Galloway lands another blow for anti-war movement

by Pol Mon May 23, 2005 19:11

I'd laugh if Galloway had them back in court for a proper pasting. Ah, roll on round two.

by eeekkkk Mon May 23, 2005 18:58

"The Scottish Sunday Herald (left wing, but widely respected) yesterday carried a front page story about how Zereikat, the man who Coleman et al acccuse of supplying the dirty cash to Gorgeous George has recently received a very tasty contract supplying "High tech computer chips used for encryption and programming" to the Pentagon."

I wonder will madam print this?  

by Wedgy Sun May 22, 2005 13:13

Bobby said: You're meant to HATE dictators, you're meant to support FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY.'

I will look forward to the day when the US accept the above principle. I would love dearly to see them accept and support freedom and democracy but I am afraid that this might be wishful thinking considering their attitude to the most democratically elected Government in all the americas, Venezuela, and their support the attempted coup in that country and the succesful coup and overthrow of the democratically elected government in Haiti.

by Wedgy Sun May 22, 2005 13:07

Tom said: 'What cracked me up even more was how "outraged" the painfully moral and pedantic liberals got so upset that Islamic terrorists and murders should be humiliated sexually. Have they ever seen a hardcore porn site in their lives?'

What evidence was there Tom to suggest that any of these people being physically and sexually abused by US troops were either terrorists or murderers?

by bobby Sun May 22, 2005 12:55

Wow, you're whacked out.

Try me for war crimes? LOL

Questioning a survey makes me a "right-wing jingoistic fanatic"?? LOL

I'm a "capitalist fuck" LOL!!!!

Man, you've lost your mind. How warped you must be to say (and presumably think) all of that.

The "anti-democratic, imperial war-mongering" forces of "neo-con theology" happen to be experts who have to make decisions in the real world and live with the consequences. I suggest you go read what they actually say. The neo-con Project for the New American Century is something you should go research, by which I mean READ WHAT THEY SAY. Their director, William Kristol, for example, is critical of deals made in the past with Saddam Hussein and other brutes. He doesn't agree with Realpolitiks, nor does he think that Arabs are doomed forever to live without democracy. These people are now in power, and for good reason. Their policies are far more balanced and principled than you can imagine, having embraced hatred of Bush, America, and economic liberalism so completely. Maybe studying what they think would be too complicated for you.

By the way, it makes perfect sense that you would praise pre-sanctions Iraq. For segments of the Left, hating America trumps everything. That explains how you can be so naive about progress in Iraq. It's very easy to latch onto every bit of bad news, and ignore that so many parts of the country are being rebuilt. But bad news is just so much more exciting than good news, especially when you get sick pleasure from the death of Americans. I could actually respect your points if your hatred of the US and capitalism and all the other trendy objects of Left-hatred weren't so painfully obvious. As it stands, all we've got is bile being spewed from the mouth of an equivocator.

You're meant to HATE dictators, you're meant to support FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY. Maybe that's too obvious for an intellectual such as yourself. Instead you can twist your moral perspective around so the nihilist, murdering insurgency are "nationalists". What a joke. Nationalists don't blow up their fellow countrymen who are queuing up to get a job rebuilding the country. You have no integrity, and none of your ilk are going to be in power for a very long time, hopefully never. Ordinary, peaceful people are quite happy getting on with their lives, and they don't need your religion forced upon them. You might as well join the Labour Party, at least they can pretend to have a moral compass. You can't.

by R. Isible Sat May 21, 2005 01:50

QUOTE: "I could go on about how Saddam continued to build palaces for himself during the sanctions period,"

Yeah, you could, but you would indeed miss the point which is that before sanctions Hussein was building palaces AND had one of the most literate, educated, well-nourished, populations in that area. During this period the abhorrent tyrant was backed by the USA, UK, France etc because he was weakening the Iranians. It didn't matter how many people were tortured (like the way the US doesn't care about the torture in Uzbekistan right now, or the felons that they've helped to power in Haiti being rapists and murderers). When the sanctions were introduced Hussein (being an immoral scumbag like his colleague Rumsfeld), didn't care about the ordinary people. I also highly doubt that all the palaces that Hussein built could account for all of the monies obtained throug Food for Oil. Some people saw the immorality of the sanctions (UN bureaucrats like Halliday, Von Sponek etc) and resigned. Madeleine Albright said she thought "it was worth it" that over 500,000 children younger than five died. Hussein thought it was worth it too. Between them the USA and Hussein has murdered hundreds of thousands. For part of the time Hussein did this on his own with the USA turning a blind eye (when democratic communists, socialists, trade-unionists and islamicists were being tortured and killed), part of the time it was done in concert with the USA (as with the sanctions with each waiting to see who would blink first if world opinion became too powerful) and for the rest of the time it was done by the USA dropping bombs in Shock and Awe and shooting up houses during their illegal occupation of Iraq.

QUOTE: "I could also ask who we can get a reasonable estimate of civilian casualties from projections based on a small number of surveys, but that would also be to miss the point."

You could ask that and the answer would be go read the UNICEF documents, get a professional academic statistician to understand them for you, then do the same with the Lancet study. Or you could accept that both estimates have been rigidly peer reviewed and accepted as LOWBALL estimates and the only people questioning them are a tiny number of right-wing jingoistic fantasists that are unwilling to deal with facts.

QUOTE: "The point is that what we are witnessing in Iraq now is a battle - a battle between a coalition of the US and other free countries and an assortment of killers and criminals who will have no role to play in a democratic Iraq."

The US attempted to delay the current elections showing that their grasp of "democracy" is pretty weak. Their hand-picked candidate has been trounced and in his stead are a variety of potently anti-US-occupation parties. The will of the Iraqi people is clear: the US must withdraw. That's democracy. The US had no mandate to be there in the first place and it has no mandate to be there now. The people that have killed the most Iraqis are the US/"coalition" forces. It's fairly obvious that the Iraqis want them to fuck off out of there.

QUOTE: "What the anti-Western elements among us fail to grasp is that the violence would end tomorrow if the resistance stopped trying to halt the democratic process by killing Americans and Iraqis alike."

The anti-Western elements are the blinded ideologues of neocon theology who are promoting a brand of anti-democratic, imperial war-mongering that the civilised Western nations recognise from the last time it reared its head in Germany.

QUOTE: "Instead, they perceive some kind of equivalence between the spreaders of democracy and those who are ideologically opposed to it"

Please, the only that's being spread in that sentence is horse shit.

QUOTE: "There are large portions of the Left, and I know not if it represents a majority, who are in very serious danger of choosing the wrong side in this battle."

This is true. There is not enough opposition on the Left to the Democrat Party in the USA, to the Labour Party in the UK and to the Labour Party in Ireland. All these pseudo-leftists have been thoroughly exposed and yet the Nation and Mother Jones and Commondreams keep on choosing to side with the anti-democrats listed above.

QUOTE: "Just to say it once more, I condemn the human rights abuses in Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Bagram, and elsewhere. So does the US government, and that's why they prosecute those who commit them."

Mmmm. What prosecutions have happened at Baghram? Has "General" Dostum been brought to account for his actions in Afghanistan? How about the Special Forces in charge of the Taliban prisoners from Kunduz http://www.democracynow.org/afghanfilm.shtml ? How come the now Attorney General of the USA advocated more extreme torture than that performed at Abu Ghraib and he has not been prosecuted but instead has been promoted?

QUOTE: "Sure, they're not perfect, but let's get some kind of perspective on this. By his average rate of killing, the Iraq war has already saved more lives than would have been killed by Saddam, even if the number of civilian casualties is as high as you claim. Do the maths."

The maths have been done and the number of people killed by the US-backed dictator Hussein with the active intervention of the UN playing cat-and-mouse with the civilian population show that hundreds of thousands have been murdered by you capitalist fucks

QUOTE" "As for the number of people who were tortured under Saddam, stories of horror are still coming out, and they're not about being forced to strip naked, or being laughed at, or threatened by barking dogs, or being placed in "uncomfortable positions". They're about mutilation, the removal of limbs, refrigeration, all kinds of horrors. The worst actions of a small number of punished US soldiers are nothing in comparison to what Saddam did every day of the week."

Yeah, that's what US-backed dictators do. And the Baghram murders (that we know about) involved the beating to death of people suspend from the ceiling by US interrogators. Hardly surprising given that the US Attorney General said it was alright.

QUOTE: "The key point to be made is that this is a battle we are witnessing in Iraq, and you should think carefully about whether or not you, like George Galloway, have sided with the fascist resistance in their war against democracy."

Oh Galloway is an idiot in his own way, but compared to someone like you that seeks to downplay the terror, death and horror inflicted on innocent civilians around the world by your Shock and Awe and your dictators he's an angel.

I have no doubt that there are fascist elements involved in the resistance to the US occupation, but I also have no doubt that there are a larger number of straightforward nationalilsts that want the US out of their country, their brothers and fathers out of the gaols that used to be run by Saddam and are now run by the US as houses of torture. They probably want their water, sewerage and electricity back as well and if they have any gumption they'll be demanding reparations and war crimes trials for people like you.

by Paula Geraghty Fri May 20, 2005 19:13 mspgeraghty at yahoo dot ie Dublin

Fabulous work!

And the Respect coalition question was superbly answered!
Paul and joe, will send on her email as soon as I can locate it.......

by The Devil and George Warmonger Bush - The Black House Oil For Bombs Society Fri May 20, 2005 13:43 666 Big Energy Dr., Bombs Away, TX Black Op Box Satan 666-Oil-Bomb Ext. Bush

The Irony is, the same Thugs (Halliburton & Friends) who Made off with Billions in the UN Oil For Food Scandal are the ones behind the Iraq Oil For Bombs & Torture Scandal. Dick Cheney then CEO of Halliburton Siphoned Billions in the Oil For Food Scandal. Halliburton is also a Big Money Maker in the Oil For Bombs & Torture Scandal (Also known as the War On Terror, The Iraq/Iran WMD Hunt, or the Spread of Democracy in Oil Rich Nations). This Time The Bushite Inquisition Blew up in the Bushite's Faces. They couldn't keep Galloway in off Camera, so he not only Hit Back, he Hit Back on National Television.

by Pol Fri May 20, 2005 11:20

Surely it would be better just to be left alone and have NO torture of any kind happen to you?

by Tom Fri May 20, 2005 10:28

Have you got a sense of humour?

When I saw the pictures from Abu Graib I laughed my hole off.
It was hilarious.

What cracked me up even more was how "outraged" the painfully moral and pedantic liberals got so upset that Islamic terrorists and murders should be humiliated sexually. Have they ever seen a hardcore porn site in their lives?

Its a joke that soldiers are actually going to do time for the most trivial of pranks.
Its politcial correctness gone insane.


To compare the methods of the Americans with the Iraqis makes me howl with laughter. If I were an Iraqi I would prefer to be tied to a bed and made wear a ladies panties on my face than have my limbs dissolved in acid or have my baby daughter raped in front of me to obtain a confession.

by bobby Thu May 19, 2005 21:50

please, it would be helpful if you explained your point. i can give links to news stories too, but that wouldn't be much of a discussion, would it?

by eeekkkk Thu May 19, 2005 21:30

Iraqi soldiers discovered the bodies of seven blindfolded men who were shot in the head and dumped on the roadside in the Sunni Triangle town of Amiriyah, some 25 miles west of Baghdad, said Mohammed al-Ani, a doctor at Ramadi General Hospital.
Seven More Bodies Found West of Baghdad
AP, May 16, 2005
---


Following [the Salvador model], one Pentagon proposal would send Special Forces teams to advise, support and possibly train Iraqi squads, most likely hand-picked Kurdish Peshmerga fighters and Shiite militiamen, to target Sunni insurgents and their sympathizers
‘The Salvador Option’
Newsweek, January 8, 2005

by bobby Thu May 19, 2005 21:09

I could go on about how Saddam continued to build palaces for himself during the sanctions period, and how his "government" managed to waste the resources they had with which to feed their people, but that would be to get diverted from the main point. I could also ask who we can get a reasonable estimate of civilian casualties from projections based on a small number of surveys, but that would also be to miss the point.

The point is that what we are witnessing in Iraq now is a battle - a battle between a coalition of the US and other free countries and an assortment of killers and criminals who will have no role to play in a democratic Iraq. What the anti-Western elements among us fail to grasp is that the violence would end tomorrow if the resistance stopped trying to halt the democratic process by killing Americans and Iraqis alike. Instead, they perceive some kind of equivalence between the spreaders of democracy and those who are ideologically opposed to it, and who express this opposition by deliberately killing innocent people. There are large portions of the Left, and I know not if it represents a majority, who are in very serious danger of choosing the wrong side in this battle.

Just to say it once more, I condemn the human rights abuses in Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Bagram, and elsewhere. So does the US government, and that's why they prosecute those who commit them. Sure, they're not perfect, but let's get some kind of perspective on this. By his average rate of killing, the Iraq war has already saved more lives than would have been killed by Saddam, even if the number of civilian casualties is as high as you claim. Do the maths. As for the number of people who were tortured under Saddam, stories of horror are still coming out, and they're not about being forced to strip naked, or being laughed at, or threatened by barking dogs, or being placed in "uncomfortable positions". They're about mutilation, the removal of limbs, refrigeration, all kinds of horrors. The worst actions of a small number of punished US soldiers are nothing in comparison to what Saddam did every day of the week.

The key point to be made is that this is a battle we are witnessing in Iraq, and you should think carefully about whether or not you, like George Galloway, have sided with the fascist resistance in their war against democracy.

by R. Isible Thu May 19, 2005 20:36

It's not about Abu Ghraid vs. decapitation of Western mercenaries.

It's about over 500,000 children murdered by sanctions, over 100,000 murdered by bombs, bullets and napalm, god knows how many tens of thousands murdered by Hussein while he was backed by the West (including poison gas sold to him by the US).

"Decapitation triggers more outrage because it is one of the most gruesome ways to kill someone imaginable.

Leaving bombs in market places or outside police recruitment centres triggers outrage because it means the deliberate murder of innocent men, women, and children."

Having your head blown off by "Shock and Awe" or bleeding slowly to death in a hospital from a pulped limb, or dying from gangrene in a hospital starved of resources triggers outrage in me. It triggers more outrage because it's on a vaster scale than the atrocities committed by some of the Iraqi resistance and it's done by people who claim to be on my side: the civilised, law-abiding West.

Fuck that.

Abu Ghraib is also the tip of the iceberg: the beating to death of detainees in Bhagram Air Force base, the abuse of prisoners in Guantanamo, the murder of Taliban prisoners by packing them into shipping containers and machine gunning them under US Special Forces supervision.

So far the West has outdone the savage, horrific barbarity of the people that cut off Nick Bergs head both in variety and in absolute scale.

by j Thu May 19, 2005 19:58

Here you go Paula:

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/05/311432.html

Very good video!!! Enjoy! Especially "Respect USA" question!

by bobby Thu May 19, 2005 19:50

Decapitation triggers more outrage because it is one of the most gruesome ways to kill someone imaginable.

Leaving bombs in market places or outside police recruitment centres triggers outrage because it means the deliberate murder of innocent men, women, and children.

Mistreatment of prisoners is to be condemned, but cannot IMO be described as "every bit as bad" as the actions of the resistance. Humiliation? Yes. But it's not murder, and it's also worth remembering that the US soldiers involved in the Abu Ghraib scandal are being sanctioned most severely for their crimes, while all sides of the Galloway-supported resistance are promising only more bloodshed, further to what they have already inflicted. One is an aberration which has been discontinued, the other is part of a calculated and continuing campaign of terror.

by Paul - adrift in Asia Thu May 19, 2005 19:34

They're both expressions of and reactions to the brutality of the situation. Beheading someone may trigger more outrage - believe me, I was physically shaking and extremely upset when I saw the beheading of that poor young American lad, Nick Berg, last summer - but those US soldiers are every bit as bad. They're using their power to humiliate and destroy. The action of beheading is undoubtedly more brutal, but the process of terrorising people and instilling fear is the same. Sorry if that seems a harsh judgement, but if we're going to play the game of comparing psycopaths, the only way to stay sane is to look at it in a cold, detatched way.

by bobby Thu May 19, 2005 19:12

Do you think there is a comparison between the (admittedly shameful) mistreatment of prisoners in Abu Ghraib - for which the culprits are being punished - and the beheading and bombing of civilians and US soldiers, which is done with the express purpose of intimidating Iraqi democrats, killing Westerners, and bringing the country back to tyranny?

by Tom Thu May 19, 2005 19:01

In Abu Graib soldiers made prisoners climb naked over each other, engage in sex acts, drag them by leases and put dogs on them.
One man had the indignity of having a woman point and laugh at his genitals.

There is only one place where such behaviour is acceptable.

A five star brothel in Amsterdam!

Those naughty girls and boys should have their botties spanked!

by bobby Thu May 19, 2005 18:44

Galloway has some legitimate objections to the Iraq war - perfectly reasonable. But he also supports the resistance in their stated aims to kill as many Americans as possible, drive them from Iraq, and set up a theocracy, dictatorship, or some other tyranny (depending on which terrorist group we're talking about). He has stated his support for them many times. Most people in Iraq hate the resistance and want to live peacefully and prosperously in a democracy, as we saw at the elections. When we speak of the resistance, we're talking about the beheaders of civilians, the bombers of police stations and marketplaces, and the murderers of men and women alike. Galloway's ambiguous attitude to these terrorists is a scar on his credibility which cannot be ignored.

"The Iraqi resistance have a right to defend their country against the occupying invader. They are exercising that right, with a considerable degree of success". He describes the fascists as: "Arab nationalists who are fighting for their country."

http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2005/01/19/galloway_resistance_does_not_target_its_own_civilians.php

by Pol Thu May 19, 2005 18:15

"Thanks for a most cogent analysis of US policy there Pol."

- Don't mention it. After all, I didn't. Note the 'may be' at the start...

"A few points:"

- Go on then...

"1. The US doesn't control the price of oil nor can it."

- Never said it did, mate. But perhaps it's something they'd like to do.

"2. The US gets most of its oil from Canada/Mexico/Venezuala - Europe is far more dependent on ME oil."

- True enough, as can be seen by the shamless butt-sucking Europe got up to in Iraq when Saddam was in power. As for the mention of Venezuela, it can only conjure up a mention of Hugo Chavez and the recent attempt(s) to oust him.

"3. With that in mind, wouldn't it have been cheaper/easier either to continue to buy oil from Saddam (after all, he had no problems in selling oil to the west, he just wanted to bump up the price in 1990) or to invade somewhere closer to home - Mexico or Canada for instance?"

- No. Canada and Mexico are not generally mysterious, demonised places as far as Joe Public is concerned. They're Western. Iraqis have the misfortune of being 'alien' to the Western popular imagination. So opposition to such an attack would have been overwhelming (unless you're in South Park).

"4. Who exactly is the "co" in "US & co"?"

- Us, the Uk and all the other suck-fish that hang around the Big Powers like the savage wimps around the schoolyard bully.

"5. Who in the world owns oil without selling it? And I'm not talking about national strategic reserves, the amount of oil implied in your statement would far exceed that."

- That's it. To get more they would have to range farther for it.

"6. Oil isn't going to run out for some time yet - if you'd listened to the experts of the 70's, it should have all been gone by the late 90's. The Economist had a good feature on this recently - then again, it is the bible of the neo-liberal capitalists derided so often on IMC, isn't it?"

- Don't count your chickens, my friend. After all, China and India are on the brink of industrialisation. That's about half the human race about to spring into the world of high-consumerism.

"7. Here's my favourite quote from Gorgeous George, to (natuarally) his hero Saddam: "Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability." That and the one about the collapse of the USSR being the greatest tragedy of his life."

- And not only yours. His book, 'I'm not the only one', is full of such stuff. But, despite such gnomic blather, it doesn't detract from his grandstanding in the senate from being bloody entertaining.

by WSWS Thu May 19, 2005 12:24

Check out this excellent article on Galloway's Senate Appearance from Chris Marsden:

EXTRACT:

"Nevertheless, it was not simply his pugnacious attitude that distinguished Galloway from the ritualised fawning and sycophancy of official politics in the US. The political points he made on the criminal nature of the Iraq war and the treatment of US detainees, as well as Washington’s role in arming and supporting Saddam Hussein, were hardly original. Yet they are taboo subjects, both for the Republican administration and its supposed opposition in the Democrat Party."

Link to full article:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/may2005/gall-m19.shtml

by joeboy - SWONZ Thu May 19, 2005 06:31

get that kiwi to email me too, comrades.

More Galloway press at http://www.respectcoalition.org

by Rudiger Wed May 18, 2005 23:12

Devil Dog: I’ll just reply to your point 6 about oil running out.

“Oil isn’t going to run out for some time yet”. Yes they’ll be oil around for some time but that’s not the point. The point is that demand is going to massively outstrip production. No expert ever said oil would be gone by the late 90’s, what they said was that oil production would have peaked by then. You might possibly be able to argue that they were a year or two off but that’s about it.

I’ll quote someone you might believe so. Dick Cheney in 1999 during his Halliburton days.

“By some estimates, there will be an average of two-percent annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead, along with, conservatively, a three-percent natural decline in production from existing reserves. That means by 2010 we will need on the order of an additional 50 million barrels a day”.

At the moment somewhere in the region of 80 million barrels is being produced (about 30 million from OPEC countries and the rest from non-OPEC).

Colin Campbell who has worked as an exploration geologist with a lot of the biggest oil companies (now with the Oil Depletion Analysis Centre) estimates
"About 944bn barrels of oil has so far been extracted, some 764bn remains extractable in known fields, or reserves, and a further 142bn of reserves are classed as 'yet-to-find', meaning what oil is expected to be discovered. If this is so, then the overall oil peak arrives next year,"

Of course, these figures are disputed by others, usually by people connected with the oil industry or with an interest in keeping the status quo.
But even some of them like BP exploration consultant Francis Harper have said that production will peak between 2010 and 2020.

I suppose there is an element of whose figures you believe but when you have the likes of Shell getting caught over-estimating their reserves in 2004 by 20%, I know whose figures I trust more.



The two questions I’ll ask you are:
(1) Where is the rest of the oil going to come from?

Once you’ve answered that:
(2) Are you willing to support murder to get control of the remaining resources?

by Paul - adrift in Asia Wed May 18, 2005 20:35

Been searching everywhere for it. I heard one of the journalists was peeing himself in outrage. Would make my day to find that clip. How are you anyway? Here, please tell that Kiwi to email me!!!!

by Devil Dog Wed May 18, 2005 20:26

"There may be another reason why seizing Iraqi oil is important to the US coalition. By controlling oil in Iraq (as well as in the Caspian) they can create a kind of economic leverage to counteract price hikes by Saudi Arabia and their OPEC allies. By having a source of oil that they can SELL rather than just own, the US & co. can ensure that they can keep undercutting OPEC oil prices and so prevent high cost oil from becoming a reality.
That is, until the stuff runs out..."

Thanks for a most cogent analysis of US policy there Pol. A few points:

1. The US doesn't control the price of oil nor can it.

2. The US gets most of its oil from Canada/Mexico/Venezuala - Europe is far more dependent on ME oil.

3. With that in mind, wouldn't it have been cheaper/easier either to continue to buy oil from Saddam (after all, he had no problems in selling oil to the west, he just wanted to bump up the price in 1990) or to invade somewhere closer to home - Mexico or Canada for instance?

4. Who exactly is the "co" in "US & co"?

5. Who in the world owns oil without selling it? And I'm not talking about national strategic reserves, the amount of oil implied in your statement would far exceed that.

6. Oil isn't going to run out for some time yet - if you'd listened to the experts of the 70's, it should have all been gone by the late 90's. The Economist had a good feature on this recently - then again, it is the bible of the neo-liberal capitalists derided so often on IMC, isn't it?

7. Here's my favourite quote from Gorgeous George, to (natuarally) his hero Saddam: "Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability." That and the one about the collapse of the USSR being the greatest tragedy of his life.

by Paula Geraghty Wed May 18, 2005 19:51 mspgeraghty at yahoo dot ie

have a link to the recording of the press conference after the senate hearing?
I heard that was sensational also!

A video clip, that is. Just finished watching the link to the BBC video........ electric!

by Pol Wed May 18, 2005 18:19

There may be another reason why seizing Iraqi oil is important to the US coalition. By controlling oil in Iraq (as well as in the Caspian) they can create a kind of economic leverage to counteract price hikes by Saudi Arabia and their OPEC allies. By having a source of oil that they can SELL rather than just own, the US & co. can ensure that they can keep undercutting OPEC oil prices and so prevent high cost oil from becoming a reality.
That is, until the stuff runs out...

by Phuq Hedd Wed May 18, 2005 17:55

Apart from the UN administered murder sanctions for the Oil For Food program the US and the UN have worked happily together in other situations, e.g. the ousting, kidnap and expulsion of the democratically elected leader of Haiti. The only thing that can redeem the UN at this stage is an armed challenge to the US:

by redjade Wed May 18, 2005 17:45

''It is impossible to prove anything of a sort to Galloway and his supporters because all evidence, however sound, will be ‘fabricated’ by ‘neo-cons’ and ‘warmongers’. Even if they accept the evidence is genuine, the supporters of Galloway will have no problem with anyone receiving money from Saddam. For them dictators, however ruthless and blood-handed they may be, are good as long as they are anti-American.''
- Domenico
http://www.freedominst.org/2005/05/galloway-good-bad-and-ugly.html

by Rudiger Wed May 18, 2005 17:35

Heres a link to an interesting interview with the former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, on Morning Ireland yesterday.

He said because of US interests in the area none of the western countries will speak out about the Uzbek regime and human rights abuses there.

by Joe Wed May 18, 2005 17:32

The argument that Iraq was 'about oil' is a little too crude if you think the US as a whole is trying to steal Iraq's oil.

It was about oil though in two other ways

1. The purpose of the war was for the US to obtain secure long term military bases from which to police the major oil producers in the region. Saudi was becoming too unstable (and you don't want an unstable big oil producer) and Israel was too biased (and it has to be said too quasi democratic). An Iraq that 'needs' long term occupation is ideal. Historically Iraq was invented for the same purpose in the aftermath of WWI.

2. In any case the people who pay for the war are the USA tax payers while those that reap the oil profits are a handful of USA corporations. It is quite possible for USA taxpayers to lose billions at the same time as USA corporations make billions. Indeed in the case of Haliburton the taxpayer born costs of the war are going directly into the profits of Haliburton with only the briefest of stop overs in Iraq. The USA like all the other countries involved is a class society - it is thus quite possible for the rich to benefit from the same policies that the poor and workers pay for.

by Hugo Chavez Wed May 18, 2005 17:26

Go back to the embassy Dave

Nobody believes you

do the math (that gave you away)

think long term, the occupation ofiraq secures its oil supply and secondly the US did not forsee an insurgency and war, remember most american casualties have occured after "the end of hostilities", they didnt forsee an insurgency

by Dave Wed May 18, 2005 17:19

Hugo Chavez was responsible.

by Dave Wed May 18, 2005 17:17

Iraq's total exports last year were $10.1 billion. Its chief export export commodities:
crude oil (83.9%), crude materials excluding fuels (8.0%), food and live animals (5.0%)

http://costofwar.com/ an anti-war website puts the cost of the Iraq War so far for the entire US at $170 Billion and rising.

Do the math.

by Jim Wed May 18, 2005 16:59

So that would be why Bush's spokesman issued a statement, insinuating that "terrorists" were behind the uprising? The US government has been totally silent about Uzbekistan, because, unlike the governments in Georgia and the Ukraine, Karimov is a close ally of theirs. They have given him hundreds of millions of dollars of aid, including training for his torturers.

The uprising in Uzbekistan is entirely the work of the Uzbeki people themselves. If they succeed, and I hope they do, it will be in spite of US policy. The claim that "it has the CIA written all over it" would be comical if it wasn't such a serious matter. I suppose the CIA were also responsible for the protests that brought Hugo Chavez back to power in 2002.

by Dave Wed May 18, 2005 16:52

Uzbekistan's President is a thug.
He crushes a pro-democracy movement with troops and tanks.
This guy has prisoners boiled alive and hijacks the war against the very real threat of Islamic terror to put political opponents in prisons as so-called Islamic extremists.
The pattern in Central Asia and in the former USSR is obvious - Georgia, Krygrstan, Ukraine and now Uzbekistan all experiencing revolutions. Bush was in Tiblisi the other day to heap praise upon the rose revolution and then Condi takes a visit to Iraq in order to be in the neighbourhood when President Karimov goes apeshit and starts killing people.
Its got CIA all over it.

by redjade Wed May 18, 2005 16:10

Just before the hearing, Galloway ran into the pro-war former Nation writer, Chris Hitchens: "'You’re a drink-soaked former Trotskyist popinjay,' Mr Galloway informed him. 'Your hands are shaking. You badly need another drink,' he added later, ignoring Mr Hitchens’s questions and staring intently ahead. 'And you’re a drink-soaked...' Eventually Mr Hitchens gave up. 'You’re a real thug, aren’t you?' he hissed, stalking away."

http://www.alternet.org/peek/2005/05/003772.html

by Jim Wed May 18, 2005 16:10

Sorry, I don't think anyone has been laughing hard enough at Dave's claim that the CIA are behind the pro-democracy protests in Uzbekistan. The mind boggles...

by Pol Wed May 18, 2005 14:22

The names on the list above represents people, who were not democratic or amenable to freedom of speech, who existed with the help of the US and its satellites such as the UK. These people, often brutal in the extreme, were not American 'friends', they were American tools who, when they became unweildy, were removed in a blaze of righteous anger, only to make room for another stooge who was put on the pedistal by elections concocted from invented parties and imposed candidates.
The same sorry business continues. America keeps some awful thug in power until they no longer need him, then the thug ceases to be an 'ally' and starts being an enemy. This is the story of Saddam and, who knows, the current Uzbek leader (famed for executing people by boiling them to death in cauldrons, no less).
If you don't believe, or understand this, go to any bookshop or library, and spend a few hours perusing the modern politics titles. My argument is much better - and much more fully - explained by a book called 'The New Rulers Of The World' by an Australian journalist called John Pilger. Galloway (lest we forget as we get further side-tracked) also has his situation set out in a book called 'I'm Not The Only One'. They're inexpensive, but your local library can get them for you for free I'm sure.

by dozzey Wed May 18, 2005 14:10

Good joke about the name bambi - dozzey by nature? is that how the joke finished?... lists of name for some miniature american flags for others!

by N W Wed May 18, 2005 14:08

It doesn't deny that they went on to oppose them for their own geopolitical needs.

by Bamber Wed May 18, 2005 14:07

As I said Dozzey by name....
And that doesn't even include the new 'stans'.

by dozzey Wed May 18, 2005 14:07

i'd disagree with many names on the list....it has people who were both supported and opposed - you may as well add Margaret Thatcher to the list..as well as everyone else in the 20th century.

by Pol Wed May 18, 2005 14:01

The list is not of people the US should have ousted, it's a list of dictators that they supported.

by dozzey Wed May 18, 2005 13:58

It wouldn't be america would it? - so are you saying america should have intervened - see this is the problem - if they intervene they are attacked if they don't they're attacked - as you noticed bambi i was speaking in the future tense - your list could contain thousands more who the UN should have helped but didn't - my point is the world should never let that happen again...

so before you go off an an anti-war parade try figure out what exactly you support - regime change in corrupt countries or scoring points by listing names of dead people to make yourself look intelligent and informed..

by Bamber Wed May 18, 2005 13:52

"they must now that the world won't stand idly by while they abuse defenceless people."

I wonder what country actively supported these benign or bloody dicatators?
Abacha, Sani (Nigeria: 1993-2000)
Afwerki, Isaias (Eritrea: 1993-2002)
Amin, Idi (Uganda: 1971-1979)
Arévalo, Marco (Guatemala: 1985-1991)
Bakr, Ahmad (Iraq: 1968-1979)
Banzer Suarez, Hugo (Bolivia: 1971-1978)
Bao Dai (Vietnam: 1949-1955)
Barak, Ehud (Israel: 1999-2001)
Barre, Siad (Somalia: 1979-1991)
Batista, Fulgencio (Cuba: 1940-44/1952-1959)
Begin, Menachem (Israel: 1977-1983)
Ben-Gurion, David (Israel: 1948-1953, 1955-1963)
Betancourt Bello, Rumulo (Venezuela: 1959-1964)
Bokassa, Jean-Bedel (Central African Republic: 1966-1976)
Bolkiah, Sir Hassanal (Brunei: 1984-2002)
Botha, P.W. (South Africa: 1978-1989)
Branco, Humberto (Brazil: 1964-1966)
Carmona, Pedro (Venezuela: 2002)
Cedras, Raoul (Haiti: 1991)
Chamoun, Camille (Lebanon: 1952-1958)
Chiang Kai-shek (China: 1928-1949/Taiwan: 1949-1975)
Christiani, Alfredo (El Salvador: 1989-1994)
Chun Doo Hwan (S. Korea: 1980-1988)
Cordova, Roberto (Honduras: 1981-1985)
Diaz, Porfirio (Mexico: 1876-1911)
Diem, Ngo Dinh (S. Vietnam: 1955-1963)
Doe, Samuel (Liberia: 1980-90)
Duvalier, Francois (Haiti: 1957-1971)
Duvalier, Jean Claude (Haiti: 1971-1986)
Eshkol, Levi (Israel: 1963-1969)
Fahd bin'Abdul-'Aziz (Saudi Arabia: 1969-2002)
Feisal, King (Iraq: 1939-1958)
Franco, Francisco (Spain: 1937-1975)
Fujimori, Alberto (Peru: 1990-2002)
Habre, Hissen (Chad: 1982-1990);
Hassan II (Morocco: 1961-1999)
Hitler, Adolf (Germany: 1933-1939)
Hussein, King (Jordan: 1952-1999)
Hussein, Saddam (Iraq: 1979-1990)
Kabila, Laurent (CDR: 1997-1998)
Karzai, Hamid (Afghanistan: 2001-2002)
Khan, Ayub (Pakistan: 1958-1969)
Koirala, B. (Nepal: 1959-1960)
Lon Nol (Cambodia: 1970-1975)
Marcos, Ferdinand (Philippines: 1965-1986)
Martinez, Maximiliano (El Salvador: 1931-1944)
Meir, Golda (Israel: 1969-1974)
Meles Zenawi (Ethiopia: 1995-2002)
Mobutu Sese Seko (Zaire: 1965-1997)
Moi, Daniel (Kenya: 1978-2002)
Montt, Efrain (Guatemala: 1982-1983)
Mubarak, Hosni (Egypt: 1981-2002)
Museveni, Yoweri (Uganda: 1986-2002)
Musharaf, Pervez (Pakistan: 1999-2002)
Mussolini, Benito (Italy: 1922-1939)
Netanyahu, Benjamin (Israel: 1996-1999)
Noriega, Manuel (Panama: 1983-1989)
Odria, Manuel (Peru: 1948-1956)
Omar, Mohamed (Afghanistan: 1996-2001)
Ozal, Turgut (Turkey: 1989-1993)
Pahlevi , Rezi (Iran: 1953-1979)
Papadopoulos, George (Greece: 1967-1973)
Park Chung Hee (S. Korea: 1960-1979)
Pastrana, Andres (Colombia: 1998-2002)
Peres, Shimon (Israel: 1977, 1984-1986, 1995-1996)
Perez Jimenez, Marcos (Venezuela: 1952-58)
Pinilla, Gustavo (Colombia: 1953-1957)
Pinochet, Augusto (Chile: 1973-1990)
Pol Pot (Cambodia: 1975-1998)
al-Qaddafi, Muammar (Libya: 1969-1971)
Rabin, Yitzhak (Israel: 1974-1977, 1992-1995)
Rabuka, Sitiveni (Fiji: 1987, 1992-1999)
Al Sadat, Anwar (Egypt: 1970-1981)
Selassie, Halie (Ethiopia: 1941-1974)
Salazar, Antonio (Portugal: 1932-1968)
Saud, Abdul Aziz (Saudi Arabia: 1944-1969)
Seaga, Edward (Jamaica: 1980-1989)
Shamir, Yitzhak (Israel: 1983-1984; 1986-1992)
Sharett, Moshe (Israel: 1953-1955)
Sharon, Ariel (Israel: 2001-2002)
Smith, Ian (Rhodesia: 1965-1979)
Somoza Sr., Anastasio (Nicaragua: 1936-1956)
Somoza Jr., Anastasio (Nicaragua: 1963-1979)
Stroessner, Alfredo (Paraguay: 1954-1989)
Suharto, General (Indonesia: 1966-1999)
Syngman Rhee (S. Korea: 1948-1960)
Tolbert, William (Liberia: 1971-1980)
Trujillo, Rafael (Dominican Republic: 1930-1960)
Tubman, William (Liberia: 1944-1971)
Uribe, Alvaro (Colombia: 2002)
Videla, Jorge (Argentina: 1976-1981)
Yeltsin, Boris (Russia: 1991-1999)
Zaim, Hosni (Syria: 1949)
Zia Ul-Haq, Mohammed (Pakistan: 1977-1988)

by Pol Wed May 18, 2005 13:52

Ok, well you're casting a number of aspersions there. Firstly, the anti-war movement does wish to see an and to war, and that applies to everyone. Secondly, the US is hardly 'standing up for the little guy' considering that it tends to make the guy little in the first place. Thirdly, no I wouldn't want Hitler in power, but then no-one was rushing to get rid of him as he rampaged around Europe - I mean it's not as though the USA saw Kristalnacht and rushed to the aid of the Jews. In fact, no-ne did, to their shame. A similar thing happened with Rwanda in more recent years. Fourthly, if the 'west' is so keen on spreading democracy why does it maintain all these rotten little gimps in places like Saudi Arabia, Africa and central Asia/America?
You are either some sort of low-powered wind-up merchant, and if so GET A LIFE, or you are sadly deluded and need to go and get an education. I'm sorry if this offends you, but I really don't know how to respond to some desk jockey who applaudes destruction he doesn't have to deal with.

by redjade Wed May 18, 2005 13:50

George Galloway Defends Himself
http://homepage.mac.com/onegoodmove/movies/galloway2.html
Quicktime Video 6'50 5.7MB

by dozzey Wed May 18, 2005 13:48

North korea have told us they have nuclear weapons - Iraq denied it - and they still have hundreds of war heads unaccounted since the first Iraq war... though i think that the world should come down hard on North korea - and use military force if they don't downgrade their nuclear projects -

in order to achieve world peace i firmly believe the world needs to rid ourselves of these monsters in all their forms - everyone everywhere should have the right to earn money (and lots of it) and strive for the best standard of living they can get - that's what i'm for and the reality is to do this we have to forcibly remove leaders who stop people from achieving their goals in life.

by dozzey Wed May 18, 2005 13:43

What room? the United Nations ? - every war that ever took place is an evil act no doubt - but would you have Hitler still in power because overthrowing him would cause millions to die - we can never go back to a world where dictators can do as they wish - what pisses me off about the so called anti-war movement is that they are unrealistic everyone would claim to want world peace - however because the human race is the way it is we will always have assholes in power or who seize power - they must now that the world won't stand idly by while they abuse defenceless people. The western world should be about standing up for the small guy .... the world needs some sort of effective policing - if the Un won't do it then who will? - america - duck yeah!

by Nicolo Wed May 18, 2005 13:41

Dozzey,

The pursuit of Oil is evil if that means you kill 100,000 people, no country has the right to invade and kill people on the basis that it needs oil.

Also in relation to NKorea, are you saying the US dosnt attack cos it dosnt know what weapons they have? Well the whole reason gave for the invasion of Iraq was we dont know what WMD he had, he may use them etc etc etc

Isreal I am gald made you list but why dosnt the US deal with them?

The pursuit of oil gives no justifiable reason to murder people

by Pol Wed May 18, 2005 13:36

The problem about siezing other people's assets is that is tends to lead to centuries of poverty, misery and carnage in wars and opression. Come on, are you seriously saying that killing and thieving are ok if some men in a big round room sign a document they wrote giving them permission to do as they please? Now that IS insanity.

by dozzey Wed May 18, 2005 13:35

It was a metaphor - i realise that the american army is not sitting around cracking eggs.... in relation to North Korea - they are an unknown entity in that we don't know what they have- also it is bordering south korea which would surely get any nuclear backlash that any or those mad koreans started nuking - but their day will come as should every other regime (and i would also include israel on that list too as regimes of corruption and murder)

by dozzey Wed May 18, 2005 13:31

everything is about oil.........because it makes the world work - why should countries get rich off the coincidental fact that an oil well is under the earth in their country? It is vital for industry and employment - why is the pursuit of oil seen as an evil> - in the same way that your persuit of fluffy bunnies and saving trees is not evil - different strokes.

by Pol Wed May 18, 2005 13:30

A war is not an omlette. And those weren't eggs that were broken, they were people, their homes, their families, their minds. Would you like it to happen to you? If not, stop sitting there thinking it's ok. Galloway may be a tit, but at least he has the balls to tell these desk-bound cowards what sanctimonious killers thay are.

by Neocon watch Wed May 18, 2005 13:30

If that's the case why didn't the US start with North Korea or Burma first. Infinetely more ghastly states.
Wouldn't have anything to do with geopolitical reasons or oil would it?

by Nicolo Wed May 18, 2005 13:29

Dave could you respond to my points re Israel

You assert that stable secular democracies are what is needed yet the only example of such a state is Israel, please respond.

