Senate: Galloway lied

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Galloway must have taken lessons from Bush.

No. Galloway took lessons from his good buddy Saddam; and possibly more than just lessons.

Oh he may have taken much from Saddam. I really don't know. Then again Saddam has had many friends which he as used and been used in return.

I am not in the position of having to defend anyone, unlike neocons. Remarkably freeing.

I'm amazed you are trying to equate these two.

You'll have to indict FDR for allying with "Uncle Joe Stalin" (Saddam pales in comparsion) during WWII.


I wouldn't indict FDR for that because it simply had to be done and was part of a bigger and more just aim.

But this Rumsfeld picture is only going to affect those who are dominated by their emotions. And a person like that is frankly unfit to give real political prescriptions because they are so affected by emotion and obviously let it overtake reason, in this case. (And IMO)

I understand precisely why and how Saddam and the US used each other. We knew at the time what he was and what he was doing. We were not in the least worried about the Iraqis. Our "more just aim" was to play Saddam off against the Iranians with the hope of as many dying as possible.

Please spare us morality and being just. High sounding words for mutual exploitation.

When it comes down to it, we would kill every man, woman and child in Iraq if it was seen to be necessary to the security of the US. As it is, it is not.

Galloway may have profited. Rumsfeld uses Saddam to kill Iranians, and accepted what Saddam was.

That's the unsugared version of the truth. Spare us "noble" notions.

Ok if you want to ignore the allying with dictators/FDR issue, what would you have done differently during the Iran/Iraq war? Let's hammer it out, and you better have an alternative if you're going to criticize what was done. And you have the benefit of hindsight and theoretical suggestions that never have to be tested.


Would you have supported only Saddam, helping him to win and become the dominant power of the middle east?

We could have done 4 things from my point of view:

1. Soley supported Iran, helping the new Islamic extremist revolutionary government to gain dominance in the region.

2. Solely supported Saddam, helping him gain dominance of the region, and he had ambitions of dominating all of the middle east.

3. Supported both hoping both would destabilize the the other, as both the Sha and Saddam's governments were an absolute negative force on the world and their own people.

4. Stayed out of it entirely and just hoped something good would happen as a result.



You also act like our getting involved somehow killed more, when really you cannot say.

Had Saddam or the Sha won, millions could have been slaughtered.


But let's hear your theoretical solution.

I am a bit confused. The Shah of Iran was effectively installed at the ruler of Iran by Kermit Roosevelt, CIA agent and grandson of Teddy. He was our boy, and was deposed by the Iranians. Khomeini came to power and only after that the war.

In any case, the war claimed upwards of 1.5 million. Could we have prevented it? Unlikely given the real world constraints.

Perhaps to your suprise I think the best way the situation could have been handled was with Rummy shaking hands and using Saddam. You see I have a certain cold blooded pragmatism about such things, however what does annoy me is when people start justifying things as if the reason was for the people there. Nonsense. It's all about us, just like every country.

We have killed millions because we have seen it in our best interests. We have installed Pinochet's, bolstered Saddams. We attempt to give democracy to Iraq, and would crush them like a tin can should that democratic govt appear a threat and we deem it necessary.

We are looking out for number one, and nothing will stand in our way. Just like I could snap the neck of someone I felt a genuine and immediate threat to my family, the US does the equivalent. Because I would doesn't give me the warm and fuzzies.

It's not morality, it's self interest.

A difference between me and the Bush supporters for Iraq, is that the Iraq was not national self interest AKA survival, but something else. Precisely what I don't know, but well before the war I and others recognized the inconsistencies in statements and reality. I believe it may well have been something personal, and this administration used it's power to get Saddam. Everything else became secondary, including the so called War on Terror.

 

[arsbanned]

Who gives a fvck about Galloway. He has what to do with Bush's incorrect decision to go to war. The WMD don't exist. Talk about obfuscation. That's exactly what YOU'RE doing, trying (ever more frantically) to distract from the primary issue that the war is pointless and wrong and a huge mistake for America.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Who gives a fvck about Galloway. He has what to do with Bush's incorrect decision to go to war. The WMD don't exist. Talk about obfuscation. That's exactly what YOU'RE doing, trying (ever more frantically) to distract from the primary issue that the war is pointless and wrong and a huge mistake for America.

You ever happen to look at the title of the thread?

Take off your glasses, read, and quit your lame obfuscation run.

 

[arsbanned]

Ahhh, Mister Intellectual flyweight is feeling cocky this evening. AS a matter of fact, I agree with Galloway, and don't care about his (if it can be proved, which is in doubt) foilbles. I'd vote for him over your hero, GWB. Right now. To-day.
So you know what you can kiss. Take your BLINDERS off. I looked up the word LAME in the dictionary and I saw your picture.
Back to the young Republican prayer meetings with you. *waves hand dismissively*

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Ahhh, Mister Intellectual flyweight is feeling cocky this evening. AS a matter of fact, I agree with Galloway, and don't care about his (if it can be proved, which is in doubt) foilbles. I'd vote for him over your hero, GWB. Right now. To-day.

Good luck in 2008. :laugh: :laugh:

So you know what you can kiss. Take your BLINDERS off. I looked up the word LAME in the dictionary and I saw your picture.
Back to the young Republican prayer meetings with you. *waves hand dismissively*

Insults, personal attacks, modus operandi for left-wing radicals like yourself. You go ahead and wave "dismissively". That's what the people reading your garbage do, as well.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Galloway must have taken lessons from Bush.

No. Galloway took lessons from his good buddy Saddam; and possibly more than just lessons.

Oh he may have taken much from Saddam. I really don't know. Then again Saddam has had many friends which he as used and been used in return.

I am not in the position of having to defend anyone, unlike neocons. Remarkably freeing.

I'm amazed you are trying to equate these two.

You'll have to indict FDR for allying with "Uncle Joe Stalin" (Saddam pales in comparsion) during WWII.


I wouldn't indict FDR for that because it simply had to be done and was part of a bigger and more just aim.

But this Rumsfeld picture is only going to affect those who are dominated by their emotions. And a person like that is frankly unfit to give real political prescriptions because they are so affected by emotion and obviously let it overtake reason, in this case. (And IMO)

I understand precisely why and how Saddam and the US used each other. We knew at the time what he was and what he was doing. We were not in the least worried about the Iraqis. Our "more just aim" was to play Saddam off against the Iranians with the hope of as many dying as possible.

Please spare us morality and being just. High sounding words for mutual exploitation.

When it comes down to it, we would kill every man, woman and child in Iraq if it was seen to be necessary to the security of the US. As it is, it is not.

Galloway may have profited. Rumsfeld uses Saddam to kill Iranians, and accepted what Saddam was.

That's the unsugared version of the truth. Spare us "noble" notions.

Ok if you want to ignore the allying with dictators/FDR issue, what would you have done differently during the Iran/Iraq war? Let's hammer it out, and you better have an alternative if you're going to criticize what was done. And you have the benefit of hindsight and theoretical suggestions that never have to be tested.


Would you have supported only Saddam, helping him to win and become the dominant power of the middle east?

We could have done 4 things from my point of view:

1. Soley supported Iran, helping the new Islamic extremist revolutionary government to gain dominance in the region.

2. Solely supported Saddam, helping him gain dominance of the region, and he had ambitions of dominating all of the middle east.

3. Supported both hoping both would destabilize the the other, as both the Sha and Saddam's governments were an absolute negative force on the world and their own people.

4. Stayed out of it entirely and just hoped something good would happen as a result.



You also act like our getting involved somehow killed more, when really you cannot say.

Had Saddam or the Sha won, millions could have been slaughtered.


But let's hear your theoretical solution.

I am a bit confused. The Shah of Iran was effectively installed at the ruler of Iran by Kermit Roosevelt, CIA agent and grandson of Teddy. He was our boy, and was deposed by the Iranians. Khomeini came to power and only after that the war.

In any case, the war claimed upwards of 1.5 million. Could we have prevented it? Unlikely given the real world constraints.

Perhaps to your suprise I think the best way the situation could have been handled was with Rummy shaking hands and using Saddam. You see I have a certain cold blooded pragmatism about such things, however what does annoy me is when people start justifying things as if the reason was for the people there. Nonsense. It's all about us, just like every country.

We have killed millions because we have seen it in our best interests. We have installed Pinochet's, bolstered Saddams. We attempt to give democracy to Iraq, and would crush them like a tin can should that democratic govt appear a threat and we deem it necessary.

We are looking out for number one, and nothing will stand in our way. Just like I could snap the neck of someone I felt a genuine and immediate threat to my family, the US does the equivalent. Because I would doesn't give me the warm and fuzzies.

It's not morality, it's self interest.

A difference between me and the Bush supporters for Iraq, is that the Iraq was not national self interest AKA survival, but something else. Precisely what I don't know, but well before the war I and others recognized the inconsistencies in statements and reality. I believe it may well have been something personal, and this administration used it's power to get Saddam. Everything else became secondary, including the so called War on Terror.

I'm not sure why I typed Sha(h), I meant Ayatollah


And I disagree with your assertion that only self-interest motivates states and/or the United States.

I would characterize it as a combination of ideals and self-interest (as well as other factors) playing relevant roles.

The US and other nations are not motivated only by self interest, idealism also plays an important and affecting role.

I also think that if a democratic Iraq succeeds and helps to foment democratic desires in the region it will do a lot to potentially save us pain further down the road.

If it does not succeed, it will probably go down as an unbelievable fvckup.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Ahhh, Mister Intellectual flyweight is feeling cocky this evening. AS a matter of fact, I agree with Galloway, and don't care about his (if it can be proved, which is in doubt) foilbles. I'd vote for him over your hero, GWB. Right now. To-day.
So you know what you can kiss. Take your BLINDERS off. I looked up the word LAME in the dictionary and I saw your picture.
Back to the young Republican prayer meetings with you. *waves hand dismissively*

So you don't care if he took money from Saddam? As long as he supports your position?

You would vote for him for US President?

I should begin a collection of absurd things said by the leftists on this forum. I've never seen anything like this kind of crap... what is the matter with you? Honestly????


I think you and many here are motivated by hate and other ignoble factors rather than the proclaimed good and just intentions that you use as the basis of your arguments.

 

[Votingisanillusion]

Let us not forget that Saddam was installed by the CIA.
And Khomeiny as well, because the Shah was becoming independant, trying to form an alliance of unaligned countries: he did not understand that it already was: with or without us / alive or dead.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Back to Galloway -

Coleman is obviously posturing for those who share his narrow minded , controlled view of the situation - those who ignore the facts
and cling to the spew from FOX, Rush, and the Conservative Think-Tanks who have made a concious decision to mislead America.

Galloway has been down this path before with the Conservatives in action in congress
and exposed them as blowhards.
Coleman has NEVER had to make his claims or statements UNDER OATH , Galloway has, and is willing to return . . . again.
Only difference is that this time he wants hard charges pressed, so Coleman will also have to testify under oath
which will upset Colemans blustering and hypocritical 'He said - She Said' game and expose Coleman as a fraud.
Do you really thing that Norm is bright enough to hold up to a debate or furnish testimony that will not blow up in his face and doom him politically ?

If Galloway won a lawsuit over the same matter in England and received a large settlement, it's concevible that nearly half
of that payout could have ended up in the wife's account, just as she could have been paid directly from other parties without Mr. Galloway's
knowledge - for services rendered when she was employed in Iraq by whoever she worked for, by whatever pay conduit they choose.

Lets see if Norm Coleman has the balls to come forward with enough rope to hang Galloway with . . or just enough to swing by himself.