I really fail to see your point here. Why is protesting irresponsible? I in no way see how it could be. Is expressing your opinion irresponsible? Is having a social conscience irresponsible?
If there weren't all those protestors, all those police would not be necessary. Many fewer police could be used. I don't know if you were a protester or not, but if you were, you would have no right to complain about the 5 million pounds spent on security.
And a social conscience? All that Bush bashing in Europe getting to you? Yeah, Bush isn't perfect. But somehow, most of the evil dictators of the world get a better rep in Europe than Bush and he's a fraction of their evil.
I digress. Arguing about whether or not Bush is good or bad with you is pointless. Let me just state that protesting like what happened in Europe never changed anything. It needlessly consumes police resources and impedes traffic. And let me say that such a demonstration by English people means absolutely nothing to the President of the US. He isn't elected by them. And as to whether or not it's sending a message to Blair et al? I think they already know very well that their policies are not supported by many of their countrymen.
You are wrong. It was only a few days ago that you admitted to me you had little or no idea about the power the Queen holds in this country or indeed our whole political system- don't argue in ignorance. It was a state visit because the Queen invited him- not because Bush is 'Head of State'. It makes a great deal of difference to the purpose and public feeling here, a difference you admitted to have no knowledge of.
Ok. The term "state visit" is never used over here. I was arguing for an incorrect definition based on limited information. Arguing in ignorance? Maybe on the term "state visit." On your goverment in general? I beg to differ.
I read up on things and I learn fast. My problem a few days ago was that what you were telling me was different from what I saw in practice and what I had read before in the news. While I may have confessed ignorance on the subject, that was because many of the things that I had read before contradicted what you had said. Further reading reconciled these differences. They were mainly more about tradition vs. actual practice. There are lots of things in your goverment that work one way in theory, but in actual practice, they operate differently.
I will try not to get any more off topic on this thread, so let's get back to the main point in that last paragraph you wrote. Why would a state visit make such a big difference? Why would it be an insult? Is a state visit a way of saying "Good dog! We approve of what you are doing!"? Nah... it's all diplomacy. What's wrong with that? Or maybe this whole thing has some ceremonial value that I don't understand. If so, it's a rather silly one. Powerful people meet. Often. Courtesy is granted, regardless of whether it's warranted or not.
As they say, diplomacy is the art of telling someone to go to hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip. Treating someone well is one of many methods used in combination to smooth out the trip.
Sorry... I'm on a public workstation. I have to go now.
