In fairness,the reporter should realise that if Saddame was still in charge and he pulled a stunt like that,he'd be decapitated at this stage.
Results 1 to 20 of 27
Iraqis urge government to free shoe-thrower
Well I'm lookin real hard and I'm trying to find a job but it just keeps gettin tougher every day
In fairness,the reporter should realise that if Saddame was still in charge and he pulled a stunt like that,he'd be decapitated at this stage.
And that is supposed to be a justification for the overthrow of Saddam's regime via an imperialist war led by Bush?
Is Bush somehow better than Saddam Hussein?
No,I'm not for a moment justifying the war.But I wouldn't have expected journalists to attack the man responsible for putting an end to ridiculous persecution that the media suffered under the hands of Saddame.
Bush is a fucking wanker,simple as.
I'm sorry, but yes. Bush is your standard imperialist president, working for corporate interests and so on and so forth. Saddam Huessein was a psycopath.
That being said, I don't see why he should go to prison for throwing a freaking shoe, its a shoe for goodness sake.
I would expect that after an imperialist army invaded a small, sovereign nation you were living in and bombed the shit out of supposed terrorist targets, but instead were responsibly for countless deaths, that you would be quite insulted too.
There's a reason why the news media keeps giving us the reminder that throwing a shoe at someone in Arab culture is a huge insult - because it is.
You're not directly justifying the war but you seem to be implying that there's a lesser-of-two evils here. Bush hasn't put an end to any tyranny since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, and I think that even more of a shoe is fit for Bush when thousands upon thousands of Iraqi civilians have died or received other casualties in this war.
Heres waht I"m saying, it does'nt justify the war, at all, but between the 2 men, as leaders, there is a difference, George Bush, is not a psychopath, he's an imperialist leader.
But your right, If I was Bush I would expect a shoe in the face too.
I'm not suggesting there isn't a difference.
What I have a problem is that in wigsa's post he implies that the Iraqi journalist shouldn't be throwing the shoe at Bush because he got rid of Hussein, and if he did that to him then he would be killed. My problem with that sort of statement is the lesser of two evils crap.
Yes, Bush doesn't have his own torture chambers through which he brutalizes political dissidents, but at the same time he is still a greater enemy to the international proletariat than Saddam ever was.
the people that should be punished in that story is not the shoe thrower but the security expert and the bodyguard that failed to react to the situation.
he been able to launch the second shoes without being bothewred at all, wich demonstrate a terribly low response time from the security team.
imagine if that guy would have used grenades or acid filled bottle.
seriously, the security team is to blame in that.
I think many people would have enjoyed that.
If anyone was to be punished it should be Bush.
Bush should be punished for interfering with the trajectory of the shoes' flight path, because the shoes have a cleaner track record than Bush.
: D
: /
Iraqis were better off under Saddam Hussein than they have been for the last 5 years. You might not be allowed to throw shoes, but you also wouldn't get blown up in the street. Nevertheless, the remaining Iraqis will eventually pull their lives back together and what's left of the country may even eventually be better than it was under Saddam and U.S. sanctions. That's no argument for the war - and it certainly doesn't mean that this man was expressing the opinion, as far as I can tell, of the great majority of Iraqis and Arabs in general, people who haven't been allowed to express their opinion to the man's face until now. It's extremely meaningful that this has happened and the individual involved needs to be lauded.
I agree compleatly, but thats because of the position of power he's in, you put any one in that position they'll be an enemy of the proletariat, you put Saddam in that position, you better hide.
Depends what you mean by 'better', sure things were safer, but freedom wise, they were not better. If safety is the prerequisit of a country being better (ignoring other things like, living standards, liberty and the such) then Spain under Franco was pretty good, not much crime.
What I really hope this incident does, and the Iraqi reaction to it, is open some Americans eyes to what the United States power mongering really is, its imperialism, and the world does'nt want it.
I think on balance, recognizing the fact that a lot of rights were restricted but that it doesn't compare with an invasion, occupation and civil war, Iraq was a better place for Iraqis to live under Saddam than under American occupation - the latter itself is arguably not technically as violent, especially post-"surge", but resulted directly in a war which itself has been extremely violent. It's not a trivial judgement call, but I think the general opinion of Iraqis bears what I'm saying out.
Trying to compare the two is ridiculous. Frankly, if you're going to criticize Saddam Hussein for killing, what? 180,000 if I remember correctly? How many millions have been killed in China due to an oppressive regime and immense violations of human rights? What about India where the capitalist experiments have killed over 100 million? If you're going to paint George W. Bush as a liberator, then why isn't he liberating these other countries? It's simple. The Iraq war is good for business. It is good at promoting the imperialist system which is a direct product of the capitalist system.
One thing that amuses me is people who think that Bush is failing. Not a chance. Bush is doing a great job. If you look at it from what he wanted to do, he's doing an amazing job. He's getting tax cuts for his wealthy buddies. He's funding the militaristic society that fuels the American empire. Bush did exactly what he was planning on doing. The United States has killed over 1 million Iraqis since the start of this war. That doesn't even include the million or so killed during our sanctions that economically crippled the nation. And for what? Because Saddam wouldn't succumb to the will of the corporate elite? There is no justification for this occupation. None whatsoever.
You know every now and then you Commies get a grip on what's really going on. Good post. Bush was a "bad" President.Obama will do the same, but with a LOT more charisma and charm, just like Clinton.
After Obama there will be another "bad" President.
From an overall perspective Capitalists seem to be a lot better at what they do than Communists.
Hey man that's cruel.You know every now and then you Commies get a grip on what's really going on. Good post. Bush was a "bad" President.
From an overall perspective Capitalists seem to be a lot better at what they do than Communists.
You shouldn't be crushing their idealism
Well I'm lookin real hard and I'm trying to find a job but it just keeps gettin tougher every day
There will be no more good presidents. The corporate elite have a very tight grip on the democratic process in America. Let's view it in this light. Barack Obama was virtually unknown to the public in say... 2005, 2006? At that point, it was obvious that the Democratic front-runner was Hillary Clinton. Edwards was mentioned at times, but Clinton had it in the bag. For the Republicans, it seemed that Rudy Giuliani was very popular with people like John McCain lagging behind, but still in the spotlight.You know every now and then you Commies get a grip on what's really going on. Good post. Bush was a "bad" President.
From an overall perspective Capitalists seem to be a lot better at what they do than Communists.
The elite like to shake things up a bit, which is why they backed Barack Obama. They turned a potentially clean and honorable man into their pawn. He took massive donations from corporations. The corporate-controlled media covered him non-stop, while painting McCain in a bad light (not that he deserved anything better). Obama was painted as the 'change' candidate, despite the fact that very little is going to change in the next four years. Still, back to the point, it shows that the elite can back just about anyone they want and will support whoever has the greatest potential to keep their agenda going. Don't mind the man behind the curtain, I suppose.
What does this mean freedom wise? They can vote?
Alot of cases I would imagine freedom is lessened after Saddam.
You are using a very American and specific use for the word freedom. Which means writing a vote on a peace of paper for politicians who can either afford to run, or in Iraq have permision from the imperialist to run for political power. So this freedom is only exercised in small portions of their life.
Where as in Saddam some people probally had alot more freedom then they do now. Clearly the Sunni's had freedom of movement without risk of death or injury brought about in a war zone. Or freedom for women to equal rights in Iraqi society and culture. Alot of these freedoms have been taken away under Bush.
I watched a new report tha compared Saddam's Iraq to Bush's Iraq. It was quite misleading, it skewed the result by comparing uncomparable sources. Such as when it came to electricity usage it compared the whole country in Saddam's era to a one specific town in Bush's era. It also avioded other areas to compare as it would show Saddam's era being relatively better.]
That all said, I am not saying that Saddam is good. I to agree you can usually compare the lesser of the two evils. In this case Saddam is the lesser of the two evils. And saying that he is psycopath is not a good arguement, you have to use real points rather then media hype from the two gulf wars.
The spiritual atom bomb which the revolutionary people possess is a far more powerful and useful weapon than the physical atom bomb. - Lin Biao
Our code of morals is our revolution. What saves our revolution, what helps our revolution, what protects our revolution is right, is very right and very honourable and very noble and very beautiful, because our revolution means justice
- Dr. George Habash, founder of the PFLP.
Luckily, he's only being tortured, right? Dipshit.
What's the matter Lagerboy, afraid you might taste something?
