British MP: US Army Is Defeated in Iraq

America is defeated in Iraq, British Prime Minister Tony Blair is a "slave of slaves," and the political strength of President George W. Bush is beginning to "seep away into the sand," according to British MP George Galloway who made the remarks in a speech delivered this week at Damascus University in Syria.

The remarks were carried by the Al-Jazeera TV network on November 13. "America is losing the war in Iraq," said Galloway. Public opinion in Britain and America is moving decisively against the policy of Bush and Blair."

"No American soldier who leaves his barracks can be sure that he will come back alive," said the MP who has previously described insurgents in Iraq as "martyrs" who "are writing the names of their cities and towns in the stars..."

Galloway praised Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, calling him "the last Arab ruler" of "the last Arab country." "There is no chance of the American army invading Syria," Galloway said. "The Iraqi resistance are defeating the American army in Iraq."

http://www.townhall.com/news/ext_wire.html?rowid=35521

It is from "CNSNEWS.COM."

I would happily cast a vote for George Galloway.

:eyes:

Look at it for yourself. It's basically a Republican Party-line sort of website, in the tradition of rightist talk radio.

Not to be confused with Sen. Pat Robertson, who is stopping congressional investigations in his committee.

The neocon vision of American empire has been defeated!

It's certainly not the choice of the enlisted men and women, but it is a fact that the U.S. military is carrying out the war, and it is the U.S. military that is suffering a defeat.

Watch out for Galloway -- he's a mad dog out to aggrandize only George Galloway at the expense of everyone else.

And about as well acquainted with the truth as Schimpanski himself.

True, he's tarred and feathered a few people who really needed it (Coleman and Hitchens, for two), but he has really.creepy.friends.

And we don't need him to bring this empire down. They're doing pretty well by themselves.

I think he has his rightful place in a broad, global anti-war coalition. He's speaking the truth which is heard so rarely.

there's certainly about the same amount of evidence to support the claim.

Why do so many Labour party hacks leap out of the woodwork at the very mention of Galloway... ???

Extensive enough for people to judge my sanity, but I am absolutely obscure.

Galloway, on the other hand, has a very public record of sucking up to despots to a degree that would make Donald Rumsfeld blush. A Google search of "Galloway +scandal" turns up over 300,000 hits.

He's not the sort of advocate you want to get too close to.

I really wish he would stop his recruitment drive. Or, at least, resign his seat in Parliament first.

He is speaking out against the immoral Anglo-American war against Iraq. I may not agree with everything he says, but at least he's not a war criminal.

"at least he's not a war criminal."

I guess I'm sensitive to the PR implications of people not regarded as credible being associated with the antiwar movement. I admit to being provincial here -- to get rid of Schimpanski and his gang of serial liars, we need to convince the AMERICAN people. Convincing people around the world that he's a dink is a luxury (and largely unecessary, if my travels in Europe are any guide).

Same reason I was queasy about ANSWER being the main sponsor of the the March on Washington in September. Yeah, we all agree the war is a great evil, but many people who would have been won over by the sheer numbers of marchers were seriously turned off -- maybe lost to us forever -- because ANSWER is a bunch of unreconstructed Trotskyites.

Just sayin'.

on this board David.

?

He is an MP who was expelled from the Labour party, and now heads a left wing/Muslim party called Respect.

The DSM was leaked either by a high government member (very unlikely), or a civil servant who had access to it.

Who was that leaked the memo?

Talk about stretching credibility! The great thing is, a lot of Americans probably don't know who Lord Haw Haw was...

there is no reason his voice should not be heard.

================================================

http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP102405

British MP George Galloway at Damascus University to Support Bashar Al-Assad: If the U.S. Invades Syria, The People will Fight the U.S. Occupation Like the Brits Were Ready to Fight the Nazis

The following are excerpts from a speech by British MP George Galloway at Damascus University. The speech aired on Al-Jazeera TV on November 13, 2005.

TO VIEW THIS CLIP, visit http://www.memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=923.


On U.S. Secretary of State Rice's Mideast Visit and the Behavior of Slave Governments

Galloway: "Condoleezza Rice has been touring the Arab countries to speak about Syria, so I have come to Syria to speak about Condoleezza Rice.

"You know, it never ceases to surprise me that Arab governments can allow a foreigner to come to their country and sit at their tables with their leaders to insult and attack another Arab country. This is the behavior of slave governments, and the Bahraini regime should have asked Condoleezza to leave when she insulted Syria in their presence, in their capital. In fact, maybe it's the rulers who should leave. When she visited Cairo a few months ago, the Egyptian masses - who are still a part of the Arab world, by the way - raised the slogan about the Arab rulers: 'Give them a visa ya Condoleezza,' and I believe that this is a slogan which has not lost its meaning."

<...>

"I want to be very clear. I was clear in July, and what I said in July has followed me all over the world by the American and Israeli propaganda machine, so I want to be very clear again. All dignified people in the world, whether Arabs or Muslims or others with dignity, are very proud of the speech made by President Bashar Al-Assad a few days ago here in Damascus."

<...>

"For me, he is the last Arab ruler, and Syria is the last Arab country. It is the fortress of the remaining dignity of the Arabs, and that's why I'm proud to be here and addressing you this evening."

<...>

"After July he condemned me for what I said about President Bashar, but only two years before, he was taking the president to meet Her Majesty the Queen. If President Bashar is so dangerous a man, why did he take him inside the royal palace in London? The truth is, Mr. Blair changed his policy towards Syria because President Bush ordered him to. Mr. Blair too is a slave of the slaves."

<...>

"The reason that Syria is facing this crisis is not because of any bad thing which Syria has done or any weaknesses within its democracy, or within its economy, or within its human rights record - and there are weaknesses in all three of these. The reason why Syria is being threatened is not because of anything bad which she did, but because of the good which she is doing. That's the reason why Syria is being threatened - because she will not betray the Palestinian resistance, because she will not betray the Lebanese resistance, Hizbullah, because she will not sign a shameful surrender-peace with General Sharon, and above all - more than any of these others - because Syria will not allow her country to be used as a military base for America to crush the resistance in Iraq. These are the reasons why Syria is being targeted by these imperial powers."

<...>

"Now I warned in July that Lebanon was being sharpened as a knife to be used in the back of Syria, and I warned the Lebanese people that those who care nothing for Lebanon are preparing to use you and your government to weaken the last Arab power. And I turned out to be right. This knife has been sharpened and now they are using it."

<...>


On U.N. Chief Investigator Detlev Mehlis

"And I warned in July about this character, Mehlis. And please don't call him Sayyed Mehlis. I'm not calling him Sayyed Mehlis."

Translator: "We don’t call him Sayyed Mehlis…"

Galloway: "No, I was interviewed by several Syrian journalists today, and every time I said Mehlis, they said Sayyed Mehlis. No, he's not Sayyed Mehlis."

<...>

"Just because somebody is appointed by the U.N. which became - you know, Lenin called the League of Nations a 'thieves' kitchen.' The U.N. became a thieves' and beggars' kitchen, where the thieves make the decisions, and the beggars vote for the decisions, and if the beggars will not vote for the decisions, the thieves will implement the decisions anyway. Because somebody came through the U.N., it doesn't make them a saint. Mehlis is not a saint, he's not an impartial civil servant, he is a policeman with a record of framing Arab governments, and this is why he was given this job. He was the one who investigated the so-called La Belle disco explosion in Berlin. He named Libya as the responsible party for this crime, and Ronald Reagan used this finding to send a massive and violent attack against Libya, which killed innocent people including the daughter of Mu'ammar Qadhafi herself. This was Mehlis' job, to falsely accuse Libya of this crime, which everybody now knows Libya was not responsible for."

<...>

"This record of framing Arab countries is the qualification of Mehlis for his new job of framing Syria."

<...>

"This is why he was given this job, and everybody should be aware that the verdict of the Mehlis inquiry was already fixed before he began his investigation. This murder of Hariri was deliberately planned and executed precisely to implicate Syria and to set in train the events which have unfolded."

<...>


"The Iraqi Resistance Are Defeating the American Army"

"Now some people asked me here, do I think that this will all lead to a situation in Syria which can be compared to the fate of Iraq, and I say no. There is no chance of the American army invading Syria, for many reasons. The first reason is because the Iraqi resistance are defeating the American army in Iraq."

<...>

"You know, when I went to the American Senate on May the 17th of this year, which seems only yesterday for me, and for the American senators - I heard myself say on a video clip the other day - I told the Senate on May the 17th that 1,600 American soldiers had died. 1,600. That was on May 17th. Today, it's almost 2,100 and rising rapidly. October was the bloodiest month of the war, with the Americans losing 107 dead soldiers in one month."

<...>

We haven't been defeated in Iraq. We're still there fighting aren't we? I think he's way over the top in some of his rhetoric and I wish he wouldn't say these type of things. Just my opinion. Feel free to flame me.

is getting stronger, so in a way that is a defeat.

The Army by itself could never pacify Iraq, unless you wanted it to commit genocide against Iraqis. A political solution that was fair to all 3 major ethnic groups was the only way and that is a chimera now.

It's painful for many to acknowledge, but the only way for the neo-con imperial ambition to be defeated is through the victory of the Iraqi resistance. This war drive must be halted now, and it can only be halted, ultimately, by the people of the Middle East in their struggle for sovereignty and freedom from occupation.

The U.S. will not win in Iraq--it cannot possible do so without employing genocide of an entire people. And what is the opposite of victory? It is defeat. The U.S. was defeated before the first bomb killed the first Iraqi baby--and all the more so afterwards.

Very few DUers want the insurgency to "win" per se. They are the worst sort of Islamofascist murderers -- terrorists, in other words -- and the Iraqi people do not deserve them taking power.

However, it is true that they are the only force that will run America out of the the country.

I think the partition of Iraq is inevitable. It wasn't on the day Saddam's statue fell, but it sure as hell is now. The best we can hope for is reasonably professional governance in the new nation of Kurdistan (a possibility), enough tribal resistance to Iranian domination in the Islamic Republic of Southern Iraq to keep Iranian expansionists at bay (iffy, but not impossible), and a reappearance of secularism in Baghdad and environs (not bloody likely at this point).

But for the insurgents to actually take power in Baghdad -- that's a disaster beyond anything we've seen so far.

So who's to say that the insurgents would be worse leaders for the Iraqi people than the ones we tried to install?

to a king. Why is al-assad the ruler of Syria again? oh, right. primogeniture. what a flake.

I guess Bush and Galloway have more in common than we thought.

We could secure Iraq....but we'd have to reduce the muslim population of the Middle East by about 80%. And that might not even be enough.

I'm surprised that the Bush Junta didn't take this approach. When they invaded in 2003, I really thought that genocide was Rumsfeld's plan...because the obvious reality was that an islamic population would NEVER accept infidel occupiers.

Maybe people will realize that war is not a workable basis for foreign policy. (or civilization for that matter)

or is anyone actually believing the opposite?

This thread smells funky, maybe it is the source.

unable to control a 27 millions inhabitants contry !!!
:argh:

anyone with a little foresight could see the eventual outcome...