Iraqi Journalist Throws Shoes At Bush..Misses

The US military needs to recognise that the Iraqis have hit on a new strategy for fighting back. That was the beginning of Scholl and Awe.
 
As bad as that is it can't compete with the majestic carnage of the invaders who were not only complicit in softening up sanctions which killed hundreds of thousands, blew up the whole country

Idiot speak does not make your more credible. Please, gimme a break Tim.

Blew up the whole country.

For Fox Ache, Tim. *facepalm*

As to the sanctions: when you make a ceasefire deal, and it is not complied with on time, what do you do then, Tim? Enforce it or not? The UNSC chose to enforce it. Please read the charter on the authority the UNSC cited for that exercise of its functions.

That Saddam would rather his people suffer than his ego take a shot is a whole different ball game. In his defense, his worry about Iran seeing him as weak was probably non trivial. I doubt he was predisposed to trust the West with "we'll back you against Iran if they get froggy" after that 1991 war. Funny thing, is, the varied support he got in the 80's to give Iran the red arse might have been a clue that he could play that card again. Too bad he didn't try, it might have worked out for him.

We will never know.

DR
 
Last edited:
Some people in the Left insist on playing with fire by supporting Islamic extremism,(whether openly or by inference) and they are going to be burned when..as sadly I think there will be...there is another 9/11 style attack on the US.

Some idiots still believe Bush when he dumbly said "You're either with us or the terrorists!" and are indoctrinated by this Good v. Evil crap that ran through the Cold War and now the War On Terror.

It might come as a surprise to some that there is more than two sides and that criticizing one side does not mean you support the other side.

I neither support Islamic Extremism or Neocon Extremism. Evil v. Evil AFAIC
 
That Saddam would rather his people suffer than his ego take a shot is a whole different ball game.

No one with more than a couple of neurons in working order would be stupid enough to think that putting sanctions on a country would hurt the ruling elite that had a big stash.

It's a vile argument to put sanctions on a country and then blame the leadership of that country for the suffering of the ordinary citizens.
 
Ha ha, does making jokes about his aim somehow deflect any of the serious controversies about Bush for right wingers?
 
No one with more than a couple of neurons in working order would be stupid enough to think that putting sanctions on a country would hurt the ruling elite that had a big stash.

It's a vile argument to put sanctions on a country and then blame the leadership of that country for the suffering of the ordinary citizens.

That must be why things like the child mortality rates in the UN administered humanitarian zones of the north continued to decline after the 1st Gulf War while the central, Saddam administered zone rates more than doubled.

Armchair quarterbacking is fun though, isn't it?
 
On a more serious note, I thought the shoe throwing was rather disrespectful,

Um, that was the idea.

I don't know about you guys, but if some foreign country invaded my country, and then their leader showed up to gloat with his puppet prime minister, I'd be throwing a lot more than shoes.
 
Seriously, would you prefer the Iraqis didn't have the freedom to throw shoes at a press conference hosted by their leader?

It's really none of my business what freedoms Iraqis have. See, I'm not an Iraqi. It's not my job or my country's job to decide how other countries are governed.
 
Um, that was the idea.

I don't know about you guys, but if some foreign country invaded my country, and then their leader showed up to gloat with his puppet prime minister, I'd be throwing a lot more than shoes.

'gloat', 'puppet prime minister'?

Hyperbole like that won't help the Iraqi people get back on their feet.

It's really none of my business what freedoms Iraqis have. See, I'm not an Iraqi. It's not my job or my country's job to decide how other countries are governed.

Under what conditions would you think the US should intervene? Would you have had America remain neutral regarding Europe during WWII? After the War would you have had America leave Europe to the Soviets?
 
'gloat', 'puppet prime minister'?

Hyperbole like that won't help the Iraqi people get back on their feet.

Recognizing facts like that will help the Iraqi people liberate themselves.


Under what conditions would you think the US should intervene?
An actual threat to US national security or, in some cases, to one of our allies.

Hitler's Germany was invading other countries. We made war on Germany to stop and reverse those invasions, not to bring democracy to Germany. Notice we didn't invade Fascist Spain - because Spain wasn't attacking other countries. We let Franco rule until he died - because it wasn't our problem, just as Saddam wasn't our problem.

We're not the world police force.
 
Last edited:
Recognizing facts like that will help the Iraqi people liberate themselves.



An actual threat to US national security or, in some cases, to one of our allies.

Hitler's Germany was invading other countries. We made war on Germany to stop and reverse those invasions, not to bring democracy to Germany. Notice we didn't invade Fascist Spain - because Spain wasn't attacking other countries. We let Franco rule until he died - because it wasn't our problem, just as Saddam wasn't our problem.

We're not the world police force.


1) Germany declared war on the U.S, ergo, they made war on the U.S.

2) Spain was neutral in WWII. But Americans did fight against Franco in The Spanish Civil War.

3) I beleive it was Democrat President Truman who wanted the U.S. military to be a police force. He called the Korean War a "police action."
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom