Brits are not anti-US, just anti-Bush

Published on September 11, 2004 By Sally jacobs In Politics

I try not to get involved in politics, nevermind politics of a completely different country. It would appear American politics matters everywhere. Not just to the Americans. Hardly surprising is it really, considering the size, and wealth of America. The politics of America will end up having a knock on effect everywhere else. That's just the way things work. When British people demonstrated Bush's state visit last year. Our Prime minister in his infinite wisdom, presumed we were anti-America. They were not protesting against America, but against a President they do not trust. He isn't our President, but as I mentioned, that power seems to have a knock on effect. America is our biggest Ally; we have profound bonds of history and culture. Not to mention a shared sacrifice in two world wars. We believe as America does that the worlds sole superpower is a democracy and not - as it might have been had the Soviet Union "won" the Cold War - a tyranny.

At this time of the visit there were alot of Polls done, just to see where the british public stood on President Bush. Lets explain the surveys which simultaneously show great affection for the US, even as they record intense suspicion towards Bush? Pick up one poll and it finds that half the public reckons Blair's closeness to Bush is bad for Britain. Pick up another and it reveals the US is still the place where most Britons want to go on holiday, and even where one in five of us would like to live.

We are in awe of America, no doubt. We follow their films, and books. We follow their fashion, what they have to say to the world. We know they are a super power, and we try to be like them. We also see their Politics. The words Bush says, you are either with us, or against us. We see him manipulate the american Public. His inflated claims of weapons of Mass destruction. Where does it all stop.

We all know Americans are very proud of their country. They are also unsure of Bush though. Just look at all the people that voted against him in 2000. They are not anti-America. Far from it. They love their country. With an intense love, that has simply grown since the tragic events of 9/11. They would die for their country, that doesn't mean they have to have faith in their President.

Tony Blair seems to be of the opinion, to accept america, we have to accept Bush. Not the case. We can accept America, and still not agree with their leader. We can respect everything America stands for, but see they were lead to places they may not have wished to go. We can stand by a nation, but not agree with the direction they always go. I personally am not anti-Bush. I am not with him either. I just want the less of two evils. Here I am explaining the British view, Bush is not popular here. America already knows that though.

Comments (Page 5)

ShoZan

on Sep 12, 2004

This English Knight challenges you to a duel on horseback, at which I am particularly skilled.

Sorry but I always fight to win, so you can bring a horse I will bring an M1A2 Abrams Tank, and fire off the .50 Calibur Machine Gun from the turret.

Sir Peter Maxwell

on Sep 12, 2004

I will bring an M1A2 Abrams Tank, and fire off the .50 Calibur Machine Gun from the turret.

You will never get that through customs dear boy, regardless you are showing typical peasant cowardice by not accepting the duel. I have a horse and a suit of armour I can sell to you before we do battle?

Sally jacobs

on Sep 12, 2004

I hope my rancor towards the attitude of Petey Maxunwell, has not offended you.

Glad you liked my post, the one regarding your post.

Not at all, it is amusing me greatly!

ShoZan

on Sep 12, 2004

Surely you don't want to me to utilize my great expertise at horseback riding, and fighting in armor, after all I am a descendant of and a member of the Templar Knights.

We are taught to eat other knights for breakfast, and have no equal on the field of battle, which is why I suggested using the tank to put you quickly out of your misery, so that you know not the bitter taste of defeat at the hands of a Superior Class of Knight.

ShoZan

on Sep 12, 2004

As for suit of armor and horse, I have a fine, pure bred Arabian steed and utilize Japanese Composite Armor, the same used by the Samurai, because you won't die of a heart attack while wearing it, and are more agile than a heavy European suit of armor. Not to mention it offers better protection.

Sally jacobs

on Sep 12, 2004

Anyone want any popcorn?

drmiler

on Sep 12, 2004

Reply #61 By: Sir Peter Maxwell - 9/12/2004 4:56:14 PM
Good thing I wasn't born in (or presently residing in) England, or right now your arse would be having an appointment with my boot

You would need to get past my security team first, I was an SAS General you know, I am deft at hand to hand combat.

Even your "security team" can't stop a bullet. And I say to you sir that you are a TROLL! No true english nobleman would EVER stoop so low as to say the kind of BS that is currently coming out of your mouth

ShoZan

on Sep 12, 2004

drmiler, calm down, it just people joking around. Check out this Link and see what Petey is all about.

Sir Peter Maxwell

on Sep 12, 2004

Not to mention it offers better protection.

Tell that to the Knights at Agincourt, the finest steel protected them from a barrage of French arrows.

ShoZan

on Sep 12, 2004

Well they were French arrows, so what were you expecting, maximum penetration, only if it was a woman, or French armor,hah.

Which last time I checked the Normans came from France, so in the end you were only fighting your cousins.
But I digress, Japan and China were ahead in the fields of armor and swords, and you can find that any history book, except for your history book, 'The Fantasy World History According to Sir Peter Maxwell' by Sir Peter Maxwell.

drmiler

on Sep 12, 2004

Reply #67 By: Sir Peter Maxwell - 9/12/2004 5:05:40 PM
This English Knight challenges you to a duel on horseback, at which I am particularly skilled.

