Osama and 9-11 Why?

He is a 'religous' person ...so is Mr Blair and i imagine many other world leaders..That informs how they view the world..true. Should it be over played within this context ?...no..imho.
Mr Blair gets the 'religous nut' tag [also] to a lesser degree [because the uk is not so overtly religous in the political world] it is merely a stick too beat him [them both] with.

I wish it was as simple as 'good' and 'evil'...and thereby our leaders are supposedly viewing the situation.. I can see how it can be viewd in the manner you suggest and is somewhat of a common belief [pardon the pun], and sadly you may have a point.. I just think this situation should not be given the simplistic rationale..that is being given it, just because we can.

 

I don't see Blair as a religious nut. Britain in general doesn't suffer from that psychological/relgious/ideological hangup that America does.

Bush on the other hand is someone who does what the Pentagon and the conservative Evangelical community tell him to do. Blair was at his worst during the period leading up to the Iraq invasion and the months that followed. All he did was mimmick what Bush was saying. I had this image in my mind of Blair dressed up as a big parrot standing next to Bush and repeating everything he said.

Blair seems to have come out of that parrot condition more recently. I give him some credit for calling for an international diplomacy conference to discuss problem in the Mideast. He has gotten the cold shoulder from Bush on that one. At least it would be a diplomacy meeting and not one about money like the G8 or more military meetings.

Blair didn't look too healthy during the period of the Iraq invasion. I remember him going to the hospital for a stomach condition and again for an irregular heart beat. His health looks better now.

.

 

The G8 is the G8. They are not a diplomatic entity. We are in need of a diplomatic convention to iron out political, religious, and idealogical differences, particularly among countries in the Mideast. That's mainly what I was referring to. There are more to these things than economic reforms, although people in capitalistic cultures such as the U.S. tend to think in these terms.

Regardling the religious thing in the U.S., it's not a matter of the media or someone playing it up more compared with Britain. The U.S. and Britain are very different in those respects. The U.S. is almost more like a third world country in terms of the way people take the Bible literally and the way religious bases have become intertwined with politics, especially during the past 20 years or so.

.

 

BTW, where can people get the actual proceedings of what is discussed at G8 meetings? I don't mean press releases and official statements, but rather the actual discussions. Do they release those to the public?

.

 

"The Plan of Support also commits the G-8 to work in partnership with the region's governments, business leaders, and civil society to "intensify and expand" existing programs, focusing on: promoting democracy; improving education; and creating jobs and economic growth."

Well I for on feel better already we can stop worring about the middle east. Since we are going to intensify and expand the fine job we are already doing now.

 

The good ole U.S. State Department. Masters of putting good spin on just about everything, especially the things they screw up.

.

 

Is that so you can say bush dismissed that and cold shoulder something else ?..

Seriously.. i imagine within some dusty website or through some freedom of information act..you can.

Resolution is fine with me.. how they came to that, i don't see as as much relevance.

We have them all the time.. thats how the other type of gatherings are possible.

There was more about G8 than economic reforms..

''iron out political, religious, and idealogical differences, particularly among countries in the Mideast''

Easier with the countries that are sitting around the diplomatic table..a bit harder with the groups blowing us all skyward..a bit flippant of me, but i hope you get what i mean ?.

 

Lots of groups are blowing each other skyward today. That's why I said we need some diplomacy for a change. Not many want to grapple with deeper issues. Much of the solutions are simply treatment of symptoms. People don't want to admit that they might be at fault somehow, whether its large countries or small groups.

.

 

I brought up the G8 proceedings because people tend to get suspicious when meetings are done behind closed doors and people only hear the press releases. The perception is like this for the G8 or any other group that meets behind closed doors. If they are doing things that are so beneficial for the general public as they claim, why not have everything out in the open.

.

 

Most of the world does talk with each in some form..but those that don't are not the kind to sit around discussing all the things you wish... which is a shame.

Being at fault and admitting errors i imagine is why the 'discussions' are not freely/widly available ... Something that we might find objectionable or is against the publics sensibilities, i am sure gets discussed and everything is discussed in a cold diplomatic parlance... wich might shut us out.. but we are ALL biased [maybe a little too biased]... Why add another layer for the media.. to grab hold of and ignore the bigger wider picture..and of course what was actually resolved in the end.

I still think as long as the end result is of value.. the road traveled is less important..

 

There's always going to be a suspicion in the public's eyes when the world's richest countries meet behind closed doors. Same for other meetings such as the World Bank. I don't know how one can ever overcome that perception. It's not just a matter of the end results or diplomatic sounding phrases that are officially released to the media. It's more a matter of people being suspicious of what other agreements may have been reached, under the table so to speak, that the public will never be aware of.

.

 

It is not just the 'rich' countries anymore..

I don't believe suspicion can be removed.. what is released is what we all can bash them with [or not as the case/individual maybe ] .
What gets agreed with a hand shake [under the table]..is something that is as important because it builds trust... There are always going to be varying degrees of speculation about these thing.. but thats how it always is [history i think deciedes the eventual 'truths'] .
We mere mortals will continualy mistrust or leaders [rightly or wrongly or just plain conveniantly].. This will never alter .

 

The G8's meeting reputation doesn't seem to be improving. There were some major protests and rioting at their meeting in Seattle a couple years back. They didn't fair too well in Europe a couple years ago (I forget what city they were in (Genoa?), but protestors blocked the main entrance and all the big black limosines were forced to go down dirty sidestreets and come in the back way. Of course, they didn't show this on the American 'news' networks, as it was too embarassing. I saw the video on EuroNews.). It's clear they have a public perception problem, more so lately than in previous eras.


.

 

People who protest these events..are anti war anti capitalist etc etc etc etc ..not the 'general public' as such.. the general public go to 'Live*' and such..
Adequate space was available for both sets people..and of course the more militant, required more 'action' so chose to make some noise... That will go on even if within the meetings 'complete world peace' is being agreed..
''yeah but what about ..erm *scratches head* you f*cking imperialistic capitalist pigs''..*sigh*...*check out the lower portion of this link* Newsnig8t.
http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/resistg8/index.htm

I agree about the 'public perception' ... your a shining light in that department

 

Someone has to call bullcrap on the government when it's misbehaving. It's ashame so many people get socialized into being apologetic to the government. It allows the government to get away with all sorts of things.

.

 

You need balance.. one side me other side you.. if i may be so presumptious.

 

Let's not take politics too seriously. So why don't you and I start up a 'fair and balanced' news show. You be Hannity and I'll be Colmes.

.

 

That idea sounds fair and erm balanced

No lets not [take it seriously - to much]..... Lick' is back so i am assured at having it taken very seriuosly by him


I appreciate your time..