h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Taken from the CIA factbook again (please check this with your reference Apparition):

Saudi Arabia:
at birth: 1.05 male(s)/female
under 15 years: 1.04 male(s)/female
15-64 years: 1.41 male(s)/female
65 years and over: 1.22 male(s)/female
total population: 1.23 male(s)/female (2001 est.)

Pakistan:
at birth: 1.05 male(s)/female
under 15 years: 1.04 male(s)/female
15-64 years: 1.08 male(s)/female
65 years and over: 1.12 male(s)/female
total population: 1.06 male(s)/female (2001 est.)

Kuwait:
at birth: 1.04 male(s)/female
under 15 years: 1.04 male(s)/female
15-64 years: 1.77 male(s)/female
65 years and over: 1.81 male(s)/female
total population: 1.51 male(s)/female (2001 est.)

Iraq:
at birth: 1.05 male(s)/female
under 15 years: 1.03 male(s)/female
15-64 years: 1.03 male(s)/female
65 years and over: 0.88 male(s)/female
total population: 1.02 male(s)/female (2001 est.)

UK:
at birth: 1.05 male(s)/female
under 15 years: 1.05 male(s)/female
15-64 years: 1.02 male(s)/female
65 years and over: 0.71 male(s)/female
total population: 0.97 male(s)/female (2001 est.)

USA:
at birth: 1.05 male(s)/female
under 15 years: 1.05 male(s)/female
15-64 years: 0.98 male(s)/female
65 years and over: 0.71 male(s)/female
total population: 0.96 male(s)/female (2001 est.)


The sex ratios at birth are almost the same for all countries (with a couple of exceptions). Women tend to live longer in western countries and catch up in ratio such that after the age of 65, they considerably outnumber men. But not in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, etc. My recent reading included a book on world development that put the reason for the high mortality of women in these countries as their poor treatment: women cannot become doctors in these countries and male doctors aren't allowed to look at other men's wives, as just one example.

So giving women voting rights in these countries seems rather crucial. When is Laura Bush taking the campaign to Saudi Arabia?

what is unreasonable about the sanctions on Iraq? What would be reasonale effective sanctions to take there place?

NA-from your last post...more then likely when doing so wouldn't severly bikefire on the US...some things have been done but more on a quite complaining level
from post 2626
nice article...I understand it was origionaly said that the UN would give all 15 security counical nations copys of the report now they are going to edit it and then give out an edited studied version...I could see where the bush admin would be a little upset about being told they were going to get something then have it pulled away and someone say hey we are going to look at this for a while water it down and then give you what we think is right...is it a wise move for the weapons inspectors...hmmm debatable good and bad
"But if the US gets its way, it is possible that "surprise" inspections could be carried out in Iraq before the end of the month, designed to trigger war within weeks."
the only problem with this quote I can see is what they are basicly saying that if Bushes team got a hold of the report checked it against the info they say they have...found some stuff missing and told the weapons inspectors hey you might wanna have a look in locker number 47...the weapon inspectors do and they find out Iraq has been lieing that it would be wrong...isn't that what the weapons inspectors are suposed to be doing...using intlegince and the report to make suprise inspections to try and determine if Iraq does or does not have the "prohibited" material

ummm Subcomm Bush wasn't elected until a couple of years ago if I remember corectly in 1996 Mr Clinton was presedent


()

"So obviously "we" should have given this a little more thought Zagreb, before charging in, guns blazing. As I've mentioned before, don't assume everyone wants democracy.

Although we can appreciate the benefits of democracy, not everyone out there has had the privilage of a western education in the absence of ethnic and religious prejudice."

All you need for democracy is an opinion on how your government is run. Nice to see that this "these muslims aren't as civilised as we are and can't handle freedom so need a police state" passes for "enlightened liberalism" these days.

Incidentally, Western representative government has it's origins in a time of strong and widespread religious belief.

" "these muslims aren't as civilised as we are and can't handle freedom so need a police state" passes for "enlightened liberalism" these days."

Passes for a moronic, provocative statement Zagreb!


"All you need for democracy is an opinion on how your government is run. Nice to see that this "these muslims aren't as civilised as we are and can't handle freedom so need a police state" passes for "enlightened liberalism" these days.

Incidentally, Western representative government has it's origins in a time of strong and widespread religious belief."


Religion does not need to come into the picture. The people in the region were segmented along tribal lines well before Islam, Christianity or any other religion came onto the scene. Achieving ethnic tolerance by breaking down ethnic prejudices is a matter for "liberal" education: a slow and arduous process which is more then likely seen as hard work and hence avoided by most.

Tadsatduck - aren't the inspections surprise inspections now anyway? I saw one on TV where they burst out of vehicles at both entrances to a site and the guards didn't look like they were expecting it.

Someone who wants war getting to "edit" the ducumentation before being passed around sounds very suspect.


The prowar people here seem to be assuming the inspectors are simple people

"" "these muslims aren't as civilised as we are and can't handle freedom so need a police state" passes for "enlightened liberalism" these days."

Passes for a moronic, provocative statement Zagreb!"

With respect, I wasn't the one insisting that muslims are not "ready" for democracy. I believe that liberal democracy is right for all nations and I get annoyed at people who style themselves "progressive" arguing the old Right-wing view that only white men can do democracy properly because they're "civilised" whilst the "others" need to be trained first.

Yes, it was provocative, but not moronic. If you're going to post arguments that once belonged in the Conservative Clubs of Britain in the 1920s you should be able to back them up.

"With respect, I wasn't the one insisting that muslims are not "ready" for democracy. I believe that liberal democracy is right for all nations and I get annoyed at people who style themselves "progressive" arguing the old Right-wing view that only white men can do democracy properly because they're "civilised" whilst the "others" need to be trained first.

Yes, it was provocative, but not moronic. If you're going to post arguments that once belonged in the Conservative Clubs of Britain in the 1920s you should be able to back them up."


With respect, I did back them up illustrating that acceptance of democracy has little to do with religion, as you constantly state. The statements I post attempt to understand the cultural, educational and social differences between the western countries and those in the moddle east. Your's clearly do not! And as such are more representative of the "we know best" attitude you reffer to in England in the 20's.

Arrhmmm.... but `scuse me.Off course democracy needs to be learned. You can´t just "install" democracy overyear, as 40-50 american bodyguards for the Afghan pres. so wonderfully demonstrates."The west" have had 200+ years of learning and we still fail, so please have some patience. That, on the other hand, does not mean that Afghanistan shouldn´t have a chance at it.But is the right way to do it, to install a weak president with american bodyguards

I doubt it.


But then, on the other hand, I could be wrong.

and


TD.

Zagreb: Why does the plight of the Iraqi people not matter a jot to so many people? If they continue to live under Hussein they will continue to starve and be oppressed by a police-state.

Subcom: No one is arguing that Saddam should be ignored, or that the Taliban should have been ignored. We're talking about whether US reaction has been appropriate, which is not the same as arguing for no reaction or arguing in support of Saddam or the Taliban.

Subcom, I agree! I think I've said before that I certainly do think the world would be a better place for all of us in general and the Iraqi people in particular without Mr Hussein sitting there.

But I don't feel certain that a US led war to change things is the appropriate way of changing it. I am very worried that such an action would indeed make things a lot worse for the world - in the short term very much worse for the Iraqi's we're supposed to be helping, in the longer term due to the anger it will create in the region.

I think it is vital that IF changes in Iraq is going to be forced through it should be by an international, UN-based action with broad accept. When the resolution behind the current investigation was passed, it was passed unaimously, including Syria's vote. It's that kind of backing I think is needed - I really fear the consequences of a unilateral US action.

