• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Galloway is back

Garrison said:
Galloway is a self-aggrandizing jackass who will align himself with anyone who ...snip...
Click to expand...

I agree with the part of your starting sentence I've snipped but I would say "Galloway is a self-aggrandizing jackass who will align himself with anyone who will give him publicity."

He's wants the publicity and the money/fame that comes from it. I've seen very little evidence for example that he is even a good constituency MP never mind a good politician.
 
Darat said:
I agree with the part of your starting sentence I've snipped but I would say "Galloway is a self-aggrandizing jackass who will align himself with anyone who will give him publicity."

He's wants the publicity and the money/fame that comes from it. I've seen very little evidence for example that he is even a good constituency MP never mind a good politician.
Click to expand...

I'd agree with that too - but on the wider point, do you think his win is positive or negative for British (English) politics?
 
andyandy said:
What responsibility should someone who starts a war have with regards to the people who die as a result? Are you arguing none? We started the war, but all those deaths, all the millions displaced, nothing to do with us....?
Click to expand...

Of course not. But if you are saying that we should attribute the same amount of responsibility as those who carried out the shelling of Homs, the crackdown of democrats in Tehran and the Hajabja poison attack, then I think you are mistaken.

So Tony Blair:

actual leader of our country - who leads the country into an illegal war by lying about the evidence for WMD.

who toadies up to Gadaffi with numerous trips and cosy chats

is OK

Whilst Galloway:

An egotist with hardly any power or influence who opposes the war

who toadies up to Gadaffi with cosy chats

is vile.
Click to expand...

I think you mean Assad, Saddam Snr, Saddam Jnr and Ahmedinijad. He was never a fan of Gaddaffi.

We've been over the distinction in my last post.
 
andyandy said:
...snip...

To look back at George's (very) dodgy history with repressive regimes is to miss the point about what he was running on in this election . He wasn't running on a "Isn't Iran great" ticket - but anti-war and anti-mainstream parties. He is an expert (at very cynically) changing the message depending on who he is talking to. Indeed, he garnered large support from Muslims in this election who want us to be pulled out of Afghanistan, who want us to stop using drone attacks in Pakistan and who want us to be more supportive of Palestinian rights. He also picked up support from people complete disaffected with the same identikit career politicians who all offer the same narrow neoliberal choice. Maybe you disagree with that, but that is why he won.

As I have said already, the guy is a tool - but it's a reflection of how utterly awful all the alternatives are that I would say he is better than a vote for any tory or tory-lite alternative. Our democracy needs a wider expression of views than is currently on offer in Westminster. If that means people whose views I don't always agree with being elected so be it - that's a healthier state of democracy than your preferred alternative where we all keep our heads down and choose if we prefer neo-liberal candidate A neo-liberal candidate B or neo-liberal candidate C.
Click to expand...

Well put.

I suspect that most people who voted for him knew nothing but "I was the voice in the wilderness that said that thing you weren't really comfortable with was a bad thing and we can all have cake and the other parties are all the same and smell of elderberries"
 
andyandy said:
I could always ask in return though, that since, the American government is responsible for illegal wars, extra judicial kidnap, torture, and the deaths of hundreds of thousands, has a long and very inglorious history of supporting some of the most unpleasant regimes across the world, propping up dictatorships, arming repressive regimes, undermining democracy whenever it suits, why do you support your government?
Click to expand...

The US Government is not a monolithic and unchanging entity.
 
Undesired Walrus said:
Of course not. But if you are saying that we should attribute the same amount of responsibility as those who carried out the shelling of Homs, the crackdown of democrats in Tehran and the Hajabja poison attack, then I think you are mistaken.
Click to expand...

So you do accept that we do have responsibility for the deaths caused by starting an illegal war? On whose shoulders does that lie? Blair or Galloway?


I think you mean Assad, Saddam Snr, Saddam Jnr and Ahmedinijad. He was never a fan of Gaddaffi.
Click to expand...

So on this new revisionist version of reality Gadaffi was a good guy, and Blair toadying up to him is fine with you? But Galloway toadying up to Assad is vile?

Can you not see your double standards?
 
Undesired Walrus said:
The US Government is not a monolithic and unchanging entity.
Click to expand...

So that's alright then? Does democracy absolve all responsibility for previous crimes simply because in the future there'll be another bunch to commit the future ones? It's a valid point that one can hardly criticise Galloway for his own dodgy past without applying the same standards to actual governments. Who is more responsible for causing harm, a blowhard egotist or countries who actually indulge in torture, wars, kidnap and alliances with murderous thugs?
 
andyandy said:
I'd agree with that too - but on the wider point, do you think his win is positive or negative for British (English) politics?
Click to expand...

I think his win - in and of itself - is negative but it might have positive biproducts. Politicians might start realizing that they can't just continue with their centre-nothingness policies and might have to pay more attention to what the electorate wants. Let's hope for that at least.
 
andyandy said:
I'd agree with that too - but on the wider point, do you think his win is positive or negative for British (English) politics?
Click to expand...

Well I think it has pretty little significance when it comes to what would be likely to happen at a general election. (Look at his past form.)

So far all I think it shows is that there is a lot of people who aren't happy with current politics and the state of the nation - which should not be a new or a surprising idea for the two main parties.

The ace his campaign had was what the LibDems (who would have been the past "protest" vote) used to have which is being able to promise anything without having to even consider how it could be achieved or having it subject to any serious consideration. We all like to be told we can have everything we want and we can have it now!

In terms of democracy - you can't really only support it when it doesn't returns a result that you aren't happy with or really what you are saying is that you aren't for democracy!

On the whole I think his getting elected is bad in terms of what it means about how dissatisfied folks are about what is on offer by the two main parties (I now consider the Liberals and the Tories as one party in terms of public perception and reality!) But people in a democracy have to be able to make bad* as well as good decisions.



*(Note "bad" means different to what I want!)
 
One other thought - I think it is going to be bad for local people on local matters. Unless their local issue can be used to provide publicity for Galloway I suspect they will find their new MP is rather absent and rather non-supportive.
 
andyandy said:
So you do accept that we do have responsibility for the deaths caused by starting an illegal war? On whose shoulders does that lie? Blair or Galloway?
Click to expand...

As I said, the interventions in Iraq, Kosovo, Libya and Afghanistan led to many innocent civilians being killed. As I'm sure an intervention to prevent the genocide in Rwanda would have done. But the civilian deaths as a direct result (I'm talking about civilians being killed due to coalition bombing, not suicide attacks in the streets of Baghdad) are a world apart from the civilian deaths as a direct result of the shelling of Homs, the murder of Kurds in Halabja, and the killing of protestors in the streets of Tehran. Galloway supported each of the regimes who carried out these deplorable crimes.

So on this new revisionist version of reality Gadaffi was a good guy, and Blair toadying up to him is fine with you?
Click to expand...

Where did I say that?
 
Last edited:
JihadJane said:
Oh really? Galloway was opposing the Saddam Hussein regime when British and American governments were supporting it - see video above (09.03).
Click to expand...

What's unpredictable about that? He's consistently opposed to western interests. As soon as we became hostile to Iraq, he became friendly. The only kind of dictator he doesn't like is a dictator who isn't anti-western.

Edited by kmortis: 
Removed personal comment
 
Last edited by a moderator:
jiggeryqua said:
1) Who does George's thinking for him? For bonus points, provide citations.
Click to expand...

All the usual far-left nutjobs, starting with Karl Marx.

2) Please make some accurate predicition about George. Standard JREF testing rules apply.
Click to expand...

George will favor dictatorships over the US in any conflict (military or not). That one is so easy, the converse should qualify for the JREF prize.

3) Compare and contrast: 'Conformist' & 'radical'.
Click to expand...

A "radical" is someone who wants things to be very different from what they are now. A conformist is someone who tries to fit in with some group. If you try to fit in with a group of radicals, and toe their party line, then you're still a conformist.

Galloway is a conformist. He has never taken a position which isn't entirely consistent with an overarching anti-western leftism.

4) Essay question. Title: 'Why Candidates in a Democratic Election Should Be Restricted to Advocating the Status Quo'.
Click to expand...

Non sequitor.
 
Ziggurat said:
What's unpredictable about that? He's consistently opposed to western interests. As soon as we became hostile to Iraq, he became friendly. The only kind of dictator he doesn't like is a dictator who isn't anti-western.
Click to expand...

Please provide some concrete evidence that Gorgeous George has liked a dictator.

Kind of like you.
Click to expand...

Similarly, you could provide evidence to substantiate this childish, ad hominem insult.
 
angrysoba said:
If there is any justice the coalition will fall at some point soon and then a general election can be called.
Click to expand...


Oh, PLEASE, God! I will sacrifice my firstborn. I will walk to Jerusalem barefoot over hot coals.

That's kind of why this will not happen of course.

Rolfe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom