Isabella

I've recently seen Mel Gibson's movie "Apocalypto" (loved it so much I watched it at least 3-4 times). Amazing direction by Mel Gibson - one of the BEST movies I've ever seen, if not THE best.

Anyway, this movie made me wonder about something.

I know that Native Americans/Indians have lived on American lands (North American and Central American regions) long before white Europeans ever arrived in the Americas. But I do wonder: Where these Native Americans/Indians come from. That is, what is their ancestry, where are their ethnical roots from, etc?

Is the Mayan (and Aztec and Incan) civilization their ancestry? As far as I know (and I am not a big history geek - I always hated history classes), these great civilizations - the Mayas, Aztecs, and Incas - occupied the Central American region (plus Mexico and perhaps the southern-most portion of the US?). Did they occupy southern-most American regions too?

So, if they (the great civilizations) didn't occupy Northern America (i.e. U.S. and Canada), then what is the ancestry of the Native Americans/Indians? Did they arrive in Northern America from Central America, and therefore are the descendants of these great civilizations? Or did they live in Northern America separately from these great civilizations (and at the same time as these civilizations were thriving)? If they were existing separately from the civilizations, did they have their own civilizations here in Northern America? And where did they come from (if they lived separately from the peoples in Central America)?

I don't recall learning anything about it in Junior High, High School, or College. Anybody knows the answers? Perhaps any Native Americans are reading this?

Thanks for any replies

P.S. For some reason, Mel Gibson's movie made me want to learn more about Native Americans, lol .

Sam Livingston

I kinda think the native americans migrated form north areas around canada and alaska, but I could be thinking of something else.

MagpieTear

Sam is correct, the popular consensus is they migrated from Asia, across the Bearing Straight down through North America into South America. The Inca and Maya were actually descended from the American Indians.

Isabella

Oh wow, so that's the other way around! Hmm, very interesting!

So, Native Americans are actually the descendants of Eurasians? How it's all connected, isn't it, lol. First Eurasians (i.e. Native Americans) arrive in Northern America, then they spread to Central and South America? And then, Mayas, Aztecs, and Incas are born out of the Native Americans?

In that case, Columbus didn't meet people who were not connected to Eurpeans and Asians in any way, did he? Because they - in the first place - arrived in Northern America FROM Europe/Asia. The only important factor here is that these Native Americans were THE FIRST peoples to set their foot on - what then was an unoccupied - Northern American land, isn't it?

Which now leads me to see how really cruel it was of the Europeans who arrived in America to treat Native Indians the way they treated them. They were - in fact - harming their own "brothers" so to speak. (Since Native Americans came from Eurasia.) In addition, the Native Americans were the first people to arrive on American soil, so they're really the ones who had the right to this land, not the Europeans. But since Europeans were more "technologically" advanced, they took the land by force. It's sad how it's always the more powerful that win, not those who are the "just" ones.

P.S. This is what I just found in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigen...f_the_Americas

Jim

This is true, but some of the more interesting theories are that the Maya and other south american cultures just too greatly resemble the ancient Egyptians; in more ways than just both having pyramids. Some wonder if VERY ancient Egyptians could have made an ocean crossing, or an even more radical idea: did both originate from a common source: possibly Atlantis?
Whatever the case, I was blown away by Apocalypto. I've always been facinated by the Maya, and even though they could be brutal, Gibson managed to capture both the worst and the best of this amazing culture. It's an amazing movie, an amazing love story, and the sets, make-up and costumes are beyond belief. But if you haven't seen it be warned, this movie is VERY violent, and NOT for the faint of heart...

MagpieTear

Mebbe they were planted by the Fish Aliens!

Isabella

Wow Jim! I just got goose bumps reading your reply, lol. I am so fascinated by the past civilizations. Love all the theories regarding human history But wow, you make such an interesting point!

What do we really know today, right? We really know nothing! All of this is just speculations.

LOL ... yeah . Well, actually, you should read this book Magpie: http://www.amazon.com/Twelfth-Planet...8375911&sr=1-1 - I was so fascinated by this book, I've read it in a few days. Couldn't put it down, lol.

