If an American press corps member threw a clipboard, let’s make it metal, at the Iranian Prime Minister the conservatives of our nation would decry for his immediate release from detainment on the grounds of being a political prisoner held against the will of the public.
There is a big, bad logic flaw in this latest conservative blab:
“Under Saddam, this guy’s held would have rolled after he threw any footwear.”
Who is getting the treatment here? The Iraqi Prime Minister had no shoes thrown at him, as far I can recall. Bush is not and never was the ruler of Iraq. If Bush were to visit like that under Saddam’s rule then they probably would build a statue of the reporter holding hands with good old Saddam. If he threw one at Saddam then it comes to if the international eye was on him or not. If not then this idea might work and we would never hear about him in the first place, making in the entire issue moot. But if every country could pick up that feed then even someone like a dictator would have some troubles. Saddam still might off the guy, in this reckless scenario, but the worldwide media would go right ahead with reporting that he was executed for his actions under a dictator and this man would die a hero. All thanks to the “disgusting liberal media hounds.”
There is also an obvious logic flaw in non-violent American individuals who promote throwing things in protest:
Political statement in our culture is our issue and they have theirs in Iraq. If you don’t like the idea of the image of ‘America the Bully’ then try to do yourself what we teach our children to do. Use your words.
I understand the sentiment but anytime I write about things like clipboards and shoes and the slapping of lips, I am using examples or failed attempts at comedy. The test comes not in what we say but what we do and I actually walk away from fights in the real world.
No security blanket of the web.
I’m not perfect. Just last night I was illustrating the point that if someone had some serious beef with me to just bring it and let’s be done with it. I‘m not down to hold on to that garbage and nonsense. In a strange way, that sums up my foreign policy stance.
The classic true pacifist-test is would you join the Army or other military org if there was mainland invasion or the ‘a real WWIII?’ God forbid.
The bottom line is that I have the luxury of being a ideological pacifist because I don’t have to fight for food or survival on a day to day basis. Or at least the last time I went outside I wasn’t dodging bullets and secret police squads.
I think the concept of spreading democracy where there is none is great, in principal, but a nation that holds recent debates over the results of its own elections in the highest court are hardly fit to bring democracy to anyone.
Let alone at the end of a gun. Let alone there was no preceding invasion of another nation state to drive us into the war. Let alone we allowed our proud military to mix with guns-for-hire.