The fetaured link states:-

" March to Trafalgar Square where a statue of George Bush will be pulled down.
This event will continue until 7pm to allow for people coming from work.
If there is only one STOP BU$H event that you can make - this is the one."

Presumably these vile and odious morons actually believe George Bush is more
evil than Saddam.

Just WHAT are they trying to stop Bush form doing? Presumably they'd like to
have Saddam back - George Galloway eat your heart out!

And don't forget that Ken will be spending our hard--earned taxes on
entertaining some of these "anti Bush/ Blair" no-hopers!

Pity those of us trying to EARN a living and trying to get around the City,
instead of planning and going on demonstrations that will achieve absolutely
nothing.

Load of timewasters - a pox on all their houses.

Marc.

I don't believe Bush is evil. I do believe he's potentially a bigger threat
to world security. After all, we already _know_ he has access to Weapons of
Mass Destruction.

"Mait001" wrote in message
...
The fetaured link states:-

" March to Trafalgar Square where a statue of George Bush will be pulled
down.
This event will continue until 7pm to allow for people coming from work.
If there is only one STOP BU$H event that you can make - this is the one."

Presumably these vile and odious morons actually believe George Bush is
more
evil than Saddam.

Just WHAT are they trying to stop Bush form doing? Presumably they'd like
to
have Saddam back - George Galloway eat your heart out!

And don't forget that Ken will be spending our hard--earned taxes on
entertaining some of these "anti Bush/ Blair" no-hopers!

Pity those of us trying to EARN a living and trying to get around the
City,
instead of planning and going on demonstrations that will achieve
absolutely
nothing.

Load of timewasters - a pox on all their houses.

Marc.

I don't believe Bush is evil. I do believe he's potentially a bigger threat
to world security. After all, we already _know_ he has access to Weapons of
Mass Destruction.

And you have evidence that he has used them against anyone or has threatened to
do so? (Apart from against evil dictators and world terrorists, that is).

Those so quick to condemn Bush (and with him everything that America stands
for) should recall, especially during Remembrancetide, that it is highly
unlikely that we would be living in anything like the relative peace and
security we now have, following the Allies' victory in World War Two, without
the Americans' support in Europe and the Far East.

Marc.

"Mait001" wrote in message
...
I don't believe Bush is evil. I do believe he's potentially a bigger
threat
to world security. After all, we already _know_ he has access to Weapons
of
Mass Destruction.

And you have evidence that he has used them against anyone or has
threatened to
do so? (Apart from against evil dictators and world terrorists, that is).

No, but his father did, in Gulf War I - depleted Uranium. Hussein fired
first, yes, but that doesn't alter the fact that the US is the only coutnry
in the world to have used nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. That's a
damn sight more evidence than Hans Blix ever claimed to have found in Iraq.


Those so quick to condemn Bush (and with him everything that America
stands
for)

Thank you for that typical conservative kneejerk reaction. Condemning the
man is condemning neither the office nor the state - you're a lawyer, you're
intelligent, so why do you insist on misunderstanding that? The
circumstances under which George Bush won the 2000 election are at best
dubious, and I find both his domestic policy (tax cuts for the rich, while
millions go without health insurance) and his foreign policy (refusing to
sign the Kyoto treaty, and flouting the UN and other international bodies)
despicable. He scares me more than Saddam ever did, because - while I would
never accuse Bush of being anywhere near as evil as Hussein - he is a hell
of a lot more powerful.

should recall, especially during Remembrancetide, that it is highly
unlikely that we would be living in anything like the relative peace and
security we now have, following the Allies' victory in World War Two,
without
the Americans' support in Europe and the Far East.

I agree, and am grateful. I don't see what that's got to do with the current
situation though. If someone saved me from being mugged, grateful as I'd be,
I would still be pretty irritated if they dragged me into a brawl ten minute
s later.

Defend George Bush, by all means, but please don't be so condescending to
those of us who can't stand the man.

Jonn

"Jonn Elledge" wrote in message
...
"Mait001" wrote in message
...
I don't believe Bush is evil. I do believe he's potentially a bigger
threat
to world security. After all, we already _know_ he has access to
Weapons
of
Mass Destruction.

And you have evidence that he has used them against anyone or has
threatened to
do so? (Apart from against evil dictators and world terrorists, that
is).

No, but his father did, in Gulf War I - depleted Uranium.

I should point out, before anyone jumps on the obvious point, that I was not
intending to deny that Saddam was an "evil dictator", merely that I phrased
that point badly. Bush Snr did, however, use WMDs in Iraq in 1991 - and it
wasn't the evil dictator that they hit, but his army, many of whom were
terrified conscripts who would no doubt have been glad to see the back of
their country's leader. And probably would have done, had the US backed the
rebellions that happened after the war ended instead of stepping back.

Jonn

Jonn, I appreciate the senitments you express, but I would suggest that the
vast majority of those who demonstrate next week, and did so on the previous
marches, are the usual anti-capitalist rent-a-demo anarchists who despise
America for a number of disparate reasons, and would demonstrate against Bush
even if he'd just found a painless cure for World poverty.

People like Pat Arrowsmith who actually disrupted the Court in which I was
appearing at Highgate two days ago. She started hurling verbal abuse at the
District Judge and her no-hope supporters in the public gallery started to join
in. What an appalling shower.

Marc.

"Mait001" wrote in message
...
Jonn, I appreciate the senitments you express, but I would suggest that
the
vast majority of those who demonstrate next week, and did so on the
previous
marches, are the usual anti-capitalist rent-a-demo anarchists who despise
America for a number of disparate reasons, and would demonstrate against
Bush
even if he'd just found a painless cure for World poverty.

I agree that there is a significant bandwagon affect - it scared the crap
out of me commuting through Westminster the day the war started, and I was
against it. However, I think the scale of protests planned do suggest
something about a significant feeling against George Bush personally - you
notice that Clinton (who was hardly whiter than white - ask the Sudanese)
was never greeted in this way. If Bush had solved world poverty, this
wouldn't be happening; but he is seen as a warmongering economic elitist.

Basically, I think we're looking at an anti-war movement that happens to
include some anti-capitalists rather than the mob of anarchists you
describe. (I don't even think all the anti-capitalists are of the same ilk -
a lot of them will be for fair (rather than free) trade, and not the
complete breakdown of global capitalisation and the rule of law.)


People like Pat Arrowsmith who actually disrupted the Court in which I was
appearing at Highgate two days ago. She started hurling verbal abuse at
the
District Judge and her no-hope supporters in the public gallery started to
join
in. What an appalling shower.

I don't disagree that some of the anti-war movement - as with any movement
of any size - are going to be over the top, selfish, or unpleasant. The case
you describe sounds particularly unpleasant, and I appreciate that it must
have been quite nasty to see. There are better ways to protest.

However, I do think it's disingenous to tar everyone with the same brush.
Protest is a part of a healthy democracy. I also wish that London wasn't
going to grind to a halt next week, but I'd much rather have seen the
President take the hint and cancel the visit than I would people stay quiet
on global issues that they feel so strongly about. There's a quote about
"all that is required for evil to triumph" that seems aposite here, but I
can't remember for the life of me who said it.

Jonn

Basically, I think we're looking at an anti-war movement that happens to
include some anti-capitalists rather than the mob of anarchists you
describe. (I don't even think all the anti-capitalists are of the same ilk -
a lot of them will be for fair (rather than free) trade, and not the
complete breakdown of global capitalisation and the rule of law.)


I'm not quite sure what "war" they are against actually. If they simply want
American and British (and the poor Italians) to leave Iraq immediately, I
wouldn't actually be against that: the life of one British soldier is worth
more to me than all the Iraquis they are actually helping. If they are not
welcome, bring them home - I am content that the htreat posed by Saddam is
gone. It will be a long time before Iraq is a threat to World security again.

But I don't actually think they do want the soldiers to come home - I doubt if
they give 2 figs about British, American or Italian soldiers. They are just
using this as an excuse to vaunt their hatred of Bush, America and whatever
else they dislike.

Protest is a part of a healthy democracy.

I do not agree with ANY protest that disrupts the lives of ordinary people
going about their lawful business.

but I'd much rather have seen the
President take the hint and cancel the visit

Actually, it was an idiotic decision of Blair to advise The Queen to invite
Bush on this State Visit at this time. It would be discourteous (and an
unwarranted victory for the people about whom I have been writing) for Bush to
cancel the visit now, but I agree that the invitation should not have been
given at this particular juncture.

There's a quote about
"all that is required for evil to triumph" that seems aposite here, but I
can't remember for the life of me who said it.


I know the quote, can't remember who said it, but have used it myself on
several occasions, to justify the war in Iraq!

Marc.

"Mait001" wrote in message
...

I'm not quite sure what "war" they are against actually. If they simply
want
American and British (and the poor Italians) to leave Iraq immediately, I
wouldn't actually be against that: the life of one British soldier is
worth
more to me than all the Iraquis they are actually helping.

Why should an Iraqi life - not that of a Ba'ath party member, but an
ordinary person, a doctor say - be worth less than that of a British
soldier?

The protests during the war did an important job in demonstrating to the
world that, despite how it may sometimes appear, the UK does not risk Arab
lives lightly. They helped ensure that the country did not appear to be a
hawkish monolith to be feared; they reminded the world that British people
can still give a damn about the well-being of other nations.

The protests next week will do a similar thing in demonstrating to the US
government, and others, that while Blair may be solidly with Bush, the mass
of the British people aren't. If it looked like noone cared, it would make
it easier for terrorist groups to demonize the British people as
bloodthirsty warmongers. Protests can show the world that that's now true.


If they are not
welcome, bring them home - I am content that the htreat posed by Saddam is
gone. It will be a long time before Iraq is a threat to World security
again.

I agree, but now we've invaded the place it's our duty to rebuild it as
well. You broke it, you bought it, I think the phrase is.


But I don't actually think they do want the soldiers to come home - I
doubt if
they give 2 figs about British, American or Italian soldiers.

I'd be surprised if you were right, but I don't think either of us can speak
authoritatively on that one.

They are just
using this as an excuse to vaunt their hatred of Bush, America and
whatever
else they dislike.

To an extent - the first of those three certainly. But as I said earlier...


Protest is a part of a healthy democracy.


I stand by that. In a way, it applies to all governments. Do you think
people would remember what happened to dissenters in China without Tiannaman
Square?

I do not agree with ANY protest that disrupts the lives of ordinary people
going about their lawful business.

I think you'll find that peaceful protesting is entirely lawful too, though
given the abysmal lack of codefied civil rights in this country I'm quite
prepared for your legal training to tell me otherwise. At any rate, the
majority of any protesters aren't looking to do anything illegal - but to
protest against a man who has broken international law repeatedly over the
last three years.


but I'd much rather have seen the
President take the hint and cancel the visit

Actually, it was an idiotic decision of Blair to advise The Queen to
invite
Bush on this State Visit at this time. It would be discourteous (and an
unwarranted victory for the people about whom I have been writing) for
Bush to
cancel the visit now, but I agree that the invitation should not have been
given at this particular juncture.

I agree with you there too. I'll steer clear of constitutional issues, or we
really will get bogged down in this debate...


There's a quote about
"all that is required for evil to triumph" that seems aposite here, but I
can't remember for the life of me who said it.


I know the quote, can't remember who said it, but have used it myself on
several occasions, to justify the war in Iraq!

I looked it up, it's Burke. I take your point on using it to justify the
war, though - my objections were more about the way it was handled than the
idea of removing Saddam. Although I still think it's a dangerous precedent
to set - to remove an unpleasant government _before_ it can be aggressive.

Jonn

(Mait001) wrote in message ...
The fetaured link states:-

" March to Trafalgar Square where a statue of George Bush will be pulled down.
This event will continue until 7pm to allow for people coming from work.
If there is only one STOP BU$H event that you can make - this is the one."


Pity those of us trying to EARN a living and trying to get around the City,
instead of planning and going on demonstrations that will achieve absolutely
nothing.

Load of timewasters - a pox on all their houses.

Marc.

Anyone here know who is organising the march?
I am serioulsy consdiering billing them because thier
actions have meant I have had to cancel a planned trip
with all the resulting problems that causes.

I am seriously consdering sending the organisers of
the march a bill for my time and inconvenience.

Perhaps some of the long suffering commuters, earners and
vistors to the capital should also bill the organisers,
who from what I have heard seem to be unwilling to consider
that others have a right to earn a living or enjoy london
in 'peace'.