Track this topic | Email this topic | Print this topic

Well, the G8 summit is being hosted in the UK as some of you may be aware this July, and it's been the source of some consdierable controversy and worry to the media here. For those of you unaware, it's a meeting between the world's leading economic powers where the eight nations discuss world affairs and attempt to negotiate settlements of major problems, but to a sceptical onlooker, it's just a bunch of rich politicians eating expensive food in a hotel in Perth. (Wikipedia Link, BBC profile of G8)

This thread's basically to discuss some of the issues that will be raised (and probably ignored) at the actual summit itself, but as a Scot, there are a few major issues around the actual event that are a source of anger and concern to me.

• Security arrangements: The President of the US has decided to send 2000 US Marines to ensure his own security, despite the fact that the average US marine cannot hold a candle to the skill and bravery of the average British soldier in the eyes of most British people, myself included. However, the UK security forces should be more than able to handle any crisis that emerges, since we are home to the best counter-terrorist force in the world, the SAS. Despite this, Bush still sends his "second-rate" marines. To many Scots and many other British people, that will simply be an early indicator that the arrogance of the Bush adminstration means nothing will be done, as if they won't listen to us about security, they won't listen about anything else. I , unlike some anti-Bush people however, undestand where the American government are coming from here, but the fact remains: British soldiers are better for this task, as they won't be feared by the general public, and will be more aware of the local areas and situations, and so, US Marines should NOT be present. I'm not angry that they'll be there, rather, that the Americans feel they're needed.
  
• Protests (AKA Bob Geldof and anarchists being idiots). Not only has "Saint Bob" decided to ask a million people to swamp Edinburgh, but there are also problems from anarchist groups and other exteremist nutjobs who will probably cause damage and vandalism on a scale to make the local neds and chavs even think they went too far. And they might not even contain themselves to the area of the summit.
  
• Cost: This entire event will cost millions, cause huge inconvinence to the entire country, and for no real gain.

Onto the postive side: In the unlikely event that there is any further progress made (Gordon Brown has already managed to win a write-off of some debt to the third world) then it will probably be very much beneficial to combatting poverty and third world debt, and the Live 8concerts may also be helpful, but I personally won't bet on them doing much.

Anyway, thats just a rough bunch of thoughts I've had on the whole thing (which will be hosted about 60 miles/1 hour ten minutes drive from where I live), so, what are your thoughts on it? Do you think it's a waste of time and money? Do you think it's a worthwhile event? Or have you never heard of the entire thing until now? Oh well, regardless, post your thoughts, but try not to attack the opinions of others, and if you find yourself maybe commonly debating a particular issue with someone, try and take it to PM if it looks like getting out of hand.

If there's anything I said there that may have annoyed you, same applies

This post has been edited by Del S on 26th June 2005 23:54

--------------------

"Only the dead have seen the end of their quotes being misattributed to Plato."
-George Santayana

"The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here..."
-Abraham Lincoln, prior to the discovery of Irony.

2000's a little excessive... he should just take a dozen or so Secret Service as personal bodyguards. Let Britain handle their own affairs, they know what to do.

But then again, I'm also a little more trusting than Bush seems to be... :-/

Anyway, I just heard of it by your post, but in theory you'd think it could work... in practice, politicians are pigheaded. I don't think anything's gonna get done.

--------------------

~Status Report~

* Completed... Dragon's Head
* Completed... Soldiers of the Empire: Disciples (release pending)
* In Progress/Undecided... Of Love and Betrayal
* Planning/Assembly... Where it all Began

Yeah, me neither, but I'm trying to be optomistic about it. I mean, a LOT of stuff COULD get done, it just probably WON'T. But yeah, the whole US soldiers thing is pretty dumb.

So... could someone give me more information on this? I've heard of it, but I don't know much about it, like... what kind of things will be discussed?

I can see it now: George Bush walks in last and everyone else is eating. They all look at him, expecting him to say something, maybe bring up an issue or something. Then, he speaks: "So... how 'bout Star Wars III, huh? Man, that was AWESOME!"

--------------------

The island bathes in the sun's bright rays
Distant hills wear a shroud of grey
A lonely breeze whispers in the trees
Sole witness to history

ICO-You were there-

Does anything of significance ever come out of G8 meetings though? Not usually. It's a forum to discuss major world issues, but the G8 has no method of collective action so generally the things they decide are put into place by other organizations (NATO, UN, WTO, etc.) or by the individual nations themselves.

That said, the end result is going to end up being the status quo--all countries involved are going to talk, listen, and then keep on doing the things they already are. The U.S. isn't going to up and change it's position on the Kyoto Treaty (for legitimate reasons that I agree with), Iraq (the President has made that clear) and America has already moved in the last month to increase aid to Africa. Thus, the three major topics of the summit are essentially moot points, but a little discussion among peers is never a bad thing.

Edinburgh is my favorite city in the world by the way, and the new Scottish Parliament building is quite nice too [architecture student...]

Your first point and second point don't match up, Del.

Bringing his own security force is somehow "wrong"........ but there may be a 1million+ protest to deal with? Um..... that justifies some American Marines, in my book.

Totally disagree with your opinion of US Marines, btw..... but that's neither here nor there. I won't get into a pissing contest over who's country has better soldiers.

Hopefully G8 will do some good. I don't have tremendous hopes for it, but you never know.

--------------------

Join the Army, see the world, meet interesting people - and kill them.

~Pacifist Badge, 1978

GOING TO LIVE 8 PHILLY!!! WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!! FREE DAVE MATTHEWS BAND AND STEVIE WONDER (and some other people I don't really care about)!!!!!!!!!! And just for the mods reading this, this is relevant to some extent because the Live 8 concerts are Bob Geldoff's way of getting the G8 leaders' attention.

--------------------

</technology>

so.. did anything happen? I know the bombings disrupted the whole thing, so probably not but do you think they'll reschedule the meeting and try and get something done?

--------------------

'Let that be a lesson to all oppressive vegetable sellers.'

It seems the G8 summit has been disrupted only a little. Obviously, with Mr Blair having to return to London, he could not patricipate, but in his absence, it seems some talking was done. Since it was likely these attacks were carried out to disrupt the summit, it is only natural it carry on, for to cancel it or delay it would be victory for the enemy on a day where, it is somewhat gruesome to say, the terrorists basically failed.

From what I have seen on the BBC, today was a little shaken, but hopefully, they'll get down to buisness tomorrow, and who knows, maybe this will shake them into action, and have them fight the poverty and despair terrorists abuse as a source of cheap cannon fodder. They wanted this summit to not go ahead because they knew how much they stood to lose if the summit was sucessful: They lose an easy base of people simple to brainwash or bribe into becoming martyrs for a cause that a small number of lunatics claim to belive in, but in reality, the ringleaders merely use their lies as a smokescreen to get their own power. Hopefully, the events of today may just lead to an economic war on terror: and it's a war where victory is measured in lives saved rather than ended in defence of liberty. If we can call that a war, then let us all fight in it.

ITV have said the summit was "in ruins" but they're drama queens. The main reason Corrie trumps Eastenders, but also why the Six O' Clock news pounds the ITN News at Six into the dirt.

This post has been edited by Del S on 7th July 2005 21:01

--------------------

"Only the dead have seen the end of their quotes being misattributed to Plato."
-George Santayana

"The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here..."
-Abraham Lincoln, prior to the discovery of Irony.

Quote (Del S @ 7th July 2005 16:58)

and who knows, maybe this will shake them into action, and have them fight the poverty and despair terrorists abuse as a source of cheap cannon fodder..Hopefully, the events of today may just lead to an economic war on terror: and it's a war where victory is measured in lives saved rather than ended in defence of liberty.

You have a very noble heart to say something like this, but I'm afraid I simply don't see it being put into effect.

Frankly, I see the effect being a tightening of security and a restricing of freedoms, and I fear this time the changes may be more permanent. Perhaps they are even necessary. I'm one of the biggest cynics of Bush strategy, but just when the terror talk seemed to be dying down, and backlash against Bush was building, this happens. It seemed like we had returned to some semblance of normalcy, but who's to say the next time that feeling returns it won't coincide with the next terror attack? How long until the next one? 5 years? 10 years? Maybe never, but can we really ever let our guard down? Sometimes it seems like the cycle of violence will never stop, and we have to just accept that the world is changing, and the world is going to be a very different place in the new century than the one we left behind in the last century.

