BluntmaN

It is true ,the moment we have been waiting for, at long last little Jimmy from the institution will not be the dummest person in Europe for the next few days coz Georgie is comming to town.
Thats right proffesional failure, turned pressident and then turned George Adolf Bush will come to London. He ll even sleep in the palace and take photos with Lilibet.(the queen of England) Tony Mussoliny Blair will then meet him to ask some money and he ll make some speaches all under the rythm of demos all over London. Maybe London will burn once more, first time it was the royal bakery now it ll be a royal jackass starting it.

Ok Lets get serious what do you think of this visit? Is it worth the 4mill they ll spend on police alone? Will the police actually allow the demos to go through? And will the demo turn to a riot?

__________________
'Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don't know we don't know.'
Donald Rumsfeld (And then they say that the White House knows what it's doing)

JavaFox

What is the point of this thread, other than to display a contempt for English grammar?

ToshiroOC

I think it's about Bush visiting the U.K. I could be wrong, though.

I'm amused by "George Adolf Bush" - of course since you disagree with Bush's policy, he is on a level with a genocidal abhorrent filthy abomination that killed millions of Jews. You seem most rational and levelheaded, sir.

I think that it doesn't matter whether the visit is worth it to the British people - it matters if it's worth it to the elected British government. The separation of the people from direct power through an electoral system is key to a stable government that can act in the public interest, and not on the public whim. If you think it's a waste of British money, don't vote for those who support the visit next election.

I think the demonstrations will occur, I think someone will probably get hurt demonstrating violently against Bush, and I think they'll be falsely held up as a hero for their violence against those whom they disagree with.

__________________
[img][/img]
[color=White]Peace be with you, Joe.[/color]
Driverheaven Staff Member (Supermoderator)

FuNsTeR

never voted for Tony "Himmler" Blair in the first place as my vote always goes to the Scottish National Party every time ... yes even though Lizzy is meant to be our Queen as well the English are welcome to her and her fellow royal parasites for all i care

__________________
"They say when you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear satanic messages ..... but that's nothing, if you play it forward it will install Windows"

Al_Vampyre

Firstly, deliberately inflammatory posts should be posted in the Flame Warzone, and secondly could you please refrain from massacring the English language if you wish to be taken seriously.

On the topic of your post, I am ashamed that the British public is being asked to fund this 'sham' of a state visit, the majority of UK citizens either think this visit is a bad idea or are undecided either way (43% in favour, 36% against, 21% don't know/don't care), my own feelings are that the British are being 'used' by the US to legitimize their Iraq action in the eyes of the rest of the world and treating Bush to a full state visit (something that hasn't happened for a US president since Woodrow Wilson 85 years ago) is a slap in the face to the British public who are paying for a war we didn't want in the first place and paying for a state visit of a man whose motives we find dubious. It is also an insult to the memory of the last US president that the honour was awarded to - Wilsons agreement to US troops getting involved in The Great War was probably the deciding factor in ending it - and at least then the enemy could be proven to be a danger to the rest of the world.

I hope Bush gets his eyes opened when he comes to London, I hope that the demonstrations are very obvious, very vocal, and very peaceful, so that Bush and Blair see with their own eyes how little faith the ordinary people have in them.

__________________
"Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit; wisdom is knowing not to put it in a fruit salad" - Brian O'Driscoll - Ireland Rugby Team 2009 Grand Slam winning Captain.

Esaz666

This thread is well funny.

Maiky

Bush must go to Soho and invite Blayr an Aznar to go with him

__________________


All Work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. JACK TORRANCE

BluntmaN

Well he came and the protests went ok in the end btw sorry about the rape of the English Language but I am Greek and speaking Greek, English and French at the same time is not easy plus I was probably stoned when I wrote the post

__________________
'Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don't know we don't know.'
Donald Rumsfeld (And then they say that the White House knows what it's doing)

raid517

I don't like Bush. I will never like Bush. But all the same in some ways my views are changing. The recent attacks against British interests in Turkey has largely been responsible for this.

The problem we face is that Terrorism is now a reality. It's here and it's in our faces. Moreover it unlikely that it is ever fully going to just go away. I think realistically, if we are talking about a fight, we are talking about expending a great deal of time and resources over 30 years or more.

You have to ask the question about what it is these people want? Do they want freedom for Palestine? Sure... But I don't quite think that's the full story. Realistically I think if the Palestinians wanted their own state they could have had this a long time ago. There have been plenty of opportunities to negotiate in the past - and every time an olive branch was held out to them it was usually quickly followed by a bomb that killed many innocent Israeli civilians. The reason for this is that for the Palestinian extremists their own state isn't enough. It must be accompanied by the utter annihilation of the Israeli state. Clearly to the Israelis this is unacceptable, thus in their eyes, they have no option to fight on. Similarly the objectives of Al Quada are equally extreme. They do not just wish for the West to make amends for past crimes and misdemeanours. They in fact want the complete and utter overthrow of all Western governments and the instigation of a new Islamic world order. They are not just Islamic terrorists, they are Islamic revolutionaries as well.

How would you like it if you were made to go to a mosque 3 times a day to pray, or have all our women covered head to toe in full Muslim garb? Or have the books we read banned, or have music banned and so on? This isn't just alarmist talk, this is indeed what the Islamic revolutionaries aim to achieve.

So the question emerges if we were to give in, or make concessions, what in reality would giving in mean? The imposition of a Muslim clerical directorate who could tell our governments and our peoples what they could and couldn't say or think? Is that really and achievable consession?

It isn't quite as simple as all of us just saying 'sorry'. Sorry isn't what these people want to hear.

Believe me, thinking about these things has been a dilemma for me too. On the one hand we have one of the most unpleasant leaders in American history leading one of the most important battles in history - while on the other hand we are faced with an enemy who will accept no compromise.

I think it is time we put our personal and political differences aside and faced up to what is really going on here.

This war will continue long after Bush and Blair have faded into obscurity.

I don't like this - and I still think that the war in Iraq was a mistake and only provided a focus point for terrorism. However Islamic terrorism was here before Iraq - and it was here even before September 11th - and as painful as it might be for us to realise it, we are going to have to deal with it one way or another.

However if anyone does have any alternative suggestions on other possible ways forward, I would be very keen to hear them.


One thing is clear though - we just can't pretend it isn't happening.

Q

BluntmaN

Well you are talking about recent afairs about the western-Muslim war but do not forget that it was us who started it in the first place the west invaded Muslim territories in the past and we have kept a large part for ourselves ever since just as we did in Africa. Now our past mistakes come back to haunt us.
Terrorism has always been a very effective way for the oppressed minorities to wage war against their oppressors. Whether it is right or wrong has nothing to do with it since all forms of war are wrong but sometimes innevitable. Looking at past terrorist organizations like the Army of the Red Brigade in right wing Italy, the Kurds in turkey and the Bask movement in Spain all these organizations lacked the money and means to fight their oppressors and also lacked the numbers of Ghandi and his followers so they turned rogue.
Terrorism as with most forms of violence in human behavior comes when a nation, group, person is oppressed. I will not go into the ways to combat terrorism but I can tell you this the best way to stop terrorists is to make them lose public support. So it is simple make the Muslims love us and they ll eventually stop killing us. But we can't make them love us coz we need their Oil don't we, so it comes down to this. Either cheap gas and twin towers toppling down or expensive gas and less money made by governments and co-orporations.

Sorry if I missed the subject and for the spelling

Btw I am not pro terrorist I m the Devil's advocate

__________________
'Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don't know we don't know.'
Donald Rumsfeld (And then they say that the White House knows what it's doing)

raid517

I think that's a bit too much of an over simplification. You are ignoring the fact of what the real objectives of these people are. As I said they are Islamic revolutionaries, who are sworn to overthrow our governments and replace them with clerical Islamic dictatorial regimes. Just how can you negotiate with that, or indeed how can you compromise with it?

Sure oil and past acts of oppression are in some ways responsible for bringing us where we are today, however I do not think saying 'oops sorry', is really going to be very effective.

You are correct too that we have to turn people away from the terrorists - but the way to do that is to promote the values of freedom, democracy and prosperity in those countries whom have previously suffered at the hands of repressive regimes. (Which I assume was partly the reason for invading Iraq. IMHO I think at least half of the motivation was made up of a desire to set 'shining example' to the rest of the Islamic world and to show them just how good things could be. However I do not think invading these countries pointing guns at their heads and saying 'You will be free otherwise we will shoot you.' is quite the right way to go about things). I still think the other 50% of the motivation was a sense of long held Republican revenge, the American republican party didn't like that they had rubbed Sadam's nose in the mud once already, only for him to get up and poke two fingers up at them. They wanted to show the world they had a long memory and that they and the good old US of A would not be f*cked with. That combined with the strategic interests of Israel - and the desire to gain some real influence, militarily and economic over the Mid East oil producing countries of the region, probably made an invasion of Iraq seem like a 'win win' situation to Bush and his cabinet at that time.

Pity it hasn't quite worked out that way I guess.

The problem is, no matter how much we wring our hands and beat our chests in angst for our past misdeeds, we now very much have a fight on our hands. The question is, do we give in and make concessions to the terrorist demands and depose our governments in favour of extremist Taliban Islamic type regimes, or do we fight against it?

Clearly to any sane person the first choice isn't really acceptable.

Q

BluntmaN

Well I don't think that allowing terrorists to run free on these lands will help either. But never forget that whenever the Brits sent an SAS assasination party in Belfast killing terrorists the IRA would strike back with more bloodbaths. I am not saying let them do whatever they want but instead try to reach some common ground. Not all Taliban supporters are crazy Muslims.
If the US of A whould come to my country and imposse a military law and started arresting ppl and sending them to Guatanamo bay I whould be making donkey bombs as well and I would kill UN members and the red cross members for being such hypocrits.
If on the other hand the UN would come up with something less radical simply helping our people to awaken and teach us about democrasy while we lived in relative peace then these terrorists will eventually run out of supporters since their cause would become pointless.
Is this a utopia maybe but as Jesus (I am not a christian) said hitting a belief is like hitting a nail the harder you hit the deeper it goes.
So would the US not invade Iraq but instead tried to help out, the people would have overthrown Sadam years ago and if the same happened in Afganistan there would still be a WTC.
Killing invading and bombing will only make the Muslims (and others) around the world more sympathetic to terrorism.

__________________
'Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don't know we don't know.'
Donald Rumsfeld (And then they say that the White House knows what it's doing)

raid517

Again I can't quite go all the way down the road with you on that one... But Oh well, I can see where your comming from. I'll let it be.

Q

p0rChM0nK3y

BluntmaN, don't you look like a moron. His visit couldn't of been better.


Liberalism doesn't make any sense

__________________
Intel Pentium 4c 2.6 @ 3.1ghz (27c idle, 34c load)
Asus P4P800
Corsair XMS 2x512mb DDR400
Maxtor MaXline III 250gb SATA150
Plextor DVD-RW PX-716A
Samsung Syncmaster 17"
Antec Sonata II w/ Antec SmartPower 2.0
Windows XP Pro

raid517

Yeah, yeah Libralism don't make sense - and conservatives are all selfish self serving SOB's. So what else is new?

There aint no one suddenly turning into Bush lovers over this side of the pond - you can be sure of that. However most people were largely respectful when he visited and the protests were possibly not as big as predicted.

I doubt though that is a sign of anyone converting to the Bush ideology - and more of a sign of support for our prime minister and a realisation that one way or another we are going to have to decide where our intersts lie.

I don't care about American conservatives, but I do care that the common interests of the Birtish and American people are protected.

If that means doing business with people we do not like for a short time - we'll so be it. We have probably done far worse in the past.

Q