That wasn’t a spoiler. No-one who hasn’t seen the film has the faintest idea what I was talking about. I saw the film last night and, believe me, the scene in question plays very well to a British audience.
At least he didn’t say “Bring 'em on!”
[quote]
It’ll be seen as a bunch of furriners and America-hatin’ Americans makin’ personal threats to the Commander in Chief.
[quote]
As opposed to:
Oh envy ! You lucky brits !
I hope the protests are fun… I would love to participate. I hope it resonates with americans that even their so called allies are none to happy about Bush.
Where they actually British or immigrants, who come to this country dispising western ideals?
London is full of wankers anyway.
[many of whom come to this country]
Could we see that link again - you know, the one that confirms that the Bush Administration was pressuring the Brits not to allow any protests during the Prez’s visit?
Thanks.
Ugh. What an absolute crock. I’ve seen the movie, and I enjoyed both the movie and the scene in question, and the silence is an appropriate response to the scene, and the fact that America and Americans were called bullies. I was a little uncomfortable with the idea that the only reason anyone would agree with American policy is because Americans have forced them to do so, and I didn’t like the idea of the Prime Minister formulating foriegn policy based on his crushes. But mostly, I was silent because dignified silence is the appropriate response to being told that your country bullies other countries. Even if you’re an American and agree with the sentiments expressed, you’re unlikely to stand up and cheer because your country has still been called to the carpet, which should result in shamed silence. It has nothing to do with some imagined “shock” that anyone would defy the President. We skewer our Presidents all the time in movies. Hell, I’m an American, and I definitely wanted a certain wanker movie-President to get his due. But I think most Americans would disagree with your suspicion that the Oval Office has us all cowed.
Cat Fight, I was attacked by a bunch of street thugs in Oxford for not having to good sense to fall down when one of them hit me, and being idiotic enough to respond by saying “What the fuck?” in an American accent. Hopefully, your friend is all right, and if she’s spending any amount of time there, I hope she’ll reach the same conclusion as me – that the Brits are among the most friendly people on earth, and that there are asshole-ish bullies in both Britain and America, but that they’re by far in the minority. If she doesn’t believe me, then maybe she should make the journey to Ireland to meet jjimm. If anyone can prove that Brits are good people, I have faith that a Doper as friendly and articulate as he can dispel such a myth.
Most of them home-grown… what are you trying to imply here?
Hey, that’s a wonderful thing, Mr. President, can we try some of that “freedom” thing here in the US?
Yes, I know we’re not in a police state over here - but many things have marched in the wrong direction since 9/11/01 and it’s creeping a lot of us out.
You know, a lot of us 'Merikans are quite capable of understanding the difference between hating a politician or a government administration and actually hating a country as a collective. It’s OK if you don’t like our President and burn him in effigy. I’ll only get worried if the Brits burn down the White House again.
Frankly, I’ve spent almost 40 years watching images of “furriners” burning the US flag and protesting against us. It’s not something new or surprising. Heck, we even do some of that at home. Personally, if someone is upset at the US I’d rather know about it up front.
Remember Dubya was NOT elected in the ordinary manner - that was an extraordinarially close race that was settled by decree, not by count. There’s a large contingent over here who has NEVER been happy with him (as many have noticed here in Great Debates). Despite what the media says, Dubya does not have the majority behind him on all issues and his approval is slipping even among those of his party. His election is by no means guaranteed.
A lot of us over here did not approve of the Iraq war, either, and as one of them I am happy to see folks in the UK protesting. Here in America, the anti-war protests have been marginalized and kept out of sight. I’m not even sure Dubya is aware they occurred. He surronds himself only with those who agree with him. Makes me wonder if he’s going to wake up on the first Wednesday in November 2004 and go “What f—? I have to move out of the White House?” The current administration has become so adept with spin and outright lies you have to wonder if they’ve fooled themselves most of all.
Again, quite a few of us here understand why tariffs are a bad idea. Even here in Northwest Indiana, which is (or rather, was) a major steel-producing area there is considerable talk against these tariffs and calls to abolish them. Nor do the tariffs in any way guarantee his re-election. He just doesn’t seem to understand that most people are smarter than he is and aren’t so easily fooled.
To quote our first Republican president: “You can fool some of the people most of the time, most of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time”
And to quote your current Republican president: “Fool me once, shame … shame on … you… Fool me — can’t get fooled again!”
Sorry, couldn’t resist.
Additional question, to throw into the mix:
According to Newsnight, the visit is going to involve an extra 16,000 police on the streets of London, at a now estimated cost of close to £10 million to the British taxpayer. Should taxpayers be obliged to pick up the tab for this event, even though the majority seem to not want the visit to happen at all?
Is this a justifiable cost for security for such a short visit?
If the British government wants to prove just how happy they are to bend, spread, and grunt in pleasure for it, then the British people are free to dispose of that government. If they don’t dispose of said government, then they obviously don’t care all that much about things like this little visit and enjoy being Uncle Sam’s buttmonkey.
According to the Guardian, that’s not true:
Though according to the Sunday Times, it is true:
Thankfully, another poll shows that:
That’s not a direct refutation, jjimm. They apparently want him to come over, even though they think he’s a stupid, incoherent, danger to world peace. 
Good point - perhaps in a “come over here so I can tell you that you’re a very naughty boy” sort of fashion.
Personally, I find this approach to government a little disconcerting - you believe that, once elected, a politician can do whatever he pleases, spending any amount of public money on whatever he likes and the only recourse the public have is to wait until the next election to oust him? I think that a decent politician should listen to the people who elected him, should be representing his mandate rather than dictating to them what he sees fit. YMMV.
I don’t mean this particularly with regard to this specific unfolding situation, as I think it is generally up to the host nation to provide security and comfort for visiting dignitaries. I just find the price-tag a little excessive for what is going to be mainly a behind-closed-doors flying visit, and wished to see what otheres thought of the situation.
Desmostylus, I take you point on the numbers. I had really only read the 43% approval and (quite wrongly) assumed that left 57% unapproving of the visit.
From this thread you might feel that all of Britain is against Bush/The visit/ The war etc. This simply isn’t the case (although if you get your news from the Guardian and the BBC you might think so).
There will be the usual mob of Swappies, loonies and dirties who would oppose anything, whatever, whenever etc.
Put it this way; if you took the entire rabble who will be in Trafalgar square and fed them feet first into a shredder (which they were perfectly happy about when it was happening to darker people far away), what would be the effect the next day? Sod all, that’s what. They wouldn’t be missed (apart from their families perhaps - but they’d probably welcome a break from the endless pilgering). In fact the only difference would be a reduction in taxes, as you can guarantee that not one of them has a productive job.
People who are pleased to see the Head of State of our greatest ally welcomed in our country won’t be on the streets; they’ll be at work
I have no doubt many people in the UK support and welcome the visit, Owl. But the shredder story you refer to was just a myth, by the way.