George Galloway

It would be interesting if Muhammad Ali still had his gift of the gab. 9/11 must have been a difficult situation for moderate Moslems to deal with. The problem is that the moderate Moslems were horrified by 9/11 and were worried all Moslems might be held to account. There were bound to be difficulties ahead.
Henry Cooper didn't seem to have a clue what Ali stood for, judging by something I read by Cooper he said at the time. Cooper remarked Ali should have just gone to Vietnam but the stupidest thing our Enry stated was that Ali not going to Vietnam would have been like he, Cooper, refusing to fight Hilter in the second world war.
Cooper forgot there was a civil rights issue going on in the U.S. at the time of the Vietnam conflict and much of Ali's protest was due to the fact that, in some states, a black man couldn't get served coffee in a bar, or sit at the front of the bus. Cooper was probably never turned away from his golf club.
So, I suppose both Ali and Lennon, had they been around today, would have been stirring up trouble over Iraq. Last I heard, Chris Eubanks also tried to follow in Ali's footsteps and he stated:
"The military occupation [of Iraq] doesn't work. All it does is cause more terror. If I come into your house with a gun, people will react against me. It's called terrorism."
Here is the full story of what Eubank did:

"Chris Eubank was arrested yesterday after driving his huge American truck to Downing Street in a one-man protest against the military occupation of Iraq.
The flamboyant former world middleweight boxing champion was first given a ticket for careless driving after blocking the gates near No 10 with his 10-wheel truck. Later he was arrested for reversing the truck into a delivery van and for possessing a bladed instrument.

After arriving for the first time near No 10 at around 4.30pm he sounded the truck's horns for a minute and told police: "You must arrest me".

But Eubank's wish was granted only after he returned to Downing Street following a 30-minute drive around Parliament Square.

This time, horns blazing again, witnesses said he reversed his truck into a delivery van. Eubank was then ordered out of the cab and detained. Holding his fists in the air, he was put into a police van."

darkboong said:

I doubt he would have been "Horrified", furious more like. FWIW Yoko made a video full of pictures of maimed, mutilated and dead civillians in war-zones to make a point about the Iraq War. Naturally it got precisely eff-all air-time because it was deemed to be too grim, although cynical types like me think it was squashed because it was deemed a threat to support for the War.

limerickman said:

I think you've hit on a very good point here.
The reality of sanctions imposed is that the ordinary citizen is always the first to suffer.
So in the case of UN sanctions and Iraq - the end never justified the means.
The end objective - the eradication of SH and his regime - through the imposition of sanctions was never going to be a reality which could be achieved.

But that didn't stop a lot of British and US companies from breaking those sanctions on Iraq.
It didn't stop them from profiteering from the oil for food program (just look at the Senate minority report and you'll see the names of the American companies who broke Iraq sanctions).
It did not stop Bliar and Bush conveniently overlooking those companies and individuals known to be profiteering.
That's the reality.

To compound the injustice perpetrated on the Iraq people through the oil for food program and UN sanctions, Britain and the USA launch an illegal invasion of their country.
They kill over 100,000 Iraqi's. They plunder over 8.8 billion of Iraq assets
and oil revenues in the 26 months since the invasion in March 2003.
And they have the gall to call this democracy !

All sanctions ever do is hurt the poor , in fact they can provoke regimes into actions with terrible consiquences : hadn´t the USA tried to set up an oil blockade against Japan for their crimes in Korea and China ? was that what caused pearl harbour etc ?

el Inglés said:

All sanctions ever do is hurt the poor , in fact they can provoke regimes into actions with terrible consiquences : hadn´t the USA tried to set up an oil blockade against Japan for their crimes in Korea and China ? was that what caused pearl harbour etc ?

for christ's sake...dont tell them that!!

they believe that people bomb their harbours and fly planes into their building for absolutely no reason other than they are jealous of the US and that they are completely innocent in thewhole affair...

dont start telling them the truth, thier tiny minds cant handle it..

MountainPro said:

for christ's sake...dont tell them that!!

they believe that people bomb their harbours and fly planes into their building for absolutely no reason other than they are jealous of the US and that they are completely innocent in thewhole affair...

dont start telling them the truth, thier tiny minds cant handle it..

Yeah...for once el angalizese is right...sanctions hurt the poor thats why it is better to invade the country...Now perhaps you can learn something from our american wannabee friend...

el Inglés said:

All sanctions ever do is hurt the poor , in fact they can provoke regimes into actions with terrible consiquences : hadn´t the USA tried to set up an oil blockade against Japan for their crimes in Korea and China ? was that what caused pearl harbour etc ?

So Pearl Harbor was our fault? Interesting!

Colorado Ryder said:

So Pearl Harbor was our fault? Interesting!

Yeah...God punishes us from time-to-time with tornadoes, floods and hurricanes. Here in the soapbox, one must remember that America is the blame for e v e r y t h i n g..... 😄 I tink....

zapper said:

Yeah...God punishes us from time-to-time with tornadoes, floods and hurricanes. Here in the soapbox, one must remember that America is the blame for e v e r y t h i n g..... 😄 I tink....

let's see......sanctions hurt the citizens of a country......Saddam murders his own people and has been known to invade other countries......invading and removing Saddam is a bad thing......I guess some think Saddam should have been allowed to stay.

Colorado Ryder said:

let's see......sanctions hurt the citizens of a country......Saddam murders his own people and has been known to invade other countries......invading and removing Saddam is a bad thing......I guess some think Saddam should have been allowed to stay.

The thing is : The invasion and occupation has murdered more Iraqis in two years than Saddam is believed to have murdered in 10. Are you trying to tell us that killing Iraqis faster is better ?

darkboong said:

The thing is : The invasion and occupation has murdered more Iraqis in two years than Saddam is believed to have murdered in 10. Are you trying to tell us that killing Iraqis faster is better ?

Are you trying to tell us it was ok for Saddam to kill Iraqi's?

Colorado Ryder said:

Are you trying to tell us it was ok for Saddam to kill Iraqi's?

Nope. Quote the bit where I say or imply that, you don't have many lines to choose from so it should be easy.

What I will say though is that the invasion and occupation has killed and is continuing to kill civillians at a far higher rate than Saddam. So while Saddam was bad, amazingly the Coalition is actually worse because it is killing Iraqis even faster.

The invasion and occupation hasn't worked out like the naive idealists said it would. I was pretty cynical about the whole idea from the outset, however even I am surprised that we're looking at a kill rate that is higher than Saddam's brutal regime. Iraq isn't just a war-zone, it is a giant bloody crime scene.

darkboong said:

Nope. Quote the bit where I say or imply that, you don't have many lines to choose from so it should be easy.

What I will say though is that the invasion and occupation has killed and is continuing to kill civillians at a far higher rate than Saddam. So while Saddam was bad, amazingly the Coalition is actually worse because it is killing Iraqis even faster.

The invasion and occupation hasn't worked out like the naive idealists said it would. I was pretty cynical about the whole idea from the outset, however even I am surprised that we're looking at a kill rate that is higher than Saddam's brutal regime. Iraq isn't just a war-zone, it is a giant bloody crime scene.

Then please do tell us just how you would have removed Saddam. Seems like you have all the answers so this should be easy for you.

Colorado Ryder said:

Then please do tell us just how you would have removed Saddam. Seems like you have all the answers so this should be easy for you.

The removal of Saddam Hussein was/is a decision that ought to have been left to the Iraqi's themselves.

Let's remind ourselves about what the Bush Administration said about SH and their reason for invading Iraq :

1.The Bush gov. claimed that SH had provided ideological, financial, military, logistical support to the 9/11 attacks and allowed Al Qaeda to operate and
live in iraq.
(he didn't).

2.The Bush gov, claimed that SH possessed 500 tonnes of mustard gas, 25,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 litres of botulinum toxin, 29,984 prohibited munnitions capable of delivering chemical agents, several dozen cases of enriched uranium, several dozen scud missiles, gas centrifuge casing to enrich uranium.
(he didn't).

3.The Bush gov. claimed that SH had procured uranium from the African country Niger.
(he didn't).

Colorado Ryder said:

Then please do tell us just how you would have removed Saddam. Seems like you have all the answers so this should be easy for you.

I would not have removed Saddam, the risk of power vacuum was too great (and I wasn't alone in that opinion, the FO agreed). It is not my place to incite or cause bloodshed on other people's turf.

That doesn't mean I would ignore it though. There are a bunch of things that could have been done, and this is by no means an exhaustive list, just a few things off the top of my head in the small hours of night after a long day.

1) Broadening of the aid effort (which was actually measurably successfull).
2) Direct support for work on civillian infrastructure.
3) Careful loosening of the sanctions (banning Polio vaccine just isn't necessary).
4) Asset seizure (this was not actually done due to the Western big cheeses vetoing a crack down on Money Laundering).
5) More systematic monitoring of human rights within the country.
6) Clear incentives for Saddam's regime to implement better human rights and welfare.
7) Work more closely with neighbouring countries to achieve the above.

I suspect that the reason that folks like yourself see no alternative to violence is because you simply are not aware that there was any alternative. The mass-media has failed the Western world spectacularly as far as this whole scandal goes, they deserve a large proportion of the blame for the promotion of violence being the sole option.

On the other hand it isn't the first time that the mass media has failed it's consumers. That failure does not absolve your duty, as a citizen and a human being, to double check what the papers say. It is dumb to put your faith into an unaccountable corporate or governmental institution.

darkboong said:

I would not have removed Saddam, the risk of power vacuum was too great (and I wasn't alone in that opinion, the FO agreed). It is not my place to incite or cause bloodshed on other people's turf.

That doesn't mean I would ignore it though. There are a bunch of things that could have been done, and this is by no means an exhaustive list, just a few things off the top of my head in the small hours of night after a long day.

1) Broadening of the aid effort (which was actually measurably successfull).
2) Direct support for work on civillian infrastructure.
3) Careful loosening of the sanctions (banning Polio vaccine just isn't necessary).
4) Asset seizure (this was not actually done due to the Western big cheeses vetoing a crack down on Money Laundering).
5) More systematic monitoring of human rights within the country.
6) Clear incentives for Saddam's regime to implement better human rights and welfare.
7) Work more closely with neighbouring countries to achieve the above.

I suspect that the reason that folks like yourself see no alternative to violence is because you simply are not aware that there was any alternative. The mass-media has failed the Western world spectacularly as far as this whole scandal goes, they deserve a large proportion of the blame for the promotion of violence being the sole option.

On the other hand it isn't the first time that the mass media has failed it's consumers. That failure does not absolve your duty, as a citizen and a human being, to double check what the papers say. It is dumb to put your faith into an unaccountable corporate or governmental institution.

I told you lot ages ago that Carrera was a complete nutter. I'm sorry my friends to use this thread as a filter, because I don't want my Inbox full of his [censored] BB site, what a broken plate. The next bit will be about all the people from his region who have the worst regional accent/dialect from different towns. More later. I'm still shooting Yankees. I always think of the halcyon days of friendly murder between ourselves. This lot are different, although I think I've just won Scotland for the cause. Hey, Mountain Pro, I'm in touch with Graham O'Bree, Willi Tarrant, and Mossy from Dumfriesshire. I must progress onwards on this issue.

darkboong said:

I would not have removed Saddam, the risk of power vacuum was too great (and I wasn't alone in that opinion, the FO agreed). It is not my place to incite or cause bloodshed on other people's turf.

That doesn't mean I would ignore it though. There are a bunch of things that could have been done, and this is by no means an exhaustive list, just a few things off the top of my head in the small hours of night after a long day.

1) Broadening of the aid effort (which was actually measurably successfull).
2) Direct support for work on civillian infrastructure.
3) Careful loosening of the sanctions (banning Polio vaccine just isn't necessary).
4) Asset seizure (this was not actually done due to the Western big cheeses vetoing a crack down on Money Laundering).
5) More systematic monitoring of human rights within the country.
6) Clear incentives for Saddam's regime to implement better human rights and welfare.
7) Work more closely with neighbouring countries to achieve the above.

I suspect that the reason that folks like yourself see no alternative to violence is because you simply are not aware that there was any alternative. The mass-media has failed the Western world spectacularly as far as this whole scandal goes, they deserve a large proportion of the blame for the promotion of violence being the sole option.

On the other hand it isn't the first time that the mass media has failed it's consumers. That failure does not absolve your duty, as a citizen and a human being, to double check what the papers say. It is dumb to put your faith into an unaccountable corporate or governmental institution.

I guess you have an acceptable number of Iraqis that Saddam is allowed to murder. Nice list of pipedreams.
Give Saddam incentives to improve human rights? Pay him to treat people with respect? You've got to be kidding. Whats next? Paying murderers and bank robbers not to commit crimes?
Monitor human rights? I suppose Saddam would let those inspectors free access just like he did for the weapons inspectors.
Work closely with neighboring countries? The countries surrounding Iraq are as bad or worse on human rights. Now which ones do we work with?

Colorado Ryder said:

let's see......sanctions hurt the citizens of a country......Saddam murders his own people and has been known to invade other countries......invading and removing Saddam is a bad thing......I guess some think Saddam should have been allowed to stay.

sanctions have killed more Iraqi's than Saddam ever did...US backed UN imposed sanctions.

MountainPro said:

sanctions have killed more Iraqi's than Saddam ever did...US backed UN imposed sanctions.

This is Rubbish...Sanctions don't kill people, people do... Explain how "sanctions" and "sanctions" alone killed people...I'll go get a snack...

limerickman said:

The removal of Saddam Hussein was/is a decision that ought to have been left to the Iraqi's themselves.

Let's remind ourselves about what the Bush Administration said about SH and their reason for invading Iraq :

1.The Bush gov. claimed that SH had provided ideological, financial, military, logistical support to the 9/11 attacks and allowed Al Qaeda to operate and
live in iraq.
(he didn't).

2.The Bush gov, claimed that SH possessed 500 tonnes of mustard gas, 25,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 litres of botulinum toxin, 29,984 prohibited munnitions capable of delivering chemical agents, several dozen cases of enriched uranium, several dozen scud missiles, gas centrifuge casing to enrich uranium.
(he didn't).

3.The Bush gov. claimed that SH had procured uranium from the African country Niger.
(he didn't).

Lets remind ourselves what the Clinton admin said and some of his liberal buddies...
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

zapper said:

This is Rubbish...Sanctions don't kill people, people do... Explain how "sanctions" and "sanctions" alone killed people...I'll go get a snack...

food not getting through
medcine not getting through
water pruification not getting through

By the UN’s own estimates, 4,500 children under 5 die every month from starvation and illness that are a direct result of sanctions against Iraq.

Colorado Ryder said:

I guess you have an acceptable number of Iraqis that Saddam is allowed to murder.

Good guess, I do have an acceptable number : Zero.

In practice it ain't gonna happen so if I am forced to choose between one regime committing mass-murder and another regime committing mass-murder I will take the one that murders the least and do my best to get them down towards the Zero mark.

Colorado Ryder said:

Give Saddam incentives to improve human rights? Pay him to treat people with respect? You've got to be kidding. Whats next? Paying murderers and bank robbers not to commit crimes?

How naive of you.

Colorado Ryder said:

Monitor human rights? I suppose Saddam would let those inspectors free access just like he did for the weapons inspectors.

Actually he did give them sufficient access. The Weapons Inspectors said so themselves and Duelfer's report confirmed that the Weapons Inspector's conclusions. Clearly they did have sufficiently free access to do their job. Aid workers also had sufficiently free access to do their job too. Pay attention to the facts, not the lies of Bush and Blair.

Colorado Ryder said:

Work closely with neighboring countries? The countries surrounding Iraq are as bad or worse on human rights.

Colorado Ryder said:

Now which ones do we work with?

Turkey, Syria, Iran, Kuwait. Duh.

In the *real* world you have to be pragmatic and work with what you have rather than what you would wish for.

In the *real* world Iraqis are being killed by the "Coalition" occupation faster than Saddam ever did. You can face up to that harsh reality or carry on living in your fantasy world where violence magically solves everything.