Bush's visit to Britain

[Sandman]

Yes, there's already a thread about this, but it's pretty incoherent, so I'd thought I'd start another one.

What are your feelings about Bush's visit to Britain?

I, like most other Brits, don't want him here. This visit is nothing but a PR stunt for Bush, with no purpose other than to raise his opinion polls back home. It's going to cause chaos and cost money. He should stay at home.

Thankfully, some of the Americans' more insane requests have been turned down, including diplomatic immunity for Bush's bodyguard, closing down the London Underground, fighter aircraft over London and the right to deploy miniguns to defend the President's convoy.

To add insult to injury, it's a state visit. The last US President to get one was Woodrow Wilson after the First World War. The idea that Bush is anything like Woodrow is laughable. The complete lack of cheering crowds should give that away.

[Whaleboy]

I'm going to protest on Wednesday and Thursday in Parliament sq.

[DaShi]

Keep Bush in America!

[The Viceroy]

I like MOST other brits are happy to see him here

Its a state visit for gods sake .. We are entertaining the head of a foreign government, just because the president of the US happens to be somebody you personally don't agree with, doesn't mean the United States should not come on a State Visit.

If your not happy, go and vote Lib Dem at the next election, and then we'll see who's in the majority ??

Truth is, those opposed to Bush's visit, and the war in general will make a lot of noise .. but the majority will be silent, and happy to greet our allies. Long may the US and UK fight for freedom along side each other, the world is a much safer place when we act together to defend our common values.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

If you want to protest against anyone, protest against Blair. Otherwise I really can't see the point.

[Evil Knevil]

Originally posted by The Viceroy
I like MOST other brits are happy to see him here

Its a state visit for gods sake .. We are entertaining the head of a foreign government, just because the president of the US happens to be somebody you personally don't agree with, doesn't mean the United States should not come on a State Visit.

If your not happy, go and vote Lib Dem at the next election, and then we'll see who's in the majority ??

Truth is, those opposed to Bush's visit, and the war in general will make a lot of noise .. but the majority will be silent, and happy to greet our allies. Long may the US and UK fight for freedom along side each other, the world is a much safer place when we act together to defend our common values.

They're not my values.

[Sandman]

The fact that he and his entourage dictate a series of ridiculous demands is good enough reason to not allow him over here. What sort of idiot demands his bodyguards have the right to kill anybody they want? Why should London's economy be damaged so that he can get some nice PR shots of him with the Queen?

[The Viceroy]

Evil Knevil .. what do you propose are the common value's that you don't share ??

[The Viceroy]

Sandman, I believe some of the American's wishes have not been given to them.

I saw Clinton when I was at Portsmouth Uni back in 1994, and his entrance was nothing short of a military campaign .. the Americans have always been security concious, its part of the US Gov culture, especially since Sep11th .. They are on a state visit, and im perfectly happy that we will not suffer economically for this.

We invited them !!

[Ned]

I find it interesting that no president since Woodrow Wilson has visited England. How many times since has the British monarch visited the United States?

I wonder if these demostrations are going to affect the attitude of many Americans towards England. I suspect, that many would like a complete disruption of our alliance.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Sandman
What sort of idiot demands his bodyguards have the right to kill anybody they want?

Just about every head of state. Next time you watch the Trooping of the Colour, take a look up at the rooftops and see how many rifle barrels you can see.

[The Viceroy]

Ned, they are a small and very loud minority.

The American president knows that , and most of the British people do also.

The American's will continue to be our closest allies, regardless of what a few thousand people out of 60 million think.

[Drogue]

I can't wait to have Bush here. I want to see what happens when he sees jeering crowds of people protesting his war. I think if there's an incident, like him being hit by a tomato or an egg, that's reported back in America, it could damage his election prospects more than the pictures with the Queen could help. The US got to see Tony Blair preaching about standing shoulder to shoulder before the war, I think it could cause some small damage if they realise that that was Blair, not England speaking, and that it wasn't as unified a statement as it sounded.

[Sandman]

We invited them !!

At their suggestion. This was all their idea.

I find it interesting that no president since Woodrow Wilson has visited England. How many times since has the British monarch visited the United States?

State visits are different from normal visits.

Just about every head of state. Next time you watch the Trooping of the Colour, take a look up at the rooftops and see how many rifle barrels you can see.

Ok, fair enough.

[oedo]

Ned, they are a small and very loud minority.

The American president knows that , and most of the British people do also.

as I remember two million (!) Brits were peacefully protesting against the Gulf war last february. what makes you believe that they all turned into Bush supporters now? how many Brits were demonstrating for the Gulf war and the alliance of the willing?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Drogue
I can't wait to have Bush here. I want to see what happens when he sees jeering crowds of people protesting his war. I think if there's an incident, like him being hit by a tomato or an egg, that's reported back in America, it could damage his election prospects more than the pictures with the Queen could help. The US got to see Tony Blair preaching about standing shoulder to shoulder before the war, I think it could cause some small damage if they realise that that was Blair, not England speaking, and that it wasn't as unified a statement as it sounded.

No Droque. The people of the United States will rally around their president if he is attacked by a British mob. All the attack will do is create a lot of hostility towards Britain in the US. But, again, I think that is exactly what the demonstrators want.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by oedo

how many Brits were demonstrating for the Gulf war and the alliance of the willing?

Protest is the tool of the underdog. That need not necessarily equate to numerical minority, admittedly.

I certainly see few protests for "Reinstate the Ba'athists!".

[The Viceroy]

2 Million ?? out of 60 million .. thats a majority in some people's eyes .. yes, I doubt there really was 2 million, and the reason for the potention 1 million (which is more like the real figure) being there was not because they hated the US, or hated Bush. Many churches had anti WAR rallies that went that day as well. A lot of people turned out to see what it was all about, and the vast majority of people who really genuinly didn't want to see a war, and hoped it may stop it, but went on to support their troops anyhow in the event of war.

The Majority of the British people will not be represented by a small minority of thugs who as Ned says, are hoping the American people will feel angry towards Britain.

Far from Mr Blair expressing his own opinion, he was most certainly speaking as the prime minister, the head of the ruling party in this country .. if you don't like that, or if you feel that is not what the country should be represented by, vote for the Lib Dems .. and as I said earlier, we will then see what the country really thinks ..

[MikeH]

It was1 million for sure, possibly more. The largest demonsration in British history.

Out of 60 million people that's a million who felt strongly enough to protest. Not like the normal protesters, ordinary mothers with their kids, a whole spectrum of the community.

And that was before we had proof that Bush and Blair had been blatantly distorting the facts about why we were doing it.

If a majority of the country supports it now then I'm ashamed of the people of my country.

We don't want to anger America we want to show the Americans that a lot of the peoplein her greatest ally don't support what their President is doing. Just as many Americans don't support what their President is doing.

What the country really thinks is that Blair is a slimy lying git, especially about this Iraq thing. He has been good economically - Brown? Unfortunately there's no realistic alternative.

[Drogue]

2 million protested, but many more agreed with them. Indeed, almost all polls shows a majority for not going to war. Blair may retain leadership through domestic success and other policies, but I think hell lose a few votes because of the war.

Originally posted by Ned
No Droque. The people of the United States will rally around their president if he is attacked by a British mob. All the attack will do is create a lot of hostility towards Britain in the US. But, again, I think that is exactly what the demonstrators want.

True, but it will do that. It may also show some that his foreign policy did alienate others, and would give an opportunity for some Dem to capitalise that even the nation who stood side by side with the US is anti-bush. It may not have much effect, but a simple show of opposition to Bush from the UK may mean the visit doesn't help his election chances

[MikeH]

I really hate it when people tell me why I'm against something without having a clue.

[oedo]

Originally posted by The Viceroy
2 Million ?? out of 60 million .. thats a majority in some people's eyes .. yes

probably the next thing you´re going to say is, that 58 million British supported the war, since they didn´t go on the streets on a ****ing cold winter day...

[Drogue]

Originally posted by MikeH
It was1 million for sure, possibly more. The largest demonsration in British history.

Out of 60 million people that's a million who felt strongly enough to protest. Not like the normal protesters, ordinary mothers with their kids, a whole spectrum of the community.

And that was before we had proof that Bush and Blair had been blatantly distorting the facts about why we were doing it.

If a majority of the country supports it now then I'm ashamed of the people of my country.

We don't want to anger America we want to show the Americans that a lot of the peoplein her greatest ally don't support what their President is doing. Just as many Americans don't support what their President is doing.

What the country really thinks is that Blair is a slimy lying git, especially about this Iraq thing. He has been good economically - Brown? Unfortunately there's no realistic alternative.

Well said

[Sandman]

If the special relationship is so important, why have him come here at all? Why put it at risk by exposing Bush to protestors, (and potentially) assassins and terrorists?

[Starchild]

I'm thinking about heading down on Thursday but hasn't London recently been placed on high alert for terrorist actions?

[The Viceroy]

NO .. Just because 1 or even 2 million people come out on the streets, it does not mean that the majority of people agree with you

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2765041.stm

2 million ???

I did not say that therefore the majority do agree with the war, even though I personally have not seen anything to say otherwise. (in fact, many polls before the war showed a small majority in favour !!! but I personally don't think polls are a good indicator, as too much depends on the question being asked).

All that 1 million people demonstrating shows, is that 1 million people felt strongly enough to do so .. it does not say anything for the 59 who did not.

So Id say that the fact that there was the largest demo in British history showed we had the largest amount of people who felt strongly . .still does not make a majority.

I really hate it when people tell me why I'm against something without having a clue. - dito

Opinion polls :- Its all lies, damn lies and statistics. Im reminded (one again) of the Simpsons episode where the news reporter was praying that a law would be passed that would make media opinion polls legally binding (when Homer was accused of touching a baby siters backside) ..

I see no difference here, Sky news says 45% support the war .. oh god .. it must be right, lets make it legally binding.

At the end of the day, you lot who hate the US are free to vote for who the heck you like, and the fact that you have not yet voted somebody in who agree's with you, speaks volumes. The next election is your chance, vote for an anti American party, and do your worst .. truth is, Prime Minister blair will still be here .. and any party that supports your view .. consigned to 3rd place.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Sandman
Yes, there's already a thread about this, but it's pretty incoherent, so I'd thought I'd start another one.

Who voted you the judger of incoherent threads here. Your just like those damned Americans thinking they know whats best and not checking with others.

[Tripledoc]

In a historical context, leaving aside the politics for a moment, when have demonstrators who have felt passionatley for a cause ever been proven wrong?

Were the French people who stormed Bastille wrong?
Were the Communards who rebelled against Napoleon III wrong?
Were the people who were massacred at Tianmen Square wrong?
Were the Solidairty movement protests in Poland wrong back in 1982?
Were the Serbs who set fire to the Serbian Parliament and ousted Slobodan Milosovic wrong?

History has proven them right time and time again.

[The Mad Monk]

Were the Brown Shirts of Hitler wrong?
Were the peasants following Pol Pot wrong?
Were the common soldiers of the Taliban wrong?
Were the Confederates wrong?

[The Mad Monk]

Were the Iranian students wrong?
Were the Boxer rebels wrong?
Were the Luddites wrong?
Were the Puritans rebeling against Charles I wrong?