• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Shoes thrown at Bush on Iraq trip

A flip side here on this; Isn't this allowed BECAUSE of Bush? Under the previous regime his entire family would have been dropped from a helicopter.
Is this not true? The journalist has forgotten what other nations have also lost and sacrificed for his right to insult our president. He believes that freedom is not worth dying for. Perhaps when we pull out or reduce our numbers he will be hung by his feet in the streets when forces of tyranny overrun the present government. He is a coward by every definition.




Exactly.


My guess is this man would never have thrown a shoe at Saddam. even if he raped and killed his family.
 
Exactly.


My guess is this man would never have thrown a shoe at Saddam. even if he raped and killed his family.

If he had thrown a shoe at a visiting Hugo Chavez, Saddam would have beheaded him on the spot.
 
Me:

"Hey Chanda, go find a quote of me saying that I think it was a good thing to invade Iraq or that I approve that we went over there in the first place."

I searched your posts regarding the Iraq War. I found several posts in which you defended the administration on the charge of lying us to war. You defended the rationale of the war on terror as one attacking nations harboring terrorists. You claimed to disagree 100% with Ron Paul (who opposes the war) on the Iraq War issue. You applauded and complimented GySgt's lengthy defense of the war here:

:applaud

Absolutely beautiful, well thought out post.

I searched for a long while, and it's possible I could have missed something, but I found no posts that were significantly critical of Bush's Iraq war policies. But most importantly, you defended all of Bush's questionable actions (which would include his Iraq war policies) as "bad decisions" based on good-hearted intentions. You are wrong about that, and the purpose of my post was to show you why. What you call "bull****" was from a thoroughly documented time line of pre-war planning, showing that Bush expressed a desire to attack Iraq as early as 1999 for the purpose of promoting himself as a great leader. No good-hearted, well intentioned president would be so callous as to regard our military as so much cannon fodder for the purpose of his own self-promotion.

Kind of the same way you're erroneously saying that I believe him to be an honest man, something again, is not based in any fact save for your own delusion to try and paint me in a light different then what is actually there...See, words have meanings. Annoying thing that, I know, you must hate it.

What? You said, "I do think he's honestly a good man, with a good heart, that's made a number of bad decisions along the way." "Good man, good heart" would imply basic honesty to most people.

I don't need your concocted scenarios to understand your point. I understand that you think the reporter's actions were illegal, and that's all that matters. You don't understand, or least won't acknowledge, that an action can be illegal, but still morally justified. That reporter didn't see Bush as a "visiting head of state." He saw him as an occupier who has devastated his country and killed, injured and displaced millions of Iraqis. Most people around the world would agree with him.
 
I searched your posts regarding the Iraq War. I found several posts in which you defended the administration on the charge of lying us to war. You defended the rationale of the war on terror as one attacking nations harboring terrorists. You claimed to disagree 100% with Ron Paul (who opposes the war) on the Iraq War issue. You applauded and complimented GySgt's lengthy defense of the war here:

Lets see here...

I do defend the administration on the "CHARGES" of lying us to war. I do not believe them completely innocent, as I have said, however I also do not believe it to the extent that many on the left twist and contort it to be. That said, that does not mean I agreed with going into the war. A close friend could have dozens of legitimate reasons to quit his job and go work for his jackass father, and I may agree those reasons are legitimate, but that doesn't mean I also automatically agree he should quit and go work for his jackass father.

Apparently, unlike you, I debate based on my values, principles, and beliefs not based soundly on what side of the isle I sit on. I try to look at things honestly and state my opinion on them, based on the actual facts not based on "Its a conservative!/Its a liberal!". I do not think the Bush Administration is as guilty on this charge as many on the left state; this does not mean I agree with going into Iraq.

Similarly, the defending of the rational on WHY we went into Iraq. As I said above, I do not disagree with the rational entirely. I can understand the rational and how it was used. This still does not mean I agreed or wished to go into Iraq.

In regards to Ron Paul, if you had read my posts concerning him you'd find my disagreement with him 100% about Iraq was not about going into it, but immediete pull out. I disagreed strongly with him due to my views in regards to the Iraq War now that we're there. It has been my belief for some time that an immediete withdrawl would be much more damaging for much longer amount of times to the U.S. than staying until there is a concievable finish to this conflict. This again does not mean I supported entering into the War in Iraq. One may disagree strongly with the direction ones company may decide to go with their manufacturing, however once those higher up than you have made the decision to go with that change it is ignorant to not try and simply deny the action happened and try to make the most success in that situation if a complete u-turn would be more damaging.

I can't comment on the GySgt post since you didn't actually link to it. However, once again, someone can have a well thought out, appealing, greatly done post on something without completely agreeing with each thing. I have had a number of liberals compliment me on posts I've made that they don't agree with; I had libertarians compliment me on my PATRIOT Act thesis despite disagreeing. I've complimented others that I don't necessarily agree with but are well done.

So what it comes down to is no...you couldn't find anything of me actually supporting us entering into the War in Iraq. Thanks.
 
Lets see here...

I do defend the administration on the "CHARGES" of lying us to war. I do not believe them completely innocent, as I have said, however I also do not believe it to the extent that many on the left twist and contort it to be.

It is not only the left, but the majority of Americans, including many on the right believe Bush & Co lied. Paul Craig Roberts is very conservative, having served in the Reagan administration and Wall Street Journal staff. He wrote:

The Bush regime lied and fabricated "evidence" that was used to deceive Congress, the American people, and the United Nations. The vice president of the United States and the national security adviser created public images of mushroom clouds going up over American cities unless Iraq was invaded and Saddam Hussein's terrible weapons of mass destruction were destroyed.

At the time that these absurd claims were being made, experts knew that they were false. Today everyone knows that the claims were lies.


The Crime of the Century - by Paul Craig Roberts

The obvious lies were blatant enough, there was no need to twist or contort them.

I do not think the Bush Administration is as guilty on this charge as many on the left state; this does not mean I agree with going into Iraq.

Well, we disagree about the extent of guilt. Maybe you don't agree with going into Iraq, but you continue to defend those who were responsible, and that is what I was pointing out to you.

I can't comment on the GySgt post since you didn't actually link to it.

Close enough. Click on the clicky thing, it's post #123

So what it comes down to is no...you couldn't find anything of me actually supporting us entering into the War in Iraq. Thanks.

Defending the perpetrators is supporting the war, a truly indefensible war. Referring to the war as simply a "bad decision" shows denial of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Denial of facts is partisanship.

Again, you think the illegality of the reporter's actions is the only thing that is important to consider. There can be moral justification for illegal acts, and in this case it applies.
 
Last edited:
Lets see here...

I do defend the administration on the "CHARGES" of lying us to war. I do not believe them completely innocent, as I have said, however I also do not believe it to the extent that many on the left twist and contort it to be. That said, that does not mean I agreed with going into the war. A close friend could have dozens of legitimate reasons to quit his job and go work for his jackass father, and I may agree those reasons are legitimate, but that doesn't mean I also automatically agree he should quit and go work for his jackass father.

Apparently, unlike you, I debate based on my values, principles, and beliefs not based soundly on what side of the isle I sit on. I try to look at things honestly and state my opinion on them, based on the actual facts not based on "Its a conservative!/Its a liberal!". I do not think the Bush Administration is as guilty on this charge as many on the left state; this does not mean I agree with going into Iraq.

Similarly, the defending of the rational on WHY we went into Iraq. As I said above, I do not disagree with the rational entirely. I can understand the rational and how it was used. This still does not mean I agreed or wished to go into Iraq.

In regards to Ron Paul, if you had read my posts concerning him you'd find my disagreement with him 100% about Iraq was not about going into it, but immediete pull out. I disagreed strongly with him due to my views in regards to the Iraq War now that we're there. It has been my belief for some time that an immediete withdrawl would be much more damaging for much longer amount of times to the U.S. than staying until there is a concievable finish to this conflict. This again does not mean I supported entering into the War in Iraq. One may disagree strongly with the direction ones company may decide to go with their manufacturing, however once those higher up than you have made the decision to go with that change it is ignorant to not try and simply deny the action happened and try to make the most success in that situation if a complete u-turn would be more damaging.

I can't comment on the GySgt post since you didn't actually link to it. However, once again, someone can have a well thought out, appealing, greatly done post on something without completely agreeing with each thing. I have had a number of liberals compliment me on posts I've made that they don't agree with; I had libertarians compliment me on my PATRIOT Act thesis despite disagreeing. I've complimented others that I don't necessarily agree with but are well done.

So what it comes down to is no...you couldn't find anything of me actually supporting us entering into the War in Iraq. Thanks.

If a day care person lets their eye off a child and they run into a street and die... Whos fault is it? If an Master Engineer at a refinery cuts inspections by 75% and an explosion kills 100 people. Whos fault is it? If a father doesn't help their children get medical attention when they need it because of some stupid belief... Whos fault is it? When the current father of our country lies/ or lets himself get lied to, Whos fault is it? One who accepted responsibility and was an honest and honorable person would admit the wrong and point to those that lied to him if so. I would think.
 
When the current father of our country lies/ or lets himself get lied to, Whos fault is it? One who accepted responsibility and was an honest and honorable person would admit the wrong and point to those that lied to him if so. I would think.

Well, you kinda have to establish, first, that he did, in fact lie or was lied to, no?

Bush has acknowledged many mistakes no matter whether you choose to believe it or not.

:roll:
 
Well, you kinda have to establish, first, that he did, in fact lie or was lied to, no?

Bush has acknowledged many mistakes no matter whether you choose to believe it or not.

:roll:

So he may or may not have lied and there isn't responsable for any of it then.
 
So he may or may not have lied and there isn't responsable for any of it then.

Try again. Be sure to include all of the words you intend to communicate this time, mmmkay...
 
Well, you kinda have to establish, first, that he did, in fact lie or was lied to, no?

Bush has acknowledged many mistakes no matter whether you choose to believe it or not.

:roll:


Bush has acknowledged many mistakes.....that's a good one. Bush has been the biggest duck and cover President (at least in my lifetime).

BTW: So far my high score is 11
Sock and Awe!
 
Try again. Be sure to include all of the words you intend to communicate this time, mmmkay...

I didn't forget anything. I put an extra one in.

War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength; Coersion is Free Market.

Bush says sacrificed free-market principles to save economy

The man is a fear monger. In my book he spreads more terror than anyone I can think of alive right now. He scares everyone into taking his little preplanned route as the solution and once you do you don't even realize what you lost. He is the Bush beater. We are the ones who run. And newly forged laws, regulations, and mere word on paper catch their prey.
 
Last edited:
Bush has acknowledged many mistakes.....that's a good one. Bush has been the biggest duck and cover President (at least in my lifetime).

BTW: So far my high score is 11
Sock and Awe!

Again, your disbelief ain't a substitute for facts.

I love how some of you people believe that if you haven't heard it or your favorite blogger that you crib notes from didn't say it then it never happened.

I mean, Bush has never admitted mistakes. Not at all. No acknowledgment or admission of mistakes, right?

Of course, I'm sure that these admissions or acknowledgments don't go far enough for you, right? :roll:
 
I didn't forget anything. I put an extra one in.

Huh?

"So he may or may not have lied and there isn't anyone responsable for any of it then."

Didn't you forget the word, "anyone"?

War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength; Coersion is Free Market.

God I hate this type of nonsense. You must a college degree because this is the tye of garbage many of our universities and colleges are peddling as pop culture these days.

The man is a fear monger. In my book he spreads more terror than anyone I can think of alive right now.

Now I know you went to college. You reek of gross moral equivalencies and relativitism.

Sickening.
 

I got him 4 times!:mrgreen:






s2tclt.gif
 
I think he menas you can remove "there" and the sentence makes sense.

It still wouldn't make sense. It would if he was asking a question. But he was suggesting that whether or not he lied someone should be responsible, no?

I don't know. His sentence was so poorly constructed that I couldn't make heads or tails and I'm just guessing.
 
Looks like the guy is in for up to 7 years for the crime of "offending the head of a foreign state"

Source [News 24 | Shoe-thrower faces up to 7yrs]

Baghdad - The Iraqi journalist who became a star in the Arab world when he hurled his shoes at visiting US President George W Bush and called him a dog, appeared before a judge on Wednesday, his brother said.

Durgham al-Zaidi said he and another brother were told by the investigating judge that 29-year-old Muntazar al-Zaidi "had cooperated well," but gave no details.

Under Iraqi law, Zaidi faces up to seven years in jail for "offending the head of a foreign state".

Note that it isn't for assault - it's for the insult, which is apparently against the law in Iraq.
 
Looks like the guy is in for up to 7 years for the crime of "offending the head of a foreign state"

Source [News 24 | Shoe-thrower faces up to 7yrs]



Note that it isn't for assault - it's for the insult, which is apparently against the law in Iraq.

Only if its against a visiting head of state. Apparently the police also beat the **** out of him.
 
Looks like the guy is in for up to 7 years for the crime of "offending the head of a foreign state"

Source [News 24 | Shoe-thrower faces up to 7yrs]



Note that it isn't for assault - it's for the insult, which is apparently against the law in Iraq.

But, throwing a shoe or showing the foot sole to another person is an insult or an offense for Arabians. :shock:
 
But, throwing a shoe or showing the foot sole to another person is an insult or an offense for Arabians. :shock:

Yes, which is why he's being charged with insulting the head of a foreign state. I have a feeling that I missed the point of your post
 
Back
Top Bottom