|
23 Jul 07 - 06:26 PM (#2109597) Subject: BS: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: GUEST,albert It seems to me that George Galloway got a fairer hearing in the republican controlled US Senate than he did in Parliament this evening. There was the sad and mad sight of hardened pro war war MPs pretending to be hurt because Galloway had the cheek to name and shame them. Well done Galloway. It is a fact that the only figures being punished in this country over Iraq are those who opposed the war [Galloway,David Kelly,assorted whistleblowers and army refusniks etc] However, the other victims are the hundreds of thousands of dead,maimed and traumatised Iraqis. We don't know their names or their lives but their blood is everywhere. albert |
|
23 Jul 07 - 06:50 PM (#2109608) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Teribus I predict that this will move South of the line fairly quickly, unless of course someone is going to pen a song about Gorgeous George. By the Bye, has he apologised to that reporter yet, you know the one that told the truth about him, who GG defamed under the protection of House Rules? He should have done that as that was what he was ordered to do, by the House Committee that investigated the matter. |
|
23 Jul 07 - 08:41 PM (#2109665) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: GUEST,sinky galloway is a self publicising obnoxious git who deserves to be slapped hard.Any one who could show themselves up on the ridiculous big brother doesnt deserve the respect of the nation,he is a stupid scottish joke |
|
24 Jul 07 - 01:33 AM (#2109785) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: GUEST,jim Galloway was wrong on Big Brother but was correct about the invasion of Iraq. The result has been a catastrophe in that country. Not only was he correct about the invasion and war in that country but he was hounded out of the Labour Party and now [temporarily ] out of Parliament. As one who has seen him outside a Labour Party conference giving an anti war speech in torrential rain and standing on an old box while the mass ranks of the pro war party sat in comfort inside I can only disagree with Guest Sinky and Terribus above! jim |
|
24 Jul 07 - 02:36 AM (#2109797) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Kampervan Yeah; I don't agree with everything that G G says or does, but he was right about the invasion of Iraq and he didn't get a fair hearing cos the establishment can't cope with renegades. |
|
24 Jul 07 - 04:02 AM (#2109824) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Jean(eanjay) It is a fact that the only figures being punished in this country over Iraq are those who opposed the war [Galloway,David Kelly,assorted whistleblowers and army refusniks etc] However, the other victims are the hundreds of thousands of dead,maimed and traumatised Iraqis. Also, all the dead, maimed and traumatised British/US soldiers and their families. |
|
24 Jul 07 - 04:38 AM (#2109840) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: GUEST,albert Eanjay is quite right to mention the dead ,maimed and traumatised UK and US who are also the victims of the invasion and war in Iraq. These are overwhelmingly from working class families in both countries and the military has been busy in poor and rundown areas recruiting new soldiers to go and fight..of course they don't talk about the horrific scenes the recruits are likely to encounter or the terrible prospects they face of having limbs blown off or being psychologically wrecked by the experience of war.And of course as Michael Moore pointed out in one of his films , the ruling class have kept its own sons and daughters well away from the killing zones of Iraq. However,the organisation started by Rose Gentle,mother of Gordon Gentle a soldier killed in Iraq ensured that when Blair left Downing St the last sight he saw as he left by limo were the military families of dead and injured soldiers calling for the troops to be brought home and demanding that Blair face prosecution for war crimes. albert |
|
25 Jul 07 - 06:54 AM (#2110738) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Mr Happy See here for more impassioned speechifying: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=MWR0tavb-zo |
|
25 Jul 07 - 08:21 AM (#2110793) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Mr Happy http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6912711.stm |
|
25 Jul 07 - 02:39 PM (#2111105) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Big Al Whittle well he was fairly safe predicting it would be a tragedy. Obviously some people were going to get killed - that's what happens in wars. And for them and their family, its a tragedy. I don't see or hear any great insight into the situation. He's an opportunist. I think Big Brother was a good career move. I'd not really heard of him til then. I haven't heard very much since. Perhaps he ought to try for Countdown or They Think its All Over - something with a bit of substance - if it wouldn't be too much of a stretch. |
|
25 Jul 07 - 02:58 PM (#2111124) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Big Phil "Yeah; I don't agree with everything that G G says or does, but he was right about the invasion of Iraq and he didn't get a fair hearing cos the establishment can't cope with renegades" Not quite correct, THEY can't cope with the truth. |
|
25 Jul 07 - 03:12 PM (#2111131) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: akenaton George was asked if "he had any respect for the British parliament" after being excluded. He replied "these are the people who stood and gave Blair a tear stained ovation when he left the Commons" Nuf said!! |
|
25 Jul 07 - 03:15 PM (#2111136) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: GUEST,Crazyhorse GG is a political thug and it's beginning to look like he's also a crook. For all you lunatics who think he performs a public service, examine his friends. Yes he's a good orator, so was Hitler. The man is dangerous. |
|
25 Jul 07 - 03:16 PM (#2111138) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Big Al Whittle I remember that interview with Donald Trelford, when Saddam hanged that young reporter Trelford had working for him on The Observer. He was a real piece of work Saddam; it was never going to end well for him. It would have so easy to look civilised and decent in those circumstances, and acted that way. He was nasty and too dumb to see he was vulnerable. Did Bush even know who Saddam was? Bush had to be seen to do something after 9/11 - Saddam was a beetle he could squash - there weren't going to be too many mourners. I don't pretend to have any special insight, but George Galloway.... I can't believe that you're seriously proposing him as anything but a Big Brother Contestant. |
|
25 Jul 07 - 03:17 PM (#2111140) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: akenaton If you had a few more brains..YOU would be dangerous..Ake |
|
25 Jul 07 - 03:20 PM (#2111143) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: akenaton Sorry Al Didn't mean you.....but if you continue in that vein I might have to revise my opinion :0) Seems weve had this argument before...Ake |
|
25 Jul 07 - 03:25 PM (#2111149) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: akenaton Teribus says he expects this thread to "go south pretty quick". I suppose all the apologists for the war and the guilty in Westminster would like to see George "go South" They just hate being reminded how wrong they were, and how many lives have been lost for fuck all...Ake |
|
25 Jul 07 - 03:32 PM (#2111155) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: GUEST,Crazyhorse Such language ake, steady on. Just who is doing the killing? Of course I would expect you to agree with these clerical fascists because you're no lover of democracy having always preferred a totalitarian solution. You have absolutely nothing of interest to say. |
|
25 Jul 07 - 03:38 PM (#2111159) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: GUEST,Crazyhorse The loony left would have us support the "freedom fighters" I nicked this from David Thompson "During the campus convulsions of the late 1960s, when rebellion against any authority was considered obedience to every virtue, the film 'To Die in Madrid', a documentary about the Spanish Civil War, was shown at a small liberal arts college famous for, and vain about, its dedication to all things progressive. When the film's narrator intoned, 'The rebels advanced on Madrid,' the students, who adored rebels and were innocent of information, cheered. Antioch College in Yellow Springs, Ohio, had been so busy turning undergraduates into vessels of liberalism and apostles of social improvement that it had not found time for the tiresome task of teaching them tedious facts, such as that the rebels in Spain were Franco's fascists…" Us in the real world and part of the real Left know better |
|
25 Jul 07 - 04:05 PM (#2111186) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: akenaton I suppose Mr Blair was part of the "real left" as well. You "real lefties" seem to have got your directions very wrong. More right-wing than Thatcher! Mr Cameron (Conservative) ...and "Heir to Blair" ! You're not still trying to justify the war Shakey? there's only you and Teribus left now that Blair and his cabinet have "jumped ship" Don't try to say that I support I.F. Teribus will tell you I have been "ranting on about it" for years. Someday you are going to have to accept that the attack on Iraq was the most stupid and dangerous action in half a century. I say hundreds of thousands of lives lost for "fuck all", if you disagree with my opinion or my language please tell me why we are there, losing young lives daily. What are we achieving? other than assisting in the formation of a radical Islamic Republic. |
|
25 Jul 07 - 04:19 PM (#2111199) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: GUEST,Crazyhorse (Shakey is soo last year darling) I'm not saying you're a fascist, just a supporter of totalitarian ideas. Blair won three elections for the Labour party, one after Iraq. The "hundreds of thousands" of lives lost have been mostly muslims by the hand of muslims. They exploded a bomb in a crowd of football fans today. There will be no new caliphate, enough people are awake even if you're not. Iran will fall and the murderous homophobic, mysogonist clerics will run into the caves where they belong. This man understands Just look at the gang that strove to prevent the United Nations from enforcing its library of resolutions on Saddam Hussein. Where are they now? Gerhard Schroeder, ex-chancellor of Germany, has gone straight to work for a Russian oil-and-gas consortium. Vladimir Putin, master of such consortia and their manipulation, is undisguised in his thirst to re-establish a one-party state. Jacques Chirac, who only avoided prosecution for corruption by getting himself immunized by re-election (and who had Saddam's sons as his personal guests while in office, and built Saddam Hussein a nuclear reactor while knowing what he wanted it for), is now undergoing some unpleasant interviews with the Paris police. So is his cynical understudy Dominique de Villepin, once the glamour-boy of the "European" school of diplomacy without force. What a crew! Galloway is the most sordid of this group because he managed to be a pimp for, as well as a prostitute of, one of the foulest dictatorships of modern times. But the taint of collusion and corruption extends much further than his pathetic figure, and one day, slowly but surely, we shall find out the whole disgusting thing. |
|
25 Jul 07 - 04:24 PM (#2111204) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: akenaton "But the taint of collusion and corruption extends much further than his pathetic figure, and one day, slowly but surely, we shall find out the whole disgusting thing." Talking about the Blair govt again "Crazy"?? |
|
25 Jul 07 - 04:26 PM (#2111209) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: GUEST,Crazyhorse Look, I realise the article has no pictures but even you can get through a couple of pages of text. Try reading it. |
|
25 Jul 07 - 04:38 PM (#2111221) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: GUEST,Ifor "GG is a dangerous bastard" says anon Guest. Yes ,I suppose there is a lot of truth in that.I would add the word brave too. Remember he was thrown out of the Labour Part for opposing the war in the most outspoken way and for calling on British troops to disobey illegal orders which in the light of Abu Ghraib,the beating to death in British military captivity of the Basra receptionist and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians in the mess that is Iraq was a timely reminder. He has been a leading figure in the Stop The War Coalition which mobilised over a million to try to block the invasion and is a constant reminder that Blair dragged this country into war against the wishes of its citizens. GG also helped form the anti war Respect Coalition and overturned a massive Labour majority to win his seat.This was the first time in decades that Labour has been beaten by an explicitly left wing opponent. Yes GG is a threat to New Labour ,a standing reproach to those gutless cowards who led this country to war and who are now trying to cover their pro war tracks. As GG said "they were like a shiver in search of a spine to run up." ifor |
|
25 Jul 07 - 04:43 PM (#2111222) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: akenaton I read quite well, and from what I have read, I have formed the purely selfish view that Islamic Fundamentalism is much more of a danger to us than Saddam ever was. So why did we assist the fundamentalists by making war on Iraq? George was right all along, despite being villified by the so called Labour Party they chose to follow Blair because they thought he would make and keep them electible, but in the end they had to push him "over the side" when the public became sickened. George....like Fidel, has out-lasted many Presidents....and out- lasting President Blair must be the most satisfying of all...Ake |
|
25 Jul 07 - 04:44 PM (#2111224) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: GUEST,Crazyhorse I confess, It was I. ifor, have you any idea who runs STW - check it out. They are not interested in Iraq. How were the British troops given illegal orders - proof please. Yes there was a rally with alot of people I wasn't there nor where 90% of the population - do the math, as they say across the pond, and as I've already pointed out, when the people had a chance to judge him they voted him back in power - learn to live with it. |
|
25 Jul 07 - 04:49 PM (#2111232) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: GUEST ake, you're getting desperate. Blair went when he wanted to, he served ten years as HM first minister, GG is likely to serve 10 years in HMP. Don't bring that other lunatic FC into the pot, he'll soon be gone and it'll be all change in Havana (shame it's quaint at moment, piss poor, corrupt, but quaint) |
|
25 Jul 07 - 04:50 PM (#2111235) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: GUEST,crazyhorse Forget me bleeder monika again. Still you know who it was. I must register again, on the other hand I have a real life as well. |
|
25 Jul 07 - 05:14 PM (#2111255) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: akenaton "Blair went when he wanted to," For Christ sake!! he had to be dragged from office. he wanted to "serve" a full third term. He still clung to the forlorn hope that something would "turn up" in Iraq to stop the bloodbath becoming his legacy. Some Hopes!! the British public, with the exception of a couple of pea-brains on Mudcat, now see Blair and his cowardly supporters as the hypocritical scum that they really are Blairs real "legacy" is to be seen as the man who initialised the break-up of the UK. Anti-Blair sentiment in Scotland has led to the first Scottish Nationalist administration, and further SNP support in the next General Election will see Labour lose their Scottish "heartland".....Well done Mr Blair.......Ake |
|
25 Jul 07 - 05:23 PM (#2111264) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: GUEST,crazyhorse My my, for a man who doesn't believe in elections you've got an awful lot to say about them. He went when he chose and the man who's taken over isn't really that different you know. I used to think you were about 16 and came on here to avoid homework, I've since learned that you are, in fact, getting on a bit - nothing wrong with that, I myself still remember the Woodentops (especially spotty dog) with affection - however the total destruction of the argument you and your ilk put forward seems to have addled your brain. You can continue with the adolescent anti-establishment nonsense all you like, real people will make the real decisions for you. Sleep tight. |
|
25 Jul 07 - 06:53 PM (#2111326) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Big Al Whittle I suspect its a sensual thing. When Galloway starts talking - its like a stranger of the wrong sex putting their hand on my knee in a darkened cinema. If you respond to someone, fair enough. I don't like these people who pretend that to be left of the tories requires some huge volte face - eschewing the American alliance, tax breaks for glue sniffers and feminist comedians, and the dismantling of the armed forces. But they've been too bloody successful at keeping the tories in power in the past. God knows, I understand those who see these people as the great white hope. I was brought up by Quakers, was taken to speeches by Philip Noel Baker when I was a kid, and we took Peace News. Neither of us are idiots. Just different things float our boat. I've lived pretty much as low as this society allows an intelligent person without a heroin problem. Since my wife got disabled I subsisted for most of my working life on half an income, and anything else I could scrape together. New Labour may seem as bad as the tories to you, but its not - if you're on the bottom rung of society. You have to live that to understand that. Just like when I say I'm not keen on the Cecil Sharp version of folk music, with its ghastly middle class agenda. I've just seen too much talent rejected and too much mediocrity applauded. I think Galloway is a cabaret act for middle class lefties. You like him, I don't. Neither of us are idiots - we just don't agree. As that great interpreter of the tradition Bob Dylan said, you're right fro your side and I'm right from mine..... |
|
25 Jul 07 - 07:16 PM (#2111340) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: akenaton Nicely put Al.....But sometimes when you see liars doing what liars do best you just need someone to tell them what they are,and George certainly tells them. The game is heavily weighted in favour of the powerful and it take enormous self-belief to stand ones ground. George Galloway has put his career on the line more times than I can remember. He's a rebel and always will be while the Labour Party has grown fat and lasy, slimy and slippery. The creatures who representus in Westminster have absolutely nothing in common with the heros who founded the Labour Party. George Galloway does ....Ake |
|
26 Jul 07 - 01:53 AM (#2111513) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: GUEST,albert Bob Dylan also said a lot about the Masters of War .He loathed them and so does GG. aS FOR gg being a cabaret act it must be quite a popular turn because he won a seat in that bastion of middle class lifestyle we know East London. No GG won there because he was seen as a bonny anti war opponent of thosewarmonger Bush and Blair. albert |
|
26 Jul 07 - 02:53 AM (#2111529) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: GUEST,crazyhorse George Galloway has put his career on the line more times than I can remember.
You can probably supply more examples ake, it's your world. You don't have to worry about the state of the labour party, it's a democratic organisation, being a failed revolutionary (Freedom for Tooting), you will never understand it. I understand it's difficult when what you've believed in all your life is shown to be corrupt and is defeated; here's some advice, Join the greens and get back to nature or get a hobby. Politics is obviously not your strong point is it dear boy. |
|
26 Jul 07 - 04:58 AM (#2111587) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: GUEST,albert Crazyhorse, I think you are wrong on most counts here 1 GG did not ,and has not supported the murder of the Prime Minister.Don't believe everything the yellow press says about him and be warned he has never lost a libel case! 2 He has never taken money from Saddam. Are you confusing him with a certain Mrs Thatcher which extended to Saddam over a billion in war credits.He got the British made arms but never paid for them.The arms companies were then paid by the poor long suffering British taxpayer. 3 He has not allied himself with clerical fascists .In fact he has been physically assaulted by them [and incidentally by orange order thugs .However,GG does not subscribe to the belief being pushed by the yellow press that all muslims are fascists,terrorists oreven fundamentalist. 4 GG ,of course was a Labour Party member for some 30 years and would have looked back to democratic socialists like Nye Bevan for inspiration.If he admired Stalin it would have been because his Red Army tore the guts out of the Nazi War machine to paraphrase Winston Churchill. |
|
26 Jul 07 - 06:04 AM (#2111606) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Big Phil I do not think GG has ever been convicted in any court on any charges. So untill proven guilty, we should perhaps believe in what he says, more so than a PM who definately twisted the truth to take us in to an unwinnable war, just to try to make a name for himself. Well Bliar certainly has made a name for himself, but not the one he wanted..... |
|
26 Jul 07 - 06:22 AM (#2111610) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: GUEST,Rainy day man Crazyhorse this must be your umpteenth alias, you go back a long way talking crap on a regular basis, Ake he tell you about working in Europe, don`t believe a word . I know this man. |
|
26 Jul 07 - 10:52 AM (#2111796) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Mr Happy Crazyhorse et al, I posted links above to GG's latest skirmishes. To gain any credence here of your views & list of allegations, I suggest you post some evidence to support them. |
|
26 Jul 07 - 12:09 PM (#2111858) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Mr Happy & more: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=HID9Z5DF-AY&mode=related&search= |
|
26 Jul 07 - 02:25 PM (#2111984) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: GUEST Guest rainy day man, get a life, I've lived 20 years on the continent, I have used two names (ake knows), I go back just a couple of years and post very infrequently, you don't know me from adam, so you're a liar as well as a fantasist. Guest albert, I suggest you read before you write, Galloway's antics are well known. Big Phil, You're not big on logic are you, read your own post. Dullards
Thanks. -Joe Offer, Forum Moderator- |
|
26 Jul 07 - 04:27 PM (#2112052) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: GUEST,albert To Guest I think your problem is you have read too much of the gutter press about Galloway.The stuff they pring tends to rot the brain cells.Every single Murdoch paper across the globe supported the war and of course they all{in Britain ] attack Galloway along with Conrad Black's Telegraph!! albert |
|
26 Jul 07 - 04:53 PM (#2112069) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: GUEST,crazyhorse I've read plenty thank you, from all sorts of sources. The Independent The Respect MP George Galloway has said it would be morally justified for a suicide bomber to murder Tony Blair. Decent people denounce all suicide bombers Ask him where the UN funds, destined for the iraqi people went? Examine who funds the Respect party |
|
26 Jul 07 - 05:03 PM (#2112082) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: ard mhacha Decent people denounce ALL bombers, not forgetting those brave men in their flying machines who murder the innocent in countless numbers, remember no one was counting the Iraqi civilian dead. Their is no doubt that this murderous invasion of Iraq has been a disaster for the world, and Galloway is letting those Brit poodles know that. |
|
26 Jul 07 - 05:11 PM (#2112092) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: GUEST,crazyhorse GG is a disgrace to humanity. As I said above, judge him by the company he keeps. One of his biggest supporters, a blog which he references from his site, recently (last week) said: Where is an Iraqi insurgent when you need him? Where's three or four suicide bombers? I don't mean to glorify terrorism, I simply think the Iraqis should kill these pricks He was talking about Irish soldiers. A "Brit" |
|
27 Jul 07 - 04:02 AM (#2112385) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: GUEST,Albert Poor George Galloway.. is now to be condemned because an unnamed source who is said to be a supporter of GG has apparently written on an unnamed blog some horrible remarks . Can't you do better than that?? Name that source and let us take a good look at it! albert ps As a member of Respect I can assure Mudcat readers that its funding comes from the limited pockets of its members. We dont get,and wouldnt want, donations from multi millionaire pornographers or fat cat city businessmen seeking a gong . |
|
27 Jul 07 - 05:32 AM (#2112418) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: ard mhacha Irish soldiers in Brit regiments?, the way things are going with the Brit Army you will need to press gang the yobs. |
|
27 Jul 07 - 11:50 AM (#2112686) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Mr Happy GUEST,crazyhorse, I followed your link to the Independent which mentions that GG allegedly said what you posted. Having never heard of GQ Magazine, I took a shufty at their page. http://www.gq- magazine.co.uk/?zed Apparently its a soft porn rag for 'Gentlemen?' Unfortunately, neither the Independent nor GQ name the interviewer so causing a difficulty to further research this matter. Since GG has been smeared by the press previously, notably the Telegraph, we've no way of verifying wether his statement has been taken out of context. Here's the passage from the Independent: In an interview with GQ magazine, the reporter asked him: "Would the assassination of, say, Tony Blair by a suicide bomber - if there were no other casualties - be justified as revenge for the war on Iraq?" Mr Galloway replied: "Yes, it would be morally justified. I am not calling for it - but if it happened it would be of a wholly different moral order to the events of 7/7. It would be entirely logical and explicable. And morally equivalent to ordering the deaths of thousands of innocent people in Iraq - as Blair did." *********************** Read carefully, plenty of opportunity there to twist his words to mean something different to his intention |
|
27 Jul 07 - 12:19 PM (#2112711) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Big Al Whittle Scuse my ignorance, I thought there had always been Irishmen in the Brit army. Irish guards, Royal Irish Rifles... that sort of thing. |
|
27 Jul 07 - 12:48 PM (#2112730) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: GUEST,ifor Ah, but we all know Vin Garbut' homage to Irish soldiers who served in the British army in WW2 "Howard Green" which was my father's wartime regiment! [The Green Howards ]. ifor |
|
27 Jul 07 - 01:24 PM (#2112762) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Shakey So, Albert is a member of Respect. Which side do you come from Albert, the totalitarian left or the clerical fascists, wrt funding you're either a liar or a fool. What's Respects policy on gays Albert, let's hazard a guess, the biggest donator is an islamist so maybe, well maybe you'd rather not talk about it. Respect, BNP two sides of the same coin. Mr Happy, if GG wants to give interviews to soft-porn mags that's his business isn't it. Look, I understand peoples opposition to the war in Iraq but for goodness sake just because someone agrees with you on that point do not make the mistake in thinking that they believe in other things that you may hold dear. Respect is tied to MAB which in turn is affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood; these are lunatic people who glorify death and violence. Of course they'll blame most things on Isreal, but the last thing these people want is a solution in Palestine, ask yourselves who gains with the mess there it's neither, Isreal nor the locals is it. |
|
27 Jul 07 - 04:33 PM (#2112860) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: GUEST,albert Yes I am happy and proud to be a member of Respect. Shakey you sound like someone who has read far too much of the right wing press for your own good.Dont believe all you have read in those squalid rags or indeed the stuff written by people like Nick Cohen and other pro war erstwhile leftwingers who have now been left stranded on the wilder shores of neoconservatism. There are some in this country who believe that all muslims are terrorists or potential terrorists.What a horrible and scandalous piece of Islamophobia .And believe it or not those you call the "clerical fascists "[a dangerous bit of terminology in itself because there are real fascists out there ] do not support Respect ;indeed Galloway has been assaulted by jihadi supporters. You have trailed another red herring in inferring that Respect does not support Gay Rights.Of course we do! As for equating Respect with the BNP...here you have really let your rabid hatred obscure any judgement you have. The BNP stand for race hatred,the smashing of working class organisations and the most reactionary forms of right wing politics. Respect members are totally opposed to these new nazis.Indeed a load of Respect members,along with others were leafletting against a BNP council candidate in Swansea only last week.I was there with my comrades so I dont take kindly to being likened to a fascist by you. Respect was formed because Labour has moved to become the most right wing social democratic party in Europe.Indeed, it has embraced the free market and neo conservatism with a fervour I would have thought impossible 15 years ago. Labour is the party of war and has also led an attack on public services. Respect was formed three years ago to counter this gallop to the right. Respect stands for Respect Equality Socialism Peace Environmentalism Community Trade unionism It is part of the world wide anti war movement which opposed the invasion of Iraq and the attack last year on the Lebanon. Plenty to do then!! Albert |
|
27 Jul 07 - 05:15 PM (#2112895) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Shakey Don't waste your time with me Albert, you'd be better off looking for all of those deposits you've lost. respect bro |
|
28 Jul 07 - 05:52 AM (#2113174) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Teribus Respect dear Albert stands for what Gorgeous George has represented all his political life - A massive Con, so obvious that it could only ever be swallowed by the completely gullible (And George P's Sheep of course). The man is a two faced, bullying, shallow opportunist. Take a look at where he came from within the Labour Party - Glasgow, overall, home of the most corrupt Labour Party organisation in the United Kingdom. The man is a political "magpie" - loads of chatter - absolutely no substance. |
|
28 Jul 07 - 06:29 AM (#2113188) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: GUEST,albert To Shakey All those deposits lost?...mmmm ....I seem to remember that Galloway overturned a Labour majority of 15000 in Bow and Bethnal Green at the last election.Not a bad result for him and Respect . Then you have Michael Lavalette winning an important council seat in Preston and Ray Holmes winning a council seat in Bolsover... Shakey ,I certainly do not intend to waste my time on you as from your posting you seem to be a sort of caricture of a left basher and are probably beyong help. However,I will challenge these blatant untruths when I see them posted. |
|
28 Jul 07 - 06:42 AM (#2113197) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: GUEST,albert Oh sorry Teribus I have only just read your posting about Galloway! First about Glasgow, Yes the Glasgow Labour Party is a hard school for budding Labour Party politicos. But there is another Glasgow tradition which may have influenced Galloway...the great anti war tradition in the horror of the first World War and the agitation against the war led by John McLean.And of course there was the strikes and sit ins of the 1970s in Glasgow and on the Clyde. To get a musical taste of the revolutionary period in the Great War Mudcatters should listen to Alistair Huletts wonderful CD "Red Clydeside"....Perhaps GG has been a listener! As for GG having no substance then his work for the anti war movement,his battles inside the Labour Party on Iraq and his subsequent ejection from the party,his humiliation of the US senate committee,his win in East London and his victory over the Telegraph would tend to contradict your view...but there again as a right winger you would take that view wouldnt you? I mean if Galloway was a man of no substance he could have stayed in the Labour Party and have had a safe and quiet political life.How much better,if a little uncomfortable for us at times for GG to take the anti war and socialist path!! Cheers George! Albert |
|
28 Jul 07 - 04:15 PM (#2113534) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: akenaton albert Well done!! A little reason soon puts paid to those who dispense blind hatred towards anyone who questions the actions of the warmongers I always considered Teribus and Shakey to be the same person...their posts are remarkably similar and there are very few left who hold their opinions on the war....Ake |
|
28 Jul 07 - 04:25 PM (#2113540) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: ard mhacha Yes Ake even some of Bush`s Republican party have at last seen how futile all of this slaughter has been, in their pursuit of oil they have murdered the innocent in their thousands, it couldn`t be stated often enough. |
|
29 Jul 07 - 04:20 AM (#2113824) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: GUEST,guest sunny GG is a voice for the voiceless. Thank you George for standing for truth !! |
|
29 Jul 07 - 06:41 AM (#2113858) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Big Al Whittle I just hope he is as nice as his supporters seem to be - somehow, I doubt it. |
|
29 Jul 07 - 07:01 AM (#2113864) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: GUEST,Ewan McVicar I would like to congratulate Mudcat Cafe for allowing this discussion to occur. It has been interesting to read it. I'll say no more than that, for fear of attracting insults for having the cheek to offer an opinion. |
|
29 Jul 07 - 07:05 AM (#2113866) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Big Al Whittle great to hear from you Ewan - loved your book about Hamish Imlach! |
|
29 Jul 07 - 09:59 AM (#2113935) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: goatfell no because they can't face the truth |
|
29 Jul 07 - 10:21 AM (#2113946) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: GUEST Hi, weelittledrummer, many thanks for the compliment. Oddly, 30 minutes after my above posting I was sorting out books, and Galloway's own 'I'm Not The Only One' came to the top. Surprised it has not been referred to in the discussion, it offers ample evidence usable by both sides of the exchange. |
|
29 Jul 07 - 10:30 AM (#2113958) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: GUEST,Shakey Well it's no surprise that ake,an anti- democrat, would support a party founded by other ant-democrats is it. The poor man is in mourning, his beloved commies lost the argument, a lifetime believing in a rotten cause, now he's looking for anyway he can to knock the west - pathetic. Albert, I didn't say you were a supporter of the BNP, I said you were TWO sides of the same coin. The extreme left is not so very different from the extreme right. I'm, a democratic socialist, member of the LP, and I'll oppose both sides of that coin. The respect party - what a laugh - do a search Albert on your own party's website, Isreal 700 articles, Darfur - sod all, Zimbabwe -sod all, Iran only articles defending them against the US and Europe; defending a country where they stone to death (you get buried up to the waist) adulterers and they hang gay men - lovely place. Now you may be a decent bloke, i don't know, but if you choose such friends do not expect respect from this quarter. Shakey, sometimes known as Crazyhorse - go figure. |
|
29 Jul 07 - 03:36 PM (#2114154) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: akenaton "I predict that this will move South of the line fairly quickly,"(Teribus) Another prediction gone wrong T.....Just like all your predictions on the course of the Iraq war!! |
|
29 Jul 07 - 03:44 PM (#2114161) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: GUEST,Albert Well thank you Shakey for clarifying your own position! It is a bit rich coming from a Labour Party member the leader of which was an important , if junior partner, in the invasion of Iraq. An invasion which started with "Shock And Awe" and has led to the deaths of some hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.The driving into exile of some 4 million others and the malnutrition of many of its children.The country has been plunged into barbarism . The invaders have destroyed cities,apartment blocks ,mosques and have tortured and killed with impunity.It is a racist war with the Iraqi people being called all kinds of abusive names by their "liberators". Writing as a member of Respect and as a former vice chair of my Labour Party branch I don't know how anyone could bear to be part of such a party whose leadership has played such a leading role in that invasion.Indeed ,Blair should be in the dock at the Hague to face war crimes charges if there was any justice in the world. Your party leader ,in one of his last acts as Prime Minister, abandoned the criminal investigation into the corrupt British arms for Saudi Arabia scandal which shamed the country both nationally and internationally and showed that there is one law for the powerful and another law for the rest of us. And incidentally, the Saudi Royal family has now been accused of funding extreme militant Sunni groups in Iraq which is bizarre to say the least! And of course the Saudi regime ,pals and cronies of Bush and Blair is renowned for its public executions in Chop Square by the sharp sword .Executions often of Asian men and women workers who are only in Saudi Arabia as economic migrants from the ravages of the free market in their own countries. Respect emerged out of the anti war and anti capitalist movement.I was there at its founding conference in 2004. It is opposed to the imperial war and the grab for oil and strategic power in that unfortunate country. Respect also supports the right of Palestine to be free. The destruction of the Lebanon last year was supported by Blair who allowed US military planes to land and refuel at airports in the UK .The UK also supplied military hardware to Israel.Blair of course also notoriously refused to support calls for a ceasefire in the Lebanon when that country was being bombed to bits by Israel. Respect ,part of the anti war movement did its part in mobilising public opinion against the indiscriminate attack on the people of Lebanon. Respect has also stood up to the racists here at home.Your party leadership has fuelled anti immigration hysteria and even put refugee children into prison.Here in Swansea ,a christian Iraqi family was threatened with deportation back to the hellhole that is Iraq.This is just one of numerous examples of the kind of thing that has been happening across the country. There may be things wrong with Respect [lack of size and strength for example ] but its members will not accept unwarranted and pathetic criticism from the war and privatisation party! best wishes Albert ps Mudcatters who want to find out more about Respect The Unity Coalition may want to go its website. |
|
29 Jul 07 - 04:52 PM (#2114201) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: GUEST,Shakey Oh and albert: Saudi Royal family has now been accused of funding extreme militant Sunni groups in Iraq which is bizarre to say the least Why is this bizarre, Saudi is fighting Iran in Iraq, didn't anybody tell you. |
|
29 Jul 07 - 05:43 PM (#2114235) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Teribus "akenaton - PM Date: 29 Jul 07 - 03:36 PM "I predict that this will move South of the line fairly quickly,"(Teribus) Another prediction gone wrong T.....Just like all your predictions on the course of the Iraq war!!" Not really Ake, but another excellent example of you jumping to the wrong conclusion and completely misunderstanding what was so clearly written. This thread originally appeared above the BS line, i.e. above as in "North" of the BS Line. My first post to this thread quite accurately predicted that it would be moved "South of the line fairly quickly" - True?? |
|
29 Jul 07 - 06:00 PM (#2114249) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: GUEST,albert To Shakey.. You are profoundly ignorant....that is what comes from reading and believing the Murdoch press! The refence to the Saudis funding and backing the Sunni fighters in Iraq is bizarre because those Sunnis militant groups are also attacking the US military who are allies of the Saudis. Its a real can of worms .and I have to say that a major factor in all this has been the USA which for a very long time has meddled in Iraq from its funding and military support of Saddam to the connivance in his attack on Iran way back the early 1980s to the economic sanctions and the US invasion itself.All for big oil. Not for nothing was Bush known as the President of Big Oil Inc....after all this deadly interference we now see Iran emerging as a regional power with the strong possibility of another US attack on an oil rich country in the region. As for your death list in the Middle East I sure the Iraqi people who have seen their loved one slaughtered by the hundreds of thousands and their society destroyed would have some grounds to disagree with you. The bare faced cheek of these warmongers!!!! Albert |
|
29 Jul 07 - 11:10 PM (#2114414) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Big Al Whittle Albert I don't really think calling some 'profoundly ignorant' adds much to the quality of the debate. as far as I could see the bloke was making quite legitimate and coherent points. Many of which - you haven't really answered. I think there IS a defence of your point of view - but you don't seem to have spotted it. And as I don't share your point of view, I'm not going to point it out. |
|
30 Jul 07 - 01:29 AM (#2114460) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: GUEST,albert To weelittledrummer, My reply to you is that there was a line drawn in the sand during the run up to the invasion of Iraq. Across the world millions marched to oppose the war.In New York for example my daughter joined a march of some 400000 .The march was attacked by the police and penned in.Here in London over a million marched to tell Bush and Blair that the war would be a disaster.With very few exceptions [Robin Cook for example ] the Labour leadership got behind the pro war crowd. On one side you had the millions opposed to the war and on the other you had the US neocons with their dreams of directly controlling and policing the oil supplies of much of the world. The neocons were hand in glove with Big Business interests like Halliburton and the usual motley crew of arms dealers ,right wing adventurers and of course in Britain Blairs govt of opportunists and free market chancers. In my opinion Blair crossed that line in the sand and never recovered his moral authority in this country.Galloway has been attacked,hounded and a concerted attempt has been made to ruin him,an attempt which is ongoing as he is a standing reminder in the heart of Parliament to the war crew, of their disasterous and murderous policy in Iraq. Albert |
|
30 Jul 07 - 04:01 AM (#2114493) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: GUEST,David According to an Oxfam report today a third of all Iraqi are in urgent need of help.They do not have access to clean water,food or the basics of everyday life.Many children are malnourished and a majority have learning needs. This is as a result of the invasion and the effects of the ongoing carnage and the long years of sanctions when Iraqi society was squeezed to its bare bones. David |
|
30 Jul 07 - 04:46 AM (#2114511) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Big Al Whittle maybe so, but its not the USA and britain who are setting off bombs and stopping people improve their lives nowadays, is it? how came none of your moral indignation is directed towards these people? The invasion was one way of putting an end to the snactions. |
|
30 Jul 07 - 05:09 AM (#2114520) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: GUEST,David Reply to Weelittledrummer, You are factually wrong.The USA led coalition is still bombing hell out of the country. US troops are shooting up civilian neighbourhoods and waging a racist war on the Iraqi poulation and of course there are large numbers of mercenary so called "contractors " in the country who are also waging their own privatised war. The headlines concentrate on the sectarian bombings but when the recent US "surge" took place in Baghdad the troops were not out surfing or even winning hearts and minds :they were smashing up residential areas. The chaos ,barbarism and the carnage leads like a hangman's rope directly to the invasion.Its been murder and mayhem for all including the large number of coalition troops brought home in bodybags or now languishing with little help in Veterans hospitals. Of course in the UK the military hospitals have largely been closed down. David ps I am sure that the Iraqi people are very grateful for the invasion putting an end to the sanctions.Its a shame that what followed has turned out to be an even greater catastrophe to the people of Iraq who had the misfortune to be walking on land which contains America's oil.... |
|
30 Jul 07 - 06:09 AM (#2114550) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Big Al Whittle the source of your information - guest david? |
|
30 Jul 07 - 09:43 AM (#2114697) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: GUEST,David Which bit of my above posting would you like clarifying...the bit about Iraq being a catastrophe or the poor quality of medical care afforded to wounded US veterans or what?? David |
|
30 Jul 07 - 10:05 AM (#2114711) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: GUEST,David If you are referring to my statement above saying that the US is still bombing the hell out of Iraq let me refer you to the International Herald Tribune article of the 5th June 2007 which states that the rate of bombing by the US has doubled since last year. The US is unable to win the ground war and hence its reliance on 500 pound bombs in often urban areas to smash the Iraqis resistance.But lets be honest here, George Bush said soon after the invasion "Bring em on!" and posed in front of a massive war banner which read "Mission Accomplished. Well ,mission has not been accomplished ;the Iraqis keep coming on and US casualties in the dead and maimed have soared.Bush is now reviled in the USA and all those who have lost their sons and daughters in the carnage must be asking did they die for that buffoon or for some other cause? David |
|
30 Jul 07 - 10:20 AM (#2114722) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Big Al Whittle "US troops are shooting up civilian neighbourhoods and waging a racist war on the Iraqi poulation " was the bit that grabbed my attention, it seemed so reminiscent of what was being said about our troops in NI. The moment they stepped ashore the Irish mainland, they became bloodthirsty monsters. There are still a few members of mudcat who would subscribe to this view. Despite all the evidence pointing to the fact that it was the indigenous population knocking seven shades of shit out of each other. Once that stopped - the war stopped. anyway guest David, sorry if your breathless reports from war torn places you've never been to don't ignite righteous anger in my heart. Suddenly one feels abit like that donkey at the end of Animal farm - heard that one before, know how it ends...... |
|
30 Jul 07 - 10:54 AM (#2114742) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: GUEST,David Well I have to concede to Weelittledrummer that I have never been to Iraq carrying a gun in my hand or otherwise.The same applies to almost every foreign soldier who has been sent to that country. I have, however ,opposed the invasion and joined the million plus march against the war in February 2003. I have raised money for the Charity Medical Aid For Iraqi Children.I have also campaigned for Iraqis to gain refuge in this country.The Independent today reported that some 4 million Iraqis are now refugees from the chaos unleashed by Bush and Blair. I know I am not alone in calling the attack on Iraq by the US a racist war. Many US soldiers are quite open in their contempt for the Iraqi people calling them "Hajis ,towelheads" and much more.Come on man,you have seen those grim photographs of the torture and mistreatment od Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib.And there has been so much more. Who the hell is trying to ignite righteous anger in your heart? Not me.I am posting here to add weight to the case that Galloway did not get a fair hearing in Parliament and the real war criminals are walking free and in some cases preparing for the next attack on another oil rich country in the region. David |
|
30 Jul 07 - 11:20 AM (#2114765) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Big Al Whittle "US troops are shooting up civilian neighbourhoods and waging a racist war on the Iraqi poulation" we are supposed to take that precis of our allies actions with total equanimity...? Frankly you wouldn't have go further than the end of my street to hear MUCH worse racist abuse - have you never been in an Indian Restaurant round about closing time? And I don't think I live in a particularly racist area. I DO think you're onto a loser with Galloway. However that's for you to find out. When you've accomplished something, let us know. I can see that you are well meaning, but I think the guy's bad news for anything that gets involved with him. Sort of Kilroy Silk Mk2. |
|
30 Jul 07 - 11:43 AM (#2114785) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: GUEST,David The point that seems to escape many who supported the invasion is that US and British troops are in a country that is thousands of miles away from their homelands. Iraq had nothing to do with the attack on New York and there was no Al queda presence there until after the invasion. The attack on New York was carried out by mainly Saudis and yet there has been no attack on Saudi Arabia .One response to this has been the US announcement that it is to rearm Saudi Arabia with huge arms contracts being signed. Meanwhile Bin Laden must be having a real chuckle somewhere as Pakistan starts to slide and even Saudi Arabia becomes increasingly restive under the control of the Saudi Royal Family. David |
|
30 Jul 07 - 12:03 PM (#2114808) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Teribus Guest David & Guest Albert, Usual emotive clap-trap made up of myths, half-truths, downright lies and misrepresentations. So the International Herlad Tribune stated (5th June, 2007) that the "rate" of US bombing has doubled since last year. That would be 2006 wouldn't it? And that actually does not tell us very much. If the US dropped two bombs in 2006 that would mean that they have dropped four this year - hardly bombing the hell out of a country is it? Go to IBC there you will find out who is doing the killing in Iraq - as usual you will find that it is the Islamic Jihadists slaughtering their fellow muslims because the MNF actually fire back when they try it on with them, so Islams warriors take the easy option - like most terrorist organisations - they hit the civilians. For almost all your charges I would prefer to see some authoratative sources - not left wing bloggs. |
|
30 Jul 07 - 12:09 PM (#2114816) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Big Al Whittle I think Bush knew that. There just had to be some response to 9/11. He had to 'put a bit of stick about' - just show the world you don't do that to America and nothing happens.. Iraq as it was, was a huge convenience to everybody in the terrorist line of busines. Largely unpoliced, largely unpopulated, hugely corrupt, a bloodthirsty fucking idiot in charge, sworn enemy of Israel, no real friends in the Gulf...or the middle east generally. It was like I said a few posts ago about when Saddam hanged that young Observer reporter - he had been pissing off everybody for years. Times when it would have made sense to be conciliatory - he wasn't. It was a bit like that bit in Richard III when everybody starts edging away from Lord Hastings. he was for the chop - so unfortunately was his country. |
|
30 Jul 07 - 12:23 PM (#2114830) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: GUEST,David Dear Teribus I have never heard of the International Herald Tribune described as a sort of left wing blog! Go to the source as The IHT has. Of course the sectarian slaughter in Iraq has been immense but so hs the slaughter unleashed by the invasion of Iraq by the US Led Coalition IN 2003. And let us not have any doubt about that it was the invasion which unleashed the carnage. The invasion started with Operation Shock And Awe which involved the destruction of market places,mosques,residential neighbourhoods and hospitals as the hundreds of cruise missiles and bombs rained down on Bagdhad.Come on now Teribus you must remember how the US commentators boasted about effectiveness of the operation when it all looked so positive for the invaders.The International Herald Tribune article published last month is a timely reminder that the US bombing of Iraq is continuing along with ground combat operations.[Mudcat readers can check this article for themselves by going to google and typing in US bombing of Iraq and scrolling down to the relevant page ] . Of course the pro war press across the world has by and large been unwilling or unable to report this part of the carnage what with reporters being embedded with the Coalition forces and indeed the situation being so dangerous for all reporters although there have been some independent western blogs coming out of Iraq which have painted a very different picture from authorised sources. David |
|
30 Jul 07 - 03:49 PM (#2114972) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: GUEST,ALBERT |
|
30 Jul 07 - 03:53 PM (#2114978) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: GUEST,ALBERT The Independent carried as its front page story today an article about the 4 million Iraqi refugees who have fled into exile with many living on the breadline in Syria .This is one of the largest forced movements of people since the second World War. Coupled with the latest Oxfam report about the state of Iraq they makes a damning indictment of US/UK policy towards that country. albert |
|
30 Jul 07 - 04:14 PM (#2115002) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Shakey First of all - some of my posts are going awol, not only on this thread, I'm not saying there's any conspiracy (that's the othercamp), just that it's happening. Albert, you think I'm ignorant about the situation while you confess surprise that the saudi's are funding the sunni murderers. ME 101, the saudi's are sunni, Iran is shia, they don't get on, ok. The US is friends with saudi you say, but Albert they give billions to Isreal, does that make the saudi's and Isreal buddies. The same drivel comes pouring out, "It's racist" - well if it was racist then the first gulf war must also have been and yet therewere 3-40 countries involved - including a number of arab states - must do better. Oh no, sorry, I meant it's the oil. It would have been far cheaper to buy the bloody stuff. Now I don't deny the US has all sorts of geo-strategic reasons and safeguarding the flow may have been one of them. That's a long way from trying to nick it all. Iraq is in a mess. Hello, there was a war, what did you expect, Germany was in a mess after WW2 does that mean we shouldn't have fought Mr Hitler? As has been pointed out, most of the mess has been created, post-invasion, by the sectarian murderers. But actually this is not really the topic is it, the topic is GG. GG is much more than one of the many anti-war group. In fact although I know many anti-war people I don't know one personaly that would defend the scumbag or his scumbag party. 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" |
|
30 Jul 07 - 04:53 PM (#2115024) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Big Al Whittle now now! calling someone a scumbag...hardly measured debate! |
|
30 Jul 07 - 04:56 PM (#2115026) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Shakey Al, I'm calling GG a scumbag not Albert. |
|
30 Jul 07 - 06:19 PM (#2115065) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: GUEST,ifor Dear Shakey It's just as well you are hiding behind another name or Galloway would want to have a word or two with you! When he arrived at the US Senate committee some time ago the senators thought they were going to devour him up as in one of those McCarthyite hearings from the 1950s.Galloway made mincemeat of them. When it came to the war Galloway was pilloried,harassed and put through a Labour Party show trial and purged. A member of the Labour Party for 36 years he was thrown out after a kangaroo trial. At that trial he was defended with evidence and statements by Tony Benn ,Michael Foot the former leader of the Labour Party,Mark Seddon a member of its National Executive and Tony Woodley the secretary of the Transport And General Workers Union . He was expelled by party functionaries acting on orders from the top for one reason only.He had to be punished for speaking out articulately and forcefully against the coming war which he said would be illegal and a disaster.He was supported by an anti war movement of millions across the world which must have given him strength. He was correct.The war which has cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of people was started by a most brutish right wing republican president aided and abetted by liars ,deceivers and servile opportunists in the heart of New Labour. If Galloway's opposition to the war makes him a "scumbag" to use your disgraceful description we needed a few hundred others like him when the decision to invade was taken. As for Respect,it is a coalition opposed to the war, opposed to the attack on our civil liberties and the whole mania for privatisation and the free market which has seen in the past few weeks huge sums of money being spent on the war and corrupt arms sales to Saudi Arabia ,for example ,while flood defences along the river Severn have ben neglected,underfunded and environmental workers sacked! So many responsible for the mass murder and carnage in Iraq and Galloway gets called a "scumbag".You couldn't make it up! ifor |
|
30 Jul 07 - 07:08 PM (#2115088) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Big Al Whittle Michael Foot, Tony Benn.... their powers of leadership kept the Labour Party away from power for a generation. Even when the tories were almost begging for another party to step in and clear up their mess, the public would not entertain the idea of people like this at the centre of power. If that's what politics is about for you ...pissing about and posturing, then I have made a mistake .... GG is indeed your man. You will be well suited and happy together. I wish you joy of it. |
|
31 Jul 07 - 02:18 AM (#2115283) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: GUEST,ifor Dear Weelittledrummer And there I was thinking it was those members of the Labour party splitting to form the right wing Social and Democratic Party [SDP] who did the damage to Labour back in the early 1980s. With Galloway overturning a 15000 Labour majority in East London 2 years ago perhaps things are opening up to the left of Labour. Whatever I thank you for your good wishes and trust that you have a good night at the" Bar and Bigot" tonight.You do need to get out a bit more . ifor "pissing and posturing " eh? And I thought we were discussing war and peace in the Middle East! |
|
31 Jul 07 - 02:39 AM (#2115289) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Shakey their powers of leadership kept the Labour Party away from power for a generation well said that man |
|
31 Jul 07 - 04:10 AM (#2115312) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: GUEST,ALBERT Today's report in the Guardian should make sobering reading for all who are concerned about events in Iraq. It says that the chief victims of the growing humanitarian crisis are children. The article,based on the Oxfam report,says that children are not getting enough food,are malnourished ,are lacking sanitation and clean water and are living in extreme poverty.Many are now worse off,four years after the invasion, than they were living under the Saddam dictatorship. Four million Iraqis ,including some of the country's most skilled people are living in exile having fled the war zones,the sectarian killings and the mayhem that is Iraq.Unemployment in the country is at 50 percent. The invasion of Iraq,which followed years of sanctions has driven Iraq back into barbarism.Society has been shattered and the conflict looks set to continue and possibly even escalated if Bush launches an attack on neighbouring Iran as he is being urged to do by some neocons in Washington. albert |
|
31 Jul 07 - 04:34 AM (#2115317) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Big Al Whittle One of the eternal advantages of pissing about and posturing on the fringes of politics is that you never actually get to make any decisions about war and peace. You just get to piss about and posture - terrific fun, I'm sure. the lucky ones get to do it on the world stage. Your leader will tell you the rules. Bar and bigot - abuse again! Not really an argument. |
|
31 Jul 07 - 08:06 AM (#2115407) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: GUEST,albert To Weelittledrummer The logic of your above statement would lead to a handful of people [lets call them Bush,Blair Putin] deciding where and when the world goes to war. If the war was confined to those individuals I wouldn't mind so much but the type of war they have launched involves the killing of tens of thousands and the maiming and terrorising of many more. has anuclear weapons potential. It involves the use of white phospherous and napalm,cluster bombs and cruise missiles,high explosives and has anuclear weapons potential. It is because we have had a century of wars that there is now a world wide grassroots anti war movement....something the masters of war are apprehensive of. Thank goodness we don't have to be bit players in our own future but have the potential to collectively change things for the better! albert |
|
31 Jul 07 - 09:12 AM (#2115447) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Mr Happy Sham trial by Parliament Press release on Parliament suspension debate Tuesday, July 24, 2007 "At least the United States Senate gave me an uninterrupted hearing," said an outraged George Galloway as the Speaker threw him out of the Commons less than one third of his way through his speech of defence against the so-called Standards and Privileges Committee. "It has come to something," he continued, "When the leading anti-war MP could get a fairer hearing in the Republican Senate than in the British House of Commons. "I was thrown out of Parliament this evening just as I had given one example of the double standards that go to the heart of this matter. Anyone watching this would have seen Parliament plunged into disrepute as it absurdly decided - through agreeing my exclusion - that I am not permitted to point to those double standards or to criticise those who have produced this unjust report about me. "We now have the absurdity in which the House of Commons has convinced itself, or at rather pretends that it has, that 10 MPs sat in a committee room somehow cease to be what they by definition are - highly political people who together constitute a political tribunal. "The public know that is so; MPs, if they were being honest, know it; it's only in the chamber of the House of Commons that you are not allowed to say so. "I had much, much more to say about the report and the overarching question of who it is in this Iraq affair who has brought Parliament into disrepute. Instead, by voting to throw me out, the MPs present this evening chose to conduct a kangaroo court in my absence. "They may be happy to close their ears to the truth. Most people in Britain - and abroad - are not. "They will be outraged at this sham in what is supposed to be the highest court of the land." http://www.georgegalloway.com/ |
|
31 Jul 07 - 11:22 AM (#2115576) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Big Al Whittle 'The logic of your above statement would lead to a handful of people [lets call them Bush,Blair Putin] deciding where and when the world goes to war.' Got it at last! That's what happens! The ones who can be arsed to take some interest in the acquisition of power, sometimes attain it. The ones who are putting on a sort of cabaret act (for fun and/or profit) for you and your mates, don't. |
|
31 Jul 07 - 11:47 AM (#2115602) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: GUEST,ALBERT Reply to Weelittledrummer How jaded you are! Thank God you weren't around in the days of Spartacus and the slave revolt in ancient Rome. With you around we would all still be dragging around chain and balls and working on a chain gang. I can picture you back then: ROMAN MASTER: "Which one of you is Spartacus? Speak up now and you will have a clean death and not the crucifixation we plan for him! SPARACUS: I am Spartacus! SLAVE: No ,I am Spartacus! SECOND SLAVE No, Iam Spartacus! THIRD SLAVE I am SPARTACUS! FOURTH SLAVE [WEELITTLEDRUMMER ] Oh,I can't be bothered with this ! That's Spartacus over there .The guy with the dimple! Take him .I don't know why he led this uprising anyway.It would have never worked. Funny but when Karl Marx was asked who was his favourite figure from history he replied "Spartacus" ...and Weelittledrummer or his ancient Roman equivalent did not get a mention. Albert |
|
31 Jul 07 - 12:04 PM (#2115619) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Teribus "Reply to Weelittledrummer, You are factually wrong.The USA led coalition is still bombing hell out of the country. US troops are shooting up civilian neighbourhoods and waging a racist war on the Iraqi poulation and of course there are large numbers of mercenary so called "contractors " in the country who are also waging their own privatised war." - GUEST,David - on 30 Jul 07 at 05:09 AM. So I actually went and had a look. Since midnight on the 31st December 2006 to 3rd June 2007 here are the instances that Guest David is talking about on a month by month basis: January 2007: - There were 14 shooting incidents involving MNF Troops resulting in 27 deaths - There were 7 Air Strikes resulting in 34 dead only 1 of the missions was a bombing mission. - There were 2 Road Traffic Accidents resulting in 2 deaths. February 2007: - 4 shooting incidents resulting in 7 people killed 3 by the "large numbers of mercenary so called "contractors " in the country who are also waging their own privatised war". - 3 Air Strikes resulting in 80 deaths all were bombing missions. - 1 Artillery incident resulting in 4 deaths. March 2007: - 10 shooting incidents resulting in 22 people killed - 5 Air Strikes resulting in 18 killed none of the Air Strikes were bombing missions (The casualties, six people, from one of those incidents are disputed and unverified). April 2007: - 1 shooting incident resulting in 1 death. - 2 Air Strikes resulting in 9 dead none of the Air Strikes were bombing missions. - 1 Artillery incident resulting in 4 people killed. May 2007: - 4 shooting incidents resulting in 5 deaths - 6 Air Strikes resulting in 29 deaths one of the Air Strikes was a bombing mission. To 3rd June 2007: - 1 Air Strike resulting in 3 people killed - not a bombing mission. Now then correct me if my arithmetic is wrong here but in total that provides me with corroborated fact (IBC data base maximum numbers used) that in five months: - There have been a total of 19 Air Strikes of which only 5 of which were bombing missions. - There have been 33 shooting incidents and only 1 of them involving civilian "contractors" - In 154 days, 59 people were shot in Iraq by members of the MNF and 3 by large army of "civilian contractors". So you tell me: Is the US led coalition is still bombing the hell out of Iraq? - I don't think so. Are US troops shooting up civilian neighbourhoods and waging a racist war on the Iraqi poulation? - Again, I don't think so. Are large numbers of mercenary so called "contractors " waging their own privatised war in Iraq? - Once more, I don't think so. Now here's a sobering thought for Guest David/ Respectful Albert et al. If Gorgeous George's pal, Saddam Hussein had been left in power, a position both GG and his followers all seemingly support, and if he had maintained his lower average - 23,716 Iraqi's would have died at his hands in one way or another in the same period that MNF Forces have killed in total 238. The vast majority of Iraqi's being killed are being killed by those who seek to protect them from the foreign invader, sectarian tit-for-tat killings and criminal activity. Remember Saddam emptied his jails before the invasion, emptied them that is of criminals, not the political prisoners, those he had put to death. The truth as far as members of Respect goes is only what happens to be convenient at any given moment. A rag-tag bundle of emotive clap-trap made up of myths, half-truths, downright lies and misrepresentations. Gorgeous George wouldn't know the truth if it jumped up and bit him on the arse. |
|
31 Jul 07 - 12:29 PM (#2115667) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: GUEST,Albert TO teribus, Hey, this Iraq war ...its a big desert right....it must all be a mirage! albert |
|
31 Jul 07 - 12:37 PM (#2115679) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Teribus 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. |
|
31 Jul 07 - 12:39 PM (#2115681) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: GUEST,David |
|
31 Jul 07 - 12:40 PM (#2115682) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Shakey 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" |
|
31 Jul 07 - 01:06 PM (#2115714) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Big Al Whittle 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. |
|
31 Jul 07 - 02:43 PM (#2115807) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Shakey Jesus, I could have written that al, in fact I'm pretty sure I have in the past on this very forum. |
|
31 Jul 07 - 05:11 PM (#2115944) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: GUEST,albert 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! |
|
31 Jul 07 - 05:33 PM (#2115962) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Shakey 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 |
|
01 Aug 07 - 03:55 AM (#2116237) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: GUEST,ifor 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 |
|
01 Aug 07 - 11:29 AM (#2116525) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: GUEST,albert 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 |
|
01 Aug 07 - 11:40 AM (#2116534) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Mr Happy http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=G1RBJVSPqps |
|
01 Aug 07 - 12:41 PM (#2116587) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: goatfell of course not, they just don't like being shown for what they are hypocrites. |
|
01 Aug 07 - 02:17 PM (#2116677) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Folkiedave 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 |
|
01 Aug 07 - 02:32 PM (#2116693) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Folkiedave 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. |
|
01 Aug 07 - 02:56 PM (#2116718) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: GUEST,ifor Well put Folkie Dave!! ifor |
|
01 Aug 07 - 05:16 PM (#2116834) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Teribus 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. |
|
01 Aug 07 - 05:28 PM (#2116850) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Shakey 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. |
|
02 Aug 07 - 02:44 AM (#2117143) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: GUEST,albert 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 |
|
02 Aug 07 - 03:05 AM (#2117151) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Big Al Whittle 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. |
|
02 Aug 07 - 03:57 AM (#2117172) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: GUEST,david 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 |
|
02 Aug 07 - 04:32 AM (#2117188) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Folkiedave 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........ |
|
02 Aug 07 - 04:43 AM (#2117195) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Folkiedave 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 |
|
02 Aug 07 - 06:01 AM (#2117224) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Big Al Whittle 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. |
|
02 Aug 07 - 07:08 AM (#2117261) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: GUEST,ifor 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 |
|
02 Aug 07 - 09:23 AM (#2117362) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Big Al Whittle '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. |
|
02 Aug 07 - 02:35 PM (#2117548) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Shakey 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. |
|
02 Aug 07 - 04:31 PM (#2117659) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Big Al Whittle 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. |
|
02 Aug 07 - 04:37 PM (#2117664) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: GUEST,albert 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? |
|
02 Aug 07 - 05:09 PM (#2117704) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Shakey 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. |
|
02 Aug 07 - 05:30 PM (#2117726) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: GUEST,el sid Don't mix up capitalism with democracy....they really are not the same at all! sid |
|
02 Aug 07 - 05:32 PM (#2117728) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: GUEST,Mo The Labour Party was set up to remove the excesses of capitalism instead it became it bedside doctor! Mo |
|
02 Aug 07 - 06:45 PM (#2117785) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Big Al Whittle 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. |
|
02 Aug 07 - 08:23 PM (#2117860) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Teribus 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? |
|
03 Aug 07 - 01:21 AM (#2118000) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: GUEST,albert 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 |
|
03 Aug 07 - 01:31 AM (#2118003) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: GUEST, ElSid 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 |
|
03 Aug 07 - 03:39 AM (#2118058) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Big Al Whittle too weird for me...... |
|
03 Aug 07 - 04:04 AM (#2118073) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: GUEST,HP 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 |
|
03 Aug 07 - 04:28 AM (#2118080) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Folkiedave 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..... |
|
04 Aug 07 - 07:01 AM (#2118916) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Teribus 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. |
|
04 Aug 07 - 12:00 PM (#2119024) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Folkiedave 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? |
|
05 Aug 07 - 05:57 AM (#2119545) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Big Al Whittle 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. |
|
05 Aug 07 - 07:58 AM (#2119586) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Folkiedave 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? |
|
05 Aug 07 - 08:42 AM (#2119602) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: The Sandman No he didnt,neither did Mrs Rosenberg,and she was executed on the orders of Dwight Eisenhower. |
|
05 Aug 07 - 09:36 AM (#2119626) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Big Al Whittle 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. |
|
05 Aug 07 - 02:43 PM (#2119815) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Teribus 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. |
|
05 Aug 07 - 06:43 PM (#2119976) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: akenaton 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. |
|
06 Aug 07 - 05:05 AM (#2120173) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Folkiedave 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. |
|