Are you also asseting that Americas interest are the same as world interests or indeed the interests on the individuals of the countries.

Could you explain why the US if so interested in helping to fight against injustice etc etc etc. did not act in Rwanda, illegally invaded Cambodia in 1970, continued a deplorable war iN Vietnam for 15 years, ruined Latin America with tin pot dictatorships, etc etc etc

Sadddam gone is a good thing but the US installed is not a good thing for Iraqis, the insurgency is not Islamic fundamentalist in totality, history will show how removing saddam only changed one dictator for another in iraq

by dozzey Wed May 18, 2005 13:26

end justifies the means as it did in world war 2 in stopping the nazis.... you can't make an omelette with breaking eggs.

by dave Wed May 18, 2005 13:22

I find it amazing that people like george galloway are given any kind of credibility..the man took money from Saddams regime - he didn't care where the money for his projects came from. As senator Biden inferred yesterday (an anti war democratic senator) any politician with conscience would seek to return the money if he/she found out after the event that the source was erroneous.

Galloway avoided answering questions instead hiding his answers in anti- war rhetoric and drivel. The man is a bag of hot air - who used the position to pedal his anti war propaganda. Bare in mind that galloway made had his first meeting with saddam after his occupation of Kuwait (he also opposed military force then)

History will dictate that the war in Iraq was correct in the same vein as the intervention in bosnia and serbia were correct... we could do with similar intervention in Sudan.

by Nicolo Wed May 18, 2005 13:18

Dave,

Are you saying the end justifies the means and that thousands of civilian casualties are ok to free others (if you consider an occupation army to be free that is)

Also what about the US and its total lack of condemnation to the biggest rogue state in the Middle East i.e Israel.

Here we have a "stable secular democracy" that (a) committed ethnic cleansing in 1948 (b) illegally occupies Palestinian lands since 1967 (c) ignires a plethora of Un resolutions (d) has developed the worlds third largest nuclear arsenal in secret (e) continues to subjugate a people to a brutal military occupation (f) makes non jewish into second class citizens (g) regularly contarvene international treaties

What about tackling this particular problem in the middle east, the problem with the US is that their treatment is uneven , you can be a brutal dictatorship such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia but you are a friend of the US, similalry Israel is americas biggest ally out there despite all of the above mentioned issues and more.

Wake up Dave, Iraq was about nothing more than oil and money

by Pol Wed May 18, 2005 13:15

No, I think that the methods used to remove Saddam ARE deplorable. An incessant barrage of military and insurgent violence is hardly desirable. taking people away to obscure torture chambers is not befitting of a liberating hero. And the blatant exploitation of that country's mineral wealth, after ten years of sanctions (in effect, besieging the whole country) is also deplorable.
Like most sane people I do not lament saddam's fall, but like most sane people I don't watch the kind of mayhem going on in Iraq and think 'that's a good thing'.
I'm not saying you're insane or anything, it's just that the lesser of two evils is still an evil and therefore still wrong.

by Dave Wed May 18, 2005 13:03

If you will permit me I will answer you point for point:

“Saddam was Washington's creature.”

Despotic Saddam was once washington’s ally against Iran during the 1980’s just as Stalin was Washington’s ally in against Hitler. The Soviet Communists had no qualms about making allies with Islamic Iran.

“Had he not pushed the envelope by invading Kuwait he would still be there doing all the terrible things you list.”

Definitely. America does not fight wars unless its own interests are in danger. America did begin the fight against Nazism until the Japanese hit Pearl Harbour even though the Axis alliance between Germany and Japan was rather casual. America did not hit Saddam until the 9/11 attacks by Al-Qeada showed Americans that continuing tyranny in the Middle East is the perfect environment in which Islamic terrorism can breed.

“The US/UK-led invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with getting rid of a despot. It had to do with increasing Washinton's grip on the Middle East.”

Saddam represented the worst excesses of tyranny in the Middle East within which Islamic terrorists bred though he may not have support Bin Laden. Americas interests in the region are better protected by stable secular democracies rather than Baathist dictatorships like Saddam’s Iraq or Islamic dictatorships like Iran or Saudi Arabia. By taking out Saddam America signaled to its neighbours that dictatorships had to go. The era of Cold War policies had ended.

“Indeed, their lack of interest in human rights is exemplified by the carnage they have caused to innocent people, the prisoner abuses and the blind eye turned towards crooked dictators in other pro-Washington countries.”

On Jan 30th millions of Iraqis voted in their first democratic elections in decades. There are scores of democratic political parties, there is free speech and a free press. That shows America’s interest in human rights.
The soldiers who committed the abuses at Abu Graib have all been investigated, tried and convicted. Gen Kaminiski who was the supervisor of the unit responsible has been kicked out of the Army.
During the war US forces engaged in firefights with Iraqi forces and in the crossfire innocents were killed. That’s unfortunately what happens in all wars. During the 1916 Rising many innocents who neither fought for the rebels or the British died but would you contend the 1916 insurrection was a war crime? Although thousands during the Iraq War died since then millions of Iraqis are now free.
America has made allies with countries who support the war on terror. However they are vocal critics of those oppressive regimes for their own human rights abuses. Uzbekistan and Pakistan are examples. The recent violence in US allied Uzbekistan like the revolution in Krygystan was an obvious CIA plot to overthrow the government. A democratic government in Uzbekistan would be ideal for international legitimacy for the war on terror.


“You may also like to know that Saddam was helped into power by the US many moons ago when Iraq's government sought to nationalise its oil wealth, threatening American vested interests.”

If the government of Iraq wanted to nationalise is oil wealth and threatened American vested interests it would have benefited the Russians who wanted to spread its power to the Middle East. Governments opposed to American interests were more likely to fall into the Soviet camp just as Islamic Iran did in 1979. US support for Saddam however did not prevent him purchasing AK-47 rifles and T-72 main battle tanks from Russia and China. Saddam played on both teams.

“The removal of Saddam is a good thing, of course it is. But the reasons for, methods by, and repercusions of that removal are deplorable.”

I don’t care what reasons the US really have for removing Saddam or the methods but if the war had POSITIVE repercusions. Millions of Iraqis do not have to live under Saddam’s Baathist tyranny and this democratisation is influencing the politics of its neighbours, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Libya and Egypt have all be shaken by growing internal dissent or international pressure. Hopefully this will lead to the emergence of democratic governments throughout the Middle East.
I don't that is deplorable.

by Pol Wed May 18, 2005 12:46

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4553601.stm

by coughing on the splinters Wed May 18, 2005 12:37

http://www.yorkshiretoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=55&ArticleID=1028867

by Pol Wed May 18, 2005 11:26

Dave,
Saddam was Washington's creature. Had he not pushed the envelope by invading Kuwait he would still be there doing all the terrible things you list. The US/UK-led invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with getting rid of a despot. It had to do with increasing Washinton's grip on the Middle East. Indeed, their lack of interest in human rights is exemplified by the carnage they have caused to innocent people, the prisoner abuses and the blind eye turned towards crooked dictators in other pro-Washington countries.
You may also like to know that Saddam was helped into power by the US many moons ago when Iraq's government sought to nationalise its oil wealth, threatening American vested interests.
The remeoval of Saddam is a good thing, of course it is. But the reasons for, methods by, and repercusions of that removal are deplorable.

by Dave Wed May 18, 2005 10:59

Galloway was opposed to the invasion of Iraq.
What consequences would that have had for the Iraqi people?

