Livingstone says Bush is 'greatest threat to life on planet'

[Tony]

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=464783 ...full article

Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, launched a stinging attack on President George Bush last night, denouncing him as the "greatest threat to life on this planet that we've most probably ever seen".


Is this guy serious? Bush has done nothing that Clinton didnt do.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Tony

...
Is this guy serious? Bush has nothing that Clinton didnt do.
Bush is now.

We speak of:

now.

[corplinx]

It amazes me that with with tangible threats like Islamic Fundamentalism, Nuclear Proliferation, and of course the sleeping bear (China) that someone can still manage to talk about great threats and sound like an idiot.

[Ion]

Well Bush is into this:
Originally posted by corplinx
It amazes me that with with tangible threats like Islamic Fundamentalism, Nuclear Proliferation,...that someone can still manage to talk about great threats and sound like an idiot.

Including threatening.

Isn't he?

[ChrisH]

Livingstone is a newt-fancier - maybe Bush has a secret agenda that will affect newts in some horrific way.

On the other hand, perhaps he hasn't...

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Ion

Bush is now.

We speak of:

now. But the Lord Mayor wasn't speaking of now. He said "... that we've most probably ever seen." Many people cringe when Livingstone holds forth on international topics. He is chronically wrongheaded about such matters; as I recall, he's gone so far in his efforts to lambaste American policymakers that he sometimes comes across as an al-Qaeda apologist.

[Tony]

Is this guy well liked in London?

[Mendor]

Originally posted by Tony
Is this guy well liked in London? Well, he got elected, and without having a party political affiliation - he left the Labour Party because they wouldn't let him be their official candidate for Mayor of London. (I think)

At the moment, he's probably quite popular for telling George W. Bush that no, he will not shut down half of London for his visit. But he is unpopular with some for being, shall we say, just slightly to the left.

[Richard G]

Typical Limey liberal--no sense of history. Guess this guy wasn't around for Uncle Adolf's party between '39 & '45. He probably thought Joe Stalin was just misunderstood.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Ion

Bush is now.

We speak of:

now.

Reading Comprehension.

We speak of:

Comprehension

[richardm]

Given that he was giving an interview to "The Ecologist" magazine, it seems likely that he was talking in a purely Newt-fancying sense. That is to say, he'd be worrying about global warming and the way Bush tore up the Kyoto treaty as soon as he arrived, and other impending ecological problems that he perceives to be the result of the actions of the Bush administration.

I don't think he was talking about Bush vs. Al Qaeda, Joe Stalin or Hitler in this instance.

P.S. He's not the Lord Mayor, by the way. The LM is a largely symbolic role, while the Mayor of London (Red Ken) actually wields a fair bit of power.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by corplinx
It amazes me that with with tangible threats like Islamic Fundamentalism, Nuclear Proliferation, and of course the sleeping bear (China) that someone can still manage to talk about great threats and sound like an idiot.

How can someone throw out China as a "tangible threat"? By what possible standard are they a tangible (or otherwise) threat? Because they exist and are not American?

As best as I can determine, China has kept to itself most of the last century despite the big threat they were made out to be 50 years ago when Mao was around. If they are a sleeping bear, it must be a teddy bear (or maybe a panda).

[Aoidoi]

Originally posted by DrChinese


How can someone throw out China as a "tangible threat"? By what possible standard are they a tangible (or otherwise) threat? Because they exist and are not American?

As best as I can determine, China has kept to itself most of the last century despite the big threat they were made out to be 50 years ago when Mao was around. If they are a sleeping bear, it must be a teddy bear (or maybe a panda). Um, they are a nuclear power with ICBM capabilities and a goverment that is generally schizophrenic (hard line communists vs the reformers). Their population dwarfs that of NATO, meaning that a conventional war could get ugly real quick. They are in the process of developing a space program, which implies to me that their technological base is rapidly catching up with the west.

More on point for the mayor's comments, their environmental record is less than stellar.

While I'm not particularly worried about WWIII sprouting up any time soon, if it ever does China would be a major player in it. The main reason they keep to themselves is a long standing tradition that China is the center of the world and the further you are from it the less important you are. Isolationism has it's advantages, but if they decide they'd like to expand (or re-acquire Taiwan, for instance) it could rapidly become the bloodiest war in history.

(Note: this is just to rebut your view they are harmless, I'm not digging fallout shelters or anything. :))

While being pedantic, Pandas are not bears, and they are dangerous. :D

As to the Mayor's comments, well:
1) It got his name in the papers
2) Since when does an environmentalist not liking Bush surprise anyone? :D

Random aside: Bush didn't tear up the Kyoto protocol, the Senate had already voted it down by a vast majority. While Bush didn't support it, even if he did the result would have been the same. And given the utter lack of anyone else following it I don't see that it was the wrong move anyway.

Was that rambling enough? :D

[bjornart]

Originally posted by Aoidoi
Um, they are a nuclear power with ICBM capabilities and a goverment that is generally schizophrenic (hard line communists vs the reformers). Their population dwarfs that of NATO, meaning that a conventional war could get ugly real quick. They are in the process of developing a space program, which implies to me that their technological base is rapidly catching up with the west.

More on point for the mayor's comments, their environmental record is less than stellar.

While I'm not particularly worried about WWIII sprouting up any time soon, if it ever does China would be a major player in it. The main reason they keep to themselves is a long standing tradition that China is the center of the world and the further you are from it the less important you are. Isolationism has it's advantages, but if they decide they'd like to expand (or re-acquire Taiwan, for instance) it could rapidly become the bloodiest war in history.

(Note: this is just to rebut your view they are harmless, I'm not digging fallout shelters or anything. :))

While being pedantic, Pandas are not bears, and they are dangerous. :D

As to the Mayor's comments, well:
1) It got his name in the papers
2) Since when does an environmentalist not liking Bush surprise anyone? :D

Random aside: Bush didn't tear up the Kyoto protocol, the Senate had already voted it down by a vast majority. While Bush didn't support it, even if he did the result would have been the same. And given the utter lack of anyone else following it I don't see that it was the wrong move anyway.

Was that rambling enough? :D

Most of your points fit the US (at least if you bang at them with a hammer) and while China seems to progress, if slowly, the US is obviously regressing. ;)

[Aoidoi]

Originally posted by bjornart
Most of your points fit the US (at least if you bang at them with a hammer) and while China seems to progress, if slowly, the US is obviously regressing. ;) Not sure if the smiley means you're joking... but I'll respond anyway. :)

Maybe I'm an just optimist. I actually feel the US is doing ok for itself. I'm not thrilled with Bush's actions, but I don't see us going down the road to a police state or granting corporations vast powers (well, beyond what they already have) or strip mining the entire country or something. It seems like people are always saying everything is getting worse and then being surprised when they find out just how bad it used to be.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Aoidoi


Maybe I'm an just optimist. I actually feel the US is doing ok for itself. I'm not thrilled with Bush's actions, but I don't see us going down the road to a police state or granting corporations vast powers (well, beyond what they already have) or strip mining the entire country or something. It seems like people are always saying everything is getting worse and then being surprised when they find out just how bad it used to be.


You also got to remember that progress is relative. Personally, I judge progress by the amount of freedom and technological advancement. Social responsibility, tolerance and diversity play no role in my assessment of progress.

How do you judge progress bjornart?


Edit: Actually, let me take that back. Tolerance, for ideas and people, is a good measure of progress.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by DrChinese


How can someone throw out China as a "tangible threat"? By what possible standard are they a tangible (or otherwise) threat? Because they exist and are not American?

As best as I can determine, China has kept to itself most of the last century despite the big threat they were made out to be 50 years ago when Mao was around. If they are a sleeping bear, it must be a teddy bear (or maybe a panda).

Sure why not ask Vietnam if China was ever a threat.

Oh you didn't protest and get morally outraged when China invaded Vietnam in 1979?

Was it because it was not the USA?

[bjornart]

Originally posted by Tony



You also got to remember that progress is relative. Personally, I judge progress by the amount of freedom and technological advancement. Social responsibility, tolerance and diversity play no role in my assessment of progress.

How do you judge progress bjornart?


Edit: Actually, let me take that back. Tolerance, for ideas and people, is a good measure of progress.

I agree. China still has a long way to go, so progress is almost inevitable. The US has been a star pupil, so the law of averages almost dictates a slip backwards.

I don't totally agree with your idea of progress of course. Neither freedom or technological advancement interest me, they are tools, not goals.

[Tony]

Originally posted by bjornart


I don't totally agree with your idea of progress of course. Neither freedom or technological advancement interest me, they are tools, not goals.

Then what is your idea of progress?

And how can freedom not interest you? :eek:

[bjornart]

Originally posted by Tony


Then what is your idea of progress?

And how can freedom not interest you? :eek:

I knew I'd get into trouble with that one. :D Freedom does interest me, but only as the means to a goal. I measure progress in sustainable human happiness. This has lots of problems, like defining happiness, but that doesn't stop me.
I haven't figured out yet how to deal with the heat death of the universe either.

[Ion]

Originally posted by aerocontrols

Reading Comprehension.

We speak of:

Comprehension
You mean that "Livingstone says Bush is 'greatest threat to life on planet'" -which as the title of this thread is the topic to discuss here and has a present is in it-, that's too much of a reading comprehension challenge for you?

Ask -nicely- around.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Ion

You mean that "Livingstone says Bush is 'greatest threat to life on planet'" -which as the title of this thread is the topic to discuss here and has a present is in it-, that's too much of a reading comprehension challenge for you?

Ask -nicely- around.

And the ignorant bleating continues.

Here's a full quote:
"I actually think that Bush is the greatest threat to life on this planet that we've most probably ever seen. The policies he is initiating will doom us to extinction." (emphasis added).

It is quite explicit that this guy is claiming that Bush is the greatest threat, past OR present, to humankind. ceo_esq already pointed this out to you, and you ignored it.

Bahhh. Bahhhh.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Ziggurat

And the ignorant bleating continues.

Here's a full quote:
"I actually think that Bush is the greatest threat to life on this planet that we've most probably ever seen. The policies he is initiating will doom us to extinction." (emphasis added).
...

No, "....the ignorant bleating continues..." when you quote the wrong person who proposes a topic of discussion in this thread.

The person who proposes a topic of discussion in this thread is Tony, not Ken Livingstone.

I quote Tony's proposed discussion:

"Livingstone says Bush is 'greatest threat to life on planet'"

Tony's 'is' in his proposed discussion means now, doesn't it?

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Ion

Tony's 'is' in his proposed discussion means now, doesn't it?

OK, let's get a little technical. The present tense of "is" in Tony's statement may only mean that the threat is present tense. In the comparative sense, it is actually ambiguous whether that comparison is to ONLY current threats or to all threats that have ever existed. And more generally, in colloquial useage the "is" can even be used for past tense, as in "Mozart is the greatest composer" - this may not be technically correct, but that's the way people talk and, in an informal setting like this board, people are going to write like that as well. In other words, you need to look for context if you want to say anything definitive. Tony provided that context, namely a reference to who he was quoting and what that quote said. So we go by that context, which is explicitly NOT only the present tense, but the past as well.

Bahhhh.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Ziggurat

...
Bahhhh.
"Livingstone says Bush is 'greatest threat to life on planet'", that's how Tony describes his proposed discussion.

'is' to you does it mean 'was'?

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Ion

"Livingstone says Bush is 'greatest threat to life on planet'", that's how Tony describes his proposed discussion.

'is' to you does it mean 'was'?

Is that seriously the extent of your argument? You're basing your entire criticism on what amounts to not wanting to read beyond the title of his post to figure out what it means? Wow. I really don't think I have a response to that. :(

[BTox]

Originally posted by Ion

"Livingstone says Bush is 'greatest threat to life on planet'", that's how Tony describes his proposed discussion.

'is' to you does it mean 'was'?

It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is. Where is Bill Clinton when you need him? ;)

[Ion]

Originally posted by Ziggurat

...
You're basing your entire criticism on what amounts to not wanting to read beyond the title of his post...
...

The title is the description of the content, and it does encapsulate the content.

[Tony]

Originally posted by bjornart

I measure progress in sustainable human happiness. This has lots of problems, like defining happiness, but that doesn't stop me.
I haven't figured out yet how to deal with the heat death of the universe either.

That's an interesting criterion, but I disagree. By that logic happy cavemen would be more advanced than depressed space colonists.

I knew I'd get into trouble with that one. :D Freedom does interest me, but only as the means to a goal.

:D

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Aoidoi
Um, they are a nuclear power with ICBM capabilities and a goverment that is generally schizophrenic (hard line communists vs the reformers). Their population dwarfs that of NATO, meaning that a conventional war could get ugly real quick. They are in the process of developing a space program, which implies to me that their technological base is rapidly catching up with the west.

More on point for the mayor's comments, their environmental record is less than stellar.


Not one of those things indicates China is a tangible threat. They certainly have no more power than one would expect of a country that size.

All you have talked about is what they could do if they became a threat. I would say they have potential to threathen. Please use the words "tangible threat" in the conventional sense. I.e. tangible mean tangible.

[bjornart]

Originally posted by Tony
That's an interesting criterion, but I disagree. By that logic happy cavemen would be more advanced than depressed space colonists.


Yes, but you have to look at more than momentary happiness. Those cavemen could possibly live in bliss, but they'd have no defense against disease, little defense against big carnivores, and quite possibly have to work very hard to gather enough food to stay alive. The space colonists would, most likely, be physically healthy, well protected against disease, and not in danger of being eaten by bears. Hopefully they'll also be protected against cosmic radiation and not live in constant fear of micro-meteorites.

The point is, you're focused on technological advancement, and see that as progress in and of itself. I see it as a means to an end. I think Happy Cavemen are "better" than Depressed Space Colonists. (Even I have problems using "advanced" or "progress" in that way, since it's so ingrained they mean technological advance.) But I also think Happy Cavemen are less likely than Happy "Technologists", and even though ignorance is bliss, even Happy Cavemen are at risk from the unexpected. The Technologist have more tools to deal with new problems.

I'm gonna stop this now, while I'm still half way coherent.

[Aoidoi]

Originally posted by DrChinese
Not one of those things indicates China is a tangible threat. They certainly have no more power than one would expect of a country that size.

All you have talked about is what they could do if they became a threat. I would say they have potential to threathen. Please use the words "tangible threat" in the conventional sense. I.e. tangible mean tangible.

Well, since this thread seems to have become more of a discussion of grammar than substance (and I'm not talking about you DrChinese ;))...

Tangible
1a. Discernible by the touch; palpable: a tangible roughness of the skin.
b. Possible to touch.
c. Possible to be treated as fact; real or concrete: tangible evidence.
2. Possible to understand or realize: the tangible benefits of the plan.
3. Law. That can be valued monetarily: tangible property.

While I agree with the "potential threat" line of thought, I'm not entirely sure about the meaning of "tangible threat." I interpreted it as a plausible or believable scenario of threat, something that is not just a smokescreen or paper tiger (i.e. the USSR posed a tangible threat to Europe vs. Vietnam posed a tangible threat to Europe). Does China pose a tangible threat to Taiwan? Just today they stated they would use force to prevent them declaring independence. Is that tangible? I would think so, and can easily envision a scenario of escalation. Is that still a tangible threat, or do armies need to be massing first?

