Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 08:32 PM

"On tonight's news, Macavity Brown is to bring home most of the troops." - Akenaton (Note: - Akenaton the use of your Mudcat name is used to rightly attribute the quote to yourself - not any attempt to bully you)

What news was that Akenaton? Source please, or is this just old news of the planned draw down of UK troops that has been on the cards for months. Hells teeth you have been banging on about us having to get out of there for years, now that we are, IF INDEED WE ARE, you are complaining about it - make your mind up for Christ's sake!

"The war has been consigned to the dustbin of history."

Oh no it has not Akeaton, this "war" still has a long way to play believe me.

"When the troops do come home, will anyone care about the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis....."The armless the legless the blind and insane"."

Well you tell me Akenaton, when Saddam was entertaining his dreams of leading the pan-Arab movement did you give even a passing thought to the 4600-odd Iraqi's that were dying every month? Answer to that is no you did not, because for most of the time that those figures were being accomplished Saddam's biggest partners in crime were those lovely communist regimes that you and your kind held so dear. So Akenaton unless you can display proof that you were concerned then please do not act the hypocrite now.

"The dead young British and American soldiers most hardly out of their teens..."Lambs to the slaughter"

You and your kind have never done anything other than denigrate them in the past. Now let's hear your praise for their sacrifice now - Another example of your hypocracy, something to be filed away under the communist agitators banner as being politically expedient at the moment and denied at a later date.

Come on then Akenaton tell us in detail about the "Battle of Fallujah". Facts not the usual empty, cliched, rhetoric, what is required is cold hard substantiated fact - something that in the past you have never dealt in - it is a coin you do not know.

This by the bye this is the greatest example of mawkish, self-ingratiating, insincere rubbish I have ever heard in my life:

"I think we are all to blame. Blair and his gang were our elected representatives, most of us Knew they were either liars or fools yet we did nothing! We could have stopped them if we had the will! we just did not care.

I thought Blair and Bush should face war crimes charges, but now I believe we should all be on trail for this greatest of all crimes."

Fuckin' right Ake - go and turn yourself in to the International Court in the Hague. You do believe in that don't you? Go and tell them how "guilty" you are and offer yourself up for trial. You will not do that because you do not believe one single word of what you have written - yet another example of your hypocracy.

George - Go write another completely forgetable song about it - or joint Akenaton in the Dock - you might do one you most certainly will not do the other.

And yes, you, and those think as you do are a gutless generation, thankfully our elected leaders when faced with a clearly declared threat were fully prepared to act, and history will prove them to have been right to have done so.

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 06:27 PM

Summer Of Love, "all you need is love" etc. We waved our lighters and then voted for our pockets. All bollocks. As soon as the moral going got tough, we have been bloody quick to rationalise our actions. Fine role models we made.

We were a gutless generation.

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 06:22 PM

I'm afraid I agree with you, Ake. There are more than just GWB and Blair that are culpable in this matter. All of those - of us - who enabled those two to run like bulls in a china shop for years, whether through our action or our inaction. Hand-wringing doesn't wash the guilt. It's only a matter of degree. And I believe history will judge us so.

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 05:34 PM

On tonight's news, Macavity Brown is to bring home most of the troops,
leaving murder mayhem and madness behind.

The war has been consigned to the dustbin of history. Blair has shuffled off leaving only his bloody footprints to mark his passing.
The rest of the political criminals ...including Macavity, are still in power but now sing a different tune. "It wisnae me... honest officer ah didnae want tae dae it .....Tony made me!!"
Excuse me while I stick my finger down my throat, I have a terrible need to throw -up.

When the troops do come home, will anyone care about the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis....."The armless the legless the blind and insane".   The dead young British and American soldiers most hardly out of their teens..."Lambs to the slaughter"

Will we once again promise "Always to remember them...In the morning and in the evening.......Then conveniantly forget them when the next crazy ego-maniac leader comes along.

I was against this war from its inception and was horrified by pictures early in the war of blind and mutilated children, blown to pieces in the "Battle of Fallujah".... code for the massacre of the innocents

I think we are all to blame. Blair and his gang were our elected representatives, most of us Knew they were either liars or fools yet we did nothing! We could have stopped them if we had the will! we just did not care.

I thought Blair and Bush should face war crimes charges, but now I believe we should all be on trail for this greatest of all crimes...Ake

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 12:07 PM

Well I see that Horse C came in second Folkiedave and that Horse A lost it's rider and will never come home.

Like Gorgeous George, Guest David, Guest Albert and Akenaton when you attempt to defend your dearly cherished myths against recorded fact and reason the result is always the same. The idiotic myth is trotted out, shown to be false, then the smoke screen goes up to distract without addressing any point raised followed by personal insult and attack.

Rest assured of one thing Folkiedave, if ever any of these "myths" get aired again they will get knocked down again and shown to be the falsehoods they are just as effectively as they have been now.

One final thing on the "Blackwater" case that in all the time you were prattling on about it you singularly failed to mention as you made your claim about "Blackwater killing American soldiers" - You forgot to mention that the Blackwater personnel on that aircraft also died.

Go wave your red flag son - it won't accomplish anything - but it might make you feel better. But never try to piss on my back and then try telling me that it's raining.

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: Folkiedave
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 10:01 AM

That last guest was me. On someone else's computer.

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 06:26 AM

Sory Teribus - but I usually get paid for writing as much as I have.

I have decided I have wasted enough time arguing with an idiot.

Shame you never learned to read though.

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Aug 07 - 01:17 AM

Well Akenaton for starters one of the realities of this world is that no-one is invincible.

Your reluctance to base any discussion on "facts", unverified or otherwise, is understandable, because should you engage in such a debate the highly biased, and ill informed, basis for your arguement would be exposed for what it is, nothing but a pack of lies, gross misrepresentations, half-truths and myths.

In Iraq and in Afghanistan, the Government troops along with the aid of the MNF/NATO/US forces are getting stronger every day. Militarily they are actually winning, only politically can the fledgeling governments of both countries fail. We must give them the time to ensure that they do not. You and your fellow travellers do not want to see that, you seem to rejoice in chaos, you in particular long to see the day the "West" fails because it is something that was promised you by your former political masters decades ago. They couldn't deliver because their own corrupt and evil regimes crumbled, you now hope that their end can be accomplished in proxy by others - again you will have to learn to live with disappointment.

I rather liked - "but never the less they have been defeated again and this time as they scramble to their escape helicopters they leave behind an enemy a hundred times more dangerous than the peasants of the Viet Cong."

Another reality of the situation Akenaton, even going back to before September 11th, 2001, the "enemy" was, and was recognised as being, "a hundred times more dangerous than the peasants of the Viet Cong".

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 05:58 PM

Teribus ...Your obsession with minutia...(which is more of a tactic that an obsession in your case), obscures the bigger picture.
I have no intention of being drawn into a meaningless argument over unverifiable "facts", but can you seriously ask "What are these disasters for the West?"

In Iraq America and their allies have shown the world that they are not invincible. They have been defeated, as they were in Vietnam.
Of course death rates for allied troops have been much less than for the insurgents, as in Vietnam. This is to be expected but never the less they have been defeated again and this time as they scramble to their escape helicopters they leave behind an enemy a hundred times more dangerous than the peasants of the Viet Cong.
An enemy which we by our greed and stupidity have strengthened and made more resiliant...Ake

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 04:01 PM

Nothing to add Akenaton - only personal attack.

Does George Galloway rely on myths, half-truths, misrepresentations and downright lies on which to base his Respect Party - Yes he most certainly does, he parades and presents them as fact to those gullible enough to accept without question.

Was Donald Rumsfeld an important member of the Reagan Administration at the time he met Saddam Hussein on 20th December, 1983 and did he try to sell arms - No he was not and no he did not.

Have Blackwater "killed" American servicemen - No they have not.

There again - as an admirer of communist totalitarianism you must be well conditioned to the lies fed from any source claiming the cloaks of socialism and egalitarianism - irrespective of what that shallow masquerade hides.

As for your - "It has become apparent to almost everyone on Mudcat, in the media, and in government, that the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath have been political and personal disasters for the West."

Firstly you can only really claim to speak for yourself - do not presume to speak on behalf of others.

Now let's see in Iraq under Saddam going on his lower average around 4620 Iraqis died at the hands of his regime every month. Their prospects were never going to get better, only worse as the future held the prospect of Saddam being succeeded by one of his sons. Since the invasion and in the ensuing insurrection a bad month has been assessed as 1500 deaths - That Akenaton is an improvement of over 3000 lives a month. And the prospects now can only get better.

Have you been reading the news papers recently? The media you claim to know so well. How many bombs went off in Iraq today Akenaton? How many in Afghanistan? Anywhere else in the world for that matter? There are reports that 35 insurgents were killed in Baghdad today and a similar number of Taleban killed in Afghanistan. In slightly more than one year the Taleban in Afghanistan have lost as many men as the US have lost since March 2003. So what are these disasters for the West?

What happened to the Taleban's Spring Offensive?

What has happened to their Summer Offensive?

What has happened to all their suicide bombers? Hell there were more bombs going off in Belfast in the mid seventies than there are in two countries that are supposed to be ablaze from end to end.

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 01:49 PM

That anyone can carry on a discussion with Teribus amazes me.
The continual use of members posting names in a threatening and agressive manner makes balanced discussion impossible.

In one post he used the name "Folkdave" eleven times, simply emphasising what a bully he is.

Not only a bully, but an extremely bad loser.
It has become apparent to almost everyone on Mudcat, in the media, and in government, that the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath have been political and personal disasters for the West.
Even the people who set this in motion are scurrying around in a hopeless attempt to escape with any sort of credibility, yet Teribus blusters on, arrogantly attempting to browbeat fellow members with his opinions and argument (if he ever had one) in tatters...Ake

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 12:25 PM

Thanks Folkiedave, you rode a perfect race to bring Horse B in ahead of the pack, I'd've won money on it.

"As George said (paraphrase): "The difference between my visit to Saddam and Rumsfeld's was that I was there to plead for peace and he was there to sell arms". – Folkiedave.

Now this is just a perfect example of one of Gorgeous George's myths. The meeting notes transmitted to Washington after Donald Rumsfeld's meeting with Saddam Hussein on 20th December, 1983 have been declassified and are in the public domain. I have read them, and it is plainly obvious from your paraphrasing that neither yourself, nor Gorgeous George have gone through a similar exercise.

Glad to see that you are beginning to come away from Rumsfeld being an important member of Reagan's administration, I suppose that you had no other choice really, all evidence supported the opposite view to your own - irrespective of what many believe. I am not really all that interested in what many believe to be true I'd rather run on substantiated fact.

"Of course I know Rumsfeld was not a member of the administration but there exists quote after quote showing Rumsfeld was far more than a messenger boy. All of which you seem to ignore." – Folkiedave

But if you knew that he was not a member of the administration why on earth did you say rather adamantly that he was?

- "... how on earth, if he was unofficial did he get the power to speak for the US government?"

The answer of course Folkiedave was that during his period as President Reagan's Special Middle-East Envoy, Donald Rumsfeld was NEVER given the power to speak on behalf of the US Government.

Your example Folkiedave – "My pay cheque came from Sheffield College until I retired. It doesn't mean I didn't have unpaid work." – And I bet that in the course of that unpaid work you were fully authorized to make binding commitments, professional, financial and contractual, on behalf of those you were carrying out the work for – I would somehow doubt it, unless of course those you were doing unpaid work for, were complete and utter idiots.

Out of Government Service, Donald Rumsfeld did rather a lot:

- Gilead Sciences Pharmaceutical Company: Chairman (1997-2001)
- General Instrument Corporation: Chairman and CEO (1990-1993)
- G.D. Searle Pharmaceutical Company: CEO/Chairman/President (1977-1985)
- Bechtel: Involved in Iraq-Bechtel Negotiations on a Pipeline Project in the 1980s
- Gulfstream Aerospace: Former Director
- Tribune Company: Former Director
- Metricom, Inc.: Former Director
- Sears, Roebuck, and Co.: Former Director
- ASEA Brown Boveri: Former Director

While engaged in those tasks detailed above he was also very busy with other things "on the side". The shareholders of the companies he was working for at the time wouldn't have minded at all, Rumsfeld was after all a very astute and successful businessman. Here are some of the things that he did "on the side":

- Member of the President's General Advisory Committee on Arms Control (1982-1986);
- Special presidential envoy on the Law of the Sea Treaty (1982-1983);
- Senior adviser to the President's Panel on Strategic Systems (1983-1984);
- Member of the U.S. Joint Advisory Commission on U.S.-Japan Relations (1983-1984);
- Special presidential envoy to the Middle East (1983-1984);
- Member of the National Commission on Public Service (1987-1990);
- Member of the National Economic Commission (1988-1989);
- Member of the Board of Visitors of the National Defense University (1988-1992);
- Member of the Commission on U.S.-Japan Relations (1989-1991);
- Member of the U.S. Trade Deficit Review Commission (1999-2000).

Now somewhere in that lot, Folkiedave is the over-riding consideration that worked in Donald Rumsfeld's favour, and was quite clearly taken into account when President Reagan was casting around to find his "Special Envoy", it sticks out like a dogs bollocks. It shouts to the roof that this is a guy that Saddam & Co., WILL want to talk frankly to.

"When challenged to say whether or not he agreed with private contractors claiming immunity from being prosecuted for negligence resulting in the death of American citizens - from Teribus, first irrelevant bluster, then silence."

Point 1 - Why on earth do I have to say - when challenged - whether I agree or not to anything connected with the actions of others? Answer to that Folkiedave is that I do not. But both WLD and I pointed out to you that it is fairly normal practice and as such should not be seen as being so surprising.

Point 2 - Now let's take a look at this irrelevant bluster of mine. When you first brought up the topic you laid the charge against Blackwater that, "Blackwater are being sued by American families of American soldiers they killed. They argue immunity. Not that they didn't do it, just that they can get away with it." (The word according to Folkiedave). I responded with, "Blackwater didn't kill any American soldiers, the truth is that some American servicemen died when an aircraft being operated by Blackwater crashed - Accident Folkiedave, nothing more, nothing less,..."   Now then Folkiedave I know that you believe that this is irrelevant bluster, because it doesn't run true to what you would like to believe. So just tell us Folkiedave, exactly how did those American servicemen die? Did Blackwater blow them up with explosives or artillery? Did Blackwater personnel shoot them? Poison them? Strangle them? Stick knives into them? Or did they die as the result of a plane crash as I have previously stated amid all this irrelevant bluster of mine.

"When referred to documents detailing the sales of chemical weapons - testified by a Senate Committee - from Teribus, silence."

There have been no sales of chemical weapons to Iraq by the United States of America. Again like Rumsfeld being a senior member of Reagan's Administration with authorisation to speak on behalf of the government of the United States of America, this myth might be something that you and your fellow travellers want to believe but the evidence is very much against it.

Were dual purpose items sold to Iraq by US companies and others? Yes they most certainly were – "the sales were legal and often made with the knowledge of governments. In 1985-90, the U.S. Commerce Department, for example, licensed $1.5 billion in sales to Iraq of American technology with potential military uses. Iraq was then getting Western support for its war against Iran, which at the time was regarded as the main threat to stability in the oil-rich Gulf region. But inspectors have discovered over the years that Iraq often obtained supplies through middlemen or by lying to companies about the products' intended use."

The reason Iraq was invaded was because it was found, by the United States of America and others to be in material breach of United Nations Security Council Resolution No. 1441, and in breach of the terms and conditions of the ceasefire agreement signed by Iraq at Safwan in 1991. Saddam Hussein and his Ba'ath Regime were invited to stand down, they were given 48 hours to do so, they declined and the forces of the coalition led by the USA invaded to remove Saddam from power and enforce the terms and conditions of the outstanding UNSC Resolutions against Iraq encapsulated within UNSC Resolution 1441.

If you are going to mention one of the reasons, Folkiedave, please refer to all the others, Iraq was not invaded because of a single issue – please don't try to present a case that implies otherwise.

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: Folkiedave
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 06:10 AM

Of course I know Rumsfeld was not a member of the administration but there exists quote after quote showing Rumsfeld was far more than a messenger boy. All of which you seem to ignore.

Who paid his pay cheque is irrelevant. My pay cheque came from Sheffield College until I retired. It doesn't mean I didn't have unpaid work.

You don't consider he was doing a bit on the side then? After all he was chairman of Searle at the time and the shareholders didn't seem to mind him swanning off around the Middle East so they must have thought him going to meet Saddam Hussein was a good idea.

You don't think countries like Egypt selling him arms might be doing so with US approval?

When challenged to say whether or not he agreed with private contractors claiming immunity from being prosecuted for negligence resulting in the death of American citizens - from Teribus, first irrelevant bluster, then silence.

When referred to documents detailing the sales of chemical weapons - testified by a Senate Committee - from Teribus, silence.

Note Teribus - when Iraq was invaded one of the reasons was that he had used (or was prepared to use) chemical weapons again.

You are starting to bluster in the face of irrefutable evidence.

And when you have read how the US Defence Department have been losing the supply chain of weapons which could easily have gone to the insurgents in Iraq, go and start a thread about invading the perpetrators.

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 08 Aug 07 - 03:50 AM

I hope when Donald and George are doing the book signings and Oprah Show, etc. - they publicly acknowledge all the effort you two have put into their careers.

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 06:30 PM

Turn up Don Rumsfelds pay slip for the months of November, 1983 to May 1984. Should be there after all you seem to think that he was a member of the Reagan Administration, and obviously a fairly senior one at that (Given the major importance that you seem to attach to the "Presidential Envoy" label), when everything else states quite clearly that he was not.

Please detail the arms that Rumsfeld sold to Saddam and when. Should be quite easy the time frame is identical. Now the items he sold them must already have been made and the US must have deduced somehow that those items would be on Saddam's shopping list, so what were they?

As to normalising of relations between Iraq and the USA, the purpose of Rumsfelds visit. You seem to have a bit of a problem in understanding what is being said and when things happened:

1. What the Washington Post reported on 1st January, 1984 (Just 12 days after the Saddam/Rumsfeld meeting),was that the United States "in a shift in policy, has informed friendly Persian Gulf nations that the defeat of Iraq in the 3-year-old war with Iran would be contrary to U.S. interests and has made several moves to prevent that result."

2. On November 26, 1984, Iraq and the U.S. restored diplomatic relations, that is a matter of recorded fact.

My question to you is how on earth you translate what was stated by the Washington Post on the 1st of January, 1984 which is only, after all, a report of a possible shift in policy. It gives a fairly sound reason to explain that future shift in policy and fairly strong indications of their clear intent to follow through on that shift in policy. What it cannot in any way, shape, or form be confused with is a clear report of a Government statement declaring as to the US having restored diplomatic relations with Iraq - True?

Some of the things missed? You mean the dual-use materials:

1. "Milhollin said that had it not been for the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq would have had nuclear weapons by now, thanks to hundreds of suppliers who sold it an impressive array of equipment and expertise, often with their government's approval and without being aware of the ultimate purpose."

2. "Most of the sales were legal and often made with the knowledge of governments. In 1985-90, the U.S. Commerce Department, for example, licensed $1.5 billion in sales to Iraq of American technology with potential military uses. Iraq was then getting Western support for its war against Iran, which at the time was regarded as the main threat to stability in the oil-rich Gulf region.

But inspectors have discovered over the years that Iraq often obtained supplies through middlemen or by lying to companies about the products' intended use."

As for your statement:

"The fact is that the USA supplied Saddam with weapons including WMD's, and the change of policy announced by Rumsfeld in his role as special envoy (sorry messenger) was a big part of that."

The USA did supply Saddam with weapons amounting to 0.0046% of all weapons bought by Iraq between 1973 and 2000. It did not sell Saddam any WMD, but did sell dual-use items that could be converted for other uses - not the same thing at all.

Question for you Folkiedave. Rumsfeld "announced" the change in policy when exactly Folkiedave? Now for him to have done that, he would have had to have been somebody very, very senior in President Reagan's Administration. According to your "sources" he must have made this announcement sometime between 20th December, 1983 and 1st January, 1984, your good at links and things Folkiedave lets see where and when Donald Rumsfeld made this announcement. There are three horses running in this race folks:

Horse A - Folkiedave within minutes finds the required proof and posts it.

Horse B - Folkiedave fails to find any evidence of Rumsfeld making this announcement and attempts some more bluster and distraction to cover up the fact.

Horse C - Folkiedave ignores the question

I know which one my money's on.

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: Folkiedave
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 04:01 PM

I told you it described nothing like a large army of contractors waging a privatised war in Iraq.

1. Sorry - I forgot - just because you say it is so - it has to be so.

Try reading again the paragraph beginning "Iraqi officials have consistently complained about the conduct of Blackwater and other contractors - and the legal barriers to their attempts to investigate or prosecute alleged wrongdoing".

Now if the whole of those two paragraphs do not describe contractors waging a private war - what the hell do they describe?

2.Believing Rumsfeld was "an unofficial messenger" is like believing the first 50,000 American troops in Vietnam were merely "advisers".

In August 18, 2002, in an MSNBC article entitled "Rumsfeld Key Player in Iraq Policy Shift" Robert Windrem wrote,"State Department cables and court records reveal a wealth of information on how U.S. foreign policy shifted in the 1980s to help Iraq. Virtually all of the information is in the words of key participants, including Donald Rumsfeld, now secretary of defense.

Or you could look at "The new information on the policy shift toward Iraq, and Rumsfeld's role in it, comes as The New York Times reported that the United States gave Iraq vital battle-planning help during its war with Iran as part of a secret program under President Reagan even though U.S. intelligence agencies knew the Iraqis would unleash chemical weapons".

In her article "Reaping the Grim Harvest We Have Sown," Anne Summers reinforced this point:

In December 1983, Rumsfeld, then a special envoy to the Middle East appointed by President Reagan, travelled to Baghdad to inform Saddam Hussein that the United States was ready to resume full diplomatic relations with Iraq. A lengthy report in the Washington Post on December 30, 2002 based on analysing thousands of pages of declassified government documents and interviews with former policy-makers said that US intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role in shoring up Iraqi defences following Rumsfeld's visit.

Like I said I could fill the Mudcat servers with similar quotes. Of course Rumsfeld was just a messenger boy and all those journalists and newspapers were wrong and you are right.

Incidentally when questioned about this Rumsfeld seemed to have forgotten all about it!! You aren't Rumsfeld are you?

3.Are you asking about normalisation of diplomatic relations between Iraq and the USA? What sources says it occurred 12 days after the meeting? Let's see the meeting took place 19th/20th December, 1983 twelve days later would be 1st January, 1984. OK I see your reasoning, sources say that relations were normalised in 1984 so it must have been on 1st January 1984.

Err....no..the source is the Washington Post.....

Just 12 days after the meeting,on January 1, 1984, The Washington Post reported that the United States "in a shift in policy, has informed friendly Persian Gulf nations that the defeat of Iraq in the 3-year-old war with Iran would be contrary to U.S. interests and has made several moves to prevent that result."

But your maths were right - I will give you that....

I love the list of arms supplied - I suppose since it is a big list you believe it to be complete!!

You happened to have missed a few things out. Take a look here:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,73292,00.html

Of course coming from Fox News it is clearly one of those lefty organisations that specialise in half truths.

" In 1985-90, the U.S. Commerce Department, for example, licensed $1.5 billion in sales to Iraq of American technology with potential military uses. Iraq was then getting Western support for its war against Iran, which at the time was regarded as the main threat to stability in the oil-rich Gulf region."

Of course coming from a well-known left-wing organisation like the Associated Press such a story is bound to be biased.

May 25, 1994, Senate Banking Committee report. In 1985 (five years after the Iraq-Iran war started) and succeeding years, said the report, ''pathogenic (meaning ''disease producing''), toxigenic (meaning ''poisonous'') and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq, pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce.'' It added: ''These exported biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction.''

The report then details 70 shipments (including anthrax bacillus) from the United States to Iraqi government agencies over three years, concluding, ''It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the United Nations inspectors found and recovered from the Iraqi biological warfare program.''

Of course coming from the Senate Banking Committee such a report detailing US exports is bound to have an inherent left-wing bias.

Never saw this stuff on your list Teribus.

As for the helicopters they may have easily made a difference if they were using them to spray people with the chemicals exported as pesticides that Dow Chemicals supplied, or drop the cluster bombs that Cardoen supplied with CIA approval.

Never saw Dow Chemicals on your list Teribus - never saw Cardoen' cluster bombs.....

The fact is that the USA supplied Saddam with weapons including WMD's, and the change of policy announced by Rumsfeld in his role as special envoy (sorry messenger) was a big part of that.

Incidentally the more things change the more they stay the same....

thread.cfm?threadid=103857&messages=13#2120996

I wonder of anyone in the US military has ever of organised a piss-up in a brewery? Was it successful? Did anyone get a drink?

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 01:02 PM

"Don't let the facts spoil a good story Teribus." It has certainly never stopped you in the past Folkiedave and I suppose it never will.

Now to respond to your questions:

1. The question asked in your post of 2nd August 04:32 AM was answered - I told you it described nothing like a large army of contractors waging a privatised war in Iraq.

2. "If Rumsfeldd was completely unofficial how come all the sources describe him as a Special Envoy?"

A "special envoy" is exactly that, an unofficial messenger, the President of the United States can speak on behalf of the United States of America, The Secretary of State can speak on behalf of the government of America, The Defence Secretary can speak on behalf of the Government of the United States of America, an unpaid "special envoy" cannot, he delivers the message discusses responses if clarification is required and brings the answers back for appraisal by others.

3. "How come if it was a year afterwards sources say 12 days?"

Are you asking about normalisation of diplomatic relations between Iraq and the USA? What sources says it occurred 12 days after the meeting? Let's see the meeting took place 19th/20th December, 1983 twelve days later would be 1st January, 1984. OK I see your reasoning, sources say that relations were normalised in 1984 so it must have been on 1st January 1984. However, Folkiedave, harking back to your never letting facts spoil a good story, it was on November 26, 1984, Iraq and the U.S. restored diplomatic relations. Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz, appeared in Washington for the formal resumption of ties. That is a simple matter of record, your sources were wrong the time span between 19th December 1983 to 26th November, 1984 is far greater than 12 days - True?

4. "If he wasn't on a mission how would you describe it?"

Did I ever say he wasn't on a mission? Or are you lapsing into the old leftist tactic of putting words into my mouth then attempting to take me to task over them - Won't work Folkie better than you have tried that tack in the past and failed.

5. "If arms sales didn't begin soon afterwards, how come they did?"

What arms sales are we talking about here Folkiedave, the massive shipments from Russia, China and France? In actual fact Folkiedave US "arms" sales to Iraq had begun long before Rumsfeld's visit as "special envoy".

From Wikipedia - "In June, 1982, President Reagan decided that the United States could not afford to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran. President Reagan decided that the United States would do whatever was necessary and legal to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran."

Russia halted arms sales to Iraq between 1980 and 1982 because of Iraq's attack on Iran. China and France stepped in to fill that vacuum, leaving Russia with no other choice but to resume sales particularly when the US showed an interest.

As for the helicopters this is when the following were delivered (which means that they ordered well before):
1983 - 26 Hughes MD-500 Defenders (Light Helicopters)
1984 - 30 Hughes 300/TH-55 (Light Helicopters)
1985/1986 - 26 Hughes MD-530F (Light Helicopters)
1987/1988 - 31 Bell 214ST (Light Transport Helicopters - Civilian Version)

Hey Folkiedave if you want to talk about arms sales to Saddam here's all the information that you need -

The following details: Country; Weapon designation; Weapon description; Year(s) delivered; Quantity delivered.

Austria; GHN-45; 155mm Towed Gun; 1983; 200

Brazil; EMB-312 Tucano; Trainer aircraft; 1985-1988; 80
Brazil; Astros II MLRS; Multiple rocket launcher; 1984-1988; 67
Brazil; EE-11 Urutu; Armoured Personnel Carrier; 1983-1984; 350
Brazil; EE-3 Jararaca; Recon vehicle; 1984-1985; 280
Brazil; EE-9 Cascavel; Armoured car; 1980-1989; 1026
Brazil; Astros AV-UCF; Fire control radar; 1984-1988; 13

Canada; PT-6; Turboprop; 1980-1990; 152

China; Xian H-6; Bomber aircraft; 1988; 4
China; F-6; Fighter aircraft; 1982-1983; 40
China; F-7A; Fighter aircraft; 1983-1987; 80
China; Type-63; 107mm Multiple rocket launcher; 1984-1988; 100
China; Type-83; 152mm Towed gun; 1988-1989; 50
China; W-653/Type-653; ARV; 1986-1987; 25
China; WZ-120/Type-59; Tank; 1982-1987; 1000
China; WZ-121/Type 69; Tank; 1983-1987; 1500
China; YW-531/Type-63; APC; 1982-1988; 650
China; CEIEC-408C; Air surv radar; 1986-1988; 5
China; HN-5A; Portable SAM; 1986-1987; 1000
China; HY-2/SY1A/CSS-N-2; Anti-ship missile; 1987-1988; 200

Czechoslovakia; L-39Z Albatross; Trainer/combat aircraft; 1976-1985; 59
Czechoslovakia; BMP-1; Infantry fighting vehicle; 1981-1987; 750
Czechoslovakia; BMP-2; Infantry fighting vehicle; 1987-1989; 250
Czechoslovakia; OT-64C; APC; 1981; 200
Czechoslovakia; T-55; Tank; 1982-1985; 400

Denmark; Al Zahraa; Landing ship; 1983; 3

East Germany; T-55; Tank; 1981; 50

Egypt; D-30; 122mm Towed gun; 1985-1989; 210
Egypt; M-46; 130mm Towed gun; 1981-1983; 96
Egypt; RL-21; 122mm Multiple rocket launcher; 1987-1989; 300
Egypt; T-55; Tank; 1981-1983; 300
Egypt; Walid; APC; 1980; 100

France; Mirage F-1C; Fighter aircraft; 1982-1990; 72
France; Mirage F-1E; FGA aircraft; 1980-1982; 36
France; SA-312H Super Frelon; Helicopter; 1981; 6
France; SA-330 Puma; Helicopter; 1980-1981; 20
France; SA-342K/L Gazelle; Light helicopter; 1980-1988; 38
France; Super Etendard; FGA aircraft; 1983; 5
France; AMX-GCT/AU-F1; Self-propelled gun; 1983-1985; 85
France; AMX-10P; Infantry fighting vehicle; 1981-1982; 100
France; AMX-30D; ARV; 1981; 5
France; ERC-90; Armoured car; 1980-1984; 200
France; M-3 VTT; APC; 1983-1984; 115
France; VCR-TH; Tank destroyer; 1979-1981; 100
France; Rasit; Ground surv radar; 1985; 2
France; Roland; Mobile SAM system; 1982-1985; 113
France; TRS-2100 Tiger; Air surv radar; 1988; 1
France; TRS-2105/6 Tiger-G; Air surv radar; 1986-1989; 5
France; TRS-2230/15 Tiger; Air surv radar; 1984-1985; 6
France; Volex; Air surv radar; 1981-1983; 5
France; AM-39 Exocet; Anti-ship missile; 1979-1988; 352
France; ARMAT; Anti-radar missile; 1986-1990; 450
France; AS-30L; ASM; 1986-1990; 240
France; HOT; Anti-tank missile; 1981-1982; 1000
France; R-550 Magic-1; SRAAM; 1981-1985; 534
France; Roland-2; SAM; 1981-1990; 2260
France; Super 530F; BVRAAM; 1981-1985; 300

West Germany; BK-117; Helicopter; 1984-1989; 22
West Germany; Bo-105C; Light Helicopter; 1979-1982; 20
West Germany; Bo-105L; Light Helicopter; 1988; 6

Hungary; PSZH-D-994; APC; 1981; 300

Italy; A-109 Hirundo; Light Helicopter; 1982; 2
Italy; S-61; Helicopter; 1982; 6
Italy; Stromboli class; Support ship; 1981; 1

Jordan; S-76 Spirit; Helicopter; 1985; 2

Poland; Mi-2/Hoplite; Helicopter; 1984-1985; 15
Poland; MT-LB; APC; 1983-1990; 750
Poland; T-55; Tank; 1981-1982; 400
Poland; T-72M1; Tank; 1982-1990; 500

Romania; T-55; Tank; 1982-1984; 150

Yugoslavia; M-87 Orkan; 262mm Multiple rocket launcher; 1988; 2

South Africa; G-5; 155mm Towed gun; 1985-1988; 200

Switzerland; PC-7 Turbo trainer; Trainer aircraft; 1980-1983; 52
Switzerland; PC-9; Trainer aircraft; 1987-1990; 20
Switzerland; Roland; APC/IFV; 1981; 100

United Kingdom; Chieftain/ARV; Armoured recovery Vehicle; 1982; 29
United Kingdom; Cymbeline; Arty locating radar; 1986-1988; 10

United States; Bell 214ST; Helicopter; 1987-1988; 31
United States; Hughes-300/TH-55; Light Helicopter; 1984; 30
United States, MD-500MD Defender; Light Helicopter; 1983; 30
United States; MD-530F; Light Helicopter; 1985-1986; 26

Soviet Union; Il-76M/Candid-B; Strategic airlifter; 1978-1984; 33
Soviet Union; Mi-24D/Mi-25/Hind-D; Attack helicopter; 1978-1984; 12
Soviet Union; Mi-8/Mi-17/Hip-H; Transport helicopter; 1986-1987; 37
Soviet Union; Mi-8TV/Hip-F; Transport helicopter; 1984; 30
Soviet Union; Mig-21bis/Fishbed-N; Fighter aircraft; 1983-1984; 61
Soviet Union; Mig-23BN/Flogger-H; FGA aircraft; 1984-1985; 50
Soviet Union; Mig-25P/Foxbat-A; Interceptor aircraft; 1980-1985; 55
Soviet Union; Mig-25RB/Foxbat-B; Recon aircraft; 1982; 8
Soviet Union; Mig-29/Fulcrum-A; Fighter aircraft; 1986-1989; 41
Soviet Union; Su-22/Fitter-H/J/K; FGA aircraft; 1986-1987; 61
Soviet Union; Su-25/Frogfoot-A; Ground attack aircraft; 1986-1987; 84
Soviet Union; 2A36; 152mm Towed gun; 1986-1988; 180
Soviet Union; 2S1; 122mm Self-Propelled Howitzer; 1980-1989; 150
Soviet Union; 2S3; 152mm Self-propelled gun; 1980-1989; 150
Soviet Union; 2S4; 240mm Self-propelled mortar; 1983; 10
Soviet Union; 9P117/SS-1 Scud; TEL SSM launcher; 1983-1984; 10
Soviet Union; BM-21 Grad; 122mm Multiple rocket launcher; 1983-1988; 560
Soviet Union; D-30; 122mm Towed gun; 1982-1988; 576
Soviet Union; M-240; 240mm Mortar; 1981; 25
Soviet Union; M-46 130mm; Towed Gun; 1982-1987; 576
Soviet Union; 9K35 Strela-10/SA-13; AAV(M); 1985; 30
Soviet Union; BMD-1; Infantry Fighting Vehicle; 1981; 10
Soviet Union; PT-76; Light tank; 1984; 200
Soviet Union; SA-9/9P31; AAV(M); 1982-1985; 160
Soviet Union; Long Track; Air surv radar; 1980-1984; 10
Soviet Union; SA-8b/9K33M Osa; AK Mobile SAM system; 1982-1985; 50
Soviet Union; Thin Skin; Air surv radar; 1980-1984; 5
Soviet Union; 9M111/AT-4 Spigot; Anti-tank missile; 1986-1989; 3000
Soviet Union; 9M37/SA-13 Gopher; SAM; 1985-1986; 960
Soviet Union; KSR-5/AS-6 Kingfish; Anti-ship missile; 1984; 36
Soviet Union; Kh-28/AS-9 Kyle; Anti-radar missile; 1983-1988; 250
Soviet Union; R-13S/AA2S Atoll; SRAAM; 1984-1987; 1080
Soviet Union; R-17/SS-1c Scud-B; SSM; 1982-1988; 840
Soviet Union; R-27/AA-10 Alamo; BVRAAM; 1986-1989; 246
Soviet Union; R-40R/AA-6 Acrid; BVRAAM; 1980-1985; 660
Soviet Union; R-60/AA-8 Aphid; SRAAM; 1986-1989; 582
Soviet Union; SA-8b Gecko/9M33M; SAM; 1982-1985; 1290
Soviet Union; SA-9 Gaskin/9M31; SAM; 1982-1985; 1920
Soviet Union; Strela-3/SA-14 Gremlin; Portable SAM; 1987-1988; 500

By God those Yankee Helicopters must have vital eh?

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: Folkiedave
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 04:14 AM

If Rumsfeldd was completely unofficial how come all the sources describe him as a Special Envoy?

How come if it was a year afterwards sources say 12 days?

If he wasn't on a mission how would you describe it?

If arms sales didn't begin soon afterwards, how come they did?

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: Folkiedave
Date: 07 Aug 07 - 04:10 AM

Don't let the facts spoil a good story Teribus.

Try this post -

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: Folkiedave - PM
Date: 02 Aug 07 - 04:32 AM

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Aug 07 - 06:03 PM

I also note Akenaton that neither yourself, Folkiedave, Guest David or Respectful Albert have been able to refute a single thing I have said.

On December 19th 1983 Donald Rumsfeld delivered a letter to Saddam Hussein. The conversation that followed covered points raised in that letter, Rumsfeld brought the answers back. No record, completely non-binding and completely unofficial, it was almost a year later that relations were normalised between the two countries, yes Rumsfeld could rightly claim that he had a part in it.

But remember folks, his role was originally portrayed as him being an senior member of Reagan's administration (Which he was not) on a mission (Three years into the eight year long Iran/Iraq War) to sell arms to Saddam Hussein (Which he did not). All I have done is point that out.

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 06 Aug 07 - 04:44 PM

if the English government hired a taxi to transport its peace envoy to a war torn part of the world - okay the taxi shouldn't have been stupid enough to accept the fare, but really the majority of the blame should lie with the government - who should have had better knowledge than the taxi driver of the local conditions.

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: Folkiedave
Date: 06 Aug 07 - 05:05 AM

Donald Rumsfeld was Reagan's messenger boy - completely unofficial,

So how on earth, if he was unofficial did he get the power to speak for the US government? He was chosen by Reagan as a messenger boy - putting the word "unofficial" especially when it is untrue, makes no difference to that. So he fully revealed his role four years later? So what?

As far as Blackwater and its role is concerned - they are not being sued for their role in Iraq, the people are trying to sue them for negligence in fulfilling that role.

They are claiming immunity from having this negligence being tested in court. Claiming immunity for killing Americans by negligence. I reckon most people can see that.

What a strange set of values supporting them has brought you to.

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Aug 07 - 06:43 PM

Teribus...please give up, your posts are becoming so manic that they are almost unreadable.
The search for "facts" to prop up your outlandish view of the war and its consequences is proving fruitless. .. .. Ake.

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Aug 07 - 02:43 PM

In the normal way of things Folkiedave, airlines do not fly and are not permitted to fly in what are declared combat zones. Hence flights taking personnel in and out on leave are either undertaken by transport command of the airforces involved or by special charter. That is what I believe Blackwater were doing.

LWD is perfectly correct, in the event of any accident all companies will attempt to claim immunity if they can and they will never admit liability - the latter is an automatic instruction from the company's insurers.

Most people should really read a little more carefully. Donald Rumsfeld was Reagans messenger boy - completely unofficial, tasked with opening exploratory talks. You also forget the timeline.

Acted as Reagan's special envoy on (I believe two occasions) between November 1983 to May 1984. America established normal diplomatic relations with Iraq in November 1984. Rumsfeld made the statement about his part in getting normal relations established between Iraq and the USA four years later in 1988.

Going back to people reading things a bit more carefully and Gorgeous George. Remember the original Article from John Hopkins that appeared in the Lancet.

What John Hopkins Report actually said was that up to 500,000 Iraqi civilians MAY HAVE died.

All of a sudden Goregeous George in Respects manifesto, and Bobert are yelling it to the rooftops that 500,000 Iraqi civilians HAVE died.

Now then Folkiedave, I don't know about your powers of comprehension but MAY HAVE is certainly not the same as HAVE - true?

As for the Airline involved in the plane crash down in Brazil I believe that the international agreement that they will attempt to hide behind is a thing called the Warsaw Convention, although I will have to check up on that.

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 05 Aug 07 - 09:36 AM

surely that's commonsense. In the ordinary way of things, you avoid dangerous situations. In a war situation, you can't always avoid dangerous situations. You can't always even attempt to avoid dangerous situations.

If companies were going to be sued every time their product malfunctioned in such extreme situations - no one would agree to supply you with equipment.

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: The Sandman
Date: 05 Aug 07 - 08:42 AM

No he didnt,neither did Mrs Rosenberg,and she was executed on the orders of Dwight Eisenhower.

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: Folkiedave
Date: 05 Aug 07 - 07:58 AM

As far as I can tell the immunity claim is because they are involved in a theatre of war.

Who grants it? The US government.

The question is why do they grant it.

I'd like to see Blackwater's case tested in court. It's a facet of democracy, testing things in court, especially large companies. Granting immunity to whoever is a facet of the type of regime getting rid of which is supposedly the point of the war.

Let's turn the tables for a minute. Suppose the Iraq government granted immunity to companies to kill Americans?

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 05 Aug 07 - 05:57 AM

If you were running a company and you could do - you'd be stupid not claim immunity - for the sake of your workforce and shareholders.

Right or wrong. Presumably it was a techinicality - because it was in a theatre of war.

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: Folkiedave
Date: 04 Aug 07 - 12:00 PM

Well I think most people reading that Rumsfeld was a Special Envoy for Reagan and that his proudest achievement was normalisation of relations with Iraq on behalf of the government of the USA - would imagine for one minute that during that time he was a private person as you do.

Most people would take that to mean that he was a Special Envoy for President Regan and that he was working on behalf of the American government.

However clearly we are in the world of words meaning what you say they mean.

At home in America, Blackwater is facing at least two wrongful-death lawsuits, one stemming from the mob killings of four of its men in Falluja in March 2004, the other for a Blackwater plane crash in Afghanistan in November 2004, in which a number of US soldiers were killed. In both cases, families of the deceased charge that Blackwater's negligence led to the deaths.

The difference between the aircrash that killed American soldiers and the Brasilian aircrash of course is that the Brasilian airline cannot claim immunity from prosecution - as Blackwater are doing.

Would you be kind enough to say whether or not you support private companies claiming immunity from prosecution when they may be responsible for the deaths of Americans?

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Aug 07 - 07:01 AM

Well then Folkiedave, perhaps you should have a look into exactly what being a "Special Presidential Envoy" involves and means.

By the bye Folkiedave, from Donald Rumsfelds CV:

From 1977 to 1985 Rumsfeld served as Chief Executive Officer, President, and then Chairman of G.D. Searle & Company, a worldwide pharmaceutical company based in Skokie, Illinois.

Now when was that 90 minute meeting with Saddam again, Folkiedave? Somewhere around 19/20th December 1983 - So he was neither in the US Government of the day or a member of Reagan's administration - That's why he was sent to deliver President Reagan's letter to Saddam, because it was completely unofficial, nothing said on either side could be taken as being binding, they were nothing more than intial exploratory talks that led almost a year later to normalisation of diplomatic relations between Washington and Baghdad.

Here is what Wikipedia had to say about it:

"When he visited on December 19–20 1983, he and Saddam Hussein had a 90-minute discussion that covered Syria's occupation of Lebanon, preventing Syrian and Iranian expansion, preventing arms sales to Iran by foreign countries, increasing Iraqi oil production via a possible new oil pipeline across Jordan. According to declassified U.S. State Department documents Rumsfeld also informed Tariq Aziz (Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister) that: "Our efforts to assist were inhibited by certain things that made it difficult for us ... citing the use of chemical weapons." For the Iraq tour Rumsfeld didn't come empty handed and brought many gifts from the Reagan administration. These gifts included pistols, medieval spiked hammers even a pair of golden cowboy spurs. Until the 1991 Gulf war these were all displayed in Saddam's Victory Museum in Baghdad which held all the gifts bestowed on Saddam by world leaders.

During his brief bid for the 1988 Republican nomination, Rumsfeld stated that restoring full relations with Iraq was one of his best achievements. This was not a particularly controversial position at the time, when the Establishment U.S. policy regime considered ties with Iraq an effective bulwark against Iran."

With regard to your post of 02 Aug 07 - 04:43 AM Folkiedave. Your quoted passage to which you asked the question - "Now how would you describe that?" My answer would be that it is certainly not a description of an "army of contractors waging their own privatised war in Iraq".

As for your parting shot:

"Oh and by the way - Blackwater are being sued by American families of American soldiers they killed . They argue immunity. Not that they didn't do it, just that they can get away with it. Nice......"

Check your facts out Folkie, they are being sued by the relatives of American servicemen who died in a plane crash in Afghanistan - Now that is slightly different to the version that you are broadcasting and what you are attempting to imply - "Blackwater are being sued by American families of American soldiers they killed." Blackwater didn't kill any American soldiers, the truth is that some American servicemen died when an aircraft being operated by Blackwater crashed - Accident Folkiedave, nothing more, nothing less, if you remember there was another in Brazil a few days ago, and guess what Folkiedave? I bet the relatives down there in Brazil also sue the company operating that aircraft - How unusual, how sinister - Airlines killing passengers.

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: Folkiedave
Date: 03 Aug 07 - 04:28 AM

Nothing to dispute in what I have written then Teribus??

Haven't the guys had time to brief you yet?

Exactly like your hero GWB- no bloody substance at all.

And since you seem to miss these things - that's called parody.

Let's get back to the thread......of course Teribus - once it is pointed out you are talking nonsense you want to change the subject.....

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: GUEST,HP
Date: 03 Aug 07 - 04:04 AM

Read today that British and American soldiers are returning from Iraq in large numbers with all kinds of emotional,mental and physical damage.
Alcoholism is rife and family problems are occuring because of the stresses and strains these soldiers have undergone.
Where is it going to end?
HP

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 03 Aug 07 - 03:39 AM

too weird for me......

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: GUEST, ElSid
Date: 03 Aug 07 - 01:31 AM

Not for nothing is GG being hounded by the apparatus of the state.The US and the UK are after him not because he is a criminal but because of his outspoken views on the war.
He tore the US senate committee to shreds and I am sure the US govt would like to have another crack at him.
He has also been a real thorn in the side of New Labour over helping to mobilise public opinion before the war started.
I saw his speech in Parliamentlast week .....it was shameful the way he was stopped in his tracks time after time by the Speaker as he mounted his defence.
He has already won an important legal case against the Telegraph and I think the Christian Monitor , over faked documents and why are these documents being faked ??
The real criminals are walking the corridors of power still and they have the blood of hundreds of thousands of people on their hands ...
el sid

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: GUEST,albert
Date: 03 Aug 07 - 01:21 AM

Reply to wld,
Nice to people??
In search of profit capitalism will do anything!!

Legal or illegal. It was born dripping blood and gore through slavery,rapid industrialisation and the confiscation of commonlands and Nicey nicey capitalism thought nothing of sticking kids underground or in mills for 12 hours a day.

It thought nothing of pushing the old or unemployed into workhouses while it built palaces and mansions for the rich and it thought nothing of unleashing war across the world to control raw materials and other resources...

And of course it was those wild eyed riff raff radicals and socialists who opposed them at every turn....

That bloody Marx in Soho writing his exposure of capitalism and showing it wasnt very nice and no armchair theorist he,a bloody agitator for the 10 hour day and active against the slave states in the American Civil War...

And those dissenters in Tolpuddle ...a rough crew swearing oaths and demanding trade union rights.Not at all nice said the judge as he taught them a lesson by sending them off to That Fatal shore called Australia.

And its not all in the distant past...look at the miners...were they not a rough crew led by a left wing agitator...demanding the right to work!

And now it is the postal workers fighting to stop the neo liberal tide and trying to save their jobs and working conditions from casualisation and privatisation Not nice.

They should be nicer! Like that nice Mr Murdoch and that very nice Haliburton or that sweet Kenneth Ley of Exxon or even those nice Russian oligarchs making a few bob or two in Russia.

But there again wasnt it those anti war sweethearts The Dixie Chicks who made an album called "No more nice" or something similar!?
albert

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Aug 07 - 08:23 PM

No really, to get back to the subject of the thread:

"Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing?"

The question mark is mine - Yes of course he did.

It was the most thorough parliamentary examination ever conducted if reports are to be believed. The fact that he was made to sit and actually listen to evidence presented against him, sort of threw him off stride, and in comparison to his usual performances, it must have upset the poor lad a tad, but what the hell you roll with life's punches - Not gorgeous George , or his supporters. They are actually beginning to suffer, not surprisingly, from the thing that killed Saddam - They are actually beginning to believe their own publicity.

The evidence, and I use that word advisedly, is sufficient for the Police to start an investigation into the affairs of "Gorgeous George". Personally I welcome it, because now it must stand the rigours of Law. The investigating Parliamentary Committee demanded that George publicly apologised to the reporter from "The Daily Telegraph", who GG defamed under the protection of Parliamentary Rules - Has he done that yet? No, of course he hasn't, nor will he.

Come on all you leftist "salts of the earth", you all know that when you guys are proved to be in the wrong you all hold yours hands up and admit your mistakes - Like Hell - And Gorgeous George ain't any different - Now We All Know That - Do You?

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 02 Aug 07 - 06:45 PM

thats what a good doctor does Mo, warn you of your excesses.....

"as a socialist myself I have to ask if you ever wanted to change capitalism or did you just want to ask if it could be a bit nicer to the old,the poor ,the marginalised and the working people?"

Socialist is an imprecise term. If being one entails just buggering about making speeches and shouting the odds like those trotskyist clown dickheads who wouldn't let Callaghan make a single speech in the 1979 election and got Thatch in power - frankly I'd rather go down in history as a neo nazi. Overall they've done less harm to England and Ireland. The neo nazis were ineffective stupid prats, whereas the trots getting Thatch in, buggered up England good and proper.

Only a certain kind of socialist could sneer at the idea of being nice to people, as though it were something to be ashamed of.

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: GUEST,Mo
Date: 02 Aug 07 - 05:32 PM

The Labour Party was set up to remove the excesses of capitalism instead it became it bedside doctor!
Mo

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: GUEST,el sid
Date: 02 Aug 07 - 05:30 PM

Don't mix up capitalism with democracy....they really are not the same at all!
sid

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: Shakey
Date: 02 Aug 07 - 05:09 PM

seems to me it was a choice of "nicer to the old,the poor ,the marginalised and the working people" or, given we have a democracy and not to put to finer point on it, fuck all.

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: GUEST,albert
Date: 02 Aug 07 - 04:37 PM

Hey steady on now....
it was the Labour govt of Callaghan in 1976 which made made the first actual cuts in living standards among working class people since the war!

The Social Contract deals also politically disorientated the trade unions and much of that deal was delivered on the trade union side by leaders like Hugh Scanlon.

Much of Thatcher's policies were shaped before she came to office.According to Peter Ridell the of the Financial Times""If there had been a Thatcher experiment ,it had been launched by Denis Healey."

And to remind Mudcatters of the Wilson and Callaghan government they spent one billion pounds in secret on updating the Polaris Nuclear weapons improvement programme ["Chevaline"] at a time when Labour were cutting back on hospitals,homes and roads etc.

It wasn't the left wing of Labour which was responsible for the failure of the Callaghan govt...it turned on its own supporters rather than take on the financiers and big business interests.And lets remember it was a right wing split from Labour [the SDP ] which then ensured that Thatcher could get relected for a second term.Most of that lot are now back in the embrace of New Labour.

Shakey you really have been swallowing the right wing myths wholesale!
Get out a bit!
Albert

ps
as a socialist myself I have to ask if you ever wanted to change capitalism or did you just want to ask if it could be a bit nicer to the old,the poor ,the marginalised and the working people?

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 02 Aug 07 - 04:31 PM

Well I think I've said my bit - probably too much. But if you still think the bloke is a gem. i suppose there must be something in him to inspire such loyalty. Best of luck with your efforts to get him a fair hearing.

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: Shakey
Date: 02 Aug 07 - 02:35 PM

Steady on wld, they'll be accusing you of being me in disguise soon.

To be frank, although a life long socialist and liberal I have always detested the extreme left far more than the average conservative. Since the great communist collapse the western loonies on the left have made ever more bizarre partnerships with anyone who is anti american. As you have pointed out, which Albert failed to see, the Labour party of the seventies and eighties was culpable in ensuring the tories had 17 years of power.



"We are all hezbolah now" for gods sake.

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 02 Aug 07 - 09:23 AM

'I doubt if the scheme could have gone ahead without this support.'

You should have read the Yahoo politics sites at the time. Very few Americans knew or cared about the fact that they had an ally in Britain.

They didn't give a fig or a fuck, and our presence certainly didn't affect their plans. I think its post Falklands thinking, when in that conflict, we were so dependent on the Yanks intelligence services that makes it unlikely we will act in the same way that we did over Vietnam. We simply don't have a defence policy independent of the USA, and the Euro countries who think otherwise are being at best dishonest with thenmselves and enjoying a comfortable delusion.

I think also the great days of the left wing of the Labour Party occurred at a time when it was possible to have rose tinted view of the Soviet bloc. Many left wingers in England (my own parents included); even after Hungary got clobbered round about 1956, then the Czechs in 1969 and even after the Vietnamese boat people incident - refused point blank to think the worst of Russia. Since the fall of that regime, we have learned that the threat was every bit as real as the rightwingers said, and their intentions completely imperialistic.

If you want to go pretending its 1945, and we don't know anything about the nature of how the world turns and how in particular the world turns on the unprotected - fair enough.

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: GUEST,ifor
Date: 02 Aug 07 - 07:08 AM

To weelittledrummer:

Well you have managed to write quite a few paragraphs without mentioning Galloway by name.

I don't think anyone who has written on Mudcat in his defence idolises him. However,when it came to the matter of war and peace he stood out in opposition to the invasion of Iraq.

There was no clamour across the world for Iraq to be invaded.The scheme was hatched by Bush and his gang of recycled Reaganites,Pentagon chiefs and Texas Oil bosses. In this he was aided and supported by Blair . I doubt if the scheme could have gone ahead without this support.

And they could not get the support of most mainstream politicians across the world.Even a right wing french president would not support this adventure.

And there was huge wave of grassroots anti war movement that did its utmost to stop the invasion.

Bush and Blair lied like mad to go to war and to try to convince the world that their invasion was inevitable and proper.

The War gang have done their utmost to punish or marginalise those who opposed their invasion and Galloway has been in their sights for quite some time and I am sure they are still out to finish him off.

This is not just about defending Galloway it is about whether we allow a powerful gang off warhawks to have unfettered opportunities to terrorise people,invade countries ,support despotic regimes,supply vast amounts of arms and make huge profits at the expense of populations across the world.
ifor

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 02 Aug 07 - 06:01 AM

Look what a bastard Stalin was, does that mean Churchill was wrong to form an alliance with him against Hitler. These aren't pleasant choices, but it was a privilege to have those choices - unlike countries like Poland that went to the wall.

I can't see why you idolise these people who live in a sort of moral vacuum. They have the ability to get elected and the plausibility to fight their way through party machinery (and there are hundreds of well meaning decent folk, who just don't have that kind of charisma) - but when push comes to shove - the real choices that lie at the helm of political power don't interest them.

They're in it for the ego trip, the status, the big jobs, the money, the fame..........but I can't see an honourable explanation for this chorus of dismay at every turn of events after 9/11.

I do respect politicians of conscience walking way from power - Hesseltine over Westland, John Macregor when he told Thatch that the national curriculum was a load of expensive shite signifying nothing.

But I don't understand, why you are saying what you are saying. Are you really surprised that any of these terrible things are going on? It seems very insincere.

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: Folkiedave
Date: 02 Aug 07 - 04:43 AM

No there is no army of "contractors " waging their own privatised war in Iraq. There may well be a large number of private security firms operating in Iraq and elsewhere all over the middle-east, but to state that they are "waging their own privatised war", is rather over-egging the pudding.

From the link I gave you.....which you clearly spent a lot of time reading.

Iraqi officials have consistently complained about the conduct of Blackwater and other contractors - and the legal barriers to their attempts to investigate or prosecute alleged wrongdoing. Four years into the occupation, there is absolutely no effective system of oversight or accountability governing contractors and their operations. They have not been subjected to military justice, and only two cases have ever reached US civilian courts, under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, which covers some contractors working abroad. (One man was charged with stabbing a fellow contractor, in a case that has yet to go to trial, while the other was sentenced to three years for possession of child-pornography images on his computer at Abu Ghraib prison.) No matter what their acts in Iraq, contractors cannot be prosecuted in Iraqi courts, thanks to US-imposed edicts dating back to Paul Bremer's post-invasion Coalition Provisional Authority.

The internet is alive with videos of contractors seemingly using Iraqi vehicles for target practice, much to the embarrassment of the firms involved. Yet, despite these incidents, and although 64 US soldiers have been court-martialled on murder-related charges, not a single armed contractor has been prosecuted for any crime, let alone a crime against an Iraqi. US contractors in Iraq reportedly have a motto: "What happens here today, stays here today."

Now how would you describe that?

Oh and by the way - Blackwater are being sued by American families of American soldiers they killed . They argue immunity. Not that they didn't do it, just that they can get away with it. Nice......

Dave

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: Folkiedave
Date: 02 Aug 07 - 04:32 AM

So Rumsfeld, a private citizen at the time of his meeting with Saddam, unlike Gorgeous George,

Don't let the facts spoil a good story Teribus.

The unelected Rumsfeld was acting as Middle East Envoy for President Reagan and all the sources I can find say precisely that. George despite being an elected MP was acting as a private citizen and representing no-one but himself.

There a dozens of quotes let me choose just one:

With the Iran-Iraq war escalating, President Ronald Reagan dispatched his Middle East envoy, a former secretary of defense, to Baghdad with a hand-written letter to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and a message that Washington was willing at any moment to resume diplomatic relations.

That envoy was Donald Rumsfeld.

12 days after that meeting the USA announced that Iran winning the war would not serve USA interests.

Throughout the period that Rumsfeld was Reagan's Middle East envoy, Iraq was frantically purchasing hardware from American firms, empowered by the White House to sell. The buying frenzy began immediately after Iraq was removed from the list of alleged sponsors of terrorism in 1982. According to a February 13, 1991 Los Angeles Times article:

"First on Hussein's shopping list was helicopters -- he bought 60 Hughes helicopters and trainers with little notice. However, a second order of 10 twin-engine Bell "Huey" helicopters, like those used to carry combat troops in Vietnam, prompted congressional opposition in August, 1983... Nonetheless, the sale was approved."

In 1984, according to The LA Times, the State Department—in the name of "increased American penetration of the extremely competitive civilian aircraft market"—pushed through the sale of 45 Bell 214ST helicopters to Iraq. The helicopters, worth some $200 million, were originally designed for military purposes. The New York Times later reported that Saddam "transferred many, if not all [of these helicopters] to his military."

In 1988, Saddam's forces attacked Kurdish civilians with poisonous gas from Iraqi helicopters and planes. U.S. intelligence sources told The LA Times in 1991, they "believe that the American-built helicopters were among those dropping the deadly bombs."

I could fill the Mudcat servers with similar quotes........

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: GUEST,david
Date: 02 Aug 07 - 03:57 AM

The thread started with the question
Did Galloway get a fair hearing?

...he never sold arms to Saddam but there are quite a few leading world leaders out there who lied to get us to war....and their predecessors certainly supped with the devil in order to flog him military equipment and to enhance their economic and strategic interests.
Unfortunately the death toll in Iraq is now in the hundreds of thousands and there are 4 million in exile and of course there are the thousands of US and British military casualties......
but be assured the children of these pro war politicians will never go to war.
david

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 02 Aug 07 - 03:05 AM

Given the state of Iraq - Saddam seemed like a moderate. People had tough decisions to make. That's what happens, when you're in power. If you never seek any role more elevated than the man you admire so much, you never have to make deals with the devil.