George Galloway

[sandinista]

I was on exchange in the US, at the tender age of 17, in 2002-03. I recall the news being all about Bin Laden and Afghanistan, until suddenly, out of the blue, Saddam was all of a sudden the big man that had to go down for what happened on 9-11.

Everybody swallowed that explanation straight away, and I felt stupid for not getting it, so I didn't say anything.

Obviously, being a foreigner from "the old Europe" you wouldn't get it. Our well-trained, finely tuned, American minds follow these leaps of logic with the greatest of ease.

There's also some great canadian minds here that follow leaps of logic just as easily. I remember people actually saying, straight faced, that canaduh was invading canada to "free the women". Embarrassing to say the least.

[Jay G]

I was on exchange in the US, at the tender age of 17, in 2002-03. I recall the news being all about Bin Laden and Afghanistan, until suddenly, out of the blue, Saddam was all of a sudden the big man that had to go down for what happened on 9-11.

Everybody swallowed that explanation straight away, and I felt stupid for not getting it, so I didn't say anything.

Obviously, being a foreigner from "the old Europe" you wouldn't get it. Our well-trained, finely tuned, American minds follow these leaps of logic with the greatest of ease.

There's also some great canadian minds here that follow leaps of logic just as easily. I remember people actually saying, straight faced, that canaduh was invading canada to "free the women". Embarrassing to say the least.

Where did all those "free women" go and how can I get one?

[Eriku]

Well...I guess you had to say something, even if it was nothing.

So, are you trying to say that even though the U.S. gives more in dollar amounts than any other country, it isn't enough, plus there are all these other issues that sort of "X" it out of the world?

I think Manson said something like that once. But he carved an "X" in his forehead for emphasis.

Damn. You peoples' shit keeps getting weaker by the minute. Now I'm having to write your rebuttals for you.

No, I'm trying to say that foreign aid more often than not lines the pockets of the twats who are enjoying themselves at the expense of the vast starving masses of civilians.

I should've known you'd stop after the first critical paragraph, here's what I find significant:

Furthermore, aid has often come with a price of its own for the developing nations:

-Aid is often wasted on conditions that the recipient must use overpriced goods and services from donor countries
-Most aid does not actually go to the poorest who would need it the most
-Aid amounts are dwarfed by rich country protectionism that denies market access for poor country products, while rich nations use aid as a lever to open poor country markets to their products
-Large projects or massive grand strategies often fail to help the vulnerable; money can often be embezzled away.

So there you go... the free market nations will throw a pittance at Africa, but they won't give up their own policies which ensure that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

[Toontown]

I was on exchange in the US, at the tender age of 17, in 2002-03. I recall the news being all about Bin Laden and Afghanistan, until suddenly, out of the blue, Saddam was all of a sudden the big man that had to go down for what happened on 9-11.

Everybody swallowed that explanation straight away, and I felt stupid for not getting it, so I didn't say anything.

No, not "suddenly out of the blue". See the Iraq Liberation Resolution of 1998:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.4655.ENR:

9/11 was simply a wake-up call which provided the impetus to do some general house cleaning, such as enforcing some U.N. resolutions against a Chapter VII tyrant - which had become national policy years before.

Sorry if you misunderstood. I suppose a guy who had spent his life inside a comfortable bubble inside a small country in northern Europe, couldn't be expected to work that out.

However, it might have helped if you had actually paid attention. I did, and I had no difficulty working out that they weren't actually saying Saddam did 9/11. That was just some spin from the Professional Left. They do that, you know. To actually know anything, you must listen carefully to everything that is being said (not the parts you cherry-pick), and reach your own conclusions, based on everything that's actually being said. Not by the spinners, you understand. By the actual policy-makers. The spinners are meaningless.

Damn that Professional Left. Now they're even going after their fair-haired boy, Obama. Seems Obama is not "left" enough for them, says the White House press secretary.

I tried to tell the professional lefties before the election he wasn't left enough for them. I told them Obama is closer to me than he is to them. Got them all stirred up. I was banned from that forum shortly thereafter. Then it collapsed. Too bad they didn't listen to what Obama actually said in the debates. The idiots.

But I digress.

[sandinista]

9/11 was a wake-up call for the US to stop being an imperial power and militarist war monger...someone must have hit snooze.

btw, anyone who believed obama was any different from any of the last presidents from the last 50-60 years was either mystified or asleep. Of course he is closer to toony than anything resembling the "left", he is nothing but a figurehead for corporate power.

[Eriku]

I was on exchange in the US, at the tender age of 17, in 2002-03. I recall the news being all about Bin Laden and Afghanistan, until suddenly, out of the blue, Saddam was all of a sudden the big man that had to go down for what happened on 9-11.

Everybody swallowed that explanation straight away, and I felt stupid for not getting it, so I didn't say anything.

No, not "suddenly out of the blue". See the Iraq Liberation Resolution of 1998:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.4655.ENR:

9/11 was simply a wake-up call which provided the impetus to do some general house cleaning, such as enforcing some U.N. resolutions against a Chapter VII tyrant - which had become national policy years before.

Sorry if you misunderstood. I suppose a guy who had spent his life inside a comfortable bubble inside a small country in northern Europe, couldn't be expected to work that out.

However, it might have helped if you had actually paid attention. I did, and I had no difficulty working out that they weren't actually saying Saddam did 9/11. That was just some spin from the Professional Left. They do that, you know. To actually know anything, you must listen carefully to everything that is being said (not the parts you cherry-pick), and reach your own conclusions, based on everything that's actually being said. Not by the spinners, you understand. By the actual policy-makers. The spinners

I was on exchange in the US, at the tender age of 17, in 2002-03. I recall the news being all about Bin Laden and Afghanistan, until suddenly, out of the blue, Saddam was all of a sudden the big man that had to go down for what happened on 9-11.

Everybody swallowed that explanation straight away, and I felt stupid for not getting it, so I didn't say anything.

No, not "suddenly out of the blue". See the Iraq Liberation Resolution of 1998:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.4655.ENR:

9/11 was a wake-up call which provided the impetus to do some general house cleaning, such as enforcing some U.N. resolutions against a Chapter VII tyrant.

Sorry if you misunderstood. I suppose a guy who had spent his life inside a bubble inside a small country in northern Europe, couldn't be expected to work that out.

However, it might have helped if you had actually paid attention. I did, and I had no difficulty working out that they weren't actually saying Saddam did 9/11. That was just some spin from the Proffessional Left.

Damn that Professional Left. Now they're even going after their fair-haired boy, Obama. Seems Obama is not "left" enough for them, says the White House press secretary.

I tried to tell the professional lefties before the election he wasn't left enough for them. I told them Obama is closer to me than he is to them. Got them all stirred up. I was banned from that forum shortly thereafter. Then it collapsed. Too bad they didn't listen to what Obama actually said in the debates. The idiots.

But I digress.

Yes, us Norwegians are the ones in a bubble...

And they definitely linked Saddam to the 9-11 attacks, and pretty much eased up on the Bin Laden/Afghanistan angle.

And why do you keep persisting in belittling me? I've refrained from petty remarks, whereas you point to me cherry picking even though I've not actually linked or quoted anything regarding the run-up to the invasion of Iraq.

[Eriku]

BUT!... seeing as I've had the allegations levelled at me, I might as well go through and cherry pick... here goes:

Criticisms of pro-invasion bias
A University of Maryland study on American public opinion found that:

Fifty-seven percent of mainstream media viewers believed the falsity that Iraq gave substantial support to Al-Qaeda, or was directly involved in the September 11 attacks (48% after invasion).

Sixty-nine percent believed the falsity that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11 attacks.

Twenty-two percent believed the falsity that weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq. (Twenty-one percent believed that chem/bio weapons had actually been used against U.S. soldiers in Iraq during 2003)

In the composite analysis of the PIPA study, 80% of Fox News watchers had one or more of these misperceptions, in contrast to 71% for CBS and 27% who tuned to NPR/PBS.[17]
After the invasion, the editors of the New York Times apologized for its coverage of Hussein's alleged weapons programs, acknowledging that "we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims (related to Iraqi weapons programs) as new evidence emerged — or failed to emerge."[18]

During the invasion, critics argued that the mainstream media unduly focused on optimistic events, such as the toppling of a Saddam Hussein statue in Firdos Square, which was staged with the help of the U.S. military forces, thus downplaying more negative news developments.[19] In particular, the mainstream media has been criticized for underreporting news about Iraqi civilian casualties, which are estimated to be anywhere between 100,000 and 650,000.[20]

As the security situation in Iraq has worsened since the invasion, many journalists have found it increasingly difficult to report from Iraq without jeopardizing their lives. Some media outlets, unable to afford the cost of additional security, have even abandoned their bureaus in Baghdad. This trend has forced journalists to depend even more heavily on U.S. military sources, which has led some critics to call into question the impartiality of their reports on events such as the Iraqi elections.[21]

A post-2008 election poll by FactCheck.org found that 48% of Americans believe Hussein played a role in the 9/11 attacks, the group concluded that "voters, once deceived, tend to stay that way despite all evidence."[22]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_cove ... asion_bias


So yeah, maybe I should've criticised the media rather than the government, but as you can see the New York Times even apologised for not being critical enough in their reporting of the weapons programs, so it might not be all that weird that a 17 year old came away with the impression he did... but I'm sure you'd rather chalk that down to me being an anti-American European leftist twat.

[Pensioner]

I'm a 72 year old anti-American twat.

[Toontown]

So there you go... the free market nations will throw a pittance at Africa, but they won't give up their own policies which ensure that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Yeah, that's right. When you're getting your ass kicked, go running off on some irrelevant tangent, and keep yammering about that all day.

I don't give a rat fuck about whether you think the U.S. gives enough to Africa. It has nothing to do with anything I was talking about, until Sandinista made a desperate lunge to re-frame the debate, and then you latched onto the bogus Africa issue like a half-starved hyena on a chewed-over wildebeest femur.

Let go of the fucking bone, goddammit. There is no fucking meat on it, and the marrow has long since dried out.

[Eriku]

So there you go... the free market nations will throw a pittance at Africa, but they won't give up their own policies which ensure that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Yeah, that's right. When you're getting your ass kicked, go running off on some irrelevant tangent, and keep yammering about that all day.

I don't give a rat fuck about whether you think the U.S. gives enough to Africa. It has nothing to do with anything I was talking about, until Sandinista made a desperate lunge to re-frame the debate, and then you latched onto the bogus Africa issue like a half-starved hyena on a chewed-over wildebeest femur.

Let go of the fucking bone, goddammit. There is no fucking meat on it, and the marrow has long since dried out.

I'm sorry, what? He raised the issue, you responded stating that the US are of big use to Africa due to the aid it gives... I then respond that the aid is overrated, and I get told that I'm latching on to irrelevancies?

You're being a fucking hypocrite mate.

[Toontown]

So there you go... the free market nations will throw a pittance at Africa, but they won't give up their own policies which ensure that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Yeah, that's right. When you're getting your ass kicked, go running off on some irrelevant tangent, and keep yammering about that all day.

I don't give a rat fuck about whether you think the U.S. gives enough to Africa. It has nothing to do with anything I was talking about, until Sandinista made a desperate lunge to re-frame the debate, and then you latched onto the bogus Africa issue like a half-starved hyena on a chewed-over wildebeest femur.

Let go of the fucking bone, goddammit. There is no fucking meat on it, and the marrow has long since dried out.

I'm sorry, what? He raised the issue, you responded stating that the US are of big use to Africa due to the aid it gives... I then respond that the aid is overrated, and I get told that I'm latching on to irrelevancies?

You're being a fucking hypocrite mate.

He raised the issue of Africa in an attempt to re-frame the debate, because he was being cut to pieces on Iraq. I cut him off, by simply denying his attempted insertion of the premise that the U.S. fucked up Africa.

There was no intent on my part to go off on an Africa tangent. A freaking chimpan fucking zee could figure that out. But you immediately latched onto the Africa tangent, and haven't stopped yammering about it since.

edited to add: actually, that's not exactly correct. You did go off on another tangent about how many Joe Sixpacks thought Saddam did 9/11.

[Eriku]

So there you go... the free market nations will throw a pittance at Africa, but they won't give up their own policies which ensure that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Yeah, that's right. When you're getting your ass kicked, go running off on some irrelevant tangent, and keep yammering about that all day.

I don't give a rat fuck about whether you think the U.S. gives enough to Africa. It has nothing to do with anything I was talking about, until Sandinista made a desperate lunge to re-frame the debate, and then you latched onto the bogus Africa issue like a half-starved hyena on a chewed-over wildebeest femur.

Let go of the fucking bone, goddammit. There is no fucking meat on it, and the marrow has long since dried out.

I'm sorry, what? He raised the issue, you responded stating that the US are of big use to Africa due to the aid it gives... I then respond that the aid is overrated, and I get told that I'm latching on to irrelevancies?

You're being a fucking hypocrite mate.

He raised the issue of Africa in an attempt to re-frame the debate, because he was being cut to pieces on Iraq. I cut him off, by simply denying his attempted insertion of the premise that the U.S. fucked up Africa.

There was no intent on my part to go off on an Africa tangent. A freaking chimpan fucking zee could figure that out. But you immediately latched onto the Africa tangent, and haven't stopped yammering about it since.

If I found your denial to be erroneous, surely I've a right to raise that point?

And haven't stopped yammering? I proffered the link once, you mistook the point of it, I elaborated, and now I'm being told off.

You're quite heavily trying to distort things in your favour.

Cheers for implying that my reasoning is inferior to that of a chimp. Ad homs are always useful to making a good point.

edit: Yeah, Joe Sixpack... I also pointed to the New York Times acknowledging the unreliability of certain parts of their reporting... but I guess I'm not allowed to point to why a young and relatively apolitical me got the wrong impression back in the day after you pointed to me being a stupid European who couldn't catch the obvious intentions and justifications of the US Government. So I'm supposed to shut up and take all that from you? I'm sorry to say that if I reckon your statements are harsh and unfair, I will point that out.

I've nothing more to say to you... I'm sure that'll be taken to mean I concede defeat to your superior mind... I won't mind you having another delusion, help yourself.

[sandinista]

toontown

he raised the issue of Africa in an attempt to re-frame the debate, because he was being cut to pieces on Iraq.

haha, what? Your a comedian now?

[Toontown]

If I found your denial to be erroneous, surely I've a right to raise that point?

Oh? And how did you prove that the U.S. did in fact fuck Africa up? By not giving Africa as much aid as you would like?

By that reasoning, I can assert that you must begin sending me monthly cash donations, because if you don't, the lack of money will fuck me up.

I'll be looking forward to your kind assistance. But if it isn't enough, I'll start a propaganda campaign against you.

And haven't stopped yammering? I proffered the link once, you mistook the point of it, I elaborated, and now I'm being told off.

I didn''t mistake the point of it. There was simply nothing in the pissy, whiny link that proves the U.S. fucked up Africa.

You're quite heavily trying to distort things in your favour.

It shouldn't be difficult to follow the course of the discussion from where it started "The regime change in Iraq was a liberation", to where it ended "Joe Sixpack thunk Saddam did 9/11".

Having followed that meandering course, it shouldn't be difficult to understand why I am now comparing you and Sandinista to a herd of dodgy cats.

Cheers for implying that my reasoning is inferior to that of a chimp. Ad homs are always useful to making a good point.

You misunderstood my inference. I am not saying you are as stupid as a chimp. I'm saying you know why I cut off Sandinista's attempt to insert the false premise that the U.S. fucked up Africa. I''m saying you know quite well your stupid link didn't prove the U.S. fucked up Africa. I'm not saying you're stupid, I'm saying your manner of discussion is fundamentally dishonest.

[Eriku]

Sigh.......... I'll give it one last go...

Oh? And how did you prove that the U.S. did in fact fuck Africa up? By not giving Africa as much aid as you would like?

By that reasoning, I can assert that you must begin sending me monthly cash donations, because if you don't, the lack of money will fuck me up.

I'll be looking forward to your kind assistance. But if it isn't enough, I'll start a propaganda campaign against you.

DId I say that the US fucked Africa up? That's a different issue and Europe can be drawn into that... I was merely stating that the aid and its use is overstated, for which you can find plenty of facts to back up in the link I gave you, and on that site in general... and elsewhere, I should think... example:

Food aid can actually forestall agricultural development that could otherwise alleviate hunger. The inflow of food aid-even in many emergency cases-has proved time and again to be detrimental to local farm economies. Cheap, subsidized, or free U.S. grains undercut the prices of locally produced food, driving local farmers out of business and into cities.

Somalia is only one case in point. When a civil war began in 1991, domestic transportation was interrupted, precipitating a food crisis in large regions of the country. The UN estimated that almost 4.5 million people-over half of the estimated total population of the country-were threatened by severe undernutrition and malnutrition-related diseases at that time.33

Yet in December of 1992, when U.S. troops landed under the UN banner to distribute food and achieve a cease-fire among hostile factions, the worst of the famine was already over. The death rate had dropped from three hundred per day to seventy, and good crops of rice, sorghum, and corn from the agricultural regions of Afgoye and the Shebell River valley had already been harvested.34 Nonetheless, food aid poured in, driving down the prices received by local farmers for their harvest by a whopping 75 percent. Sometimes they couldn’t sell their crops even at the lower prices. Mrs. Faaduma Abdi Arush, a Somali farmer, tried to sell her corn to six relief agencies. None would buy it, as the U.S. government only provided them with funds to buy American food from U.S. companies. Many Somali farmers, unable to make a living by selling their produce, were forced to abandon their farms and join the lines for handouts of imported food.

Add to that the military angle of some of the aid:

Aid And Militarism
IPS noted that recent US aid has taken on militaristic angles as well, following similar patterns to aid during the cold war. The war on terrorism is also having an effect as to what aid goes where and how much is spent.

For example:

“Credits for foreign militaries to buy US weapons and equipment would increase by some 700 million dollars to nearly five billion dollars, the highest total in well over a decade.” (This is also an example of aid benefiting the donor!)
“The total foreign aid proposal … amounts to a mere five percent of what Bush is requesting for the Pentagon next year.”
“Bush’s foreign-aid plan [for 2005] actually marks an increase over 2004 levels, although much of the additional money is explained by greater spending on security for US embassies and personnel overseas.”
“As in previous years, Israel and Egypt are the biggest bilateral recipients under the request, accounting for nearly five billion dollars in aid between them. Of the nearly three billion dollars earmarked for Israel, most is for military credits.”
This militaristic aid will come “largely at the expense of humanitarian and development assistance.”
The European Union is linking aid to fighting terrorism as well, with European ministers warning countries that their relations with the economically powerful bloc will suffer if they fail to cooperate in the fight against terrorism. An EU official is quoted as saying, “aid and trade could be affected if the fight against terrorism was considered insufficient”, leading to accusations of “compromising the neutrality, impartiality and independence of humanitarian assistance”.

I didn''t mistake the point of it. There was simply nothing in the pissy, whiny link that proves the U.S. fucked up Africa.

Same straw man as previously mentioned.

It shouldn't be difficult to follow the course of the discussion from where it started "The regime change in Iraq was a liberation", to where it ended "Joe Sixpack thunk Saddam did 9/11".

Having followed that meandering course, it shouldn't be difficult to understand why I am now comparing you and Sandinista to a herd of dodgy cats.

I was merely justifying why I came away from the coverage with the understanding that I did... you slag me off for having what might be a wrong impression, and then you slag me off as disingenuous for trying to explain why... I just can't win, huh?

Your misunderstood my inference. I am not saying you are as stupid as a chimp. I'm saying you know why I cut off Sandinista's attempt to insert the false premise that the U.S. fucked up Africa. I''m saying you know quite well your stupid link didn't prove the U.S. fucked up Africa. I'm not saying you're stupid, I'm saying your manner of discussion is fundamentally dishonest.

Oh, I see... so you were only calling me a devious liar? As it happens I did not recognise that... I wasn't having a go at defending his original claim, I was stating that the point you raised in your objection to his claim wasn't as rosy as all that, which is true.