Galloway likens Alastair Campbell to Goebbels

what gives us the right to go in and perform regime change ??

Why is our system more right than theirs ??

One mans terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and all that. Its a cultural difference.

Same way most 16 year old english girls would take exception to being told who to marry by their parents. In other cultures this is perfectly normal.

Does this make arranged marriage wrong ? No. Just because its our (ie the wester world's) view, doesn't make it the right one.
 
OldCoals said:
He didn't say that though, Dimbleby read the quote then Galloway recalled what he actually said, his words were to the effect that if he was an Iraqi and had suffered like many Iraqis had since the invasion he could understand why people may want to kill Tony Blair.
Click to expand...
No, he said that it would be morally equivalent for an Iraqi, whose family had been killed, to assassinate Tony Blair, as it would be for Tony Blair to order a military invasion of Iraq. Which is nonsensical in itself, as Galloway has just said it would be morally equivalent to something he considers to be morally deplorable.

MrLOL said:
what gives us the right to go in and perform regime change ??

Why is our system more right than theirs ??

One mans terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and all that. Its a cultural difference.

Same way most 16 year old english girls would take exception to being told who to marry by their parents. In other cultures this is perfectly normal.

Does this make arranged marriage wrong ? No. Just because its our (ie the wester world's) view, doesn't make it the right one.
Click to expand...
Oh my goodness... So you think that there is no objective standpoint from which we can say that the practice, so common in Afghanistan, of throwing battery acid in the faces of young girls because they're learning to read, is wrong?
 
naffa said:
Oh my goodness... So you think that there is no objective standpoint from which we can say that the practice, so common in Afghanistan, of throwing battery acid in the faces of young girls because they're learning to read, is wrong?
Click to expand...

Think about this objectively.

We decide that prison is an appropriate punishment. They decide that something like throwing battery acid in the faces of young is an appropriate punishment.

Why is our view that it is wrong, more right than their view ?

In exactly the same way that we decide its morally fine to receive blood transfusions, the Jehovah's Witnesses believe its morrally wrong. By that same logic should we have to be subjected to regime change by them to stop us from taking blood transfusions ?

Your views of what is right and wrong come from your parents, which in turn come from the cultural perception of what is right and wrong. This differs from culture to culture, why is our culture right and theirs wrong ?

Lets look at this another way, we don't have the death penalty here, because we believe it's wrong. The USA does. Should we be attempting to invade the US to perform a regime change to stop them oppressing their citizens by killing them ? I'm damned sure the american citizens don't want to be killed, so that same logic of them not wanting it also applies here.


Think outside the box
 
Last edited:
He is a typical short sighted Scottish thick wit unionist.

Bit gobby on his radio shows.

I like some of his opinions on the middle east however, its at least a refreshing change from the beating drums.
 
MrLOL said:
snip
Click to expand...
Thanks for the quick lesson in ethics, but I spend a huge amount of time considering whether it's possible to criticise a foreign regime/culture objectively. As an outspoken advocate of a foreign policy that would lead to the immediate removal of Saddam Hussein, I feel duty bound to justify my stance in exactly that way.

We both know (I assume) that it's possible to live in a failed state, yes? Why is that state considered 'failed'? Because those in it are not able to feed their children or themselves, they do not have access to shelter, violence and corruption reign supreme, people are murdered indiscriminately, etc. Now, if the world could only be described, objectively, as 'how it is', and not 'how it ought to be', then this sort of analysis would simply not be possible. We know that there are truths to be known about how communities flourish, and middle-Eastern theocracies are notorious for their lacking of them.

It would take me more time and space that it's worth to coherently make my point regarding this. But I'm somewhat flabbergasted that you feel that you're able to brush these disgusting actions aside as simple cultural misunderstandings... It makes me feel quite ill.
 
why is it any of our business what their country does ?

With the case of iraq it was one reason and one reason only. Oil

You don't see us performing regime changes with zimbabwe. we just make diplomatic noises and do not a lot.
 
lets start with a full scale invasion of Zimbabwe then.

Oh no wait a minute, that won't happen because there is no oil.

Don't get me wrong, i'm a westerner and have been brought up to believe that what he did was wrong too. And i believe that he had it coming attempting to play games with the americans making them believe he had chemical weapons when he didn't.

But galloway is trying to make a point about looking at the issue from a less westernized viewpoint.
 
i'm in two minds

as to whether he was trying to make the americans believe he had them, and was sending false intel which the americans and british lapped up without verifying it because it was to good to be true.

or if it was just created out of nowhere to get the oil.

Possibly a mix of both. Who knows.
 
MrLOL said:
i'm in two minds

as to whether he was trying to make the americans believe he had them, and was sending false intel which the americans and british lapped up without verifying it because it was to good to be true.

or if it was just created out of nowhere to get the oil.

Possibly a mix of both. Who knows.
Click to expand...

UN weapons inspectors in the country repeatedly told the world there were no WMD in Iraq.

It was all lies.

The seals were never broken.

The photographs were generally of empty bunkers or civilian trucks.
 
MrLOL said:
i don't find his sympathy for middle eastern regimes that hard to understand.

Their culture is different from ours. Who are we to dictate how they should run their country. If they dont want democracy, who are we to say they should have it ? Likewise with their human rights credentials. Who made us police of the world ? Why can't it be the other way round, and them be the police telling us that we're wrong ?

He does have some valid points that its wrong to assume that WEST = RIGHT and EVERYTHING ELSE = WRONG which is the view that many take.

His comments on blair arent that far out either, we did go to war on a false premise so people do have every right to be angry.
Click to expand...
Yes their culture is different to ours, we shouldnt be invading their countries, while the government also shouldnt be encouraging their immigration into ours.
 
Last edited:
MrLOL said:
why is it any of our business what their country does ?

With the case of iraq it was one reason and one reason only. Oil

You don't see us performing regime changes with zimbabwe. we just make diplomatic noises and do not a lot.
Click to expand...
Oh please. :rolleyes:

If you can provide one shred of evidence as to why you believe we invaded Iraq for oil, I would be glad to hear it.

I can tell you that the two most lucrative oil contracts that the Iraqis decided to auction off went to Russian and Chinese oil companies, with the third going to a French company. In fact, do you know just how many oil contracts were awarded to American companies? No, it was in fact none. Zip. Zilch.

EDIT: It's also looking like this war could end up costing $5trillion, according to the Nobel Laureate, and esteemed economist Joseph Stiglitz. I have a feeling the US hasn't made $5trillion dollars out of Iraq.

Biohazard said:
American & British lies.

They knew he didn't.
Click to expand...
You wouldn't happen to have any evidence to support that claim, would you?
 
Last edited:
naffa said:
You wouldn't happen to have any evidence to support that claim, would you?
Click to expand...

You missed it, i gave a simplistic overview evidence below that comment. Google for sources if you like.

Anyway, with regards to the war being nothing to do with oil however...


While Afghanistan was the first victim of the new “American grand strategy” for the world, Iraq was the main target even prior to George Bush’s ascendancy to power. As PNAC document reveals, George Bush and his cabinet had planned to topple Saddam’s regime even before he took power in January 2001. A report entitled Strategic Energy Policy: Challenges For The 21st Century, commissioned before 9/11 by Vice-president Dick Cheney on ''energy security'' clearly identifies Iraq as a major “de-stabilizing influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East.” The report furthermore concludes that “Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export programme to manipulate oil markets.” It was based on such reports that President Bush's Cabinet agreed in April 2001 that “ Iraq remains a destabilizing influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East'' and because this is an unacceptable risk to the US ''military intervention'' could be necessary.
Click to expand...

The other main reason was one of currency and the American-US dollar kickback from oil being traded in dollars.

Iraq, with some of the largest reserves of oil in the world, threatened to move away from the dollar to the euro, actually increase the value of its product but at the same time damaging the American economy.

The war was essentially re-denominating Iraqi oil in U. S. dollars - regardless of who got the contracts. America still creams off it.

Do you have any evidence to show otherwise?
 
If you could reference that quote for me, that would be really helpful.

As far as Saddam using Iraqi oil as a 'weapon', like Iran, I find it hard to believe that he would use it as such given that Iraq is as reliant on the export as we are. I know that the Iraq Liberation Act was ratified by Congress in 1998, and regime change in Iraq has been the policy of the United States since then. If it was as much of a factor as you're making out, it would not have taken nearly four years to actually remove Saddam.
 
im no AC fan but Galloway is full on derp

on question time last night he was just shouting over everyone with his fairyland opinions

the footballer bloke was far more intelligent
 
Last edited:
I'm no fan of Galloway but he got the biggest round of applause on QT last night when attacking Blair and Campbell over Iraq. I even felt compelled to applaud at home.
 
I missed all the early stuff about Galloway and only remember that shocking image above which has sadly burned into my brain.

Sorry but anybody with a modicum of sense will realise that cherry red is a horrible colour when wearing a satin onesy.

naffa said:
Oh please. :rolleyes:

If you can provide one shred of evidence as to why you believe we invaded Iraq for oil, I would be glad to hear it.

I can tell you that the two most lucrative oil contracts that the Iraqis decided to auction off went to Russian and Chinese oil companies, with the third going to a French company. In fact, do you know just how many oil contracts were awarded to American companies? No, it was in fact none. Zip. Zilch.

EDIT: It's also looking like this war could end up costing $5trillion, according to the Nobel Laureate, and esteemed economist Joseph Stiglitz. I have a feeling the US hasn't made $5trillion dollars out of Iraq.


You wouldn't happen to have any evidence to support that claim, would you?
Click to expand...

Now who's being naive?

You seriously believe that the US, the epitome of self interest, spent all that money because there were a few human rights abuses? Especially when far more, far worse goes on else where on the planet? That same region they went to war against several years earlier?

It doesn't matter who the oil contracts go to, it matters to the US that it's being traded/used. If it did matter, then you can bet your bottom dollar (lol) that they'd have gotten them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom