1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Bushes war on women

Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by Robert Harris, Jan 4, 2003.

  1. Robert Harris

    Robert Harris Passed Away Aug. 19, 2006

    I find that some of the best analyses of the evil nature of many Bush policies are offered by a columnist writing for a newspaper published in Russia. Somehow the supposedly liberal-dominated American press seems to miss out on a lot of what is going really on, or reports it in a quite uninformative way. Or maybe I just do not read enough of the American press, and it is there.

    At any event, here is the latest.

    Excerpts:

    Global Eye -- Death Merchants
    By Chris Floyd

    ...last week saw two new examples of the Regime's most egregious ongoing crime against humanity -- its cold, calculated, covert war against the world's poor.

    ...make no mistake: Bush's war on the poor is a real war, with real casualties, and death tolls in the tens of thousands. It's war on a global scale, on many fronts, but it's being fought for two reasons only: personal political ambition and financial profit.

    Ever since he seized office, Bush has taken every opportunity to derail or destroy UN efforts to provide reproductive health services to the world's poorest women. He has filled American delegations to policy-setting conferences on these issues with religious extremists from his devoted "Christian Right" political base. He has arbitrarily cut off funding to the UN's family planning program for developing nations -- money that health experts say could have prevented 4,700 maternal deaths and 77,000 infant and child deaths in the past year alone.

    But this Herodian slaughter means nothing to Bush; what's important is that he secures his "base" for the 2004 election. And so last week he launched a fresh assault on the poor and vulnerable. His fundamentalist minions sought to kneecap a UN conference on family planning in Asia, standing adamant -- and alone -- against the final resolution of a plan to guide policy and determine funding for a range of international health programs for women, Salon.com reports.

    Not even the mullahs of Iran joined Bush in this fundamentalist diatribe against the document. And what was Bush's objection? The inclusion of the phrase "reproductive health" in the proposal. This demonic language, saith the Lord's Anointed, is just a code word for "abortion."

    But the Bush blockade was not just an outburst of religious zealotry; it was something far more cynical, far more wicked than that. For the objection was based on a lie -- and the Bush team knew it was a lie. The UN's 1994 Cairo Agreement on family planning and health rights for women -- which was the foundational document of the Asia conference -- clearly states: "In no case should abortion be promoted as a method of family planning." Therefore, phrases such as "reproductive health" or "reproductive rights" could not possibly refer to the promotion of abortion in UN family planning documents.

    Bush knows this. The bogus abortion issue is just a smokescreen; in fact, his funding cuts to UN programs have actually led to far more abortions (an estimated 800,000, the UN says), as poor women are left without contraception or family-planning advice. No, what his hard-right base really objects to is the overall aim of the UN programs: the emancipation of women from ignorance, repression and poverty. A woman in charge of her own reproductive health, outside the control of others, poses a mortal danger to the fundamentalists' draconian mythology of "The Family," where man rules as the vice-regent of God and woman humbly submits.

    Whether Bush personally believes this or not is irrelevant. What matters is that he plays on this belief, for his own aggrandizement -- and thousands of women and children die for it.

    More:
    http://www.tmtmetropolis.ru/stories/2002/12/27/120.html
     
  2. fritzmp

    fritzmp Fire Fire For Effect

    humbug

    The war is on those who profit form keeping people poor and many of them are known to be found at the UN. The man is in office now 2 + years and it's his fault the world is a cesspool?

    Really.
     
  3. Robert Harris

    Robert Harris Passed Away Aug. 19, 2006

    Not sure what you are talking about. But Bush certainly cannot get credit for all of the ills of the world. Just some of them.
     
  4. fritzmp

    fritzmp Fire Fire For Effect

    I ant too keen on the appointment of Ashcroft, but with all the sprinkler heads pooping up all over the world I think the guy is doing a better than fair job.

    This Russian Rag is obviously anti US. The subjugation of woman is the responsibility of their respective countries and the men who govern them.

    Really, the fact that a woman in Rwanda doesn't get birth controle Isn't the responsibility of the US nor should it be, even if the UN thinks so. The UN can pound sand and this article.
     
  5. Sierra Mike

    Sierra Mike The Dude Abides Staff Member

    :thumbsup:

    SM
     
  6. Robert Harris

    Robert Harris Passed Away Aug. 19, 2006

    In my earlier comment I said I was not sure what you were talking about. Now you have clearly demonstrated that you do not, either. You make flat statements about a newspaper that are simply not true, which you would know if you looked at it.

    The Moscow Times is not a Russian rag. While published in Russia, The Moscow Times is an English language daily published by a Dutch-owned company (that publishes many pther things in Russia). It is widely read in the ex-pat American community and viewed as a reliable source of information. It is not anti-US, either.

    The columnist in question is not Russian. I believe he is an American. At any event, he certainly is not anti-US, although obviously he is not a Republican, or at least not a fan of the current Republican administration.
     
  7. fritzmp

    fritzmp Fire Fire For Effect

    All I can say is "anti US propaganda".

    That money doesn't get to the people, it lines the pockets of thugs. "Oh the children" the battle cry for the heart strings of the foolish.

    Anything the UN does is for sucking money out of the US and any President that has the doodads to tell them to F-off gets my vote.
     
  8. Robert Harris

    Robert Harris Passed Away Aug. 19, 2006

    "Shit happens on a regular bases. Don't forget your hip waders."

    Good advice. Glad I put them on before reading your messages.
     
  9. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Fritz, MT is as pro-US as they come. Which is why it's not the best paper/source to gauge Russia's feelings.
     
  10. jamming

    jamming Banned

    I think gentlemen, what Fritz may be trying to say is we don't spend Russia's Money, they shouldn't spend ours.
     
  11. fritzmp

    fritzmp Fire Fire For Effect

    Some things are black and white and the UN falls in that category as I see it. Posturing with the UN is stupid on such matters and we should let the UN go the way of the Dodo.

    Statistics of dead children and women because we put strings on US money given to the UN that would not do a damn thing in truly helping anyone, is most likely a ploy to doing what we wold rather say out front, and that would be, no I am not going to pay extortion. I think the up front approach is better.

    Your blanket statement of my opinion shows your longing to find fault in US policy and this administration and not put the blame ware it should be, on the shoulders of the UN.

    Liefs examples of attrition will ultimately tell the tale.
     
  12. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    My problem with the US getting blamed for deaths is that nobody is funding the UN like we are. If our funds are stopping programs spend your money. Unless we are exercising a veto our voice alone cannot stop a program.

    That being said stopping money to support contraception is plain short sighted and stupid. Contraception stops unwanted births and to some extent AIDS, two of the biggest problems we have on this planet. The alternative is abstinence and that is not going to happen. Humans were not designed for that.
     
  13. fritzmp

    fritzmp Fire Fire For Effect

    Hard to tell by me. MT I have browsed in the past but avoid .ru URLs even so called reputable ones. I don't want my IP logged.

    I get enough of this crap in the Washington Post. Not as of late as BH has pointed out. Most of that I presume is to not infuriate readers of a popular President. Though they do get their digs in.

    The snip-it that BH posted was enough for judgment on the article and as for the MT, it looks to be a Washington Post in Washington Times clothing.

    It's good to see what others are saying even if it is only good for rapping fish in.
     
  14. Copzilla

    Copzilla dangerous animal Staff Member

    I'm rather curious what position they <B>expected</B> Bush to take.

    After all, he's a Republican. That's the Republican position.

    Which, I might add, is not my position. But it's also not my position to constantly torch Bush for "Well, DUH!!!" type statements.
     

Share This Page