Your post is absolutely correct, in my opinion. The War on Terror can't be won simply by invading nations and using conventional warfare, but also by trying to change the very structure that gives rise to terrorism. That means money and support going to all areas where poverty can be used as a breeding ground for terror, and not just oil-rich Iraq. If there is one man that understands that, I think it is your Prime Minister. Bush talks about it a lot, but is rather poor at following his (softer) words with action. Both the Roadmap and the AIDs package came about with great influence from Blair. He is, in my opinion, the most brilliant of our contemporary world politicians, and understands the balance of hard and soft power.

As for the G8, I really don't see it producing any sort of consenus in that regard. The G8 will end, I believe, just as it would have before the terrorist attacks--with words, but no clear solutions. There will be talk of a united front against terrorism in public, which will be accompanied by increased disagreement on Bush's methods behind the scenes.

We simply can't rely on politicians to do everything for us. Sometimes, it takes real people at the lower levels to understand these things and implement these actions. Live 8 is one example, but sometimes I think each one of us, individually, is more willing and capable of really implementing the "hearts & minds" part of your strategy than the entire collective of the G8.

Quote (MetroidMorphBall @ 7th July 2005 20:15)

It seemed like we had returned to some semblance of normalcy, but who's to say the next time that feeling returns it won't coincide with the next terror attack?  How long until the next one?  5 years?  10 years?  Maybe never, but can we really ever let our guard down?

Isn't that precisely the idea of terrorism? Or at least the root of its success--apathy, complacency, and naivete? I think the President has made it clear that this is not something that is just going to go away one day and everything will go back to normal. The nature of this war, unfortunately, is that it will have a fuzzy ending--we'll never be able to say at precisely what point it's over; it won't end abruptly, it will phase out with the right actions on our part.

Quote

The War on Terror can't be won simply by invading nations and using conventional warfare, but also by trying to change the very structure that gives rise to terrorism.

Isn't that also explicitly what the President has said as well? Isn't that the precise reason that this war did not end with the war in Afghanistan? We're not just going after one person or one organization or one nation, but rather an ideaology of hate. As much as people obsess over not having captured OBL, if we did find him tomorrow terrorism would not stop I can assure you.

The only true way to end terrorism is to alleviate the conditions under which it breeds: poverty, ignorance, inequality and the ideology of hate, manifested in this case by radical Islam. The best way to comabt all of these things is to promote Democracy around the world (as our nation should have been doing from the start.) Free nations have a moderating effect on ideology, inherently promote equality, and due to the freedoms and opportunities provided usually lessen poverty and ignorance as well. Thus, it comes as no suprise to those on the right (myself included) that the President's plan in that respect has been working towards its stated goal: we were not out just to capture OBL or "invade" Iraq "to usurp its oil" or whatever the cliche argument is these days. The gambit has worked. The Cedar Revolution and the rejection of Syrian oppression in Lebanon, the movement towards democratic reform in Egypt and Saudi Arabia (including preliminary steps towards women's suffrage), elections in Palestine, democratic unrest in Iran, Libya discontinuing its nuclear program, et al. have all come after the Iraq elections. It is not a coincidence.

Quote

We simply can't rely on politicians to do everything for us.  Sometimes, it takes real people at the lower levels to understand these things and implement these actions.  Live 8 is one example, but sometimes I think each one of us, individually, is more willing and capable of really implementing the "hearts & minds" part of your strategy than the entire collective of the G8.

I fail to see exactly what Live 8 or any feel-good music festival could possibly have contributed to the situation. Aid to Africa was already a primary goal of the summit, Bono didn't introduce the concept. Also, exactly what are you doing individually to implement the "hearts and minds" strategy? Are you going to Iraq and handing out blankets and batteries? I think that's a knee-jerk reaction people use to sleep well at night and despite how it may make you feel inside, the real work, like it or not, is being done on the ground by soldiers. Like what's being said in the bombings thread, our reaching out to these people and trying to "understand" them doesn't accomplish anything. These people are puppets anyway, and will hate us no matter what we do. We can play nice with them all we want, they're still going to plot our bloody deaths. The only true long term solution is to do precisely what we're already doing, and we must stay the course no matter how bad it gets.

To all the Brits out there, stay strong. We support you, and God Bless in these tough days to come.

Quote (imperialstooge @ 7th July 2005 22:24)

Quote

The War on Terror can't be won simply by invading nations and using conventional warfare, but also by trying to change the very structure that gives rise to terrorism.

Isn't that also explicitly what the President has said as well? Isn't that the precise reason that this war did not end with the war in Afghanistan?

It is what the President has said, yes, but frankly I don't see him implementing it very much in practice. Bush tends to give aid only reluctantly, and typically after pressurre has been exerted on him by Blair. Which is why I said earlier that I hold Blair in such high esteem. He seems, in my opinion, to balance the hard and the soft the best, and I think Bush is very lucky to have him as an ally.

Why didn't the war end in Afghanistan? Well, it depends on what year you go back and look at Bush's justification for the invasion of Iraq. It certainly isn't WMD, and skeptics such as myself, who believed the Weapons Inspectors, never thought it was in the first place. Is it just the oil? Maybe not. Is it freedom? Perhaps, in a cynical, political sort of way. But I find it odd that the vast majority of money, and troops, are being sent to the country that happens to sit on the world's second largest oil reserve.

Quote (imperialstooge @ 7th July 2005 22:24)

The only true way to end terrorism is to alleviate the conditions under which it breeds: poverty, ignorance, inequality and the ideology of hate, manifested in this case by radical Islam.  The best way to comabt all of these things is to promote Democracy around the world (as our nation should have been doing from the start.)  Free nations have a moderating effect on ideology, inherently promote equality, and due to the freedoms and opportunities provided usually lessen poverty and ignorance as well.  Thus, it comes as no suprise to those on the right (myself included) that the President's plan in that respect has been working towards its stated goal: we were not out just to capture OBL or "invade" Iraq "to usurp its oil" or whatever the cliche argument is these days.  The gambit has worked.  The Cedar Revolution and the rejection of Syrian oppression in Lebanon, the movement towards democratic reform in Egypt and Saudi Arabia (including preliminary steps towards women's suffrage), elections in Palestine, democratic unrest in Iran, Libya discontinuing its nuclear program, et al. have all come after the Iraq elections.  It is not a coincidence.

I don't deny Bush's strategy has met with success in certain areas. I am not one of those "liberals" (and as I mentioned to you in another thread, I really hate these blanket black & white terms) that simply says "Bush sucks" in everything he does. There are areas where he has met with success. There are others where he has not.

I'm not a dove. I know there are benefits to being aggressive, but, IMO, Bush has relied too much on aggression and tough talk to get the job done, and not enough on the soft diplomacy and aid that Blair is more effective at delivering. I think the latter is just as important at "alleviat(ing)...the conditions under which (terrorism) breeds: poverty, ignorance, inequality and the ideology of hate" as "promoting Democracy" via warfare. It also seems that Bush, and "the right," are slowly learning this as well.

I don't offer these criticisms so that somewhere down the line I can say "I told you so," I offer them because I think they are correct. Frankly, I think that the recent change in temperament of "Bush" and "the right" can be largely attributed to people like me, who opened their mouths when it was unpopular, and took a lot of abuse for doing so. I noticed that, even on Fox News, the attitudes have become more tempered of late. Brit Hume, after Bush's speech, sat and listened attentively to General Wesley Clark explain why he thought the borders were pourous, the insurgency was not fading, and the war may have turned Iraq into a breeding ground for terrorists where it had not been one prior to the invasion. Hume's disposition was a marked departure from a network that, two years prior, would have interrupted, shouted down, and villified Clark until they ended the interview.

Quote (imperialstooge @ 7th July 2005 22:24)

Also, exactly what are you doing individually to implement the "hearts and minds" strategy?  Are you going to Iraq and handing out blankets and batteries?  I think that's a knee-jerk reaction people use to sleep well at night and despite how it may make you feel inside, the real work, like it or not, is being done on the ground by soldiers.

Part of the reason I chose to apply to law school and study international law, instead of pursuing my English Masters and becomming a Professor or professional writer, was because I wanted to make more of an active difference. The events of the past four/five years have led me to believe that the changes that will affect the world, including the United States, will occur on the international level. I hope, in all sincerity, that I can make some sort of a difference in the world after I graduate from school.

I take nothing away from the work being done by the troops on the ground. You will note that in my original post I mentioned nothing about the troops, whatsoever. I was responding to Del S' post about the G8, and I said that we, individually, can do more than the G8 and politicians. It may seem strange for someone planning on going to law school to be critical of politicians, but I am. You may explicitly trust Bush, his judgment, and his intentions; I do not. I also would not rely on the G8 to be more concerned with alleviating poverty and the conditions that give rise to terrorism than they are with their own economies.

I really didn't want to start an argument. I respect where you are coming from, imperial, even if I disagree with you. I know there are people on "the right" that want to do the right thing, and from what I know of you, I would certainly count you among them. I'm sorry, but I do not have blind faith in "your" President, nor would I have blind faith in "ours" if he occupied that position. So long as I believe there is something to be said, I will say it. I welcome disagreement but will continue to voice where I stand. That is, after all, what has made this country work.

Quote

MetroidMorphBall:  It is what the President has said, yes, but frankly I don't see him implementing it very much in practice. Bush tends to give aid only reluctantly, and typically after pressurre has been exerted on him by Blair. Which is why I said earlier that I hold Blair in such high esteem.

You're taking things and twisting them a bit and using them out of context. The war in Iraq is being discussed here, and as far as I can see, Tony Blair has not had to "beg" aid from Bush in this matter. Concerning monetary aid in Africa, maybe... but definitely NOT in Iraq. If anything, the US has had to "beg" the rest of the civilized world to help us out over there.

Quote

Why didn't the war end in Afghanistan? Well, it depends on what year you go back and look at Bush's justification for the invasion of Iraq. It certainly isn't WMD, and skeptics such as myself, who believed the Weapons Inspectors, never thought it was in the first place. Is it just the oil? Maybe not. Is it freedom? Perhaps, in a cynical, political sort of way. But I find it odd that the vast majority of money, and troops, are being sent to the country that happens to sit on the world's second largest oil reserve.

Why didn't it end in Afghanistan? Well, we hadn't captured Osama. Hussein was suspected of harboring him/aiding his terrorist network. Iraq was suspected of SCUD missle production. Iraq was also suspected of developing chemical agents.

You believe the weapons inspectors from the UN, eh? Me too, actually. I believe that they didn't find a damn thing. No surprise, too, seeing as how the Republic Guard told them when and where they could search, in effect leading them around by the nose. Not to mention the numerous complaints that the inspectors had because they had to give the Iraqi government several days notice prior to inspecting a site, which in effect gave plenty of time for cover-up.

Quote

Frankly, I think that the recent change in temperament of "Bush" and "the right" can be largely attributed to people like me, who opened their mouths when it was unpopular, and took a lot of abuse for doing so. I noticed that, even on Fox News, the attitudes have become more tempered of late.

I fail to see any change in the temperament of Bush or his advisors and cabinet. They have been open to ideas and suggestions from all parties in the political spectrum since day one. Just because they don't follow a party's advice doesn't mean they didn't take time to listen to it and consider it. I also don't understand your view that Fox News has changed their programming philosophy. Brit Hume loistened to an opposing viewpoint. Wow. I don't find that particularly rare.

Quote

I'm sorry, but I do not have blind faith in "your" President, nor would I have blind faith in "ours" if he occupied that position.

This really pisses me off. Look, your profile says you are in New York. If that's true, then Bush is your president. You may not have voted for him, you may not agree with him. Hell, you may even hate his guts. Doesn't change the facts, though. He is your publicly elected official, sent to Washington to represent your country. I honestly can't understand this viewpoint.... If Alan Greenspan had won, I wouldn't go around saying he wasn't "my" president.... It would be ridiculous to do so.

Just some thoughts.

--------------------

Join the Army, see the world, meet interesting people - and kill them.

~Pacifist Badge, 1978

Quote (Hamedo @ 8th July 2005 14:27)

The war in Iraq is being discussed here,

Actually, the G8 was being discussed here. My first post in this thread was responding to Del S' comments about the G8, specifically, "maybe this will shake them into action, and have them fight the poverty and despair terrorists abuse as a source of cheap cannon fodder..hopefully, the events of today may just lead to an economic war on terror: and it's a war where victory is measured in lives saved rather than ended in defence of liberty."

Quote (Hamedo @ 8th July 2005 14:27)

and as far as I can see, Tony Blair has not had to "beg" aid from Bush in this matter. Concerning monetary aid in Africa, maybe... but definitely NOT in Iraq. If anything, the US has had to "beg" the rest of the civilized world to help us out over there.

No, Blair did not have to beg Bush for aid in Iraq. We're footing the vast majority of the bill there. If you count all of that as "aid" and not military expenditure, then you're right, Bush is quite generous to Iraq, much more generous than he is to other places.

Quote (Hamedo @ 8th July 2005 14:27)

You believe the weapons inspectors from the UN, eh?  Me too, actually.  I believe that they didn't find a damn thing.  No surprise, too, seeing as how the Republic Guard told them when and where they could search, in effect leading them around by the nose.  Not to mention the numerous complaints that the inspectors had because they had to give the Iraqi government several days notice prior to inspecting a site, which in effect gave plenty of time for cover-up.

I've had the chance to listen, in person, to two former weapons inspectors give speeches: Scott Ritter and Hans Blix.

Ritter was an inspector in the 90s. He did complain about the Iraqis being difficult, but according to him, he met similar difficulties with American officials. Also according to him, it was ultimately the US officials that wanted the inspectors out in 98, and managed to get them out so that they could begin bombing in Operation Desert Fox (a Clinton campaign most likely designed to appease Republicans who were about to impeach him...and which did not appease Republicans because they wanted a full scale invasion, and who impeached him anyway). Ritter also said in an interview, "what happened between 1998 and 2003 to change the factual basis of any intelligence assessments? The answer is: nothing. Therefore, the only way you can explain the radical departure that occurred in assessing the intelligence is political, meaning George W. Bush, the President of the United States, had made the determination that he was going to wage war and that he would exaggerate and hype up the intelligence concerning Iraqi weapons of mass destruction."

You can argue the validity of his account, if you want, but these are the words of a man that was an inspector. He was also a Marine. He told us that most of his opposition to the war stemmed from his impression that Bush was using bogus information to drag the nation to war, and he worried about "his Marines" losing their lives needlessly.

Blix was the Chief Weapons Inspector in Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion, and I had the chance to personally speak with him before and after his speech. Blix's version of events were different than those given by the Bush administration. Where the Iraqis had been uncooperative in the 90s, he said, they were now very cooperative, providing access to whereever the inspectors wanted to go, including Saddam's palace. He also mentioned that when they found long range missiles that violated the distance limit placed on Iraqi arms, he gave the Iraqis a tight deadline by which to destroy the missiles. The deadline was met. During the rest of their inspections Blix and his team found nothing, including in spots that were mentioned explicitly during Colin Powell's presentation to the UN.

By the way, David Kay, the American inspector charged with finding WMD after the invasion, likewise "didn't find a damn thing," and that was after the Iraqi government and the Republican Guard were gone.

Quote (Hamedo @ 8th July 2005 14:27)

I also don't understand your view that Fox News has changed their programming philosophy.  Brit Hume loistened to an opposing viewpoint.  Wow.  I don't find that particularly rare.

Then you must not have been watching the same Fox News channel that I was watching between 2002-2004. The network was a pulpit for right-wing bullying, and any left-wing guests were promptly shouted down, villified, ridiculed, and in some cases, including an infamous interview between Bill O'Reily and the son of a 9/11 victim, their mic was cut.

You want something by which you can compare Brit Hume's recent interview with Wesley Clark? During the 2003 Democratic Primaries, Clark made an off hand remark about how scientific theories in the past had been proven wrong, and perhaps one day in the far future we might actually break the speed of light. The response of Shepard Smith on Fox Report was to ask, "maybe he'd rather run for President of the Universe instead of President of the United States," followed by a shot of Clark on the body of Jim Kirk, with Mr. Spock beside him.

Quote (Hamedo @ 8th July 2005 14:27)

Quote

I'm sorry, but I do not have blind faith in "your" President, nor would I have blind faith in "ours" if he occupied that position.

This really pisses me off. Look, your profile says you are in New York. If that's true, then Bush is your president. You may not have voted for him, you may not agree with him. Hell, you may even hate his guts. Doesn't change the facts, though. He is your publicly elected official, sent to Washington to represent your country. I honestly can't understand this viewpoint.... If Alan Greenspan had won, I wouldn't go around saying he wasn't "my" president.... It would be ridiculous to do so.
Just some thoughts.

What I meant by "your" President was a Republican President. By "ours," I was implying that if John Kerry had won I would not unequivocally support him just because he was a Democrat. The reason I put both "your" and "ours" in quotations is because I was being sarcastic. I'm trying to get across the point that no one should put blind faith in a politician. Politicians are supposed to be accountable to the public. If you believe everything Bush does is right because you have thought long and hard about it and see no wrong, fine. But don't follow him blindly. I'm trying to tell people that they should not be afraid to question the man just because he is on "their side."

Quote (MetroidMorphBall @ 8th July 2005 18:56)

Then you must not have been watching the same Fox News channel that I was watching between 2002-2004.  The network was a pulpit for right-wing bullying, and any left-wing guests were promptly shouted down, villified, ridiculed, and in some cases, including an infamous interview between Bill O'Reily and the son of a 9/11 victim, their mic was cut.

Since I can't figure out how to lead off with my own words instead of the quote, I guess I have to lead with the quote. First off, I'll say that I completely respect your opinion, MetroidMB; you've expressed your opinions thouhtfully and expressfully. My arguments are of course nothing personal, so far you've been more than respectful and insightful, despite any disagreements.

I understand that a nation of 300 million people cannot possibly all agree about something as trivial as Coke vs. Pepsi (uh, Coke is muuuch better) let alone the leader of our nation. Therefore, I disagree with the contentious statements by Hamedo (whom I generally agree with and respect the post count). I didn't think you implied the comments about G Dub that he suggested, I assumed it was more along the lines of what you intended--"Our" meaning Kerry, etc. not a disowning of the actual President.

Anywho, with respect to Fox News I'll say this: Please make the distinction between opinion/commentary (which runs on the right side at Fox) vs. news/facts, which is as close to center as any other outfit. Special Report with Brit Hume is probably the only show I look forward to watching every day, and have watched religiously for years; and I can tell you that it is generally pretty even-handed. If you're going to cite an O'Reilly interview as your justification of vilifying Fox, then you're blurring the opinion/news border. I don't even watch O'Reilly, and I probably agree with him the majority of the time. He's a dick. It's not news, it's his opinion. Big difference.

Based on your intelligent comments about every other issue, I hardly expected you to call Fox a bully pulpit for the right, as it's just as ludicrous as rednecks 'round here assuming CNN is just a bunch of Commie bastards. You can't just pick and choose what you cite, you have to look at everything as a whole. News is news, opinion is opinion. And Brit Hume is my hero, so back off!!

Anyway, to get back to the original subject the G8 has pledged $50 Billion to Africa.. I'm not naive enough to believe that throwing money around has ever solved a problem, so I hope that much of that money comes at the insistence that reform either is a prerequisite or a consequence. Otherwise, we have another Somalia aid situation, and most Americans remember how that went.

I think we all agree that military force is not enough to solve the problem, and that true reform must take place in the nations that harbor terrorism if the free world is ever to be safe. However, it often takes a good kick in the rear ends of despots to move towards reform, so in that respect I think that what we have done and are doing is working. In the next few years, maybe not (noticably), but in 20? I think our children will respect the sacrifices and determination of our generation towards making the world a better place. And the Iraqis, I'm sure, will certainly.

EDIT: Corrected drunked misspellings. Hey, it's Friday night in the South. FF is great, Jack is better. Amen?

This post has been edited by imperialstooge on 9th July 2005 04:43

Quote (imperialstooge @ 9th July 2005 00:38)

First off, I'll say that I completely respect your opinion, MetroidMB; you've expressed your opinions thouhtfully and expressfully.

Thanks, the feeling is mutual.

Wow, I missed a LOT! Man... you two guys know your stuff! I don't know NEAR as much about politics and global affairs as y'all, so I'm not going to comment. But I do have a question: When does the G8 end?

Man... you guys rock! Keep it up, I'll be listenin'.

--------------------

The island bathes in the sun's bright rays
Distant hills wear a shroud of grey
A lonely breeze whispers in the trees
Sole witness to history

ICO-You were there-

The G8 Summit itself has ended I belive, but the possible aftermaths naturally have not. The first babysteps have been made towards Africa, and whilst it looks like very little has changed except for some Londoners lives, it is still entirely possible that we have seen the beggining of the fight to eradicate poverty and suffering.

The next one's in Russia, so it is very likely the agenda the Russians will go for will mainly be the war on terror due to their ongoing troubles in and with Checnya: This year's 'Poverty and Africa' based summit mostly at the behest of the UK, and overshadowed by terrorism (Striking out at the moment people seemed to be finally ignroing them and even beggining to question the whole Iraq affair, and the terrorists did not want that. If the war in Iraq ends, then the Jihad ends, and thier influence wanes. Of course, no conspiracy theorist nor supporter of the war will agree that the reason the war continues is because the war is being continued because the terrorist side wants it to continue and thus, will convince the other side to keep continuing it...)


--------------------

"Only the dead have seen the end of their quotes being misattributed to Plato."
-George Santayana

"The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here..."
-Abraham Lincoln, prior to the discovery of Irony.

Quote (Del S @ 9th July 2005 19:01)

If the war in Iraq ends, then the Jihad ends, and thier influence wanes. Of course, no conspiracy theorist nor supporter of the war will agree that the reason the war continues is because the war is being continued because the terrorist side wants it to continue and thus, will convince the other side to keep continuing it...)

Well, I think that paragraphs somewhat contradicts itself. You say that ending the Iraq war will cause the jihad to wane, then turn right around saying that the terrosrists don't want it to wane and therefore it won't.

With regards to the jihad itself, let's remember that the original Jihad called for by OBL was caused by having US troops (particularly women) in Saudi Arabia, OBL's home and the home of Islam's holiest cities. So, ending the war in Iraq wouldn't really change that too much. True, we had troops there to fight the original Gulf War, but we will likely keep some there because we have troops in every region of the world and we're not going to up and leave any time soon (see: Japan, Germany.) EDIT: Besides, they will always just invent a new reason to hate us anyway.

I think the second half of the paragraph is more accurate, in that this war (terrorism and its counterattacks) will only end when they want it to. That allows for numerous possibilites though: we kill them all (unlikely), we convince them it's not worthwhile (less, but still, unlikely) we defeat the root causes (our goal), or they crumble under their own weight (lack of popular support, lack of money, death of leadership.)

Quote

The next one's in Russia,

That will be interesting. I agree that terrorism (Chechnya) will be a focus, also from their angle you'd have to include: some focus on eastern Europe (making alliances with the west over their former masters), disease prevention (Russia is getting devastated by AIDS, et al.), free trade (Russia's economy is in the tank).

When will the next one be?

This post has been edited by imperialstooge on 10th July 2005 18:09

If you mean "where will the next war/invasion" be at, my guess is either Iran or Syria.

--------------------

Join the Army, see the world, meet interesting people - and kill them.

~Pacifist Badge, 1978

Quote (Hamedo @ 11th July 2005 08:10)

If you mean "where will the next war/invasion" be at, my guess is either Iran or Syria.

I believe he meant "when will the next [G8 Summit] be," since he said, y'know, "when."

And it will be about this time next year, IIRC, as the summits are a yearly thing now (if they weren't before - for some reason, I can not recall ever hearing of one before last year, but I thought I heard that the G8 has been around for quite a while longer).

--------------------

"To create something great, you need the means to make a lot of really bad crap." - Kevin Kelly

Why aren't you shopping AmaCoN?

Heh... my bad, y'all.

I have no clue when the annual G8's are held. I'll take Josh's word on it, though. The guy seems to have his stuff together most days, after all.

--------------------

Join the Army, see the world, meet interesting people - and kill them.

~Pacifist Badge, 1978