: President Bush attacked by shoes



gary88
12-14-08, 07:51 PM
Hey at least he ducked :thumbsup:

YouTube - Shoes Thrown at President Bush

93DevilleUSMC
12-14-08, 08:37 PM
This President is the only reason these ungrateful shits are even able to HAVE this press conference, and the one man throws a shoe at him? Maybe he'd like Saddam's torture rooms better?

Piss on him. I hope an EFP hits his Toyota pickup right in the fuel tank with driving while he's on the way back from planting IEDs.

hueterm
12-14-08, 08:55 PM
oh YEAH that ^^^

93DevilleUSMC
12-14-08, 08:58 PM
Darn right.

RightTurn
12-14-08, 11:24 PM
Ya know, I can't stand GWB...but that crap just PISSES ME OFF. :pms: I hope the secret service agents wrestled the shoes to the ground. :alchi:

hueterm
12-14-08, 11:36 PM
You gotta love W's reaction, w/a kind of grin as this fool keeps throwing shoes at him.

DopeStar 156
12-15-08, 12:24 AM
*Dies of laughter*

dirt_cheap_fleetwood
12-15-08, 02:16 AM
Wow, for being an old fart who chokes on pretzels he can move fast when he needs to!

Florian
12-15-08, 02:20 AM
great, now I cant wear shoes on an airplane.


F

Aron9000
12-15-08, 03:02 AM
Ya know, I can't stand GWB...but that crap just PISSES ME OFF. :pms: I hope the secret service agents wrestled the shoes to the ground. :alchi:

:werd: I hate W, but I'll at least show some respect to the office/position he is in. I might not like our president, but he is still our president. If I were in that same press conference with the president, I'd beat that son of a bitch until he was dead or somebody stopped me.

parexa
12-15-08, 03:03 AM
Glad the attacker didnt get shot

93DevilleUSMC
12-15-08, 04:19 AM
Glad the attacker didnt get shot

I would have felt little sympathy for him had he been, but throwing shoes at the President of the United States isn't an offense worthy of death; more like one worthy of the most near-death ass beating ever rendered.

93DevilleUSMC
12-15-08, 04:49 AM
And as for anyone in another country with simlar intentions to shoe-thrower, you just leave our business to us. Many in this country don't like our current President either, but we Americans can and do clean and maintain our own house. You outsiders best leave us the hell alone.

slk230mb
12-15-08, 10:26 AM
Say what you will about Bush but that first shoe dodge was pretty sick.. . And the guy who threw it looked like he had been training for a while or is just naturally gifted at throwing shoes.

EcSTSatic
12-15-08, 11:32 AM
Shades of Monty Python. President attacked by "killer rabbit (http://www.narsil.org/politics/carter/killer_rabbit.html)".

P-Funk
12-15-08, 12:06 PM
that first shoe dodge was pretty sick..

My first thoughts exactly.

The Tony Show
12-15-08, 12:47 PM
That guy who threw the shoe is a real heel.

"G$"
12-15-08, 01:44 PM
Say what you will about Bush but that first shoe dodge was pretty sick.. . And the guy who threw it looked like he had been training for a while or is just naturally gifted at throwing shoes.

Talk about the athleticism! Great Move. The Lions need to sign him to a running back contract.

Po Pimp
12-15-08, 01:53 PM
You outsiders best leave us the hell alone.

You think that might be what the shoe thrower was mad about to begin with?

Great move by Bush. The first good move he has made in years.

Ranger
12-15-08, 07:48 PM
I would have loved to have seen him pick it up and throw it back at him. :histeric:

dqw1
12-15-08, 09:53 PM
I'm not a Bush fan at all but it did piss me off that some idiot threw shoes at OUR President. I would never wish for any harm to come to him.

Destroyer
12-16-08, 12:23 AM
Damn shame the attacker missed. Seeing Bush get hit in the face by a shoe would have been classic!. I've got a pair of steel tipped work boots with his name written all over them...................

93DevilleUSMC
12-16-08, 01:17 AM
You think that might be what the shoe thrower was mad about to begin with?

Great move by Bush. The first good move he has made in years.

Perhaps the Hussein regime shouldn't have been stirring the pot in that region for nearly two decades and murdering thousands of it's own citizens. You think that might have been what Bush was mad about to begin with?

93DevilleUSMC
12-16-08, 01:19 AM
Damn shame the attacker missed. Seeing Bush get hit in the face by a shoe would have been classic!. I've got a pair of steel tipped work boots with his name written all over them...................

Haha! Destroyer's guy can't aim!

dirt_cheap_fleetwood
12-16-08, 02:51 AM
Damn shame the attacker missed. Seeing Bush get hit in the face by a shoe would have been classic!. I've got a pair of steel tipped work boots with his name written all over them...................

Although I do not like the though of our President being assaulted with a shoe, Destroyer has a point. Bush getting hit in the face would be epic. Imagine the number of SNL skits that would spawn from that.

Destroyer
12-16-08, 07:59 AM
Haha! Destroyer's guy can't aim!Actually I was quite impressed with the throws, I could NOT have done better. Even though he missed (barely), he made his point. I guess having a shoe thrown at you is a pretty serious insult in Iraq. Glad that isn't tradition here, imagine instead of someone 'flippin the bird or yelling obscenities they threw there shoes at you?. Ouch!

93DevilleUSMC
12-16-08, 08:49 AM
Actually I was quite impressed with the throws, I could NOT have done better. Even though he missed (barely), he made his point. I guess having a shoe thrown at you is a pretty serious insult in Iraq. Glad that isn't tradition here, imagine instead of someone 'flippin the bird or yelling obscenities they threw there shoes at you?. Ouch!

In downtown Atlanta, you'd start seeing shoeprints on a lot of cars.

blunted
12-16-08, 04:42 PM
Damn shame the attacker missed. Seeing Bush get hit in the face by a shoe would have been classic!. I've got a pair of steel tipped work boots with his name written all over them...................
:yeah:

It's sad how much harm Bush did to the worlds perception of the USA.. we USED to be respected. The only thing that surprises me is that this is the first time something like that happened to him. I kinda enjoyed it.. maybe it'll help him realize that his "leadership" is a joke and the rest of the world would love to punch him in the face.. or throw a shoe.

EcSTSatic
12-16-08, 05:11 PM
People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw shoes!

P-Funk
12-16-08, 05:15 PM
:yeah:

It's sad how much harm Bush did to the worlds perception of the USA.. we USED to be respected. The only thing that surprises me is that this is the first time something like that happened to him. I kinda enjoyed it.. maybe it'll help him realize that his "leadership" is a joke and the rest of the world would love to punch him in the face.. or throw a shoe.

It gets tiring hearing people say that Bush ruined the worlds perception of the USA. He didn't do anything to the worlds perception of the USA. He is their current "excuse" for hating America, but they always have had and always will have an "excuse" to hate us. Having grown up overseas in the 80's and 90's (Egypt and Indonesia), they did not respect us before he was president. They hate the fact that we are free, and that we are not Muslim (at least in those two countries) to name 2 of many reasons.

93DevilleUSMC
12-17-08, 12:50 AM
:yeah:

It's sad how much harm Bush did to the worlds perception of the USA.. we USED to be respected. The only thing that surprises me is that this is the first time something like that happened to him. I kinda enjoyed it.. maybe it'll help him realize that his "leadership" is a joke and the rest of the world would love to punch him in the face.. or throw a shoe.

Have you ever bothered studying the history of the Cold War and the Middle East, or do you just parrot liberal talking points? The current powers in Iran have hated us for at least thirty years, and the former regime in Iraq has hated us since we prevented them from controlling Kuwait.

blunted
12-17-08, 11:04 AM
Have you ever bothered studying the history of the Cold War and the Middle East, or do you just parrot liberal talking points? The current powers in Iran have hated us for at least thirty years, and the former regime in Iraq has hated us since we prevented them from controlling Kuwait.

Wow, thank you captain obvious. I never knew the Middle East didn't love us all these years and that there are countries that never did and never will like us. :rolleyes: You must be a conservative robot that voted for the guy the second go around.

When you have someone representing your country that time after time makes himself look like a bigger idiot than you thought possible, yet is still around 8 years later.. it does not make the USA look good.. in the eyes of the nations that didn't already hate us. Better?

Destroyer
12-17-08, 10:30 PM
It gets tiring hearing people say that Bush ruined the worlds perception of the USA. He didn't do anything to the worlds perception of the USA. He is their current "excuse" for hating America, but they always have had and always will have an "excuse" to hate us. Having grown up overseas in the 80's and 90's (Egypt and Indonesia), they did not respect us before he was president. They hate the fact that we are free, and that we are not Muslim (at least in those two countries) to name 2 of many reasons.Bush didn't help any, thats for damn sure. Hell over 70% of us Americans hate him as well. Have you no idea how much hell, both financially and against humanity this blubbering idiot has caused?. This guy is in his own little encapsulated world, him and Cheney. Bush took everything this country stood for and flushed it down the toilet. From torture to spying to bloody murder. The world see's us different and who can blame them? We voted this retard in twice!

Destroyer
12-17-08, 10:34 PM
The current powers in Iran have hated us for at least thirty years, and the former regime in Iraq has hated us since we prevented them from controlling Kuwait.Yes and the Bush administration fueled the fire. There was no reason to go to Iraq, NONE! There was no threat, only lies. What we do man? Invade and "liberate" every country that doesn't like us? Each time we do we create a dozen more that don't like us.

93DevilleUSMC
12-17-08, 10:43 PM
Wow, thank you captain obvious. I never knew the Middle East didn't love us all these years and that there are countries that never did and never will like us. :rolleyes: You must be a conservative robot that voted for the guy the second go around.

When you have someone representing your country that time after time makes himself look like a bigger idiot than you thought possible, yet is still around 8 years later.. it does not make the USA look good.. in the eyes of the nations that didn't already hate us. Better?

Actually, I am a conservative, but could not vote the second time due to a technicality involving being seventeen. And yes, Bush did make PR mistakes, but for the most part, not leadership ones.

93DevilleUSMC
12-17-08, 10:46 PM
Yes and the Bush administration fueled the fire. There was no reason to go to Iraq, NONE! There was no threat, only lies. What we do man? Invade and "liberate" every country that doesn't like us? Each time we do we create a dozen more that don't like us.

No, we can't invade countries just on basis of disagreement, but neither can we leave in place regimes that spend fourteen years murdering their own citizens with chemical weapons, thumbing their nose at the United Nations despite their own agreement to do otherwise, and threatening to make further use of WMDs to achieve hegemony.

Destroyer
12-17-08, 10:51 PM
No, we can't invade countries just on basis of disagreement, but neither can we leave in place regimes that spend fourteen years murdering their own citizens with chemical weapons, thumbing their nose at the United Nations despite their own agreement to do otherwise, and threatening to make further use of WMDs to achieve hegemony.How many thousands of Americans died in Iraq? Better yet, how many hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's did WE kill? You call that "liberation"? Things are different in the middle east, it's none of our business. We didn't go there because of "rape rooms" or because Hussein used chemical weapons, we went there cause he was gonna drop a nuke on us and because he was somehow intertwined with Al Queda (which btw he despised) and 9/11. All BS!

93DevilleUSMC
12-17-08, 11:01 PM
How many thousands of Americans died in Iraq? Better yet, how many hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's did WE kill? You call that "liberation"? Things are different in the middle east, it's none of our business. We didn't go there because of "rape rooms" or because Hussein used chemical weapons, we went there cause he was gonna drop a nuke on us and because he was somehow intertwined with Al Queda (which btw he despised) and 9/11. All BS!

We didn't kill hundreds of thousands of them. That number did die, but the insurgency was responsible for a large part of that, as was accidental shootings committed by both sides, with further casualties attributable to combat engagements. Now, as far as WMD, Saddam played us. His own generals didn't know about the WMD hoax until a December 2002 meeting. His own military had made extensive preparations to fight in a bio/chem environment. I'll cite the sources later in a PM if you want.

Ever heard of Ansar al-Islam? These guys were an al-Queda splinter group prior to the war, and after major combat operations, this group became Al-Queda in Iraq. In both incarnations, they were a semi-autonomous al-Queda subgroup, supported sometimes openly, sometimes tacitly, by bin Laden. They were allowed to operate a training camp in Northern Iraq. Read a book called Masters of Chaos sometime.

And over 4,000 Americans have died in or because of Iraq. Welcome to war.

Destroyer
12-18-08, 12:28 AM
We didn't kill hundreds of thousands of them. That number did die, but the insurgency was responsible for a large part of that, as was accidental shootings committed by both sides, with further casualties attributable to combat engagements. Now, as far as WMD, Saddam played us. His own generals didn't know about the WMD hoax until a December 2002 meeting. His own military had made extensive preparations to fight in a bio/chem environment.Regardless, there would be hundreds of thousands more people alive if we didn't go there. I knew it was BS from the start, others that have more than 1 functioning brain cell knew as well. Hans Blix and the inspectors found NOTHING!, not a damn thing before the war. As a matter of fact Hussein let them in and Bush didn't like that one bit and before you knew it "Shock and Awe" was in effect.

Ever heard of Ansar al-Islam? These guys were an al-Queda splinter group prior to the war, and after major combat operations, this group became Al-Queda in Iraq. In both incarnations, they were a semi-autonomous al-Queda subgroup, supported sometimes openly, sometimes tacitly, by bin Laden. They were allowed to operate a training camp in Northern Iraq. Read a book called Masters of Chaos sometime.Hussein and Al Queda were not one in the same. Hussein was against Al Queda and despised them. Our military should be more upset than I am. Regardless, Bin Laden: Afghanistan, how the f**k did wind up in Iraq? Bin Laden's and Bush's were bedding for many years. Iraq was a diversion and planned before 9/11.


And over 4,000 Americans have died in or because of Iraq. Welcome to war.A war based on lies? Tell me something, how would you feel if some country pre-emptively invaded us because some guy in another country flew a couple of air planes into a couple of buildings?. How would you feel if these "invaders" killed your way of life, your relatives and livelihood? Wouldn't like it would you? This is what we did. The military as noble as they may be did this under the orders of our Commander in Chief George W. Bush. May he rot in HELL!!

93DevilleUSMC
12-18-08, 04:30 AM
Hans Blix found nothing because what was already there had likely been destroyed or moved years prior. The only accounting Hussein gave as requested by the U/N. was a long-discredited document.

They didn't have to be. They both have strategic aims of attacking the United States and it's allies and interests, and had collaborated on doing this.

No, bin Laden and the Bushes were not bedding for years. Cut the Michael Moore bull shit.

Let's see, my country doesn't go around sponsoring mass murder. And no, Iraq was not mass murder. Iraq was conventional war, then counterinsurgency and nation-building.

Po Pimp
12-18-08, 05:55 AM
How would you feel if these "invaders" killed your way of life, your relatives and livelihood?

This seems to be the ultimate failure in the region over all these years. Kids coming up seeing people they know getting killed, their lives changed by groups of people that do not fully understand and a lot of the times are not even their neighbors (close countries). While most of these people grow into adults and never act on their hate it passes to the next generation. The ones that do act on their hate feel vindicated in their actions because of group sentiments towards the other group. A hard cycle to stop. People want instant results and fail to see the big picture.

I doubt that us invading Iraq can be successful because nothing we are doing so far addresses this underlying problem.

I personally think going into Iraq was a ridiculous decision. There was nothing in it for the U.S.A. Saddam never posed a true threat to America only his region. The irony being this fear of Saddam actually stabilized the region as a whole. I don't think he ever had any real WMD. Even if he had a nuke he did not have the capability of delivering to America. The policies we had where keeping him in check and weakening his forces.

That being said it is to late to stop it. I think what we really need to be concerned with is what is going to happen when we leave. Iran did support us at first when we said we where going in there (at least until Bush called the evildoers, terrorist and the AXIS of evil). They had always feared Saddam and he was the main reason they stayed as quite as they did over the years. With him out and us out it will be interesting to see if they don't try to infiltrate the government and take over during an election.

Destroyer
12-18-08, 07:21 AM
Hans Blix found nothing because what was already there had likely been destroyed or moved years prior. The only accounting Hussein gave as requested by the U/N. was a long-discredited document. If he found nothing and we still attacked, why was he sent their in the first place? Whatever Hussein once had was given or sold to him by the USA



No, bin Laden and the Bushes were not bedding for years. Cut the Michael Moore bull shit.
YouTube - Carlyle Group - Bush connection to Bin Laden


Let's see, my country doesn't go around sponsoring mass murder. And no, Iraq was not mass murder. Iraq was conventional war, then counterinsurgency and nation-building.Conventional war is anything you think it is. Your definition helps eliminate guilt.

billc83
12-18-08, 08:14 AM
I'm surprised no one brought this up, but my first thought when seeing the initial video was the line from Austin Powers: "Honestly, who throws a shoe?"

P-Funk
12-18-08, 11:39 AM
Regardless, there would be hundreds of thousands more people alive if we didn't go there.

That's not necessarily true. Maybe some of those hundreds of thousands would be alive, but not all of them as Saddam and his groupies weren't hesitant to get rid of people.



Tell me something, how would you feel if some country pre-emptively invaded us because some guy in another country flew a couple of air planes into a couple of buildings?. How would you feel if these "invaders" killed your way of life, your relatives and livelihood? Wouldn't like it would you? This is what we did. The military as noble as they may be did this under the orders of our Commander in Chief George W. Bush. May he rot in HELL!!

