Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

sebster wrote:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Why did the guy blame the US president for all the "widows and orphans"? Last I checked, it was his Muslim brothers killing indiscriminately with roadside bombs, suicide attacks, etc.

Well, he probably thinks otherwise. Given no-one was killing anyone before Bush decided they had to invade, he might have a point.

Anyway, I kind of wish he'd gotten a better hit in. Not because I really care if Bush gets hit by a shoe or not, but this guy isn't going to be seeing daylight for quite a while. Seems a shame to go to jail for missing.

Umm, I guess you forgot just who was in charge before the recommencement of hostilities. If the shoe thowing journalist had done this to the previous leadership of Iraq, he would have been drug out into the street and shot dead.

dienekes96 wrote:Have to agree with Frazzle here. He's lucky he didn't get two in the dome.

I'm not going to rehash the Saddam or Bush, because that is irrelevant. If someone threw a shoe at the leader of France when he was here, He could expect real jail time.

It's not a referendum on Bush. If people are OK with shoes thrown at Bush, I hope they don't mind crap thrown at Obama. It's not about the person, it's about the office, and it's about the law.

If all he got was a few broken bones, then he should consider himself lucky. It might have even been worth it, if he didn't miss.

Have fun in the hoosegow, douche. Bush will enjoy his mansion, crying himself to sleep in his king-sized bed while you get the prison prom date.

There's two questions, isn't there?

'Why did the guy do this?' and 'Should he get away with it?' The answer to the first is Iraq and the general screw up that's been and how it's cost about a million lives. The answer to the second is that he should get jail time, because he assaulted the President of the US.

Whether or not the jail time is worth the assault is up to that guy. There's fair amount to be said for civil disobedience, though I have no idea if that's what was going through this guy's head when he threw the show.

Frazzled wrote:What about attacking the guy who freed you from a dictator who put people into plastic chippers for fun?

How is that attack on Mugabe going, anyway?

I'm not sure how it being Bush has anything to do with the fact that diplomats/heads of state have to be treated with respect.
Seriously, it's an easy concept to grasp.

Zathras wrote:Umm, I guess you forgot just who was in charge before the recommencement of hostilities. If the shoe thowing journalist had done this to the previous leadership of Iraq, he would have been drug out into the street and shot dead.

But no-one was throwing shoes at Saddam and he wasn't killing anyone for throwing shoes, so it's a little crazy to accuse a dead guy of something he might have done if someone had done something no-one had ever thought of doing.

sebster wrote:

Zathras wrote:Umm, I guess you forgot just who was in charge before the recommencement of hostilities. If the shoe thowing journalist had done this to the previous leadership of Iraq, he would have been drug out into the street and shot dead.

But no-one was throwing shoes at Saddam and he wasn't killing anyone for throwing shoes, so it's a little crazy to accuse a dead guy of something he might have done if someone had done something no-one had ever thought of doing.

Why? You think Saddam would be okay with someone throwing a shoe at him?
Of course he would have him killed.

He killed tons of Kurds for no reason at all. He wouldn't let someone publicly disrespect him like that and live.
Hell knowing Saddam, the guys family would be running too.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Why? You think Saddam would be okay with someone throwing a shoe at him?
Of course he would have him killed.

He killed tons of Kurds for no reason at all. He wouldn't let someone publicly disrespect him like that and live.
Hell knowing Saddam, the guys family would be running too.

Yeah, the guy would have been killed, and around a half dozen random by-standers would have been accused of conspiracy to throw a shoe and gotten show trials and long sentences. But that has nothing to do with anything, because no-one was throwing shoes at Saddam.

It isn't a nice thing, but more often than not it's better to have a tyrant with a stable power base than to have anarchy. Saddam was a tyrant, but everyone knew the rules and as long as no-one was threatening his power base people weren't being killed. Look at when he committed his murders, when first coming to power, during his major defeats in the Iran-Iraq war and after the ceasefire, and after the pasting in the first Gulf War.

sebster wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:Why? You think Saddam would be okay with someone throwing a shoe at him?
Of course he would have him killed.

He killed tons of Kurds for no reason at all. He wouldn't let someone publicly disrespect him like that and live.
Hell knowing Saddam, the guys family would be running too.

Yeah, the guy would have been killed, and around a half dozen random by-standers would have been accused of conspiracy to throw a shoe and gotten show trials and long sentences. But that has nothing to do with anything, because no-one was throwing shoes at Saddam.

It isn't a nice thing, but more often than not it's better to have a tyrant with a stable power base than to have anarchy. Saddam was a tyrant, but everyone knew the rules and as long as no-one was threatening his power base people weren't being killed. Look at when he committed his murders, when first coming to power, during his major defeats in the Iran-Iraq war and after the ceasefire, and after the pasting in the first Gulf War.

Well, there were plenty of people who wanted Saddam dead. They probably would have thrown shoes at him too, if they weren't so scared of him.

I agree with you on the effect of the war though. There was less death going on when Saddam was in power.
Not that he's excused for his actions of course (he deserved to hang), but taking him out in the fashion we did wasn't a good idea at all.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Well, there were plenty of people who wanted Saddam dead. They probably would have thrown shoes at him too, if they weren't so scared of him.

They certainly would have thrown shoes at him if they weren't so afraid of him, but they knew what would happen so they didn't.

I agree with you on the effect of the war though. There was less death going on when Saddam was in power.
Not that he's excused for his actions of course (he deserved to hang), but taking him out in the fashion we did wasn't a good idea at all.

And that's it exactly. I'm not excusing Saddam for the things he did, but we shouldn't pretend things are better now because a guy won't be killed for throwing a shoe. They knew not to throw shoes, and they didn't. This was replaced with near anarchy, and lots of people died. This guy was angry about that.

sebster wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:Well, there were plenty of people who wanted Saddam dead. They probably would have thrown shoes at him too, if they weren't so scared of him.

They certainly would have thrown shoes at him if they weren't so afraid of him, but they knew what would happen so they didn't.

I agree with you on the effect of the war though. There was less death going on when Saddam was in power.
Not that he's excused for his actions of course (he deserved to hang), but taking him out in the fashion we did wasn't a good idea at all.

And that's it exactly. I'm not excusing Saddam for the things he did, but we shouldn't pretend things are better now because a guy won't be killed for throwing a shoe. They knew not to throw shoes, and they didn't. This was replaced with near anarchy, and lots of people died. This guy was angry about that.

But to say "Given no-one was killing anyone before Bush decided they had to invade" is so wrong it's not funny.

sebster wrote:

Frazzled wrote:What about attacking the guy who freed you from a dictator who put people into plastic chippers for fun?

How is that attack on Mugabe going, anyway?

Why don't you go over and find out for us?

Zathras wrote:But to say "Given no-one was killing anyone before Bush decided they had to invade" is so wrong it's not funny.

Except Saddam's last purge was in the wake of the first Gulf War. At the time Bush invaded there weren't killings, and hadn't been for a while before that.

Frazzled wrote:Why don't you go over and find out for us?

You're the one arguing for the violent overthrow of tyranical regimes, and if Hussein's Iraq qualified, why not Zimbabwe. What's the difference between the two?

I'm not. I'm for nuking them. Why don't you go?

EDIT: Tests to see if the ignore function works on Sebster.

Frazzled wrote:

sebster wrote:

Frazzled wrote:What about attacking the guy who freed you from a dictator who put people into plastic chippers for fun?

How is that attack on Mugabe going, anyway?

Why don't you go over and find out for us?

Weirdly, I was arranging a booking at work with a lady, who explained she could only do specific dates before Christmas, as her mother was flying *back* to Zimbabwe.

My initial response was 'Why? Why the hell would you want to go back there?'

I didn't ask it of course, that would be rude!

But I do think it's high time the West as a whole did something about Mugabe. He's stolen elections, tortured people (or at least authorised it for those pedants amongst us) and so on, and we do nothing. What message is that sending out?

That Zimbabwe sucks?

I'm tired of beng the policeman for the world. No more interventions, no more support, no more troops or nuclear shields unless US lives are threatened. Everyone hates us. Pull out and see what the world is like without the US saving the world's butt/being the imperialist dictator depending on your view point.

Thats the problem though.

If you are going to set yourself up as a world police, you have to enforce it everywhere, whereas historically, the US has always appeared to be highly selective, usually going in where Oil is involved.

And I was meaning the West as a whole, rather than just the US (I'll forgive you. All too often it is just the US that is accused )If we stopped just beating things up that offend us, and made positive steps forward, things in the world would change. Look at a China. They export their excess labour to the third world, where they help to build infrastructure, without a hefty bill. That is the way forward. Humanity is a single species, regardless of cast or creed, and it;s high time we started acting like one.

