Przykładowe Materiały Egzaminacyjne JĘzyk angielski poziom 3 Czytanie

Text 28

At a Visigrad Four summit involving the leaders of the nations in late June, Czech Premier Vladimir Spidla labeled the pro­gram a failure. However, by the time the defense ministers met a few days later, the official line was that the four nations had agreed to continue under looser conditions. A leading British industrialist familiar with the program said information coming out of Eastern Eu­rope indicates that Spidla’s comments better reflect the situation.

“The Visigrad Four deal has effectively come to an end. I expect the Poles to proceed with a national tender for around 16 Hind upgrades sometime in September; they are still talking to Hungary and Slovakia about possible involvement,” a NATO military specialist said. The Czechs are looking at a prototype of their own, although there may be interest from other partners. A tender package is likely by the end of the year, he said. Under the original scheme, a prototype of the upgraded Hind would have been rebuilt in Poland, with avionics, sensors and communications provided by Western suppliers. Seventy percent of the upgrade would have been common, with the remainder probably using country-specific equipment. London-based BAE SYSTEMS; Sagem, Paris; Israel Aircraft In­dustries, Lod. Israel; and a team led by Elbit Systems Ltd., Haifa, Israel, that would include Lockheed Martin Corp., Bethesda, Md., are expected to number among the bidders for the upgrades, even if the program splits up.

1. 
   The Visigrad four couldn’t agree on …
   

1. 
   the extent of the upgrade
   
2. 
   the best bidder for the upgrade
   
3. 
   the division of workload
   

2. 
   According to the British industralist, the program …
   

1. 
   has been unsuccessful
   
2. 
   will be continued
   
3. 
   is being renegotiatied
   

3. 
   The Poles are expected …
   

1. 
   to invite offers from avionics’ suppliers
   
2. 
   to come up with their own prototype
   
3. 
   to rebuild 70% of its chopper fleet
   

However, the Bush administration is skeptical. Stephen Cambone, the Pentagon’s chief analyst, suggests it may be wiser to skip CVNX-1 and pour the money into making sure CVNX-2 lives up to its potential from the outset. Others suggest delaying the whole aircraft carrier programme for another two years. It would come at monumental cost – with prices ranging from $5 billion to $10 billion a piece, aircraft carriers already are the most expensive pieces of defense equipment in the world.

To retain the workforce that can pass the U.S. Navy’s stringent tests for safety, security and skills, Northrop Grumman Newport Shipbuilding – the world’s only shipyard capable of producing these titanic vessels – must start a new carrier every five years. Without a new carrier to begin in 2007, it is likely the yard would lay off one-third of its 18,000 workers. Rehiring, replacing and requalifying them would cost about $3.2 billion to the yard alone. Unknown is the cost to the government of replicating the services provided by the firms that might go under or leave the field during the hiatus. These consequences can and must be avoided.

1. 
   As for the new aircraft carrier, the Pentagon’s biggest concern now is …
   

1. 
   the choice of proper technology
   
2. 
   the time of starting the project
   
3. 
   the future operating costs
   

2. 
   According to the Pentagon’s chief analyst …
   

1. 
   CVNX-1 programme should be put off
   
2. 
   the focus should be on one carrier type
   
3. 
   the CVNX-2 programme is too expensive
   

3. 
   If the Northrop Grumman shipyard started a new carrier by 2007, …
   

1. 
   its workers would keep their jobs
   
2. 
   new workers would be employed
   
3. 
   its workers would have to requalify
   

Allies Up In Arms

It may have been no accident that Israel kept its helicopters out of sight during the latest track-and-kill operation against Palestinian militants. The U.S.-made Apaches hovered miles from the Nablus office of the Islamic militant group Hamas, firing laser-guided missiles that flew through its window and showered shrapnel inside. For the Israeli pilots, the success was only partial – the strike killed six men in the building, including two top Hamas activists, but also caused the death of two children on the street below. For the United States, it was another moment of regional embarrassment. Once again, Israel had employed high-profile U.S. weapons in an assassination policy Washington opposes.

The Bush administration worries that Israel’s use of Apaches in its targeted killings will have a bad effect on the United States. The issue has already fed anti-American sentiment among Palestinians and angered U.S. allies in the region. The U.S. officials think it undermines the U.S. role as mediator. Publicly, they have refused to condemn Israel’s use of American weapons in the attacks, but a senior Israeli defense official said that both the State Department and the CIA recently voiced their objections, and sources in Washington privately confirm it. Israel’s response so far: sometimes it opts for other weapons, sometimes it uses U.S. arms – from a discreet distance.

Even if it wanted to bow to U.S. pressure, Israel would be hard-pressed. It is bursting with American firepower. Washington approves the sale of its most sophisticated fighter planes and technology to Israel before other countries are allowed to buy them. Tel Aviv finances the deals with its $2 billion in U.S. military aid. The Jewish state already owns about 50 Apaches and has ordered another 29 for $1.5 billion. “We spend a lot of money buying arms in the United States,” says Shlomo Dror, a spokesman for Israel’s Defense Ministry. “I’m sure U.S. companies would not want that to change.”

1. 
   The latest track-and-kill operation was carried out in secrecy because …
   

1. 
   American choppers were to be used in it
   
2. 
   the U.S. wanted to take the militants by surprise
   
3. 
   Israel wanted to avoid civilian casualties
   

2. 
   The American officials …
   

1. 
   are worried about American influences in the region
   
2. 
   are officially opposed to the Israeli military action
   
3. 
   are afraid of a Palestinian counterattack on the U.S.
   

3. 
   U.S. pressure mentioned in the third paragraph means American insistence on …
   

1. 
   Israel buying more military equipment
   
2. 
   other countries not trading with Israel
   
3. 
   Israel not using the American arms
   

• 
  READING
  
• 
  READING
  
• 
  READING
  

• 
  READING
  

1. 
   We were forced into a war we didn’t want. If Macedonia were a truly democratic country, there wouldn’t have been a war. Parliament would never have granted us what we obtained by fighting, particularly as regards the use of the Albanian language.
   

2. 
   Our future is to live together. The Macedonians must be realistic and pragmatic, and not give in to feelings of anger. If our requests are accepted, there’ll be no problem between the Macedonian majority and the Albanian minority.
   

3. 
   We’ve already given up a third of our weapons. Naturally, we intend to lay down our arms according to the agreement with Nato and the international community.
   

4. 
   The return of refugees has already begun. It’s wrong to say we are preventing the return of Macedonian civilians.
   

5. 
   This is a reason for concern, but we are banking on the guarantees provided by the Europeans and Americans. I think there should be an international presence in order to consolidate peace. This is essential to prevent further fighting.
   

6. 
   I respect the court. From the start of the war I said the NLA would respect the court and the Geneva Convention. The NLA has observed the rules at all times, and we have freed all the prisoners, so there is no reason for indictment.
   

7. 
   We’ve been fighting to ensure that Macedonians and ethnic Albanian Macedonians have equal rights. We have no intention of redrawing borders.
   

1. 
   But hasn’t the fighting caused the gulf between the two communities to widen?
   
2. 
   The proposed amnesty does not cover war crimes. Aren’t you afraid of being charged?
   
3. 
   The NLA started hostilities seven months ago. Have you achieved your aims?
   
4. 
   Are you getting any financial support from the Europeans and Americans?
   
5. 
   When will the 120,000 displaced Macedonians be able to go home?
   
6. 
   Are you going to continue disarming the NLA?
   
7. 
   What is your answer to the accusations that the NLA has a secret agenda, that it fights for a “Greater Albania” with part of Macedonia attached to Kosovo and Albania.
   
8. 
   Aren’t you afraid the government will mount an offensive after the NLA has been disarmed?
   

1. 
   This government was formed through a decision made at the Bonn Conference. Decisions that were made in a hurry. I didn’t want the world to think that I opposed peace so I gave my support. But this government is only here for six months. We can’t expect them to do much. There’s no real parliament or elected government, and there’s no reconstruction taking place.
   
2. 
   You probably realize that I put his name forward as a potential leader for the interim government. I don’t want to interfere too much in his work, and I don’t want to make it seem like there is a parallel administration. But if there is a pressing issue to discuss, I do speak to him.
   
3. 
   The countries present at the Bonn conference manipulated the process. They were probably working with good intentions, but this should be the last act of foreign interference in our domestic affairs. The growth of terrorist groups in the country was a result of foreign interference. All of our wars have been caused by foreign powers. If foreign meddling continues, the Afghan people will conclude foreigners don’t want us to be free.
   
4. 
   I believe their knowledge of Afghanistan is not only limited but bordering on ignorance. They haven’t taken the time to get to know Afghanistan or its leaders. They only know Afghanistan through spying. But we have always realized the necessity of establishing a healthy relationship with such an important nation.
   
5. 
   One of the conditions of the interim administration is that no one will have their own armed faction. The soldiers were parts of our party but, from now on, they will be backing the government.
   
6. 
   Like most Afghans, I don’t want the foreign powers in our country. The force isn’t counterproductive, but I think security problems won’t be resolved by their presence. Their most important role should be to help us create a national army that would stabilize the country.
   
7. 
   There are many others. Authority hasn’t been centralized. Provinces are working for their own interests. Cooperation between Kabul and the provincial governors is based on verbal promises.
   

1. 
   During the war against the Taliban you commanded a large group of soldiers. What will happen to them now?
   

2. 
   Do you have regular contacts with Mr. Karzai?
   

3. 
   What is your assessment of America’s relationship with Afghanistan?
   

4. 
   Do you believe that security is the main problem in Afghanistan now?
   

5. 
   Do you believe that he was brought to power through American interference?
   

6. 
   How long do you think it will take the American troops to destroy Alqaeda?
   

7. 
   What do you think of the international peacekeeping force?
   

8. 
   What do you think of the interim administration?
   

1. 
   Our new defence plan is now responsive to the threats in the new evolving environment. For Greece the threats are clear: First is the Turkish threat. We spend 5% of our gross national product on defence. There are specific Turkish claims against our national territory and our sovereignty. A second threat is the continuing instability in our northern frontier, which causes a significant flow of illegal immigration that influences negatively our social and economic functions.
   

2. 
   The third threat is the asymmetrical threats related to the surge of international terrorism.
   

3. 
   It has two main aims. The first is to create a new command and control structure by establishing joint headquarters in which all three branches of the armed forces participate. These headquarters fall directly under the chief of the National Defence General Staff. The second aim is to reorganize the armed forces, and to move them where threats exist. Other supportive aims are improved training, professional soldiers to replace a significant number of conscripts, small and flexible units, reinforcement of the rapid reaction Special Forces, and induction of new technologies. These communications and informatics – to develop intelligence collection, processing and disturbing systems, which will permit full use of ‘smart’ weaponry – we have already procured.
   

4. 
   The main weapon systems: main battle tanks, aircraft, frigates and more. What now is extremely urgent is procuring fast-transport mediums, such as transport helicopters; electronic warfare; communications systems; and intelligence collection systems.
   

5. 
   Our main criteria are economic cost and technical adequacy. And these were implemented in the recent KYSEA (Governmental Council for Foreign Affairs and Defence) decisions, which have concluded major procurement programs pending for some time.
   

6. 
   For the Eurofighter there is a political decision for its acquisition, but KYSEA has decided to postpone signing the contract until after 2004.
   

7. 
   Our participation in the organisation is given, but I wish to say that the role of the United States in the Balkans I consider very critical and essential. I think U.S. presence must remain strong, for mainly political reasons. Another issue is NATO expansion. Greece is among the countries that favour the greatest possible expansion eastward, in suitable time, and after a staged procedure, to include the Russian Federation.
   

1. 
   What issues surround Greek membership in NATO?
   
2. 
   Is there anything else?
   
3. 
   What key points of your national strategy have changed since Sept. 11?
   
4. 
   What is the attitude of Greece to the Middle East conflict?
   
5. 
   What about the continental attack plane?
   
6. 
   What are the objectives of the new strategic defence review?
   
7. 
   What are your weapons’ purchase priorities?
   
8. 
   Are there any political criteria on obtaining arms? Should they exist?
   

1. 
   When I took over the Defense Ministry portfolio, I found Parliament had the appropriate amount of authority, because there are many things within the ministry that need to be closely checked. However, sometimes there are negative sides to the Parliament’s exercise of power: mainly the delays it caused to the Army’s arms and procurement processes. Now I am exerting a lot of effort to gain the Parliament’s confidence in procurement programs. The real problem is in the lack of trust between the Parliament and the Defense Ministry, and it’s harming the Army.
   

2. 
   I don’t want to discuss specifics, but certain events were questioned before I arrived.
   

3. 
   The ministry has appointed two consultants to review procurement contracts in dispute. The consultants have come back with reports, which I have referred to the appropriate authorities to take the needed action. I believe these measures have helped.
   

4. 
   Acquiring modern C4I (command, control, communications, computers and intelligence) and massive firepower. They are necessary to make up for Kuwait’s quantitative inferiority in manpower compared to armies in neighboring countries. That’s why we want to have the Apache Longbow, because it has formidable firepower.
   

5. 
   Another priority or concern for me, personally, is chemical warfare. Iraq used chemical weapons against its own people. So Kuwait is now setting up (nuclear biological-chemical) units. I have asked Kuwait’s armed forces to conduct more training exercises on counter chemical warfare.
   

6. 
   Kuwait’s Higher Defense Council endorsed in its last meeting a decision to purchase additional ones. We have yet to decide on the kind of warplanes needed. Our pilots and experts have become used to the F/A-18. However, we want to see if the Army needs a different kind of fighter. So we’re now short-listing the best available jets on the market.
   

7. 
   As part of our decision-making process, we always compare a preferred weapon system to the others, to make sure we are getting the best price and highest technical specifications. We emphasize quality ahead of cost. Most of our weapons were produced in the US and Europe, but we have also bought high-quality weapons from the East.
   

1. 
   And are there any others?
   
2. 
   What’s holding up the procurement process?
   
3. 
   Why has trust broken down?
   
4. 
   Have Arab boycotts of US products affected Kuwaiti arms procurement?
   
5. 
   Do you know if or when Kuwait will buy more fighter jets?
   
6. 
   What are you doing about it?
   
7. 
   What are Kuwait’s top weapons priorities?
   
8. 
   Why is Kuwait buying weapons from multiple suppliers?
   

1. 
   During various consultations, Turkey has been pointing to the problems a military campaign in this part of the world would cause. Such a military action would not only damage Turkey’s economic interests, but hurt the sensitive political balances in the region. It is our wish that things go back to normal as soon as possible. It would not be acceptable for us to further damage Iraq’s territorial integrity.
   

2. 
   Only if Iraq fully complies with the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council. It should unconditionally allow the return of U.N. weapons inspectors and enable them to do their work efficiently on Iraqi territory. Only positive report on Iraq’s alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction could earn Iraq a place in the international community.
   

3. 
   Although the U.S. administration has declared that it aimed at a change of leadership in Iraq, it has not yet formally announced a decision to opt for a military action. Washington has not yet asked for Turkish involvement in a possible military strike.
   

4. 
   It is a reality that there are sometimes problems or delays in winning congressional approval for U.S. arms sales to Turkey. We expect the U.S. Congress to consider the strategic alliance between Turkey and the U.S. when debating arms sales to Turkey, and not to index Turkish-American relations to hostile lobbyists.
   

5. 
   Turkey supports a just and sustainable agreement which should be formulated so as to reflect the practical realities on the island. It must be structured on “two nations- two states basis”. Any settlement should guarantee equal status and sovereignty between the Turkish and Greek Cypriots.
   

6. 
   There should be no intervention from third parties. We continue to advocate direct talks between the two leaders. We believe there would be progress in these talks if a new vision emerges toward partnership between two equal and sovereign nations on the island.
   

7. 
   Turkey’s expectation is to resolve the problem on the basis of the Ankara Text (an agreement among U.S., U.K. and Turkish officials that they would give Turkey a say in EU use of its bases). The arrangements in the Ankara Text are realistic and reasonable. They also form the basis for Turkish contribution to the ESDP. There are negotiations between the EU and NATO to overcome the impasse.
   

1. 
   Do you think the U.N.-sponsored direct talks in Cyprus could produce a settlement this year?
   
2. 
   For many years, Turkey has sought EU membership. Do you think Turkey will eventually join?
   
3. 
   There are increased indications of a U.S. military strike against Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein. What are Turkey’s principal concerns over war at its doorstep?
   
4. 
   What is Turkey’s preferred solution regarding the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP)?
   
5. 
   Do you think a settlement is possible before resorting to military confrontation?
   
6. 
   What does Ankara expect from Washington in terms of U.S. arms?
   
7. 
   Do you think a settlement in Cyprus is attainable?
   
8. 
   At what level would Turkey cooperate with the United States in a military campaign against Iraq?
   

1. 
   How can a relationship that has been strong and solid for over six decades be questioned like this? I sense that there is some resentment about the relationship, and of the Kingdom, that I frankly don't understand. Somebody must be trying to drive a wedge. There is no enmity at all between the Saudi government and the American government, or between the Saudi people and the American people
   

2. 
   America is a friend. America's interests are as important to us as our own interests. America cannot fight alone. It will be tiring, difficult and expensive, with human and material losses, and it will cause the number of America's enemies to multiply America cannot be the sole policeman of the world. I have a recommendation to make: every nation, under U.N. auspices, should sign an international agreement and commit to combating terrorism and drugs. If a country refuses to combat terrorism and drugs, it should be punished.
   

3. 
   I do not believe that the war on terrorism applies to any of those countries. If you have a situation of terrorism in any of them, it is the result of a small fringe group and not government policy.
   

4. 
   Just the opposite. In the past there were tensions, but these have been worked out. It is a large nation, and it is in the interests of all the Gulf countries to calm matters and maintain stability.
   

5. 
   Justice. We have a means and a process to arrive at a solution : the Tenet plan and the Mitchell report. On both sides are human beings who have emotions that affect their actions and reactions. As a first step, we can separate the two sides and introduce peacekeepers. And then it will be time to pressure both sides to return to the negotiating table.
   

6. 
   He cannot control all the Palestinians. Especially, while they are being shelled and killed by the Israelis. The Israeli people may not be the guilty ones. Responsibility lies squarely with the person who gave the orders. You cannot break out of this cycle of violence when the Prime Minister of Israel orders planes to drop bombs and sends tanks to invade villages.
   

7. 
   May God spare us. It would shake the Arab and Muslim world and destroy the credibility of anyone who was involved in this move. Forever.
   

1. 
   Is Iran a destabilizing influence?
   
2. 
   Do you favor extending the war on terrorism to Iran and Iraq?
   
3. 
   What is the truth about Saudi- American tensions?
   
4. 
   What is your solution to the Palestinian issue?
   
5. 
   How much has Bin Laden contributed to instability in the Middle East?
   
6. 
   Do you support America's war on terrorism?
   
7. 
   What happens if Arafat is eliminated as a negotiating partner?
   
8. 
   Is the violence Arafat's fault?
   

1. 
   Palestinian Christians’ liberty of movement is limited. As a result life is hard and they suffer. They’re humiliated and reduced to begging for their daily bread. Some have left, especially those who are economically able to do so. Others remain by principle, and because they want to stay faithful to their homeland and to the Church.
   
2. 
   There’s much greater presence of the church, and much greater efforts to facilitate action in the Holly Land and dialogue with the two nations. However, until now all the efforts have not produced much. For example, we have problems renewing visas even for clergy.
   
3. 
   We Palestinians know how to live together and how to understand this relationship. Christians are part of Palestinian society, and the Palestinians are Christians and Muslims. We share the same faith of one day having an independent state. We are one people, even if there are some difficulties.
   
4. 
   Yes, historically there have been some massacres, beginning when Europe entered the Mideast. But now nothing like this happens in Arab countries.
   
5. 
   There’s always that, but much of it is social pressure, that’s all. Nowadays, we cannot say there is persecution. There are problems of the majority and minority, disputes of social nature.
   
6. 
   According to Islam, they are. It’s necessary to treat each one according to his own principles. They are seen as those who are giving their lives for their country, to gain their liberty. For Christians such acts are not permissible in any case, even for your country.
   
7. 
   They are occupying someone else’s land and find resistance. If they cease to attack and occupy the Palestinian territories, they won’t suffer any further assaults.
   

1. 
   Some 20% of Palestinians are Christians. Are they heeding the Holy Father’s call not to leave the Holy Land?
   
2. 
   Do you see suicide bombers as true martyrs?
   
3. 
   Do the Palestinian Muslims want to dominate and convert Christians?
   
4. 
   Sharon demands a total cessation of violence before negotiating. This issue has become a primary distinction between left and right. Where do you stand?
   
5. 
   How do you feel about the attempts of the Vatican to negotiate between the Palestinians and the Israelis, and the effort to win recognition for Israel by the Vatican?
   
6. 
   But it’s enough to look at Vatican archives to find Christians who have been persecuted.
   
7. 
   The Israelis, too, are under attack. They are being overwhelmed with continuing acts of violence.
   
8. 
   Not even the slightest effort at the conversion of Christians?
   

1. 
   When we took over the presidency the European Rapid Reaction Force was just a paper project. There were efforts but no real achievement between 1999 and mid-2002. Later, we accelerated the constitutional procedure by exerting strong pressure on our partners, and with a very systematic effort we succeeded.
   
2. 
   It is to incorporate the southern countries within our security and defense perception; many security problems in this region have an international dimension and require increased cooperation.
   
3. 
   We will pursue an agreement of all 25 member states because we consider it the most credible scheme for European defense. If this is not achievable because of reactions: resistances or reservations of states who have a more Atlantic orientation, then we should not exclude the possibility of a group of states proceeding by itself, leaving open the possibility of participation of other states at a later date.
   
4. 
   I do not know if the term fits Europe, but we aim to transform the European Union into a security and defense organization with a specific political identity and a strong presence and influence in international developments.
   
5. 
   We all agree that it can't be competitive. We are clear on this. However, there is no partnership between countries of unequal magnitude. We must strengthen our presence, especially in defense field, in order for the Americans to view us seriously and express the willingness to cooperate with us.
   
6. 
   It would be a mistake to move in this direction. Competition with America must exist. It is very important for European armed forces to gain the best possible quality.
   
7. 
   It is associated with the current economic depression in Europe, the restrictions on the members of the euro zone, and unwillingness to spend more on defense. The reason is that after the Cold War there is no strong threat. We have to overcome this problem. The European nations must increase the percentage of their gross domestic product spent on security and defense. Most of the European defense ministers share this point of view.
   

1. 
   Do you envision Europe as a military superpower someday?
   
2. 
   The Mediterranean Dialogue was among the EU initiatives you launched. What's the dialogue's aim?
   
3. 
   How should Europe develop its relationship with the United States?
   
4. 
   What is the final step for European defense?
   
5. 
   How will Europe's collective defense identity evolve?
   
6. 
   As you leave office, are you satisfied with the progress you've made during the past year?
   
7. 
   Might Europe close its market to U.S. weapons to protect its own industries?
   
8. 
   A credible European military capacity needs a capable armaments agency. How will it be funded?
   

1. 
   It will, for a period of time at least. It’s unavoidable because of our obligations and the systems transformation and because of the overextending of our forces.
   
2. 
   I’m not for the rapid deployment on missile defense. I think that’s a pool of money that is going to be wasted. But I’m for research and development and continuing the testing, which in the long run might save billions.
   
3. 
   I think there’s a serious question as to why Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and any of them are still around. When you miscalculate a war as badly as they miscalculated, when you don’t have equipment that you’re supposed to have, when you are short of the number of troops you should have, when you don’t even calculate the postwar process accurately and you willfully refuse to look at plans drawn up by others in order to do this right, it’s beyond negligence.
   
4. 
   It’s because of the way this administration has treated them and its disrespect. They know that this administration in all of its requests for help has never really been willing to transfer authority for reconstruction and authority for the transformation of the government. So, if you are not prepared to share decision-making with people, why should they say they will take the risks and put their people on the ground?
   
5. 
   Sure, but waiting for someone else to go in and do everything. They were not active enough in many roles. I mean they cover themselves and that’s not what you want; you want a genuine participation that understands the stakes and the outcome.
   
6. 
   There are some folks around who make an awful lot of money, not all of whom can explain where all of it has gone. This is taxpayer dollars. I think we have to get a better handle on procurement expenditure processes at the Pentagon. When they can’t account for a trillion dollars, America has some problems.
   
7. 
   I don’t think it’s an opportune moment to start shifting. We don’t have the infrastructure developed in the new NATO countries yet. My goal would be to reduce the burden on us overall by developing a greater European capacity.
   

1. 
   Does that mean that you want these divisions in Europe to be strengthened?
   
2. 
   You referred to the military industries as fat cats. What did you mean by that?
   
3. 
   The defense budget has gone up to more than $400 billion this year. Do you see it going up further?
   
4. 
   What’s your view of the administration’s plans to re-deploy US forces to new member states?
   
5. 
   So you want to add two active divisions to the Army. How would you pay for it?
   
6. 
   Have Middle Eastern allies been co-operative?
   
7. 
   What’s your verdict on the administration’s handling of Iraq?
   
8. 
   How can you get allies to want to get involved in Iraq, especially now?
   

1. 
   In the past he would obviously have ignored it as imperialism, and he would have got away with it. But now it’s an international issue – across race, across region, everyone has criticised and condemned him, even African heads of state. So, he can’t turn a deaf ear to it.
   
2. 
   Mugabe opposes national and international pressure, but I think he has overstepped the line. He has a choice. If he wins the election, the outcome is, of course, illegitimate. He knows the consequences of isolation, of sanctions. This country is in economic difficulties, and he needs the outside more than the outside needs him. And he knows that.
   
3. 
   The lawlessness that has been encouraged and supported by the government has been damaging the country’s economy. So, we have to deal with fundamental economic equations and stop the decline. There are measures in our recovery plan to ensure that. Another issue is that the chaos in the agricultural sector, in Mugabe’s land-reform plan, has to be put right in a manner that gives equal support to the farmers.
   
4. 
   It is intolerable and we will withdraw.
   
5. 
   This country will not tolerate a coup. To my knowledge, the danger of them carrying out their threat is very minimal. When people have exercised their right, I cannot see anyone subverting that right and surviving.
   
6. 
   A very gloomy one. It will take another 20 or 30 years before people begin again to rise up and say we have to have a change. It is important to realise this is about a political culture - there may be people who will outlive Mugabe’s current terror and still carry out his culture.
   
7. 
   We have two choices: to continue on, driving Mugabe to destroy the country, or reassure him, have free and fair elections and start sorting out the mess without him. We cannot have it both ways. Personally, I believe that a process of national healing and national debate is required. Charging Mugabe would only deteriorate the situation.
   

1. 
   Isn't Mugabe likely to continue his policy despite this opinion?
   
2. 
   If Mugabe wins, by whatever means, what future does the country face?
   
3. 
   Do you believe the military would overturn your potential victory?
   
4. 
   If you win, what will be your immediate priorities?
   
5. 
   Do you feel your life is in danger?
   
6. 
   What about Zimbabwe’s involvement in the war in Congo?
   
7. 
   Western opinion is now strongly against Mugabe. Do you think it worries him?
   
8. 
   Many Zimbabweans think Mugabe should stand trial for crimes against humanity? What’s your opinion?
   

1. 
   When you have a Western-developed country nation moving away from the rule of law into the black market, it’s a very unhealthy thing. Gambling is a very good example of an industry that was totally controlled by organized crime, and now has gone mainstream. It’s better to have such industries within the law and taxed, rather than have organized crime control them.
   
2. 
   Yeah, I’m optimistic. But I don’t think it will happen with this administration, or even any time soon. Canada is considering legalizing it, but they’re under enormous pressure from the Bush administration not to do so. The administration essentially said that it would start slowing down exports from Canada on the pretext of looking for marijuana, and are very strongly against Canada doing it.
   
3. 
   I think it’s been a monumental failure. One of the key indicators is how easily drugs are available to anyone who wants to get them. When the real war on marijuana began in 1982, 88.5 percent of high-school seniors said it was easy to obtain marijuana. In the year 2000, it was identical.
   
4. 
   I don’t think so. In those parts of Europe that have decriminalized marijuana, they smoke less pot than American kids. In the Netherlands, it’s been made legal since the mid-1970s, and kids there smoke less pot and also use hard drugs at a lower rate than American kids.
   
5. 
   Even if it was to be just a wage raise for the poorest people who work in America, it would still mean having more expensive labor. What’s more, to put pressure on legislatures to make change requires well-organized and well-funded groups. And when you are poor and illiterate and non-English-speaking, you don’t have access to power.
   
6. 
   Let me give you an example. I’m in a hotel right now, and when you order your porn film on pay-per-view, the hotel operator is getting a cut. Hilton and Marriott and Sheraton are the firms that are making sizable sums from this, as are AOL Time Warner and the other cable and satellite systems.
   
7. 
   I love my country, but we have very conflicting traditions at the heart of our culture. That’s America. Look at how we condemn porn, but we make more porn, watch more porn, have porn Academy Awards. And we have the toughest marijuana laws, but we grow more pot, smoke more pot, sing more songs about pot. This is a country that is deeply conflicted. It’s at odds with itself.
   

1. 
   You write that pornography’s greatest beneficiaries include Fortune 100 companies. How does this work?
   
2. 
   Will there come a time when the United States, in line with most members of the EU, will be ready to decriminalize marijuana?
   
3. 
   Can an illegal economy ever be beneficial to a country?
   
4. 
   Do draconian drug laws prevent people from smoking pot, marijuana in other words?
   
5. 
   If marijuana were to be legalized, would it lead to widespread abuse?
   
6. 
   It’s been 20 years since Reagan began his famous “War on Drugs.” Has it worked?
   
7. 
   Pornography and marijuana are billion-dollar industries in America, but are publicly hated. Can you explain the absurdity here?
   
8. 
   Let’s talk about immigrant labor for a minute. If California’s migrant workers were to be guaranteed minimum wages and other benefits, the whole industry wouldn’t collapse. So why the hesitation in dealing with this?
   

1. 
   Our revised armaments program will be ready around the end of July, and then we will be able to announce the final level of defense budget reduction. Our aim in the first phase is
   a reduction of 25 percent. Among the programs to be examined for termination could possibly be the armored infantry vehicle and the corvette.
   
2. 
   Developing armed forces ready to make rapid, decisive action through automated and strictly defined standard operational procedures based on four principles: faster, further, stronger, sharper. The process also will enable the integration of major social changes that occurred during the last decades. The transformed Hellenic Armed Forces will function as an integrated security mechanism against a wide range of threats.
   
3. 
   Jointness is our top priority. To meet this objective, we will preserve only one joint headquarters, the Hellenic National Defense General Staff, and create a Joint Special Operations Command in order to better coordinate the three branches’ special and elite forces operations.
   
4. 
   Active personnel will be reduced to less than 100,000. The majority will be long-term professional soldiers. Conscription will be gradually reduced to six months. The creation of a strong and well-trained reserve to supplement the main defense forces will be achieved by introducing, mainly at the frontiers, the institution of high readiness reserves, which will reach approximately 100,000 personnel.
   
5. 
   This government does not commit to any previous decision on any given issue, especially when a purchase of such financial value and strategic nature is involved. All issues will be re-examined from scratch. In any case, the procedure for obtaining the next fighter aircraft will start by the beginning of the next year.
   
6. 
   Through transparency of acquisition procedures and binding compliance with the laws in force. We will create an independent program-monitoring authority, called the Body of Financial Auditors, which will participate in the preparation of the contracts according to the NATO monitoring authority standards.
   
7. 
   In essence, these organizations are the two faces of the same coin, despite any problems or disputes that may occur from time to time between them. The critical terms that should characterize their relationship are: complementarity and synergy. We wish for a powerful European defense, and we will actively participate in its creation.
   

1. 
   And force structure?
   
2. 
   Will the command structure change?
   
3. 
   Turkey recently said it would cut down its acquisition programs. Have you got similar plans?
   
4. 
   Greece has long been a NATO member, but what role will it play in EU defense?
   
5. 
   With the Greco-Turkish relations improving, what are Greece’s leading security threats?
   
6. 
   Do you remain decided on the Eurofighter procurement?
   
7. 
   How will the procurement system change?
   
8. 
   
   Directory: plik -> file -> Do pobrania - Mat. Egzaminacyjne -> Angielski
   Angielski -> Two texts. For questions 1 to 6
   plik -> March 4th-8th 2000; ustroń, poland
   
   
   
   Download 1.02 Mb.
   
   Share with your friends: