View Full Version : George Galloway
Not that I have much time for him, but I thought he took the Senate Committee to the cleaners :lol: :cool:
I totally agree, the US senate committee didn't know what hit them.
I agree also, they did not know what hit them
Somebody should have warned them that it is generally a bad idea to falsely accuse an ex-streetfighting Dundonian! :lol:
Good onyer George!! though I will have still voted Labour
I agree the US is the most corrupt and two faced government in the western world.
George had them squirming
I see Senator Coleman is questioning Galloway's credibility as a witness :roll: Strange as some of the testimony the Senate provided against him came from an unnamed source.
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8A54SEO0.htm?campaign_id=apn_home_down
Afterward, Coleman questioned the honesty of Galloway's testimony, which was given under oath.
"If in fact he lied to this committee, there will have to be consequences," Coleman said.
And what if the allegations are totally unfounded? what will be the consequences? Seems to me they don't like it up em :lol:
I agree who do the American think they are? Can you imagine a future Iraqi government inquest finding Goerge Bush guilty of mass murder or extortion then expecting him to serve some sort of sentance in Iraq
The USA seem to think they are the worlds police and thirs and only teir view point is the true and umblemished view.
thing the Senate Committee were toatlly humilitated by George as was said he let em have it both barrels
It sounds like the Americans have taken over from the english.
Yip good on ya George, what a man.
Just a thought, wheres he hiding the oil barrels or does he sleep on a very high bed full of £100 bills? :roll: :Razz
George Galloway said
Senator, I am not now, nor have I ever been, an oil trader. and neither has anyone on my behalf. I have never seen a barrel of oil, owned one, bought one, sold one - and neither has anyone on my behalf.
"Now I know that standards have slipped in the last few years in Washington, but for a lawyer you are remarkably cavalier with any idea of justice. I am here today but last week you already found me guilty. You traduced my name around the world without ever having asked me a single question, without ever having contacted me, without ever written to me or telephoned me, without any attempt to contact me whatsoever. And you call that justice.
"Now I want to deal with the pages that relate to me in this dossier and I want to point out areas where there are - let's be charitable and say errors. Then I want to put this in the context where I believe it ought to be. On the very first page of your document about me you assert that I have had 'many meetings' with Saddam Hussein. This is false.
"I have had two meetings with Saddam Hussein, once in 1994 and once in August of 2002. By no stretch of the English language can that be described as "many meetings" with Saddam Hussein.
"As a matter of fact, I have met Saddam Hussein exactly the same number of times as Donald Rumsfeld met him. The difference is Donald Rumsfeld met him to sell him guns and to give him maps the better to target those guns. I met him to try and bring about an end to sanctions, suffering and war, and on the second of the two occasions, I met him to try and persuade him to let Dr Hans Blix and the United Nations weapons inspectors back into the country - a rather better use of two meetings with Saddam Hussein than your own Secretary of State for Defence made of his.
"I was an opponent of Saddam Hussein when British and Americans governments and businessmen were selling him guns and gas. I used to demonstrate outside the Iraqi embassy when British and American officials were going in and doing commerce.
"You will see from the official parliamentary record, Hansard, from the 15th March 1990 onwards, voluminous evidence that I have a rather better record of opposition to Saddam Hussein than you do and than any other member of the British or American governments do.
"Now you say in this document, you quote a source, you have the gall to quote a source, without ever having asked me whether the allegation from the source is true, that I am 'the owner of a company which has made substantial profits from trading in Iraqi oil'.
"Senator, I do not own any companies, beyond a small company whose entire purpose, whose sole purpose, is to receive the income from my journalistic earnings from my employer, Associated Newspapers, in London. I do not own a company that's been trading in Iraqi oil. And you have no business to carry a quotation, utterly unsubstantiated and false, implying otherwise.
"Now you have nothing on me, Senator, except my name on lists of names from Iraq, many of which have been drawn up after the installation of your puppet government in Baghdad. If you had any of the letters against me that you had against Zhirinovsky, and even Pasqua, they would have been up there in your slideshow for the members of your committee today.
"You have my name on lists provided to you by the Duelfer inquiry, provided to him by the convicted bank robber, and fraudster and conman Ahmed Chalabi who many people to their credit in your country now realise played a decisive role in leading your country into the disaster in Iraq.
"There were 270 names on that list originally. That's somehow been filleted down to the names you chose to deal with in this committee. Some of the names on that committee included the former secretary to his Holiness Pope John Paul II, the former head of the African National Congress Presidential office and many others who had one defining characteristic in common: they all stood against the policy of sanctions and war which you vociferously prosecuted and which has led us to this disaster.
"You quote Mr Dahar Yassein Ramadan. Well, you have something on me, I've never met Mr Dahar Yassein Ramadan. Your sub-committee apparently has. But I do know that he's your prisoner, I believe he's in Abu Ghraib prison. I believe he is facing war crimes charges, punishable by death. In these circumstances, knowing what the world knows about how you treat prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison, in Bagram Airbase, in Guantanamo Bay, including I may say, British citizens being held in those places.
"I'm not sure how much credibility anyone would put on anything you manage to get from a prisoner in those circumstances. But you quote 13 words from Dahar Yassein Ramadan whom I have never met. If he said what he said, then he is wrong.
"And if you had any evidence that I had ever engaged in any actual oil transaction, if you had any evidence that anybody ever gave me any money, it would be before the public and before this committee today because I agreed with your Mr Greenblatt [Mark Greenblatt, legal counsel on the committee].
"Your Mr Greenblatt was absolutely correct. What counts is not the names on the paper, what counts is where's the money. Senator? Who paid me hundreds of thousands of dollars of money? The answer to that is nobody. And if you had anybody who ever paid me a penny, you would have produced them today.
"Now you refer at length to a company names in these documents as Aredio Petroleum. I say to you under oath here today: I have never heard of this company, I have never met anyone from this company. This company has never paid a penny to me and I'll tell you something else: I can assure you that Aredio Petroleum has never paid a single penny to the Mariam Appeal Campaign. Not a thin dime. I don't know who Aredio Petroleum are, but I daresay if you were to ask them they would confirm that they have never met me or ever paid me a penny.
"Whilst I'm on that subject, who is this senior former regime official that you spoke to yesterday? Don't you think I have a right to know? Don't you think the Committee and the public have a right to know who this senior former regime official you were quoting against me interviewed yesterday actually is?
"Now, one of the most serious of the mistakes you have made in this set of documents is, to be frank, such a schoolboy howler as to make a fool of the efforts that you have made. You assert on page 19, not once but twice, that the documents that you are referring to cover a different period in time from the documents covered by The Daily Telegraph which were a subject of a libel action won by me in the High Court in England late last year.
"You state that The Daily Telegraph article cited documents from 1992 and 1993 whilst you are dealing with documents dating from 2001. Senator, The Daily Telegraph's documents date identically to the documents that you were dealing with in your report here. None of The Daily Telegraph's documents dealt with a period of 1992, 1993. I had never set foot in Iraq until late in 1993 - never in my life. There could possibly be no documents relating to Oil-for-Food matters in 1992, 1993, for the Oil-for-Food scheme did not exist at that time.
"And yet you've allocated a full section of this document to claiming that your documents are from a different era to the Daily Telegraph documents when the opposite is true. Your documents and the Daily Telegraph documents deal with exactly the same period.
"But perhaps you were confusing the Daily Telegraph action with the Christian Science Monitor. The Christian Science Monitor did indeed publish on its front pages a set of allegations against me very similar to the ones that your committee have made. They did indeed rely on documents which started in 1992, 1993. These documents were unmasked by the Christian Science Monitor themselves as forgeries.
"Now, the neo-con websites and newspapers in which you're such a hero, senator, were all absolutely cock-a-hoop at the publication of the Christian Science Monitor documents, they were all absolutely convinced of their authenticity. They were all absolutely convinced that these documents showed me receiving $10 million from the Saddam regime. And they were all lies.
"In the same week as the Daily Telegraph published their documents against me, the Christian Science Monitor published theirs which turned out to be forgeries and the British newspaper, Mail on Sunday, purchased a third set of documents which also upon forensic examination turned out to be forgeries. So there's nothing fanciful about this. Nothing at all fanciful about it.
"The existence of forged documents implicating me in commercial activities with the Iraqi regime is a proven fact. It's a proven fact that these forged documents existed and were being circulated amongst right-wing newspapers in Baghdad and around the world in the immediate aftermath of the fall of the Iraqi regime.
"Now, Senator, I gave my heart and soul to oppose the policy that you promoted. I gave my political life's blood to try to stop the mass killing of Iraqis by the sanctions on Iraq which killed one million Iraqis, most of them children, most of them died before they even knew that they were Iraqis, but they died for no other reason other than that they were Iraqis with the misfortune to born at that time. I gave my heart and soul to stop you committing the disaster that you did commit in invading Iraq. And I told the world that your case for the war was a pack of lies.
“I told the world that Iraq, contrary to your claims did not have weapons of mass destruction. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to al-Qaeda. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to the atrocity on 9/11 2001. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that the Iraqi people would resist a British and American invasion of their country and that the fall of Baghdad would not be the beginning of the end, but merely the end of the beginning.
"Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right and you turned out to be wrong and 100,000 people paid with their lives; 1600 of them American soldiers sent to their deaths on a pack of lies; 15,000 of them wounded, many of them disabled forever on a pack of lies.
If the world had listened to Kofi Annan, whose dismissal you demanded, if the world had listened to President Chirac who you want to paint as some kind of corrupt traitor, if the world had listened to me and the anti-war movement in Britain, we would not be in the disaster that we are in today. Senator, this is the mother of all smokescreens. You are trying to divert attention from the crimes that you supported, from the theft of billions of dollars of Iraq's wealth.
"Have a look at the real Oil-for-Food scandal. Have a look at the 14 months you were in charge of Baghdad, the first 14 months when $8.8 billion of Iraq's wealth went missing on your watch. Have a look at Haliburton and other American corporations that stole not only Iraq's money, but the money of the American taxpayer.
"Have a look at the oil that you didn't even meter, that you were shipping out of the country and selling, the proceeds of which went who knows where? Have a look at the $800 million you gave to American military commanders to hand out around the country without even counting it or weighing it.
"Have a look at the real scandal breaking in the newspapers today, revealed in the earlier testimony in this committee. That the biggest sanctions busters were not me or Russian politicians or French politicians. The real sanctions busters were your own companies with the connivance of your own Government."
One thing that George did get wrong was that Iraq did not actually buy any arms as such from America.
Whitewater
20-May-05, 14:21
Rheghead, where did you get that speech from ? is there more ?
I had been trying to find out about Georges' day at the Senate, but not much information has been forthcoming.
From what you have reproduced here he certainly "Socked it to them". What was the final outcome ?? or is there none as yet.
Not that I have much time for him, but I thought he took the Senate Committee to the cleaners :lol: :cool:
A weasal of a man who has spent a life telling lies and half truths is bound to get quite good at covering his tracks. More interested in getting his face in the papers and on TV than helping the people he was elected to represent.
http://www.hanggalloway.co.uk/
Best live TV I've watched in ages. I may not agree with his politics but have to give him his due for not being awed or subdued and speaking his mind.Good on ye George.
Best live TV I've watched in ages. I may not agree with his politics but have to give him his due for not being awed or subdued and speaking his mind.Good on ye George.
Well LIZZ and Whitewater, look no further you can burn it onto a dvd if you wish
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8869.htm
Well george galloway defended himself well and he has a point in what he is saying.America is getting to big for there boots there treatment of prisoners whether it be prisoner of war or terroism prisoners is an absolute disgrace.No matter what crime a person commits they are still entitled to there human rights and what happened to innocent until proven guilty they might be a super power with all the best equipment but there also very sloppy and unproffensional in there work
Correct Eddie
Out here the phrase is "All the gear, but no idea!"
Having served in Basra for 6 months, attached to the provisional government, in 2003, I was shocked at the level of corruption...amongst the US contractors. I'm not saying that Brits were any more angelic, but the scale with which the Americans fleeced the system was/is breathtaking.
What really got to us though, was the proclamations that UK and good ol' Tony were their 'best allies', then when it came to allocating work to British Industry, preference was given to US companies, some of whom were totally unsuitable for the type of work, charged more, then were unable to deliver. This is partly the reason you now see essential utilities such as water and electricity still at a poor level, and Iraqi citizens still suffering. Even in the British area of responsibility in the south, Baghdad HQ sent US personnel to fill the key positions so that they could control the funds.
Shame on our DTI also. Whenever a British politician came out on a PR visit, we took the opportunity to make them aware of the situation and requested action for a bigger share of the work for British business. This was either ignored or we got some lame excuse of 'fair play' or 'competitive tendering' being the British way, while the US took full advantage and steamrolled us out of the way.
I'm still working in Iraq and still see it going on. Whilst I'm no fan of George Galloway, he brought up a lot of what American politicians hate to hear...and rammed it down their throats.
~~Tides~~
22-May-05, 13:35
God, the hipocracy of the US goverment just makes my skin crawl. He looks in the video as if he is telling the truth. Not sweating, not touching his eyes, all the body language. I think he is genuine.
He is still a wee Dundee nawf!!!! but I admit this is the first time I have admired him for sticking to his guns.
But I still think Tony Blair was right kicking him out of the labour party.
Has he gone too far for saying that an assassination attempt on Tony Blair would be justified?
George Galloway has said that bombing Prime Minister Tony Blair would be "morally justified" over his decision to go to war in Iraq.
The Respect MP for Bethnal Green and Bow made the controversial remarks in an interview with GQ magazine.
He was asked: "Would the assassination of, say, Tony Blair by a suicide bomber - if there were no other casualties - be justified as revenge for the war on Iraq?"
Mr Galloway replied: "Yes, it would be morally justified."
"I am not calling for it - but if it happened it would be of a wholly different moral order to the events of July 7.
"It would be entirely logical and explicable. And morally equivalent to ordering the deaths of thousands of innocent people in Iraq - as Blair did."
Labour MP Stephen Pound said the Respect MP was "disgraceful" and "twisted".
"These comments take my breath away. Galloway is disgraceful and truly twisted," he told The Sun. "Every time you think he can't sink any lower he goes and stuns you again.
"It's beyond reprehensible to say it would be justified for a suicide bomber to assassinate anyone."
He has to say something to remind the Media he still craves attention like a spoiled child!
The reaction he got over his comment was exactly the one he intended. You always put a, "not that I would want it to happen" after an inflamitory statement to give yourself a get out.
It's much the same as when you are going to contradict your boss and you start with, "With the greatest respect" and everybody knows you really mean, "You complete idiot!". It's done to give you a hole to hide in o you can bleat, "I didn't mean to insult you." if he makes an issue of it.
He is still a wee Dundee nawf!!!! but I admit this is the first time I have admired him for sticking to his guns.
But I still think Tony Blair was right kicking him out of the labour party.
I still think he is a wee Dundee nawf, and he has now lost the plot, he is like all those Big Brother types, saying and doing anything, even playing a cat to Rula Lenska, to get the attention of the media,how was that for losing the plot
Has he gone too far for saying that an assassination attempt on Tony Blair would be justified?
Yes, Blair should be put on trial and jailed for life not assasinated, assasinating him would just make the troubles of the world worse, cause more death and destruction. Convicting him and Bush would be the greatest step towards world peace we could take, probably save many millions of lives.
Well at least Galloway makes you sit up and take notice despite the fact that he can go beyond the pale once in a while. He said nothing that alot of us have not thought about and for a fanatic Mr Blair ceratainly must be a target.
"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."
pultneytooner
26-May-06, 22:05
Well at least Galloway makes you sit up and take notice despite the fact that he can go beyond the pale once in a while. He said nothing that alot of us have not thought about and for a fanatic Mr Blair ceratainly must be a target.
"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." One of the best debates I have ever seen was, George Galloway 'V' the u.s senate, He had them in knots.
The most powerful men on earth v george galloway?[lol]. Be proud, don't disrespect the man.
The air of supremacy fell when george came to town.
I'll give George one thing, he's the best clown I've seen in a long time. He'd have gone down well in any circus! [lol]
pultneytooner
26-May-06, 22:25
George Galloway said
One thing that George did get wrong was that Iraq did not actually buy any arms as such from America.
Rubbish.............
pultneytooner
26-May-06, 22:26
I'll give George one thing, he's the best clown I've seen in a long time. He'd have gone down well in any circus! [lol] There must be more clowns in the us senate then jaws, george galloway is an extremely intelligent man.
Rubbish.............
Is it really? I don't know of any.
pultneytooner
26-May-06, 22:33
Is it really? Sorry rheghead, no disrespect but do some more research and then make the same statement.
Sorry rheghead, no disrespect but do some more research and then make the same statement.
I have and it is one of the biggest misconceptions of anti-americanism. You do the research and get back to me.
pultneytooner
26-May-06, 22:39
I have and it is one of the biggest misconceptions of anti-americanism. You do the research and get back to me. I have no misconceptions of anti-americanism, I like the people but their government is corrupt.
This has been going on long before the gulf wars, this is just the tip of the iceberg so to speak.
I have and it is one of the biggest misconceptions of anti-americanism. You do the research and get back to me.
Try this:
http://www.webcom.com/~lpease/collections/hidden/teicher.htm
http://www.webcom.com/~lpease/collec...en/teicher.htm
And where does it say that Iraq bought arms from the US in that link? Nice try fred, no cigar though.:lol:
connieb19
27-May-06, 09:11
http://www.blitheringbunny.com/pics/george_galloway.jpg
http://www.webcom.com/~lpease/collec...en/teicher.htm
And where does it say that Iraq bought arms from the US in that link? Nice try fred, no cigar though.:lol:
Look again.
In certain instances where a key component in a weapon was not readily available, the highest levels of the United States government decided to make the component available, directly or indirectly, to Iraq. I specifically recall that the provision of anti-armor penetrators to Iraq was a case in point. The United States made a policy decision to supply penetrators to Iraq.
Look again.
Look again, I do not see the words 'sell' 'sold' 'break embargo' or 'arms' or anything remotely like selling arms to Iraq being mentioned. Nice try, no cigar.
But I will add that we did the UK did far more than the US in selling arms, we sold them chieftain tanks and surface to air missiles. An order of magnitude worse than the US.
Look again, I do not see the words 'sell' 'sold' 'break embargo' or 'arms' or anything remotely like selling arms to Iraq being mentioned. Nice try, no cigar.
"The United States made a policy decision to supply penetrators to Iraq."
You think Iraq didn't pay for them? You think shells arn't arms? That's what "anti-armor penetrators" are, shells with a tungsten carbide casing, not much dual use about them.
The penetrators and parts to make cluster bombs were ordered from American companies, Kennametal, Teledyne and Mannesman-Demag by the Iraqi owned company Matrix Churchill in Ohio and payed for with loans from the BNL bank of Atlanta. They were then shipped to Iraq via Canada and Britain.
So Iraq did buy arms from America.
http://www.blitheringbunny.com/pics/george_galloway.jpg
You missed out the ICK in your headline Connie ;o)
Look again, I do not see the words 'sell' 'sold' 'break embargo' or 'arms' or anything remotely like selling arms to Iraq being mentioned. Nice try, no cigar.
But I will add that we did the UK did far more than the US in selling arms, we sold them chieftain tanks and surface to air missiles. An order of magnitude worse than the US.
Don't forget where they got their Scuds and Migs from as well.
"The United States made a policy decision to supply penetrators to Iraq."
You think Iraq didn't pay for them? You think shells arn't arms? That's what "anti-armor penetrators" are, shells with a tungsten carbide casing, not much dual use about them.
The penetrators and parts to make cluster bombs were ordered from American companies, Kennametal, Teledyne and Mannesman-Demag by the Iraqi owned company Matrix Churchill in Ohio and payed for with loans from the BNL bank of Atlanta. They were then shipped to Iraq via Canada and Britain.
So Iraq did buy arms from America.
Let me get this right, I wasn't aware that Matrix-Churchill was Iraqi owned. Aren't you getting confused with the scandal when they sold machine parts to Iraq under the Thatcher administration?
Back to the US selling arms to Iraq. If America sells components through a third party and a guy down the road and he sells them on to Iraq then how can the US be blamed?
A loan of money can be used for all sorts of uses, civillian and military, what Saddam did with the money was his business, a loan is not a gun.
Nice try, no cigar...
Don't forget where they got their Scuds and Migs from as well.
And we were bad? The soviets were an order of magnitude worse by supplying over 90% of Iraqi arms, France and Germany were also bad offenders.
I know an old song 'I danced with a girl who danced with a man who dealt in penetrator sales'
And we were bad? The soviets were an order of magnitude worse by supplying over 90% of Iraqi arms, France and Germany were also bad offenders.
I know an old song 'I danced with a girl who danced with a man who dealt in penetrator sales'
Shush! Don't say a word! It spoils the story that it was all our fault.
The Scuds and the Migs were actually supplied by American NeoCons and saying otherwise is nothing more than propaganda.
And don't mention who supplied the radar for Saddam.
.
And don't mention who supplied the radar for Saddam.
Ah but try as he might, even Saddam would struggle to kill anybody with radar.
Let me get this right, I wasn't aware that Matrix-Churchill was Iraqi owned. Aren't you getting confused with the scandal when they sold machine parts to Iraq under the Thatcher administration?
Same company, Iraqi owned if you were aware of it or not.
Back to the US selling arms to Iraq. If America sells components through a third party and a guy down the road and he sells them on to Iraq then how can the US be blamed?
They didn't, Matrix Churchill Ohio was an Iraqi owned American company, the parts were shipped to Matrix Churchill Ltd UK, an Iraqi owned British company before being sent on to Iraq. However you look at it American companies sold arms to Iraq and "The United States made a policy decision to supply penetrators to Iraq." means the American government organised it.
A loan of money can be used for all sorts of uses, civillian and military, what Saddam did with the money was his business, a loan is not a gun.
In this case the loan to Matrix Churchill Ohio was used to pay for arms shipped to Iraq from American companies.
I thought you said you'd done some research.
Iraqi control of Matrix-Churchill, a British company, was only known to a few top ranking Matrix-Churchill officials until it was leaked to British Intelligence. IOW, US companies were totally unaware that these components, not arms, were destined for Iraq.
No prosecutions have ever been substantiated against US firms in relation to US export law due to the hidden nature of Matrix-Churchill Iraqi control.
I repeat, the US did not sell arms to Saddam.
Must try harder...
pultneytooner
28-May-06, 10:02
December, 1982. Hughes Aircraft ships 60 Defender helicopters to Iraq
November, 1983. Banca Nazionale del Lavoro of Italy and its Branch in Atlanta begin to funnel $5 billion in unreported loans to Iraq with the blessing and official approval of the US government, purchased computer controlled machine tools, computers, scientific instruments, special alloy steel and aluminum, chemicals, and other industrial goods for Iraq›s missile, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.
October, 1983. The Reagan Administration begins secretly allowing Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United States weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs to Iraq. These shipments violated the Arms Export Control Act.
January 14, 1984. State Department memo acknowledges United States shipment of dual-use export hardware and technology. Dual use items are civilian items such as heavy trucks, armored ambulances and communications gear as well as industrial technology that can have a military application.
May, 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax.
April, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas
July, 1991 The Financial Times of London reveals that a Florida chemical company had produced and shipped cyanide to Iraq during the 80›s using a special CIA courier. Cyanide was used extensively against the Iranians.
July, 1992. The Bush administration deliberately, not inadvertently, helped to arm Iraq by allowing U.S. technology to be shipped to Iraqi military and to Iraqi defense factories... Throughout the course of the Bush administration, U.S. and foreign firms were granted export licenses to ship U.S. technology directly to Iraqi weapons facilities despite ample evidence showing that these factories were producing weapons. Representative Henry Gonzalez, Texas, testimony before the House.
http://www.currentconcerns.ch/archive/2003/02/20030223.php
I repeat, the US did not sell arms to Saddam.
I think pultneytooner hit the nail right on the head when he said "rubbish".
Armour penetrating shells are arms, they were manufactured in the USA and sold to Iraq, a senior American state department official has sworn that it was a deliberate act on the part of the American government.
America did sell arms to Iraq.
America supplied Iraq with massive amounts of arms through third parties as you well know but those arms were sold directly.
celtic 302
28-May-06, 12:09
I agree who do the American think they are? Can you imagine a future Iraqi government inquest finding Goerge Bush guilty of mass murder or extortion then expecting him to serve some sort of sentance in Iraq
The USA seem to think they are the worlds police and thirs and only teir view point is the true and umblemished view.
thing the Senate Committee were toatlly humilitated by George as was said he let em have it both barrels
2 things. 1, the USA are the strongest country in the world, and would u like to get in to an argument with a country that controls more power than most of europe added together (inculding GB)
2, how anyone can support george galloway is beyond me. the man should be locked up in either prison or an asylum[evil]
pultneytooner
28-May-06, 13:06
2 things. 1, the USA are the strongest country in the world, and would u like to get in to an argument with a country that controls more power than most of europe added together (inculding GB)
2, how anyone can support george galloway is beyond me. the man should be locked up in either prison or an asylum[evil]
1: Too much power in the hands of one country can never be seen as a good thing.
2: 'George Galloway should be locked up in prison or an asylum', Do you know something the u.s senate don't, I'm sure they'd be interested to hear from you?
I think pultneytooner hit the nail right on the head when he said "rubbish".
Armour penetrating shells are arms, they were manufactured in the USA and sold to Iraq, a senior American state department official has sworn that it was a deliberate act on the part of the American government.
America did sell arms to Iraq.
America supplied Iraq with massive amounts of arms through third parties as you well know but those arms were sold directly.
As yet you have provided no proof. Even if those components were sold directly under duped circumstances, is that all you got on the US?
I think it is 'rubbish' when Galloway said the US 'armed' Iraq, it was certainly a severe muddying of the waters of history anyway.
December, 1982. Hughes Aircraft ships 60 Defender helicopters to Iraq
November, 1983. Banca Nazionale del Lavoro of Italy and its Branch in Atlanta begin to funnel $5 billion in unreported loans to Iraq with the blessing and official approval of the US government, purchased computer controlled machine tools, computers, scientific instruments, special alloy steel and aluminum, chemicals, and other industrial goods for Iraq›s missile, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.
October, 1983. The Reagan Administration begins secretly allowing Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United States weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs to Iraq. These shipments violated the Arms Export Control Act.
January 14, 1984. State Department memo acknowledges United States shipment of dual-use export hardware and technology. Dual use items are civilian items such as heavy trucks, armored ambulances and communications gear as well as industrial technology that can have a military application.
May, 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax.
April, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas
July, 1991 The Financial Times of London reveals that a Florida chemical company had produced and shipped cyanide to Iraq during the 80›s using a special CIA courier. Cyanide was used extensively against the Iranians.
July, 1992. The Bush administration deliberately, not inadvertently, helped to arm Iraq by allowing U.S. technology to be shipped to Iraqi military and to Iraqi defense factories... Throughout the course of the Bush administration, U.S. and foreign firms were granted export licenses to ship U.S. technology directly to Iraqi weapons facilities despite ample evidence showing that these factories were producing weapons. Representative Henry Gonzalez, Texas, testimony before the House.
http://www.currentconcerns.ch/archive/2003/02/20030223.php
All those items have civillian uses except the bombs and howitzers in October 1983 which I would like more details on, I am not prepared to take it on face value.
Again, the US did not sell arms to Iraq!
As yet you have provided no proof. Even if those components were sold directly under duped circumstances, is that all you got on the US?
I think it is 'rubbish' when Galloway said the US 'armed' Iraq, it was certainly a severe muddying of the waters of history anyway.
I provided a sworn statement from a senior American State department official saying that America armed Iraq. Do you have any proof that they didn't?
No, the US did arm Iraq, it is muddying the waters saying that by supplying them with foreign made arms through third parties that they didn't.
Do you have any proof that they didn't?
Yes, the complete lack of NBC and American weaponry in Saddam's arsenal.
Yes, the complete lack of NBC and American weaponry in Saddam's arsenal.
Saddam certainly did have biological and chemical weapons supplied by America, doccuments proving it were presented to a senate investigation. They were the first to be handed over to UN weapons inspectors and included on their inventory.
As for other arms, who makes them and who supplies them are two different things.
Did you have anything in the way of evidence not just the cheap twisting of words we've had from you so far?
Twisting of words? LOL that is rich coming from the 'conspiracy king';)
BTW, that must be a first time for you to believe a sworn statement from an American!
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.