George Galloway

[RuleBritannia]

And what about that don't you agree with?

[Lozzer]

And what about that don't you agree with?

It's inflammatory and seditious.

[sandinista]

And what about that don't you agree with?

It's inflammatory and seditious.

so? Doesn't make it bullshit or untrue. There are certainly times for inflammatory language.

[RuleBritannia]

And what about that don't you agree with?

It's inflammatory and seditious.

Nonsense, it's a political speech made in a foreign country.

[Trolldor]

So this George Galloway was happily supporting a tyrannical despot - aided in to power by the US and then left in power following the Gulf War - who murdered his own people and attempted to commit genocide against the Kurds.

Yeah, way to go Galloway.

[Beatsong]

It does seem a bit strange to include a clip of celebrity big brother. What's exactly is the point of this video?

And what's wrong with him having had meetings with Saddam? I'd much rather see diplomacy between leaders and governments than just have them blowing the shit out of each other, at the expense of everyone else.

Erm, the man was a genocidal despot and the world was far too aware of that at the filming of the clip. Galloway made some very admiring remarks even in this knowledge. He was good friends with Saddam's son, who was a notorious torturer.

Right, so that will be why the American government supported Saddam in the first place then?

Brilliant riposte at Galloway's hearing in front of the US senate: "I've met with Saddam Hussein exactly the same number of times that Donald Rumsfeld has. The difference is that he was meeting him to sell him weapons, I was meeting him to try and stop him from using them".

[sandinista]

[Eriku]

and add to that the other huge lucrative arms deals with dubious despots... it seems to me to be strange to reckon there's more virtue in the US heads of state than in this man... though I don't know much about him.

I reckon I might have to watch that debate with Hitchens now...

[Beatsong]

Without agreeing with a lot of his politics I do hold a special place in my heart for anyone who shoves it up the arse of the established order. A lot of what I hear him say is simply seeing things in a different way and I can't hate anyone for that.

Like screeching to crowds of Islam fundamentalists that their brothers in Afghanistan and Iraq are putting their names with the stars by martyring themselves in the fight with American and British troops? Nothing says 'shoving it up the establishment's arse' by rallying nutjobs to kill innocent men, women and children.

Sorry can you explain how American and British troops, who forcibly invaded a soveraign country, are "innocent men"? Like, any more than the German or Japanese armies of WW2 were?

Galloway's position is quite simple and he has made it perfectly clear: The inhabitants of a country have the right to defend themselves against foreign invasion.

It's anglo-american hypocrites who seem to think it's reasonable to confine that right to "our side" only.

The video is a nicely edited piece of propaganda, and Galloway is after all one of the most hated men in Britain, so I can imagine plenty of people falling for it. But if you actually listen to what he says as opposed to deliberately out-of-context soundbites, most of it makes very clear sense. As uncomfortable as that may be to supporters of an American and British foreign policy based entirely on doublespeak.

[Trolldor]

It's quite hilarious to see the same people angry at the US for leaving Suddam in power are angry by their successful attempt to remove him.

[Beatsong]

and add to that the other huge lucrative arms deals with dubious despots... it seems to me to be strange to reckon there's more virtue in the US heads of state than in this man... though I don't know much about him.

I reckon I might have to watch that debate with Hitchens now...

Do. He demolishes Hitchens' pathetic racist war-mongering double standards for exactly what they are.

[Trolldor]

Not really.

[Beatsong]

It's quite hilarious to see the same people angry at the US for leaving Suddam in power are angry by their successful attempt to remove him.

It's not a question of anger. It's a simple question of calling the inherent hypocrasy of their position, and the pretence that it has anything to do with anything more noble than their own geopolitical advantage, exactly what it is.

[Trolldor]

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?

[Beatsong]

never got a chance to watch, actually listened to it before i really knew who either person was. I find the only people who actually think Hitch "won" the debate are Hitchens fanboys.

When your argument constitutes nothing but 'America deserved 9/11', I think most would disagree. But if you want to side with an apologetic for terrorism, please do so.

Hitchens' basic position by the end of that debate was shown up as being that the American troops in Iraq are entitled to be there, by some strange principle of unilateral declaration of the ownership of foreign countries that he never elucidated. And that the Iraqis who have fought against them for control of their OWN country are somehow therefore "terrorists". Galloway exposed this crock of shit as the hypocritical sham that it is.