The Rues as stated in the last thread:


Other than that, enjoy your discussion

channler said

I don't understand, could you clarify? I'm sorry, it just didn't make any sense to me, about people who don't take responsibility don't deserve to get the cure for cancer or something...

I'm sorry about that...my thoughts were a bit fragmented when I typed that.. hehe, guess I shouldn't try and talk on the phone and type at the same time.

I guess I speak of a Meritocracy (i think I spelled that right).

Where ones deeds, or merit, picks their place in life.

Now, I ment that to go with the whole equality thing. If someone should choose not to, contribute to society (in a positive way), then should they be as glorified, and as "equal" as those that give selflessly?

I just don't think someone that doesn't work, should be entitled to do what those who do labor should be entitled to.

The problem with a meritocracy is that eventually someone like Mahatma Ghandi shows up, and makes contributions greatly outweighing the income necessary to sustain them -- and arguably, the lack of insight caused by an elevated position would make such an individual less useful. Now, I'm not belittling the achievements of Ghandi in any way, but under a meritocracy he'd be a gigantic economic black hole, and thus the perfect poster-boy for the advantages of a distribution model concerned with need and contribution (that is, from each according to his abilities and to each according to his needs) as opposed to contribution alone (as in your meritocracy concept).

But look at me, I'm babbling on like a schoolgirl on taking advantage of variances in the ratio of need to ability to increase surplus. I guess that makes me some sort of hard-right Communist.

That aside, however, the mutual problem of both our systems would be the determination of merit. What's to stop our panel of meritologists to decide that their position is of such immense value, or in the Marxist case, that their need is so great and their duties so intregal, that they need to have an income that surpasses that of the greatest scientist or philosopher? And what would stop people wise to what's going on to offer these people goods and services in exchange for ruling that their positions are likewise important? We would have the same old capitalist system, except now we have the government successfully convincing people that the distribution system is fair -- and if the Comrade Stalins and Chairman Maos of the world have taught us one single lesson, it's that such a thing can only produce problems.

Funnily enough, your views just now were a sort of libertarian approach to communism, shared mostly by anarchists. I think that if humans were down on their luck the community should help them, but majorly with job enrollment, not just with giving them money and expecting them to find a job on their own. I think welfare of the unemployed should be kept to communities, and I think people shouldn't be left to sink if they are being dosed some bad luck.

This is what I really feel, from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Some people (disabled, veterans, elderly, orphans, natural disaster survivors) need more than regular people, and all people should at least attempt to commit the most they can to society.

But those morals don't work in a society where everything is about possessions and the bottom line. The entire way the society works was drawn out by the richest, so naturally that's why it favors the welathy, and that to me is not equality, they didn't do anything to deserve it, they're not giving anything to society to deserve more than anybody else, they just know how to stay focused on the bottom line.

That's why everything I do, I do for the proletariat. That's why my dream when I'm older is to go to countries like the United Arab Emirates, Haite and Co,bodia, and organize Unions even if it requires me to become a target by the CIA (as the CIA are often behind the assassinations of Union Organizers) because I believe in a global economy if we can stop the US from leeching off these puppet governments, then the proletariat revolution will naturally follow up the chain to them. I can't break the hold the rich have over society from the United Staes, but I can atleast catalize the fight for freedom in other countries.

Well go tell Chavez you hate Bush and he'll let you start another revolution O_o

The thing is, there will always be the rich, there will always be the middle class, and there will always be the poor. (But then again, what we consider poor in the US in decent in some countries..)

Some people prosper, some get lucky, others steal, and more fight, in the the game of personal advancement. I would say that pure communism is a utopian society... only if humans didn't run it... or live in it..

However, I will always support someone that will show me that they can work hard, and are willing too. I think the migrant workers in my area are great people. I mean they will go through so much for so little just to support themselves, when so many just tell the gov to give them money. (Yes there are migrant workers that are citizins..)

Before humans settled down and started growing there food and stay in one place there were not rich and poor, there were no possesions, telling me they're not inert things in human nature. They're only inert things in a possesion based society. If people realized their work was for the community, and worked on a communal way, then greed and other things would simply work themselves out.

But my goal is not to transform humanity, my goal in life is simply to end the oppressive hold the rich have over the poor in many countries by uniting workers.

You are right that before people settled down and started growing food, there were no rich or poor. They were called the strong and the weak at that point. Since this was way before writing existed we can only speculate here, but its very likely humans lived in the same type of families as gorillas and or wolves do today. When food was killed or gathered, the strong were the first to eat and then only what was left was distributed among the weaker members. To me, it is very much human nature.

Also you will never have true equality with humans because everyone's viewpoint of true equality is not ... well... err .. equal. ;)

Actually, my reasearch has shown quite the contrary.

There are still people all over the world that live exactly as they did before humans settled down, and they don't exist that way at all. Sure, genetically inept children (mutated ones) don't survive, but as is the rule of evolution, and mutations are only born in countries where the government horrendously pollutes the water supply, and even then are rare.

The people live as communists, purely and simply. They own nothing, though every member will have a spear or something, no one goes around trying to horde and sell spears, because their survival depends on all members being equal. Though anthropologists call them communinalists, the only difference between that and communism is after Engels and Marx, writers decided to include some idea of a dictator of a proletariat, which was a stupid idea, and all communist states are trapped in these dictatorships that have no concern of fulfulling their promise when they took office. (that was actually why the communist government in Hungary was overthrown by OTHER communists).

I hope you'll forgive me for going for the obvious metaphor, and note that lacking any well-documented examples of the hoarding of actual spears in developed western capitalist states, I am forced to remind you that in the Civil War, certain ruin would await industrialists -- and especially the industrialist sons of a wealthy banking family -- should the Confederacy win. AFAIK, neither side showed any particular reluctance to use tactics involving the civilian population of the other side, either, posing a more immediate threat should be equality of the battlefield be threatened.

Take one John Pierpont Morgan, a wealthy Northern industrialist born into one such wealthy banking family, the house of Morgan. What did this J. P. Morgan do when his life was on the line? Why, he triumphantly marched into a Union arsenal, and broke a deal with the quartermaster to give him five thousand rifles awaiting repair, for $3.50 each. He then marched out to a general on the field, and sold him the broken rifles for $22 each, barring any inspection. One can assume that the reason this episode is detailed in the annals of some obscure congressional report, and not listed as but one of the charges in a treason hearing against this man, is because most of the witnesses -- those soldiers who you believe this man would work so dearly to protect, because their condition would ultimately determine whether he should live or die -- either fell that day at the hands of enemy fire, or succumbed to grievous wounds caused by the malfunctioning rifles.

One can obviously see here that some disease worked its way into the western mentality, and because of it we are less susceptible today to things like necessity, preferring the security and luxury of the more abstract concept of wealth.

He had to convince himself that his wealth was better than the protection of the Union, but that doesn't argue my point either, we are an industrialized nation, and heavily distanced from the result of our actions. We don't know what cause our choices make anymore, or how big an impact they actually have.

Are you attempting to imply that this man hadn't developed a mature outlook on life and death, when the anecdote in question places him squarely in the middle of a battlefield? Now, I've never been one to think very highly of the bourgeoisie mental acuity, but let's be reasonable here...

This was an informed decision that he made of his own free will, and he stared down the consequences of his actions in transit to, within, and fleeing from the place of this transaction. And it isn't just this one scenario, either -- I'm sure you can think of plenty of people, roles, and situations where somewhere along the line, one's percieved value over other members of society becomes more important than living.

I'd personally opt to keep the perceived value and perceived differences of individuals. I can't help but think that it is impossible for human nature to allow an absolute equality as it is inherent that we strive to best our peers. Having a 'gap' between the values holds back stagnation and also offers someone on a 'lower rung' (i use that loosely and candidly) a look at what opportunities they can grasp when they see others on a 'higher rung'.

The ultimate extension of this notion, that we should be better than our peers is the thought that we should be better than our peers, once and for all -- IE, barring any oppurtunity for the other man to come out on top, thus eliminating any kind of fair competition. Even a duck could see that we go down a dangerous path once that thought reaches into somebody's mind.

And you think we should encourage it.

The qualifying statement there is 'ultimate extension'. This can be applied to any methodology, the ultimate extension of which is invariably a 'bad thing' when it comes to human nature.

Well now that's an utterly defeatist outlook on the issue. If you truly believe that, then the reason why you're bothering to participate in this discussion is beyond me.

It is far from defeatist. Its an observation based on our apparent desire to self destruct if given enough leighway. This can be seen not only on a macro but also micro scale. Afterall, nations are made up from individuals, and individuals do seem to take great pleasure in things going wrong rather than things going right. The media is a great example of how a blood and guts story sells more than a miracle child birth story.

Yes, it is my opinion that human nature is self-destructive, but this does not invalidate my own arguments on this matter. It was not i who brought up the 'ultimate extension' of what i was discussing, i was merely retorting based on that comment. My original argument was based on contemporary society where competition was a healthy necessity for a society to flourish and not stagnate.

However, if this is still deemed as an inappopriate argument for participation then thats fair enough and i will respect your opinion.

I simply think our ancestors were cooperative people, who worked together and didn't take more than each other, because humans are an incredibly community based species, wer require community to survive, just like the stronger elephants protect the elderly and the youth in this groups, we humans have held communal economy long before anyone settled down and started farming, and even then the world was still based mostly on community.

I am implying, and not attempting to imply, but downright implying that John Morgan was distanced from his actions has a human being, not as a unionist or as a rich man or anything. The more little transactions distanced you from the token of your hard work, the more community was lost to competition, doing things for the wealth of the community was lost to doing things for the wealth of oneself. John Morgan would stand out as an immoral person even in today's society, but even that is an irrelevant example, because community is no longer apart of our society, and communal nature has been forgotten.

People think human nature is one of greed, my point is that it is in fact not at all, and though competition played a role even in the early humans, mostly between two different tribes that would often kill individuals of the other tribe, but genocide was unthinkable. People think humans could never get to a society where they are all working for each other and living without crime or greed to unemployement, all the promises of a completed communist world, when in fact humans live like such all over the world.

Take Ledakh, the people there are farmers, and though in the last 20 years they've seen massive industrialization, before it hit they lived as communists, sharing everything, wasting nothing, helping each other, striving for the health of all individuals instead of their own personal family, everything.

So, to reiterate, my point (as I bring it back to the topic, or where the topic led to) is that it's still veru much a part of human nature to work together with your community.

I think the problem though is that we have moved beyond mere survival. Community-based micro-cultures that you are describing do live like that because they are ultimately dependent on each other for their survival. Everyone chips in and does their part because they themselves risk death if they community fails.

The Problem: Technology and/or perhaps just the sheer numbers of people have moved us beyond mere survival. Some individuals have discovered that not doing their part does not seem to make the health/safety of the community fail. Therefore they choose not to work and fall to relying on others in the community to pick up his share AND still provide him food/shelter.

When a growing percentage of this population begins making an noticable impact upon the community in a negative way. The community must respond! This response is usually to isolate those non-contributors from some of the community benefits in order to limit their negative impact. Guess what... A class system just evolved.

The newly dejected members now form a new population within the overall society. Some of them now must begin to work even harder because some of the benefits are lost to them and survival again is the motivator. Eventually this new population will fracture again and another class is born.

I guess what I am trying to say is that without a proper motivation like survival, communistic societys are doomed to failure. Maybe its a bad thing, but money and possessions are really the motivations when actual survival is not in question. If I were to lose my job.... I wouldn't worry that I won't be able to eat. I worry that I won't be able to afford my intenet connection or cable tv.

I don't think pure equality is good. When I use the word 'equality' I use it to mean 'equal opportunity'. If everyone is forced to be the same, then there is no motivation to better yourself or anyone else around you; you all have to be the same. There needs to be equal opportunity so that people that want to work hard and better themselves can, while those that don't care, or do just enough to get by can stay exactly where they keep themselves.

That's why, despite all its drawbacks, I support capitalism. Socialism merely makes people realize that they are going to make the same amount of money no matter what they do, so they are going to do far less than they would were they under the rod of an employer threatening to fire or cut pay. With socialism, your job is guaranteed no matter what the hell you do, because you have no boss, you have an equal. So one bad worker leads to more and more, and soon, productivity is down the toilet, leaving the economy in the sewers.

For an excellent explanation of my point, I suggest reading the Sword of Truth series by Terry Goodkind.

I'll address Neela first:

My point is not that humans today live with community in mind, but that greed is not a fundamental part of human nature, and that in fact there are many who easily live without greed or motivation of self as opposed to the community. As we become disconnected from the consequences of our actions, we lose touch with communal ethics and do work more to favor ourselves, and that is natural, which is why I would favor modernism that did not make people lose touch with the impact of their actions.

Dantrag:

Iron Fist Socialism or these Pseudo-Communist states follow what you said, but that, to me, not equality, where when one is given the same no matter how hard they work.

