3m-high tribute to Iraqi journalist who threw his shoes at Bush

Delvis · 30 Jan 2009 at 12:57

aayzof said:
Did you watch Bush's final address? "Not having weapons of mass destruction was a significant disappointment," spoken by the man himself.

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE50B5TA20090112

they haven't found them, it's the same outcome.

And no I didn't watch it, why would I.

Delvis · 30 Jan 2009 at 12:58

Von Smallhausen said:
It is a protest and a huge two fingers to GWB.

He is immensley unpopular both in the USA and abroad and that is their way of saying up yours even though he missed as Neo Bush reacted.

As for Obama .... he would have caught them and thrown them back with a stern warning.

Heh, that would have been amusing

Col_M · 30 Jan 2009 at 12:58

When I saw "3m" in the title I did wonder why a chemical company would pay tribute to a guy who threw his shoes at Bush. Made sense when I read the article though

aayzof · 30 Jan 2009 at 13:00

Delvis · 30 Jan 2009 at 13:03

aayzof said:
What do you mean, 'it's the same outcome'? Are you implying that there are still untold caches of WMD's just waiting for an American Marine to stumble upon? Or perhaps they did exist, and were quickly transported out of the country to those friendly neighbour states of Iran, Syria and Turkey?!

You pretty much answered it yourself.

It was a conspiracy at the end of the day.

aayzof · 30 Jan 2009 at 13:09

wordy · 30 Jan 2009 at 13:14

I think something good has come out of the Iraq war, now people have sufficient freedom to protest and allowed to build momuments to those who protest against the countries rulers. Imagine what would've happened if someone thre a shoe at Saddam Hussien? that person and his entire family would've been killed.

Delvis · 30 Jan 2009 at 13:17

aayzof said:
Are you implying it was a conspiracy on the part of the US and UK Intelligence circles in order to fabricate a fictional pre-text for the invasion. Or that there is some sort of Middle Eastern conspiracy to hide the WMD's?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

Fictional pre-text?

People believe they where harboring something that is not allowed in todays world.

aayzof · 30 Jan 2009 at 13:19

DominicStar · 30 Jan 2009 at 13:20

Delvis said:
So why did they invade Iraq then?

Oil. (Illegally) Sell off over 400 of Iraqs top companies to US and allied countries. To prove Bush could outdo his dad. All sorts really.

Delvis · 30 Jan 2009 at 13:21

aayzof said:
I know what a conspiracy is. I was just confused by your comment, "It was a conspiracy at the end of the day." Do you think it was a US conspiracy or a Middle Eastern one?

Why would it be a middle eastern conspiracy?

The US (Whoever that entails) believed they had a group / party / several members who had WMD.

That's what I implied.

aayzof · 30 Jan 2009 at 13:28

Delvis · 30 Jan 2009 at 13:43

aayzof said:
Haha, I'm lost! I said there aren't andy WMD's and you said, "Rite...And you know for a fact there aren't any? Or they haven't been transported etc."

I said that, because do YOU know there aren't any? We could have some for all we know

aayzof said:
So I questioned how on earth they could have been transported. You then said it's all pretty much a conspiracy, and I wondered whether you thought it was a US conspiracy to fabricate evidence as a pre-text for war, or a Middle Eastern collaboration to hide the weapons.

Yeah...it was a conspiracy, they thought there was a group committing wrong doings...So they delved into that and acted upon what they thought was right...Which, as it pans out, was incorrect because they haven't found anything.

aayzof said:
Now you're saying that the US believed that the state had WMD's and acted on this. That is not a conspiracy, just poor intelligence gathering and policy making. DO you believe it was a genuine mistake on the part of the Bush administration, which acted on (wrong) intelligence provided by the CIA, SIS and other sources (not a conspiracy) - or that the Bush adminstration actively worked with the intelligence agencies to deceive the US public and international opinion (a conspiracy)?

See..I said they 'believed' because that is the same as a conspiracy...Believing that one country has something they shouldn't have, turns into a conspiracy.

I don't know or care, if it was the bush administration making a conspiracy for the general public to believe what they want, or if they acted on wrongful intelligence.

gillywibble · 30 Jan 2009 at 13:44

It's a terrible statue.

slambo69 · 30 Jan 2009 at 13:53

Surely you agree that it was a good thing giving saddam the boot though?

Delvis · 30 Jan 2009 at 13:55

He got a bit more than the boot

aayzof · 30 Jan 2009 at 13:55

NeilF · 30 Jan 2009 at 13:56

slambo69 said:
Surely you agree that it was a good thing giving saddam the boot though?

Depends on the cost? You may find that someone like that is required in that country (at the moment) to keep it stable...

With figures ranging upto hundreds of thousands of people dead due to the invasion, and many people finding day to day life harder than before, you have to wonder for the common Iraqi if was a 'good thing'...

Let's see where the country is in 3-4 years before making that final judgement...

DampCat · 30 Jan 2009 at 14:04

Tute said:
I don't understand - they're criticising GWB for using violence yet spending time and money erecting a statue condoning it?

McDaniel said:
Because he threw a shoe! How is that not violent?

jrodga2k5 said:
How is it not?

OK I'll throw a shoe at you and you can see if you think its violent!

Because throwing your shoes at someone in their culture is not a symbol of violence, merely of degredation. Since the statue is in their culture, then it's not condoning what you would like to believe.

Delvis · 30 Jan 2009 at 14:04

aayzof said:
Bra, that isn't a conspiracy?

We DO have WMD's - Trident?!

It started off as a conspiracy....read the link again.

Ugh, not ones like they thought Saddam etc had.

Every mass country has WMD's, they're not exactly going to leave them in plain open view