Bush's visit to Britain

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Ned
I hope you do not support fascism and Islamo-fascism.

In no way can any Islamic or Islamic inspired Republic ever be described as Fascist.

Hindis can be Fascist, because they support a caste system. Jews can be Fascist because they believe that they are the chosen people. Secularized Christans can be Fascist becasue they believe in social darwinism.
Shintoists can be Fascist because they believe they are the children of the sun.

Islam is the purest form of Republicanism there is. Yet they are not Democratic. That is because Democracy breeds inequality, injustice and Racism, all of these social sicknesses Islam considers evil.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Tripledoc


I read New York Times, L. A Times, and listen to the VOX POP here on Apolyton. Still I would say their spin on it is that the war is going badly. Many Americans are tired of the crap too.

You might say that the war is going well according to the present plan, which is a different plan from what they had yesterday, and the day before yesterday. Naturally if it was a goalkeepers plan to let the ball pass then that might be termed a succes by him, but I don't think his team-mates would think that.

The Wall Street Journal just had a piece on just how left-biased the NYTimes and LATimes are, using statistics to demonstrate the bias. They are highly partisan apologists for the Democrat party. Democrats are now spinning the war negatively in order to attack Bush, These two papers have adopted an Bash-Bush editorial policy on Iraq where before they supported our war against Afghanistan because the Democrats were on board for that one.

In posts a couple of weeks ago, I inquired whether anyone in Europe and Canada could get FOX or MSNBC? No one could. The people of Europe seem to have no access to media with that is not in the leftist spin mode except for perhaps a few, marginal right-wing hate rags that probably give nothing but spin in the other direction.

As I said, MSNBC has a full week of in-depth analysis on Iraq last week on the Chris Mathews show. He is a Democrat. It is important to know this so that you in Europe do not dismiss the conclusions as some sort of Republican spin. The conclusion of the show is that things are going well in Iraq overall, ranging from very well in the Kurd and Shi'ite areas, to fairly well in the Sunni areas where the Sunni Ba'athists continue to provide some resistance.

Soon the occuppation will formally end with a new, elected, Iraqi government. Democratic institutions will have been installed. A basic law guaranteeing human, civil and political rights will have been passed.

These are the facts. Do you fundamentally disagree with them?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Tripledoc

Islam is the purest form of Republicanism there is. Yet they are not Democratic. That is because Democracy breeds inequality, injustice and Racism, all of these social sicknesses Islam considers evil.

Before I react, I would like you to explain this a little more because it does appear that you are against democracies and in favor of Islamic states.

[Sandman]

Once, again, just because he doesn't like your 'laws' doesn't mean he is against a world of laws.

Doesn't mean he is for it either.

Well that's mostly what he talks about. A world of democracies who fight against terror. An outlawing of terrorism by the countries of the world who will fight together against it.

Taking steps to halt terrorism is not the same as wanting a world of laws. Seeing as how Iraq had little to do with Al Qaeda, this 'fight against terrorism' appears to being used as a way to advance America's interests. It's like using the laws against stealing as an excuse to prosecute speeding drivers.

A good portion of his allies are not democratic, either. In fact, Wolfie castigated the Turkish military for NOT overiding their Parliament.

He already has. The laws that Western countries follow with respect to terrorist groups, at the very least, are laws that he has backed. Democratization of the ME will help lead to these laws, seeing as most terrorist groups seem to be based there.

I very much doubt that ME countries do not have laws prohibiting murder and the destruction of property. Which is what terrorism is, after all. And what about the hordes of terrorists in the rest of the world, many of them based in democratic countries?

Both democracies and dictatorships suffer from terrorism. Both have terrorists hiding in their countries. Both fund terrorism when it suits them.

What the 'war on terror' does provide is a nice cover for all sorts of shenanigans. Propping up compliant dictators, new markets for companies and repressive legislation back home.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Ned
Sandman, what the US wants is democratic governments that protect human, civil and political rights rather than trample on them. I hope you share this overall objective. I hope you do not support fascism and Islamo-fascism.

But your idea that the US could simply lay down the law and have other nations simply voluntarily accede to them is somewhat ridiculous if you think about it for a few seconds. What fascist regime will voluntarily give power to the people?

Your first paragraph is nothing but a troll.

The notion that the US should simply lay down the law is ridiculous. Because international laws have to be built on consensus, not invented by America. And that means taking measures to build up the international community. Not tearing it down in order to settle a score with a third-rate tyrant, before trying to justify it with the very institutions which America constantly undermines.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sandman
Your first paragraph is nothing but a troll.

The fact that you actually believe it is a troll demonstrates your pre-disposed hostility to the United States.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Ned


Before I react, I would like you to explain this a little more because it does appear that you are against democracies and in favor of Islamic states.

Not really, since I am an atheist. I just think that this continuing refusal to understand what the ideals of Islam are is counter-productive.

And, hey, America is a Republic you know. It is not a Democracy.

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by Adam Smith
Nice try at ducking the issue.

Would you care to articulate a policy, or do you just want to keep signing oil contracts with these kind folks?

In contrast to the Bushies, I'm not interested in Iraq's oil.

Btw, this thread is hilariously stupid, even for poly standards. ned is just absolutely amazing.

On the issue: You asked for a general policy. But you talk about Iraq which clearly is a special case based on extreme hypocrisy. So do you want the Iraq policy applied to every crazy regime?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Taking steps to halt terrorism is not the same as wanting a world of laws.

So Bush is against the humantarian law? He is against the law of the seas? Aren't those part of a 'world of laws'. Or, by 'world of laws' do you mean everything is codified by world 'government'.

A good portion of his allies are not democratic, either. In fact, Wolfie castigated the Turkish military for NOT overiding their Parliament.

So having a military check means that a country is not democratic? They have an elected parliament that makes most of the decision in the country. They aren't an autocracy.

Seeing as how Iraq had little to do with Al Qaeda, this 'fight against terrorism' appears to being used as a way to advance America's interests.

Bush is a neoconservative. It means he thinks America's interests are in promoting friendly democratic regimes.

I very much doubt that ME countries do not have laws prohibiting murder and the destruction of property. Which is what terrorism is, after all.

Yes, and countries like Saudi Arabia and the such have really used those murder and destruction of property laws to prosecute terrorists . Laws on the books are nothing if they are not used.

What the 'war on terror' does provide is a nice cover for all sorts of shenanigans. Propping up compliant dictators, new markets for companies and repressive legislation back home.

You were speaking of trolls?

[Tripledoc]

Ned.
Regarding your understanding of European media I would have to say they are somewhat deficient. All European media are essentially capitalist. The BBC was pro-war for instance. they like to hide behind a sort of hypocritical communist attitude, but in reality they are pro-war. They just think, mistakenly, that it will make them more authoritative if they throw a bone to the anti-Americans once in a while. The Economist was pro war.

I dont know much about each individual country, but here In Denmark we have three major national newspapers. One Facsist which was pro-war (naturally). One Monarchial which was pro-war. One Social-Democrat which was sort of wishy washy Saddam-is-a-horrible-dictator-but-bush-is horrible-too-but-we-are cowering-idiots-so-we-will-do-what-you-say.

Then there is the tabloids. One populist which have since been instrumental in causing a thorough investigation at the highest level of why on earth Denmark ever sent troops to Iraq. Another does not even know there is a war on.

Then there is a Communist one which is anti-war which is read by maybe 3000 people.

So to say that the media is slanted to the left in Europe is simply emphatically wrong.

[Spec]

Originally posted by Ned


In posts a couple of weeks ago, I inquired whether anyone in Europe and Canada could get FOX or MSNBC? No one could...

Say that again?

Then I've been fooled big time!! I really thought that I was watching That 70's show on FOX but thanks to you I know now it's really a rip off!

Sue them I say! SUE THEM!!!!




Spec.

[Sandman]

The fact that you actually believe it is a troll demonstrates your pre-disposed hostility to the United States.

Reasoning with you is like wading through treacle. Your paragraph had nothing to do with my point, and contained a veiled insult by suggesting that I was fascist or 'Islamo-fascist'.

So Bush is against the humantarian law? He is against the law of the seas? Aren't those part of a 'world of laws'. Or, by 'world of laws' do you mean everything is codified by world 'government'.

I didn't say that Bush is against all international laws. And it's pretty clear that Wilson meant more than the pre-existing stuff like the laws of the sea when he was talking about his 'world of laws'.

What's the 'humanitarian law'? That could mean anything.

IMO, a world of laws doesn't entail a far stronger world government than we have now; the UN.

So having a military check means that a country is not democratic? They have an elected parliament that makes most of the decision in the country. They aren't an autocracy.

Nice strawman. My point was a high-ranking US official expressing the opinion that Turkey was TOO democratic, not whether Turkey was a democracy or not, which it is, for the most part. Although I didn't phrase it too well, I admit. You must agree that other US allies in the 'war' on 'terror' are not exactly beacons of democracy.

Bush is a neoconservative. It means he thinks America's interests are in promoting friendly democratic regimes.

The problem with that is that a democratic 'regime' has no innate reason to be friendly with the US. And I'm pretty sure he places 'friendly' before 'democratic' when deciding how to pursue America's interests.

Yes, and countries like Saudi Arabia and the such have really used those murder and destruction of property laws to prosecute terrorists . Laws on the books are nothing if they are not used.

I wouldn't say prosecute. More like locked in jail with the key thrown away.

You were speaking of trolls?

Sorry. Although the fact that a scheme as monstrous as 'TIPS' was actually proposed scares the hell out of me.

[Ned]

HO, Admit it. You are a socialist and would oppose anything Bush does or did on general priniciples?

[Ned]

Sandman, When I said the US wants democratic governments, etc., and that I hope you shared that goal, you called this a troll. I assume that you do want democratic governments. So the reason you said this was a troll is that you do not believe we have good intentions.

Now. Is that better?

[Adam Smith]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler {Trolls snipped}
So do you want the Iraq policy applied to every crazy regime?

No. Which was precisely the point of asking for effective alternatives. Now will you please answer the question?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ned
HO, Admit it. You are a socialist and would oppose anything Bush does or did on general priniciples?

Roland is a socialist? The guy who termed Alan Greenspan a pinko?

[DanS]

Interesting poll numbers...

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/...087545,00.html

[Imran Siddiqui]

And it's pretty clear that Wilson meant more than the pre-existing stuff like the laws of the sea when he was talking about his 'world of laws'.

He was also taking in 1919, before the Geneva Conventions, the Law of the Sea codification, etc. So perhaps he didn't mean more than those precepts.

What's the 'humanitarian law'? That could mean anything.

IMO, a world of laws doesn't entail a far stronger world government than we have now; the UN.

Humanitarian law is encapsulated mainly by the 4 Geneva Conventions on Human Rights but also some other treaties.

Yes, once again in YOUR opinion a 'world of laws' means A. Doesn't mean that 'world of laws' must mean A.

My point was a high-ranking US official expressing the opinion that Turkey was TOO democratic

So? Backing 'democracy' doesn't mean total democracy. There is a reason most Americans say that the US is a republic, not a democracy, because we don't like TOO much democracy.

The problem with that is that a democratic 'regime' has no innate reason to be friendly with the US. And I'm pretty sure he places 'friendly' before 'democratic' when deciding how to pursue America's interests.

Perhaps, but it also seems you are unaware of the democratic peace theory, which at its loosest (to prevent pages long argument on DP Theory) says that democracies tend not to use force against each other, definetly compared to democracy-autocratic, or autocratic-autocratic dyads.

I wouldn't say prosecute. More like locked in jail with the key thrown away.

So SA throws some people in jail because the US put some pressure. It ignores the Saudi government basically ignored the Wabbhist threat for years and a vast majority of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi nationals.

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by Adam Smith
I am not at all pleased with US foreign policy. But to those who protest Bush's visit ... to those who protest the war ... to those who opposed UN sanctions on Iraq ... what alternative do you offer for dealing with regimes who have undertaken agression against their neighbors? Who murder, torture, and gas their citizens? I've asked this question before, and have yet to receive plausible answer.

You asked for an alternative to the Iraq policy. Well, how about the policy that seems ok for the other 100 similar regimes out there? Why do you take Iraq as a sort of model? It won't be repeated. It was based on special circumstances, and America is way too weak to repeat that exercise. An alternative to US policy has to be in comparison to the cozying up to those regimes, not to overthrowing them.

You mentioned Myanmar, I mentioned Uzbekistan. I'm not dodging the issue, but I do not accept the flawed way in which you represent the situation. It's not about some US offensive for democracy. I hope you don't beleive in those fairytales.

And finally, my initial response was to your troll against the EU that you edited out later.

As for policy. We will have to deal with those regimes finding some sort of modus vivendi. Some guidelines:
- We should not support them with money, military or security cooperation except for clear quid pro quos. That would eg mean no financial support for Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Yes I know the risks.
- Economic relationships can soften up regimes while trade sanctions usually don't work. But we should still annoy them about human rights, even if that means losing a contract or two.
- Humanitarian intervention in failed states
- Military force against states that wage a war of aggression

And now it's the Iraq problem. Military force to overthrow a regime? Well that's fine with me. It's even fine with me if the motives are totally corrupt as long as the outcome is right.

The problem with Bush's war is that it was born dead as a political exercise, and all that will remain is a ME more ****ed up than before, and an arab world that hates the west more than before. The only positive may be that the Iraqis may get to live under a less evil regime. Unless it goes down in civil war.

If it should have had one chance to survive, it would have reqired much better preparation. A serious take on the Israel/Pal problem - Bush dropped Mazen when Sharon and Arafat squeezed him to secure the Likudnik vote in the US. A serious international mandate - if the Bushies had made concessions before that they have to make now anyway, it would have been much broader. A political role for the UN and a timetable for a complete US withdrawal - so it does not look like a colonialist adventure (which it is at its heart IMO). And have a plan what to with Iraq once it's occupied apart from dealing round the pork.

That would still have been a risky endevour, but one that I could sympathy with. But the Bush admin is way too incompetent and corrupt to have any chance here.

[Ancyrean]

By the way, according to this news on cnn.com , George W. Bush will be the first American president to make a State visit to Britain...

Accordingly, a state visit seems like one with more ceremony, so this particular visit presumably has the extra character of celebrating for the first time in a particular fashion the time-honoured and historicly strong special relationship between the two countries...

Would this in any way add another dimension to what has been disucssed in this thread (would this convince anyone to join the protests or get out of them, for example?)

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Ned
In posts a couple of weeks ago, I inquired whether anyone in Europe and Canada could get FOX or MSNBC? No one could. The people of Europe seem to have no access to media with that is not in the leftist spin mode except for perhaps a few, marginal right-wing hate rags that probably give nothing but spin in the other direction.

I live in France and I get both (though admittedly I never watch them; with something like 30 news channels, I have 28 better ones). I am fairly sure that anyone with SKY in the UK gets them, and if I remember correctly I got them when living in Germany.

As for the London protests, I have a question:

Assume that there are terrorisms in the UK with WMD (such as a deadly biological weapon) which could be released in London killing everyone withing 10 miles of the parade. Would it be worth the terrorists while to release it, killing the 2 heads of state who oppose them most, or would it be better to not release it since it would kill all of Bush/Blair's UK opposition?

Hmmm....probably a good idea to stay out of London.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by DanS
Interesting poll numbers...

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/...087545,00.html

From the article.

The survey shows that public opinion in Britain is overwhelmingly pro-American with 62% of voters believing that the US is "generally speaking a force for good, not evil, in the world".

What a fantastically silly question to put to people. Have the world really sunk that low? It all comes down to evil and good once again. Intent is of no matter. It is the factual and objective outcomes of political decisions which people should base their judgments on.

How can a nation be a force by the way? How can a nation be good or evil?

[MikeH]

Of course America isn't a force for evil, what a ridiculous question. That doesn't mean everything it's government decides to do is the best choice.

[Drake Tungsten]

Assume that there are terrorisms in the UK with WMD (such as a deadly biological weapon) which could be released in London killing everyone withing 10 miles of the parade. Would it be worth the terrorists while to release it, killing the 2 heads of state who oppose them most, or would it be better to not release it since it would kill all of Bush/Blair's UK opposition?

