR message when you protest, rather than whatever spin the event organizers and/or media decide to put on it? And do you really agree with that spin?
2) Doesn't think it was democratic, but again, no statement about what's wrong with the war itself.
3) Believes violence begets violence. Simplistic picture which is no more informative or useful than "Saddam is a bad guy".
4) I just have to quote this shmuck: "I'd like to hear more people chanting "yes to peace" rather than no war - after all we're trying to fight the concept of war and our message should be solution based." But "Yes to peace" is not a solution, it's a platitude. Evidently he doesn't know the difference.
5) Again I have to quote: "Saddam Hussein has got to be stopped, but if we go to war then we'll really know what terrorism is. I fear Britain will face retaliation, even in the past week I've been very upset and emotional because of the heightened state of alert." In other words, she's a coward. Her solution: just give them what they want and hopefully they'll leave us alone. "Peace in our time", indeed.
6) A mix of various reasons, some irrelevant (Bush and Blair don't need to have identical motivations), ending with wanting more time for inspectors to do their jobs. Twelve years evidently wasn't enough.
7) Another choice quote: "Tony Blair said today that he had to have the commitment to do the right thing in Iraq, but that's not democratic. He should do what the people want him to do." I'll leave you to come to your own interpretation, but sufice to say I'm not impressed.
8) Another great quote: "I don't think Saddam Hussein should be in power but there are other ways to get him out - I think the weapon inspectors should be given more time." What, does she think weapons inspectors will remove Saddam from power? Wow, what amazing stupidity.

Overall, not an impressive bunch. But that's the selection of viewpoints that got through. Are most protestors stupid, or are the stupid ones heard the most? Neither answer is satisfying.

 

[rikzilla]

Yes but by that same logic even voting against Bush is giving comfort to our enemies. If Bush were sucessfully voted out of office, or even if he wasn't but the opposition made a strong showing, that would give just as much comfort to our nations enemies because it would show that our nation is split in regards to its policies. So what is the difference?

Sure, but the vote is the core of our democracy. It's importance is paramount even given it's possibility of weakening a war effort. In the final analysis, if we let any external issue impede the democratic process...even a hot war...then we really wouldn't have anything left to fight FOR.

Personally, I don't join protest marches, I think they range from ridiculous at worst to futile at best. However I don't think what they are doing is unpatriotic because one of the foundations of this country is the right to speak out against the government and they are merely exercising that right. This nation will always have enemies and any criticism of its leaders will always give comfort to those enemies. It is, unfortunately, one of the prices you pay for the freedom to criticize the government.

Protest marches are NOT a way of voting. They are generally for appearances more than anything else. Anti-war protesters, and activists in general, are a tiny minority of the populations of nations that even allow open protest. Their rallies make for good newscasts, but they rarely represent an honest view of mainstream opinion. I live near, and work in, DC...have seen alot of protests in person. Generally anti-war, anti-IMF/World Bank protests are almost identical in composition. Lots of pseudo-communists holding pics of Che. Lots of "black-blok" anarchists. Lots of young people with half-baked ideas trying to "find themselves".

Remember the protesters against the bombing of Serbia? The only real difference between then and now is that now there is a real "I hate the president" faction. Back when the subject was Serbia, they were more loathe to blame Clinton, though some few did anyway.

-z

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Sure, but the vote is the core of our democracy. It's importance is paramount even given it's possibility of weakening a war effort. In the final analysis, if we let any external issue impede the democratic process...even a hot war...then we really wouldn't have anything left to fight FOR.



Protest marches are NOT a way of voting. They are generally for appearances more than anything else. Anti-war protesters, and activists in general, are a tiny minority of the populations of nations that even allow open protest. Their rallies make for good newscasts, but they rarely represent an honest view of mainstream opinion. I live near, and work in, DC...have seen alot of protests in person. Generally anti-war, anti-IMF/World Bank protests are almost identical in composition. Lots of pseudo-communists holding pics of Che. Lots of "black-blok" anarchists. Lots of young people with half-baked ideas trying to "find themselves".

Remember the protesters against the bombing of Serbia? The only real difference between then and now is that now there is a real "I hate the president" faction. Back when the subject was Serbia, they were more loathe to blame Clinton, though some few did anyway.

-z

The only difference I see between someone who protests the war, and someone who joins a campaign to elect an anti-war (or just plain anti-Bush) candidate is that the second guy chose a more effective way to express his dissatisfaction. They are both saying "I don't like the road Bush is taking this country down", the second guy merely chose a more mature way to say it. My point is that, though I feel that the first guy chose a bad way to express himself, I do not think that makes him unpatriotic.

As for the anarchists, communists, etc., though I think their beliefs range from patently absurd to merely naive, they aren't necessarily unpatriotic either. Having to put up with dunderheaded half-baked ideas is another one of the costs of free speech.

I will say there is probably more of a "I Hate Bush" faction among people protesting the current crop of anti-war protesters tahn among those who protested Serbia. I attribute this to the fact that an anti-war protester IS much more likely to be on the left rather than on the right in politics. Back when Clinton was president, the "I Hate Clinton" faction seemed to express their views on talk radio and/or the internet rather than in protest marches.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

I wonder if the following will have any bearing on the way Bush is received in the UK shortly?

His claims that the war was about removing an evil dictator who was terrorisng his own people after appointing to his government someone who helped supply Hussein with weapons at a time when it was known the Hussein was terrorising and murdering his own people.

The fact that the PNAC (incl Jeb Bush (presidential brother)apparently) had already targeted Iraq before Bush was awarded the presidency.

The fate of the mentally ill on death row in Texas.

The interesting conduct of an election in a state run by the presidential candidate's brother, presided over by the co-chair of the presidential candidate's election committee and the decision not to count all the votes made by judges appointed by the presidential candidate's father.

The Brooks Brothers riots against the practice of counting votes.

The large donations from companies (not completely unconnected with his vice president and the oil industry) who have benefited enormously in interestingly competition-free contract awards for major projects in Iraq.

His interesting but still apparently unvalidated claims about WOMD.

His attitude to the UN.

Stopping the UN weapons inspectors doing their jobs.

The vilifying of Hans Blix.

The way in which Blair decided to go to war against the wishes of the majority of the people in this country and the evidence of the intelligence services.

The inference that the UK was under threat of attack from WOMD within 45 minutes.


Etc.

Etc.