Jump to content
The Official Site of the Montréal Canadiens

Iraqi Reporter Throws Shoes At Bush


SteenIsThaFuture

Recommended Posts

This was the perfect level of violence:

- violent enough to actually warrant attention

- not violent enough to do any serious harm (adding a tragic element)

This reminds me of when Chretien got the pie in the face, or the unrelated incident when Chretien started strangling that guy:

Billclennett.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was the perfect level of violence:

- violent enough to actually warrant attention

- not violent enough to do any serious harm (adding a tragic element)

This reminds me of when Chretien got the pie in the face, or the unrelated incident when Chretien started strangling that guy:

Billclennett.jpg

the point of it is that his father is complicit in the whole affair, because when the first war was fought in the gulf bush sr. must have used the threat of weapons of mass destruction to put the coalition togethor. that means that the intelligence on WMD relates back solely to that presidency and what bush sr. has allowed to happen, by not speaking out forcefully against intervention... well just to h-ll with the whole family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was the perfect level of violence:

- violent enough to actually warrant attention

- not violent enough to do any serious harm (adding a tragic element)

I agree. This journalist has reportedly just come back from being tortured & over the past few years apparently lost several members of his family. I thought Bush's reaction was suitably heartless - when asked what he thought he said he thought it was "amusing." A simple "im sorry for this man's loss & understand he must be angry & heartbroken" would have been nice. "amusing?" - might as well keep your trap shut.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the point of it is that his father is complicit in the whole affair, because when the first war was fought in the gulf bush sr. must have used the threat of weapons of mass destruction to put the coalition togethor.

Uh no. The fact that Saddam had just invaded another country put the coalition together. Iraq was developing nuclear weapons at that time, but it wasn't the reason for the war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh no. The fact that Saddam had just invaded another country put the coalition together. Iraq was developing nuclear weapons at that time, but it wasn't the reason for the war.

Well yes and no. Iraq may have invded Kuwait, but not until after asking Bush Senior for his approval.

April Glaspie (American ambassador) declared to her Iraqi interlocutor that Washington, “inspired by the friendship and not by confrontation, does not have an opinion” on the disagreement which opposes Kuwait to Iraq, stating "we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts". She also let Saddam Hussein know that the U.S. did not intend "to start an economic war against Iraq"

Iraq invades Kuwait & suddenly the USA is at war.

Im no fan of Saddam, but in this case I think its clear the USA were planning on invading regardless & used the invasion (which they half-heartedly green-lighted) as an excuse to do so.

Not that we're off tangent or anything :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well yes and no. Iraq may have invded Kuwait, but not until after asking Bush Senior for his approval.

April Glaspie (American ambassador) declared to her Iraqi interlocutor that Washington, “inspired by the friendship and not by confrontation, does not have an opinion” on the disagreement which opposes Kuwait to Iraq, stating "we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts". She also let Saddam Hussein know that the U.S. did not intend "to start an economic war against Iraq"

Iraq invades Kuwait & suddenly the USA is at war.

Im no fan of Saddam, but in this case I think its clear the USA were planning on invading regardless & used the invasion (which they half-heartedly green-lighted) as an excuse to do so.

Not that we're off tangent or anything :P

I know there was some confusion and Saddam ended up thinking the US borderline approved, but I think this was miscommunication.

And how can you say "they were planning on invading" when they never ended up invading in the end because as Dick Cheyne said "there's no way we can control it once we're in" (paraphrased).

Also I think I have to step back from "Iraq was developing nuclear weapons at the time". I'm pretty sure the US had already halted any meaningful nuclear development by this point (I need to look at Richard Clarke's book again, I forget the actual timeline, but he describes it very well).

Bush Jr is not his father: his father was a moderate fiscal conservative, not a neo-con. Then again even Bush Jr. isn't a true nutjob: Cheyne and Wolfowitz were the masterminds of some of his great policies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know there was some confusion and Saddam ended up thinking the US borderline approved, but I think this was miscommunication.

No question there were communication breakdowns, but that doesnt detract from the thought that it was an excuse to finally get in there.

And how can you say "they were planning on invading" when they never ended up invading in the end because as Dick Cheyne said "there's no way we can control it once we're in" (paraphrased).

Invading, bombing the crap out of - its 6 of one, half a dozen of the other. Both are completely aggressive actions.

Also I think I have to step back from "Iraq was developing nuclear weapons at the time". I'm pretty sure the US had already halted any meaningful nuclear development by this point (I need to look at Richard Clarke's book again, I forget the actual timeline, but he describes it very well).

You might be right. I think it was so cloudy then though that Im not sure anyone truly knows what was going on. This point, I believe, was moot. If they were developing them, it just gave Bush SR another reason to do something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What an idiot -- I don't care how much you hate a guy, you simply don't take physical action against one of the most powerful men in the world. It's certainly an amusing incident, but we'd all be humming a different tune if those shoes contained explosives or something to that extent.

Hes getting 7 years in jail for assault on a head of state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What an idiot -- I don't care how much you hate a guy, you simply don't take physical action against one of the most powerful men in the world. It's certainly an amusing incident, but we'd all be humming a different tune if those shoes contained explosives or something to that extent.

Yes but WJ, imagine you were that journalist & your whole family (we dont know the exact details) were killed in an offensive that you believe was unjust & this is the man who ok'd it. If it was me (and Im not a violent person), I would have filled my shoes with explosives, no question.

The problem is that in a "blow up everything in your path" attempt to get Bin Laden etc, they (the USA) are creating a 100 bin laden's every day. Who wouldnt seek vengeance if their family was wiped out in a senseless war?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No question there were communication breakdowns, but that doesnt detract from the thought that it was an excuse to finally get in there.

Invading, bombing the crap out of - its 6 of one, half a dozen of the other. Both are completely aggressive actions.

You might be right. I think it was so cloudy then though that Im not sure anyone truly knows what was going on. This point, I believe, was moot. If they were developing them, it just gave Bush SR another reason to do something.

I wish I had the book with me, but I don't believe you are correct here that there was any other motive to invade, I wish I could explain it better, but my minds going a bit fuzzy.

If you're interested in this stuff, the book "Against All Enemies" by Richard/Dick Clarke is really good. He was on the "inside" when all the stuff with the Bush presidency, Clinton presidency and until he was fired with the Bush Jr. presidency. He's non-partisan, has the inside knowledge, and seems to be telling the truth. From reading it, I never got the impression Bush Sr. ever wanted to go into Iraq: at that time America was very wary of entering any war. But he explains Iraq's nuclear weapons program and the US special forces operation to uncover it, the Gulf War, and after Saddam's assassination attempt on Bush Sr. I haven't finished it, I'm just in the Clinton presidency portion, but it's a great book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish I had the book with me, but I don't believe you are correct here that there was any other motive to invade, I wish I could explain it better, but my minds going a bit fuzzy.

Book or no book, you cant prove what an administration's agenda was. We do know that the pipeline constructed by Bush JR was hypothesized by Bush Senior - there were likely a half a dozen motives (Oil, Power, PR, Spite etc etc etc) - whether or not we will ever know them is another issue - which ultimately makes the arguement moot, I suppose.

If you're interested in this stuff, the book "Against All Enemies" by Richard/Dick Clarke is really good.

Ive read Clarke's book. It is good.

Id add one note though - I found it a little..."convenient" - not that i doubt any of what he's saying but he does make some jumps that "feel" like he's writing what he thinks the reader wants to hear. Ive seen this many times in books of this nature - the works of Jim Hightower & Molly Ivins - both of whom have written brilliant books - also have this. I guess its like anything else in life: there is no gospel, you have to read read read - and then try to syphon through everything for the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh no. The fact that Saddam had just invaded another country put the coalition together. Iraq was developing nuclear weapons at that time, but it wasn't the reason for the war.

my point is that bush sr is complicit in not telling the american people the whole story AND perhaps not even his son. bush was the button pusher in the final analysis, and the pushback from nations of the first coalition after having responded to "the most powerful man in the world", and of the american support at the second election of bush over kerry, can all be traced back in part at least to bush sr having his mouth closed the whole time.

the first war caused the second. the sins of the father are visited upon the sons unto the thrid generation.

the whole family is cursed now, and i didn't agree with the war, because the un didn't approve of it. in fact four hours after the trade centers went down i said that i hoped saddam was in a deep bunker and argued strenuously to bomb terrorist camps to allow people to "bury" their dead, in a fervent hope that it would be less traumatic.

there are, or were, 3 million iraqi refugees, and that is wrong to. america will never be invaded. i doubt that we have the contigency plans in the pentagon for such an event. can we understand countries that don't have canadas and mexicos as neighbors?

the rule is when one is engaged in a civil war one asks for volunteeers to carry out the mission lawfully, like roosevelt and the charge up san juan hill was not of conscripts and those who suffer from economic needs to risk their lives, but of those who feel the need, and can stand up to ideas like torture and say. pffft.

i could be wrong too, but then bush sr. has been so quiet about the whole thing, and he was not reelected for what reason i do not know, but the people turned away from him, so i just think there is something missing in the story and his using the threat of saddam having wmd fits. if the upshot is i believe it, and you don't, then perhaps you could tell me why clinton defeated him. i'd love to hear that explanation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...