Bush's Iraq-Afghan farewell tour marred by dissent

[taks]

Edit: @taks, yes, except I had more contemporary rival powers in mind.

those are simply the scary two that always come to my mind. half the world would currently qualify, particularly russia now.

 

taks

[Rostere]

This is an interesting discussion. Myself, I don't think I wouldn't even have thrown a shoe at Hitler, given the chance.

 

From this guy's point of view though - since the President is commander- in- chief of the army and navy, he would be able to defend his attack using Bush's own moral rules. The reasons Bush stated for the invasion was that the population of Iraq were oppressed by their rulers (which was true. But it's not that the rest of the world made things any better with the sanctions), that Iraq was a percieved threat (which is slightly farcical), and the alleged complicity in the 9/11 attacks.

 

The two latter reasons could easily be translated into reasons why an Iraqi might want to throw a shoe or two at Bush. The US is a threat towards moderate Muslims in Iraq and indirectly in Palestine, by supporting Israel (And also in Saudi Arabia, by supporting the current regime). By destabilizing these regions through sanctions and war, extremist factions will attract more followers. Tens of thousands of civilians have been killed directly or indirectly by the US invasion. Additionally, if you keep in mind the Israel- Palestine conflict, US legitimacy for intervening in the middle east (through a Muslim's perspective) is virtually zero.

 

But like I stated in the beginning of my post, throwing shoes at each other is not tolerable behaviour. Both the invasion of Iraq and this "shoe attack" are wrong. What we really should discuss is this idea that problems should be solved through violence, not the question of who threw the first shoe.

[Gorth]

Just waiting for the US military to send in the B52's and start carpet bombing the suspected hiding places of Bin Laden with shoes...

[~Di]

Well, I guess the "group hug" didn't work.

[taks]

not so much, no.

 

^rostere: i don't think anyone is really arguing the reasons this guy threw shoes at bush, just that it a) was a stupid idea and b) resulted in a response that only the ideologues would argue shouldn't be expected. it gets a little out of hand (the rhetoric, that is) when people start trying to equate his treatment with some deeper meaning. bottom line, the guy assaulted the president. he should be happy he's alive.

 

taks

[Aristes]

It's a shame he missed. A shoe in the face is the least Bush deserves. A jail cell in the Hague would be my vote.

 

Not long now.

 

If there's one thing I can assure you, it is that President Bush will never stand trial. To speak with all candor, you people don't have the guts to try us and would lose if you did.

 

Not long for what?

[Killian Kalthorne]

Not long for Bush to be kicked out of the White House and Obama to come in to pick up the pieces. What he will do with the pieces is still up in the air. Hopefully the US will be in better shape 4 years down the line. If not, well, it will be time for another timmy.

[Volourn]

"Not long for Bush to be kicked out of the White House"

 

He never got kicked out. Bush was President of a Democratic nation, and repsects the fact. His terms are up so he leaves.

 

 

"and Obama to come in to pick up the pieces."

 

Obama will likely do a good job but, really, there's no 'pieces' to pick up. US is still one fo the best, and freeist countries in the world.

 

 

"Hopefully the US will be in better shape 4 years down the line."

 

Still in better shape than Saddam's Iraq or the Taliban's Afghanistan.

 

And, better off than the vast majority of countries for that matter.

[julianw]

Hold on, fellah. A lot of people lost relatives in the war. Surely they're entirely appropriate people to have along to a press conference in a free country? I personally don't think it's appropriate to hurl shoes, but it's not much worse than the egging of politicians which happens in this country all the time.

Well, you should watch Taiwan politics. Group fights actually break out during floor sessions. It's like watching a football (or soccer if you live in US) game gone bad. As for the shoe incident, Iraq is a war zone after all. The man who threw the shoes could have been shot if the secret service suspected the worst. I am still not sure it's such a good idea to let him in. It would be a surprise if he didn't at least haggle the president. Not that I think Bush doesn't deserve haggling. Just a dumb move by the organizers of that press conference.

 

"Nationalism is evil."

 

So is extremism like your quote.

 

My sentence might be simple but I don't see what's so extreme about it. I do wholeheartedly believe nationalism is evil and humanity will be better off without it. It's not like I am saying "nationalism is the root of all evil and people who believe in it need to die right now".

 

"The world is eventually going to merge into one global community. "

 

L0L Maybe in 1000 years when aliens come to wipe us out.

 

If it takes 1000 years (assuming no alien invasion), so be it.

 

"The election of a half-white and half-black guy name Barrack Hussein Obama (whether you agree with his policies or not) might just have been the turning point in human history when nationalism and racism begin to die out."

 

O RLY? When a a multicultural man in a multicultural country is voted in all racism will die it? Give me a break. It is NOT surprising AT ALL that a multicutural person won an election in a multicutural country. Balcks have been winning elections in the US for awhile. It was just a matter of time when one won the Big One.

 

Come to me when someone of a minority race actually wins an election IN AN ACTUAL RACIST/BIGOTED COUNTRY.

Ok, i will (assuming it does take 1000 years and we both live that long).

[Walsingham]

This is an interesting discussion. Myself, I don't think I wouldn't even have thrown a shoe at Hitler, given the chance.

 

I'd have thrown a shoe at Hitler. God himself would have said "Mother ****! I never knew you could throw a shoe that hard and fast."

 

I just reread the might makes right comments. I see I was being buffleheaded, and apologise.

[Aristes]

I think the physical assault is unwelcome, but the expression is not. ...And I don't think I'd push the issue past any normal assault, which leads me to think that the person should not be overly punished for a failed attempt to strike the president. However, I disagree whole heartedly with the idea that the president should face a war crime tribunal. The idea that he should owes more to the typical hyperbole of message board rhetoric. War itself is a crime. ...But to charge the soldiers who carry out the ugly grind of war with war crimes requires something more than violence. After all, there is no war without violence. In fact, even unlawful violence should not be sufficient, in and of itself, to require a war crime tribunal. For example, a soldier murders unarmed civilians. That soldier should not be charged with war crimes. He should be charged with murder. Systemic violence against civilian populations carried out by order from somewhere within the chain of command and oustide the accepted conventions for prosecuting a war should be the basis for war crimes. Of course, that definition leaves so much room for interpretation that some moron will undoubtedly post a 20 paragraph reply, comprised almost entirely of links, of course. And that moron is the precise reason why war crime tribunals are always such a mess. Of course, it helps to be the winner. Then you can dictate the terms and the punishment. There is no definition of war crimes that does not require some form of mental gymnastics in order to point the finger at the other guys. It's a lot like pornography though. I'm sure most of us recognize it where we see it. I'm sure a lot of folks around here see it where it doesn't exist. That's the problem.

 

As low as Bush's ratings are right now, Obama would be a fool to permit a foreign body to bring a former president to trial.

[Killian Kalthorne]

Nice rose colored glasses you have there, Volourn.

The economy is in shambles, both foreign and domestic policies are in the crapper. We are 10 trillion in debt, with a 1 trillion deficit. I don't really care if the US is better off than some other countries. I don't live in those countries. I live here in the US and the US is worse off now than it was 8 years ago. That is the bottom line and that is the only thing that matters to me.

Edited December 17, 2008 by Killian Kalthorne

[Rosbjerg]

I have to agree with the fact that it's a naive wish, wanting President Bush to be put on trial. Because if you open that can of worms then all the countries that joined the alliance would be open to prosecution as well.. It's unrealistic and it's never going to happen, unless there's a huge revolution and the new leaders want to put the blame on the old. Which of course ain't gonna happen in our lifetimes either.

 

The validity of the claim is a whole other mess, what laws has he broken? The war and the mistakes he made, were all within the parameters of the law.

[Kelverin]

What crimes should George Bush be tried for?

 

 

 

 

Nice rose colored glasses you have there, Volourn.

Nice doom and gloom you have there sand.

[SteveThaiBinh]

If there's one thing I can assure you, it is that President Bush will never stand trial.

I don't seriously expect that he would ever stand trial (for launching an illegal war and ordering the use of torture, Kelverin), and certainly not in the Hague. International law is a rather flimsy thing and often depends on the political will of world leaders to enforce it - no sitting US president is ever going to support putting a former occupant of that office on trial in an international court, if for no other reason than it would be political suicide.

 

Plus, if Bush did stand trial there's a good chance he'd be acquitted - as others have said in this thread, he probably acted in good faith according to his own view of the US national interest. Besides, heads of state hardly ever get hauled before the international courts except for genocide, and not even I would accuse Bush of that. And, as Rosbjerg points out, it does open lots of cans of worms that the world may not be ready for. A part of me would still like to see the legitimacy of the Iraq War tested before an international court, because I think it would make future world leaders more cautious about launching military actions abroad, but I don't delude myself that it's actually going to happen.

 

To speak with all candor, you people don't have the guts to try us and would lose if you did.

You'd be surprised what I have the guts for. More importantly, do you think we could conduct this discussion without irrelevant throwaway insults? They don't add anything.

Not long for what?

Not long until we don't have to think about him ever again. I'm looking forward to it. I quite like America, for all its faults, and it's been a difficult balancing act to hold together my general liking for the country and my strong dislike for its leaders. I don't imagine I'll love everything Obama does, but I'm hoping he'll do less harm to my blood pressure.

[Rosbjerg]

But the war wasn't illegal, as far as I understand it was passed in the Senate and Congress (correct me if I'm wrong). We cancertainly argue if the war was "just" but that a whole other discussion and irrelevant from a legal point of view.

 

All the allied countries had the legitimacy of the war passed in their respective legal system and thus, even if the premise turned out not to be true, it's not illegal.

[SteveThaiBinh]

The legality of the war is disputed. I'm more familiar with the arguments over the legality of the UK's participation, but I imagine similar opinions to this have been expressed in the US. Different experts take different views, and I don't think you could say there's a consensus either way. In normal circumstances, you might resolve such disagreements by testing the matter in a court of law, but as we've said, that's not going to happen in this case.

[Hildegard]

'scuse me? sorry, but as soon as saddam violated treaty he signed, he gave up his right to sovereignty.

 

:lol: :lol:

 

What a joke, thanks Taks for this one, I just needed a good laugh...

Edited December 17, 2008 by Hildegard

[Walsingham]

As the attorney general said in his assessment, there is an accepted precedent (Balkans, Rwanda) for unilateral deployment of national forces "to avert humanitarian disaster". To assert that there was no humanitarian disaster in Iraq is mendacious at best.

[Volourn]

"Nice rose colored glasses you have there, Volourn.

The economy is in shambles, both foreign and domestic policies are in the crapper. We are 10 trillion in debt, with a 1 trillion deficit. I don't really care if the US is better off than some other countries. I don't live in those countries. I live here in the US and the US is worse off now than it was 8 years ago. That is the bottom line and that is the only thing that matters to me."

 

No rose coloured glasses needed. Just plain old fashion facts.

[Rostere]

I am amazed that it looks as if no one gets to take the blame in court for everything that's happened leading up to the war. If this entire business had happened where I live, a regime change would have triggered a massive amount of investigations to search for every piece of disinformation spread by the former government. But I guess it's just a matter of different cultures.

[Wrath of Dagon]

U.S. intelligence officials stated on the record that President Bush was informed unequivocally in January 2003 that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction.

A complete lie, as is most of that article. Tenet told Bush unequivocally that it was a slam dunk Iraq had WMD's.

[taks]

What a joke, thanks Taks for this one, I just needed a good laugh...

really. so saddam never violated his treaty?

 

gimme a break. let's cut the hyperbole. saddam violated the treaty signed in the first gulf war, period. that's an act of war, and we responded. just because your ideology doesn't like that doesn't change the situation.

 

taks

[taks]

A part of me would still like to see the legitimacy of the Iraq War tested before an international court, because I think it would make future world leaders more cautious about launching military actions abroad, but I don't delude myself that it's actually going to happen.

you'd have to try every one of the security council/UN members that voted to allow force. if they didn't want us to do what we did, they should have voted it down.

 

taks

[Kelverin]

(for launching an illegal war and ordering the use of torture, Kelverin)

Not too familiar with how the American government works are you?