|
Post by HStorm on Aug 18, 2004 8:02:04 GMT
In so many words, no, there's no specific demand to attack British troops, but last year I thought long and hard about Galloway's words and I just can't find any other interpretation of them that fits.
The only reason he gives for not calling outright for a pan-Arab army to intervene in Iraq is that it's not realistic. That, in conjunction with everything else he says, indicates that if it were a realistic alternative he would call for one. What would they do when they got there if not try to destroy allied troops (including British ones)? Play football against them?
While there are other possible interpretations of the statement, either they would seem rather implausible, or they would just make Galloway sound a little silly. Therefore they don't cast him in a much better light.
Let me re-iterate, I'm not against Galloway and I don't think this statement suddenly made him a spawn of the devil or anything, but it doesn't change the implications of what he said and therefore it has to go down as a blot on his copybook.
I agree that Will's belief that it puts Galloway beyond all hope of salvation seems incredibly over-the-top, as every politician who's ever lived must have said or done something they shouldn't have during their careers. (And yes, the poll tax is a far worse skeleton to have in the cupboard than this statement.)
It kind of reminds me of George Bush Snr's campaign for re-election as President in 1992, when he spent the entire eight weeks quibbling over leftie statements Bill Clinton had made when he was younger. The entire US electorate was crying out, "We don't CARE what Clinton said in 1979! Our economy's up the sh*tter thanks to you and Reagan, what are you going to do about it?!?!?" He never answered the question so he got completely drubbed at the polling stations.
|
|
|
Post by Thanatos on Aug 18, 2004 17:24:56 GMT
My problem with this assessment can be traced to the second paragraph:
"The only reason he gives for not calling outright for a pan-Arab army to intervene in Iraq is that it's not realistic. That, in conjunction with everything else he says[-snip]"
What else? As I said, in the absence of any other such suggestion, I interpret "not realistic" as meaning (albeit ham-fistedly) that he does not want British troops attacked.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Aug 18, 2004 21:39:16 GMT
Sounds likely to me that you believe that because you want to believe it, Thanatos. I know how much you like and admire Galloway, but you shouldn't let your heart rule your head. Being loyal shouldn't lead you to pretend that Galloway is infallible, and the interpretation you offered there is precisely one of the ones I thought of and couldn't swallow.
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Aug 19, 2004 13:38:42 GMT
I'm afraid I agree with Thanatos on this. I think it's just Galloway being a little clumsy with his wording. I've read through the article a few times, and it seems to me he isn't trying to get a pan-arab alliance together to go and kill his consituants, but is rather critising the OPEC nations for totally failing to act to stop an illegal invasion of a sovreign nation which is happening on their doorsteps, and powered by their oil. I have to say the way he said it was very poorly thought out, but I don't think any MP of any nation would deliberately ask for violence against their own citizens.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Aug 19, 2004 14:30:34 GMT
Oh I know the key point is that he's asking for an oil embargo, that's perfectly obvious, but I'm not referring to that bit of the sentence. I'm talking about the bit when he implies he'd call for a pan-Arab army if it were a realistic option. The reason it's unrealistic is that Israel is the only subject that gets Arab rulers in the Gulf to agree on things, and the War in Iraq has nothing directly to do with Israel. Furthermore the thought of standing up to the USA militarily always has them quaking in (understandable) terror.
You should try watching a Tory party conference one of these years.
|
|
|
Post by Thanatos on Aug 19, 2004 17:29:17 GMT
A Tory conference? You should listen to David Blunkett, mate.
I certainly don't consider the man (Galloway, not Blunkett) infallible: such comments as we have discussed indicate occasions on which he has been if not a traitor then certainly a bit of a wally. However, as I said, I ask you to tell me which of his remarks led you to the "in conjunction with everything else he says" statement. Had he made other similar such statements I would agree with you in regarding the one in question as going too far rather than bad wording, but as far as I know he has not. If you can correct me I shall be much obliged.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Aug 20, 2004 0:05:42 GMT
A Tory conference? You should listen to David Blunkett, mate. Like I say, the Tory Party conference (AKA The New Labour Propaganda Variety Performance). I'm not talking about other statements Galloway has made in his time, I meant in the context of the rest of the statement he made here. The overall gist of everything he said appears to be that he wants the employment of as many methods as possible to hamper the Allied armies' effectiveness and to put up as many barriers as possible to it doing its job in Iraq. In that context, a coalition of Arab nations fighting against it is the huge potential stumbling block.
|
|
|
Post by Thanatos on Aug 20, 2004 17:15:01 GMT
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree here.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Aug 23, 2004 20:59:39 GMT
I thank you both for elaborating on the topic.
I am prepared to believe that Galloway's controversial comment was the result of clumsy wording.
However, the comment in question, in my view, definately refers to some want of Galloway's for British troops to be stopped, by force if that is required. (Should there be no problem with the wording).
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Sept 2, 2004 14:36:55 GMT
Alright, let's put it in another context, shall we?
Albert Einstein lived in Germany. He was, in most respects, a German citizen. However, he fled to America and, like most Germen expatriots in the 30s and 40s, he repeatedly asked for countries to turn their guns on German soldiers for the outragious invasions they were performing. Is he, therefore, in the wrong, or was the facist dictatorship of Adolf Hitler? Careful how you answer that one, guys, you might start noticing other similarities beween B&B and Hitler and Mussolini.
Oskar Schindler, not only a German citizen but a member of the Nazi party, sabotaged the bullets in his own factories later on in the war. He was selling his country defective bullets so that the Allied soldiers could kill them more easily. Traitorous swine, yes, but in the wrong for doing it?
If a government is using it's army to do things which are just plain wrong (not to mention illegal, immoral, inaccurate, dishonest, etc.) then I think those opposed shouldn't be penalised and demonised for speaking out about it. And if it means asking for an army to come in against your own troops, so be it. It's not like your troops are actually supposed to be there.
|
|
|
Post by The mekanik on Sept 6, 2004 17:42:46 GMT
Is this the UKIP post or the George Galloway post?
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Sept 6, 2004 17:54:27 GMT
That's a pretty good point. But is there really anything more to say about UKIP? They're a one-issue party incapable of government, so why bother trying to say more about them?
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Sept 7, 2004 12:39:57 GMT
Well the UKIP discussion appears to be over, but there looks to be more to say on the Galloway issue, so rather than lock this topic & make everyone start again in a topic entitled 'George Galloway' then i'll leave it open for Galloway & UKIP discussion if no one minds.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Sept 13, 2004 11:48:28 GMT
Good point.
To answer this I would look at the pretexts for the wars, and the troops themselves:
Very few would deny that Hitler's war was for world conquest. B&B's war was to secure the west's oil supplies.
However, Nazi troops, I think, would have realised that there was no reason for invading other European countries other than conquest, and they were probably told that. But British troops were told that they were going in to remove an evil dictator sitting on a stockpile of WMD's. ie. to remove a world threat.
There is a difference. British troops were clearly innocent, and did not know what they were really fighting for, while Nazi troops did.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Sept 13, 2004 12:40:57 GMT
I do see your point here Will, but I think that B&B were stupid to send their troops into a war like this under false pretences. Saddam WAS a threat to Iraq and its people, he was a threat to his neighbouring countries if annoyed, but we were all lied to and told he was a Global threat due to his 'Weapons' when in fact nothing has been found. If we were just taken into the war honestly, to remove an evil man who had commited Genocide then people wouldn't object quite as much but the fact we were drawn into it on half truths and, in some cases, outright lies means that Galloway's comments are in some way justified.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Jan 9, 2006 11:49:38 GMT
Returning to this old topic, George Galloway recently caused a stir by entering into 'Celebrity Big Brother'. Surely if he is still drawing MP's salary and supposedly representing the constituents of Bethnal Green & Bow he shouldn't have time to appear on a pointless television programme like Big Brother? I think this attention-seeking behaviour is very inappropriate for an MP and serious questions should be raised.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Jan 9, 2006 18:20:27 GMT
It has to be conceded by even the most commited 'Respect-ite' that Galloway is destroying his credibility. We're talking about a guy who has launched a number of tirades against Tony Blair's (quite genuine) contempt for Parliament, and yet whose own attendance record in the last term was one of the thirteen worst among all MP's!
His equal lack of dedication in his constituency is bordering on sleaze. At bare minimum, he should surrender his salary for the duration of his latest self-publicity stint.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Jan 10, 2006 10:58:00 GMT
[George Galloway's] own attendance record in the last term was one of the thirteen worst among all MP's! It should also be noted that in the first Anti-Terror Legislation vote that Labour won with a majority of one vote, Galloway was not present at parliament and would have almost certainly voted against. He clearly isn't taking his role as an MP seriously and his salary should be forfeit until he does.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Jan 13, 2006 13:13:04 GMT
|
|
|
Post by golemryder on Mar 20, 2006 22:44:00 GMT
Many MPs miss important votes, should their salary's be forfeit? George Galloway has tried to raise awareness of his existence (all publicity is good publicity).
This seems to have worked because now he has his own Radio show...although whether this actually serves his constituents is a matter of opinion.
Despite all the fuss that has been made over his time in the big brother house, MPs regularly go on expensive holidays e.t.c, the difference here is that George was going on holiday on national television...
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Mar 20, 2006 23:32:48 GMT
(all publicity is good publicity) Having seen footage of Galloway pretending to be a cat, lapping up imaginary milk and having his whiskers stroked I am forced to question that. Since he left the Big Brother house, has Galloway actually managed to achieve anything? As for having his own radio show, I would strongly question whether or not that is serving either his constituents or the general public. To be honest I think all he accomplished by appearing on Big Brother was to do what the Labour Party and the US Senate had previously failed to do and destroy his own credibility.
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Mar 21, 2006 0:43:25 GMT
To be fair, Galloway also did NOT draw his salary while in the BB House.
However, I'm hard-pressed to see how Galloway's penchant for egotistical self-promotion should be given presidence to his duty as an MP, especially since he bases his image on the one man willing to stand up to Blair's dictatorial style of government. The man's trying to be a famed political commentator but has ended up an MP, and that means he spends too long criticizing what he should instead be voting against.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Mar 21, 2006 8:01:12 GMT
Despite all the fuss that has been made over his time in the big brother house, M.ps regularly go on expensive holidays e.t.c, the difference here is that George was going on holiday on national television... I don't have a problem with that in itself, and I wouldn't even raise an eyebrow if this were a one-off. The problem is Galloway's attendance record is apalling, which makes his bleatings about Tony Blair's contempt-for-Parliament sound like the lowest hypocrisy. Welcome aboard by the way!
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Mar 21, 2006 10:51:45 GMT
There's also a lot of irony in the fact that on some occasions where he has missed crucial votes, he has been attending protests and speaking out against the very legislation that he hasn't been present to vote against!
|
|
|
Post by golemryder on Mar 21, 2006 12:24:51 GMT
I have to agree that George Galloway made a massive mistake by appearing on the big brother house. Well it could be worse Rob, he could of actually voted for the legislation he has been protesting against..... Thanks HStorm, this is quite refreshing after arguing with totally insane maniacs on totse's political forum
|
|