NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm unsure of the guilt or innocence of George Galloway but from what I've read and heard the evidence against him seems to be nothing new.

Are his accusers going to give him a platform to showboat and condemn the War in Iraq and American foreign policy or is he guilty as sin?

I'm quite interested in this as my flatmate sees him as a positive influence but I find him an odious man, a modern day demagogue.

Any views?

I have to say I like the guy and his socialist RESPECT party. When it looked like war in Iraq was all but inevitable he went to try to persuade Saddam Hussain to submit to weapons inspectors, he gets a load of bullshit over this about how he and Saddam were good mates but I think that in this crazy world where so many governments have a policy of shoot now ask questions later I'm pleased to see theres at least one person still around who believes that talk is better than war in resolving differences.

They're all a bunch of clowns.

Anyone who heard his victory speech or witnessed his disgusting display with Paxman on election night is likely to detest the man.

Having said that, the git is probably innocent. Which is sad, I'd like to see him out of politics.

Sounds to me like they're trying to make him look bad because he was against the war. Either way, I think the guys a loser.

He's a demagogue, even though I agree with some of his positions. Maybe if he stops being so harsh on everyone they won't be so harsh on him?

Anyone who heard his victory speech or witnessed his disgusting display with Paxman on election night is likely to detest the man.

Having said that, the git is probably innocent. Which is sad, I'd like to see him out of politics.I think that you have got that a little skewed...It was paxman who began, by asking "So Mr Galloway, how does it feel to knock one of the very few black woman mp's out of parliament". George very firmly (and very funnily) put him in his place, firstly by reminding him that it's customary to congratulate the winning canditate and secondly to interview in an appropriate manner. Well Done George
However, I agree with your belief that he is probably innocent.
:p

Guilty or innocent of what may I ask?

Never attribute to malice what can be explained more easily as stupidity mixed with good intentions.

I actually think Mr. Galloway is innocent after reading some BBC articles about the matter.

Humanitarian Intentions are among the more dangerous things that can afflict anyone vain enough to run for public office.

The problem Mr. Galloway has is that the Iraqis wrote down on paper what they gave Mr. Galloway, and why they gave it to him. They also wrote down that the "gifts" went to Mr. Galloway's charity.

He may deny complicity in all of this. But it stands that the Iraqis believed that they had given him a rather large gift, and they believed that Mr. Galloway would be their champion in exchange.

As it stands, if we examine the position of Mr. Galloway concerning Saddam, he was a most vehement apologist for Saddam in every possible way. It may well have been that he held these opinions in any case, and merely presumed that the gifts were just gifts.

Considering the paper trail, he can't simply get up and say he didn't know anything about the money. He can deny motivation - he can say he would have been pro-Saddam anyway. But he can't deny what the Iraqis thought they were getting in exchange.

I'm guessing innocent, although I could be wrong. The only people accused are rather conveniantly all people the US government doesn't seem to like very much and want to see discredited. Then there is the fact that neither Pasqua nor Galloway have been asked to give evidence, and the fact that no evidence has been offered to show that either of them received money. Most conveniantly, they've been taking a pop at some Russian nationalists as well. When the US government turns a blind eye to the smuggling for years and then conveinantly implicate a load of people they don't like with very shakey evidence, you do wonder...

The problem Mr. Galloway has is that the Iraqis wrote down on paper what they gave Mr. Galloway, and why they gave it to him. They also wrote down that the "gifts" went to Mr. Galloway's charity.

He may deny complicity in all of this. But it stands that the Iraqis believed that they had given him a rather large gift, and they believed that Mr. Galloway would be their champion in exchange.

As it stands, if we examine the position of Mr. Galloway concerning Saddam, he was a most vehement apologist for Saddam in every possible way. It may well have been that he held these opinions in any case, and merely presumed that the gifts were just gifts.

Considering the paper trail, he can't simply get up and say he didn't know anything about the money. He can deny motivation - he can say he would have been pro-Saddam anyway. But he can't deny what the Iraqis thought they were getting in exchange.I don't think you make a good case. The Iraqi lackeys, who are supported by the americans were told to produce "evidence", so they made some of there own. In real terms however, George has conclusively proved that it's the corrupt American occupiers who are the ones who have proffited from the invasion of iraq.

The US Senate has no credibility to accuse anyone of wrongdoing. Instead they should investigate their own house, their president + complicite clowns for war crimes and violations of international law. :mad:

See the NY post article on the subject "Brit Fries Senators in Oil" - from which it appears that he came well prepared, and embarrassed the US by proving all their evidence was bogus, as well as managing to cite all their current misdoings, eg: there were no weapons of mass destruction, etc.

Anyone who heard his victory speech or witnessed his disgusting display with Paxman on election night is likely to detest the man.

Though it was funny that Paxman asked him if he was proud of kicking one of the few black women MPs out of Parliament

The problem Mr. Galloway has is that the Iraqis wrote down on paper what they gave Mr. Galloway, and why they gave it to him. They also wrote down that the "gifts" went to Mr. Galloway's charity.

He may deny complicity in all of this. But it stands that the Iraqis believed that they had given him a rather large gift, and they believed that Mr. Galloway would be their champion in exchange.

As it stands, if we examine the position of Mr. Galloway concerning Saddam, he was a most vehement apologist for Saddam in every possible way. It may well have been that he held these opinions in any case, and merely presumed that the gifts were just gifts.

Considering the paper trail, he can't simply get up and say he didn't know anything about the money. He can deny motivation - he can say he would have been pro-Saddam anyway. But he can't deny what the Iraqis thought they were getting in exchange.

The problem with this is that you can't spend 3 years saying the Iraqis are lying about weapons of mass destruction and then claim that (a photocopy of) a document with Galloway's name on it is the truth (even if you were proved to be wrong about them lying in the first place).

And a paper trail is nothing. Where are the brokers and bankers who dealt with this oil? Where is the customer who bought the oil? Where is the $1 billion raised from the sale? Where is the real paper trail with bills of lading and invoices? Where is the oil itself?

In less than 10 minutes I could create a paper trail and auditable computer logs that would show that Whispering Legs received a large amount of prescription only controlled drugs from a British hospital. How would Whispering Legs be able to deny this if I had the "paper trail"?

By stating that he is an apologist for Saddam Whispering Legs is showing his total lack of knowledge on the subject. Galloway fought for the Iraqi people. While UN sanctions and the (probably illegal) destruction of infrastructure from the first Gulf War killed 500,000 iraqi children over 10 years due to lack of drinkable water and basic medical supplies, Galloway was actually trying to arrange medical aid for Iraqis. The fact that he met Saddam Hussein twice during this time does not mean he is an apologist (unlike Rumsfeld who met Saddam twice to sell him weapons). Galloway has constantly stated that he did not support the Iraqi regime only the Iraqi people.

If you haven't seen it already then go out and buy today's ‘The Times' (Today: 19/05/2005 or 05/19/2005 for those in the USA) and get to the 'T2' section, flip to the back. They have a caricature of Galloway punching an Uncle Sam, why I have no idea because they write an hilarious send up of the British MP (who recently won the dis- i mean Respect Party seat in the House of Commons for the Baghdad South- i mean Bethnall Green constituency.).

The inside scoop from Washington suggests he was ridiculed to no end after his hilariously funny speech about how he has never had any meeting of any sort in his life...ever...period. The transcript of the speech would also suggest that he lost his way somewhere in his tirade of idiocy and began to repeat something about 'smoke and mirrors', which I'm sure C-SPAN viewers found awfully funny. No wonder Americans like the Irish better.

(PS: Apart from the idiots in his constituency,the overwhelming majority of people in the UK, and in his native Scotland, think this man is an absolute fool who needs to be drowned in a vat of cheap supermarket brand Scotch whiskey and stuffed inside a case that says 'Traitor'.)

While UN sanctions and the (probably illegal) destruction of infrastructure from the first Gulf War killed 500,000 iraqi children over 10 years due to lack of drinkable water and basic medical supplies, Galloway was actually trying to arrange medical aid for Iraqis.

sadaam had billions of dollars, liquid. Sanctions didnt deprive anyone of anything in Iraq. Sadaam and his henchmen did. How many lavish palaces did this scumbag build for himself since the first Gulf War? The sanction argument sounds great if you want to believe the western world killed babies, but if you're capable of thought, you're aware this argument is not valid.

(PS: Apart from the idiots in his constituency,the overwhelming majority of people in the UK, and in his native Scotland, think this man is an absolute fool who needs to be drowned in a vat of cheap supermarket brand Scotch whiskey and stuffed inside a case that says 'Traitor'.)

Any evidence for this claim? The posts here seem to indicate that the majority do not like him, but do not consider him to be a traitor.

sadaam had billions of dollars, liquid. Sanctions didnt deprive anyone of anything in Iraq. Sadaam and his henchmen did. How many lavish palaces did this scumbag build for himself since the first Gulf War? The sanction argument sounds great if you want to believe the western world killed babies, but if you're capable of thought, you're aware this argument is not valid.

You are partially correct in this regard. Saddam Hussein and his close supporters did not suffer under the sanctions. However, the sanctions did help to create a level of misery and deprivation that would not have existed if the sanctions had not been in place. By reducing the supply of goods entering Iraq, the western world guaranteed that only the rich and powerful would ahve access to these resources. Both Hussein and the governments of the western world are to blame.

You are partially correct in this regard. Saddam Hussein and his close supporters did not suffer under the sanctions. However, the sanctions did help to create a level of misery and deprivation that would not have existed if the sanctions had not been in place. By reducing the supply of goods entering Iraq, the western world guaranteed that only the rich and powerful would ahve access to these resources. Both Hussein and the governments of the western world are to blame.


No-I wont accept that any of the western world is to blame. The scumbag and his offspring had cash and resources and friends. Rather than do what was right for the people of Iraq, sadaam chose for his people to suffer. He won plenty of sympathy from those who needed a reason to hate the US.

It's good to see someone standing up for himself even if he is a tosser.

If you haven't seen it already then go out and buy today's ‘The Times' (Today: 19/05/2005 or 05/19/2005 for those in the USA) and get to the 'T2' section, flip to the back. They have a caricature of Galloway punching an Uncle Sam..lol...i hope they put it on-line

I can't bring up the proof about many people thinking George Galloway to be a fool, but i remember where i saw it. The 10 O'Clock news followed a reporter around Bethnall Green and surrounding constituencies and the general consensus was that Galloway was a fool and was a negative force in British politics who was simply campaigning on a single issue. Indeed the BBC website recently made the point that he will now have to, without a Party machine, deal with constituency problems, which he is not versed in in the least.

The BBC website also published a number of articles on Galloway's ineptness and allocades relating to terrorism. The Times published articles by Labour MPs on his brashness and ineptitude, not to mention his inferiority complex that seems to pervade into every single one of his public engagements.

I can't bring up the proof about many people thinking George Galloway to be a fool, but i remember where i saw it. The 10 O'Clock news followed a reporter around Bethnall Green and surrounding constituencies and the general consensus was that Galloway was a fool and was a negative force in British politics who was simply campaigning on a single issue. Indeed the BBC website recently made the point that he will now have to, without a Party machine, deal with constituency problems, which he is not versed in in the least.

The BBC website also published a number of articles on Galloway's ineptness and allocades relating to terrorism. The Times published articles by Labour MPs on his brashness and ineptitude, not to mention his inferiority complex that seems to pervade into every single one of his public engagements.

Crap, you just made it up on the spot and you've been caught out. Many people don't like him, myself included, but only the Senate Committee were foolish enough to think he is a fool.

Neither the Senate not Galloway did themselves any favours with this mess. Although they clearly don't have jackshit on Galloway he made himself look right a clown [as per my previous description of him - bow down, folks].

The problem Mr. Galloway has is that the Iraqis wrote down on paper what they gave Mr. Galloway, and why they gave it to him. They also wrote down that the "gifts" went to Mr. Galloway's charity.

He may deny complicity in all of this. But it stands that the Iraqis believed that they had given him a rather large gift, and they believed that Mr. Galloway would be their champion in exchange.

As it stands, if we examine the position of Mr. Galloway concerning Saddam, he was a most vehement apologist for Saddam in every possible way. It may well have been that he held these opinions in any case, and merely presumed that the gifts were just gifts.

Considering the paper trail, he can't simply get up and say he didn't know anything about the money. He can deny motivation - he can say he would have been pro-Saddam anyway. But he can't deny what the Iraqis thought they were getting in exchange.

Man, have you seen or read ANY of his testimony to Congress? If you had, you might have thought twice before posting such uninformed comments. First, his charity is able to accounty for every cent and where it came from, and the documents with his name on them mention transactions which he claims not to have taken part it, and which involve money that cannot be found to have ever gone through his or his organization's hands.

Secondly, the documents and sources accusing him are highly suspicious. One, mentioning a transaction on 9/23, has his name added in a font of a different size, style, and angle, from the rest of the names on the list, a list of over 200 people btw, and he, a war critic, is one of the few that the U.S. has persued as they've hyped up the case.

Thirdly, very similar documents were reported on by the Christian Science Monitor in the early 90's, accusing Galloway of the exact same type of scandal. The White House and press were all over it, but then, Christian Science Moniter found that they were forged documents. This wasn't the only time forged documents were used in attempts to connect him with the Oil For Food Scandal.

The paper trail is part of a U.S. smear, and "hey look at this instead of Iraq!" campaign. The actual money, or the actual people he purportedly sold the oil to, can not be found, and investigations have already accounted for all of Galloway's money in his organization and it has turned out to be legitimate. In fact, the U.S. never contacted Galloway to ask him about these allegations it was drawing up until they had their case and had him in comittee to testify.

And Iraqi prisoners, knowing how they are treated by the U.S. around the world, and the fact that many of these confirmations come from unnamed sources, and sources that had never met Galloway before, they are hardly credible. The money that supposedly went through his hands can't be produced. Neither can any customers that Galloway would have given this oil to. If it could be, you can bet your ass that the U.S. would have found it and made the most of it as evidence against him. But in the absence of proof they just attach his name to some documents and get confirmations from unnamed and non-credible sources, and go after him for his outspoken stance against the war and history of opposition to U.S. policies in Iraq.

And the most incorrect and obviously untrue part of your post is the idea that he was friends with Saddam or in any way a supporter of the regime. He had only met Saddam (or visited Iraq, forget which) twice, and while I don't remember the specific issues, I remember that he was there each time out of his concerns for the dire conditions of the people of Iraq. He has a history of criticizing Saddam and has made tons of statements against the atrocities Saddam committed. In fact, he was in vocal opposition to Iraq and its policies back when the U.S. were selling Iraq weapons and technology, and were for all purposes allied with Iraq. He has a better record of opposition to Iraq than most U.S. policymakers do. Your allegations fall flat on their face there.

So if you'd spend a few minutes to look at some facts rather than beleiving whatever BS you think sounds like it supports your pre-determined pro-USA standpoint, you might have actually been able to replace that uninformed rant you call a post, with relevant insight which could have furthered our understanding of the situation and made slightly better Americans out of us. Here's to hoping you are capable of that sometime in the near future.

No-I wont accept that any of the western world is to blame. The scumbag and his offspring had cash and resources and friends. Rather than do what was right for the people of Iraq, sadaam chose for his people to suffer. He won plenty of sympathy from those who needed a reason to hate the US.

But would such efforts have been sustainable? That is an important question. A billion dollars is a drop in the bucket when you have to feed, clothe, and shelter an entire nation. There is no point in spending all of the government's money one year then being forced to shut down the next because the nation lacks economic sustainability. Without a tax base strong enough to replenish the funds there is no point in spending them.

As for building palaces, you could say the same thing about the US government. The US builds extravagant monuments and huge state-of-theart buildings to house its buearucracies. Yet, there are still homeless people starving on the streets in many places. Contunity of government is more important than a few individual citizens, unfortunatly. Good of the many vs good of the few.

No-I wont accept that any of the western world is to blame. The scumbag and his offspring had cash and resources and friends. Rather than do what was right for the people of Iraq, sadaam chose for his people to suffer. He won plenty of sympathy from those who needed a reason to hate the US.

If that last sentence is to imply Galloway, you are wrong that he is a sympathizer with Saddam for reasons I have mentioned in my other post.

And sorry, but the Western World does have to take part of the blame. American companies paid 52% of the surcharges that Iraq demanded (THERE'S your oil for food scandal). We armed and aided Iraq, supported Saddam's rise to power, and used him to help us overthrow Iran knowing damn well what he was like and what he would use those weapons for. We looked the other way when he gassed the Kurds with weapons we gave him, (but surprisingly were looking at it after 9/11), and have sent very high ranking officials (Rumsfeld, Bush Sr.) in the past to meet with Saddam on friendly terms. The sanctions didn't stop Saddam, who built palaces off the surcharges paid in part by U.S. companies. But it did starve one million of the Iraqi people (a thing which Galloway tried to end).

No one needs to create a reason to hate the U.S., the U.S. gives people plenty of those on its own.

You people keep bringing this stuff up about meetings and arms sales with Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War (1981-1988). America, Britain and France sold weapons to Iraq, while the USSR sold weapons to Iran, and then sold surplus goods to Iraq in 1989. This is politics, get over it, it doesn't mean that they supported Saddam Hussein's regime, in fact you'll find it was a 'marriage of convenience', so to speak, confirming to the principle that 'the enemy of my enemy is my freind'. Iran was seen, back then, as a bigger and more immediate threat to the West than Iraq, thus Iraq was given some money and arms to take out the bigger threat, but it turned into a Korean War-esque stale-mate and a cold-war era flashpoint. One side did not destroy the other, as was hoped by the backers of the conflict, the status quo remained after the war, just as in Korea.

This is simply politics, and it is a nasty business, and if you can't get over it you'll never appreciate it or exploit it, which is why all you lefty's can do is stand outside buildings and shout while the Police rightly batter you over the head, decreasing your miniscule IQ even further.

You people keep bringing this stuff up about meetings and arms sales with Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War (1981-1988). America, Britain and France sold weapons to Iraq, while the USSR sold weapons to Iran, and then sold surplus goods to Iraq in 1989. This is politics, get over it, it doesn't mean that they supported Saddam Hussein's regime, in fact you'll find it was a 'marriage of convenience', so to speak, confirming to the principle that 'the enemy of my enemy is my freind'. Iran was seen, back then, as a bigger and more immediate threat to the West than Iraq, thus Iraq was given some money and arms to take out the bigger threat, but it turned into a Korean War-esque stale-mate and a cold-war era flashpoint. One side did not destroy the other, as was hoped by the backers of the conflict, the status quo remained after the war, just as in Korea.

This deserves its own thread for the onslaught of criticism it merits.

Here are two things I would be more concerned with than "U.S. interests" in the Iran/Iraq conflict if I were a politician:
1. The lives and families that would be affected by us proactively supporting the war, and to what extent we are responsible for the death and disabilities and loss of property incurred.
2. What uses those weapons go to later on, and to what extent we are responsible for how they are used.

The U.S. secretly was providing Iraq with intelligence information and military support (while in public denying it). The White House and State Department pressured the Export-Import Bank to provide Iraq with financing, to enhance its credit standing and enable it to obtain loans from other international financial institutions. Rumsfeld, who shook hands with Saddam and was sent among others to promote a positive relationship with Hussein, described his relationship with Saddam as "close".

The U.S. also enforced sanctions which did little to disable Saddam but much to starve and kill over a million people who had nothing to do with Saddam or his policies.

Not to mention, as I stated before, that we looked the other way when Saddam gassed the Kurds, and, of all the countries in the world, were the largest supplier of AK-47's to Iraq and the mid-east in general, leaving them well-equipped to resist any military efforts we might have there.

Iran was no more a threat to us than Iraq was when Bush Jr. invaded. What was at stake was "U.S. interests"- our ability to exert power over the Middle East and keep the oil coming our way. If it is excusable for those interests to have a higher priority than the lives, families, and children in the region, then you can call me Alfred Glenstein.

What does it say about a person when their value for human life has eroded and grayed so far that they can rationalize something like supplying a dictator arms as excusable, and saying that anyone who is concerned by that has a low I.Q.? Shouldn't we be concerned about it? You don't pause and at least acknowledge the merits of such a case? If you were concerned with advancing our understanding and bringing an agreement to a better and all-encompassing solution, surely the consideration for human life, which draws one to be concerned when the U.S. supplies a dictator with violent weapons, is an excusable thing for a person to have, right? RIGHT?? I have a feeling this is going to fall on deaf ears too ignorant and stupid to have a clue what I am talking about. PLEASE prove me wrong. Prove me wrong. There I am. I'm commited, I'm labeling you. You have me on the chopping block right now, if you just admit you think it's ok for a person to be concerned when the U.S. gives dictators weapons, and that you don't have to be a stupid liberal hippie who doesn't understand politics to think that way.

This is simply politics, and it is a nasty business, and if you can't get over it you'll never appreciate it or exploit it, which is why all you lefty's can do is stand outside buildings and shout while the Police rightly batter you over the head, decreasing your miniscule IQ even further.

Go ahead, base this on something, anything!

I have never seen a peson generalize on all liberals like this, while also avoiding sounding like a narrow minded, all-too-willing-to-resort-to-namecalling, idiot. After reading your rant, I still have not seen a person generalize like this and avoid looking like an idiot.

As far as this being politics, I hardly think endorsing the murdering of thousands of people to support our hold on oil in a region should be the purpose of politics. If you think that is what politics is for, maybe you are the one that doesn't understand politics.

You people keep bringing this stuff up about meetings and arms sales with Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War (1981-1988). America, Britain and France sold weapons to Iraq, while the USSR sold weapons to Iran, and then sold surplus goods to Iraq in 1989. This is politics, get over it, it doesn't mean that they supported Saddam Hussein's regime, in fact you'll find it was a 'marriage of convenience', so to speak, confirming to the principle that 'the enemy of my enemy is my freind'. Iran was seen, back then, as a bigger and more immediate threat to the West than Iraq, thus Iraq was given some money and arms to take out the bigger threat, but it turned into a Korean War-esque stale-mate and a cold-war era flashpoint. One side did not destroy the other, as was hoped by the backers of the conflict, the status quo remained after the war, just as in Korea.

This is simply politics, and it is a nasty business, and if you can't get over it you'll never appreciate it or exploit it, which is why all you lefty's can do is stand outside buildings and shout while the Police rightly batter you over the head, decreasing your miniscule IQ even further.


Of course its politics. But, that argument works both ways. If you support it fully then you can't blame Gallaway or, for that matter, Saddam,for their political decisions. If you do then you are just a double standard.

bump

I can un-generalize liberals if you like.

Lefty's
Commies
Reds
Flip-floppers
Liberals
Communists
Marxists
Marxist-Leninists
Leninists
Bolshevik
Menshevik
Trotskyite
Stalinist
Maoist
Dialectical Materialist
Anti-Teleologist
New-Leftist
Perestroikist
Left-Wing Arbitrationist
Socialist
Revolutionary-Socialist
PF Socialist
Proleatrian Revolutionary
Trade-Unionist
Wildcat Striker
Shop Floor Steward

There's probably a few more but they would apply to very strict and 'ideology only' minorities.

The Kurdish situation? So John Major and George Bush didn't actively enforce a No Fly Zone and set up aid camps in the mountains, while flying in bread and water in C-130's? There's plenty of archive footage of that happening so don't deny it.

Of course you would deny that you were selling Arms to a Dictator, because Liberals like yourself would cry about it because they lack, like you, the mental capacity to understand the reasoning behind it- which is why left-wing politicians are so terribly inept.

Russia/USSR was the largest supplier of AK weapons to Iraq and Iran, they still are in Iran's case. In Iraq they had manufacturing rights, and so do Iran, which is why some AK-47's have their markings in Arabic. Egypt, another AK manufacturer, also supplied weapons to Iran and Iraq at various times from 1970 onwards. Please do some research on it, you really need to.

Iran was a bigger threat than Iraq back in the 1980s, they were seen as the major threat to Middle Eastern stability, not Iraq. I don't want to dignify your obvious stupidity by writing why because you can find it so easily in any history of the Middle East or on the net. Iraq, after the Iran-Iraq war emerged, with Soviet backing, as the larger threat.

The US Supplied Iraq with weapons believing it was going to remove the terrorist threat of Iran from the Middle Eastern Map, thus saving more human lives in the long-term. As with so much in history the calculation was wrong and the sheer military idiocy on both sides during the Iran-Iraq war led to an atrocious stalemate in which Iraqis butchered Iranians and Iranians butchered Iraqis. Be concerned about human life all you want, but it rarely helps to bring an understanding of the political motivations of the time which my argument is more focused on.