George Galloway, the noose awaits...

[down_in_albion]

But it HAS been the subject of endless criticism and scrutiny.

But not a single parliamentary enquiry.

 

[Bassist-In-A-Tutu]

But not a single parliamentary enquiry.

Or any other enquiry which has the authority to lookat the real facts.... Press scrutiny is like a mosquito studying a giraffe

 

[down_in_albion]

Errrrmmm..I am anti-war, anti-killing, isn't every sane person? just because I don't like Galloway doesn't make me pro-war. Anti-war is NOT Galloways cause!!!

Bush/Blair invaded Iraq because of the history and the belief they both have in democratisation, anyone can see that.

I apply the same standards to ALL debates, hence the reason I pointed out that the war could not be proved legal or illegal, even by fancy lawyers.

What belief in democratisation? You must mean the one that involved supporting a coup in Venezuela, another in Haiti, selling arms to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Uzbekistan etc (then blocking an enquiry into it) attempting to change the Iraqi constitution to allow the oil to be privatised then sold off to US companies, building permanent military bases in a country which overwhelmingly voted for parties who want the US and Britain to leave, backing Sunni Islamist insurgents in Lebanon...the list is almost endless. Yay for democracy!

And that's ignoring the actions under Bush the first and Reagan perpetrated by pretty much the same crew which inhabits the corridors of the White House now. Cheney, Rummy, Negroponte, Wolfowitz, Perle etc.

 

[down_in_albion]

Or any other enquiry which has the authority to lookat the real facts.... Press scrutiny is like a mosquito studying a giraffe

Exactly. And especially so given the supine nature of much of the British press in the run up to the war and since. The only people who have actually been censured during this whole period are Piers Morgan, Gilligan, Greg Dyke and now Galloway. Interestingly they all were attempting to prevent the war, coincidence I guess.

 

[SouthpawGlamour]

What belief in democratisation? You must mean the one that involved supporting a coup in Venezuela, another in Haiti, selling arms to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Uzbekistan etc (then blocking an enquiry into it) attempting to change the Iraqi constitution to allow the oil to be privatised then sold off to US companies, building permanent military bases in a country which overwhelmingly voted for parties who want the US and Britain to leave, backing Sunni Islamist insurgents in Lebanon...the list is almost endless. Yay for democracy!

And that's ignoring the actions under Bush the first and Reagan perpetrated by pretty much the same crew which inhabits the corridors of the White House now. Cheney, Rummy, Negroponte, Wolfowitz, Perle etc.

Yeah, I think everyone knows ALL of this stuff, that's life, that's politics.

'democratisation' is the process of forcibly changing regimes and is a common belief of neo-cons. it isn't a good thing, maybe try listening, instead of ranting, trying to shout loudly.

 

[down_in_albion]

Yeah, I think everyone knows ALL of this stuff, that's life, that's politics.

'democratisation' is the process of forcibly changing regimes and is a common belief of neo-cons. it isn't a good thing, maybe try listening, instead of ranting, trying to shout loudly.

I don't think everyone does know, but either way the point was to illustrate that the idea isn't the spread of democracy. If the Neo-cons did believe in spreading democracy they would simply not have done these things. They would actually influence their friends to change, but they don't. As they have actually made clear their goal is American ''full-spectrum dominance" and a Pax-Americana. As they made clear this involves the US regaining control of the resources of the Gulf, Iran and 'Eurasia'. Not that this is simply limited to the Neo-Con tendency within the Republican party but also comes from the Liberal Hawks in the Democrat party, e.g Brzezinski.

Democratisation is actually the just the change from Authoritarianism to Representative democracy and doesn't imply any force from outside.

Oh and quit the passive-aggressive stuff, you can't patronise me.

 

[SouthpawGlamour]

I don't think everyone does know, but either way the point was to illustrate that the idea isn't the spread of democracy. If the Neo-cons did believe in spreading democracy they would simply not have done these things. They would actually influence their friends to change, but they don't. As they have actually made clear their goal is American ''full-spectrum dominance" and a Pax-Americana. As they made clear this involves the US regaining control of the resources of the Gulf, Iran and 'Eurasia'. Not that this is simply limited to the Neo-Con tendency within the Republican party but also comes from the Liberal Hawks in the Democrat party, e.g Brzezinski.

Democratisation is actually the just the change from Authoritarianism to Representative democracy and doesn't imply any force from outside.

Oh and quit the passive-aggressive stuff, you can't patronise me.

It's hard to have this conversation with someone who has done so little research on the topic.

Democratisation by military means is very much the thinking of George Bush and Tony Blair and ties in to their Christian-Con beliefs nicely.

You need to understand the terminology and try thinking beyond the simplest of arguments, such as 'it's all for oil'. if it were that simple, it wouldn't be such a worry.

 

[Bassist-In-A-Tutu]

It's hard to have this conversation with someone who has done so little research on the topic.

Democratisation by military means is very much the thinking of George Bush and Tony Blair and ties in to their Christian-Con beliefs nicely.

You need to understand the terminology and try thinking beyond the simplest of arguments, such as 'it's all for oil'. if it were that simple, it wouldn't be such a worry.

Did you know that (allegidly) shortly before the war Sadam had started to sell his countries oil on European markets, for Euros instead of Dollars? This type of thing costs the US Billions in lost income from the "petro chemical dolar", as it has been termed.

Coincidenc?

 

[SouthpawGlamour]

Did you know that (allegidly) shortly before the war Sadam had started to sell his countries oil on European markets, for Euros instead of Dollars? This type of thing costs the US Billions in lost income from the "petro chemical dolar", as it has been termed.

Coincidenc?

Yes, it's all old hat, all wars are about territory/money, shock horror!!!

America wants oil, shock horror!!!

Killing is wrong, shock horror!!!

Saddam's behaviour led to to the war, oil is just the bounty.

The whole world revolves around oil, money, goods and countries have to trade, when they fall out, embargos and wars start, this is really VERY BASIC stuff.

The point I am making is that Bush/Blair are unusual in their Christian/democratisation beliefs and therefore potentially much more dangerous.

 

[down_in_albion]

It's hard to have this conversation with someone who has done so little research on the topic.

Democratisation by military means is very much the thinking of George Bush and Tony Blair and ties in to their Christian-Con beliefs nicely.

You need to understand the terminology and try thinking beyond the simplest of arguments, such as 'it's all for oil'. if it were that simple, it wouldn't be such a worry.

The religion is for the saps in the mid-west, I don't believe for a second the people who run the Bush administration give a damn about Christianity. Rummy, Dick and Wolfy aren't relying on Revelations for their ideas.

I didn't say it was just for oil, if you'll notice my point was that they hope to achieve a Pax Americana Through the control of resources. Not just oil of course, natural gas is clearly a big one aswell. They wish to see of any threat to their dominance by depriving the Russians and a resurgent China of influence in the region. If you'll notice the countries they are attacking (or threatening) are currently or were in the sphere of the Russians and Chinese.

The aim is global dominance the means is control of resources as the state department made clear "It's a stupendous source of strategic power and the greatest material prize in world history".

 

[SouthpawGlamour]

The religion is for the saps in the mid-west, I don't believe for a second the people who run the Bush administration give a damn about Christianity. Rummy, Dick and Wolfy aren't relying on Revelations for their ideas.

I didn't say it was just for oil, if you'll notice my point was that they hope to achieve a Pax Americana Through the control of resources. Not just oil of course, natural gas is clearly a big one aswell. They wish to see of any threat to their dominance by depriving the Russians and a resurgent China of influence in the region. If you'll notice the countries they are attacking (or threatening) are currently or were in the sphere of the Russians and Chinese.

The aim is global dominance the means is control of resources as the state department made clear "It's a stupendous source of strategic power and the greatest material prize in world history".

I don't disagree with any of that, democratisation is a tool to achieve those aims.

 

[Bassist-In-A-Tutu]

The point I am making is that Bush/Blair are unusual in their Christian/democratisation beliefs and therefore potentially much more dangerous.

This I agree with whole heartedly!

 

[down_in_albion]

I don't disagree with any of that, democratisation is a tool to achieve those aims.

So seeing as we agree with this, what is your thing with Galloway? He is a nobody, he has no discernable power, why the bile for him?

I agree he's a shady twat, but really if you think these people are attempting to build what amounts to a global empire in others blood, how is Galloway worth you hatred?

 

[SouthpawGlamour]

So seeing as we agree with this, what is your thing with Galloway? He is a nobody, he has no discernable power, why the bile for him?

I agree he's a shady twat, but really if you think these people are attempting to build what amounts to a global empire in others blood, how is Galloway worth you hatred?

I don't 'hate' Galloway, I enjoy his radio shows. I just find his methods of playing to/patronising the 'minority' and vulnerable to further his own cause quite sad.

He is a very clever man and a great orator, yet he chooses to use it to manipulate and line his own pockets.

He contradicts himself at every turn, he praises both Saddam and the Iranian regime, yet both are guilty of crimes against humanity. He writes book about Fidel (very sixth form) yet fails to acknowledge the evil of that regime.

He is overtly anti-jewish and pro-Palestine, these are not domestic issues, he is just a local MP.

A man of his intellect cannot possibly believe in what he is saying.

 

[Bassist-In-A-Tutu]

One thing struck me when I watched the video of him being 'named' and thrown out of the house.

To quote SG "He is a very clever man and a great orator". He know exactly what was going to hapen if he continued his line of debate, and he continued it any way. He is intelligent enought to know that was going to happen, and yet he did nothing to stop it. Why not? I think because he knew he was going to be susspended any way, and rather than go out with a blazing speach which was largley ignored, and where none of his points were acnowledged or taken seriously, he decided that the spectacle of his ejection, on top of his susspension would make good headlines. Better to go with a fizzle than a wimper.

This is how manipulateive he is.

Bet then that is how manipulative you need to be to be a polatician, in my mind - ergo they all do it in one way or another.

So although I can't respect the way he conducts himself, I find it hard to condem him for it.

 

[Cassius]

I remember that time he acted like a kitty cat. Crazy shit.

 

[Morrissey the 23rd]

GG explains why he introduced spunk loving sluts to parliament:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0cJNW46UJs&sdig=1

 

[SouthpawGlamour]

GG explains why he introduced spunk loving sluts to parliament:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0cJNW46UJs&sdig=1

Galloway is a religous idiot and friend of Islam.

Islam is a joke religion that promises eternal debauchery for a life of virtue, how twisted is that?

Why is it that Jihadists never turn up in the likes of the former Yugoslavia and face Milosevic, a man openly killing muslims? Or Nigeria?

These 'heroes' prefer to kill innocents on trains don't they? and we allow people to practise these moronic 'faiths'.

Catholicism is another joke religion that's only achievment is the abuse of millions of innocents within it's care.

Galloway believes there is a man in the sky that created him and will give him and his catholic/Muslim brothers eternal happiness.

Galloway praises Ihran, a country where gang rape and stoning of women is legal!


ANYONE that supports religion is ill-informed, uneducated and dangerous.

 

[Grim O'Grady]

...

ANYONE that supports religion is ill-informed, uneducated and dangerous.

erm I think you've just called every political leader! So what should we do with Bush/Brown et-al.

love

Grim

 

[Morrissey the 23rd]

You are forgetting that logic is not something all posters to solo believe in.