Jerusalem Post: Galloway win causes alarm (anti-Semitism charges)

[Barrett808]

"This defeat is for Iraq. All the people you have killed, all the lies you have told have come back to haunt you," declared maverick lawmaker George Galloway following his tight election victory Friday in London's East End district of Bethnal Green.

Galloway, who once praised Saddam Hussein and was kicked out of Prime Minister Tony Blair's Labor Party for his stance against the Iraq war, got even by beating Jewish MP Oona King in a traditional Labor stronghold.

Running for the Respect party, which he founded in opposition to the war, Galloway's win gives him a platform to keep needling Blair, who won a historic third term for his party despite a reduced majority in parliament.

Parading through his newly won constituency in an open-deck bus on Saturday, Galloway told followers: "It is one of my first missions to bring him in front of a court in The Hague and behind bars."

(more)

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1115434040804

[Cha]

1. Good Luck George Gallaway..

with bringing tony blair to the Hague. If tony goes..bush should be right up there, too!

[DeaconBlues]

2. I suppose that anyone who doesn't advocate endless wars against Islam

is now considered an anti-Semite.

[pie]

4. Right you are. From the article:

"Galloway, who is regarded as anti-Semitic by some in Britain's Jewish community, is not a figure Israel should be particularly concerned about, according to Gorev. 'Most of Galloway's agenda is about British domestic issues, and attacking Blair for the Iraq war.'"

By the way, his Jewish opponent is pro war.

We need more Galaways in government. Many many more.

[simcha_6]

125. You're joking, right

Don't kid yourself. You'll piss off a lot of Jews for saying things like that.

[w4rma]

3. The Likud Party tosses around "anti-semitism" charges so much that

folks are going to stop caring when someone is *really* anti-semitic. In addition to that, the pro-war Likud Party has a blind spot with anti-semitism from fellow right-wingers, acting as their temporary allies.

[NorthernSpy]

5. George Galloway is a friend of working class people

And the Jerusalem Post is a wacko-Right litterbox liner.

[IChing]

9. Didn't Blitzer work for that paper?

I thought he did

[NorthernSpy]

31. mm-hmm

I believe you are right, sir!

Not sure how long ago it was, tho.

[geek tragedy]

11. If by "working people" you mean totalitarian dictators, yes you are right.

[pretzel4gore]

23. oh c'mon..George Galloway is great.....

and fact is, saddam ran iraq as well as that poor lil nation could be run with iran, afghanistan, kuwIait, southern russia, saudi arabia on its borders, with the killers of john kennedy etc running the USA....the shah of iran was much more brutal is hurting his own people then saddam, who at least had racial differences with the kurds, religious differences with the shiites and all that secret police stuff going on, to justify his brutality....
our side is as bad if not worse then the other side

[geek tragedy]

26. Sorry, I have nothing but contempt for totalitarian dictators and their

apologists. Feel free to disagree, of course.

[bennywhale]

113. He said "Working Class"

[Jack Rabbit]

6. More nonsense from Conrad Black's fish wrap

George Galloway chose to run against Oona King because she backed Mr. Blair's ill-conceived support of Bush and the neoconservatives in Iraq while representing a heavily Muslim constituency in London, not because her mother is Jewish. Ms. King's father is black; does that make Galloway a white supremacist for running against her? Such a stand made her seat more vulnerable than that of many other Labour war hawks; Galloway simply took advantage of that vulnerability.

Galloway, who is regarded as anti-Semitic by some in Britain's Jewish community, is not a figure Israel should be particularly concerned about, according to Gorev. "Most of Galloway's agenda is about British domestic issues, and attacking Blair for the Iraq war."

It is true that Mr. Galloway has an outspoken politician's vulnerability to foot-in-mouth-disease. Even his admirers in Britain bemoan his tendency to use exaggerated rhetoric. The characterization of him as a demagogue, made in the article by "a source from the Conservative Party", is one that can be discussed by reasonable people. However, in suggesting that Mr. Galloway is anti-Semitic, all the Post is doing giving that weaselly FoxNews-like "some people say" shtick and not supporting it.

The Jerusalem Post's editorial policy is one that confuses tolerance for Jews or even support for Israel with support Likud's policies in the occupied territories and support for Bush's approach to the war on terror. Israel's problem with terrorism has nothing to do with Iraq; moreover, as we all know, Bush's invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism in the first place. Invading Iraq didn't prevent one suicide bomb on any Israeli bus or in any Israeli cafe and couldn't have. It is disingenuous for the Post to suggest that opposition to the invasion and continued occupation of Iraq is in and of itself somehow anti-Semitic.

The war in Iraq was simply a bad idea and one presented to the people of Britain, America or the world in the most perfidious way. The people of Britain and of the Bethnal Green constituency knew very well that the war was unnecessary and resented the lies told to justify it. That is why George Galloway defeated Oona King.

[geek tragedy]

10. Not only was Galloway pro-Saddam, he was also pro-USSR during

the cold war.

He is no friend of democracy, or freedom, or justice. Disloyal is not too strong a word to use for him.

[NorthernSpy]

29. the US was pro-Saddam

He is no friend of democracy, or freedom, or justice. Disloyal is not too strong a word to use for him.

Yeah yeah, blahdeeblahblah.

Galloway is a friend to working class folks, and we need all the friends we can get. Lord knows all those reasonable, centrist, never-a-foot-wrong, butter-wouldn't-melt-in-their-mouths types have shown unambiguously that they don't really give a flaming shit about us.

I'm loyal to people who are loyal to me.

[geek tragedy]

39. Galloway would have had you taking orders from Moscow. He was a tool

of a different ruling class.

[NorthernSpy]

76. the stuff you've cited doesn't support that

Clearly, he stated his belief that the previous inability of any one country or bloc to claim total global hegemony probably prevented some wars.

Well, what of it? I've heard lots of people -- Left, Right, and Center -- express that view.

[geek tragedy]

98. He was a SUPPORTER of the USSR in its struggle against the West.

"I did support the Soviet Union."

Your spin is inaccurate--it's like calling every advocate of the two-party system a Bush supporter.

[pretzel4gore]

77. George Galloway is our friend, warts and all...leave him be ferchrissake

and i dislike brutes who use young working class boys in uniform to impose their will on innocents too, but George's enemy is also our main enemy, so leave off criticisng him (which he'd welcome, btw, as long as it was not accompanied by spitting and profanity) for his politically incorrect attitudes, most of which he holds only because they drive the rightwing nuts, i'm sure :)
and mr saddam hussein wasn't that bad imho; like norman bate's mama, he wouldn't hurt a fly

[Djinn]

83. Pro Saddam?

might want to stop reading right wing shit sheets geek tradgedy, if anything he was pro Iraqi people.

[geek tragedy]

85. He spent Christmas Day at the home of Tariq Aziz and saluted Saddam's

"courage, strength and indefatigability" while noting that Palestinian children were naming their children after him and adding that "And I want you to know we are with you until victory, until Jerusalem.”

[Djinn]

86. Galloway's response

For the record (for the millionth time)I was adressing the Iraqi people not their President, as you can clearly hear in Arabic.

speak arabic geek tradgedy? I actually have a better idea of Galloway's personality and beliefs than is able to be discerned watching TV (particularly US news) and as far as I'm concerned he's one of the good guys

[geek tragedy]

91. He said it to Saddam, while noting how widely admired Saddam was

in Palestine and making the "until Jerusalem" comment.

And he was a strong supporter of Communist totalitarianism.

As far as I'm concerned, he's on the other side.

[bennywhale]

96. He claims he was

referinfg to the Iraqi people when praising Saddam.

Saddam Hussein was very good of using Westeners for propaganda purposes.

Galloway was there setting up a foundation to save Iraqi childrens lives, a million of which died due to the Wests sanctions.

If Saddam insisted on a televised praising of him i'm sure Galloway agreed. Saddam's hardly going to let him in the country to save childrens lives if Galloway was calling him a bastard.

[geek tragedy]

97. If this were the first time Galloway had supported a dictatorship, it

would be different.

However, the fact that he's a lifelong Stalinist tankie definitely changes the equation.

[Djinn]

112. no he didn't

try and find yourself a copy of the ENTIRE footage not the bit cherry picked to help the cause of the war mongers on the left and right.

you know nothing about him other than what's written and propogated by those with an agenda - I have a little more direct experience and you're 100% wrong

[geek tragedy]

115. The man has a long, long, long record of supporting anti-democratic

causes--the Soviet Union, Saddam, etc.

He is still calling for the release of Tariq Aziz. He supports the head-choppers and polling place-bombers in Iraq.

A champagne Communist and a tankie. He's no anti-imperialist--he just chooses to defend a certain kind of imperialism.

[Djinn]

122. beleive what you read

I'll go on personal experience

[geek tragedy]

129. Not sure how your personal experience negates his public support

of the insurgents in Iraq and the Soviet Union.

[Djinn]

133. well I "support" the insurgents in Iraq

I don't beleive for a second that they're all mad fundies and even if they were it's not my place to denounce Iraqi's fighting against the occupation of THEIR country no matter their political/religious or social outlook, just like I would have supported the Vietnamese fighting invasion/occupation had I been a little older at the time

[geek tragedy]

141. You support people who bomb polling places and murder people

like Margaret Hassan and saw people's heads off with a knife?

You DO know that most of the violence is know directed at other Iraqis, right?

So, you are supporting people who are killing dozens of Iraqis. Whose side are you on--any one who is killing Americans?

[Djinn]

159. fuck off geek tradgedy

yes Iraqi's are getting killed by the "insurgents" but MANY MANY more are killed by coalition forces (you do know that Australian trioops are there right? including as of a couple of weeks from now one of my friends husbands)

How do you think Iraqi people should fight the occupation? how has any people fought occupation - collectively singing kumbaya and having a love in?

[geek tragedy]

160. I'll tell you what I wouldn't do: Kill Iraqis trying to build a

post-occupation society.

That's what the insurgents are doing, and that's why supporting them is absolutely foolhardy for those who describe themselves as the progressive left.

Murdering election and relief workers isn't pro-liberation and anti-occupation: it's anti-humanity and terrorism.

[Djinn]

161. yeah you'd make the US leave

by asking them nicely :rofl:

[geek tragedy]

162. Reality check:

100K American troops in Iraq in the year 2008 would be an electoral disaster for the Rethugs.

Now, if one clings to a reductive view that the US is a real life version of Mordor and that its only purpose there is conquest and virtual annexation, then your support of the terrorists makes some sense.

However, even the insurgents have figured out what you have not: The US is NOT going to be there forever. The agenda is not getting the US to leave, it's getting power after the US leaves.

The recent string of suicide bombings--killing many times more unarmed Iraqis than Americans--coincided with breakdowns in the negotiations between the Sunnis and Shiites regarding the composition of the Iraqi government.

Not. a. coincidence.

This is Sunnis--who currently stand the most to lose from the arrangment in place--engaging in politically motivated violence to protect their stake in post-occupation Iraq.

This is not Iraqis vs occupiers. It is Occupiers vs. Shiites vs. Kurds vs. Sunnis.

[IndianaGreen]

36. Conrad Black no longer owns the JPost, or runs Hollinger International

Black is embroiled in a nasty legal battle against Hollinger, accused of shady financial deals.

[Jack Rabbit]

38. In my defense . . .

. . . it hasn't changed a bit since he ran it. It's still fish wrap.

[IndianaGreen]

54. You are right, it is still fish wrap

and we won't know if another rightwing puke will buy the JPost. Murdoch, perhaps?

[still_one]

7. This was my greatest fear

I am a Jew, I was against the war, and I detest this administration, and the neocons behind it, but as our losses continue to mount, more and more people will look at this administration, and notice that many of the people behind it, and those in pnac are Jewish. It will NOT matter that there are non-Jews who were involved, the Jews are going to blamed, I would not even be surprised if * is exonerated, even though he is the president, and should NOT be exonerated.

It won't matter that 70% of the Jews voted against * and the neocons. Mob mentality works in mysterious ways. 9/11 gave birth to the patriot act, which does nothing to protect us, but helps destroy our constitution.

Wait until they issue the national ID card. A terrorist always has correct papers, it is the public that will be abused

[madrchsod]

17. your take on the bush whitehouse is

exactly what the rabid white power people are thinking. many see bush and his government as just as evil as the "jews" and the "races".

[NorthernSpy]

30. I really don't think that Galloway's win...

... had anything to do with his constituents holding Jews responsible for the war.

For what it's worth...

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[geek tragedy]

40. Jews are one of the most reliable voting groups for the Democrats.

Why are you so concerned with Jews?

[still_one]

81. because I know human nature

look at the history of the world

incidently, this doesn't just concern Jews, it also concerns Muslims, liberals, progressive Christians, and other people of good will, but once the ball starts rolling it is very hard to stop it. The corporate media is very much involved in this

[Colorado Blue]

44. "Zionist psychopaths?"!!!! FYI, "Zionism" means nothing

more and nothing less, than the desire of the Jewish people for their homeland. Some non-Jews are supportive of this as well.

I truly hate to see the term conflated with something evil. That actually started in Czarist Russia, with the publication of the false and slanderous "Protocols of the Elders of Zion". It's one of the worst examples of the way people are constantly associating Jews - and now Israelis - with conspiracy theories.

Unfortunately I think a lot of people actually BELIEVE it, even "liberals" who should know better. Worse it is being taught AS ACTUAL HISTORY, and has been dramatized on TV, throughout the Middle East.

Moreover, speaking generally to the PNAC and Neocon issues raised in this thread, MANY of the signatories to the PNAC documents - most in fact I think, though I haven't actually COUNTED - aren't Jewish. Nor do the PNAC documents reveal a conspiracy. They express a political point of view. They're POLICY documents, they're out in the open for people to read and study. Most NEOCONS aren't Jewish - certainly not the ones with real juice, like Dick Cheney.

So it is painful to see this kind of slander on DU. Being proIsraeli does NOT make one a rightwinger, pro-war or a psychopath.

If you want to talk about "right wing psychopaths", fine. But please leave ME out of it. Leave the philosophy of Zionism, OUT OF IT. If you want to read about Zionism, study the Faisal-Frankfurter papers, or the Weizmann-Faisal Agreement, or read some Jewish history.

And FYI, speaking as just ONE liberal Jew - I was against the war. I'd bet that most of us were and ARE. But I cannot, especially having studied the history of the Ba'ath Party and of Saddam Hussein, say that he was anything but a very bad bargain for the Iraqi people. Can we not be against the war and also not for Saddam? Is it somehow RIGHTWING or PSYCHOPATHIC to want the people of Iraq to have a better government? Does that mean we support war against Islam? Isn't it war against Islam or Islamic people, to want dictators like Saddam in power?

And maybe just not coincidentally - antisemitism has been drastically on the rise in Europe and in Britain, the past few years. Jews and Israel most certainly ARE being blamed for the war on terror, and it's shame. I have reports if you're interested in seeing them.

[bennywhale]

109. I think you have a misguided view of

the real picture in Britain and Europe regarding anti-semitism. Although it is on the rise, yes, it is of the sought of cowardly vandalism and abuse by almost entirely young male muslims.

This isn't meant to downplay this anti-semtitism as in all forms it obviously disgraceful. However i do notice from these threads that people actually identify who Jews are in positions of power in America and can name them. And also talk of conspiracies.

This type of anti-semitism simply does not seem to exist in Britain and i feel this is the more dangerous type.

Members of the British cabinet are Jewish. And that only came to my mind as people began talking of prominent American Jews. I know it but it never crosses my mind, i don't even care to name them as that would be pointless.

I see them as infuriating, often lying bastards but would never identify them specifically for their Jewishness.

Increases in antisemitic attacks in Europe of the vandalism and name calling variety seem to me less sinister than identifying Jews in positions of power. Although obviously both are repugnant.

[Colorado Blue]

132. I hope you're right. I'm attaching a link to an article by an

Englishman who seems to disagree somewhat.

I think you're correct in considering the "conspiracy theories" that are going around here in the States, to be very dangerous, more dangerous than the graffiti, etc, that you describe.

In France, though, it's gotten rougher - attacks on old people and children.

The stories of Oona King being pelted by eggs, especially at the ceremony for the Jewish war dead - that didn't strike me as being particularly harmless either.

Here's the article, it's very good, very well written.

snip

Today's conspiracy fever is based on fear, expressed in a millenarian yearning for answers in an uncertain, post-cold war world. Fear of Islamist terrorism leads some to think that if the suicide bombers of al-Qaeda/Hamas are so fanatically strong, they must be just.

In blaming Jewish-American neo-cons and in longing to appease the terrorists, the bien-pensants purveyors of these conspiracies will not heal Islamist grievances. For such grievances are about western power, modernity and freedom. Islamist terrorists visualise "Jews" as perhaps a weak link in our western civilisation, but an essential part of our society. Those who swallow conspiracy theories miss the point. For al-Qaeda maniacs, we are all Jews.

This month, arsonists attacked two more synagogues in north London; more than one hundred synagogues have been desecrated since 2000. This, in a time of prosperity: what would happen in a time of instability if these cod conspiracies became accepted political discourse?

Until 9/11, Anglo-Jewry had become accustomed to prejudiced coverage of Israel. But if you were not a Zionist, as many Jews are not, you did not need to worry. Since 9/11, and particularly post-Iraq, we have witnessed a sea change. It is as if, in the mythical scale of 9/11, al-Qaeda had unlocked a forgotten cultural capsule of anti-Semitic myths, sealed and forgotten since the Nazis, the Black Hundreds and the medieval blood libels. Just words? But words matter in a violent world. This weird and scary nonsense is an international phenomenon, not a British one. Despite it, Britain retains the easygoing tolerance and pragmatism, the sources of her greatness. It is still better to be a Jew in England than anywhere else.

http://www.newstatesman.com/nssubsfilter.php3?newTempla...

[bennywhale]

134. That is a very interesting article

and i concur with it in the main.

In France, you mention attacks getting worse. I think this has alot to do with the social dynamics of France. There, more than most other areas of Europe, their North African muslim population are disenfranchised and almost entirely from poorer districts.

I know this doesn't instantly equate to attacking a synagogue, however, mixed with the right kind of rhetoric from members of the community it does.

The article mentions "this is in a time of prosperity", however not for muslims in particularly France, and to a certain extent England.

I do have total faith in British sense of fair play and tolerance to see this through, but i still fear as i mentioned in my other post, the conspiracy type anti-semitism which is so European appears to me to be gaining credence in America, while here it is completely beyond the pale evn to mention it.

[Colorado Blue]

145. I've been hearing about Jewish conspiracy theories since I

was a teenager - but usually in whispers. Back then it was "Zionist Communist World Domination". Now it's Right Wing Neocons, blah blah blah.

Notice the Jews can't win. Back in the days when we hated communists, Jews were communists. Now it's rightwingers.

This was mostly coming from those with less than highschool educations, in the South and West (I've lived both places). One did NOT hear these things, as a rule, in polite society.

I think the internet is helping these along. There are unbelievable sites out there. The Masons are also targets. Disinformation spreads like wildfire now. Plus, Conspiracy Theorists find reinforcement in cyberspace, which makes them believe they're onto something. The hoary old Czarist propaganda is still out there, bigtime, only people think it's some new discovery.

I believe, like you, that it's very dangerous.

Your take on the poor in France makes sense. One gets the feeling that many of Gorgeous George's new constituents are poor also. I've read that there is discrimination in Britain against the Asian population?

I'd bet that's true in Germany also, which has unemployment problems and large immigrant populations, especially in East Germany(?) I've heard something about this from German friends, they're concerned about the real strength of the European economies, even with the EU apparently showing energy and creativity.

One wonders where we'd be at today, had it not been for those horrible wars. What if people had cooperated instead?

[bennywhale]

151. Depressingly i fear

that if there were some economic catastrophe in Europe, some very nasty ideologies that are on the fringe would take hold. That isn't to say anti-semetic (but knowing europe.....)

France have seen the massive rise of Le-pen's 'Front Nationale', the Austrians, who have never accepted there role in WW2, perpetuating the myth of 'Hitler's first victim', have, in parliament, 'The Freedom Party', its leader's family have very dubious links with history, and it is neo-fascist.

Denmark has Vams Blokk. Italy has an astonishing amount of fascist supporters, particularly at soccer matches. (if you ever watch a sports channel with italian soccer on look in the crowd and you'll be surprised by what the flags represent, and not pleasantly surprised)

Denmark has seen a rise in the far right, as has that most liberal of countries Holland.

And we have our own beloved BNP.

this presence of the far right in European politics is not in itself surprising as the European countries have always accomodated extreme politics, but its rising popularity is concerning and the apathy and disollusionmment with main stream politics, combined with old divisions of free-market vs Socialism gone in the main stream

These parties main targets seem to be immigrants and particularly since 9/11 muslims. I don't think political antisemitism is on the rise but these far right developments are fairly worrying, specifically targeting muslims.

[entanglement]

45. I understand your concern and your fear

Perhaps the media misrepresented Jewish opinion about the war. Just about every Jewish pundit I saw on MSM supported the war, while I didn't see even one in opposition.

Personally, I'm quite irritated by the actions of the PNAC / Neocons and some of the far right Jewish commentators (Horowitz, Goldberg, Pipes et al) I am disgusted with the ADL posing as a 'rights' organization. I am also vocal in my opposition to all of the above.

But it would be wrong (and racist) of me to blame Jews as a whole for the actions of a few. It would also be wrong to exonerate non-jewish actors in the plot leading to the Iraq war.

[Jim Sagle]

55. ADL IS a rights organization. Get a clue.

[entanglement]

59. Beg to disagree

They are simply an Israeli / Likud mouthpiece and use accusations of anti-semitism to suppress any criticism of Israel. ADL has been investigated for their many less-than-wholesome activities, check out this link
http://www.webshells.com/adlwatch/news26.htm
Also check out this excellent letter by Nader to ADL on Counterpunch:
http://www.counterpunch.org/nader10162004.html

[Jim Sagle]

61. Wow. A piece of antisemitic filth gets off on a technicality, and that's

supposed to make ADL look bad? I. don't. think. so.

[Coastie for Truth]

68. Jim - I went into the

"www.webshells.com/adlwatch" - a collection of lies,
half truths, innuendos.

[simcha_6]

126. I don't know if the ADL's all that bad

They condemned the anti-Arab professor in Israel even though that goes against their ideals of supporting academic freedom. Didn't they condemn the arrest of Muslim men after 9/11?

[geek tragedy]

142. The ADL is a self-serving organization that chases publicity wherever

it can find it. The ADL wound up giving Mel Gibson's film a TON of free publicity.

[simcha_6]

153. One thing you learn watching the world

ALL organizations are self-serving. It's the nature of an organization. What's your point?

[geek tragedy]

154. That they are neither the devil nor particularly angelic. eom

[simcha_6]

155. Okay, I understand. n/t

[pretzel4gore]

79. you're right...i hate to see Israel isolated

i don't know why, but i thought we had moved beyond that stuff:( :(
....as long as there are jewish people such as you (and the refuseniks etc) you (the Jewish people) will have allies in most people like me (and most DU'ers)

[geek tragedy]

8. Galloway is a world-class moron and creep. His win is most unfortunate.

The man is the right wing's useful idiot.

[Barrett808]

12. Name-calling aside, what are your specific objections?

Galloway is admired by many -- it would be good to know if the admiration is misplaced.

[geek tragedy]

13. He said that the saddest day in his life was the day the USSR fell

[wookie294]

14. Link?

[Jack Rabbit]

15. Guardian Utd (September 2002): Interview with Galloway

From the Guardian Unlimited (UK)
Dated September 16, 2002

The Monday Interview:
Saddam and me
He's Saddam Hussein's sole friend in Westminster, believes the collapse of the Soviet Union was a tragedy and thinks his party has been hijacked. Doesn't it ever get lonely being George Galloway?
By Simon Hattenstone

George Galloway pulls up a chair, and hitches up his very smart trousers. He's wearing a fresh suntan, having just returned from a holiday in Portugal. Galloway is never seen without a tan. Galloway, also known as Gorgeous George, is beautifully coordinated. The pale blue eyes match the pale blue shirt and suit. He sits confidently, thighs splayed, his checked tie hanging long and suggestive between them.
In recent years, the Labour MP for Glasgow Kelvin has become Britain's champion of the Arab world. Some regard him as a thorn in the government's side, others dismiss him as a laughing stock, discredited as an anti-war voice by his readiness to cosy up to Saddam. As you read this, he should have arrived in Iraq with a handful of journalists on his latest mission to convince the world that Iraqis are human beings too.

Last month he also went out to meet Saddam in Iraq, and he wrote up the interview for the Mail on Sunday. He revealed how Saddam had offered him Quality Street chocolates, told him how much he admired British buses. He also said how shy and retiring the Iraqi dictator was. The account may have been widely ridiculed, but Galloway is probably the only British politician who would be granted such an audience . . . .

He says his political position is no different now than it was then; that while there are so many politicians marching across the ideological spectrum without explanation, he has stayed put. What is that position? "I am on the anti-imperialist left." The Stalinist left? "I wouldn't define it that way because of the pejoratives loaded around it; that would be making a rod for your own back. If you are asking did I support the Soviet Union, yes I did. Yes, I did support the Soviet Union, and I think the disappearance of the Soviet Union is the biggest catastrophe of my life. If there was a Soviet Union today, we would not be having this conversation about plunging into a new war in the Middle East, and the US would not be rampaging around the globe."

Read more.

[geek tragedy]

16. Here you go:

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/interviews/story/0,11660,792915,00.html

<snip>
If you are asking did I support the Soviet Union, yes I did. Yes, I did support the Soviet Union, and I think the disappearance of the Soviet Union is the biggest catastrophe of my life.
<snip>

[Henny Penny]

19. and...

"If there was a Soviet Union today, we would not be having this conversation about plunging into a new war in the Middle East, and the US would not be rampaging around the globe."

Some truth in that methinks!

[geek tragedy]

20. Bottom line is that he's been consistently disloyal and a friend to

dictators and his nation's enemies.

[pretzel4gore]

80. the US and britain are thieves

they stole too much of mankind's wealth, they warped the human morality with the white supremist crap the upper class twits have been using to provoke british working men to despise other workmen and let the twits rob everybody blind....i agree with George: shoot all of them (upperclass twits) except john cleese of course, and let the lord sort them out!

[IndianaGreen]

88. And you prefer someone that is loyal to Bush

like Blair the Poodle. Is this what is all about? Rightwing talking points!

Anyone that is an enemy of Bush is our friend. Anyone that is a friend of Bush is our enemy.

[geek tragedy]

99. The man was a Soviet lapdog while Bush was still collecting DUI's

He's a tankie who now claims to be a big supporter of self-determination and democracy. Screw him.

[bennywhale]

100. You called him a

stalinist where is the evidence for that?

[geek tragedy]

102. Besides the fact that he was rooting for the Soviet Union during the Cold

War?

[IndianaGreen]

108. The Cold War was a fraud perpetrated on the American people

As we all now know very well, it was the US that posed the greatest threat to the security and well being of the planet. The American ruling class wanted the Soviet Union out of the way so that they could dominate and conquer the world unimpeded.

[drdon326]

111. (((((( THUD)))))

ANYONE HAVE A DEFIBRILLATOR HANDY ??

[geek tragedy]

116. Yeah, just ask the people of Hungary, Czechoslovokia, and East Germany.

Ask the people of Poland and those who were murdered by the Communists for the crime of trying to flee East Berlin.

May the soul of global Communism rot in hell.

[bennywhale]

168. Communism itslef had nothing to do with

oppressing people. It was a totalitarian oppresive state.

If you actually read the "Communist Manifesto" set out by Marx and Engels its a very noble philosophy based on the people as sovereign. Its not EVIL in the slightest. Its been contorted and hijacked over time by dictators and meglomaniacs.

The spanish inquistion did not mean "global Christianity should rot in hell"

It meant it had been misinterpreted and was controlled by murderers.

Ditto Islam.

[Colorado Blue]

120. Sorry - but that's just silly. The USSR disappeared untold

numbers of dissidents, artists, writers - anybody who disagreed with the Party line. Stalin may have killed MILLIONS.

They fomented violence all over the world. Much of the violence in the Middle East is down to THEM. Ditto, worldwide terrorism.

And if you think Iraq is bad - read about the war in Afghanistan. The USSR almost totally destroyed that country. They drove untold numbers of people out, entire tribes - people who'd lived there for centuries, murdering millions of precious sheep, goats and horses. The mujeheddin fought valiantly, trying to take down Hind helicopters from horseback.

You should see the rugs they weave now. Instead of flowers and traditional patterns, they weave helicopters, tanks and AK-47's. Many live in refugee camps in Pakistan, who had been proud and independent for untold ages.

It was HORRIBLE. It was much worse than Iraq, it went on for some 10 years. And it radicalized the mujeheddin and left the door wide open for the Taliban. The loss of traditional pastoral economies made the poppy the one good cash crop.

There is a direct link between the mess we are in now and the Soviet war on Afghanistan - and, many believe, it was their downfall.

Poetic justice.

[IndianaGreen]

137. We put the religious fanatics in power in Afghanistan

The Marxist Afghan government had given women full equality, with free health care and education to boot. For the first time in centuries women were free from the burqa and tribal religious laws.

Yeah, that's some fucken freedom that America has given to Afghanistan!

Next time you think of 9/11 and Osama bin Laden, don't forget to thank Carter, Reagan, both Bushes, and Clinton for their contribution in creating the monster of global terrorism.

[Colorado Blue]

146. And the USSR had NOTHING TO DO WITH IT? Come on.

Reagan - the business interests he represented - and generations of similar people before them - Rockefeller, Chase Manhattan, Morgan, etc. etc. - have done terrible damage also, ditto the British, French and German Empires.

Please - take some time and really study the Afghan war from the POV of the people on the ground.

I look at them differently, I guess, because I've been involved with them AS PEOPLE not as ideologies. YES they have some backasswards customs. SO? They have some fabulous talents also, ways of life that have sustained them for millenia, on land that Americans would die on.

How are they different from the Iraqis on the ground, recipients of Shock and Awe? That whole situation has roots dating to WWI.

The Russians also "proletarianized" the Turkmen and other tribal groups, the Caucasus, all across their southern tier - now the "stans". They were at war with these people for probably centuries. Study the Tekke, the Salor, the Yomud, the Ersari, the city of Buchara, the valley of the Amu Darya, even the Mughal Empire and the Seljuks - the great surge westward of the Turkic people, the Mongols, and the spread of Buddhism - later, Islam.

In fact, this is the history of the Silk Road, so vital to commerce and the flow of ideas since before Alexander, and always under attack.

You make a good point though - an excellent point really - about the benefits the Soviets could have brought. This is also potentially true in Iraq. The relationships between the conquered and the conqueror are not necessarily all bad. That's the only thing that is giving me hope right now about Iraq. America DOES, like the Soviets, have a great deal to offer the world. And of course, you're correct about Bin Ladin, so forth.

But I look at the SOVIETS first. The War in Afghanistan was the trigger for Bin Ladin. The Arabs wouldn't have been in Afghanistan AT ALL had it not been for the war! Afghanistan is a very long way from Saudi Arabia and it isn't an Arab state. It's populated by Pathun, Baluch, Turkmen - several groups, Uzbeks, Kuchis, Kirghiz, some Kurds even - some 56 different languages are spoken in Afghanistan. Many are nomadic.

And this has been the Russian neighborhood since Czarist times - not America's. The British Empire has been "playing" against them, also for centuries - they call it "The Great Game". Originally their goal was to protect their Indian possessions and the trade routes (Silk Road, from China to the Med, or south to India). Then, oil became the prize. America has just stepped into Victoria's role.

I do think there are better ways of going about "helping" people though. Shock and Awe can't be right, except in dire emergencies - which this WASN'T, although we were led to believe it was.

And the Soviet motivation? What? To stem the tide of religious fundamentalism, I believe - maybe you can elaborate?

[bennywhale]

110. Stalinist you said

Identify Stalinism, as opposed to communism, Marxism, Leninism, Maoist etc.

Why Stalinist?

What are his Stalinist tendencies or values?

[geek tragedy]

117. It gets very complex, but here's a handy rule of thumb:

There are two main groups of Communists, Trotskyists and Stalinists. They don't get along. The Stalinists purged the Trotskyists in the USSR.

Galloway supported the Soviet regime and was frequently antagonistic towards the "Trots."

[IndianaGreen]

138. You forgot the Maoists

and you have shown that you have been well indoctrinated by our glorious educational system. Sit down and eat a capitalist Girl Scout cookie.

[geek tragedy]

143. Trotskyists and Stalinists don't have a record of mutual antagonism?

Stalin didn't purge the Trotskyists?

Wow, I guess I need that special education one gets at Party Headquarters, comrade.

[kypper]

21. Very true...

A strong alternate power to the USA would keep it in check. China isn't there yet... but the USSR could have been.
It's like the government; you want some opposition to keep them from having too much power.

[Jack Rabbit]

24. Also . . .

The British public may have been astonished that the Iraqis were scoffing Quality Street, but Galloway says that just reflects our ignorance. "Tariq Aziz (Iraq's deputy prime minister) puts HP sauce on every dinner. There's HP sauce every time you sit down with him. That's one of the ironies of the whole thing. When I was demonstrating outside the Iraqi embassy against the regime, British politicians and businessmen were inside doing business - trade and arms deals. Iraq is the most Anglophile of all the Arab countries with their HP sauce, their Quality Street, their red London buses and three-pin plugs."

Galloway is quick to remind you that he, and his comrades on the left, were among the first to condemn Saddam's human rights record, even if the chief motive was that the country had become a virulently anti-communist puppet of America. Until 1991, Iraq was the only Arab country he'd not visited. "I wouldn't have been allowed in. I was a known opponent of the Iraqi regime because I was with the left, and the communists in Iraq who were shattered and sent into orbit in the late 70s."

[geek tragedy]

25. When Saddam was pro-US/UK, Galloway opposed him. When Saddam

was opposed to the US/UK, Galloway kissed his ass.

Apparently, the desire to associate with his own nation's totalitarian enemies is his primary motive.

I believe that makes him scum.

[The Stranger]

46. "Disloyal" "nation's enemies" and "scum."

Methinks you doth protest too much. The U.S. was pro-Saddam -- not the other way around.

This is looking like something personal, maybe a smear.

[geek tragedy]

49. The REAGAN administration was pro-Saddam, and they were scumbags

as well.

Galloway was just like the Reaganites--using Saddam for his own larger agenda. Reagan used Saddam for his anti-Communist cause, while Galloway used him for his pro-Communist cause.

[NeoConsSuck]

27. How convenient..

that you left out the next sentence..

I can tell you this: There is at *least* one person on *this* board that agrees with him.

[geek tragedy]

28. I know there are Communists and Stalinists on this board.

So of course there are going to be fans of the old Soviet Union here.

[NorthernSpy]

33. "I have in my hand a list of names!"

Pleeze...

:eyes:

[geek tragedy]

37. The poster stated that there are supporters of the old USSR here.

If being labeled a Communist is such an odious thing, perhaps folks ought to rethink their views on Gorgeous George.

[Jack Rabbit]

42. The poster said no such thing

The poster said there are people who agreed with Galloway here. And there are. I at least agree with Galloway insofar as he and I both believe the war against Iraq is illegal and that the occupation is cololial piracy, not liberation. I also believe, like Galloway, that those who planned the war and fabricated the lies that justified should be tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

I may disagree with Galloway on some of the finer points and I bristle at his style and his rhetoric, but he is right about that much.

[geek tragedy]

43. The quote under discussion was his explicit support for the USSR

NO ONE who affirms their support for the Soviet Union and who has kissed Saddam's ass with regularity has any business talking about human rights.

Communists are no better than the worst of the Freepers.

[The Stranger]

47. I don't think you should tell people what their business is in talking.

Painting enemies with a broad brush these days.

[geek tragedy]

48. I'll denounce tyrants and their running dog apologists, right or left, as

I feel appropriate.

And I'm proud to have Stalinist scum like Galloway as my enemy. He's just as bad as, if not worse than, *.

[not systems]

56. So Mikael Gorbachev was a tyrant?

I don't think so.

Maybe he could have guided a better path of reform than
the collapse of the USSR caused with the rise of the oligarchs
and the economic calamity that set many people into poverty.

[geek tragedy]

57. Mikhail Gobachev certainly has much more credibility on issues like

freedom and democracy than an acolyte of totalitarianism like Galloway.

[not systems]

58. The USSR collapsed while headed by Gorbachev so...

Galloway regretting it's collapse hardly makes him a Stalinist.

[geek tragedy]

60. I suspect he views Gorbachev as a traitor to the cause.

After all, Gorbachev helped facilitate what Galloway considers to be the greatest catastrophe of his life.

I wonder if people in Rwanda, Cambodia, and Darfur agree that the fall of the Soviet dictatorship is the greatest tragedy since WWII.

[not systems]

62. Well...

you maybe projecting you own bogeys on to him.

From the Guardian article:

He says his political position is no different now than it was then; that while there are so many politicians marching across the ideological spectrum without explanation, he has stayed put. What is that position? "I am on the anti-imperialist left." The Stalinist left? "I wouldn't define it that way because of the pejoratives loaded around it; that would be making a rod for your own back. If you are asking did I support the Soviet Union, yes I did. Yes, I did support the Soviet Union, and I think the disappearance of the Soviet Union is the biggest catastrophe of my life. If there was a Soviet Union today, we would not be having this conversation about plunging into a new war in the Middle East, and the US would not be rampaging around the globe."

...

We're looking at the photomontage on his wall. Heroes and family. John Lennon sits at a piano wearing his "People for peace" armband. What a man, he says. "Imagine is the socialist anthem. I believe in every word of it." We pass on to Che Guevara, whom he calls his ultimate hero. Why? "Because he sacrificed everything for the revolutionary cause, to liberate the world. And because he was a person with poetry in his soul."

What's Churchill doing there, with his two-fingered salute - hardly your classic leftie icon? "I think Churchill was the British man of the millennium because without him we would have been overrun by fascism."


They jury is still out on the body count from the US "rampaging around the globe"
I guess we are around 150000+ and counting maybe before the fat lady sings
Rwanda, Cambodia, and Darfur will be blips on the radar.

Who knows? The future is unwritten.

[geek tragedy]

66. Bottom line is that he was a supporter of the Soviet Union and mourned

its passing. He is, literally, an unrepentant supporter of the Soviet regime.

I also think that folks are have either forgotten, or are too young to remember, just how dangerous the Cold War was. Armageddon was not a remote possibility.

[not systems]

67. Umm...

Armageddon is still not a remote possibility.

Russia is still loaded with nukes as is the US.

Good thing Bush and Bolton are available to keep
things on an safe path.

:nuke:

[geek tragedy]

71. It almost happened a few times during the Cold War

Had Kennedy and Truman not listened to the right people during the Korean war and Cuban Missile Crisis . . .

The world won't be completely safe until nukes and nuclear technology are brought under control, but the Cold War brought us dangerously close to extinction.

[Jack Rabbit]

50. The post was, "How convenient that you left out the next sentence."

The poster was accusing you of quoting Galloway out of context.

The next sentence is:

If there was a Soviet Union today, we would not be having this conversation about plunging into a new war in the Middle East, and the US would not be rampaging around the globe.

So, what Galloway finds a catastrophe is not the fall of totalitarian Communism, but the loss of a balance of power that checked the actions of two superpwers.

Galloway may have not found Stalin or Brezhnev as objectionable as I do, but he is not defending them here.

[The Magistrate]

51. That Is An Excellent Point, Mr. Rabbit

There is an inherent instability to affairs when only one power has real capability for violence in its perceived interests....

[geek tragedy]

53. I agree that a bi-polar power distribution may be more stable. However,

that does not change the fact that Mr. Galloway was on the side of Stalin, Brezhnev, and the KGB.

[geek tragedy]

52. The quote speaks for itself, and that sentence doesn't change its meaning

The Stalinist left? "I wouldn't define it that way because of the pejoratives loaded around it; that would be making a rod for your own back. If you are asking did I support the Soviet Union, yes I did. Yes, I did support the Soviet Union, and I think the disappearance of the Soviet Union is the biggest catastrophe of my life. If there was a Soviet Union today, we would not be having this conversation about plunging into a new war in the Middle East, and the US would not be rampaging around the globe."

***********************

The man was a SUPPORTER of the Soviet Union. He was not a supporter of bi-polar paradigms of power distribution. He was a supporter of the Kremlin.

And, when Saddam was no longer anti-Communist, Galloway became a big fan of his.

[Jack Rabbit]

63. You hold one interpretation of Galloway's remarks

Mr. NeoConsSuck and I hold another.

However, you might like to consider the election in Bethnal Green to have been a Hobson's choice for many of the voters there. Perhaps many thought of Galloway as scum for his past support of Saddam and the Soviets. On the other hand, it may have been just as unpalatable for them to have supported their present MP, who stood by the Prime Minister (who is also scum) in standing behind Bush (now, there's scum).

No one at DU has any illusions about Saddam. He was a brutal tyrant. If there was a nice, clean way of ridding the world of him, that action should have been pursued. However, we was a paper tiger while the US should have had more urgent priorities in pursuing real terrorists who could do us real harm.

Mr. Bush may not be as brutal a tyrant as Saddam, but he is still a tyrant. And unlike Saddam, he really has a vast stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. Bush was in the Spring of 2003 and remains today a far greater concern that Saddam ever dreamed of being at his worst. As unpleasant as it was to have him around, the world could have allowed Saddam to fester as long as he was contained to Iraq. Someone like Bush on the loose is a real menace.

Tony Blair made the wrong decision in backing Bush. He should have known better. Oona King made the wrong choice in backing Tony Blair and Bush's war. That is why George Galloway, by a margin of less than a thousand votes, represents Bethnal Green in Commons today.

[geek tragedy]

65. I agree the voters there had an uneviable selection of candidates, and

that this vote was likely more anti-Blair than pro-Galloway. I'm not even going to criticize folks for voting for Galloway under such circumstances--just like (and this is controversial here) I don't fault people for voting to recall Gray Davis in California--those in power should be blamed when they play chicken with the voters.

However, I find nauseating all of this praise for a man who has consistently sought out the worst of his country's enemies and offered them his moral support. His post Cold-war coziness with Saddam has been well-noted, and I am puzzled by folks finding the statement "I did support the Soviet Union" ambiguous.

[not systems]

69. Gray Davis was...

framed by Enron and right wing press for their looting of
35 billion dollars from California by the Texas power mob.

Blair is a liar and lapdog servant of the worst US president
who has done more damage to freedom and peace than any other
living person.

Give Gray Davis a break.

[geek tragedy]

70. California voters clearly did not like the job Gray Davis was doing, but

didn't have the chance to fire him (Davis helped the rightwing nutjob in the Republican primary get the nomination).

The Democratic party should aspire to much greater things than Gray Davis.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[geek tragedy]

73. I'm no big fan of Arnold. I hope he loses the next election.

But the recall in California was perfectly understandable.

[not systems]

74. Understandable considering the right wing media smear job...

done to Gray Davis and the simple minded hero worship of Arnold
crooked lying ass.

35 billion robbed by the Texas power mob and Bush and you blame Gray.

Whatever.

[NorthernSpy]

75. what's weird is how (your interpretation of ) one man's words...

... somehow seem to outweigh for you the actual deeds of his opponents. The Blairites really have killed tens of thousands of people. The results of their actions go way beyond the ripples from any alleged rhetorical excesses on Mr. Galloway's part.

At least, one would certainly think so...

[geek tragedy]

78. Being anti-Blair, by itself, is not enough to earn one praise.

Galloway's material irrelevance shouldn't serve as an exoneration of his anti-democratic values.

Does his opposition to the Iraq war excuse his coziness with Saddam or his support of global Communism? No more than Bush's opposition to people like Saddam and bin Laden excuses his war-mongering.

Of course Bush and Blair have done greater harm--because they have actual power and influence. George Galloway would be at least as bad, imo, were he to hold such power.

[Colorado Blue]

121. The more I study the British Empire, the more I wonder who

is actually the tail and who is the dog.

Bush is a member of a class - indeed, he says he's descended from British kings - who've long held an inordinate sway over the world. The British "soft empire" - threads of investment, debt, hegemony not over territory but over scarce resources - I see no evidence that it's dead. It just shifted capitols.

And oil is THE prime resource.

You can't really vote this out of power. It IS the power and we're all consumers, part of the chain.

What do you think?

[bennywhale]

135. You have a ver valid point

there. When the British empire withdrew, it withdrew its military and not alot else. It left administrations and businesses who were tied irretreivably to the country they were in. It also left people, most importantly, the British who were to become the Americans. The Wasps.

The Anglo saxon world, dominated by the British for so long and now the Americans, has its footprints in almost every country in the world.

In light of our previous discussions, i'm quite happy as an angle and an Englishmen to pursue this 'world conspiracy' theory to deflect from the more sinister type.

It would be fun and may actually reveal a few truths about who actually runs this world.

MNC's Anglo saxon men

Oil Anglo saxon men

UN, IMF, WTO, World Bank?

[Colorado Blue]

147. This book I'm reading - Anglo American Oil Politics - by

Engdahl - it's fascinating. Coastie recommended it and it really looks at things from a different angle - almost, I would say, from the German POV.

The economic history of the 19th century is where it begins. If you read it we can discuss more, I'm not sure how correct or exact it is in every detail but the thrust feels right - especially about WWI. That absolutely makes NO sense as it's taught in American history books - this blossom of horror, seemingly overnight, all keyed by an assassination in Sarejevo? I've studied it again and again and it never added up.

But - if you look at it from the standpoint of growing German industrial and economic power and the growing importance of oil, and the desire of the British to maintain their global hegemony, a pattern emerges. Especially interesting is what I suspected - that the British eye was on the Ottoman Empire - the war in the trenches was almost, I hate to put this way - a horribly costly diversion? Maybe that's too strong a term. But at the height of the war in Europe, the British put over a million troops into the Middle East.

And from that, and the aftermath, Versailles, the horribly punitive measures to collect war debt from Germany - so much of the rest follows.

I think we're still part of that unfolding pattern, that was set in motion in the 19th century.

That's why, to break the chain, we have to think in REALLY new terms, with completely new economic models and especially, to retool several key industries from the ground up - based on new fuels, and with global cooperation in mind, rather than global competition.

IMHO:)

[bennywhale]

148. WW1 is tied

obviously to manifestations of power throughout the Empires.

The only thing i don't understand is the alliances. Germany allied with Turkey?

Don't forget for many in the British Royal family Kaiser Wilhelm was uncle William.

And Today's Queen and the Royal family changed their name at the outbreak of WW1 to windsor.

Do you know what from?

Holstein-Sax-Coberg. hmmmmmmm.

I don't know why the split amongst these Royals. Power.

Also many British Tommies throughout that war occasionally suggested they were fighting for the wrong side. ie with the French.

The Germans also have the volkish concept in their history leading them to view us the British Anglo Saxons (Danish and North German) as inferior cousins who got the biggest slice of the pie. Our empire was a 1/4 of the globe. The German's was rather feeble.

But it all comes down to power and control. And in those days the Europeans ruled the world but were packed togather on a tiny continent, it was almost inevitable.

The alliances that were formed were created to prevent war in Europe and keep the fighting with eachother overseas. However having millions and millions of men in standing armies across the continent isn't exactly coterminous with peace.

the assasination triggered an invasion of the Balkans and the complex alliances ensured war.

The declarations of war were btw celebrated in every city in Europe. Perverse

[Colorado Blue]

150. The Germans were building a railroad to Mosul,

with a branch thence to Kuwait (which was never finished).

The train ran straight through Turkey, it was completed part of the way into Iraq. They wanted British investment money to help complete the branch into Kuwait, but the Brits recognized the threat and said, no way.

The Germans would have been energy-self-sufficient, not relying upon tankers but upon overland routes from the middle east straight into Germany.

I don't think the Germans wanted to go to war, at least not from reading this book. They were anglophilic, totally, and the Kaiser was related, as you say, the to the Queen.

I keep thinking - my god - the possibilites had they cooperated and not gone to war. We'd have hotels on Mars by now.

Instead -

Have you ever studied the European art "entre les deux guerres" - between WWI and II? The trauma to the European psyche was horrific, and also they lost 20,000,000 - a generation.

Also in this book: the role of American bankers in exploiting the huge debt incurred by the war. Engdahl says, the British were actually almost bankrupt BEFORE the war. I guess there was a depression in the late 19th century?

For sure, they didn't see German industrialization coming AT ALL. Plus, the Germans, as you say, remained compact. Plus they were defeated in Africa, so forth, and had few actual colonial holdings.

But the railroad to Kuwait would have changed everything.

[bennywhale]

152. You're right about the

effect on the European psyche.

As i say declaration of war was celebrated. After the war the mindset was peace inour time.

Thats why american commentators fail to understand the appeasement mentality which was in Europe in the 30s. It was anything but war. The first world war was industrial slaughter and each European country involved lost a generation. My Great Grandad's grave is in Gallipoli in Turkey. Whole villages lost every single man due to the pals platoon programme. All a villages or a football team or pub locals were put into the same platoon. If that platoon ended up in somewhere like the Somme. No men left. 60, 000 people were killed in the first morning of the first exchange of the battle of the Somme which lasted for months. That gives you an idea of the Slaughter.

Coupled with WW2 which was also fought through Europeans back gardens is it any wonder 'Cheese eating surrender monkeys' sounds so ignorant and offensive. And is it any wonder Europeans are so anti-war.

Your point about Mosul is fascinating. I knew we fought hard in the Middle East but that is interesting. Unfortunately, cooperation in human history between powers is hard to find.

What it certainly did do as you say is basically put the nail in the coffin of European Empire power. And your also right about the reparations programmes. we learnt alot about that at school. America basically prfited out of the war securing their dominant position, while the European powers shrank. Britain owed America money, and Germany owed Britain money. So America was lending Germany money plus interest to pay the British, who were paing back the Americans plus interests, which bankrupted much of Europe and obnviously (along with the Versailles treaty) destroyed Germany. Have you heard about the Germans getting their wages in potato skins?

Keep reading and keep posting its a fascinating period of history

[Colorado Blue]

156. I hadn't realized about the "pal" system. The sheer numbers

are mind-boggling, I don't think people today realize the true horror of that war, if they don't read.

It's been hard for me personally, to see past hatred and fear of the Nazis, to view the two wars (and events leading up to them) at all objectively. But my husband is the son of a Luftwaffe pilot, who flew on the Eastern front. Well, "flew" is a term I use advisedly - I think he got shot down almost immediately and sat in a Russian prison camp for a year or so. Getting to know Hans and his family as people has helped. I also have some old Russian chess buddies, who were on the Eastern Front. They have some awesome - and awful - stories. To this day, though, the in-laws do not understand why the Russians in particular were so mad at them.

Also the wife of my favorite professor - a Scotsman - was born in Germany. Her dad died in the war and her mother, having only silk stockings and chocolate for currency, got them to Egypt, where she grew up. So I heard about the war from them as well. Also they told me about British East Africa - my other favorite professor was English. They had lived in Nairobi. They really hated having to leave. But, the sun was setting, as it were. So they came to my school - complete with a hyena named Liz. The hyena was probably our most exotic citizen, which was saying something, considering this was the late '60's:)

Most Americans are - quite naturally - Anglophilic. So as a nation we don't see European events in general, or the Empire in particular, too clearly. So it's hard to see past that as well, to look at underlying causes and the history of the 19th and 20th centuries in particular, since the Industrial Revolution.

And economics, I guess people think it's a boring subject(!)

I can't believe that WWII would have occurred - or anyhow been so evil - if the reparations hadn't so utterly isolated and humiliated Germany(?)

[bennywhale]

158. A Humiliated Germany

certainly set the conditions for the rise of the Nazis.

Eric Hobsbawm's book 'Age of Extremes' is a fascinating insight into this period.

He views the period from 1900 to 1990 as one war, where there were ceasefires and switched alliances in the conflict until one got supremacy. Which is a good way to look at it particularly, because the finality of 1945 simply didn't occur in 1918 and the inevitability of further conflict permeates his book with hindsight.

Yeah the pals platoons were devastating. The idea was it would encourage people to join up before conscription, and they would be happier troops, good morale = good fighters.

My grandad lost almost the entire generation above him. His dad, two of his uncles, his great uncle and two cousins were all in the same platoon from their town and were sent to Gallipoli. He reckons about 3/4 of them were killed or injured.

I travelled Northern france and Belgium a couple of years ago and there are literally hundreds of cemeteries dotted about the landscape. we'd just go out driving down little lanes and find one after the other with no signposts they were literally everywhere. We'd stop and look at each one, read a few names, and drive to another. Its very moving to think of all those millions of young lads lying under the soil all over that peaceful part of France.

I don't know if i mentioned it but in Ypres in Belgium we also went to a memorial to commemorate those British soldiers who don't have graves from the battle of Pashendale cos there bosies were never found they were just churned into the soil. There are 45,000 names alone on this monument from that one battle of unrecovered bodies, its unbelievable. The monument is a huge arch called the Meningate and every night at eight o clock for the past 90 years two Belgian soldiers march under the arch a small crowd gathers and they play the 'Last Post' on the bugle.

That, i think, is why War seems more real to some Europeans. To live in that town and see the graves and hear the bugle every night, and tales of where the soldiers were in the town, what happened from relatives.

It was since that trip that i got fascinated by the First World War, its just seems such unimaginably pointless slaughter.

[Lithos]

172. WWI was a bit more complicated than that

I would suggest you read David Fromkin's book on the matter, "Europe's Last Summer: Who Started the Great War in 1914".

To point out a few quick errors.

1) The relative strength of German Industrial Power had already peaked in comparison to it's neighbors. From about 1910 on, the rest of Europe was industrializing at a far greater rate with Russia at the lead being fed by French money. It was this shift which placed emphasis on Germany to do something now before it was too late.

2) Quite a bit of WWI was due to the rise of Nationalism amongst the Slavs. In fact there was great fear amongst Germany, Austro-Hungary and Turkey that the Southern Slavs lead by Serbia and Bulgaria might one day create a new, Great Power which would end up controlling the Dardenelles and eclipsing the already dying Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian empires.

3) The major oil politics did not really start until WWI was already underway and only heated up after the end of the war. It was WWI which raised the stakes from a game of corporate speculation to one of national interest. Also, Anglo-US is a misnomer in that the French and the Dutch held a much stronger position than the Americans for quite sometime. (See the IPC).

L-

[Lithos]

90. I believe you are correct

Galloway, when offered a chance to defend Stalin chose not to. He opted to defend the idea of a Socialist superpower which served as a check and balance to the US.

Galloway is a Socialist of the old school, possibly even as far back as the 20's and 30's. And while I find him a bit of a hack who probably keeps his mouth open long enough to put his foot in it multiple times, I certainly do not believe him to be anti-Semitic.

His election also seemed more to do with a rejection of Blair than with any positive action on his part.

L-

[geek tragedy]

118. Two thoughts:

1) He was very coy in that response--he declined to call himself a Stalinist only because the term has a pejorative connotation nowadays (imagine that!). He stated that he was a supporter of the Soviet Union until the day it fell apart, views its disappearance as a great tragedy, and sought to justify his support of it. Those are not the words of a recanting Communist, but rather a proud and unreconstructed one.

2) The closest that Galloway came to over anti-semitism (besides speaking to Saddam of marching victoriously into Jerusalem) was this comment regarding Al Gore and his approach to Iraq:

"The decades of Zionist investment in Al Gore's political career are clearly paying off,"

"http://www.newworker.org/nw30600.htm#international

That is borderline anti-semitic crap--the classic "Jewish conspiracy" nonsense.

[Lithos]

127. Two words I never thought

to be linked together...

coy and Galloway...

I don't think he's that subtle.

L-

[geek tragedy]

128. Hee hee.

Good point.

He's still on the record as being a supporter of the Politburo--no indication that he's changed his mind.

[Lithos]

130. I am in agreement with Mr. Rabbit's comments above

I still think he misses more than anything the balance to what I would think he would call the overt capitalism of Mr. Bush and the US which is contrary to the socialistic ideal I see him embracing.

Whether or not the Soviet Union was the true standard bearer for this ideal is highly debatable, but in the same vein there is a good case to be made that the US is also not the ideal standard bearer now for democracy due to the impact of lobbyists and special corporate interests.

[geek tragedy]

131. Oh, the US is far from an ideal standard-bearer for what it purports

to stand for. I'm more than a little sympathetic to the suggestion that removing Saddam wasn't wrong per se, but rather it was that Bush and his goons were the absolutely worst people on the planet to do so

[Colorado Blue]

157. With respect, since when did the presence of the Soviet

Union prevent war in the Middle East?

I give you:

Afghanistan
Iran/Iraq
Black September in Jordan
Lebanese Civil War
Yom Kippur War
6-Day War
Suez Incident
1948 War

and how many acts of terrorism???

(And what about Angola, and all the other wars in Africa?)

I'm probably forgetting some wars but these are what I could remember off the top of my head.

Ahem:)

Links to a couple of the real biggies, not often discussed here - Iran/Iraq, and Afghanistan:

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/iran_iraq_war/iran_iraq_war1.php
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0802662.html

[bennywhale]

101. Half the British Government are ex communists

John Reid just appointed defence secretary is an ex-communist, Jack Straw a trotskyite, David Blunkett communist. Whats your point?

Have you read 'Respects' manifesto it doesn't sound very Stalinist or communist to me.

And i heard Galloway not two days ago talking of centuries old civil liberties must be protected

[geek tragedy]

103. Emphasis on the "former"

Galloway has never renounced his tankie views.

[bennywhale]

107. I refer you back to 'Respects' manifesto

which he drew up.

Not Stalinist, Communist, Marxist anything.

These are the views he appears to be espousing now.

I used to believe in santa claus i don't now.

[geek tragedy]

114. SWP are the main backers of the RESPECT party

Have no illusions.

[Henny Penny]

18. That may just make him a socialist! n/t

edited to take cognizance of subsequent post.

[MisterP]

22. Blair is Jewish now?

or just perpetual war? Or maybe the Voice of PNACerica is just losing its marbles at several tons a second.

[entanglement]

32. Typical, seeing anti-semitism where there isn't any

Why not settle for the (more plausible) explanation that an anti-war candidate defeated a pro-war candidate in a country where the anti-war sentiment has been quite strong?

[Jim Sagle]

82. There isn't? And we should take your word for that because?

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Coastie for Truth]

87. I don't see anti-Semitism with Gallaway

I see a loud mouth politician who was the right loud mouth politician at the right time and the right place.

I've been around long enough to distinguish between real anti-Semitism or real racism, and just a loud mouth, politically incorrect buffoon.

[IndianaGreen]

35. Good show, Galloway!

He defeated a Blair puke, Oona King, who had supported the criminal war in Iraq and had embraced Blair's poodle-like behaviour with Bush.

Those that ally themselves with Bush are our enemies, and that includes rightwing Jews, Christians, Muslims, etc.

The Jerusalem Post, a rightwing publication, plays the anti-Semitism card as some people in America play the race card. It doesn't work anymore!

[Zhade]

41. Gee, a "news source" (HAH!) with Perle on the board of directors...

...throwing around bullshit "anti-semitism" charges? Why, I'm shocked!

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Guy_Montag]

89. Galloway won £150,000 libel case against the Daily Telegraph

owned by the same people as the J. Post.

Not that they would hold a grudge.

http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1364526,00.html

[Colorado Blue]

92. I found some interesting articles about this race. It is

apparently pretty complicated, with Galloway actually coming under fire from ISLAMIC extremists, and Oona King, as well as other mourners, being pelted with eggs at a ceremony marking Jewish war dead:

http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=605

When I saw George Galloway at the hustings in Mile End on Wednesday night, he seemed uncharacteristically pale and shaken. Throughout the election campaign in Bethnal Green and Bow - where he is standing as the Respect candidate against the Labour MP Oona King - he has been running a high-volume, high-rage contest. Most of his campaign has consisted of legitimate political comment, even if I disagree: attacking the war as "evil", savaging King as "a Blairite android", and so on.

But some has burst beyond those boundaries: he has been telling the most alienated Muslim men in Britain that Tony Blair is "waging a war on Muslims ... at home and abroad". He is nudging towards a kind of inverse Powellism that tells the Muslim community it is under siege from a brutal terrorist state that will stop at nothing. Rivers of blood, he implies, are only months away.

The mood was becoming so ugly that I began to fret there would be violence. King was being attacked with eggs hurled by young Muslim men everywhere she went. Her tyres were slashed. Was worse on the way? At the first set of hustings, I saw similar men threatening Labour Party members as they spoke against Galloway, slamming their fists into their palms.

snip

Just as I was beginning to think I was heading into melodrama overdrive, I heard that Galloway had been told he was going to be hanged for being a "false prophet" by an Islamic fundamentalist group who believe democracy is "evil"...Suddenly Galloway was talking about his "respect" for Oona King, and King reciprocated by saying that "although George and I disagree about many things, we do not want to be violent towards each other." Incredibly, much of the audience at the hustings booed this sentiment; I hope they just misheard.

follow the link for more

[Colorado Blue]

93. More about King, the Jewish War Dead, and the Eggs

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/04/11/nelec211.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/04/11/ixnewstop.html

The campaign for what promises to be one of the most bitterly contested parliamentary seats got off to an explosive start yesterday when the MP Oona King was pelted with eggs and vegetables as she attended a memorial to Jewish war dead.

Miss King, 37, the black Jewish Labour MP for Bethnal Green and Bow, was attacked as she joined mourners to commemorate 60 years since the Hughes Mansions Disaster, when 134 people, almost all Jewish, were killed by the last V2 missile to land on London.

Oona King has enraged her Muslim constituents by supporting the war in Iraq
The eggs missed her, but one hit a war veteran, Louis Lewis, 89, in the chest and an onion struck Richard Brett, a bugler from the Jewish Lads and Girls Brigade who sounded the Last Post at the ceremony.

Miss King, who enraged many of her Muslim constituents when she openly supported the war in Iraq, told the crowd that the attack was one of the "saddest" things she had ever witnessed.

snip

[Colorado Blue]

94. More...from the World Socialist Web Site

Good heavens. Read on:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/apr2005/resp-a29_prn.shtml

A series of threats and provocations by a group of Islamic fundamentalists against Respect candidate George Galloway and other political figures, combined with efforts to intimidate Muslim voters, represents a serious attack on democratic rights that must be opposed by all working people.

On Tuesday, April 19, Galloway was addressing a tenants’ meeting on the Osier council estate, in the Bethnal Green and Bow constituency, London, where the expelled Labour MP is standing in the May 5 parliamentary election against the pro-war Labour incumbent Oona King. Part way through the meeting, a group of some 30 Islamic militants entered the room and began threatening Galloway.

The Respect leader was forced to hide in his car after the men denounced him as a false prophet and threatened him with “the gallows.” The youths shouted at Galloway: “We are going to follow you,” and “We know where you live.”

The group also warned Muslims that they faced a “death sentence” if they voted in the elections. A reporting team was filming the event, and a video can be viewed on the BBC news website.

snip

More from the JP article:

"I think he's a carpet bagger," said David Lammy, Labor's Constitutional Affairs Minister, on the same program. Lammy, who is black, said that Galloway "came down from Scotland to whip up racial tensions. He has inherited now the most divided and polarized constituency."

"The manner in which he won that seat, whipping up racial tension, dividing some of the poorest people in this country, I think was obscene, and I'm deeply sad," added Lammy.

snip

In conclusion, I don't think the JP article was OTT at all. The campaign itself was obviously very divisive along religious lines, and very nearly became violent.

Does that make Galloway himself antisemitic? It doesn't appear so from what I've read. But politics make strange bedfellows. There is no doubt that many of Galloway's CONSTITUENTS aren't exactly friends of the Jewish people. Did he pander to antisemites for votes? I think, in the circumstances, it's a fair question.

Moreover, it doesn't appear that Galloway has any great love of women's rights or gay rights. Indeed, it doesn't seem he's really a liberal at all. He purports to be antiwar, yet admires dictators and totalitarian governments. He characterized Saddam's massacre of the Kurds as a "civil war" and admires the USSR and Castro. Further searches will reveal he prefers a fine lifestyle, hardly sympatico with the poor in his district. So go figure.

A couple more links:

http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=63
http://www.axt.org.uk/HateMusic/essay_rich_barriers.htm

[Jack Rabbit]

95. Further observations

From the BBC Online
Dated Friday May 6

Has Galloway earned respect?
By Alexis Akwagyiram
BBC News

George Galloway's Respect Party has succeeded in ousting Labour's Oona King from Bethnal Green & Bow.

But what do people in the east London constituency think of the result?

. . . Mr Appiah, who can barely contain his glee at the outcome, goes on: "I have a lot of respect for George because he was the only person to stand up to Tony Blair over Iraq" . . . .

And for Ambia Mahmood, a 20 year-old student, the result came as vindication for those who felt Mr Blair had been "subservient to President Bush" over Iraq and had failed to listen to those who opposed the conflict.

But not everyone supported Respect . . . .

Sylvia Parr, 61, laments the loss of a "very good MP who cared" in Oona King, before suggesting Mr Galloway used his anti-war stance to "cynically" appeal to the area's large Asian population . . . .

"Oona King made the streets safer and cleaner, but he doesn't care about this place or helping people."

This feeling was shared by Allan Barton who says: "You can't represent people if you are not living in the area and don't know what is going on in that community."

It was indeed a very nasty campaign in which both candidates were physically threatened.

It might be worth mentioning that it would appear from the above testimonials that for eight years, apart from her stand on the Iraq war, Ms. King served her constituents well. Mr. Galloway has some big shoes to fill.

The defeat of such an MP at the hands of a firebrand like Galloway might very well be a measure of the outrage the British people feel toward Tony Blair for leading them into a war behind Bush and lying to them.

[Colorado Blue]

104. I have a question, maybe you can help me (us) figure this

out.

Is it really so simple, that opposition to the War in Iraq, renders anybody who professes said opposition, our (the liberals') friend? And the corrolary - that anybody who - for whatever reason: fear of WMD's, desire to help the Kurds, idealism about democracy, realpolitik concerning oil, WHATEVER - is our enemy?

Doesn't this cover a pretty broad range of people, including totalitarians, religious fundamentalists, Ba'ath party loyalists, people who wish serious harm to the US and/or the West, and so forth, who might actually be real ENEMIES of liberal politics?

[Jack Rabbit]

105. That depends on how opposed you are to the war in Iraq

I think the invasion of Iraq is one of the major crimes of modern times. It makes the Vietnam war look honorable. If one were to ask those in the Johnson administration what they thought they were doing in Vietnam, they would have answered, "We thought we were containing Communism." We could argue about whether that was the best way to about it (a dissent on strategic grounds) or even whether Communism should have been contained (if one is a Stalinist, one might argue from there), but at least that would be an honest answer. If one were to ask the architects of the Iraq misadventure what they thought they were accomplishing, they would say, "We thought we were fighting terrorism."

They would be lying. They thought they were expropriating Iraq's natural wealth and placing it in the hands of their corporate cronies. No one could ever convince me that the Bushies seriously thought Saddam was a threat or that they didn't know he had no ties to al Qaida. Furthermore, it is foolish to think that Bush -- who stole an election in 2000, promoted the Patriot Act, makes use of fake journalists to propagate his initiatives and operates the government in secrecy -- has any interest in promoting democracy abroad while undermining the it at home. This war was about colonial piracy, pure and simple.

There is no war on terrorism. The September 11 attacks have been used as a smokescreen to cover a plan for world domination by US corporatists that was put on paper in the nineties. Take a look at the PNAC website. It reads like a conspiracy theory (and I detest conspiracy theories); the difference here is that the conspirators themselves, not some wacko, are telling the public about their conspiracy.

I am willing to make alliances with people I don't like or don't always agree in order to put a stop to neoconservative colonialism. It is at least as great a threat to humanity as international terrorism. While Bush is not as brutal as Hitler, neoconservatism occupies the same niche in the world today that Nazism occupied sixty-five years ago. I am proud to participate in large antiwar demonstrations, even though there are also people hawking pamphlets there with ideas in them that I find more than a little bizarre. I will put up with them if it helps to bring the world crashing down on Bush's head and help convict him of war crimes.

Even I have my limits. Just because I oppose US occupation of Iraq doesn't mean that I don't think the best thing to do with Zarqawi is kill him.

On the other hand, had I been a constituent in Bethnal Green, I probably would have voted for Galloway.

[geek tragedy]

119. The Iraq invasion was an immoral and misguided enterprise, but it doesn't

compare to the overwhelming evil and destruction of the Vietnam war.

The Iraq war has about 5% of the body count that Vietnam did.

[Colorado Blue]

123. I sort of responded to you in my post 121. I agree also, the

Vietnam War was far worse. I think over a million people died and the environmental and economic implications, here as well as in 'Nam, were catastrophic. It also empowered the "military-industrial complex" that Eisenhower so warned about.

But in any case, modern wars - especially "wars of choice" - are all about big business. This administration is just picking up the reins the British Empire, with its unique blend of corporate and governmental power, handed to them after WWII.

The problem with trying to stop wars like this, or vote against them, or demonstrate against them, is simply this: we are all consumers. As long as we are part of the chain of supply and demand, we're implicated up to our eyeballs.

To really change this we need to completely restructure several major industries - which in this case, are reliant upon petroleum. But more - we need to create economies which are oriented to the process of living and creating rather than to consuming.

I don't know how to begin to do those things. I can visualize, I can "see" interlocking and multilayered economic schemes, but have zero power. Worse, on the topic of petroleum, cars, planes, plastics, heavy equipment, fertilizers, medicines, textiles, paints, pesticides - you name it - it's saturated our world. And we're all consumers and therefore all guilty. And as long as certain key businesses control THAT process, I don't see how any politician can change it, or any amount of demonstrations.

Only when innovations in technology become profitable will things really begin to change. Or - when the environment gets so bad all the consumers start dropping dead - THEN we'll see changes.

I hope it doesn't come to that. I hope human creativity gets out in front of this thing but I'm pessimistic. I hope human creativity gets out in front of political, social, racial and religious differences, and lack of educational fervor, and sloth, and plants the seeds of new economies - but I'm pessimistic. Inertia is a tremendously powerful thing.

And people don't seem to be able to focus on the wide screen, or to see historically, or into the future. And we're so vulnerable to manipulation - commercial, religious, emotional, political.

As far as choosing individual politicians for this or that issue - even something as major as Iraq - I would hope, as thinking people - that we would choose discerningly. King sounds like she was awfully good for her 'hood. And it sounds as though Galloway - or at least some of his supporters - exploited some racial tensions to get votes, using the issue of the war to do so. That worries me.

On the level of macro-politics, the war sucks.

But on the level where people really live and work, issues of tolerance, respect for gay, women's and minority rights are incredibly important and they are the very fabric of democracy. I sure hope we don't have an election like this one over HERE. But I'm afraid we already did - Bush 2004. In that case, fear of terror was a key issue, as was - so sad and silly - gay marriage. But it was the same sort of thing: a big issue was used to exploit differences between people.

As for the war: it's here, we've got it. I hope against hope, something good will come of it, since it's too late to stop it.

[Jack Rabbit]

139. Response to Geek Tragedy and Colorado Blue

Carnage is not the way to measure the statement that Vietnam war was more honorable than the invasion of Iraq. For the record, there were 58,000 US dead in Vietnam and 1.5 million Vietnamese killed. The figures for Iraq (approximately 1600 US dead and an estimated 100,000 Iraqis) do not compare. However, the occupation of Iraq just began its third year, while the Vietnam war is generally dated as lasting eight and a half years (August 1964-February 1973), although one could argue that it began with a US commitment to defend South Vietnam in 1957 to the fall of Saigon in 1975.

The honor of which I speak is that of those who prosecuted the wars in high places. In the case of both Vietnam and Iraq, miscalculations were made. Those who planned each of these wars thought they would be short and easy; each war became a quagmire. However, even granting that at best Johnson and McNamara didn't really know what happened in the Tonkin Gulf in August 1964 and simply took sketchy reports of attacks of two American destroyers as a pretext to escalate the conflict, the fact is that Americans were already involved in Vietnam and escalation of the conflict was always a possibility. Vietnam must be viewed in the context of the overall American strategy of the containment of Communism. Escalating the conflict in Vietnam might have seen to reasonable people a good way to advance that goal; however, in retrospect, they were wrong. The escalating of the Vietnam War was simply a blunder.

The neoconservatives in the Bush administration who plotted the invasion of Iraq deserve no benefit of any doubt. The backdrop of the invasion was the September 11 attacks against the United States by Islamist terrorists directed by Osama bin Laden. Osama had no ties to Saddam; reasonable and informed people who got beyond the noise machine of the US mainstream media knew this. Officials in the Pentagon, State Department and the White House had to know this as well. Terrorism was not a reason to invade Iraq. Repeating that false message over and over did not make it true, nor did the failure of US mainstream media to investigate and report the facts change the facts. The other reason given for the invasion is that Saddam possessed a vast biochemical arsenal. Here, the evidence was a little foggy. Saddam appeared to want some people, perhaps the Iranians in particular, to think he had something he shouldn't have had. The mere possibility that he possessed biochemical weapons could have been a deterrent to anybody who had designs on Iraq. However, there was also evidence that he had little or nothing. Scott Ritter, the former UN chief weapons inspector, said that when inspectors left Iraq in late 1998, 95% of Saddam's biochemical weapons had been destroyed and that in the period between that time and the start of the invasion the remaining stockpile would have deteriorated beyond use. The UN and the US intelligence agencies knew that General Kamel had ordered the destruction of Saddam's chemical weapons shortly after the end of the 1991 war. Finally, Saddam's neighbors in the Gulf region, all of whom had reason to detest him, didn't indicate that there was any great urgency to remove him. If they weren't afraid of him, why were the neocons?

We now know for certain what we had suspected all along. The decision was made to remove Saddam and use ties to al Qaida and possession of banned weapons as the pretext, and, in the words of the Downing Street memo, "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." In other words, they were deliberately lying.

There was no threat from Saddam. There were no ties to al Qaida. Invading Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism and policy makers in Washington and London knew it. Vietnam was a mistake. This was calculated.

On that, I rest my defense of the statement that the invasion of Iraq was less honorable than the war in Vietnam.

As for Mr. Blue's remarks that the US needs to become more energy independent, I couldn't agree more. We need develop technologies based on renewable energy and move away from fossil fuels. That is a far better way to meet our energy needs than busting into somebody's backyard and taking it by the force of arms.

Which brings me to the urgency of defeating the neoconservatives and the need to punish them for their crimes. The invasion of Iraq is an attempt to destroy the world order that arose after World War II and replace it with one based on imperialism. Although the Cold War began to menace mankind soon after the defeat of the Axis powers, the period following the end of war was also one of optimism. European powers would begin withdrawing from their former colonies in Africa and Asia and granting them independence. Open international cooperation, centered in the United Nations, would replace military alliances. Permanent international institutions would be established to settle disputes among peacefully.

This hope is what the neoconservatives would destroy. In its place they would have American military power in a return to savage might makes right rules with which we had hoped we had dispensed with the defeat of the Nazis in 1945 and the Soviet Communists in 1991. They would have the world governed by a single imperial superpower which would reserve for itself the right to define its own interests and act unilaterally to crush not only serious threats but rivalries for power. This superpower would have the ability and the right to meet its needs by expropriating resources from elsewhere.

This is imperialism. It is a system based, like slavery, on the natural right of some people to rule over many others. It is not based on quack racist theories, like trans-Atlantic slavery or the dystopia envisioned by Hitler, but on the presumed talent of those born to wealth and privilege. It is they who shall have the right to expropriate wealth and dictate what shall be produced and how, claiming that it is for the good of all mankind when in fact it is only for their own profit. For the good of mankind, they will trample on the masses with low wages, poor working conditions and environmental pollution. The tyranny of totalitarian fascism and totalitarian Communism is only to be replaced by the tyranny of totalitarian global capitalism.

This must be stopped.

In its place I would propose moving toward a world based on democracy, an arrangement where citizenship is universal and equal. This is a humanist system. It is not a system that promises perfection, because human beings are fallible. But it is a system that provides a flexible means to make collective decisions based on the informed discourse of all citizens. It is a system that guards against tyranny with the principles of equality and civil liberties designed to insure free and open discussion of civic affairs. There should be no presumption in these discussions that there is a natural right of one or a small clique to make any decision without the consent of the assembly.

We must renew our hope of a better world. The world we must fight against is one based on fear that is exploited by tyrants seeking to tighten their grip on power and wealth that does not by any natural right belong to them alone.

[geek tragedy]

144. The US has invaded tons of countries with less compelling reasons

to do so. Panama comes to mind as a recent example. This is not to support the Iraq war, but rather as an indictment of US foreign policy in general.

The primary evils of the Vietnam war were its opposition to a movement for national liberation and the wanton disregard for any form of life. Not to minimize the abuses in Iraq, but the atrocities of the Vietnam conflict are truly staggering.

[Colorado Blue]

149. I totally agree with you about the evils of the war in Iraq. I'd

like to point out, though, about Vietnam - that "containing Communism" and giving cover to colonial interests in Vietnam are not exactly the same thing. And we were most certainly protecting commercial and colonial interests there.

This war dates back in real terms, to the 1950's. The French in particular had interests in Vietnam (aka, French Indochina). No doubt, American (and other Western) money was involved there as well. Plus, Southeast Asia is strategically located.

I think the canard about stopping Communism is about the same as stopping WMD's. Neither war was what it appeared to be, in terms of causes. They are the same, in terms of the effects: putting money in the pockets of certain very wealthy businesses. Look at the armaments industries, just for a start!

And the death toll - I agree, the deaths can't make the one more or less honorable than the other.

But seeing Iraq as forming a "new world order" - with that, I disagree. I think the war in Iraq is all about maintaining the OLD world order - the order of the British Empire, which we've inherited, which was ALWAYS imperialistic. There wasn't even an Iraq before the Sykes-Picot agreement! This region was called Mesopotamia and it was carved up, due to its oil resources, from the carcass of the Ottoman Empire.

The Turks most certainly see this as a continuation of the Great Game. I have some papers I found on line, I'll try to post one later.

There is NOTHING NEW about PNAC or the Neocons. They're simply playing out the OLD game: the dominance of the world by white guys, control of key resources, by Western powers. The Soviets were the old enemy in the Great Game - Russia - in new clothes. Now we're back to the Russians again. More pressure is being brought to bear by the developing "third world".

But the prize is the same as it was in the 19th century: hegemony of key geopolitical regions, and control of precious resources.

Also at stake: huge Central Asian oil resources, which can't be exploited because there are no pipelines.

As for the Bush Administration, personally I think they should go to jail. But that won't change the dynamics of the geopolitical situation or the fulcrum represented by Middle Eastern oil reserves.

The Game will go on, regardless of the public faces in Washington, London, Moscow, Paris or Berlin.

Finally - who couldn't agree:

In its place I would propose moving toward a world based on democracy, an arrangement where citizenship is universal and equal. This is a humanist system. It is not a system that promises perfection, because human beings are fallible. But it is a system that provides a flexible means to make collective decisions based on the informed discourse of all citizens. It is a system that guards against tyranny with the principles of equality and civil liberties designed to insure free and open discussion of civic affairs. There should be no presumption in these discussions that there is a natural right of one or a small clique to make any decision without the consent of the assembly.

You sound a lot like Sharansky:)

[pelsar]

136. jack....

though i disagree with a lot of what your wrote (and write) I find your writings clear, confident, "down to earth"... and a pleasure to read

[Jack Rabbit]

140. Thank you, sir

!!

[geek tragedy]

106. There is no monolithic bloc on either side of the issue

I doubt that there was even unanimity of motive within the Bush administration--one probably had a mix of ideologues, imperialists, robber capitalist barons, and so on.

But no, the enemy of my enemy is not my friend. The folks shooting at US troops and setting off car bombs outside police recruitment centers and murdering election workers are the bad guys, even if they hate Bush.

[Colorado Blue]

124. I agree on a number of points - but especially, about the

daily explosions in Iraq. That is a horror, and it's only hurting the innocent, and I think they are the bad guys. And what can come of it? More tyranny.

[Colorado Blue]

163. Well well...

I'm cross-posting this because I think it's interesting in view of the above discussion thread.

Hussein Gave Oil to French and British Officials, Senate Panel Says

By JUDITH MILLER
Published: May 12, 2005

A Senate committee has disclosed evidence it says shows that senior Iraqi officials under Saddam Hussein awarded the right to buy millions of barrels of Iraqi oil to Charles Pasqua, the former French interior minister, and to George Galloway, a recently re-elected member of the British Parliament. The evidence is in a 96-page report, with previously undisclosed Iraqi documents and excerpts from interviews with former Iraqi officials, which was issued yesterday by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.

The report concludes that the rights were given to Mr. Pasqua and Mr. Galloway because of their support for Mr. Hussein, but contains no copies of bank statements or other evidence indicating that either man directly solicited Iraqi oil or benefited financially from the rights. "This report exposes how Saddam Hussein turned the oil-for-food program on its head and used the program to reward his political allies like Pasqua and Galloway," said Senator Norm Coleman, Republican of Minnesota, the chairman of the subcommittee.

The report and its findings, prepared and endorsed by the panel's majority and minority members, contain Iraqi material backing the panel's contention that Iraqi officials thought they were rewarding the two men for their support. Mr. Galloway and Mr. Pasqua denied any wrongdoing. A spokeswoman for Mr. Pasqua said he "continues to deny that he has made any money whatsoever in the oil-for-food program."

snip

Iraqi Oil Ministry records and letters from senior Iraqi officials indicate, for instance, that Mr. Pasqua, who was France's interior minister from 1993 to 1995 and is a member of the French Parliament, was granted rights to buy 11 million barrels of oil from June 1999 through December 2000, the report says. And a June 1999 letter from the Iraqi State Oil Marketing Organization to Iraq's oil minister says Mr. Hussein personally approved the right for Mr. Pasqua to buy three million barrels.

snip

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/12/politics/12food.html

[Jack Rabbit]

164. More . . .

From the BBC Online
Dated Thursday May 12 16:13 GMT (7:13 am PDT)

Galloway accepts Washington call

British MP George Galloway says he is ready for an explosive confrontation with US senators who claim he received oil rights from Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

Mr Galloway denies claims by a Senate committee that he and a French minister were allowed to sell Iraqi oil to reward their support for the regime.

The committee said it would be "pleased" for Mr Galloway to appear at a hearing in Washington on 17 May.

The MP accepted, declaring he would take "them on in their own lions' den".

Read more.

[Colorado Blue]

165. I hope this is on TV:) nt

[Jack Rabbit]

166. Whatever side you take

It will probably be more entertaining than a typical evening of network prime time "drama".

[Colorado Blue]

167. No kidding. For this they could probably charge PPV,

especially if they also "invite" Mr. Hussein:)

[Jack Rabbit]

169. BBC (May 17): Galloway takes on US oil accusers

From the BBC Online
Dated Tuesday May 17 17:57 GMT (10:57 am PDT)

Galloway takes on US oil accusers

British MP George Galloway has told US senators who accused him of profiting from Iraq oil dealings their claims were the "mother of all smokescreens".

In a combative performance before a Senate committee, the Respect Coalition MP accused the US lawmakers of being "cavalier" with justice.

He said: "I am not now nor have I ever been an oil trader and neither has anyone on my behalf."

The senators say he was given credits to buy Iraqi oil by Saddam Hussein.

Read more and check out the video link.

As we thought, it was a stellar performance.

[newyorican]

170. Galloway wins libel judgement: Thu 2 Dec 2004

GEORGE Galloway today won £150,000 in damages from The Daily Telegraph over "outrageous and incredibly damaging" allegations that he was receiving payoffs from Saddam Hussein when the former Iraqi leader was in power.

The MP for Glasgow Kelvin smiled as Mr Justice Eady gave his ruling. The judge, who heard the case at London's High Court without a jury, said he was "obliged to compensate Mr Galloway in respect of the publications and the aggravated features of the defendants' subsequent conduct, and to make an award for the purposes of restoring his reputation".

Mr Justice Eady added: "I do not think those purposes would be achieved by any award less than £150,000."

read more of this "old news"...

-----------------------------

Yet some want to still push the big lie, as evidenced by some appendages imputations in this thread (as well as a bevy of Senators whose favorite pastime is beating dead horses). The question I have is, why perpetuate a known falsehood? Could it be that all of the shrill bleating about hate is little more than projection? Things that make you go hmmmm...

[newyorican]

171. Galloway Oil Claims 'Based on Forgery'

Rebel MP George Galloway’s Respect Party claimed today that evidence that he profited from Saddam Hussein’s regime was forged.

Ahead of Mr Galloway’s appearance in front of a committee of US senators in Washington, his party said the committee was relying on a counterfeit document created in Baghdad.

It said Mr Galloway’s name had been pasted on to a list of people and companies alleged to have made money out of the Oil For Food programme.

His name appeared in a different typeface to other words on the same line, the print was lighter in colour and Respect suggested it had been stuck on and then the page re-photocopied.

His name also appeared at a slight angle and Respect said that would be impossible on the computerised document unless it had been artificially added.

read more...

----------------------

Shades of yellow cake from Niger....