We also give billions upon billions in direct aid and aid to the horror that is the UN.

Unfortunately I don't know a great deal about the UN, so I shan't comment on that.

Frazzled wrote:That Zimbabwe sucks?

I'm tired of beng the policeman for the world. No more interventions, no more support, no more troops or nuclear shields unless US lives are threatened. Everyone hates us. Pull out and see what the world is like without the US saving the world's butt/being the imperialist dictator depending on your view point.

Except of course that much of the US' wealth is dependent on world trade and key resources around the world. Key locations like Panama, Iraq... I doubt your economic interests will let you keep up that policy.

It's also wrong to think everyone hates the US. You should read the Economist some time because they run that survey every year. Even at the height of Bush' international unpopularity the US as a whole received positive ratings

Frazzled wrote:I'm not. I'm for nuking them. Why don't you go?

Yes, they're so horrible and barbarous it'd be better if we did the civilised thing and killed them all.

EDIT: Tests to see if the ignore function works on Sebster.

Classy. I've never done anything but ask you to clarify points, but that's too hard for fraz, who'd rather spout his O'Reilly talking points and ignore any facts that get in the way. Pathetic, really.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Weirdly, I was arranging a booking at work with a lady, who explained she could only do specific dates before Christmas, as her mother was flying *back* to Zimbabwe.

My initial response was 'Why? Why the hell would you want to go back there?'

I didn't ask it of course, that would be rude!

But I do think it's high time the West as a whole did something about Mugabe. He's stolen elections, tortured people (or at least authorised it for those pedants amongst us) and so on, and we do nothing. What message is that sending out?

It's pretty hard though, logistically and politically, to do much of substance without South Africa. And South Africa's politics in the area have been odd. I think everyone assumed it was just Mbeki's closeness to Mugabe, but after he's left it doesn't seem like Motlanthe (sp?) is much different.

I agree something needs to be done, but I don't know what that should be.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Unfortunately I don't know a great deal about the UN, so I shan't comment on that.

Let me restate for clarity. I'm now all for charity. I'm all for the US working with other nations on regional issues. But I'm all about closing all the bases except for a few very strategic ones to project power, and bringing everyone home. I guess that could be called the Japan approach.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Unfortunately I don't know a great deal about the UN, so I shan't comment on that.

The UN is a big organisation, with some bloated and ineffectual parts that some people like to assume is the whole organisation. There are a lot of other elements that do thankless. But mostly people notice the complexity of international politics and the difficulty of peacekeeping missions, and assume these things aren't done perfectly because the UN is bad. Of course, when a nation goes it alone* in peacekeeping, like the US in Iraq they do as well or worse... because peacekeeping is really hard.

This criticism comes almost entirely from US conservatives. They don't like it because they really don't like it when the world passes a motion pointing out they did something that was wrong (or worse, something Israel did was wrong). They don't like government in general, and extend this on the UN (despite the UN not really operating like any other government). They don't like it because they like complaining about waste and assume they're paying for the UN (and while they're the major contributor, it's set on a GDP basis with a 22% cap on total contribution, and because the US is capped at 22% they're the only country paying a discounted rate). And they really hate the idea of an American being put in the Intl Court of Justice for warcrimes, because accountability is for other people.

And I'm not even that big a fan of the UN. I think it's model for allocating power (veto nations, other security council members, everyone else) is screwy to say the least. It's just that the 'I hates me the UN' approach you get from conservative Americans is so poorly thought out.



*Well, not exactly alone, as the overwhelming majority of a coalition.

The U.S. is in a catch-22. If we don't intervene, other countries say "why aren't you doing something!" If we intervene, countries say "mind your own business!" Regarding where we intervene, if we're going to commit U.S. resources and lives, there better damn well be a payoff for the U.S.

It's nice to think humanity could put aside petty differences and work together for higher ideals, but we just don't operate that way. Look at the financial crisis and "bailout" in the U.S. No one's to blame, but everyone apparently deserves a fat stack of dollar bills. It's equal parts pathetic and disgusting. If we ever learn the lessons about cooperation and sharing that we were supposed to learn in kindergarten, maybe we'll have a chance as a species.