06 Aug 07 - 04:44 PM (#2120413) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Big Al Whittle 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. |
|
06 Aug 07 - 06:03 PM (#2120471) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Teribus 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. |
|
07 Aug 07 - 04:10 AM (#2120669) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Folkiedave 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 |
|
07 Aug 07 - 04:14 AM (#2120673) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Folkiedave 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? |
|
07 Aug 07 - 01:02 PM (#2120900) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Teribus "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? |
|
07 Aug 07 - 04:01 PM (#2121052) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Folkiedave 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? |
|
07 Aug 07 - 06:30 PM (#2121185) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Teribus 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. |
|
08 Aug 07 - 03:50 AM (#2121455) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Big Al Whittle 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. |
|
08 Aug 07 - 06:10 AM (#2121526) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Folkiedave 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. |
|
08 Aug 07 - 12:25 PM (#2121753) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Teribus 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. |
|
08 Aug 07 - 01:49 PM (#2121832) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: akenaton 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 |
|
08 Aug 07 - 04:01 PM (#2121957) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Teribus 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. |
|
08 Aug 07 - 05:58 PM (#2122048) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: akenaton 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 |
|
09 Aug 07 - 01:17 AM (#2122259) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Teribus 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". |
|
09 Aug 07 - 06:26 AM (#2122349) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: GUEST 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. |
|
09 Aug 07 - 10:01 AM (#2122456) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Folkiedave That last guest was me. On someone else's computer. |
|
09 Aug 07 - 12:07 PM (#2122533) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Teribus 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. |
|
09 Aug 07 - 05:34 PM (#2122738) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: akenaton 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 |
|
09 Aug 07 - 06:22 PM (#2122773) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: George Papavgeris 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. |
|
09 Aug 07 - 06:27 PM (#2122777) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: George Papavgeris 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. |
|
09 Aug 07 - 08:32 PM (#2122843) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Teribus "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. |
|
09 Aug 07 - 10:18 PM (#2122886) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: George Papavgeris 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? |
|
10 Aug 07 - 01:56 AM (#2122972) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Teribus 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. |
|
10 Aug 07 - 09:33 AM (#2123023) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: akenaton 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 |
|
10 Aug 07 - 10:23 AM (#2123060) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Doktor Doktor 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? |
|
10 Aug 07 - 10:29 AM (#2123066) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Bonzo3legs What inverted snobbery is this? Nothing wrong with being upper class, rather that than a jumped up chav. |
|
10 Aug 07 - 10:42 AM (#2123078) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Doktor Doktor 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 ... " .. ) |
|
10 Aug 07 - 11:34 AM (#2123116) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Teribus 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/ |
|
10 Aug 07 - 01:12 PM (#2123170) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: akenaton 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. |
|
10 Aug 07 - 01:22 PM (#2123177) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: akenaton "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 |
|
10 Aug 07 - 01:42 PM (#2123185) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Teribus 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. |
|
10 Aug 07 - 01:55 PM (#2123191) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Teribus "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. |
|
10 Aug 07 - 05:07 PM (#2123285) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: akenaton 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 |
|
11 Aug 07 - 02:54 AM (#2123524) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Teribus 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. |
|
11 Aug 07 - 03:20 AM (#2123531) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: akenaton 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... |
|
11 Aug 07 - 04:09 AM (#2123546) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Teribus 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". |
|
11 Aug 07 - 02:14 PM (#2123811) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: GUEST,from albert 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 |
|
11 Aug 07 - 06:26 PM (#2123949) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: 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." 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" |
|
11 Aug 07 - 07:45 PM (#2123987) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Teribus 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. |
|
12 Aug 07 - 04:42 AM (#2124107) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Big Al Whittle "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. |
|
12 Aug 07 - 06:04 AM (#2124123) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Teribus 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. |
|
12 Aug 07 - 07:07 AM (#2124143) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Big Al Whittle 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. |
|
12 Aug 07 - 12:02 PM (#2124179) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: akenaton 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. |
|
12 Aug 07 - 12:20 PM (#2124190) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: akenaton 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!! |
|
12 Aug 07 - 12:41 PM (#2124212) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: akenaton 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 |
|
12 Aug 07 - 02:30 PM (#2124272) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Teribus "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. |
|
12 Aug 07 - 03:23 PM (#2124299) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: akenaton 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) |
|
12 Aug 07 - 03:58 PM (#2124320) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Big Al Whittle 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. |
|
12 Aug 07 - 05:06 PM (#2124349) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: akenaton 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 |
|
12 Aug 07 - 05:14 PM (#2124352) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Teribus 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). |
|
12 Aug 07 - 05:45 PM (#2124367) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: akenaton Pathetic!! |
|
13 Aug 07 - 12:33 AM (#2124555) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Teribus 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? |
|
13 Aug 07 - 12:34 AM (#2124556) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Teribus 200 Up. |
|
13 Aug 07 - 02:21 AM (#2124571) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: akenaton Not necessarily! |
|
13 Aug 07 - 03:27 AM (#2124576) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Big Al Whittle To me you're both different sides of the same coin. You are looking for simplistic answers. Both of you seem to accept Tony Blair's explanaton for doing what he did. One says he was right - maybe. One says he was wrong - definitely. The actual facts of this matter are surely something to speculate, rather than argue about. If you think an exotic bird of passage like George will have the answers on a card in his beak, you are wrong Akenaton. Terribus - your lack of interest in understanding everything about why people acted the way they did in everything from the holocaust to the miner's strike should send up warning signs to you. You have no empathy for politics. You just don't understand it. Its not your subject. Its all to do with human beings. You would be better off spending your time playing those games where you re-fight the battle of Waterloo. You can be Napoleon and do all the silly things he did. And add some of your own. I'm told its fun. |
|
13 Aug 07 - 07:10 AM (#2124632) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: GUEST,The watcher. WLD, Sound advice to Teribus the most obnoxious poster on this Site, but it won`t be heeded. |
|
13 Aug 07 - 08:11 PM (#2124860) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Big Al Whittle The word I would choose is not obnoxious, but VERY VERY VERY judgemental. If he had been a jew in Auschwitz, they wouldn't have gassed him. If he had been a teacher in a mining village, he would have paid no heed to the antipathy of a community to a culture that that had short changed and shit on them from the dawn of time. No doubt he would have built the pyramids square and installed central heating and double glazing. probably a great idea, but for some reason those people at that point in history didn't take that course. it was the sort of thing that caused Divis Sweeney to run off with the screaming hab dabs. I know it was difficult on those Northern Ireland threads - all these Yanks going Erin Go Braugh every five minutes. But here was someone talking from a point of view which not many of us were familiar with. Could we have a sensible conversation. No bloody chance - all these streams of incontravertible government facts - this about a campaign where both sides were up to their oxters in covert and secret activity - so no one KNEW for certain what the facts of the matter were. But here was someone who could have told us what it was about on the ground - what motivated his beliefs. Having said all that - I still think you'd be as well trusting Blair as George Galloway. So if theres a side in this debate - I'm with Teribus. |
|
14 Aug 07 - 01:45 AM (#2125006) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: akenaton Sorry Al... but at the end of the day nobody trusted Blair, thats why he was forced from office. George Galloway is a politician and a human being, like most of us ego driven, so he's obviously not perfect. But.... Think back to the run up to war, who was the man saying the unsayable. It took a brave man to adopt George's stance...with no chance of anything to gain personally. George is one of the most accomplished speakers in politics, if he is also a liar and an oppertunist, why did he not join the ranks of New Labour years ago...His chances of political advancement would have been greatly enhanced.....He might even have been in the frame to succeed Mr Blair....Ake |
|
14 Aug 07 - 02:29 AM (#2125017) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: GUEST,albert I agree with Ake.GG promised his electorate in Bow that he would only stand for one term in that constituency in order to defeat the pro war New Labour Oona King. He has kept his promise and will not seek reelection at Bow at the next general election. However he has announced that he will seek the nomination of the Respcet Coalition to stand as its candidate in the neighbouring Poplar and Bow constituency , a seat currently held by New Labour's Jim Fitzpatrick . Fitzpatrick is pro war,pro ID cards and a supporter of the replacement for multibillion pound Trident nuclear weapons system.He is also a supporter of the new foundation hospitals. GG by contrast was an opponent of the war,is opposed to nuclear weapons,is opposed to ID cards because they infringe our civil liberties and is a supporter of the NHS. GG will be supported by local firefighters .Fitzpatrick,who spoke out against his former colleagues during their dispute will struggle to find anyone in the public sector who will go out of their way to vote for his reelection. albert |
|
14 Aug 07 - 05:51 AM (#2125075) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Big Al Whittle would you prefer Northern Irekand still in flames and a tory party in Paisley's pocket still in power? Would you prefer enormous levels of unemployment (and the social ills that brings), as the tory's rich friends get kickbacks for exporting jobs? If a principled man like Blair found himself in the position of having to join Bush's military campaign, then it must have been a reality of power. Something you never get to find out about, if a enough of you vote for Galloway and his like. All you get is their damn silly speeches about what they'd do if we lived in sort of vacuum. |
|
14 Aug 07 - 06:24 AM (#2125084) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: GUEST,ALBERT Blair and principles? Now there is a contradiction that could form a whole new thread! Chirac ,a right wing president of France, refused to join the invasion of Iraq despite living in a world of "real politick". Blair took the plunge and took this country to war and the result has been carnage without end. Principles ?? Tell that to Rose Gentle , mother of trooper Gordon Gentle, who stood outside Downing St with other members of Military Families Against The War as Blair drove off for the last time. Blair ....surely Bliar? Albert |
|
14 Aug 07 - 07:55 AM (#2125120) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Big Al Whittle yes i knew you'd say that albert. please try and engage with what I'm saying - rather than the standard 'dial a lefty' response. obviously if you're kids have been killed in the war - the bloke who ordered them out into action isn't going to be your favourite person. the point is surely that both parties likely to hold office thought along the same lines as Blair. and face the facts, nobody holding Galloway's views was looked on as an electoral asset. just get your head round this stuff. The bombers who brought Gaddafi to heel had to fly round France. theres nothing very smart about what France did. they sheltered Khomeini for twenty years and then let him pollute the world oceans of politics by dumping the bastard on the world without a moments thought. gallic shrugs of irresponsibility to one and all, and let the world swim through the merde. |
|
14 Aug 07 - 11:23 AM (#2125226) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: GUEST,albert Don't start me off about Libya! When the American bombers bombed Tripoli way back in the mid 1980s they missed Ghaddafi but killed or maimed dozens of innocents including a baby called Hannah. What did she have to do with terrorism? And then of course there is Daviv Shaylers assertion that the British secret service funded an islamic terror group to blow up Ghaddafi car convoy in the late 1990s.They predictably missed but again killed and wounded innocent people . As for sheltering terrorists or unsavoury characters the USA has been doing that for years..the notable one that springs to mind is Juan Posada who escaped from a Venezuelan jail after being convicted of blowing up a cuban passenger plane.He is now in the USA living the life of a free man. And lets not kid oursdelves about Chirac..he is a right wing character but the crime of Iraq is not his...lets look a little closer to home for that culprit. albert |
|
14 Aug 07 - 01:11 PM (#2125313) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Teribus "Teribus the most obnoxious poster on this Site" - courtesy of one who styles himself, or herself, "The watcher" - Oooooooooooooo!!!!! Now isn't that just totally ludicrous or what!! Must admit though it did give me possibly the best laugh I've had all year. The whole thing is dead simple, if you are going to come out with the usual completely outrageous leftist, anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-Blair, anti-this, anti-whatever, clap-trap and expect it to be just taken at face value - think again. Provide some form of substantiation for it. You all believe it, you all so vociferously defend it. But for some strange reason, there's never anything to back it all up, when challenged, that stands up to the slightest, most superficial examination. And once that point is reached the personal attacks and insults start flying. I just can't wait to hear what Akenaton's definition of REAL FREEDOM is. When it comes it might just knock "The watchers" effort (quoted above) off the top spot for laughs of the year. I won't be holding my breath on it. But I do hope that it doesn't involve him daubing his face white and blue in good old Mel Gibson tradition. Tell me Al, as a teacher, in this "sink" that you describe, and that I, supposedly, am incapable of understanding, did you ever inspire so much a single pupil? By the bye, the lure of the pit was money, same way as in my area the lure of the mills was money, attractive prospect to a young lad who couldn't be bothered at school, leave at 15 and go and "work and play" with the men. I knew hundreds, but then I was lucky, throughout my time in school/college/university, I was lucky enough to encounter at least one teacher, a remarkable Rector and a Tutor and Lecturer that were all truly inspirational. Funny that you mentioned Waterloo, because one of those inspirational men had a theory not so much about Waterloo exactly but about Napoleon's so-called 100 days and the Waterloo campaign. he said historically it was like a "Goldfish Bowl". Such a concentrated period of time that had had so much written about it by people who were knowledgable, had been there, and had participated, from all different sides and perspectives. He reckoned that you could teach almost anything from it. On the game side of things the really odd thing about Waterloo is that Wellington very rarely wins, if ever. In exactly the same way that in gaming the Second World War once Russia is attacked Hitler never wins. I have never gamed Waterloo, we did the Second World War and various seperate campaigns relating to it as staff exercises in training, it was the "Cold War" and maybe they thought we might get something out of it. People training for the last war fought, no not really, it was pretty much accepted that on land, Guderian's tactics in defence would still have held good, particularly taking into account how West Germany had been developed and built up, although Sir John Hackett could explain that much better than I. |
|
14 Aug 07 - 02:49 PM (#2125396) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Big Al Whittle Shouldn't think so, I was a supply teacher paying off a credit card. they weren't sinks. the communities just got something out of school that wasn't on the national curriculum. like I say, if you can't be interested in people and situations - you won't understand them. And that makes you not the person to be suggesting solutions. |
|
14 Aug 07 - 03:09 PM (#2125414) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Big Al Whittle PS One of my pupils that I taught to play guitar helped to andplayed lead guitar on a number one record and invited me to see him blow the room away at Rock City in Nottingham. What did you do in the war Daddy? |
|
15 Aug 07 - 12:35 AM (#2125749) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Big Al Whittle sorry about these brief replies - I was on my way out to a folk club. Theres plenty to back up a dislike of Blair. He's creepy religious. He sends young men off to fight and die in wars that he would never in a million years deem important enough for his own sons to fight in. Stuff like education and health still gets decided by the obnoxious rich, rather than doctors and teachers - people who are in it for the long haul, even more than patients and parents. The only thing that makes Blair better than the tories is that he's not bankrolled by asset strippers, and city wide boys. But that is a very very big one. There are probably other things as well. As for myself, when I quit teaching proper to look after my disabled wife. I occasionally was forced by financial necassity to do supply contracts. I taught in dozens of schools, like the ones I describe to some extent. Most of the time I didn't even get to choose what I was teaching - let alone inspire people like Goodbye Mr Chips. I'm sure there were inspiring teachers around, but I certainly wasn't one of them - I was probably too immersed in my own personal misery. For too long though, education in this country has been something to help you escape your community, rise above it. Most people don't want to do this - schools and colleges relentlessly let them down. They lack the wisdom and decency of ordinary people. |
|
15 Aug 07 - 07:45 AM (#2125907) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Teribus 1. "There's plenty to back up a dislike of Blair. And all of it purely subjective opinion. 2. "He's creepy religious." Subjective opinion, impossible to substantiate or verify. 3. "He sends young men off to fight and die in wars that he would never in a million years deem important enough for his own sons to fight in." Again subjective opinion, wld you have got no idea at all what would happen if any of Tony Blair's sons joined up - True? Pure conjecture on your part. 4. "Stuff like education and health still gets decided by the obnoxious rich," A definitive statement, backed up by what? Give us some examples of the obnoxious rich interfering with education and health. The only people I have seen messing about with education in England have been the stalwarts of the Labour Party who for some reason decided to completely destroy the Grammer Schools to be replaced by what exactly? They never had a bloody clue, all part of their "class war" bullshit. Funny though the number of those wreckers who had availed themselves of a grammer school education, almost the same form of hypocracy as not letting anyone own their own homes (IIRC Wilson owned five at the time). |
|
15 Aug 07 - 08:20 AM (#2125920) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Big Al Whittle Teribus - you just make feel like telling you to go and suck something organic. you simply haven't a clue. we used to have an orthopaedic hospital called harlow Wood round here. It was brilliant. the staff had been working there for years - some of the porters got paid next to nothing - they couldn't afford to use the the staff canteen. but they were really skilled at lifting people with arthritis and painful joints. brilliant guys - i don't suppose they had had the inspirational teachers, and escaped their sink communities - but they were great human beings. it was replaced by a ward in a big hospital complex. then some beds in a ward. then its nowhere. the hospital itself is a row of executive housing. When I was teaching, which wasn't that long ago . Most of the schools didn't have decent up to date text books. they had all sorts 'initiatives' - particularly when Keith Joseph's ideas were still being called 'radical' - instead of the more accurate description of flipping stupid. one room was full of directives on how to mark a test they weren't quite sure but they later decided not to give the kids. When I say a roomful - I mean an entire room chest high with printed verbiage. some idiot had been well paid to write. some idiot had been paid to print and publish. the funds which were needed for books were hi-jacked by people of indeterminate class, but they weren't from round here. I don't know where you've spent your life, and how you come to be on this folk music site. but you don't seem to know much about how folk live. I wonder how you are on music. |
|
15 Aug 07 - 08:22 AM (#2125921) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Big Al Whittle PS you're quite right, my feelings about Blair are visceral rather than cerebral just cos I vote for him doesn't mean I want hin sitting next to me in the cinema |
|
15 Aug 07 - 10:56 AM (#2126019) Subject: RE: Did George Galloway Get A Fair Hearing From: Teribus Examples of the obnoxious rich interfering with education and health. Sorry to say this wld, you have stated quite categorically that the obnoxious rich interfere with health and education. Now speaking as someone who has just been elevated to the "obnoxious" by "The watcher", and as someone who hopefully will be further advanced by the self same "watcher" to being obnoxiously rich, I feel as though I have an axe to grind. You still haven't given any examples of the "obnoxious rich interfering with education and health". The one example that you did give with a name hung on it was Keith Josef. Excuse me but wasn't he Minister of Education at the time? We still do not know which "obnoxious rich" person was responsible for the closure of the hospital that you mention. Conservative/Labour Cabinet Minister's interfering with Health and Education provided those are their portfolios is one thing. Senior Civil Servants working in the respective Ministry's of Health and Education interfering with Health and Education is another. What has NEVER happened is that nobody, who could be remotely described as being "obnoxiously rich", or otherwise, who is unconnected professionally or politically to the Government/Government Ministry/Parliament having ever interfered with Health or Education. |