Bush visit to anywhere in Europe

Doesn't it just **** you off that pompous leaders feel that they have
to shut down a city just so that they can visit? I'm not disputing the
fact that extra security is needed because of all the loonies we now
have in the world. But what I am disputing is the need to visit the
city center in these crazed times. dubya could arrange his visit to
an English manor instead, and avoid screwing up many thousands
of people's lives for a few days. The G8, WTO, and other groups
have learned this lesson due to the demonstrations, so why can't
our elected (well, almost) leaders?


Casey

P.S. This is not a troll, but a rant. If you don't like the message,
then don't reply.

Casey writes:

Doesn't it just **** you off that pompous leaders feel that they have
to shut down a city just so that they can visit?

Yes.

I'm not disputing the fact that extra security is needed
because of all the loonies we now have in the world.

The extra security is not needed. It's mostly for show. visible
security is often ineffective security, anyway.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

In article et, Casey
writes
Doesn't it just **** you off that pompous leaders feel that they have
to shut down a city just so that they can visit? I'm not disputing the
fact that extra security is needed because of all the loonies we now
have in the world. But what I am disputing is the need to visit the
city center in these crazed times. dubya could arrange his visit to
an English manor instead, and avoid screwing up many thousands
of people's lives for a few days. The G8, WTO, and other groups
have learned this lesson due to the demonstrations, so why can't
our elected (well, almost) leaders?


Casey

P.S. This is not a troll, but a rant. If you don't like the message,
then don't reply.



It is a mystery to almost everyone here why he is being allotted a
"state visit", even staying at Buckingham Palace.

The Mall is strung with Union Flags and the USA flag. A recent poll in
the Times revealed enormous dislike for the man, more by women than men
(about 74% of women are against him, but a slightly smaller percentage
of men.) This covers all political parties, right and left wing, with
almost no difference between them.

So why is he coming?
--
Marie Lewis

In article , Mxsmanic
writes
Casey writes:

Doesn't it just **** you off that pompous leaders feel that they have
to shut down a city just so that they can visit?

Yes.

I'm not disputing the fact that extra security is needed
because of all the loonies we now have in the world.

The extra security is not needed. It's mostly for show. visible
security is often ineffective security, anyway.


I think, maybe, the extra security is not to protect Bush, but there
because, when he is here, there will be a greater risk of terrorism,
involving innocent people, as well as the guilty one.
--
Marie Lewis

"Marie Lewis" wrote in message
...
In article et, Casey
writes

The Mall is strung with Union Flags and the USA flag. A recent poll in
the Times revealed enormous dislike for the man, more by women than men
(about 74% of women are against him, but a slightly smaller percentage
of men.) This covers all political parties, right and left wing, with
almost no difference between them.

Were there Union Flags down the Washington Mall when Tony Blair visited the
USA? Somehow I doubt it. I don't care for the USA flag flying on British
soil.

Marie Lewis wrote:

I think, maybe, the extra security is not to protect Bush, but there
because, when he is here, there will be a greater risk of terrorism,
involving innocent people, as well as the guilty one.

So, if Bush was targeted, that would OK, because he's "the guilty one?"
What a warped person you are.

David

--
David Horne- website under re-construction
davidhorne (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

Following up to Mxsmanic

The extra security is not needed. It's mostly for show. visible
security is often ineffective security, anyway.

You think he could go amongst the anti war protesters and spread
the word of God?
--
Mike Reid
"Art is the lie that reveals the truth" P.Picasso
UK walking & photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Spain,cuisines and walking "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

sgwennodd "David Horne" allan o'i din
yn neges
news:1g4cvcl.1c5fgib1uoktgwN%this_address_is_for_s ...
Marie Lewis wrote:

I think, maybe, the extra security is not to protect Bush, but there
because, when he is here, there will be a greater risk of terrorism,
involving innocent people, as well as the guilty one.

So, if Bush was targeted, that would OK, because he's "the guilty one?"
What a warped person you are.
Saddam and Osama have been targeted because they're considered "guilty"...
Is that warped too?

hwyl!
geraint.

Following up to Marie Lewis

more by women than men (about 74% of women are against him, but a slightly smaller percentage
of men.)

in other words sex isn't an issue, so why introduce it?
--
Mike Reid
"Art is the lie that reveals the truth" P.Picasso
UK walking & photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Spain,cuisines and walking "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

geraint wrote:

sgwennodd "David Horne" allan o'i din
yn neges
news:1g4cvcl.1c5fgib1uoktgwN%this_address_is_for_s ...
Marie Lewis wrote:

I think, maybe, the extra security is not to protect Bush, but there
because, when he is here, there will be a greater risk of terrorism,
involving innocent people, as well as the guilty one.

So, if Bush was targeted, that would OK, because he's "the guilty one?"
What a warped person you are.

Saddam and Osama have been targeted because they're considered "guilty"...
Is that warped too?

In an ideal world? Assuming that Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein
could be taken out without killing thousands of other people? No, it
wouldn't be warped. The reality is different, though.

Besides, wrt Islamic extremist terrorism- you're not dealing with
anything approaching rationality. How _do_ you rationalise with someone
who thinks they will go to heaven and have sex with multiple virgins if
they blow some people up alongside themselves? Many of them consider any
non-muslims "guilty." What motivates these people is actually quite
complex. America being nicer to the rest of the world, and the
Israel/Palestinian question being resolved will not, IMO, deter such
people. It may cut down on local incidents (bus bombings in Israel etc.)
but in the larger scheme of things, won't make much difference.

I think it would be more helpful to remove the religion of Islam out of
the equation- rather, that this new breed of terrorism comes out of a
rather strange, "warped" and well-controlled cultism. The planning of
September 11 almost certainly begun before Bush even came into office.
Even if the placid, more amicable Gore had been elected, it would still
have happened.

I actually think that in some respects both sides on this 'issue' have
some flaws in their thinking. The Bush camp thinks that if they attack
their 'enemies' this will be effective policy. Well, in some ways it
will be- up to a point. It means that they must be eternally vigilant as
well- the terrorist only has to strike once, after all. On the other
side, a lot of opponents (not all) of the various recent anti-terror
campaigns think that if you're just nicer to the middle-east, and Islam
in general, the problems will go away. Well, that will never happen- it
may recede, but there are enough whackos _already_ out there who are
ready to strike. I take a slightly more pessimistic view. I am convinced
that other devastating attacks are planned, and it will be mostly luck
as to whether or not they go ahead.

All that improving policies in the middle east will do is ensure that,
when the next atrocity happens, less young people in the area will be
sending each other 'congratulatory' text messages. (The BBC, among
others, documented this was widespread immediately September 11.)

David

--
David Horne- website under re-construction
davidhorne (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk