Monday, December 15, 2008

What the "Shoe Throwing Incident" really means

Much is being made of an incident over the weekend where an Iraqi journalist threw his shoes at President George W. Bush. The touching of the soles of ones shoes to a person is considered a great insult in the Iraqi culture, and the journalist intended to condemn the poor job Bush has done in the war and the suggestion that Americans could be in the country for many years to come.'

The incident is being viewed by many as a repudiation of Bush and a major international incident. But it should be seen as what it truly is. A sign of a slowly maturing democracy, where people are confident enough in the protection of their freedom that they can protest without fear of reprisal. Do we think in the culture of Sadaam Hussein's Iraq that such a thing could happen without someone dying? Do we think it is even possible today in nearby friendly countries like Saudi Arabia? Nope. This is a sign that Iraqis - while upset at the situation in many ways - are confident that they have freedoms and that they will be protected. This is a good thing.


Free Downloads MP3 Songs said...

So Sad

BowHunter said...

We have SQUANDERED our blood and treasure in two ways.

1. inefficient management of resources leading to looting and ruin.

2. pouring our efforts into an ungrateful, toilet of a country.

This is what Bush will be remembered for. A total waste.

Nomad said...

Why is this sad? Again, it shows a people finally accepting that they are FREE FROM SHACKLES. They fear not reprisal from their government or from their fellow peoples. They can protest freely.

As to the Iraqis being ungrateful, (1) let's remember they did not invite us in, and (2) one idiot journalist does not the Iraqi people represent.

shadowmom1 said...

I totally disagree with BowHunter on this one. I think we did something noble and many that would have been murdered by Saddam are now alive. And I agree with Nomad about the state of freedon in Iraq. The shoe-thrower would have faced a much hasher end than being wrestled down by Secret Service agents.

Russell said...

Nobility should be saved for Relief organizations and NGO's. It should be clear by now that freeing Iraq was not in our "national interest" no matter what our intent was. This makes for poor foreign policy. I also don't see this as an act of freedom. This man is now in custody being questioned (more than fair for assaulting a head of state). I feel that this act represents a majority of sentiment that is more frustration acting out than freedom of expression. "Code Pink" acts out in this way because they are a minority and need a way to get their voices heard. Code Pink acts out of desperation and frustration. This journalist represents a frustrated people who can not express their view but through silly acts like this or in violence.

And just to state one more fact, the aforementioned journalist is now considered a national hero of the ungrateful nation. It is far from one man preforming one act.

Nomad said...

I go back and forth on the "national interest" issue. Basically, if it WAS in our national interest, it was because it directed all terrorist activity there... which means it probably was NOT a good thing for Iraq from that P.O.V.

One radio personality around here has a useful concept for this situation. Protest is to give those out of power the ability to communicate and influence those in power. It doesn't matter if those out of power are the majority or the minority. (Think South Africa under apartheid.) Right now, the reporter views all Iraqis are those OUT of power, and the USA as IN power.

I agree, the guy is a jerk and an idiot. Is anything more impotent then attacking a man whose power is already run down to nil? But let's not overwhelmed by a catchy video.

Anonymous said...

If I were in charge of Iraq, I would order every male to SHAVE, and take away their shoes, have them go BAREFOOT

BH said...

What does shaving have to do with the price of tea in China? The "shoe guy" didn't have a beard. (but I do)