So they were thinking about it, the previous war having wrecked their plans, but they still neither had them, nor were they dealing with Al-Qaeda when Bush invaded. Like the story says, it's fascinating from a historic point of view but rather useless after a war, three years of occupation, two terrorist attacks on Europe and the ongoing conversion of the US from a somewhat benign empire to a theocratic police state, very much (apart from the specific religion) like what the Taliban had and what Osama wants. So who's winning?

I love the way that jex's posts get more crazy the more he writes. He begins with "...So they [Iraq/Baath Party] were thinking about it [WMD]..." and ends with "[The US is a] theocratic police state."

I think triple J is in need of some serious reverse brain-washing. I prescribe reading Ann Coulter. That may balance things out a bit.

We invaded Iraq because A) They would not comply fully (or at all) with UN weapons inspections and B) there was intelligence that Iraq may have recieved enriched uranium. Well, B is wrong, though enriched uranium did get out of Sudan and Chad. A is still not wrong. Anyway, last time the UN got into a war to fight was the Korean War.

All told, do i agree with the reasons we went in? No. Was I happy when Saddam was captured huddling in a mudhole on a farm? Yes. I'm getting out of this damn country eventually anyway... Australia looks nice...

LeberMac, I've read Ann Coulter's work, and love it. Doesn't change the fact you guys are losing your right to privacy, have lost your right of free travel, some of you have lost the right to fly just because of the way your parents named you, us foreigners have lost the right to visit NASA (which can't help but hurt its bottom line), or that you have people in high places trying to demolish real science and other bunch of rights in deference to religious dogma.

Wasn't it one of your guys who said something along the lines of "those who would trade freedom for safety deserve neither"?

Yes, Australia definitely looks nice...

Meh, I'm leaning toward France or some French-speaking country.

You are correct on all counts Jexkerome.

I believe that it was Benjamin Franklin that made the statement
that you quoted.

As much as I dislike discussing armchair politics... I really feel the need to say a few things.

I can understand where you're coming from jexkerome, moldyman, and RattMann. I don't understand where Dark Knight is coming from though (joke - that was a joke).

There's a lot of information that has a hard time making it to the public. I've had a couple very close friends that worked for 'certain' places in the government. I absolutely loved talking with them, because they would tell me all kinds of things that they didn't say in the news (much less from the international news sources)... anyways, back on track...

Yes, I agree that the videos really have nothing to do with the post-war analysis. Thats not why I posted them. I just found the conversations they were having extremely interesting.

Extra info about some points that were made:
--Terrorism events were increasing dramatically up to 9/11. Because of the 'war on terror' (if anybody actually remembers this), hundreds of terrorist cells the world over were neutralized within a couple of months. Terrorism events (especially the larger operations) declined instantly.

--Iraq was in almost no way "benign." In almost every sense of the word, it was a dictatorship (not that all dictatorships are bad - just almost all of them have been). The majority of the population had very little to say about what went on. I remember *watching* the chemical weapon tests that Hussein had ordered on human subjects about 15 years ago. I remember hearing the news about ethnic cleansings killing hundreds of thousands of people in northern Iraq. Freedom was extremely limited and dangerous for the general population.

--By strict definition, Iraq is not currently a "theocratic police" state. The people vote on the decisions - not a religious head or priest system. The police force have nothing to say (other than their citizenship votes) about who gains control. They enforce current law. I can understand what you mean by the term, however.

--By "losing your right to privacy," I assume you're talking about the wire-tapping. Ok, this is where my govt. buddies come in. It has been a law (not a very-well known one, obviously) for a very long time (like more than 20 years) that any domestic to foreign/foreign to domestic phone calls and communications can be wiretapped _without_ a warrant. That has been happening for a while now. Does that mean that every single phone conversation is wiretapped? Absolutely not. I don't know what other nations do, but if that information was ever used for personal gain or a personal agenda - THAT would be against the law... and it would be enforced too. The wiretapping program - which was in place long before President Bush was in office - is not such a big 'invasion of privacy' as many people think. Thousands of people aren't personally listening in on your phone calls (even the international ones), taking notes about your personal lives/income/problems/etc. A computer files away conversations that use specific word combinations and other suspicious behavior. More, I can't tell you. The only thing you have to fear from this wiretapping thing is if you're a terrorist or (hehheh) an aspiring terrorist.

--I know jex was being somewhat joking here, but nobody loses the right to fly because of their name (not in the U.S. at least...).

--If by "demolish(ing) real science" you're talking about the whole Intelligent Design thing... it was never proposed to take science out of the picture. The whole idea is that the _theory_ of evolution is just that: a theory. Parts of it are undoubtedly true, but it is a theory because there's certain parts that are beleived to have holes in them (the beginnings of the evolutionary process, for example). Personally, I think Intelligent Design is mostly crap, but I.D. is just another _theory_. Not meant to replace the teaching of the Theory of Evolution by any means.

--The actual quote from the big BF is: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin). Logically speaking, safety IS a freedom. But you have to look at the exact wording of what he said if you are to interpret it correctly.

--Australia is a VERY nice place (never been there, but from a few friends I have there, it sounds like a party).
--I think France is a nice place too. There, I said it!

--Iraq was in almost no way "benign." In almost every sense of the word, it was a dictatorship (not that all dictatorships are bad - just almost all of them have been). The majority of the population had very little to say about what went on. I remember *watching* the chemical weapon tests that Hussein had ordered on human subjects about 15 years ago. I remember hearing the news about ethnic cleansings killing hundreds of thousands of people in northern Iraq. Freedom was extremely limited and dangerous for the general population.

Um, I never said Iraq was "benign" at all, I said the US used to be a benign empire, or more to the point, a nice bully. Saddam Hussein is a monster and his was very much an evil dictatorship. Only thing that makes it sadder is that he was put in power by the US.

--By strict definition, Iraq is not currently a "theocratic police" state. The people vote on the decisions - not a religious head or priest system. The police force have nothing to say (other than their citizenship votes) about who gains control. They enforce current law. I can understand what you mean by the term, however.

I also never said Iraq was a "theocratic police state". Saddam's dictatorship was very very secular and he hunted Al-Qaeda with a brutal zeal that the US government is just now approaching. Afghanistan under the Taliban is what I was going for, with Religious Leaders controlling the government and zero rights, privacy, freedom of speech, and an army of thugs to enforce all that (police state). The US government now has a conservative christian High Court, the GOP is leaning that way with the Dems too ineffective to oppose it, you have people silencing the scientists at NASA over climate change and promoting Creatonism as mandatory education, you have your government wiretapping everyone... that sounds to me like an attempt to set up a Theocratic government with the loss of privacy ensuring dissenters will be found out and weeded out(like in China, another police state).

--By "losing your right to privacy," I assume you're talking about the wire-tapping. Ok, this is where my govt. buddies come in. It has been a law (not a very-well known one, obviously) for a very long time (like more than 20 years) that any domestic to foreign/foreign to domestic phone calls and communications can be wiretapped _without_ a warrant. That has been happening for a while now. Does that mean that every single phone conversation is wiretapped? Absolutely not. I don't know what other nations do, but if that information was ever used for personal gain or a personal agenda - THAT would be against the law... and it would be enforced too. The wiretapping program - which was in place long before President Bush was in office - is not such a big 'invasion of privacy' as many people think. Thousands of people aren't personally listening in on your phone calls (even the international ones), taking notes about your personal lives/income/problems/etc. A computer files away conversations that use specific word combinations and other suspicious behavior. More, I can't tell you. The only thing you have to fear from this wiretapping thing is if you're a terrorist or (hehheh) an aspiring terrorist.

This "I have nothing to hide, search away" argument is pure, unadulterated STUPIDITY. Everyone of us has, at least once in his life, wanted to something on his lonesome that's not bad, not even embarrasing, and yet we wanted to do it that way. Why? who cares? but you have the right to ask people not butt in and leave you alone, and your government is taking that away. The fact that it has been going on since forever doesn't make it okay; by that definition, slavery is okay since it has been done since the beginning of civilization.

--I know jex was being somewhat joking here, but nobody loses the right to fly because of their name (not in the U.S. at least...).

If you really mean this, then you are either unaware or purposefuly ignoring the US government's No-FLy list, which has been causing furor since everyone from children to seniors to celebrities have run afoul of it, even foreigners. If your name is in it, either you will be denied flight outright or treated like a criminal without it being your fault, right there on the airport, in front of whomever happens to be around. So far the list hasn't caught a single criminal, but it has caused a lot of americans and some tourists a LOT of distress. Google it, for Christ's sake, all the major news sources have been talking about it!!!

--If by "demolish(ing) real science" you're talking about the whole Intelligent Design thing... it was never proposed to take science out of the picture. The whole idea is that the _theory_ of evolution is just that: a theory. Parts of it are undoubtedly true, but it is a theory because there's certain parts that are beleived to have holes in them (the beginnings of the evolutionary process, for example). Personally, I think Intelligent Design is mostly crap, but I.D. is just another _theory_. Not meant to replace the teaching of the Theory of Evolution by any means.

But that IS what the Creatonists want, to eradicate the Theory of Evolution! Go read their websites if you don't believe me! First, they have to discredit it, though; of course, the idiots seem to misunderstand what 'theory' means in science (you seem to do so, too). A theory has (and pay attention here) EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS IT AND THAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY PEERS AND FOUND ACCURATE. If it lacks evidence at all, it's just a HYPOTHESIS; if the evidence is bogus, it's not even that, it's an outright lie or wishful thinking. Plus, the evolutionary theory is ONLY ABOUT HOW LIFE EVOLVES, NOT HOW IT STARTED, HOW THE PROCESS STARTED, OR WHERE IT IS GOING; ALSO, NO THEORY CLAIMS TO BE PERFECT, COMPLETE, 100% ACCURATE, OR TO HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS. A THEORY IS NOT A FACT, BUT IT COMES DAMN CLOSE. And, of course, the most tell-tale point of ID's move to impose Creatonism is the fact that, of all the biological theories that exist, the only one challenged is the one they feel contradicts their beliefs the most, which is evolution. And once one theory is out, that just paves the way for the other ones to go away (as the Bible proves to be stronger than the Scientific Method), until, once more (like in the Dark Ages), all the answers are held solely in that damnable book, and the Sun goes back to revolving around the Earth, and all that bullshit.

--The actual quote from the big BF is: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin). Logically speaking, safety IS a freedom. But you have to look at the exact wording of what he said if you are to interpret it correctly.

Ah, interpretation... that little thing that has resulted in countless sects on all major religions, from Christianity to Islam to Buddhism, and that allows the US government to claim it doesn't torture people, in spite of all the evidence. I prefer to use common sense to legalese, myself, and from where I stand, you are letting your government run over your rights using the current threat as a pretext, without any guarantee that those rights will be reinstated when the threat disappears. And when you consider that idiotic human behavior isn't likely to go away on its own, chances are Terorrism will go on, your "War on Terror" too, and with them the loss of your rights.

You know, I just realized your arguments are very close to those made by the people defending these actions by your government; no offense, Doukutsu, but you wouldn't happen to be a Brownie now, would you?

Oh, and in case you're wondering, I get my news online from CNN.com and MSNBC.com, and avoid Fox "News" like the plague.

Triple J said: Doesn't change the fact you guys are losing your right to privacy, have lost your right of free travel, some of you have lost the right to fly just because of the way your parents named you, us foreigners have lost the right to visit NASA (which can't help but hurt its bottom line), or that you have people in high places trying to demolish real science and other bunch of rights in deference to religious dogma. Wasn't it one of your guys who said something along the lines of "those who would trade freedom for safety deserve neither"?

So we're separating "you guys" from "you"? OK. Since I've been elected by jex apparently to speak in defense of my country, I'll say a few words.

1. Travel was never "free", since it's fracking expensive. Heh, but anyway I have not lost any right of free travel. I come and go as I please across states, whether by land, sea, or air, and if I leave the country I'll obviously need my passport. Nothing's changed there, although you seem to claim it has. You are obviously misinformed.

2. No one has lost the right to fly because of their name. Of course, if your name matches someone's name on the suspected terrorist list, you are given an extra-good searching. Same as if you buy a one-way ticket or pay by cash. You may be delayed a little more, but you can still fly. Oh, and by the way, there is no "right" to fly. Just like there's no "right" to drive a car. It's a privilege based on your compliance with laws and standards. The "No-Fly" list has many exceptions.

3. Same thing, no one has a "right" to visit NASA. If the government wants to prevent anyone from entering a government facility, then it can do so. Would you expect to be able to just waltz into Langely (CIA) or Fort Meade (NSA) and demand a tour? HA! NASA does quite a bit of military as well, so it is no surprise that foreigners are barred from access.

4. The Bush white house indeed is far more anti-science than any presidential administration than I have witnessed or read about. Indeed, I believe that the religious right-wing lunatics see an opening with the Bush white house to push their agenda, hence the recent Intelligent Design debate and the reopening of the Roe v. Wade abortion debate etc. etc. In my opinion, these religious nutballs are just as bad as Osama, indeed, the only difference is that they have not started mass killings. Yet. (They bomb planned parenthood clinics and murder doctors, but that's as far as they have gone so far.) Morons like Pat Robertson really do give the rest of Christianity a bad name, it's pathetic that the religion is judged based on their proclimations, so we know how it feels to be a muslim and see folks like Bin Laden and Ahmadinejad speaking in the name of Islam.

5. Yes, that was attributed to Ben Franklin. One of "my" guys. Oooh, but looking it up, apparently it could have been someone else: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin
But the underlying sentiment is true. It's what I regard as the basis for our democracy. However, when your mortal enemy uses your own open society and freedoms against you, what do you do? I'm certainly open to suggestions from jex as to solving this one. We can't racially profile the terrorists (who are almost ALL 18-40 year old middle-eastern males) because it's politically incorrect. We can't scan every cargo container coming into the US since it would cause MASSIVE trade backups and be incredibly expensive. We can't seal off the borders because there's always another way in. We can't just pick people up off the streets because if they aren't enemy combatants, we have things like courts and judges and lawyers, who LOVE to disagree with the current administration and hinder it at every opportunity. (Which is good, checks and balances are good and healthy things)

But, most importantly...

We can't back down. We can't modify our national policies to suit the whims of external powers. We can't turn our back on israel (until recently, the only democracy in the region). We can't turn ourselves into the kind of paranoid nation that they would have us become.

Interesting poinhts, LeberMac, let's see.

Points #1 and #2. Leebs, please read:

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/travel.htm

The source is a bit iffy depending on where in politics you stand, but the argument is sound, since it's based on actual rulings over the years (we should get Lecter here to tells us how strongly it stands); it has always been my understanding that travel is a constitutional right, it certainly is down here. And about the No-Fly list, there are documented cases of people not being allowed to board, at all, regardless of how many different airports they visited; one of them is even a mexican, waiting for the Homeland Security guys to clear his name, how naive...

#3 I agree that federal grounds should be protected, but NASA has facilities created specifically for tourism, which are now going to be a little less used because foreigners can't even go there. And when you consider that this story came to light when access was denied to a class of elementary schoolchildren, you begin to wonder how far is too far...

#4 We agree totally here. If somehow it sounded like I actually argued against something what you wrote here, must have been because of an attack of dislexia, or something.

#5 I'd wish I could help you here, I really do, but there are no easy answers (though you could do with a little more common sense and a little less political correctness); the most I can offer is the obvious and hardest: to look for the best action that doesn't compromise your moral values because, because if in order to defeat an enemy you must become like them, what's the point?

And yeah, you cannot back down, but you also cannot sink to their level. Still, one can't help but feel, had your government waited a bit longer to make its case against Iraq stronger, it'd have more help and more respect than it does now, and so many of these changes would have been unnecessary; you were not alone, but your government chose to go at it that way.

Jex wrote: Still, one can't help but feel, had your government waited a bit longer to make its case against Iraq stronger, it'd have more help and more respect than it does now, and so many of these changes would have been unnecessary; you were not alone, but your government chose to go at it that way.

Well, it's easy to Monday-morning quarterback national security decisions, but in order to actually MAKE a decision, you need to be decisive and resolute. And if Bush is ANYTHING, he's decisive and resolute. I mean, I imagine Gore and/or Kerry trying to make these kinds of security decisions based on fuzzy feelings and poll results and advice from everyone in the world, and resulting in the "least-common-denominator"-type of response. Some kind of limp-wristed UN sanctions or something.

At least NOW, the terrorists know that we're not fucking around. We'll bomb you if we find you in another country (i.e. Predator-drone hellfire missile strike in Yemen, and the recent strike in Pakistan), and we won't bother asking for permission first. If we get you, great, we'll keep you out of official "POW" channels and maybe utilize a little waterboarding to extract information out of you. Sure, the U.S. is skirting the rules of international law here. But, in order to be even the slightest bit effective against a determined terrorist organization, you must not be afraid to employ tactics that are, well, distasteful to the majority of Americans.

I think there is a huge undercurrent in this country of "We're tired of taking all this shit from the rest of the world, let's kick some ass and remind everyone of who's in charge here." Pounding on the local bully in the middle east and swatting down a few hornets from the hornet's nest of Al-Qaeda is what we've done.

Unfortunately, combine that sentiment with a right-wing president who is deeply religious and you end up with a situation where many who live outside the United States see it as being "transformed" into some kind of quasi-pre-Nazi Germany kind of country - menacing, intolerant, and aggressive. We're not, but all I can say in my country's defense is: wait and see. Everything will turn out OK. We're still the "good guys". If things get outta hand, just thank the NRA that we still can overthrow our government with our firearms. Unless they try to take those away. Hrm.

Ok LeberMac and Jex's.. you've both blown at least half your rocker sky high.

However Lebers rocker is a swade auto-massage chair, and even half of it is winning on its own.

Hahaha NRA takeover... thats awesome (awesome as in funny, not as in I'm supporting the idea).

--Interpretation is something that everyone does, regardless of political affiliation, religion, or whatever. I wasn't interpreting the Benjamin Franklin quote - I was just stating that's what you were doing.

--Ah, you're right, jex. I messed up on the first two. I should have read a little more carefully. As far as the Christian take-over conspiracy theory... its not gonna happen. I guarantee its not gonna happen - the people simply won't let it happen. Other point - what Leber said.

--Airflight travel: what Leber said.

--With the wiretapping, you misinterpret my 'point.' My main point was that Americans' privacy is hardly being invaded (if at all). There's this preconceived notion that there are people listening in on all the conversations that anti-war activists are having whenever they say anything negative about the U.S. I was trying to explain some of the mechanics of that to let you see that its not _nearly_ as bad as some people think it is. Like I said before, the only ones who are -really- losing their privacy are the ones that have no rights to it anymore: the terrorists.

--You misunterstood me with the theory of Intehligunt Deesine... If the theory itself was replacing the teaching of the Theory of Evolution, it would absolutely be wrong. And yes, I know what a theory is. A theory is a theory and not a law, which means there is still more evidence needed to solidify it as a law. Introduction of i.d. (as far as I understand the arguments - the arguments from the lawmakers, and not from the nutzoid website-anti-darwin-creationists), is just a proposal of an alternative idea. It doesn't make i.d. correct... "but we have to be open-minded now, don't we?"

--There's no way to take the Franklin quote and NOT interpret it. You interpret it one way or the other. If you want to understand what he really meant, you would be better off understanding why he said it... when he said it... about what specific topic he said it... what he meant by "Essential Liberty" and "Temporary Safety," etc.

And why don't you watch FoxNews!?!? Its lekker-U.S.A. right-wing propoganda! Nothing better in the world!

Ah, the media... it's either left wing whining or right wing propoganda. No in-between. That's why I ignore the media altogether.

Doukutsu: I have a number of friends (close friends, lifelong friends, casual friends,) several aquaintences and a few ex-girlfriends who have told me that they
work (or have worked) for various government agencies, political parties and "well
connected" corporations. They have all told me things that run the gamut from
"huh?" to "holy motherfucking shit!!!" I will not repeat any of these things. I WILL
tell you one thing that about 40% of them told me: "There are people out there who
are paid (and some volunteers) to spread disinformation among thier aquaintences
in the general public..." Take it any way you will.

As for the "eavesdropping" thing; Is/was it legal to eavesdrop on telephone conversations that were "foreign-to-domestic" or "domestic-to-foreign?' I don't
think so. I recall that the "Carnivore" project (as reported in the New York Times,
Time Magazine and the Los Angeles Times) which would have performed the monitoring and logging of conversations as stated above, was "shelved" some
years ago because of public and congressional opposition. I think that any sort of
wiretapping by the government for these purposes would require a F.I.S.A. Court
warrant. I also think that the N.S.A. would NEVER stop using a tool like "Carnivore"
no matter WHAT congress and the public thought. Personally, I think that the N.S.A.
is more interested in gathering corporate data so that the Bush Administration can
squeeze more "campaign contributions" from big business...

Not to keep the argument going or anything... but the stuff I was saying about the wire-tapping is completely public knowledge - things that were released to the press. If I knew anything more about the wiretapping, I wouldn't be posting it on the web.

Even if the foregn-to-domestic call wiretapping -were- illegal, it never stopped. Clinton was doing it too. But we all know he was too honest and of high moral character to be using it for any evil oppressive big-business corporate purposes...

Moldy - don't forget about the Anti-America propoganda too. Some of that is fairly entertaining. I think I watched a video once about how the U.S. detonated a nuclear bomb deep in the Indian Ocean that caused the Tsunami... peuuuure genius! Or how about the one where Bigfoot is actually a U.S. military genetics test gone horrible wrong... or who can forget the great Bear Holding the Shark stories...?
http://www.homestarrunner.com/sbemail145.html

While this is an old topic and there is a good chance that my opinions will not be read, as a US citizen who is very concerned about the way his country is going I feel I must post.

