Galloway: "The khaki war machine now has a pink contingent"

[jæd]

I thought the OP was about how Galloway had said something 'stupid and offensive' with regard to gay rights in Iran

Yes, but after a few posts cockneyrebel was attacking KBJ on his past posting record and making cheap shots at right-wing people...

There are two issues here: human rights in Iran and a possible war against Iran. In light of what we can actually do about those two issues it seems to me that we are more capable of doing something about what our govt and armed forces might do than what the Iranian regime is doing, so in some senses unless you one can offer practical steps to deal with the victimisation of gay men in Iran there is little to be gained here other than 'points'.

But this assumes that a war with Iran by the US/UK is (a) imminent and (b) possible, both politically and there is available man-power. All of these assumptions are false.

 

[newbie]

I thought the OP was about how Galloway had said something 'stupid and offensive' with regard to gay rights in Iran

There are two issues here: human rights in Iran and a possible war against Iran. In light of what we can actually do about those two issues it seems to me that we are more capable of doing something about what our govt and armed forces might do than what the Iranian regime is doing, so in some senses unless you one can offer practical steps to deal with the victimisation of gay men in Iran there is little to be gained here other than 'points'.

practical step #1. Offer this chap asylum.

 

[jæd]

practical step #1. Offer this chap asylum.

This is the obvious step...

 

[Spion]

practical step #1. Offer this chap asylum.

Absolutely

 

[Spion]

Yes, but after a few posts cockneyrebel was attacking KBJ on his past posting record and making cheap shots at right-wing people...

I still don't see how that leads you to suggest CR is in favour of executing gays. An utterly ludicrous suggestion

But this assumes that a war with Iran by the US/UK is (a) imminent and (b) possible, both politically and there is available man-power. All of these assumptions are false.

Are you asserting that my assumptions are false?

 

[cockneyrebel]

And for all those of us who weren't in Trafalgar Square...

I haven't got a link, I'm just posting what I heard!

So you think people should be executed for their sexuality...?

What are you talking about?! Where have I said anything approaching this. Indeed I said just because imperialists will use anything to attack Iran DOESN'T mean we should ignore how reactionary the Iranian regime (including their blatant homophobia). Did you even read my post? Maybe an apology is in order from you?

If Iran defeats the US in an armed confrontation, I'm thinking we'd have a bit of problem on our hands...

Hopefully it would open up a crisis in Iran and pro-working class forces could take control. Also if the USA wins you don't think we'd have a problem on our hands? Most of the world already lives in the problems of starvation, utter poverty and war.

It's a pretty sad day when being concerned about gay rights or women's rights for that matter gets a label of 'right wing'

Where did I say that? I said that KBJ is right wing for a number of reasons. Indeed I actually said that we shouldn't drop criticisms of the Iranian regime. As with jaed did you even bother reading my posts?

However, like the last anti-Galloway thread comparing him to a Nazi, the quote - and the explanation of his meaning is coming from a blog.

"The khaki war machine now has its pink contingent and its purpose is the same, to bamboozle the public into going along with mass murder in Iran" seems to be the quote, which of course has been edited for effect here.

Actually I think someone is an absolute idiot if they compared Galloway to a Nazi. That doensn't mean though that I think Galloways mix of reformism, Stalnism and religous moralism makes his politics any good or mean that I think he isn't a total egotist. (although he's still got far better politics than someone like KBJ)

And no it didn't come from a blog it came from me standing in Trafalgar Square! And I didn't edit it for affect, that's all I heard. And to be honest I don't think the edit makes any difference. It's still totally insensitive and over the top.

As said would you say "the pro-war movement now has a black contingent" if an anti-racist group was criticising the Iranian regime? Why put it in such a way, there's no need for it. I actually don't think Galloway is homophobic (and his record shows it) but I do think his stalinist politics mean he ends up coming out with stuff like this and being far too soft on regimes like Iran.

A lot more gays would die in Iran, along with a lot of other civilians, mixed with a humanitarian catastrophe, if we enter another ME war.

I agree but does that mean left wingers should be soft on the utterly reactionary regime in Iran just because imperialism is even worse?

PS Reading some of the idiotic postings on here shows how you have to be careful in criticising Galloway not to get lumped in with a load of right wing rubbish.

 

[In Bloom]

E2A: @ Spion.

On the possibility manpower front, your assumptions are shakey at the very least. The US army is stretched to breaking point as it is, and there's little political appetite for another war in the US.

What's more, the US has no particular motive to attack Iran. There are plenty of countries the mainstream media slag, it doesn't mean that they're about to be invaded by the US and it certainly doesn't place them above criticism from the left.

 

[cockneyrebel]

btw that video claims 50-60,000 turned up. I arrived too late the speeches but thought there were about 20,000 on the march. Was it really two or three times that?

I'd say about 40,000 (which is what the STWC said I think). It was bigger than the last couple I've been on.

In terms of "what we can do" then I think both sides can be taken on. On one hand obviously the anti-war movement can be built.

On the other, although more difficult, links can be made between the british and Iranian labour movements. I'm not uncritical of HOPI (Hands of the people of Iran) but this is one of the things they suggest.

 

[newbie]

What's more, the US has no particular motive to attack Iran.

a non-client state moving towards the possession of nuclear weapons may be motive enough, particularly during a US election year.

 

[Spion]

E2A: @ Spion.

On the possibility manpower front, your assumptions are shakey at the very least. The US army is stretched to breaking point as it is, and there's little political appetite for another war in the US.

You're almost certainly right re ground forces. That's not to rule out airstrikes, possibly inc by IAF too for now, but who knows what in future

What's more, the US has no particular motive to attack Iran.

Oh come on! Iran's pro-Euro oil policy, it's lack of access to US oil and other firms, it's antagonism to Israel and support for anti-Israeli forces, it's general antagonism to the US, it's militarisation and purchase of advanced Chinese and Russian weapons and acting as a channel for those to various players in the ME like Hizbullah plus the possible nuclear issue. And there's the Israel lobby's constant desire to see a regional threat taken down.

 

[Spion]

a non-client state moving towards the possession of nuclear weapons may be motive enough, particularly during a US election year.

Aye

 

[jæd]

a non-client state moving towards the possession of nuclear weapons may be motive enough, particularly during a US election year.

How...? Its very unlikely the Republicans will win the election... You'd have to move either troops from Iraq or Afghanistan (unlikely) and into another country which will keep the US army bogged down and a have a substantial death toll...

If Bush does order an invasion now then the Republicans can forget any re-election...

After the US election the Democrats would have to perform a 180 degree turn to send troops in...

 

[jæd]

What are you talking about?! Where have I said anything approaching this. Indeed I said just because imperialists will use anything to attack Iran DOESN'T mean we should ignore how reactionary the Iranian regime (including their blatant homophobia). Did you even read my post? Maybe an apology is in order from you?

Maybe you need to make your posts clearer...

Hopefully it would open up a crisis in Iran and pro-working class forces could take control. Also if the USA wins you don't think we'd have a problem on our hands? Most of the world already lives in the problems of starvation, utter poverty and war.

Unlikely... If Iran wins a US/Iranian conflict the ruling party of Iran would be stronger than ever, and it would have no reason to change its way regarding human-rights... If the US won (very unlikely) it would be able to effect better change than in Iraq. But the outcome of any US/Iran war would be a messy statement, much like Iraq is now.

 

[newbie]

How...? Its very unlikely the Republicans will win the election... You'd have to move either troops from Iraq or Afghanistan (unlikely) and into another country which will keep the US army bogged down and a have a substantial death toll...

If Bush does order an invasion now then the Republicans can forget any re-election...

After the US election the Democrats would have to perform a 180 degree turn to send troops in...

invasion?- no chance. a surgical strike, on the other hand, could neutralise the nuclear threat whilst helping win the election.

That's a scenario: whether it is actually played out depends on all sorts of factors, not least the Republican strategists' take on what stance is most likely to win them the election. Standing firm against the zealots (cue shots of an Iranian mob, hostages, yellow ribbons and (democrat) Carter dithering) could play well for them, but only if they can mould the mood of the American people.

From this distance I can't really get a feel, but just now I don't think that's what they'll do. Come October, if the Democrats are surging ahead and appear to be bent on appeasement, there could be strong Republican pressure on Bush. We'll have to wait and see, we're not even bit part players in this one.

 

[cockneyrebel]

Maybe you need to make your posts clearer...

Maybe you needed to read posts more carefully.

Unlikely... If Iran wins a US/Iranian conflict the ruling party of Iran would be stronger than ever, and it would have no reason to change its way regarding human-rights... If the US won (very unlikely) it would be able to effect better change than in Iraq. But the outcome of any US/Iran war would be a messy statement, much like Iraq is now.

Firstly I'd agree with people that a war with Iran now looks unlikely (air strikes is another matter).

But if the US (and whatever other imperialists were on side) won such a war then they would be stronger than ever and would have no reason to change their way regarding human-rights and global domination. And if you think that the US would implement "better change" then I think you're living on cloud cuckoo land. But each to their own.

 

[jæd]

invasion?- no chance. a surgical strike, on the other hand, could neutralise the nuclear threat whilst helping win the election.

Again, unlikely. The nuclear lab (if they do actually have one) would be heavily defended and isolated...

 

[jæd]

But if the US (and whatever other imperialists were on side) won such a war then they would be stronger than ever and would have no reason to change their way regarding human-rights and global domination. And if you think that the US would implement "better change" then I think you're living on cloud cuckoo land. But each to their own.

So what would you think would happen if there was a Iran/US war that the US won decisively...? IMO, they would try to put in a democratic process thats favourable to the US and Western interests.. Even though its an unlikely outcome I fail to see the problem in having such a regime...

 

[Spion]

So what would you think would happen if there was a Iran/US war that the US won decisively...? IMO, they would try to put in a democratic process thats favourable to the US and Western interests.. Even though its an unlikely outcome I fail to see the problem in having such a regime...

I'm sure the US would love a pro-western 'democratic' regime which privatised and sold off Iran's oil and other industries and broke down the statised economy and removed subsidies on bread, fuel etc just as their Iraqi one has tried to do. But I don't think that's gonna happen either. You sound like you'd quite like the idea too

 

[jæd]

I'm sure the US would love a pro-western 'democratic' regime which privatised and sold off Iran's oil and other industries and broke down the statised economy and removed subsidies on bread, fuel etc just as their Iraqi one has tried to do. But I don't think that's gonna happen either. You sound like you'd quite like the idea too

I'd like an Iran where there aren't human rights violations, thanks, and that would include a reduction in poverty and the chance at welfare for all...

But like I said, its unlikely that the US would start a war with Iran. And even more unlikely they would decisively win such a war..

 

[likesfish]

Again, unlikely. The nuclear lab (if they do actually have one) would be heavily defended and isolated...

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=061124134543.qth288nm&s

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Iran_To_Test_Air_Defences_At_Key_Nuclear_Site_999.html

B2's are stealthy and can fly higher bomb the sam sites follow up with a mass flight of cruise missiles

or drop a min nuke form an icbm

USAf strategic air command trained to fly into the heart of the soviet union the iraninan's air defences are not going to hold up for long if they decide to go for it

 

[durruti02]

Whoever said supporters of gay rights want a war in the middle east? Or are we not allowed to criticise any aspect of Iran without people thinking that?

he he .. opposition to attacks on gays in iran can ONLY mean you support the US nuking Tehran!!! brilliant


.. at least in the minds of the imbeclie element of the left .. i despair!

 

[audiotech]

It might of escaped your notice in your latest troll that there will indeed be some people, who happen to be gay and who support gay-rights, supporting the war in the middle East. Some might even think it a good idea to nuke the place?

I once met some fascist who told me he was screwing Martin Webster -Yuk! Does that make me a homophobe in your eyes durritto?

 

[durruti02]

It might of escaped your notice in your latest troll that there will indeed be some people, who happen to be gay and who support gay-rights, supporting the war in the middle East. Some might even think it a good idea to nuke the place?

I once met some fascist who told me he was screwing Martin Webster -Yuk! Does that make me a homophobe in your eyes durritto?

there are many reactionary gays .. as there are non gay .. what has this got to do with what GG is on about?

 

[KeyboardJockey]

It might of escaped your notice in your latest troll that there will indeed be some people, who happen to be gay and who support gay-rights, supporting the war in the middle East. Some might even think it a good idea to nuke the place?

I once met some fascist who told me he was screwing Martin Webster -Yuk! Does that make me a homophobe in your eyes durritto?

MARTIN WEBSTER!!! Yuck thats almost enough to turn me straight.

 

[audiotech]

there are many reactionary gays .. as there are non gay .. what has this got to do with what GG is on about?

I was replying to durritos troll.

he he .. opposition to attacks on gays in iran can ONLY mean you support the US nuking Tehran!!! brilliant


.. at least in the minds of the imbeclie element of the left .. i despair!

 

[jæd]

B2's are stealthy and can fly higher bomb the sam sites follow up with a mass flight of cruise missiles

You'd still need to find the center they are using, as well their scientists...

or drop a min nuke form an icbm

Unlikely -- it anyone found out about it then Iran would have a field-day...

Thing is, the only people who are discussing military strikes are the media and the un-informed. There's actually been (breakthrough) talks by the US specifically to avoid any action. You'd almost think that the rumours of war are being encouraged in the media to avoid them talking about something else...

 

[Dhimmi]

I'm not going to derail the thread here but just for the record attacking useless out of touch union leaderships and saying that the state of Israel has a right to exist in peace with its neighbours isn't necessarily right wing.

If the left wants to grow up and govern for the benefit of all it needs to lose the dogma that has held it back for so many years.

Quite agree. The left and the right do seem to share a habit of cosying up to really quite repellent ideas and folk for no good reason. Stalin used to be the darling for a worrying number of the left, just as Hitler was for many of the right.

It might be down to being an older pinko, but I do prefer a bit of realistic thought to my politics, rather than just finding the perfect opposite to right-wing ideas and supporting those regardless.

 

[audiotech]

Quite agree. The left and the right do seem to share a habit of cosying up to really quite repellent ideas and folk for no good reason. Stalin used to be the darling for a worrying number of the left, just as Hitler was for many of the right.

It might be down to being an older pinko, but I do prefer a bit of realistic thought to my politics, rather than just finding the perfect opposite to right-wing ideas and supporting those regardless.

It should be remembered that Stalin was the darling for millions of workers - it was govenment inspired during some of the war years too. Some on the left didn't give him one iota of support and were usually labelled 'fascist'.

If you're trying to compare Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with Stalin, or Hitler forget it, because that would make you look really stoopid.

 

[likesfish]

probably two prong attack talk tough in front of the camera's that includes the Iranian government while doing a deal in private I hope anyway
As the nuclear research facility is on Google earth and been visited by the UN not much of a secret and ringed by Thor Sam batterys not going to be that hard to find.
just because right wing kooks want to bomb the crap out of someone does'nt make there regime defendable.
Mark thatcher wanted to run equatorial guinea as his own private fiefdom unfortunately that actually sounds a more progressive government that the thugs that are in power now. That nowhere suggest mercenary's should over throw small oil rich countries.

 

[In Bloom]

It might of escaped your notice in your latest troll that there will indeed be some people, who happen to be gay and who support gay-rights, supporting the war in the middle East. Some might even think it a good idea to nuke the place?

And? There'll be Jewish people who support war in the Middle East too, would it be acceptable to say "The war machine has a Jewish contingent"?