By the way if "your" doing the challenging, you oppenent gets to pick the weapon. Not you! See rule 16

[quote}
Code Duello: The Rules of Dueling

Reprinted from "American Duels and Hostile Encounters," Chilton Books, 1963.

The Code Duello, covering the practice of dueling and points of honor, was drawn up and settled at Clonmel Summer Assizes, 1777, by gentlemen-delegates of Tipperary, Galway, Sligo, Mayo and Roscommon, and prescribed for general adoption throughout Ireland. The Code was generally also followed in England and on the Continent with some slight variations. In America, the principal rules were followed, although occasionally there were some glaring deviations.

Rule 1. The first offense requires the first apology, though the retort may have been more offensive than the insult. Example: A tells B he is impertinent, etc. B retorts that he lies; yet A must make the first apology because he gave the first offense, and then (after one fire) B may explain away the retort by a subsequent apology.

Rule 2. But if the parties would rather fight on, then after two shots each (but in no case before), B may explain first, and A apologize afterward.

N.B. The above rules apply to all cases of offenses in retort not of stronger class than the example.

Rule 3. If a doubt exist who gave the first offense, the decision rests with the seconds; if they won't decide, or can't agree, the matter must proceed to two shots, or to a hit, if the challenger require it.

Rule 4. When the lie direct is the first offense, the aggressor must either beg pardon in express terms; exchange two shots previous to apology; or three shots followed up by explanation; or fire on till a severe hit be received by one party or the other.

Rule 5. As a blow is strictly prohibited under any circumstances among gentlemen, no verbal apology can be received for such an insult. The alternatives, therefore -- the offender handing a cane to the injured party, to be used on his own back, at the same time begging pardon; firing on until one or both are disabled; or exchanging three shots, and then asking pardon without proffer of the cane.

If swords are used, the parties engage until one is well blooded, disabled, or disarmed; or until, after receiving a wound, and blood being drawn, the aggressor begs pardon.

N.B. A disarm is considered the same as a disable. The disarmer may (strictly) break his adversary's sword; but if it be the challenger who is disarmed, it is considered as ungenerous to do so.

In the case the challenged be disarmed and refuses to ask pardon or atone, he must not be killed, as formerly; but the challenger may lay his own sword on the aggressor's shoulder, then break the aggressor's sword and say, "I spare your life!" The challenged can never revive the quarrel -- the challenger may.

Rule 6. If A gives B the lie, and B retorts by a blow (being the two greatest offenses), no reconciliation can take place till after two discharges each, or a severe hit; after which B may beg A's pardon humbly for the blow and then A may explain simply for the lie; because a blow is never allowable, and the offense of the lie, therefore, merges in it. (See preceding rules.)

N.B. Challenges for undivulged causes may be reconciled on the ground, after one shot. An explanation or the slightest hit should be sufficient in such cases, because no personal offense transpired.

Rule 7. But no apology can be received, in any case, after the parties have actually taken ground, without exchange of fires.

Rule 8. In the above case, no challenger is obliged to divulge his cause of challenge (if private) unless required by the challenged so to do before their meeting.

Rule 9. All imputations of cheating at play, races, etc., to be considered equivalent to a blow; but may be reconciled after one shot, on admitting their falsehood and begging pardon publicly.

Rule 10. Any insult to a lady under a gentleman's care or protection to be considered as, by one degree, a greater offense than if given to the gentleman personally, and to be regulated accordingly.

Rule 11. Offenses originating or accruing from the support of ladies' reputations, to be considered as less unjustifiable than any others of the same class, and as admitting of slighter apologies by the aggressor: this to be determined by the circumstances of the case, but always favorable to the lady.

Rule 12. In simple, unpremeditated recontres with the smallsword, or couteau de chasse, the rule is -- first draw, first sheath, unless blood is drawn; then both sheath, and proceed to investigation.

Rule 13. No dumb shooting or firing in the air is admissible in any case. The challenger ought not to have challenged without receiving offense; and the challenged ought, if he gave offense, to have made an apology before he came on the ground; therefore, children's play must be dishonorable on one side or the other, and is accordingly prohibited.

Rule 14. Seconds to be of equal rank in society with the principals they attend, inasmuch as a second may either choose or chance to become a principal, and equality is indispensible.

Rule 15. Challenges are never to be delivered at night, unless the party to be challenged intend leaving the place of offense before morning; for it is desirable to avoid all hot-headed proceedings.

Rule 16. The challenged has the right to choose his own weapon, unless the challenger gives his honor he is no swordsman; after which, however, he can decline any second species of weapon proposed by the challenged.

drmiler

on Sep 12, 2004

Reply #75 By: ShoZan - 9/12/2004 5:29:38 PM
drmiler, calm down, it just people joking around. Check out this Link and see what Petey is all about.

I "withdraw" my comment about a bullet as that was a little too much over the top! But I "stand" by my accusing him of being a troll!

Sir Peter Maxwell

on Sep 12, 2004

I am offering a medieval joust, which generally took place before 1777!

Sir Peter Maxwell

on Sep 12, 2004

'The Fantasy World History According to Sir Peter Maxwell' by Sir Peter Maxwell.

I can send you a signed hardback copy if you so wish.

TheFazz

on Sep 12, 2004

If Sir Peter Maxwell wrote 'The Fantasy World History According to Sir Peter Maxwell' well enough, it may be just as truthful as Fahrenheit 9/11;).

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!