i heard that they were completly removing saddam from every text book and i honestly must say that i do not agree with this. i don't think ignoring the past is anyway to build a better future.

Should the references be cut down? of course, he had his name on everything. But talk about him in the civics and history books.

By trying to teach the children the negative aspects of the regime it is possible to enstill in them a strong dislike to ever go back to that again. While it is going to be hard to change the minds of the adults, it is possible to shape the kids. It is sort of like WWII. if we just ignored the horrors of what happen to the jews we would have no respect for the situation they were in. Because we have no respect for it and no fear of allowing things to go back that way then there is a chance that it could. By putting a fear in every person's hearts about it then it is ensured to never happen. I did not live through the second world war, i was never in a concentration camp. But believe me when i say i'd give my life to make sure it never happen to anyone again.

__________________
Free Ice Cream!!

__________________
"The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left."
Ecclesiastes 10:2 (NIV)

And you do us a "favour" and go back to the UK. Stop taking advantage of all the U.S. has to offer and then spitting on her.

You are easily "convinced."

Are you anti-war in general? Or just this one?

We sure have a lot of ANTI-WAR ACTVISTS on this board. What? Wasn't there a march for you to be in somewhere today? And do any of you people work??? Or are you on the government payroll? I mean, many of you on here are young. Can't be retired. Should be either working or in school. I'm not speaking of those who occassionally post....but those who post almost as much as I do. BTW, before you ask....yes, I am retired. And no, I didn't post on political message boards back when I was working. Didn't have that much time.

..I don't sit on my backside passing judgement on others...like you...

__________________
The last time this country mixed politics with religion, people got burned at the stake.

No Mr or Ms JP5. I'm NOT
Thank you

And a sure sign she's got nothing left in the tank.

__________________
Toodley-doo,
Maggie.

Hey, tb, has the British school system so totally disintegrated that you don't learn simple math? Because those of us who CAN count all know that by every single count of every single vote in Florida, President Bush had the greater number of votes. We call that winning.

Since education is obviously not a strong point with you, let me give you a crash course in American civics.

1. A ballot is not a vote. A ballot has the potential to become a vote, if and when it is correctly executed. That means it has to be filled out in a way that clearly shows the intent of the voter. Until that has happened, it is NOT a vote, and cannot be counted. Any ballot that must be interpreted should not be counted, as it may not be interpreted correctly, thereby depriving the voter of his right to choose. It is better to lose a vote than to have it go against the voter's wishes. This is just basic stuff we all learn in school, though some of us manage to forget it when we develop agendas. (Sorry about the dig, libs.)

2. The United States Constitution states that all votes must be treated equally. To slow it down for you, no vote can constitutionally be treated any differently than any other vote.

3. The purpose of the Supreme Court is to interpret laws and actions to ensure that they are constitutional. That is, to make sure they do not violate the Constitution.

4. In the 2000 election, the Supreme Court ruled that recounting only some votes in Florida was not constitutional, because it did not treat all of the votes equally. Therefore, either all votes had to be recounted, or none of them. To put it another way, any effort to choose some votes to recount, without giving the same attention to other votes, would be in direct violation of the Constitution of the United States.

This was understood by all relevant parties. The Dems knew this from the very beginning, but they were hoping they could sway a lot of public opinion by misstating the facts and getting a lot of uneducated people confused about "votes" vs "ballots" and so on. If they had been willing to act in accordance with the Constitution of their country, there would have been time to count all of the votes in the state. But because they didn't WANT to treat all the votes equally, a lot of time was wasted, meaning that by the time the Court got the case, and ruled, there was not enough time to do a statewide recount. The STATE LAW OF FLORIDA DEMANDED that the results be declared within a certain time period.

In other words, the effrontery of the election officials in, first, understanding the Constitution, and then in following it, and then following state law, has been turned by ignorant libs into something sinister and underhanded. And to a lib, those actions may BE sinister and underhanded---after all, they do not advance the liberal agenda, which is evidently all that counts.

So please quit flaunting your ignorance. You have plenty of other ways to remind us, without your silly and irrelevant signature line.

for it to show up here http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/reynolds.asp

Yes Reynolds wrote it, no, not all of his facts are correct (secondary link).

Glad you like my sig!!!!

It is there to wind wingnuts like you up...

He was APPOINTED....NOT elected....

GET OVER IT...

__________________
The last time this country mixed politics with religion, people got burned at the stake.