BCFC Matt Posted November 17, 2003 Report Share Posted November 17, 2003 Personally i dont see a problem with his visit to the UK. Terrorism is a problem that will not go away unless it is tackled. He as to see the job through in honour of the many soldiers who have lost lives during the conflict and for the iraqi people. I just wondered what your views were???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WillsbridgeRed Posted November 17, 2003 Report Share Posted November 17, 2003 I find the people protesting extremly selfish. They would deny the Iraqi people the same free speech they love to use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ciderhead Reynolds Posted November 17, 2003 Report Share Posted November 17, 2003 hes got bottle , i'll give him that but its all a bit over my head to be honest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ziderhead2003 Posted November 17, 2003 Report Share Posted November 17, 2003 the blokes an bell end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TB Mutiny Posted November 17, 2003 Report Share Posted November 17, 2003 I find the people protesting extremly selfish. They would deny the Iraqi people the same free speech they love to use. Couldn't say it any better. As long as my brother is still in Iraq, I agree with President Bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akira Posted November 17, 2003 Report Share Posted November 17, 2003 what i find annoying is that the security costs for his state visit is going to be roughly 4 MILLION POUNDS!!! And WE(as a nation) are paying for that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcfc seattle Posted November 17, 2003 Report Share Posted November 17, 2003 I think I ought to stay out of this tread. But something is tugging me... Nevermind <bites my tongue> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akira Posted November 17, 2003 Report Share Posted November 17, 2003 :Costumed19: SAY IT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taz Posted November 17, 2003 Report Share Posted November 17, 2003 I don't even know what he's over here for Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bow_Legged_Chicken Posted November 18, 2003 Report Share Posted November 18, 2003 It said on GMTV security costs are in the region of 10 Million pounds and we are paying for that! Not being funny but if he wants to come over here let him come over here, if he wants security let him pay for that. I can't see why we would want him over here so bad? Expecially at the cost of £10 mill, seeing that people have to wait for days to get treatment and travel 250 miles to have a baby and elderly people get thrown out their homes even though the stress is likely to kill them. That money could be spent on much more important things. Surely all this stuff can be talked about on MSN messenger for free!! Don't get me wrong i respect Mr. Bush and Blair for going to war its nothing to do with that its the money involved in bring Bush here and just don't think its worth the cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cidered Posted November 18, 2003 Report Share Posted November 18, 2003 i cudnt give a flying ##** but all the people who wanna go to the wedlock for chesterfield why dont u come in the ateyo because the band is there so we can make a fat singing group :Costumed19: :Costumed19: :Costumed19: rather dan a bunch of :Sleep15: :Sleep15: :Sleep15: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akira Posted November 19, 2003 Report Share Posted November 19, 2003 talk about going SLIGHTLY off-topic! :PC_Plod: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Percy Parrot Posted November 19, 2003 Report Share Posted November 19, 2003 I won't actually tell you how I voted- but some replies here seem to ignore the real issue of why people are protesting. 1. The visit is costing £5m MINIMUM, which we are paying for. That money could have been better spent on other things. 2. Is the state visit needed? It's mostly pomp and circumstance and no policy will be made or changed by a visit that couldn't be done over a phone or video link. 3. The visit was planned pre- Iraq and a queen's own has been quoted as saying it was (I will paraphrase) 'with the intention of being the first step of Bush's re-election campaign'. Why should be allow ourselves to be used as one party's political tool for a different country? 4. Bush's record on the environment is shocking- notably his rejection of the Kyoto Protocol. Despite being the biggest producer of CO2 in total AND per head and despite being the richest country in the world (thus able to do something about it) AND despite origninally agreeing to it, the USA backed out. Ommissions of CO2 have increased 16% above 1990 levels. 5. Would we support the visit of a dictator? Would we want him to be put up at Buckingham Palace and greeted by royalty etc? well dictator maybe not, arguable worse. Hussein MAY not have won a fair election in Iraq- but we KNOW that Bush wasn't wanted by most American people. Gore won more votes in 2000, DESPITE those dodgy ballot papers being dismissed and all those mysterious votes going to Pat Buchannan. 6. Further to this, Bush's election campaign give him a HUGE advantage over opponents. His re-election campaign has seen a totally unprecidented windfall of money from politcal doners- mostly from big business such as oil companies, who give money, arguably, in order for political favours. Whereas in Britain there are strict rules to stop such things, such as capping expendature in constiuencies, (again, there are certain ways around them) such rules are not in place in the US. Those that are have recently been flouted by Bush's queen's own friend, Tom DeLay, who has been diverting funds via a children's charity to sidestep it. I don't have figures off top of my head for how much Bush has already got for his new campaign is extraordinary. 7. On Iraq, and without getting into the issue too much, the STWC (Stop the War Coalition), believe (and it can't really be argued selfishly, ideologically misguided you may think, but not selfish) that Bush was totally wrong to get involved. Billions upon billions of £ and $ already spent on a war, hundreds of lives lost of both sides, continuing violence. Sadam was an evil dictator, and the STWC doesn't support him or his Anfal campaigns. But why Iraq? why not Saudi Arabia, Iran, Korea, Zimbabwe, Ivory Coast etc etc? The US, in the first place, supported Sadam during the first Gulf War of 1980-88 with Iran, and indeed armed him. But what if now, the majority of people decide they WANT an Islamic state? what if the Kurds decide to now go for freedom, thus causing war in Turkey, Iran, Syria and Armenia!?! The occupation/liberation is getting bogged down and messy. It could be turning into a complete disaster. Another Vietnam? 8. Linked to above- riding roughshod over the UN. 9. In March 2002 Bush slapped on a 30% tariff on imported Steel, a tariff that the WTO (World Trade Organisation) declared illegal. 10. That such a state visit implies a support for the US and their foreign and environmental policy that is not, in fact, there among the British people. They believe they have the right to protest against him and let him know (and Blair) what they feel about him. flip side also is why have the visit? -is there any point? -is there any benefit to the UK from it? Some would argue that all visits between leaders are crucial in bonding, uniting and understanding people and their countries. But still- why a state visit? First since Woodrow Wilson in 1918! and do Blair and Bush really need to get closer!?! Surely more important would be visits to France, Germany...maybe even bothering to talk to Cuba!!!! also- http://bushchimp.homestead.com/ (why let a chimp in?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TB Mutiny Posted November 19, 2003 Report Share Posted November 19, 2003 5. Would we support the visit of a dictator? Would we want him to be put up at Buckingham Palace and greeted by royalty etc? well dictator maybe not, arguable worse. Hussein MAY not have won a fair election in Iraq- but we KNOW that Bush wasn't wanted by most American people. Gore won more votes in 2000, DESPITE those dodgy ballot papers being dismissed and all those mysterious votes going to Pat Buchannan. That's the way the system works in America. It was designed so one populous area could not swing the vote. By having an electoral college where every state has votes, the final vote count is more evenly distributed. As for the so called mess up in Florida, the Ft. Lauderdale, Miami-Dade metro area is a very, very democratic area (Bush = queen's own) and of course when given the opportunity to dispute the votes they did. The majority of Florida voted for Bush. I believe there were only 3 other counties that favored Gore. Besides, the Miami area governments are notorious for coruption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lydneyred Posted November 19, 2003 Report Share Posted November 19, 2003 what i find annoying is that the security costs for his state visit is going to be roughly 4 MILLION POUNDS!!! And WE(as a nation) are paying for that! Apparently he is going to be visiting a pub in Durham and they reckon that is going to cost £1m alone because of transporting Bush and Blair and the security for the 2 of them. Heard on the radio that in his car they keep bags of his blood in case he needs an emergency transfusion for any reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Percy Parrot Posted November 19, 2003 Report Share Posted November 19, 2003 That's the way the system works in America. It was designed so one populous area could not swing the vote. By having an electoral college where every state has votes, the final vote count is more evenly distributed. As for the so called mess up in Florida, the Ft. Lauderdale, Miami-Dade metro area is a very, very democratic area (Bush = queen's own) and of course when given the opportunity to dispute the votes they did. The majority of Florida voted for Bush. I believe there were only 3 other counties that favored Gore. Besides, the Miami area governments are notorious for coruption. I know that's the system in the US- and the election highlighted a MAJOR problem with it. As we, in the UK, have a potential problem with ours- highlighted by 1983. But the debate for electoral systems and PR is another topic entirely. All I am saying, and I know it was a flaw in American system not Dubya's fault,- but that he doesn't have a credible mandate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chalky Posted November 19, 2003 Report Share Posted November 19, 2003 Don't really agree or disagree try not to get involved with all that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCFC Matt Posted November 20, 2003 Author Report Share Posted November 20, 2003 Dont forget that the protesters are costing us money and time in many cases so those who are complaining about payin g for his visit are basically taking money out of ours and others pockets. As mentioned before the media dont seem to point out that the majority of british people are in support of his vist. It is a shame that only the extremes and minorities get higlighted.....then again that sells stories!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoke_Gifford_Red Posted November 20, 2003 Report Share Posted November 20, 2003 He only got elected because of funny American voting system even though he got less votes than al Gore. He fails to do anything to help teh environment. AND THEY CALL PUFFS RUGBY FOOTBALL AND FOOTBALL SOCCER Apart from that hes alright Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.