Iraqi forces did set fire to some oil fields, although I'm not sure if it was by Saddam's order or not. That's an act of desperation.

Personally I like one pretty common theory. All Iraqi WMD programs were shut down in the beginning of 1990s, but the WMD research programs continued. It is believed that about 3-4 scientists were working on various WMD-related programs.

This theory is good for many people.

George: the Iraqis did have a WMD project. Big enough to be a bit scary and small enough for no traces of it to be found.

Saddam: he kept his word to protect the people of Iraq. It's not entirely true what's been said about Iraq. Sure, the leaders are cruel, but the people have pretty good access to western cultures and the internet. They had a TV channel that rebroadcasted US shows and a newspaper that translated stories from all over the world. And internet cafes were there as well, although with about 1$ per hour, not everyone had access. Not as bad as Iran who pulled some strings in Cuba to get Fidel to jam a satellite uplink that broadcasted revolutionary programmes from USA to Iran.

Europe and weapon inspectors: the inspectors did their work well in 90s bringing down the WMD programs. And Europe's claim that there were no WMDs would be true as well since the amounts would be insignificant. Probably something that an evil genius everywhere could cook up

So to sum things up: George screwed up. Although, that Condoleezza chick looks far more scarier than Georgie

Did I sleep in and miss the creation of a European president and/or foreign minister?

I am not dead. and how dare u compare my death to George Bush's death! How insulting!

You all still believe that I'm Yves?

actually i would think it's funny because i would be the firt one to find out (before you) because we live in the same house.

What can u expect? it's summer vacation in Canada. Me gots lottsa time in me hands

http://www.geocities.com/the_crazyguy00/BushWillHitIt.jpg

Now Yves, that was not funny. I switched on CNN when I saw the header of your post before reading the rest of it. It reminded me of the murder on the Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn about a year ago. I didn't like him at all and thought he was very dangerous but his murder had very nasty repercussions. Practically rendering the country politically ungovernable adn paranoia.
There is one difference though, Fortuyn was several times smarter than Bush will ever be
And dressed better.
tries to imagine the reactions of Republicans to a openly gay president candidate

Now that I find worrying. Bear in mind that these are the same people who will be deciding who gets to be president of the most dominant nation on the planet in 2004.

These people are not nescescarily ignorant. I believe a lot of them have just been mis-informed. The American press is notorious for being biased towards the government. Often, some of the Americans who prefer to be more informed browse the BBC News website (a News service put out by the UK's BBC) just because they believe it's less biased.

AE.

Bold words coming from someone who has (I'm assuming) neither lived nor grown up in the United States. If that isn't the case, then there's even less of an excuse for that remark

Normally I don't prefer to engage in political or social discussions, but that is quite an absurd statement, and a gross display of ignorance on the subject at that.

In any country, education is based partly on the establishment, and partly on the performance (and initiative) of the student involved. Money has nothing to do with that in the United States. Students decide on their own whether they wish to excel or languish within the confines of the school system.

Having money can buy you a supposedly adequate college education, but it has zero impact on the public school system. Now, if you're arguing that schools in the private sector are more effective -- that's also an incorrect assumption.

Both public and private schools tend to push students through, regardless of their fitness to proceed to a higher level of education, but the overall quality of teaching varies little throughout the country; and it is certainly not exclusively "a priviledge of the rich."

You are not too far off there IMO. Not a fascist but very right-wing.

Well, seeing as his party became the second largest in those elections, he had quite a lot of followers. Including many who usually didn't bother to vote. It was part of a movement branded "new politics" meaning listening to the general public, no more back-chamber deals etc. The usual stuff a demagogue(sp?) says, as far as I'm concerned. Anyway this made him very popular with the general public. But not with me in case it wasn't already blatantly obvious
[edit]Maybe you'd better ask other Dutch people to give their opinion as I'm a leftie myself and prone to ranting on this subject [/edit]

That's a silly sounding poll ... were they asking 6 year olds as well? Oh wait ... you said "Americans", so that must have included those dumb Canadians.

I haven't visited every public school in USA, but I can trust neither have you... Any school, no matter how good or bad, would clearly explain where the UK was, etc. While a lot of European countries may be ignored, the fact that USA has direct ties to England means the UK is treated specially.

I agree with Kenny's general assumption. That is, if someone wants to learn, then they can.

It's very true that some schools will be more qualified (and some may be downright dangerous), but none could be so ignorant to not have a map of Europe available. There's no excuse to go through school not knowing where UK was.

It goes without saying that if you don't want to learn, you wont improve your life, and you will stay in a low class. Yes, some people do have it harder than others. But if you want to eliminate class, about the only thing you can do is make everyone equally stupid and poor.

Edit: Just to qualify my response a bit more, I'll go with my personal experience...

I went to a free (as in cost), small private (church) school that was more of a collaborative homeschool than a traditional private school. Most of the people had similar home lifes, yet not every one one finished equally! Some people just didn't try; some people just weren't as smart. At the end of the year, there would typically be scores ranging from 16-34 on ACT tests (max of 36).

A few classes, namely driver's education, we were required to take at the local public school. A classroom of kids from the same neighborhood, with the same teacher, etc. The class was so easy, yet some people failed! They just didn't try.

If getting smart is nothing but living in a good community with middle class parents, then everyone in that class should have passed with honors. Instead, it's an individual effort by the student. Although I do believe that there are some situations that are harder than others - the bottom line is, you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink...

Talking to Americans.

Oh, please excuse my misinterpretation... what you actually meant to say was: "The fact is this: in America and the U.K. education is just like everything else, a priviledge of the rich."

Thousand pardons, guv'nor. Now I'm satisfied