But I'm an American. I hired the guy - he's my employee, and represents me. I owe him. No Iraqi owes him a drink of water. He needs a full military guard and elaborate secrecy of arrangements to avoid the Iraqi equivalent of Mussolini's demise. I asserted a set of physical circumstances, which you have not denied, showing that the Baghdad "government" does not in fact, cannot, govern the country. In the Kurdish and tribal Sunni regions it is not even the predominant client state government - the US is arming and training the regional coercive forces without going through Baghdad.
No, you didn't hire President Bush ....he was "hired" by every voter in the nation, NOT just you. So you should have some respect for the feelings of all those other "employers" .....yet you don't. Why? Baron Max
Why? - explain why? - explain Perhaps you should take a good long look at the american media - Physician heal thyself ? Typical ignorant american - in the Arab world throwing a shoe has a particular resonance as an act of distain (btw buffie - in case you are reading - the lack of a captial a is deliberate - it is a symbol of america's standing in the world thanks to bush) so is throwing rotten vegetables at a politician - however doing that is historically a traditional way of demonstrating distain for that politician by the people - just a shame that you aren't a conservative like me and have no respect for tradition agreed - can we have do-over with korea, vietnam, Libya, cuba, el salvador, chile, iran, sudan, afghanistan (I and II) etc etc etc etc please? see 3 and 4
a typical cowards answer Max - don't worry though girly (max is for maxine right?) - I wasn't expecting very much from you - I never do -I'll leave it to someone who is an actual heavyweight ( you know - someone who actually has the brains to think up an answer) to answer properly
So I don't owe him the consideration due an employee in a difficult job? Very well. I was under the apparently mistaken impression that he was hired by every voter in the nation, including me. But if you are willing to let me off the hook that easily, I accept. He's all yours.
To repeat: THIS GUY IS NOT AN IRAQI. Furthermore, I'm tired of your games. This all boils down to the original points I made. Namely, to rephrase: 1. This guy is a professional and should act like one. By condoning his actions, you are condoning unprofessional behavior. Are you OK with that? 2. This guy broke the law. By condoning that, you are condoning breaking the law. Are you OK with that? 3. This guy acted like an immature boob. By conding that, you are condoning immaturity. Are you OK with that? 4. This guy acted immorally and unethically by attacking someone whose views he did not share. By condoning that you are condoning immorality and unethical behaviour. Are you OK with that? Try not to slither away from the meat of the issue. That has nothing to do with what you said. Again, rhetorical snake that you are, you've slithered to new ground to try to score some points. You said "Iraq has yet to hold 'due' elections." That statement is factually incorrect, as I have shown, with links. If you want to argue about whether the duly elected officials actually govern their country, then go and start a thread about it.
Based on your statements, I doubt you're worth speaking with, but I will try. A person should respect the office of the president because it represents America, the American people and embodies the entire fabric of the nation's grand history. It is greater than the man, greater than current epoch. A person should also respect the authority that is invested in the president, via his election and constitutional duties. Accordingly, simple rules of kindness and hospitality notwithstanding, people should not treat visiting foreign dignitaries like coaches from rival football teams by hurling things at them. The leader, whomever it is, is a guest and in most of the world the host/guest relationship means something. I'm not even sure what this means. I was speaking of professional ethics, which journalists aspire to (or should). I can't think of one American reporter who would behave the way this idiot did. . . I'm well aware what the gesture means, but that doesn't make it OK. Giving someone the middle finger is a rude sign of intent in the US, but this doesn't mean it would be OK for a reporter to do this to the president of Iran. I mean, seriously? What's you're fucking argument here? Do you even have one? Crucifying people was historically a traditional way to deal with criminals, too, so do you want to make and impassioned plea for more crosses and nails? Elsewhere, people used to throw fruit and vegetables at the theater, but if you try that now, I'll wager you get arrested for disturbing the peace or assault. In sum, your argument is stupid and pointless. I'll not address the actualities of these conflicts, as you probably are incapable of following such a discourse. Suffice to say, the issue here is person-to-person relations and not the conduct of international affairs. That is, people can't throw things at each other in most societies and get away with it if society is going to exist at all. So try sticking to the subject and not reseting the debate so you can make spurious political points of little or no value. . . see 3 and 4[/QUOTE]
