# George Galloway MP.......



## vagman (Sep 6, 2002)

........ is a Prick.   [smiley=rifle.gif] [smiley=rifle.gif]


----------



## Major Audi Parts Guru (May 7, 2002)

> ........ is a Prick.   [smiley=rifle.gif] [smiley=rifle.gif]


And a rather large one at that [smiley=freak.gif]


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)

[smiley=whip.gif]


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)

[smiley=weneedyou.gif]
Bin Laden


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

Why?


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)

Now to which post are you refering that "why" to ?

If its Gorgeous George - then - have you not seen/read the news?

Otherwise - what great dinnner guests BL, SH, TB & GWB would make.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

> Now to which post are you refering that "why" to ?
> 
> If its Gorgeous George - then - have you not seen/read the news?
> 
> Otherwise - what great dinnner guests BL, SH, TB & GWB would make.


I thought it was because he was a Sweaty. 

Is it because he is exercising his democratic right to free speech? That would be ironic since Blair and Bush have that high on their agendas for a future Iraqi puppet regime sorry administration. ;D

I like his views - he has been supporting lifting of economic sanctions against Iraq for 13 years. During which 100s of thousands of ordinary Iraqis have suffered and died due to US.

He was and still is against invasion sorry _war_ on Iraq. So I am I.

It is Blair and Bush who are pushing (you will note NOT leading) our servicemen and women to death. It does not have to be that way.

The constant manipulation of the media coverage and stories on 'The War' by the gov't for PR purposes is unsurprising and sickening. It does not make it right to support an illegal invasion just because "it is happening".

Jingoistic patriotism has nothing do to with common sense and should not quell public debate on an issue which does not have abything like a majority support of the electorate of this country.

PS I'd have him and Tony Benn around for dinner.


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)

I would agree with Tony Benn - Also for some comic anicdotes Stephen Fry aswell.


----------



## Major Audi Parts Guru (May 7, 2002)

> I like his views - he has been supporting lifting of economic sanctions against Iraq for 13 years. Â During which 100s of thousands of ordinary Iraqis have suffered and died due to US.


More like,due to Saddam Hussein and his brutal Reigime [smiley=rifle.gif]

The fact of the matter is that Iraq has the second largest oil reserve in the world,but what has Saddam done with the money he has got from all of the oil Iraq has sold ? it's simple,most of it has gone on weapons and luxury palaces for him and his family.The sooner he is removed from power the better.....


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

> More like,due to Saddam Hussein and his brutal Reigime Â [smiley=rifle.gif]
> 
> The fact of the matter is that Iraq has the second largest oil reserve in the world,but what has Saddam done with the money he has got from all of the oil Iraq has sold ? it's simple,most of it has gone on weapons and luxury palaces for him and his family.The sooner he is removed from power the better.....


Paul you are missing the point.

Iraq has not been able to buy any outside goods or services since economic sanctions were implemented. Â Nothing.

In addition to the obvious weaponry (although within 10 years the West will be selling weapons into the middle east again no doubt) This embargo includes medicines and healthcare technology(Iraq does not have an indigenous pharmaceutical industry); computers and books for education, water purification technology, food, clothes and so on. Â These all have had far more impact on the welfare of the Iraqi population than alleged dissident killing (at which the CIA are the number one at globally - all in the name of US democracy of course).

So what would you spend the oil money on? Building palaces and monuments plus bridges roads etc are about the only things they can use the oil dosh for, that does not need to be imported would therefore be out of reach.

Not many folk deny that Saddam needs to go and his treatment of the Kurds has been abominable - nearly as bad as the US killing 1 million Vietnamese with Agent Orange. Â But US foreign policy has directly caused this situation of which they are now positioning themselves as the saviours to solve.

Rather than spend 45 billion bombing and invading - US could just have dropped millions of dollar bills on the country with paper messages saying there is more to come and a multi million lottery award for anyone involved in bringing him down.

Think of the impact of the allied campaign spend could have on humanitarian aid and a paper/media propaganda war? Who says it would be any slower or less effective than using the military? ???

But no, we are now using cluster bombs on civilian areas - 5% of which are expected to remain on ground as unexploded ordinance. Â Double standards. Â Thats really going to unite the Arab and Western nations.

Utter madness - Â and the means do not justify the end which is a worthy one.


----------



## donny (Sep 5, 2003)

> And a rather large one at that Â [smiley=freak.gif]


Totally disalusioned confused I thought 'prick' were kinda useful ???


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)

Well I supposed even GG could be usefull - I hear they are still recruiting for human shields..... ;D


----------



## Major Audi Parts Guru (May 7, 2002)

> Iraq has not been able to buy any outside goods or services since economic sanctions were implemented. Â Nothing.


I agree,however look at all of the weapons he has bought in the years prior to that,he has spent billions of dollars on weapons purchased from Russia and other countries,whilst at the same time his people have suffered.


> In addition to the obvious weaponry (although within 10 years the West will be selling weapons into the middle east again no doubt) This embargo includes medicines and healthcare technology(Iraq does not have an indigenous pharmaceutical industry); computers and books for education, water purification technology, food, clothes and so on. Â These all have had far more impact on the welfare of the Iraqi population than alleged dissident killing (at which the CIA are the number one at globally - all in the name of US democracy of course).


I personally think that things will be a bit different in this part of the world after Saddam has gone


> So what would you spend the oil money on? Building palaces and monuments plus bridges roads etc are about Â the only things they can use the oil dosh for, that does not need to be imported would Â therefore be out of reach.


Saddam was building luxury palaces and monuments long before the last gulf war


> Not many folk deny that Saddam needs to go and his treatment of the Kurds has been abominable - nearly as bad as the US killing 1 million Vietnamese with Agent Orange. Â But US foreign policy has directly caused this situation of which they are now positioning themselves as the saviours to solve.


I agree with what you're saying about the Americans during the Vietnam war,however this was 30 years ago and the world and attitudes in general were very different to what they are now


> Rather than spend 45 billion bombing and invading - US could just have dropped millions of dollar bills on the country with paper messages saying there is more to come and a multi million lottery award for anyone involved in bringing him down.


This is not guranteed to work though


> But no, we are now using cluster bombs on civilian areas - 5% of which are expected to remain on ground as unexploded ordinance. Â Double standards. Â Thats really going to unite the Arab and Western nations.


Well i hope that the allies make a real effort to help clean up afterwards,especially in areas where these bombs have been dropped

At the end of the day,the sooner he is removed from power the sooner the allies can start to help the Iraqi people build a new Iraq.One that is free from being run by a brutal dictator,one that has a positive future and one whereby the people will not be suffering anymore


----------



## ^outt^kast^ (Jun 7, 2002)

> At the end of the day,the sooner he is removed from power the sooner the allies can start to help the Iraqi people build a new Iraq.One that is free from being run by a brutal dictator,one that has a positive future and one whereby the people will not be suffering anymore


Exactly, we can use the model used in Afghanistan.


----------



## ^outt^kast^ (Jun 7, 2002)

Actually, I listened to the interview given by George Galloway on LBC and it seemed to me like the radio presenter was trying to set him up for more tabloid headlines.

Question George was asked was,

" Do you believe the Iraqi civilians should fight the Allied forces?"

George refused to comment, saying that its a non sense question since the people of Iraq were fighting anyway irrespective of what he had to say.

Later the news broadcasts on LBC claimed George had refused to answer the question "if the Iraqi army should fight the Allied forces!"

A question that he was never asked in the first place!?!....

Anyways it just seemed like they were trying to get headlines along the lines "George encourages Iraqi army to fight British troops!!"

Which is not his position at all. From what i've heard of his comments he is just saying that allied soldiers should refuse to follow illegal orders since this war is illegal under international law. Otherwise they could be held responsible for their actions in a war crimes tribunal.

Obviously his language is colourful (referring to the allies as wolves) but he does make some valid points.

However, I can't see any British or American soldiers being hauled in front of an International War crimes tribunal myself.


----------



## pgm (May 7, 2002)

However much I want to believe what we/they are doing is right, I think garyc and Outkastt are right in what they are saying :-/
The yanks occupying Iraq will be a disaster!


----------



## vagman (Sep 6, 2002)

......blah, blah, blah......American wants Iraqi oil....blah, blah, blah,.....bombing inocent women and children......blah, blah, blah....illegal and unjustified........blah, blah, blah......

Change the FUCKIN record..............PLEASE!!!!!!!!


----------



## Guy (May 13, 2002)

> Iraq has not been able to buy any outside goods or services since economic sanctions were implemented. Nothing.


So the (sanction breaking) engineering tools bought from Germany weren't from outside then? The labratory equipment to make chemical weapons was made in where - surely not the same Country that profits from TT sales? Which coast line in the Med did Iraq deliver the oil to? Why is France behaving like it is? Nothing to do with sanction breaking?



> This embargo includes medicines and healthcare technology


Isn't this being a tad blinkered? Doesn't the embargo allow normal basic medicines through? They just were not asked for by a regime whose leaders would rather see its own populace die than have them treated. Then it can blame an embargo.



> Rather than spend 45 billion bombing and invading - US could just have dropped millions of dollar bills on the country with paper messages saying there is more to come and a multi million lottery award for anyone involved in bringing him down.


That is a good bit of lateral thinking that should have been done except the only people who are in a position to do it may (or may not) be worse than Saddam if they got in power.



> But no, we are now using cluster bombs on civilian areas


Are you sure? If you mean in desert areas then yes, I'll go along with that. In township areas then this may not be right.

Whatever the reasons for starting and the means by which it is finished, Iraq belongs to Iraqis and not to USA (or GB or France) and they should be the ones to decide how their Country is run. My only hope is that they make a good choice next time and not have some one who will continue a regime of terror and death.

As for George Galloway - why has the Labour Party kept him (together with the Ginger ferret and the "I'll resign - no I won't, yes I will, no I won't I'll loose all that money and authority, no I can't" people) within their folds?


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

> Isn't this being a tad blinkered? Doesn't the embargo allow normal basic medicines through? They just were not asked for by a regime whose leaders would rather see its own populace die than have them treated. Then it can blame an embargo.


As far as I know the sanctions include all 'basic' medicines - anti-biotics, vaccines, pain killers, anti-inflammatory drugs, cancer treatments, optical and hearing products, wheelchairs, anaesthetics and so on. Enough to make the civilain population really suffer and impact lifespans, particularly children, since '91.

My source for this was a GP pal. So I think it is credible.

Engineering supplies that have gone in have been 'contruction-orientated' and this is permissable under embargo. Obviously dodgy trading here since supplying nations (US, France and Germany) have all stretched the regs using their political clout and lobbying power. Read double standards.....

Allied forces are tight-lipped about use of cluster bombs, except to say that 5% or less of the stuff unexploded is an acceptable risk. With regards to civilian or noe civilian areas; think landmines. think admission of guilt.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

> Exactly, we can use the model used in Afghanistan.


Yes that particular regime overthrow (although again they changed the goals from initially a finding OBL and cronies mission, to full regime overthrow).

At least we were honest when we were empire-building.

People should start thinking about the ramifications of say 10 extra Belfasts to 'look after'.

Where's next?


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

> ......blah, blah, blah......American wants Iraqi oil....blah, blah, blah,.....bombing inocent women and children......blah, blah, blah....illegal and unjustified........blah, blah, blah......
> 
> Change the FUCKIN record..............PLEASE!!!!!!!!


Then why did you start this thread in the first place Vagman?

A somewhat odd response to responses to your initial post that would obviously foster debate on a subject that is more than just topical to many people. :-/


----------



## ^outt^kast^ (Jun 7, 2002)

> ......blah, blah, blah......American wants Iraqi oil....blah, blah, blah,.....bombing inocent women and children......blah, blah, blah....illegal and unjustified........blah, blah, blah......


Well, now that you mention it........I'll tell you who is going to pay for the cost (in monetory value) of this war........the USA and Britain....(we have to replenish our bombs for the *next* war after all).

I'll also tell you who is going to pay for the reconstruction of Iraq........NOT the USA ..... NOT Britain...but the Iraqi OIL 

You can try to blank it out of your mind as much as you want.......but civilians are being killed ... and I for one don't like what is happening in my name.


----------



## vagman (Sep 6, 2002)

> Then why did you start this thread in the first place Vagman?
> 
> A somewhat odd response to responses to your initial post that would obviously foster debate on a subject that is more than just topical to many people. :-/


Gary, a simple "agreed" was all that was required ;D


----------



## vagman (Sep 6, 2002)

> You can try to blank it out of your mind as much as you want.......but civilians are being killed ... and I for one don't like what is happening in my name.


Civilians get killed in war, end of story.

And since when did anyone make the claim that the liberation of the Iraqi people from a brutal dictatorship was being carried out in your name. ???


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

> Gary, a simple "agreed" was all that was required ;D


Agreed.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

> Civilians get killed in war, end of story.
> 
> And since when did anyone make the claim that the liberation of the Iraqi people from a brutal dictatorship was being carried out in your name. ???


It is being made in the name of the Great Britain and it's citizens with no exceptions by our legally selected representatives


----------



## Carlos (May 6, 2002)

People who are blindly in favour of the war (majority of posters on this thread) simply haven't done their research and just believe what the government tell them.

This smacks of a lack of intelligence.

Gary, you sound a lot like my brother. He has done his research and spends most of his time protesting about the war.

However, the war is now a reality. Whilst sanctions have caused more problems for the Iraqi in the street than Saddam himself, the sanctions were imposed due to Saddam, so once he is gone hopefully Iraq will be a better place to live.

So whilst I was not in favour of the war b4 it started, now it is on I don't want us to pull out, just get it done.


----------



## ccc (May 7, 2002)

"It is being made in the name of the Great Britain and it's citizens with no exceptions by our legally selected representatives" - which is the nature of our representative democracy, under which you were defending GG's right of free speech!

'Poor Iraq' could have avoided 12 years of sanctions by complying with UN resolutions - which rather brings us back to (at least some of) the rationale for the war.

Just seen the latest post - I think it might be a bit of a generalization to claim that those opposed to the war are 'careful researchers' while those who support it do so 'blindly'!!


----------



## Carlos (May 6, 2002)

You'll notice I said "blindly" in favour of the war. People who form their political views directly from the Sun's editorial column.

People against the war generally have their eyes and ears open. That has to be the case because to form this view you have to seek out the facts, rather than sitting back and soaking up the pro-war propaganda touted by most of the media.


----------



## ccc (May 7, 2002)

Yes, I acknowledged the 'blindly' - and you're quite right. But there does also seem to be a lot of 'knee-jerk' (blind?!) anti-Americanism/anti-Western capitalism among some of those who oppose the war.


----------



## David_A (May 7, 2002)

For those that oppose the war/invasion. The current reality is, is that the Saddam regime is a dictatorship that kills innocent people and controls a country thru fear and murder. If those that oppose the war cannot agree with this then a lot of pro/anti war discussion is pointless.

War is a bad thing, and it is a shame (need a thesarus for a stronger word than shame) that we have had to resort to war - but over 12 years of action/inaction by the UN have not freed these people.

I'm fully in favour of the war to free the Iraqi people - I would like to know that those who oppose the war would like to free them - another 12 years of UN inaction? Leaving Saddam to invade another country and to oppress his people?

A lot of arguements crop up - more often than not on the TV etc that are in the essence of "it was the west that installed Saddam", "We sold him the weapons in the first place" etc etc
SO WHAT - its irrelevant where they got the weapons from. If you sell someone a gun and they round shooting people - do you say "ah well we sold them the gun - lets let them shoot people"

These are the misinformed anti war people. Its a shame that the anti war people - whose morals I respect - cannot be constructive - holding a placard outside Westminster and smashing the windows of McDs does not help - hows about coming up with a constructive plan to help the people of Iraq and Afganistan and let them live in peace and democracy? This is a question no one seems able to answer without blaming someone else for the current situation. In the words of Paxman (I think) answer the question - what would you have done?


----------



## ^outt^kast^ (Jun 7, 2002)

I don't remember the 'free' Iraqi's having an election to elect leaders.....so why are these people proposing privatising the Iraqi oil ???

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... 0405213249


----------



## ^outt^kast^ (Jun 7, 2002)

Forget George Galloway...his comments are insignificant..........it's Jay Garner we should be concerned about!

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/opin ... 20Standard


----------



## ^outt^kast^ (Jun 7, 2002)

> A lot of arguements crop up - more often than not on the TV etc that are in the essence of "it was the west that installed Saddam", "We sold him the weapons in the first place" etc etc
> SO WHAT - its irrelevant where they got the weapons from. If you sell someone a gun and they round shooting people - do you say "ah well we sold them the gun - lets let them shoot people"


It's this 'shirking' of responsibility that annoys me........if we are going to produce weapons of mass destruction and sell them ... why are we surprised when they use them???

Why don't we hold the people responsible who placed saddam into power?....or the people that sold him the weapons?

Tony benn quote "....if someone is using drugs we rehabilitate them and hold responsible the people who produce and supply the drugs! In the same way......governments and companies need to be held accountable for producing and supplying weapons to irresponsible states and regimes e.g. Israel...Iraq etc"


----------



## David_A (May 7, 2002)

Not saying that we shouldn't hold the arms dealers responsible (even if they are the US and UK governments?!?) its people who say that cos we sold them the arms in the first place everythings our fault (country/governement as a whole) and we should not be at war - no logic in it at all? and doesn't help the situation.

(-modified cos I forget the 'not')


----------



## ^outt^kast^ (Jun 7, 2002)

> hows about coming up with a constructive plan to help the people of Iraq and Afganistan and let them live in peace and democracy? This is a question no one seems able to answer without blaming someone else for the current situation. In the words of Paxman (I think) answer the question - what would you have done?


In answer to your question........if we stop meddling in other countries affairs......dictating to them who should be in power.....how they should be running their country etc etc then i'm sure we would have less conflict......

...and there is always an alternative to war. In this instance, I feel the alternatives were not explored thoroughly enough.


----------



## ^outt^kast^ (Jun 7, 2002)

> its people who say that cos we sold them the arms in the first place everythings our fault


I'm sure it plays a major part.......personally...i see people like Saddam, Sharon, Bush, Rumsfield and other extremists as bullies....nothing more ...nothing less! Â The problems arise when you give these bullies weapons.

Its always the civilians that suffer.

The sad thing is.....we have used such horrendous bombs in Iraq...that we don't even know how many people we have killed......because there is nothing left of them. Doesn't that just make you stop and think ........


----------



## David_A (May 7, 2002)

Not really answering the question - I agree the less meddling the better. Although in some cases intervention is necessary. Its not the causes of these problems - its how we solve them NOW.

The world may have fucked up in the past and put dictators in place and trained terrorists but the reality they are there now and need to be sorted.

Yes there are alternatives to war - but all these people who are now holding up placards do not seem to be proposing them. We have had 12 years plus of sanctions etc against Iraq, someone please tell me what we should have done over these 12 years? That is the question.

Sadly though i do not belive that there are always alternatives to war/violence - if you have a brutal dictatorship in place oppressing a country with violence and intimadation - sanctions only affect the people you want to save - the innocents, these regimes rarely suffer themselves and do not listen to any sort of reason. Again I look to everyone for their peaceful answer to these situations.

I'm not trying to be inflammatory or conflicting - I just want to know what the real alternatives are?

Dave


----------



## ccc (May 7, 2002)

I don't mean to ignore the good points being made here on the war, but...

There was a piece in The Sunday Times yesterday about GG: money that was collected/donated to get overseas treatment for a young cancer victim in his constituency has - apparently - been used by Gorgeous George to fund some overseas trips, including a number of visits to Iraq. The piece also said that he is likely to be ousted from the Labour party because of his act of 'treason' in telling British troops to disobey orders in Iraq.

These items of news may just be the Labour Party briefing against him as he's so 'off-message', but they certainly don't make him any more likeable!


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

> These are the misinformed anti war people. Its a shame that the anti war people - whose morals I respect - cannot be constructive - holding a placard outside Westminster and smashing the windows of McDs does not help - hows about coming up with a constructive plan to help the people of Iraq and Afganistan and let them live in peace and democracy? This is a question no one seems able to answer without blaming someone else for the current situation. In the words of Paxman (I think) answer the question - what would you have done?


And just how much better is life for the average Afgan since the US unvaded in name of peace democracy (yawn)?

It's been 18 months since that regime was overthrown and life is apparently no better for them. :-/


----------



## David_A (May 7, 2002)

Why do you say life is apparently no better for them? Just wondering where this came from - I'm not saying it is better just that you would have thought that with the oppresive regime - to a regime where females are allowed to go to school must be slightly better?

But your reference to Afganistan and their people doesn't answer the original question I posted - unless you are saying that these regimes were OK for their people to begin with, then as I said at the start, if we disagree on that then the debate is pointless.

Dave


----------

