52nd State

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Stuart W

REMINDER:
FYI London is now the SINGLE MOST LIKELY target for terrorist attack. If Tony Blair was going to visit the terror capitol of the world, wouldn't you want him to have some decent security?

Of course but them using their own security over ours is like saying ours is sub-standard. Can you imagine us insisting we use our security if Blair went to Washington?

[Stuart W]

Hmm.... we do.

When Blair goes to the U.S. he takes his own security team and they instruct American security agencies. This is standard for all leaders.

Originally Posted by Stuart W

REMINDER:

The USA are not only the worlds only super power, but they are also our ALLIES!

They are also the ones guilty of an illegal invasion of another country. They are also the ones guilty of holding people in limbo at Guantanamo Bay, denying them access to legal representation or giving them a fair trial. They are also the ones who have threatened other countries that if they don't change their behaviour they risk invasion.

I think it would be a whole heartedly BAD idea to start limiting the presidents visits here. Do you guys have ANY idea what you are talking about?

Yes, I think we do. Just because someone is our ally doesn't mean that we should allow him to ride roughshod over *our* country and have his people dictate what *we* can or cannot do.

If you had forgotten, allow me to remind you that *we* are a Sovereign Nation, not some appendage of the USA, we have our own laws and codes of acceptable behaviour and I certainly don't think that we should be brow-beaten by an arrogant right-winger into following his lead simply to keep them happy.

There's a word for that. It's "Appeasement".

FYI London is now the SINGLE MOST LIKELY target for terrorist attack.

This is *utter nonsense*!

How many suicide bombings have we had here? How many tanks have we seen on the streets (apart from that ill-advised set of "scare tactics" at Heathrow)? If you asked a selection of people on London's streets how worried they are about terror attacks, I think most would say that they're glad they're not living in Israel or the occupied territories of Palestine.

If Tony Blair was going to visit the terror capitol of the world, wouldn't you want him to have some decent security?

Excuse me???

If London is now the SINGLE MOST LIKELY target for terrorist attack, how come we don't close down huge sections of the capital every time TB goes to the House of Commons or leaves for his constituency or whatever??

The fact is that what Bush's people *really* want is to try to protect him from the large number of people who would be out on the streets protesting against his illegal actions, the lies he used to justify a war and the sheer arrogance of his government which thinks it can dictate terms to the rest of the world!!

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by Graham

They are also the ones guilty of an illegal invasion of another country. They are also the ones guilty of holding people in limbo at Guantanamo Bay, denying them access to legal representation or giving them a fair trial. They are also the ones who have threatened other countries that if they don't change their behaviour they risk invasion.



Yes, I think we do. Just because someone is our ally doesn't mean that we should allow him to ride roughshod over *our* country and have his people dictate what *we* can or cannot do.

If you had forgotten, allow me to remind you that *we* are a Sovereign Nation, not some appendage of the USA, we have our own laws and codes of acceptable behaviour and I certainly don't think that we should be brow-beaten by an arrogant right-winger into following his lead simply to keep them happy.

There's a word for that. It's "Appeasement".



This is *utter nonsense*!

How many suicide bombings have we had here? How many tanks have we seen on the streets (apart from that ill-advised set of "scare tactics" at Heathrow)? If you asked a selection of people on London's streets how worried they are about terror attacks, I think most would say that they're glad they're not living in Israel or the occupied territories of Palestine.



Excuse me???

If London is now the SINGLE MOST LIKELY target for terrorist attack, how come we don't close down huge sections of the capital every time TB goes to the House of Commons or leaves for his constituency or whatever??

The fact is that what Bush's people *really* want is to try to protect him from the large number of people who would be out on the streets protesting against his illegal actions, the lies he used to justify a war and the sheer arrogance of his government which thinks it can dictate terms to the rest of the world!!

Well said that man!

[Stuart W]

America are guilty of a whole shed load of things, including the things you mention and polution etc. Does that mean they should not be given any say?

Yes, we are a soverign state, but I didn't think Bush wanted to pass new laws or anything, just asked for most of London to be shut down for his visit, which has been blown out of all proportion by the british press.

I guess I'll just keep my opinions to myself.

Stupid me thought that something printed in the national press (The Guardian, yesterday "London now most likely target for terror campaign") would have been researched.

[gazzae]

Bush is a moron. The only reason he is in power is because of daddys friends in the supreme court.
If I was Amercian I'd be embarrased to have him as president.

It's clearly a budget. It's got a lot of numbers in it.
George W Bush

The researcher that highlights the fact that London is supposed to be a prime target for terrorists was covered on Radio 4, and they reasoned that this was primarily due to the British government being so supportive of Bush and his campaign. If there is any threat, it is the fault of that smug Texan dictator in the first place, and if his actions are going to contribute to putting the capital at risk then I don`t see why we should bend over backwards to protect him.

[downquark1]

Would this happen in a US city?

[duncant403]

Originally Posted by Stuart W

Stupid me thought that something printed in the national press (The Guardian, yesterday "London now most likely target for terror campaign") would have been researched.

Just because London is supposedly the "most likely target" does not make it the most dangerous city in the world - and I'd have thought that the cities that are the "most likely targets" and those that are currently experiencing terror attacks every day - aren't there something like 30 attacks a day in Iraq? I notice there's been another suicide bomb attack in Nasiriya (Iraq). Surely a suicide bomb forms part of a "terror campaign"? This would make Nasiriya a more likely target than London.

[tabatha]

Given the Americans record on "friendly fire"...I would have thought the last people he needs to guard him are Americans

[Ramrod]

Slightly off topic, but interesting (Taken from todays Times):




Bushophobia can be bad for your conscience
by Michael Gove
The three questions you should answer if you intend to demonstrate next week
[img]Download Failed (1)[/img]Sometimes you can never be more lonely than when you are in a crowd. And that will be me next week.

In seven daysââ‚ ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ time the National Stop the War Coalition will be rallying thousands of people to protest at President Bushââ‚ ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s visit to London. A big turn-out is expected next Wednesday for the alternative state procession with the Critical Mass bike riders and the Big Red Peace Bus. The day after there is a mass anti-Bush demonstration in Trafalgar Square, with tens of thousands expected to show. And as someone who believes in standing up and being counted, I will be there. Even among the crowds it should be easy to spot me. I know there will be a lot of other guys in T-shirts and badges †â€ÂÂÂ� but perhaps not those I am planning to wear: the T-shirt with the American flag on it, above the simple legend †œThese Colors Donââ‚Âà ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢t Runââ‚Âà ‚¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÂ�. And the little pin proclaiming †œBush-Cheney †â€ÂÂÂ� Four More Years!ââ‚Ã⠀šÃ‚¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÂ� It will be interesting to see what the crowd make of my presence. According to Libby Purves, they are peaceable souls who wish only to uphold the traditional Anglo-Saxon right of free assembly. So I expect there will be a chance to engage in constructive dialogue. Because I would like to ask everyone opposed to President Bushââ‚ ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s visit a few questions.

I would like first to ask everyone at these rallies if they are happy attending events organised by apologists for tyranny. The Stop the War Coalition is chaired by a man called Andrew Murray, now communications officer for the rail union Aslef. Andrew, who used to work for the Soviet Novosti press agency, sits on the politburo of the Communist Party of Britain and wrote an article in the Morning Star a couple of years ago celebrating the 120th anniversary of Stalinââ‚Ã⠀šÃ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢s birth. Working alongside him in the Coalition is another indefatigable protester with a soft spot for Uncle Joe, the former Labour MP George Galloway, who once claimed that the collapse of Soviet Communism was the saddest event of his life.
Now any of us are entitled to the odd bit of nostalgia for the fallen heroes of our youth. I personally have a soft spot for Ally McLeod, the Scotland manager who crashed and burnt in the 1978 World Cup. But controversial figure from the past though Ally is, he did not organise the murder of 30 million people. Stalin did, and people who miss him are not just nostalgics for adolescent dreams: they are grown-ups getting misty-eyed about genocide.

The guys organising next weekâ₠¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s anti-Bush rally are not really against war, they just think it is a pity that the free world won the Cold War. And anyone clambering aboard their Big Red Peace Bus is a fellow traveller with fans of totalitarianism.

Talking of which, the next question I would like to ask anyone standing next to me next Thursday is: do you miss the fact that mass murderers no longer run Iraq? Is that why you are angry? Andy, George and the rest of the crew organising this rally are admirably clear on this point. They want Western troops out of Iraq now, leaving the place free for Saddamââ‚Ã⠀šÃ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢s loyalists and Islamic fundamentalists to build their own new hells. They opposed the removal of Saddamââ‚Ã⠀šÃ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢s torture state, oppose the use of Western power to help to build the foundations of a free Iraq and want to see the West retreat in the face of terrorist action.

If George Bush were to stop his war now, as Andy, George and all their friends want, the consequences would be unthinkable. Iraq would be left, as it was tragically before in 1991, to the tender mercies of gangsters and fanatics. The hope of an alternative path for the Arab Middle East, towards modernity, freedom and prosperity, would crumble. The men who planned 9/11, and have unleashed suicide bombers on Tel Aviv and Riyadh, would be emboldened by a lack of Western resolution and encouraged to extend their campaigns. To our doorsteps.

I am sure that most of those tempted to rally next week want to do something to halt terror, indeed anything to stop the waste of innocent lives. Which prompts the third, and crucial, question. How do you think this war you say that you want to stop actually started?

The history of the past 80 years teaches us that it is when democracies are weak and slow to assert themselves that conflicts begin and innocents die. The march of the dictators in the 1930s was facilitated by the strength of the disarmament and isolationist lobbies in Britain, France and America. The mass slaughter and †œethnic cleansingâ₠¬Â� of Milosevic gathered pace in the 1990s because the European Union prevaricated in the face of provocation. In that same decade the forces of terror in the Middle East were emboldened.

In Iraq the withering support for sanctions, especially among European nations, encouraged its dictator in defiance. In Palestine the willingness of idealistic Israelis to gamble security for peace only strengthened the hand of Islamic hardliners. Among the leaders of al-Qaeda the reluctance of America to meet outrages in Somalia, Yemen or Kenya with proper fortitude only encouraged escalation.

It is immensely to President Bushâ₠¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s credit that he recognises weakness is more provocative than strength to those who live outside democracyââ‚ ¬â„¢s rules. We are safer in Britain today than we were 27 months ago, thanks to him.

Of course Bush has made mistakes, on issues from global warming to steel tariffs. There may well be room to criticise much in his record. But given the people who want to occupy that space next week, it is not a place I want to go. I respect freedom too much to enjoy seeing it abused by those whose first instinct is to insult anyone who actually bothers to fight for it. And I admire what America has done for liberty, throughout its history, too much to want to join those people who are now biting the hand that freed them. Stop Bush? Not in my name.



Of course we can all pick holes in whatever bits of the above article that we want to but the general gist of it is thought provoking-Ramrod

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Graham

They are also the ones guilty of an illegal invasion of another country. They are also the ones guilty of holding people in limbo at Guantanamo Bay, denying them access to legal representation or giving them a fair trial. They are also the ones who have threatened other countries that if they don't change their behaviour they risk invasion.

Didn't we invade along side them? And wether the action was illegal or not depends on if you believe UN resolutions have an unwritten expiry date or not.
We also are holding people in "limbo", you just don't hear about them.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Graham

They are also the ones guilty of an illegal invasion of another country. They are also the ones guilty of holding people in limbo at Guantanamo Bay, denying them access to legal representation or giving them a fair trial. They are also the ones who have threatened other countries that if they don't change their behaviour they risk invasion.

Hmmm....at least they don't deliberatly send suicide bombers to blow up busses, red cross hospitals, skyscrapers and other civilian targets.
btw....what is wrong with threatening countries with invasion if they don't change their terrorist ways? It is analagous to threatening criminals with jail if they don't stop offending.

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Slightly off topic, but interesting (Taken from todays Times):

Bushophobia can be bad for your conscience
by Michael Gove
The three questions you should answer if you intend to demonstrate next week <snip>

Thanks for posting that, it was very interesting ... I'm waiting to see how Bush's critics in this forum answer the points it makes.

[basa]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Hmmm....at least they don't deliberatly send suicide bombers to blow up busses, red cross hospitals, skyscrapers and other civilian targets.
btw....what is wrong with threatening countries with invasion if they don't change their terrorist ways? It is analagous to threatening criminals with jail if they don't stop offending.

Yeh !! .......common sense of reality speaks instead of political rhetoric !!