Sally, your lack of facts and details is indicative of your ideology. What did the media do or say exactly? How many times did they say it?

I believe that if you actually read the Constitution that you would find that "treaties" become part of the laws of this country. It is why Native Americans can hunt and fish outside of the states laws.

Conservatives arguing for moral relativism: sounds about right.

"but digriz, if we invade Canada where will all the Vietnam era CO's move to?"
-
Quebec. We only want Ontario.

"Since you reference the UN in this case, are you also willing to do so when their "ruling" is contrary to your opinion?"
-
Of course. My opinion is that it was utterly stupid for us to do so. I also think it was legal to start shooting again. As far as invading their country and trying to set up a Western-type democracy.......waste of time. The only thing that is a bigger waste of time and lives is trying to do the same thing here in Afghanistan. It will never work here. There are hundreds of years of history to back that assertion up. In order to have a democratic government that works, you have to have a national identity. This country will never have that.

"As someone once said to me, "What part of illegal don`t you understand?"
+
And I was referring to the laws that govern this nation, not the laws of another country, is that too hard for you to understand?
+
"So we expect the rest of the world to be law abiding, but we don`t have to."
+
We abide by our laws, they abide by theirs. When they make the mistake of causing harm to this country then they should always be made to pay the price. Inflict more damage on them than they want to incur and they will learn to leave you alone. This bogus idea of being the nice guy doesn't work. We should have learned this by now.

but digriz, if we invade Canada where will all the Vietnam era CO's move to?

Sorry pharm...you got in there first..I was referring to Griz.

My opinion is based on reading 1441. They, obviously, are not going to be making a "ruling", or they would have done so before this.

Since you reference the UN in this case, are you also willing to do so when their "ruling" is contrary to your opinion?

I believe I stated it was my opinion. I am not advocating taking to the US to trial, and obviously the UN is not, after 6 years, in a hurry to do so either. The question I raised was because someone mentioned Resolution 1441 as a reason we could legally invade Iraq, and I`m saying that was wrong. Under 1441 we could not invade unless the Security Council voted on it, but we did anyway.

The only thing said or done relating to the UN on the subject of the legality of invading Iraq was a "statement of opinion" by Kofi Annan. The United Nations itself has not decided yet whether it was or was not illegal in their eyes, and have not made an official statement to that effect. Therefore, any statement about it being illegal or not on these comment boards is an opinion, and only an opinion.

So we expect the rest of the world to be law abiding, but we don`t have to. That is the mark of a bully, not a great country. As someone once said to me, "What part of illegal don`t you understand?" If we did something illegal, it doesn`t count because we are too big to argue with, right?

I believe in the rules of law that govern this country , not any law of a foreign country having jurisdiction over this nation. I don't believe that the founding fathers intended for us to be liable to any foreign power, or, maybe people like you just think that they forgot to include that in the declaration of independence.

If it is proven we broke the law. Don`t you believe in "The Rule Of Law?"

"The World Court in The Hague, Netherlands, if they choose to do so."
+
And you feel, we, as a sovereign nation should capitulate to a foreign court? You have to be kidding! Unbelievable that a citizen of this country would think we should allow a foreign court of any kind to have jurisdiction over this nation.

The World Court in The Hague, Netherlands, if they choose to do so.

"If you want to act as a sovereign nation, don`t join the UN."
+
For once I will agree with your comment. We should get out of the UN and give them the boot.
+
"and then we illegally(according to the UN) invaded."
+
According to the UN says it all. They said it was "illegal". I wonder when they will bring their case to court? I'll ask the question again, where is that court and where is the law that stipulates what constitutes an "illegal" war?

"Right Andre - we should be able to invade other countries at will. How 'bout Canada - I heard they have WMD's there.:
+
Who said anything about at will? What a dumb response to the questions asked, but I suppose it was to be expected. How many times do you democrats have to be reminded about the WMD comments made by democrats?
+
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnjcofMFH...

If you want to act as a sovereign nation, don`t join the UN. We signed Resolution 1441 that said we couldn`t invade without a Security Council vote, and then we illegally(according to the UN) invaded. The IAEA obviously did a great job, everything they said was true.

Yeah......threat, physically and economically....Physical = Pacific fleet and U.S. Possessions. Economic = Oil embargo,etc. You are singing to the choir if you're trying to teach me something. I've been studying military history since I was five....and am an autodidactic expert on the U.S. military conflicts.

> [Japan] didn't think they could win, either. They were banking on us suing for peace.

Now, that is a very interesting premise that I have not heard before.

Japan by the end of 1941 had already taken all of Korea, NE China, the entire SE Asian peninsula, and many archipelagos in the western Pacific. Further, they were in the process of attacking the Philippines, Burma, Outer Mongolia, and parts of the eastern Soviet Union (with a number of echoes to the both the Russo-Japanese War and the First Sino-Japanese War). The Empire of Japan had secured many industrial sites in China, enslaved much of the captured population, and had secured significant sources of oil and other raw materials.

The huge exception to this was the oil embargo that the United States had levied against Japan. This in fact was the one of the main points of negotiation between Japanese Ambassador Kichisaburō Nomura and Secretary of State Cordell Hull.

It has been my reading that one of the reasons the Imperial Command decided to attack was that it was believed that we were inferior racially and that we would be unable to act with united resolve. The other reason is that without the Pacific Fleet we would be unable to project power into the Pacific and that we might therefore lift the oil embargo.

I note that an invasion of Australia was unlikely and an invasion of the United States west coast had been completely ruled out.

The destruction of the U.S. Pacific Fleet should have taken away the last remaining major obstacle to Japanese dominance in the Pacific. Japan grossly miscalculated how quickly the United States would rebuild, rearm, and increase troop strength.

The other miscalculation (on both Germany and Japan's parts) was how much more technologically advanced we had become during the 1930s. Radio, radar, advances in aviation, etc. allowed us to conjure up both offensive and defensive weapons systems that were superior to either enemies' and prevented the kind of stalemate seen in WWI.

The problem is that too often Islam is confused with tribalism. Much of what is called Islam is really a more modern version of tribalism.

Personally, I don't agree that it is their first amendment right. You have no right to lie and deceive people which is what they are doing by first proclaiming themselves as Christians and then by saying that Islam is of the devil. Do they have the devil as a witness to testify to their claim? If they don't, then it is a lie and they should be arrested for fraud or sued for deceptive practices.

Pharm wrote - "The IAEA was in Iraq, doing their job because Saddam let them in, overruling the rest of the government."
-
You have no idea how dictatorships work, Do you, Pharm?.....
-
Government Official: "Saddam, we demand that the inspectors be kept out!!"
-
Saddam: "What do you mean we?"
-
Government Official: "Well, I demand it!"
-
BANG!! BANG BANG BANG!!! (sound of pistol firing)
-
Saddam: "Achmed, please remove the body of this traitor and dispose of it..."

- Just an insight based on Andre's last comment for further thought - Japan attacked us in 1941 because we were a threat, both physically and economically. They didn't ask anyone for permission. They didn't think they could win, either. They were banking on us suing for peace.

"we should be able to invade other countries at will. How 'bout Canada - I heard they have WMD's there."
-
That's actually one of my old ideas. The Wisconsin Army National Guard should invade the Upper Penninsula and take that back from Michigan. It used to be ours, and we should get it back. Then, we use da Yooper to launch an amphibious assault on Ontario (so we don't have to go through Minnesota - ickky there....) and seize it. It does not have WMD's, but it has the best Walleye fishing in North America, and I'm sick and tired of the Canucks taking us to the bank whenever Americans want to fish those waters. We should take Ontario, at least. They can have the rest. Just the 32nd Bde. could conquer Canada, but let's not be greedy.

"It has been mentioned here that UN Resolution 1441 gave the US permission to invade,"
-
I don't know who said that, but let's get some things straight, I know what I said, and in line with that, refer to U.N. Resolutions 660 of 2 August 1990, 661 of 6 August 1990, 662 of 9 August 1990, 664 of 18 August 1990, 665 of 25 August 1990, 666 of 13 September 1990, 667 of 16 September 1990, 669 of 24 September 1990, 670 of 25 September 1990, 674 of 29 October 1990, 677 of 28 November 1990, 678 of 29 November 1990 and 686 of 2 March 1991, and 687 which specifically stated " Affirms all thirteen resolutions noted above, except as expressly changed below to achieve the goals of this resolution, including a formal cease-fire" (if you doubt it, check the UN website...)
-
The Iraqi government failed to comply with all thirteen resolutions noted above, thus negating the formal cease-fire agreement contingent upon them and them alone. Invading Iraq was consequently legal because of this. Stupid, IMO, but legal. No further discussion on legality is required. It was legal. As far as MORALITY is concerned, that's an entirely different can of worms.
-
Before some idiot says something stupid like "well then why didn't we invade Iraq in 1991?? - I'll tell you, because the U.N. wouldn't allow it then either!!" Well, we DID invade Iraq in 1991. The sweeping left hook went hundreds of miles into the sovereign country of Iraq, and was entirely sanctioned by the coalition and the U.N. Nuff said.
-
1441 related to the search for WMD. POTUS 43 used that as an excuse in his PR campaign to invade, and as I have said before, that was stupid, since prior resolutions regarding the suspension of hostilities following the Persian Gulf War gave ANY COALITION power that participated in that war carte blanche to begin firing again. When 43 was making the case, I remember making comments such as "What about the cease-fire, you idiot!!!" I still don't know what made Powell stop us in '91. Because we were kicking the crap out of them?? Oh, I remember why - because Powell was being the politico wimp that he was..... that's why.

Right Andre - we should be able to invade other countries at will. How 'bout Canada - I heard they have WMD's there.

And just what is a "legal" war? Who do you have to get permission from to engage in a "legal" war? What "court" do you have to go to receive a judgment that allows you to proceed with a "legal" war. This country is a sovereign nation, so far, and should make its own decisions about going to war or not. Asking permission, what a joke.

I will state my personal opinion, backed by facts, that the invasion in 2003 was "illegal." It has been mentioned here that UN Resolution 1441 gave the US permission to invade, it absolutely did not! The Resolution specifically states that if Iraq did not comply, the UN Security Council would have to act before any war was commenced. The IAEA was in Iraq, doing their job because Saddam let them in, overruling the rest of the government. Twelve days before we invaded, the IAEA gave a presentation to the UN rebuking all the charges put forward by the US, no WMD`s, no aluminum tubes for reactors, no yellow cake from Niger, no mobile chemical labs, etc. Even after torturing captured Al Queda members, no link between 9-11 and Iraq could be proven, because there was none. The US knew they couldn`t get nine votes in the Security Council, so they didn`t even ask, they invaded anyway.

joeflint; you are correct in saying that I chose the wrong word when I used trumped - it would have actually just been a secondary document justifying our actions.

Also agree with the two centuries of jurisprudence and legal thought that DiGriz laid out: that the Executive, under certain conditions such as imminent threat, has the power to act -- that is after all why the President is the C-in-C and not, say, the Speaker of the House.

I was merely expostulating on why some believe that the Iraq War is "illegal" and that I was not stating my personal opinion. I thought that was clear but apparently not.

For the most part I agree with DiGriz's assessment that the latest Iraq War was the long sought (in some circles) mop up of the Gulf War.

I have to say that I am more than a little surprised to see an argument stating that a UN resolution 'trumps' a US legal instrument. I was of the notion that most people placed American sovereignty and freedom of action above that of UN approval.

"The school year started off with an unpleasant bang in Gainesville, Fla., when a fifth-grader showed up on the first day wearing a T-shirt with “Islam is of the Devil” inscribed on the back."
-
Getting back on track, kinda, I think the above sentence is stupid. My momma say dat FOOSBALL is da Devil!!!

"Some argue that Congress has to some degree abdicated to the Executive branch its role and responsibility to make war;"
-
Which would indicate a lack of understanding on their part of what powers the executive and legislative branches actually have as they pertain to waging war or escalating conflicts in accordance with the War Powers Clause of the Constitution, The War Powers Resolution of 1973, the joint resolution in 2001, and the text of the constitution itself.
-
The structure and history of the Constitution establish that the founding fathers entrusted the President with the primary responsibility, and therefore the power, to use military force in situations of emergency, to execute the laws, and to use military force in response to threats to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.
-
During the period leading up to the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, the power to initiate hostilities and to control the escalation of conflict had been long understood to rest in the hands of the executive branch.

TOHI (tired of hearing it) is correct.
-
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The Invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism - directly. Oh, I know that's not how it was portrayed by the idiots in Washington. I think the whole thing played that way because 43 didn't want it to seem like he was finishing what 41 started. There's no other way to explain the abject stupidity of it when the UN gave the U.S. and any other coalition country carte blanche to resume hostilities. Anyway, the invasion of Iraq was a direct result of the Persian Gulf War. The Persian Gulf War was the baby of the Iran-Iraq War. No terrorism was involved. It was all over the price of a barrel of oil, in that Saddam needed the price high so that he could pay off his war debts and get his people's standard of living back up to where they "loved" him again. At the Arab League Summit in May of 1990, Hussien railed against the gulf states, Kuwait in particular, for keeping oil prices low, not forgiving his debts, and not providing reconstruction credits to Iraq to help rebuild the country after the war with Iran. Remember, he had an almost million man army at the conclusion of that war, and he couldn't easily reintegrate those men back into civilian life. The economy was devasted, and without outside help, the only way he saw to rebuild was to increase the price of oil. When blackmailing Kuwait into more loans ended with the Kuwaitis refusing to help more, he invaded Kuwait. Simple as that. And the whole time this was going on, the U.S. was sending Saddam mixed signals, like we didn't care what he was doing - that we were "friends."
-
As far as terrorism is concerned, one could argue that the differences between Iraq and Iran led to it's (terrorism) indirect involvement or implication. Saddam's ruling government was comprised of the more secular Sunni's, while 67% of his population was Shiite. He and the the other gulf states GREATLY feared the radical form of Shiite Islam that is Islamic Fundementalism, and the danger of it spreading to Iraq - the same Islamic Fundementalist ideology that lead to the September 11th attack, which pertains to this discussion. So, besides the price of a barrel of oil, Islamic Fundementalism did in fact have a hand in all the fun we are having today, tracing it's roots back to before the Iran-Iraq War. If Saddam would not have been so scared of it, besides the Arab-Persian animosity factor, he may never have attacked Iran, would never have needed oil prices high to rebuild his economy, may never have invaded Kuwait, which would have not made it necessary for us to get involved with removing him from that country, etc. etc. etc......
-
It's a vicious circle, isn't it? Oil and Religion. Alone, or mixed, they lead to war, death, and destruction. With religion, so it has been since the beginning of "civilization."

joeflint; Grant it the arguement could be made to the applicability of the AUMF based upon "facts" at the time. However, it would be trumped by the UN resolutions anyway thereby legalizing the actions taken by this & other countries.
Was the Korean War, Vietnam, Panama, Somalia, Gulf War all "illegal" then too? (just to name a few). So for any military action - in your mind - we are to convene Congress & Declare War before we attack anyone, liberate a country or people or defend ourselves?

> The Bible says the greatest holocaust ever will be brought forth through be-headings...

No, it does not.

However, even if it were true, it would most certainly be referring to the beheading of John the Baptist before the figurative holocaust (*) offering of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.

(*) holocaust: a Jewish sacrificial offering that is burned completely on an altar

I suspect by "illegal" he is referring to the fact that there has not been a _formal_ Declaration of War since WWII.

Some argue that Congress has to some degree abdicated to the Executive branch its role and responsibility to make war; however, that body wrote and passed the AUMF (Authorization to Use Military Force) which states, in part, "To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States...." referring of course to 9/11.

Now, there is the heart of the matter.

Some argue that since Iraq has been shown conclusively to have played no role in the 9/11 attack (yes, this is a fact), the AUMF is invalid as a legal instrument permitting the invasion and occupation of Iraq. This is debatable but likely would not hold in court as (true or false, misled or otherwise), the military acted in good faith under the orders and guidance of the civilian leadership to engage. The civilian leadership of the time would certainly argue that the intelligence available to them (true or false) illustrated a conclusive link. In fact, the defense would rely on Colin Powell's open presentation to the United Nations. One would have a very difficult time indeed to first prove perjury beyond a reasonable doubt regarding the intelligence to even establish a claim to a court that the AUMF does not apply to Iraq.

In short: the legality of the Iraq War will remain unassailable until history books are written several generations from now.

To my knowledge, there is no argument about the applicability of the AUMF in regards to Afghanistan; sadly, I would not be surprised to be shown otherwise.

proartist;Ironically, no one can prove a negative (as in "keeping us safe" from something which hasn't happened).
***
Actually we Can prove a negative - What is the date on the last classified CIA or FBI file your looking at? Thats right, YOU dont have one so you really dont know the threats.
We can however work this backwards - you & Sally continually bash US policy & inform us of all the wrong's that the Bush policies have done in the world - "In our supposed self-defense, the US has become it's own worst enemy - the global terrorist." ---- If this is true, do you really think out of every country, terrorist group etc. there is not 1 that planned another attack of some kind on this country in 8 years. If so, you really are in la-la land.
Also - if you dont like that answer, how about this one. Obama campained on the ending of the Iraq war & Afganistan yet we are still in both with one now surging - Did you ever think HE now reads these reports & gets briefings on things way above your paygrade and comes to the conclusion that the threat is real or is he "lying" too?
***
"I do not now, nor ever, endorse xenocentric invasions and illegal wars no matter who begins or continues them." - Define illegal would you please? We had EVERY right (weather you or I agreed with it) to go into Iraq - ever heard of UN resolutions - read up on resolution 1441 in particular - it was passed by a vote of 15-0 by the Security Council which is represented by countries like France, China & ARAB countries like Syria!
OR
If your referring to Afganistan - maybe you missed this but WE WERE ATTACKED - and we are completely within our LEGAL rights to do what we are doing now & then - even if YOU dont agree with it, so get over it!

"proartist": is that a green swastika flag flying over your front door? *********************************************** You must be disappointed that our Dear Leader and prophet/messiah Obama is such a failure (see POLITICO article Sept 15 by Jeremy Lott: "So Far, Obama's Failing Miserably") and your lapdog media is the least trusted in 20 years! See PEW RESEARCH article Sept 13: "Press Accuracy Rating Hits Two Decade Low"). **********************************************
Hundreds of thousands march against your Dear Leader, his minions and henchmen; ACORN is self-destructing with advising pimps and prostitutes; Obama policies have exacerbated unemployment and increased the deficit far more than your bogey-man Bush AND now the Afghan war and the Iraqi war are Obama's wars and "the big fool keeps pushing on..." *************************************************************************************
Feel like a good cry!?!

The Bible says the greatest holocaust ever will be brought forth through be-headings...

WHAT BS. If a kid wore a shirt saying Jesus is of the devil, what would happen then?
Bash The Bible and Christianity all you want, heck, let's eradicate Israel, but leave the poor Islam religion alone. Hypocrites.

The 10% (hatred) wouldn't even have to contain threats. It would subsume the 90% of nice. It would be a horrible situation.

Islam has bypassed 1400 years of civilization.

If amongst the 10% of the hatred is a threat of violence or murder, I will prepare for the worst, but otherwise let my good nature prevail and hope for the best, with due mistrust. Common sense. It pays to prepare for the worst while hoping for the best. History has shown that just hoping for the best gets you killed, at times even after you've prepared for it. Just ask the Polish or Belgians....
-
What's next, Zen philosophical quotes? Gandi?

