Britons facing visa restrictions to the USA

[Frank S.]

The best is yet to come...

[Ex-URNU-Student]

Urnu.
Well we'll really miss you!
Sorry you won't be able to travel until GWB retires.
Keep readin'your Tabloids.
Jerk.
Wholley.

Wait till your tourist industry starts to take a battering, I bet you wont be so smug then.

[Frank S.]

I don't think there's need to worry as much about the tourism industry as about declining foreign investment into the US.
Personalizing the debate just makes things murkier than they ought to be.
As things stand, the UK is our only major Western ally.
The risk is to force them to choose between the US and the EU, and the result might be surprising.
So far, Blair continues to assure us that "yes, Virginia, there is an Osama" out there, but at the same time lays plans for further integration into Europe (read somewhere he plans to adopt the Euro by 2007).
Someone pointed out (Harry, among others I believe) that world stability depends on US stability.
We're not talking about people, here: if we fail, everybody gets wet. Saying 'screw the US' is fine and dandy but if it were to happen, the shockwave will level much of the world.
Let me precise: the possibility of a major market crash is very real.
The issue of WMDs has returned, and hysterics with it.
The US Senate is finishing a scathing report on intelligence's role not only in the failure to prevent 9/11 but in making the case for war against Iraq.
The Carnegie institute for peace has presented their own report slamming the distortion of intelligence in the matter of WMDs.
As a result, eveyone's covering their butt, from Powell to CIA (who put their senior analyst on TV, an unprecedented move), to Washington Hawks.
The Hawks' attitude is typical in its agressiveness: Richard Perle and David Frum are making the rounds 'hawking' (pardon the pun) their new book "an end to evil", which suggests regime change in Iran and Syria, a blockade of North Korea in preparation for strikes on their nuclear infrastructure, and placing Saudi Arabia and France on the list of US rivals and potential enemies.
I doubt the hawks will get their way soon, this being an election year, but wait until 2005...

If they continue distracting us from getting a grip on the economy, we are all at the deep end of the pool.
Gents, let's not personalize the debate, let's keep an open and clear mind.

[Wholley]

URNU-Student.
Frank's right.
I'm wrong,shouldnt have made this personal.
I apologise for calling you a jerk.
Totally un-called for.
Sorry.
Wholley.

[Marina]

Hi Frank S

Thanks for the info on the 'biometric' passport'.

I suppose I'll have to wait until end of next year to convert my old passport to this new type.

P.S
Are American passports of the biometric type as well ?

[Frank S.]

Not as of yet.
The pilot program for the new passports is scheduled for October 2004, with full implementation in 2006, at a cost of $100 million per year.

[Ex-URNU-Student]

URNU-Student.
Frank's right.
I'm wrong,shouldnt have made this personal.
I apologise for calling you a jerk.
Totally un-called for.
Sorry.
Wholley.

Apology accepted. But a lot of this security seems unnecessary you know.
Paying £78 for a visa, thats half the price of a cheap break to Europe you know! Especially if your a skint student like me!

[Ex-URNU-Student]

I don't think there's need to worry as much about the tourism industry as about declining foreign investment into the US.
Personalizing the debate just makes things murkier than they ought to be.
As things stand, the UK is our only major Western ally.
The risk is to force them to choose between the US and the EU, and the result might be surprising.
So far, Blair continues to assure us that "yes, Virginia, there is an Osama" out there, but at the same time lays plans for further integration into Europe (read somewhere he plans to adopt the Euro by 2007).
Someone pointed out (Harry, among others I believe) that world stability depends on US stability.
We're not talking about people, here: if we fail, everybody gets wet. Saying 'screw the US' is fine and dandy but if it were to happen, the shockwave will level much of the world.
Let me precise: the possibility of a major market crash is very real.
The issue of WMDs has returned, and hysterics with it.
The US Senate is finishing a scathing report on intelligence's role not only in the failure to prevent 9/11 but in making the case for war against Iraq.
The Carnegie institute for peace has presented their own report slamming the distortion of intelligence in the matter of WMDs.
As a result, eveyone's covering their butt, from Powell to CIA (who put their senior analyst on TV, an unprecedented move), to Washington Hawks.
The Hawks' attitude is typical in its agressiveness: Richard Perle and David Frum are making the rounds 'hawking' (pardon the pun) their new book "an end to evil", which suggests regime change in Iran and Syria, a blockade of North Korea in preparation for strikes on their nuclear infrastructure, and placing Saudi Arabia and France on the list of US rivals and potential enemies.
I doubt the hawks will get their way soon, this being an election year, but wait until 2005...

If they continue distracting us from getting a grip on the economy, we are all at the deep end of the pool.
Gents, let's not personalize the debate, let's keep an open and clear mind.

How much support do these "superhawks" actually receive do you think?

Is there much chance of them being taken out of the decision-making process? Iv read some of their writings and I find them frankly very scary people

[Frank S.]

URNU, I can't give you a point by point answer to that: I just don't know enough. They did work for years at getting and retaining support from what are sometimes considered radical or extreme conservative (read: nationalistic) parts of the Republican party.

That is not to say the fringe. There are Christian fundamentalists, business and media interests.
These people do not represent the majority of the Republican party, but they wield a lot of economic power and that power is expanding.
On the other side, the Democrats, Howard Dean represents a counter-force with his use of the internet. He wants to seize control of the Democratic party's political organs the same way Bush seized control of the Republican's.
This explains in part why he is considered too 'emotional' or extreme.

[Spannerman]

All that security for us to go to the States and those Yanks that are over here are dropping bombs from F-15E Strike Eagles on us Limeys, give us a break fellas we are not in downtown Kabul you know!

[Frank S.]

http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040112160458.yd7j8pk8.html

Saw this earlier today...
Lucky as hell no one got hurt.


This time.

[Wholley]

Spanners.
Maybe you should tighten your security against us.

Frank,how come in the picture they show an F-117 and not an F-15?
Wholley.

Thankful no-one got hurt.

[Spannerman]

But Wholley this is the Americans aircraft carrier in the Atlantic!

[Guest]

I used to travel to Florida for my hols the first two weeks of November each year. This was basically for the weather, to reaffirm my friendship with Goofy, and go and see all the US military might at JAXNAS,( Jacksonville Naval Air Station. North East Florida) and the surrounding cities. We didn`t go this year, mainly since sept 11th, all I`ve heard from some Thick, Stupid Americans, is how the world is against them, why did they fly the aircraft into the twin towers etc, and that terrorism is a bad thing.why us? This, is when Yours truly got his soap box out, (Big Time) Explaining to them, that Terrorism didn`t begin on Sept 11th, it bagan over 30 odd years ago, in our back yard, and that HE, and most likely some of his friends, were funding it, by giving money to noraid. Which in turn, bought rounds, which in turn, killed a lot of my countrymen. I also pointed out, that Russia, Spain, France Germany and many more countries had suffered from the terrorists, and that America had not once offered to help any of the countries involved, But, as soon as it happens to the good ole USA, everyone has to turn too, and help bail them out. The US, has troops in many far flung countries, and obviously, it may be ok to the far flung countries government, but the people may not want them there, then, this is where all the bad feelings start to come out, and this, is why now, we are expected to cough up for a Visa. there will be some underlying reason, someone has to pay for the war and new security measures, and it looks like it could be the people who want to visit the US. Could our Tony blair be introducing George w Bush, to the stealth taxes we have to pay?

[Frank S.]

[quote="wholley"]
Frank,how come in the picture they show an F-117 and not an F-15?
quote]

'Cause they don't know sh*t from shinola... The editors, I mean.