BUSH yes or no

[jhuskey]

Then Flyer can join in.

Here's an idea! Start a thread Flyer-Yes or NO!

 

[Wurm]

Do I have ESP, or do others had the same "pre-cognitive" experience?

The only thing I don't understand is where does Pissy's interest lie in supporting George...
Where does anybody's interest lie in supporting him?

It's not too difficult to predict what GWB & the 'Cons will do, if you've understood their modus operandi from the beginning.

I think Blair wanted to get a finger into the Iraqi petro-pie while the getting was good. Once the oil starts coming out of there, he'll be in better shape to take whatever Bush, Cheney, Rice, and their oil baron pals want to dole out to Britain.

One only needs to look at the history of Iran since the 1950's to know what kind of deals the US & Britain have cut vis-a-vis Mid-East oil.

 

[davidmc]

It's not too difficult to predict what GWB & the 'Cons will do, if you've understood their modus operandi from the beginning.

I think Blair wanted to get a finger into the Iraqi petro-pie while the getting was good. Once the oil starts coming out of there, he'll be in better shape to take whatever Bush, Cheney, Rice, and their oil baron pals want to dole out to Britain.

One only needs to look at the history of Iran since the 1950's to know what kind of deals the US & Britain have cut vis-a-vis Mid-East oil.

I heard one saavy polital guru state that PM Tony Blair is believed to be the leader w/ the most political capital since his resounding re-election. That was odd due to the "supposed" majority of subjects/citizens who disagreed w/ his stance on Iraq. How did he end up winning such a clear-cut victory Bush is'nt in the same position because he is a "lame-duck" president & only won by @ 2% of the popular vote. So, the reasoning is that Blair now has free-rein to do pretty much anything he wants, no

 

[limerickman]

I heard one saavy polital guru state that PM Tony Blair is believed to be the leader w/ the most political capital since his resounding re-election. That was odd due to the "supposed" majority of subjects/citizens who disagreed w/ his stance on Iraq. How did he end up winning such a clear-cut victory Bush is'nt in the same position because he is a "lame-duck" president & only won by @ 2% of the popular vote. So, the reasoning is that Blair now has free-rein to do pretty much anything he wants, no

Although Blair was re-elected, his majority of 170 seats was cut to 50-odd seats.
He lost over 100 seats in the general election to opposition parties who are not that effective it has to be said.

The re-election of Blair is a multidimensional issue : and not confined to iraq.
Britain is enjoying economic prosperity (low unemployment, good job growth, low tax) : so to lose 100+ seats was, by and large, is down to Bliars lies about Iraq.

The reduced majority that Blair has is still effective but it doesn't give him carte blanche.
Look at Labours plans to introduce personal indentity cards, already this plan is being scuppered because his own backbenchers won't back him.

 

[fabrice]

I heard one saavy polital guru state that PM Tony Blair is believed to be the leader w/ the most political capital since his resounding re-election. That was odd due to the "supposed" majority of subjects/citizens who disagreed w/ his stance on Iraq. How did he end up winning such a clear-cut victory Bush is'nt in the same position because he is a "lame-duck" president & only won by @ 2% of the popular vote. So, the reasoning is that Blair now has free-rein to do pretty much anything he wants, no

Don't know what political guru that was, but his info wasn't totally accurate:
For a start, Tony's majority wasn't quite that resounding by a far cry and has now shrunk even lower since his own party won't back him up.
The main reason for his re-election can be attributed mainly to the Torries becoming more ubuesque with each new leader and having now totally lost touch with any sense of reality and a serious lack of confidence from the voters in the Liberal-Democrat party who bluntly propose higher taxes (never a good selling point) and openly ultra-European politics.
Things have been good economically, but Blair's government has totally failed to address key issues, mostly on a social level, such as pensions, council tax, the NHS, education, street crime, etc, etc. On the other hand, the cost of the Iraq war has been astronomical both in financial and human terms. At the same time, he is proposing ubuesque billion guzzling projects such as the ID card which, we already know, mostly from our European counterparts who already use it, has no effect whatsoever on terrorism and has, at least in the case of France, provided an extra mean of identity theft. Blair now has to trade very carefully, and that is partly why he now attempts to present himself as the man who will save Europe (from what?) and is licking georgey's **** like never before in order to secure a truce on carbon emmision (which he won't get, as George elloquently stated on the BBC)
f.

 

[davidmc]

Although Blair was re-elected, his majority of 170 seats was cut to 50-odd seats.
He lost over 100 seats in the general election to opposition parties who are not that effective it has to be said.

The re-election of Blair is a multidimensional issue : and not confined to iraq.
Britain is enjoying economic prosperity (low unemployment, good job growth, low tax) : so to lose 100+ seats was, by and large, is down to Bliars lies about Iraq.

The reduced majority that Blair has is still effective but it doesn't give him carte blanche.
Look at Labours plans to introduce personal indentity cards, already this plan is being scuppered because his own backbenchers won't back him.

His party had a disappointing victory but his own election was one handily, no Thus he can get away w/ making almost any decision he want's. We see that Bush cannot w/ the exception of upcoming judicial appointment's. Even those are not a "given". Blair has "free-rein", in my opinion.

 

[darkboong]

His party had a disappointing victory but his own election was one handily, no

His own seat ? Not really. An independant took a few thousand votes off his majority. PMs usually get absolutely rock-solid seats with virtually zero opposition. Around the rest of the country Labour got a smack in the eyeball, nowhere near hard enough IMO, but the Conservatives made themselves zero alternative to TB and his cronies. The rest of the parties were accounted for by good old fashioned stupidity or just being too small.

 

[fabrice]

Quite true. Although you can, on the one hand, blame the voters for not giving their trust to different parties, it's also true that not many parties offered anything that sounded like a tempting prospect or alternative...

Stupidity remains, in my estimation, one of mankind's main driving forces. Martin Luther King springs to mind... "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity".

What's worrying about things like the G8 is that you'd want to believe that our leaders kind express some kind of vague wisdom and moderation, that there'll a little voice in their heads that goes: "Hey, I'd better watch it because I can upset lots of people and the fate of the entire planet is in my hands..."

And then you hear the speeches they make and you realise that not only they have absolutely no clue what they're talking about, but also that they're being totally puerile, unreasonable, devious, always trying to win the upper hand upon the others by any mean necessary. They're like infants on a high chair, thinking they're on top of the world, dribbling, pissing themselves, opening their gob and expecting something to fall into it and that others will listen, having a tantrum and killing million in the process...
worse: They're amateurs.
Worse that a Lincoln cycle shop there, I tell you...

His own seat ? Not really. An independant took a few thousand votes off his majority. PMs usually get absolutely rock-solid seats with virtually zero opposition. Around the rest of the country Labour got a smack in the eyeball, nowhere near hard enough IMO, but the Conservatives made themselves zero alternative to TB and his cronies. The rest of the parties were accounted for by good old fashioned stupidity or just being too small.

 

[fabrice]

As I'm writing these lines, 20 people have died victims of a terrorist attack in central London, and certainly many are still to die because of wounds received during the attack.
I'm not saying this is a direct result of Bush & Blair's politics, or that there wouldn't be terrorists attacks without them, but I can't help thinking that these were carried out in revenge and out of resentment for The US and the UK way of dealing with foreign policy.
Right now, I'm totally bitter and totally disgusted.
Off for a ride.

what are your thoughts about bush?

 

[Don Shipp]

As I'm writing these lines, 20 people have died victims of a terrorist attack in central London, and certainly many are still to die because of wounds received during the attack.
I'm not saying this is a direct result of Bush & Blair's politics, or that there wouldn't be terrorists attacks without them, but I can't help thinking that these were carried out in revenge and out of resentment for The US and the UK way of dealing with foreign policy.
Right now, I'm totally bitter and totally disgusted.
Off for a ride.

Right now London is ver quiet and creepy. Have you seen Shaun of the Dead? it's a bit like that.
I do blame B&B for this and other harm done around the world.

