Two dramatic reinterpretations:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrqbOqJBMUM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Db3HsIjqavY

The whole shoe incident brings us back to the same question we've been asking for years: why didn't we get out of Iraq after we won the war at the end of 2003?

The shoe guy is now an Iraqi national hero. He was detained not because he nearly missed Bush, but because he nearly missed al-Maliki. There are rallies in the streets supporting the guy, burning pseduo-American flags, and so on.

When will the extreme right-wing learn, there will be no "victory" in Iraq as long as we're there. Victory can only come after we leave, after the Iraqis turn on themselves.

Maybe not just an Iraqi hero... he's probably garnering respect from lots of people around the world, including this country.

Maybe not just an Iraqi hero... he's probably garnering respect from lots of people around the world, including this country.Why on Earth would we respect him? He is stupid. He and his country were offered the biggest opportunity they have ever seen or will ever see, and they turned it down. They continue to insult the forces that are preventing an outright civil war.

Of course, that's OK by me, and for years I've been wanting us to pull out of there ASAP. Let them kill each other based on their pointless differences about who really wrote the Koran. In 50 years, when the oil industry is dead, their country will just be another primitive backwater like Rwanda where people routinely massacre one another and no one cares.

They deserve their fate.

He and his country were offered the biggest opportunity they have ever seen or will ever see, and they turned it down.

Far be it from me to discuss definitions with a native speaker, but I always thought that the word "offer" impled that one had a choice.

That said, shoe-throwing is silly. One does not treat shoes that way. Nice shoes. Loooove shoes!

Far be it from me to discuss definitions with a native speaker, but I always thought that the word "offer" impled that one had a choice.They had the choice to cooperate with us and allow us to use our resources to make them a rich and stable nation, or to keep playing their silly "my author of the Koran is better than yours" games and keep killing one another.

They chose the latter. It was not forced on them, and we are now leaving.

They had far more choice in this matter, than they ever had under Saddam Hussein. Well, unless you consider "do what I say or I'll gas you and massacre your villages" a choice.

Ahh... I was wondering when this would come up. I can certainly see his point of view honestly, 500 thousand civilians dead(plus a few), 2.5 million of his fellow countrymen displaced, so, I can understand why he chose to express himself by throwing shoes(bush is rather quick by the way) at a foreign leader that has done nothing, but, destabilize a country, while maybe not the most courteous country, still it was stable, and contained. Not to mention with a huge assist in the current economical crisis bordering on a world wide depression, I can easily see why he would, not to mention his own personal expriences with being taken hostage by gunmen.

I certainly respect him for choosing using his freedom, as well as his media status, to express himself by disrespecting a foreign leader who has brought nothing but, heartache to a couple billion people in the world. If alot of the worldwide media would bring out that kind of journalism, not necessarily, the shoe throwing, but, political opposition to the events shaping world history, the world would be better off as using media as the 4th branch of government as you were, in the United States.

They had far more choice in this matter, than they ever had under Saddam Hussein. Well, unless you consider "do what I say or I'll gas you and massacre your villages" a choice.

Two options forced upon them, even if we concede that one is worse than the other, are still two options -forced- upon them.

Which was my point. There was no choice, no option for them to say "no thanks, we don't need 'liberating'."

Well said, Palamin. Well said.

Two options forced upon them, even if we concede that one is worse than the other, are still two options -forced- upon them.

Which was my point. There was no choice, no option for them to say "no thanks, we don't need 'liberating'."You're confusing the "choices" here.

I'm talking about the choice they had after the war was over (end of 2003). They were not forced into anything. Now that the war was over, they could either cooperate with us and build a great nation with strong allies, or go back to their religious bickering. They chose the latter.

You're talking about the choice Saddam Hussein had right before the war started. He wasn't forced into war either, and made the (wrong) choice for his people. If he had complied with the ceasefire he agreed to when he started his last war, and had allowed inspectors to verify that he has no biological weapons, he would have averted war altogether.

I can certainly see his point of view honestly, 500 thousand civilians dead(plus a few), 2.5 million of his fellow countrymen displaced, so, I can understand why he chose to express himself by throwing shoesHis "countrymen" are the reason so many were killed and displaced. As far as wars go, we were the nicest and most accommodating conquerors in all of history.

Basically, he is mad at us, because they are a bunch of crude barbarians. That's not our fault.

If he's mad about the war altogether, he should direct that at the former leader, who didn't comply with the very generous conditions that we offered him after he failed his last invasion.If alot of the worldwide media would bring out that kind of journalism, not necessarily, the shoe throwing, but, political opposition to the events shaping world history, the world would be better off as using media as the 4th branch of government as you were, in the United States.If there's anything we don't need, it's a bunch of media terrorists stirring things up for ratings. The media is bad enough as it is.

Why on Earth would we respect him?
He got two "shots" off, both on target, in under 3 seconds and he did it against one of the most securely guarded people in the world. This guy is the Lee Harvey Oswald of shoe throwing.

I bet it'll become a party game, throw your shoes at the cardboard cut-out of GBW.

hmm thought this thread died.

quote"If he's mad about the war altogether, he should direct that at the former leader, who didn't comply with the very generous conditions that we offered him after he failed his last invasion."

Funny thing, Saddam did comply with alot of the conditions applied to him with the UN Resolutions. He did fuss abit, with weapons inspectors and all that, that was largely a show trying to get other countries, particularly Iran, to think he still had weapons of mass destruction, when in fact he had destroyed and sold off the arsenal that we in fact gave him in the first place, amongst some of his other activities. Try not to confuse some of the details of the history, we gave him his mustard gases, blister agents, and such, sure he built some on his own, but, yes, until he invaded Kuwait, he was in fact considered an ally by us in the middle east, as we do with other governments with harse dictators as well.

Quite a few times some of those radar towers he kept building in the no fly zones we kept bombing, unbeknowst to the majority of Americans, were actually radio towers. His air force kept to the no fly zones, he did have some "testing" here and there, which got some pilots of his shot down, but, yes, he complied. I really could go on and on that subject, but, he was contained, and not a serious threat to our national security, nor the majority of the middle east as well, and he had his country largely under control.

Quote"If there's anything we don't need, it's a bunch of media terrorists stirring things up for ratings. The media is bad enough as it is."

edia has it's uses. They are not neccessarily terrorists. Nor doing things for ratings. They can bring things to light, that is otherwise not talked about much. They can discuss long term ramifications of policy, broken laws, alot of things. Had they had the balls to ask a few questions, challenge leaders around the world, put up some studies, you can bring alot of the fundamental problems in society to light. I am myself am all for that, as society evolves, so, to must certain aspects of life. Often political leaders, amongst other, often just screw up. They are fallible, as is the media who has been asleep for the last 20 years or so on certain aspects of society, but, come to life when Clinton gets a blowjob or Paris Hilton goes to prison, they make mistakes, that is one way to hold them accountable for their actions. Accountability, something to prevent a dictatorship in America, imagine that.

Media has it's uses..

It sells things.

It sells you its own viewpoint. You buy that information trash.
It sells advertising space. You buy that consumer trash.

Far be it from me to discuss definitions with a native speaker, but I always thought that the word "offer" impled that one had a choice.

That said, shoe-throwing is silly. One does not treat shoes that way. Nice shoes. Loooove shoes!

Reword it as "presented" instead of "offer"...

You're talking about the choice Saddam Hussein had right before the war started. He wasn't forced into war either, and made the (wrong) choice for his people. If he had complied with the ceasefire he agreed to when he started his last war, and had allowed inspectors to verify that he has no biological weapons, he would have averted war altogether.

The whole Iraq quagmire could have been averted.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-484162/Saddam-asked-Bush-1bn-exile.html

Saddam Hussein offered to step down and go into exile one month before the invasion of Iraq, it was claimed last night.

Fearing defeat, Saddam was prepared to go peacefully in return for £500million ($1billion).

The extraordinary offer was revealed yesterday in a transcript of talks in February 2003 between George Bush and the then Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar at the President's Texas ranch.

Beyond that the CIA helped put Saddam there to begin with.

The whole Iraq quagmire could have been averted.
Of course it could have been. If Saddam let the inspectors inspect. Or if he gave up when Bush told him to give up. He did not, and bounced from the end of a rope.

Beyond that the CIA helped put Saddam there to begin with.
Well, duh. So what, Saddam was fighting the Iranians at the time. The Iranians were bigger enemies. Lest you are retarded, or have no memory of history.

Using enemies to fight your enemies is just sound strategy, even if you happen to have such a small mind, that you can't wrap it around the concept.

I want the CIA to use our enemies to fight our enemies every chance they can.