George Galloway and the US Senate- some choice quotes

[Touring Mars]

This is the sum total of the 'evidence' against Galloway... convincing, isn't it?

 

[Solid Fro]

This is the sum total of the 'evidence' against Galloway... convincing, isn't it?

Besides Galloway, what about the other people on that list?

 

[JacktheHat]

What questions?

They're contained in this thread...

 

[vladimir]

This is the sum total of the 'evidence' against Galloway... convincing, isn't it?

i bet he hid those millions of barrels right there were they hide the wmds.

 

[Touring Mars]

Besides Galloway, what about the other people on that list?

The list mentions people who participated in the oil for food program I think, which in itself there is nothing wrong with... it's a very long list by the way...

But it is alleged that certain people received allocations because of their support for the regime, and Galloway (it is alleged) is one of those people...

The only problems are:

1. The document has no verifiable credibility
2. The inclusion of his name looks to have been forged
3. The US Senate has accused Galloway with no other 'evidence' than this, assuming he is guilty before trial. As Famine said, if he is not proved guilty, then it is slander. Galloway has already successfully sued for libel against a UK newspaper who quoted forged documents...

The Senate are on very shaky ground, both morally and legally, and Galloway doesn't suffer fools gladly, as you probably noticed...

 

[Danoff]

As for justifying the war in Iraq. The only question that needs to be answered in my mind is "Did Saddam violate the cease fire terms for the end of the first Gulf War?"

The answer is yes, so we were justified.


...and I think that the invasion and occupation of Iraq has been a huge success.

 

[Touring Mars]

...and I think that the invasion and occupation of Iraq has been a huge success.

I don't know how to respond to that... what TV channel are you watching man?

The war would only have been justified if it had been approved by the UN... and it wasn't. Saddam did violate the UN resolutions, but what gave the US the right to decide unilaterally that invading a sovereign nation is justified, or even legal?

 

[Carl.]

He's going to say that they didn't do it unilaterally since they had UK, Australia, Japan, Netherlands, ..., ..., and 25 banana republics with them.

I'll leave the UN side of the argument to Vladimir. (finally reading Necessary Illusions, btw 👍 )

Reminds me of the "good ole days" ... at least last time the debate was less filled by Neo-Cons cheerleading diatribes (could have been at least funny if it was a good performance), or anti-[insert something you must agree with me 'cause if not you're evil/stupid(or even worse, liberal) so I just throw this at you and I win!!]ism labelling.


Who knows... perhaps after X number of tries we'll finally make it right?

 

[Danoff]

I don't know how to respond to that... what TV channel are you watching man?

You underestimate how difficult the job was in the first place. Yes the TV makes it look as bad as they can, but if you compare this to past wars - just by the numbers - it has been an astounding success.

The war would only have been justified if it had been approved by the UN... and it wasn't. Saddam did violate the UN resolutions, but what gave the US the right to decide unilaterally that invading a sovereign nation is justified, or even legal?

I couldn't care less what the UN decided. The UN doesn't give the US the right to go to war.

I'll tell you what gave us the right. Iraq invaded our ally (kuwait). We kicked their rears back to Iraq and said we'd let them off the hook if they complied with the UN and stayed out of no-fly zones and played nice. They did not.

They did not live up to their end of the bargain so we should not uphold ours.

 

[Famine]

You see, that's the bit I don't get.

The UN doesn't give the US the right to go to war. But the US went to war because it decided Iraq had broken a UN Resolution... Umm...

 

[Danoff]

The UN doesn't give the US the right to go to war. But the US went to war because it decided Iraq had broken a UN Resolution... Umm...

It makes sense. Let's say three buddies are playing basketball (we'll call them UN, US and Iraq). The three players agree on the rules up front, we'll call that the resolution. During play, Iraq breaks the rules. UN doesn't want to penalize Iraq for breaking the rules but the US does.


You see, each individual party signed up to the rules, so each individual party is justified in taking action if one of them breaks the rules - no consensus necessary.

Basically, Iraq agreed to terms set by the UN. The US agreed to call of their dogs if Iraq would live up to the terms. Iraq did not live up to the terms, so we let our dogs loose again.

I think that makes perfect sense.

 

[Famine]

But the US ALSO agreed to the terms set by the UN.

In the ball game, the US are playing Iraq in a friendly touch-tag match with the UN as referee. The US and Iraq both agree to the rules set out beforehand (from the last game - call it Gulf War I). Iraq breaks the rules - or rather the Iraqi coach does - and the referee decides not to punish them with the sinbin. The US (and a small kid called Blair) decide that the Iraqi coach has been spiking his players drinks with illegal performance-enhancing drugs and, despite the fact that the arbiter (UN) has no evidence for this and is the primary rule-maker, the US (and Blair) team decide to mete out summary justice to the Iraq team, and later on find the head coach cowaring behind a big Gatorade dispenser. In his pants.

Errrrmm...

Anyway...

Iraq broke rules set BY THE UN, not the US. Citing breaking UN rules as a reason for going to war and breaking UN rules in the process of doing so seems disingenuous to me.

 

[Touring Mars]

It makes sense. Let's say three buddies are playing basketball (we'll call them UN, US and Iraq). The three players agree on the rules up front, we'll call that the resolution. During play, Iraq breaks the rules. UN doesn't want to penalize Iraq for breaking the rules but the US does.


You see, each individual party signed up to the rules, so each individual party is justified in taking action if one of them breaks the rules - no consensus necessary.

Basically, Iraq agreed to terms set by the UN. The US agreed to call of their dogs if Iraq would live up to the terms. Iraq did not live up to the terms, so we let our dogs loose again.

I think that makes perfect sense.

Oh, come off it.... the US are part of the UN for a kick off... and the UN did penalise Iraq, just not in the way that the neo-con hawks in the Bush adminstration wanted to.. but we're not talking about a 'you broke the rules so I'm telling on you' scenario here... Saddam might have had it coming, but that does not excuse the Bush administration for blatantly ignoring international law by acting unilaterally and creating the god-awful mess they have...

He's going to say that they didn't do it unilaterally

Indeed.... but the decision to go to war was taken unilaterally... by the US, and by the US alone... the fact that they got other countries to go in with them is secondary to the point.. the decision was made by the US (or more specifically, the neo-cons) alone...

 

[Danoff]

In the ball game, the US are playing Iraq in a friendly touch-tag match with the UN as referee.

See there you go. I don't make the UN the referee.

But the US ALSO agreed to the terms set by the UN.

We agreed to those terms, but that doesn't mean that the UN is the only one that can enforce them. They were OUR terms also.

 

[vladimir]

We agreed to those terms, but that doesn't mean that the UN is the only one that can enforce them. They were OUR terms also.

the UN is not only the USA and none of the terms allowed for an invasion.

 

[Danoff]

the UN is not only the USA and none of the terms allowed for an invasion.

Look - I don't care who came up with the terms. The terms are what we agreed to to leave Iraq their country after the first gulf war. The terms were not lived up to, so we are justified in going back in - justified by the same thing that started the first gulf war.


It's not that hard to follow.

Little guy pisses off big guy. Big buy starts pounding on him. Thrid guy comes in and says "hey hey, if he says he's sorry will you quit hitting him?" Big guy says "yes". Little guy says "screw you", big guy resumes hitting.

 

[Dave A]

Anyone have a dowload for Galloway's speach? Galloway was accused with no good proof, al the facts he came out with in his speach were true facts and I challenge anyone who says he's guilty to find proof.

On the whole UN thing, the US was part of the UN as was Iraq and other countries, being under the UN meant being under the UN rules. The US decided it didn't like the UN rules and went to wage an illegal war with Iraq on false grounds. I'd have thought even Bush would've been smart enough to have had some WMD planted somewhere over there.

