Bush visit to England

[WD12]

I know lots of the visitors to this site are not Brittish, but Sky's based in England and I just want to ask, now that Bush is there, could you do us in the US a favor and keep him there?

Good luck with the demonstrations, I hope they don't turn into riots.

[bspider]

I have half a mind to join the demonstrators. Some people would argue I should stop after the first part of that sentence!

On balance, though, I can't really bring myself to do so. He's the head of stae of our closest ally. I probably ought to feel more upset if/when Jaques Chirac or Gerhard Schroeder (apologies if I mis-spelt those - it's early!) visit, or any of the commisioners in Brussels, or whatever.

Too early in the morning really for rational thought - I'll try to come back to this later.

[skymouse]

Ok, the way I see it is this: people have various opinions of Bush, his administration, US foreign policy, etc. But these opinions ought to be subordinate to the need for solidarity in tackling problems like Saddam Hussein (as has now been done) and repairing Iraq (as is now being attempted). It makes me feel ill when I hear of people who, if one were to delve for the reasons why they opposed the action to topple that regime (and hence stop the slaughter and torture that it was carrying out on such a huge scale - as well as scuppering the hideous chemical and other weapons that they had already widely deployed more than once), that their opposition to such action lies not in their preference for torture, killings and repression that has now gone, but simply their dislike for Bush and his perceived motives.

To me, this is a moral and intellectual failing, and I feel sadness that public opinion in the UK and much of Europe has fallen victim to such a failing.

Furthermore, I have to ask:

If you can't pull together with your allies, who the fuck can you pull together with?

SM

[Crazyhorse]

Yes, Sky, what you say is true. But tackling the problem of bastards like Saddam wouldn't occur if certain countries didn't try to support certain regimes in order to put down other ones in the first place. Saddam only got to the position he was in because the West poured vast quantities of arms into the country in order that he would win the war against Iran, which they saw as a big threat to oil stability.

Likewise Afghanistan. If it had not been for the Wests' support of the Taliban against the dreaded Russians (in those days), then they would not have been able to impose their dreaded regime.

These regimes did not create themselves, and surely those who wield power in the west should have grasped the simple rule that if you meddle in other countries you are likely to get your fingers very burnt.

I dont really care where Bush goes, or what he does, but what I object to is this man being given a photo opportunity with the Royal Family, purely to improve his chances in the coming elections. He is just a two-faced politician like everone else. He doesn't seem to consider his closest ally in the world when he wants to slap import taxes on our products.

[WD12]

Guess I hit a nerve with Mr. Mouse, and I didn't even mention the war!

My problem with the president is not the war in particular, but the utter failure of his administration to pull together a meaningful coalition of supporting countries, at least on paper if not in outright military support.

He gives the world (and apparantly a whole bunch of Brittans) the impression of a swagering "new sheriff in town" who's going to clean up the bad guys wherever he finds them and to hell with what anyone else thinks.

My biggest disappointments in his administration are Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice. I knew what we were getting with Cheney, Rumsfeld and Ashcroft, and they have been true to character.

Rice and Powell, I thought, would keep the ship of state on a somewhat even keel in international relations. Powell, the military man, and no one hates war more than senior military men, yes, that's true, and Rice, a certified intelectual.

To me Powell has been a failure as Secretary of State (and as a veteran that is a huge disappointment to me) and Rice is either giving bad advice to the president or she's being ignored. I expect both of them will not sign on for a possible second term.

This was exactly NOT the right time to go into an unforced conflict without wide international support. Right or wrong many in the world see us as the agressor and rightly question our motives.

And just for the record my support for the troops of all nations involved in this conflict is total. Brave people put at risk, willingly or unwillingly, in what many see as an unpopular war is something I know all too much about through personal experience.

Sky, are we still friends?

[afkaWestcountryboy]

Here's my two pennies (before we get euros and cents)

I didn't oppose the invastion of iraq for any moral reasons, cause there are none really, Saddam was a genosidal maniac, who deserved to have his regime toppled. Yes her was genocidal just go to iraq and try to find any march arabs, there used to be lots of them, not any more!

I was more upset by the way the run up to war was spun in so many different directions, with the leaders of the UK and US switching between different motives and reasons for war depending on who they were talking too. Surely the liberation of the Iraqi people was the best card available, since there was almost universal celebration of the toppling of the regime in a lot of iraq (before the looting etc. took over and the iraqi people got upset with their liberaters for watching it happen).

Another problem was why Iraq! as opposed to the many other equally oppressive regimes around the world - some of which were supported by America at the expense of democratically elected leaders (see much of South America as a good example of this). It's the double standards that annoy me, Iraq was the best place to wage war because it was high profile and could create fab PR for Bush and co...and don't even get me started on Halliburton and the rebuilding contracts and all the benefits to the vice presidents friends and former work colleages.

Next to iraq is saudi arabia, which surely has just as bad a human rights record as Iraq, but without their oil all the Americans wouldn't be able to afford the cheap petrol to run their massive SUV's with their 1mpg fuel efficiency!

Saudi Arabia could be connected to an awful lot of the 9/11 shootings yet afganistan was the soul target (i do agree with the overthrowing of the taliban and the attempt to 'get' Bin Laden and as long as the American's keep giving them lots of money then the Northern Alliance won't start fighting each other as they did for much of the 90's). But surely the American leadership went to pains to keep the saudi links to the minimum, allowing a plane to get all the 'good' Bin Ladens out of America etc. (i won't start plagerising Michael Moore so i'll go no further)

Generally once the military aims have been achieved America has a terrible record of overseeing democratic changes in many of its 'humanitarian' campaigns' not that they're the only ones, the UN's record in places like East Timor is nothing to be proud of.

If people want to show Mr. Bush and our PM that they are unhappy with their actions then they have every right too and there are a lot of grievences to be aired in my opinion.

If people are upset then PROTEST, its a democratic right, although the police will treat you all as terrorists. Why do the police act with such hatred towards protesters when they are just exercising a democratic right anyway!

I'm sorry i've just kinda given a stream of consciousness that probably needs a good edit and makes little sense, but hey, food for thought.

afkaWCB :x

[WD12]

Yep afka, I don't agree with every possible thing you said, as far as the details, but I think you got the gist of the problem here.

It's all about credibility in the face of the the community of nations.

Saddam had to go, it was the responsibility of the US to build a coalition of nations to stand behind a military force to get him out of power. That effort failed.

And you rightly bring up the observation that the US supports totalitarian regimes that are friendly to us. Always has, probably always will.

Isn't it just that type of duplicity that brings everything the US does on an international scale into question?

Our record of supporting democratic revolutions is not all that sterling. Just look at Nicaragua. The LAST thing we wanted there was democracy! That would have been bad for Standard Oil.

Guess what? Let a home grown democracy flourish and the oil still flows.

Our guy, Somosa, is long gone, Nicaragua is now still poor, but free, and the oil still flows.

Our government tends to fixate on the businessmen who tell the government who to support or not support in foreign lands.

In the end this is totally wrong. Nicaragua would export oil no matter what. Same with Saudi Arabia, same with the USSR, now Russia.

Does our government think that if the people of Saudi Arabia take control of their lives and overthrow the government the Saudi Arabians will simply stop exporting oil and begin eating it at the dinner table?

These people are not stupid. They know that the riches of their countries have to be sold or traded, one way or another, for other goods.

I think they are not too fond of the way the riches of their countries are now being sold and distributed, mostly to those who have the riches, get the most new riches.

US business has a really warped idea of how to work in the world.

US business doesn't play well with others. They go in on a level playing field and if things turn against them they attack, first at a businees level, trade barriers, tarrifs, whatever they can find to protect themselves.

If that doesn't work they use their built-in bought and paid for government connections to attact the governments of the offending countries.

It's all ugly as hell and everone knows it.

It didn't start with Bush. It started in WWI and every administration since then has supported it to some degree.

There is a famous quote "What's good for General Motors is good for America," meaning what the government does to protect American business means we all prosper.

Now that General Motors owns Saab, and several other car makers makes this point moot, unless you consider that GM owning Saab, and if things in Detroit are good for GM, therefore things in Sweden are good for Saab.

What we have is a business generated cluster fuck, driven by an administration that only listens to business, human rights groups can get screwed as far as the Bush administration cares.

In my 56 years on earth I've never ever seen so much 'cover your own ass' going on in the US.

[afkaWestcountryboy]

WD12

Cheers for recognising that there was some kind of interconnected theme to my at times innane ramblings. I agree some stuff wasn't well thought out and lacked factual basis and was merely conjecture, and poor conjecture at that sometimes. But it makes a change to have an opinion and not be called an A**hole for a change.

Thanks for the enlightening on Nicaragua, i knew of the situation but little of the facts but feel it was a fine example to illustrate the point i tried to make.

A few friends of mine went to air their grievences to your president and as far as i know everyone was very English and well behaved, not a terrorist assasin in sight; though i am sure Mr. Bush suffered some mild discomfort being 'mooned' at by smelly unwashed student backsides - its about as mean as British protesters get really!

afkaWCB

[WD12]

Well, afka, I've been around long enough to know that anything you post on the net that someone, or anyone, doesn't agree with is likely to get you called a (fill your descriptive adjective in here). It all mainly points out the insecurity of so many people who have Internet access.

Usenet is the worst of all. Killfile sender works pretty well there.

I hope all your friends are safe and I doubt the Pres saw them or even heard about them. He's proud of the fact that he never reads newspapers or watches news on tv. Everything he gets is filtered through his advisors.

Great.

After all, why should he care about anything that isn't sent down from his business associates?

Forget the flames, keep posting.

WD12

[Crazyhorse]

I have no problems with your thoughts afka. But I know what you mean about the replies you get when something is posted that is not quite factually correct. I dont think the flamers quite understand that if they put loads of people off posting because of their replies, then the only people left will be those who think they know it all anyway.

As for the protest, I saw some footage of it on tv, and was amazed by the range of people there. Mums with kids, pensioners, etc. This must have been a bit of a blow to the authorities who no doubt would have loved to dimiss it all as just 'rent-a-mob'.

Even if Bush was completely unaware of it, I dont think it will have escaped Blairs attention.

[Anonymous]

The U.S. sought permission to shoot and kill protesters. When this was denied from the Brits, they sought the ability to try their own back in the U.S. if they were to shoot anyone. Both these were denied, and it's lucky no one was shot! Furtermore Bush was quoted as saying of the protests "That's great they're free to protest. In Iraq they weren't free and now they are!" This is an outright lie, as the Iraqi's protested before the war and faced no consequences, while protesters in the "newly freed Iraq" have been reported to be shot in many instances. The Iraqi's for the most part didn't like Saddaam, this is true but they did not ask for their cities to be destroyed again, and many innocent people have their homes destroyed. As much as people love to say Sadaam "gassed his own people" this is slightly misleading. The fact is with the last invasion "Desert Storm" the Kurds rose up thinking it was time for a "regime change" and they'd overthrow Sadaam. At that time, the U.S. decided to keep Sadaam, and provide him the chemical weapons to "gas his own people" who were really those who wanted to overthrow Sadaam!

As far as what's going on now, many Middle-Eastern companies are being left out, as competing technologies are being used for electricity, phone, water, etc., and the contracts are going to U.S. companies. It's just another example of U.S. economic dominance. That's the reason that it's wrong. Sure, Sadaam could have posed a threat...sometime in the future. The fact is he was isolated, and was effectively disarmed by U.N. forces. No one in the region saw Sadaam as a threat.

I do understand that we are addicted to inexpensive, high-quality oil, and the ability to control it is essential. It's the way things have been done for a long time. That's why I never questioned the motives for going into Iraq. Besides, it was very easy to portray Sadaam as an evil threat to world peace. Hey, some people have been led to believe he was linked to 9/11, good friends with Bin Laden, and intent on dominating the Middle East, if not the entire world.

The most important thing I must bring up is that a "war on terror" is an absolute joke if we are not going to involve if not every nation, then nearly every nation. By rushing into a war against dominant world opinion, we've effectively isolated ourselves, and certainly created more terrorists, and given them more countries who are either sympathetic to them, or indifferent and uncooperative with U.S. and British interests.

samson

[BigJake]

Now now, if we're lucky we only have 1 more year with the guy...then he can just fade into retirement like his dad. I'm worried Bush is going to give one of his pattented speaches that butchers the English language in the land that invented the language :lol:

[WD12]

I doubt we'll be lucky and we are going to get 5 more years of Bush.

As for his butchering the language, why shouldn't he do it in Brittan? He does it everywhere else. Heh, heh.

Just raise your eybrows, spout crap, take care of your (very) rich friends (somewhat rich people count as much as welfare mothers) and you'll get a second term.

Democracy put on the auction block, bid to the highest level, bought and paid for.

Bush isn't stupid, he only pretends to be stupid so he can get the swing vote. At least he didn't throw up in the Queen's lap.

[WD12]

Today our "fearless leader" dropped into Baghdad under cover of darkness, in strict secrecy, on Air Force One, to deliver another photo op, er, inspiring message to our troops.

A speech that lasted about 5 minutes, shook a few hands, posed for a few pictures with the troops. For 10 minutes he stood behind the chow line and slopped mashed potatos onto the plates of the troops. How quaint.

From all I've heard he didn't sit down with the troops for dinner. He met with top officials who had been brought to the airport and then, after less than two hours on the ground, was again on Air Force One and once he left Iraqi air space the hand-picked journalists who had accompanied him were able to file their stories.

Color me jaded but I call this kind of thing disgusting spectacle meant for only one thing, reelection.

It's been called a morale builder, but if I were a troop in Iraq I doubt my morale would be much improved by a visit from someone who has the absolute best security in the whole world come to MY battleground and only spend TWO HOURS there and scoffer off, again, under cover of darkess, NEVER HAVING LEFT THE HEAVILY DEFENDED AIR BASE!

Do not for a moment think that I believe the president, no matter who he is or how much I may or may not like him, should put himself in unreasonable danger.

I believe this trip was simply stupid for three obvious reasons.

It put the president in danger. I don't want to see him killed, and lots of good people with him, especially not in Iraq! I want to see him unelected!

It is an obvious PR ploy that may well backlash on him. (Remember, I said stupid, not that I don't want this to happen.)

The effect on troop morale. One soldier, who has been in Iraq for almost a year and admitted to having low morale, said "this will keep me going for at least two more months." Well, Shit Howdy! (For the Brits and others here that is a southern US coloquielism for "this whole thing is a major fuck-up and I'm caught in the middle of it.")

Nixon visited Vietnam in 1969. At that time I'd been in-country for a year and a half, and would spend another year on the ground in Vietnam before being released from duty in Feb of 1971. (For all you guys who want to debate time in-country, I was Navy and there were no regular rotation schedules. We were there for as long as the Navy wanted to keep us there. 1 1/2 years on a ship which did rotate in and out of Vietnam, 1 year at a Navy shore base.)

I'm sure when Nixon landed in Vietnam his audiance was pre-selected. Those kinds of visits always were. If he had landed at a random base and glad-handed the troops it could have gotten REALLY UGLY, really fast.

This sneaking into enemy combatant territory under cover of darkness, getting a photo op, telling the troops how great they are to be giving their lives for this stupid war, then again slinking back onto Air Force One for a flight back to his life of privledge and coddeling by his wealthy friends makes me want to puke.

He got us into this, and now, we have to win it, whether it was right from the beginning or not. He commited our troops to this, and the Brittish troops. All FINE people.

At the very least we now have a destabilized Iraq and it is our responsibility to take care of that problem. Much as I want to see every mother's son come back from Iraq, immediately, and intact, the fact is we simply can't do that. The US, under the guise of our president's initative to invade Iraq, made a huge promise to the people of Iraq.

The president pretty much said, "we will liberate you, we will make your life better, we will remove those who oppress you."

And he commited us to this, whether or not he is around next term, by destabalizing Iraq to the point that we HAVE to be there, in military form, to prevent chaos in the country.

Stand by friends. This is only going to get uglier. And not one thing we've done in Iraq will make anyone in the US or United Kingdom even a little bit safer.

The opposite effect could well be the result. You know this, it's already happening. Malaysia, Turkey. Of course the softest targets are the first ones to be hit.

When I was in Vietnam I knew we weren't going to win that war on the ground or diplomatically. I was a lowly enlisted Navy man. But it was incredibly obvious. I kept thinking, "it's amazing the politicians and the brass don't get it that we are NEVER going to win here!" All of us knew it! You only had to look into the face of the average Vietnamese to see it. They just wanted us to go away and the war to stop.

This war IS different. We've set ourselves up so that if we lose the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people they really can have ways and means to strike back at us on US soil.

It would be ludicrous to think that any Vietnamese, in 1970, could stike at US resources not located in Vietnam.

That's all changed. Guerilla war is now international. The Brits have known that for a long time, with the IRA. Who would need to mention Lord Mountbatten...?

The US has to get a clue. Just because we 'can' do something like force Saddam from power, or at least 'public' power, doesn't mean we necessarily should.

We are now 'embedded' in Iraq, and even me, a wild liberal, knows we can't abandon the Iraqi people we have displaced in their own homes. We're commited, and that's just the way it is.

This is a major fuck-up and the president making a hit-and-run visit to Baghdad isn't going to make it better. If he wants to show balls let him visit there for two or three days. He expects our kids to be there for a year.

If he got what Jessica Lynch got he'd be squeeling like a pig.

Ah, just my opinion, best wishes to all for a great Thanksgiving holiday!

WD12