The Secret Service agent was fired for being a loafer.

How soleless do you have to be to attack a lame duck president?

Luckily, this situation was tied up rather quickly.

What a heel.

The would be assassin was a real sneaker.

He was probably a government mule.

It's good thing he didn't have a stiletto.

Man, the Secret Service really gave that guy the boot.

The reporter who threw the shoe is apparently Muntazer al-Zaidi, who was kidnapped a year ago.

Link (new window)

Quick, greenlight this before the queue becomes clogged..

I know that throwing shoes is a big insult in Iraq because I remember the Iraqis hitting the fallen statue of Saddam with their shoes.

But I don't know why it's such a big deal.

What does it signify?

kaminariko: I know that throwing shoes is a big insult in Iraq because I remember the Iraqis hitting the fallen statue of Saddam with their shoes.

But I don't know why it's such a big deal.

What does it signify?

OMG that's the first thing I thought of. Who knows what it means, but I remember when the statue of Saddam Hussein came down, all the guys there were hitting it with the bottoms of their shoes.

Maybe it means that you are lower than the sole of my shoe, dirt on the ground?

Lame duck ducks Iraqi criticism.

Who throws a shoe? Honestly.

i dunno id say he got off pretty lucky. the family members of the hundred thousand plus iraqi civis who've been killed as a result of his war would probably do a lil' more than throw shoes at this guy.

hell i know a fer marine corps families in pendleton who'd do the same.

The president shrugged and said "I'm OK" after the incident in Baghdad today. "All I can report is it is a size 10," Bush said.

It is sad that as far as I know this is the wittiest thing our president has said in 8 years.

kaminariko: What does it signify?

From Wikipedia:

In the Arab world: a gesture of contempt

In the Arab world, shoe flinging is a gesture of extreme disrespect. A notable occurrence of this gesture happened in Baghdad, Iraq in 2003. When U.S. forces pulled down a giant statue of Saddam Hussein during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, many Iraqi detractors of Hussein threw their shoes at the fallen statue.
This may be an ancient gesture from the Middle East; Psalms 60:10, speaking of some of the traditional enemies of Judah, says that "Moab is my washpot; over Edom will I cast out my shoe...." (KJV)
The shoe represents the lowest part of the body (the foot) and displaying or throwing a shoe at someone or something in Arab cultures denotes that the person or thing is "beneath them." Showing the bottom of one's feet or shoes (for example, putting one's feet up on a table or desk) in Arab cultures is considered an extreme insult. Examples include Iraqi citizens smacking torn-down posters of Saddam Hussein with their shoes, and the depiction of President of the United States George H. W. Bush on a tile mosaic of the floor of the Al-Rashid Hotel's lobby, forcing all visitors entering the hotel to walk on Bush's face to enter the hotel.
During President George W. Bush's surprise visit to Iraq in December 2008, an Iraqi reporter threw shoes at him during a press conference with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Kamel al-Maliki.

The shoe-thrower, who was in a group of journalists, was wrestled to the ground and taken away.

That guy is a goner. poor bastard.

Linux_Yes: Bush is a shoe-in for being the worst U.S. President in 100 years ever.

ftfm

When evil is afoot, the righteous must toe the line.

Say it ain't so, Muntazer al-Zaidi!

kaminariko: I know that throwing shoes is a big insult in Iraq because I remember the Iraqis hitting the fallen statue of Saddam with their shoes.

But I don't know why it's such a big deal.

What does it signify?

it signifies that this guy has the freedom to express himself this way, without being later hauled off and being hung from meathooks, beaten, and have his toenails pulled off with pliers.

"It doesn't bother me," Bush told reporters. "So what if he threw a shoe at me." The president said it showed free speech in a democracy. Maliki said nothing about the incident, after which the two leaders signed the agreement

FTA

He's right about that. If anyone ever tried that with Saddam, every male in his family would have been cut in half within the hour and the females locked up for future raping.

I guess we'll see how Maliki handles it.

"It doesn't bother me," Bush told reporters. "So what if he threw a shoe at me." The president said it showed free speech in a democracy

sure moron, except that the Iraqis might democratically elect to screw America down the line. A free Iraq doesn't ensure American security.

the eidolon

Luckily, this situation was tied up rather quickly.


Knot!

Weaver95: The shoe-thrower, who was in a group of journalists, was wrestled to the ground and taken away.

That guy is a goner. poor bastard.

I'd imagine he'd probably have been roughed up pretty good if he were in this country and was throwing shoes at the president

Speaking of Iraq, did anybody read the article in the NYT about the unpublished article describing the fumbled rebuilding of Iraq?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/14/world/middleeast/14reconstruct.html?hp

Official History Spotlights Iraq Rebuilding Blunders

By JAMES GLANZ and T. CHRISTIAN MILLER
Published: December 13, 2008

"In one passage, for example, former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell is quoted as saying that in the months after the 2003 invasion, the Defense Department "kept inventing numbers of Iraqi security forces - the number would jump 20,000 a week! 'We now have 80,000, we now have 100,000, we now have 120,000.'"

...

" The history records how Mr. Garner presented Mr. Rumsfeld with several rebuilding plans, including one that would include projects across Iraq.

"What do you think that'll cost?" Mr. Rumsfeld asked of the more expansive plan.

"I think it's going to cost billions of dollars," Mr. Garner said.

"My friend," Mr. Rumsfeld replied, "if you think we're going to spend a billion dollars of our money over there, you are sadly mistaken.""

...

"At the end of his narrative, Mr. Bowen chooses a line from "Great Expectations" by Dickens as the epitaph of the American-led attempt to rebuild Iraq: "We spent as much money as we could, and got as little for it as people could make up their minds to give us.""

They're going to sock it to this guy.

From_The_Year_2000: Weaver95: The shoe-thrower, who was in a group of journalists, was wrestled to the ground and taken away.

That guy is a goner. poor bastard.

I'd imagine he'd probably have been roughed up pretty good if he were in this country and was throwing shoes at the president

He'd be in court, that's for sure.

jeffwashingdc: "It doesn't bother me," Bush told reporters. "So what if he threw a shoe at me." The president said it showed free speech in a democracy

sure moron, except that the Iraqis might democratically elect to screw America down the line. A free Iraq doesn't ensure American security.

it's ok, the CIA will just overthrow the democratically elected government and install another bloody dictator.

/iran.

kaminariko: I know that throwing shoes is a big insult in Iraq because I remember the Iraqis hitting the fallen statue of Saddam with their shoes.

But I don't know why it's such a big deal.

What does it signify?

That the recipient is beneath one's feet, according to George Monger's Marriage Customs of the World. (new window)

So did the guy bring an extra pair of shoes, or did he take one off and then walk home all lopsided.

Was it pump action?

May the aglet soar with pride!

Bush is reported to have said:

That's not a shoe, this is a shoe!!!

I just came in here to say that I'm impressed with the president's reaction time.

At least Bush has a sense of humor about it, with the size 10 joke.

\wish I could throw my dirty socks at him

ollin: So did the guy bring an extra pair of shoes, or did he take one off and then walk home all lopsided.

I think Gitmo is more of a sandal kinda place anyways.

I submitted this as
"So long and thanks for the shoes"

No conspiracy here, he was the sole attacker.

kaminariko: What does it signify?

From Wikiraqi.com (no, really):

The 'insulting' meaning is due to the fact that shoes are dirty and dirt and dirty shoes are regarded something ugly or bad. Let's not forget that you wear off your shoes in front of rooms or mosques.

Just saw it on CBS. Sweet jeebus that was funny!

\missed by two feet

Bush: All I can report is that it is a size 10.

You decide to be witty now? NOW? I mean, that's actually a good one. All the words are in order and... you know... real.

President George W. Bush ducked two shoes thrown at him by an unidentified man during a press conference in the Iraqi prime minister's office...

In Arab culture, throwing shoes is a grave show of disrespect. The man shouted an Arabic phrase, which an Iraqi present said translated as "this is a farewell kiss, dog."

Bush has some farking gall, making a last visit to a country he managed to make worse after years of rule by a sadistic dictator. It's like a rapist sending flowers the next day.

I want to say "too bad those shoes weren't hand grenades". But there were probably a lot of innocents present, so I won't. And Bush doesn't deserve death, he deserves to see himself labeled the worst President the country ever had, and his legacy one of destruction, misery and ignorance. War crimes indictments preventing him from leaving the US would just be icing on the cake.

I hope this catches on back in the US, I'd like my chance to throw a shoe at Bush if I ever run into him.

I bet heel be booted from any future press conferences.

It's been reported Dana Perino received a black eye in the ensuing scuffle to wrestle the shoer down.

/wish she'd had her jaw taken out, like Coulter did recently.

All I can report is it is a size 10

Even though Bush re-defines the term douche, it's amusing that he at least he tries to have a sense of humor. I'd find it hard to shrug off the fact that im up there on the list of the most hated world leaders of all-time

I would like to take this opportunity to predict an EPIC THREAD!!!!11ONE!!!1

markie_farkie: From Wikipedia:

I just got served.

/you don't know how many times a week I tell my students to look it up on Wikipedia.

Jeff Paine: Who throws a shoe? Honestly.

I came for this reference, and was not disappointed.

/KC Royals are looking for a reliever

He should have thrown a fresh turd.

OoO someone get a video of this stat, I can't find it on the series of tubes.

Billy McGoodGuy:

but, I thought Saddam did great things for Iraq? Then evil Bush came in, beat up the poor little fella, and ruined their awesome country. At least, that is what I learned on Fark. Why would they hate Saddam. Throwing shoes must be a sign of reverence.


nope. Saddam did horrible things to most Iraqis. Then evil Bush came in, beat up the asshole, and ruined their farked up country even worse than it already was.

HTH

In Arab culture, throwing shoes is a grave show of disrespect. The man shouted an Arabic phrase, which an Iraqi present said translated as "this is a farewell kiss, dog."

The assailant:

kaminariko: I know that throwing shoes is a big insult in Iraq because I remember the Iraqis hitting the fallen statue of Saddam with their shoes.

But I don't know why it's such a big deal.

What does it signify?

Would you, as an American, not take it as an insult if someone hit you with their shoes?

"It doesn't bother me," Bush told reporters. "So what if he threw a shoe at me." The president said it showed free speech in a democracy.


Throwing a shoe isn't free speech, it's assault. Not surprised that he doesn't know the difference though.

Brought in for security

I think the guy was trying to give Bush a sole.

No Such Agency: President George W. Bush ducked two shoes thrown at him by an unidentified man during a press conference in the Iraqi prime minister's office...

In Arab culture, throwing shoes is a grave show of disrespect. The man shouted an Arabic phrase, which an Iraqi present said translated as "this is a farewell kiss, dog."

Bush has some farking gall, making a last visit to a country he managed to make worse after years of rule by a sadistic dictator. It's like a rapist sending flowers the next day.

I want to say "too bad those shoes weren't hand grenades". But there were probably a lot of innocents present, so I won't. And Bush doesn't deserve death, he deserves to see himself labeled the worst President the country ever had, and his legacy one of destruction, misery and ignorance. War crimes indictments preventing him from leaving the US would just be icing on the cake.

are you crazy, or just extremely stupid??

How can Iraq possibly be worse than it was under Sadam???

"It doesn't bother me," Bush told reporters. "So what if he threw a shoe at me." The president said it showed free speech in a democracy.

"Free," except if it happened here, the guy would be spending 20 years in SuperMax (assuming he survived the SS beating).

There are no shoes in baghdad! All is well!

TeddyRooseveltsMustache: He should have thrown a fresh turd.

Bush: "heh, looks like he enjoys corn, heheheh."

mike_d85: You decide to be witty now? NOW? I mean, that's actually a good one. All the words are in order and... you know... real.

As my wife just said, He's always been witty, that's his shtick. He's just never been smart, and that's what we've been missing for the last 8 years.

organizm: I just came in here to say that I'm impressed with the president's reaction time.

True. usually he has this glazed over deer in the headlights look.

Man, looking at the first half-dozen posts, it appears you Farkers are quick on your feet.

/what?

Ashtrey: The president shrugged and said "I'm OK" after the incident in Baghdad today. "All I can report is it is a size 10," Bush said.

It is sad that as far as I know this is the wittiest thing our president has said in 8 years.

not only that, but ducking the first shoe was probably the best move of his presidency. though it would have been cooler if he had caught it and slung it back at the guy, hitting him squarely between the eyes.

ltdanman44: OoO someone get a video of this stat, I can't find it on the series of tubes.

Video!

It's being reported now that Bush is going to flip-flop on the show throwing incident and state that it's never right to throw anything at the POTUS.

d_lebowski: Just saw it on CBS. Sweet jeebus that was funny!

\missed by two feet

Same here. And I guess it says something that both of us thought "let's go see what people are saying on Fark."

/and now for the second half, after this word from our sponsor

Too bad it didn't land a hit... might of knock some sense into that dumbass.

Good retort, though...

FOBL: "It doesn't bother me," Bush told reporters. "So what if he threw a shoe at me." The president said it showed free speech in a democracy.

"Free," except if it happened here, the guy would be spending 20 years in SuperMax (assuming he survived the SS beating).

you are pretty much an idiot, aren't you??

FTA: President George W. Bush ducked two shoes thrown at him by an unidentified man during a press conference in the Iraqi prime minister's office.

How could he miss the World's biggest douche?

queezyweezel: The would be assassin was a real sneaker.

Employee of Seatec Astronomy.

Well at least subby didn't shoehorn something together for the headline.

I don't know why he still bothers.

organizm: I just came in here to say that I'm impressed with the president's reaction time.

This.

That was one hell of a duck if you ask me.

ltdanman44: OoO someone get a video of this stat, I can't find it on the series of tubes.

Video (new window)

ollin: So did the guy bring an extra pair of shoes, or did he take one off and then walk home all lopsided.

He got both shoes off before being tackled - by reporters!
Where was the secret service in all this?

Too bad he didn't pull an Eddie Murphy and say "Ya missed me biatch!"

I think a good gift for the President would be a chocolate revolver. and since he is so busy, you'd probably have to run up to him real quick and give it to him.

Bush to would be attacker

No Such Agency: I want to say "too bad those shoes weren't hand grenades". But there were probably a lot of innocents present, so I won't. And Bush doesn't deserve death, he deserves to see himself labeled the worst President the country ever had, and his legacy one of destruction, misery and ignorance. War crimes indictments preventing him from leaving the US would just be icing on the cake.

Wow...what the hell are you going to whine about when January rolls around?

"So what if he threw a shoe at me." The president said it showed free speech in a democracy.

LOL! I can't wait to express my newly found democracy.

to bad it wasn't a stiletto

Man, did you see those dodges Bush made? He wasn't even touched by either shoe.

That was really, really impressive to me, considering it was completely unexpected and the guy was 20 feet away or so. USA!

And we're off to the laces....

well obviously...bush has no sole.

-this fellow was trying to save him!

Video on the BBC website (new window)


The secret service sure reacted fast.... NOT

You know, for someone his age, he showed some decent reaction time. Don't know if I could've ducked like that.

nicksteel:
are you crazy, or just extremely stupid??

How can Iraq possibly be worse than it was under Sadam???

LOL. Are you nuts or trolling? Saddam could have you dragged away and tortured to death. But if you kept your head down and weren't political that was very unlikely to happen. Now it might happen because you bought cabbages from a Shi'ite grocer, or because you're a doctor, or because it's Wednesday. Iraqis can't really send their daughters to school anymore, unless they want them to come home with no face, or not come home at all. Pray you are never "liberated" the way Iraq has been.

Abox: Throwing a shoe isn't free speech, it's assault. Not surprised that he doesn't know the difference though.

And I'm not surprised you don't know the difference between assault and (attempted) battery.

Winterstar: No Such Agency: I want to say "too bad those shoes weren't hand grenades". But there were probably a lot of innocents present, so I won't. And Bush doesn't deserve death, he deserves to see himself labeled the worst President the country ever had, and his legacy one of destruction, misery and ignorance. War crimes indictments preventing him from leaving the US would just be icing on the cake.

Wow...what the hell are you going to whine about when January rolls around?

Considering the far right still biatches about Clinton to this day, I'd say it'll never end.

The Yankees are going to offer him a six year/180 bajillion dollar contract now.

Seriously, that was awesome. Bush deserves so much more than a couple shoes thrown at him - prison time for a start.

How much longer until all reporters have to take their shoes off to attend Bush news conferences?

medgar: organizm: I just came in here to say that I'm impressed with the president's reaction time.

This.

That was one hell of a duck if you ask me.


Totally. And good aim by the thrower. Good work all around - I like this incident.

Super Chronic: Same here. And I guess it says something that both of us thought "let's go see what people are saying on Fark."

/and now for the second half, after this word from our sponsor


Indeed. I guess great minds do think alike.

\checked your profile and verified they do
\\football, fire, fark and 8 yo bourbon for a sunday afternoon well spent,

Dr.Zom: And we're off to the laces....

The assailant wasn't Japanese!

/ducks and runs...fast!

Half Star: ...it would have been cooler if he had caught it and slung it back at the guy, hitting him squarely between the eyes.



/hot linky

no hero tag?


/runs and hides from ze SS

So the thrower got the boot?

Damn, this is a good idea. We should throw shoes at him here. Or at least throw them on to the white house lawn.

nicksteel
are you crazy, or just extremely stupid??

How can Iraq possibly be worse than it was under Sadam???

Did you miss those few years where everyone was getting blowed up, shot at, tortured and drilled in the head? Saddam was pretty shiatty but it got even worse when the ethnic cleansing started. You want to talk about "rape rooms", every abandoned building was a rape room. You want to talk about torture, tell it to the families who found their loved ones in morgues or ditches, their bodies covered with the signs of torture.

yes, it was even more farked up than when Saddam ruled.

Was it richard reid?

Laces out?

No Such Agency: nicksteel:
are you crazy, or just extremely stupid??

How can Iraq possibly be worse than it was under Sadam???

LOL. Are you nuts or trolling? Saddam could have you dragged away and tortured to death. But if you kept your head down and weren't political that was very unlikely to happen. Now it might happen because you bought cabbages from a Shi'ite grocer, or because you're a doctor, or because it's Wednesday. Iraqis can't really send their daughters to school anymore, unless they want them to come home with no face, or not come home at all. Pray you are never "liberated" the way Iraq has been.

and where did you get all of this information???

ANd the idea that people under Saddam were okay if they "kept their heads down" is completely wrong. He killed way too many people and I doubt it those people had simply failed to "keep their head down".

shipofthesun: queezyweezel: The would be assassin was a real sneaker.

Employee of Seatec Astronomy.

WIN

Aten: Video on the BBC website (new window)


The secret service sure reacted fast.... NOT

They waited until he was out of shoes to tackle him.
/it was a lame duck.

It was a size '10'.

LOL

"All I can report is it is a size 10," Bush said.


Funniest. President. Ever.

/ to bad being a comedian doesn't make you a good President

Would have been funny if he picked up one of the shoes, sniffed it, and said "Whew! now that's a weapon of mass destruction!"

The Fiendish plot of Dr. Fu Man Shoe to embarrass this clog of a President was foiled by Secret Service sneakers.

Curt Blizzah: Laces out?

It looked like the laces were in, actually.

Iraq has has rampant sandalism.

He_Hate_Me: Would you, as an American, not take it as an insult if someone hit you with their shoes?

When I was a kid, my mom could whip off one of her flats in the grocery store, paddle my ass three times (pop, pop, pop), and have that shoe back on before she finished another step.

so, uhh, in answer to your question...why, yes, I suppose so.

Hack of all trades: You know, for someone his age, he showed some decent reaction time. Don't know if I could've ducked like that.

He's been in training for dodging all the subpeonas (sp?) regarding his actions during his time as President.

medgar: That was one hell of a duck if you ask me.

Yeah, I can't stand the guy, but I can't deny that he moves well. He didn't hide either, which surprises me.

No Such Agency reminded me of the fact that women in Iraq had more freedom than a lot of muslim countries -- if they weren't being dragged off to be raped by Saddam and his sons that is. Under Saddam women could wear Western clothes and hold professional jobs like doctor or professor.

Now they are in similar straits to Iranian women - can't go out by themselves, have to wear a head scarf, much harder to have a job. How is that progress? A lot of families were displaced in the past 3-4 years and the women ended up being prostitutes in Syria or Jordan just to support themselves and their children. you wacky pro women pro family Republicans!

nicksteel: No Such Agency: nicksteel:
are you crazy, or just extremely stupid??

How can Iraq possibly be worse than it was under Sadam???

LOL. Are you nuts or trolling? Saddam could have you dragged away and tortured to death. But if you kept your head down and weren't political that was very unlikely to happen. Now it might happen because you bought cabbages from a Shi'ite grocer, or because you're a doctor, or because it's Wednesday. Iraqis can't really send their daughters to school anymore, unless they want them to come home with no face, or not come home at all. Pray you are never "liberated" the way Iraq has been.

and where did you get all of this information???

ANd the idea that people under Saddam were okay if they "kept their heads down" is completely wrong. He killed way too many people and I doubt it those people had simply failed to "keep their head down".

Jesus Christ, are you, in fact, George W. Bush?

kaminariko: /you don't know how many times a week I tell my students to look it up on Wikipedia.

Seriously? You're a teacher, and you tell your students "Just use Wikipedia"? I'd trust Google over Wiki for accurate information most days, and there are these things called books that your school probably has a couple of.

Billy McGoodGuy: but, I thought Saddam did great things for Iraq? Then evil Bush came in, beat up the poor little fella, and ruined their awesome country. At least, that is what I learned on Fark. Why would they hate Saddam. Throwing shoes must be a sign of reverence.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

//however, three rights make a left

FloydA: Billy McGoodGuy:

but, I thought Saddam did great things for Iraq? Then evil Bush came in, beat up the poor little fella, and ruined their awesome country. At least, that is what I learned on Fark. Why would they hate Saddam. Throwing shoes must be a sign of reverence.


nope. Saddam did horrible things to most Iraqis. Then evil Bush came in, beat up the asshole, and ruined their farked up country even worse than it already was.

HTH

Says the middle aged liberal yuppie posting from his comfortable home who has no farking clue what Iraq is really like or how the people are reacting to us and their new government.

"So what if he threw a shoe at me." The president said it showed free speech in a democracy.

Until they hauled him of for torture and summary execution, that is...

medgar: organizm: I just came in here to say that I'm impressed with the president's reaction time.

This.

That was one hell of a duck if you ask me.

To be fair, I think Jesus warned him about this ahead of time.

Reports show that he and Bush are apparently "tight bros. from way back when."

Egalitarian: nicksteel
are you crazy, or just extremely stupid??

How can Iraq possibly be worse than it was under Sadam???

Did you miss those few years where everyone was getting blowed up, shot at, tortured and drilled in the head? Saddam was pretty shiatty but it got even worse when the ethnic cleansing started. You want to talk about "rape rooms", every abandoned building was a rape room. You want to talk about torture, tell it to the families who found their loved ones in morgues or ditches, their bodies covered with the signs of torture.

yes, it was even more farked up than when Saddam ruled.


Have you ever lived in a dictatorship?? Saddam gassed entire villages and killed anybody and everybody that he felt like killing. Iraq is not perfect, but it is certainly better than it was under Saddam.

Do you seriously believe that the Iraq people would rather have Saddam back in charge??

kaminariko [TotalFark] Quote 2008-12-14 02:48:19 PM
He_Hate_Me: Would you, as an American, not take it as an insult if someone hit you with their shoes?

When I was a kid, my mom could whip off one of her flats in the grocery store, paddle my ass three times (pop, pop, pop), and have that shoe back on before she finished another step.

so, uhh, in answer to your question...why, yes, I suppose so.



This x 100

Shoes as Weapons Thread!

I am glad to see the president still has good reflexes.

How is Iraq worse now? Under Saddam, all one had to be fairly secure (provided one was not an infantry man in one of his wars) was not to touch the third rail, politics. He was setting up a Soviet style system. College for both men and women, economic success deriving from academic success. Being a strongman, he was pretty good at suppressing local tensions. Now, the place is violent and chaotic.

I think one thing behind the perpetuation as the notion of the bottoms of one's feet (the parts furthest from heaven) as the vile part of the human body, was to take this sense away from the genitalia. They thought that they wanted a healthy sexuality, but in the context of marriage, and without FAS.

DeathToRetail: medgar: organizm: I just came in here to say that I'm impressed with the president's reaction time.

This.

That was one hell of a duck if you ask me.

To be fair, I think Jesus warned him about this ahead of time.

Reports show that he and Bush are apparently "tight bros. from way back when."

And everyone knows you don't fark with the Jesus.

Aeonic_Blue: nicksteel: No Such Agency: nicksteel:
are you crazy, or just extremely stupid??

How can Iraq possibly be worse than it was under Sadam???

LOL. Are you nuts or trolling? Saddam could have you dragged away and tortured to death. But if you kept your head down and weren't political that was very unlikely to happen. Now it might happen because you bought cabbages from a Shi'ite grocer, or because you're a doctor, or because it's Wednesday. Iraqis can't really send their daughters to school anymore, unless they want them to come home with no face, or not come home at all. Pray you are never "liberated" the way Iraq has been.

and where did you get all of this information???

ANd the idea that people under Saddam were okay if they "kept their heads down" is completely wrong. He killed way too many people and I doubt it those people had simply failed to "keep their head down".

Jesus Christ, are you, in fact, George W. Bush?

Given the choice, do you believe that the Iraqis would rather have Saddam in charge?

NickSteel
Juan Cole (JuanCole.com) -- for awhile there, every day he put up translated stories along the lines of another X tortured bodies found around Baghdad, Y people blown up at a market, Z innocent people mowed down by US troops or mercs at a checkpoint, etc. These were daily occurrences. I've never heard anybody disputing what he posted.

What an ungrateful POS. Thousands of Americans have died for his freedom, and that's how he treats the President who facilitated his country's liberation?

I remember something like this from the orientation brief before after being stationed in Oman. You don't point the soles of your shoes at an Arab and you don't sing along with the call to prayer unless you know all the words.

/Also, never look at a gypsy's balls.

The_Y2P_Problem: The Secret Service agent was fired for being a loafer.

Nice work

As a complete Bush hater, I do have to say I admire the way he handled the situation, and his ducking skills.

But is it just me, or is he chewing gum? Look at him between the two shoes.

Winterstar: Abox: Throwing a shoe isn't free speech, it's assault. Not surprised that he doesn't know the difference though.

And I'm not surprised you don't know the difference between assault and (attempted) battery.


Yeah that didn't come as a surprise to me either.

signaljammer: How is Iraq worse now? Under Saddam, all one had to be fairly secure (provided one was not an infantry man in one of his wars) was not to touch the third rail, politics. He was setting up a Soviet style system. College for both men and women, economic success deriving from academic success. Being a strongman, he was pretty good at suppressing local tensions. Now, the place is violent and chaotic.

I think one thing behind the perpetuation as the notion of the bottoms of one's feet (the parts furthest from heaven) as the vile part of the human body, was to take this sense away from the genitalia. They thought that they wanted a healthy sexuality, but in the context of marriage, and without FAS.

SO, would you have wanted to live in Iraq under Saddam??

RminusQ: You're a teacher, and you tell your students "Just use Wikipedia"?

Only sarcastically when they ask a question that I just answered because they weren't paying attention. They know what it means when I say it.

Yes, there are such things as stupid questions.

This thread is useless without pictures.

Maybe the shoes were laced with something?

nicksteel
I think Iraqis would have preferred a rational post-invasion plan instead of disbanding the army, allowing the infrastructure to be trashed even further, teetering on the brink of civil war, having the professional/middle class people killed off or driven out.

It was one of those "out of the frying pan, into the fire" situations.

Came here for the Bush stinks references. Leaving disappointed. Why do all the good trolls take the weekend off?

Egalitarian: NickSteel
Juan Cole (JuanCole.com) -- for awhile there, every day he put up translated stories along the lines of another X tortured bodies found around Baghdad, Y people blown up at a market, Z innocent people mowed down by US troops or mercs at a checkpoint, etc. These were daily occurrences. I've never heard anybody disputing what he posted.

# Reprisal Against Dujail

On July 8, 1982, Saddam Hussein was visiting the town of Dujail (50 miles north of Baghdad) when a group of Dawa militants shot at his motorcade. In reprisal for this assassination attempt, the entire town was punished. More than 140 fighting-age men were apprehended and never heard from again. Approximately 1,500 other townspeople, including children, were rounded up and taken to prison, where many were tortured. After a year or more in prison, many were exiled to a southern desert camp. The town itself was destroyed; houses were bulldozed and orchards were demolished.

Though Saddam's reprisal against Dujail is considered one of his lesser-known crimes, it has been chosen as the first for which he will be tried.

# Anfal Campaign

Officially from February 23 to September 6, 1988 (but often thought to extend from March 1987 to May 1989), Saddam Hussein's regime carried out the Anfal (Arabic for "spoils") campaign against the large Kurdish population in northern Iraq. The purpose of the campaign was ostensibly to reassert Iraqi control over the area; however, the real goal was to permanently eliminate the Kurdish problem.

The campaign consisted of eight stages of assault, where up to 200,000 Iraqi troops attacked the area, rounded up civilians, and razed villages. Once rounded up, the civilians were divided into two groups: men from ages of about 13 to 70 and women, children, and elderly men. The men were then shot and buried in mass graves. The women, children, and elderly were taken to relocation camps where conditions were deplorable. In a few areas, especially areas that put up even a little resistance, everyone was killed.

Hundreds of thousands of Kurds fled the area, yet it is estimated that up to 182,000 were killed during the Anfal campaign. Many people consider the Anfal campaign an attempt at genocide.

# Chemical Weapons Against Kurds

As early as April 1987, the Iraqis used chemical weapons to remove Kurds from their villages in northern Iraq during the Anfal campaign. It is estimated that chemical weapons were used on approximately 40 Kurdish villages, with the largest of these attacks occurring on March 16, 1988 against the Kurdish town of Halabja.

Beginning in the morning on March 16, 1988 and continuing all night, the Iraqis rained down volley after volley of bombs filled with a deadly mixture of mustard gas and nerve agents on Halabja. Immediate effects of the chemicals included blindness, vomiting, blisters, convulsions, and asphyxiation. Approximately 5,000 women, men, and children died within days of the attacks. Long-term effects included permanent blindness, cancer, and birth defects. An estimated 10,000 lived, but live daily with the disfigurement and sicknesses from the chemical weapons.

Saddam Hussein's cousin, Ali Hassan al-Majid was directly in charge of the chemical attacks against the Kurds, earning him the epithet, "Chemical Ali."

# Invasion of Kuwait

On August 2, 1990, Iraqi troops invaded the country of Kuwait. The invasion was induced by oil and a large war debt that Iraq owed Kuwait. The six-week, Persian Gulf War pushed Iraqi troops out of Kuwait in 1991. As the Iraqi troops retreated, they were ordered to light oil wells on fire. Over 700 oil wells were lit, burning over one billion barrels of oil and releasing dangerous pollutants into the air. Oil pipelines were also opened, releasing 10 million barrels of oil into the Gulf and tainting many water sources. The fires and the oil spill created a huge environmental disaster.

# Shiite Uprising & the Marsh Arabs

At the end of the Persian Gulf War in 1991, southern Shiites and northern Kurds rebelled against Hussein's regime. In retaliation, Iraq brutally suppressed the uprising, killing thousands of Shiites in southern Iraq.

As supposed punishment for supporting the Shiite rebellion in 1991, Saddam Hussein's regime killed thousands of Marsh Arabs, bulldozed their villages, and systematically ruined their way of life. The Marsh Arabs had lived for thousands of years in the marshlands located in southern Iraq until Iraq built a network of canals, dykes, and dams to divert water away from the marshes. The Marsh Arabs were forced to flee the area, their way of life decimated.

By 2002, satellite images showed only 7 to 10 percent of the marshlands left. Saddam Hussein is blamed for creating an environmental disaster.

//just sayin

Strange things are afoot in Iraq.

/I got nothin'

100 tortured each day
Excerpt of interview:

"Tagesschau.de: Mr. Nowak, is there more torture in Iraq now than in the time of Saddam Hussein?

Nowak: The report of the [UN] support mission for Iraq concludes that the situation is very serious. In July and August 2006 alone, the bodies of 6500 persons were found who had been abducted and often very gravely tortured -- that is more than 100 people each day. I collaborated on this report to the extent that I interviewed various victims and non-governmental organizations. Many of them credibly reported that in their view the situation is now worse than it was under Saddam Hussein.

Under his dictatorship there was also terrible torture, but one could at least still predict who would have to fear being tortured. Today, on the other hand, the security situation is out of control to such an extent that in the final analysis every person can become a victim of abductions, summary executions, and the worst methods of torture: people's limbs are being amputated, their fingers are missing, their eyes have been put out."

Unimpressed

I don't have any love for Bush, but the fact that they guy got off two throws, including a bobble before the second throw, doesn't seem to speak well for the Presidential security detail.

My expectation is that the guy would have been buried in an avalanche of Secret Service guys before the first shoe even hit the ground. Have you seen the Reagan shooting (new window) video? Within a second of the first shot one of the agents has turned into the line of fire and expanded his stance to maximize the chance of stopping subsequent bullets, while 3-4 more agents jump directly on the armed and firing shooter. That's some awe-inspiring training and response.

Meanwhile, Bush has to duck two thrown shoes several seconds apart. And say what you will about the guy, but if I were him at the end of his presidency of shame and I was in the location of my biggest fark up and some hostile was launching projectiles in my direction, I might just have ducked behind the podium and not come back up until my security team told me it was all clear. He stood right back up to evaluate the situation.

Again, no love for Bush, who I think (and hope) will go down as one of our worst presidents, but damn.

Just out of curiousity NickSteel what would you say if the sum total of Iraq suffering from sanctions, the invasion and post-invasion amounted to more misery than what Saddam inflicted?

I'm glad the bastard is out of power and dead but it doesn't whitewash all the rest of the misery.

I thought if you wanted to have gay sex with an American politician, you tapped your shoes in an airport bathroom stall, not throw them at him.

taurusowner: Says the middle aged liberal yuppie posting from his comfortable home who has no farking clue what Iraq is really like or how the people are reacting to us and their new government.

You're commenting on an article about them throwing shoes at our president. I think it's obvious how they feel.

signaljammer: How is Iraq worse now? Under Saddam, all one had to be fairly secure (provided one was not an infantry man in one of his wars) was not to touch the third rail, politics. He was setting up a Soviet style system. College for both men and women, economic success deriving from academic success. Being a strongman, he was pretty good at suppressing local tensions. Now, the place is violent and chaotic.


WOW. You just used "Soviet style system" and "economic success" in the same paragraph and you honestly expect anyone to take you seriously?

Thank goodness, it wasn't the real president. For a second there, I thought someone took a shot at Obama. I could care less if they dropped a house on Bush.

Egalitarian: 100 tortured each day
Excerpt of interview:

"Tagesschau.de: Mr. Nowak, is there more torture in Iraq now than in the time of Saddam Hussein?

Nowak: The report of the [UN] support mission for Iraq concludes that the situation is very serious. In July and August 2006 alone, the bodies of 6500 persons were found who had been abducted and often very gravely tortured -- that is more than 100 people each day. I collaborated on this report to the extent that I interviewed various victims and non-governmental organizations. Many of them credibly reported that in their view the situation is now worse than it was under Saddam Hussein.

