Due to life situations beyond my control, I have lad less
and less time to put into this Blog.
I need your help. Please post me your questions, links
to headlines or other pages or topics that you would
like to discuss or for me to comment upon.
My list is already too long and growing too fast for me
to get caught up on my own. Drop me a line.
This is a post that I posted on the ACLU's forum way back
in February, 2004; I believe this analogy still applies to the
situation in Iraq,
Chuz LifeGuestPosts: 1825Joined: Aug 2002
Wednesday, February 04, 2004 7:57 PM
Title: The Bush Administration
YKRB posted; "Because of lies about weapons of mass
destruction and Saddam and Osama working together to
defeat the United States, over ten thousand Iraqi people
are dead and hundreds of US soldiers are, too. When will
George W. Bush be charged as a war criminal?"
My Respone; "Wherever I can, I like to use analogies to
make a point. Not only because they help me to get (and keep)
a complicated line of thought straight in my own head. But
analogies also help me to communicate my thoughts to others.
You are welcome to point out any flaws in my analogies.
Imagine (for the sake of this analogy) that the world is a big
playground. A Playground comprised of many smaller
playgrounds. There are people of all ages, races, shapes and
sizes. Some groups are passive, and some are bullies, some are
easy going and care free, while others very deliberate and
imposing. (politically speaking).
There are rich people, poor people, sick and healthy and well,..
you get the idea.
Now; On the playgrounds, there are many desirable things to
do. There are manyplaces that people want to be. And, as is
typical for playgrounds, there are occasionally, one or two kids
who want to stake out a claim; and rule over one or more (of
the resources of that area) the slide, the ride or the monkey
bars.
Whatever.
They are your classic playground bully. (Think Saddam
Hussein circa, 1980)
Eventually, everyone else at the playground (Think world
community/United Nations) gets together, takes votes and
begins to strategize on how to get this Bully to respect the
rights of his fellow playmates who want to enjoy their
particular playground area more fairly. The Bully even makes
attempts to expand his control over his surrounding areas.
(think Kuwait)
Things escallate to the point that one of the kids (with all the
other kids in his support/ think U.N.) finally steps up and
kicks the bullys ass all the way back to where he came from.
(Think Dessert Storm)
Many onlookers are left feeling that just chasing the punk
back into his hole would be a decision we would all regret
later. (I was one of them)
The world community (U.N.) makes the Bully and his friends
return to their part of the playground "conditional" (think
sanctions) and to keep him "contained," some volunteers patrol
the areas around the Bully (Hussein) to keep him from attacking
his neighbors again. (think no fly zones).
In addition, the other playmates (United Nations) demand
complete disclosure and accountability for all the bullies
records weapons, etc. (think weapons inspections)
Occasionally, the bully (Saddam Hussein) lashes out at the
volunteers who are patrolling the air space and they have
to return fire in self defense.
Frustrated by this and not liking the conditions of being
contained; The bully (Hussein) kicks the inspectors out and
denies them access in their efforts to check for weapons.
This shell game goes on and on over a period of 12 years.
From a historical perspective and now a lack of disclosure, to
be cautious, the inspectors have no choice but to assume that
the Bully (Hussein) still has his weapons. The Bully (Hussein)
refuses to co-operate.
He continues to lash out at the patrolling (no fly zone) and He
continues tocbrag about how he intends to re-claim control of
the region (playground) BY force, if necessary.
The Bully wants the entire world to believe that he has the
capabilities of attacking his neighbors that they fearfully accuse
him of.
He (Hussein) even rewards other bullies who attack those who
are trying to hold him (Hussein) accountable and again this goes
on for 12 or more years.
Then on one beautiful Autumn day, 2001; a very valuable part of
the playground is attacked and destroyed by bullies using innocent
and un-suspecting people as their weapons of terror. Creating
biggest, most terrifying amount of devastation that anyone has
ever seen in their lieftime.
The BULLY is IMMEDIATELY suspect. But there is no obvious
connection.
Still he remains defiant (of the UN); despite the loudest most
heated demands for him to disclose what weapons he has and
where. He refuses to allow the inspectors back in.
He (Hussein) refuses to let the inspectors in. And He even
CELEBRATES, YES, celebrates in the devastation that has just
occurred against his enemies.
Completely Frustrated, one of the bigger and more capable
kids (think USA) and few of his friends (allies) patrolling the
(no fly zone),.. appeal and re-appeal to the rest of the kids on
the playground (France, Germany, Russia, Britan,) etc .....
"Let's all go over there and search that asshole for his fucking
weapons".
"We have reason enough to believe that he's behind the attack
on our playground".
But they (U.N.) the other kids hem haw around and delay.
Many (France, Germany) for their own interests and dealings
with the Bully (under the table) refuse to be any par tof it. And
they condemn any attempt to make a move onthe Bully.
Finally, with only a couple friends (Britan) the biggest, most
affected kid (Bush) decides to go it alone. Insisting that since
there hasn't been any accountability, the Bullies weapons
WILL be accounted for.
THE POLITICAL ENEMIES OF THAT KID (BUSH) SIGN ON
AND GIVE HIM THE AUTHORITY TO GO IT ALONE.
So, with his friend (Britan) and the verbal support of many
others, the Kid (USA) cleans the bully's fucking clock;
Imprisons the bully and searches his territories for weapons.
In the struggle many many kids are injured, mamed and even
killed.
The Bully (Hussein) and his pals remain defiant. The weapons
(even if they were only BLUFFS by the Bully) to this date
remain unknown or only partially accounted for...
And, now let me get this right,.......To YOU and your ILK,...
actually believe that the KID (leader of the USA) who kicked
the Bully's (Hussein's) ass is the one who should now be locked
up for "War Crimes"?
Is that Right?
Tel me. What "War crime" did George Bush commit?
He called Husseins Bluff at a time when it was most necessary
to send the message to ALL Terroristic extremists, that we will
NOT be bullied anymore.
I stand by you Mr. president.
We all should.
If you have found this article, you probably already know that
South Dakota and Mississippi have recently passed bills into law
which will effectively BAN all abortions. All abortions, that is,...
abortions which are not "necessary to preserve the life of the
pregnant woman, or if there is a serious risk of substantial and
irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant
woman".
According to Fox News, many other States have simular bills at
the ready. And most (if not all) of these bans are targeted at the
overturning of Roe v. Wade.
As much as I too would like to see Roe v. Wade overturned, I
believe that there is already a fatal flaw in some of these Bills/laws.
Under the "South Dakota Abortion Act", abortions in cases of rape
and incest will be banned, made illegal and will be just as punishable
as any of the other more common reasons for elective abortions
would be.
Rape and incest pregnancies will be treated no differently and no
more favorably (to the woman/ rape victim),.. than pregnancies
where she and her mate actually consented to have sex, had
intercourse and that CHOICE resulted in an un-planned or un-
wanted pregnancy.
I believe that this is a fatal flaw in the ban(s).
Specifically, these bans (if they don't include exceptions for rape
and incest) will violate women's rights to self defense.
Consider this excerpt from a lengthy debate I had on the ACLU's
website.
Date Posted: Dec/22/2003 2:17 PM
Posted By: Chuz Life
Rocket88 posted (in light blue)>>
"Chuz has repeatedly noted that he supports a government-imposed
ban on abortions, with exceptions for rape and incest".
True and False. I challenge you to post anything where I mentioned
my position on incest Rocket.
_______________________________________
Rocket88 continued, saying>>
"Either a (HUMAN) zygote is a human being, or it isn't".
True. And the emphasis (above) is mine.
_______________________________________
Rocket88 then added>>
(I'm not sure whether Chuz thinks a (HUMAN) zygote has to be
implanted or not to be human).
The answer is NO. It is either a human life or it isn't. An attached
human. A non-attachect human. Both are still human. (again
the emphasis of your wording (above) is mine)
__________________________________________
Rocket88 continued>>
"If it is a human, then to kill it because its father is a rapist is not
just hypocritical, but downright cruel".
Newsflash! I agree! The thought of killing a baby because it's father
is a Rapist is un-acceptable. And there is no way that I could evetr
accept or support a "rape exception" on that basis.
But you are an IDIOT if you believe that is the reason that I
support a "rape exception" to a ban on "elective" abortions.
The reason that I support a "rape exception" to any "ban on elective
abortions" is because I view "ALL" pregnancies as a THREAT to a
woman's life.
READ THAT AGAIN.
"The reason that I support a "rape exception" to any "ban on
elective abortions" is because I view "ALL "ALL" pregnancies as
a THREAT to a woman's life."
AND! AND! AND!
Because I see a CLEAR distinction that can be made, between a
THREAT to a woman's life that she "consented to" (consentual sex).
And a threat to her life that was FORCED upon her (RAPE).
