Lest us forget, Bush's fortune is in oil. It is a subject he knows well.

You are right, it is in the equation.

I am just wondering if Saddam is going to light some more fields on fire. Man, that ticked me off the first time he did it! Talk about an enviornmental hazard!! Idiot.

Yeah yeah, rub it in... ;) 89% of the people in our country is against a war in Iraq, and still the Government decides to do the exact opposite... Oh well. Maybe we should just change the definition of "democracy" in the dictionary one of these days. :D </font>[/QUOTE]<font color='white'> We dont live in a democracy, so we dont really need to change its definition. And isnt The Netherlands a Constiutional Monarchy? Maybe I am thinking of someone else. But it seems like I read somewhere thats what they are catagorized under. </font>

Canada is one countries that could belong to the 15 willing but want to remain anonymous.

Chrétien is a slimy creature with less backbone than a jellyfish. He's taking the stance against the war strictly because the polls tell him that's what most Canadians want. The truth is, we couldn't send any troops anyway, we've committed all that we've got already.

Meanwhile, the Canadian ships in the Persian gulf "will continue to provide support and escort to American and British warships bound for the war on Iraq". In other words, we'll do everything we are capable of to support the war on Iraq. Except come out and say so, because that might cost the Liberals some votes.

[ 03-19-2003, 04:04 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

Sorry for the misunderstanding, I should have been clearer... I wasn't directly talking about the form of Government, more the concept of democracy itself ("everyone has a say"). Technically the Netherlands is indeed a Constitutional Monarchy. [img]smile.gif[/img] But I was referring to the part under 3 in my Longman Dictionary which I was referring to as some sort of "right" people mistakenly think they have over here:

Of course it's still the Government itself who has the final say, but people here just don't really understand why their representatives don't, well, represent them. ;) If we're talking about close call odds (49%-51% or 40%-60%, or heck, perhaps even 30%-70%), I can understand why the Government doesn't necessarily take the side of the majority, but with 89%? :(
But anyways... My initial post was phrased a bit shaky, so my excuses for the misunderstanding. I'll give it a rest now. [img]smile.gif[/img] It's bedtime for me now, anyways. ;)

[ 03-19-2003, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

Actually, I thought this was the one time that Chretien is actually showing a backbone. He declared that if the UN decided that war was the only option, he would support the action, but didn't want to defy the UN. A bit of a moot point, now.

The fact that Chretien still shows respect for the UN is in no way related to votes. I for one, am quite happy to see him take this stand, as I thought he would join with the US at the drop of a hat.

The interesting thing that some of you point out is how many countries are backing the US, however many countries are not backing the US. Just because their nations leader backs the actions of the Bush administration, doesn't mean the country as a whole does. I think you'll find (although I'm not positive, and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong) that most citizens outside of the US, don't support their governments actions in conducting a pre-emptive strike.