Well you seemed to love my last contribution so much I thought I would make another.
How very kind of you.
Just a quick point - do you have to have "A" levels or a dgree in spelling to be able to state a political opinion? Yes my spelling is bloody awful but on that basis 70% of the population would be excluded from politics and blog writing and politics would be left to our "betters"(as if) those educated at Eton and Harrow or other public schools like Tony Blair.
Or me, of course.
My mother who is 78 never could spell (the war interupted her education)but all her life she has been a committed socialist (still supports Tony Blair by the way).
That says more than I ever could, really.
This did not stop me learning from her.
So I cant spell(or I dont have time to use a spell checker) - so what, its the message that counts (I still got a BA Hons in Humanities and a post graduate diploma in Applied Social Studies from London University though!!).
And people accuse Universities of dumbing down! The fools...
Back to George Galloway - so much distortion of past events! Who was it that supported and arming of Saddam Hussein (the UK and USA). This resulted in 1,000,000 people dying in the Iran - Iraq war. See this Video link:
Have a look at this picture:
When George went to Iraq to talk to Sadam Hussein he had the support of some members (Peter Hein) of the UK government to try to get him to comply with the UN. His statement to Saddam Hussein was addressed to the Iraqi people but it has been taken out of context - at the time he was trying to stop a war that would result in 100,000 Iaqi's dying. At that pont up to a million Iraqi children had already died from hunger and medical problems as a result of UN saunctions and the policies of Saddam Hussein.
George Galloway MP was comdemming Saddam Hussein years before any other MP in the Labour Party of Tory Party (or Liberal)thought about it (in fact they (excluding liberals) were happy to supply him with weapons and chemicals to gas his own people).
Yes, yes; this is all pretty undeniable although it most certainly is qualifiable. Our backing of Hussein should be understood within the context of the Cold War, and the power politics, fuelled by paranoia, of containment of the Soviets.
Who ealse visted Saddam Hussein from the UK and tried to be diplomatic and friendly to achieve the aim of stopping a war - Ted Heath and Tony Ben.
Well, they were hardly going to inspire confidence in anyone, were they? Ted Heath remains one of the most useless and appalling Prime Ministers that this country has ever had (indeed, it was his inability to manage the economy that led to Thatcher having to "snatch" the school milk), who shackled us, under the most disadvantageous terms, to the evil fucking EEC, now the EU, which has been, through it horrendous trade policies, responsible for so many deaths throughout the world.
As for Tony Benn, he was consistently wrong about everything. Even on the one issue on which he was on the right side, i.e. staying in the EEC, was for the wrong reason. He didn't want to stay in because it wasn't socialist enough.
Both were idiots and failures of the first water. To ally Galloway with these idiots does your man no favours whatsoever.
The price was worth paying for the greater good of humanity - better than supplying him a with arms and chemicals I think!
Surely your venom should be addressed to those that let this happen and the war criminal Tony Blair than a man who tried to stop the war and the resultant carnage however imperfect you feel he may be.
Well, that rather depends. Do I dream of going back to the late 70s in a time machine, or do I try to favour removing the little fucker and trying to rectify an earlier mistake? Hmm... I'll take the latter, I think.
Is it right to support a repressive regime, such as Saddam's, in favour of your own? Well, it is, at best, rank hypocrisy. If Galloway had decided to renounce his British citizenship and gone to live in Iraq under Saddam's regime I may have more time for him. As it is, he elected to attempt to provide credibility to a man who was, as we were aware at this point, a brutal murderous meglomaniac.
Furthermore, there is still some doubt over whether or not George accepted, effectively laundered, through the Mariam Trust, money from the Oil-For-Food scam. Some of the evidence against him is looking rather grim. The only real issue, as far as I am concerned, is to what extent Galloway was aware of where the money was coming from.
Blair and his cabinet have supported the use of cluster bombs, chemical weapons and the bombing of housing in their war in Iraq and are about to support an attack on Iran.
Cluster bombs, OK. I do believe that their use was more restricted this time around, but point taken.
Chemical weapons? What chemical weapons? Are you referring, perhaps, to the white phosphorus? The entirely legal white phosphorus? Or are you talking about the magic phosphorus; the one that defies all known physics by burning bodies but leaving clothes intact?
Bombing housing? Fallujah and others, I guess. Yes, it's unfortunate when terrorists hide amongst houses: you inevitably end up damaging the houses. Still, at least the US did give a few days warning to civilians to evacuate, eh?
As for attacking Iran, I have argued for over a year that the Iraq experiment can never work as long as the Iranian government remains in its current form; if only because I believe that the Iranians have long been supplying weaponry and expertise to the insurgencies in Iraq. Furthermore, I will never support a nuclear attack by Iran, or anyone, on Israel: I get the impression that Gorgeous would be in the vanguard, probably making impassioned speeches about how "the Arabs have regained their honour by killing their unfaithful daughter" or some such tripe.
I for one am happy that such a principled and committed socialist is around to present the alternative arguement - this is why he is disliked by the Lab [it seems that Haloscan's waffleguard was tired too: the comment ends here]
I am not. I don't like socialists, and I believe that Master Galloway's principles are very far from unselfish or, indeed, beneficial to the world at large. As far as I am concerned, socialists are the root of all evil, and Gorgeous George is very definitely included in that group.
As I have said before, socialists believe in taking property from those who has earned it and giving it to those who have not. As such, socialism is driven by an unpleasant action, i.e. theft, backed up by an even more unpleasant philosophy, i.e. envy.