14 million Iraqis would not have voted in free and fair democratic election on January 30 2005.
Saddam Hussein would still be in power and his sons would still be alive and waiting to suceed him.
Saddam and his Baath Party would continue to crush internal dissent and all opposition democratic political movements or religious communities especially oppressing the majority Shia population or ethnic groups such as the Kurds, Turkomen and Marsh Arabs. Thousands of prisoners - men, women and children would be dying every month in Saddam's vast infrastructure of prisons and torture chambers.

by Ploughshares Wed May 18, 2005 09:41 At Large! 087 918 4552

http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=69716

by Brian Wed May 18, 2005 09:29

A quicktime 3 munute extract is available at http://homepage.mac.com/onegoodmove/movies/galloway.mov Right click on the link to save the video to your computer

by eeeekkkk Tue May 17, 2005 23:16

.

Best Speech Ever?

by Harry Perkins Tue May 17, 2005 22:43

Galloway challenged the Senators to name the upposed senior Iraqi source who they say backs up the charges, he also had something to say about the 'proof' they had got from a man they were holding in Abu Ghraib.

"In these circumstances, knowing what the world knows about how you treat prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison, in Bagram Air Base, in Guantanamo Bay -- including, if I may say, British citizens being held in those places -- I'm not sure how much credibility anyone would put on anything you manage to get from a prisoner in those circumstances," he said.

by Jock Steeples Tue May 17, 2005 22:37

"As a matter of fact I have met Saddam Hussein exactly the same number of times as Donald Rumsfeld met him. The difference is that Donald Rumsfeld met him to sell him guns and to give him maps the better to target those guns, I met him to try and bring an end to sanctions, suffering and war."

by Square eyed Tue May 17, 2005 22:06

thanks for the link to the video! gripping stuff.

by eeekkk Tue May 17, 2005 21:54

Now Senator,

I gave my heart and soul to oppose the policy that you promoted.

I gave my political-life's blood to try to stop the mass killing of Iraqis by the sanctions on Iraq - which killed a million Iraqis, most of them children.

Most of them died before they even knew that they were Iraqis. But they died for no other reason other than that they were Iraqis. With the misfortune to be born at that time.

I gave my heard and soul to stop you committing the disaster, that you did commit in invading Iraq.

He has more to say - read on ...

And I told the world that your case for the war was a pack of lies.

I told the world that Iraq, contradicting your claims, did not have weapons of mass destruction.

I told the world, contradicting your claims, that Iraq had no connection to Al Queda.

I told the world, contradicting your claims, that Iraq had no connection to the atrocity on 9-11 2001.

I told the world, contradicting your claims, that the Iraqi people would resist a British and American invasion of their country.

And that the fall of Baghdad would not be the beginning of the end, but merely the end of the beginning.

Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right and you turned out to be wrong.

And a hundred-thousand people have payed with their lives.

Sixteen-hundred of them American soldiers sent to their deaths, on a pack of lies.

Fifteen-thousand of them wounded, many of them disabled forever, on a pack of lies.

If the world had listened to Kofi Annan, who´s dismissal you demanded, if the world had listened to President Chirac, who you want to paint as some kind of corrupt traitor, if the world had listen to me and the antiwar movement in Britain, we would not be in the disaster that we are in today.

Senator, this is the mother of all smoke-screens.

You are trying to divert attention from the crimes that you supported, from the theft of billions of dollars of Iraqis wealth.

Have a look at the real oil-for-food scandal.

Have a look at the fourteen month you were in charge of Baghdad, the first fourteen month. When eight-point-eight billion dollars of Iraq's wealth went missing, on your watch.

Have a look at Halliburton and the other American corporations that stole not only Iraq's money, but the money of the American tax payer.

Have a look at the oil that you didn´t even meter, that you were shipping out of the country and selling, the proceeds of which went who-knows-where.

Have a look at the eight-hundred million dollars you gave to American military commanders to hand out around the country without even counting it or weighting it.

Have a look at the real scandal, breaking in the newspapers today, revealed in the earlier testimony at this committee, that the biggest sanctions busters were not me, or Russian politicians, or French politicians.

The real sanctions busters were you own companies, with the connivance of your own government.

by redjade Tue May 17, 2005 21:01

Galloway circus hits Washington this Tuesday
http://www.freedominst.org/
'' The hearing is over. It was short, predictable, entertaining, with points scored on each side. Galloway succeeded in highlighting infelicities with the Senate Committee Report and landed a few good one-liners, but this hearing will, once the dust settles after the ruckus, have damaged him for three reasons. First, he was forced to admit that he did not bother to ask if one of the main contributors to the Miriam Appeal, a man later proved to have been up to his eyes in high jinks, was in fact trading in illegal oil. Second, he was unable to confirm that he was saying that the documents fingering him were forged, merely that they were untrue. To be fair, he was seeing them for the first time. But to be unable to say that they were forged, when it is a logically necessesity of his case that they must be, is damaging. Third, he was unable to condemn his business partner for illegal oil-for-food transactions despite being asked, by my count, four times.

Feel free to add your own feedback to the comments, which have gotten a little sidetracked.''

http://www.freedominst.org/2005/05/galloway-circus-hits-washington-this.html
-- --

→ You can read the comments on the site - I debate Mr Waghorne about how the US Senate Report also said "On occasion, the United States actually facilitated the illicit oil sales." and also about how Halliburton is currently doing oil business in Iran - Mr Waghorne says bringing this up is 'sidetracking.' Not surprising but interesting to see how the other side thinks.

by redjade Tue May 17, 2005 20:45

1.1meg mp3 audio
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/msnbc_uk_galloway_blisters_us_on_iraq_050517-01.mp3

by Pol Tue May 17, 2005 20:37

The anti-war movement in the UK and the US (and we might as well stick in Ireland here as we pissed away our neutrality and anti-war feelings in shannon airport) needs more people like Galloway. He might be brash and full of himself, but that doesn't take away from the fact that NOW, when high-profile opinion is needed, he had stood his ground.
A recent posting on this site claimed he wasn't a left-wing idol, but even if he isn't he still acts a voice for the anti-war movement in cases such as this. After all, idols who say nothing are useless. What we need are people who can get up and oppose these war-mongers.

by J Tue May 17, 2005 20:34

Video of evidence given by Galloway:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4556113.stm
Make of it what you will...

by Dave O Tue May 17, 2005 18:56

Galloway made mincemeat of the star chamber. The ‘serious men’ of the committee (RTE 5-7 Live) were revealed as incompetent and entirely motivated by pro-war sentiment. Their hositility to the anti-war movement in general and Galloway in particular was made plain on an international platform. Galloway was brilliant.