I think you are right herman but, I wonder what the penalty will be for throwing shoes at Bush. I would not like to be in his shoes(if he has another pair.)
exactly. So another person gets hurt. More damage is done. This is not a good thing.
I think you are right herman but, I wonder what the penalty will be for throwing shoes at Bush. I would not like to be in his shoes(if he has another pair.)
I was talking more in reference towards Bush, not the Iraq war in direct relation.
Sorta like how everybody remembers Clinton for getting a blow job, people will remember Bush for getting shoes chucked at him...... among many other things over the years.
I call it his trademark from here on out.
But I sure ain't trivializing the whole war down to a simple shoe throwing.... there's a lot of background and emotional reasoning behind that throw, which leads into explination of all that has transpired before that.
If it was a Michael Moore documentary, it'd start with the shoe throwing and then go into detail about everything behind it.
But I am not by any means trivializing the situation. I think it's quite fitting..... until something better comes along.
Thank God that guy threw his shoes at GWB leaving him empty handed. If he
had a stapler, and the RCMP where present, this could have ended very badly
for that Iranian Reporter....At least he's live to tell the tale.
There's room for a "Weapons of Mass Stapling" pun if anyone is interested in
throwing it out there....
The show tossing is a fitting end to his brilliant career as war criminal....
yes should be shoe :roll:Hey good day Risus what is the show have anything to do with the shoe?
that's exactly my point. You think it's wrong, which makes you morally judge Bush as being a bad man (I agree wholeheartedly with that judgement) but then you state that the solution (or at least a sensible reaction) is to do exactly the same thing (albeit on a much smaller and more comical scale).
I will not be accused of defending bush. however I really do strongly believe that what that man did was wrong and becomes more wrong due to the fact it was internationally publicised. Now everyone seems to believe it's just fine to attack someone physically if you judge them to be morally wrong.
and anyone who disagrees will get my foot up their arse!
I don't believe the two relate. Even if Bush got smacked by a shoe, or even both, he would still be walking away from it withough anything injured except his ego.
It was an expression of anger and frustration toward Bush and his ability to get away with borderline genocide on a people who never even wanted, let alone expected to goto war.
Doing the exact same thing would be perhaps him blowing himself up, killing everybody in the room, if not, the whole building, including Bush...... and I'm a person who believes in the Eye for an Eye justice..... so while I would believe it would be horrible that other innocent people died in the process, it would still be paled in comparison to what has happened through Bush's decisions and actions over the years.
What he did was really nomore different then someone shouting and freaking out, calling him names as they were dragged away by security...... he just did it in their own custom.
I see where you are coming from, but for me, I couldn't care less if Bush died tomorrow and everything coming his way is due to his own faults. While I understand what you are saying in regards to physically attacking someone when you think they are wrong..... but when you are a person who has seen your entire nation go down the drains, seen thousands of your people suffering and/or dying, forign troops abusing you and your people, treating you as 2nd class citizens in your own country, and for years I might add...... I think what he did was not only justified, but was in really good moderation of his emotions.
To me, it's no different then chucking rotten tomatos or paper balls at someone who performs poorly..... maybe just a little more blunt.
No real harm was done though, just perhaps a bit to Bush's legacy and ego...... small price to pay if you ask me.
I dont think anyone can believe Bush didn't already know people hate him in IRAQ and pretty much everywhere. I don't think this is a surprise to him. I still suggest that no useful purpose was served by this event
I don't believe the two relate. Even if Bush got smacked by a shoe, or even both, he would still be walking away from it withough anything injured except his ego.
exactly. So another person gets hurt. More damage is done. This is not a good thing.
I think that act says more about (the ignorance) of the thrower than the throwee.
So what? He's going to get hurt because he chucked his shoes at Bush?
So what should be done with people like Bush then? Shall we all just shut our mouths and allow them to get away with whatever they want, all because we fear we may face punishment?
There's a thing called principle, and if I was in his shoes, I wouldn't regret one moment of what he did, because he now has made it publically clear that he at least has had enough of his BS lies and propaganda.
He stood up for what he believed in and chances are he probably figured he'd be shot dead after the first shoe, rather then just be taken down.
I feel that more and more Iraqi's will consider him a hero for being a simple man who stood up to a brutal off-land tyrant that nobody else in Iraq was capable of doing.
If you don't think it was a good idea simply because now he's going to be interogated and probably tortured like the US tends to do, and would rather people like him and others just simply stand by silent and allowing someone to make a mockery of your nation and your people, then we are obviously on two different pages.
I think there are more similarities than you understand. It's because so many people have seen this kind of retaliation laughed off as being harmless and deserved that violence is so widely accepted and propagates on an international scale.
you are presenting a false dichotomy. Because violent action is against my principles you state that the only other alternative is to ignore him. That's simply not true, and you know it.
to be fair what that man did was not good. It was certainly understandable, and even amusing. however, the action did not cause anything good to happen, and will probably only make matters worse in the long run.
two wrongs do not make a right, even if one of the wrongs is a massive war crime and the other is a rather amusing attack with a shoe
you are presenting a false dichotomy. Because violent action is against my principles you state that the only other alternative is to ignore him. That's simply not true, and you know it.