I guess that shoe thrower speaks for the entire country. You know, like the 5 million Iraqis who risked life and limb to slip a piece of paper inside a ballot box for the first time in their lives. I think they'd side with him. Yep.
He doesn't speak for the entire country. But he can speak for those who have lost family, and he can speak for the dead. This aside, the assumption you're making that voted = supports American invasion is a pretty shaky one.
Before I get gangbanged, and while I can still respond to one post at a time...How can he automatically speak for the lost families and the people who've died? Even if he could speak for them, it doesn't mean what he's speaking makes sense.
You don't think it's reasonable to think that the Iraqi people supported Saddam's removal? The majority of them voted to accept the new constitution. He was a merciless dictator who committed genocide, who murdered his own people. If that's a bad inference, then what grounds do people have for saying that the Iraqi people condoned the invasion?
holy shit that was awesome. Dude after watching that video im seriously wondering if Bush is human. he can't be.....see this proves he's a fucking reptilian who's just here to enslave the human population. Motherfucker is way too faassst.
No but in all seriousness, it would have been even more awesome if Bush had just put up his hand and caught the shoe without even flinching. Holy shit that would have ruled.
Before I get gangbanged, and while I can still respond to one post at a time...How can he automatically speak for the lost families and the people who've died? Even if he could speak for them, it doesn't mean what he's speaking makes sense.
"This is a goodbye kiss from the Iraqi people, dog; this is for the widows and orphans and all those killed in Iraq," combined with his expression of contempt, seems to be an English sentence that properly parses and an understandable course of action. Between "do nothing," "interrupt the news conference," and "try to kill Bush," one of these gets the most non-negative media coverage.
Before I get gangbanged, and while I can still respond to one post at a time...How can he automatically speak for the lost families and the people who've died? Even if he could speak for them, it doesn't mean what he's speaking makes sense.
"This is a goodbye kiss from the Iraqi people, dog; this is for the widows and orphans and all those killed in Iraq," combined with his expression of contempt, seems to be an English sentence that properly parses and an understandable course of action. Between "do nothing," "interrupt the news conference," and "try to kill Bush," one of these gets the most non-negative media coverage.
I still don't get how he magically represents the will of the people. Cindy Sheehan certainly spoke a lot against the war on behalf of her fallen son. But do you think she actually spoke for him? Did he share her beliefs?
He seems to be saying, "I speak for all the innocent people who've died in this war. It's you're fault." I mean even if the majority of the Iraqi people DID think this, I don't think it's true at all.
I still don't get how he magically represents the will of the people. Cindy Sheehan certainly spoke a lot against the war on behalf of her fallen son. But do you think she actually spoke for him? Did he share her beliefs?
He represents the will of the people who opposed the invasion of their country. It is likely that, if these people could be asked, "would you prefer it if the invasion had never happened and you were not maimed, crippled, or dead," or if "would you prefer it if the invasion had never happened and your parents were still alive," it is highly likely that these most of these people, valuing their limbs, lives, or family, would not be happy with Bush taking these away from them.
I still don't get how he magically represents the will of the people. Cindy Sheehan certainly spoke a lot against the war on behalf of her fallen son. But do you think she actually spoke for him? Did he share her beliefs?
He represents the will of the people who opposed the invasion of their country. It is likely that, if these people could be asked, "would you prefer it if the invasion had never happened and you were not maimed, crippled, or dead," or if "would you prefer it if the invasion had never happened and your parents were still alive," it is highly likely that these most of these people, valuing their limbs, lives, or family, would not be happy with Bush taking these away from them.
I think that's a loaded question but definitely I'd agree with you on what their response would be. But it still lays the blame completely on Bush. Not the terrorists themselves. If the police decided to try and clean up a neighbourhood of gang violence and innocent lives were lost as a result of it. Would the onus be on the police force? Also, it doesn't say anything on whether it was necessary to invade in the first place, on what good has come out of it. And also, it doesn't say really what the opposers of the war were against in the first place. Were they against the idea of the invasion all together, of installing democracy, of removing Saddam Hussein and of securing the area, or were they against all the lives lost because of the atrocious execution of the war?
Ahahah I'll give him credit he did a pretty good job of dodging those shoes. And though his analogies didn't make any sense he had a pretty good response to the reporters asking about it and paying attention to it.
On December 15 2008 10:12 Warrior Madness wrote: He seems to be saying, "I speak for all the innocent people who've died in this war. It's you're fault." I mean even if the majority of the Iraqi people DID think this, I don't think it's true at all.
You don't need to find it true. I happen to find it true. However, statements like "just another protester" or "why would he do that" or "LOL" I happen to find rather stupid.
During the Nuremberg Trials, it was declared: To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.
In a nutshell, if you start a war, you're responsible for the shit that happens as a result.
On December 15 2008 10:21 Warrior Madness wrote: But it still lays the blame completely on Bush. Not the terrorists themselves. If the police decided to try and clean up a neighbourhood of gang violence and innocent lives were lost as a result of it. Would the onus be on the police force?
You do make a point with your police argument. Presumably, the above be tempered just to mean "you are responsible for what happens in this war." If a few people die and gang violence is ended forever, then the argument can be made that it was a good idea. If the police, for some reason, incite a gang war because it will weaken the gangs and a few hundred people die, that's their responsibility. (Of course this is exaggerated, but it's intention is to demonstrate the principle - the one who declares war is responsible for that war.)
On December 15 2008 10:21 Warrior Madness wrote: Also, it doesn't say anything on whether it was necessary to invade in the first place, on what good has come out of it.
Well, the initial justification was WMDs and also incidentally completely full of shit.
So I'm not actually in the mood to get into an Iraq War discussion now because I have finals tomorrow and the week upcoming; it merely seemed strange to me that the gravity of the situation seemed to be neglected by many posters and I wanted to point it out. Obvious, yeah; maybe I was asking for the discussion. Whatever.
On December 15 2008 10:12 Warrior Madness wrote: He seems to be saying, "I speak for all the innocent people who've died in this war. It's you're fault." I mean even if the majority of the Iraqi people DID think this, I don't think it's true at all.
You don't need to find it true. I happen to find it true. However, statements like "just another protester" or "why would he do that" or "LOL" I happen to find rather stupid.
Okay fair enough. I just meant that I found what Bush said to be resonating because that's exactly what I think when I see ANY protester who uses this type of attention-grabbing method. I even used the example of anti-abortionists who use disgusting pictures which is somehow supposed to convince us that abortion is wrong.
During the Nuremberg Trials, it was declared: To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.
In a nutshell, if you start a war, you're responsible for the shit that happens as a result.[/quote] I agree completely. I've always thought Rumsefield's "wage a war from the white hosue" was complete and utter bullshit. His "light foot print" strategy almost created another vietnam. And Bush's stubborn refusal to let him go infuriated me. I don't want to get into this right now but "Clear, stay and hold" clearly worked in the beginning and it's the strategy that has turned this war around completely. I think the execution of the war was horrid but I think going to war in the first place was justified.
Bush didn't help at all in terms of clarifying the war. He didn't rally the American people behind him, he was inarticulate, stubborn. He didn't paint a vision, or instill confidence in the people. In fact they lost confidence. He didn't prepare the people for the long struggle that would result from this.
Well, the initial justification was WMDs and also incidentally completely full of shit.
So I'm not actually in the mood to get into an Iraq War discussion now because I have finals tomorrow and the week upcoming; it merely seemed strange to me that the gravity of the situation seemed to be neglected by many posters and I wanted to point it out. Obvious, yeah; maybe I was asking for the discussion. Whatever.
I agree that I don't really want to get into this right now. My mind is frayed and I'm supposed to be studying right now but this is a form of procrastination for me. I disagree however that WMDs were the "initial" justification for war. And that it was bullshit. Based on our own intelligence, and OTHER COUNTRIES independent intelligence, it was reasonable to conclude that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Not only this, but based on Saddam's own history; his using nerve agents against large populations, his attempts at acquiring WMDs, his history of mass murder, his history of supporting terrorists in palestine, his history of lying, made it all the more compelling. He actually EMBELLISHED, the extent of the weapons he had, which didn't help at all. I do think it was one of the most important reasons for going to war. Definitely. But it was most definitely not the only reason either.
On December 15 2008 09:21 Warrior Madness wrote: I thought Bush's response was pretty funny and incisive.
"I don't what this guys cause is" (shrug) -gwb
Well he was funny until he claimed ignorance at what the Iraqui journalist cause was - which is far more disrespectful than any shoe throwing.. on the flip side it seems Iraq now has a responsible and free press lol..
(edited for clarity)
I don't think Bush speaks Arabic....So...I think the claiming ignorance thing was wrong....Or did you not realize that?
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i36.tinypic.com/2uyod3k.gif)
but definitely I'd agree with you on what their response would be. But it still lays the blame completely on Bush. Not the terrorists themselves. If the police decided to try and clean up a neighbourhood of gang violence and innocent lives were lost as a result of it. Would the onus be on the police force? Also, it doesn't say anything on whether it was necessary to invade in the first place, on what good has come out of it. And also, it doesn't say really what the opposers of the war were against in the first place. Were they against the idea of the invasion all together, of installing democracy, of removing Saddam Hussein and of securing the area, or were they against all the lives lost because of the atrocious execution of the war?
I disagree however that WMDs were the "initial" justification for war. And that it was bullshit. Based on our own intelligence, and OTHER COUNTRIES independent intelligence, it was reasonable to conclude that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Not only this, but based on Saddam's own history; his using nerve agents against large populations, his attempts at acquiring WMDs, his history of mass murder, his history of supporting terrorists in palestine, his history of lying, made it all the more compelling. He actually EMBELLISHED, the extent of the weapons he had, which didn't help at all. I do think it was one of the most important reasons for going to war. Definitely. But it was most definitely not the only reason either. 
![[image loading]](http://img354.imageshack.us/img354/3678/1229304268073as8.gif)
![[image loading]](http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/855/1229304566086gg1.gif)