Al Qaeda and others wouldn't give a **** about killing the protestors. We're all heathen Westerners who deserve death in their eyes, even the useful fools.

[child of Thor]

America could be a force for good in the world, more than any other country, and not just because it has a big military/economy - but because it has a kind of historic clean slate if you like, compared to the 'old world' powers of europe/asia.

Its a new country in that sense and really could just show the whole human race the way forward for a better future for humanity.

Sadly IMHO it's starting to really look like wanting to play the 'Empire' from the starwars movies, rather than the 'Rebels', which i feel is more in its nature(i am no expert on america though- just the ideal i guess?).

I really hope the people of America can see this is their real destiny and take up the challange. Rather than let it slide into a petty 'them and us' future.

To me that furture looks bleak, full of fear and constraints on the freedoms we have enjoyed as citizens of a democracy so far. Dont let paranoia ruin yours and our destinies, please.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by child of Thor
To me that furture looks bleak, full of fear and constraints on the freedoms we have enjoyed as citizens of a democracy so far. Dont let paranoia ruin yours and our destinies, please.

Sorry you've been putting up with those laws longer than we have and we aren't able to do anything about your government.

/me is pointedly ignoring the mention of the Democratic Peace theory.

[Solly]

It'd be interesting to see the response if a plane is crashed right into the hordes of protestors..perhaps the threat might be brought home to them then.

[Adam Smith]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler You asked for an alternative to the Iraq policy. Well, how about the policy that seems ok for the other 100 similar regimes out there?

My point is that the policy, whatever it is, does not appear to work well for these regimes either.

Why do you take Iraq as a sort of model? It won't be repeated.

Iraq is a recent example of complete failure of existing diplomatic framework. Balkans would have been just as good an example. Who knows what we will get with NK.

An alternative to US policy has to be in comparison to the cozying up to those regimes, not to overthrowing them.

My point, again, is that I don't see exsiting alternatives working well.

You mentioned Myanmar, I mentioned Uzbekistan. I'm not dodging the issue, but I do not accept the flawed way in which you represent the situation. It's not about some US offensive for democracy. I hope you don't beleive in those fairytales.

Flawed in what way? If the only grounds for judging foreign policy is whether it serves that nations immediate interest, then there can be no criticism of any nation's policy.

And finally, my initial response was to your troll against the EU that you edited out later.

My initial understanding was that the EU had taken no action. I did a google search and found that the EU had taken some minimal action with respect to visas. That bit of text should not have appeared in the original post. Taking time to get the facts can't be considered a troll.

As for policy. We will have to deal with those regimes finding some sort of modus vivendi. Some guidelines:
- We should not support them with money, military or security cooperation except for clear quid pro quos. That would eg mean no financial support for Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Yes I know the risks.

The difficulty I see here is that circumstances cahnge her much more quickly than regimes do. Eg Egypt, and not just for terrorist reasons. The quid pro quo then becomes anything but clear. This is a blunt instrument, much like fiscal policy.

- Economic relationships can soften up regimes while trade sanctions usually don't work. But we should still annoy them about human rights, even if that means losing a contract or two.

Examples? This appears to suffer from the basic group action problem. It is beneficial to act within the group, but even more beneficial to act outside the group. This certainly applies to contracts. May also apply to Mugabe in Paris, in violation of EU travel ban, though who knows what the French interest was in permitting such a trip.

- Humanitarian intervention in failed states

This may even work, but only after crisis has been reached.

- Military force against states that wage a war of aggression

Again, consensus is difficult to achieve. Eg., Balkans, First Gulf War.

And now it's the Iraq problem.....
The problem with Bush's war....
If it should have had one chance to survive....
That would still have been a risky endevour, but one that I could sympathy with. But the Bush admin is way too incompetent and corrupt to have any chance here.

You seem to have forgotten that I began my initial post by saying that I am not at all pleased by US foreign policy.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
It'd be interesting to see the response if a plane is crashed right into the hordes of protestors..perhaps the threat might be brought home to them then.

But commies aren't cowards. It's only capitalists who fear death. Hence the paranoia.

[MikeH]

A plane crashed into the hordes of protesters would prove their point that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq haven't helped reduce the threat of terrorism.