Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: GUEST,Albert
Date: 31 Jul 07 - 12:29 PM

TO teribus,
Hey, this Iraq war ...its a big desert right....it must all be a mirage!

albert

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Jul 07 - 12:37 PM

Nothing to dispute in what I have written then Albert?

Haven't the guys from the Socialist Workers Party, or your pals in Respect, had time to brief you yet?

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

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: GUEST,David
Date: 31 Jul 07 - 12:39 PM

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: Shakey
Date: 31 Jul 07 - 12:40 PM

The topic is GG, remember.

So Albert, as you're an expert on these matters how do you explain the following statement:

I can confirm that the "Massari Must Stay" campaign - the campaign against my deportation - was run by Lord Avebury and Mr Galloway"

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 31 Jul 07 - 01:06 PM

Jaded...maybe I am.

I remember my mother when Foot was elected top man in the Labour Party. She was so excited. She was dying of cancer at the time, but she thought that she was about to see a world where Britain was going to abandon its H-bombs. She had grandchildren and she thought they were the hope of the future.

God forgive me, I said to her - No Mum, all this means is that the tories are going to win at least the next two elections - at least eight more years of the tories - pushing me an my disabled wife further to the bottom of society and ladling out the share options and tax breaks to their rich friends. One time the Labour party will lose; probably the next time as well - if they don't have policies which are perceived by the general population as moderate.

Blair was a visionary. He saw that the only rich bastards he had to propitiate were Rupert Murdoch and the Americans. After that, he could do pretty much what he wanted. And he was better for the poorer classes.

I see the left wing of the Labour Party as cynical users of idealists. Uninterested in the acquisition of power.

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: Shakey
Date: 31 Jul 07 - 02:43 PM

Jesus, I could have written that al, in fact I'm pretty sure I have in the past on this very forum.

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: GUEST,albert
Date: 31 Jul 07 - 05:11 PM

Weelittledrummer
I tnink you are living in some kind of cloud of disillusionment, a sort of mist of misery.

I really don't think the left wing of the 1980s Labour Party can be blamed for the lack of government support for disabled people...the labour party wasn't even in office.

You do recall that it was the Conservative government that made a sustained attack on the working class,their organisations and the welfare state way back in the 1980s
.
While Thatcher was busy with the deployment of cruise missiles the anti nuclear slogan was "Welfare Not Warfare " ...Then she spent 20 billions on Trident which is shortly going to be replaced when Brown finds it convenient to make the announcement.I have read somewhere that its replacement will cost 60 billion pounds. No doubt you will blame that on the left wing anti nuclear crowd also.

Your basic attitude seems to be there is nothing we can do,so dont bother and let the right wing war crowd get on with it....

Just a little reminder that it was Nye Bevan [ he too expelled from the Labour Party ] , called a "primitive marxist" by his biographer Michael Foot [that man again and 93 years young this month], who did most to establish the NHS. Bevan was voted Welshman of the Millennium in some poll or other which was rather a good result for a militant socialist and shows that socialists can be very popular!


This was a man who fought the most enormous personal and political battles against the right wing of his own party and the Conservatives ....should he have bothered?? Of course he should and the health of our kids has improved dramatically because of the NHS ...which is under attack from the likes of Blair and Brown.
best wishes
albert
ps
Blair a visionary?I think not ...more a charlatan...if he had a vision it was how to stuff the pockets of the wealthy with even more riches!

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: Shakey
Date: 31 Jul 07 - 05:33 PM

the labour party wasn't even in office.

Oh for gods sake read what wld wrote, he's made the same point a couple of times and, as usual you've missed it.

btw I've asked a question twice can't you come up with a decent explanation

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: GUEST,ifor
Date: 01 Aug 07 - 03:55 AM

You asked a question about somebody called Massari?
If he had terrorist links they must have paled compared to the crimes of Augusto Pinochet who ,when wanted in Spain ,was held in luxury in a sumptious Surrey house before being sent back to Chile. Jack Straw and Tony Blair were at the helm at the time and could have struck a real blow against international terrorism as Pinochet's victims included British and Spanish citizens as well as thousands of Chileans who were murdered,thrown out of aeroplanes,tortured , raped and buried in ghastly unmarked graves.
ifor

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: GUEST,albert
Date: 01 Aug 07 - 11:29 AM

To Shakey
I certainly don't claim to be an expert on things ....but I do know that when it came to the invasion of Iraq the war gang lied and the anti war movement were irght to protest against the drive to war.

The results are coming in weekly with no resolution in sight.

The latest bit of news is the Oxfam report into the slide into chaos in Iraq and the protests by Surrey neighbours of an attempt to get planning consent for a house to be turned into a residential centre for families who are vising their seriously injured servicemen and women returning from Iraq and who are being treated in a nearby hospital.

These servicemen are coming back with horrific wounds and the residents are claiming their properties will be reduced in value....
albert

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: Mr Happy
Date: 01 Aug 07 - 11:40 AM

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=G1RBJVSPqps

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: goatfell
Date: 01 Aug 07 - 12:41 PM

of course not, they just don't like being shown for what they are hypocrites.

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: Folkiedave
Date: 01 Aug 07 - 02:17 PM

Are large numbers of mercenary so called "contractors " waging their own privatised war in Iraq? - Once more, I don't think so.

Sometimes I think you have a secret line to the newspapers - writing something that evidence is about to contradict.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,2138878,00.html

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: Folkiedave
Date: 01 Aug 07 - 02:32 PM

If Gorgeous George's pal, Saddam Hussein had been left in power,

I detect a little bias here. He was of course a friend of Reagan, Rumsfeld and the USA administration of the time.

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".

So let's not call him "Georgeous George's pal" - lets call him the USA's pal who were busy selling him arms AFTER they knew he was using chemical weapons on people.

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: GUEST,ifor
Date: 01 Aug 07 - 02:56 PM

Well put Folkie Dave!!
ifor

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Aug 07 - 05:16 PM

Perhaps Folkiedave can do well enough for him to tell us the names of the people who served as US Ambassadors to Iraq during all this time that Saddam was the US's pal. Now let's see Saddam came to power in 1979, who was the US Ambassador to Iraq present at whatever ceremony that took place to mark the occasion - After all many here believe that the US via the CIA put Saddam in power.

So Rumsfeld, a private citizen at the time of his meeting with Saddam, unlike Gorgeous George, was there to sell Saddam weapons was he? Now tell us Folkiedave just exactly how he would go about doing that, particularly as the vast bulk of armament sales to Saddam came from Russia, France and China. They traded arms for oil, if you doubt any of that, take a look at who has oil leases, exploration and field operating rights in Iraq (Same old faces then as now).

By the bye Folkiedave, Gorgeous George wasn't there pleading for peace he was there looking for money. True to type Glasgow Labour Politician with his nose wedged firmly in the trough, his greatest fear was that if Saddam left he would be out in the cold - the vital question for Gorgeous George at the time was where on earth the next Armani suit would come from?

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. But that is what the extreme-left tend to do, as I stated before - The same old emotive clap-trap made up of myths, half-truths, downright lies and misrepresentations - Well done indeed Folkiedave.

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: Shakey
Date: 01 Aug 07 - 05:28 PM

I'd love to give you a hand Terebus, but the beer in Brussels has the better of me and, let's face it, you don't really need it judging by the comments so far.

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: GUEST,albert
Date: 02 Aug 07 - 02:44 AM

Although Saddam became the president of Iraq in 1979 he was the power in the land long before that.
The USA was a very important supporter of Iraq on his march to become a regional power.
And of course one reason was that they wanted to use him and Iraq to counter the threat of Iran.

Here is what Said K Aburish had to say [or write] in his book "Saddam Hussein" published in 2000.
"
"All warnings aside ,in 1989 the United States supplied Iraq with helicopter engines,vacuum pumps for a nuclear plant,sophisticated communications,computers,bacteria strains, and hundreds of tonnes of unrefined sarin.
Furthermore the pro Iraq activities of the US -Iraqi Business Forum ,led as it was by former diplomats with solid connections with the State Department , were augmented by the work of Kissinger Associates , the consulting firm headed by former secretary of Sate Henry Kissinger .
Representing companies such as Volvo,Fiat and Hunt Oil ,this firm took their signal from the government .Two of the insiders Brent Scowfield and Lawrence Eagleburger , were to join the Bush administration in the spring of 1989 , the former as National Security Adviser."
albert

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.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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