Bush's Iraq-Afghan farewell tour marred by dissent

[Aristes]

I don't resent your feelings toward Bush, Steve. It's the stance on war crimes that gets me. Every nation will pursue what it perceives as actions necessary for its interest. Bush is wrong or right? Who knows. You think history will judge Bush harshly, but it might be that we judge him harshly now but a real democracy takes hold in Iraq and history views him warmly. I'm tepid on Bush. I think he's done some good thing with a boatload of stupid mistakes, but a true and enduring democracy in Iraq will be a good thing. Sure, that's very little comfort to the people suffering now, but history has a way of sweeping those details under the rug. The real secret is that history is always more about the present state of affairs than it is about the past. We cannot, for all such protest and declarations contrary, escape the lens through which the historian peers at long gone events. Folks will write about these things, but how the war itself will be remembered will undoubtedly depend on an outcome that is still, as yet, uncertain.

[SteveThaiBinh]

Now, if I had understood that your "[n]ot long now" did not referrence your previous comment, then I would have responded differently. I hope you can see that your original post might have been a bit confusing.

Fair point and well made. I certainly didn't mean to imply that the European Union might attempt to seize Bush - they don't have the power to, they don't have the will to, and as you rightly say, they don't have the slightest desire to. Ordinary folks like myself might bark at Bush like a dog howling at the moon, but nothing will ever come of it, and perhaps it's right that it shouldn't.

 

I don't see how my original post was bellicose, but again, it certainly wasn't intended to be. Is it the fact that I found the shoe throwing incident funny? To be honest, I don't really wish the shoes had hit him - he's not a young man now and I wouldn't wish him physical harm. I can sympathise with an Iraqi's desire to express his anger, but throwing eggs or custard pies would be my own choice if it ever came to that. Is it because I think he should be held to account in an international court of law for the Iraq War? I would hope to see my own former Prime Minister Blair standing right next to him in the dock, if it ever came to that (which of course it won't).

[taks]

Is it the militia to blame for the deaths, or George Bush who created the conditions in which the militia thrived? Is it Saddam to blame for the deaths of those children (for syphoning off UN aid to enrich himself) or the UN for creating and operating the system that allowed this to happen (and some members who actively participated in the corruption, though not all did, I think). Perhaps there's enough blame for everyone, but a substantial share does have to fall with the militia. Who would say otherwise?

yeah, might as well blame the manufacturers of the weapons, too, since they wouldn't be able to shoot bullets without the guns. oh yeah, bullet manufacturers, as well, since there'd be no ammo.

 

^awesomeness: this is textbook ideology. an inability to look directly at who perpetrated the crime. the bottom line, only those that actually pull the trigger (metaphorically) are responsible for killing innocent lives. no matter what conditions the US created, the terrorists were not obligated to kill innocents simply to prove a point.

 

Again it comes down to international law, and I confess I'm no expert on that, but it feels right to say that if you invade and occupy a country (even legally) and effectively disband its police force and army, then you bear a share of the responsibility for the lawlessness that follows and for the results of that lawlessness. Negligence, not malice, but still a serious matter.

no, it does not come down to international law, whatever that phrase means. the US and any other occupying force does share a responsibility to help repair the lawlessness, which is actually improving (in spite of the media's unwillingness to report it), though they don't share the blame for what the terrorists are doing.

 

taks

[Aristes]

I think Blair came across much better to posterity than Bush. It's not just that Blair is more articulate and eloquent. It's that he really did put a face on it that most folks could understand.

 

I remember a reporter asking Blair if he felt silly that they hadn't found Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq to which he responded that he would have felt far more silly if they had detonated a nuclear weapon in London.

 

Now that I understand your comment properly, it doesn't sound like fightin' words. In the way I took it at first read, though, it did.

 

As far as war crime trials... it just seems like a can of worms. Putting folks on trial after the fact for policy decisions will make cowards out of every politician on earth. ...And cowardice leads to war just as much as any other failing. If you would have told Hitler he would face a trial if he failed in his bid for world domination, do you think he would have stopped?

 

EDIT: Hahahaha Okay, maybe Prosterity could cause some confusion.

Edited December 17, 2008 by Aristes

[Trenitay]

Are you saying you never speak ideologically. You're always completely objective aren't you?

there you go with another strawman. everyone speaks ideologically on occasion, the difference is that when rational people notice that the facts change, they change their opinions. that's what i do, how about you?

 

I change my opinion when the situation warrants it. When I am completely outmatched or there are enough facts supporting the other persons opinion. I think thay was pretty ideological btw. Maybe I should just dismiss it because you dont have facts to support it.

 

They have different opinions than you. At this point I'm a US-basher.And im sure all the reasons I would give you would be ideological.

yes, they probably would. the US bashing is not based on fact or logic, just ideology. it is tiring.

 

taks

 

Why is it not based on fact? We haven't exactly been one big angel the past few years. Im not saying Everyone else has been perfect either but we've been one of the worst in my opinion. And im guessing thats ideological too because its my opinion not based completely on fact.

 

Edit: Sorry for all the quoting errors.

Edited December 17, 2008 by awsomeness

[taks]

Why is it not based on fact? We haven't exactly been one big angel the past few years. Im not saying Everyone else has been perfect either but we've been one of the worst in my opinion. And im guessing thats ideological too because its my opinion not based completely on fact.

what fact? look at what this thread is about. stb thinks bush should be before the hague? based on what fact other than emotion? nobody (exaggerated) can understand why a security team would tackle someone that assaulted the POTUS? everyone continues to argue about WMDs but they all fail to remember that everyone thought he had them and everyone agreed that he would use them given the opportunity and they all forget the myriad other violations saddam committed (hildegard laughed out loud even). then you have the nonsense complaints about legality of a war. give me a break. pure ideology.

 

ideology: bending or ignoring the facts to fit within a belief.

rationality: bending the belief to fit within the facts.

 

taks

Edited December 17, 2008 by taks

[Killian Kalthorne]

So, then everyone was incompetent.

[taks]

So, then everyone was incompetent.

actually, yes. this pretty much sums it up.

 

taks

[Meshugger]

...and here i missed all the fun, due to work

[Rosbjerg]

btw, i should add rosjberg, if you haven't noticed, people like me (or with similar beliefs) are outnumbered like 100 to 1 in here. that's fine, but the US bashing is non-stop, so it's hardly a surprise when someone vocal like me gets bent out of shape and fights back. particularly when the bashing comes from folks like stb, a freaking moderator in here. you'll notice too, the difference in tone i take with you compared to someone like brdavs. quite frankly, i respect your opinion, even when i disagree with it, whereas there is very little hope i would ever respect someone like brdavs.

 

taks

 

I know it's not exactly the easiest position to stand firm against a full forum who doesn't like your views (or your country) - and if I was in your shoes I would probably be a little annoyed as well.. My "camp" can be viciously intolerant, particularly against libertarians, which is double ironic given that socialists consider themselves openminded and tolerant.

 

I just think attacking stupid/inebt arguments with anger, is like trying to throw white-hot stones at your opponent, you burn yourself in the progress. I don't mind your views at all, most of my family are diehard conservatives and libertarians. So I know where you're coming from and I see the validity in many of the arguments (as you can imagine I'm used to heated discussions too).

 

But I'll stand down, because I thought some of your anger were aimed at me (Europeans in general), but I see now that this was not the case.

[Kelverin]

I know it's not exactly the easiest position to stand firm against a full forum who doesn't like your views (or your country)

I hardly think this whole form is anti American, you give the minority too much credit.

[Rosbjerg]

Nor does dislike equal anti.. I'm not saying this is one big flame fest on USA - but most Europeans dislike America these days.. it's the new black!

[Kelverin]

Nor does dislike equal anti.. I'm not saying this is one big flame fest on USA - but most Europeans dislike America these days.. it's the new black!

Now that's interesting, I get a ton of people from all over the world whose biggest dream is coming to the US and experience life here, and they will pay through the nose to do so. I don't believe the dislike is as extreme as you believe or have heard or read....

[Rosbjerg]

Nor does dislike equal anti.. I'm not saying this is one big flame fest on USA - but most Europeans dislike America these days.. it's the new black!

Now that's interesting, I get a ton of people from all over the world whose biggest dream is coming to the US and experience life here, and they will pay through the nose to do so. I don't believe the dislike is as extreme as you believe or have heard or read....

 

But what is a ton of people? 50.000 or even a million? .. from all over the world.. you are talking about a very very small number of people when you look at the entire population of the planet (outside of the US).. But you have a point! I probably have an exaggerated estimate.

 

I was trying to imply by the statement "it's the new black" that the actual dislike is often as shallow as peoples adherence to fashion trends.

[Kelverin]

But what is a ton of people? 50.000 or even a million?

If you are interested you can check out all the different visa's and how many are allotted each year (A million or so might be about right) many come and do there time and leave, some stay illegally, not to mention all those that come here illegally in the first place. The US is a melting pot and continues to be to this day.

 

The US can most likely help fix the unemployment rate by eliminating these programs, along with outsourcing jobs, but I do not see that happening any time soon.

 

I was trying to imply by the statement "it's the new black" that the actual dislike is often as shallow as peoples adherence to fashion trends.

Gotcha

Edited December 18, 2008 by Kelverin

[taks]

I just think attacking stupid/inebt arguments with anger, is like trying to throw white-hot stones at your opponent, you burn yourself in the progress. I don't mind your views at all, most of my family are diehard conservatives and libertarians. So I know where you're coming from and I see the validity in many of the arguments (as you can imagine I'm used to heated discussions too).

perhaps, but this is the internet you know. this is one area in which you can be a total ass and get away with it. besides, i'm taks... ahem.

 

But I'll stand down, because I thought some of your anger were aimed at me (Europeans in general), but I see now that this was not the case.

thanks. i was truly upset at your comment as i thought it was clear that i was singling out specific behaviors for my wrath!

 

taks

[taks]

The US can most likely help fix the unemployment rate by eliminating these programs, along with outsourcing jobs, but I do not see that happening any time soon.

unfortunately, these two things will actually hurt the economy in the long term. unfortunately number 2, as long as there is disparity between wages here and wages overseas, particularly in places like china, we're stuck between a rock and a hard place. from what i understand, however, china is closing the gap, which will help.

 

taks

[Gorgon]

how does outsourcing help employment.

[Gfted1]

Iraqi journalist who threw shoes asks for pardon

 

Dec 18, 11:03 AM (ET)

 

By QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA

 

BAGHDAD (AP) - The jailed journalist who threw his shoes at President George W. Bush has asked for a pardon, a spokesman for Iraq's prime minister said Thursday.

 

In a letter delivered to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, the journalist described his behavior as "an ugly act" and asked to be pardoned, spokesman Yassin Majid told The Associated Press.

 

"It is too late to now regret the big and ugly act that I perpetrated," Muntadhar al-Zeidi wrote, according to Majid.

 

Majid told the AP that al-Zeidi went on in the letter to recall an interview he conducted with the prime minister in 2005 when al-Maliki invited him into his home, saying: "Come in, it is your home too."

 

 

"So I ask for your pardon," al-Zeidi wrote, Majid said.

 

Iraq's president, Jalal Talabani, can issue a pardon if recommended by the prime minister, except for certain offenses including international crimes, according to Iraq's constitution.

 

Iraqi officials had said al-Zeidi would probably be charged with insulting a foreign leader, which potentially carries a two-year sentence.

 

Thousands took to the streets in Iraq to protest al-Zeidi's arrest, and his actions were heralded across the Arab world as news stations repeatedly showed footage of the shoe-throwing incident.

 

Iraq's parliament erupted into chaos Wednesday when lawmakers argued over the jailing of al-Zeidi and the hot-tempered parliament speaker, Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, said he was resigning.

 

It is unclear if al-Mashhadani, who has a history of erratic behavior and threatening to step down from his role as speaker, intended to actually leave his post. But he appeared at the legislature on Thursday.

 

The Iraqi prime minister was standing next to Bush at the Sunday news conference where the journalist, a correspondent for an Iraqi-owned television station based in Cairo, Egypt, threw his shoes.

 

The journalist also shouted at Bush in Arabic, "This is your farewell kiss, you dog! This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq."

 

Al-Zeidi was tackled to the ground by Iraqi and U.S. security after throwing his shoes at Bush, who deftly ducked.

 

Al-Zeidi remained in custody Thursday night.

 

An investigative judge visited al-Zeidi in his jail cell earlier this week and the family was told to return to court next week, according to the journalist's brother, Dhargham al-Zeidi.

 

Dhargham al-Zeidi claims his brother was harshly beaten after being taken into custody.

 

However, Iraqi officials and another brother have denied that the journalist suffered severe injuries.

[Rosbjerg]

how does outsourcing help employment.

 

It helps employment in the country you outsource it too?

 

and if it's India you'll probably have to employ a whole bunch of people to make sure that everything runs smoothly..

[taks]

i think he meant that if there were no outsourcing in the US, it would help our employment situation, i.e., jobs wouldn't be going overseas.

 

taks

[Walsingham]

There have been tens of thousands of people killed since the invasion. But the thing which always reduces me to total awe is that people cheerfully blame those deaths on George Bush, not the terrorists from all over the world who conducted their own invasion with the express purpose of chaos death and destruction, and who actually did the killing!

Is it the militia to blame for the deaths, or George Bush who created the conditions in which the militia thrived? Is it Saddam to blame for the deaths of those children (for syphoning off UN aid to enrich himself) or the UN for creating and operating the system that allowed this to happen (and some members who actively participated in the corruption, though not all did, I think). Perhaps there's enough blame for everyone, but a substantial share does have to fall with the militia. Who would say otherwise?

 

Again it comes down to international law, and I confess I'm no expert on that, but it feels right to say that if you invade and occupy a country (even legally) and effectively disband its police force and army, then you bear a share of the responsibility for the lawlessness that follows and for the results of that lawlessness. Negligence, not malice, but still a serious matter.

 

Legally speaking you have a good case. An occupying power is obliged to maintain basic services, and the rule of law. The obvious counter to this would be that the USA has spent billions of dollars and hundreds of men's lives in their efforts to secure basic services. I believe the defence becomes even stronger when you consider the crucial role in the violence played by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, and Al Qaeda. Were I council for the defence I would argue that they constituted a second invasion.

 

I think there is a definite amount of gleeful yank-bashing at times in all walks of society. It is based on prejudice, and deserves no more tolerance than attacks on Nigerians or Chinese people would.

[Rostere]

Is it the militia to blame for the deaths, or George Bush who created the conditions in which the militia thrived? Is it Saddam to blame for the deaths of those children (for syphoning off UN aid to enrich himself) or the UN for creating and operating the system that allowed this to happen (and some members who actively participated in the corruption, though not all did, I think). Perhaps there's enough blame for everyone, but a substantial share does have to fall with the militia. Who would say otherwise?

 

Again it comes down to international law, and I confess I'm no expert on that, but it feels right to say that if you invade and occupy a country (even legally) and effectively disband its police force and army, then you bear a share of the responsibility for the lawlessness that follows and for the results of that lawlessness. Negligence, not malice, but still a serious matter.

 

This is exactly my opinion. I'm not saying that US foreign politics is to blame for every death in Iraq since the invasion, and not that nothing good has come out of it. But declaring war to the left and to the right without caring about the consequences is irresponsible. A pity there's no one who can ask the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who are dead now if they are happy that their country is "liberated".

[Wrath of Dagon]

You could argue outsourcing helps employment by creating greater economic efficiency, thus promoting growth. It's kind of like you'd think technology would hurt employment, since it replaces a lot of manual labor, but historically just the opposite has been true.

[taks]

A pity there's no one who can ask the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who are dead now if they are happy that their country is "liberated".

you can't ask those saddam was killing, either. you have to make educated guesses.

 

^wrath: yes, exactly. assuming that overseas wages eventually reach parity with those in the US, it won't be much of an issue anyway. in fact, they don't even have to reach absolute parity when you take into account shipping costs, infrastructure costs, etc. if it were cheaper to do these jobs in the US, companies would, but US workers don't want to work for wages that low (and in some cases, can't due to wage laws).

 

taks