Bush's Visit!

grubs50

Well-known member
408 0
Do we really need all the aggro and disruption that is going to result from George Bush's state visit?. What exactly do we as a country stand to gain that we wouldn't have got if he wasn't visiting?.
 

bgold

Established member
532 5
How about a happy leader (eg Happy Tony)? Why an official state visit now? The 1st time since Wilson, 85 yrs ago? Not even reagan received the full monty! Although he did go out riding with the queen. Tony likes all the official palaver! Putin also got a state visit! Didn't he also stay with Lizzy?
You might ask why we need Tony? And, perhaps more fundamentally, why do we need a Royal family? To put foreign dignataries on Official state visits?
 

FTSE Beater

Experienced member
1,518 4
Hi all

I'm a big believer in what goes on behind the scenes of government is something very close to Yes Prime Minister where at the end of the day, someone will profit from any government action.
It's served us pretty well up till now....why shouldn't it continue :confused:

The reason Bush is coming over now is that the visit was arranged months ago, the war should have ended and this should have been a great celebration with both leaders looking like kings of the world!!
In the end it's a major oops moment :cheesy:
 

grubs50

Well-known member
408 0
So couldn't they just have found an easy way out, instead of all this unneccesary nonsense?
 

FTSE Beater

Experienced member
1,518 4
HILL NO!!!

Could you imagine if the press got hold of it, let alone all the planning (how ever bad) that has gone into this!!
 

grubs50

Well-known member
408 0
I still believe it would have been better than all this mess............It is already a PR disaster for both Bush and Blair so what could be worse?
 

bonsai

Veteren member
4,106 10
Bush wants a photo with the Queen.
To pull in votes from the the little englanders.
Election coming up.

Tony is irrelevant.
I'm just waiting to see Gordon Brown embarrass himself
by turning up in a lounge suit.
(again)
 

Kilnside

Member
92 0
Sorry most of the above is just Newsnight tinged with The Grauniad. The real shame for us all is that apparently it now takes thousands of armed police to protect official State visitors. I doubt that it will be an obvious PR disaster for Bush and Blair - except on "Have I got News for You". Certainly they don't seem fazed by a mob of terrorist Fellow Travellers and other Useful Idiots (to steal Lenin's phrase). Why should they?. Maybe that's part of the point they are making.
 

madasafish

Well-known member
470 5
Well. I back the right of Mr Blair to invite Mr Bush to come.. And he right of those who want to protest.

Many of the sentiments expressed in this thread - I feel- do no justice to the honestly held opinions of both sides of the argument and manage to portray both as childish and trivial..

Maybe of course that is true : but being rude to people you disagree with is the first sign you are losing the argument.before it has started... (like may politicians:)..
 

grubs50

Well-known member
408 0
This thread has nothing to do with the pros and cons of Bush's foreign policy but the inconvenience the protection of one guy(Bush) is going to cause most people working and living in central London............and all 4 what?
 

bonsai

Veteren member
4,106 10
The problem may not be Mr Bush or Mr Clinton etc etc.

but the unruly mob who need constraining.

the right to 'peaceful' protest has become a bonanza for 'rent-a-mob' who seem intent on causing mayhem and damage to attract maximum publicity.

Demonstrations these days are organised on a quid pro quo basis.

"You attend my demo and I'll attend yours."

They no longer have any meaning. They have sold their integrity for a T.V interview.
Street prostitutes ?
 

grubs50

Well-known member
408 0
Bonsai, unfortunately i don't share that view............maybe u should remember that some lives are being lost as a result of Bush's Iraq war, maybe u should put yourself in d 'victims' shoes' and think of how you would feel.
 

bonsai

Veteren member
4,106 10
grubs
sorry, but that really is just crass.

it's a pity you didnt live under the saddaam regime, you
would soon correct your perspective.

mad
you may think that, but you couldnt devise a more fallacious argument.
 

grubs50

Well-known member
408 0
So the rising tide of crime and continous killing of Iraqis and so-called coalition soldiers in Iraq means it has improved. Sadam has always been a danger to his people but the west only turned against him when it suited us so lets stop using Sadam's cruelty as an excuse for the invasion.............and i am definitely not unruly or some communist larky but i support the right of people to demonstrate..............if Bush has really helped the people of Iraq why can't he pay a state visit to Iraq and walk the streets of Baghdad (without massive security blanket) to the popular adulation of the Iraqis he has saved.
 

Similar threads