P.S. Don't think for a minute that China's assistance for the third world doesn't come with a price tag. It's there.

Frazzled wrote:

sebster wrote:

How is that attack on Mugabe going, anyway?

Why don't you go over and find out for us?

Frazzled wrote:I'm not. I'm for nuking them. Why don't you go?

EDIT: Tests to see if the ignore function works on Sebster.

And this is appropriate behavior for a MOD in what way?

Frazzled wrote:We also give billions upon billions in direct aid and aid to the horror that is the UN.

The UN is something of a mess, but don't believe for a minute that anything can be gained by simply throwing it out the window. It doesn't bode well for confidence in either the legislature, or any other international treaty, when a nation so deeply ingrained in the system is so willing to flout it.

Frazzled wrote:
Let me restate for clarity. I'm now all for charity. I'm all for the US working with other nations on regional issues. But I'm all about closing all the bases except for a few very strategic ones to project power, and bringing everyone home. I guess that could be called the Japan approach.

We probably need to cut our global footprint by about 30%, and invest in rapid reaction technologies. The idea being to reduce the outlay for the maintenance of pre-positioned equipment, which is where the real expense of military deployment lies.

gorgon wrote:The U.S. is in a catch-22. If we don't intervene, other countries say "why aren't you doing something!" If we intervene, countries say "mind your own business!" Regarding where we intervene, if we're going to commit U.S. resources and lives, there better damn well be a payoff for the U.S.

That has been the approach for the last 30 years, and its a very good one. Though recently it has evolved from 'we are going to reserve judgment' into 'we don't care about the rest of the world with respect to our judgment'. Iraq could have waited, Saddam's government wasn't in danger of collapse; meaning the flow of oil was not impaired.

gorgon wrote:
It's nice to think humanity could put aside petty differences and work together for higher ideals, but we just don't operate that way. Look at the financial crisis and "bailout" in the U.S. No one's to blame, but everyone apparently deserves a fat stack of dollar bills. It's equal parts pathetic and disgusting. If we ever learn the lessons about cooperation and sharing that we were supposed to learn in kindergarten, maybe we'll have a chance as a species.

No one deserves a bailout in the conventional sense of the word. They're getting one not because of any individual merit, but because it is in the state's interest to sustain its populace. Either way, the UN isn't about higher ideals, it is about the appearance of higher ideals; which grants legitimacy. And legitimacy is everything in the international system.

gorgon wrote:
P.S. Don't think for a minute that China's assistance for the third world doesn't come with a price tag. It's there.

It will be down the line anyway. Basically they're employing the same strategy that the US did during the Cold War; aiding any given state on the sole standards of future investment returns. The idea being that if you're less demanding than your immediate rival you have a better chance of securing international support.

And this is appropriate behavior for a MOD in what way?

Edit: wait whats wrong with saying nuking dictators is a bad thing again?

The Ignore button works after all-excellent. Time to expand its healing balm.

Frazzled wrote:

And this is appropriate behavior for a MOD in what way?

The Ignore button works after all-excellent. Time to expand its healing balm.

I don't particularly care who you ignore, I care when you advocate a nuclear attack on a given nation and then ask someone to go to that nation.

Frazzled wrote:

And this is appropriate behavior for a MOD in what way?

The Ignore button works after all-excellent. Time to expand its healing balm.

No offence Frazzled, but from up here on the fence you're coming across as a little desperate. You know how to back up your comments with your debatable opinions, which makes it strange that you seem to be burying your head in the sand. It's obvious that advocating a nuclear strike on a country will raise some eyebrows, so don't convince yourself that heated counter arguments will come back to haunt you on this thread. Whilst it's forgivable to think that few, if any, natives of Zimbabwe are involved with GW, I'd steer clear of proposing genocide, however throwaway your comments might seem to you.
Stay open minded. Different opinions make this site colourful. Just appreciate that oranges aren't the only fruit.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

And this is appropriate behavior for a MOD in what way?

The Ignore button works after all-excellent. Time to expand its healing balm.

I don't particularly care who you ignore, I care when you advocate a nuclear attack on a given nation and then ask someone to go to that nation.

Ah, sorry thats not what I meant. I wish no harm to Seb. If Sebster wants to go fight the world's wars then he can volunteer. I have no desire to send my children or anyone else's children to fight in a foreign war unless we are threatened. I freely admit I've learned my lesson from Iraq.