Story here.

I hate the man personally, but I wonder if those Senators quite realise what they're getting into. [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]

Methinks he will cause quite a stir - Senators vs hard-line British socialist [img]smile.gif[/img] My money is on Galloway personally...

[ 05-12-2005, 02:39 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

My money is on congress -- because Galloway probably makes the fatal assumption that TRUTH matters in this country. It does not. Opinion and spin are all we have.

If the Senate commitee doesn't have their case solidly together Galloway is going to play off that like a media ham and come out with an undeservingly enhanced reputation.

Agree with Djinn here 110%. He is a very practiced brawler in these kind of arguments and the interview I just saw with the Senate committee rep doesn't fill me with confidence that they can meet him on that level. I don't know if he took money from Iraq or not, and frankly I don't entirely care. The man is politically reprehensible even without his collusion in Saddam's regime, but the Senate committee seems to be trying to smear the anti-war movement - not only George Galloway.

This could end up with a worst case scenario of the committee painting a picture of all anti-war people as Saddam's friends, and Galloway building himself up to be the representative of all anti-war people. Neither are good.

Shamrock - what is it makes you think this man is a socialist? Hard line or otherwise? Socialists are pro-choice and anti-death penalty, with Galloway its the other way around. He's an old, egotistical, Stalinist tankie. The Senate are welcome to him, but they're going to have to be much more on the ball to come out of this well.

Ummm, being socialist does not mean you have to against the death penalty, although many are. It is like saying all conservatives a either public school boys, aristocracy or rich business men, this is clearly not true, although members of those groups are oftn more likely to think that way than others Also, son't socialist believe in greater state intervention and therefore less individual freedoms and choice. Stalin was, a communist which is the ultimate form of socialism.

Anyway, can you guys do us a favour and arrest him or something, anything will do, preferably with a long custidial sentence, come on, you know you want to...

Regardless of how you feel about Galloway, if the US was to arrest a British MP the resulting diplomatic fallout would be disastrous.

Regardless of how you feel about Galloway, if the US was to arrest a British MP the resulting diplomatic fallout would be disastrous. </font>[/QUOTE]Well, in this case... [img]tongue.gif[/img]

And sorry, perhaps I used the socialist label incorrectly. I view Galloway as an ultra-hardcore unionist picket-line politician: to me that suggests socialist.

Regardless of how you feel about Galloway, if the US was to arrest a British MP the resulting diplomatic fallout would be disastrous. </font>[/QUOTE]I wasn't being serious here...
On a side nite, would he have diplomatic immunity, as he is not a diplomat or representing the UK officially?

Not to my knowledge. You can't arrest him inside Westminster, but apart from that he's fair game :D

Stalin wasn't a communist, first off. He was a brutal dictator, and communism is essentially a democratic form of government, which gradually becomes complete lack of government over time. Nothing Stalin did would be condoned by the philosophy of Marx, Engels, or even Lenin. The only thing that would make you think Stalin was a communist is that he said he was, and bearing in mind he murdered millions he's the last person who's word I'd trust on the subject.

Also socialism does not equal more state control. As I've said above, Socialism would eventually mean no state whatsoever. As Marx said: "The emancipation of the working class must be the act of the workers themselves.". In other words you can't get socialism frmo above - the state can't do it for you. It has to come from below, from mass grass roots movements. It is the ultimate in free choice, and Stalin's brand of dictatorship represents the most bloody repression of it.

Shamrock - I really don't think Galloway can be considered a unionist or picket-line politician. I'd have a lot of time for him if he was, despite his political meanderings. For a socialist, in fact, thats the key question to ask when assesing someone's political worth - their relationship to the working class. Take Tony Benn for example; he's been all over the place recently in political terms. He took money from the Pakistani military dictatorship to publish a newspaper over here promoting them, but that comes on the end of a long political life defending workers in times of class struggle. His recent fall from grace represents exactly that - a fall. Galloway has not fallen, as he has been at the bottom for a while. When he was still a labour MP he was not distinguished by a left wing voting record, and at the Respect launch meeting (which I attended, for my sins...) he boasted at how he'd so often been on the other side of the debate from everyone else in the room. The only issue he's "left-wing" on is the war, and its for the wrong reasons. He promotes a working class brawler image, but he drives a Merc, wears expensive suits, and smokes Cuban cigars. He explicitly rejected the idea of taking a workers wage, as almost all socialist candidates pledge to do when they stand for election, as he said he couldn't live on three workers wages...

God, I hate how that man represents the left to so many people...

[ 05-16-2005, 09:03 AM: Message edited by: Barry the Sprout ]