SkepticLance

I remember staying at Coral Bay in Western Australia. We were there as tourists to snorkel with Whale Sharks, which we did. This area is classified as desert, which it is. The land is parched. However, we stayed in cabins with steeply inclined corrugated iron roofs. Every morning, there was a massive puddle of water under the edge of the roofs. Water from the air condensed on the cold iron, and flowed down and off the roofs. No-one bothered to collect it, and it left a puddle on the concrete floor. Even in deserts, there is water in the air. It is there to be used. It is up to human ingenuity to determine how to extract it and use it.

Since we do not know the genetic make-up of our ancestors, I am not sure that we can claim genetic stagnation - at least the way you use the term. However, it is true that our entire species is very genetically homogeneous - little genetic variation. The normal explanation for this is that at one time our species was limited to a relatively few individuals. Indeed, we may almost have gone extinct at one point in time. We are now all descended from a small number of individuals, hence little genetic variability. This makes more sense than your theory.

Citizen Zero. I am glad I do not have to live inside your head. You have so many ifs, buts and maybes, that it would be impossible to draw any conclusions, and you must live in a misty fudge of uncertainty. The rest of us make a few compromises and live in a world of much greater clarity. We all know there is no such thing as 'proof' by your absolutist definitions. So what, and who cares. If something has a high enough probability, we accept it as the equivalent. We are rarely disappointed.

A core principle in science is that of falsification. In other words, scientific ideas must be tested with the intent of falsifying them if they are wrong. A single test is not enough, unless the first test is successful in falsifying the idea. If no falsification happens, then more tests are needed to raise the idea to one of being an excellent model. If an idea is tested, and falsified according to scientific protocol, and someone refuses to relinquish the idea, that person is a crackpot.

Pangloss said : This is what you want us to do about North Korea and Iran -- bluff and bluster and insist (right out in the open!) that nobody ever be allowed back it up. Not quite as you put it. My recipe for action is as follows : 1. Take the time to understand the nation that would otherwise become the enemy. Every culture is different. We must not fall into the trap of saying that everyone reacts the same. We do not. 2. Set out to become a friend - not an enemy. The best way to do this will follow the results of (1) above. Bluff and bluster is exactly the wrong thing to do. If you bluff, someone may call the bluff and some administrative idiot then directs your nation into war. 3. If neither 1 or 2 above work, then withdraw and wait for a better time to achieve your goals, working quietly towards them as needed. War is an absolute last resort. I admit there are times when there is no other recourse. However, that did not apply to Viet Nam or to Iraq. This is not something based on some silly 'warm fuzzy' philosophy. It is based on the very practical basis that the alternative makes things much worse. Think of the USSR. In the early 1950's, when the Soviets were developing nuclear weapons, there was a call to bomb the crap out of them before they became a real danger. Wiser heads prevailed, and the cold war (much better than a hot one!) took over for 40 years. Then came the end of that period, and a move to better relations. For a nation such as North Korea for example, there will likely be a period of alienation. However, nothing lasts forever, and a move to 'normalise' relations to a more friendly approach can follow. North Korea will never be a real threat to the USA, no matter how much nuclear development they go through. Time is a great healer. If the West works towards aid and assistance, then eventually North Korea will change its approach also, even if it takes the 40 years it took the USSR.

Pangloss Iraq would have been far better off had Saddam been simply left in power. In something like 30 years, he killed a little over 200,000 of his own people. The invasion killed over three times that in one tenth of the time. You should be able to read the numbers and come to a rational conclusion. Besides, what makes you think that, when the situation settles down, it will be any better? Current signs are that the USA will leave, as it did in Viet Nam, and let the cards fall where they will. I do not think that will do more harm than the USA staying. The chaos will continue, for a time, either way.

Pangloss said : Why can't it be true that BOTH (a) the United States is a generous nation, AND (b) the United States could be much more generous? Sure. No problem. That is not the point of what I have been discussing anyway. My point has been the continuing stupidity of the American administration in reverting to military adventures in trying to fix perceived problems, and only succeeding in making things worse. Of course, it is now too late to easily solve the problems that have been created in Afghanistan and Iraq. I certainly don't know any easy way to do it. However, we MUST learn the lesson. No more invasions. Leave North Korea and Iran alone, except if we go there as friends to help.

ParanoiA said : The US is arguably the most helpful nation in the world. No nation on the planet lends and offers more assistance, particularly in times of natural disaster, than America. Actually that is not true. The United Nations asks first world nations to contribute 0.7% of GDP to overseas aid. Last I looked, the USA was giving about 0.25%. Of course, if you consider military adventures to be 'aid', then the USA easily exceeds the target. As we say in NZ. with great sarcasm; 'Yeah, riiiight!' My opposition to military aggression is for a very simple reason. It does not work. More so, it exacerbates problems till they becomes many times as bad. The invasion of the Bay of Pigs. Did that bring Castro to heel? The United States, since WWII has attacked at least one independent sovereign nation every decade. How much has this achieved, other than the deaths of millions (2.5 million in Viet Nam alone)? Answer : nothing! When will the US administration learn? You cannot achieve your goals that way. To make the same mistake as many times as the US administration has takes an incredible amount of utter stupidity.

Pangloss said : So you're saying it's better for us to attack and then leave? No, I do not say that. I say it is better not to attack at all. As far as the Iraq war goes, there is no easy answer to the sorry mess that currently exists. If the USA leaves, tens of thousands will die needlessly. If the USA does not leave, tens of thousands will die needlessly. The only winners are the Kurds, who will probably get the homeland they have been desperately looking for. What I have been trying to say is : First - try to understand the people of the Middle East. Our Muslim neighbours are still people. They deserve respect and understanding. Make the effort, damn it! Second : Act to help your neighbours, not attack them. It is a really simple principle. if you give aid, understanding, and support, you win friends. If you attack, you make enemies. Think like a Middle East Muslim. First, you have the lesson of the early part of last millennium - the crusades - with Westerners attacking to steal your homes. Then you have America and Britain kicking out your friends, the Palestinians, from their homeland, and providing assistance to the invader, the Israelis. Now they have attacked Afghanistan, and Iraq. They have set up military bases in Saudi Arabia. They have suborned the President of Pakistan. They even invaded Somalia. Now, I am not personally making judgments here. Much of the above actions were done with the best of motives. What I am asking you to do is look at these episodes through a Middle East Muslim's eyes. It looks bloody bad. Do you wonder that they distrust and even hate America and the West? We need to uderstand how Muslims think and feel, and act with some sensitivity and understanding. We should NOT be doing what Bush junior does - acting with aggression and without thought.

If you are already King of the Castle, you can be pretty damn hard to displace. I doubt any new species will kick us out by evolving intelligence. Without intelligence, it would be impossible. However, let me present a more positive idea. What say we see humanity as saviours, not destroyers. Sure, we are doing a lot of damage rightnow, but the Earth has survived much worse, and sprang back with an explosion of new life forms each time. Life on Earth is about 3500 million years old, plus or minus a bit. And in 350 million years, most will be gone. In 500 million years, Earth will be a sterile cinder. Why? The sun is heating up, and will raise the temperature of the entire Earth well above boiling point of water by then. The sun will continue to warm, and then start to expand, and engulf the Earth in about 5000 million years. 350 million years is not long in terms of biological/geological time. Earth life has but one hope. Some intelligent species to develop space travel, and move to another stellar system, and transplant Earth life. Looks like its us, folks.

Looks like most people here agree that a particular pattern of DNA is not what makes one human. Like most thinking people (which is everyone on this forum) I pondered this issue in the past and came to a conclusion that I find acceptable. Being human is a function of mentality. It is not DNA. It is not the shape of your body - a doll is not human. It is not a potentiality. Every cell in my body has the potential to be cloned into a new person - but if I bleed and lose nucleated white cells, that is not murder. Humanity comes from the mind, and that is shown by size of brain. When we actually become human is somewhat of a subjective judgement, but must follow substantial brain growth. ie. late in pregnancy, if not even later.

Thank you Pangloss. You made my point for me and very well. Oil is a global market. Venezuela is a very insecure source - not friends of the USA. To secure sources is very much to America's interest. However, the biggest point of all in this argument seems to be overlooked. We can argue morality all we like. But note this : America's current courses of action are totally failing, and making the situation much, much worse. The USA has invaded any number of countries, or attempted to. Since WWII it has succeeded in doing so only in cases where the 'enemy' was so tiny as to be of negligible threat - such as in the invasion of Granada. North Korea fought the USA into stalemate. Viet Nam kicked the USA out most ignominiously Afghanistan is well on the way to making that war utterly intolerable. Iraq has turned into a hot bed that the USA will not be able to stay in for much longer. America can win wars only by : 1. Attacking the utterly defenseless, like Granada. 2. Waging a war of punishment, as opposed to occupation, which is what Bush senior did in the first Gulf War. With Iran and North Korea starring as likely next theatres of war, the administration had better think things through carefully. The world's only superpower may find itself supplanted by being weakened in stupid wars, while China quietly builds and builds.

Herme said : I was always trying to convert atheists into Christians. Instead, the exact opposite happened. What really changed my beliefs was when some of the members started listing scientific errors found in The Bible. You need to understand that this makes you special. I estimate that 85% of the population (any population) is unable to make that move. They are locked into emotional thinking. You, on the other hand, belong to that special group of humans who are capable of thinking rationally. And that IS special. I have always seen this as a kind of maturity, that most do not achieve. This is not to say that religious people never belong to our group. I am willing to concede that some may come to their religiosity through a rational thought process, though I do not recall having met any like this. However, you Hermes, are special. And rare.

Lobsters do have nerve cells of a type very similar to the pain receptors in mammals. In addition, their reaction when dropped into boiling water quite well simulates a frantic attempt to escape severe pain. They also have little resembling a brain. It is likely their 'consciousness' is next to zero. However, it is still probably a good idea to kill them by freezing before boiling. No other method is guaranteed to be painless. You can, as an alternative, drop them in fresh water. They still react as if in pain, but much less dramatically. If the fresh water is almost freezing, even this reaction is lost.

DD said : The people who are joining Al Queda now probably would have joined Al Queada anyway, we are just creating a situation to flush them out and kill all that attack us. The people who are recruited by Al Qaeda are not, at first, evil. They are mostly angry young men of the type who would become Greenpeace activists in our society. Except that their religion is Islam, not the natural environment. If they feel that their nation and their religion is threatened, they will react. If there is no threat, then why should they? In other words, the answer is no! Emphatically no! If Iraq was not invaded, they would not join Al Qaeda. The United States has created a whip for its own back. If I was wrong, then Iraq would have been supplying recruits to Al Qaeda long before the invasion, and it was not. Think it through. DD also said : If you look back you would see that oil prices took a sharp spike around the same time as the war, same goes for the Persian Gulf War. Given this it seems unlikly that Oil was the motavation. That rather strange logic is a bit like the following : "Joe Blow robbed a bank. He was caught, and sent to jail. He lost a lot of money through being in jail. That proves that his motive for robbing the bank was not money." The fact that the Iraq war did not go as the US administration wanted, does not obviate the fact that access to oil was a major motive. we are just creating a situation to flush them out and kill all that attack us. Does not work that way. First, as stated above, you are genuinely creating new recruits, not just flushing out old ones. A whip for your back. Second : You do not flush them out. They stay in hiding till they kill people. Your logic is not sound, I am afraid.

ParanoiA said. Have you ever considered the idea that perhaps Iraq is nothing more than a point of focus for terrorism created by the administration? That is even more silly than DD's posting. ParanoiA also said : Also, irregardless of all of that, what exactly is the point of your multiple posts condemning the Iraq war? Were we, the united states, supposed to bake brownies and invite Osama and his buddies over for tea? You seemed to have missed the point that Iraq before the invasion was not a terrorist threat. Hussein was NOT a friend of Al Qaeda. In fact, the terrorists regarded Hussein with contempt and enmity. Let me repeat a point. Al Qaeda is NOT a sovereign nation. Therefore it is impossible to deal to them by waging war. Instead, they are a bunch of gangsters - the moral equivalent of the mafia. Thus, the appropriate way to deal with them is by suitable police action. Now, the only practical way of doing this is to begin by gaining information. This is done by inserting undercover agents into the Al Qaeda organisation. I have no doubt at all that this process is, in fact, underway. I suspect that Al Qaeda includes, among its members, agents from the CIA, MI5, Mossad, Pakistan, and others. These agents have probably already been responsible for some of the information leading to raids that badly damage Al Qaeda. The problem is that effective action is not politically sufficient. The voting public need to see things being done, and the government is not going to tell them about undercover operations. Thus, we get the invasion of Afghanistan. This made Bush temporarily very popular. Politicians love this, and this was without doubt a factor in the decision to invade Iraq. He would have expected a quick victory which would have boosted his popularity even more. The fact that Iraq had oil, and the USA was insecure about oil supplies was doubtless a major reason also. The bumff about weapons of mass destruction etc were just rationalisations, as anyone who lacks naievity will realise. And I repeat my earlier point. To win in the Middle East, you need to win friends, not enemies. The basic principle sounds sugar sweet, but works. "If you are nice to people, they will be nice to you. If you are nasty to people, they will be nasty to you." This applies to nations as well as individuals. It is so basic, that it gets overlooked. Hate and aggression provokes hate and aggression right back. Politicians sometimes word this as 'winning the hearts and minds of the people'. Different words, but the same principle. Begin by understanding the people, and then work to make friends. Al Qaeda will be diminished by reducing their recruitment base. They can be mopped up in due course by police action as previously described.

Dr. Dalek said : the attack on Iraq was an attack on terrorism, just not a direct one. With all due respect to you, DD, that has got to be one of the silliest statements I have seen posted on this forum. The attack on Iraq was the reverse of an attack on terrorism. It was, instead, the biggest boost terrorism has had for a long time. Recruitment into Al Qaeda is up dramatically. You should realise that the USA and the West in general are treated with deep suspicion throughout the Muslim world. The message that radical leaders promulgate is that there is a new crusade (and remember that the words crusade and crusader are equivalent to Muslims to terrible swear words) led by the USA and Britain. Invading Iraq simply verifies in the minds of millions of Muslims that this crusade is now underway. Unsophisticated people are led to believe that it is their duty to take up arms to defend their homes. Many are led on to being prepared even to commit suicide if it will take a few of the crusaders with them. The invasion of Iraq was the biggest mistake Bush and his advisors ever made. I do not believe they were naive enough to think they could get away with it. The rest of the world (of which I am part) knew damn well that they would not. No, I think they went into Iraq with the aim of making short term economic and political gains. Which they did, for a while. There is a lesson in human nature that we all need to learn. It is an old one. "You will reap what you sow." If we create a relationship with another nation with war-like aggression, then they will retaliate with equal aggression. If we want a good relationship with another nation or another people, then we must approach them with benevolence. We will then reap friendship. If the USA had gone into Viet Nam with medical aid, educational aid etc, over 2 million people would not have died, and Viet Nam would have become a friend of the US. The financial expenditure would also have been a tiny fraction of what was spent. Ditto for Iraq. If America is to learn, it must realise that, in future, it must use economic aid, and benevolent action to win friends. Begin with Palestine.

Herme. You are in good company. I did the same thing as you when I was about 15 years old. Just could not see any logical and rational reason for religious belief, even though I had been devout up to that point. I have seen nothing in the 40 odd years since to change my mind. My advise, though, is to avoid proselytising your non belief. It will lead to you being harmed emotionally by the reactions of the strongly religious. I don't suggest you hide your new non-belief. That would be dishonest. Be open about it. Just don't push it. Another reason for not becoming evangelical is that you will achieve nothing. I have been down the path of trying to convince others. It is a waste of time. People who are strongly religious will not be swayed. It is a bit like trying to knock down a brick wall by charging it with your head first. Guess who gets hurt.

On the subject of motion sickness ... Vertigo is one of the most common immediate effects of poisoning when a toxin is ingested. Evolution has equipped us with the response of nausea and hence vomiting when we feel vertigo. I had this hammered home personally when I suffered a minor case of decompression sickness (the bends) with a bubble in the inner ear. I began with incredible vertigo. Within two minutes I was spreading my lunch across the ocean, even though the boat I was on was in totally calm water. With motion sickness, as previously mentioned, it is a discrepancy between visual cues and inner ear cues that leads to vertigo. The nausea is caused by the vertigo, not by the motion. As husmussen said, these effects are actually mediated by the brain. Lots of stimuli lead to vertigo, and hence nausea.

Mike. I would love to see a global police force. Imagine having a bunch of tough guys who could march into a third world country and round up Al Qaeda. Ain't gonna happen though. It would require an unprecedented degree of international cooperation. It would also require the world's only superpower to put all its efforts behind a force not under its control. I cannot see that happening!

Pangloss. I am glad to see some degree of agreement between us. I assure you that nothing I have said is a lie. Sometimes things can be interpreted two ways, of course. I would love to see action taken by the USA which would lead to a lessening of global tension. I think you understand the importance of that. War is counter-productive almost every time. The first principle in getting along with your neighbours is to understand them. Americans need to understand their Muslim neighbours (the whole world is one neighbourhood these days). History has created anti- american feeling throughout the Muslim world and only drastic action plus time can change that. Let's make a beginning. Mike90 said : It would be nice to beileve that most people are decent at heart and every problem can be solved with diplomacy, but thousands of years of human history prove otherwise. A study published a few years ago showed that about 10% of all human groups were people with no conscience. In other words, they had no compunction about doing anything whatever, no matter how harmful to others, if it was to their own benefit and they believed they could get away with it. If you want a realistic picture of human nature, it is this : 10% of every human group, whether plumbers, labourers, nurses, or priests are total assholes. 20% are about half rotten. 20% are kind of neutral in the good vs bad scales. 50% are essentially decent human beings. Sadly, ruthlessness confers a kind of power. This means that the 10% total assholes are over-represented among world leaders. They can be negotiated with, but only on the basis of what is good for them. The total assholes in the general population can be partly kept under control by making it obvious that they cannot get away with evil actions. The murder rate per capita over the past 1000 years has dropped by an entire order of magnitude as a result of better policing. Terrorists can be controlled, to a degree, also by making it obvious that becoming a terrorist will inevitably result in capture and punishment. One of the things that is sadly lacking in this world is a truly global police force. Perhaps that is something we should be working towards.

Pangloss said : The implication raised by SkepticLance, however, is that he's wholy and entirely culpable for the deaths of every Iraqi who has died as a result of the invasion. I disagree with that conclusion. I think you have worded this a little more strongly than I intended. Bush gave orders that started a war. According to The Lancet, one result of that war was 650,000 extra Iraqi deaths. Obviously lots of people other than Bush share that responsibility. However, if you look at deaths caused by terrorists, then lots of people other than Bin Laden share responsibility also. Bush's orders must still be seen as causing massive harm to human bveings. I did notice that you avoided responding to the more important error you made, regarding Iraq harboring terrorists. Iraq did not harbour terrorists before the invasion, except incidentally. Hussein did not support Al Qaeda. Today, of course, Iraq is a major recruiting ground for Al Qaeda. Osama Bin Laden is laughing into his beard. Bush's invasion has been his most successful recruiting tactic in all time. Let me get back to the basic message I wanted to put across. The above arguments are a distraction. Americans need to understand why Muslims hate them. The basic reason is that Israel should not exist. It was created from land stolen from the Palestinians, who were a sovereign Muslim people, whose ownership of their own country should have been respected. Instead, Britain and the USA stole it from them and handed it over to the Jewish people who became Israelis. Now, we cannot turn the clock back. What was done is done. Israel now exists and we must accept that. However, the aspirations of the Palestinian people should be respected and supported. They need their own land, without Israeli dominance. If America wants to earn the respect of the Muslim world, and if America indeed stands for justice, then it MUST act as follows. Pressure Israel to relinquish the conquered territories and hand them back to the Palestinians. Set up an independent sovereign nation of Palestine, without Israeli influence. Send vast amounts of American aid to set up this new nation, and make it prosper. This will not, by itself, change history and make everyone love the USA. However, it is a start, and an essential one. Do that, and the recruitment to Al Qaeda will dry up. And it will cost a fraction of the cost of the Iraq war.

To Pangloss. Below is my entire earlier posting. Please point out where I quote Martin Luther King. When you discover I did not, please apologise. There is nothing simple, or black and white about current middle East conflicts. Al. Qaeda, in all its evil, came into being in response to historical ills. Much dates back 1000 years, to the crusades. In the Muslim Middle East, the word, Crusader, is a dirty - even foul - word. To call America in Iraq a bunch of crusaders is to call them evil, in the worst possible way. A more recent problem is that festering sore known as the Israel/Palestine problem. That was based on a totally evil act by America and Britain. For over 1000 years, Palestine was home to a people who were Muslim. After the holocaust, the west decided to solve the 'Jewish problem' by giving them a home. However, the homeland was occupied. No problem! The Palestinians were unceremoniously turned into refugees. Naturally the Palestinian's descendents, and other Muslims did not take kindly to this, and they fought back and still fight back. I do not agree that killing innocents is a valid form of freedom fighting, but I definitely understand why they are fighting. Until America addresses this situation, there will be enormous hatred of the USA throughout the Muslim world, and that will translate into terrorist actions against America. There is only one way to ameliorate the problem. America must put intense pressure on Israel to return the conquered territories to Palestine, and establish a truly independent sovereign nation. America must then pour aid into this new nation to get it onto its feet. Such an act will serve to defuse the hatred Muslims feel. Of course, there is no easy fix, and even this will not cause Al Qaeda to disappear, or to stop Iran developing the bomb. However, it is a really good start. One thing that the USA should have learned by now is that aggression begets aggression. 650,000 Iraqis are now dead as a direct result of the Iraq war. Three times the number that Saddam killed, and in a much shorter time period. Al Qaeda will strike again. More Americans will die. Self defense is justified. Wars of invasion are not. And they bring retribution, even to superpowers. __________________

Pangloss said : The comment you made that I was responding to was that we are ourselves to blame for 9/11. That's a crock and I called you on it, Please READ my postings before you attack comments that I actually did not make. What I actually said was that it is understandable why Muslims hate the US. I did NOT say you are to blame for 9/11. As I went to some pains to point out, that was the result of action by some thoroughly evil gangsters. I am not anti-American. I have visited your country twice and enjoyed the people and their wonderful hospitality. I want to point out, though, the mistakes your administration has made in the past, and the terrible consequences of such action. Bush junior is the epitome of the unthinking OR uncaring OR just plain stupid leader, who causes enormous harm. America, by virtue of the immense power it wields, must be equally immensely responsible in its actions. And it is not. Dr. Dalek said : Let me pop you a quick question though, how many of those deaths were terrorists. (not just Al Qaeda) Actually, very few. The report of 650,000 deaths in Iraq as a consequence of the invasion was referring mostly to deaths of Iraqis killed by other Iraqis as a result of sectarian hatred. This hatred has always been there, but held in check by the previous government. Saddm Hussein is an evil bastard, but he was an effective leader. When his government fell, it released pent up rage. Of course, there was a terrible snowball effect. Sunni Muslims who tried to attack the new US led government, killed a lot of Shiites. The Shiites, however, were now a majority in the new police and military. They retaliated. A terrible escalation of hatred and death resulted.

I have been away on a business trip for the last little while and have just seen Pangloss's reply to my posting. Clearly I must respond. Pangloss said : And what war of invasion did the United States commit that brought about the "retribution" of 9/11? That's just closed-minded, ideological nonsense. And you have NO business quoting a great man like Martin Luther King, Jr., who would NEVER have tried to make two wrongs a right as you have. First. I did not quote Martin Luther King. Re-read my posting. Second. 9/11 was not an act of war. Al Qaeda is not a nation and cannot wage war. They do not have the resources for a start. 9/11 instead, was an act of gangsterism. It was a vicious, evil, monstrous act by a bunch of small time, vicious, evil and monstrous gangsters. Al Qaeda is the moral equivalent of the mafia. And they need to be treated as we treat the mafia. As a bunch of criminals. In other words, police actions resulting in arrest and punishment. An international force of police needed to be set up to chase them down. Not military invasion. The invasion of Iraq, on the other hand, had nothing to do with 9/11. Iraq was not sheltering terrorists. There are vastly more (new) Al Qaeda members in Iraq today than there were before the invasion. Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, and no agenda to attack America. True, Saddam Hussein is an evil bastard. But there are heaps of evil bastards in the world today, leading nations, and performing terrible acts. eg. Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe. And the USA is not invading any of them! No, the invasion of Iraq was an idiotic act by a moronic administration, for entirely the wrong motives. Oil and politics were the reasons. Not humanitarian or security considerations. And the situation now in Iraq is absolutely ghastly. It is like Viet Nam, with deaths on a massive scale. Mostly Iraqi killing Iraqi, but that would not have happened without the invasion. And as far as the USA is concerned, the invasion of Iraq has made the world a more dangerous place, and created less security for America than if Saddam had been left in place. I find myself puzzling about who is the most evil man. Osama bin Laden, or President George Bush. Bush's orders have led to the deaths of 100 people for every death resulting from Al Qaeda action.