New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a nation's war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars" defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful? Can such an application of science be successful? Is a militarized space inevitable, necessary or impossible?

Read Debates, a new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every Thursday.

almarst2003 - 08:22pm Sep 8, 2003 EST (# 13570 of 13576)

Women of Iraq http://english.aljazeera.net/Special+Reports/Iraqi+Women.htm

Although Saddam Hussein was widely criticised for dictatorial practices women under his administration enjoyed great freedom in their daily lives and secured equal political and economic rights. They also had the same educational opportunities as men.

The rights of Iraqi women, however, seem to have skipped the American radar screen. For a start, there were only three women among the 25 delegates chosen by the United States as a transitional governing council to plan Iraq’s political future.

This clearly indicates an under-representation of women and more focus on the ethnic and political affiliations in the so-called “new Iraq”.

In 1972, the Iraqi government nationalised the oil sector and impressively changed the living standards of the Iraqi people, with women making the greatest social gains. Education and health care were free for both sexes and employment was secured by the government.

Women constitute 50.3% of the population of Iraq

However, the destructive wars and the sanctions imposed on Iraqis since 1990 led to the deterioration of health, nutritional and environmental conditions.

Today, more than 90% of pregnant women in Iraq suffer from anemia because of malnutrition, lack of medicine and medical supplies. Basic infrastructure facilities, such as water supply, sanitation and power stations were destroyed, leading to the spread of diseases.

Depleted uranium weapons used by American and British forces were blamed for a dramatic increase in serious health hazards and an immense number of deaths among children and pregnant women.

The skyrocketing inflation that crippled Iraq’s economy due to UN sanctions reduced women’s income tremendously, but they continued to work and maintain their active role in society.

Yet, women in Iraq have proved they are capable of confronting challenges and shouldering additional responsibilities.

Women constitute 50.3% of the population in Iraq, and they were competent enough to play multiple roles to support their families and ease family burdens even through the toughest times.

Women supporting their families amounted to 8% of all married women. Even illiterate women in the rural areas undertook tasks that were traditionally carried out by men.

Iraqi women represent 10.3% of the labour force. In fact, female adult literacy rate rose to over 45% and female students represent 34.4% of all registered university students in Iraq.

Women work as doctors, engineers, teachers and lawyers. Thirty-eight percent of doctors in Iraq are women.

Before occupation women held 8% of the seats of the Iraqi National Assembly. Equal pay for equal occupations was guaranteed. Working women were given six months paid maternity leave and an additional six months at half pay.

WE ARE SURELY GOING TO 'FIX' THOSE DREADFUL SOCIALISTS HABBITS, AREN'T WE?

almarst2003 - 08:51pm Sep 8, 2003 EST (# 13571 of 13576)

But here’s a revealing fact: In early 1968, the Boston Globe conducted a survey of 39 major U.S. daily newspapers and found that not a single one had editorialized in favor of U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam. While millions of Americans were demanding an immediate pullout, such a concept was still viewed as extremely unrealistic by the editorial boards of big daily papers -- including the liberal New York Times and Washington Post.

Yes, some editorials fretted about a quagmire. But the emphasis was on developing a winnable strategy -- not ending the war. Pull out the U.S. troops? The idea was unthinkable.

And so it is today. Consider the lead editorial that appeared in The New York Times on the same day that The Wall Street Journal was giving Gen. Abizaid the last word. “The Bush administration has to commit sufficient additional resources, and, if necessary, additional troops,” the Times editorialized. The newspaper went on to describe efforts in Iraq as “now the most important American foreign policy endeavor.” In other words, the occupation that resulted from an entirely illegitimate war should be seen as entirely legitimate.

A week later, the Times followed up with a similar tone -- reminiscent of the can’t-back-down resolve that propelled countless entreaties for more effective “pacification” during the Vietnam War. Articulating what passes for dissent among elite U.S. media, the Aug. 27 editorial cautioned that “the United States will pay a high price in blood and treasure if the Bush administration persists in its misguided effort to pacify and rebuild Iraq without extensive international support.”

Troops from other nations are being imported. But that does little to make the occupation of Iraq less of a U.S. operation. The Vietnam War had its multilateral fig leaves too; the war was supposedly an “allied” effort because it included participation from Filipino, Australian and South Korean troops.

When the Bush administration was striving to use the United Nations last fall, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman applauded the attempt to manipulate the world body. For a while in November, he was happy: “The Bush team discovered that the best way to legitimize its overwhelming might -- in a war of choice -- was not by simply imposing it, but by channeling it through the U.N.”

Current media appeals for multilateral policies rarely go beyond nostrums like giving the handpicked Iraqi leaders more prominent roles, recruiting compliant natives and foreigners for security functions, and getting the United Nations more involved. But whatever the U.N. role in Iraq turns out to be, the U.S. government still insists on remaining in charge.

Despite the compromises, that’s the bottom line. The Bush administration is not letting go of a country that has so many attractive features to offer -- including a central geopolitical foothold in the Middle East, access to extensive military bases for the Pentagon, and ... oh yes ... about 112 billion barrels of known oil reserves under the sand. - http://www.fair.org/media-beat/030904.html

(5 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense