http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7303985.stm

- I'm very interested on posterity and its perception of historic events, so I enjoyed this article.

Even if America "wins" in the end, ie.. pulls out after having enacted a regime change, it can never - really - claim a victory in Iraq.

For a Great Power like America, it will undoubtedly go down much like Britain's first Afghan War, starkly revealing to the world the limits its power. The sinews of war, both men and money, continuously stretched to breaking point while discontent boils at home and victory on the battlefield is consistently phyrric.

Perhaps had America possessed the set-up and personnel it currently employes in Iraq, it may have been different from the beginning. But then perhaps the local forces such as Islamic radicalism and hostile nationalism would have always overcome any concerted, positive and efficient effort on behalf of America and its allies.

Regardless, an interesting perspective on the current conflict.

I know. This is obvious to even a casual student of history.

Unfortunately, too many in this country have been blinded by Jingoism to see the reality of the situation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7303985.stm

- I'm very interested on posterity and its perception of historic events, so I enjoyed this article.

Even if America "wins" in the end, ie.. pulls out after having enacted a regime change, it can never - really - claim a victory in Iraq.

For a Great Power like America, it will undoubtedly go down much like Britain's first Afghan War, starkly revealing to the world the limits its power. The sinews of war, both men and money, continuously stretched to breaking point while discontent boils at home and victory on the battlefield is consistently phyrric.

Perhaps had America possessed the set-up and personnel it currently employes in Iraq, it may have been different from the beginning. But then perhaps the local forces such as Islamic radicalism and hostile nationalism would have always overcome any concerted, positive and efficient effort on behalf of America and its allies.

Regardless, an interesting perspective on the current conflict.

The limits of our power were revealed long ago in a place called Vietnam.

But some in our government lacked the "hands on" experience and were grossly misinformed as to why our power is limited. They either forgot or simply ignored the lessons of that time.

The limits of our power were revealed long ago in a place called Vietnam.

But some in our government lacked the "hands on" experience and were grossly misinformed as to why our power is limited. They either forgot or simply ignored the lessons of that time.

It has been an ongoing trait of this Presidency to ignore anything that does not support or further the preferred Presidential view and goals.

* Saddam has WMD's
* 'Mission Accomplished'
* You're doing a great job, Brownie.
* Unemployment is down
* Our economy is strong

One can only imagine what might have been different in this country had we continued the attack and pursuit of OBL in Afghan and spent just a third of the balance of that wasted money domestically instead of pursuing a vendetta against the man who tried to kill Dubya's daddy.

There is no winning a war that does not have definable goals to determine the success.

"They either forgot or simply ignored the lessons of that time."

Greed will do that. The thing that intrigues me is who are the 27% that still approve of this president and who can they pool enough brain power to keep breathing.:devil

‘We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.’Oh well.

‘We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.’

Unless it costs 3 trillion dollars....

Well, it is the tax payers paying the price, and the families and friends of those serving and giving the ultimate that are bearing the burden, and the lower and middle classes that are having to strive to overcome the hardships that have resulted, and rather than support a potential friend which Iran was attempting to be when they offered to work with the U.S. against the Taliban we rebuffed them, and rather than oppose the foes who were killing our troops and planting bombs we are arming and training them to work alongside us against their countrymen and occasionally having them turn their weapons on our troops, and the survival and success of liberty in our country has never been in such danger as that which the Bush/Cheney administration has conjured with their terrible stewardship of the nation, and it's alliances.

Oh well did not seem to suffice, Akipt.

‘We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.’

Didn't you hear, the current administration has their version of JFK's speech:

You shall pay any price, bear my burden, meet my concocted hardship, support my friends, oppose my political foes, in order to assure the survival and success of Dick, George and their associated cronies.

Some other interesting passages from that speech that you can compare or contrast to the current administration:

unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed

Bush: I like water-boarding, that's like surfing, right?

To those old allies whose cultural and spiritual origins we share, we pledge the loyalty of faithful friends. United, there is little we cannot do in a host of cooperative ventures. Divided, there is little we can do—for we dare not meet a powerful challenge at odds and split asunder.

Bush: We'll invade Iraq with or without your support..I'm the decider

To that world assembly of sovereign states, the United Nations, our last best hope in an age where the instruments of war have far outpaced the instruments of peace, we renew our pledge of support—to prevent it from becoming merely a forum for invective—to strengthen its shield of the new and the weak—and to enlarge the area in which its writ may run.

Bush - Screw the UN, I'm gonna assign someone that hates it to be ambassador...that'll show 'em, right Dick?

So let us begin anew—remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.Bush: Negotiate bah, if you're not with me you're a terrorist from the axis of evil, Iran's next!

All this will not be finished in the first 100 days. Nor will it be finished in the first 1,000 days, nor in the life of this Administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet.

Was this about Iraq?:)

a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself.

Bush: Umm..uh..I'm against disease, yeah, against disease


....oh well.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7304300.stm

- a good link on costs.

Fuck you if you think any of this was begun with the well being of Iraqis in mind.

They were, and continue to be, an afterthought in our Administrations calculus.

"We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the profits of our oil companies and the success of the congressmen they own."

Fuck you if you think any of this was begun with the well being of Iraqis in mind.

They were, and continue to be, an afterthought in our Administrations calculus.

not to mention a handy talking point when you have nothing else to defend the war with.

How different the general opinion toward the Iraqi War this forum has now, compared to when the war broke out.

I think just the Euro trash thought it a bad idea.

My opinion changed when I realized that the reasons we went in were "dumbed down" for the average American.

Saddam Hussien was a bad man. Whether he had WMDs or not, he was a bad man. I've seen his handywork, up close and personal. I know we helped put him in his position there, but we didn't help him become what he did: a ruthless man who raised 2 sons that made his cruelty look like a Disney movie.

The real reasons we should have listed for going into Iraq and taking him out were the 12 years of U.N. resolutions he decided to ignore, and the almost daily firing on our aircraft patroling the No Fly Zone. Not to mention the fact he was recieving a huge amount of kickback revenue for the "Oil for Food" fiasco.

Instead we got the WMD "excuse".

However, we quickly forget how charged the atmosphere was right after 9/11. The hypersensitivity to not allowing another attack like that to happen again was prevalent.

Here's a refresher on the attitude of the time. http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2002/0918iraq_ohanlon.aspx

I've said it before: Iraq looked like a duck, and walked like a duck. It wasn't till after we killed the duck, plucked it, cooked it, and served it for dinner, that we realized it was a goose, instead.

Saddam was doing everything to make it seem he had stuff he didn't. He was trying to make it seem like he was 1 of the "big dogs". You know what they say about being 1 of the "big dogs"; you might get bit if you aren't careful.

The real reasons we should have listed for going into Iraq and taking him out were the 12 years of U.N. resolutions he decided to ignore

Nope, may have been a stated justification, but if UN resolutions were a basis for invasion, why are we not occupying Israel? The REAL reason we invaded involved money, power, and just plain unadulterated stupidity. These are the "unofficial" reasons and results:

1>Control of Oil Revenue in the country - Funny thing is we are spending our money rebuilding infrastructure and providing security while Iraq builds a budget surplus...oops!
2>Funding of the Military Industrial Complex - Successful
3>Fat contracts for Chenney's, now semi-foreign, company - Successful
4>Fat Oil profits for Oil companies - Successful
5>Consolidation of power over the American people and slow erosion of the constitution - Successful

All "official" justifications have failed, save one...the removal of a nasty tyrant. The bad that has come...no WMDs, Al Qaeda recruitment is up (at least indicators point that way, don't know how you'd really know), our hold on Afghanistan is slipping, $500 billion wasted so far, 4000 American lives, ~75-100k Iraqi dead, unstable Iraqi government, Unemployment somewhere between 18-70% (depending on your source, I'd bet it's around 30%), no real progress on infrastructure for most Iraqis......

I was for the war as well with extreme misgivings about what happened after. I wasn't sure about WMDs, but took it on faith that I wasn't being lied to. I felt that the removal of Saddam would improve life for Iraqis. I couldn't foresee the extreme level of incompetency exhibited by this power and money hungry administration.

I was wrong to support the war in any way shape or form...I made a mistake trusting this administration. Though I had real concerns about the aftermath, those concerns were not strong enough compared to the cluster we now see in Iraq. Unlike some on this board and in the White House, I can admit to errors, I can respect other points of view and incorporate new ideas into my own thinking about issues, I can admit my own humanity and imperfection.

PS - For the person who gave me a negative hit saying only "duh", you are gutless just like the administration you support. If I give a rep hit, it's signed, positive or negative.

My step-dad and I sat at the dinner table following Bush being sworn in and discussed how long it would be before we were involved in Iraq, and the old man always swore it was about the oil and power as much as Bush needing to avenge the Saddam plot against his father.

Our nation being attacked provided Bush with a nice big gift-wrapped justification for going to war with the middle east, and it is easy to picture he and Cheney jumping up and down in the Oval office like kids being told they get to go to Disneyland, after realizing that they could now invade Iraq.

Saddam plot against his fatherMore than a plot, it was an actual attempt on his life. But you see now, Bush had a grievance against Saddam. It's ok, don't you understand? Let's forgive that and come together. Yes we can.

All "official" justifications have failed, save one...the removal of a nasty tyrant. The bad that has come...no WMDs, Al Qaeda recruitment is up (at least indicators point that way, don't know how you'd really know), our hold on Afghanistan is slipping, $500 billion wasted so far, 4000 American lives, ~75-100k Iraqi dead, unstable Iraqi government, Unemployment somewhere between 18-70% (depending on your source, I'd bet it's around 30%), no real progress on infrastructure for most Iraqis......

Actually, its more like a million Iraqi dead.

I would tend to think any head of state planning and executing an assasination on another country's former head of state would constitute an act of war.....

Actually, its more like a million Iraqi dead. You can't quote 'facts' like that until Soros releases his report Oct 15th.

I have to agree with Akipt, a million! I haven't seen a number anywhere close to that except from people that are so biased it makes it hard to accept anything they say (that would be Soros).

I was basing my number on: http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Which, at least on the surface, seems like a fairly complete, though it's gotten criticisms from both sides of the fence. Granted deaths from disease and other causes due to the destruction of much of the Iraqi infrastructure aren't included...but a million seems awfully high....of course any number is too damn high.:mad:

Whatever the number is, it's beginning to rival Saddam's.

I think we're getting better at the torture, though. While he was always good with providing water and sanitation. Oh, and keeping the crazy fanatics on a leash.

I dunno, I'd say still being in this mess five years on from the invasion means we're pretty even with the old man for destroying Iraq.

Which, at least on the surface, seems like a fairly complete, though it's gotten criticisms from both sides of the fence.

Which is probably a guarantee that it is the closest to being accurate.

if youre not a complete retard, like sixee, you would know that iraq body count only lists officially reported violent deaths, while for example the lancet study, which is only labeled as biased by morons, lists all excess deaths as a result of the invasion.

The Lancet "study" use a random sampling followed by a statisical assumption. I agree the Iraqi war count is probably way low...because reporting of all deaths just doesn't occur, but the random sampling used in the Lancet study seems hap hazard considering the massive differences in conditions in various regions.

which is only labeled as biased by morons

Well I know one is...Bush ;')

As always I would bet the truth would lie somewhere in between.

Iraqi Body count says ~90,000 (only reports to press, no disease or indirect deaths)
UN ~180,000 (based on per month estimate)
Iraqi Health Ministry 615,000 (based per month)
Lancet 870,000 (based on per month to present

Obviously extrapolating out per month ignores a general decrease of late due to increased US presence. I would the real number lies somewhere around 4-500 thousand deaths caused directly or indirectly by the war (i.e. disease, accidents etc. related to war time conditions).
So taking the lower number and dividing by 5 years of insanity gives you around 6600 deaths per month...or about 2000 more than the number of deaths per month some (conservatives) have estimated under Saddam (including deaths in the Iran/Iraq war, not technically civilian but Saddam's fault for sure).

From the conservative voice:

"Iraq, a country approximately the size of California, but with only 2/3rd its population, suffered more than a million violent deaths under Saddam Hussein’s regime. That would average out at about 50,000 deaths a year in a population of 25 million before the Americans got involved."

Of course their estimates of the number of dead are as ridiculous, IMO, as saying their have been over a million. They say about 6,800 PER YEAR. :rolleyes:

Sure would love to see a study that I could have a good amount of confidence in...but it seems everyone has an agenda.

Of course, onee more thing to consider; the number of people injured and disabled, both physically and mentally, due to the war.

How are they counting those that simply disappear in the middle of the night to be killed and buried in mass graves by the Sunni/Shiite (take your pick) militias doing their best at retaliatory cleansing of the neighborhoods? Since they are unable to prove they are dead until the graves are eventually uncovered, are they simply ignored in the statistics?

Those are direct results of the war, since it was not happening before we invaded.

The Lancet survey that is now years old already exceed a half million, a full million is not only within the realm of possibility but probably LOW. This does not include the estimated 2 million Iraqis that have fled the country since then as well. Imagine 1 in 5 people you know not being here anymore, and you have Iraq.


Old reseach: http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf

Don't have the more current one handy.

Iraq (http://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/iz.html&sa=X&oi=answers&ct=result&usg=AFQjCNE62Fssmjyd90CJRtSbcd4CcjnS-A) — Population: 27,499,638 (July 2007 est.)


27,499,638 / 50,000 deaths per year = 549 years until the Iraq war is over

Lancet trashed their reputation, period. When your 'study' gives statistics that are more than 12 times magnitude greater than the next nearest study, you need to be able to back it up - and they couldn't.

Uh, they did. I don't feel like rehashing basic statistics for the ignorant again but several other highly biased totally unscientific bodies like the CDC agreed with them, they just got muzzled by political appointees. If you think the Lancet isn't backed up, you clearly have no understanding of the subject at all.

the 500,000 estimate seems too much.

Id think it would be more along the 80,000 mark from what i've seen.

There was a point in time they were pulling a few hundred bodies a day from the Tigris. That is a pretty respectable number in terms of death, especially in a country like Iraq where the total pop is like 25 million.

Saddam was indeed awful, but it seems that the reports of his killings had been massively over reported. To date, the largest mass grave found has been 5,000 people. A horrific figure by any standard, but far lower than the 100,000 to 400,000 number expats had been saying was there.

The reality is that Saddam ruled through fear, and acts of mass killings were the exception rather than the rule, not because he wouldnt do them, but because they were unnecessary by and large and he controlled the Police State of Iraq to an effective degree.

It is conceivable that we our efforts to free Iraq has resulted in a greater degree of bloodshed for the Iraqi people than if we had allowed Saddam to remain. But at least they are dying free.

I dunno.. maybe he hid the bodies with the WMDs

Wiggo said a million, so it must be a whole lot more.
We have probably rolled in like the Soviets and wiped the whole populace from the map. The all the news stories are just propoganda to keep us in line.
Ooops, I have to go now, Homeland Security just broke down my front door and is pulling me aw ay fro m th e k e y b o a r d.....:rolleyes:

Until America learns there is only one way to wage war we'll continue to suffer this type of bullshit losses.

Go to war as a last resort, but when you commit fucking commit.

The insurgents/rebels/terrorists wouldn't have a stick to swing at us if we made it clear we'd remove their ability to wage war no matter the cost.

This pussy footing around has cost us since Vietnam dammit...

Thats because we know these wars arent worth doing that.

What they want is the ability to wage a war, or use the army in such a way that we the people of the US, barely notice it except to cheer it on and feel pride in our great victory.

No difference really from what the old Roman Senators and Emperors did to increase their standing back in Rome. Invade Gaul or Germania for some trumped up snub or insult or threat to Rome. Take some territory, some loot, distribute it for political favor or power. Ride back into Rome and have a grand victory march and be hailed as a hero for bringing Glory to the Empire.

In my darker moments I think sometimes that there is no "History" just the same damn things reoccurring again and again.

But surely we are different... no? I mean we are the greatest country in the history of the human race. The lone force of good. Ordained BY GOD HIMSELF to be His Champion of Freedom. This being a fact beyond doubt or reproach, then by extension, we NEVER fight unnecessary wars... right? Such a force of good such as ourselves isnt capable of such a moral failing, how can we when the Angels themselves smile upon us.

What great Empire hasnt felt that way? All of them. We confuse chance for fate.

"Varus... Give me back my Legions" -Emperor Augustus after the Battle of Teutoburg Forest

We enter these small little wars out of greed and hubris. We think we can do it on the cheap, for maximum profit. We are so powerful, advanced and smart and they are so weak, backwards and dumb. We are good, they are evil.

There are no little wars. We as a people should look on war as if it were akin to putting our hands into a meat grinder. We should approach it with that level of austerity.

Instead, the Dick Cheneys, Wolfowitzs, Kristols and Bush's of this world look on it like an investment. Just like the Caesars, Darius's and Napoleons have.

Yes, but Darius is an immortal, so he can afford to smirk at little wars.


/sorry, could not resist

Darius > Ceasar and Napoleon@!

Darius > Ceasar and Napoleon@!

Let me guess, solely because he's Persian?

Let me guess, solely because he's Persian?

So he's going to bring us gold curtain rods, and blue rugs?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-Yikes!

Let me guess, solely because he's Persian?

No, because like his father he was not a brutal murderer, and actually conquered by fighting armies and then freeing the native people rather then slaughtering or enslaving them.

Freedom is a very relative term. Some say its just another word for nothing left to lose.

Or as The Who so eloquently put it, as it applies to Darius

"Meet the new Boss, same as the old Boss"

Oh god... don't try and deconstruct Darius... please.

Sorry Halo! *Pick's up his guitar and play's*

Sorry Halo. I was making funny about Darius the immortal in the Highlander series. ;)

Also a difficult person to "deconstruct," albeit for very different reasons.

How different the general opinion toward the Iraqi War this forum has now, compared to when the war broke out.

I think just the Euro trash thought it a bad idea.There were a number of people opposed to both Iraq and Afghanistan. In my opinion, we charged into Afghanistan far too quickly after 9/11, before we had the evidence to back up our actions. The government needed a fast focus for people's anger, and we have yet to finish that job yet, let along Iraq. Many people believed Iraq was a bad idea - and history is proving us right. I remember yelling at the TV years ago as Bush and Co. were announcing plans to invade. My heart broke at the first news of missile attacks because anyone with any real knowledge of the middle east culture could see how this was going to go. Ignorance and the misuse of public opinion at the time put us where we are now.

Don't worry guys, that was aimed at Jedd :P

Don't worry guys, that was aimed at Jedd :P

Huh?

My opinion has always been the same.

No, because like his father he was not a brutal murderer, and actually conquered by fighting armies and then freeing the native people rather then slaughtering or enslaving them.

So all the Crucifixions he called for weren't brutal murder?

So all the Crucifixions he called for weren't brutal murder?

Uh, I think you have darius mixed up with someone else. Darius continued the legacy of king Cyrus the great and was a champion of human rights. He paid even those who did slave like work which was unheard of at the time. He was known for also allowing the Jews to rebuild their temple, and he was one of the most religously tolerant emperors in history, second to Cyrus.

http://thecrucifixions.blogspot.com/2007/02/darius-of-persia.html

http://www.joezias.com/CrucifixionAntiquity.html

http://www.jesus.com.au/html/page/practices

http://www.orlutheran.com/html/crucify.html

All 4 discuss Darius I crucifying 3000 Babylonians. I just linked four to give more than one site for you to read about it. The reason I brought it up is because of a documentary on the history of crucifixion that I watched on the History Channel last night. As soon as it mentioned Darius crucifying 3000 Babylonians, I thought instantly of this thread.

According to the Greek historian, Herodotus, King Achaemenid Darius (ca. 549 - 486 BCE), known as Darius I the Great, of Persia had 3,000 of the leading citizens of Babylon crucified in about 519 BCE.

http://thecrucifixions.blogspot.com/2007/02/darius-of-persia.html

http://www.joezias.com/CrucifixionAntiquity.html

http://www.jesus.com.au/html/page/practices

http://www.orlutheran.com/html/crucify.html

All 4 discuss Darius I crucifying 3000 Babylonians. I just linked four to give more than one site for you to read about it. The reason I brought it up is because of a documentary on the history of crucifixion that I watched on the History Channel last night. As soon as it mentioned Darius crucifying 3000 Babylonians, I thought instantly of this thread.

interesting, I will read that when I get to work. I do know that he was left the task of dealing with a bitter enemy of the Persian empire, thanks for the links

Nice read... It seems he only crucified the leaders of the revolt, Neb and his guys. Still barbaric indeed, however I still think he pales in comparison to the other emperors of the time.

No, because like his father he was not a brutal murderer, and actually conquered by fighting armies and then freeing the native people rather then slaughtering or enslaving them.

All I wanted to point out was he was indeed a brutal murderer, not debate whether he was somehow better than another brutal leader from the same period.

My initial point still stands, I think you place less value on the crucifixions that he participated in because he's Persian.

All I wanted to point out was he was indeed a brutal murderer, not debate whether he was somehow better than another brutal leader from the same period.

My initial point still stands, I think you place less value on the crucifixions that he participated in because he's Persian.

No, I do consider that murder and barbaric. I agree with you.

You had to be brutal to keep the multi-cultural, far-flung, autonomous Persian Empire together. Murdering 3000 Babylonians is a mere penny in the pond compared to most imperial leaders in Classical times.
Babylon, you must remember, was the precursor of the Medes and Assyrians, it was a rival centre of power and a troublesome one at that - had Darius left it bubbling with discontent, he would never have secured Egypt and kept his hold on Asia Minor. Babylon had already caused Darius a humiliation during the early part of his reign, when one stamps his authority on a dominion as vast as the Persian Empire, the King of Kings cannot afford to be kind.

Comparatively, Darius was actually quite benevolent.

Comparatively, Darius was actually quite benevolent.

And I'm sure Genghis Khan was kind to his mother.....

And I'm sure Genghis Khan was kind to his mother.....

Curious... Have you every researched the lives and rule of Cyrus, Darius and Xerxes? Or do you speak from your experience with the movie 300?

I didn't think Genghis was in 300....maybe I need to watch the movie again....:eek:

The issue I have is with the word "Comparitave". Just because Darius wasn't as brutal as others of the period, doesn't mean he smelled like roses.

I think you give him a break, because he isn't white.

I'd be interested in what you think about Alexander the Great. Would you call him enlightened or brutal?

I didn't think Genghis was in 300....maybe I need to watch the movie again....:eek:

The issue I have is with the word "Comparitave". Just because Darius wasn't as brutal as others of the period, doesn't mean he smelled like roses.

I think you give him a break, because he isn't white.

I'd be interested in what you think about Alexander the Great. Would you call him enlightened or brutal?

I do not know much about Alexander the Great, but I do know that under King Cyrus of the Persian Empire the first ever charter of human rights was established. The Cyrus cylinder it was called, and a replica of it is in the UN building in New York.

The Persian Empire however brutal in war, did not practice Slavery, and did not rape, pillage, and plunder the villages in the lands they conquered.

So there is a pretty good reason why Cyrus, Darius, and Xerxes are considered the least brutal of all emperors in ancient history.

The Persian Empire however brutal in war, did not practice Slavery, and did not rape, pillage, and plunder the villages in the lands they conquered.

You just submitted to the will of Allah, or lost your head/paid exorbant taxes as an Infidel.

Yeah, real "enlightened".

I suspect you don't know much about Alexander, because he was Greek, and had defeated the Persians.

My Dad can beat up your Dad!

You just submitted to the will of Allah, or lost your head/paid exorbant taxes as an Infidel.

Yeah, real "enlightened".

I suspect you don't know much about Alexander, because he was Greek, and had defeated the Persians.

The Persian empire was not Islamic... Jesus Sixee are you serious?

Who cares who beat who, Can you stay on topic for 2 seconds?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Empire#Acceptance_of_Islam_by_Persians

But it is Wikipedia, after all.....

Darius wasn't Muslim, but his empire did become so....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Empire#Acceptance_of_Islam_by_Persians

But it is Wikipedia, after all.....

Darius wasn't Muslim, but his empire did become so....

Eventually it became Muslim, but years later. Not during the time in which he was emperor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian...am_by_Persians

But it is Wikipedia, after all.....

Darius wasn't Muslim, but his empire did become so....

Not just years later, but approximately a millennium later.

This is such a completely weak argument. How are you even attempting to associate Darius with the Muslim faith when he died 1000 years before Mohammad was even born? That's like attributing something the Native Americans might have done in 1000 AD to you.

Taleren, I wasn't saying Darius was Muslim, I was showing Jedd that the Persian Empire was indeed Muslim despite his statement to the contrary, albiet, much after Darius had died.

Darius' rule may have been considered benevolent in comparison to others of the time period (unless you were Babylonian).

However, he was still pretty ruthless, regardless.

It all depends on what side of the coin you decide to look.....

'Darius' rule may have been considered benevolent in comparison to others of the time period (unless you were Babylonian).'

- Check again: the Babylonian Empire was pretty savage.