The guy was a Muslim, insulting our President, and, by extension, America, in a very visible manner and demeaning manner in an Islamic Country.
It was not an occasion for lighthearted levity or a simple brush off as Bush attempted to portray it. It was a serious insult and was so interpreted by the Islamic masses who saw it and approved of it.
“The people who wound up in power have joined us in marginalizing the Sunni and Shia extremists.”
The term “extreme” is a relative one, particularly when referring to Muslims.
“Exactly. Our achievement is unprecedented. It shows how absurd the nay-sayers are who are still trying to claim that Iraq is a failure. And they are foolish enough to try to politicize a shoe thowing incident by a journalist as proof of their poorly thought out conclusion.”
Like I said, come back in ten years and if this is still a pro-American government (assuming it is a pro-American government NOW) and I'll concede the point.
“Of course not. You are in denial that Iraq is even a democratic state, despite the unanimous declaration of the P-5.”
Right. Democracies are based on certain principles concerning minority rights. If these are not followed, it isn't a Democracy, its government by a mob - which is the only one of three types of government in Islamic nations. The other two are anarchy and military dictatorship, all of them generally with theological overtones.
“The crimes you sight are not sanctioned by the democratically elected government and thus are nothing more than fallacious arguments.”
Hardly. A democratic government doesn't allow religious persecution of thousands of its citizens without stopping it. But then Islamic governments are notorious for looking the other way while Muslims beat up Christians, Jews and other non-Muslims - check out Iran, Pakistan and Egypt among many others.
“You adhere to cultural condescension.”
No. I adhere to cultural analysis and Democracy, in the sense that term is interpreted by the culture which created it, and its use in Islam, are totally incompatible.
“It didn’t get handed to the Iraqis. They fought against both al-Qaeda and Iranian backed militias who were attempting to undermine their democratic state. They joined efforts with coalition members to fight against these elements. We had foreign assistance in our struggle as well.”
I think it was more a case of spoon-feeding by the west to a group of primitives with absolutely no concept of what democracy means.
I don't like Muslims, I don't trust them and I don't trust Muslim governments. As a non-Muslim, the preponderance of the weight of historical evidence substantiates my views.
Where I part ways with Bush is where the battle to remove a dangerous dictator became an American crusade to experiment in nation building at great financial and personal cost to this country. It was a failure brought on by the neo-cons and their flawed view of Islam and Islamic society. Muslims aren't just like non-Muslims except for the name of their god, their holy book and they way they dress. They think and behave very differently than we do and are motivated by other goals than motivate us.
Time may prove me wrong and we may very see Iraq evolve into a useful ally in the battle against terror and militant Islam. But I think the weight of recent events and historical precedence weighs strongly against it.
We are in a war and the war is with Islam. Some individual Muslims may prove useful tools to us, as they always have in the past in struggles between Muslims and non-Muslims. But that usefulness is very qualified and limited to the time when they are personally benefiting from that relationship. Once that personal benefit ends, they will revert to the normal state of hostility with non-Muslims.
“The guy was a Muslim, insulting our President..”
And insulting his fellow Muslims who welcomed President Bush. Your attempt to demonize all Muslims using this clown has failed.
“It was not an occasion for lighthearted levity..”
You have already admitted you couldn’t come up with a better way for Bush to handle it.
“The term “extreme” is a relative one..”
The extremists are the ones who embrace the al-Qaeda radicals and Shia radicals like al-Sadr.
“Hardly.”
The government didn’t sanction crimes against Christains. Those are al-Qaeda and Iranian backed militias. They are the same groups that are at war with the coalition and the Iraqi security forces. Your argument is fallicious.
“and its use in Islam, are totally incompatible.”
Try telling that to the Turks. Your interpretation of what constitutes true Islam is no different than al-Qaeda’s interpretation.
“Where I part ways with Bush is where the battle to remove a dangerous dictator became an American crusade to experiment in nation building...”
You show no understanding of history. The objective all along was to foster a democratic Iraq. You would know this if you bothered to study the congressional legislation that authorized Operation Iraqi Freedom. You disregard these facts so you can run around spouting your ignorant ant-war nonsense and complaining about ‘neo-cons’. You’re no less ignorant than the far left and the isolationists who crowned Ron Paul as father of ‘true’ conservatism.
“It was a failure brought on by the neo-cons..”
Still desperately clinging onto the idea that Iraq is a failure, you run around posting statements worthy of the DU.
“We are in a war and the war is with Islam...”
What, then, should we do with the millions of Muslims who are American citizens and reside in America? Also, if we are at war with Islam, why do we have military bases thoughout the Muslim world, like Turkey, Bahrain, UAE, Kuwait, Iraq, Qatar, ect...?
You lefties and Paulbots declare that spreading democracy is an agenda of the ‘neocons’. Yet it has been our objective since the Atlantic Charter.
I am going to use your post against you. Anytime I see someone taking you seriously, I will notify them that you consider Iraq to be a ‘failure of the neo-cons’. And I have your post here to back up my accusation. You are just another person who opposes our mission in Iraq, since our objective was to implement democratic reform (if you bothered to read the legislation you would already know this). Whenever you claim that another peoples culture means they prefer dictatorship over democracy, you demonstrate cultural condescension.
[While we must be cautious about forcing the pace of change, we must not hesitate to declare our ultimate objectives and to take concrete actions to move toward them. We must be staunch in our conviction
that freedom is not the sole prerogative of a lucky few but the inalienable and universal right of all human beings. So states the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which, among other things, guarantees free elections. The objective I propose is quite simple to state: to foster the infrastructure of democracy, the system of a free press, unions, political parties, universities, which allows a people to choose
their own way to develop their own culture, to reconcile their own differences through peaceful means.
This is not cultural imperialism; it is providing the means for genuine self-determination and protection for diversity. Democracy already flourishes in countries with very different cultures and historical experiences. It would be cultural condescension, or worse, to say that any people prefer dictatorship to democracy. Who would voluntarily choose not to have the right to vote, decide to purchase government propaganda handouts instead of independent newspapers, prefer government to worker-controlled unions, opt for land to be owned by the state instead of those who till it, want government repression of religious liberty, a single political party
instead of a free choice, a rigid cultural orthodoxy instead of democratic tolerance and diversity.]- Ronald Reagan 1982