Mayor of London says Bush is 'greatest threat to life on planet'

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 15:15:35 +1000, Craig Welch
wrote:

On 18 Nov 2003 20:08:58 -0800, (Reef
Fish) wrote:

That is irrelevant. Who cares what the Mayor of London thinks?
Perhaps thos who live there do, but outside of London he has no
standing, especially over here in the US.

This is true. Never heard of the Mayor or London until now.

Most people are too ashamed to admit in public to such ignorance.

The Mayor of London is a relatively newly created post, so I guess he
can be forgiven.

Chris

"RAK" wrote in message ...
"Reef Fish" wrote in message
m...

I regret NOW that I had booked a trip to London during his visit to
our ONLY sympathizer (UK) of His War. Had I known, I would have
gone to anywhere on this planet EXCEPT London during his visit of
our Ally. Sigh

Australia also sent troops. Some other countries (a rather odd collection as
far as I remember, including some heavily dependent on US aid) declared
their support but I don't know if any of them sent troops.

The Bush administration had lists of LARGE numbers of countries in
the coalition for the Iraq War. If we want to be pedantic about it,
you can find a list of 54 countries G but how many of them are
known to anyone besides those who live there? BG

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/2003/02/000354.html

@ list of 34 countries who belong to what is more appropriately
@ described as a "coalition of the coerced"

http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm225.cfm
In March 2003, the list of "The Coalition of the Willing"
included such world-power countries as

Azerbaijan
Bahrain
Croatia
Eritrea
Honduras
Latvia
Macedonia
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Mongolia
Qatar
Rwanda
Slovakia
Slovenia
Solomon Islands
Uzbekistan

WOW!


As I said, UK is the "ONLY" (except to the pedantic)
Ally of the USA, as can be seen in this source:

http://lunaville.org/warcasualties/Summary.aspx

# Military Fatalities: By Month:
# Period US UK Other*
# 11-2003 64 1 20
# 10-2003 42 1 2
# 9-2003 31 1 1
# 8-2003 35 6 2
# 7-2003 46 1 0
# 6-2003 29 6 0
# 5-2003 37 4 0
# 4-2003 73 6 0
# 3-2003 65 27 0

# US deaths since July 2nd: 217
# (Pres. Bush announces, "Bring Them On")
# * Other - Polish: 1 Danish: 1 Spanish: 3 Ukrainian: 3 Italian: 17

-- Bob.

AJC muttered....

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 00:04:31 +0000 (UTC), "Howard Long"
wrote:



I am happy to publicly state that since the Dubya circus came to town
the traffic has so far been lighter than usual. Yesterday, when I
drove right past Buck House on my way home, as I do every day, and
there was an upside down Stars & Stripes flag on the gates and a
couple of cherry pickers. Today, just the odd copper every 50 yds
around the perimeter and a ten yard cordon. Maybe people are avoiding
London because of our esteemed visitor.


Is that the same upside down flag that was erected by a 61 year old
grandmother? That rather nicely showd that the protesters are not all
from the loony anti-capitalist, anti-globalization, anti-everything
camp.


So, aside from the capacity of the media to inflate the number and size of
the demonstrations, a more objectiver observation of affairs in London is
"quieter than usual".

Shucks,given that it's the appropriate age for aging hippies, I'd expect
more "61 year old grannies", acting more spontaneously than the video ranks
of folks all carrying the same carefully print-shop prepared posters, the
sort of thing that lends a sort of "pre-packaged" perspective to British
demonstrations.

TMO

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 09:22:34 +1000, Craig Welch
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:48:56 -0500, scott wrote:

The mayor of London has no standing to coment on Bush's legitimacy.


Simply not true though. Regardless of whether or not one agrees with
the politics of Livingston or Bush, the former was elected to office
with a clear, legitimate, undisputable majority, and looks likely to
be re-elected in the same way. The latter was not. On that basis the
mayor of London has every standing to comment on Bush's legitimacy.

That is irrelevant. Who cares what the Mayor of London thinks?


You're fooling yourself if you really think most people in the rest of
the world cares what he thinks.

Most of the world, whose inhabitants are watching the reception that
Bush is getting in the UK with keen interest.


They're watching Bush, not the Mayor.

Perhaps thos who live there do, but outside of London he has no
standing, especially over here in the US.

Nor does Bush have any standing (by your definition of standing)
anywhere in the world except for one country. So why should we take
any interest in anything he says?


That is a ridculous question.

Or ... you are one of the dwindling minority who think that Usenet
is an American thing?

