30 replies to this topic

[gav]

The impending visit of Bush is a good opportunity to discuss the differences between democracy and dictatorship in lessons (perhaps when looking at the rise of Nazi Germany or Caesar taking over from the republic). The demands of the US for Bush's visit could be discussed in terms of how they fit in with the idea of democracy. For example their request to be given immunity from prosecution if they happened to shoot any protesters or the demand that a proest march be prevented. Again it seems that by using the cover of the 'war on terrorism' the supposed 'upholders of democracy' are seeking to take away the very freedoms they claim to have gone to war in Iraq to protect.

If my year 7s can see this contradiction then why do so many of our 'leaders' fail to?

This discussion would fit in very well with the requirements of the citizenship curriculum. In fact I'll write in to my scheme of work.

[Dafydd Humphreys]

Great exercise Andy! Have you a link to any more of this cartoonist's work? As It scrolled down slowly, I though it was a Steve Bell.

Have you tried Latuff stuff? http://www.learnhist...ffdemocracy.gif

[Dan Lyndon]

I have to say that I am gutted not to be able to give the Bushman a really warm British welcome (shame its not nov 5th!) next thurs - parents evening and a 3 line whip. I hope fellow contributors may be able to send my best wishes by proxy.

[Dafydd Humphreys]

I may go up and get myself included in the history textbook images for the next generation!

[Dom_Giles]

Andy, what a fantastic resource.
I expect we will get a lot of members listing there disgust at Bush's trip to the UK. I would love to hear from someone who thinks it's a good idea.

[John]

A great resource. I still have a hard time grasping if 911 was known about at the highest level. A Ellroy book in the making I do think.
Here's a question - What happens if a snipper shoots a protestor? What will happen?

[John Simkin]

I expect we will get a lot of members listing there disgust at Bush's trip to the UK. I would love to hear from someone who thinks it's a good idea.

I am afraid I cannot do that but it might well be worth discussing why Blair thinks this meeting is such a good idea. The visit will obviously inflame public opinion and result in violence on the streets of London. It is also likely to trigger off a terrorist attack. Why does Blair want to do this? Does he really think that public will be more willing to support his “war on terror” if Britain becomes a victim of terrorism?

Historically, the visit is a very significant event. He will be the first American president to stay at Buckingham Palace since Woodrow Wilson in December 1918. He came to celebrate the Allied victory in the First World War. This was obviously the main intention of Bush’s visit (when it was originally arranged these two war mongers felt the war in Iraq had been won). Another reason for the visit is to identify the Queen with Bush and his fight against terrorism. This attempt to drag the monarchy into politics is despicable.

There was an interesting article in yesterday’s Guardian about Woodrow Wilson’s visit in 1918. One of the main reasons for the visit was to promote his idea of a League of Nations. He gave an exclusive interview to the Manchester Guardian as it was considered to be the only newspaper in Britain that was fully committed to a League of Nations. As the Guardian pointed out yesterday, Bush has given his “exclusive” interview to the Sun (arranged by Tony Blair). This has led to attacks on Bush in the American media. As the Washington Post pointed out, it was not a good idea for the interview to appear in a newspaper that “features daily photographs of nude women and articles akin to those found in our National Enquirer”.

[Dom_Giles]

I am afraid I cannot do that but it might well be worth discussing why Blair thinks this meeting is such a good idea.

Who was it that actually invited Bush over. Was it the PM or the Queen?

I think the information that Wilson gave an interview to the Manchester Guardian outlining his plans for the League of Nations and Bush spoke to The Sun presumably about "freedom loving nations" really sums up the whole situation perfectly

[gav]

The visit  will obviously inflame public opinion and result in violence on the streets of London. It is also likely to trigger off a terrorist attack. Why does Blair want to do this? Does he really think that public will be more willing to support his “war on terror” if Britain becomes a victim of terrorism?

I think a terrorist attck is unlikely given the massive security arrangements. However a terrorist bombing of London would probably guarantee Blair victory in the next election (although the tories have already done that.)

We are living through the history lessons of 50 years time and the events of the next week or so could be monumentous.

I am really losing the ability to even begin to understand Blair's actions. Putting aside opinions about whether the war is right or wrong. John is right, it makes no sense whatsoever inviting Bush in this way. It is the first formal state visit by a US President - what has Bush done to earn this that all other preceding presidents have failed to? If there was a better way to ensure global negative publicity (for Bush and Blair) then i cannot think of one.

Thanks to Andy and Dafydd for the excellent resources.

[John Simkin]

Here's a question - What happens if a snipper shoots a protestor? What will happen?

It all depends on if Bush’s armed guards are given diplomatic immunity. A security expert said on radio yesterday that if a protestor throws anything at Bush’s bomb proof car, they will be shot as it will be assumed it is a terrorist attack (the same is also true of those cars in the procession that will not be carrying Bush). The expert claimed that if this happens the person doing the firing will not face charges.

Edited by John Simkin, 18 November 2003 - 12:09 PM.

[John Simkin]

One of the most important protesters will be Ron Kovic. The author of Born on the Fourth of July (played by Tom Cruise in the film). Paralyzed in the Vietnam war, he becomes an anti-war and pro-human rights political activist after feeling betrayed by the country he fought for. What a contrast he makes to that draft-dodger George Bush. As someone recently said, it is a shame we cannot return to the Medieval tradition of where the political leader heads his men in battle. I think it would resort to a dramatic fall in the keenness of war by leaders such as Tony Blair and George Bush.

[gav]

A security expert said on radio yesterday that if a protestor throws anything at Bush’s bomb proof car, they will be shot as it will be assumed it is a terrorist attack (the same is also true of those cars in the procession that will not be carrying Bush). The expert claimed that if this happens the person doing the firing will not face charges.

Does this mean that the British tradition of egg-throwing is in danger? I would bet that if an egg-thrower was shot by Bush's security it would be the end of Bush and Blair's careers.

Oh and if the car is bomb proof, surely anything thrown at it will be ineffective? If only Franz Ferdinand had had one of these!!! Maybe Bush's driver will also take a wrong turn. Into the Thames?

[John]

I do think a protestor will get shot, given the emotion of the event and strengh of opinion against Bush. Someone will be daft enough to try and throw at his car. Given the rates of 'friendly fire' something will go wrong.

If this doesn't happen there will be almost certainly be some kind of terrorist attack on Bush and Blair. It is perfect oppertunity to take out the two leaders together and the Queen.

[gav]

It is perfect oppertunity to take out the two leaders together and the Queen.

perhaps going a little too far!!