First in response to the main topic, it is no surprise to me that Saddam predicted acts of terrorism in the US and elsewhere. Our foreign policy towards the Middle East for the last thirty years has been an unending cycle of failures. I’ll give you the short condensed version. First we supported the Sha of Iran, even when his people tried to rise up in favor of a democratic government. Eventually the revolution succeeded and Iran gave power to the Ayatollah Khomeini. Obviously this led to Iran being unfriendly to the us. Saddam sees the disorder in Iran and decides to invade. He’s fought back in the beginning so we decide to make Saddam our new buddy and send him chemical and biological weapons, as well as other items from our shopping list of fun toys that go BOOM, so he can go kick our old buddy (Iran) in the teeth. The war doesn’t go as planned and Iran remains a Sovereign nation. Then in 1991 Saddam invades Kuwait, which we don’t like because Kuwait is not on our list of Naughty Countries, so we use our new buddies Saudi Arabia as a staging area to go kick Saddam in the teeth. Then in 2001 the Trade Center is attacked. Once we have bombed Afghanistan into submission we decide that instead of finding Osam, we will go after Iraq, which is a “haven for terrorist” and is looking to buy enriched uranium. Assuming all this is true and not just an excuse invade a country and turn them into a new friend, we have some options, which I will explain using the hornets nest analogy. When you find a hornets nest in your yard you have three options:

A) you ignore it and hope it goes away on its own
B) you go get a can of spray paint, walk quietly up to the nest and spray the paint through the bottom which sticks the hornets wings together so they can’t fly (i.e. surgical strikes)
C) you hit the nest with a baseball bat and hope that if the their home is broken the insects will go away (More often than not this just results in many pissed off hornets).

Unfortunately we chose option three, which leaves two prospects for the future.

1) We succeed in forming a new Iraqi government, which will be our friend for a time. Eventually they will do something that conflicts with “US interests in the region” so we will make a new friend and either convince them attack this new Iraq, or use their country as a staging area so we can do it ourselves. This continues the cycle of making friends to bomb our old friends.
2.) The “liberation” ends in failure. We pull out leaving all the hornets (terrorists) pissed of and buzzing about, and give our “old” friends yet another reason why America is the “Great Satan”.

** This is not to say that I think Saddam was some kind of fluffy bunny, he certainly was an evil man. I’m just saying there’s a reason people in the Middle East don’t like us.

Second regardless of how long this whole wire taping thing has been going on it is completely unacceptable. Unless I missed something America still has a constitution protecting its citizens from unlawful Search and seizure, which in our modern era applies to wire taps. Tapping someone’s phone calls without a warrant simply because they are calling a foreign country seems pretty unlawful to me. If we shred the Constitution just to sleep more soundly, to feel more secure, then there is no point in fighting the war on terror because they have already won! If we open that door even a little we may never close it again and our children may inherit a country where freedom is word that has long since lost its meaning.

Third, in regards to Lebermac’s statement “…there is no "right" to fly. Just like there's no "right" to drive a car. It's a privilege based on your compliance with laws and standards.” In a free society you have rights not privileges, privileges are bonuses for people who follow the rules of their totalitarian governments. Driving and traveling are Rights, you have to meet the required criteria just as you must prove that you are 18 and a US citizen to exercise your right to vote, but that doesn’t make it any less of a right. Also travel is protected under the constitution. Article 1 Section 9 Clause 1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person. And bill of right Amendment XI: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. This last part basically means you have to many rights to list including some not listed in the constitution. Also Lebermac statement about Bush’s decisiveness and resolution means nothing if he is only decisively making an ever expanding mess for the next guy to clean up.

As a final note I will be joining Moldyman in Australia. Its warm, there’s plenty of beach, I hear the people are nice, I won’t have to learn a new language, and most importantly it’s in the southern hemisphere. That way when the US decides to nuke China, Iran, North Korea, or whoever else is the evil empire of the day. I’ll have time to have a nice stiff drink, contemplate human nature, and watch the fireworks before the fallout arrives.

> As a final note I will be joining Moldyman in Australia.
> Its warm, there’s plenty of beach, I hear the people are nice,

Speaking of beaches and 'nice' people: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Cronulla_race_riots

> I won’t have to learn a new language,

You haven't heard the people from western Sydney talk.

> and most importantly it’s in the southern hemisphere. That
> way when the US decides to nuke China, <snip>

Our Prime Minister sucks up to Bush & Blair so much that we're likely in the firing line by now.

Oh, and the lag is terrible here. ;)