Talk:32nd G8 summit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Russia Portal
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Russia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Weather modification

Nowadays even the russians admit in press that they face-lift events of propaganda importance via weather modifications. This time Putin wanted sunshine over St. petersburg and the spyplanes did it. the original write-up was in hungarian press: [1] any english sources about modifying the weather?--gloushire 18:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

For weather modification 11 planes of the Russian Air Forces were used, it were An-12 and Il-18, instead of M-17/M-55 [2]. By the way M-17/M-55 are not a part of the Air Forces, these are scientific planes. --82.147.66.78 06:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Good edit re Chenobyl. I read rumours about this in The Sunday Times a couple of years back, didn't know it had been confirmed. I even heard they deliberately directed over the Ukraine and Belaraus, to avoid it going over Russia. Doubt it could be proved though. Still, who would doubt it with the Russians?
I dunno if it's just propaganda. St.Petersburg has notoriously bad weather, and I can see valid reasons for weather modifications

[edit] The Israeli-Hezbollah Conflict in light of the G8 Summit

To sum it up: they (Hamas-Hezbollah vs. Israel) are wasting no time on Peace Roadmap footsies and just start to get realistic.

I don't think this is the beginnig of WW3. If there was a chance for WW3, it already started in 2001, even earlier during the Al Aqsa intifada.

Basically, the US has its "War on Terror", and the Israelis just started their own "War on Terror". Israel has its own Afganistan which is Syria, and its own Iraq, which is Iran. If it has its way, Israel will conquer Syria by 2010 (however I base this solely on Israel's resolve and objective, not on how difficult it is to achieve such objective).

I don't think either the Arab regimes or those extremist organizations have lots of amunition left, in regard of their own survival. But the Arab or Muslim people will not be tamed or subjugated. Its just a matter of time that the defeat of Hamas or Tehran will unleash something more virulently anti-West and anti-Israel.

Ironically trouble in the Middle East may mean calm in East Asia, as US will concede more and more to Russia and China on matters on the Koreas and Taiwan. Afghanistan will be the biggest wildcard, it is something that allows for a Sino-Russian blackmail for the consolidation of geopolitical "domains".

Are we going to add anything about George's Bush's comment? "Mr Bush told Mr Blair that the key to solving the current hostilities is to "get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this s**t"." [3] -- Dandelions not logged in

[edit] Bush caught swearing

Bush proves to the world what a dumb ass he is ... hope he checks the microphones next time ;)--213.42.2.21 20:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what the big deal is. He didn't say anything stupid, he just forced the path of conversation with Blair.--2ltben 03:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, the big deal in the UK is that Blair takes that kind of crap from Bush. He was already seen as spineless, this will only make it worse. He is basically subordinate to members of Bushs cabinet. Its sickening. Damburger 08:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not a forum keep discussion relevant to improving the article.GWatson • TALK 08:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

More on-topic though... with regards to the conversation caught between Bush and Blair, wouldn't it be better to discuss the other information that was revealed? I personally don't think a 'Yo Blair' comment or a swear word is relevant but the other comments are such as:
"The irony is, what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this sh!t, and it’s over."
"What about Kofi Annan? I don’t like the sequence of it. His attitude is basically cease-fire and everything else happens."
The "Yo Blair" comment features prominently in all the UK headlines I've seen about the incident, as its widely seen as disrespectful to our PM (and of course, he just takes it). The main story here is how the US president talks down to Blair, and how Blair seems to accept this, while at the same time claiming he has influence in Washington. I'm not sure what the emphasis is in countries other than the UK or the Us though. It all relates to the Special Relationship here. Damburger 08:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
This type of information sells papers but is it suitable for a comprehensive entry in an encyclopedia. I'm not suggested the comment be removed, but having a section for it makes it seem of great importance to the G8 Summit. Maybe a section on the entire incident (conversation being caught on mic) may be better with a list (and commentary?) on the recorded comments? Swearing and saying 'Yo' may be suitable for the press but for an encyclopedia would this not be better? (Refs: [4][5][6]
The reason the comment is reported in newspapers is because the personal relationship between world leaders tends to reflect the political relationship between their two countries, and this is especially true of US-UK relations, the so called special relationship. Perhaps it doesn't belong in the header, but its certanly relevant. Damburger 08:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
That's what I meant - while the comment is relevant, it's not as important (in this G8 Summit page) as the other comments caught. I wouldn't want it removed by any means, but its own header is a bit much. A header called 'Recorded Conversations' or something like that may be more appropriate - where this comment is included. I'm sure everyone already knows that our Prime Minister is walked over by Bush anyway! --62.6.155.83 09:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)fakelvis
I'm going to change the section header to 'Recorded Conversations' as suggested, I don't think that the "Yo Blair" is the important point, although I certainly encourage people with more access to the British press to elaborate on the reaction of the media to the treatment between Bush and Blair. I personally think he said "Yeah Blair" from the audio, as did someone I saw on the news, which would be somewhat less disrespectful I guess (though it's weird how he calls him just by his last name). The transcripts say "Yo Blair", so I might be wrong anyway. Regards, --Gabbec 11:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Gabbec. In light of all things at this summit, it's best to stick to NPOV - good edit. Also, thanks to User:AntiVandalBot for reverting a malicious edit. Nimur 14:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Several questions still puzzle me:

1) Israel's CHUTZPEH: did they start the "Operation Truthful Promise" (bombardment of Lebanon) without much coordination with Condi Rice or the Pentagon?

2) How far and how long is Israel willing to go: aren't they affraid of another Beirut 1982? The eventual Israeli conquest of the Damascus Baathist regime, with the aid of US and British warships (not unlike the tri-partite cooperation during the Suez crisis against Gamal Abdul Nasser)

3) Or was the Israeli action actually a brave act from a loyal friend (of the US) to take the blunt for the US just when it needs it. Therefore there is implication that the US has been "nudging" Israel into doing this all along.

4) The big honchos in St. Petersburg: what have they been exchanging under the table of excessive courtesy?

5) The Hezbollah action: who initiated this chain-reaction in the "Muslim Street" first? The election of the Hamas government and the subsequent internecine strifes between secular statist Fatah and international-Islamist Hamas? The Irano-Pyongyang duet in The Nuke Show (prompting Hezbollah to create skirmishes to distranct world community)? Or the unwise decision of the Shiite Hezbollah to "take the heat", or show solidarity for Sunni militants in Palestine and Iraq, eventually leading to their own unfavorable position.

[edit] Location

Actually, Strelna is not outside St.-Petersburg, it's a Southern part of the city. --213.170.65.38 14:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No it isn't. It's in the Leningrad Region, but is not part of St Petersburg. Palefire 09:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] EU

I noticed the European Union was moved to the "Invited (partial participation)" section, under the international organizations, since it's not a prmanent member of the G8. I guess I was ambiguous in creating the "Permanent" heading, I meant "permanent participation" at the summit, not "permanent member". The EU has full participation, so it shouldn't be under a section stating partial participation. So, either it can its own, third heading, or it can be put in one of the existing two with a footnote or something. I personally don't like it where it is right now, the other leaders in that section were only involved for one day. Any thoughts? Thanks, --Gabbec 23:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Groping

Should we put a section in on the "massage" that Bush attempted to give to Chancellor Merkel? I feel as though that is something of note here. Grahamdubya 12:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm for it, as long as the focus is on the media reaction to the incident, and only if it was significant. I'm not sure how much coverage that got (though I did see it), but in itself it wouldn't deserve a mention. And "groping" is not the most appropriate description... --Gabbec 14:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
If Bush tried to feel her up, yes its news. Its called sexual harrasment and something that apparantly Americans frown upon in their leaders. Damburger 14:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Of course it would be sexual harrassment and a disgrace if he did try to "feel her up", but it doesn't look like he did to me. I think that this president is both incompetent and hypocritical, and doing the "backrub" was really weird and incredibly foolish, but calling it groping is, in my opinion, an exaggeration. So, for me, the reaction of the media, especially from Germany and the US, is more notable than the act itself. --Gabbec 16:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I've seen it now, and while I wouldn't call it a grope it does look like sexual harassment. Its a relatively intimate way to touch somebody, especially in the circumstances. Damburger 09:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Be that as it may, our own opinions of the incident are irrelevant; per WP:V and WP:NPOV, we can only list the arguments and statements of reliable sources, and should not conduct any sort of original research. If there's a controversy, by all means, say "There's a controversy!" and elaborate a bit, but it's not our place to decide what it was or wasn't. Luna Santin 09:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Censoring of shit

Does shit really need to be replaced with s***? The president didn't say s-asterisk-asterisk-asterisk, and it just seems unnecessary for a word like that to be censored in a quote, and a relatively inoffensive one at that.

Wikipedia is not censored. This should not be "bleeped" out - if the reader finds it offensive, they should take it up with the person who said it, not the medium in which they were informed of it. Nimur 03:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bush statements

Regarding this section:

Although Britons were upset with the perception that Blair was subordinate to Bush, elsewhere the fact that Bush claimed the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict would not have escalated if Syria would have pressured the Hezbollah to "stop doing this shit" was of greater concern, particularly in the Middle East.

I've changed it for two reasnons:

  • The US isn't 'elsewhere'. The wording implies Britain is some quaint little village and the United States is the rest of the world.
  • I don't think anyone in the Middle East was concerned with the expletive (cite if I'm wrong). They are concerned with Bush's already stated policies, which this incident was merely a more informal restatement of.

Damburger 08:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)