Bush in Britain

[Tricky]

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?

[Tony]

Yep, everyone has to show solidarity with Saddam.

[wollery]

From the looks of it no one will be able to get anywhere near him!
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_837358.html?menu=news.politics

[Nikk]

Originally posted by Tricky
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?

Clearly Bush must be doing something wrong in the public relations field to be so unpopular. Perhaps he should ask the French President (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2812101.stm) 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.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Tony
Yep, everyone has to show solidarity with Saddam.

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.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

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.

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

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


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

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.

[NightG1]

Originally posted by wollery
From the looks of it no one will be able to get anywhere near him!

"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.

[Tricky]

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.

[Skeptic]

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.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Skeptic
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
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.

Originally posted by Skeptic
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.
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.)

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Tricky
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?

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

[reprise]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


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

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.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by reprise


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


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

[richardm]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


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

Remember: At Blair in the Strand is worth two at the Bush :D

[The Don]

Originally posted by richardm


Remember: At Blair in the Strand is worth two at the Bush :D

Laffed so much, must now change underwear :D :D :D :D

[wollery]

Perhaps Bush should take the John "two jags" Prescott approach to dealing with protestors.
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Politics/Pix/pictures/2001/12/17/prescott_punch.gif

[CapelDodger]

from Jon_in_london:
Bush, Bliar and the Queen in one place?
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.

[Skeptic]

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.

[BillyTK]

I'd be there to protest against Bush, except I'm a bit concerned of being accused of incitement to racial hatred (http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2003/09/277149.html) (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:

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Tricky

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]

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]

Originally posted by Skeptic
[B]
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]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

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]

Originally posted by Skeptic
...

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]

Originally posted by Crossbow


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]

Originally posted by Tony



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 ***** 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]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep


And that ***** 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]

Originally posted by Tony



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]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
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]

Originally posted by BillyTK
I'd be there to protest against Bush, except I'm a bit concerned of being accused of incitement to racial hatred (http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2003/09/277149.html) (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:

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]

Originally posted by Crossbow


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]

Originally posted by Skeptic
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]

Originally posted by Skeptic


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]

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]

Originally posted by richardm


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]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
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 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2765549.stm) did.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep


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

[JamesM]

Originally posted by Matabiri
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]

Originally posted by rikzilla
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]

Originally posted by rikzilla


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]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep


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]

Originally posted by BillyTK
I'd be there to protest against Bush, except I'm a bit concerned of being accused of incitement to racial hatred (http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2003/09/277149.html) (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: I see in the Scottish section of that site they have 'Tree Week' followed by 'Anti-Bush afternoon protest'.
Double standards or what?

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep


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. :con2:

-z

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by rikzilla


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]

Originally posted by sophia8



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]

Originally posted by rikzilla


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. :con2:

-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]

Originally posted by sophia8

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 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2765549.stm) 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]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep


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]

Originally posted by rikzilla


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.