If 90% of what your neighbor says to you is nice, but the other 10% is pure hatred, which of his statements is going to rule your opinion of him?

sarahb1, you can't rest a case that you never had. Typical liberal elitist know it all.

Are all muslims bent on killing all the infidels of the world? No, I'm sure they all are not. Like any other religion, there are the devout, the fanatics, and those who are "appearances only." Saudi Arabia, for example, is supposed to be the most conservative Islamic country. Oh yeah? Go stand by the entrance to the bridge that goes to Bahrain some time, and look at the plates of the cars that pass by. For those who don't know, Bahrain is the Vegas of the Middle East. Booze, brothels, gambling. The Saudis, for the most part, are hypocrites. Kuwaiti's too. Heck, they all are at one time or another, when no one is looking. They are just as human as you and me when it comes down to it.
Anyway, it does not matter whether or not all muslims are bent on ridding the world of anything non-Islam. All it would take is one polarizing event, a "Pearl Harbor," and the ones who are liberal and moderate now would jump on the bandwagon. All it took for WWII were similar conditions. Fanatical leaders, an axe to grind, nationalistic fervor (just like Islamic fundementalism in nature), disgruntled masses. We balance right now on the edge of a knife.
-
When it comes down to it. All we can do is try to defend ourselves. There is no way to stop what creates the symptoms, because you would have to change human nature, itself.

One could not expect to ever see a headline such as "Bashing Infidels: A dangerous Sign of the Times" on the front page of Al Nashra.
-
Just an observation. It would never happen.

"remember our nation's mainland was FIRST ATTACKED DURING Bush's term in spite of being forewarned by the previous Clinton administration of an impending situation."
-
Now wait a minute!! Don't start giving Slick Willie any credit for stopping terrorism, or Al Queda!! He could have had Bin Hidin' handed over on a silver platter, knew he was dangerous, and did nothing because he didn't want to hurt anyone's feelings. I think that the U.S. has hurt QUITE a few feelings since then. As a result, and one that pisses me off to no end, I'm one of the people sitting in Afghanistan as a target right now, so don't start spouting off all the ficticious accolades of the "Can't get my fly unzipped fast enough, huhuhuhuhuhuhu" administration." From a purely objective view, since the Republican party is not my party, Clinton was a HORRIBLE President, poor role model, and did more harm to our country than good.

Well said, partarican1

tiredofhearingit - "So which is it "the man" or the tactics in which we fight global terror?"..... Ironically, no one can prove a negative (as in "keeping us safe" from something which hasn't happened). I merely pointed out that those who would condemn Obama now are being a bit sanctimonious and have incredibly short memories of the past Administration. In our supposed self-defense, the US has become it's own worst enemy - the global terrorist. I do not now, nor ever, endorse xenocentric invasions and illegal wars no matter who begins or continues them.

This just proves that religion is a business. Businesses compete with one another. Granted Pepsi would never get away with saying "Coke is of the Devil". Seems like there should be an anti-defamation lawsuit opportunity in there somewhere.

proartist;spin at its finest - and HOW exactly is he keeping us "safe" - by continuing the very same programs the the Bush Admin has used for years & which by the way, you condone almost everyday on these posts. So which is it "the man" or the tactics in which we fight global terror?

One word besides Islam - Palestine.

This article isn't about which religion is right or wrong. It is about breeding hatred for people different from themselves-xenophobia. Not all Islamic people are terrorists, and not all Catholic priests are child molesters. It is unfortuante that anyone has to die in the "name of the lord", and that some cannot see beyond their fear of others. Plenty of people who claim to be Christians are killing people right here in America because they are not caucasian or heterosexual. How is this any different from the terrorists who attacked the towers? There are gangs ruling the streets in many major US cities. How are they any different from other terrorists? As for the t-shirts: very poor judgement, in my opinion.

It begins thus:

Further, the violence seen in the modern Middle East and Central Asia has numerous -- by no means all -- root causes outside of Islam...

Which one joe flint?

> Now, not so much because Obama and the lefties would rather free all the terorists

Really?

Name one tried and convicted 9/11 terrorist that has been freed.

Name one tried and convicted Gitmo detainee that has been freed.

Is Richard "shoe bomber" Reid free?

Is Zacarias Moussaoui (9/11 plotter) free?

Is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (various charges) free?

Is Timothy McVeigh (OKC Murrah Building bomber) free?

Your ideological feelings blind you from the facts.

vatoloco....REMEMBER The Obama Admin has kept the United States "safe" from attack the SAME amount of time as the Bush Admin kept our country safe. For EVERY day now forward, the Obama Admin will have kept our country "safe" THAT MUCH LONGER. What is more important to remember than the time we've been "safe", is to remember our nation's mainland was FIRST ATTACKED DURING Bush's term in spite of being forewarned by the previous Clinton administration of an impending situation.

> Remember, these Islamic Facsists attacked us first.

Wrong.

I direct you to one of my several previous posts for this VERY article.

What does everyone think of Obama going around the world and aplogizing for what the U.S. has supposedly done to the Islam world? Remember, these Islamic Facsists attacked us first.
I don't have a problem using tax money to hunt and blow these cowards up so that my famly and I wake up everyday and do what we want. You might bash Bush for whatever reason but I felt safe when Bush in office. Now, not so much because Obama and the lefties would rather free all the terorists because they have feelings and we should not be too mean to them.

To paraphrase Mr. Handy:
-
"I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate, a world without religion. And I can see us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it."

"believe the closes we could ever get is by following what our Founding Fathers outlined as States Rights."
-
Pete - you are confusing what we have now (democracy - mob rule) with a Republic.

> joeflint, that was a typo. 1400 years is correct.

No problem.

My real point was that modern violence in the name of Islam has no connection to the violence during the creation of the Caliphate.

That violent birth, filling the power vacuum left by the collapse of both the Western Roman Empire and the Persian Empire, ended just as suddenly as it began during the reign of Hisham [1] in 723-743, only 100 years after the expansion of Islam. There were of course periods of strictly intra-religious violence during the Medieval era in both the Christian West (e.g. Cathars) and Islamic Asia (e.g. Sunni on Shia) as well as inter-religious violence culminating in the many Crusades.

History and religion might be radically different if Rome and Persia had sought a saner policy along their mutual frontier. Nevertheless, the Islamization of Persia saved some of the knowledge of antiquity and helped spur the Renaissance [2].

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hisham_ibn_...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamizatio...

Religion, christianity or Islam teaches that there is an eternal reward for the faithful, based on books that ask the follower not to questions and filled with passages easily and reasonably interpreted to mean killing the non-believer will get you favor with the one that decides if you get an eternal reward or eternal suffering. Then we wonder why there are fanatics, its because religion encourages fanaticism.

your view IS too narrow

(Ok, I think I got all the typos.)

your view IS to narrow

joeflint, that was a typo. 1400 years is correct.

pete, your view if too narrow. This is a democracy. No one ever said democracy is pretty or perfect. Take the effort to understand how our leaders reflect what we really are. The disappointment that will follow is the disappointment in what we are.

Further, the violence seen in the modern Middle East and Central Asia has numerous -- by no means all -- root causes outside of Islam... just for starters...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_G...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_o...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Man...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Mand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilad_al-Sh...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masjed_Sole...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Irania...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947–1948...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killings_an...

Blah blah law of unintended consequences and all... history is far more complex, interwoven, fascinating than can possibly be painted and there is obviously a direct effect on our present state of affairs.

> Much of the Islamic world is still festering in the violent worldwide theology of about 1600 years ago.

Huh?????? In case your post was not tongue-in-cheek......

Islam has existed for less than 1400 years. [1]

1600 years ago, ca. 400 AD, Rome was sacked for the first time in 800 years [2], the last Christian purge had occurred only a few generations ago [3], far-flung parts of the Empire such as Britain were outright abandoned [4]. By 250 AD it was evident the Empire was collapsing from within and without and much of Europe had decisively fallen into the Medieval period. [5,6]

"This slow decline ... culminated on September 4, 476 when Romulus Augustus, the last Emperor of the Western Roman Empire was deposed by Odoacer, the Visigoth king. ... the Ostrogoths who succeeded considered themselves as upholders of the direct line of Roman traditions ... [and] the Eastern Roman Empire was going from strength to strength and continued until the Fall of Constantinople on May 29, 1453." [7]

Modern scholarship also supports the idea that the rapid spread of Islam occurred due to the power vacuum that developed after many centuries of skirmishes and outright wars that occurred between the Romans and Persians [8].

Meanwhile... on the other end of the Silk Road... [9,10]

Islam, after its conquest of much of northern Africa and southern Asia, continued many traditions of antiquity until the Fall of Baghdad in 1258: "Anywhere from 100,000 to one million inhabitants were massacred and the city was sacked and burned. ... The Grand Library of Baghdad, containing countless precious historical documents and books on subjects ranging from medicine to astronomy, was destroyed. Survivors said that the waters of the Tigris ran black with ink from the enormous quantities of books flung into the river." [11]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam#Histo...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Rom...)
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diocletiani...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_depar...
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_of_t...
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_antiqu...
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_...
[8] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman-Persi...
[9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of...
[10] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of...
[11] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_B...)

(While I have used Wikipedia for citations, I encourage the reading of the source material therein cited. I think that many will find that references 6 and particularly 8 and 11 will challenge some widely held notions about the fall of Rome and the rise of Islam.)

Christianity is still dangerous but it's danger has been diluted by democracy.

Much of the Islamic world is still festering in the violent worldwide theology of about 1600 years ago. Democracy will again be the answer.

andre: LOL! Reread your comment to me; I rest my case.

+1 proartist--I did not click on your link, but I agree w/ you--I have no idea why the Islamic radicals have to hate absolutely everything associated with the west.......

I'm sitting here at 4:20 a.m. in Afghanistan. Just went out to smoke a cigarette and was forced once again to listen to a Muezzin chanting from the mosque outside the wire in one of the villes....and reflect on exactly why I'm here. I'm not really liking Islam right now, not that I ever did.
-
Then the credits: "The War in Afghanistan!" Brought to you in part by our good sponsors at Islam!"

I think this is why Gandhi said "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. "

If he would have known Christians like those in the latter half of the article maybe he would have thought differently.

"This is the world we live in post-9/11, and post Iraq War; a world where for many people, 'the other side' has become so repugnant that nothing seems beneath it. We are no longer interested in understanding the people we disagree with; we just want to defeat them, for the good of the nation."http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/09/911-truth-trutherism-and-truthiness

sarahb1, and it's alright for him to call me a moron? You don't know everything lady, even though you think you do.

andre_linoge: Why are you always so nasty to others commenting? Wouldn't it be better to attack an opinion and not the person? Oh, wait, that is what this columnist is suggesting we do ... (hint-hint).

Nvgrf, you never say anything of substance. Just pointed little comments that do nothing but highlight your ignorance. Anyone that takes the time to read this guys comments will see nothing but little snide remarks, never anything to substantiate what he says or anything to back up his diatribe. Hot air is all you have precinct captain.

All religions need some bashing. How many people don't really believe it but go along for appearances? The fanatics in all religions, they are dangerous people. What next, will our worthless politicians be making it a hate crime to bash a religion?

.....Such as Andre! DiGriz...aw come on. But God was on the side of the Crusaders!

"the church has a Christian duty to expose Islam as a “violent and oppressive religion.”"
-
LOL, as opposed to WHAT???? Say....Catholicism??? Yeah, Catholics never hurt nobody.....

"Lots of ignorant people running the streets these days!"
+
Spoken like a true leader of them.

Lots of ignorant people running the streets these days!

Watch these videos of what muslims in the USA are doing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEPod-hxD...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hPebatL5...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5hIFX...