Socialism only works in a society where people understand the impact of their actions on a community level, where their actions are taken for the survival of their particular community. The only way people would be able to see worth in their occupation is if it was one centered around individual communities. I strongly favor Socialism because I believe in equal oppurtunity, I think Capitalism favors those born to rich parents, and I think Capitalism does not go in sinc with benefit. For instance, in this world when we run out of oil our entire industrial age will crumble and we will see billions of people starve to death. A capitalist society can do absolutely nothing about that, a Socialist one can.

I would agree with you here that Capitalism does help keep the rich well off for generations.. though a sudden change in stocks or buyouts can change that quickly as well. I do think, however, that Capitalism is a system that does allow an individual to help choose their own status. With ambition and hard work one can work to improve their situation. This is not possible in a socialist one. I don't believe that someone wanting to work hard and improve themselves and their own personal life is a bad thing. A person can become rich in legitimate ways without doing anything unethical.



Here though I have to completely disagree. While oil maybe a major part of our industrial economy at this point, it is only because it is cheap energy. Oil won't just simply run out suddenly one day like turning off a tap. As supplies start to dwindle cost will increase. A smart enterprising businessman will start to take advantage of the next energy source when its cost starts to become cheaper than oil. Capitalists will move on to the next energy source pretty rapidly once it is cheaper to do so. Look at hydrogen cars for instance. The technology is there already, so why don't all new cars have it? The answer is it will cost too much right now to upgrade all the gas stations in America to be able to carry the fuel.



Truth is all people are guilty of this because of (often incorrect) belief systems. Take DDT for instance. It is an Extremely effective mosquito repellent. When inhaled in large doses though it is known to cause harmful effects in humans. Environmentalist groups are working diligently to have its use banned in Africa. Even at its worst DDT causes harmful effects in like 1 out of 100,000 people. Malaria is claiming lives in Africa at nearly 1 in 100 people. Thousands if not millions of people could be saved through the use of DDT, but because some believe they are helping some cause by banning its use, many will die. No other substance that has been proven safer is anywhere near as effective. Now greed isn't really the issue here. Both sides believe their cause is right, but they impact thousands of lives. Impact of actions isn't always clearly visible from a distance.

Sorry for the long post

That's not the point of a socialist society. Socialism is not "equality... or else" you can succeed or fail by your own merits, socialism is just that the community means more than the individual, and that is an ideology humans evolved to be apart of, only later on down our social evolution did we lose touch with this, but it is still very much a part of us.

Why is it also, that I see that its social programs that are saving everybody from economic disaster? Because Capitalism is all about working toward oneself, and they tried to design a society where working toward oneself also benefited everybody else, but it didn't work. Sure, there's a market, and people have to sell to that market, but they're not selling anything of value, they're selling what humans who don't know the consequences of their actions are buying. They're selling for the bottom line. Do you think they'll all decide we need healthier fuels when we begin running out of oil? They'll go for the next cheapest, nuclear power plants and stuff like that, despite how horribly it destroys the environment, causes cancer and mutations which will bring about a whole string of new genetic diseases.

And about DDT, you couldn't have given me a better example, I've read quite a bit about DDT. The effects on humans were not taken accordingly. Yeah sure it effected a very rare individual in a large group... immediatly, but DDT is a DNA altering substance, meaning it could cause cancer and bear the people effected with mutated offspring. Cancer is not something you get every day, and people are still suddenly getting cancer from being exposed to DDT decades ago.

Not only that, but DDT is a poison. Humans are a part of the cycle of life, we are a part of the food chain, we are a part of the ecosystem even if we try to ignore it, we're a piece of the puzzle, even if we try to cover it up in cement, all we're doing is digging our own graves. When DDT is released it doesn't just kill mosquitos, it kills everything. Bird populations have plummeted wherever DDT was released because it makes them sick, so they bear weak, easily broken eggs, and generations were ended. Amphibias populations were steamrolled because amphibians are our canary when it comes to air pollution. That's a warning sign maybe we should stop poisoning living things, because life is a circle, so when we poison any living thing, in the end we are poisoning ourselves.

That is what I mean by community minded individuals, not disconnected from their actions, not disconnected from the consequences of their actions. If humans cannot learn to realize the consequences of their actions, as they only can through socialism or something like it, then we will drive ourselves to destruction.

As an aside, thanks for giving me my big, hearty laugh for the week.

I'll be back when you say that every nuclear reaction brings us just one step closer to igniting the atmosphere.

Since I work at a nuclear power plant.....I just want to say that nuclear power is the most environment-friendly energy you can use.....causes no green-house-effect, very low outlets (due to rigid control from authorities) and them ppl operating the plant actually know wht they´re doing...

The smart lady has a point.

Now, if we could just eject the gabage in space...

yeah, let's spread the pollution.

Hmm it´s not that simple. I think every generation must take care of their waste. That means both normal and nuclear waste. In Sweden we do have a program for final storage of spent nuclear fuel f ex.....it´s rather a good program, I believe in it, even though it´s possible that the waste will be stored just in my neighbourhood. As it is today the whole amount of sweden´s high level nuclear waste is in an intermediate storage just at the plant where I work. That is also a reason why I think it as well could be stored here ..then there´s no need for transportation, it is here and it will remain here....and we could take care of it.....

In my community there is a positive approach to this thing.....as its spin-off effects are good for the society

Okay as soon as something goes wrong, which inevitably due to human nature it will their is big trouble and not only that but Nuclear power stations produce pollution that will not go away for 10,000 years or something like, merely by functioning.

Why don't we just cover the world in renewable energy generators, we've managed to cover the world in railways, roads, pylons, so it shouldn't be too difficult.

I view Nuclear power as a mixed bag. We have the pros that Minque mentioned, environmentally friendly etc, but it has it's cons as well.
For instance the half life on some of that stuff is several thousand years, and it remains highly radioactive the whole time. Then there's the horrible effects if something goes wrong, for instance Chernobyl. Who's to say something like that wont happen again? You can take as many precautions as you want, but you can never guarantee that something like that wont happen.

Just my semi-coherent 2 cents

There's a nuclear power plant around where I am. I think everything is pretty safe. You can't get within a mile of the place without having an m16 pointed at you.

Because we do not have enough of renewable energy generators!! We can´t cover the world in windmills.....or can we?


Sure, everything has pros and cons! If you read my earlier post I said that we f ex have a program for handling of those nuclides that have a very long half-life, we have a plan for final storage. it´s called "the swedish model" It´s well known..

And Chernobyl...well one of my friends (german)worked there some years ago, writing a safety-report for the facility as it is now. He lived there for 5 years, spending almost the entire time close to that wreck of a plant. He has some pictures I say! The plan now is to cover the whole area in concrete...they´ll build a mountain out of concrete on top of it!

But..of course...you can never guarantee anything.....now the probability of a nuclear melt-down like chernobyl..is well not very high....in fact it´s very low.....very low



Ahhh that´s neat! But seriously it´s like that here as well....sort of....safety is number one issue.....safety against outside threats as well as radiological safety

All in all.....I think it´s safe enough....btw Danny what´s the name of that plant near you?

It's called Sharon Harris. It's owned by progress energy.

Nuclear power plants emit radioactive energy that cause genetic problems, like cancer and mutations. At every nucealr power plant animals recorded to live near the plants have had recorded mutations, mostly cancer, but also spawning eggs two weak for the embryos to survive, or random, strange mutations.

It is NOT environmentally friendly.

First off, Chernobyl wasn't an accident. It was a deliberate simulation of wartime conditions, for which several layers of safeguards had to be disabled, and the uninformed personnel prodded into doing things that they would normally never let happen.

Secondly, Chernobyl is a wildlife sanctuary today.

Not the whole area. There are still huge numbrs of people living on heavily irradiated soil, and cancer and mutations are high

Yes, but mutations cover a very wide range of things, some of which are somewhat innocuous.

The point, however, is that even when operators make a conscious effort to make something go horribly wrong, and do so in a plant that was sub-par to begin with, the result still isn't necessarily the "vast streches of smoldering hell-like terrain dotted with streams of most potent poison, and thick with the stench of boiling plains of fat" that fills Doom's head whenever he hears the word "nuclear." Methinks he just had a little too much time with the warezed version of Stalker recently.

Unfortunately that was a violation of code, but I'd like to request nothing happen to this thread despite it.

Hoever, now that it has become personal, I can't respond, as I've been trained not to respond to fallacies in an argument.

Yes there is a risk of disaster with having nuclear power... but it is extremely low. In fact there is a much better chance of Vesuvius erupting again and laying waste to Pompeii once more than a Nuclear accident. The people in Pompeii don't seem to mind living next to a possible bomb and it really only provides them a scenic view.

I don´t know exactly how you control your plants in US. But I can assure you yhose emissions are very thorough recorded and documented here. The authorities do have stated limits for air- and water emissions of radioactivity. We are not allowed to exceed these and we do not! I can assure you. We also control the animal-life nearby and the only thing we noticed was that the fish living in the cooling-water outlet is a tad bigger than normal, but that´s due to the higher water temperature!

I still say that nuclear power is environment friendly....


Yes Chernobyl accident was a test performed that went wrong and the reactor went overcritical and so the core melted down. There were also a couple of explosions that lifted the reactor vessel cover and turned it aside before it fell dowen again.




The very site where the plant is is pretty clean today, but the city nearby is abandoned due to contamination. But a new city is built some distance away.

The cancer and mutations are higher in the area yes...and that is very sad indeed.

Just curious though, Minque, what technology do you use to control to emissions? From everything I've read about Nuclear Power, it has unprotectable detramental effects. I'll try and remember some literature, though I doubt I'd be able to find a credible internet website, but a friend of mine has a vast library of literature about environmental and human rights offenses that have taken place in the last 50 years, and I've read quite a bit about Nuclear Energy from him, it definitely didn't sound safe.

Well I could go on for hours about that, but I´ll keep it short. As for water we use very thorough cleaning with ion-exchangers, different kinds of filters and chemical waste-treatment. We do not let out any water that contains a higher level of impurities that we are allowed. Then the water is kept inside the facility until we have treated it repeatedly.

As for air we do have cyclone-filters that are very efficient. Again we don´t let anything out that we are not allowed to.

Our authorities the SKI and the SSI, monitor us constantly, they have their revisions, inspections quite a few times per year and we are obliged to report any deviation we encounter.....yes of course that happens! but it´s really not much.

As I see it you get another view of it when you work on a plant and live with it every day.

Well renewable energy resource have their own problems. Hydroelectric in particular poses quite the conequences on the surrounding environment. Solar power and wind power well it just requires a ton of land set aside, and both require tracks of open land, which is not exactly easily found.

Seems to me that renewable powersources are still in their infancy, and as such do not seem as viable an option as nucleur power. I see nothing wrong with nucleur power whatsoever at the moment, but i feel it is inevitable that eventually there will be a form of power that is more efficient (no - not cold fusion or any of that stuff, just a streamlined efficient version of solarpower or whathaveyou)

I don't believe any power is 100% efficient, and thus its simply a question of adopting a 'more' efficient power source as we advance.

of course its not efficient.

photosynthesis as a natural process is only like 60% efficient. and solar power is a poor mimic of photosynthesis. The majority of energy is still lost as heat.

While the subject is on Nuclear energy I figured I'd bring up the subject of Iran, if no one objects.

My opinion is as follows:

Nuclear Energy, a great advancement in technology, should not be denied to any one nation based on irresolute fears. Iran, even if it managed to acquire weapons that harness Nuclear power, would be so frightened by the fact that the US and the EU are armed with thousands of these dangerous weapons themselves that is about as likely they'll use it as it is that I'll start having an intimate relation with my computer.

This isn’t very likely, to say the least.

I simply think that the way Western nations have placed a monopoly on a vital energy source is inequitable.

Having them have nuclear power for energy isn't the problem. The problem is can they be trusted not to make nuclear weapons? Iran has a leadership that denies that Israel as a state even exists. Its the EU and Israel that have much more to worry about in truth as Iran doesn't have missile capable of hitting the US. Though that doesn't mean that we wouldn't be drawn into a very difficult choice should they choose to use them.

The EU has offered to enrich power producing grade uranium for them so that they can have a nuclear power plant. However, this is clearly not what they want.

As someone who grew up during the final years of the cold war... I can tell you that the fear of a nuclear war is much less now then it was then, but I can see all the fears returning very quickly should some fanatic get his own little red button all to himself.

New Topic :

What do you guys think of Osama's new tape that was released? He threatens to attack, and offers a peace plan. And he uses the fact that most Americans don't agree with the war in Iraq. Unless I'm missing something, I'm still pretty sure that most Americans are all for blowing him up...

I think he's scared.

Most likely he is scared...

But, a scared man is the most dangerous man.

My thoughts exactly. If he is scared, he's more dangerous than ever. Think cornered animal. They fight like mad to escape, or at least to do as much damage as they can. That's what Osama could start doing if he feels time is running out for him