The Jackass has landed (Rant)
 

So, today Gorge Bush came to Guatemala, i can't begin to tell you what a pain in the ass is that this guy has come. The secret service monkeys have been bothering since last week, the air space has been restricted, many streets have been closed (including the one where my office is), the secret service motherfuckers have shut down all parking lots in a 3 blocks radius from the places the idiot is gonna be in and the houses of people that live near the places the bastard is gonna visit are been checked for bombs and there are checkpoints all over the city. I remember when Clinton came when he was the US president, it was nothing like this, it didn't felt like fucking "Cesar" was coming to check how the farm was doing. I know most of you can't understand how uncomfortable this "visit" makes feel most of the people in Guatemala and in the whole Latin America, but believe me, this is not making the US any more popular around here and little by little Chavez's rhetoric makes more sense in the region. We're getting tired of been treated like the US's backyard and its impositions and threatens, this visit only aggravating that feeling.
Get back to the US already CHIMP!

don't worry - it isn't just the president. Dick Cheney visited Australia a few weeks ago and caused traffic chaos , including closing all 8 lanes of the Sydney harbour bridge so he could cross to have dinner with the Prime Minister (whose official residence is north of the harbour). What a pain in the arse!!

I wonder why he didn't take the train - even emptying out an entire train might have caused less disruption :)

The difference? Clinton didn't invade too many terrorist filled countries, so maybe the security requirement was slightly less.

On a bright note - he won't stay long.

Just dont get the idea that we all like him in the US, I still feel he somehow cheated the US elections....

two characters

If I had Bush's approval rating I'd be paranoid too.

I'd love to see what you're attitude would be if it was our president that was visiting the US and you got your house checked by "guatemalan police", if you got checked in the street by "guatemalan police", you got the airport and main streets shut by the "guatemalan police", and got warned that if you do not obey guatemalan's police orders, they are authorized to shoot you. I don't think you would be dancing around then...

I know you're not all like him, I have very good friends in the US that are good and respectful persons, unfortunately, he's the one that represents the US around the world, and he's doing a lousy job at it.

Yep.

I don't remember when, but I recall that VP Cheney came through Oregon a couple of years ago and it snarled everything up from Eugene to Portland. On top of that, imagine the sheer cost of policing, closing down the roads, and securing the airports for the vice-president/president. It seems we spend a lot of money on a man who is not king.

No thanks.

Ungrateful little Latin American. How dare you not appreciate the vision and sacrifice of George Augustus Bush, and his personal demolition of Saddam, Osama, The Ayatollah, and the Commies. You should be lined up on your knees in the streets to kiss the tires of his Majestic Motorcade!

;)

two characters

Yes. The most hated man on the planet needs security in line with his status. Not surprised.

Other than this being for President Bush, how is this any different from any other time a World Leader visits anyplace? If the Pope goes to Guatamala (or anywhere else), isn't there tight security with streets shut down, etc.? If Chavez or Castro visited, wouldn't there be similar distruptions and inconveniences?

Other than a rant about how the OP was a little inconvenienced and politics, what's this about? Whenever a dignitary comes to Chicago, I have to deal with the same issues, minus the politics. It sucks at times, but the people who occupy certain offices in world have security requirements. If the King of Spain comes to visit, most of the same street closures, etc. would happen. Sorry that you had to take a few minutes out of your day for someone else to make sure that another human being wasn't going to be blown up.

They can't just show up and do this without the cooperation from the local government right? Somewhere somebody from Guatemala had to give the "ok" to allow this to happen. Instead of ranting only about Bush (believe me, I think he should be ranted about) spread it around a little more as he isn't the only one at fault.

People loved Kennedy and he got shot in the head.

You may be the most loved person on Earth, but all it takes is one nutjob and one little chunk of metal.

Well, yes, this is true. And I wasn't being sarcastic in my statement. I think it is the truth. And I think that assassinations and attempted assassinations of more well thought of leaders in the past probably contributes heartily to the steepened security around our current president.

Yeah, and what you said before, too.

Why are important people so expensive...

The UN is notorious for snarling traffic in Manhattan and for parking at will.

No...you're absolutely correct. In fact, I'd be pretty gaddamned pissed off. But, then again, I should think that security details would be handled by local officials, with the visiting dignitary's security personnel directing and overseeing what they would like to see done.

I'm hoping that this is the case in Guatemala? If not...then you have every right to be upset, as that's tantamont to an invasion.

Think, if Bush is assassinated Cheney is our new Commander in Chief! I'll take the lesser of two evils and deal with the grotesque display in security everywhere he goes (thankfully I live in a small town where the biggest political figure we'll ever see is the regional commissioner of the state department of transportation).

Just saw Bill's post, and completely agree. Your country's government should be organizing security detail.

Hmmm....that's a tough one. Would you entrust the security of your leader to another country? It seems like a security nightmare.

Maybe not entrust them entirely, but have them organize blocking off streets, even if they are accompanied with Secret Service to ensure they do their job, but just letting the Secret Service have free reign to run amock doesn't sound right to me.

two characters

The Pope was here 2 times and never, ever was such a security operative like this, there were no streets blockages, he air space was not restricted, and specially, the Vatican Police didin't come to tell us what we could and couldn't do. As i said before, when Clinton came back in the 90's, it was nothing like this. I'm working from home today because my office building is next to the hotel qhere Bush spent the night, no parking in the building is allowed for anyone that does not own or rent a parking space and in order to enter the parking lot, you and your car are searched "by secret service agents". I know that whenever a president from other country comes to Guatemala, there are some things that have to be done in order to guarantee the security of our visitors, but what pisses me of, is that is the secret service -a police that in theory has nothing to do with Guatemala and should have no power here- is giving orders and taking over institutions (the airport for one) like if this was a US colony although, deep inside, we all know that that is what we are, and that's the reason why our Police, Army, and sovereignty has been handed over to the SS so easily.

The Superbowl closed downtown Detroit for 3 days last year, including the corporate headquarters of Ford.

For a football game. That the President wasn't going to attend.

The point is that things happen and sometimes you're inconvienced. Sorry about that, but in the post-9/11 world security is taken very seriously by most world leaders. I expect that if the Pope were to visit again, security would be a little tighter, as would a visit by any other major world leader.

It sounds like the Secret Service may have had a credible threat against the President. They don't make the kind of effort you've described lightly.

Imagine having to live in the same country with him. It is agonizing sometimes. Personally, I am glad he goes away on occasion and it is my greatest dream that one time he wont come back. :)

Come on 1/20/09!!! (His last day in office.)

Don't wish our lives away, Lady!

He can survive another one year, ten months and eleven days, as long as his protection keeps their wits about them. (!) So can we, in spite of the embarassment. I mourn for the dead soldiers, and for what it all means...

And for whatever it's worth: Sorry for the inconvenience, former allies!

I feel as if I should start planning the party now, just to give me that light at the end of the tunnel.

its all part of the neocolonialism show.

obviously, for the Dear Leader of the Hegemon to grace guatemala with His Presence is no small action: it must be accompanied by a more general show of that unique combination of obliviousness and contempt that makes the Dear Leader and the particular Country for which he stands so well loved the whole world round. no doubt the security details were concerned about the Dear Leader being injured by the flowers that will be strewn at his feet. that was a real problem in iraq, too. obviously, the Dear Leader is taking no chances this time. and folk think that George W. Bush does not learn from previous mistakes. pshaw, i say. pshaw.

Your government is the one who is allowing him to use US police, they are the ones who gave the US police to shoot you if you do not obey.

We wouldn't be there if your government would have said no, we don't want you here.

I'm no bush lover, but it ain't all the US you should be rantin about

Hey, we don't want him. He can go out to international waters and make the fish look smart.

No, it all the Liberal Media's fault.

Detroit wasn't closed down by Italian police, however.
Are you not catching that he is emphasizing the foreign police element?
Or does it not matter to you? Or...?
Because it sounds from your post that it wouldn't matter to you who is doing the policing, whereas for him it's a different context when one's own police are doing the policing. Yet, when it's a foreign police force, it feels like one's sovereignty is being usurped. Very frustrating.

On top of that, "a post-9/11 world" is a US construct. The rest of the developed world has already been acutely aware of modern terrorism for decades. We've been slow to the table, but certainly latin america and the Pope aren't acting all differently now that "9/11" happened. That point seems really unaware of things that have been happening in and around those countries for a very long time?

On the first part, we didn't just come in and do this, we talked with their government, said what we wanted to be able to do, they said we were allowed to police ourselves and shut down what was necessary. Blame the guat government not ours, for allowing us to do this.

Second part, Just because they were unaware, and by unaware, I mean lucky it wasn't about them, and apathetic because of that fact. Doesn't mean that it has nothing to do with them. Simply because murder is happening just down the block, doesn't give you the right to pretend ignorance of it.

Neocolonialism or a reassertion of the Monroe Doctrine, which seems to happen about every 15 or 20 years. Let's see, Panama was about 1990, so we're due.

I'm not ignoring the foriegn element, I'm just not assigning as much importance to it as you apparently are. Whenever any foreign leader visits anywhere, their security detail is in charge. That's the case here and everywhere else. Local authorities cooperate. That's the way diplomatic security works and is the reason why I was interviewed by British authorities a couple of years ago. I coached their consul's kids in fencing. The Americans never paid me a visit.

It MUST be.

DAMNIT!!!:thumbsup:

I lived in Ottawa for six years. We were visited by world leaders on a regular basis. The ONLY time we had any real interference was when Bush Sr. came to town. They closed down highways and welded manhole covers and had helicopters hovering all over the place.

The same here in Singapore. The only time we had any serious crackdown was when we had the IMF here for a week or so and when Bush came before the big meeting in Saigon last fall.

There are world leaders popping in and out of Singapore and nobody but Bush Jr. causes this sort of commotion.


Do the rest of the world a favour and make your president stay home.

If you please, sir, I want more soup.

That infamous smirking precludes making it do anything.

The Clintons came to NYC regularly, sometimes to take in a show on Broadway.

I have had to go through secret service check in before. Annoying.

Imelda Marcos had that same kind of crap. Annoying.

I've even had to do it for a funeral that Corey Aquino attended. Equally Annoying.

My Icelandic friend gave me tales about the foreign nationals that would come to the US Embassy.

Can the secret service service anybody except those requiring secrets?
If not, what good are they?

Do you have any idea how much terrorism there has been in the rest of the world, including Latin America, long before 9/11 was a twinkle in Osama's eye? Much of the rest of the world has been dealing with terrorism - some inspired by US administrations, it should be noted - for decades prior to 9/11.

I wonder who pretended ignorance of what for all those decades?

Imagine that a city you visit frequently had riots while a major organization such as the IMF was visiting. Then you can truly enjoy the fruits of paranoia. Post-WTO riots, Seattle has never been the same. One spring break a few years ago we went to visit some friends there, and the police were out in full force, in riot gear. The Japanese tourists in front of the art museum were taking pictures of the police, posing in front of the lines of cops in full gear.

It was at once humorous and horrifying, to think that three years after the Battle of Seattle the police are still so paranoid of what happened during the riots that they come out in full force any time there is an inkling of civil unrest.

Can you name another country that has done more to combat terrorism, BEFORE 9/11 than the United States?

Do you mean like Spain or Greece? Or Russia? Or what exactly do you mean by "combat terrorism?"

UK and Israel come to mind.

Being vigilant against the IRA and PLO for decades seems to dwarf what the US has done.

America just gets more press, UK and Israel have done it on a daily if not minute by minute basis. I cannot say the same for the US. If you are a US national in your own country, you don't walk around where you live wondering if someone is going to blow up the car, store, building you are walking next to, they did and in still do.

I'm feeling historic, so I'll put them in that order with the first anti-terrorist on top:

France
Imperial Russia
Great Britian
Soviet Union
India
Israel
Spain
Italy
Sri Lanka
South Africa
Egypt
West Germany
Mexico
Columbia


All of these countries had or have major terrorist organizations working against them. Osama bin Ladin did not invent terrorism. Arabs did not invent terrorism. The US is not the only target, and we've only been in the game for a very short time in comparison to some of the others. In the post-9/11 world, Americans and American officials act very differently when overseas than they once did.

I think the 3 subsequent posters have addressed this issue.

(And we ain't even started yet! (heh))

Yes, You've named a lot of countries none of which I'm going to believe have done more than the US.

Possibly Israel, but they don't exactly do it to combat terrorism, they do it because if they don't they'll probably die from it.

Since you insisted here's some additional information.

Imperial Russia - created a whole new secret police force specifically to deal with anarchists in the mid 1870's. Expanded that police force to the precursor of the KGB in the 1880's and 90's after the anarchists kill Alexander II. Yeah, that's more than what we've done.

Great Britain - also faced off against the anarchists, then the Communists and then the IRA. Basically turned Northern Ireland into a police state in the 70's and 80's in an attempt to keep a lid on the IRA. Again, more than what we've done.

Soviet Union - created the high water mark that all secret police forces are measured against - the NKVD which became the KGB and is now the FSB. It was started to make sure that the Whites didn't sabotage the nation. During the 1930's they killed somewhere between 5M and 7M of their own citizens and imprisoned another 10M-18M (depending on the source), all in the name of fighting terrorism. Please explain to me how the US has done more.

Columbia - basically has ceded half the country to rebel groups to try to keep the violence down. Then there are the drug runners. Columbia is one of the kidnapping capitols of the world, and the police deal with it every day. There's an entire branch of the Columbian military supported by US tax dollars to fight the drug runners and rebels/terrorists.

So, there's my evidence. Let's see yours as to all that the US has done that equates to more than this. Compared to the rest of the world, we haven't done squat.

/me would have said previous but you're right all the way around...

The Jazz we were talking about how countries can ignore terrorism in other parts of the country. Battling terrorism in your own country is one thing, and its an expected course for governments to take.

What I'm speaking of is what countries have done more, to combat terrorism, when it's not directly against your own country. When you can ignore it, and it wont affect you, and you still do something about it.

All the examples you posted weren't about combatting terrorism, they were simply about a government policing itself.

Changing the paramaters from this "Can you name another country that has done more to combat terrorism, BEFORE 9/11 than the United States?" because you don't like our answers? I mean you posted before stating that "maybe Israel" but you never stated it quite like you did about "when it's not directly against your own country."

(uh-oh) Let's consider which countries have done the most to promote terrorism and then compare lists!

I don't know how you come up with the idea that we were discussing countries that have done more than the US when it comes to battling terrorism that doesn't affect them...

if that's the line of logic that you want to pursue, I think you should provide a single example of the US combating terrorism even though it had no interest in doing so. or any country, for that matter.

for one thing, I don't even know if it's possible by definition. terrorists are non-government entities. the very basis for our detaining terrorists without trial is on argument that they are not members of a recognized army. That being the case, I don't see how any act of waging a war on terrorists that weren't affecting us would be legit. I may not agree with our government's assessment of the harm wrought on us by foreign entities, but that's certainly the only legitimate claim they've put forward for us waging a war abroad on terrorism that I know of.

it seems to me that if any foreign country actually started arresting or killing "terrorists" in another country without even the most minimal claim of right to be there securing their own interests, they'd basically have no jurisdiction to even be there.

I'm confused as to how you even came up with the idea that the US is combating terrorism that it doesn't see as negatively affecting the security of the nation, pre or post 9/11.

OK. Our president might be legitimate except that he was never elected and has been exacerbating terrorism worldwide. (I hope they don't come and shoot me tonight!)

You can think that if you want, but its not a very good arguement obviously you didn't follow this thread.

I thought it was quite obvious I wasn't talking about rogue sectors within your own country. That may be terrorism, but hardly has anything to do with the terrorism we were discussing. Like I said, that is policing your own country.

I spoke of Israel because that actually IS a part of the kind of terrorism I am speaking about, seeing as how there are how many people outside, that do not agree with israel on this or that or whatever, that want to destroy it... through terrorism.


The difference? You can ignore terrorism to a large extent when it's not in YOUR country, When it's your own citizens, you cannot ignore that.

So judging a country by saying "Oh they fought terrorism so hard" when the violence and such was from their own citizenship. Makes no sense, They HAD to do that, you can't exactly ignore that kind of terrorism.

However look at such terrorism that happens throughout much of the world everyday, largely ignored, shoved under the rug. Calling the terrorist who pulled it off a 'lonewolf' not acting on behalf of an organization. Or saying it's a fluke. Largely ignored and cast aside.



Smooth, as I see it, the main point you're trying to make is the US has never done anything to stop terrorism that doesn't enhance our situation or given us personal gain.

Like you said, anyone would be hard press to find a single government anywhere in the world who has done something like that.

Saying it like that is much too literal, obviously there will be gain for any government to put action into anything. What I'm talking about is when a government will put action into something for the betterment of others, When it would be much easier to simply ignore that it is happening.

One example of good intentions post 9/11 was to remove hussein from office. Though the foul up of the following war is awful and not what was expected. We stopped a terrorist who was destroying his own citizens. Things will often not happen exactly to plan obviously either, and yes there was benefit for the US in this. But do you think there was more benefit for the US? Or for the Kurds who are alive today and not gassed/bombed/executed? Whatever we gained, their lives I'm sure are worth more in the true light of thigns.

An example of pre-9/11 is the amazing amount of work we put into the Koreas when that was easily ignorable and the return we receive for trying to stop that violence and terrorism going both ways between the countries, is as near nothing as it's going to get for any country.

ok, you've got a weird definition going for what terrorism is and what other nations have had to do about it. I'm going to bow out of this discussion now, not even sure how it relates to the original thread before.

Meno, I'm going to be like smooth and walk away from this point, if you'd like to start another thread to discuss the merits of which countries put more in for anti-terrorism, maybe I'll discuss it there. But there is no reason to thread jack this thread.

I'm going to prove everyone's suspicisions right that I'm not as smart as smooth and Cynthetiq and refuse to walk away. Your target is still big enough for me to hit, even if you keep moving it.

Germany cared enough about terrorism outside their own borders that they went to war over it. You might have heard about it - it's commonly referred to as WWI. That started over an act of terrorism.

The Soviets invaded Afganistan because of terrorism. They did the same thing over Finland. And they also went into Poland in the 80's at the invitation of the government to stop terrorism.

The British invaded Afganistan in pursuit of terrorists.

Ok Meno, are you going to change the terms on me again or are you ready to accept that the US government isn't quite ready to receive a collected sainthood?

Now you're talking!

:thumbsup:

[threadjack] Wow, is this a request to abuse my new mod powers by editing your quote or banning you? Wheee! Oh, the fun we'll have! :eek:
[/threadjack]

I have a request, Jazz. This thread started at (W) going somewhere and tying up traffic. It has since transmogrified into weirdly extrapolated thoughts regarding international terrorism, and even having participated, I don't get it. ...my request is for a closer focus.

Whether any one of those countries did more than the U.S. is up for debate, and not one I'm going to get into.

I'm stepping out, obviously as what people have said, there is different definitions of terrorism and mine is not the same. I don't understand how it isn't understood what I am talking about, perhaps others feel the same of me.

I'd rather discuss the subject rather than be jabbed at with your subtle remarks of how I change my story when you simply didn't understand what I was saying.

~outty

Do I dare suggest that we either start a new thread trying to define "terrorism" or resurect the old one? Clearly we're all WAAAAY off the reservation in this one, and this entire page is so far removed from the OP as to be worthy of it's own separate page. However, I'll leave that decision up to everyone else.

Well, as the OP was admittedly a rant, we may have beaten this one into the ground. But I would just like to thank ironman for the pleasure of seeing "The Jackass Has Landed" pop up in my subscription window for the last week or so. It's the funniest "turn-of-phrase" that I've seen in a long while.

I'd suggest Menoman start a new thread. Menoman, make your case, define your box what it means to you. I'd be happy to give you my take on it and compare it to my own.

I'd like to bring this back to the OT, I know that there are some country leaders that fly commercial coach with little to no security. I'm trying to recall which ones do it, but cannot at the moment.

Clintons coming is an understatement. They would visit all the time shutting down FDR Drive, and lots of high ways. They estimated just for Hilary campaign coming to NYC there was over 2 million spent on police over time.

i think the various scandanavian pms do this.

Keep him, we don't want him here, either.

It was questionable the first time, but the second time the Democrats managed to nominate the only guy less likable than him. Back to the Dukakis era of running candidates who can't possibly win (a strategy briefly co-opted by the Republicans when they ran Bob Dole in 1996.)

(?) ... (?) ...sir?