george galloway, innocent after all

[KateBush]

I always knew he was. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, stupid Torygraph! ha!

[Thoir tlachd don mhath, i]

It is such a shame that a newspaper, which was only upholding Britain's much cherished tradition of free speech and lefty bashing, had to be punished.

[KateBush]

is your username Gaelic?

[Haunted]

Galloway is still a dick though

[Thoir tlachd don mhath, i]

Yes, it is.

[Eliot Wilson]

Yep, he's still a Saddam-loving scumbag. What was it he said? "I admire your strength and fortitude", or something like that? That's nice, then.

[hr]Bill and Ted beat the Grim Reaper at Twister

Bill: "You played very well, Death, especially with your totally heavy Death robes."

Death: "Don't patronise me."

[Zombie Sheep]

Well, the court awarded the money to him, if thats what you mean. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if he had still taken money etc from Iraq.

[thePontificator]

He came to my school to give a talk on the war on Iraq. After the Q&A he'd been such a dick that an entire room of people left pro-war.

[Thoir tlachd don mhath, i]

Mr Galloway did indeed ofer his vocal support to Saddam, unlike the Americans under Reagan, who merely gave him military intelligence and hardware.

[amac]

[s]Eliot Wilson wrote on 13:57, 2nd Dec 2004:
Yep, he's still a Saddam-loving scumbag. What was it he said? "I admire your strength and fortitude", or something like that? That's nice, then.



"Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability."

A virtual cookie to anyone who knows what the last word means...

[KateBush]

[s]Thoir tlachd don mhath, is math an t-olc wrote on 13:37, 2nd Dec 2004:
Yes, it is.


what does it mean? do you speak fluent gaelic? i've always wanted to learn...where can I get taught in Fife? OR would you be brave enough yourself to give me some basic lessons?

[Miz Manda]

[s]KateBush wrote on 12:52, 2nd Dec 2004:
george galloway, innocent after all


This would apparently be some previously unknown usage of the word 'innocent'.



[hr]
Any act of anti-social insanity is immediately sanctified by the magic word 'charity'. As someone once said, if Hitler had invaded Poland 'for Spina Bifida' then everyone would have just let him get on with it.

[The Cellar Bar]

the point is that the Torygraph's "evidence" was forged and "stumbled upon" by their reporter.

And given the sophistication of the "documents", you've got to ask who was in a position to produce them ....and why.

Strange that it should have appeared when it did. Especially in view of the 45 minute documents, the Niger Cake documents and the Dodgy Dossier which were also proved to be forgeries or misleading. But all directed to support the case for war.

Galloway has been proven to be innocent of the accusations made against him. It's just a pity that even when proven innocent after an examination of the case against him that some should believe he still did what he was accused of. It might be more enlightening to work whio it was who went to the trouble of seeking to discredit one of the strongest voices against an illegal war.

[flarewearer]

[s]KateBush wrote on 15:02, 2nd Dec 2004:
[s]Thoir tlachd don mhath, is math an t-olc wrote on 13:37, 2nd Dec 2004:[i]
Yes, it is.


what does it mean? do you speak fluent gaelic? i've always wanted to learn...where can I get taught in Fife? OR would you be brave enough yourself to give me some basic lessons?
[/i]

you can do an evening language course in gaelic at the ELT department.

[hr]
* 9 out of 10 cannibals agree;
"vegetarians taste BETTER"

[Thoir tlachd don mhath, i]

It is a Gaelic saying/proverb which roughly means "Love the good and forgive the bad".
I am not fluent in Gaelic at all, I only know a smattering of words and phrases. Although, if you want to say swear at wayward sheepdogs, I am your man.

[David Bean]

Illegal war? How do you work that out? And how on earth would you distinguish 'legal' wars from illegal ones?

[hr]"Fiat justicia ruat coelum (let justice be done though the heavens may fall)" - Judge James Horton (family motto)

[The Cellar Bar]

[s]David Bean wrote on 09:24, 3rd Dec 2004:
Illegal war? How do you work that out? And how on earth would you distinguish 'legal' wars from illegal ones?

[hr]"[i]Fiat justicia ruat coelum (let justice be done though the heavens may fall)" - Judge James Horton (family motto)
[/i]

it's just a foible I guess of something called International Law.

Under various Conventions, there has to be a case that proves that there are "good" - ie "legitmate" - reasons for one country to attempt to overthrow the government of another by war. Or declare war and invade as one might otherwise think of it. The "arguments" presented by Bush and Bliar weren't simply an effort to convince their public audiences that there was a case for Iraq to answer. It was also the basis for going to the UN to ask for permisssion to act in behalf of the International Community against another State. Hence the "evidence" to prove that Iraq was a threat to its neighbours in the region and also to UK and the US. All of which would have been "legitimate" reasons for acting under UN sanction. All of which has since been proved to be a pack of lies and forged docuents.

The fact that Bush and Bliar have at least finally come clean and admitted to the fact that the aim was "regime change" rather than self-defence shows what the motives were all along. To interfere in the affairs of another State and detertmine its future. If nothing else, the fact that UK's Attorney General was asked by Bliar to pass opinion on whether the war was legitimate or not, shows that even he had concerns about its legitimacy. The fact that that judgement remains a secret is only yet another part of the duplicity that has been perpetrated on us.

[David Bean]

But the thing is, how can we practically claim that an institution like war is subject to laws when there is no higher authority with the inclination or means to uphold them by force? Certainly the UN doesn't act in this way; it has conventions, yes, but I don't see how these can be described as 'laws' in any meaningful sense.

It's a moot point itself whether the Iraq war violated the strictures, whatever we decide to call them, of the UN. The second resolution failed, but as far as I'm concerned the only reason why the US even bothered to seek one is that Tony Blair foolishly and naively persuaded the US State Department that he could deliver the UNSC vote. Arguably he would have been much better off claiming that Iraq's conduct regarding weapons inspections violated the first resolution so as to present a 'legitimate' causus belli.

Finally, if laws are supposed to be founded upon grounds of justice or morality, why assume that the ability to pass a resolution in the UN 'authorising' war is even relevant? Most business in the UN is conducted in the old ways of power politics; the resolution authorising the 1991 Gulf War, for instance, was only passed because the US successfully bullied and bribed the rest of the UNSC into supporting it. Given this, and since the presence or absence of a resolution (authorising action by powers who were going to take it anyway) changes nothing about the justification or conduct of the ensuing war, I don't understand how a resolution can be said to carry any moral weight what so ever - ergo it has no place in any proper consideration of law.

[hr]"Fiat justicia ruat coelum (let justice be done though the heavens may fall)" - Judge James Horton (family motto)

[Mr Comedy]

Sorry to diagree Malcolm, I like your beer but not your politics.

It has been clear that Iraq has been threatening the West for many years, and the idea of Iraq as a despotic regime is one that needed to be dealt with. There is no doubt that he would develop more dangerous weapons given half the chance is a certainity, and his Ba'ath party were causing massive ethic strife, oppression and torture.
It was the case of a dicatorial minority supressing the majority.

Secondly, the presence of Hussein, rogue Iraqi scientists and a powerful Iraqi state critically threatened the whole security situation in the Middle East. It is fairly clear that as long as Iraqi was a rogue state, then lasting peace in the Middle East was an impossibility.

Thirdly, wars are not 'legitimate' or 'illegitimate'. It is the case that there is no arbitary body to prosecute a country, and only other countries hold them responsible. History remembers the victors, and if the US wants to invade Iraq, I would love to see what the UN could do to stop them. If there is any way of judging if a war is legitimate, it is only through retrospective.

Finally, the Iraqi people were not able to stand up for themselves under the opression from the Ba'ath party. They needed intervention.

I would conceed that the reasons may be flawed, and the timing may be off as well. But the war was justified and needed.

[Mr Comedy]

[s]Thoir tlachd don mhath, is math an t-olc wrote on 13:30, 2nd Dec 2004:
It is such a shame that a newspaper, which was only upholding Britain's much cherished tradition of free speech and lefty bashing, had to be punished.


I think that the latter in particular needs to be enshrined in law. Lefty-bashing is not only a sport, but essential for the operation of society.