The unintentional irony is quite stunning, isn’t it?
Indeed. Although It looks like I should’ve scanned the boards more carefully before asking if this were true.
Daniel
Hmmm. I guess Blair’s guards from MI-6 or whatever secret organization you all have over there are unarmed.
Because there aren’t any, say, terrorists in Britain who might want to kill people like the Prime Minister or the President. Never happen. You all are too peaceful. Never a moment’s violence. Not gonna happen. Nope.
Or maybe someone might listen to old “Red Ken”. After all, if Bush is the Greatest Threat To World Peace and will cause the extinction of life on earth, then perhaps knocking the old bugger off isn’t such a bad idea.
But that would never happen, Britain being so civilized and all. They don’t demonize their political opponents like Americans do. So Bush has nothing to worry about.
Lemur866: nobody has claimed that London doesn’t need to be policed at all. Instead people are complaining about the collossal increase in security measures that are being undertaken for this state visit, but which are entirely unnecessary for day to day purposes and which offer no benefit to those who are expected to foot the bill.
everton,
A state visit by any foreign leader is not day to day. And the benefit they offer is that for three days central London will have the lowest crime rate in it’s history. 
Aside from the odd indiscriminate firing into crowds the US Secret Service is so widely known for. Oh wait, no they’re not. Oh well… sounds good anyways.
Honestly, the precautions taken are necessary. They may seem extreme to you, but then again, you’re not THE number one target for assassination on the planet, and you DON’T have the responsibility of protecting the person who is.
Mortars have been fired into downtown London by terrorists, including 10 Downing Street. Buildings have been blown up. Thatcher barely escaped once such attempt, and did so only by luck. Meanwhile, the increibly tight security around Prince Harry allows some comic to walk into his birthday party unsupervised.
Pardon the US Secret Service if they’re all going grey at the thought of their charge being protected by the English police and want a mile wide cordon between him and the lot of you nutters. 
More to the point, and this is not something being discussed, the massive police presence protects the demonstrators… see… car bombs don’t care much WHO they kill or maim.
Regards,
-Bouncer-
Since it is a capital city, London does host visits from foreign dignitaries very frequently, but apart from jokes about crime rates, explain how it is beneficial to Londoners for President Bush to come here at all. The police who will be watching over him this week would all be doing regular work instead if he had stayed at home.
You seem to misunderstand the whole concept of “necessary”.
I have no problem with paying for the security requirements of my own state, or for the routine expenses of visiting heads of state. Explain how it benefits me to have “THE number one target for assassination on the planet” in town, with the additional expense that seems to require.
The incidents you describe didn’t take place in London, but even if they did, they concern public figures from my own country. If I’m not satisfied with the security arrangements given to them I can complain to my government – if Margaret Thatcher or Prince Harry are assassinated on British soil it needn’t concern you one way or the other. If they arrived in your country with a list of security requirements at your expense would you feel entitled to decide whether it was worth it or would you expect me to tell you?
Thanks for your concern, but I’d be even safer if the risk was not imposed on me at all. The cost is being widely discussed, but what is the benefit?
An armed entourage with military heavy weaponry, an unwillingness to see or publicize protests against him…Bush is looking more and more like a classic dictator these days.
On another note…all these security measures obviously have to cost somebody a great bit. All of those American helicopters, APCs, tanks with miniguns have to be brought to England somehow. Exactly how much of the money I pay in taxes is going to be allocated to this superflous display of force?
And it is superflous. Another Dope thread referenced earlier mentioned Bush traveling in an APC. What the hell ever happened to the Presidential Limo? I would think that a bulletproof limousine would be a more appropriate vehicle to drive around in, considering he’s not in a freaking war zone. No amount of high-end military heavy weaponry, armed guards in suits, or police barricades can stop one lone nut willing to trade his life for the President’s. The Secret Service know this, or at least they should. All of this armed pageantry is an intimidation tactic, meant to quiet notions to protest against him. And it’s not working.
So, say what you will about these security measures. I think they’re a waste of time, money, material, and manpower, especially for visiting the UK, who, last time I checked, had a decent police force and a decent track record for keeping heads of state alive.
Everton , with all due respect, seeing as how you have to deal with all the traffic and security nuisance, while I, situated a few thousand miles away do not, I would proffer:
-
You repeatedly demand to know what the “benefit” is of GW’s visit to you. And I will grant you that to you, personally, the directly experienced costs do not equate with any direct, tangible “benefit”. I will concede that. However, I think it should be noted that this is the first state visit of a US president to the UK since Woody Wilson in 1918. That said, I think that the visit (planned last year) is intended to be a public demonstration of the deep, vested realtionship the US has with the UK at a time of global crisis.
-
With respect to anti-aircraft missiles and tanks, I can personally attest to the fact that both sets of weaponry were deployed when I transited on a flight through Heathrow back in February of this year (I didn’t see them my themself - I found out upon arrival in Ireland where my parents told me they saw it on the tube, in response to some Al Qaeda threat). And given that the intended destination of Flight 93 back on 9/11 is generally understood to be either the White House or the Capitol (Congress), I don’t think these precautions are un-necessary. Sorry for the inconvenience, though.
Oh puh-leaze.
I really rather think you’re overestimating the power of Red Ken’s rhetoric.
:rolleyes:
Know how many arrests there were at the anti-war march (at 2,000,000 people the largest in UK history)?
None. At all.
For the record, this report claims that Mr Bush is using his limousine, not an APC.
You’re overstating things to say I’ve made repeated demands. I did ask Bouncer a few questions in response to what I thought was a pretty flimsy justification for the proposed lockdown of a capital city.
It certainly is surprising that there hasn’t been an official state visit by a US president in all this time, but of course there have been numerous other visits to this country by serving and former presidents since 1918 – some have even made speeches to our parliament (which Mr Bush has decided not to do). We could speculate about the real reasons for this visit, especially as it was planned a long time ago, but don’t be surprised if you see some of pictures of President Bush and the Queen on your televisions next autumn.
IMHO this visit was planned in the expectation that the situation in Iraq would go like clockwork and so there would be plenty of photo-opportunities now for a pair of triumphant politicians. I greatly regret the likelyhood of negative fallout for any relationship Britain and the USA have as a result of this visit, but that’s what I expect will happen.
I take it you are referring to one estimate for a pre-war demonstration, not the current “Raise Hell With George” protests.
All it would take this time is one determined gunman or bomber to overcome the best behavior of thousands of protesters.
Be grateful for small mercies.
I do indeed mean the pre-war one. This was in response to the “ooh, Ken’s saying Bush is nasty, so that might make a protestor try to kill him”. Highly doubtful.
There is of course a danger, but that danger is from terrorists, not from legitimate protestors. Anyway, nobody’s going to let a protestor within half a mile from GWB anyway, so it’s not really an issue.
“but don’t be surprised if you see some of pictures of President Bush and the Queen on your televisions next autumn.”
If you do, it won’t be on American TV. Using pictures with royalty in a campaign ad? In a country founded by traitors to the crown? HooHooHoo! “j00 r teh funnay!”
You asked what benefit there is to you. Well, economically there’s all those reporters and other people in town eating out and buying satellite and facilities time from the BBC. And of course the “No Bush 4 me!” button hawkers are having a field day as are the lil flag vendors, so there’s that. I suppose the pubs will do a good business from all the protestors, who will be quite hoarse and thirsty after all that yelling.
The above paragraph is tongue in cheek. Simply put there’s no significant direct benefit to you from the visit (I never claimed there was, btw). However you could say the same thing about the Queens State Visits or Blairs State Visits. Personally, I don’t give a fig if Bush goes over to visit the Brits. He’s got enough here to keep him busy as it is and it’s not like we don’t have bigger fish to fry than going over to do a damn dog-and-pony show for the Brits. Fuck em’, I say. They want something they can pick up the phone and beg Colin Powell for 10mins with Bush. (shrug) (Note: Tongue in cheek again)
Bush apparently doesn’t share my view, mores the pity (sniffle). Instead, he’s packing up the whole kit and kabootle (at enormous expense to us as well btw) and going to the UK and putting up with the pomp and circumstance and all that formal crap that he hates with an absolute passion. He’s making a formal gesture of respect to the United Kingdom by doing so. The first one in about 80 years. He’s doing so at a time and in a climate where his appearances make him an enormous target for attack, in a country where terrorists have had far more success over the years in attacking protected compounds and persons than they have had in the US. I mean, a MORTAR attack on 10 Down Street? Holy IRA Batman!
Anyways, he’s showing a measure of faith in the UK government to ensure a secure, peaceful visit. And a measure of faith in British subjects being able to keep things relatively non-violent and orderly. Having been to the UK multiple times, I can say he has more faith in you than I do.
Regards,
-Bouncer-
Well, on the first page it seemed that Red Ken was held in high esteem by the masses who elected him time and again, and now jjimm is saying that people do not hang on his every word. Hmmm.
Anyway, the Breakfast Program Report: the double whammy of the raid on Neverland and MA’s Supreme Court decision on gay marriage pushed the UK visit to second place status on all three networks this morning, and to about 7:15 on CNN’s. Demonstators were duly shown in the background of all three reports (didn’t look like that many, frankly) and their grievances were mentioned, although the emphasis was on Ryan Parry’s subterfuge and the ceremonies (everybody said something affectionately like “Only the British can do this so well!” Theme-park Old World stuff).
And Bouncer’s right–this is being portrayed here mostly as an honor for the UK. And the protests aren’t being played down, but they’re not being played up either. The European position is no secret here, and it’s like, “Today in Iraq they burned American flags!!” Not gonna make the 20-pica headlines.
Oh come now my dear - now you’re being obtuse. On page one you’re being told that he’s admired (and voted for) by a lot of people for speaking his mind. And on this page I’m saying that it’s not like him slagging off Bush is going to create assassins from otherwise peaceful protestors. There’s no dissonance there.
Regarding US press coverage: the big demo isn’t until tomorrow.
Regarding it being an “honor” for the UK… Good grief. I thought your media were famously “liberal”.
OK, I just had bad memory vibes from Al Sharpton and 125th Street. Let’s hope it’s all peaceful like Red Ken said yesterday he wanted.
And the ‘honor’ thing was that it’s so rare to have a state visit, not that the UK is blessed by the mere presence of George and Laura. The man really does dislike doing such things but he’s going through with it because that’s what the Brits want–at least, wanted two years ago.
well look on the bright side, judging from present CNN coverage there are a lot of photo-ops for frumps wearing F*CK BUSH tee shirts. 
I hadn’t heard it put that way on the news…but now that you mention it, how often does the Leader Of The Free World come to town?
And all we hear is bitching from the locals about how it costs too much, and the Queen is missing her telly. Really now.
I’m sure there’ll be more on the news here about “Pomp and Protest” in London (to quote a popular media line), but meantime we’ve got Michael Jackson surrendering to the law, CNN is running a special report on squirrels in the attic (I think the two stories may be related), they’ve caught the Puffy Cheek Bandit, the remains of Howard Dean’s brother may have been found etc. So the Bush visit has been overshadowed a bit.
I was somewhat pleasantly surprised at the even tenor of the BBC World Service wrap-up of the first part of the Bush welcome. Though it was hard to restrain hilarity when the correspondent described Ron Kovic as one of the Luminaries of the Left on hand for the protests.
Ron had his day in the sun during the Vietnam War, but now? It’s more like Luminary of the Obscure.
Well, the typical English reaction is probably:
We love Americans (they speak our language, eat fast food and spend tourist money here)
We like America (TV, Hollywood, fast food, the Internet)
We despise Bush (no WMD’s, no UN coalition, no statesmanship);
or
We love US freedom of speech (US constitutional rights, US press)
We like US legal rights (lawyer, trial)
We despise Guantanamo Bay (no lawyer, no family visit, no evidence)