No.

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 10:15:06 +0100, AJC wrote:

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:48:56 -0500, scott wrote:

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 16:46:03 +0100, AJC wrote:

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 15:20:32 GMT, "Jeffrey Hacker"
wrote:

The mayor of London has no standing to coment on Bush's legitimacy.


Simply not true though. Regardless of whether or not one agrees with
the politics of Livingston or Bush, the former was elected to office
with a clear, legitimate, undisputable majority, and looks likely to
be re-elected in the same way. The latter was not. On that basis the
mayor of London has every standing to comment on Bush's legitimacy.



That is irrelevant. Who cares what the Mayor of London thinks?
Perhaps thos who live there do, but outside of London he has no
standing, especially over here in the US.


Oh dear, you appear not to be aware that Bush is in London at the
moment. Therefore it is what is happening inside London that counts.
This means that it is highly relevant what the mayor of said city
says, both as an individual citizen of London, and as democratically
elected representative of millions of Londoners.


It may be interesting but it is not relevant.

Funny I don't remember you having voiced any problem with the protests
when assorted PR China leaders have visited London, or fascists like
Mugabe.
--==++AJC++==--

I don't have any probblem with the protests. You're changing the
topic.

I read a letter from a colleague's son who is currently serving in Iraq.
And who has been dumbfounded by the number of mass graves they have
uncovered in that country. Many with entire families executed, and
none - thus far - with fewer than ~500 victims; and most reaching into
the thousands. And yet, Saddam is (according to the popular
press) "misunderstood", and W is the "war criminal".

I have found that it is next to impossible to get both information as well
as pictures from the now more than 250 burial sites which have been
identified. Some of which contain entire villages -- whole families
executed together. And one would think that the popular media would be
more interested in reporting on this. But, guess not.

In article ,
Craig Welch wrote:

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 10:33:46 -0600, Olivers
wrote:

So, aside from the capacity of the media to inflate the number and size of
the demonstrations, a more objectiver observation of affairs in London is
"quieter than usual".

On what basis do you assert that a lone Usenet post is 'more
objective'?


In the history books already is that only 100 odd protesters could be
found at his arrival to the palace last night.

jay
Wed, Nov 19, 2003




Usenet is not normally known for objectivity.

--

Legend insists that as he finished his abject...
Galileo muttered under his breath: "Nevertheless, it does move."

In the history books already is that only 100 odd protesters could be
found at his arrival to the palace last night.

The USA history books will show that. But the history books from the rest of
the world will show the extreme measures law enforcement had to take to keep
the protesters away, allowing just a few close enough to make it look like
"freedom of speech".

Remember that 100% of this visit has been staged. Plenty of photo
opportunities, american flags flying over london etc. Plenty of video material
for his re-selection campaign. I am appalled that the monarchy would get
involved in an election campaign.

Go Fig wrote:

This morning at the official reception reports are at about 1000 people.

Shoot.... There's more than that in front of the White House every day.

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 08:04:40 +1000, Craig Welch
wrote:

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 12:48:47 -0500, scott wrote:

You're fooling yourself if you really think most people in the rest of
the world cares what he thinks.

On what basis do you assert that? His comments have been a matter
for discussion with most of my friends in the last 24 hours.



Your friends are not "most people in the world." As I said to another
poster, his comments might be interesting to some, but his opinion on
Bush's legitimacy is irrelevant. Most people have more important
things to do everyday than worry about what the Mayor of London says.


Most of the world, whose inhabitants are watching the reception that
Bush is getting in the UK with keen interest.

They're watching Bush, not the Mayor.

I don't think so. They're watching the *reaction* to bush, which is
far more interesting than Bush himself. The Mayor is a very
significant part of that reaction.


The fact that you and a few others consider him significant does not
make his view on Bush's legitimacy relevant.

Perhaps thos who live there do, but outside of London he has no
standing, especially over here in the US.

Nor does Bush have any standing (by your definition of standing)
anywhere in the world except for one country. So why should we take
any interest in anything he says?

That is a ridculous question.

To which your carefully considered and
well crafted rebuttal is ... ?


Because, like it or not, the world is interested in what the US
President says and does. What he says and does can affect them. What
the Mayor of London says rarely ever affects those outside of the UK.
If you needd that explained to you. . .

Or ... you are one of the dwindling minority who think that Usenet
is an American thing?

No.

Your posts suggest otherwise.

Whatever, if that's what you want to think, doesn't mean it's so.