Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing

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: 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 - 04:01 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 10:18 PM

Have you noticed that in a cat fight it is the one that's cornered that does all the hissing and howling? Bless you, Teri, you cheered me up - by digging so low, you make the rest of us appear to have the moral high ground, even if only comparatively so. Tell Old Nick we're coming, won't you?

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Aug 07 - 01:56 AM

Yes George I have noticed, all the hissing has been coming from the likes of Akenaton and Folkiedave. They still have not come up with anything authoratative to substantiate the myths that have been trotted out.

If I have managed to cheer you up George, then that's my pleasure.

Nice of you to make the distinction about the rest of you "appearing to have the moral high ground", because that is all it is - an appearance of fact. It has no substance and like a pack of cards it tumbles at the application of the faintest effort.

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Aug 07 - 09:33 AM

Yes George, and I would also like to thank Teribus for showing what he is.
His "facts" are no more verifiable than our opinions, set as they are by some of the most untrustworthy people on the planet.
Teribus contends that I am a hypocrit, knowing absolutely nothing about me personally....a strange course of action for one who deals only in "facts".

"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."

So we were faced with a clearly declared threat by pre-war Iraq....is that a fact?   If so it is one of his false facts made up on the hoof, as all the strategy for this war seems to have been.

Our leaders were fully prepared to act, and history will prove them right.........What a strange opinion, considering that our leaders are making every effort to extricate themselves from any culpability in this bloodbath.
By your writing Teribus it would seem that it is you who is the hypocrit, you pretend to be someone who deals only in facts, but at the end of the day your arguments are based on good old fashioned opinion just like the rest of us.
The only pity is that your opinions are so lacking in pity for mutilated children of Iraq, or the children who fight the wars for you and your kind

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: Doktor Doktor
Date: 10 Aug 07 - 10:23 AM

The only reason George W went to war was " .. to finish the job my daddy started ... " (straight quote)
The only reason George G is in trouble is because he's a Glorious Eccentric. (If you're upper class). Or Mad. (If you're poor).
The Mutilated Children of Iraq were being mutilated by Hussain S before Al-Queda took over.
The only reason Al-Queda are so strong in Iraq is because George W went to war (see above and repeat chorus)

Just because Regan, Wayne & Arnie beat oppression by force in movies doesn't mean it works.
Could somebody tell the American People please?

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 10 Aug 07 - 10:29 AM



What inverted snobbery is this? Nothing wrong with being upper class, rather that than a jumped up chav.

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: Doktor Doktor
Date: 10 Aug 07 - 10:42 AM

No Worries Bonzo.

Its the usual thing - if you got money you're a rock star in rehab. If not you're a hoodie with an ASBO.

(all together now "it's the Rich wot gets th pleasure, it's the Poor wot cops the Blame ... " .. )

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Aug 07 - 11:34 AM

Well I don't know about unverified Akenaton?

1. When it comes to Donald Rumsfelds employment record it is just that a simple matter of record. According to Folkiedave he was a senior member of Reagan's administration with full authority to speak for the Government of the United States of America. The truth was that he was selected as an unpaid envoy to deliver a letter from President Reagan to Saddam Hussein, while he was in the middle-east. He was not a member of Reagan's administration and he did not have the authority to speak for anyone other than himself.

2. According to Gorgeous George and Folkiedave, Rumsfeld was there to sell arms to Saddam. As stated previously the meeting notes, which were previously classified, are now in the public domain. I have read through the 18 page document, Gorgeous George and Folkiedave obviously have not, because, it conclusively proves that the subject of US arms sales to Iraq did not even enter into the conversation, check it for yourself.

3. "So we were faced with a clearly declared threat by pre-war Iraq....is that a fact?"

Well quite a few thought so at the time and well before that, otherwise Resolution 1441 would never have been passed unanimously (even Syria voted for it). Oh and there was also this to get the perspective of the United States of America:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Aug 07 - 01:12 PM

Quite a few thought so after they had their arms twisted up their backs by Bush's bully boys.
Resolution 1441 was a sick joke, bringing shame on an organisation which you have habitually vilified, but now use to prop up your unstable argument.

In defence of the UN, 1441 was never intended as a precurser to all out war, but as you know very well, THAT decision had been taken long before by our brave blood soaked leaders.

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Aug 07 - 01:22 PM

"But Saddam Hussein could end this crisis tomorrow simply by letting the weapons inspectors complete their mission. He made a solemn commitment to the international community to do that and to give up his weapons of mass destruction a long time ago now. One way or the other, we are determined to see that he makes good on his own promise."

Some fuckin' hopes!!    Saddam had no WMD's to give up and the US/UK coalition made sure the inspectors were withdrawn before the truth was made clear....Ake

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Aug 07 - 01:42 PM

Akenaton, I do take it that you do realise who said the words quoted in your last post and when he said them.

As to the US/UK coalition withdrawing UNSCOM Inspectors, it was the UNSCOM Inspectors complains of obstruction and intimidation on the part of the Iraqi Authorities that made their job impossible - At least that is how they reported it to the UN Security Council - Again Akenaton that is not just my opinion it is a matter of record - look it up.

And the mission of both UNSCOM an latterly UNMOVIC was not to wander about searching for Iraq's WMD but to verify that they did not have any and monitor and supervise the destruction of any prohibited items found. They also had to verify that all prohibited research and development programmes aimed at the acquisition of WMD were shut down. Now for them to do that there did not have to any WMD - True? What such an inspection effort would rely on heavily was Iraqi co-operation, which they never got.

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Aug 07 - 01:55 PM

"Quite a few thought so after they had their arms twisted up their backs by Bush's bully boys." - Akenaton

Another myth trotted out by the looney left. Anything by way of substantiation? Now let's see to get that Resolution passed unanimously "Bush's bully boys" would have had to twist the arms of Russia,China and France. Now how did they do that Akenaton?

Same old three horse race folks, place your bets.

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Aug 07 - 05:07 PM

Russia China and France were well aware that the decision to wage war had already been taken, incommon with most members of the public who had any understanding of American foreign policy.

Looking to the future, support for a compromise....not a license to kill....would seem the least worst option. All were cowards in the face of US/UK agression.

I'm afraid in the real world, the blind and limbless children come very far down the list of priorities Capitalism minds only the rich and powerful

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Aug 07 - 02:54 AM

Whether there was going to be a war or not, rested entirely with Saddam. Everybody fully believed the contents of UNSCOM Report of January 1999 and believed that Saddam had not destroyed his remaining WMD and stocks of WMD agents, that was why Resolution 1441 got the support it did.

Saddam's major trading partners, Russia, France, China along with Germany were, I believe, culpable because they convinced Saddam that, with their active diplomatic support, he could hold out for a second time against the UN's inspectors. They told him that sanctions would soon be lifted, they told him that the US and the UK would not act. They were wrong, sorely wrong, in the wake of 911 and taking into consideration the threat evaluation arrived at three years before in 1998, so clearly outlined and expressed by Bill Clinton, the one thing that Saddam should have realised and banked on was that the United States of America would act. He was given every opportunity to avoid conflict but chose to ignore them all.

"I'm afraid in the real world, the blind and limbless children come very far down the list of priorities Capitalism minds only the rich and powerful." - Akenaton

Your biased and bigotted view is noted. What you say might be true, but democracy based on a capitalist economy also provides hope and the opportunity for betterment. Communism and a State controlled economy serves those you mention even less.

While the "anti-American", "anti-west", lobby have ranted on about the hundreds of thousands of lives US interference has cost since the end of the Second World War, they are oddly silent about the tens of millions killed by Communist regimes in the same period.

If you take a look at the advances made since the Reform Act was passed in the UK in 1832 you will see a constant and steady improvement in the general lot of the population across the board. That was all based on a capitalist economy. On the other hand take a look at the lot of those over the same period who had to endure the experience of living under the communist regimes so admired by the likes of Akenaton. Total State control on every aspect of life leading to stagnation, despair, misery and despondency.

Akenaton might challenge that but I cannot recall many dying in their hundreds to escape to experience life under those communist regimes, the reverse cannot be said, their memorials in Berlin stand testament to that, the pictures of the orphanages in Romania stand testament to how caring communist regimes can be, the fate of Chinese villagers currently being cleared from their homes in Beijing to make way for the Olympics stand testament to that.

In the recent Tsunami I noted that the usual leftist, anti-American lot were silent. Perhaps Akenaton can explain to us where the Russian and Chinese helicopters were when it came to mustering the aid effort. How much did those countries contribute to the disaster relief? Since it fell into the hands of Communist overlords Russia, with all its vast wealth, with all its rich land, never once managed to feed it's population. It had to rely on massive amounts of aid from - guess where - America, a democratic country based on a capitalist economy.

Now that democratic system based on a capitalist economy may well not be perfect, but it is better than the alternative, and currently the best we have.

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Aug 07 - 03:20 AM

You seem to consider that the only alternative to Western Capitalism is a "State Capitalist" model as practiced in Mid 20th Century Russia.

If youhave been reading any of my previous posts on other threads, you would have discovered that I consider these models worse than ours.

Contrary to what you broadcast here, I am not a believer in Communist dogma, but believe that the ideal is a measure of happiness and fulfillment for as many of our brothers and sisters as possible.

As far as I can see neither the old Communist systme nor Western Capitalism provides any happiness at all ,but merely turns humans into slaves.


Under Communism...to the State ....In the West to the Banks and financial institutions.

You may say that we choose to enslave ourselves, but that is a debate worth having...

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Aug 07 - 04:09 AM

Or in other words Akenaton:

"Now that democratic system based on a capitalist economy may well not be perfect, but it is better than the alternative, and currently the best we have."

Like most on the extreme left you misrepresent capitalism as being something political, it is not and never has been, it is an economic system.

There is no such thing as "Western Capitalism", its another of the lefts myths, it was invented by the Soviets and built up to be the bogey-man with which they frightened their populations.

Conversely what you call "State Capitalism" is also a myth, it was invented by the hard left to explain the collapse of the Communist Regimes that they previously supported. Within the communist system, the means of creating wealth had to be controlled by the state, they did not operate "State Capitalism", they operated what was known as a "Command Economy" which was totally controlled by the State. It was grossly inefficient, wasteful and utterly inadequate - That is why it failed, such systems always do, there has never been one successful example of a "Command Economy".

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: GUEST,from albert
Date: 11 Aug 07 - 02:14 PM

Have just returned from Sidmouth so have missed some of the discussion about Galloway and Iraq.

Teribus you are wrong and oh so wrong in your take on state capitalism.

The theory of state capitalism was first made widely known in left wing circles in the late 1940s and 1950s by Tony Cliff and Mike Kidron who went on to form the International Socialists who evolved in the 1970s into the Socialist Workers Party. Although if my memory serves me correct there was an earlier proponent of this theory.

In the 1950s the Soviet Union appeared to have plenty of strength and it was quite a brave and unorthodox socialist to suggest the the Soviet Union was not socialist and was in fact a state capitalist system created through the destruction of the Revolution in the 1920s.

Cliff has written several books on this theme and has attempted to rescue the classical marxist belief that the emancipation of the working class will be the act of the working class.
I will drink to that!
albert

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Aug 07 - 06:26 PM

"Now that democratic system based on a capitalist economy may well not be perfect, but it is better than the alternative, and currently the best we have."
Wrong Teribus.... I do not believe that any system based on capitalist economics can be in the least democratic.

Capitalism is first and foremost a state of mind, the economic tricks are just one small part of the complete repertoir.

In your diatribe extolling the virtues of capitalism, I noticed that you failed to address the small problem of "economic slavery"
The system demands that we work progressivly longer and harder for financial reward which is immediately gobbled up again by that very same system.
We have lost our traditional family structures, leading to a nation of lonely old people made to feel worthless by a system which finds them of no practical use.
Children neglected and unloved by a nation of mothers who's natural role in life has been devalued by a system which prefers to see them as productive workers fulfilling themselves through a career.
Rampant drug addiction among a whole generation of young people who only value the materialism promoted by the system; and when this materialism is beyond their reach, they allow the system to ease their pain with herion and crack .
We should have learned better, but like the lemmings we race headlong over the cliff.

My ideal is, contrary to your opinion, not a lifetime of toil in some Soviet factory, but real freedom from slavery of every discription.
My thoughts on how this can be achieved are more radical than socialism, communism or the New Liberalism.
Does this sound like a proponent of a State Command Economy?

My advice to you Mr T is never be tempted to lay a bet, as your horses always seem to finish "tailed off"

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Aug 07 - 07:45 PM

Akenaton what you are describing is a thing called choice. A personal decision dictated by what one individual wants to do. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the economic system that prevails.

You may well have lost your sense of value and sense of family tradition, I most certainly have not lost mine, again a matter of choice. If you have chosen to neglect your children, I have chosen not to neglect mine. It's all choice Akenaton, everything in life is choice. That is on the very firm understanding that life owes neither you nor anybody else anything. While you may condone surrender to "materialism" you have abbrogated your role as a responsible parent, you and you alone are supposed to teach and instill in your children a sense of value, moral worth and self-reliance. It most certainly is not the job of the state or anybody else to do that.

But for the likes of yourself, it always has to be somebody elses fault, that is the typical leftists fall back position. You all know the price of everything but the value of nothing. You all bang on about your rights but for some strange reason are remarkably silent about your responsibilities. You all sit there fat dumb and happy in the hope and completely unjustified believe that somebody is going to pick up the tab for your ineptitude and indolence.

A little secret that I will let you in on Akenaton, just like me, nobody invited you into this world on a free ticket, you make your own way, irrespective of either the economic, or political system that you grow up with. Start taking responsibility for yourself and teach everybody else to do likewise.

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 12 Aug 07 - 04:42 AM

"little secret that I will let you in on Akenaton, just like me, nobody invited you into this world on a free ticket, you make your own way, irrespective of either the economic, or political system that you grow up with."

How would that work out for the innocent children in Auswichz? could they make their way 'irrespective of the political system'. Of course not, and from that you can interpolate millions of lesser cases where where the political sysytems, and ecomonic fuck ups have devastated ordinary peoples lives.

Doubt if George sodding Galloway ever has discussions like this though! Both of you need your heads knocking together. can't believe so energy is being expended on the defence of this character.

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Aug 07 - 06:04 AM

You have taken the point I was making a bit out of context, but you make a valid point WLD. Although in the particular example you raise a choice was made, it was the wrong one and that wrong choice was made repeatedly and only redressed once in the entire course of the Second World War - it was called the Warsaw Uprising, where the Jewish population of the Ghetto chose to fight, instead of "walking quietly into the night". With the Russians approaching from the East it scared the German authorities rigid.

What my post was addressing was Akenaton's small problem of "economic slavery" - But I believe that you knew that.

"The system demands that we work progressivly longer and harder for financial reward which is immediately gobbled up again by that very same system."

Not so from personal experience and observation. The number of hours worked each week has tumbled in my lifetime, the number of public holidays has risen, the number of weeks annual holidays has increased. All had to be fought for and won, that was possible under a democratic system of government financed by a capitalist economic system. Under the Communist command economy every man jack would have been branded an enemy of the state and marched to god knows where to do the same job for damn all pay and time off until they dropped. I work hard and I use my "financial rewards" to help my friends and my children in the pursuit of whatever they want to do.

"We have lost our traditional family structures, leading to a nation of lonely old people made to feel worthless by a system which finds them of no practical use."

How on earth can either a political system, or an economic system cause you to lose your traditional family structure? Whether you cherish the structure of your family, traditional or not, is entirely up to you.

"Children neglected and unloved by a nation of mothers who's natural role in life has been devalued by a system which prefers to see them as productive workers fulfilling themselves through a career."

Matter of choice, when we started our family my wife and I jointly made the decision that she would stay at home and bring up the children as a full-time mother. This we stuck to through thick and thin and I believe that our children benefitted from it enormously. On the materialistic side we might have been a bit deprived if that is taken as being any sort of yardstick - but that can easily be recognised for what it is - irrelevant window dressing. The children were always well dressed, fed and educated.

"Rampant drug addiction among a whole generation of young people who only value the materialism promoted by the system; and when this materialism is beyond their reach, they allow the system to ease their pain with herion and crack ."

And what exactly were the parents of this generation of children doing? Obviously not a very good job. But you knowingly paint a deliberately bleak picture, another of the Socialist Workers Party's misrepresentations - A whole generation, Eh? - complete and utter bollocks and you know it.

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 12 Aug 07 - 07:07 AM

Teribus - its you who is coming up with the abstract political theories about self help, and pulling yourself up by the bootstraps. (We'll have the one about getting on your bike next....)

I just pointed out that poor sods being marched to the gas chamber didn't have much choice. You could say the same about the gulags.

You could say the say the same about the Nottinghamshire mining villages I taught in the early 90's when Thatcher's economic miracle was really beginning to bite. The only real success stories were the kids who had become drug dealers. These are places where the kids traditionally switched off from education - not in a challenging unfriendly way - but they knew they were going down the pit, like their Dads - and the girls knew they were going to marry miners - and so did the teachers.

There are just times and places in history where hope seems to have been sucked out of the situation. And frankly the days when they sent in John Harvey Jones to tell us to rationalise, or some hot shot headmaster 'with radical ideas' - is just the product of fevered imagination in right wing tory Tory think tanks - the sort of shit Sheila Lawlor and Keith Joseph used to cook up.

The correct response is compassion, and economic aid.

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Aug 07 - 12:02 PM

Teribus.. I can do without a lecture on how to conduct my personal life from an ex-Army pen pusher.
My working life has been spent exclusively in providing a service to the community in which I have lived all my life.
As far as I know I have harmed none and helped many...can you say the same? have any of your decisions involved the life or death of your underlings, or those deemed the enemy by your masters.

If indeed you were involved in the killing trade, then you have nothing to tell anyone on this forum or elsewhere about how to live a good and decent life.

Choice is freely available if you can afford it, but for thiose who take the capitalist bait and find themselves out of their financil depth, choice is a pipe dream.

Fifty years ago we worked to subsist, in my part of the world barter was as much part of the rural economy as capital.
We worked a fixed week and what we lacked in wealth was more than made up for in comradeship. Houses were to live ones life in, bring up a family in, not perceived as a financial investment, or "buy to let" while thousands are homeless or stuck into drug ridden ghettos.

The system tells us to spend, spend, spend, whether we can afford it or not and if you dont have the things that the system says you should have....you are a failure!

Choice!!.........Don't make me fuckin' laugh.

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Aug 07 - 12:20 PM

Incidentally...where the fuck did I ever say the "State" should take a hand in bringing up children? I am against evils of all kinds,
Capitalism being the greatest evil, State control comes a very close second.

You may read my posts T, but I don't believe you really understand what I am talking about.
You seem to be stuck in some time warp, still fighting the good fight against the Commies.
I'll let YOU into a little secret, the battle is just about to commence and we are both much too old to do anything about it, but the secret is...Just like Iraq you won't like the outcome...because its going to be about REAL freedom and you don't like freedom, do you Teribus?...............not the real stuff anyway!!

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

Al...This discussion has gone far away from George Galloway.
Teribus thinks all is well with the world...I do not, while we sit on our arses and allow some lunatic to make us complicit in the deaths of more than half a million men women and children.

Yes they are killing each other, but did our brilliant leaders not realise they would kill each other.....I did!

Did our brilliant leaders not realise that the invasion would mean more danger (and expense) in materials and lives.....I did!

Did our brilliant leaders not realise that it would be all for nothing....I did!

Let Teribus pore over his book of "facts" it contains as many truths as the "Dodgy Dossier".....Ake

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Aug 07 - 02:30 PM

"Al...This discussion has gone far away from George Galloway.
Teribus thinks all is well with the world...I do not, while we sit on our arses and allow some lunatic to make us complicit in the deaths of more than half a million men women and children."

Well no actually it has not Akenaton - It is all encapsulated in that quote from your post above. Front and centre in Respects Manifesto is - "the deaths of more than half a million men women and children" - that is a lie.

Not even the people from John Hopkins who wrote the report said that - Gorgeous George did.

Myths, half-truths, misrepresentations and downright lies that is Gorgeous George's coin, and gullible fools such as you swallow them hook, line and sinker.

TO WLD:
No Al, I disagree entirely there is absolutely nothing abstract about self help, and taking responsibility for ones own life.

"I just pointed out that poor sods being marched to the gas chamber didn't have much choice. You could say the same about the gulags."

But at the same time you refuse to acknowledge that while they did not have much of a choice, they still had a choice. If someone told me to march into a Gas Chamber I am damn certain that I would not do it - So what if they shoot me! how much time does my meek compliance buy, 30 minutes, I'd rather have the self satisfaction of knowing that at least I'd had a go at the bastards.

Oh yes, Thatcher's economic miracle, I lived through and remembered the run up to that, by all means tell us of those halcyon, idyllic days that preceded her landslide election victory in 1979. If memory served me correctly the country was on the bones of its arse and had just gone to the IMF for a loan just in order to survive the next six months. Rampant inflation, sky-high unemployment and trade union leaders dictating to the elected government of the country what was going to happen and when.

Funny that none of her policies were ever rescinded, odd that the governments of damn near every country in Europe adopted her self same methods.

So compassion and economic aid are the cure all are they Al? While you might think it sensible to have British industry and every family in the land subsidising the life cycle of your beloved Nottinghamshire mining villages in order that you continue bimbling through life with thumb in bum and mind in neutral, others quite correctly did not. Coal, fuel, power for homes and industry from the British pits put the price per ton to produce at £75, you could get the stuff delivered from Poland, or Australia for £8 a ton.

You were a teacher you say. And you come out with this absolute gem - "The only real success stories were the kids who had become drug dealers. These are places where the kids traditionally switched off from education - not in a challenging unfriendly way - but they knew they were going down the pit, like their Dads - and the girls knew they were going to marry miners - and so did the teachers."

No bloody wonder, if you and the likes of you were teaching them with that sort of attitude. Just going through the motions, marking time, there would be no point in sending in any "hot shot headmaster", apparently you, and likes of you, by your own account, had already totally given up.

Yes Al, there have been times and places in history where hope seems to have been sucked out of the situation. And frankly on every such occasion the people have overcome their difficulties in one way or another and risen above it.

Unfortunately for those on the left it is always dependent on "compassion" and "economic aid" supplied by others in order to maintain the untenable until the next disaster strikes and more "compassion" and "economic aid" is required. Trouble was the likes of the John Harvey Joneses were never listened to by those who should have known better.

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Aug 07 - 03:23 PM

Teribus.... The John Hopkins report was published almost one year ago.
Maybe you hadn't noticed, but Iraqis have been dying in large numbers ever since.

When did YOU stop counting?.....was it when your hero Mr Bush announced that the war was over?


Interesting piece in today's Times from that mouthpiece of the "loony left" Mr M Portillo.
He reckons that the mission by UK troops in Iraq has become "pointless" (surprise surprise)
"The Army will soon be confined to Basra airbase". "The death toll rises as the mission shrinks". "It is the enemy who is becoming more sophisticated".

"Britain seems determined to cold shoulder the war,the casualty figures are intensifying the country's disgust"

"Lack of support on the home front is also a problem, Servicmen on home leave are sometimes abused for being part of the Iraq War"
Shurely Shome Mishtake!! The ones who should be abused are the US and UK govts.....and their armchair supporters on Mudcat (2left)

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 12 Aug 07 - 03:58 PM

I seem to be the common nub of disagreement in this thread.


All I can say is Terribus, you have to live through these situations before you understand them. Existentially you are quite correct, we always have a choice. I think all this proves is that Jean-Paul Sartre was a bit of a twat.

As for Akenaton's points. i think EVERYBODY with a grain of sense knew we on to a hiding to nothing - certainly our leaders did. So now the question is, why we did it. The reasons were many and complex and only politicians who are a bit dishonest pretend otherwise.

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Aug 07 - 05:06 PM

Not at all wld. I respect your point of view and can see you're an all round "good egg".

I for one don't imagine that goodness should be mistaken for weakness...Ake

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Aug 07 - 05:14 PM

No Akenaton, there have been two reports the first stating that 500,000 Iraqi civilians MAY HAVE died was published in the British Medical Journal, "The Lancet", in October 2004, whether or not the timing of its release was meant to influence the Presidential Election of that year I do not know. The figures arrived at and how they were ascertained were considered highly suspect at the time.

The second report as you say came out just over a year ago with figures of 650,000 which both the Iraqi Government and Iraq Body Count questioned. The figures given in the first report were attributed to US bombing, in the second they changed tack and put them down to sectarian violence and the actions of insurgents plus US bombing.

Now when you take into account that one week of almost constant carpet bombing of the city of Hamburg during the Second World War with raids involving over one thousand bombers per raid, which caused a firestorm the likes of which have never been seen since. That managed to kill just under 150,000 people. Reporters on the ground in Baghdad reported casualty rates of one tenth those of the bombing campaign that preceded "Desert Storm". Therefore the figures arrived at by the John Hopkins "batch samping" exercise I tend to view with the greatest scepticism.

None of this affects Gorgeous George he just trots out the lie that 650,000 Iraqis have been killed, which equates to about eleven and a half years of his pal Saddam's rule (Saddam ruled for 24).

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Aug 07 - 05:45 PM

Pathetic!!

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Aug 07 - 12:33 AM

Now that is about what I would expect.

Have EVER made any attempt to READ what the original Report said?

Do you really think that MAY HAVE = DID?

Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Aug 07 - 12:34 AM

200 Up.