I'm not a fan of Bush, he wanted a war, and he made one. Many died because of that, Iraq is in no better condition now than it was. And don't start babbling about liberating the people and all that bull****, thats propaganda crap. Go watch some REAL footage of what it's like over there, stuff not edited by the US. They crapped on Afgan, they're still crapping on Iraq, who's next?

I find it funny that while Saddam was saying he didn't have any wmd's left (which he obviousely hadn't) North Korea was saying we have, what you gonna do about it? So the US invaded Iraq. Ofcourse, Korea doesn't have oil fields or anything the US doesn't have in abundance.

 

[Touring Mars]

Little guy pisses off big guy. Big buy starts pounding on him. Thrid guy comes in and says "hey hey, if he says he's sorry will you quit hitting him?" Big guy says "yes". Little guy says "screw you", big guy resumes hitting.

Sorry, but that is quite ridiculous... ... although, you might be on to something.... 'Little guy pisses off big guy'.... hmmmm, so the US are mad at Saddam for what reason? Because he's a threat to his neighbours? Then why did the US support him in his fight against Iran? Oh, you meant the oil-rich neighbours..... sorry

@live4speed - my thoughts too.. 👍

 

[Solid Fro]

On the whole UN thing, the US was part of the UN as was Iraq and other countries, being under the UN meant being under the UN rules. The US decided it didn't like the UN rules and went to wage an illegal war with Iraq on false grounds.

Seriously, where do you get this stuff? It's so stupid, it's beyond Liberal.

The only country who broke UN rules was Iraq. The US only reinforced the UN resolution. Please, read Resolution 1441.

I'm not a fan of Bush, he wanted a war, and he made one. Many died because of that, Iraq is in no better condition now than it was.

You know, Iraq now has a democratically elected government, the first time... ever. Is your propaganda-free media telling you that?

And don't start babbling about liberating the people and all that bull****, thats propaganda crap. Go watch some REAL footage of what it's like over there, stuff not edited by the US.

Oh, like terrorists killing civilians?

I find it funny that while Saddam was saying he didn't have any wmd's left (which he obviousely hadn't) North Korea was saying we have, what you gonna do about it? So the US invaded Iraq. Ofcourse, Korea doesn't have oil fields or anything the US doesn't have in abundance.

But, North Korea has rice patties!

 

[Danoff]

Sorry, but that is quite ridiculous... ... although, you might be on to something.... 'Little guy pisses off big guy'.... hmmmm, so the US are mad at Saddam for what reason?

How about because he oppresses his people? How about because he invaded Kuwait? How about because he was playing the UN for chumps while skimming the oil-for-food program and giving the world the finger while people in his country starved so he could break UN resolutions and improve his scud missile program?


Bottom line.

US wanted a free Iraq to deter terrorism.
US was justified in invading Iraq by the cease fire terms of Gulf War I.
US seized opportunity to spread democracy in the wake of 9/11.

On the whole UN thing, the US was part of the UN as was Iraq and other countries, being under the UN meant being under the UN rules. The US decided it didn't like the UN rules and went to wage an illegal war with Iraq on false grounds.

If you're not going to read my post, don't bother responding. Just because you wish the UN controlled the US doesn't make it true.

 

[Famine]

How about because he oppresses his people? How about because he invaded Kuwait? How about because he was playing the UN for chumps while skimming the oil-for-food program and giving the world the finger while people in his country starved so he could break UN resolutions and improve his scud missile program?

All of this is justified. ALL of it.

But going to war against the UN's wishes to enforce a rule made by the UN is inherently contradictory. Citing UN Resolution 1441 as a reason makes no sense when you ignore the UN to enforce it - either you're part of the UN so you shouldn't go to war because they say so, or you're not so you shouldn't go to war to enforce their Resolution.

Invading Iraq because the leader is a tosser is, however, entirely justifiable.

 

[Dave A]

Seriously, where do you get this stuff? It's so stupid, it's beyond Liberal.

The only country who broke UN rules was Iraq. The US only reinforced the UN resolution. Please, read Resolution 1441.



You know, Iraq now has a democratically elected government, the first time... ever. Is your propaganda-free media telling you that?



Oh, like terrorists killing civilians?



But, North Korea has rice patties!

Care to explain why?

The US broke the UN rules when it told the UN to fu<K off and dissobeyed them. Funny how you back the US doing that, then cite the UN rules yourself.

Yes, I know all about what happened thats good in Iraq, I also know what happenning thats not good, the people are still getting blown up, theres just as many terrorists but then they got US soldiers blowing **** up too. How nice.

Thery still are, and I meant now, I know it was bad over there, I know it still is.

Rice patties eh, not as valuable as oil. Besides that, North Korea actually has wmd, so they might use them.

My problem isn't that the US got rid of Saddam, he had to go sooner or later. It's the way the US did it, the way they attack Iraq on false claims and leave other countries alone that have these wmd. They do what they want, when they want without thinking of the consequences of taking international law into their own hands.

Danoff, YOU think you're justified, but the UN still said no to the war, and the US stil said yes. So the US still broke the UN rules, no matter how justified you feel you were.

 

[Solid Fro]

It feels like October all over again...

The UN never said "no". UN resolution 1441 (the 17th resolution on this matter) gave Saddam one last chance or face serious consequences. Countries like France, Germany, Russia, etc., etc., etc., disapproved of our actions only because they had weapon and oil deals with Saddam. These countries rather sit back and watch Saddam propagate weapons and terrorists than enforce UN resolutions. Are you guys waiting for the 18th resolution?

I see a strange trend going on here. Some say they support removing Saddam, but not how he got removed. Very similar to how some say they support our troops, but not the war.

Seems almost contradicting...

 

[Famine]

It feels like October all over again...

The UN never said "no". UN resolution 1441 (the 17th resolution on this matter) gave Saddam one last chance or face serious consequences. Countries like France, Germany, Russia, etc., etc., etc., disapproved of our actions only because they had weapon and oil deals with Saddam. These countries rather sit back and watch Saddam propagate weapons and terrorists than enforce UN resolutions. Are you guys waiting for the 18th resolution?

I see a strange trend going on here. Some say they support removing Saddam, but not how he got removed. Very similar to how some say they support our troops, but not the war.

Seems almost contradicting...

Not in the slightest. Well, not compared to "We invaded Iraq to enforce UN Resolutions. Screw the UN, we don't need their permission to do anything."

The US's judgement call was that the UN wasn't enforcing its own Resolutions. Fine, it probably wasn't. But citing that as a reason for going against the UN to invade is bizarre. To enforce UN Resolutions is the UN's judgement call, not any single member country's. Going in because Saddam was a bell-end is, on the other hand, perfectly valid.

 

[Solid Fro]

Not in the slightest. Well, not compared to "We invaded Iraq to enforce UN Resolutions. Screw the UN, we don't need their permission to do anything."

So, you expect the US to sit back and do nothing, along with the other UN countries?

 

[Famine]

Not at all...

Going in because Saddam was a bell-end is, on the other hand, perfectly valid.

Just don't pretend that you're enforcing UN rules when the UN didn't want you to.

 

[Solid Fro]

The UN didn't want to enforce it's own rules?

That's the problem, right there.

 

[Famine]

I agree entirely. But that's the UN's call. If they don't want to enforce their rules, you cannot do it for them. Just as you don't need them to tell you that you can go to war. You can do whatever you want. It still skirts round the fact the the Resolution was the UN's to enforce and not the US's. Citing the Resolution and the UN's failure to enforce it as a reason to go to war is not a reason to go to war. Doing it because you have unilaterally decided that Saddam is a dick IS a reason to go to war.

 

[Solid Fro]

To recap... the UN has no balls.

With that being said, I'm off to bed. The sun is already up.

 

[Famine]

To recap... the UN has no balls.

Totally. But that's not the issue - although it probably should have been quite some time ago.