ApparÏtÏon- that is kinda what I was trying to get at...I couldn't see where the giving a copy of the unedited report to the US and other security council people would cause a suprise inspection that would automaticly lead to war as the article was saying becuase the inspections are set up that way to begin with...as suprise visits to really determine what is there....it's a moot point now that they have at least agreed to give out unedited copies to the five permante memembers...don't know why the couldn't hook up the other ten though


()

and also....I don't know if any of you read the comic strip Boondocks but his views on Dick Cheney are priceless I hope this link works

http://www.uclick.com/client/wpc/bo/


()

ok I think I know at least why they are only giving the unedited reports to the permente memebers of the council...they are aftaid there is to much info on makeing certain weapons in the papers that they could be used as a training manual for thouse who don't curently have them


()

Well according to the bbeb one of the reasons the US didn't want an unedited copy to be circualted was because it details who has sold Iraq what for quite some period of time. Not too dangerous, just too embarrassing.

ummm bbeb?


()

I don,t know who bbeb is but I think one of the main reasons is there is a list sources and it what be advertising for these weapons dealers. I already think everyone knows that the US at one time supplied Iraq.

Sorry all, that should have been beeb, which is a UK abreviation of BBC.

thanks

It would be interesting to see if they can get anyone (if there is anyone to get) on ilegale selling to Iraq...the US stuff suposidly happend in the past and not while the sanctions were in effect but if the report lists anything sense then


()

"The statements I post attempt to understand the cultural, educational and social differences between the western countries and those in the moddle east."

When Silvio Berlusconi, the Right-wing Prime Minister of Italy made this very point he was correctly called a racist idiot. Presumably when you say it it's "different".

I don't deny that the culture in the Middle East is different but, as I've said before, you don't need to be "trained" to democracy or have any sort of cultural base. All it requires is an opinion on how your government is run and the desire to excercise that opinion. You can't "force" democracy on anyone because it is entirely about choice. If, as you claim, the West is going to go over there and order people about and install a government then that isn't democracy.

I'm not pretending it'll happen overnight. People have to understand the system first, understand why it's a fairer system. They do have to be educated in how the electoral process works, but not in the fundamentals of democracy. You have that by being born human.

I don't understand all this isolationist not-my-problem stuff about "leave them to develop democracy on their own". The West had hundreds of years of warlords and slaughter before that happened. Are we really going to abandon the Middle East to that fate because of some hand-wringing issues about "liberal imperialism"?

As Panorama(BBC, 8/12) demonstrated the quest for a regime change in Iraq was by no means something that started with September 11, 2001. War on Iraq has been heavily lobbied for by many groups over the last few years, the most prominent group being the neo-conservatives. They produced reports outlining why Iraq should be attacked, reports that were signed by many key members of the present Republican administration, including Donald Rumsfeld. The main reason provided concerned America's economic interests in the middle east.

Recent terrorist activity may be the reason many of the American people would like a regime change in Iraq but for the government is September 11 the cause or the excuse?

[ps. I am currently in the middle of writing a horrible two thousand word essay, which could explain the very formal nature of this post. Arrrrrrrrrgggghhh]

"When Silvio Berlusconi, the Right-wing Prime Minister of Italy made this very point he was correctly called a racist idiot. Presumably when you say it it's "different". "

There is a vast difference between making observations and and making political statements.

What do you mean by "different"? Are you suggesting that an observation by a Saudi Arabian say, on the differences in government between the UK and US is automatically a racist statement?


"I don't deny that the culture in the Middle East is different but, as I've said before, you don't need to be "trained" to democracy or have any sort of cultural base. All it requires is an opinion on how your government is run and the desire to excercise that opinion. You can't "force" democracy on anyone because it is entirely about choice. If, as you claim, the West is going to go over there and order people about and install a government then that isn't democracy."


It first requires an acceptance of a need for government as a concept. Then it requires a dilution of the class system to enable *everyone* to vote. i.e. women and others not belonging to the ruling class. You seem to be missing these subtle points Zagreb. Forcing democracy onto a society who believe in self-government (i.e. tribe-by-tribe basis) and do not have a history of sharing power is rather pointless.

The slow process of education is the only way to break down ethnic barriers and empower a greater percentage of the population. Forcing people at the point of a gun to accept democracy will not work.