Yeh dagget, if that journalist had done that to saddam, who was personally responsible for genocide and the deaths of almost 2 million iraqis and iranians, he would have been tortured, killed and thrown in a mass grave!
But the left wing media would STILL focus on the taliban member Muhammed Dawood, or should I say David Hicks.
Bush is only responsible for overthrowing two of the most barbaric regimes in the world. one guilty of hiding Osama who WAS responsible for 9/11 whatever you troofers may think and the other the arch nemesis of america in the middle east and the biggest threat to america and australia in the post 9/11 world.

*thinking people set out to deliberately upset you and then find yourself throwing up your arms and abandoning projects where you need other peoples assistance?'*

ROFL Keith :) You must be at the point of desperation here, to
go trawling through threads, to come up with something, given the
overwhelming evidence that GeorgenDick are dummies!

So we'll try an ad hominem hey..

So you take two snippets of some of my postings, which are totally
out of context, for they refer to different groups of people
and try to draw some kind of conclusion, which of course is flawed.

I have never thought that any of those people deliberately set out
to upset me, what I will admit to is sometimes having a low
threshold of tolerance for stupidity. Nearly perfect is good
enough :)

I have never sought Govt assistance for any venture that I have
undertaken. I paddle my own canoe. What I do expect is that
if Govt wants to enforce compliance, then those bureaucrats be
halfway intelligent and do it in an efficient manner.

Why should I abandon a project? Selling it profitably makes
far more sense. I don't need to create exports for Australia.
I do it if its fun and I enjoy it. If I stop enjoying it, I do
something else.

But this is all way beyond you, perhaps you should stick to the
topic rather then divert from it.

Did you read the link I provided? Did you read how you were wrong
about your claims, when it came to George and Africans crossing
their legs? Will you admit that you were wrong?

yeah, i'm kinda curious to see keith's reply to the abstinence thing as well. but i won't hold my breath.

Liberal,

I am sure that Muntadar al-Zaidi would have been perfectly well aware that Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator when he threw his shoes at President Bush. However, the figure of almost 2 million Iraqis and Iranians dead as a result of Hussein personally is massive and crude exaggeration, the purpose of which appears to be to completely pre-empt any criticism of the huge death toll and the abuses of human rights and impoverishment of Iraqis, which resulted from the invasion.

As I wrote above, if Hussein was personally responsible for umpteen squillion deaths, then why was he charged only with "the murder of 148 people, torture of women and children and the illegal arrest of 399 others" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein#Trial)?

I would suggest that the prosecutors understood that charges for the genocide of millions would not have stuck and, furthermore, to the extent that they did stick, would have implicated US government figures, particularly Donald Rumsfeld, who is seen in these broadcasts shaking hands and meeting with the dictator in 1983:

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=bUPb-3zkh0c
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=iw38Yf2HE-s. (longer version)

If well over 100,000 or over 1 million Iraqis have died, according to other credible estimates, as a result of the invasion, 5 million Iraqis have become internally displaced, the state owned enterprises and services (except, so far, for oil) have all been sold at bargain basement prices to Bush crony capitalists in the wave of privatisations that followed the invasion, most public servants sacked, local Iraqis sidelined as reconstruction contracts were awarded to US contractors with imported workers and most Iraqis needlessly impoverished, then many Iraqis should be entitled to conclude that the price of the formal democratic rights they enjoy was far too high.

Indeed, it is in spite of, rather than because of the administration of George Bush that the Iraqis enjoy any meaningful democratic freedoms today.

As I wrote in another forum at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6974#108120
"(Naomi) Klein (in "The Shock Doctrine" (2007)) disputes the prevailing view that the 'fiasco' of Iraq was the result of incompetence, ...

(continuedfromabove)

"The plans of the US centred upon the Iraqis being too disoriented
to resist the plans to privatise their economy for the benefit of the
likes of Bechtel and Halliburton and open it wide for foreign investment,
however on page 361 Klein writes:

"'Instead, a great many Iraqis immediately demanded a say in the
transformation of the country. And it was the Bush administration's
response to this unexpected turn of events that generated the most
blowback of all.'

The civil war and sectarian violence, to the extent that they were not 'false flag' terrorist acts carried out by the occupation forces ("British SAS Terror Operation in Basra: Photographic Evidence" at http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20050923&articleId=989 "Iraq probe into soldier incident" at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4264614.stm "Basra Bizarre: SAS Commandos Arrested and Sprung" at http://www.pej.org/html/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=3331&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0) or sponsored by them would have been the result of the suppression of democracy by Bremer and the needless economic ruin brought about for the benefit of the likes of Bechtell, Halliburton and Blackwater.

---

Liberal, if you are so sure that Osama bin Laden, and not figures within the US administration, was the principle perpetrator of the 9/11 terrorist attack, then why not explain why you think so on the "9/11 Truth" forum at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166#53049 ?

Paul.L appears to be faltering in his marathon efforts to convince the rest of us that the Emperor is indeed wearing clothes, so I am sure that he would appreciate your help.

Yabby you made statements in relation to AIDS.
'Uganda was doing pretty well fighting aids with its ABC programme until George started trying to impose his belief on Africans.'

Firstly, the following letter shows Uganda wasn’t doing pretty well. It shows the Ugandan Government is deliberately undermining the actions successfully employed in prevention and treatment of AIDS in the past.

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2007/10/28/letter-president-bush-human-rights-uganda

'However, the frank, open and honest dialogue about HIV/AIDS prevention—key to past success in Uganda—is increasingly being replaced by an environment in which those living with HIV, or perceived to be infected, are stigmatized, discriminated against, and blamed for their infections.

On September 24, 2007, President Museveni told representatives of 12 Ugandan universities that contracting HIV was akin to treason; such remarks invariably increase the stigma against those with HIV and harm public health efforts. In the past year, Ugandan lawmakers debated a bill that would penalize persons who knowingly transmit HIV. Laws criminalizing HIV transmission are inappropriate and ineffective, particularly in countries where those infected with HIV—especially women—are not always free to determine their own sexual behavior. UNAIDS and other public health agencies discourage such laws, but President Museveni has campaigned in favor of them, saying: “People who infect others [with HIV] deliberately are killers.”'

You said 'George started trying to impose his belief on Africans'

Not quite right. Again the above letter is quite clear.

'LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) individuals are excluded from HIV/AIDS initiatives, including programs sponsored by agencies underwritten by the US President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). In Uganda, the message of some of the abstinence-only programs supported by PEPFAR (President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief) promotes homophobia and suppresses potentially lifesaving information about HIV prevention.'

While the letter claims Bush's Plan does promote homophobia and suppresses information it doesn't support your assertion that Bush's abstinence programs are destroying Uganda’s ABC programmes. It also shows George's Abstinence only programs are only part of PEPFAR.

Try and couple the two ideas above and you would see how far wide of the mark was your original claim.