P.S. So ... the Mayans (and all of the Central and South American region) were speaking the same languages as today's Native Americans/Indians do? Because they got Spanish language from the Spaniards in Europe, didn't they?

Dino

I will neither confirm or deny Atlantis.
I will neither confirm or deny why so many ancient cultures used pyramids.

I will state, that just because they did not have current technology, they were by no means less intelligent than modern people.

Isabella

AMEN ! That's exactly what I believe too. I actually consider the Ancients more intelligent than most people are today. Why? We've become so dependent on technology and computers, we expect the computers to do all the mental work for us, epecially when it comes to mathematics and similar sciences. In the past, they didn't have calculators and computers to do the work for them, so they had to use their brains. This way, they trained their minds all the time, while modern people don't. Plus, they had to think all the time about how to build weapons, how to use them, how to build shelter, how to plan so that they are safe and so that they know how to defend themselves in case of an attack, etc. Generally speaking - just how to plan for survival. If you saw "Apocalypto" you've an idea of what I mean. Most people today (especially in the developed and rich countries) do not build their own homes, do not have to worry about security (the military is for that), don't have to biuld weapons, etc. And most importantly, the ancients were so self-sufficient. Individual villages could hunt for and grow their own food, and modern people are mostly dependent on big food corporations for food provision. If there was a major disaster in any of the developed and rich nations today, and there were no food and housing coming from the gov't and from the big corporations, I wonder how all of these city people would survive? Technology and computers - yes they are useful all right, but I think we've become WAY too dependent on them. In fact, we've become so dependent on them that if a major disaster were to hit us, we wouldn't be able to survive on our own. And that's how much smarter the ancients were from the modern day man.

COBettaCouple

The Spainards did most of the wiping out of indigenous populations in the Americas, in the central & southern regions - probably more from disease than soldiers. The British & French took care of the north. The 'natives' probably did come over on the once-existent land bridge between asia and north america, maybe in the same era that europe was being populated.

Yea, they were as intelligent and cruel as the newer wave of people to hit the Americas yet lacked the technology and unity to win.

If something like that happened, I think the vision portrayed in the tv show "Jericho" is about how things would be.. survival of the fittest, dog-eat-dog with the strong surviving off the weak.

Isabella

Dave, the reason we don't see the type of cruelty (as is seen in "Apocalypto") in our everyday lives is that we're totally dependent on our government and on big food and housing corporations for our survival. We've also given up (jn a way) the right to fight and defend oursevles (as the ancients had to do in order to survive) to our government, the military. While the ancients did have their armies to fight for them, etc ... the people still were not as dependent on others (i.e. gov't and food corporations, which didn't exist at the time, lol) for food and basic survival tools. As you can see in the movie, people outside the cities LED completely self-sustaining lives. And once again, they didn't have computers at that time to do their mathematics, physics, astronomy, etc. work. So, yes, we seem "less" violent today but this is only because we've given up our individual powers to the modern government. Plus, with today's weaponry, wars are much quicker and require less effort to be won. You drop one nuke on some city, and you're done. You fire one shot at someone, and he's dead. In the past, all they had were bows and arrows, plus whatever the weaponry they could come up with using natural resources. All of this made them that much more intelligent in fact. If we didn't have our technology and the socio-economic system we have today, we'd be seeing the same amount of physical violence on a daily basis that the ancients saw.

COBettaCouple

yea, with technology the 20th century was the bloodiest yet.

Isabella

Yup, and imagine what happens if there is a full-scale nuclear world war. The ancients will look very mild compared to us today!

COBettaCouple

If we used all the nukes on the planet, we'd all be ancient history & the earth and moon would become a 2nd asteroid belt. And now countries like Iran are getting their hands on nukes. I don't think they'll wait too long to use them. Um.. Dino, how about a ride back to the fish planet?

Isabella

That's true and very scary.