Perhaps it's not so much a question of tangible as what we mean by threat. One can be threatened personally (Chinese govt wants you dead), professionally (moving jobs to China), militarily (them planning on invading someone), politically (them giving money to influence US politics), economically (they have an immense potential workforce), religiously (they are technically atheist), culturally (worries regarding "westernization"), environmentally (that immense damn they're building (built?)) and more I can't think of at the moment.

I would characterize any number of these as threats. Many of them have clear and factual (tangible) evidence to back them up. Therefore I'd classify them as tangible threats. I wouldn't necessarily consider them out of proportion to their size, but it is a huge country and hence the ramifactions understandably larger.

... or perhaps I'm just being obnoxiously overly-detailed in my analysis, rendering it largely meaningless. Which I do sometimes, too. :D

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Aoidoi


Well, since this thread seems to have become more of a discussion of grammar than substance (and I'm not talking about you DrChinese ;))...

Tangible
1a. Discernible by the touch; palpable: a tangible roughness of the skin.
b. Possible to touch.
c. Possible to be treated as fact; real or concrete: tangible evidence.
2. Possible to understand or realize: the tangible benefits of the plan.
3. Law. That can be valued monetarily: tangible property.

While I agree with the "potential threat" line of thought, I'm not entirely sure about the meaning of "tangible threat." I interpreted it as a plausible or believable scenario of threat, something that is not just a smokescreen or paper tiger (i.e. the USSR posed a tangible threat to Europe vs. Vietnam posed a tangible threat to Europe). Does China pose a tangible threat to Taiwan? Just today they stated they would use force to prevent them declaring independence. Is that tangible? I would think so, and can easily envision a scenario of escalation. Is that still a tangible threat, or do armies need to be massing first?

Perhaps it's not so much a question of tangible as what we mean by threat. One can be threatened personally (Chinese govt wants you dead), professionally (moving jobs to China), militarily (them planning on invading someone), politically (them giving money to influence US politics), economically (they have an immense potential workforce), religiously (they are technically atheist), culturally (worries regarding "westernization"), environmentally (that immense damn they're building (built?)) and more I can't think of at the moment.

I would characterize any number of these as threats. Many of them have clear and factual (tangible) evidence to back them up. Therefore I'd classify them as tangible threats. I wouldn't necessarily consider them out of proportion to their size, but it is a huge country and hence the ramifactions understandably larger.

... or perhaps I'm just being obnoxiously overly-detailed in my analysis, rendering it largely meaningless. Which I do sometimes, too. :D

:)

I am not trying to make it semantical, so I will agree with your analysis, especially as to the word "threat".

In my mind, there was a tangible threat of war during the Cuban missile crisis. There was a tangible threat of war when Pakistan and India recently had border skirmishes.

But China's mere existence does not constitute a threat. Nor that they have nuclear capability, since there are plenty of nukes on the planet already. Nor even that they are not a democracy, since the only nation to use nukes so far is a democracy.

I think there is a reasonableness issue here. Is China threatening us (U.S.A) at this time? In fact, have they ever? That - to me - is a different question than whether they would be a powerful adversary if we did go to war with them for some reason. Of course, being our trading partner mitigates that likelihood.

[Aoidoi]

Originally posted by DrChinese

I think there is a reasonableness issue here. Is China threatening us (U.S.A) at this time? In fact, have they ever? That - to me - is a different question than whether they would be a powerful adversary if we did go to war with them for some reason. Of course, being our trading partner mitigates that likelihood. Point taken, they aren't being actively threatening to the US at this point, and I suppose potential threat will always exist to some degree. I think I was doing a bit of "missing the forest for the trees." :)

Not sure about the trading partners idea (though open relations surely helps keep the peace). We had trade relations with all the Axis countries prior to WWII. I seem to recall some US countries doing business in Germany up until the US declared war (though the companies might not have had much choice). I think the current US theory with China is that if we keep trading with them and keep them moving away from the hardline communist secrecy and isolationism then that will improve relations in the long run. It seems to be working, and I certainly hope it continues to. :)

... er, what was this thread about again? ;)