Pages: 1 2 3 4

 

2009-03-15 17:59:02
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6832|Global Command

Braddock wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Braddock wrote:

I don't get it... if you start a huge, bloody war on bogus grounds resulting in the deaths of thousands upon thousands of people and the destruction of countless lives you get to retire and enjoy a sideline in after-dinner speaking but if you miss someone with your shoes you get three years?
I don't really know what to tell you since I disagree with you on the War.  Bush did his job.  Saddam is gone.  Iraq can begin its rebuilding.

The shoe chucker assaulted a foreign leader.  Three years is a joke.  I'd have given him at least 5.
Two points...

One... Bush didn't do his job. I thought preemptive military action was only permitted in the case of a clear and present danger to the security of the United States of America? Iraq couldn't have run a piss-up in a brewery under Saddam never mind pose a "clear and present danger" to a country that lies half the planet away. Bush failed miserably in his role as President by leading the nation into war on the back of egregious military intelligence and then tried shifting the goalposts halfway through the war to deflect attention away from the fact that he violated US law.

Two... the show thrower didn't assault a foreign leader, he missed - at best it would have been attempted assault. Five years? I'd have bought him a pint.
Isn't " clear and present danger " matter of interpretation?

The danger was that he would give wmd's to OBL types.



All being said, this man should not be in jail.

But if it had been Saddam him and maybe his whole clan would be killed most barbarically.




Says much, no?
2009-03-15 18:33:59
Reciprocity
Member
+721|6883|the dank(super) side of Oregon

ATG wrote:

But if it had been Saddam him and maybe his whole clan would be killed most barbarically.
as would currently happen in dozens of other naughty leaders.  we aren't clamouring for their heads.  I understand what your suggesting, but the "rape room arguement" is nothing but an after-the-fact convenience.
2009-03-15 19:09:36
Deadmonkiefart
Floccinaucinihilipilificator
+177|7009
First of all, this is Iraq we're talking about, not America.  This is not even a normal case of assault and attempted battery.  The man threw a shoe at him, which probably illegal in and of itself.  In addition to that he assaulted a foreign leader on an official visit, which is an especially bad crime.  I don't know what he was thinking when he tried to plead innocent, with probably several dozen witnesses and video evidence.  I do not find this story pathetic.  Rather, I find your rantings pathetic.
2009-03-15 21:22:14
Vax
Member
+42|6155|Flyover country

Braddock wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Braddock wrote:

I don't get it... if you start a huge, bloody war on bogus grounds resulting in the deaths of thousands upon thousands of people and the destruction of countless lives you get to retire and enjoy a sideline in after-dinner speaking but if you miss someone with your shoes you get three years?
I don't really know what to tell you since I disagree with you on the War.  Bush did his job.  Saddam is gone.  Iraq can begin its rebuilding.

The shoe chucker assaulted a foreign leader.  Three years is a joke.  I'd have given him at least 5.
Two points...

One... Bush didn't do his job. I thought preemptive military action was only permitted in the case of a clear and present danger to the security of the United States of America? Iraq couldn't have run a piss-up in a brewery under Saddam never mind pose a "clear and present danger" to a country that lies half the planet away. Bush failed miserably in his role as President by leading the nation into war on the back of egregious military intelligence and then tried shifting the goalposts halfway through the war to deflect attention away from the fact that he violated US law.

Two... the show thrower didn't assault a foreign leader, he missed - at best it would have been attempted assault. Five years? I'd have bought him a pint.
1\ Saddam was not portrayed as a direct threat to the US himself...it was what he (supposedly) had, and I admit it seems they got that totally wrong, and fell victim to their own spin/groupthink.... which is in itself, not acceptable of our gov't or intel agencies and anyone we trust to make these decisions. We ought not forget that, and should take steps to make sure it does not happen again. However I don't know if i agree that they ( the admin) really "shifted the goalposts" , i'm thinking all the reasons they gave for the war were given up front 

2\ Not sure if that matters. If I went to a speech given by a congressman or a governor (or the president) here in the states, and had a press pass that allowed me to be right in front, and then suddenly threw (pretty accurately: ) my shoes at his head, I think i'd get charged with something more than attempted assault. Is it only "attempted" because bush dodged his shot ? i don't know. But it apparently made Maliki mad, and he's thier PM now. 
Who knows, maybe he will get a pardon later, but one can hardly argue that his getting thrown in jail has anything to do with Bush, as he's out and was out when the iraqi gov't sentenced the guy, so this was a decision made by the iraqi legal system.
2009-03-15 21:25:52
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7064

FEOS wrote:

So if you chucked something at a visiting head of state in Ireland, you wouldn't do any jail time?
depends on what the new IRA says...

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard