George Galloway and the US Senate- some choice quotes

  • Thread starter JacktheHat
  • 151 comments
  • 3,438 views
Swift
Well, I hate the fact that US soldiers are over there fighitng an impossible war. I hate the fact that the government is NOT giving them all the equipment that is needed. I also don't like that families are being seperated for a long time through this. Some never being reunited.

However, Saddam was a threat very similar to Hitler. Saddam wanted more and he tried to get it once. We smacked him down for it, and he's been thinking of ways to get back at us ever since.

While I disaprove of our technique, I do agree that something needed to be done about Saddam.
Click to expand...

I agree with most of what your saying here... I think Saddam needed to be brought to book, for breaking countless UN resolutions... but the motives and the execution of the actual invasion by the US-led 'coalition of the willing', were fundamentally flawed, legally dubious, and were (as Galloway rightly said) based upon a 'pack of lies'...

But although Saddam was a tyrant and a brutal oppressor of the Iraqi people, he was no real threat to his neighbours... there were no WMD's 'primed and ready to launch within 45 minutes', as the US and UK governments publicly stated. Comparing Saddam's army to the Wehrmacht is a bit off the mark... if it's regional stability you're talking about, you don't have to look too far in the region to see a real threat, like Israel... but luckily for them, their military have the backing of the US (although so did Saddam before he lost favour with them...)

What Galloway is trying to say, and I think quite rightly too, is that the US and UK governments blatantly lied and fabricated 'evidence' to justify their brutal and chaotic invasion, and for what? To install another puppet regime in a crucial oil-rich country, so it can serve the needs of, well, us....
 
ledhed
Koran (9:11) - For it is written that a son of Arabia would awaken a fearsome Eagle. The wrath of the Eagle would be felt throughout the lands of Allah and lo, while some of the people trembled in despair still more rejoiced; for the wrath of the Eagle cleansed the lands of Allah; and there was peace.
Click to expand...

Relevance?
 
JacktheHat
Not in context to what George Galloway said, no.

:boggled:
Click to expand...

Don't worry, it's total garbage anyway (sorry ledhed but it's a hoax...) The Quran doesn't say that at all... 9/11 in the Quran, they thought of everything didn't they?

Actually, the inspiration for the 9/11 attacks was taken from a similar attack on a tower block in the Lebanon.. that's what gave OBL his first idea of what he wanted to perpetrate on the US... the vision of the burning tower gave him the idea that the WTC would be the major target of his terrorist activity in the US, hence why he also tried to blow it up in '93...

but I digress, what does the Quran have to do with George Galloway anyway?... :lol:
 
ledhed
Koran (9:11) - For it is written that a son of Arabia would awaken a fearsome Eagle. The wrath of the Eagle would be felt throughout the lands of Allah and lo, while some of the people trembled in despair still more rejoiced; for the wrath of the Eagle cleansed the lands of Allah; and there was peace.
Click to expand...
i would advise to to look something like this up for yourself before you post it...its entirely made up.



as for galloway, its just interesting to see how the bushists try to discredit him with ridiculous accusations because they have nothing to say against him whatsoever...
 
vladimir
as for galloway, its just interesting to see how the bushists try to discredit him with ridiculous accusations because they have nothing to say against him whatsoever...
Click to expand...

For me, this is the whole point of the matter, neatly summarised... as far as the US Senate are concerned, finding his name on a piece of paper (that was probably written in post-Saddam era Iraq, and with no proof of authenticity) means 'GUILTY'... but Galloway has a point... where's the money? He certainly didn't ever see it...

Indicentally, I had the (dubious?) pleasure of meeting 'Gorgeous' George just two weeks ago, when he gave a lecture at my University (actually in the very building where I am typing this right now, which is quite bizarre seeing as how I work in the Biology department :odd:...) He's my MP here in Bethnal Green and Bow and yes, I did vote for him! He was also my MP in Glasgow when I worked there too... oh no, he's following me :scared:
 
Touring Mars
What Galloway is trying to say, and I think quite rightly too, is that the US and UK governments blatantly lied and fabricated 'evidence' to justify their brutal and chaotic invasion, and for what? To install another puppet regime in a crucial oil-rich country, so it can serve the needs of, well, us....
Click to expand...

"We're going to get Saddam because he's a bastard, and we should have done it a decade ago." would have done nicely. The UN might have had a bit of a wobble, but it has anyway. At least it wouldn't have been a load of old horse excrement.
 
JacktheHat
You don't happen to look like Saddam Hussein, do you? 💡
He could be looking for his oil...
Click to expand...

I dunno, here's me after a dip in the pool, but I have since lost the tash and grown a big beard...



By the way, here is the entry from the oil allocation list shown in the Duelfer report..

Socialist Worker newspaper claim that George Galloway's name has been cut and paste into the document... you can't really tell just from this screenshot of the .pdf file, but they have a point... it looks seriously manure-like if you ask me...
 

Attachments

  • duefler_small.jpg
    duefler_small.jpg
    13.5 KB · Views: 15
Prove me they actually had WMDs (at the time we invaded) and I'll shut up on this.
Click to expand...

Prove to me that Saddam didn't violate the terms of the end of the first Gulf War and I'll admit that we weren't justified.

danoff
Agreed, there are nations far more tied to Al Qaeda. That doesn't make Galloway correct does it?
Click to expand...

jack
The point is wheter or not Iraq had any sort of influencial link on Al Quada. The so-called contact in Iraq doesn't prove anything like it, even less given their mutual stance.
Click to expand...

...and that doesn't make Galloway correct.

Hmmm...Well, the things like not having suffecient armour on trucks and humvees really get me upset. I'm not talking super technology here. Just the best of what we have out there to protect our soldiers. I'm sure you'd agree with that right?
Click to expand...

What does "the best of what we have out there" mean? I already adressed why we can't give them the best. I would argue that we did give them the best of what we had out there.

The flip side is we were caught with our ass's in the air and should have been prepared . The knuckleheads making decisions based on faulty intell and then finding themselves in the stew because they were not prepared need to find new jobs.
Click to expand...

Our asses in the air?? We invaded and have occupied a country in a region of the world increadibly hostile toward us and have lost only 1500 men. You call that having our asses in the air? I call it a huge success.
 
danoff
Prove to me that Saddam didn't violate the terms of the end of the first Gulf War and I'll admit that we weren't justified.





...and that doesn't make Galloway correct.



What does "the best of what we have out there" mean? I already adressed why we can't give them the best. I would argue that we did give them the best of what we had out there.



Our asses in the air?? We invaded and have occupied a country in a region of the world increadibly hostile toward us and have lost only 1500 men. You call that having our asses in the air? I call it a huge success.
Click to expand...


We were not prepared to fight an insurgency not to mention provide security after the fall of Saddam. we have a proffesional army thats supposed to be the best in the world . they deserve leadership thats the best .We have adapted our strategy and equipment AFTER the fact . my point is we should have been prepared for it . BEFORE we got into a war in a region VERY hostile to us . the prewar intel said the Iraqis would be dancing in joy and gave little credance to those who warned against a long drawn out occupation and a fight . then again our intell also told us that Saddam was hiding a bunch of WMD under his pillow.
We screwed up a bit..so you learn from it. and fire the thick headed dolts who did not prepare along with the so called intelligence experts who saw all the WMD's that do not exist.
 
We were not prepared to fight an insurgency not to mention provide security after the fall of Saddam. we have a proffesional army thats supposed to be the best in the world . they deserve leadership thats the best .We have adapted our strategy and equipment AFTER the fact . my point is we should have been prepared for it . BEFORE we got into a war in a region VERY hostile to us . the prewar intel said the Iraqis would be dancing in joy and gave little credance to those who warned against a long drawn out occupation and a fight . then again our intell also told us that Saddam was hiding a bunch of WMD under his pillow.
We screwed up a bit..so you learn from it. and fire the thick headed dolts who did not prepare along with the so called intelligence experts who saw all the WMD's that do not exist.
Click to expand...

I remember Bush saying that Iraq would be a long hard slog. I never got the impression that we thought it would be over quickly. I personally didn't expect Iraq to be this secure so soon after Saddam's forces were removed/scattered.

We don't know that there aren't WMD stockpiles in Iraq. That doesn't mean that there are, but we can't say with any certainty that there are not.

...and I for one think that the war in Iraq has gone remarkably well with very few casualties of our troops. I'm sure it wasn't orchestrated perfectly, but it has been far from a the dissaster so many people try to make it.
 
danoff
I remember Bush saying that Iraq would be a long hard slog. I never got the impression that we thought it would be over quickly. I personally didn't expect Iraq to be this secure so soon after Saddam's forces were removed/scattered.

We don't know that there aren't WMD stockpiles in Iraq. That doesn't mean that there are, but we can't say with any certainty that there are not.

...and I for one think that the war in Iraq has gone remarkably well with very few casualties of our troops. I'm sure it wasn't orchestrated perfectly, but it has been far from a the dissaster so many people try to make it.
Click to expand...

Generally speaking Danoff, I agree with you. I just wish better planning would've gone into it. It should've been more like Desert Storm. Just go in an rock them hard.
 
danoff
I remember Bush saying that Iraq would be a long hard slog. I never got the impression that we thought it would be over quickly. I personally didn't expect Iraq to be this secure so soon after Saddam's forces were removed/scattered.

We don't know that there aren't WMD stockpiles in Iraq. That doesn't mean that there are, but we can't say with any certainty that there are not.

...and I for one think that the war in Iraq has gone remarkably well with very few casualties of our troops. I'm sure it wasn't orchestrated perfectly, but it has been far from a the dissaster so many people try to make it.
Click to expand...

Soon?

Secure?

Few casualties?

We are talking about the same invasion?


Touring Mars - Was that you I saw on the front page of 'The Sun' today?
 
:lol: wait til you see Page Three... :scared:


I think that debating the merits of why and how we went to war is all very good, and we all seem to agree that it was seriously botched..

.. but in the context of this thread, the point is that George Galloway has been just about the only person who had said (or even been able to say) the truth right to the faces of some of those responsible...

The fact that the US and UK governments lied about their reasons for war, and have subsequently presided over a disasterous invasion that could still yet spiral into civil war, is something that politicians don't want to think about... Galloway is perfectly justified in reminding them that it was their responsibility to ensure that they had a legal and just reason to go in their in the first place, that they have a plan once they were there, and that they had a plan on how to get out again. Sadly, Bush and Blair contrived to produce none of that... instead, Bush went for SHOCK AND AWE... big deal... so you can blow the Iraqi army to smithereens... woop-de-doo...

As Bill Hicks once said, the Iraqi army may well be the 5th largest in the world, but you know, after the first 4, there's a BIG drop off in numbers... the Krishnas are number 6... :sly:
 
Touring Mars
The fact that the US and UK governments lied about their reasons for war, and have subsequently presided over a disasterous invasion that could still yet spiral into civil war
Click to expand...

If we can't still get over the simple notion that this war is NOT based upon "lies", then we cannot have this discussion at all.

Fact #1: Saddam had WMD.

Fact #2: WMD was only one of many reasons for Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Get the facts straight. It's almost laughable when adults cannot understand even the simplest fact.

To tell you how I really feel, I'm tired of people like you who distort their facts only to prove some outrageous claim that the US somehow "lied" about events, stemming from this idiot parliament member's rant to September 11th itself. I thought only terrorists used this line, but it seems others outside of the Jihad want to use it as well. Sometimes I think it's far beyond being "Liberal" or some other radical thinking method, far beyond Galloway and his spin dive. It has reached the point where there is truly a bias toward the United States, not of political differences, but only one of hatred.

And I think this thread proves it.
 
Viper Zero
If we can't still get over the simple notion that this war is NOT based upon "lies", then we cannot have this discussion at all.

Fact #1: Saddam had WMD.

Fact #2: WMD was only one of many reasons for Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Click to expand...

1. Had = past tense

2. What other reasons where given at the time?
 
JacktheHat
1. Had = past tense
Click to expand...

That's right. Since Saddam is rotting in a jail cell, he no longer has control of them. Had, as past tense, is correct.

2. What other reasons where given at the time?
Click to expand...

You really do need to read UN Resolution 1441.



Of all people, jack the hat, should know the basic facts if you want to go around creating threads about this subject.
 
Viper Zero
That's right. Since Saddam is rotting in a jail cell, he no longer has control of them. Had, as past tense, is correct.



You really do need to read UN Resolution 1441.



Of all people, jack the hat, should know the basic facts if you want to go around creating threads about this subject.
Click to expand...

Resolution 1441 contained nothing new, just an admittance that the job wasn't done properly in 1990.
 
Viper Zero
If we can't still get over the simple notion that this war is NOT based upon "lies", then we cannot have this discussion at all.

It's almost laughable when adults cannot understand even the simplest fact.
Click to expand...

You said it... but how is it not based on lies?

What were the justifications made for war? That Iraq wasn't complying with UN resolutions... well, those resolutions pertained to weapons inspections, and because Saddam would not allow the inspections, meant that the inspections should have been, and were, being forced upon him...

But this wasn't enough for Bush... he used phoney intellegence (all of which has been discredited now) to show as a matter of fact that Saddam possessed WMD's... he didn't. So, if the evidence showed as a fact that he did, then someone is lying. Unfortunately for Saddam, he is a proven liar too, so people were prepared to believe that what the US government was saying, was true, but all the evidence gathered post-invasion, points in one direction... that the US 'evidence' was phoney, yet they still saw fit to present it to the world as if were not...

Yes, he did have chemical weapons in the 80's and early 90's, but he did not have them in 2002... I think Tony Blair is considerably more humble in his assessment... that (far from being based on solid fact), that his decision to go to war was 'a judgement call, based on the intellegence presented to him at the time'... the fact that the evidence was later proved to be fallacious, implies that the neo-con hawks who wanted Saddam out, were prepared to go to any lengths to avoid the reality of the situation... that Saddam was effectively unarmed...
 
From stockpiles of artillery shells filled with Sarin to French made cruise missiles...

I simply cannot help you, Touring Mars.
 
i read 1441, and nowhere in this document does it say that if saddam would not cooperate the US and UK had the right to invade.

in FACT saddam had no WMDs ready within 45 minutes.

in FACT there were no mobile labs driving around producing WMDs.

in FACT there is no sign of saddam's WMDs yet.

in FACT saddam did not acquire uranium from nigeria.

in FACT saddam had no contacts with el quaida.

in FACT the UN did not approve of the war.

in FACT saddam was once an ally of the USA.

(and in fact people from the US government that have invaded iraq now once were good buddys of saddam. in every other democratic nation in the world such a person would have to resign and would never get any job in public service again!)

in FACT that war was based on lies upon lies. lies to the us population, lies to the UN and lies to all your allies!

in FACT we heard about the dangers of saddams WMDs to the whole world for months, but then, as none was found, all of a sudden it were the wretched iraqis that made you go to war.


viper zero, the way you twist the truth is just disgusting...
 

Similar threads

mef
  • Poll
Digital IDs and how they will be used to control us
2
Replies
40
Views
4K
MatskiMonk
MatskiMonk
sinncere27
Hello Again, and I've Come Full Circle
Replies
5
Views
660
heftyscent
heftyscent
M
PD should be held responsible for inciting player anger
2 3
Replies
76
Views
7K
The_Tullster
The_Tullster
Joey D
And Now For Some Good News
Replies
5
Views
2K
sirjim73
sirjim73
Dotini
Ancient History, Ancient Mystery
5 6 7
Replies
186
Views
14K
Dotini
Dotini

Latest Posts

Back