Dubya's State visit to UK

Seriously, any comparisons of Hussein to Hitler, Blair to Churchill , Bush to FDR or WWII to Iraq (the last 2 weren't t made in this thread but I might as well touch on them) as being equal are silly IMO. That was a completely different conflict with a completely different set of circumstances in a completely different world. A world that did not have up to the minute access to information and was in the grip of economic depression.

They are not the same, will never be the same, and making them sound the same is as disrespectful to those that died at Pearl Harbor and the larger conflict as it is to invoke the memories of those that died on September 11th as a reason we invaded Iraq. Aren't you glad the smoking gun never came in the form of a mushroom cloud?

If you still insist on comparisons to WWII then a better, though not all encompassing, comparison to make would be some of the policies and perception management of the Bush administration to those of Hitler's Nazi party and it's propagana tactics.

No, that's not a cheap shot and I'm not the first to say it. Nor do I think it's intellectually lazy to compare someone to Nazis. If it looks like fascism, smells like a fascism, sounds like fascism and acts like fascism, it's fascism.

To those of you that disagree (and there are many), all I can say is you may say "tomayto" but I say "tomahto".

I dont think the comparisons are facile at all. It's trite but true, history does repeat itself. The first true historian of the West, Thucydides, said as much and wrote his history for the benefit of future peoples.

Are the situations EXACTLY alike? No. Are there lessons to be learned about the nature of our western liberal societies vs. totalitarians ones and the case for war in the 1930's and the 21st century? I frankly think there are. The chief lesson is that it is possible for the "peace at all costs" camp can be dreadfully wrong and immoral, and the "Warmonger" camp may indeed be right and save a lot of blood by pre-emptive action against an enemy that's clearly dangerous.

Bush gets a lot of credit from me for being willing to weather the political shitstorm for doing so. Churchill was out in the cold too, A "voice in the wilderness" for his call for action just like Bush is. And like with Churchill, Britain doesn't much appreciate Bush.





[Edited on Nov 16, 2003 by stockula]

I don't even know why he's going to England. If it's a PR move....it's backfiring....badly.

If he can invent a cache of chemical weapons, he can get his dad to write him a sick note.


Dear England,

Please excuse Dubya from going to England, he has a fever and an upset stomach.

Sincerely,

Geroge H.W. Bush

From what I understand, Cash, the British government/Queen formally invited him after he was elected. He's finding the time now. I guess its best to get it out of the way as far as possible from the election. I'm sure everyone in the White House is sure how awful the crowds will be, how bad it'll look.

Maybe the message they think they're sending is "The alliance betweeen the UK and America is too important and too solid to be ashamed of or cowed by popular outcry. We did what we think is right, and can withstand your criticism., history will judge us correctly and put your protests to shame."

We'll see.

If you spelt his first name like that on purpose then I will honestly buy you a drink if we're ever in the same country at the same social gathering!

Well, I suppose it depends on who's urging on the fighting, and for what reasons. You can NEVER convince me that Bush and his cronies are doing this for 100% altruistic reasons. No state or oligarchy does. Wars on the level that Persian Gulf War I and II are fought are always brought upon the poor by the further their own interests.

I don't think "peace at all costs" people resist rising up, but they resist being told when and how to do it by people who don't have our best interests at heart.


Well, like many before him, Bush certainly believes that God is on his side - and a Christian one at that. That's what scares me even more, especially when considering we're occupying a Muslim country. You can't confuse leadership with despotism, stockula, and creating a climate of eternal war just so you can continue "leading" without question - and giving yourself unlimited power to detain people in your country without access to lawyers or information on why they're being held, which is what the Patriot Act allows for. Are you a terrorist, stockula? You are if the President or attorney general decides you are these days. And hey, why not listen to him? He's Churchill, after all, a man too far ahead his time for us lowly citizens to understand fully, so we may as well give him EVERYTHING he wants, WITHOUT QUESTION!

Well, right or wrong, another truism of history that we all know is that empires fall. So will ours, if we choose to embrace this foolish arrogance without question.



[Edited on Nov 16, 2003 by impboy]

[Edited on Nov 16, 2003 by impboy]

It's not 100% altruistic, no. A democratic Iraq serves American national security. Just as the Marshall plan was not done 100% out of the goodness of our heart. It was dont out of the realization that states with a future are not as susceptible to communism as states desperate for anything but the status quo. You can't be convincedthis isn't for corporations' benefit, but at this point, I dont fucking care. And neither do the people most affected by America's invasion of Iraq: The Iraqis themselves.

Funny, I see a lot of questioning of the Patriot Act (passed by an over whelming majority of the Congress across partisan lines) all over the place, and no action taken against its critics. In fact, I find no examples of egregious violation of constitutionally guaranteed civil rights on the grounds of the Patriot Act laws anywhere, except in the minds of speculating, hypothetically postulating scaremongers.

In fact, it is POPULAR, CONVENTIONAL WISDOM is to question and oppose the Patriot Act, which is exactly why I think there must be something very worthwhile and correct about it. Because in case you did not know, the herd is almost always wrong.



[Edited on Nov 16, 2003 by stockula]

Just in case anyone wants to know what kind of protests are being planned, and since you won't find the details in the mainstream press, here's a little something I've prepared earlier:
_____________________________________________________________
TUESDAY 18th: Bush arrives in the UK in the afternoon and goes to Buckingham Palace where he will be staying.

6pm "Bring Down Bush" Brixton. Windrush Square, Speakers, Poets and a large Statue of the President Select (to be pulled down). Listed here: http://www.schnews.org.uk/pap/guide.htm
6pm The Burning Planet March: more info: http://www.campaignagainstclimatechange.net/
_____________________________________________________________
WEDNESDAY 19th: Bush meets Michael Howard & Charles Kennedy in the morning (presumably in/near the Commons?), makes a speech in Banqueting House on Whitehall around lunchtime/afternoon and then goes to the official State Banquet in Buckingham Palace in the evening.

10am "Critical Mass" bike ride/demo more info: http://cmlondon.enrager.net/
11am Stop The War "Alternative State Procession": more info: http://www.stopwar.org.uk/
11am School students demo - don't know who has called this demo???
12 noon SAMBA green student street party: details here: http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2003/11/279840.html and http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2003/11/280462.html also contact: campaigns@younggreens.org.uk
1pm OIL (One In Love) Women's tea party in Trafalgar Square mentioned here: http://www.resistbush.org/events.html and http://www.stopwar.org.uk/action.asp
3pm ResistBush Tea Party meet at Victoria and go for a sit-down afternoon tea at Buckingham Palace information here: http://www.resistbush.org/index.html and more info on one of the main groups that have called for this demo here: http://www.j-n-v.org/index.htm
4.30pm Picket of ESSO in Aldwych: organsied by "Stop Esso" see: http://www.stopesso.com/campaign/00000129.php
_____________________________________________________________
THURSDAY 20th: Bush goes to Westminster Abbey in the morning to lay a wreath on the tomb of the unknown soldier in the morning and to meet families of 9/11 victims and soldiers killed in Iraq. He will then go on to meet Blair and hold a joint press conference - presumably at Number 10 around lunchtime/early afternnon. He will be attending a mini-conference on HIV/AIDS in the afternoon (again presumably in Whitehall), and then he'll probably be heading back to Buckingham Palace in the late afternoon/evening to get ready for dinner at the US ambassador's residence in Regent's Park.

1pm 20 'Dharma-Yatra-style' walk to Buckingham Palace for meditation. Meet 1pm, outside the Odeon, Marble Arch. 07810 822786
2pm STWC march to Trafalgar Square: see http://www.stopwar.org.uk/
6pm Critical Mass cycle ride/demo: see: http://cmlondon.enrager.net/
???am "School Kids Walkout. Already kids from four Schools in Bromley have pledged to walkout of School and, er storm Buckingham Palace! They want other kids to join them." (??? see: http://www.schnews.org.uk/pap/guide.htm )
_____________________________________________________________
FRIDAY 21st: Bush takes his offical farewell at Buckingham Palace and then goes to Sedgefield for lunch with Blair etc, and then returns to the US directly, later in the afternoon

11am Guantanamo Bay protest outside the US embassy
"around lunchtime" Demo in Sedgefield: The Sedgefield Welcoming Committee http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2003/11/280468.html
_____________________________________________________________
AT HOME/ONLINE
Bare your Bum at Bush www.bloggerheads.com/can_weblogs/bush_bum.asp
The George W. Bush NOT WELCOME Pretzel Campaign http://antiwar.notnethosting.com/
Internet "sit-in" of Downing Streets website. To take part simply RIGHT CLICK and SAVE the file in this link: ttp://downingstreet.tripod.com/ds.zip , unzip the contents and follow the instructions.
_____________________________________________________________
Keep up to date with the latest eyewitness news from the protests at www.indymedia.org.uk

Coool man,

-In fact, it is POPULAR, CONVENTIONAL WISDOM is to question and oppose the Patriot Act, which is exactly why I think there must be something very worthwhile and correct about it. Because in case you did not know, the herd is almost always wrong.-

LOL- what an excellent reason to think there must be something very worthwhile and correct about something... very punk rock.

probably alot of people wanted to question and also opposed the enabling act... would 'the herd' be wrong there?

yes the patriot act was passed by a majority of congress...
even though most of them didn't even read it-

( they wouldn't be considered 'patriotic' if they voted against something with such a neat sounding name, in a time of national crisis and all.)

"you voted against the PATRIOT act??!! traitor!"

that thing came out at midnight one night and the vote was at nine am the next morning. it is huge.. who could read it and hope to understand its implications in such a short time?

but logic abounds, so a switch: since 'the herd' in congress passed it, then it must be wrong. right?

- In fact, I find no examples of egregious violation of constitutionally guaranteed civil rights on the grounds of the Patriot Act laws anywhere, except in the minds of speculating, hypothetically postulating scaremongers. -

cool, we've got a constitutional expert with us now.

speculating scaremongers like the aclu?

or hypothetically postulating elected representatives like these guys?

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

Opposition to the Patriot Act, legislation passed by Congress and signed by the President last year, is growing. Americans are beginning to understand that many precious liberties have been put in jeopardy by the government's rush to enact new laws in the wake of September 11th. Federal law enforcement agencies now have broad authority to conduct secret, warrantless searches of homes; monitor phone and internet activity; access financial records; and undertake large-scale tracking of American citizens through huge databases. We're told this is necessary to fight the unending war on terror, but in truth the federal government has been seeking these powers for years. September 11th simply provided an excuse to accelerate the process and convince all of us to relinquish more and more of our privacy to the federal government.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul44.html


Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, one of only three Republican lawmakers to buck the House leadership and the Bush administration to vote against this legislation, is outraged not only by what is contained in the antiterrorism bill but also by the effort to stigmatize opponents. Paul tells Insight:

"The insult is to call this a 'patriot bill' and suggest I'm not patriotic because I insisted upon finding out what is in it and voting no. I thought it was undermining the Constitution, so I didn't vote for it and therefore I'm somehow not a patriot. That's insulting."

Paul confirms rumors circulating in Washington that this sweeping new law, with serious implications for each and every American, was not made available to members of Congress for review before the vote.

"It's my understanding the bill wasn't printed before the vote - at least I couldn't get it. They played all kinds of games, kept the House in session all night, and it was a very complicated bill. Maybe a handful of staffers actually read it, but the bill definitely was not available to members before the vote."

And why would that be? "This is a very bad bill," explains Paul, "and I think the people who voted for it knew it and that's why they said, 'Well, we know it's bad, but we need it under these conditions.'" Meanwhile, efforts to obtain copies of the new law were stonewalled even by the committee that wrote it.

What is so bad about the new law? "Generally," says Paul, "the worst part of this so-called antiterrorism bill is the increased ability of the federal government to commit surveillance on all of us without proper search warrants."

OR

C.L. "Butch" Otter (R-Idaho), another of the three GOP lawmakers who found the legislation unconstitutional, says he knew this provision would be a problem. "Section 215 authorizes the FBI to acquire any business records whatsoever by order of a secret U.S. court. The recipient of such a search order is forbidden from telling any person that he has received such a request. This is a violation of the First Amendment right to free speech and the Fourth Amendment protection of private property."

Rep. Otter says the new "PATRIOT law" gives federal agents unconstitutional police powers.

Otter added that "some of these provisions place more power in the hands of law enforcement than our Founding Fathers could have dreamt and severely compromises the civil liberties of law-abiding Americans. This bill, while crafted with good intentions, is rife with constitutional infringements I could not support."

http://www.rense.com/general17/at.htm

good luck at those protests, Londoners! keep us updated.
watch out for the shoot-to-kill SecretServiceMen...your sign might be considered life-threatening.

looking into this situation, this guy really out of his way to not see or hear protest or differing views of any kind.
like how he gets all his news reports from Condaleeza instead of reading things on his own.

hilarious:
* * * * * * *
Bush Backs Out Of Speech To Parliament

By Bob Roberts
Political Correspondent
The Mirror - UK
11-17-3

George Bush was last night branded chicken for scrapping his speech to Parliament because he feared being heckled by anti-war MPs.

The US president planned to give a joint address to the Commons and Lords during his state visit to Britain.

But senior White House adviser Dr Harlan Ullman said: "They would have loved to do it because it would have been a great photo-opportunity.

"But they were fearful it would to turn into a spectacle with Labour backbenchers walking out."

http://www.rense.com/general44/speech.htm
* * * * * * * * *
funny. fearing "being heckled"!
more like they might stay and actually ask un-scripted questions.
the kind of thing that never happens in America.

a spectacle he seems to enjoy: top gun landing, mission accomplished, bring em on, as long as i'm the dictator, etc..

another mirror quote, different article:

"protest came as it was announced the number of police guarding London for Mr Bush's visit would almost treble from 5,000 to 14,000. Security chiefs remain "very concerned" about an al-Qaeda threat."

hahahahaha sure dude,
al-Qaeda's a threat in the House of Parliment... wait that's just the heckling.

another:
"White House aides were still locked in dispute over which relatives of dead British troops will meet the president amid fears he may be met with hostility. It implied Mr Bush will not meet those bereaved families who believe the public was misled into conflict.."

a suggestion..don't go somewhere you can't answer for your actions.

it never ends:
"Scotland Yard last night refused to comment on reports that mobile phones could be blocked during George Bush's visit.
A secret plan was said to have been drawn up to cut all calls in the areas the president visits to prevent a terrorist attack.
Security chiefs fear a mobile could be used to detonate a bomb. But the move would infuriate people unable to use their phones.
Security chiefs will not decide whether to go ahead with the plan until the last minute."

a-feared of cell phones?
i'm curious on the technological methods of cutting out all calls in the areas he visits .
guess maybe the world isn't really a safer place like he claims.

"Roads in Whitehall will be closed with concrete blockades to stop suicide truck bombers.
The president, who will be greeted by Prince Charles when Air Force One touches down at 6.45pm tomorrow, will travel in a bullet-proof Cadillac De Ville. It features a blast shield in the floor and fire-retardant foam around the petrol tank to stop explosions.
Mr Bush's convoy will be made up of 20 cars and "war wagons" brought to Britain last week."

they could have just not said anything about his coming.
it's just a friendly little visit right>? without the speech part at least..
why all the hoopla?
people go places without telling everyone all the time. fucking war wagons...

a link~ the comments are great.
plus, no one is 'godwinning' them:
SCORN ON THE 4TH OF JULY
Nov 17 2003
Vietnam veteran urges Brits to rise up in protest against Bush
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=13631336&method=full&siteid=50143

no holds barred in the mirror:
"Washington is demanding that the City of London be brought to its knees for three days. Wasn't the last person to do that named Adolf Hitler? And doesn't that tell you something?
The US Secret Service also wants immunity from prosecution for any of its 250 armed agents who fire a gun on our streets. Bearing in mind the number of times America's finest marksmen killed Brits in Iraq, are you going to guarantee our safety against another round of friendly fire murders?
More importantly, like the war itself, why is this visit happening, who is behind it and why now?
What do British people gain, apart from civil unrest, a £5million police bill and our image as America's 51st state bolstered - making us further humiliated among friends and a more legitimate target for our enemies?
....they demand our police keep the protesters out of sight. So they can censor the reality and send back propaganda images of a people gratefully welcoming a noble liberator. Just as they sent back lies from Iraq. Ask Private Jessica Lynch. "

* * * * * * * * * * *
keep us posted here on any UK events~
all that's on the news now is ahhnold being sworn in as gov'nur of California. Rosie O'Donnell. Britney Spears. and brief bits on the 'anarchists' that are 'planning violent protests' at the FTAA meeting in Miami~ cutting to scenes of protests from a country with "POLICIA" written on their shields. (?!?)


[Edited on Nov 18, 2003 by mindmeld23]

Here's what's in Scotland then, courtesy SCND:

There's also a "Stop the City" event at 12 noon, George Sq, Glasgow.

Gah! Forgot Lindis:
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2003/11/280728.html

[Edited on Nov 18, 2003 by nch]

stockula said
" In fact, it is POPULAR, CONVENTIONAL WISDOM is to question and oppose the Patriot Act, which is exactly why I think there must be something very worthwhile and correct about it. Because in case you did not know, the herd is almost always wrong."


Here is a book to check out written by one sheep who sticks her head up to see beyond the herd. She is a lawyer who dismantles the Patriot Act paragraph by paragraph to show what is flawed about it and how that may impact out civil rights or be used against people incorrectly. (for a recent example of incorrectly apllying the law for one's own agenda, see Greenpeace thread in Current Events)

Silencing Political Dissent: How Post-September 11 Anti-Terrorism Measures Threaten Our Civil Liberties by Nancy Chang

here is a link to buy it, although these links don't always work

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1583224947/102-3151238-4096143?v=glance

Check it out. It's a pretty easy read. You might be surprised or even outraged at what you learn.

It could still happen. There are two more countries on the "Axis of Evil" list that need to be invaded. Both of them pursuing nukes by the way.

People die when there's too much talk. We should've invaded Bosnia and we didn't. We should've invaded Rwanda and we didn't. We should've taken out (meaning killed) bin Laden when he blew up Khobar towers. We should've carried the fight into China when we had the chance and we should've beet the Russians to Berlin. We should invade N. Korea or Iran if they don't get their shit streight. I'm more than happy to open up a can of whoop ass on any dictator, tyrant, or opressive regime. Whether they have oil or not and whether the UN agrees with it or not I'm not one that can intellectually tolerate the kind of regimes or situations I've already mentioned. I have always been for eliminating said regimes by any means necessary. Not for the rich and powerful to profit from and not to increase love for America around the world, but just so the average joe in any country has that much more freedom. So, while I have no special love for GWB or care what that others view him poorly (except how those feelings inform feelings about the USA in general). In this one area I think the man has shown real leadership and I commend those staunch alies who are still with us. I don't honestly care if there were or weren't any WMD in Iraq. Any one can say Bush lied and all I can say is every politician does.
-joe

MonsterJoe said-
"Any one can say Bush lied and all I can say is every politician does."

All I can say to that is just because people lie doesn't mean we have to acceot it. Our system of government is an agreement that's supposed to be based on trust and honesty.

When we as adults elect other adults to run our government we have a right to expect honesty, not lay down and say "oh well, they all lie anyway" when these same adults go on national television and lie straight to the camera. If I lie to my boss about a project I'm on or some other aspect of our business, I get fired. If I lie in court I go to jail. There are good reasons to uphold a standard of truthfulness, especially with the adults who run things.

As for your foreign policy opinions, all I can say is might doesn't make right. Perpetual war against peoples with different philosophical viewpoints is a recipie for disaster.

Where's Bush's leadership when it comes to Equatorial Guinea?

http://www.guerrillanews.com/globalization/doc3418.html

[Edited on Nov 18, 2003 by SpaceInvader]

Well, as you said, the entire herd of Congress did pass this cynical and flagrant attack on our democracy, so they must be wrong.

While visiting England, George Bush is invited to tea with the Queen. He asks her what her leadership philosophy is. She says that it is to surround herself with intelligent people.

Bush asks how she knows if they're intelligent.

"I do so by asking them the right questions," says the Queen. "Allow me to demonstrate."

Bush watches as the Queen phones Tony Blair and says, "Mr. Prime Minister, please answer this question: your mother has a child, and your father has a child, and this child is not your brother or sister. Who is it?"

Tony Blair responds, "It's me, ma'am."

"Correct. Thank you and good-bye, sir," says the Queen. She hangs up and says, "Did you get that, Mr. Bush?"

Bush nods: "Yes ma'am. Thanks a lot. I'll definitely be using that!"

Bush, upon returning to Washington, decides he'd better put the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to the test. Bush summons Jesse Helms to the White House and says, "Senator Helms, I wonder if you can answer a question for me."

"Why, of course, sir. What's on your mind?"

Bush poses the question: "Uhh, your mother has a child, and your father has a child, and this child is not your brother or your sister. Who is it?"

Helms hems and haws and finally asks, "Can I think about it and get back to you?"

Bush agrees, and Helms leaves. He immediately calls a meeting of other senior Republican senators, and they puzzle over the question for several hours, but nobody can come up with an answer. Finally, in desperation, Helms calls Colin Powell at the State Department and explains his problem.

"Now lookee here, son, your mother has a child, and your father has a child, and this child is not your brother or your sister. Who is it?"

Powell answers immediately, "It's me, of course."

Much relieved, Helms rushes back to the White House, finds George Bush, and exclaims, "I know the answer, sir! I know who it is! It's Colin Powell!"

And Bush replies in disgust, "Wrong, you dumb shit, it's Tony Blair!"

We shouldnt have had to goto war in 2003, we should have removed Saddam back in the '90s when we were morally justified and could do so in a way that wouldnt piss off most of the Middle East.

We shouldnt have let the southern Iraqis and Kurds uprise after 'promising' to help them jsut to let them get slaughtered as we stood by and did nothing.

We shouldnt have stood by and let our leaders knowingly starve a generation of Iraqis in our name while Saddam and his cronies were unaffected.

At the same time we shouldnt have stood by and let the former Yugoslavia degenerate into war and hate for 5 years because it was "an entirly different situation" and then only sorting it out when we could no longer ignore the ethnic cleansing.

We shouldnt be letting millions work like slaves to make our jeans and trainers, or rip down their homes for wood for our furniture or more oil for our cars.

We shouldnt be hoarding all the resources while the average African family has the same ammount of water a day that we use flushing our toilets once. Lets help out the less fortunate, perhaps they won't be so angry with us.

As for the war, I would have far more respect for Bush and Blair if I really believed they went into Iraq to 'Liberate' the Iraqis. The story and facts have changed so much and so rapidly that I can't believe them, it feels like 9-11 is being used as an excuse to secure resources. If we really wanted to 'Liberate' Iraq why did we starve them for 13+ years before hand?

http://www.interwebnet.org/

This is a photo from the Women's "Peace Picnic" in Trafalgar Square earlier today...

[Edited on Nov 19, 2003 by TeeJay]

Just thought I'd post this as its a very "Suicide Girl" type picture.
You can find loads more at http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/
(Look at the right hand column under the "Newswire" section for the posts with little "camera" icons next to them)


[Edited on Nov 19, 2003 by TeeJay]

[Edited on Nov 19, 2003 by TeeJay]