Galloway's being a twat again

[Guest Bilo]

But why are they starving to death? And is the only way to stop them starving to death by invading the country, or could they be prevented from starving to death by opening trade talks and possibly even sending aid.

Sending aid has been tried, numerous times.

The regime will only allow aid agencies into certain areas, if they allow aid agencies in at all. They generally see allowing them in as admission of the failings of their brand of Communism, which isn't good for propaganda.

They have a fanaticism towards economic self-sufficiency, known as Juche, which means they're reluctant to open up much in the way of international trade with anyone but China. The problem is that North Korea will not help themselves, they're deeply suspicious of foreign investment and trade.

[Guest Bilo]

Most of the points Galloway made in the OP are 100% correct. People may hate him, but he was still correct in most of what he said.

I've not listened to him for a long time but he will always have some respect from me for what he did in the US that day. Most British MP's would have crumbled in his shoes in the Senate, but George made them look like clowns and absolutely battered them. Balls of steel. They tried to belittle him and ended up probably wishing they never bothered. Mano a mano, not many are a match for him.

He was talking through his hoop about South Korea though. The US and much of the UN invaded the Korean peninsula because North Korea had invaded first, a glaring but predictable omission given Galloway's fanatically one-sided world view.

To say the US is solely responsible for North Korea's poverty is monumentally thick though, again not surprising.

[leicsmac]

But why are they starving to death? And is the only way to stop them starving to death by invading the country, or could they be prevented from starving to death by opening trade talks and possibly even sending aid.

North Korea has been sent aid many times in the past. It just ends up in the hands of the military. It doesn't get to where it's needed.

I agree that we need to encourage NK to come into the international community, but I really don't see how it can be done.

[Captain...]

Sending aid has been tried, numerous times.

The regime will only allow aid agencies into certain areas, if they allow aid agencies in at all. They generally see allowing them in as admission of the failings of their brand of Communism, which isn't good for propaganda.

They have a fanaticism towards economic self-sufficiency, known as Juche, which means they're reluctant to open up much in the way of international trade with anyone but China. The problem is that North Korea will not help themselves, they're deeply suspicious of foreign investment and trade.

Fair enough, like I said I'm not expert on Korea, so thanks for the info.

[Guest Bilo]

Fair enough, like I said I'm not expert on Korea, so thanks for the info.

Ha ha, I'm hardly an expert myself but I am fascinated by the North.

The way in which it is run is a throwback to the hardline Communist bloc of the 1970s, which makes it a curiosity in the 21st century where states like it are but a distant memory.

[digitalalba]

http://dailycaller.c.../#ixzz2Q3MDrBqK

So - North Korea's dire straights having nothing to do with being ruled by an absolute nut-case for many years, who saw faking golf results as more worth his time than helping his subjects, but all to do with the US?

The really interesting thing here is TV manipulation.

When the US led coalition wanted to capture sadam hussein, our TV told us it was a just cause, and that persuaded us to illegally invade Iraq - hundreds of thousands died. Iraqis are worse off than in 2003.

When the US led coalition wanted to capture Bin Laden, our TV told us it was a just cause, and that persuaded us to illegally invade Afghanistan - hundreds of thousands died. There seems no end to this war, especially as Barack Obama has increased US troops in Afghanistan.

When the US led coalition wanted to support Libyian rebels to capture Gadaffi, our TV told us it was a just cause, and that persuaded us to illegally invade Libya - thousands died. Now those so-called 'rebels' are killing Christians and bombing Christian churches, but our TV doesn't report that, so it doesn't happen.

Our TV reports that an 'enemy' is a bad man, does that mean we agree to kill him off?

In the future, young people will ask us, daddy/mummy/uncle/auntie/nana/grandad, in the build up to WW3/global chaos, what did you do to stop it happening, and you will say, i watched my TV and believed what i was told

[kendo_1988]

Its funny how they say press Tv is a propagander station. Same could be said for bbc itv channel 4 and 5, abc, nbc, cnn, and fox. All ran by the same war mongering american scunbags who constantly tell lies to get the moronic sheep on their side

[Guest Bilo]

It's owned and run by the Iranian government, hardly a haven of tolerance and democracy.

If you're honestly equating the entire British media with Fox News and Press TV, frankly you're a bit of a moron.

[Out Foxed]

He's right about the first half

[kendo_1988]

Your view of the iranian government is made by the propagander you watch, i bet you were on board with the great iraq lie aswell.

[Guest MattP]

Your view of the iranian government is made by the propagander you watch, i bet you were on board with the great iraq lie aswell.

Mine isn't, I was chatting up an Iranian bird at Dubai airport last month and I told her how Iran was viewed in the UK, she said it was pretty much spot on but probably a bit more liberal towards gays than we are told.

[Guest Bilo]

Your view of the iranian government is made by the propagander you watch, i bet you were on board with the great iraq lie aswell.

No I wasn't. You couldn't be further from the truth on that one.

As for my view on Iran, it's made up by researching those well known warmongers known as Amnesty International.

https://www.amnesty....&ArticleID=2657

The authorities maintained severe restrictions on freedom of expression, association and assembly. Sweeping controls on domestic and international media aimed at reducing Iranians’ contact with the outside world were imposed. Individuals and groups risked arrest, torture and imprisonment if perceived as co-operating with human rights and foreign-based Persian-language media organizations. Political dissidents, women’s and minority rights activists and other human rights defenders, lawyers, journalists and students were rounded up in mass and other arrests and hundreds were imprisoned. Torture and other ill-treatment of detainees were routine and committed with impunity. Women continued to face discrimination under the law and in practice. The authorities acknowledged 252 executions, but there were credible reports of more than 300 other executions. The true total could be even higher. At least one juvenile offender was executed. Sentences of death by stoning continued to be passed, but no stonings were known to have been carried out. Floggings and an increased number of amputations were carried out.

Read it and weep, these are the paymasters of your hero Gormless George.

[Father Ted]

He's speaking the truth though.

[kendo_1988]

You wanna talk about tyranic governments? Saudi arabia is by far the worst. Yet they are our best friends. Because they play ball and buy weapons and give us oil its ok. america and britains foreign policy stinks.

[bluesbrothers]

George Galloway is typical of the left - a shouty, rhetoric-filled little **** desperate for controversy but unable to comprehend anyone having differing views without declaring them "deluded" or "racist."

[Guest Bilo]

You're really working your way through Galloway's 101 Arguments aren't you? Offering no counter arguments though I see.

Saudi Arabia is a vile nation ruled by vile people. I don't think many would disagree with that or defend America's close relationship with Saudi Arabia.

The problem is that it has the Western World by the balls. One in every eight barrels of petroleum produced around the world comes from Saudi Arabia. It is comfortably the world's largest producer of oil and could utterly destroy the Western economy if it chose to withhold oil supplies or raise prices. It caused a major recession in 1973 by hiking prices and reducing oil supplies, along with other OPEC nations, causing a global recession that lasted nigh-on 18 months. The embargo effectively forced the USA's hand in the Yom Kippur War to negotiate a settlement in Syria's favour during its battle with Israel.

In short, America has to maintain a close relationship with Saudi Arabia because quite frankly it has a gun to its head. If Saudi Arabia, the principal member of OPEC, calls another embargo or price hike it heads an organisation that produces 33 million barrels of oil a day. If you don't think they'd do it, look at your history and consider the nations that are part of it.

The US has had to choose between the lesser of two evils, supporting a vile dictatorship and keep the Western economy intact or opposing it and risk the wrath of an organisation that earned $1 trillion in 2011 alone.

That is not an easy choice to make, and it's one the US has been largely forced into. Talking about the close relationship between certain families and companies is too simplistic. It's an extremely complicated issue that has been over-simplified by many a casual political commentator.

[Deucalion]

You're really working your way through Galloway's 101 Arguments aren't you? Offering no counter arguments though I see.

Saudi Arabia is a vile nation ruled by vile people. I don't think many would disagree with that or defend America's close relationship with Saudi Arabia.

The problem is that it has the Western World by the balls. One in every eight barrels of petroleum produced around the world comes from Saudi Arabia. It is comfortably the world's largest producer of oil and could utterly destroy the Western economy if it chose to withhold oil supplies or raise prices. It caused a major recession in 1973 by hiking prices and reducing oil supplies, along with other OPEC nations, causing a global recession that lasted nigh-on 18 months. The embargo effectively forced the USA's hand in the Yom Kippur War to negotiate a settlement in Syria's favour during its battle with Israel.

In short, America has to maintain a close relationship with Saudi Arabia because quite frankly it has a gun to its head. If Saudi Arabia, the principal member of OPEC, calls another embargo or price hike it heads an organisation that produces 33 million barrels of oil a day. If you don't think they'd do it, look at your history and consider the nations that are part of it.

The US has had to choose between the lesser of two evils, supporting a vile dictatorship and keep the Western economy intact or opposing it and risk the wrath of an organisation that earned $1 trillion in 2011 alone.

That is not an easy choice to make, and it's one the US has been largely forced into. Talking about the close relationship between certain families and companies is too simplistic. It's an extremely complicated issue that has been over-simplified by many a casual political commentator.

While what you are saying in entirely true, don't you think the US would gain more respect around the world if it admitted it's vulnerability and vested interest and stopped banging on about 'Freedom & Democracy'? It is very easy to find cases which prove freedom and democracy is not what the US fights to protect.

I would be keener on the US if it stopped trying to take me for a fool.

[Guest Bilo]

While what you are saying in entirely true, don't you think the US would gain more respect around the world if it admitted it's vulnerability and vested interest and stopped banging on about 'Freedom & Democracy'? It is very easy to find cases which prove freedom and democracy is not what the US fights to protect.

I would be keener on the US if it stopped trying to take me for a fool.

It is smoke and mirrors and I find it difficult to defend that.

The invasion of Iraq and a West-friendly Libya means there are now two OPEC nations effectively under Western control, and that may mean a slow shifting away from Saudi Arabia.

The thing is that they still need to tread very carefully in the Middle East. Decisions made to enhance Freedom and Democracy abroad are easy to sell at home, decisions made to gain access to oil are not. The irony is that the latter is more important on a day-to-day basis in the Western world.

[breadandcheese]

Whatever people think of Galloway, he makes some good points here. Such as:

• South Korea exists because America invaded Korea, killed millions of people, divided the country and continues to garrison South Korea with military bases, nuclear weapons, chemical and biological weapon
  
• [The US] is responsible for repressive country’s dire economic situation.*
  
• They have pushed and pushed North Korea into a corner. The people in North Korea are in very dire straights in terms of standards of food, amount of food and access to oil and other energy resources
  
• I’m much more afraid of the United States of America and so are most people in the world
  

I'm not sure Galloway is right at all about North Korea. Taking his points as they are:

- Korea was divided after WW2, but that was between the victors after Japan had been defeated. The country was split, but then the North invaded, hence the UN resolution and the US/UK defending South Korea. He's right that South Korea only exists because of the US, which stopped the North crushing the South, but then the North only exists because China stepped in and stopped the North being defeated, so the argument could be made the other way that the North only exists because of China. Either way, it's relevant to history alone as South Korea is a sovereign nation of over 50 years and the people do not want to be North Korean. If Mr Galloways believes in self-determination and freedom, he'll believe in South Korea's right to live in peace.

- The dire economic situation of North Korea is down solely to North Korea's leadership. Case in point, look at China. They opened up, liberalised their economy during the 1980s and they are now an economic monster. The fact people are dying of famine in North Korea whilst money is poured into making rockets and nuclear bombs is appalling and is in no way down to the West.

- They have not pushed North Korea into a corner. North Korea have manufactured this situation. The fact is, how many people genuinely care about North Korea. None. America couldn't give two sh*ts about the country, until it starts to threaten South Korea, Japan, and anyone else with its nuclear diplomacy. I can understand why the North Koreans are using the diplomacy of threats, because it has worked so well in the past, bringing the US to the negotiating table, but it reaches a point where you have to say, diplomacy through threatening nuclear war is not on. The fact that China is unhappy with how North Korea is acting speaks volumes and shows this is not America.

I don't think anyone genuinely believes there'll be a war as it would be suicide by the ruling dynasty in North Korea. It's fascinating to read the stories of escapees from North Korea who describe how the country is one big brainwashed personality cult, believing the leader to be a quasi-god. Just a messed up country really.

[Guest Bilo]

George Galloway is typical of the left - a shouty, rhetoric-filled little **** desperate for controversy but unable to comprehend anyone having differing views without declaring them "deluded" or "racist."

I'm not even sure you can call him a left-winger any more.

He's clearly no democrat as proved by the company he keeps, his refusal to debate even moderate Israelis shows a disturbing level of prejudice, nobody interested in LGBT equality would even consider supporting an Iranian state that has the death penalty for homosexuality and he supports Hezbollah in spite of its penchant for Holocaust denial.

As a left-winger interested in social justice and equality for all; none of these strike me as leftist tendencies, quite the opposite in fact.

[kendo_1988]

Why should galloway debate with a isreali?! the one he walked out on was of millitary age, the isreali illegal ocupiers are as barbaric as they come!

[Guest Bilo]

Why should galloway debate with a isreali?! the one he walked out on was of millitary age, the isreali illegal ocupiers are as barbaric as they come!

Was the Israeli in question in the IDF?

That's a complete non-argument as well, you might as well say that somebody opposed to al-Qaeda shouldn't debate with any Arab. Just in case.

By the way, you still aren't offering any counter arguments to mine.

[Deucalion]

I'm not sure Galloway is right at all about North Korea. Taking his points as they are:

- Korea was divided after WW2, but that was between the victors after Japan had been defeated. The country was split, but then the North invaded, hence the UN resolution and the US/UK defending South Korea. He's right that South Korea only exists because of the US, which stopped the North crushing the South, but then the North only exists because China stepped in and stopped the North being defeated in the 1950s, so the argument could be made the other way that the North only exists because of China. Either way, it's relevant to history alone as South Korea is a sovereign nation of over 50 years and the people do not want to be North Korean. If Mr Galloways believes in self-determination and freedom, he'll believe in South Korea's right to live in peace.

- The dire economic situation of North Korea is down solely to North Korea's leadership. Case in point, look at China. They opened up, liberalised their economy during the 1980s and they are now an economic monster. The fact people are dying of famine is appalling and is in no way down to the West.

- They have not pushed North Korea into a corner. North Korea have manufactured this situation. The fact is, how many people genuinely care about North Korea. None. America couldn't give two sh*ts about the country, until it starts to threaten South Korea, Japan, and anyone else with its nuclear diplomacy. I can understand why the North Koreans are using the diplomacy of threats, because it has worked so well in the past, bringing the US to the negotiating table, but it reaches a point where you have to say, diplomacy through threatening nuclear war is not on. The fact that China is unhappy with how North Korea is acting speaks volumes and shows this is not America.

I don't think anyone genuinely believes there'll be a war as it would be suicide by the ruling dynasty in North Korea. It's fascinating to read the stories of escapees from North Korea who describe how the country is one big brainwashed personality cult, believing the leader to be a quasi-god. Just a messed up country really.

I don't necessarily disagree hugely with what you have to say. Some things did spring to mind though.

You state that South Korea has been a sovereign nation for 50 years. Well...so has the north. Is there any chance that you are viewing the South as primary due to biased Western reporting of the matter? Surely the North has a right to choose it's own way to be a sovereign nation.?

You say China is doing very well because it liberalised and opened up. In other words, it began to play the Western capitalist game. Why should North Korea not find a different way? US foreign policy always attacks countries which do not conform to Western style capitalism and do not open their borders to more or less free trade. To agree that the US is right to do this is to agree with US imperialism. States should have a choice on how to run their economy, even if it doesn't seem the best way to our eyes.

One things which strikes me as I write this is I am assuming states should have rights but not people. This doesn't sit easily with me; but to criticise a state for it's human rights record or lack of democracy is again judging a state based on Western norms. It is more imperialism.* Capitalism and democracy may seem like natural choices to us in the West, but it does not necessarily make the concepts universally desirable.

I'm not sure about there not being a war. I don't think the North is seriously trying to start one, it is actually crying out for attention. However it could quite conceivably start one regardless.

* Before anyone gets too sniffy about this, I find it quite a challenging statement too

[breadandcheese]

I don't necessarily disagree hugely with what you have to say. Some things did spring to mind though.

You state that South Korea has been a sovereign nation for 50 years. Well...so has the north. Is there any chance that you are viewing the South as primary due to biased Western reporting of the matter? Surely the North has a right to choose it's own way to be a sovereign nation.?

You say China is doing very well because it liberalised and opened up. In other words, it began to play the Western capitalist game. Why should North Korea not find a different way? US foreign policy always attacks countries which do not conform to Western style capitalism and do not open their borders to more or less free trade. To agree that the US is right to do this is to agree with US imperialism. States should have a choice on how to run their economy, even if it doesn't seem the best way to our eyes.

One things which strikes me as I write this is I am assuming states should have rights but not people. This doesn't sit easily with me; but to criticise a state for it's human rights record or lack of democracy is again judging a state based on Western norms. It is more imperialism.* Capitalism and democracy may seem like natural choices to us in the West, but it does not necessarily make the concepts universally desirable.

I'm not sure about there not being a war. I don't think the North is seriously trying to start one, it is actually crying out for attention. However it could quite conceivably start one regardless.

* Before anyone gets too sniffy about this, I find it quite a challenging statement too

Although you raise some interesting points, I think you're overthinking it in this case.

No-one is threatening North Korea's sovereignty. For a start, North Korea have China who went to war for them in the 1950's and who if they genuinely believed this to be a war of regime change manufactured by America, would not stand for it. Secondly, South Korea is doing very well economically so would not want a war. Any attack by them will be retaliatory. In fact, in the past South Korea has been extremely pacifist, in the face of provocation (shelling of South Korean territory, sinking of a SK naval boat) and have not retaliated so you cannot say they are a warmongering nation.

Of course NK have a right to choose how they be a sovereign nation (how to measure how representative that is in a cultish dictatorship where people are killed or imprisoned for disagreeing with official policy, I don't know).

In terms of China becoming like a Western capitalist country, it has in fact found its own way, combining East and West through a more managed economic path, rather than economic liberalisation we recognise in the UK or US economy. This will bring its own problems in the future with crony capitalism and bad debts hidden on the books, but it is a much more authoritarian and controlled form of economic management.

[Daggers]

Galloway is a moronic champagne socialist championed only by the bigoted, politically ignorant and misguided.

Does anyone take him seriously any more? Apart from the knuckle-draggers who voted for him in Bradford of course.

Sorry.

I think most of his points are bang on and his performance on Question Time demonstrated him clearly as a conviction politician. I don't believe anybody could call the man moronic, certainly not someone as astute and intelligent as you. And as for "knuckle draggers"? Have one of the more inept right-whingers hacked your account?

Politicians should take him seriously and, to a certain extent emulate him. Nothing makes me more sick than the sound of plastic MPs full of PR advice and soundbites. He destroyed all the parties present on BBC, his position regarding Israel is to be lauded and he was bang on regarding Chavez.

As I said, sorry Bilo.

Oh, and "champagne socialist" is a right-wing slur - don't buy into such a crass agenda.