Bush uses Expletive in Frustration over Hezbollah

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe....ap/index.html

Quote:

---

ST. PETERSBURG, Russia (AP) -- U.S. President George W. Bush expressed his frustration over the situation in the Middle East by using an expletive in comments to British Prime Minister Tony Blair at the G8 summit in St. Petersburg Monday.

Not realizing his remarks were being picked up by a microphone at the summit of world leaders, Bush bluntly expressed his frustration with the actions of Hezbollah.

"See, the irony is what they really need to do is to get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this (expletive)," Bush told Blair in a discussion before the Group of Eight leaders began their lunch.

Bush's remarks were picked up by the summit's closed-circuit television, which was filming the leaders sitting down to eat.

Normally, the images are transmitted with sound that does not allow reporters to pick out individual comments. But in this case a microphone picked up Bush's comments to Blair.

Blair, whose remarks were not as clearly heard, appeared to be pressing Bush about the importance of getting international peacekeepers into the region.

---

Anybody get the tape? It's clear that he cares. It certainly shows passion... or redneck crudity. I'll play moderate and say it was both. ~D

1-point-warning for GWB :stare:

And the President is pithily right. No point in the Israelis trashing poor Lebanon, which will only create a newly failed state full of militants on its border.

Syria is the real problem here. But it's so much easier to kill random Lebanese civilians than to consider the real war an attack on Syria would bring down on Israel.

It would be good to see some of President Bush's anger publicly directed at PM Olmert.

Kids say the darndest things. :wink:

It shows how close they are if they can be this casual together.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

1-point-warning for GWB :stare:

---

I'd like to see that, but G8 isn't a PG 13 board, is it? :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R'as al Ghul

I'd like to see that, but G8 isn't a PG 13 board, is it? :laugh4:

---

Good one!!! LOL:laugh4:

GW sent to the Entrance Hall.:laugh4:

I would think that Syria and Hezbollah would be worth a long string of expletives, not a singleton. Interesting analysis from a guy who lives in that neighborhood:

I sympathize one hundred percent with what Israel is trying to do here. But they aren't going about it the right way, and they're punishing far too many of the wrong people. Lord knows I could be wrong, and the situation is rapidly changing, but at this particular moment it looks bad for Israel, bad for Lebanon, bad for the United States, good for Syria, and good for Iran.

There is no alternate universe where the Lebanese government could have disarmed an Iranian-trained terrorist/guerilla militia that even the Israelis could not defeat in years of grinding war. There is no alternate universe where it was in Lebanon's interest to restart the civil war on Israel's behalf, to burn down their country all over again right at the moment where they finally had hope after 30 years of convulsive conflict and Baath Party overlordship.

The Lebanese government should have asked for more help from the international community. The Lebanese government should have been far less reactionary in its attitude toward the Israelis. They made more mistakes than just two, but I'd say these are the principal ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

And the President is pithily right. No point in the Israelis trashing poor Lebanon, which will only create a newly failed state full of militants on its border.

Syria is the real problem here. But it's so much easier to kill random Lebanese civilians than to consider the real war an attack on Syria would bring down on Israel.

It would be good to see some of President Bush's anger publicly directed at PM Olmert.

---

Syria doesn't have massive amounts of oil revenue, Iran does. And guess who's pincered right now. :devil:

I agree with that last comment; how dare those Jews defend themselves [sic]. :no: Perhaps you missed the President's call for Israeli restraint.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

I agree with that last comment; how dare those Jews defend themselves [sic]. :no: Perhaps you missed the President's call for Israeli restraint.

---

I'm all for Israel defending itself, if it's done effectively. Like attacking the military targets of Hezbollah, or even giving President Assad of Syria a bloody nose in his own back garden.

What PM Olmert is doing is grandstanding to try and convince everyone he's a hard man. Standard chicken-hawk stuff - even his speech tonight was right out of the Kindergarten Colouring Book of the War on Terror.

Perhaps you could tell me how destroying civilian power stations so hospitals have to rely on failing generators, displacing thousands of Lebanese, wrecking the essential infrastructure and economy of Lebanon to put it 'back 20 years' is going to defend Israel? Note that the parlous state of Iraq's infrastructure and security has hardly stopped new waves of militants coming in to that nation.

Israel kept Lebanon desperately weak, and now it demands that somehow that government, crushed even more, roots out terrorists that are supported by other countries - and that Israel herself could not control in her own territories. Just as they did with the Palestinian Authority, a well-known oxymoron.

Israel is being more than stupid here, and creating a failed state on her northern border - again. She is creating a whole new generation of problems.

President Assad of Syria counted on this, and has played a dangerous hand - punishing the government of Lebanon for getting rid of his troops - and the Israelis are doing his dirty work!

He is not his father however, and he might have miscalculated. Israel should bomb some military targets in Syria, and he would suddenly have his hands full at home - you watch how fast Hezbollah stops then.

That's what President Bush should be telling Olmert, not calling for some undefined restraint (which is more along the lines of "hey, Ehud, try not to kill so many Canadians, huh?")

I don't understand the "frustration" part in the thread title: he looked quite relaxed while eating his lunch.

So the President cusses a little. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."(Jesus)

I don't know exactly what the connection is between Syria and Hezbollah, but if there is a connection than it is the pretext he needs for invasion. Syria should have been neutralized a long time ago IMO. They have been a major supporter of the Sunni Iraqis in exile, and allowed thousands of foriegn insurgents into Iraq after many requests by the coalition to halt the practice. Strategically, it is the best option for securing the western flank, providing a shorter distance for our supply ships to travel because of the ports which will be captured, and striking a blow against terrorism. Although I am not a freind of conquest, if one must, then do so quickly and get it over with. A corps should be sufficient, 1 Armored and 2 Infantry divisions should suffice. Supported by a Carrier strike group in the Med. and the Airforce in Iraq and Kuwait, it should prevail.

I do agree that the Lebenese are taking too much punishment for the acts of the Hezbollah. Perhaps some negotiations with their government would be fruitful. As for Gaza, I say "let's roll" and "get 'er done" to Isreal. The Hamas has clearly been asking for it.

I think it is important to point out here why Israel has bombed every avenue in and out of the country. It is not to punish Lebanon, but to close the noose around Hezbollah, preventing them from escaping. Perhaps the Israelis and Lebanese regulars can tighten the noose around this rat's neck once and for all- squeeze them out and new Iranian recruits cannot obtain support.

The weeds must have fresh soil. Kill the weeds and then ruin the soil for them so new seedlings cannot take root.

It is time to strike and rid the world of the Hand Grenade of Allah's Eternal Mercy and Kindness, the Flaming Sword of Muhammed's Peace, and the Vengeful RPG Launcher of Loving Jihad. (That's a joke btw, making fun of silly Fundamentalist sayings, not in anyway a flame on Muslims, peace be upon them.)


Now- back to topic: Bush has a potty mouth! :laugh4:

Oh no, Bush is human.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

I'm all for Israel defending itself, if it's done effectively. Like attacking the military targets of Hezbollah, or even giving President Assad of Syria a bloody nose in his own back garden.

What PM Olmert is doing is grandstanding to try and convince everyone he's a hard man. Standard chicken-hawk stuff - even his speech tonight was right out of the Kindergarten Colouring Book of the War on Terror.

Perhaps you could tell me how destroying civilian power stations so hospitals have to rely on failing generators, displacing thousands of Lebanese, wrecking the essential infrastructure and economy of Lebanon to put it 'back 20 years' is going to defend Israel? Note that the parlous state of Iraq's infrastructure and security has hardly stopped new waves of militants coming in to that nation.

Israel kept Lebanon desperately weak, and now it demands that somehow that government, crushed even more, roots out terrorists that are supported by other countries - and that Israel herself could not control in her own territories. Just as they did with the Palestinian Authority, a well-known oxymoron.

Israel is being more than stupid here, and creating a failed state on her northern border - again. She is creating a whole new generation of problems.

President Assad of Syria counted on this, and has played a dangerous hand - punishing the government of Lebanon for getting rid of his troops - and the Israelis are doing his dirty work!

He is not his father however, and he might have miscalculated. Israel should bomb some military targets in Syria, and he would suddenly have his hands full at home - you watch how fast Hezbollah stops then.

That's what President Bush should be telling Olmert, not calling for some undefined restraint (which is more along the lines of "hey, Ehud, try not to kill so many Canadians, huh?")

---

Hezbollah has no military targets. They use the homes of civilians to launch their rockets and wear no uniform. You really don’t think Israel should invade Syria do you? Maybe you do if you want war to spread through out the region. Don’t forget Iran’s public statement of support for Syria.

Grandstanding, pep rallies, or whatever you call them are always given in times of conflict. Just because the translated version of his speech wasn’t to your liking don’t fault it. Instead, compare it to that of the opposition.

Perhaps *you* could tell me why they bombed the power stations. You’re implying that they did it make people suffer by trying to shut down hospitals. They avoided taking down the power grid for a while and may have good reason for doing so now. None of us have access to the information they used to make that decision.

You’re mistaking Syria for Israel. Have you already forgotten about the Syrian invasion and occupation? They just left! Are you comparing the buffer zone in the south to the chaos inflicted by Syria in the rest of the country? I’m quite sure they’re targeting Hezbollah as much as possible and trying not to destroy the entire Lebanese government. You make the Israelis sound like a bunch of barbarians, bombing and killing just for fun. If the hundreds of rockets fired on them isn’t enough to convince you who the barbarians are nothing will.

The “failed state” is a new state after rejecting their former oppressors from the East. The only failed states they created are the ones they recently withdrew from.

The “government” of Lebanon has members of Hezbollah in key leadership positions. Why do you think Israel is aiding Syria by attacking the Lebanese government and not aiding it by attacking their mutual enemy? Your anti-Israel bias is being shown by your assumptions.

Bombing some military targets in Syria? Again, do you want to widen the war? How about they bomb the airport and highway that they use to funnel troops, money and rockets to Lebanon? (Oh wait, they did that)

Oh yes, and all those tourists: Who the hell vacations in Lebanon? Don’t they pay attention to the news? What do these people plan on doing next year, ski in North Korea?! ~:snowman: ~:yin-yang:

Perhaps the Israelis and Lebanese regulars can tighten the noose around this rat's neck once and for all- squeeze them out and new Iranian recruits cannot obtain support.

Are you being ever so slightly optimistic there Divinus , the lebanese regulars are a small ill equipped force , consisting of many many "disbanded" militias , the vast majority of whom would be very very hostile to Israeli forces , though of course many of them would be hostile to hezB'allahas well , and if you want to expand it hostile to each of the other disbanded militias that make up the regular forces .( Lebanon is really such a fascinating subject isn't it , every possible middle eastern problem/tension rolled up into one handy bundle ) .
However todays Israeli attacks on Lebanese regular forces have put an end to your little pipe-dream .:shrug:
Now picture this as a more realistic pipe-nightmare , the anti syrian government falls , the pro syrian president invokes his powers and invites the Syrians back into Lebanon .
Well the Israelis did say they wanted to turn the clock back 20 years in the Leb didn't they:skull: :skull: :skull: :skull: :wall:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Hezbollah has no military targets. They use the homes of civilians to launch their rockets and wear no uniform.

---

OK, just that assertion convinces me that we will make no headway here.

~:wave:

Some of the stuff they caught him saying was revealing, but they focus on Bush saying "****". I love our brave journalists getting to the heart of everything regardless of the consequences.

Hahaha, CNN homepage, really slow newsday I guess:

https://i2.tinypic.com/208tusm.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Hezbollah has no military targets. They use the homes of civilians to launch their rockets and wear no uniform.

---

OK, just that assertion convinces me that we will make no headway here.

~:wave:

---

Wouldn't you just love to see the Firefinder Radar data from the IDF that would defeat or prove such a postion.

But then if Hezabollah is firing Raad 1 or Shahin 2 rockets I doubt very seriousily that they are being fired from civilian homes - both are way to big to be fired from a home without collasping and killing those who fire the rocket.

Rocket fumes are very deadly to human beings in closed in areas....

Might be nice if he learned to finish chewing before speaking.

I mean... really!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Wouldn't you just love to see the Firefinder Radar data from the IDF that would defeat or prove such a postion.

But then if Hezabollah is firing Raad 1 or Shahin 2 rockets I doubt very seriousily that they are being fired from civilian homes - both are way to big to be fired from a home without collasping and killing those who fire the rocket.

Rocket fumes are very deadly to human beings in closed in areas....

---

Indeed.

I've seen some news footage from Israeli jets locating and destroying some entrenched positions (largely woodland cover in the stuff I've seen) but this is clearly chosen for propaganda purposes.

Hezbollah are clearly pretty experienced in evasive movement, but I would still think the IDF would be able to close them down more effectively. But my knowledge of modern anti-missile technology is not as current as yours, so I may be being too optimistic.

:bow:

Frustration?, it sounds like casual use to me. Why is this surprising, I mean this guy did cocaine at one point of his life. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

OK, just that assertion convinces me that we will make no headway here.

~:wave:

---

*Ahem* Meaning that they operate in and amongst civilians and don't have purely military targets like tanks and plans to destroy. You want to target these mobile rocket launch platforms? That would be like taking out mobile V-2 and Scud rocket launchers. Remember the problems we had with those? The only way to neutralize that threat is by occupation, and that's what they're trying to avoid.

Since you did mention it that is something that's been bothering me: Why can't they destroy the missiles in flight? They've deployed Patriot missiles to protect their fuel depots but why the overkill? If a Phalanx gun can track and shoot at a duck (used with blanks as a recruiting tool), why the hell can't they kill "homemade" missiles?

Oh and Redleg, do you really think they care about rocket fumes? They are firing them in and adjacent to residential areas. Besides terrorists can be dumb just like the rest of us. Doesn't anyone remember the IRA mortar attack on an airfield where they fired mortars from the back of a car? Needless to say the car caught on fire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

why the hell can't they kill "homemade" missiles?

---

One of the problems seems to be that Hezbollah is using more than just "homemade" missiles (the one that hit the Israeli corvette certainly wasn't "homemade").

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

*Ahem* Meaning that they operate in and amongst civilians and don't have purely military targets like tanks and plans to destroy. You want to target these mobile rocket launch platforms? That would be like taking out mobile V-2 and Scud rocket launchers. Remember the problems we had with those? The only way to neutralize that threat is by occupation, and that's what they're trying to avoid.

---

Incorrect. Occupation does not neutralize the threat of mobile artillery systems.

Quote:

---

Since you did mention it that is something that's been bothering me: Why can't they destroy the missiles in flight? They've deployed Patriot missiles to protect their fuel depots but why the overkill? If a Phalanx gun can track and shoot at a duck (used with blanks as a recruiting tool), why the hell can't they kill "homemade" missiles?

---

Something to do with time of flight, angle of fire, time of accquisition. It does not take long for missiles to travel the range that they are firing them.

Quote:

---

Oh and Redleg, do you really think they care about rocket fumes?

---

Those that fire the missiles surely care......

Given that Hezabollah has some experience firing missiles - assuming that they are dumb after years of firing them is rather dumb....

Quote:

---

They are firing them in and adjacent to residential areas. Besides terrorists can be dumb just like the rest of us. Doesn't anyone remember the IRA mortar attack on an airfield where they fired mortars from the back of a car? Needless to say the car caught on fire.

---

Yep and many nations fire mortars out of the back of pickup trucks, guess what was one of the priority targets for counterbattery fire during Desert Storm, and operations in Somilia. ANd I am willing to bet its placed up their fairily high in Iraq and Afganstan right now also.

I wonder if you have seen the firing platform for the 120mm mortar for the United States. Its fired from an APC....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Besides terrorists can be dumb just like the rest of us. Doesn't anyone remember the IRA mortar attack on an airfield where they fired mortars from the back of a car? Needless to say the car caught on fire.

---

Which reminds me of that Irish terrorist who was sent to blow up a car: he burned his mouth on the exhaust pipe. :balloon2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

Might be nice if he learned to finish chewing before speaking.

I mean... really!

---

Yeah, this bugged me too. Not the expletive. It was the chewing with his mouth open, talking with food in his mouth and with his mouth wide open. Where did this moron learn table manners? He's the kind of person who probably smacks so loud while eating popcorn during a movie that people can't hear the sound track. Amazing. He's doing this at a state dinner, too! Not some casual backyard barbeque at his "ranch" in Texas. What a complete goober.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aenlic

Yeah, this bugged me too. Not the expletive. It was the chewing with his mouth open, talking with food in his mouth and with his mouth wide open. Where did this moron learn table manners? He's the kind of person who probably smacks so loud while eating popcorn during a movie that people can't hear the sound track. Amazing. He's doing this at a state dinner, too! Not some casual backyard barbeque at his "ranch" in Texas. What a complete goober.

---

I'll bet Blair and Koizumi don't do that.

It would be nice to have a mature, civil president with basic polite manners.:no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

Frustration?, it sounds like casual use to me. Why is this surprising, I mean this guy did cocaine at one point of his life. :laugh4:

---

Crack, technically. It's not like having a seizure and falling over for fifteen minutes for each rock is like swearing, though.

Quote:

---

He's doing this at a state dinner, too! Not some casual backyard barbeque at his "ranch" in Texas. What a complete goober.

---

I don't see why he should have to adjust himself; why is it acceptable at his ranch and not there? Doing something that would be contrary to his person for the benefit of someone's sensibilities is fake. It is far better to be a slob than to be a mannered person who is mannered because he fears others' reactions. I can respect that a lot more than I can respect a twit with no balls.

Anyway, knowing a bit about his background, it is probably more of him showing that he doesn't care what others find disgusting than it is him not knowing what manners are. The fact that he has to show off his carefree attitude is more telling than are his poor manners.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kanamori

I don't see why he should have to adjust himself; why is it acceptable at his ranch and not there?

---

Well, some view "the ranch" and a meeting of world leaders as having different social prerogatives. Personally, I'd love to hear the CNN recording of him lifting a cheek and tearing one off during the soup course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kanamori

Doing something that would be contrary to his person for the benefit of someone's sensibilities is fake.

---

...and on your first date with that cute redhead will you be cataloging your charms to her while chewing on linguini and shrimp?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kanamori

It is far better to be a slob than to be a mannered person who is mannered because he fears others' reactions.

---

Not fear - civilized behaviour.

My father always said, "You don't have to use proper table manners, but you do have to know how to use them."

I wonder if George knows.

i am uncertain why israel thinks blowing the roads and bridges will stop hezzbollah from escaping.
last time i checked i dont actually walk anywhere using a road,
grass, dirt, whatever, but never a road.

Well done CNN. Classy.

https://img137.imageshack.us/img137/2124/bushcnntd9.png

Oprah is gay?

Rotorgun uses expletive to describe Oprah's gayness and George W. Bush in general:
:gah2:

While typing at the computer, Roto was seen and heard using this common expression after reading the many posts about such a trivial matter.
Indeed, many times he has been caught using four letter words to describe the war in Iraq, Terrorists, the Republican party, the Democratic party, Bill Clinton (now there's a fine example for America), and having to fold camouflage nets during field training excersizes.

PS: you should have heard him when he busted his knuckles while changing the timing belt on his car! Lord Almighty! ~:pissed:

Well, this incident definately demonstrates the one of differences between Americans and Brits. :oops:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by barocca

i am uncertain why israel thinks blowing the roads and bridges will stop hezzbollah from escaping.
last time i checked i dont actually walk anywhere using a road,
grass, dirt, whatever, but never a road.

---

Where bridges start, grass, dirt and whatever tend to end, I know it's rediculous but that is how it works ~;)

unless you are from the province of Frysland of course, no need to reset the clock 20 years back there.

http://www.skarsterlan.nl/images/COLL2_4.jpg

Quote:

---

Well, some view "the ranch" and a meeting of world leaders as having different social prerogatives. Personally, I'd love to hear the CNN recording of him lifting a cheek and tearing one off during the soup course.

---

G8 Leaders are people on the same level as me or any one else. They deserve manners no more than any other person. If chewing w/ your mouth closed is just one of those things you were taught to do as a child, fine. Changing your eating behaviors for another person is fake, because it is attempting to change their perception of you, and it is telling that people feel they have to. They are no more deserving of manners than your close friends are. Your friends just seem not to mind if you fart loudly, as opposed to the G8 leaders.

Quote:

---

...and on your first date with that cute redhead will you be cataloging your charms to her while chewing on linguini and shrimp?

---

I never chew with my mouth open. If I did though, changing it for the redhead would be fake. If she didn’t like me because of that, then too bad, I’d be better without her. I'd not like to spend a bunch of time with some jerk who expects me to change for them and be unequal.

Quote:

---

Not fear - civilized behaviour.

---

What will the cute redhead think? That seems to be fear of what someone’s reaction to one of my behaviors will be. Either you are civilized or you are not. Changing your behavior, either way, for the benefits of others is just fear of their reactions. However, as I said before, I’m pretty sure that GWB was taught to chew w/ his mouth closed as a child. Chewing with it open is probably him telling the rest of us he doesn’t care; and again that he feels he has to tell us that by being rude to us is more telling of his personality than is the fact that he is chewing w/ his mouth open in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

Might be nice if he learned to finish chewing before speaking.

I mean... really!

---

He is multi-tasking! ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

Oprah is gay?

---

I thought it was obvious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Where bridges start, grass, dirt and whatever tend to end, I know it's rediculous but that is how it works ~;)

unless you are from the province of Frysland of course, no need to reset the clock 20 years back there.

http://www.skarsterlan.nl/images/COLL2_4.jpg

---

They never heard about boats?:laugh4:

I can understand barrocca´s argument, there are many ways to get over a river without a bridge. Boats are just one.

In regards to their little intimate convo, I paticularly enjoyed the Daily Telegraph's (newspaper here in Britain) interpretation of events: "While Mr Bush ate a bread roll, Mr Blair stood behind him like a courtier trying to attract the monarch's attention..." It saddens me that these are the leaders of two great nations, and doubly so that Blair has no desire to step down any time soon.

Table manners and warfare. My kind of thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kanamori

G8 Leaders are people on the same level as me or any one else. They deserve manners no more than any other person. If chewing w/ your mouth closed is just one of those things you were taught to do as a child, fine. Changing your eating behaviors for another person is fake, because it is attempting to change their perception of you, and it is telling that people feel they have to. They are no more deserving of manners than your close friends are. Your friends just seem not to mind if you fart loudly, as opposed to the G8 leaders.

---

I'm certainly not implying that the curmugeonly crustaceans who make up the G8 are better than us, simply that there are social occasions where civilized behaviour is called for.

As to this recuring issue of fear, the word is not appropriate. You could say respect perhaps, but certainly not fear. I do not fear my friend's mother, but I'm still not going to fart in front of her. Respect is respect, not fear. And if it is "changing who you are" then perhaps it is showing the person you are dealing with that they are worthy of respect and the effort of civilized behaviour. To view showing respect as fear is to lower yourself to pure instinct and view the feces flinging chimp as the highest order of being.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kanamori

I never chew with my mouth open. If I did though, changing it for the redhead would be fake. If she didn’t like me because of that, then too bad, I’d be better without her. I'd not like to spend a bunch of time with some jerk who expects me to change for them and be unequal.

---

I am inclined to think that if situated in front of said redhead while she was barely wearing that cute pink top you like so much, you yourself would be inclined to want to show her your best side, a side you perhaps wear more loosely when in the company of your beer buddies. That is no insult, that is human behaviour.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kanamori

What will the cute redhead think? That seems to be fear of what someone’s reaction to one of my behaviors will be. Either you are civilized or you are not. Changing your behavior, either way, for the benefits of others is just fear of their reactions.

---

Again, not fear - respect. The veneer of civilization we wear changes according to the social setting just as our jackets change in thickness according to the weather. I understand your point about being honest, but that honesty can still be well expressed while altering your behaviour to suit the circumstances.

For example, you do not swear on these forums. Are you saying you do not swear in real life, or are you merely showing respect to the rules of a particular situation and members of a particular group? If so, no one would say you are being dishonest, we would say you were behaving like a gentlemen and being respectful of the environment you are in. We would certainly not say you were fearful.

Now I have the mental image of Bush 43 farting over an open mike juxtaposed against his father puking in the Japanese minister's lap.

If one believes in civil behavior, then it is always called for. Changing when it is called for is giving more gravity to certain ideals or individuals.

Quote:

---

I am inclined to think that if situated in front of said redhead while she was barely wearing that cute pink top you like so much, you yourself would be inclined to want to show her your best side, a side you perhaps wear more loosely when in the company of your beer buddies.

---

If I liked it so much, I would probably rather to have the pink top in my hands or on her, depending on how I liked it.~;) Whether or not I would change my views in order to court an incredibly lovely redhead is beside the point; that is what I would do but that does not somehow make it correct or show that it is somehow respectful as opposed to being concerned with how others percieve me.

Quote:

---

For example, you do not swear on these forums. Are you saying you do not swear in real life, or are you merely showing respect to the rules of a particular situation and members of a particular group? If so, no one would say you are being dishonest, we would say you were behaving like a gentlemen and being respectful of the environment you are in. We would certainly not say you were fearful.

---

We're talking about me again and not the idea. I usually do not swear in real life, and so it makes sense that I would usually not swear here. Being 'respectful' is inherently concern for something else before and above what you would normally be concerned. More than anything, it is a matter of putting someone's tastes before your own. Being respectful is making yourself inferior to some other ideal. I am unwilling to do that when I percieve that the ideals are different. In a perfect world, I would always be willing to put my tastes before the lovely redhead's, although I may succumb to my humanity.

When in Rome, do as the romans do.

I agree with Beirut. Changing your habits/actions based on the circumstances and environment shows, among other things, respect and the desire to be a civilized person.
It's as simple as that.

We live in a society - unless one of us is a hermit. Therefore, we should adhere to society's rules. Sure, we can sometimes bend them, but that doesn't mean we should. (One can shoplift, if one does not get caught, that does not make it right, does it ?)
Table manners, and civilized behaviour in society are part of those rules. Of course sometimes they will not be enforced, and you may be able to bend them or ignore them, but that does not make it right, just as above. One is expected to act accordingly to society's rules of civilized behaviour.

If you're in, say, India - it is perfectly fine to eat with your hands.
If you're invited to your gf/wife's European (let's say, somewhat aristocratic parents), it would not be fine to eat using your hands. Would they kill you ? No. Would they somehow force you to do that ? No. Can you be obliged in any way to do that ? No. Then there is no fear - you can do it, and that's fine. But you're expected to show manners, and to show you are civilized and a part of this society, by following its rules.
In other cultures/environments, you are only supposed to use precisely one hand for eating, the other one being considered unclean. Will the fact that you are obeying that tradition somehow make you a coward, or "afraid" of something ? Not in the least - if anything, it will show that you respect the tradition and rules of the society you're being in at that moment.

I hope this example was clear enough, to eliminate any confusion between respect, and fear.
And to anticipate a reply like "You're talking about me, not the concept" - no, I'm not talking about you personally; using "you" is just the easiest and most natural way to express that in English; feel free to substitute "you" in the above sentences with "I" (i.e., blodrast), or "one", or some random person. It has nothing to do with you in particular, it's about the idea.