Site Search:
 
Dave's ESL Cafe's Student Discussion Forums Forum Index Dave's ESL Cafe's Student Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Students and Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

UN resolution for Iraq restoration

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Dave's ESL Cafe's Student Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current News
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
SN



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Posts: 61
Location: http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~ii4n-sky/

PostPosted: Wed Oct 29, 2003 5:20 am    Post subject: UN resolution for Iraq restoration Reply with quote

UN resolution for Iraq restoration------ international cooperation have to be used for its restoration

ON Oct.16th ,UN Security Council adopted the resolution 1511 about the pathway of Iraq ruling and the dispatch of multinational force by a unaninous vote. It showed its intention to take top priority on the Iraq people's benefit toward its restoration and recovering its order to the world. Since the first proposal of the resolution by US and UK, in the security council heated diplomatic negotiations had been done for one and half month. Although the proposal was feared to be withdrew at one time, the proposal was at last adopted after 5th revision and long persuasion and compromisation by US and UK.

France and Germany insisted of the end of the occupation by US and UK with a time limit that US and UK had to transfer the sovereingnty to Iraq people within five month. Russia were against the Iraq restoration led by US. But all of them couldn't help casting approving votes in the name of putting a priority on the unity of the Security Council.

Mr.Bush set out on a tour of Asia with visiting Japan on Oct 17th as a start. He has made utmost efforts into having adopting the resolution in time for his visit. Althoug it was barely in time, it was an important diplomatic success that the resolution was adopted by an unanemous vote. That a certain course to the restoration and the sovereingnty was shown through the resolution is going to become a strong foothold on the reconstruction of the unity of the security council.

But it shouldn't be forgotten that the resolution is just a product through the political compromise. If each of US,UK,France,Germany and Russia makes the resolution failed, the security council will show its crack again and the authority of UN will be lost more, whoever will take the responsibility of the restoration. The group which has repeated the terror attacks there will gain momentum.

The resolution gave an official guarantee as a multinational force to the voluntary nations under the unified command by US force. Iraq governing council (25 members) is asked to submit the schedule for a free election and drafting a new constitution by December 15th in the cooperation with UN secretary general.

The sovereigning process led by US and UK being approved, US obtained a good reason but not substantial results. It seems to be difficult to achieve the aim of troop and fund which Mr.Bush asked each country for in the speech in UN.

The biggest reason is supposed to stem from that a fundamental confrontation in the security council about the occupation and restration policy has not been dissolved. Technical knowledge and know-how of UN is important for US to occupy and restore Iraq. On the other hand, UN cannot protect itself from terror attacks by itself.

Despite UN and US/UK need each other, only this resolution is not enough to shorten the distance between them. In order to lessen the gap between them, there is no way but having it more deep for US and UN to cooperate with each other on the site based on the real cooperative mind.

France,Germany and Russia agreed with the resolution but they won't dispatch their troops nor support Iraq restoration. In the sense Japanese government, which promised prominently to support Iraq restoration, has a responsibility to explain the importance of international cooperation to US.

It is important for US not to lose its attitude of persuasion and the spirit of cooperation that US showed at the time of adopting the resolution. Mr.Koizumi has to continue explaining Mr.Bush in every chance.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
Diana



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Posts: 494
Location: Guam, USA

PostPosted: Sat Nov 01, 2003 11:50 pm    Post subject: Rebuilding Iraq Reply with quote

Rebuilding a country is not easy and it's going to take time. I don't think 5 months is sufficient time to rebuild a country. The work ahead is demanding. It will be difficult to help freedom take hold in a country that has known three decades of dictatorship, secret police, internal divisions, and war. It will be difficult to cultivate liberty and peace in the Middle East, after so many generations of strife. Yet, the security of our nation and the hope of millions now depends on America and the coalition forces. If the US and the coalitionleaves Iraq now, it will only create a hotbed of more terrorists. Therefore, stabilizing Iraq is important to the world. Also, a free and democratic Iraq will eventually have an impact on the Arab neighbors. Already, there are people in Iran protesting and demanding more reforms from their government. And Saudi Arabia is now getting more serious in cracking down on terrorism in their own country.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SN



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Posts: 61
Location: http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~ii4n-sky/

PostPosted: Sun Nov 02, 2003 12:21 am    Post subject: RE Reply with quote

Day by day,TV news reports other terror attacks against US troops and other ally's buildings. It's a mess and unbearable specutacle. But we have to be patient about this situation and to continue to support this country's restoration. I understand some countries are aginst the US-led restoration plan. That makes sense. So US have to change its monolateral policy. If US cannot change its policy, other nations won't participate in the Iraq's restoration plan. And then only US won't be able to complete that. US will give up that. In order prevent that, other countries have to pressure US.( needless to say, Japan has to)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
Diana



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Posts: 494
Location: Guam, USA

PostPosted: Wed Nov 05, 2003 1:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, there are attacks on American troops but these attacks are mainly confined to the "sunni-triangle" area, which is considered Saddam's stronghold. There is more progress and stability outside the sunni-triangle area. In my opinion, I think our European allies prefer to see America fail.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SN



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Posts: 61
Location: http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~ii4n-sky/

PostPosted: Wed Nov 05, 2003 3:15 am    Post subject: RE Reply with quote

So in ur opinion, what should we do in order to get the Iraq restoration for the Iraq ordinary people?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
obelix



Joined: 09 Feb 2003
Posts: 304

PostPosted: Wed Nov 05, 2003 6:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It would not hurt to disarm everybody.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SN



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Posts: 61
Location: http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~ii4n-sky/

PostPosted: Wed Nov 05, 2003 8:16 am    Post subject: RE Reply with quote

US troops is trying to disarm people in iraq, doesn't it? Is it possible to disarm everybody ?? i wonder what the anti-US terrorists are going to do
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
Diana



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Posts: 494
Location: Guam, USA

PostPosted: Thu Nov 06, 2003 12:43 pm    Post subject: Disarmament Reply with quote

It's not going to be easy to disarm the Iraqi people. These people like their guns and would want to keep for protection. They even shoot their guns in the air when celebrating a wedding.

I think getting the Iraqi people invovled in fighting for their country is important. The US have already trained 100,000 army recruits and intends to get 170,000 trained before they pull out 30,000 Americans. As I see it, there are foreign fighters entering Iraq, and their Arab neighbors are not stopping these foreign fighters. The dictators in the region know that having a democratic Iraq will have a great impact on their country. If democracy succeeds in Iraq and the Arab world sees the Iraqis holding free elections, the rest of the Arabs in the region will want the same thing. It is through free elections that leaders are held to accountability. The dictators of Syria, Iran, Egypt, and all the surrounding region are pretty much against Iraq becoming a democracy. They have good reason to see democracy fail. As for our European allies such as France, they would rather see the US fail rather than succeed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BakaGaijin



Joined: 26 Jul 2003
Posts: 226
Location: Houston, Texas

PostPosted: Thu Nov 06, 2003 1:14 pm    Post subject: Re: RE Reply with quote

SN wrote:
US troops is trying to disarm people in iraq, doesn't it? Is it possible to disarm everybody ?? i wonder what the anti-US terrorists are going to do


Blow up more things both in their country and the US more than likely. Either way, I wish they would just be at peace for a while instead of attacking everyone. Can't we all just be nice?!
_________________

I'm Kevin Tillman.
Japanese Exchange and Teaching ALT
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
SN



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Posts: 61
Location: http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~ii4n-sky/

PostPosted: Thu Nov 06, 2003 10:06 pm    Post subject: RE Reply with quote

it is difficult to let Iraq people demilitarized complitely. it is important to let them protect themselves from the terrorists. But when US fails, what will happen? more mess will come. thats it. other countries have to intervene in US diplomatics(or military strategy). Japan and other asian countries sure do.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
Diana



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Posts: 494
Location: Guam, USA

PostPosted: Fri Nov 07, 2003 3:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The United States is determined NOT to fail. They understand the importance of having Iraq become a democratic nation. If we are to fight against terrorism, then the key is to place democracy into the heart of the Arab nation where dictators rule. It is said that the more democratic countries there are in the world, the safer the world would be.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SN



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Posts: 61
Location: http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~ii4n-sky/

PostPosted: Fri Nov 07, 2003 3:47 am    Post subject: RE Reply with quote

it sounds that your opinion is based on one side of the things, from the western "democratic" value. needless to say, I prefer living in free "democratic" country. but the Busy's way, "cowboy style" resolution doesn't always work. and also US troops had withdrew fromt a domestic dispute in anywhere africa up in the air.

In this Iraq issue, if Mr.Bush think that this Vietnam-like situation isnt advatageous to his reelection, it is likely that he ll withdraw the US troops. I dont know what sort of excuse he will hit upon.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
Diana



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Posts: 494
Location: Guam, USA

PostPosted: Fri Nov 07, 2003 4:29 am    Post subject: Paying the costs. Reply with quote

I know that the United Nations and the International community would prefer to contain Saddam and go through UN inspections regardless that Saddam had already violated 17 UN resolutions. However, it was America who paid the price even for containing Saddam. Our soldiers were killed through the Khobar Towers bombing and other terrorist attacks on them as they were stationed in Saudi Arabia containing Saddam. It was the American people who paid the price and bore the brunt of Arab hate as they did what the United Nations and the international community wanted. This price tag also included the 911 attacks because Bin Laden was against US soldiers being in Saudi Arabia. He believed that only muslims (not Christians) should step on the sacred lands of Saudi Arabia because that is ordained in his Prohpet Mohammed. And what were US soldiers doing in Saudi Arabia? They were containing Saddam just like the UN wanted.

I think America is aware that if they leave Iraq now, they would only be creating a hotbed for terrorists.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SN



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Posts: 61
Location: http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~ii4n-sky/

PostPosted: Fri Nov 07, 2003 12:32 pm    Post subject: RE Reply with quote

I pay respectation to US soldiers who are fighting in Iraq now in the tremendous danger. And other countries have to cooperate in order to recover the peace of Iraq. It is certain that price tag to do that is very expensive. And it is US itself who raised the price. Most countries didn't want simple solution by force. Mainly US and UK wanted. This makes Ramsfield plunge into bad fix because of the favrication of Sadam's "Mass Destruction Weapon" .

Why cannnot US learn from its history?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
Diana



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Posts: 494
Location: Guam, USA

PostPosted: Fri Nov 07, 2003 9:24 pm    Post subject: Re: RE Reply with quote

I think that if America were to have followed the United Nations, the price would be much higher and it would still be the Americans who would bear the most devastating cost. David Kay's first three months progress report in Iraq was just delivered to Congress last month. Kay's report clearly showed that Saddam was indeed deceiving the United Nations and built a weapons program that he could quickly start up without the UN's notice. David Kay's full report is found on this website:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html

Taking an excerpt from the weblink, this is what the world now knows today:

What have we found and what have we not found in the first 3 months of our work?

We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the UN. Let me just give you a few examples of these concealment efforts, some of which I will elaborate on later:

1. A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research.

2. A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN.

3. Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.

4. New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN.

5. Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS).

6. A line of UAVs not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit.

7. Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the UN.

8. Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1000 km - well beyond the 150 km range limit imposed by the UN. Missiles of a 1000 km range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets through out the Middle East, including Ankara, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi.

9. Clandestine attempts between late-1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300 km range ballistic missiles --probably the No Dong -- 300 km range anti-ship cruise missiles, and other prohibited military equipment.


The United Nations wanted to continue to contain Saddam using American and British troops in the region despite the fact that Saddam have already violated 17 UN resolutions, despite the fact that Saddam have deceived the UN inspectors several times, and despite the fact that Americans are now more of a target in the middle east after the 911 attacks. If in the long run, Saddam managed to obtain the fizzle material needed to build his nuclear bomb through the many smugglings going on through Syria, Jordan, and Egypt, it will be America who will be called upon to face Saddam. Testimonies obtained from Iraqi scientists and senior government officials showed that Saddam Hussein remained firmly committed to acquiring nuclear weapons. These officials assert that Saddam would have resumed nuclear weapons development at some future point. And when that time happens, the question the Americans will ask themselves is whether they should sacrifice New York City, Tel Aviv, or the Saudi oil fields in order to save Saudi Arabia, Israel, Kuwait, or the entire Middle East.

You said that Rumsfield fabricated or lied about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction? What was the fabrication? Before the US-led war, the entire world (including the UN) believed that Saddam had those WMD, and those reports were not only based on the CIA but on other reports as well. The White House believed that Saddam had those weapons of mass destruction based on the following:

1. Records from US companies as well as other companies in Britain, Germany, France, and Russia stating that these weapons of mass destruction were imported to Iraq. America was one of those countries who GAVE these weapons to Saddam in the 1980s when Iraq was still their ally. Now the question remains - what did Saddam do to those weapons that the US, Britian, Fraince, Russia, and Germany gave to him?

2. Saddam's use of chemcial weapons on the Iranians and Iraqi Kurds in the 1980s. It is a FACT that Saddam have used chemcial weapons against Iran and in his oppression against the Iraqi Kurds, and both the Iranians and Iraqi Kurds can testify to that.

3. The variety of credible international reports that addressed the state of Iraqi weapons development (such as the Institute for Science and International Security, Moneterey Institute of International Studies, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Centre for Strategic Studies, Federation of American Scientists, IISS, Nuclear Threat Initiative, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, and the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control: Iraq Watch).

4. Finds of UNSCOM and the IAEA. According to UNSCOM, between 1991 and 1998, it supervised the destruction of over 40,000 filled and unfilled chemical munitions and 411 tonnes fo bulk CW agents. However, UNSCOM reported that the destruction of about 2000 unfilled munitions was uncertain, that the destruction by melting of 15,000 rockets was not verifiable, and that 500 mustard-filled shells remained unaccounted for.

5. Records of UN contracts of equipment that could be used as dual purposes being imported to Iraq.

Therefore, as anyone can plainly see, Bush nor Rumsfield lied about Saddam having WMD. The question one should ask is what did Saddam do to those weapons of mass destruction?

Also, Saddam's lack of cooperation during the 12 years while he was under the UN only made things worse for him and brought about his downfall. Saddam had consistently interfered and blocked UN inspections. He even had UN inspectors shot at and held hostage at one point until the inspectors surrender documents they obtained in Iraq. For someone who seems to claim to have nothing to hide, he certainly went through a lot of trouble during those 12 years as he tried to deceive UN inspectors.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Dave's ESL Cafe's Student Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current News All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Dave's ESL Cafe is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Banner Advertising | Bookstore / Alta Books | FAQs | Articles | Interview with Dave
Copyright © 1995-2011 Dave's ESL Cafe | All Rights Reserved | Contact Dave's ESL Cafe | Site Map

Teachers College, Columbia University: Train to Teach English Here or Abroad
SIT
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group