That's why I am against U.S. attacking Iran - because once we do, Iran will go furious and use nukes without hesitation. And that will start off a nuclear war.

But then again, if U.S. has nukes, Iran has the right to have them too. All countries are equal and we, the U.S. are not the "king" of the world. So if we want other countries not to have nukes, we should lead by example and get rid of our own nukes as well. Either all countries have nukes, or no one has them at all.

Jim

I think I can make the arguement that we do have that same cruelity today. It's just not as open or obvious. But you look around carefully: it's all thru the news. Whether or not we like to admit it, Humans (and sapiens in general) are mean, cruel animals. We may try and temper it, but given the right atmosphere and trigger, it's still there. Just look at video games for example... we all complain that they're TOO violent, so why hasn't anything been done? Because violent games are POPULAR!! Why? Because people LIKE violence!
Remember "Gladiator"? Granted, that movie was definitly NOT historically accurate, but there was 1 line a senator made to another about the new Emperor calling for 100 days of games at the collusium. The first senator said it was "...foolish". But the second senator, the smart one, said, "no, it's brilliant. He knows Rome is the mob..." I may not have the quote exact, but think about that, it's SOOO true, even today.
As for a post apocolyptic world, Jerico was good, but I still think we'll end up more like Mad Max, kicking and snarling over the last few drops of gasoline left.

Anyway, I don't think Iran nuking the world will be a problem. The US is to conflicted internally right now to attack them without a political firestorm breaking out, and before we get a chance, Israel will get ****ed at waiting for us and take out their nuke facilities again with a couple precission strikes before they can finish a bomb... I hope.

One last thing, for a good look at how hard it is to survive, watch both "Survivorman" and "Man vs. Wild" on Discovery. It's DEFINITLY harder than it looks just eating every day.

MagpieTear

Yes, we are still a violent, vicious breed. Just look in the poorer sections of large cities, at the gang (pack) mentality, the willingness to commit violent crime, and the other base behaviors. Even the popularity of the reality shows where we secretly hope to see someone fail, or the rubbernecking as we pass an automobile accident (did someone get hurt? Is there blood?) and the various blood and gore websites out there. The veneer of civilization is still brittle and thin. It doesn't take much to expose the wild animal underneath if the person feels threatened or vulnerable.

Jim

Actually, I don't think this is a bad thing. It's just how we evolved. And I am a HUGE fan and admirer of Nietzsche, and those that have read him already know what I mean.
What I think is more dangerous than our "pack mentality" is the huge effort to hide or deny it. We bury the fact that we're animals like the rest of the planet, making up these petty lies to ourselves that we're somehow "above the other animals", somehow "better and more evolved" than the rest. We bottle it up, deny our past and our ancestry, not generations of ancestry, but EONS of it! We hide it away behind our "civalization" until now and then, BOOM, someone explodes, and it all comes out in one ultra-violent episode, like a star going supernove and then dying, taking out everything around it.

Leokiss

Going back to the egyption aztec n myan talk i watched a programme last year called cocaine mummies.In the stomachs of discovered mummies they have found traces of cocaine/opium which at that time could only be found in south america,which posed the question how did it get there? This guy who did the documentry was working on a theory that egyptions traded with south americans and he proved it possible too! In an archeaogical dig somewhere in old egypt a sail boat was discovered. What he did was build one exactly the same, materials everything(it was only snall almost raft like would hold 10-15 men plus some cargo).his theory was ocean currents would take him there and back.So he set out to do it and did it! he set off somewhere on north west africa i think he ended up in venazuala and on returning he ended up about 80 miles away from where he set off. Unbelievable!

Leokiss

I just remembered another docu i watched called genetic eve.I'll try and keep this small,basically our ancestry can now be traced through genetics and the theory claim every person on the planet may have come from around 200-300 people leaving africa all them years ago.I wish i could remember more cos i keep think about the people who stayed in africa.What they said was humans genetically bottlenecked at some point,for example im more genetically closley related to someone in china than maybe two chimps who live in the same forest,hence the bottle neck theory. We humans are supposed to have followed coast lines to europe and out across asia through australasia and they claimed the mauri's of new zealand may have gone on to south america.I think they talked about people returning back into africa.
They actually found a group of people in the indonesia area new to modern man only 30 years or something and they are the most genetically diverse group of people on planet,maybe diverse is wrong word:different.Which suggests they have remained isolated there since just out of africa theory! Anyways i imagine this could all be shot done in flames by another group of scientists as b******t but all the same very interesting and food for thought i would recommend watching it to anyone.

Isabella

Jim and Magpie, I agree with you. We still are wild animals underneath and no matter how much we try to cover that up, the wild animal within us is still there. So I agree on that one. Jim, I take it you understood me as saying there is "less violence today" as there was in the past. That's not what I said. I know there is still -more or less - the same amount of violence going on in the world, but it's less apparent in the more developed/industrialized/richer countries such as the U.S., Canada, Japan, Switzerland, etc ... The reason we see less of it (particularly in the developed regions of the world) is - as I've said before - that we've given up our powers to the military. This doesn't mean there is less violence (even though it's less apparent to an average city dweller of an industrialized/rich nation). Of course there are terrible crimes going on all the time. My point was, these violent bloodsheds were something that the ancients saw on a daily basis right in front of them (including small children that had to watch this). Modern people don't see that much of it with their own eyes on a daily basis. It's simply a shift, generally, in the possesion of power (from the people to the governing authority). The less developed and, so to say, "less civilized" regions of the world such as certain parts of Africa or Asia do have people seeing more violence with their own eyes on a dialy basis; or at least seeing more than an average American, Canadian, or Swiss person will see in their lifetimes.

Leokiss, I did see the program about the "Genetic Eve" on National Geographic a while ago. Wasn't it awsome!? I thought it was so interesting . According to this program, the theory goes that all humanity comes from Africa, from one woman, which they call the "Genetic Eve". If this is all true, imagine that all that is written in the Bible (about Adam and Eve) is actually true. And now - once again - we'd have proof that ancients were as intelligent (if not more intelligent) as the modern humans are today. Leokiss, it also is very interesting what you and Jim have mentioned about the ancient Egyptians travelling to South America. And wow, as this guy you talk about had proved, they actually could make it across the sea! You know, topics like that tend to give me goose bumps, lol. I love pondering what the past of humanity might have been like. Where are we all from? Where does our ancestry come from? How did our fathers travel the earth? Ya know .

Anyway, so if ancient Egyptians did cross the sea to South America, then we have to wonder once again: Who were the Mayas, Incas, and Aztecs descended from? Did they descend from the Native Americans/Indians (who first entered the Americas through the Bering Strait), or did they descend from the ancient Egyptians (who entered the Americas through South America by boat)? Or did these two ethic groups mix together?

P.S. Once again, for all of those who like to read about the ancients, try "The 12th Planet" by Zacharia Sitchin.

COBettaCouple

I think that as soon as they have their nukes working, Iran will move to get them into US or EU cities to set them off, doesn't really matter if we attack them or not. I think we've seen that terrorists don't have a problem with dealing the first blow. Nuking a city like NYC or London would cause way more celebrations over there than 9/11 did.

The UN resolutions on nuclear non-proliferation say Iran doesn't have a right to nukes and I don't see the US as king of the world, but I see a difference between countries like the US and Britain having nukes and countries with radical extremists in control having nukes.
It'd be nice if the US got rid of our nukes but it would only work if everyone else did at the same time and I think it's too late for that, especially countries like China, North Korean, Pakistan, India and Iran having nukes. I don't see those countries giving up their nukes unless they use them on an enemy. Assurance of mutual annihilation may have been the only thing that kept a nuclear war from happening during the cold war. And there's plenty of nukes floating around Russia and the countries once in the soviet union - nobody really knows where every nuke has ended up now.

I don't think we should attack Iran but not out of fear of them using their nukes IF we attack. They will use them as soon as they can. We should get out of Iraq and Afghanistan and let them have their fun killing each other while we get to the business of security for our people here.

And even if all nukes were gone, there's the next generation of mass destruction - extreme viral warfare. A little vial could kill as many people as a nuke without any nasty radiation side effects.. fun, huh?
I don't know, a US where neighboring towns go to war over meager resources sounds a lot like that. Either way, I think the point is that the milk of human kindness would be pretty curdled.
I do hope Isreal takes out the Iranian nukes before they get planted in our cities, but for all we know, they already are. It's not exactly hard to sneak across the US/Mexico border. And I believe the UK has similiar issues.

Isabella

So, it seems Dave, that there is really no way out for humanity. Because if all of the coutries don't get rid of their nuclear weapons, it's just a matter of time before one of them decides to use nukes. And once one of them uses nukes, it will start off a chain reaction - a full scale nuclear world war will begin. We all know it's not a question of "if" but "when" a first nuke (well, first since Hiroshima and Nagasaki) will be used. Though remember Dave, it was us, the U.S. that dropped first nukes on innocent civilian cities. So don't be surprised if it comes back to haunt us. I know it will - like I said, a matter of time.

As you've said, if not nukes, then there's still bio-chemical warfare. So once again, it really does seem like there is no way out for us. The only thing we can count on is the good will of humanity. But the question is ... will humanity be able to show any good will? Looking at our history and how violent we are, I don't think this is very likely. The future looks very grim for us.

And going back to nukes, yes I agree that Iran seems like a country that would be more likely to use nukes first, before U.S. ever decided to. All the countries in that region seem like this. But this still doesn't change the fact, Dave, that it was the U.S. that first dropped nukes on cities full of innocent civilians: women and children. So are we really that much dfifferent from "those perpetrators" in Iran? Don't think so. Do you think all the Arabs like to see the U.S. military on their lands? They think we're occupants. And no country likes to feel "occupied". OF COURSE they're mad as and will want to use the nukes on Israel and on the U.S. if they can. The best solution is for the U.S. to COMPLETELY get out of the Middle East. Leave them alone - that's all they want. And then they'll leave us alone too. If there is a war in the Middle East among themselves - as it is probably bound to happen regardless of the U.S. presence there - then what can we do? If we can't stop this war from happening (though the U.S. gov't apparently thinks it can), why get engaged in it and risk the safety of our own country? It all can be avoided by getting out of there. But getting out of there ... means no oil for Bush (+ other gov't crooks), don't you get it? So he prefers to endanger the safety of his own people so that he can be rich. But I don't want to start this topic again because it makes me very angry.

So anyway, if a nuclear world war is to happen no matter what, then that's all the more reason to get out of there. This way, we may postpone it from happening sooner.

COBettaCouple

well, the decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan was based on the expected time it would take to capture Tokyo and the death toll both to US and Japanese soldiers as well as civilians.. especially after the battle for Iwo Jima. Don't forget, they did ask us to join the war with pearl harbor and were amazingly cruel to prisoners of war - innocents that were butchered. That's the thing about war, it doesn't really bring out the best in anyone, does it? But I don't judge either side in that. It was a different world and we don't know every detail. I can't judge history, I wasn't there and no era can judge another. Mistakes were made on both sides and the US and Japan certainly seem to have forgiven each other - look at the US & Japan now, funny how things change, isn't it?

I'm all for leaving the middle east to blow itself up, but we have leaders there along with terrorists and plenty of radicals happy to blow themselves to mansions full of virgins - who've determined that Israel and the US must be destroyed years and years ago. Without 9/11, there wouldn't have been an excuse for going into Iraq. They'll act on that no matter what we do. That's why I think we should be focused on protecting our population and not over there dying for people who hate us and have vowed to destroy us for decades.

Don't think I don't know the Iraq war is about oil, all politicians want oil money, they just want to say the things to tickle our ears so we'll vote for them.. looking at their voting records tells you that they're all corrupt and happy to go into Iraq after the oil money. I propose we all vote for Ah-nold myself.

We both agree that we should be out of Iraq and that it's about oil. I guess we just disagree on how soon the terrorists will nuke us. We're looking at a family feud 1000s of years old over there, started back in the days of the peoples in the Apocolypto movie. But certainly, it would seem that security here should be a priority to the military, shouldn't it?

jsalemi

I agree, Dave -- I can't join the revisionists who want to say how terrible the US was during WW II to use the atomic bomb. The Japanese, Germans, and Italians killed just as many civilians over the course of the war. And the Germans were working on their own atomic bomb during that period; the only reason they didn't succeed was that they went down the wrong path, trying to use heavy water early on rather than pure uranium (if memory serves). But if they got there first, they wouldn't have hesitated to use it on England, France and the Soviet Union. The US succeeded, and realized they had a weapon that could end the war quicker, so they used it. And the targets were picked because the Japanese had big munitions and weapons-building plants in the downtowns of those two cities. And the end result was that the war ended quicker, without the Allies having to invade Japan.

War isn't clean -- innocent civilians always die in wars. There's no way to avoid that, other than avoiding war in the first place.

COBettaCouple

wouldn't it be nice if we could simply sit down and talk out our differences.. focus on things we have in common. Look at the diverse community of people we have here with a common interest in fish. So sad that human events go so badly focusing on divisions and killing over them. Look back at history and all the wars and death and really, what was it all for - nothing that lasted. "what fools these mortals be"

Jim

I wish we could all just log on and fight it out in a massive online Halo match or something...

Of course the problem therre is I'd kick everyones butts and become the undisputed ruler of the world...

COBettaCouple

unless i hacked in (like Mr. T ) and changed things. Don't worry.. i'll be a benevolent despot.

Isabella

Joe, you may call me a "revisionist", who "wants to show how terrible the U.S. was," if you wish. This wasn't my point however. To me, ANY country whatsoever that decides to use a nuclear bomb on an innocent civilian population is terrible. Any country. And if the U.S. belongs to that group of countries, then what can I do or say? Facts are facts. Just because I am an American, I am not going to close my eyes to the grim truth about what the U.S. government did to those innocent women and children in Japan. This was something that was terribly wrong to do. There is no justification for ANY government of any country to kill innocent women and children for any reason whatsoever. I know that innocent civilians always die during wars, but just because it always happens, doesn't mean it's right. Dropping nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was very wrong. I prefer bitter truth than sweet lies/sugarcoating. That's my opinion, like it or not.

I am 100% sure the Germans would do the same - or any other country in a military conflict with other country/countries would do the same. But that's not my point in this case. The point is ANY country using nuclear weapons on innocent civilians. It's an extremely moral issue.

As I've said before: Yes, innocent civilians always die in wars. But just because it "always" happens, doesn't mean it is right or moral. Killing innocent civilians shows what kinds of conscience the governments that kill them have. Yes, I know Germans and Japanese killed many people before the U.S. dropped the nukes on Japan. Not saying they're "moral" either.

But just think about the kind of effect that nuclear weapons have not only on those people who were in direct contact with the bomb and had to die horrible deaths, but also on those who were not even in direct contact with the bomb (all the secondary effects that follow); not to mention the destruction of the environment. That's why using nukes makes it so immoral for any country. Nukes obliterate the meaning of "war". They're not "war" anymore. If there is a nuclear war, this will put all wars to an end, as there will be no people left to fight any other wars (after the nuclear war).

Using standard military weapons (i.e. those with no radioactive elements used) is VERY differernt from using nuclear weapons. People have been fighting forever using regular weapons. With a regular weapon, you don't destroy the environment, you don't eradicate an entire population at once, the person you kill will usually die from some singular wound or so, there is not that much physical suffering (death is usually quick), and by killing one person no one will die some "secondary" death as a result of radiation. With nuclear weapons, not only do those in direct contact with the bomb die gruesome and most horrible possibly imaginable deaths, but those who weren't even in contact with the bomb will die horrible deaths in forms of horrible diseases due to radiation. And that's what does indeed make U.S. "terrible" because of what we did to those innocent civilians. If you're at war, OK, go ahead, use normal weapons, but not nukes for God's sake. No innocent child and woman ever deserves to die such horrible death. Would you want your wife or children to die in such tortures? It's always easy to say "Ahh ... civilians always die in wars" unless something like that actually happens to you and those you love. Did you ever watch any program that shows what was happening to the Japanese affected by radiation? Did you ever read any book about what nuclear weaposn do to humanity and to Earth? Do it and you'll see what I mean.

Everyone, PLEASE read the book "The Fate of the Earth and the Abolition" by Jonathan Schell. After you're done with it, you'll know why it is so immoral and cruel for ANY country (including the U.S.) to use nukes.

sirdarksol

Wow, all of this from Apocalypto....

I'm only going to respond to a few things that caught my eye, as I'm coming into the discussion late.

First of all, I agree with Isabella, the use of nuclear weapons is unconscionable. The damage to humanity, both physically and spiritually/emotionally, is staggering. While I likely owe my life to the use of atomic bombs in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, as does one of my best friends, I still find the acts horrifying. It is not possible to efficiently use nukes against "hard" targets, since these targets are usually spread out. Using a nuke to take out a single military base is relatively pointless. So instead, nuclear weapons are used against highly populated areas, murdering civilians, the workforce of a population. These areas are then poisoned for years afterward. This is no better than Germany bombing European cities, or, looking back into history, Nobunaga Oda burning entire cities to take the will from opposing armies.

As far as Iran sneaking a nuke into New York City, I would like to point out that there are far easier ways to destroy the country. It has been said that an aerosol dispenser attached to the bottom of a taxi cab would run all day without being discovered. Fill said dispenser with the contaminant of your choice, spend time near the airport, and you'll deal a devastating blow to the country. Even something as simple as influenza could be crippling. The country loses billions of dollars a year to people "working ill". What if half of the country was ill at the same time?
The fact that they haven't done so suggests that they are not as powerful as they want us to think they are (here's a scary thought, our own government also wants us to believe the terrorists are more powerful than they really are. We're doing the terrorists' work for them). The resources and planning burned in the September 11 attacks was massive, and the actual physical impact was relatively small, as far as acts of war go. The true impact was the emotional harm done to the entire country, making us feel as though these were extremely powerful people. Of course, they didn't study their history, or they would have known that the US reacts to every threat with war.

The discussion about the inevitability of nuclear war is why I want to slap the president of Russia for complaining that the US is developing an anti-missile system. We're worrying about what defensive measures the countries are taking rather than the offensive measures. I don't know about any of you, but I'd far prefer a country to have a near-perfect anti-missile system than a single deployable nuclear weapon.
Aside from that, I don't believe that any war is unavoidable, we just are choosing to not take the steps to block such a war. We nearly went to war with North Korea recently. Our illustrious president would have us believe that this is merely because Kim Jong Il is an evil man, and he's partly right. I believe that Il is evil. However, Il had lost nearly all of his power to make war prior to Bush's time in office, because the US had been working to turn the country's nuclear weapons capacity into nuclear power capacity.
You see, dictators like Kim Jong Il can only remain in power while their people remain uneducated and/or uncomfortable. This is how they retain a stranglehold on the populace. They promise that they will make things better, while using military force to exploit their mentally/physically weak civilians. So when we brought electricity to the people of North Korea, they became able to mass-produce food and other amenities, and did not feel like it was necessary to go to war.
Enter the inarticulate, hot-headed president, and all of that goes out the window. He makes fun of Kim Jong Il and pulls all US support for affecting changes to North Korea's nuclear programs. Seven years later, he decides that maybe we should help them out, so he gets a plan for them to develop electricity. "That's good," you might think, but here's the kicker. This system uses oil. So billions of dollars are being spent to set up a system that will likely never be economically efficient because of the rising oil prices.

The situation might not be so clean in Iran, but there is a way to do it without war. It may not be easy to see. In fact, from our current point of view, we may be unable to see it, but it's there.