Shoes Thrown at Bush as a "Farewell Kiss"

[sr71plt]

Topeka? I would have used Podunk, Iowa, but Boxlicker gets so incensed over not being able to find it on the map.

 

[shereads]

And an Iraqi journalist answers this by throwing his shoes.

Only because he couldn't get past security wearing a pair of anvils.

 

[Guest]

Topeka? I would have used Podunk, Iowa, but Boxlicker gets so incensed over not being able to find it on the map.

I can't find Boxlicker on the map.

 

[Guest]

Only because he couldn't get past security wearing a pair of anvils.

It is probably a good thing that shoe throwing isn't the custom in this country.

 

[Wildcard Ky]

Freedom is a wonderful thing. Apparently this reporter enjoys the freedoms that have been given to him and likes to exercise his right of protest.

I'm sure that had he attempted to throw shoes at Saddam, he would have died of lead poisoning a few minutes later

 

[NoJo]

Only because he couldn't get past security wearing a pair of anvils.

Brilliant

 

[fifty5]

ISaddam was removed but at a cost in Iraqi lives, significantly civilian non-combatant lives, that far outnumbered any killing Saddam did.

Hi Og,

Straight question - I really don't know - have you specific numbers for that? I have no idea how many the US/UK/etc. killed, but I gathered Saddam killed a lot. ...

 

[sr71plt]

Hi Og,

Straight question - I really don't know - have you specific numbers for that? I have no idea how many the US/UK/etc. killed, but I gathered Saddam killed a lot. ...

Yessss, Saddam's numbers are a lot higher, I would think, having followed him through a couple of wars and a hearty attempt at genocide. And I would think it more than a bit presumptuous to lay even a fraction of the killing that's gone on in Iraq since the U.S. invasion at the feet of the United States. As I posted--Iraqis are going to continue to be Iraqis. They tend to do well at killing each other.

 

[midwestyankee]

Yessss, Saddam's numbers are a lot higher, I would think, having followed him through a couple of wars and a hearty attempt at genocide. And I would think it more than a bit presumptuous to lay even a fraction of the killing that's gone on in Iraq since the U.S. invasion at the feet of the United States. As I posted--Iraqis are going to continue to be Iraqis. They tend to do well at killing each other.

It would be interesting to see if anyone has cataloged Saddam's murders on a year-by-year basis. This would give us an approximate yearly average of murders and thus an opportunity to determine the differential between the likely Saddam-based murders from 2003 to the present and the deaths that have resulted from hostile fire and bombs etc. during the same period after our invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq. If you set aside the number of Kurds killed in that separate campaign because it's actually anomalous to any discussion of his usual murders of political foes a few at a time, what sort of average annual toll might Saddam's reign have generated.

Then, of course, to determine the number of Iraqis who have been killed subsequent to our invasion, we'd have to have numbers from a third party and not the U. S. military.

 

[AsylumSeeker]

Another "sole-searching moment" for the president.

 

[sr71plt]

It would be interesting to see if anyone has cataloged Saddam's murders on a year-by-year basis. This would give us an approximate yearly average of murders and thus an opportunity to determine the differential between the likely Saddam-based murders from 2003 to the present and the deaths that have resulted from hostile fire and bombs etc. during the same period after our invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq. If you set aside the number of Kurds killed in that separate campaign because it's actually anomalous to any discussion of his usual murders of political foes a few at a time, what sort of average annual toll might Saddam's reign have generated.

Then, of course, to determine the number of Iraqis who have been killed subsequent to our invasion, we'd have to have numbers from a third party and not the U. S. military.

There are problems coming up with any numbers at all. And then, as I posted, there would be even more trouble assigning responsibility for the killings. As I noted, there would be mass killing in Iraq even if the U.S. troops weren't there in occupation and much of the killing really doesn't have much to do with the U.S. troops being there (and, surprise, there will continue to be mass killing in Iraq after the U.S. finally pull out--or are thrown out). If you want to talk about deaths the United States is directly responsible for, I'm quite sure there were more BETWEEN the two Iraq "wars" (when we and the British were bombing daily and the rest of the world didn't take any notice at all) than there have been during and since the U.S. invasion.

 

[sr71plt]

Another "sole-searching moment" for the president.

Nice. I gave that one a little laugh.

 

[midwestyankee]

There are problems coming up with any numbers at all. And then, as I posted, there would be even more trouble assigning responsibility for the killings. As I noted, there would be mass killing in Iraq even if the U.S. troops weren't there in occupation and much of the killing really doesn't have much to do with the U.S. troops being there (and, surprise, there will continue to be mass killing in Iraq after the U.S. finally pull out--or are thrown out). If you want to talk about deaths the United States is directly responsible for, I'm quite sure there were more BETWEEN the two Iraq "wars" (when we and the British were bombing daily and the rest of the world didn't take any notice at all) than there have been during and since the U.S. invasion.

I disagree. The question is whether or not the same amount of deaths would have happened during the same period if the U. S. had not invaded. Absent our invasion, Saddam stays in power. How many political enemies would he most likely have killed and then let's compare against a reasonable estimate of all people, military and civilian alike, who have died due to hostilities that began with our invasion. The mass killings that you posit are happening only because we invaded and took out Saddam.

 

[sr71plt]

I disagree. The question is whether or not the same amount of deaths would have happened during the same period if the U. S. had not invaded. Absent our invasion, Saddam stays in power. How many political enemies would he most likely have killed and then let's compare against a reasonable estimate of all people, military and civilian alike, who have died due to hostilities that began with our invasion. The mass killings that you posit are happening only because we invaded and took out Saddam.

No, it's not true the current level of deaths in Iraq are only happening because we invaded and took out Saddam. But we can disagree on these things. That's OK by me.

 

[midwestyankee]

No, it's not true the current level of deaths in Iraq are only happening because we invaded and took out Saddam. But we can disagree on these things. That's OK by me.

Are you suggesting that independent groups would have been able to engage in mass episodes of ethnic cleansing under the Saddam regime?

 

[sr71plt]

Are you suggesting that independent groups would have been able to engage in mass episodes of ethnic cleansing under the Saddam regime?

Cleansing was going on while Saddam was in power, before he was in power, and after he was no longer in power--and will be going on after the U.S. troops leave.

There was also continuous killing on the Iran-Iraq border (and very likely will be an Iranian intervention of greater or lesser sorts when we leave).

Also, Saddam was in no way finished with the Kurds when he became aware we really were invading.

Saddam was looking at Kuwait again when we invaded--one of the reasons we did invade was that Saddam knew we wouldn't get the necessary cooperation from Saudi Arabia (or Turkey or Germany) that we got under Bush senior and he didn't believe we could/would really come to Kuwait's aid again. (The Kuwaitis weren't all that supported in the first instance, and they'd gotten snotty enough in their lack of gratitude that no one was rushing to support them a second time).

Plus, al-Qaida would have come into Iraq by now and done much of what it already is more easily doing now thanks to the U.S. invasion. (Saddam was being nasty to Syria and al-Qaida was courting al-Asad with some success.)

Is that enough for you? (I didn't think so. You'd rather think in more simple terms, I'm sure).

In fact, Saddam was already imploding--and a joke going around the foreign policy community at the time was that Bush the Lesser had to accelerate plans to get his little victory in Iraq because there was a danger that Iraq wasn't going to be a danger (it wasn't much already--at least to the United States) very much longer.

 

[ChainedEros]

It's a sad day when the President of the United States can be personally attacked and we shrug it off.

 

[midwestyankee]

Cleansing was going on while Saddam was in power, before he was in power, and after he was no longer in power--and will be going on after the U.S. troops leave.

There was also continuous killing on the Iran-Iraq border (and very likely will be an Iranian intervention of greater or lesser sorts when we leave).

Also, Saddam was in no way finished with the Kurds when he became aware we really were invading.

Saddam was looking at Kuwait again when we invaded--one of the reasons we did invade was that Saddam knew we wouldn't get the necessary cooperation from Saudi Arabia (or Turkey or Germany) that we got under Bush senior and he didn't believe we could/would really come to Kuwait's aid again. (The Kuwaitis weren't all that supported in the first instance, and they'd gotten snotty enough in their lack of gratitude that no one was rushing to support them a second time).

Plus, al-Qaida would have come into Iraq by now and done much of what it already is more easily doing now thanks to the U.S. invasion. (Saddam was being nasty to Syria and al-Qaida was courting al-Asad with some success.)

Is that enough for you? (I didn't think so. You'd rather think in more simple terms, I'm sure).

In fact, Saddam was already imploding--and a joke going around the foreign policy community at the time was that Bush the Lesser had to accelerate plans to get his little victory in Iraq because there was a danger that Iraq wasn't going to be a danger (it wasn't much already--at least to the United States) very much longer.

I'd gladly continue the discussion but I'm put off by the implicit insult that I'm not interested in learning nor in complexity.

In the meantime, would you be willing to provide sources available to the general public that back up your assertions?

 

[sr71plt]

I'd gladly continue the discussion but I'm put off by the implicit insult that I'm not interested in learning nor in complexity.

In the meantime, would you be willing to provide sources available to the general public that back up your assertions?

It's up to you on the first--but I have no interest or need to reinvent the wheel on what others standing on the sidelines need to know about Iraq to come up to snuff.

On the second paragraph--I suggest you might start with either or both of Michael Scheuer's books (which are the most open and well-informed available sources on what would normally be the most guarded of discussions on the issues--which got published thanks to government agency infighting on who was/was not going to be the fall guy over the Iraq policy debacle): Through Our Enemies' Eyes: Osama Bin Laden, Radical Islam, and the Future of America, or Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror.

And then in the spring (when I'm finished editing for M.E. Sharpe and it's been printed), I suggest you pick up a book called Guide to Islamist Movements, edited by Barry Rubin.

 

[sr71plt]

double post

 

[Dragonlipz]

Respect for the office of president, prime minister, or dictator for life isn't negotiable. It doesn't matter where they are or what country they're currently trying to rewrite history in.....Some folks here just can't look past their contempt and see the big picture.
Here's a story (true) for those who can see the big pic and appreciate irony (probably not for Le Jockelope or those who keep saying 'Amen' to his perspectives)
After Richard Nixon left the office of Vice President (he was defeated by Kennedy in the 1960 presidental election-does anyone remember HIS running mate?) he went into seclusion and traveled a bit. One evening he traveled to Moscow (as a private citizen) and tried to get an audience with Nikita Khruschev, the leader of the Soviet Union. Khruschev was in his dacha at the black sea and wouldn't have received Nixon in any circumstance - he detested the man. Nixon wound up debating the merits of capitalism vs communism with the doorman of Khruchev's residence until the wee hours when he was escorted back to his hotel by the Soviet secret police.
The point and beauty of this story is that Nixon was able to be the complete a-hole that he was but still had the basic dignity that every human being deserves. The fact that he was given this respect in Russia of all places is ironic and significant. Y'dig?

 

[shereads]

Freedom is a wonderful thing. Apparently this reporter enjoys the freedoms that have been given to him and likes to exercise his right of protest.

Reporters who were present said they could hear the beating begin when he was dragged out of the room. Apparently his freedom was being removed.

 

[shereads]

Brilliant

Why, thank you. I like your brain too.

 

[3113]

From Here:

Al-Zaidi in U.S. run Camp Cropper prisonIraqi TV al-Sharqiya just reported on the news that AL-Zaidi is transferred to Camp Cropper prison [the Airport prison, managed by the American forces].

The TV Channel announced that Al-Zaidi is in a difficult condition, with broken ribs and signs of tortures on his thighs. Also he can not move his right arm.

No idea if it's true--that is, whether the report is trustworthy and this is being reported on Al-Zaidi or if Al-Zaidi is telling the truth about the man's condition....

...but, alas, I've no doubt at all that it's gonna be believed.

 

[Huckleman2000]

It is probably a good thing that shoe throwing isn't the custom in this country.

...up until now, anyway.