The Implications Of "Shoegate" - Above Politics 45

Martin ducks as Homer throws a shoe at him, and then talk about the implications of "shoegate". We dissect the recent directive from Robert Gates to plan to close Guantanamo Bay and Homer and Martin debate the rights to be subject to US laws.

The prospect of a bailout of Jaguar is contemplated and a thread by Marked One is highlighted.

Martin laments the refusal of the European Central Bank for an interview and Homer has just a tough time getting a comment out of Honda and Toyota on the bailout of the big 3 US auto makers.

And a rant from Homer to end.




length: 29:49
file: atsmix_3175.mp3
size: 10488k
feed: atsmix

International Reporters wanted for The Above Politics Show thread

The Above Politics Show Web Site


[edit on 12/21/2008 by Dave Rabbit]

I can not say I am surprised at President Bush's attitude, and I would disagree with Homer view on why Bush is glossing this over. The rest of the world understand this and the insult given to Bush.

On Jaguar, I would have to say over my dead body should the UK tax payer give any money. A loan, maybe with terms that Tata would have to increase the number of jobs at Jaguar/Land Rover.

Shoe Gate was a non event in the context that it should be viewed in . People don't seem to grasp that in that region of the world extremists are willing to kill others and themselves on the basis of religious / ethnic differences a moderate throwing a pair of shoes is nothing . Also under Saddam the journalist wouldn't have had the right to voice such an opinion. As other smart posters have pointed out the only disturbing thing was that the Secret Service was so far off the ball .

Although I oppose the use of torture I agree in principle with Homer concerning the closure of Guantanamo Bay .

reply to post by xpert11

---

That's a very Western view, xpert11 and fails to understand the insult and the very fact that the media is attending to "hush" this up, just adds more fuel to the fire. This lack of understanding of this culture just shows how far we still have to come, and until we can understand other cultures, we are not much better than savages.

reply to post by ATSMIX

---

Was it me or did anyone else notice how Bush seemed to be a pro at dodging the shoes being thrown.Could this possibly have occured before.....I wonder if Laura Bush maybe schooled him on how to dodge shoes being thrown at him.I gotta give him credit,hes quick on his feet!Oh By the way to the Saudi businessman thats offered $10 mil for one of the shoes.I got an old pair of Reboks that I once threw at the neighbors dog,you can have both for $1mil!

Not necessary the western or even modern view view is that violence doesnt solve anything . Note I am not saying that I disagree with such a notion . Sure the Iraqi journalist set out to insult Bush but had there been grenades in those shoes we would be dealing with a very differnt story . Bush reacted in the right way had he displayed what you are asking for perhaps he could have demanded that he had the right to do the same in return .

Sure I can understand those in the ME who aren't fans of Bush would have lapped up what happened and the same goes for a lot of his detractors elsewhere in the world . Myself I have found that some of Bush detractors will disagree with him just for the sake of doing so . If Bush said that the Earth was flat some would disagree with him and dig up so called evidence from crack pot websites to make there case .

I wanted to drop you a line to disagree a little with your points on Gitmo.

Some of it I agree with, if these people have been caught on the battlefield, then they should be locked up.

However, my agreement stops there pretty much, they are humans too like the rest of us.

They should not have to endure waterboarding, or the other things. Although there is still disagreement as to whether that constitutes 'torture', it's pretty clear that it's not a nice thing to happen to someone. They should get the same respect they would get in the USA prison system, not much, but the very basics.

The people at gitmo should get some form of trial, so far very few have been able to get the 'slightly' biased military panel type tribunal, let alone the type of trial we would demand for our own people. After all, one of the big aims of the war is 'democracy building', and part of that is having fair systems in place for all people.

Once they have been found guilty under a fair trial of being guilty of these crimes, then fine, lock them up for life, and perhaps execute the worst of them (I disagree with the death penalty myself, but I know enough people like it that it remains in law, so I have to accept that).

The problems at gitmo undermine quite seriously the efforts the USA makes at spreading democracy and being the worlds policeman. Nobody likes a hypocrite or a corrupt cop.

Your statements about people being critics of the war, that because they have not having served, their view is invalid, are also quite pointless, if we look at the people who started the war, a great number of those have never served also, should we treat their views as invalid? (I'm talking about the numerous 'chickenhawks' in the administration here.)

If we take that viewpoint out logically, you are essentially saying that nobody without detailed knowledge and deep personal experience of a subject, can ever discuss that subject. If this were truly the case, I dare say that you would not have your radio show, or at least it would be cut down by a large amount.

reply to post by ATSMIX

---

YouTube Link

www.sockandawe.com...

"So what if a guy threw a shoe at me."
George W. Bush

[edit on 23-12-2008 by truthquest]

reply to post by xpert11

---

Yeah, the secret service appeared to have dropped the ball. still I figure they were patting people down and if all you can chuck is a shoe than shoes off at that SOB Bush. they might have even searched inside of the shoes of some people. but to consider a shoe a weapon.

I picture Bush with that smirk on his face, saying to his wife, "see honey, its kinda like dodgeball, except Daddy didn't hire everyone in the gym to stand there and take it like when I was a kid.

I hate Bush. I'm counting down the days until we can see some "Change in America" if this new prez isn't a puppet of the corporations then let freedom ring and God Bless America.

reply to post by xpert11

---

Greetings.......The shoe incident was nothing more than a lack of gratitude on behalf of a group of people that if they tried throwing a shoe at Saddam,they would dead....My interest in their culture is equal to their interest in mine....

reply to post by theodorej

---

And why do the Iraqi people need to be grateful? We did invade their country because of the threat of WMDs.

reply to post by Freedom ERP

---

WMD's thats good. So did we ever find them?

Let's see, Saddam Hussein used to be our bestest buddy back in the day, well that is till Iran Contra. Kinda ticked him off that we started selling guns to his enemy Iran. But what are ya gonna do right? Gotta get those hostages out.

So our diplomatic relationship with this thug (our thug) Saddam started to slide downhill. He took out his anger on Kurds with gas attacks and then kinda pushed us over the edge when he decided to take over Kuwait. So we invaded back in the early 90's with the real intention of testing all of our new spiffy equipment.

So after that Saddam was obeying our rule over him pretty well. He blustered and bad mouthed us but he pretty much was in line. So for the next 8 or so years it was all good with the US and Iraq.

Then comes this lame (and quick) duck president and 9/11 happens. We invade Afghanistan to take out Al Qaeda and the Taliban (also to run a natural gas pipeline through the country, but thats a KBR/Halliburton project and we won't go into that here, shhh don't talk about the pipeline.) and get that SOB UBL (former CIA helper and hero to the Afghanistan people for helping to take out the Russians back in the day). Well ol Dubbya couldn't leave well enough alone and decided that Iraq needed to be taught a lesson again. He started a war with Iraq claiming that They were tied to Al Qaeda and had WMD's. He also claimed that this is the guy that tried to kill his father (but thats another story).

So what is it now 6 years latter. Saddam Hussein is dead, there were never any WMDs and we are still occupying a country that doesn't really want us there.

And we wonder why there is an insurgency? Really? I mean a foreign occupying force is in your country with no plan to leave saying they are there to set up a democracy for you. They do that but still don't leave do you honestly think that you would like a bunch of gun toting foreigners running around your streets and in your neighborhoods?

It seems to me the appropreate response to this guy would have been to huck a shoe at him. I mean it's the most polite way to tell someone off. He wasn't trying to kill bush with a shoe, just stating his disgust with the man.

[edit on 12/26/2008 by whatukno]

The jury is still out on the future of a democratic Iraq . If Iraq becomes something along the lines of Turkey in terms of a future political model then the country would a difficult but still reasonable future . A small number of US troops are bound to be around in a training / advisory and reactionary force role . There is nothing wrong with this providing in the future the bulk of the available man power is deployed in Afghanistan.

Another point that people have missed is that Shoe Gate was aimed at the people of ME region rather then those in the western world . So the target audience probably doesnt even care what a lot of us think .

[edit on 27-12-2008 by xpert11]

reply to post by Freedom ERP

---

WMD's???

Doesn't anyone listen to the speaches anymore?

That was only one small part of the reason we went in and liberated the Iraqi people.

Let us not forget either, that we remain there at the DIRECT REQUEST of the Democratically Elected Government of Iraq. I believe that they just recently voted unanimously to ask us to stay for several more years.

I think that throwing a shoe is pretty mild compared to what some of the radical Bush Haters would do if allowed to run free over here.

War time Presidents are always unpopular. Lincoln was hated until well after he died.

Wait until Obama ruins the country, see what everyone is saying then.

Darkangel831 I agree with you concerning the presence of US forces being in Iraq at the request of the elected Iraqi government . Now I followed the lead up to the Iraq war and there was no indicator that the War was about anything else then the supposed threat posed by Saddam and his vast stock piles of WMDs . All the other explanations have always struck me has BS that was invented after the wars detractors were proven correct about Iraq not being the threat it was made out to be .

As much as I want to see a demcratic Iraq I would hardly call the events in post Saddam Iraq that coalition incompetence either caused or very much let happen a liberation . If Iraq becomes what I described below then future generations may be said to be liberated that is if they are not to soon to forgot the past .

reply to post by Freedom ERP

---

The WMDs were there and the world knew it for a couple of reasons for one Saddam used them and murdered 300 thousand and for another reason We Sold Them To The Saddam regime....You keep drinking the Kool Aid and believing the last news paper you read or talking head you listened to....April 1 2004 Interview with King Hussian of Jordan and San Francisco Chronical....20,000 tons of Chemical weapons seized in Jordan that came from Iraq....We liberated these ungratefull people from a murderous tyrant....And rest assured that if any one threw a shoe at Saddam they would be dead....

reply to post by xpert11

---

I guess that we each take away from speeches different things.

I recall the emphasis being on the violation of the UN sanctions and the FACT that Saddam fired on us repeatedly in the "No Fire Zone" as well as his treatment of his people and the undeniable fact of his attempts at genocide.

But the world was stuck on WMD's and we do love a "power word"

IMO the problem is that the supposed WMDs were the part of the case for the war that was even worth considering and even that notion is debatable at best . There has been incidents of shoot outs between North and South Korea on and off for fifty years and there has been no outbreak of fully blown armed conflict breaking out . I am sure that if there had been a will the violation of UN sanctions could have investigated without the war .

I am no fan of the UN but going to war over violated UN sanctions and then defying the UN in the process wrecks that all point in case for the war .