George Galloway

Post Reply
Pensioner
Grumpy old fart.
Posts: 3066
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 7:22 am
Contact:

Re: George Galloway

Post by Pensioner » Thu Aug 12, 2010 10:30 am

Seraph wrote:
Lozzer wrote:Saddam's regime was a monstrosity which had elected itself through its own actions to be a subject of international concern. The US acted on the egalitarian principles it was founded upon, and swiftly deposed a tyrant which had held dominion for too long on the people of Iraq.
Iraq is even worse off since the regime change, especially so from the fundamentalist islamic perspective. Kudos for the US administration's invasion? I think not. Was it even motivated by a desire to liberate the oppressed people there? Don't mention the oil, k? Or it's financial and diplomatic support of Hussein and the Mujaheddin during the Soviet-Afghan war.
I agree with you. Some of us have apposed Saddam Hussein for over 20 years before the invasion when he was being supplied with WMD by the west. When he gassed the Curds and others I never read any condemnation from the right wing in the UK, the opposition came mainly from the left.

I have posted a link to an article in the Washington Post on the reconstruction of Iraq, read it and weep.

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/arti ... g_iraq.php

October, 1983. The Reagan Administration begins secretly allowing Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United States weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs to Iraq. These shipments violated the Arms Export Control Act. [16]

November 1983. George Schultz, the Secretary of State, is given intelligence reports showing that Iraqi troops are daily using chemical weapons against the Iranians. [1]

December 20, 1983. Donald Rumsfeld , then a civilian and now Defense Secretary, meets with Saddam Hussein to assure him of US friendship and materials support. [1] & [15]

July, 1984. CIA begins giving Iraq intelligence necessary to calibrate its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. [19]

January 14, 1984. State Department memo acknowledges United States shipment of "dual-use" export hardware and technology. Dual use items are civilian items such as heavy trucks, armored ambulances and communications gear as well as industrial technology that can have a military application. [2]

March, 1986. The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the US becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of these weapons. [10]

May, 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax. [3]

May, 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq. [7]

March, 1987. President Reagan bows to the findings of the Tower Commission admitting the sale of arms to Iran in exchange for hostages. Oliver North uses the profits from the sale to fund an illegal war in Nicaragua. [17]

Late 1987. The Iraqi Air Force begins using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq. [1]

February, 1988. Saddam Hussein begins the "Anfal" campaign against the Kurds of northern Iraq. The Iraq regime used chemical weapons against the Kurds killing over 100,000 civilians and destroying over 1,200 Kurdish villages. [8]

April, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas. [7]

August, 1988. Four major battles were fought from April to August 1988, in which the Iraqis massively and effectively used chemical weapons to defeat the Iranians. Nerve gas and blister agents such as mustard gas are used. By this time the US Defense Intelligence Agency is heavily involved with Saddam Hussein in battle plan assistance, intelligence gathering and post battle debriefing. In the last major battle with of the war, 65,000 Iranians are killed, many with poison gas. Use of chemical weapons in war is in violation of the Geneva accords of 1925. [6] & [13]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00193.html
“I wish no harm to any human being, but I, as one man, am going to exercise my freedom of speech. No human being on the face of the earth, no government is going to take from me my right to speak, my right to protest against wrong, my right to do everything that is for the benefit of mankind. I am not here, then, as the accused; I am here as the accuser of capitalism dripping with blood from head to foot.”

John Maclean (Scottish socialist) speech from the Dock 1918.

Trolldor
Gargling with Nails
Posts: 15878
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 5:57 am
Contact:

Re: George Galloway

Post by Trolldor » Thu Aug 12, 2010 1:06 pm

One small letter can change everything...

Curds
"The fact is that far more crime and child abuse has been committed by zealots in the name of God, Jesus and Mohammed than has ever been committed in the name of Satan. Many people don't like that statement but few can argue with it."

Pensioner
Grumpy old fart.
Posts: 3066
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 7:22 am
Contact:

Re: George Galloway

Post by Pensioner » Thu Aug 12, 2010 1:16 pm

The Mad Hatter wrote:One small letter can change everything...

Curds
Fucking Kurds :Erasb: :pawiz:
“I wish no harm to any human being, but I, as one man, am going to exercise my freedom of speech. No human being on the face of the earth, no government is going to take from me my right to speak, my right to protest against wrong, my right to do everything that is for the benefit of mankind. I am not here, then, as the accused; I am here as the accuser of capitalism dripping with blood from head to foot.”

John Maclean (Scottish socialist) speech from the Dock 1918.

User avatar
leo-rcc
Robo-Warrior
Posts: 7848
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 5:09 pm
About me: Combat robot builder
Location: Hoogvliet-Rotterdam, Netherlands
Contact:

Re: George Galloway

Post by leo-rcc » Thu Aug 12, 2010 1:19 pm

The Mad Hatter wrote:You can not blame the present administration for the actions of the previous.
Secondly, are you as equally angry with the Dutch for taking part in the war?
What war?
Best regards,
Leo van Miert
My combat robot site: http://www.team-rcc.org
My other favorite atheist forum: http://www.atheistforums.org

Horsepower is how hard you hit the wall --Torque is how far you take the wall with you

Trolldor
Gargling with Nails
Posts: 15878
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 5:57 am
Contact:

Re: George Galloway

Post by Trolldor » Thu Aug 12, 2010 1:20 pm

The Dutch contributed around 650 soldiers to the Iraq War
"The fact is that far more crime and child abuse has been committed by zealots in the name of God, Jesus and Mohammed than has ever been committed in the name of Satan. Many people don't like that statement but few can argue with it."

User avatar
leo-rcc
Robo-Warrior
Posts: 7848
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 5:09 pm
About me: Combat robot builder
Location: Hoogvliet-Rotterdam, Netherlands
Contact:

Re: George Galloway

Post by leo-rcc » Thu Aug 12, 2010 2:01 pm

The Mad Hatter wrote:The Dutch contributed around 650 soldiers to the Iraq War
You are aware that the Dutch support was to be political only for the Iraq war? Imagine the surprise of the Dutch when during one of the first press conferences luitenant-kolonel Jan Blom is not only present but Holland is mentioned as a valuable ally in the war. We had parliamentary inquiries and cabinet crises over this, resulting in the commission-Davids report in January of this year.

In short, if you pull the Dutch into the conversation, let it be known that this was NOT because the Dutch wanted it, only a few politicians scheming behind the Dutch peoples back to get Jaap de Hoop-Scheffers elected.
Best regards,
Leo van Miert
My combat robot site: http://www.team-rcc.org
My other favorite atheist forum: http://www.atheistforums.org

Horsepower is how hard you hit the wall --Torque is how far you take the wall with you

Trolldor
Gargling with Nails
Posts: 15878
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 5:57 am
Contact:

Re: George Galloway

Post by Trolldor » Thu Aug 12, 2010 5:02 pm

The Dutch contributed and that was that.
It wasn't and is still not popular with the Australian people, several thousand protested against intervention, but our soldiers are there so Australia took part.
"The fact is that far more crime and child abuse has been committed by zealots in the name of God, Jesus and Mohammed than has ever been committed in the name of Satan. Many people don't like that statement but few can argue with it."

Trolldor
Gargling with Nails
Posts: 15878
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 5:57 am
Contact:

Re: George Galloway

Post by Trolldor » Thu Aug 12, 2010 5:14 pm

That does not mean I approve of Saddam Hussein's regime.
Either you support the war or you don't. If you don't to the extent that you believe it never should have happened means you prefer that Suddam remained in power over a US invasion
You may not approve, but if you state the war never should have happened then you actively prefer Suddam's continued oppression as opposed to a US-led liberation. It's the fact of the matter.

And, secondly, it was a liberation - not because any policy makers stated it was and not because people like Toontown keep saying it was, but because when US soldiers rolled in to Baghdad they were cheered in by the Iraqi people.

It wasn't the invasion which was the problem, it was the botched execution. The Iraqi people wanted to be free of Suddam, but war is war.
"The fact is that far more crime and child abuse has been committed by zealots in the name of God, Jesus and Mohammed than has ever been committed in the name of Satan. Many people don't like that statement but few can argue with it."

Pensioner
Grumpy old fart.
Posts: 3066
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 7:22 am
Contact:

Re: George Galloway

Post by Pensioner » Thu Aug 12, 2010 5:45 pm

Why are there only two methods of getting rid of despots and dictators? Leave them to get on with there cruelty and brutality or invade. Why not support the poor people who fight back against having to live under the iron heel of dictators. WE never do that in the west as the arms industry make more profits from supplying weapons to the oppressor than the oppressed.
“I wish no harm to any human being, but I, as one man, am going to exercise my freedom of speech. No human being on the face of the earth, no government is going to take from me my right to speak, my right to protest against wrong, my right to do everything that is for the benefit of mankind. I am not here, then, as the accused; I am here as the accuser of capitalism dripping with blood from head to foot.”

John Maclean (Scottish socialist) speech from the Dock 1918.

User avatar
sandinista
Posts: 2546
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:15 pm
About me: It’s a plot, but busta can you tell me who’s greedier?
Big corporations, the pigs or the media?
Contact:

Re: George Galloway

Post by sandinista » Thu Aug 12, 2010 5:55 pm

The Mad Hatter wrote:
That does not mean I approve of Saddam Hussein's regime.
Either you support the war or you don't. If you don't to the extent that you believe it never should have happened means you prefer that Suddam remained in power over a US invasion
You may not approve, but if you state the war never should have happened then you actively prefer Suddam's continued oppression as opposed to a US-led liberation. It's the fact of the matter.

And, secondly, it was a liberation - not because any policy makers stated it was and not because people like Toontown keep saying it was, but because when US soldiers rolled in to Baghdad they were cheered in by the Iraqi people.

It wasn't the invasion which was the problem, it was the botched execution. The Iraqi people wanted to be free of Suddam, but war is war.
That's just not true. It's like the only choice was Saddam or US invasion. I don't believe that. It is also a not true that the "Iraqi people" cheered the US invaders. Did some cheer? Yes, does that mean anything...no. Certainly not that the entire country was welcoming an invasion and foreign occupation. The invasion was the problem, as well as the execution. Perhaps some of the people wanted to be free of Saddam, but that can be said for "some of the people" of most countries. I saw you're post after I wrote this Pensioner, I agree. Besides all the talk of "getting rid of this guy or that guy". The US has no right to decide who stays in power in the first place, they have been installing dictators for so long it's not "dictators" that matter its "dictators" who kneel to US power that matters.
Our struggle is not against actual corrupt individuals, but against those in power in general, against their authority, against the global order and the ideological mystification which sustains it.

User avatar
Eriku
Posts: 1194
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2010 10:19 am
About me: Mostly harmless...
Location: Ørsta, Norway
Contact:

Re: George Galloway

Post by Eriku » Thu Aug 12, 2010 5:59 pm

Pensioner wrote:Why are there only two methods of getting rid of despots and dictators? Leave them to get on with there cruelty and brutality or invade. Why not support the poor people who fight back against having to live under the iron heel of dictators. WE never do that in the west as the arms industry make more profits from supplying weapons to the oppressor than the oppressed.
Agreed... these false dichotomies are not useful at all.

User avatar
Toontown
Posts: 422
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 11:26 am
Contact:

Re: George Galloway

Post by Toontown » Thu Aug 12, 2010 6:13 pm

Pensioner wrote:Why are there only two methods of getting rid of despots and dictators? Leave them to get on with there cruelty and brutality or invade. Why not support the poor people who fight back against having to live under the iron heel of dictators. WE never do that in the west as the arms industry make more profits from supplying weapons to the oppressor than the oppressed.
An insurgency against Saddam would have failed as completely as the insurgency againat the U.S. did - the difference being, Saddam would have launched bloody reprisals which would have killed millions more.

My question to you is, why were you opposed to everything about Saddam except his overthrow?

Incidentally, I would like to know why, in your previous voluminous Iranian-written litany, you failed to mention the thousands of artillery, tanks, and aircraft sold to Saddam by France and Russia.

If the West created Saddam, then it was the West's responsibility do do away with him, don't you think? What did France and Russia have to lose by lending a hand in the overthrow of Saddam?

User avatar
sandinista
Posts: 2546
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:15 pm
About me: It’s a plot, but busta can you tell me who’s greedier?
Big corporations, the pigs or the media?
Contact:

Re: George Galloway

Post by sandinista » Thu Aug 12, 2010 6:22 pm

Well, if that's the case, you could easily say that all the problems in Africa are the west's fault as well...slavery ring a bell? So why not fix that? Go spread democracy and freedom there.
Our struggle is not against actual corrupt individuals, but against those in power in general, against their authority, against the global order and the ideological mystification which sustains it.

User avatar
Toontown
Posts: 422
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 11:26 am
Contact:

Re: George Galloway

Post by Toontown » Thu Aug 12, 2010 6:36 pm

The Mad Hatter wrote: It wasn't the invasion which was the problem, it was the botched execution. The Iraqi people wanted to be free of Suddam, but war is war.
The botched execution was entirely due to a lack of a sufficient number of troops to execute a proper occupation. The U.S. simply does not have the numerically large army which is required for occupation.

Offhand, I can think of a couple of countries that could have supplied a large number of troops to that end. But these countries declined, choosing instead to ramp up a campaign of propaganda against the Iraq operation.

These countries I'm thinking of had their hands wrist deep in Saddam's hide when it came to extracting every last penny they could squeeze out of him. But when the time came to help clean up the mess they helped make, these stalwarts were conspicuously AWOL.

Trolldor
Gargling with Nails
Posts: 15878
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 5:57 am
Contact:

Re: George Galloway

Post by Trolldor » Thu Aug 12, 2010 6:38 pm

sandinista wrote:
The Mad Hatter wrote:
That does not mean I approve of Saddam Hussein's regime.
Either you support the war or you don't. If you don't to the extent that you believe it never should have happened means you prefer that Suddam remained in power over a US invasion
You may not approve, but if you state the war never should have happened then you actively prefer Suddam's continued oppression as opposed to a US-led liberation. It's the fact of the matter.

And, secondly, it was a liberation - not because any policy makers stated it was and not because people like Toontown keep saying it was, but because when US soldiers rolled in to Baghdad they were cheered in by the Iraqi people.

It wasn't the invasion which was the problem, it was the botched execution. The Iraqi people wanted to be free of Suddam, but war is war.
That's just not true. It's like the only choice was Saddam or US invasion. I don't believe that. It is also a not true that the "Iraqi people" cheered the US invaders. Did some cheer? Yes, does that mean anything...no. Certainly not that the entire country was welcoming an invasion and foreign occupation. The invasion was the problem, as well as the execution. Perhaps some of the people wanted to be free of Saddam, but that can be said for "some of the people" of most countries. I saw you're post after I wrote this Pensioner, I agree. Besides all the talk of "getting rid of this guy or that guy". The US has no right to decide who stays in power in the first place, they have been installing dictators for so long it's not "dictators" that matter its "dictators" who kneel to US power that matters.
And again, the US put Suddam in power. He was their responsibility. Removing his oppression of the Iraqi people was not a 'right'. It was a necessity and a responsibility.
Secondly, The Iraqi PEOPLE wanted to be free of Suddam. Not the Iraqi handful. Or are you not familiar with how a totallitarian state runs? I suppose the mass graves filled with Suddam's victims were all filled with really really bad people.
Thirdly, diplomacy had failed. The UN tried sanctions and succeeded only in killing Iraqi civilians. When offered a chance to surrender, Suddam refused.
"The fact is that far more crime and child abuse has been committed by zealots in the name of God, Jesus and Mohammed than has ever been committed in the name of Satan. Many people don't like that statement but few can argue with it."

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests