I wonder what they'll do to Joe The Shoe Thrower

[OWC Jamie]

He hasn't bombed an aspirin factory yet.

The Iraqi with the shoe was a good shot.
Would have hammered Bush square in the nose if he hadn't moved.
Drunks don't react that fast.

I'd have thought security would have moved a little faster.


Bush is rather used to one-fingered salutes by now Ho. He doesn't live all cozed up in a bode in Chicago. A shoe thrower was humor for the humorless.

[OWC Jamie]

He's supposedly a well respected journalist.
He'll publish about it soon enough.
What's frustrating for many middle class and poor Iraqi is even when we are gone the thugs and religious zealots will still be killing.
Only the fools in this country think Bush is the problem.

Throwing a shoe is an insult.
Laughing as if you hadn't been insulted is [even more of] an insult.

They're even.

[Acer]

Would this reporter have chucked his shoe at Saddam if he had the chance? What would have happened to him after that?

Just askin'...

[Mac1337]

vision63 wrote:
[quote=Dakota]
[quote=Black Landlord]
]

What am I wrong about?

How much time you have? You have written more avoiding my question than if you had actually answered it. I assure you that Obama will have "blood" on his hands before he goes to bed on January 20th. That is just the nature of US presidency. They have to kill for us. Sometimes it takes atom bombs, sometimes cluster bombs. Makes you uncomfortable? Me too. But hey, that is the nature of the job.
That's just it. He didn't have to kill for us in Iraq.
Did FDR have to kill so many German civilians by firebombing cities? Did Truman have to drop the A-bomb , twice, on an enemy that some say was already defeated? How many Vietnamese did Johnson kill? This is what America does but somehow you are picking on Bush. I'll have a list for you on Obama in a few months.

[deckeda]

Most conscious people, now or then, recognized Germany and Japan as viable threats to the U.S. Please show how you feel they weren't before you assert that what the innocent who died in WWII were in the end victims of the Allies' actions.

Including Vietnam in your list is curious, since far fewer Americans believed we should have been at war there.

The larger question, and I'll ask it again, is how can current or recent actions be justified, or criticism be limited, on the basis of "oh, that's just what we Americans do?" That's some truly curious reasoning, like what kids use. "But the other kids did it, so why come down on meee!!!"

[swampy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nati...rning_Iraq

Just a brief synopsis of the UN Resolutions leading up to the Iraq War. The linked chart is short and concise.

Of particular interest Resolution 1441- November 2002
Unanimous Gave Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations". After Hans Blix of UNMOVIC reported to the UN on 7 March 2003, the US, UK, and other members of the "coalition of the willing" declared that Iraq remained in material breach of resolution 687. Efforts aimed at a new Council resolution authorizing the invasion were aborted owing to resistance from other members of the Council including veto-wielding members [Russia, China and France]. Iraq was invaded anyway, on 20 March.

and 1483 May 2003
Syria abstaining Recognized the US and the UK as occupying powers under international law, with legitimate authority in Iraq. Removed economic sanctions imposed during the Gulf War.

Just a little historical perspective. Bush did not 'act alone' or for 'personal gain'. It's not like Iraq had not been warned.

[vision63]

Dakota wrote:
[quote=vision63]
[quote=Dakota]
[quote=Black Landlord]
]

What am I wrong about?

How much time you have? You have written more avoiding my question than if you had actually answered it. I assure you that Obama will have "blood" on his hands before he goes to bed on January 20th. That is just the nature of US presidency. They have to kill for us. Sometimes it takes atom bombs, sometimes cluster bombs. Makes you uncomfortable? Me too. But hey, that is the nature of the job.
That's just it. He didn't have to kill for us in Iraq.
Did FDR have to kill so many German civilians by firebombing cities? Did Truman have to drop the A-bomb , twice, on an enemy that some say was already defeated? How many Vietnamese did Johnson kill? This is what America does but somehow you are picking on Bush. I'll have a list for you on Obama in a few months.
I'm not just picking on Bush (there are aspects of him that I like). Nor do I excuse the excesses of past presidents. But here's the thing about war. It is hell. You'll find yourself forced into one every now and again. But you don't "invent" a war. You don't just make one up from scratch and then feel as if you should be vindicated.

[deckeda]

swampy wrote:

Just a little historical perspective. Bush did not 'act alone' or for 'personal gain'. It's not like Iraq had not been warned.

The U.N, like our Congress, acted on the junk intel they were fed, remember? Go ask Colin Powell if he would again stand there in front of the board showing the trucks loaded with who-knows-what now that he knows it was al B.S.

[swampy]

Deckeda... Everybody got suckered by the same junk intel, remember? Or are you saying that only France, Russia and China had the correct intel?

[kap]

At least, he threw shoes at him; not pecan pies nor bullets. The shoe thrower should not be jailed but reprimanded. Man, there are criminals in this country that have done worse but got only a slapped in the wrist. If even that.