> That's interesting. I imagine it's probably a matter of which teachers you happen to get and their individual opinions. It's more the mass media that I'm thinking of here though. What about that?

What about it? First, are we talking about your mass media or ours? Second, what's it matter?

> > Oh, yeah, 'cause our laws all say "Only white rich people for immigrants, please".
>
> I think you'll find that the laws aren't worded that way but there probably is a significant bias in the system towards people fitting those categories - there is here anyway (not so much white as people from countries where there is a predominately white population). Note the "I think" bit means I could be wrong.

I don't think you can substantiate that at all.

What you might be able to substantiate is a bias toward accepting educated immigrants -- meaning that if you're a PhD, you'll have an easier time immigrating, although the uneducated do not have an impossible time of it. This mentality may seem unfair, but: (1) It makes sense. We can't accept all immigrants indiscriminately (owing to practical realities I should not have teach to an Australian), and so if you can't accept all immigrants, it merely makes sense to accept those most likely to make this country a stronger one; (2) Humanitarian concerns -- accepting immigrants fleeing untenable circumstances and who have nowhere else to go -- are not ignored. (3) Just about every country in the world has this kind of immigration bias, including Australia.

In short, attacking the U.S. over its immigration laws, given our track record, is pretty ridiculous.

> > Why do you call him dangerous?
>
> Shoot first, ask questions later. Shoot before there's the suggestion of needing to shoot. Shoot just for the heck of it because it looks cool in that movie when stuff blows up.

You were a member of the cabinet meetings, Congress hearings, and so forth, that took place prior to our military movements in Afghanistan, then? I don't know how else you could cast judgment on the manner in which President Bush himself made his decisions.

Neither you nor I are in a position to make any of the statements that you have just made. We do not know precisely how President Bush reached the conclusions he did concerning ANY of the actions he has taken in office, although often we have at least a partial understanding. The judgments we *can* make concerning his actions are the actions themselves: were they called for, were they justified?

So maybe you disagree with our attacking Afghanistan. That's your prerogative, and I don't particularly want to turn this thread into that kind of a debate. However, I agree with Dave: If Sydney had been attacked and thousands of Australians killed, I'm almost positive that your government would have retaliated (and, what's more, almost positive that the United States would have assisted your government in whatever retaliatory action it decided upon).

Personally, I am not so sure the Taliban shouldn't have been forceably removed from power *before* the discovery of its involvement with terrorist groups, simply because its oppression of its own people rivalled that of Nazi Germany. Taliban officials were allowed to arrest and execute its citizens without just cause (and frequently skipped the "arrest" part). They abused and tortured women without cause. They seized personal property without recompense. Maybe back then, outright war was not the way to go -- maybe some other way would have been preferable. I honestly don't know.

But when they waged war against us without cause or provocation, I defy anyone to challenge our right to defend ourselves.

Is Bush a dangerous man? Darn right he is. The Al Qaeda and the Taliban found that out the hard way. How could anyone in charge of the strongest military in the world not be dangerous? We're a dangerous *country*. But what's bad about being dangerous unless you're dangerous to the wrong people? What counts is how we wield the power that makes us dangerous in the first place. Go bicker about that if you wish, but stop presuming that we act without thinking just because you are not personally privy to the thought processes behind our actions.