Skip to main content

What a paradox! - and how offensive

Today marks the 34th anniversary of the US Supreme Court handing down its decision in the now famous Roe v Wade case. In the years since pro-choice and pro-life groups around America have, literally, been slugging it out as each puts forward their position.

Today, as in all past years, large numbers of vocal pro-choice and pro-life groups will be out, demonstrating, at the steps of the US Supreme Court in Washington.

It was reported on NRP Radio this morning that George Bush will address the pro-life group. What a paradox!- and how offensive. Here is the "chief-architect" of the Iraq War speaking to pro-lifers when his very actions have resulted in over 3000 Americans lives being lost in Iraq and thousands more being injured, physically and mentally - and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis being killed and maimed.

Meanwhile, NRP also reports that a humanitarian crisis has developed for the Iraqis who have fled Iraq - some 1 million to Jordan, more than 1 million to Syria and approximately 150,000 to Egypt. Over at the the BBC Radio's Newhour program it is reported, today, that whilst Britain was one of the main-players in the Coalition of the Willing, resulting in the war which has led to many Iraqis fleeing their country, in 2005 it only granted permanent residency to 5 Iraqis.

Comments

BwcaBrownie said…
I have always been intrigued by the absolute fact that
MOST of the people who try to prevent women with problem pregnancies from solving the problem, are also in favour of criminals executions and wars of any kind.
Most people who believe in the autonomy of a pregnant woman, also abhor:
wars and hangings,
and strip-mining,
and forest clearings,
and cruelty to animals.
Fascinating. Whatever can it mean about the human brain?
January 23, 2007 9:35 am
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...
Post a Comment
Read more

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...
6 comments
Read more