Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Blair to meet with mass protests in the UK

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Wintermute
    started a topic Blair to meet with mass protests in the UK

    Blair to meet with mass protests in the UK

    What do the Americans here feel about the fact that there is a massive and passionate anti-bush campaign here? When he visits this week there will be large demonstrations in London and other major cities.

    UK politicians bash on about our 'special relationship' with the USA and that the UK is the EU's link to the US and have done for decades (Thatcher loved Raegan, Blair is called "Bush's poodle"). However, if the US administration doesn't lift its steel tariffs as the WTO has ordered, the EU is very likely to retaliate by slapping tariffs on the major industries in swing states (eg florida) to hurt the Republicans. This will lead to a counterproductive trade war.

    Is this reported in US media?

  • Benny_
    replied
    oops, forgot, and in terms of support, Bushs speech was praised by the press as emotive and smart. (the Sun that is, the last bastion of British Tit's oot journalism)

    Leave a comment:


  • Benny_
    replied
    Originally posted by CingularDuality
    So, limeys, the press here has mentioned (very briefly) that the protests that were supposed to consist of hundreds of thousands of people actually only drew about 30,000 people. Were they still impressive? Did they get their point across? Did things go bad: did they break the law? Overall, how do you think the visit by President Bush went?
    Well, Mr Septic ;) , as far as I noticed the protests did what they usually do, a bit of background bickering, nothing more. There's been a lot of opinion in the press saying that they were insesitive to protest after the Embassy and HSBC bombings though.

    I think if people put there arguments across properly instead of the usual liberal hippy stinking students (tm)(1) that come up in these demos then they'd get further. The fox-hunting demo was much better earlier this year.

    (1) - I never agreed with the war on the reasons stated, but hey ho, the choice was made and I'll support those who went. It was just the political posturing then got on my tits, and the spin to make it sellable to the public, aside from this thread is now how you/we get out of Das Sandpit without appearing to lose the conflict.

    Leave a comment:


  • CingularDuality
    replied
    So, limeys, the press here has mentioned (very briefly) that the protests that were supposed to consist of hundreds of thousands of people actually only drew about 30,000 people. Were they still impressive? Did they get their point across? Did things go bad: did they break the law? Overall, how do you think the visit by President Bush went?

    Leave a comment:


  • luna
    replied
    Originally posted by leejo
    Ah the young liberal mindset. Solving the world's problems through metaphore, art, role-playing, and satire.

    Meanwhile, in Istanbul....
    Not Constantinople...

    Leave a comment:


  • Spectre
    replied
    Originally posted by leejo
    Ah the young liberal mindset. Solving the world's problems through metaphore, art, role-playing, and satire.

    Meanwhile, in Istanbul....
    (From "They might be Giants") " Istanbul, Istanbul, ISTANBUL!!!!"

    The terrorists definately have a way of shooting their couse in the foot. Just as public opinion had just about been twisted TOTALLY toward their cause by the leftist media pundits, they bomb english businesses.

    PURE GENIUS!!!

    Leave a comment:


  • luna
    replied
    Off of the same site Wolfie mentioned:

    U.N. Inspector Said Iraq Had No Donkey Carts.

    :shock:

    Leave a comment:


  • leejo
    replied
    Ah the young liberal mindset. Solving the world's problems through metaphore, art, role-playing, and satire.

    Meanwhile, in Istanbul....

    Leave a comment:


  • Wolfie
    replied
    London Freed from Tyranny, Bush Statue Toppled
    (2003-11-20) -- Citizens of London streamed into the streets, filling the air with cheers and celebratory gunfire as a crowd toppled a statue of the infamous tyrant George Bush.

    The exuberant mob gave vent to the long suppressed hopes of a people who had suffered for almost three years without freedom under the iron fist of Mr. Bush and his puppet, British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

    "I can now speak freely," said one Londoner through tears. "It is like a great darkness has been lifted from us."

    The search now begins for the British torture chambers and mass graves which the Bush-Blair regime kept full during their reign of terror. The hunt is also on for the two despots who were last seen entering Mr. Blair's underground bunker at No. 10 Downing Street.

    And while leaders in the jubilant crowd called for the immediate institution of democracy in England, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan urged caution.

    "We welcome the fall of these tyrants," said Mr. Annan, "but it is a well-known fact that English-speaking peoples are not advanced enough to rule themselves."
    http://www.scrappleface.com/MT/archives/001369.html

    Leave a comment:


  • Wolfie
    replied
    There are some other articles out there I read where some of the measures being taken by the British themselves. One of which is how they are dealing with the protestors (British intelligence received some threats of suicide bombers using the anti-war protestors as a cover.)

    Leave a comment:


  • fr1j0l3
    replied
    Originally posted by Wolfie
    Originally posted by fr1j0l3

    The article says nothing of the sort. The SS is a separate entity of the White house, as you argued earlier. The article quotes that the WHITE HOUSE requested these things ;)
    Notice how it doesn't name a specific person. It is easy to just label representatives of the SS as White House, especially when you don't list any names or such.....

    Case in point....

    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1511&e=9&u=/afp/20031112/wl_afp/britain_us_bush_iraq_031112101634

    A Scotland Yard source quoted Wednesday in The Times described the original demands made by the US Secret Service as "totally unacceptable".
    well, well, well ...... :P

    hehehehe... :)

    Besides which, this is really a moot point because it was never established that Bush or the Americans requested the various security plans being implimented in Britan. For all we know, the British themselves could have implimented these security measures based on what they believe might happened.

    (thanks for diggin up a source tho ;) )


    At least everything's been peaceful thus far.... :)

    Leave a comment:


  • Wolfie
    replied
    Originally posted by fr1j0l3

    The article says nothing of the sort. The SS is a separate entity of the White house, as you argued earlier. The article quotes that the WHITE HOUSE requested these things ;)
    Notice how it doesn't name a specific person. It is easy to just label representatives of the SS as White House, especially when you don't list any names or such.....

    Case in point....

    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1511&e=9&u=/afp/20031112/wl_afp/britain_us_bush_iraq_031112101634

    A Scotland Yard source quoted Wednesday in The Times described the original demands made by the US Secret Service as "totally unacceptable".
    well, well, well ...... :P

    Leave a comment:


  • fr1j0l3
    replied
    Originally posted by Wolfie
    Back to the security of Bush's trip...

    I just realized something, I been arguing this thing the wrong way the entire time.

    Guardian may have their facts straight (US SS may have indeed requested all those things - overflights, shut down the tube, etc). However, the thing is, the Guardian presented those facts in such a way that the reader could only draw themselves to the conclusion that the Guardian wanted..

    hehehe... ALMOST wolfie ;)

    US SS may have indeed requested all those things
    The article says nothing of the sort. The SS is a separate entity of the White house, as you argued earlier. The article quotes that the WHITE HOUSE requested these things ;)

    So do you think it's a security (ss) issue that bush is dodging the "lords and commons" speech he was scheduled to make? Blair addressed our congress, why not return the favor?


    And if you think the guardian has a slant, you're probably right. As does foxwhorenews. At least the guardian is out of the reach of US control.
    ;)

    Leave a comment:


  • Spectre
    replied
    Originally posted by CingularDuality
    Originally posted by Spectre
    The ONLY Dem for President I could live with is General Wesley Clark.
    As Second Amendment concerns are my number one political priority, I'm OK with Edwards as well... I never really payed much attention to him when I lived there, though... What do you think of him?
    Don't know too much about him bro. I agree however that our 2nd Amendment rights are a VERY high priority, as they are the very rights that all the others hinge upon.

    Leave a comment:


  • CingularDuality
    replied
    Originally posted by Spectre
    The ONLY Dem for President I could live with is General Wesley Clark.
    As Second Amendment concerns are my number one political priority, I'm OK with Edwards as well... I never really payed much attention to him when I lived there, though... What do you think of him?

    Leave a comment:

Connect

Collapse

TeamSpeak 3 Server

Collapse

Twitter Feed

Collapse

Working...
X