Does the U.S. have the RIGHT to deploy over this?

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

Does the U.S. have the RIGHT to deploy over this?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> Does the U.S. have the RIGHT to deploy over this?

Page: [1]

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Does the U.S. have the RIGHT to deploy over this? - 8/14/2006 8:56:11 PM

Chaingang

Posts: 1727
Joined: 10/24/2005
Status: offline

"George Galloway vs. U.S Senate (5/17/05)"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrdFFCnYtbk

I guess that about sums it up then...

_____________________________

"Everything flows, nothing stands still." (Πάντα ῥεῖ καὶ οὐδὲν μένει) - Heraclitus

Post #: 1

RE: Does the U.S. have the RIGHT to deploy over this? - 8/15/2006 2:03:26 AM

meatcleaver

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

I'm not a fan of Gorgeous George but I'm a fan when he shows little defference to pompous political committees that are appear to have nothing but a propaganda brief.

Come on George!!!!

(in reply to Chaingang)

Post #: 2

RE: Does the U.S. have the RIGHT to deploy over this? - 8/15/2006 2:54:30 AM

LadyEllen

Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline

George Galloway - what a guy! One can tell how dangerous Bush and Blair think he is, by the number of attempts they make on his reputation - and yet George keeps coming through, keeps putting down the allegations against him and keeps sounding more reasoned and sensible than any of his detractors, even when he's humiliating them, again. After several years of trying, the best they can put against George is that he met Saddam Hussein and said some nice things to him at those meetings - I have to ask what else George could have said in Hussein's presence to further his agenda for the Iraqi people suffering under sanctions after we fell out with our former ally in the region?

I dont like the guy's politics (he's well left of centre from what I gather) but crikey do I love this guy just for how he is. Another in similar mould is "red" Ken Livingstone (mayor of London) - another whom Blair and Co expelled from the Labour Party for failing to submit and obey. The problem for Blair is that we Brits like these people - they speak their mind and refuse to be cowed, whether we like what they say or not.

George hasnt been in the headlines here for a while. It makes me wonder whether he might be involved in a car crash in the near future?
E

(in reply to meatcleaver)

Post #: 3

RE: Does the U.S. have the RIGHT to deploy over this? - 8/15/2006 3:24:34 AM

seeksfemslave

Posts: 4011
Joined: 6/16/2006
Status: offline

Lady Ellen says
the best they can put against George is that he met Saddam Hussein and said some nice things to him at those meetings

Actually my lady he said some quite nauseating vomit inducing sychophantic things to dear old Saddam. Though I agree his performance in front of the Senate committee was great. Can still recall the stone faced confusion of the Senators.
he he he he he he he

(in reply to LadyEllen)

Post #: 4

RE: Does the U.S. have the RIGHT to deploy over this? - 8/15/2006 3:40:25 AM

LadyEllen

Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline

Hi seek

Yes - OK, I'll agree with you, it was nauseatingly sycophantic - however is there anyone here (seriously now) who in the presence of Hussein when he was in power, surrounded by his generals and hundreds of troops, and not far from a shredder and other assorted means of torture and grisly death, would have told him what they really thought of him, when they wanted cooperation from the guy?

George is capable of pragmatism, as well as of standing up for himself - what a guy!

E

(in reply to seeksfemslave)

Post #: 5

RE: Does the U.S. have the RIGHT to deploy over this? - 8/15/2006 4:36:41 AM

Chaingang

Posts: 1727
Joined: 10/24/2005
Status: offline

George Galloway Speaks on the London Bombings House of Parliament, July 7, 2005
http://democracyrising.us/content/view/280/164/

I condemn the act that was committed this morning. I have no need to speculate about its authorship. It is absolutely clear that Islamist extremists, inspired by the al-Qaeda world outlook, are responsible. I condemn it utterly as a despicable act, committed against working people on their way to work, without warning, on tubes and buses. Let there be no equivocation: the primary responsibility for this morning's bloodshed lies with the perpetrators of those acts.
...
However, it would be crass to do other than what the Secretary of State for Defence in a way invited us to do. We cannot separate the acts from the political backdrop. They did not come out of a clear blue sky, any more than those monstrous mosquitoes that struck the twin towers and other buildings in the United States on 9/11 2001. The Defence Secretary said that we must look at the causal circumstances behind the problems of security and defence in the world. I insist that we do so.
...
Does the House not believe that hatred and bitterness have been engendered by the invasion and occupation of Iraq, by the daily destruction of Palestinian homes, by the construction of the great apartheid wall in Palestine and by the occupation of Afghanistan? Does it understand that the bitterness and enmity generated by those great events feed the terrorism of bin Laden and the other Islamists? Is that such a controversial point? Is it not obvious? When I was on the Labour Benches and spoke in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, I said that I despise Osama bin Laden. The difference is that I have always despised him. I did so when the Government, in this very House, gave him guns, money and encouragement, and set him to war in Afghanistan. I said that if they handled that event in the wrong way, they would create 10,000 bin Ladens. Does anyone doubt that 10,000 bin Ladens at least have been created by the events of the past two and a half years? If they do, they have their head in the sand.
...
The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), in an otherwise fine speech, described today's events as "unpredictable". They were not remotely unpredictable. Our own security services predicted them and warned the Government that if we did this we would be at greater risk from terrorist attacks such as the one that we have suffered this morning.

----

The full original text and responses are better, of course. And anyone interested could do worse than to read about Galloway at wiki, it's a solid description of his career up to the present: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Galloway

I am not a British citizen so I speak as an outsider, but I generally support Galloway's political views. His brand of socialism is the only thing that might actually preserve the peace in the coming resource and overpopulation crises. Personally, I think anyone with a functioning brain has to admire his fiery spirit to speak truth to power from the position and with the language of a working class person.

< Message edited by Chaingang -- 8/15/2006 4:38:04 AM >

_____________________________

"Everything flows, nothing stands still." (Πάντα ῥεῖ καὶ οὐδὲν μένει) - Heraclitus

(in reply to LadyEllen)

Post #: 6

RE: Does the U.S. have the RIGHT to deploy over this? - 8/15/2006 4:40:28 AM

LadyEllen

Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline

and that is why he will die in an accident in the fairly near future, chain.

E

(in reply to Chaingang)

Post #: 7

RE: Does the U.S. have the RIGHT to deploy over this? - 8/15/2006 6:29:24 AM

NorthernGent

Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline

Galloway hosts a radio show on Talk Sport on a Saturday and Sunday night (Talk Sport is an emerging station and the only one that would give him a platform for his views).

In my opinion, there is too much of the "I" with him. In terms of his opinions, he is invariably bang on and he can always support them with hard facts. He takes on all-comers on his show and he runs rings around them all.

Basically, what he says is common sense supported by facts. Ultimately, he just doesn't support the slaughtering of people, the arms deals, the meddling in other parts of the world and the economic colonisation that all goes to secure our societies with a lavish lifestyle at the expense of others. The demonisation of Galloway and people like him is par for the course because Socialism is not in the interests of our Governments and their sponsors. It's another sad example of how people with a humanitarian approach to life can be painted as the devil and excluded from politics. When will people wake up?

Regards

(in reply to LadyEllen)

Post #: 8

RE: Does the U.S. have the RIGHT to deploy over this? - 8/15/2006 6:54:43 AM

LadyEllen

Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline

Gent - like I said on the other thread - anyone who puts their head above the parapet is fair game for the more on-side. And I note how, despite widespread public acclaim for our George, he has to speak on TalkSport - presumably the BBC knows better than to give him a platform.

I dont like his politics particularly (the far left stuff) but crikey do I admire this guy. I'd vote for him regardless as at least he has shown some backbone and says what he means and means what he says, regardless of how others twist it later and would like us to believe him the devil incarnate.

George for PM!
E

(in reply to NorthernGent)

Post #: 9

RE: Does the U.S. have the RIGHT to deploy over this? - 8/15/2006 8:01:52 AM

NorthernGent

Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline

LadyEllen,

Yes, that fact he has to air his views on Talk Sport shows the extent to which he has been marginalised and we're left with more of the same nonsense from those given airspace on the BBC etc.

I'm just surprised he hasn't been labelled "Commie-George" like "Red-Ken". In truth, his politics aren't that far left. Yes, he is a Socialist but I would make that pretty much run-of-the-mill left wing.

He did let himself down with Big Brother. If there was ever a show that represents the style over substance society we live in (the one his Socialist views are supposed to oppose) then BB is it. He seemed to thrive on the celebrity status which is strange for a man opposed to the celebrity culture.

Still, on balance, I take my hat off to the fact he is prepared to stand up and be counted.

Regards

(in reply to LadyEllen)

Post #: 10

RE: Does the U.S. have the RIGHT to deploy over this? - 8/15/2006 8:08:35 AM

LadyEllen

Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline

BB was a definite mistake for him. Though the sight of him grovelling before Rula Lenska and eating from her hand did something for me............!

E

(in reply to NorthernGent)

Post #: 11

RE: Does the U.S. have the RIGHT to deploy over this? - 8/15/2006 8:37:41 AM

NorthernGent

Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline

lol LadyEllen,

So we get down to the real cause of your respect for the said gentleman........I heard about that but didn't see it (thankfully), here's me thinking you were applauding his bold, have-a-go-hero stance and all the time you were imagining walking him around the house in his collar and chain.

Regards

(in reply to LadyEllen)

Post #: 12

RE: Does the U.S. have the RIGHT to deploy over this? - 8/15/2006 8:55:10 AM

carolsea

Posts: 185
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: North Carolina
Status: offline

Interesting.... YouTube is down!! LOL

_____________________________

I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!

(in reply to NorthernGent)

Post #: 13

RE: Does the U.S. have the RIGHT to deploy over this? - 8/15/2006 8:56:21 AM

LadyEllen

Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline

not as much as I imagine you, Gent.......LOL!

E

(in reply to carolsea)

Post #: 14

RE: Does the U.S. have the RIGHT to deploy over this? - 8/15/2006 9:10:50 AM

NorthernGent

Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline

does this dog walking involve throwing sticks for me to fetch?

(in reply to LadyEllen)

Post #: 15

RE: Does the U.S. have the RIGHT to deploy over this? - 8/15/2006 9:28:45 AM

LadyEllen

Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline

..... well it involves A stick, and you would look quite fetching.......

(in reply to NorthernGent)

Post #: 16

RE: Does the U.S. have the RIGHT to deploy over this? - 8/15/2006 10:02:00 AM

NorthernGent

Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline

lol LadyEllen, I was just about to say - oh go on then, just this once, in for a penny in for a pound - but due to your last comment I have had a rapid change of heart.

Nice offer though, thanks for considering me for this special treatment.

Regards

(in reply to LadyEllen)

Post #: 17

RE: Does the U.S. have the RIGHT to deploy over this? - 8/15/2006 10:10:28 AM

LadyEllen

Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline

heartbreaker.....

(in reply to NorthernGent)

Post #: 18

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> Does the U.S. have the RIGHT to deploy over this?

Page: [1]

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078