In my opinion, which NO-one has to accept, unless they are compelled by my reasoning,.... The woman who is RAPED has a right to defend herself against that threat that she did not invite (consent to). And in a case of sonsentual sex, where the woman (and her partner) did INVITE that risk with their ACTIONS (even if not their thoughts), That justification is lost. It's much like (as I've explained in earlier threads) the cases in Vietnam where children were being used as weapons. My neighbor told me of some of these,... where it was sometimes necessary to kill CHILDREN who were either shooting at the US soldiers. Or in one case that I know of, running toward US troops with grenades. Is it wrong to kill a child? One would think so. But it's not that simple. If the child is putting your life in imminent danger, and you did not invite that threat??? In my opinion, in that case (Rape),... sad as it is to see a child killed... In cases of rape, it's justified as "self defense". But, also in my opinion, you can't INVITE (consent) a child into your pressence and then Kill them for being a threat. "WITHIN REASON".
Because, I also support the "life of the mother exception". Where-in, even in a "consentual" pregnancy a "normal" "managable" amount of risk (threat) can become "un-managable". AND, in those cases, where "if the pregnancy were allowed to continue" BOTH the mother and child will die..... I support the decision to abort. Which is also a "self defense"
justification.
___________________________________________
Rocket88 continued with his slanderous tactics>>
"The only basis for the rape/incest exception is that he wants to punish
the sluts who engage in consensual sex".
My reasoning for my position is explained in detail above. There is no
"punishment" element to my position. Requiring people to respect the
lives of the children they create is NOT punishment. It is (IMO) an act
of humanity. And, prohibiting people from killing their (prebron) children without
justification is not punishment either. That too, (IMO) is an act of
humanity.
____________________________________________
Rocket88 marches on, saying>>>
"Like most pro-lifers, Chuz lacks the courage of his convictions.
If a zygote is a human, then all forms of chemical birth control should
be outlawed; indeed, taking the Pill should be a capital offense, since
it has the capacity to destroy a zygote".
You hang yourself with your own words Rocky. Having the "capacity"
to do something is NOT the same as doing it. But more to your point
I DO believe that all forms of "birth control" that "terminate the prgnancy"
(post contraceptives) should be banned (except in cases of Rape).
In other words, if the product PEVENTS conception (condoms,
spermacides, etc.) It should remain legal. (IMO) But, if the product is
designed to KILL a child after it's life has began,... it should be for legal
use, only when legally justified (rape).
_____________________________________________
Rocket88 lamented>>
"And there should be no exceptions for rape".
I think that most people disagree with you here Rocky. I'm sure that
most people who support the "rape exception" haven't taken the time
to understand and explain "why" they do. (as I have). But, even if we
look at it from a pragmatic point of view. It's a politically strong position.
I think it's also a legally justifiable (and supportable) position. "Self
defense" against an un-invited threat (RAPE) verses the assumption of
a reasonable amount of risk by ones actions (Consent). Even if the
measurable physical threat is absolutely the same.
I should add here that in these debates I've spoken to at least TWO
women who were raped, and who KEPT the children that were conceived
in those rapes. One of which frequents these forums. And women who
can do that deserve only the best that life has to offer. But life is not
that fair. And in at least one of those womens cases, her child has
special needs. Can you imagine? This is all very very emotional stuff.
It affects me a lot more than I let show. But, I can't let my emotions push
asside my basis for reason. The best I can do is to form my position on
the FACTS, and to remain considerate of the emotions that my positions
envoke.
_______________________________________
Rocket88 closed with>>
"If you support a rape exception or are not willing to make possession of
birth control pills a crime, you are a hypocrite".
The onus is on you to detail my hypocrisy. I think you are going
to have a hard time doing that. Because I've done my level best
to make sure that I'm not hypocritical in my positions. In fact, I'm
very consistant in my positions; In that I use the same justification
for rape pregnancies that I do for any other "life of the mother"
exceptions.
If I may use an analogy, "Bungee jumping" is a very life threatening
(but controlled) event. When someone "consents" to bungee jump,
they "assume" that risk,... and they would not have a right to attack
the bungee operator to "defend themselves".
Contrast that to a guy who grabs a person "against their will" , lashes
their legs and tries to throw them off a bridge. Which one, do you
think would have a right to "self defense"?
Ahhh, I digress. This may all be over your head. Rocky
-------------------------
CHOICE:
http://www.nv2.cc.va.us/home/jetaylor12/eng123/images/partialbirth.jpg
"If the rights of society’s most vulnerable members are
denied, everybody’s rights are imperiled." --ACLU
http://www.aclu.org/Files/OpenFile.cfm?id=10740
ACLU/LEFTIST/ FASCIST:
One who Proudly declares that
a Child is NOT a Child; Until it lives too Damn long and
LOOKS too much LIKE a Child; to be denied anymore. -L.L. Brown