Under his dictatorship there was also terrible torture, but one could at least still predict who would have to fear being tortured. Today, on the other hand, the security situation is out of control to such an extent that in the final analysis every person can become a victim of abductions, summary executions, and the worst methods of torture: people's limbs are being amputated, their fingers are missing, their eyes have been put out."



Saddam Hussein was hanged for ordering the deaths of 148 Shiite men and boys in the village of Dujail after an assassination attempt there in 1982. But by the standards of his brutal rule, the Dujail killings were a relatively minor crime.

The exact number of deaths attributable to Saddam Hussein may never be known, but estimates range as high as half a million. There is evidence of more than 250 mass graves dating to his rule.

Following is a list of other crimes Saddam is accused of. The most notorious is his genocidal campaign against the Kurds in the north. The trial for those murders, and for others, will now continue with the remaining defendants.

1974 -- Dawa Killings

Five leaders of the Shiite Islamic Dawa Party were sentenced to death and killed as Saddam consolidated his power. In 2004, those murders were among many charges announced against Saddam. The U.S. State Department estimates thousands of Saddam's political rivals were killed.

1980 -- Fayli Deportations and Killings

Thousands of Kurds of the Fayli sect were persecuted. Some were expelled to Iran, others killed. Saddam thought of them as Iranian, and therefore as enemies. Fayli women were often imprisoned or put into camps.

1983 -- Barzani Abductions

After the Iraqi-based Kurdistan Democratic Party allied with Iran during the Iran-Iraq War, Saddam sought to punish the clan and its leader, Massoud Barzani. More than 5,000 males, some as young as 10, disappeared. Decades later the remains of 512 Barzani men were discovered in a mass grave. They were reinterred in 2005. A letter that shows Saddam's direct involvement in the crimes was discovered in Baghdad.

1988 -- Al-Anfal Campaign

From February to September 1988, Saddam conducted what has been called a genocidal campaign against the Kurdish population. Gen. Ali Hassan al-Majid, or "Chemical Ali," Saddam's cousin, carried out the Al-Anfal operation using chemical weapons. Human Rights Watch estimates between 50,000 and 100,000 died. Kurdish officials and some international human rights groups put the number killed as high as 182,000. Saddam was on trial for the Anfal campaign at the time of his execution. Six defendants remain in the Al-Anfal case, including "Chemical Ali," who is facing charges of genocide.

1988 -- Halabja Gassing

During the Anfal campaign, "Chemical Ali" ordered an attack against civilians in the town of Halabja. Iraqi forces dropped bombs containing mustard and nerve gases. An estimated 5,000 men, women and children died in a single day. Many more died from long-term medical problems, and birth defects are still common in the area.

1990s -- Marsh Arabs Devastated

Saddam attacked the Shiite "Marsh Arabs" by destroying their land. Once a significant wetland, the marshes in southern Iraq were devastated by a government drainage plan that left behind a wasteland. In 1991, 250,000 Marsh Arabs lived in the region. Now 90 percent of the area is in ruins and only an estimated 20,000 people remain. Tens of thousands live in refugee camps in Iran. Efforts are now underway to restore the marshes. Human Rights Watch calls the campaign against the Marsh Arabs a crime against humanity and other rights activists call it genocide. There are claims chemical weapons also were used.

1990 -- Invasion of Kuwait

In August of 1990, Saddam ordered the Iraqi military, the fourth largest military in the world at the time, to invade Kuwait, leading to the 1991 Gulf War. Iraqi soldiers are accused of torturing and executing hundreds of Kuwaitis, as well as taking hostages and looting. More than 700 oil wells were set on fire and pipelines opened, spilling oil into the Gulf.

1991 -- Kurdish and Shiite Rebellions

After heeding President George H.W. Bush's call to rebel against Saddam, Shiites and Kurds were crushed by immense Iraqi military force. Saddam turned his military against the people as part of his widespread crackdown after the war. The rebels thought they would have the backing of the U.S. military. Thousands have been discovered in mass graves.

1999 -- Al-Sadr Assassination

Ayatollah Muhammed al-Sadr, father of prominent Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, and two of his sons were assassinated in 1999. Al-Sadr was a well-liked Shiite leader, and his death spawned Shiite uprisings in Baghdad. As he had previously, Saddam cracked down on the rebellion and hundreds were killed.

In a statement responding to the execution, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki said, "Let the families of Iraqi martyrs killed in mass graves, Anfal, Halabja or those executed in the cells of the dead regime be happy. The mothers, orphans and widows should celebrate the death of the buried dictator."

"The President was heard to remark 'You fight like a woman!'"
/ came for the Austin Powers references
// and the slashies

WFern: taurusowner: Says the middle aged liberal yuppie posting from his comfortable home who has no farking clue what Iraq is really like or how the people are reacting to us and their new government.

You're commenting on an article about them throwing shoes at our president. I think it's obvious how they feel.

them??? they???

One farking guy is not a them or a they.

Damn, sign that dude up. He put both throws right on the same spot, right between the eyes. Had Bush not ducked, he would have gotten beaned good.

"This is a farewell kiss, dog!"

Is a new meme!

POTUS with a foot fetish? How else would he know the size of the shoes?

/just askin

nicksteel: Saddam gassed entire villages...

I'm going to stop you right there. All major intelligence agencies have agreed that he did not possess chemical weaponry since the time of the first Gulf War.

Egalitarian: Just out of curiousity NickSteel what would you say if the sum total of Iraq suffering from sanctions, the invasion and post-invasion amounted to more misery than what Saddam inflicted?

I'm glad the bastard is out of power and dead but it doesn't whitewash all the rest of the misery.

Have you read anything about the crimes of Saddam???

signaljammer: Under Saddam, all one had to be fairly secure (provided one was not an infantry man in one of his wars) was not to touch the third rail, politics.

Unless you were a child.

Leslie Stahl: "We have heard that a half million children have died (as a result of sanctions against Iraq). I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"

Madeleine Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price, we think the price is worth it."

-- A CBS Sixty Minutes interview between Leslie Stahl and U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, on 12 May 1996

BTW, +1 for subby

He had good velocity but his aim was a little high. Loved watching the video of it though. It's an instant classic.

Everyone is just blindly accepting the official 'Single shoer' theory.

so close...

Befuddled: Everyone is just blindly accepting the official 'Single shoer' theory.

Back and to the left.

taurusowner:

nope. Saddam did horrible things to most Iraqis. Then evil Bush came in, beat up the asshole, and ruined their farked up country even worse than it already was.

HTH

Says the middle aged liberal yuppie posting from his comfortable home who has no farking clue what Iraq is really like or how the people are reacting to us and their new government.



Are you suggesting that Iraq is not a farked up place to be right now, or that it wasn't a farked up place to be when Saddam was still in charge?

If the later, you have no idea what you are talking about- Saddam was a vile dictator and the world is better off without him.

If the former, well, I don't know what to say, other than in most places, there are no IEDs and people don't need to wear body armor to go shopping.


I realize that you don't want to hear this, and that you won't listen, but in many ways, Iraq is pretty messed up right now.

That is not the fault of the troops, it is the fault of the politicians who are trying to direct military strategy. That never works.

The Iraq war did not need to happen. Its main long-term effect is either going to be to bog down American troops for decades to come, or to destabilize the entire region, empowering Iran by proxy and emboldening the minority of Muslims who hate the US.

Is Iraq in better shape now than it was at the height of the fighting? Obviously. Is it "better" in every way than it was under Saddam? No, it isn't and only a liar or a fool would claim otherwise.


/And please, try to refrain from calling me names simply because you disagree with my conclusions; it implies that you think you know a lot more about me than you actually do, which makes you look dishonest.

Back, and now the left.

Back, and now the left.

Back, and now the left.

Egalitarian: nicksteel
I think Iraqis would have preferred a rational post-invasion plan instead of disbanding the army, allowing the infrastructure to be trashed even further, teetering on the brink of civil war, having the professional/middle class people killed off or driven out.

It was one of those "out of the frying pan, into the fire" situations.

that does not answer my question, does it?

Egalitarian: NickSteel
Juan Cole (JuanCole.com) -- for awhile there, every day he put up translated stories along the lines of another X tortured bodies found around Baghdad, Y people blown up at a market, Z innocent people mowed down by US troops or mercs at a checkpoint, etc. These were daily occurrences. I've never heard anybody disputing what he posted.

And yet the number of deaths were still less than during the sanctions regime under Saddam.

nick steel

so lemme get this straight. saddam? bad guy. torture, corruption murder. we get that.

let's fast forward to today:
torture, corruption, murder, lack of basic services in huge parts of teh country, a region destabilized, and invigorated strong and soon-going-nuclear iran, a US w/ reputation in shatters, its armed forces stretched thin, 30k casualties and 4k killed, billions wasted . . .

see? its just as bad if not worse as before, except this time, its our problem, of our own making, our own doing, our own funding, our own leadership. We did it all.

We've killed at least a hundred thousand if not hundreds of thousands of innocent people over there. Does that bother you any? Does that make you think about what we as americans are one day going to sow as a result of what we're doign there now "in the name of freedom and democracy?"

FloydA: taurusowner:

nope. Saddam did horrible things to most Iraqis. Then evil Bush came in, beat up the asshole, and ruined their farked up country even worse than it already was.

HTH

Says the middle aged liberal yuppie posting from his comfortable home who has no farking clue what Iraq is really like or how the people are reacting to us and their new government.



Are you suggesting that Iraq is not a farked up place to be right now, or that it wasn't a farked up place to be when Saddam was still in charge?

If the later, you have no idea what you are talking about- Saddam was a vile dictator and the world is better off without him.

If the former, well, I don't know what to say, other than in most places, there are no IEDs and people don't need to wear body armor to go shopping.


I realize that you don't want to hear this, and that you won't listen, but in many ways, Iraq is pretty messed up right now.

That is not the fault of the troops, it is the fault of the politicians who are trying to direct military strategy. That never works.

The Iraq war did not need to happen. Its main long-term effect is either going to be to bog down American troops for decades to come, or to destabilize the entire region, empowering Iran by proxy and emboldening the minority of Muslims who hate the US.

Is Iraq in better shape now than it was at the height of the fighting? Obviously. Is it "better" in every way than it was under Saddam? No, it isn't and only a liar or a fool would claim otherwise.


/And please, try to refrain from calling me names simply because you disagree with my conclusions; it implies that you think you know a lot more about me than you actually do, which makes you look dishonest.

how many dictatorships have you lived under?

Calling you names would be based on your posts, and from this post, I can see lots of room for calling you names.

Father_Jack: nick steel

so lemme get this straight. saddam? bad guy. torture, corruption murder. we get that.

let's fast forward to today:
torture, corruption, murder, lack of basic services in huge parts of teh country, a region destabilized, and invigorated strong and soon-going-nuclear iran, a US w/ reputation in shatters, its armed forces stretched thin, 30k casualties and 4k killed, billions wasted . . .

see? its just as bad if not worse as before, except this time, its our problem, of our own making, our own doing, our own funding, our own leadership. We did it all.

We've killed at least a hundred thousand if not hundreds of thousands of innocent people over there. Does that bother you any? Does that make you think about what we as americans are one day going to sow as a result of what we're doign there now "in the name of freedom and democracy?"

what is your source for stating that we have killed all those people?? A statement like that requires a source.

WFern: You're commenting on an article about them throwing shoes at our president. I think it's obvious how they feel.

Don't mistake the actions of a single person for the feelings of an entire nation.

Bush is right and the irony I'm sure is lost. Because of Bush this guy was *able* to throw shoes at him without fear of being tortured or murdered or having his family murdered etc...

The guy will probably get a stern talking to but nothing untowards will happen; we are still trying to win hearts and minds you know.

But I am well used to the Hypocrisy of the morally outraged Anti-War\Pro-abortion movement.

/And sorry but Bush as Worst President EVAR isn't going to happen - nope you can't have it.

nicksteel: how many dictatorships have you lived under?

How many religious civil wars have you lived through?

Honestly, I get the feeling you think Vietnam was a terrific decision as well.

I don't see what the big deal is, that guy did what every rational american would do if they came across Bush, get so angry you wanna throw something and your shoes are really the closest thing........

nicksteel: what is your source for stating that we have killed all those people?? A statement like that requires a source.

is this the part where you straw man attack the source i post and completely dodge the question at hand?

you are on fark so you can use the internet. why dont you google search for "iraqi casualties", and see for yourself and pick a source you like.

I always see in guidebooks to Turkey that foreigners shouldn't show the bottoms of their shoes when they're sitting but I've never heard of such a thing myself.

Alien Robot: signaljammer: Under Saddam, all one had to be fairly secure (provided one was not an infantry man in one of his wars) was not to touch the third rail, politics.

Unless you were a child.

Leslie Stahl: "We have heard that a half million children have died (as a result of sanctions against Iraq). I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"

Madeleine Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price, we think the price is worth it."

-- A CBS Sixty Minutes interview between Leslie Stahl and U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, on 12 May 1996

And it is kind of funny that Sanctions and Inspections are what those opposed to the war wanted more of.

Who's the *real" baby killers eh?

I must say I was impressed with the President's quick reflexes

I think this is an important illustration of who Iraqis blame for the farked up situation they are in.

Notice they are not mad at Iran. Contrary to what we are told here in the US, Iraq and Iran are friends, and like each other just fine. They are both majority Shiite countrys. The Iraqi President has signed agreements with Iran, and when asked by reporters to condemn Iran, he refused, saying "we know who our friends are."

Yes, they are glad we got rid of Sadaam for them, but everything else we did over there has only made things worse.

WFern: nicksteel: Saddam gassed entire villages...

I'm going to stop you right there. All major intelligence agencies have agreed that he did not possess chemical weaponry since the time of the first Gulf War.

And the Army War College determined that the gassing at Halabja in '88 was probably done by the Iranians. The village had been occupied by Iraqi troops the previous day, and Saddam didn't possess the chemical weapon that was used against the Kurds. But the Iranians did.

nicksteel:
how many dictatorships have you lived under?


Zero. Are you under the impression that this fact means I am not allowed to disapprove of dictatorships? What is your point?


Calling you names would be based on your posts, and from this post, I can see lots of room for calling you names.


OK. It only serves to undermine any argument that you choose to make, but of course I can't stop you.

(I can assure you that your name calling will not bother me in the least. I can also assure you that it will make you look foolish. If that is your goal, go for it.)


In the meantime, please be aware that the fact that Saddam was a vile dictator does not alleviate the fact that things are still pretty farked up in Iraq today.

Father_Jack: nicksteel: what is your source for stating that we have killed all those people?? A statement like that requires a source.

is this the part where you straw man attack the source i post and completely dodge the question at hand?

you are on fark so you can use the internet. why dont you google search for "iraqi casualties", and see for yourself and pick a source you like.

From your response, it seems that you made up that number. Good for you!!!

Father_Jack: We've killed at least a hundred thousand if not hundreds of thousands of innocent people over there.

That's only possibly true if you count the people killed by the insurgents as people "we've killed." We were trying to stop them from killing people. Do you count all the people killed by Germans and Japanese in WWII as people "we've killed" when you assign a death count to FDR's administration?

CanisNoir: Don't mistake the actions of a single person for the feelings of an entire nation.

Fair enough. Drop him into the middle of Baghdad without an escort. I'd love to see the flowers and cheers they heap upon him.

/And sorry but Bush as Worst President EVAR isn't going to happen - nope you can't have it.

Wasn't there a group of political scientists who already declared him the worst? It was on Fark some time back. They discussed foreign policy, economic woes, and general efficiency. Bush hit the bottom, below even Hoover. Lincoln, I believe, made the top.

Would have been even funnier if it would have hit him.. I wonder if Iraq will give him an award, or sentence him to death.

...and Dana Perino got a black eye from taking a microphone to the face during the ensuing scuffle.

So to recap:

Shoes thrown at Bush.

A couple of great quotes.

Perino getting hit in the face with a phallic shaped object.


This story is like a Fark perfect storm.

HowlingFrog: WFern: nicksteel: Saddam gassed entire villages...

I'm going to stop you right there. All major intelligence agencies have agreed that he did not possess chemical weaponry since the time of the first Gulf War.

And the Army War College determined that the gassing at Halabja in '88 was probably done by the Iranians. The village had been occupied by Iraqi troops the previous day, and Saddam didn't possess the chemical weapon that was used against the Kurds. But the Iranians did.

Who were funded by the US

WFern: nicksteel: how many dictatorships have you lived under?

How many religious civil wars have you lived through?

Honestly, I get the feeling you think Vietnam was a terrific decision as well.

you obviously know nothing on the subjects that you preach about. You need to do some research before you make stupid statements about things you do not understand.

CanisNoir:
And it is kind of funny that Sanctions and Inspections are what those opposed to the war wanted more of.

Who's the *real" baby killers eh?

I was against the war and the sanctions. The best way to derail dictators and help a disadvataged population is to engage them culturally and economically - not shut them out. Education and prosperity eventually leads to a better society, fact. Ignore the crazy leader's rants about how you're the enemy, and just prove you're not.

But no, that's too hard, isn't it? Harder than losing 5,000 of your own people and half a million of theirs? Apparently so.

Jeff Paine: Who throws a shoe? Honestly.

Link (new window) Not a RickRoll. Maybe a shoe roll.

nicksteel: WFern: nicksteel: how many dictatorships have you lived under?

How many religious civil wars have you lived through?

Honestly, I get the feeling you think Vietnam was a terrific decision as well.

you obviously know nothing on the subjects that you preach about. You need to do some research before you make stupid statements about things you do not understand.

You're a pretty good troll, but you're deflecting too many questions to be truly effective. Game's up, you can go home now.

kaminariko: But I don't know why it's such a big deal.

What does it signify?

It happened in earshot/view of the US media, exposing the fact that the conventional wisdom of "everyone is grateful for the intervention" isn't quite the whole story. The whole "well, sure, things are harsh but we give kids candy!" sort of simplistic feel-good stories.

Groaning (but laughing) at the shoe puns way upthread... nice footwork!

Father_Jack: We've killed at least a hundred thousand if not hundreds of thousands of innocent people over there. Does that bother you any? Does that make you think about what we as americans are one day going to sow as a result of what we're doign there now "in the name of freedom and democracy?"

"Under Sadaam I had security but I worked for nothing. Now I don't have as much security but I can earn a living."
-Iraqi Taxi Driver-

Did it ever occur to you that Freedom to govern yourself is something most people strive for and that by allowing Democracy to spread in Iraq it just might become a beacon for the rest of the region?

Let me posit the ultimate question to you...

Do you believe the Military should be used for:
A) An extension of Diplomacy, by projecting US Power to far away lands we can better put pressure on other nations to get them to act in the way we want them.

B) Solving a problem via brute force when all diplomacy breaks down. When you can no longer negotiate you move in with the military who's prime function is to kill people and blow shait up.


Those are the two camps in our Foriegn Policy, which one do you fall into?

Link (new window)

made a gif but cannot make it small enough to post

danduran: nicksteel: WFern: nicksteel: how many dictatorships have you lived under?

How many religious civil wars have you lived through?

Honestly, I get the feeling you think Vietnam was a terrific decision as well.

you obviously know nothing on the subjects that you preach about. You need to do some research before you make stupid statements about things you do not understand.

You're a pretty good troll, but you're deflecting too many questions to be truly effective. Game's up, you can go home now.

I asked a question and you did not answer it. Now I am a troll for not answering yours?? Stop acting like a child. Do you always call people a troll when they disagree with you?

Missed him by that much

Approves of use of shoe for political gain.

Greeted as liberators^tm

CanisNoir: Father_Jack: We've killed at least a hundred thousand if not hundreds of thousands of innocent people over there. Does that bother you any? Does that make you think about what we as americans are one day going to sow as a result of what we're doign there now "in the name of freedom and democracy?"

"Under Sadaam I had security but I worked for nothing. Now I don't have as much security but I can earn a living."
-Iraqi Taxi Driver-

Did it ever occur to you that Freedom to govern yourself is something most people strive for and that by allowing Democracy to spread in Iraq it just might become a beacon for the rest of the region?

Let me posit the ultimate question to you...

Do you believe the Military should be used for:
A) An extension of Diplomacy, by projecting US Power to far away lands we can better put pressure on other nations to get them to act in the way we want them.

B) Solving a problem via brute force when all diplomacy breaks down. When you can no longer negotiate you move in with the military who's prime function is to kill people and blow shait up.


Those are the two camps in our Foriegn Policy, which one do you fall into?


I believe in "A" obviously but I do not believe that "A" was used in this case. How is it a function of diplomacy when real diplomacy was not exausted leading up to the invasion?

WFern:
Fair enough. Drop him into the middle of Baghdad without an escort. I'd love to see the flowers and cheers they heap upon him.

I'd wager you'd get equal number of people protecting him as you would have tossing Nike's his way. It would turn into a riot and be totally counter productive though.


Wasn't there a group of political scientists who already declared him the worst? It was on Fark some time back. They discussed foreign policy, economic woes, and general efficiency. Bush hit the bottom, below even Hoover. Lincoln, I believe, made the top.

A few eggheads sitting around a table biatching about "Chimpy McBushiatler" doesn't equate a Historical Judgment. We won't know how effective, good or bad, of a president Bush was for many years to come. One thing about Presidents is their Policies usually have long range effects. You can't honestly judge them while they are still in office.

Who cares if Iraq is a better place now than under saddam. There was no reason for us to go to war. The evidence was all bullshiat. And the price of the war has weakened us to the point of catastrophe.

Thanks, republicans. Way to put your fringe nutjob fantasies ahead of the national interest. You farked our national security.

DIAF, all of you.

danduran: Education and prosperity eventually leads to a better society, fact.

Not to Godwin the thread, but the Germany of 1940 was far more educated and prosperous than the Germany of 1920, yet the Germany of 1940 was the one who conceived and attempted to carry out the industrial genocide of an entire people. It's more complicated than you make out.

FloydA: nicksteel:
how many dictatorships have you lived under?


Zero. Are you under the impression that this fact means I am not allowed to disapprove of dictatorships? What is your point?


Calling you names would be based on your posts, and from this post, I can see lots of room for calling you names.


OK. It only serves to undermine any argument that you choose to make, but of course I can't stop you.

(I can assure you that your name calling will not bother me in the least. I can also assure you that it will make you look foolish. If that is your goal, go for it.)


In the meantime, please be aware that the fact that Saddam was a vile dictator does not alleviate the fact that things are still pretty farked up in Iraq today.

Did you notice that I did not call you any names??

Things are bad in Iraq, but nowhere as bad as they were under Saddam.

keylock71: ...and Dana Perino got a black eye from taking a microphone to the face during the ensuing scuffle.

So to recap:

Shoes thrown at Bush.

A couple of great quotes.

Perino getting hit in the face with a phallic shaped object.


This story is like a Fark perfect storm.

LOL

+1 - I think you called this one

/Has a phalic shaped object he'd like to nail Perino with.

Thankyou BBC for the various angles and slomo options you supplied by your coverage of this hilarious news article. Its almost as if they are enjoying it :D

Link (new window)

Linked for mine, yours, and most of the worlds enjoyment

Nicksteel

Try googling for Iraqis who want Saddam back.

Towards the end of the film, the camera stays for several minutes with three people in an ambulance, all yelling and very angry, saying they want Saddam back. "It's how Iraqis think now," says Dr. Mahdi. "They say that they wish they could go back to Saddam's days. They weren't good days. They were bad in different ways, but at least people had security."


Women were far better off under former Iraq dictator Saddam Hussein, a women's group has found after an extensive survey in Iraq.

'Under the previous dictator regime, the basic rights for women were enshrined in the constitution,' Houzan Mahmoud from the Organisation of Women's Freedom in Iraq told IPS in an interview. The group is a sister organization of MADRE, an international women's rights group.


So, asked Smith of the young men, "You know people who would like it better the old way?"

"Yes," responded No. 1. "It breaks my heart knowing that, because it was so bad, but now, they feel it's worse, and they just wish that Saddam's regime could come back."

According to an opinion poll of 5,000 Iraqis carried out over the past month, 49% say they are better off now than under Saddam, and 26% say life was better under Saddam. More than one in four said they had had a close relative murdered in the past three years.

You can sneer all you like about uninformed opinions coming from yuppies sitting at home, but can you do the same with these Iraqis' opinions about how Saddam's days had more stability?

Jesus. You'd think there was a buncha Farkers with a buncha pent up bile just itching to go into massive rhetoric mode, or something.

Some guy threw a shoe for chrissake.

danduran:
I was against the war and the sanctions. The best way to derail dictators and help a disadvataged population is to engage them culturally and economically - not shut them out. Education and prosperity eventually leads to a better society, fact. Ignore the crazy leader's rants about how you're the enemy, and just prove you're not.

But no, that's too hard, isn't it? Harder than losing 5,000 of your own people and half a million of theirs? Apparently so.

No it isn't too hard, but I think it depends upon the country. Under Sadaam or any strict Dictatorship, influencing via culture is more difficult because of all the restrictions. The Kurds tried a revolution and payed dearly for it.

What's working for Iran probably wouldn't have worked for Iraq.

/What you suggest is what we're doing in Iran right now.

He threw his shoes because he couldn't sock him.

Befuddled: Everyone is just blindly accepting the official 'Single shoer' theory.

Hahaha..I spit my hot chocolate with that one...thx

Cast off the shoe! Follow the Gourd!

Buckster: Unimpressed

Well played, good sir. Well played.

nicksteel: How can Iraq possibly be worse than it was under Sadam???

For an average boring citizen? Easy.

Not everyone suffered horribly under Saddam. You get used to some oppressive government, you know the rules, you know what to say and what not to say, you know how to work around the rules.

So, you concentrate on your family, have your nice, boring (but STABLE!!!) life, use innuendo and euphemism to say things you want to get edgy about, in private. Same as it's been for tons of non-open countries throughout history.

Meanwhile, when someone speaks out and gets tortured or whatever, it's easy to pin it on them, saying, well, why was the guy so stupid to say XXX in public? Or, surely he knew that XXX wasn't allowed, why is he just causing trouble?

If you can look at the people in trouble and define them as separate from you, and YOU know how to make out and get along, it's no big deal, there's no need for revolution. Stuff is stable, you're making a living, kids in school, stuff's more or less peaceful and hey the holidays are coming, or whatever it is.

But then, people invade and everything goes to hell, stability-wise.

Even if it's for long term good (which I'll say is debatable here but it's a separate debate) it's disruptive in the extreme. People lost houses, the places they liked to hang out were all bombed to hell (not just by the soldiers, but by the resistance to the soldiers, but it's all a result of the war), school is disrupted, people getting killed in the street, normal garden variety crime is also up, ordinary "just keep your head down" types are caught in the crossfire if nothing else.

So, the ordinary "we were just minding our own business" types are pissed.

ADD to that, that it was all done by foreign invaders from the other half the planet, and even for people who appreciate the long term effects or that Saddam is gone or whatever it is, it rankles. Then you have the fact that people don't always like charity, either, if someone gives candy to your kids you're happy they got a treat but it rankles that it shows you're so weak that you can't provide it yourself.

In short, it's complicated.

No Such Agency: nicksteel:
are you crazy, or just extremely stupid??

How can Iraq possibly be worse than it was under Sadam???

LOL. Are you nuts or trolling? Saddam could have you dragged away and tortured to death. But if you kept your head down and weren't political that was very unlikely to happen. Now it might happen because you bought cabbages from a Shi'ite grocer, or because you're a doctor, or because it's Wednesday. Iraqis can't really send their daughters to school anymore, unless they want them to come home with no face, or not come home at all. Pray you are never "liberated" the way Iraq has been.

Yeah, just keep your head down, your mouth shut, don't be political, and you'll be just fine!

Fu*k you. You're an apologist for a murderous dictator.

Anyone else reminded of this?

Philly_gp:
I believe in "A" obviously but I do not believe that "A" was used in this case. How is it a function of diplomacy when real diplomacy was not exausted leading up to the invasion?

If you fall into Catagory A, then you can have no problems with the fact that all diplomacy was not exhausted before the Invasion.

Camp A believes military force is an extension of Diplomacy, therefore negotiations can occur at any point during the military campaign. Granted it usually comes in the form of a missile strike here and there, but the principle is the same.

Camp A says the Military is an arm of Diplomacy.

It sounds like you're more in line with Camp B.

But did the guy get his shoes back?

CanisNoir: Chimpy McBushiatler

If the shoe fits . . .

YES! PUT IN VINCE!!!!

CanisNoir: /And sorry but Bush as Worst President EVAR isn't going to happen - nope you can't have it.

Denial is the second stage of the grief cycle.
You shouldn't still be stuck there after eight years.

rbuzby: I think this is an important illustration of who Iraqis blame for the farked up situation they are in.

Notice they are not mad at Iran. Contrary to what we are told here in the US, Iraq and Iran are friends, and like each other just fine. They are both majority Shiite countrys. The Iraqi President has signed agreements with Iran, and when asked by reporters to condemn Iran, he refused, saying "we know who our friends are."

Yes, they are glad we got rid of Sadaam for them, but everything else we did over there has only made things worse.

You're completely uninformed, Iran and Iraq fought a war all through the 1980s. Their people are not BFFs.

Hating (or showing incredible contempt for) Bush doesn't mean Iraqis like Iran. Why would they blame Iran for being invaded by America? That's nonsense. Obviously, they blame America, the people who invaded them in the least competent way possible.

Right now America should be encouraging Iraqis to hate Bush as much as possible. This shoe-throwing is actually a good thing. If Iraqis are encouraged to despise Bush, when Obama comes is inaugurated in 36 days and hopefully does a better job, Ali Average hopefully won't maintain a long-term grudge against America as a country, but rather against the Bushes.

texastag:
Fu*k you. You're an apologist for a murderous dictator.

You must be a Republican. I've noticed Republicans are incapable of understanding complicated topics without turned everything into the simplest possible "good guys/bad guys" first grade talk.

itazurakko: nicksteel: How can Iraq possibly be worse than it was under Sadam???

For an average boring citizen? Easy.

Not everyone suffered horribly under Saddam. You get used to some oppressive government, you know the rules, you know what to say and what not to say, you know how to work around the rules.

So, you concentrate on your family, have your nice, boring (but STABLE!!!) life, use innuendo and euphemism to say things you want to get edgy about, in private. Same as it's been for tons of non-open countries throughout history.

Meanwhile, when someone speaks out and gets tortured or whatever, it's easy to pin it on them, saying, well, why was the guy so stupid to say XXX in public? Or, surely he knew that XXX wasn't allowed, why is he just causing trouble?

If you can look at the people in trouble and define them as separate from you, and YOU know how to make out and get along, it's no big deal, there's no need for revolution. Stuff is stable, you're making a living, kids in school, stuff's more or less peaceful and hey the holidays are coming, or whatever it is.

But then, people invade and everything goes to hell, stability-wise.

Even if it's for long term good (which I'll say is debatable here but it's a separate debate) it's disruptive in the extreme. People lost houses, the places they liked to hang out were all bombed to hell (not just by the soldiers, but by the resistance to the soldiers, but it's all a result of the war), school is disrupted, people getting killed in the street, normal garden variety crime is also up, ordinary "just keep your head down" types are caught in the crossfire if nothing else.

So, the ordinary "we were just minding our own business" types are pissed.

ADD to that, that it was all done by foreign invaders from the other half the planet, and even for people who appreciate the long term effects or that Saddam is gone or whatever it is, it rankles. Then you have the fact that people don't always like charity, either, if someone gives candy to your kids you're happy they got a treat but it rankles that it shows you're so weak that you can't provide it yourself.

In short, it's complicated.

would you have wanted to live in Iraq under Saddam??

texastag: Yeah, just keep your head down, your mouth shut, don't be political, and you'll be just fine!

Fu*k you. You're an apologist for a murderous dictator.

Whatever.

But the bottom line is, that's how the psychology works. Very similar things are why there's no popular uprising in North Korea - not everyone is uniformly poor, so the people on the top blame those on the bottom.

Alien Robot: danduran: Education and prosperity eventually leads to a better society, fact.

Not to Godwin the thread, but the Germany of 1940 was far more educated and prosperous than the Germany of 1920, yet the Germany of 1940 was the one who conceived and attempted to carry out the industrial genocide of an entire people. It's more complicated than you make out.

That just shows that education and science just like religion can be bastardized and used for very bad purposes.

Those people were killed in an attempt to engineer a "Super Race" by using Evolution as a guide. It was science itself that led to the German killing machine.

the dude threw like a sissy.

texastag: No Such Agency: nicksteel:
are you crazy, or just extremely stupid??

How can Iraq possibly be worse than it was under Sadam???

LOL. Are you nuts or trolling? Saddam could have you dragged away and tortured to death. But if you kept your head down and weren't political that was very unlikely to happen. Now it might happen because you bought cabbages from a Shi'ite grocer, or because you're a doctor, or because it's Wednesday. Iraqis can't really send their daughters to school anymore, unless they want them to come home with no face, or not come home at all. Pray you are never "liberated" the way Iraq has been.

Yeah, just keep your head down, your mouth shut, don't be political, and you'll be just fine!

Fu*k you. You're an apologist for a murderous dictator.

There's nothing he said that is not true numbnuts. Telling the truth is not apologizing. If you didn't cross Saddam, you were safe. If you crossed him, God help you.

Most people didn't cross him and lived a peaceful life in a land not driven by the mullahs and every other extremist crackpot. That is no longer true.

You might want to consider Prozac.

nicksteel: would you have wanted to live in Iraq under Saddam??

Compared to now? Not sure.

But seriously, have you never read anything about how stuff worked "behind the iron curtain" and all that? How dictatorships keep themselves propped up? Iraq isn't any sort of unique case.

You hear about the people getting the raw deals, yeah, but it's not EVERYONE and so those just making out okay tend to blame the ones getting the raw deals for causing their own misery.

HA HA
wish at least one of the shoes had nailed the bastard right in the kisser

Bucs block the punt!

CanisNoir: Philly_gp:
I believe in "A" obviously but I do not believe that "A" was used in this case. How is it a function of diplomacy when real diplomacy was not exausted leading up to the invasion?

If you fall into Catagory A, then you can have no problems with the fact that all diplomacy was not exhausted before the Invasion.

Camp A believes military force is an extension of Diplomacy, therefore negotiations can occur at any point during the military campaign. Granted it usually comes in the form of a missile strike here and there, but the principle is the same.

Camp A says the Military is an arm of Diplomacy.

It sounds like you're more in line with Camp B.


Yeah I just re-read your post. Im hung over as hell and my comprehension skills are of a third grade remedial student right now.

Either way, I don't believe diplomacy was exhausted and that the military is a poor way to change a country. Could they not have built a case over the first four years and seen how many other nations jumped on board? I promise you that would have done more for the war on terror.

darkhorse23: kaminariko: I know that throwing shoes is a big insult in Iraq because I remember the Iraqis hitting the fallen statue of Saddam with their shoes.

But I don't know why it's such a big deal.

What does it signify?

OMG that's the first thing I thought of. Who knows what it means, but I remember when the statue of Saddam Hussein came down, all the guys there were hitting it with the bottoms of their shoes.

Maybe it means that you are lower than the sole of my shoe, dirt on the ground?

Something along those lines, I suspect. Remember, these people are very careful to take off their shoes before they pray, and I believe (if I remember my religion class last year) that there are foot washing stations at the entrance of all Mosques. Presumably this is because foot-dirt is considered enormously impure. Which therefore would make striking someone with the shoe to be a tremendous sign of disrespect.

Bill_Wick's_Friend: Nicksteel

Try googling for Iraqis who want Saddam back.

Towards the end of the film, the camera stays for several minutes with three people in an ambulance, all yelling and very angry, saying they want Saddam back. "It's how Iraqis think now," says Dr. Mahdi. "They say that they wish they could go back to Saddam's days. They weren't good days. They were bad in different ways, but at least people had security."


Women were far better off under former Iraq dictator Saddam Hussein, a women's group has found after an extensive survey in Iraq.

'Under the previous dictator regime, the basic rights for women were enshrined in the constitution,' Houzan Mahmoud from the Organisation of Women's Freedom in Iraq told IPS in an interview. The group is a sister organization of MADRE, an international women's rights group.


So, asked Smith of the young men, "You know people who would like it better the old way?"

"Yes," responded No. 1. "It breaks my heart knowing that, because it was so bad, but now, they feel it's worse, and they just wish that Saddam's regime could come back."

According to an opinion poll of 5,000 Iraqis carried out over the past month, 49% say they are better off now than under Saddam, and 26% say life was better under Saddam. More than one in four said they had had a close relative murdered in the past three years.

You can sneer all you like about uninformed opinions coming from yuppies sitting at home, but can you do the same with these Iraqis' opinions about how Saddam's days had more stability?

Yes, dictatorships are always better than democracy. The country has 20 million people and you want me to believe that the entire country feels like this small sample??

Things will get better in Iraq and that could not be said of an Iraq under Saddam.

nicksteel: would you have wanted to live in Iraq under Saddam??


I think the sane answer is "of course not". I don't think people are arguing that it wasn't bad under Saddam, but instead we may have made a bad situation worse. This is not as simple as a black-or-white, good guy or bad guy kind of thing here.

muck4doo: Bucs block the punt!

Damnit! Wrong thread.

Ashtrey: It is sad that as far as I know this is the wittiest thing our president has said in 8 years.

I'm quite fond of last week's "Welcome to my hanging".

The best part was how Bush smirked through the whole thing, which is pretty much how he has treated the last eight years.

Farkomatic: There's nothing he said that is not true numbnuts. Telling the truth is not apologizing. If you didn't cross Saddam, you were safe. If you crossed him, God help you.

Most people didn't cross him and lived a peaceful life in a land not driven by the mullahs and every other extremist crackpot. That is no longer true.

You might want to consider Prozac.

Except you're forgetting about the other people in power. You know, like his sons who would randomly grab women off the streets to rape them; even if their heads were down. Or the soccer team who were tortured for poor play; yea their heads were down too.

Simple fact of the matter was, you were never completely safe.

nicksteel: Things will get better in Iraq

When? How? You're fascinating.

nicksteel: would you have wanted to live in Iraq under Saddam??

If you were an Iraqi Sunni you want to watch your mother and sister raped, your father executed and your limbs sawed off by a Shia militia because you lived in a lawless country?

OMG is Obama okay?

*reads TFA*

Oh. That President of the United States. Well. Carry on then.

What was that dumb grin all about immediately afterwards? He just stood there smiling while they wrestled the guy out by his hair, like he found it funny or something. Shoe guy took a huge risk doing this and for all we know he'll end up rotting in prison over it, or worse. It's not THAT much of a democracy that he'll be assured decent treatment, etc.

This was not anything to just laugh at, Mr. Bush. That man may have just given up almost everything to make his point to you.

I've had loved to seen one of those shoes just graze him and muss up that hair.

nicksteel: FloydA: nicksteel:
how many dictatorships have you lived under?


Zero. Are you under the impression that this fact means I am not allowed to disapprove of dictatorships? What is your point?


Calling you names would be based on your posts, and from this post, I can see lots of room for calling you names.


OK. It only serves to undermine any argument that you choose to make, but of course I can't stop you.

(I can assure you that your name calling will not bother me in the least. I can also assure you that it will make you look foolish. If that is your goal, go for it.)


In the meantime, please be aware that the fact that Saddam was a vile dictator does not alleviate the fact that things are still pretty farked up in Iraq today.

Did you notice that I did not call you any names??


The bolded section is an ad hominem argument, since it implies that your disagreements are based on your opinion of me, rather than on the merits of the arguments I make.


Things are bad in Iraq, but nowhere as bad as they were under Saddam.


That claim is open to debate.

In some ways, conditions are better than they were in 2003. In other ways, conditions are worse.

To claim that life is better in all respects for all Iraqis now than it was when Saddam was still in power is misleading in the extreme.

nicksteel: Yes, dictatorships are always better than democracy. The country has 20 million people and you want me to believe that the entire country feels like this small sample??

Things will get better in Iraq and that could not be said of an Iraq under Saddam.


The idea is not some overly-simplistic choice between doing absolutely nothing and doing exactly what we did, but whether from the possible choices we had, we could have done better.

itazurakko: nicksteel: would you have wanted to live in Iraq under Saddam??

Compared to now? Not sure.

But seriously, have you never read anything about how stuff worked "behind the iron curtain" and all that? How dictatorships keep themselves propped up? Iraq isn't any sort of unique case.

You hear about the people getting the raw deals, yeah, but it's not EVERYONE and so those just making out okay tend to blame the ones getting the raw deals for causing their own misery.

So, the fact that all dictatorships are bad makes it okay that Saddam killed so many of his own people? The fact that it was not unique makes it acceptable??

The question was - would you want to live in Iraq under Saddam? What is going on now is not part of the question and has no place in your answer.

Damnhippyfreak: nicksteel: Yes, dictatorships are always better than democracy. The country has 20 million people and you want me to believe that the entire country feels like this small sample??

Things will get better in Iraq and that could not be said of an Iraq under Saddam.


The idea is not some overly-simplistic choice between doing absolutely nothing and doing exactly what we did, but whether from the possible choices we had, we could have done better.

better?? The country consists of various "tribes" who hate each other. What could we have done differently??

Philly_gp:
Yeah I just re-read your post. Im hung over as hell and my comprehension skills are of a third grade remedial student right now.

Either way, I don't believe diplomacy was exhausted and that the military is a poor way to change a country. Could they not have built a case over the first four years and seen how many other nations jumped on board? I promise you that would have done more for the war on terror.

As a nation we've operated under Camp A since the end of WWII, so Iraq is only a shock on it's scale.

Regarding letting things wind out for a few more years, I'm not sure. Sadaam was constantly thumbing his nose at us, shooting at our planes and violating the Cease Fire Agreement. Lots of UN Member nations were getting sweat deals from him via Oil for Food. Who's to say what type of hero he would have become to the fighters in Afghanistan if he was able to constantly demonstrate our toothlessness as a Nation by continuing to thumb his nose at us Diplomatically?

There were alot of variables involved in the decision I'm sure; I happen to think all things considered it was the right one. We farked up directly *after* the invasion imho.

nicksteel: The question was - would you want to live in Iraq under Saddam? What is going on now is not part of the question and has no place in your answer.

You're not the boss of us.

Just saw the tape; pretty spry on Dubya's part.

Maybe he reacted quickly because he believes people should be throwing things at him.

Whoever's idea this Iraq trip was is going to be in the White House doghouse for the rest of Dubya's term.

CanisNoir: Lots of UN Member nations were getting sweat deals

Wait a minute. "Sweat deals?" Does this involve the floor humping guy?

go America!! the world hates you more and more with time!!

Damnhippyfreak: nicksteel: would you have wanted to live in Iraq under Saddam??


I think the sane answer is "of course not". I don't think people are arguing that it wasn't bad under Saddam, but instead we may have made a bad situation worse. This is not as simple as a black-or-white, good guy or bad guy kind of thing here.

I don't think we'll know that for many years to come, although I'd wager if we rebuild their infrastructure (or help them do it) the good will far outweigh the bad.

Regular Iraqi's getting to know Regular Americans on a one on one basis is the best way to defeat the negative propaganda and win hearts and minds; Americans individually are good people - we're just ultimately stupid when you group us together ;)

nicksteel:

Yes, dictatorships are always better than democracy.


Oh, I think I see where you're coming from now. It seems as though you view this in purely black and white terms. Saddam was evil, and therefore no matter what was done to get rid of him and no matter what other consequences those actions had, they were justifiable because they got rid of a known evil.

Is that a correct assessment of your perspective?

FloydA: nicksteel: FloydA: nicksteel:
how many dictatorships have you lived under?


Zero. Are you under the impression that this fact means I am not allowed to disapprove of dictatorships? What is your point?


Calling you names would be based on your posts, and from this post, I can see lots of room for calling you names.


OK. It only serves to undermine any argument that you choose to make, but of course I can't stop you.

(I can assure you that your name calling will not bother me in the least. I can also assure you that it will make you look foolish. If that is your goal, go for it.)


In the meantime, please be aware that the fact that Saddam was a vile dictator does not alleviate the fact that things are still pretty farked up in Iraq today.

Did you notice that I did not call you any names??


The bolded section is an ad hominem argument, since it implies that your disagreements are based on your opinion of me, rather than on the merits of the arguments I make.


Things are bad in Iraq, but nowhere as bad as they were under Saddam.


That claim is open to debate.

In some ways, conditions are better than they were in 2003. In other ways, conditions are worse.

To claim that life is better in all respects for all Iraqis now than it was when Saddam was still in power is misleading in the extreme.

I believe that you are an extremely intelligent person who has somehow made some very stupid and uninformed statements.

The Iraqis have freedoms that they never had under Saddam. There future has options it never had under Saddam. Hope versus no hope.

nicksteel: nicksteel:

would you have wanted to live in Iraq under Saddam??



If I woke up one day to realize that everything that I've known to love was gone, yes.

I think the world was safer under Saddam. He was a dictator who the extremist muslim world detested. He had no weapons that could harm the US. If they had handled this situation better they could have muscled him out without having thousands of his citizens jumping on the western hate bandwagon.

nicksteel:
how many dictatorships have you lived under?

Calling you names would be based on your posts, and from this post, I can see lots of room for calling you names.

I've lived in a country under a dictatorship before, so hopefully you'll regard me as qualified to say that you're full of shiat. If you think Iraq is so great now, why don't you move there? Maybe you can throw a shoe at some suffering Iraqis and tell them to quit complaining.

boneyponey


too sweet!! thanks.

No Such Agency:

Bush has some farking gall, making a last visit to a country he managed to make worse after years of rule by a sadistic dictator. It's like a rapist sending flowers the next day.

I want to say "too bad those shoes weren't hand grenades". But there were probably a lot of innocents present, so I won't. And Bush doesn't deserve death, he deserves to see himself labeled the worst President the country ever had, and his legacy one of destruction, misery and ignorance. War crimes indictments preventing him from leaving the US would just be icing on the cake.

Bush managed to make worse. Well, I guess so in the short term. Let's get a little perspective here. Let's go back to Yugoslavia back during Communist rule. People were forced to coexist in absolute hatred of one another by a minority political presence. Any dissent and you disappeared for good. That political authority evaporates, and all hell breaks loose. Years of civil war and genocide. Now, the country has settled down to a peaceful situation and people are better off, I would argue.

Fast forward to Iraq. People were forced to coexist in absolute hatred of one another by a minority political presence. Any dissent and you disappeared for good. That political authority evaporates, and all hell breaks loose. Years of civil war and genocide. What will happen from here on out? Hard to say. I'm an optimist and believe Iraq will get tired of killing and settle into a peaceful, prosperous coexistence.

I am deeply saddened at the thought of those who have died. Hopefully some good will come of it.

nicksteel: better?? The country consists of various "tribes" who hate each other. What could we have done differently??

Do you really believe there was only one way to perform foreign policy? After all these years, do you honestly think nothing different could have been done? Come on now, you can't be all that ignorant.

Let's pick the lowest-hanging fruit (out of many) and think about the 'surge' for instance. Why do you think a change in policy was mandated if we could not have done anything differently?

I mean, why would you even claim such a ridiculous, absurd point as "What could we have done differently??" unless you had some sort of ulterior motive? Fess up.

I'm really impressed with the way nicksteel is working this thread. I haven't seen this kind of hustle since FlashLV.

Philly_gp: nicksteel: nicksteel:

would you have wanted to live in Iraq under Saddam??



If I woke up one day to realize that everything that I've known to love was gone, yes.

I think the world was safer under Saddam. He was a dictator who the extremist muslim world detested. He had no weapons that could harm the US. If they had handled this situation better they could have muscled him out without having thousands of his citizens jumping on the western hate bandwagon.

The world is just as safe now as it was when Saddam was in charge of Iraq. I see nothing to support your statement. You support his terror because extremist muslims hated him?? That makes no sense. There was no way to get him out without a war. There was also no way that the end of that war was going to turn Iraq into something like Disneyland overnight. The country is made up of various tribes that do not get along and probably never will. But having said that, it is still true that the people are better off now than they were under a dictator.

theorellior: I'm really impressed with the way nicksteel is working this thread.

Meh. It's Sunday and not all of us are football fans.

CanisNoir: Damnhippyfreak: nicksteel: would you have wanted to live in Iraq under Saddam??


I think the sane answer is "of course not". I don't think people are arguing that it wasn't bad under Saddam, but instead we may have made a bad situation worse. This is not as simple as a black-or-white, good guy or bad guy kind of thing here.

I don't think we'll know that for many years to come, although I'd wager if we rebuild their infrastructure (or help them do it) the good will far outweigh the bad.

Regular Iraqi's getting to know Regular Americans on a one on one basis is the best way to defeat the negative propaganda and win hearts and minds; Americans individually are good people - we're just ultimately stupid when you group us together ;)


I agree with both your points. I agree the good will far outweigh the bad in the long long term. I just wish we hadn't made so many stupid mistakes while getting there, or that we could even have taken a different path. Especially since it's not just us that are paying for a lot of those mistakes.

Craig3010: //just sayin

A direct hit would have been quite enjoyable.
Much like Bill Gates' pie in the face -

He should have thrown a tree -


This is very funny:
Al-Rashid Hotel lobby in Baghdad

Within days of the coalition taking control of Baghdad in 2003, U.S. Soldiers removed the mosaic.

Damnhippyfreak: nicksteel: better?? The country consists of various "tribes" who hate each other. What could we have done differently??

Do you really believe there was only one way to perform foreign policy? After all these years, do you honestly think nothing different could have been done? Come on now, you can't be all that ignorant.

Let's pick the lowest-hanging fruit (out of many) and think about the 'surge' for instance. Why do you think a change in policy was mandated if we could not have done anything differently?

I mean, why would you even claim such a ridiculous, absurd point as "What could we have done differently??" unless you had some sort of ulterior motive? Fess up.

so, tell me, what should we have done differently??? You should never criticise a plan if you don't have a better one.

boneyponey: gifflarity

Thank you!

I actually know a pro-Saddam Iraqi. Unsurprisingly, a highly educated Sunni woman.

There's no question that Saddam was a horrible individual and on the whole he hurt his country, but the Americans did a terrible job in Iraq of providing security and safeguarding necessities of life there, like electricity. There was no plan during the invasion and the first 12 months after to protect the basic functioning of society, and de-Baathification removed everyone who knew how to run government services in Iraq. So you'd get scenarios like these:

US Official 1: There's no electricity anywhere in Baghdad. What happened?
US Official 2: Well, we didn't have any guards on the electrical stations and all the Iraqi police and army have gone rogue somewhere, so nobody was paying attention while looters stole everything from the station for scrap.
US Official 1: Damn, how can we get the station back online? Who has the plans for the station?
US Official 2: Well, uh, we had to fire everyone in the ministry that oversaw electrical stations. They were Baath party members, which was required for their jobs.
US Official 1: What about the people at the plant?
US Official 2: We can't pay them, they're Baath party members! (Or they're refugees in Lebanon/Jordan, or they've joined the Mahdi army, etc. etc.)
US Official 1: Well... let's file a report recommending another agency handle electrical station fixing. Meanwhile, order a backup generator for our office, k?

I can understand people being nostalgic for a time when at least the A/C and fridges worked for more than a few hours a day, and where there was no risk of their relatives being shot, or where they weren't forced out of their homes and into a different neighbourhood because of sectarian violence. It doesn't make Saddam a good guy, but it's important to note that Iraqis didn't choose the situation they were put in, America did.

The first eight responses on this thread are basically a preview of what you get for your $5/month.

To some it may be worthwhile.

nicksteel: The question was - would you want to live in Iraq under Saddam? What is going on now is not part of the question and has no place in your answer.

That you even ASK that simplistic version of the question shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation. The conditions now have EVERYTHING to do with the psychology that will prompt someone to throw a shoe at Bush, or not throw it.

nicksteel:
I believe that you are an extremely intelligent person who has somehow made some very stupid and uninformed statements.


Which ones, specifically, were stupid and/or uninformed?



The Iraqis have freedoms that they never had under Saddam. There future has options it never had under Saddam. Hope versus no hope.

Yes. That is one of the ways in which the conditions of the present are better than they were prior to 2003.

But there are also sectarian violence, roadside IEDs, revenge killings, social instability and attacks on civilians by "insurgents." In these respects conditions are worse for the average Iraqi now than they were during Saddam's regime.

As I said, in some ways things have been made markedly worse by our presence. It didn't occur to me that this claim was at all controversial.

(Note that my distaste for the sectarian and random violence of the present does not imply any approval for Saddam's regime. It is possible, in my opinion, for both to be bad.)

It is an insult in the Muslim world to show the bottom of your shoes to a person. With Bush joking about it, he obviously doesn't get it. He is slow and dimwitted.

Shatner's Bassoon: nicksteel:
how many dictatorships have you lived under?

Calling you names would be based on your posts, and from this post, I can see lots of room for calling you names.

I've lived in a country under a dictatorship before, so hopefully you'll regard me as qualified to say that you're full of shiat. If you think Iraq is so great now, why don't you move there? Maybe you can throw a shoe at some suffering Iraqis and tell them to quit complaining.

What dictatorship did you live under?? Why did you leave??

I never said that Iraq was a great place now, I said it was better than under Saddam.

With differences between two nations, there's bound to be spats like this

Klingon Penis: Just saw the tape; pretty spry on Dubya's part.

Yeah. Though, Bush is a pretty active guy, running etc. His reflexes are probably not bad.

Still I love the photoshop way upthread of him bending back to avoid the shoe "Matrix" style :)

redoctober65: With differences between two nations, there's bound to be spats like this

Heh.

nicksteel: wharrgarbl

any photo shoppers out there?

FloydA: nicksteel:
I believe that you are an extremely intelligent person who has somehow made some very stupid and uninformed statements.


Which ones, specifically, were stupid and/or uninformed?



The Iraqis have freedoms that they never had under Saddam. There future has options it never had under Saddam. Hope versus no hope.

Yes. That is one of the ways in which the conditions of the present are better than they were prior to 2003.

But there are also sectarian violence, roadside IEDs, revenge killings, social instability and attacks on civilians by "insurgents." In these respects conditions are worse for the average Iraqi now than they were during Saddam's regime.

As I said, in some ways things have been made markedly worse by our presence. It didn't occur to me that this claim was at all controversial.

(Note that my distaste for the sectarian and random violence of the present does not imply any approval for Saddam's regime. It is possible, in my opinion, for both to be bad.)

It is stupid and uninformed to state that things are markedly worse by our presence. Getting Saddam out of power was a good thing for the people and the only way that was going to happen was to send in an army. If we had left before he was caught, he would have gone right back to what he had been doing. If we had left just after he was captured, the Iraqis would still have killed each other and maybe even at a higher rate than with us there.

nicksteel: Have you ever lived in a dictatorship?? Saddam gassed entire villages and killed anybody and everybody that he felt like killing. Iraq is not perfect, but it is certainly better than it was under Saddam.

Do you seriously believe that the Iraq people would rather have Saddam back in charge??

Just shut up, liar.

darkhorse23: kaminariko: I know that throwing shoes is a big insult in Iraq because I remember the Iraqis hitting the fallen statue of Saddam with their shoes.

But I don't know why it's such a big deal.

What does it signify?

OMG that's the first thing I thought of. Who knows what it means, but I remember when the statue of Saddam Hussein came down, all the guys there were hitting it with the bottoms of their shoes.

Maybe it means that you are lower than the sole of my shoe, dirt on the ground?

That's exactly what it means. It is an insult to cross your leg and show the sole of your shoe.

nicksteel: Egalitarian: nicksteel
are you crazy, or just extremely stupid??

How can Iraq possibly be worse than it was under Sadam???

Did you miss those few years where everyone was getting blowed up, shot at, tortured and drilled in the head? Saddam was pretty shiatty but it got even worse when the ethnic cleansing started. You want to talk about "rape rooms", every abandoned building was a rape room. You want to talk about torture, tell it to the families who found their loved ones in morgues or ditches, their bodies covered with the signs of torture.

yes, it was even more farked up than when Saddam ruled.


Have you ever lived in a dictatorship?? Saddam gassed entire villages and killed anybody and everybody that he felt like killing. Iraq is not perfect, but it is certainly better than it was under Saddam.

Do you seriously believe that the Iraq people would rather have Saddam back in charge??

I'm guessing the ones who enjoyed excellent public services like schools and hospitals...The ones who had successful businesses...People who lived comfortable, secure lives in a thriving economy miss those times a little.

Something like the way the plantation owners in the American south probably preferred their lives before slavery, and all the atrocities associated with it, was outlawed here.

Alphax: nicksteel: Have you ever lived in a dictatorship?? Saddam gassed entire villages and killed anybody and everybody that he felt like killing. Iraq is not perfect, but it is certainly better than it was under Saddam.

Do you seriously believe that the Iraq people would rather have Saddam back in charge??

Just shut up, liar.

liar???? What have I lied about??

Damnhippyfreak:
I agree with both your points. I agree the good will far outweigh the bad in the long long term. I just wish we hadn't made so many stupid mistakes while getting there, or that we could even have taken a different path. Especially since it's not just us that are paying for a lot of those mistakes.

Well, America has never entered a war on a winning note, in fact we've pretty much humiliated ourselves with stupidity with almost every single opening gambit. (Not sure about WWI, but we sure blew chunks in Africa for WWII) So I'm not surprised we kind of farked up. To me, the correction is what's important. I think Petreaus was the wise choice and put us back on track of actually winning "the peace".

Though even in our screw ups we win some hearts and minds. Many Iraqi's were impressed that we as a Nation apologized for Abu Grhaib. That's not to say there isn't suffering and some hard feelings - I think the most heart wrenching thing I saw was the interview with an Iraqi woman. Her son had taken his family to go home, and didn't stop in time at a check point. The only survivor was his youngest child. The man behind the camera, as she finished her tearful story, said "I'm so sorry for your loss." - The soul tearing pain of her sobs as she replied "They said they were sorry too." damn near had me bawling.

War is horrible, but imho, sometimes necessary. I think in the long run, this one will be worth it, and will have helped more people than it hurt.

"Sadaam declared war on his people every day, so which would be worse I ask myself, this limited war, or the every day war of Sadaam."
-Iraqi Taxi Driver-

/I highly recommend the documentary "Voices of Iraq"

I dub him President Crouching Moron, Hidden Ninja

itazurakko: Klingon Penis: Just saw the tape; pretty spry on Dubya's part.

Yeah. Though, Bush is a pretty active guy, running etc. His reflexes are probably not bad.

Still I love the photoshop way upthread of him bending back to avoid the shoe "Matrix" style :)

I suspect they'll say he has some sort of illness after his term is over to explain all his falling-off-of-stuff/general retardation.

Wasn't the best guess for that thing under his clothes in the Gore debate was that he inherited his father's heart murmur?

Cheney: "they'll greet us a liberators, they'll be throwing rose petals at our feet."

/and shoes at your head!

MorrisBird: theorellior: I'm really impressed with the way nicksteel is working this thread.

Meh. It's Sunday and not all of us are football fans.

Forgot to give ya props for the "Shoe Fits" pun...

+1.5

/The .5 is for the Football comment - the Lions suck and Hockey is the one *true* sport ;)

nicksteel:

so, tell me, what should we have done differently???


Assuming that diplomacy would not work (which I don't concede, but for the sake of argument..).

1) Built a stronger international coalition, as we did in the first Gulf war.

2) Ensure sufficient troop strength at the time of the invasion to not only take, but also hold positions.

3) Develop a more effective cultural liaison corps that could act as intermediaries between the military and civilians. (I would not ever send an anthropologist into combat, but by the same token, I would never burden a Marine with the job of ethnographic translator.)

4) Secure vital infrastructure first (power plants, water, hospitals, education, agriculture and transportation, not necessarily in that order).

5) Keep the damned mercenaries out. The military has a code of conduct to which personnel must adhere. Blackwater and the rest don't. Their abuses reflect badly on Americans in general, and the military personnel unfortunately become targets as a result.


Those are just off the top of my head.


You should never criticise a plan if you don't have a better one.


I disagree. I can tell a person that having another tequila is a bad idea, even if I don't have a cup of herbal tea available.

nicksteel: Damnhippyfreak: nicksteel: better?? The country consists of various "tribes" who hate each other. What could we have done differently??

Do you really believe there was only one way to perform foreign policy? After all these years, do you honestly think nothing different could have been done? Come on now, you can't be all that ignorant.

Let's pick the lowest-hanging fruit (out of many) and think about the 'surge' for instance. Why do you think a change in policy was mandated if we could not have done anything differently?

I mean, why would you even claim such a ridiculous, absurd point as "What could we have done differently??" unless you had some sort of ulterior motive? Fess up.

so, tell me, what should we have done differently??? You should never criticise a plan if you don't have a better one.


Read my post again. Pay special attention to the word 'surge'. I've even bolded it for you. If the 'surge' has indeed been working, then how about using more of what worked there earlier?

Again, you can't be all that ignorant that you would claim that nothing different could have been done, especially given some of the criticisms from within the military itself. You're either completely incompetent on this topic, or are being deliberately obtuse.

nicksteel: liar???? What have I lied about??

Not so much that you're a liar, but that you keep spouting the same idealistic platitudes without presenting any real factual underpinning.

Yes, you're an idealist.

CanisNoir: WFern: You're commenting on an article about them throwing shoes at our president. I think it's obvious how they feel.

Don't mistake the actions of a single person for the feelings of an entire nation.

Bush is right and the irony I'm sure is lost. Because of Bush this guy was *able* to throw shoes at him without fear of being tortured or murdered or having his family murdered etc...

The guy will probably get a stern talking to but nothing untowards will happen; we are still trying to win hearts and minds you know.

But I am well used to the Hypocrisy of the morally outraged Anti-War\Pro-abortion movement.

/And sorry but Bush as Worst President EVAR isn't going to happen - nope you can't have it.

you so funny

lostcat: nicksteel: Egalitarian: nicksteel
are you crazy, or just extremely stupid??

How can Iraq possibly be worse than it was under Sadam???

Did you miss those few years where everyone was getting blowed up, shot at, tortured and drilled in the head? Saddam was pretty shiatty but it got even worse when the ethnic cleansing started. You want to talk about "rape rooms", every abandoned building was a rape room. You want to talk about torture, tell it to the families who found their loved ones in morgues or ditches, their bodies covered with the signs of torture.

yes, it was even more farked up than when Saddam ruled.


Have you ever lived in a dictatorship?? Saddam gassed entire villages and killed anybody and everybody that he felt like killing. Iraq is not perfect, but it is certainly better than it was under Saddam.

Do you seriously believe that the Iraq people would rather have Saddam back in charge??

I'm guessing the ones who enjoyed excellent public services like schools and hospitals...The ones who had successful businesses...People who lived comfortable, secure lives in a thriving economy miss those times a little.

Something like the way the plantation owners in the American south probably preferred their lives before slavery, and all the atrocities associated with it, was outlawed here.

plantation owners were a small percentage of the population in the pre-Civil War south.


Yea, all those groups you mention were having a great time. Even those people had to worry about Saddam.

I know people who lived in Eastern Europe under the Soviets. They all agree that the worst part about a dictatorship is the constant fear of the government, the lack of freedom and the sense that things would never get better.

We need someone to replace the shoe with a cat/banana/chicken/etc. in that animated gif. Stat.

So Maliki--nothing and I mean nothing seems to phase that guy. He barely flinches during all this, he just moves aside an inch or so. I remember a few months back someone was interviewing him when a bomb went of and the reported ducked/covered his head. Maliki didn't even blink.

I find that interesting.

bobbette: I can understand people being nostalgic for a time when at least the A/C and fridges worked for more than a few hours a day, and where there was no risk of their relatives being shot, or where they weren't forced out of their homes and into a different neighbourhood because of sectarian violence. It doesn't make Saddam a good guy, but it's important to note that Iraqis didn't choose the situation they were put in, America did.

I agree that we screwed up directly after the invasion and it cost us plenty of will. I would disagree with your last statement though. It's more accurate to say Sadaam chose this course. He was given plenty of warnings and a clear way to avoid the Invasion. It's not like we gave him a catch-22 nor did we just one day spring out and invade. He was warned several times that if he did not comply with inspections, this would be the outcome.

He chose the fate of his country, not America - we just backed up our word, you know, kept a promise.

3rdLostPassword: nicksteel: liar???? What have I lied about??

Not so much that you're a liar, but that you keep spouting the same idealistic platitudes without presenting any real factual underpinning.

Yes, you're an idealist.


I am not an idealist but I know enough to realize that living under a murdering crazy dictator is a life much worse than a life without him.

nicksteel:

What dictatorship did you live under?? Why did you leave??

Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan. My family moved.

I never said that Iraq was a great place now, I said it was better than under Saddam.

And what makes you so uniquely qualified in this thread to make such an assertion? Did you live in Saddam's Iraq? Do you live in Iraq now?

I'd say that life in Iraq now is better for some, worse for others; in what proportions I do not know, as I've never been there, either under Saddam or since.

It is perfectly reasonable to say these things-

Iraq under Hussein was not a pleasant place, but had a semblance of stability.

Since the toppling of the Hussein government, conditions in Iraq have deteriorated severely. Access to basic healthcare, electricity, clean water- all of these are exceptions, not rules. The smart people or those with access to money have left the country and probably won't come back. A brain drain (and middle/upperclass drain) of those proportions is going to have severe effects on Iraq's ability to manage its own affairs for decades.

The war waged by the US and its allies has done some good things, but on balance, the situation is worse than it was before.

The primary reason for this conclusion (and this is important, so pay attention)- is this:

We have achieved some good things, at the cost of many bad things. This is not a zero-sum game, and right now, we have a situation that will cost more money, lives and energy to correct than we did before the first bomb dropped.

The ongoing costs of defending against an intractable insurgency, hatred by the Iraqis themselves, the emboldening of other enemies of America and her allies, coupled with the destabilization of the entire region, the devastation of Iraq's infrastructure, mean that we metaphorically filled one hole but dug a deeper one right next to it.

The terms "better" and "worse" are binary in nature, they have no subtlety. We can take one slice of Iraqi life or a particular geographic locale and say "it's better here, see!" or do the same with another place or aspect of Iraqi life and say "Look, it's worse now, you bastards!".

All of that misses the point entirely and reveals a shocking lack of both depth and perception- or simply a mendacious willingness to cherrypick things that support a conclusion you already desire.

In the end, history will judge that this war was a badly managed waste of American money, life and energy, that the precepts on which it was founded were incorrect, and that its stated goals could have been acheived without such a travesty that we have been forced to witness these last 6 years.

But do go on- the cries of "Would you rather we still had Hussein!?" and "They don't have electricity and hate us!" never cease to be entertaining.

TigerStar888: It is an insult in the Muslim world to show the bottom of your shoes to a person. With Bush joking about it, he obviously doesn't get it. He is slow and dimwitted.

Yea, because when you're selling the idea of "Free Speech" the way to answer an insult is with harsh police actions and indignant rage.

Sorry but you're judgment is way off - laughing it off is the best thing he could have done.

/Wow, Bush is smarter than a Farker :P

Alien Robot: Egalitarian: NickSteel
Juan Cole (JuanCole.com) -- for awhile there, every day he put up translated stories along the lines of another X tortured bodies found around Baghdad, Y people blown up at a market, Z innocent people mowed down by US troops or mercs at a checkpoint, etc. These were daily occurrences. I've never heard anybody disputing what he posted.

And yet the number of deaths were still less than during the sanctions regime under Saddam.

/facepalm

nicksteel:

so, tell me, what should we have done differently???

Not invaded. That one was easy. Ask another.

kaminariko [TotalFark] Quote 2008-12-14 02:23:03 PM
I know that throwing shoes is a big insult in Iraq because I remember the Iraqis hitting the fallen statue of Saddam with their shoes.

But I don't know why it's such a big deal.

What does it signify?

It's obviously a supporter of the Baathists who misses Saddam.

sivmac239: I remember a few months back someone was interviewing him when a bomb went of and the reported ducked/covered his head. Maliki

He's a puppet, silly. Puppets, like Klingons, don't have emotions.

nicksteel: Even those people had to worry about Saddam.

From this poll: Four years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, Iraqis describe daily lives that have been torn apart by spiraling violence and a faltering economy. The bursts of optimism reported in a 2004 public-opinion survey taken a year after the invasion and another in 2005 before landmark legislative elections have nearly vanished.

From this poll: About 70% of Iraqis believe security has deteriorated in the area covered by the US military "surge" of the past six months, an opinion poll suggests.

Please present your findings which contradict these.

nicksteel: I am not an idealist but I know enough to realize that living under a murdering crazy dictator is a life much worse than a life without him.

Indeed, believing something on an ideal in the face of factual opposition makes one an idealist.

Damnhippyfreak: nicksteel: Damnhippyfreak: nicksteel: better?? The country consists of various "tribes" who hate each other. What could we have done differently??

Do you really believe there was only one way to perform foreign policy? After all these years, do you honestly think nothing different could have been done? Come on now, you can't be all that ignorant.

Let's pick the lowest-hanging fruit (out of many) and think about the 'surge' for instance. Why do you think a change in policy was mandated if we could not have done anything differently?

I mean, why would you even claim such a ridiculous, absurd point as "What could we have done differently??" unless you had some sort of ulterior motive? Fess up.

so, tell me, what should we have done differently??? You should never criticise a plan if you don't have a better one.


Read my post again. Pay special attention to the word 'surge'. I've even bolded it for you. If the 'surge' has indeed been working, then how about using more of what worked there earlier?

Again, you can't be all that ignorant that you would claim that nothing different could have been done, especially given some of the criticisms from within the military itself. You're either completely incompetent on this topic, or are being deliberately obtuse.

You don't make a lot of sense. The surge was a continuation of the same policy with more troops to support it. Are you suggesting that it would have been better to send in more troops initially than we did???

I never said that nothing different could have been done. What I said was that no matter what we did, there were going to be problems.

I did ask what you would have done and you have not answered me.

nicksteel: it is still true that the people are better off now than they were under a dictator.


It still isn't worth the expenditure of resources that we continue to commit to that region. Not everything positive is worth the cost...this certainly isn't.

3rdLostPassword: nicksteel: I am not an idealist but I know enough to realize that living under a murdering crazy dictator is a life much worse than a life without him.

Indeed, believing something on an ideal in the face of factual opposition makes one an idealist.

Okay, tell me how many people were killed and/or tortured under Saddam and how many have been killed/tortured since. Give me some facts.

Then please explain to me how it is better to live under a dictator as opposed to a democracy.

nicksteel: I did ask what you would have done and you have not answered me.

Again, you're not the boss of us. But, I'd have found Osama bin Laden and placed his ass in prison.

No Such Agency Quote 2008-12-14 02:33:52 PM

Bush has some farking gall, making a last visit to a country he managed to make worse after years of rule by a sadistic dictator. It's like a rapist sending flowers the next day.


The vast majority of Iraqis( you know the people who actually LIVE THERE ) would like to not only disagree with your dumb ass, but beat your stupid ass with their shoes.

Abox: nicksteel: it is still true that the people are better off now than they were under a dictator.


It still isn't worth the expenditure of resources that we continue to commit to that region. Not everything positive is worth the cost...this certainly isn't.

you have added a new facet to the converation that has nothing to do with the ongoing conversation.

MorrisBird: nicksteel: I did ask what you would have done and you have not answered me.

Again, you're not the boss of us. But, I'd have found Osama bin Laden and placed his ass in prison.

so, you would have done nothing about Iraq at all??? You believe that the Iraqi people were better off under Saddam??

libbynomore2: The vast majority of Iraqis( you know the people who actually LIVE THERE ) would like to not only disagree with your dumb ass, but beat your stupid ass with their shoes.

libbynomore2 associates with the vast majority of Iraqis. Shocking, I tells ya!

TigerStar888 Quote 2008-12-14 04:02:06 PM


It is an insult in the Muslim world to show the bottom of your shoes to a person. With Bush joking about it, he obviously doesn't get it. He is slow and dimwitted.


Congrats for providing what is likely the most stupid analysis of this event that will ever be uttered.

Don't feel bad though, there are a lot of dumbasses who would probably say the same thing.

nicksteel: You believe that the Iraqi people were better off under Saddam??

I believe it was none of our farking business. I have no idea whether the Iraqi people were better off before. I know I was, as was my retirement fund.

3rdLostPassword: nicksteel: Even those people had to worry about Saddam.

From this poll: Four years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, Iraqis describe daily lives that have been torn apart by spiraling violence and a faltering economy. The bursts of optimism reported in a 2004 public-opinion survey taken a year after the invasion and another in 2005 before landmark legislative elections have nearly vanished.

From this poll: About 70% of Iraqis believe security has deteriorated in the area covered by the US military "surge" of the past six months, an opinion poll suggests.

Please present your findings which contradict these.

I do not need to. There is nothing in your statement that even indicates that the people would rather have Saddam back

I'm sorry, but that's the funniest thing I've seen in a while.

nicksteel: Give me some facts.

You go on and on about people's hope and security yet when presented with facts which show that the people living in the country, and not idealists like yourself, report their hope is gone and that they feel their lives are less secure, you ignore it.

Trolleriffic, my friend. Stunningly so.

Here's one last attempt to shine a light in your sorry little mind:

Life expectancy in Iraq has dropped since 1990 (new window)

Iraq: Who knew they had so much in common with Jerry Springer?

darkhorse23: kaminariko: I know that throwing shoes is a big insult in Iraq because I remember the Iraqis hitting the fallen statue of Saddam with their shoes.

But I don't know why it's such a big deal.

What does it signify?

OMG that's the first thing I thought of. Who knows what it means, but I remember when the statue of Saddam Hussein came down, all the guys there were hitting it with the bottoms of their shoes.

Maybe it means that you are lower than the sole of my shoe, dirt on the ground?

Yes. It's about the dirt. It's the same reason why Muslims take their shoes off when they enter a mosque.

nicksteel: F

It is stupid and uninformed to state that things are markedly worse by our presence.


Absence of hospitals, schools, clean water and electricity is, in my opinion, markedly worse than the presence of those facilities.

Whether or not the sum total of suffering was greater under Saddam or since is open to debate. I do not think it has been resolved. Neither the Saddam regime nor the subsequent occupation have been particularly pleasant for the average citizen.




Getting Saddam out of power was a good thing for the people


Yes, it was. Nobody is debating that. I certainly am not.


and the only way that was going to happen was to send in an army.


I am not convinced by that claim. I can cite the case of Salvador Allende as a counter example.



If we had left before he was caught, he would have gone right back to what he had been doing.


Arguable, but probably correct. Saddam's ability to carry out heinous acts was reduced after the first Gulf War. But you are probably correct, insofar as he remained capable, he would have continued his previous practices.



If we had left just after he was captured, the Iraqis would still have killed each other and maybe even at a higher rate than with us there.

Possibly. They would not, however, have killed as many Americans. Nor would we have spent so much money on the occupation. Nor would our presence there have served as recruiting propaganda for Wahhabists and other extremists.

In any case, your point rests on the controversial assumption that it is our responsibility to police tribal and ethnic wars. While I am open to hearing that argument, it has not yet been made. If the US military is ethically responsible for policing tribal conflicts and minimizing inter-ethnic struggles, then in a sense our military intervention created a problem where there previously was not one (at least not to the same degree). If that was our mission, we should have invaded Sudan and Rwanda instead, as they were already fighting.

nicksteel: You don't make a lot of sense. The surge was a continuation of the same policy with more troops to support it. Are you suggesting that it would have been better to send in more troops initially than we did???

I never said that nothing different could have been done. What I said was that no matter what we did, there were going to be problems.

I did ask what you would have done and you have not answered me.


First off, what I've bolded is exactly what you are insinuating:

nicksteel: better?? The country consists of various "tribes" who hate each other. What could we have done differently??

And finally, I invoked the 'surge' as part of what could have been done differently, and yes, part of what I would have suggested. I know reading isn't your strong suit, but if you actually follow that link I provided, I happen to agree with much of what Gen. Shinseki suggested.

Second, if you are so uninformed as to somehow think that all the 'surge' (new window) was was more troops, you once again ably prove your incompetence.

Honestly. Go do some reading, then come back. You've got a lot of catching up to do.

nicksteel: rather have Saddam back

Not the argument. The argument is "are people better off now than under Saddam". The answer is, so far, NO.

MorrisBird: nicksteel: You believe that the Iraqi people were better off under Saddam??

I believe it was none of our farking business. I have no idea whether the Iraqi people were better off before. I know I was, as was my retirement fund.

Your retirement fund was not screwed up because of US involvement in Iraq.

nicksteel:

so, you would have done nothing about Iraq at all??? You believe that the Iraqi people were better off under Saddam??

So you think we should invade Uzbekistan??? Or do you believe that we shouldn't stop Karimov boiling his citizens alive just because he's our ally??

Linux_Yes: Bush is a shoe-in for being the worst U.S. President in 100 years.

more like 220 years. worst president ever. Send George W. Bush to The Hague.

Damnhippyfreak: Second, if you are so uninformed as to somehow think that all the 'surge' (new window) was was only more troops, you once again ably prove your incompetence.

FTFM

Bucky Katt: Send George W. Bush to The Hague.

This.

nicksteel: Your retirement fund was not screwed up because of US involvement in Iraq.

The trillions spent on this senseless war had nothing to do with the economic collapse? Oh, I think they did.

nicksteel: MorrisBird: nicksteel: I did ask what you would have done and you have not answered me.

Again, you're not the boss of us. But, I'd have found Osama bin Laden and placed his ass in prison.

so, you would have done nothing about Iraq at all??? You believe that the Iraqi people were better off under Saddam??

Faux outrage is boring.

Where were you during the decades of Hussein's rule, when the US supplied him money, arms and support? When we looked the other way as people were murdered, tortured and raped?

It's only when you feel the need to defend a bad decision made by your country that the poor Iraqis become a factor for you.

Iraq is worse than it was before in many ways. A few shiny spots on the turd doesn't mean it's not still a steaming pile of shiat. The good things we've accomplished- hooray, that's wonderful. But the bad- that's pretty damn bad.

In the big picture, it's worse than it was before. We've got a more unstable area, enemies emboldened by the chaos in Iraq, more people hating the US for its bad management of this so-called "war" (and since Congress didn't declare it, it's not), and a much longer road ahead before we get to where we could have been if this had been done right.

studebaker hoch: I'm sorry, but that's the funniest thing I've seen in a while.

Nope this is:

spiffy gif of the shoe terrorist

Lame duck Bush sure ducks fast

nicksteel: You don't make a lot of sense. The surge was a continuation of the same policy with more troops to support it. Are you suggesting that it would have been better to send in more troops initially than we did???

I never said that nothing different could have been done. What I said was that no matter what we did, there were going to be problems.

I did ask what you would have done and you have not answered me.

Actually you're wrong on this. The "Surge" was a paradigm shift in Counter Insurgency Strategy. Petreaus wrote the "new" book on how to handle a Counter-Insurgency and his strategy was vastly different from the Policy before him.

Don't mistake the influx of troops as being the only reason for success. The idea of taking and *holding* territory was new as well.

3rdLostPassword: nicksteel: rather have Saddam back

Not the argument. The argument is "are people better off now than under Saddam". The answer is, so far, NO.

Actually,the argument is "would you rather have Saddam back" and "are people better off now than under Saddam" are pretty much the same.

nicksteel: Actually,the argument is "would you rather have Saddam back" and "are people better off now than under Saddam" are pretty much the same.

Fark you and good night.

Abox: nicksteel: it is still true that the people are better off now than they were under a dictator.


It still isn't worth the expenditure of resources that we continue to commit to that region. Not everything positive is worth the cost...this certainly isn't.

You need to think on a larger canvas than just Iraq. We're currently supporting the youth in many Middle Eastern Countries who are more and more crying for freedom. Having a democratic Iraq right in the middle as this new generation starts to rise in power will have some huge ripple effects that might prevent future bloodshed.

Cyclometh: Where were you during the decades of Hussein's rule, when the US supplied him money, arms and support? When we looked the other way as people were murdered, tortured and raped?

Probably sacked out on the couch, watching the Flintstones and gnawing on a Fudgesicle...

So the person throwing the shoe is going to have a charge levied against him.

Since it was a shoe and not a gun/knife or anything, plus the fact that he missed, wouldn't it be something like attempted assault with a non-lethal weapon, if you were to go by American law?

Always lead your target a little bit.

Aim a tad low with that headshot.

Father_Jack: Does that make you think about what we as americans are one day going to sow as a result of what we're doign there now "in the name of freedom and democracy?"

We'll eventually get some really bad ass video games.

Other than that, no good will come of this.

I'd love to introduce Mr. Bush to my

"Confronted by an irate Iraqi reporter Sunday, a quick thinking President Bush manages to duck his shoes."

/best I could do

MorrisBird: nicksteel: You believe that the Iraqi people were better off under Saddam??

I believe it was none of our farking business. I have no idea whether the Iraqi people were better off before. I know I was, as was my retirement fund.

How was it not our business?

A: Sadaam shoots missiles at our planes - I consider *that* our business
B: Sadaam violates our Cease Fire Agreement - I consider *that* to be our business as well.

I think you're getting two things mixed up - just because Iraq is a theater in the greater War on Terror doesn't mean it's directly related to Osama.

After 9/11 treating terrorists as individual criminals wasn't exactly the best option. If you're calling for a larger debate on how we treat Terrorist attacks that's one thing, but let's not confuse the two.

nicksteel = Iraq's Tatsuma?

WastedHero: So the person throwing the shoe is going to have a charge levied against him.

Yes, and I'll bet he's going to have to foot the entire bill.

wouldn't it be something like attempted assault with a non-lethal weapon, if you were to go by American law?

Probably nothing other than a yardage penalty. It was a classic pooch kick, to be sure...

nicksteel: Actually,the argument is "would you rather have Saddam back" and "are people better off now than under Saddam" are pretty much the same.


Only if one is blinkered, unable to see anything beyond a childish, simplistic, black-or-view on things, and outright beyond reason. Well then, yeah, one could see it that way.

CanisNoir: Abox: nicksteel: it is still true that the people are better off now than they were under a dictator.


It still isn't worth the expenditure of resources that we continue to commit to that region. Not everything positive is worth the cost...this certainly isn't.

You need to think on a larger canvas than just Iraq. We're currently supporting the youth in many Middle Eastern Countries who are more and more crying for freedom. Having a democratic Iraq right in the middle as this new generation starts to rise in power will have some huge ripple effects that might prevent future bloodshed.

A democratic Iraq? heh. They only have a democracy right now at the point of a gun.

Within 10 years of the US withdrawing they'll be an Islamic theocracy, even more hard-line than Iran. Probaly faster than that. They'll make the Taliban's version of Sharia look like a desirable alternative.

bush got the reflexes of a drunken monkey ala jackie chan. note how he even bares his teeth in a hostile smile at the antagonist after the shoes fail to hit their target, just like an alpha male primate basking in the glow of victory. he should've thrown poop back at the assailant to establish his dominance.

Cyclometh: nicksteel: MorrisBird: nicksteel: I did ask what you would have done and you have not answered me.

Again, you're not the boss of us. But, I'd have found Osama bin Laden and placed his ass in prison.

so, you would have done nothing about Iraq at all??? You believe that the Iraqi people were better off under Saddam??

Faux outrage is boring.

Where were you during the decades of Hussein's rule, when the US supplied him money, arms and support? When we looked the other way as people were murdered, tortured and raped?

It's only when you feel the need to defend a bad decision made by your country that the poor Iraqis become a factor for you.

Iraq is worse than it was before in many ways. A few shiny spots on the turd doesn't mean it's not still a steaming pile of shiat. The good things we've accomplished- hooray, that's wonderful. But the bad- that's pretty damn bad.

In the big picture, it's worse than it was before. We've got a more unstable area, enemies emboldened by the chaos in Iraq, more people hating the US for its bad management of this so-called "war" (and since Congress didn't declare it, it's not), and a much longer road ahead before we get to where we could have been if this had been done right.

That area has been unstable for decades and will be for decades to come. We have changed that very little.

I do not believe that freeing the Iraqi people was a bad idea. People living in freedom are always better off than people living under a dictator. If France and England had moved against Hitler in the mid 1930's, the world would have been better off and that goes double for the people in Germany.

What should we have done in Iraq??

nicksteel: Alphax: nicksteel: Have you ever lived in a dictatorship?? Saddam gassed entire villages and killed anybody and everybody that he felt like killing. Iraq is not perfect, but it is certainly better than it was under Saddam.

Do you seriously believe that the Iraq people would rather have Saddam back in charge??

Just shut up, liar.

liar???? What have I lied about??

Every time you claim things are better now in Iraq than under Saddam.

CanisNoir: After 9/11 treating terrorists as individual criminals wasn't exactly the best option.

I would beg to disagree.

What a bloody disgrace.

Throwing shoes at a press conference? Childish.

How does the SS allow this to happen? Staged?!?!

You can see Dubya was pretty good at fourth grade dodgeball.

Apparantly nicksteel thinks he's Sean Hannity.

nicksteel: What should we have done in Iraq??

Let it be. Let it be. Let it be. Let it be. Whispered words of wisdom, Let it be.

Cyclometh: A democratic Iraq? heh. They only have a democracy right now at the point of a gun.

Within 10 years of the US withdrawing they'll be an Islamic theocracy, even more hard-line than Iran. Probaly faster than that. They'll make the Taliban's version of Sharia look like a desirable alternative.

I disagree; then again it seems I have more faith that those living in the Middle East can grasp the notion of self-government and peaceful transfers of power than you do.

Don't discount them, I don't think representative government is as alien to them as you do.

Alphax: nicksteel: Alphax: nicksteel: Have you ever lived in a dictatorship?? Saddam gassed entire villages and killed anybody and everybody that he felt like killing. Iraq is not perfect, but it is certainly better than it was under Saddam.

Do you seriously believe that the Iraq people would rather have Saddam back in charge??

Just shut up, liar.

liar???? What have I lied about??

Every time you claim things are better now in Iraq than under Saddam.

Oh, so you ARE an idiot. I am expressing an opinion. Opinions cannot be labeled lies.

The Only Good Moran: Apparantly nicksteel thinks he's Sean Hannity.

You're a Great American!

/Yea I'm a 'Righty' but damn that annoys me.

MorrisBird: After 9/11 treating terrorists as individual criminals wasn't exactly the best option.

I would beg to disagree.

Terrorists=criminals

Anything more ends up glorifying the act, unintentionally or otherwise.

I love how NickSteel seems to have not been aware of how horrible Iraq was after the invasion, and now having been somewhat enlightened, he jumps around posting dichotomies, unable to comprehend there might have been a better way.

Yes I knew of Saddam's atrocities. He was a vile pig dog. But we farked up. Really bad. There's no getting around it. Disbanding the army, letting the infrastructure be destroyed during looting, appointing people whose only qualification was being a Young Republican in college to handle millions of reconstruction dollars, not sending enough troops in the first place, yada yada. All underpinned by the belief that we can create our own reality with no regard to, well, reality.

Damnhippyfreak: nicksteel: Actually,the argument is "would you rather have Saddam back" and "are people better off now than under Saddam" are pretty much the same.


Only if one is blinkered, unable to see anything beyond a childish, simplistic, black-or-view on things, and outright beyond reason. Well then, yeah, one could see it that way.

Really!! If the people were better off under Saddam, then why wouldn't they want him back in charge??

CanisNoir: The Only Good Moran: Apparantly nicksteel thinks he's Sean Hannity.

You're a Great American!

/Yea I'm a 'Righty' but damn that annoys me.

I'm going to admit ignorance on this one. I made the comparisson because his methods he's using here remind me a lot of how Hannity acts on television. So please fill me in on the reference to yours.

I'm almost positive I've never said a positive thing about Bush, but he was pretty agile there. I'm impressed.

whidbey: WastedHero: So the person throwing the shoe is going to have a charge levied against him.

Yes, and I'll bet he's going to have to foot the entire bill.


Oh, I see what you did there.


I'm just thinking, since this guy didn't actually manage to hit the prez or attack him with a weapon meant to do harm and/or kill him...he's probably not going to get put away for life I imagine.

For the record, he's a lame duck, but he's not a lame ducker.

/best I could think of right now with a lack of caffeine.

Egalitarian: I love how NickSteel seems to have not been aware of how horrible Iraq was after the invasion, and now having been somewhat enlightened, he jumps around posting dichotomies, unable to comprehend there might have been a better way.

Yes I knew of Saddam's atrocities. He was a vile pig dog. But we farked up. Really bad. There's no getting around it. Disbanding the army, letting the infrastructure be destroyed during looting, appointing people whose only qualification was being a Young Republican in college to handle millions of reconstruction dollars, not sending enough troops in the first place, yada yada. All underpinned by the belief that we can create our own reality with no regard to, well, reality.

I never said that there were no better ideas. That is something that you manifested due to your ignorance.

MorrisBird: CanisNoir: After 9/11 treating terrorists as individual criminals wasn't exactly the best option.

I would beg to disagree.

But decades of treating them as individual criminals only led to them escalating the level of their attacks. It also allowed us (Jamie Goelick) to erect Information Walls between Government Agencies that left serious holes in our security.

9/11 Demonstrated that they had the capacity for long term planning, highly accurate coordination over large areas, and excellent training abilities. I think this more than anything is what begged for the military solution and I tend to see Iraq and Afghanistan as "lancing a boil" - in other words, yea things got pretty damn shaity and putrid, but eventually it'll bleed out and the healing can begin.

WastedHero: I'm just thinking, since this guy didn't actually manage to hit the prez or attack him with a weapon meant to do harm and/or kill him...he's probably not going to get put away for life I imagine.

If Bush said he was "all right" and that the man's gesture "was an example of free speech in a democracy" he shouldn't be charged with anything.

nicksteel: If the people were better off under Saddam, then why wouldn't they want him back in charge??

Um, he's dead. We can only handle two zombie nation leaders at a time and Castro and Kim Jong Il have taken those positions. BRAINS!

nicksteel: What should we have done in Iraq??

The list of things we could have done is very long and has been presented in one form or another in this thread or with simple web searches.

Frankly, I'm not interested in trying to educate you on it, for one reason- you are simply not interested in being educated. You're looking for a fight and I'm not arguing with you, I'm only talking to you because other people read this stuff and may be swayed by my statements. I know for a dead certain fact that you are either a troll (maybe whidbey resurrecting skookum in another guise) or just a misguided fool, but you are useful as a foil.

The war in Iraq was mostly supposed to be theater to distract the people of the US from the total failure to capture those behind September 11- I was quoted at an rally before the Iraq war got started that the US had lost the people's focus on bin Laden and was using Iraq to wag the dog.

Sadly, it wasn't an easy operation like the first Persian Gulf War turned out to be, at least once the actual war began. Bush sr took over 8 months to actually pull the trigger, building international cooperation and support, twisting arms, making deals, and generally making sure that it was truly an international operation. And even he, when Iraq was on its knees, knew that the cost of trying to dominate it and remove Hussein- even WITH the coalition on his side, at least initially- would be a tremendous drain on American resources.

In the end, we are not the world's police. We cannot expect to be able to create democracies at the point of a gun and too many countries and cultures are under similar conditions as Iraq is and was for a military solution to be the one we go to.

It's just simply not sustainable and ends up degrading the US power, authority, and image, to the point where we cannot even claim the moral high ground. We may fix one problem that way, but we create so many more.

CanisNoir: But decades of treating them as individual criminals only led to them escalating the level of their attacks.

Terrorists have never been treated "as individual criminals" ever, in my memory. Not since I first heard about Reagan's "War on Terror."

It also allowed us (Jamie Goelick) to erect Information Walls between Government Agencies that left serious holes in our security.

Now you're just making apologies. That bit of political smear doesn't get the Bush administration off the hook for ultimately being the one who failed to protect this country.

So no correlation there.

CanisNoir: But decades of treating them as individual criminals only led to them escalating the level of their attacks.

Who are these "them" of whom you speak? It's silly. Terrorism is not the enemy. People are. There's a name for them, "criminals." The whole world already has a system for dealing with criminals.

nicksteel: If the people were better off under Saddam, then why wouldn't they want him back in charge??

dead presidents procrastinate?

He has given us a sign.

CanisNoir: 9/11 Demonstrated that they had the capacity for long term planning, highly accurate coordination over large areas, and excellent training abilities.

It also demonstrated that the current administration is incredibly loathe to allow criminal investigations into crimes of that scale.

CanisNoir: Cyclometh: A democratic Iraq? heh. They only have a democracy right now at the point of a gun.

Within 10 years of the US withdrawing they'll be an Islamic theocracy, even more hard-line than Iran. Probaly faster than that. They'll make the Taliban's version of Sharia look like a desirable alternative.

I disagree; then again it seems I have more faith that those living in the Middle East can grasp the notion of self-government and peaceful transfers of power than you do.

Don't discount them, I don't think representative government is as alien to them as you do.

I hope you're right, but in general history's on the side of the pessimists in this case.

I'd like nothing more than to see a democratic Iraq emerge, take its place on the world stage and sow the seeds of stability and democracy in the rest of the Middle East, making me able to say "Well, I was wrong" in 20 years.

I'm not holding my breath for that to happen, though. :(

The Only Good Moran: I'm going to admit ignorance on this one. I made the comparisson because his methods he's using here remind me a lot of how Hannity acts on television. So please fill me in on the reference to yours.

It's Hannities way of mimicing Limbaugh. When people call in to Rush, they often says "Ditto's" or "Mega Ditto's" - it's become a Meme and really doesn't mean anything other than, "Hey I'm a big fan."

Well, Hannity started this thing where when someone calls in it goes something like this...

Hannity: John in St. Louis
John: Sean, you're a Great American.
Hannity: You're a Great American, let not your heart be troubled...

It just reminds me of the two Cartoon Squirrels standing before a door.
"After you"
"No, after you"
"No, I insist, after you"

Only they are spouting "You're a great american" as if the very notion of calling into Hannity makes you some super patriot or something - it just really irritates the hell out of me.

/Prefered Mark Scott's "I love my country but fear my Government" during the Clinton Years; it had the right amount of tin foil to make it innocuous.

HowlingFrog: It also demonstrated that the current administration is incredibly loathe to allow criminal investigations into crimes of that scale.

Yep.

MorrisBird: Who are these "them" of whom you speak? It's silly. Terrorism is not the enemy. People are. There's a name for them, "criminals." The whole world already has a system for dealing with criminals.

Exactly.
But treating THESE criminals as criminals does not mesh with the current politics of fear.

The most appropriate thing to do when someone throws something at a person of 'sensitive' security status is to shoot the mother f*cker. Nothing to do with Bush, that's a general statement about security. If you're going to have security, have security.

nicksteel: Oh, so you ARE an idiot. I am expressing an opinion. Opinions cannot be labeled lies.

No. You can't make false statements, like saying the sun rises in the west, and back out of being called a liar by claiming it's an opinion.

WastedHero: whidbey: WastedHero: So the person throwing the shoe is going to have a charge levied against him.

Yes, and I'll bet he's going to have to foot the entire bill.


Oh, I see what you did there.


I'm just thinking, since this guy didn't actually manage to hit the prez or attack him with a weapon meant to do harm and/or kill him...he's probably not going to get put away for life I imagine.

I would imagine Bush will have a "no harm, no foul" attitude on this one. Like I said, we're trying to sell the greatness of Freedom of Speech and you can't do that by harshing on a reporter who lobbed a couple of sneakers.

Seriously though, for the amount of money and resources poored into Iraq, you figured the people there would have a better quality of life than under their previous ruthless dictator. But at least under Saddam they had majority of their infrastructure. Now more people have died under America's invasion than under saddam's rule. The quality of life has diminished drastically. I mean they don't even have regular access to electricity or other utilities.

Bush has no real leadership ability and he is the quintessential definition of failure. Plain and simple.

Cyclometh: nicksteel: What should we have done in Iraq??

The list of things we could have done is very long and has been presented in one form or another in this thread or with simple web searches.

Frankly, I'm not interested in trying to educate you on it, for one reason- you are simply not interested in being educated. You're looking for a fight and I'm not arguing with you, I'm only talking to you because other people read this stuff and may be swayed by my statements. I know for a dead certain fact that you are either a troll (maybe whidbey resurrecting skookum in another guise) or just a misguided fool, but you are useful as a foil.

The war in Iraq was mostly supposed to be theater to distract the people of the US from the total failure to capture those behind September 11- I was quoted at an rally before the Iraq war got started that the US had lost the people's focus on bin Laden and was using Iraq to wag the dog.

Sadly, it wasn't an easy operation like the first Persian Gulf War turned out to be, at least once the actual war began. Bush sr took over 8 months to actually pull the trigger, building international cooperation and support, twisting arms, making deals, and generally making sure that it was truly an international operation. And even he, when Iraq was on its knees, knew that the cost of trying to dominate it and remove Hussein- even WITH the coalition on his side, at least initially- would be a tremendous drain on American resources.

In the end, we are not the world's police. We cannot expect to be able to create democracies at the point of a gun and too many countries and cultures are under similar conditions as Iraq is and was for a military solution to be the one we go to.

It's just simply not sustainable and ends up degrading the US power, authority, and image, to the point where we cannot even claim the moral high ground. We may fix one problem that way, but we create so many more.

a wonderful speech that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the conversation.

Web searches for a better way to handle Iraq?? All that is going to give me is somebody else's opinion. I wanted the opinion of the people here because they (you) are the ones biatching about what we did.

And I have yet to see that list of things that you believe exists here, other than we should have stayed out of Iraq completely. That does nothing to answer the bigger question "are the people better off now than they were under Saddam.

Cyclometh: I disagree; then again it seems I have more faith that those living in the Middle East can grasp the notion of self-government and peaceful transfers of power than you do.

Don't discount them, I don't think representative government is as alien to them as you do.

I hope you're right, but in general history's on the side of the pessimists in this case.

I'd like nothing more than to see a democratic Iraq emerge, take its place on the world stage and sow the seeds of stability and democracy in the rest of the Middle East, making me able to say "Well, I was wrong" in 20 years.

I'm not holding my breath for that to happen, though. :(

Not as long as the US maintains a colonial attitude towards the people of the region. I suspect that true "democracy" in Iraq would not be the US-approved variety and we would be "forced" to maintain a presence there, through both military and economic pressure.

That's what Obama is up against, if he doesn't actually believe in the principles himself.

nicksteel:

Really!! If the people were better off under Saddam, then why wouldn't they want him back in charge??

Corpses aren't reknowned for their leadership abilities.

If they are so much better off now, why are they throwing their shoes at Mr Bush? Perhaps it isn't as black and white as you seem to think it is, and perhaps a large number of Iraqis aren't happy what we've done to their country uninvited.

CanisNoir: The Only Good Moran: I'm going to admit ignorance on this one. I made the comparisson because his methods he's using here remind me a lot of how Hannity acts on television. So please fill me in on the reference to yours.

It's Hannities way of mimicing Limbaugh. When people call in to Rush, they often says "Ditto's" or "Mega Ditto's" - it's become a Meme and really doesn't mean anything other than, "Hey I'm a big fan."

Well, Hannity started this thing where when someone calls in it goes something like this...

Hannity: John in St. Louis
John: Sean, you're a Great American.
Hannity: You're a Great American, let not your heart be troubled...

It just reminds me of the two Cartoon Squirrels standing before a door.
"After you"
"No, after you"
"No, I insist, after you"

Only they are spouting "You're a great american" as if the very notion of calling into Hannity makes you some super patriot or something - it just really irritates the hell out of me.

/Prefered Mark Scott's "I love my country but fear my Government" during the Clinton Years; it had the right amount of tin foil to make it innocuous.

See, why can't you answer like this more often? I liked this response.

I already knew Hannity was a dick, but starting this little meme makes him asinine too. And considering my roomate is part of his cult following, its just a slap in the face of reason, because aside from that, he's a kickass roomate.

nicksteel: That does nothing to answer the bigger question "are the people better off now than they were under Saddam.

Maybe the third time's the charm. You, sir, are neither the boss of us, nor are you the boss of this thread. Some Iraqi lobbed two shoes at Dubya. The whole world is amused. Deal with it.

nicksteel: Damnhippyfreak: nicksteel: Actually,the argument is "would you rather have Saddam back" and "are people better off now than under Saddam" are pretty much the same.


Only if one is blinkered, unable to see anything beyond a childish, simplistic, black-or-view on things, and outright beyond reason. Well then, yeah, one could see it that way.

Really!! If the people were better off under Saddam, then why wouldn't they want him back in charge??


Oh boy. I guess I really do need to explain it verbosely to you. Let me ask you whether you would rather be shot in the leg or the chest. Think about that for a second.

Figured it out yet? If not, what should be obvious is that none of the options are good ones, and neither are desirable or wanted! This is simply because the choices themselves are limited. This is what is called a false dilemma (new window).

So I'm not going to trust you to 'get it' by yourself and I'll bring it back to your flawed false dilemma. So to answer your question that "If the people were better off under Saddam, then why wouldn't they want him back in charge??", the answer is simply and unsurprisingly that they wouldn't want either, just as you wouldn't want to be shot in the leg nor the chest. And furthermore, you're oversimplifying the situation by perceiving only those two options.

whidbey: CanisNoir: But decades of treating them as individual criminals only led to them escalating the level of their attacks.

Terrorists have never been treated "as individual criminals" ever, in my memory. Not since I first heard about Reagan's "War on Terror."

It also allowed us (Jamie Goelick) to erect Information Walls between Government Agencies that left serious holes in our security.

Now you're just making apologies. That bit of political smear doesn't get the Bush administration off the hook for ultimately being the one who failed to protect this country.

So no correlation there.

I'm not absolving the Bush Administration for it's initial failures, though the blame is not only theirs. We all were in a different mindset then. Each attack was considered seperately and we felt nigh invulnerable. Bush was coming in to be a Domsetic Uniter with his compassionate conservatism; the trade tower attacks changed his mindset, as well as the mindset of many people; myself included.

That's the ultimate debate I believe, if you want to break it down to the simplest argument. Should we view terrorism as a greater threat and seek to cure the disease, or do we view it as individual anti-american groups, and cure the symptoms?

I believe the Iraq war was an attempt to cure the Disease and not just treat a symptom.

/Of course, sticking with the Medical Analogy, it takes a hell of a lot longer to cure the disease than to slap on a bandaid.

whidbey: Not as long as the US maintains a colonial attitude towards the people of the region. I suspect that true "democracy" in Iraq would not be the US-approved variety and we would be "forced" to maintain a presence there, through both military and economic pressure.

That's what Obama is up against, if he doesn't actually believe in the principles himself.

Why do you say that? Iraq was secular before we invaded, so it's far more likely to fall into a Secular Democracy than into a Radical Theocracy. It might not be as pro-west as we want, but nobody is fooling themselves into thinking the Iraqi's won't pursue their own agenda.

Damnhippyfreak: nicksteel: Damnhippyfreak: nicksteel: Actually,the argument is "would you rather have Saddam back" and "are people better off now than under Saddam" are pretty much the same.


Only if one is blinkered, unable to see anything beyond a childish, simplistic, black-or-view on things, and outright beyond reason. Well then, yeah, one could see it that way.

Really!! If the people were better off under Saddam, then why wouldn't they want him back in charge??


Oh boy. I guess I really do need to explain it verbosely to you. Let me ask you whether you would rather be shot in the leg or the chest. Think about that for a second.

Figured it out yet? If not, what should be obvious is that none of the options are good ones, and neither are desirable or wanted! This is simply because the choices themselves are limited. This is what is called a false dilemma (new window).

So I'm not going to trust you to 'get it' by yourself and I'll bring it back to your flawed false dilemma. So to answer your question that "If the people were better off under Saddam, then why wouldn't they want him back in charge??", the answer is simply and unsurprisingly that they wouldn't want either, just as you wouldn't want to be shot in the leg nor the chest. And furthermore, you're oversimplifying the situation by perceiving only those two options.

what illegal drugs do you use on a regular basis??

CanisNoir: Should we view terrorism as a greater threat and seek to cure the disease

We should view terrorism as a tactic used by criminals. The criminals should be arrested and prosecuted. This should not involve invading foreign lands and killing the innocent. In order to fight a tactic, you need a strategy. Example: John McCain names Sarah Palin as his VEEP candidate (tactic); John McCain blows off Letterman to save the economy (tactic). Barack Obama remains nonplussed and continues to give a message of hope to the American people (strategy).

HowlingFrog: MorrisBird: Who are these "them" of whom you speak? It's silly. Terrorism is not the enemy. People are. There's a name for them, "criminals." The whole world already has a system for dealing with criminals.

Exactly.
But treating THESE criminals as criminals does not mesh with the current politics of fear.

So terrorists are always making threats, sometimes idle threats, sometimes real threats. Sometimes we stop the real threats, sometimes we don't. But you seem to set everyone up for failure.

Terrorists don't attack: THEY ARE USING THE POLITICS OF FEAR!!! THERE ARE NO TERRORISTS!!!

Terrorists attack: WHY DIDN'T THEY DO SOMETHING! THEY ARE IN BED WITH THE TERRORISTS!!!


Now tell me I support Bush so we can all point and laugh at you.

nicksteel: what illegal drugs do you use on a regular basis??

Alt troll confirmed.