1
   

Bush,A smashing London performance?

Forums: International News
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
au1929
 
Reply Wed 19 Nov, 2003 01:03 pm
p.m.
Bush Plays the Palace
A smashing London performance.

President Bush's "Three Pillars" speech at Whitehall Palace today may have been the most significant of his presidency. What's more, he was almost as eloquent as Tony Blair. It must be something in the British water — or tea.
Politically, his message was bad news for the neo-isolationist Right and the post-humanitarian Left. Bush made it clear that he believes freedom is the predicate for peace. He said plainly that he will not shy away from using "force when necessary in the defense of freedom." He added:
[W]e cannot turn a blind eye to oppression just because the oppression is not in our own backyard. No longer should we think tyranny is benign because it is temporarily convenient. Tyranny is never benign to its victims, and our great democracies should oppose tyranny wherever it is found.
He reiterated the core insight of his administration, an idea that has yet to sink in with many people in Europe — and with many in the U.S. as well:
The greatest threat of our age is nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons in the hands of terrorists, and the dictators who aid them. The evil is in plain sight. The danger only increases with denial. Great responsibilities fall once again to the great democracies. We will face these threats with open eyes, and we will defeat them.

Full story at:
http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200311191324.asp


How do you think it will play at the UN and with the rest of the World. In particular the French/German Alliance?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 3,722 • Replies: 82
No top replies

 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Nov, 2003 01:19 pm
"The post-humanitarian Left"? That's a hoot. The National Review writer who coined that phrase must have gotten pats on the back after he shared it with his or her colleagues.
0 Replies
 
dduck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Nov, 2003 01:56 pm
I watched Bush's interview with David Frost. Bush talks a good talk, he claimed that war is his last choice - he'd much rather have peace. However, when the French and Germans were putting together a counter proposal to the Anglo-American 'lets Bomb them now' movement, I don't recall him using those words.

I do agree with Bush when he said decisive action needs to be taken otherwise evil leaders will flout international law. However, people in America might be willing to "forgive and forget" that no WMD have been found in Iraqi, mainly because American minds are still in shock over 9/11. However, Blair is going to be punished at the next election and punished hard.

Iain
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Nov, 2003 02:07 pm
As, one hopes, Bush will be, too.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Nov, 2003 02:08 pm
"Mr Bush said they were worthy goals in themselves. But achieving them would also remove an excuse for hatred and violence across the Middle East.

He said peace would not be achieved by Palestinian leaders who intimidated opposition, tolerated corruption and maintained ties with terrorist groups.

The long-suffering Palestinians deserved true leaders capable of creating and governing a Palestinian state.

He said Israel must stop the construction of settlements, dismantle unauthorised outposts and end the humiliation of the Palestinians.
"
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Nov, 2003 02:10 pm
Well, it's nice to hear that Bush has taken on the settlements issue and so directly. I wonder how Wm. Safire will feel about this...
0 Replies
 
dduck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Nov, 2003 02:12 pm
Picture taken from BBC website:

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39590000/jpg/_39590135_bushburning203.jpg

Iain
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Nov, 2003 02:25 pm
The speech made me sick with the realisation that all my worst fears about American intentions towards the rest of the world are well founded. America is clearly embarked on a program of hegemonistic consolidation (sorry but I don't know what else to call it) whereby the rest of the world will be reshaped (by force where necessary) according to American interests.

All the stuff about liberation and democracy is just so much bullshit. It never guided American policy in the past, and it wont do in future. Its the excercise of pure naked power, and its happening because there is nothing to stop it.

Although Bush talked about the necessity of a viable Palestinian State, that was qualified by insisting on a democratic and corruption-free leadership, something that clearly is not going to come about soon and will be the get out clause for not putting the necessary imperatives on Israel.

I listened very carefully to Bush. I found what he had to say truly frightening.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Nov, 2003 02:27 pm
Walter
.

He also spoke out specifically against the stunning reemergence of European anti-Semitism. Which I do not find stunning or a reemergence just a reawakening? When has it ever, been any different?
It has been so prevalent in France that they were no longer able to sweep it under the rug and claim it does not exist.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Nov, 2003 02:36 pm
au1929 wrote:
Walter
.

He also spoke out specifically against the stunning reemergence of European anti-Semitism. Which I do not find stunning or a reemergence just a reawakening? When has it ever, been any different?
It has been so prevalent in France that they were no longer able to sweep it under the rug and claim it does not exist.


Well, obviously I listened to (partly) and read the transscript of a different speech:
Quote:
"All leaders should strongly oppose anti-Semitism which poisoned hopes for progress in the Middle East."
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Nov, 2003 02:40 pm
au1929 wrote:

It has been so prevalent in France that they were no longer able to sweep it under the rug and claim it does not exist.


France Jewish stance hailed as attacks fall and 78 more English 'google-news'- papers abot that.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Nov, 2003 02:46 pm
Walter
I read that also however I found that strange since up until very recently they claimed there was no anti-semitism in France. The attacks were just I think the word was hoodlemism. Oh Well leave it to the French.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Nov, 2003 03:38 pm
Quote:
America is clearly embarked on a program of hegemonistic consolidation (sorry but I don't know what else to call it)

Call it what it is: Bellicose imperialism!
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Nov, 2003 03:39 pm
More on Bush in the UK

Thursday, Bush was to meet with family members of British soldiers killed in Iraq.
I wonder has he afforded the families of US service people killed in Iraq the same consideration?
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Nov, 2003 12:14 am
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
...

All the stuff about liberation and democracy is just so much bullshit. It never guided American policy in the past, and it wont do in future. Its the excercise of pure naked power, and its happening because there is nothing to stop it.


Perhaps we should have left Britain to its fate in 1917 and 1942.
0 Replies
 
dduck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Nov, 2003 06:05 am
georgeob1 wrote:
Perhaps we should have left Britain to its fate in 1917 and 1942.


Churchill asked President Roosevelt for support during WWII and he was told the President hands were tied, Congress would never agree to interfere in the war in Europe. It wasn't until the US was attacked that it decided it was in their own best interests to support the British. Don't fool yourself into thinking the US did Britain a favour. If Japan hadn't attacked it's almost certain the the US would have let Germany have it's way.

Iain
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Nov, 2003 08:06 am
dduck
US policy at that time was isolationist and the mood of the country was that they did not want to get into foreign wars. Roosevelt could not fight that. He, the US was however supporting the British with supplies and also as been so often reported provoked the attack in order to have an excuse that would float with the American people to enter the war.
American foreign policy pre WW2 was isolationist. Ever since it has been total involvement. Neither policy IMO is the correct one. Rather than being on the extremes it would have been preferable if we could have settled on the middle ground.
Regardless we the US with it's blood and material are the reason why the world is not today speaking either Japanese or German. Or as the case may be for Europe, Russian. With attitude of the Europeans I sometimes almost regret our actions
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Nov, 2003 08:14 am
au1929 has it right. In addition the isolationism of the 1930s was a reaction to the perfidy and stupidity of France and Britain during the negotiations that turned the armistice into capitulation at Versailles in 1919. There Lloyd George and Clemenceau planted the seeds for the German resentment that later fed Hitler. Their successors then failed to deal with the monster thus created at a time when they could have done so easily. By the time they woke up they were in a corner.

The blindness of Europeans to their many failings is matched only by their ingratitude.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Nov, 2003 08:18 am
What struck me when I read the speech was (once again) his inflation (again) of the "violence" and "terror" out there in the world, an "evil" world we have to protect ourselves from. This stuff is enormously appealing to those who don't get out much in the world and for whom overhearing even a few phrases in another language is threatening. You don't have to deal with change and progress (always a scary, challenging proposition) if you can label it "evil." You just hire a dictator to make things safe for you, safe and cosy.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Nov, 2003 08:42 am
Tart,

Would you please point out some of the "change and progress" being brought aboiut by Islamist terrorism and European anti Semitism?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

The "naked revolution" at Belarus' workplaces - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
Russian FSB describes its Tsarnaev letter to FBI - Discussion by gungasnake
Who Really Cares About the Palestinians? - Discussion by Advocate
Accomplices in Destroying UN Member - Discussion by Advocate
Israel Court Rejects Delay In Settlement Evacuation - Discussion by BumbleBeeBoogie
Germany's President Resigns in Scandal - Discussion by Pamela Rosa
6-year-olds working in gold mines in Mali, says Human Rights Watch. Would Newt Gingrich approve? - Discussion by BumbleBeeBoogie
Palestinian Solidarity Campaign disrupts Israeli Concert. Yeah!!! - Discussion by izzythepush
Tunesia, Egyt and now Yemen: a domino effect in the Middle East? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
"The assault on the 'Mavi Marmara' was wrong, and a gift to Israel's enemies" - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Outrage as gay pair get 14 years' hard labour - Discussion by tsarstepan
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Bush,A smashing London performance?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/26/2024 at 08:01:42
▲ ▼