 

[darkboong]

Right now London is ver quiet and creepy. Have you seen Shaun of the Dead? it's a bit like that.
I do blame B&B for this and other harm done around the world.

I blame the buggers that planted the bombs for it.

B&B are already guilty of warcrimes, there is no need to hang them for these attacks. They should be prosecuted and punished according to the principles and laws established at Nuremberg regarding wars of aggression.

 

[Don Shipp]

I blame the buggers that planted the bombs for it.

.

Yes of course Them too.

 

[fabrice]

B&B are already guilty of warcrimes, there is no need to hang them for these attacks. They should be prosecuted and punished according to the principles and laws established at Nuremberg regarding wars of aggression.

I totally agree. They must be prosecuted.
f.

 

[Carrera]

I agree with you, more or less. I think we have been seeing some very poor leadership and, all the way, I found myself agreeing with John Kerry's approach to terrorism, namely to seek out and target genuine terrorists.
At any rate, while the Iraq war has been pursued, extremist groups have been free to come in and out of the country in large numbers as they please. The Government over here has no idea who is in the country and has been warned repeatedly over the risk this poses. There hasn't yet been an approach to terrorism as a network of people who operate as the 9/11 attackers did, but some very hazy plan of creating a democracy in Iraq to make us safer.
I think it is correct to start asking these questions in cases where many people have been seriously wounded or died as a result.
But, yes, I'm sad for London too.

Right now London is ver quiet and creepy. Have you seen Shaun of the Dead? it's a bit like that.
I do blame B&B for this and other harm done around the world.

 

[fabrice]

The thing is the bombs need not have been placed by terrorists, but probably by mules who did not necessarily know what they were being asked to do.
The same way, as the bombs were triggered by mobile phones, whoever dialed the number could have been in Australia for all we know (I'm saying Australia for argument's sake...) or absolutely anywhere.
It is relatively difficult to enter the US. Non-US citizens have to go through "immigration" (sic)... as if... and many nationalities are now required to present a new passport with retinal scan and fingerprints. This is exclusively intended to make US residents feel safer and has no impact on terrorists or potential terrorists.
The same way, in regards to Europe, the very same way, nothing will change if Tony introduces his ID card or if they start introducing more stringent border controls. One serious problem is that cops in various country do not necessarily share their databases. Also, terrorism does not only travel through the borders but, as we've seen, though all means of communications, telephone, internet, etc, which are, of course, beyond control.
Terrorism is, indeed, a tough nut to crack: Another serious problem is that B & B are way too greedy to really care about putting an end to terrorism and have no problem using it either as a diversion so we don't pay too much attention to what they're doing to the world, or as an argument to get re-elected.
Someone mentioned Sean of the Dead, but it's more like Alien versus Predator: Whoever wins, we lose...

I agree with you, more or less. I think we have been seeing some very poor leadership and, all the way, I found myself agreeing with John Kerry's approach to terrorism, namely to seek out and target genuine terrorists.
At any rate, while the Iraq war has been pursued, extremist groups have been free to come in and out of the country in large numbers as they please. The Government over here has no idea who is in the country and has been warned repeatedly over the risk this poses. There hasn't yet been an approach to terrorism as a network of people who operate as the 9/11 attackers did, but some very hazy plan of creating a democracy in Iraq to make us safer.
I think it is correct to start asking these questions in cases where many people have been seriously wounded or died as a result.
But, yes, I'm sad for London too.

 

[Carrera]

I think that it's quite true you can't guarantee people will be safe from terrorism. But I've also heard BBC audiences laugh out loud when certain journalists or maybe politicians have warned about the possibility of terrorist attacks. Such people have been jeered and called xenophobic for suggesting border controls need to be stepped up e.t.c. and immigration monitored.
Politicians in this country have been saying we have maybe 200 hardened terrorists from overseas based in this country. But the figure is likely to be way way higher. Blunket once remarked he didn't have a clue who was coming into the country and who was leaving.
To be honest, I don't see the I.D. cards doing much good at all. The huge sums they spend on this idea could be pumped into stiffer immigration controls and channeled into the security services to help them prevent future attacks, when possible. I'm aware it's maybe not appropriate to come on with the "told you so" routine but hasn't this Government been warned over and over again that networks can operate in this country with apparent ease (even the French complaining about Algerian networks based in London and simply left to their own devices)?

The thing is the bombs need not have been placed by terrorists, but probably by mules who did not necessarily know what they were being asked to do.
The same way, as the bombs were triggered by mobile phones, whoever dialed the number could have been in Australia for all we know (I'm saying Australia for argument's sake...) or absolutely anywhere.
It is relatively difficult to enter the US. Non-US citizens have to go through "immigration" (sic)... as if... and many nationalities are now required to present a new passport with retinal scan and fingerprints. This is exclusively intended to make US residents feel safer and has no impact on terrorists or potential terrorists.
The same way, in regards to Europe, the very same way, nothing will change if Tony introduces his ID card or if they start introducing more stringent border controls. One serious problem is that cops in various country do not necessarily share their databases. Also, terrorism does not only travel through the borders but, as we've seen, though all means of communications, telephone, internet, etc, which are, of course, beyond control.
Terrorism is, indeed, a tough nut to crack: Another serious problem is that B & B are way too greedy to really care about putting an end to terrorism and have no problem using it either as a diversion so we don't pay too much attention to what they're doing to the world, or as an argument to get re-elected.
Someone mentioned Sean of the Dead, but it's more like Alien versus Predator: Whoever wins, we lose...

 

[davidmc]

I think it would be a capital idea to id people in a way that gov'ts can determine w/o a doubt that these people are who they/thier id's say they are. One problem w/ that is, in thier home country's say, stoning someone to death is legal or for that matter; killing your daughter/wife is legal. We have no way of knowing these person's, I use that term "loosely", past histories. Laws in the un(der)developed county's border on mob mentality. Something must be done to stop these "neanderthal's" from gaining entry into civil societies

 

[fabrice]

I think it would be a capital idea to id people in a way that gov'ts can determine w/o a doubt that these people are who they/thier id's say they are. One problem w/ that is, in thier home country's say, stoning someone to death is legal or for that matter; killing your daughter/wife is legal. We have no way of knowing these person's, I use that term "loosely", past histories. Laws in the un(der)developed county's border on mob mentality. Something must be done to stop these "neanderthal's" from gaining entry into civil societies

... But a lot of these "Neanderthals" are already in the UK!
Many were certainly born in this country and are also British citizens...
Where do you start? Who do you monitor?
Do you honestly believe that a good proper "civil" English man is above commiting such atrocities?
Wake up,man...

 

[davidmc]

... But a lot of these "Neanderthals" are already in the UK!
Many were certainly born in this country and are also British citizens...
Where do you start? Who do you monitor?
Do you honestly believe that a good proper "civil" English man is above commiting such atrocities?
Wake up,man...

Martial law then.

 

[EoinC]

... But a lot of these "Neanderthals" are already in the UK!
Many were certainly born in this country and are also British citizens...
Where do you start? Who do you monitor?
Do you honestly believe that a good proper "civil" English man is above commiting such atrocities?
Wake up,man...

I saw a report this morning which recognised that a lot of extremists in UK / Europe have learnt there extremism via the internet without having had to leave their UK / European homes. The report was focused on Islamic extremists and was noting how their version of Islam had been learned outside of a cultural context and was at odds with mainstream Islam (along the same lines as neo-fascists calling themselves the voice of Christianity). The point here is that, you can close your borders, but it looks like you might have to turn off the electricity as well.
I don't blame B & B for this terrorist action - that was carried out by what is technically known as a bunch of ****wits. What I blame B & B (and the others assisting) for is taking the wrong path in removing / reducing terrorism. Instead of blindly attacking the outside, hitting the wrong targets and causing a lot of collateral damage, remove the alienation of people in general and you remove the base for the terrorist groups. Remember when the Red Brigade were running around Europe? Was it necessary to invade Countries in order to shut them down?