rest van mijn essay. Kan iem. de Engelse vertaling controleren?

[Sanneke1983]

Hey!

Hierbij het tweede deel van mijn essay Politics over Irak.
Ik heb mijn eerste deel al laten controleren.
De twee mensen die hierop hebben gereageerd, nogmaals onwijs bedankt!

Ik hoop dat iem. het tweede deel ook voor mij wil controleren/verbeteren.
Zou ik helemaal vinden, want ik moet het vrijdag namelijk al inleveren.

Alvast bedankt!

Groetjes Pam



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Politic-Juridical angle
According to president Bush of the USA, Saddam Hussein, president of Iraq, is a dictator.
So according to Bush the parliament of Iraq has no real influence.
It does not matter if the cabinet agree with the resolution or don’t, because finally it is Saddam who decides; an action that Washington call ‘political theater’.
America made known that if Saddam not agree with the resolution this will have serious consequences.
Meanwhile America and Great-Britain launched 200.000 soldiers for an attack on Iraq.

Comparable angle
The Iraqis government be characterized by a dictatorial structure with a strong military regime. The opinion of the people does not count, the Iraqis population will be no more than happy with the insert of biological/chemical weapons for example, which undoubtedly fall a lot of victims to, also on their own side. This is not of a single influence on the policy of the government, it leads only to oppression of the population.
Iraq has a parliament, but the problem for the people is that during the elections only one party is eligible, so it is not a real democracy. Also the members of the parliament have little influence on the policy of Iraq. There are suspicions that Saddam put pressure on the members and menace them so that they only proclaim his points of view.
Compared with the Dutch government for example, characterized by democracy and free expression of opinion for everyone, is the vote of the people right enough of influence on the political policy. For decisions as launching weapons a wide area (draagvlak) within own country will be required.
All taken decisions will be checked too, first by the Second Chamber and then by the First Chamber. In this way the best interests of the population will be pursued.
There are possibilities of participation to bring out opinions for example equalities, protest marches etc. who are not forbidden. They can take a favourable turn on possible negative influences.

My opinion:
· Is it justifiable that the USA as a the last (laatst overgebleven)
world-power acts like a police-officer in the world?
· Do you think it is justifiable that the Dutch government placed
oneself political behind the USA, without having a referendum,
and herewith risks a war-participation?

1. I think that the USA is allowed to take measures against
terroristic motions, but they may not start something on their
own hook, because it is a matter of safety of more than only
the USA. When they decides to start a war, they first have to
ask other countries for their support and not immediately
starting to take violent measures.
2. I think that the government cannot take decisions on the
safety of the Dutch citizens, seeing that during the elections
there was no question of a threaten war.
When the government wants to take a decision we have to
have a national advisory referendum, in my opinion. And
obviously we have to consider the judgement of the
referendum.

[Boogie]

hou het maar in 1 topic: http://forum.scholieren.com/showthre...hreadid=404137