Eh-hum # 268

"No shoes beyond this point"

This post is a bit late, but the whole incident still worth talking about as it pretty much sums up how Iraqis regard outgoing P.U.S.A. (President of the United States of America) George "Dubya" Bush. He shrugged off the shoe throwing fiasco by saying (as quoted by Time), that "All I can report is it is a size 10" and "So what if the guy threw his shoe at me?". Well, unfortunately for the President, if he knew what the shoe assault really meant, he would have perhaps wished it was an assassination attempt instead.


For the the Arabs, throwing your shoes at someone is an act of severe disrespect. Moreover, to liken someone to a shoe or feet means that the person or object is of no importance and is beneath you. Before Iraqi TV journalist Muntazer al-Zaidi hurled the first shoe to the President, he shouted, "This is a gift from the Iraqis; this is the farewell kiss, you dog." Of course, al-Zaidi is now in custody and punishing him has now become a real test to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki (the journalist has gained massive support from anti-US clerics and the public). To set him free or to make him spend at most 7 years in prison, that is the question.

When this news was first released or broadcasted, my mother (pro-Obama) can't help but feel sorry for Bush. What a way to go in his last days as for the leader of the free world. As for me, I would like to know how/why the journalist was still able to throw his other shoe. Are the P.U.S.A.'s secret service NOT TRAINED to handle flying shoes? If this wasn't so sad, it would be extremely funny (imagine the other journalists following suit). This will go down in history as one of the most awkward moments in 2008.


***

Can somebody please do something about this rather delusional individual? His people are dying of hunger (and recently, of cholera) and he proceeds to hold a feast? WTF?!?

This is like the time when the military junta in Burma gave away television sets and DVD players (instead of providing food, shelter and access to water and electricity) to those affected by the devastating cyclone last May 2008, only WORST.

Dear Lord...

Eh-hum # 190

Hmmmm...

Why do I have the feeling that the Bush Administration's new Middle East policy is not such a good idea. I am trying to connect this to what happened in Afghanistan, wherein the US' CIA provided "secret" aid to the mujahideen and the opponents of the pro-USSR regime in Kabul during the Cold War (here's an interesting online article about this), and look what happened afterwards. Moreover, it might instigate an arms race in the region. Below is an excerpt from the International Herald Tribune, regarding the said policy.

U.S. arms plan for Mideast aims to counter Iranian power
By Mark Mazzetti and Helene Cooper
Tuesday, July 31, 2007

WASHINGTON: The Bush administration said Monday that its plan to provide billions of dollars in advanced weapons to Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Israel over the next 10 years was intended in part to serve as a bulwark against Iran's growing influence in the Middle East.

The White House plan must overcome opposition from lawmakers who are skeptical that the weapons will have any effect in blunting Iran's nuclear ambitions, and who worry that a flood of new weapons could ignite a tinderbox in the region.

In closed briefings last week on Capitol Hill, participants in the sessions said, some lawmakers had asked pointed questions about why the White House was using the Iranian threat to justify the arms sales. They expressed doubt that the new weaponry, which includes satellite-guided bombs, missiles and new naval vessels, could deter Iran from proceeding with its nuclear program.

Read the rest of the article here.

Eh-hum # 189

To this I agree. I cannot imagine the pain, suffering and humilation experienced by these women. It is unfortunate that we cannot go back to the past and prevent these things from happening. The least the Japanese government can do is issue an official apology and give proper compensation to those who have not received any.

However, I find it ironic that the US feels it is in the position to demand the Japanese government to issue an apology to the comfort women in Japan's wartime military brothel program. I would like to point out that the US should also issue apologies, to the Japanese women who provided "services" to American servicemen during the military occupation of Japan.

I first learned about this issue through a friend (its her dissertation). Moreover, a detailed account of this can be read in John W. Dower's Pulitzer Prize-winning book, Embracing Defeat: Japan in the Wake of World War II. Mr Dower discussed the process in which destituted women were recruited to "participate in the great task of comforting the occupation force". The prostituted women who became part of the RAA (Recreation and Amusement Association) were considered martyrs, since they served as buffer protecting the chastity of the "good" Japanese women.

War, obviously, is not kind to anyone, especially to women and children. I was appalled that the Japanese government initially had a say in the funding of the RAA's facilities (they have to apologize to that too). On the other hand, I also understood that being under the control of the Allied forces, it was implied that they have to accomodate the needs of hundreds of thousands of American soldiers; and sex was one of those.

The plight of the comfort women is an important issue that must be resolved and that Japanese government should apologize, without a doubt. But its a pity that since Japan lost the war, they are on the spotlight and the atrocities committed by the Allied forces were never mentioned, as if it had never happened. Prostituting women, even for the sake of protecting others, is crap. The Japanese could've protected their women by NOT sacrificing others and the American officers could've said no to the whole thing altogether, but that's highly unlikely. Sex sells and someone is always willing to buy.