We did not pre-emptively invade Iraq. The first Gulf war was never officially ened. There was a cease-fire which persisted as long as both sides adhered to the agreement. Iraq never followed the mandates put forth (open access to their records and free access to all of their weapons facilities, etc.) and so the cease fire ended. It could have been avoided had Saddam followed the rules and he was given many opportunities and warnings.

Po Pimp
12-18-08, 06:43 PM
There was no real peace agreement ever reached. The UN proposed several things to Saddam that where rejected. He finally agreed to a proposal that came from Russia and then the UN rejected that. They finally agreed that if the IRG retreated from Kuwait in 24 hours that they would not be attacked and they did so. The CIA then used pressure in the north and south of Iraq to potentially ignite a civil war that would over throw Saddam from power this failed. Some might say sponsoring terrorist. All UN agreements where reached after the fact. Most where set-up to help the Iraqi people. Oil for food. Saddam did agree with some conditions in order to keep his country and ultimately his power alive. None of which said that force would be used if Iraq was incooperative rather that stricter sanctions would be imposed.

Also important to remember that this was not technically a war. It was an operation overseen by the United Nations.

Saddam did have some reasons for why he invaded Kuwait in the first place. All stemmed from borders created in 1899 in which Iraq never agreed to. After falling on hard economic times from being at war with Iran from 80-88' (real persain gulf war) and dealing with terrorist build up in the North (usually where you hear these genecide claims took place). Saddam asked outside countries to rule in where the borders actually were. Of course this was a ploy by Saddam as there was oil in Kuwait that would solve most of the economic problems the country was experiencing and they did have a real claim (kind of 100 years after the fact, convenient). The US was sited as saying middle eastern borders where not there problem. So Iraq invaded. The real problem with this is that they where moving into Saudi Arabia, very close to the huge oil fields that exist in the southern part of the country. Had they truely invaded Saudi Arabia they would own almost all the oil fields in the world and most likely been able to take over the whole region.

I will leave on a comments made by Dick Cheney made in 1992 when asked how he felt about not going into Iraq to take Saddam out of power.

"I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We would be running the country. We would not be able to get everybody out and bring everybody home. And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional US casualties, while everyone was tremedously impressed with the low cost of the conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war. And the question in my mind is, how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth? And the answer is, no to damned many."

He goes on to agree with the president decision to pull out forces and not get draw into other countries' problems. I guess he changed his mind.

93DevilleUSMC
12-18-08, 08:38 PM
This seems to be the ultimate failure in the region over all these years. Kids coming up seeing people they know getting killed, their lives changed by groups of people that do not fully understand and a lot of the times are not even their neighbors (close countries). While most of these people grow into adults and never act on their hate it passes to the next generation. The ones that do act on their hate feel vindicated in their actions because of group sentiments towards the other group. A hard cycle to stop. People want instant results and fail to see the big picture.

I doubt that us invading Iraq can be successful because nothing we are doing so far addresses this underlying problem.

I personally think going into Iraq was a ridiculous decision. There was nothing in it for the U.S.A. Saddam never posed a true threat to America only his region. The irony being this fear of Saddam actually stabilized the region as a whole. I don't think he ever had any real WMD. Even if he had a nuke he did not have the capability of delivering to America. The policies we had where keeping him in check and weakening his forces.

That being said it is to late to stop it. I think what we really need to be concerned with is what is going to happen when we leave. Iran did support us at first when we said we where going in there (at least until Bush called the evildoers, terrorist and the AXIS of evil). They had always feared Saddam and he was the main reason they stayed as quite as they did over the years. With him out and us out it will be interesting to see if they don't try to infiltrate the government and take over during an election.

I note that you mention Iran supporting us in the beginning. That may well be because they knew an insurgency would pop up in that place, and that they would be able to exploit them and gain a major foothold in a destabilized Iraq. Note that in 2007, four Iranian generals were captured in Iraq by the U.S. Army. These generals were members of the Iranian Army's Qods Force, a unit tasked with fomenting Islamic insurgencies all over the globe. Iran has also supplied groups like Hamas with anti-ship missiles which were used against Israeli vessels in 2007.

Iran has a huge stake in this whole matter.

93DevilleUSMC
12-18-08, 08:42 PM
If he found nothing and we still attacked, why was he sent their in the first place? Whatever Hussein once had was given or sold to him by the USA



YouTube - Carlyle Group - Bush connection to Bin Laden (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_qBtOGnAAo)

Conventional war is anything you think it is. Your definition helps eliminate guilt.

We were allied with him once against Iran. That was thirty years ago. Obviously, the situation with that country had change drastically.

Bush's family worked with the bin Laden family through the carlysle group, but not with bin Laden himself. Osama has been an outcast from the family since about the early 1990s.

Po Pimp
12-19-08, 12:28 AM
Of course Iran supported Saddam being ousted from power. They fought for 8 years. They have remained rather calm in the region because of Saddam.

Either Iran puts puppet figures in the Iraqi government or the Iraqi people elect another member of the Ba'th party. Either way it seems as though this is a losing battle. We have to leave sometime. All of this was foreseeable. That is why most people with some understanding of the region where against invading the country to begin with. At least with Saddam you knew what to expect.

Destroyer
12-19-08, 01:26 AM
Of course Iran supported Saddam being ousted from power. They fought for 8 years. They have remained rather calm in the region because of Saddam.

Either Iran puts puppet figures in the Iraqi government or the Iraqi people elect another member of the Ba'th party. Either way it seems as though this is a losing battle. We have to leave sometime. All of this was foreseeable. That is why most people with some understanding of the region where against invading the country to begin with. At least with Saddam you knew what to expect.Exactly! What nobody understands is that he was a necessary evil (evil to us). Things are different in that region. Just look at the hell that broke loose since we did our "thing". As bad as he was, Sadam brought stability through fear. This is how the people of that region respond. This is a region where it's acceptable for a female to be stoned to death for committing adultery................I kinda like that rule but still...............

93DevilleUSMC
12-19-08, 04:00 AM
Of course Iran supported Saddam being ousted from power. They fought for 8 years. They have remained rather calm in the region because of Saddam.

Either Iran puts puppet figures in the Iraqi government or the Iraqi people elect another member of the Ba'th party. Either way it seems as though this is a losing battle. We have to leave sometime. All of this was foreseeable. That is why most people with some understanding of the region where against invading the country to begin with. At least with Saddam you knew what to expect.

The problem is that with a stable Iraqi government and effective Iraqi military, Iran has no ability to indirectly influence Iraqi affairs. Iran may try war, but would run too high a risk of being attacked by a U.S.-led coalition.

93DevilleUSMC
12-19-08, 04:04 AM
Exactly! What nobody understands is that he was a necessary evil (evil to us). Things are different in that region. Just look at the hell that broke loose since we did our "thing". As bad as he was, Sadam brought stability through fear. This is how the people of that region respond. This is a region where it's acceptable for a female to be stoned to death for committing adultery................I kinda like that rule but still...............

Great, just great. You're saying that we should have allowed U.S. policy in the most volatile region of the planet to depend largely on the mental stability of a guy who envisioned himself as the modern Nebuchadnezzar and had statues of himself built all over Baghdad.

Po Pimp
12-19-08, 05:39 PM
The problem is that with a stable Iraqi government and effective Iraqi military, Iran has no ability to indirectly influence Iraqi affairs. Iran may try war, but would run too high a risk of being attacked by a U.S.-led coalition.

How stable could they be? "It only takes one bullet to start a revolution." Now a days that saying has multiple means from anything to a suicide bomber to a highjacked plane. These moves fall under "bait techniques". By doing things like this you force them into a situation where you will have the upper hand. Murder, mayhem and confusion are good ways to move in a puppet government or a dictator. They tend to present themselves as a means to end the violence and an easy way out. Several countries governments have failed to this strategy. Iran has always had sympathizers in the north of the country. Now even if they do little it could potentially lead the Iraqi people into electing the Ba'th party back in for protection. That is partly how Saddam came to power in the first place.

93DevilleUSMC
12-20-08, 05:57 AM
How stable could they be? "It only takes one bullet to start a revolution." Now a days that saying has multiple means from anything to a suicide bomber to a highjacked plane. These moves fall under "bait techniques". By doing things like this you force them into a situation where you will have the upper hand. Murder, mayhem and confusion are good ways to move in a puppet government or a dictator. They tend to present themselves as a means to end the violence and an easy way out. Several countries governments have failed to this strategy. Iran has always had sympathizers in the north of the country. Now even if they do little it could potentially lead the Iraqi people into electing the Ba'th party back in for protection. That is partly how Saddam came to power in the first place.

I definitely agree with you that stability in the new Iraq is going to be a constant uncertainty, but where we disagree here is that I think it is a tolerable uncertainty with potential for great rewards if it succeeds. The Hussein regime, on the other hand, had evolved into an intolerable certainty. The United States should fill the role of stabilizing influence to the Iraqi people, if for no other reason than, like you said, preventing the Ba`athist from doing so.