Aside from unverifiable claims about yourself, your comments contain no significant counter-argument. Although after having quoted and heaped praise on "300" ad nauseum, I'm not sure how you would extricate yourself.

In any event, you're listing someone else's credentials (can't fool the Kapitein), and your prose and prolificness indicates that you're far younger than you claim.

If your claims are true, you should know what Rule 303 is and where it is derived. Anyone with your extensive "formal education" who seriously uses "300" as ideological inspiration or for historical fact should be subject to it.

...so should people with Antisocial Personality Disorder, which isn't treatable anyway.

Yet again you substitute insults such as "birdbrained" or "idiot" for fact or logic. Falsely assigning labels such as "socialist" does you no good either. You're a strong candidate for Antisocial Personality Disorder. Get help.

And your litmus test for governmental legitimacy is irrelevant in the face of Westphalia and Realpolitik. It deems illegitimate all of human and crucially Western civilisation, until relatively recently. Moreover, the political philosophy remains dominated by luminaries that were products of 'illegitimate' states according to your definition.

Your claims are easily refuted by statistics on Iraqi refugee flows to Western Europe before and after the US began military operations there.

'Nuff said re: your bullsh*t. Having said that, whatever slides of out of a bull is immensely more intelligent than anything you might have to say. I'm going to have to regard you as Bush does Chavez: I have nothing more to say to you.

If a catalyst exacerbates a process, in this case Muslim migratory flows, it does not create it.

Your analytical skills are as poor as your communication ones. Like many before you, your insults only serve to exacerbate this fact.

I suggest you reserve your comments for posters such as FLLegal, who would rather derive their historical knowledge from 300 than a book.

Onecent: There is a French economist by the name of Frederic Bastiat who lived from 1801-1850. One of his books (pamphlet) he wrote was called "The Law". It is an excellent read in my opinion. If you have not read it, it can be found on the internet everywhere, including this link:

http://www.constitution.org/law/bastiat.htm

The preface states:

"The Law, first published as a pamphlet in June, 1850, is already more than a hundred years old. And because its truths are eternal, it will still be read when another century has passed."

Socialism has preverted the very purpose of the law.

An excerpt from said book:

THE LAW BY FREDERIC BASTIAT

The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish!

If this is true, it is a serious fact, and moral duty requires me to call the attention of my fellow-citizens to it.

Life Is a Gift from God

We hold from God the gift which includes all others. This gift is life -- physical, intellectual, and moral life.

But life cannot maintain itself alone. The Creator of life has entrusted us with the responsibility of preserving, developing, and perfecting it. In order that we may accomplish this, He has provided us with a collection of marvelous faculties. And He has put us in the midst of a variety of natural resources. By the application of our faculties to these natural resources we convert them into products, and use them. This process is necessary in order that life may run its appointed course.

Life, faculties, production--in other words, individuality, liberty, property -- this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it.

Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.

What Is Law?

What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

Each of us has a natural right--from God--to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties?

If every person has the right to defend -- even by force -- his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right -- its reason for existing, its lawfulness -- is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force -- for the same reason -- cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.

Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?

If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.

-End of excerpt

Check it out onecent I think you'll enjoy it.

Get real, Europe's Muslim immiragtion problems long preceded America's invasion of Iraq. The Muslim immigrants in Europe aren't Iraqi refugees that have been coming for decades. Take a look around. They are Turks, Moroccans, Algerians, Pakistanis, you fool

The Bush policies didn't do a damn thing but expose the insincerity of Europe in confronting Islam's terror war and what quislings that Europeans truly are. Oh, and, Putin was given every ridiculous benefit of the doubt by Bush,  your ignorance is appalling. Russia's drift is what comes natural to them, threatening Europe and triangulating.  Again, you are so totally clueless.

I. Europe borders the Middle East and is the greatest beneficiary of refugee flows caused by upheaval there, be it the result of revolution in Iran, or American military operations in Iraq.

II. Not unlike Europe, Russia is surrounded by Muslim countries and hosts a growing Muslim population, while its own is in decline. Although Russia is not in the business of appeasing or succumbing to Islam, it cannot abide the United States antagonising Muslim neighbors such as Iran nor instigating ill-conceived "color revolutions" throughout the post-Soviet space.

III. The United States has no international goodwill remaining to cherry-pick which states and leaders are "good" and which are "evil". Instead of quaranteening China, Washington successfully took advantage of the Sino-Soviet rift. Instead of quaranteening the Soviet Union - a "most dangerous creep" - Washington engaged Moscow and was ultimately well-placed to "manage" the USSR's collapse. I'm not claiming that warfare is unnecessary and all disputes can be resolved civilly. However, situations change and communication lines should always be open, including top-level ones. Indeed, it took decades before McNamara realized that Hanoi was not a pawn of Beijing or Moscow and that the war was about independence not ideology. Some sixty thousand fatalities later, it appears that there was something to say.

IV. While Cuba can be ignored without worry. Venezuela is a key energy producer and figures largely in Latin American politics. And Iran is a contender for leading the Middle East and is the bastion of Shi'itism.

Well Kapitein, it's maybe because the Usual Suspects you name deserve to be pariahs.

And, as far as "exacerbated tensions" with socialist anti-American Europe, tough.  And, how did that happen, because the US unseated two smarmy ME thug states or refuses to sign the wealth transfer required of the Global Warming scam or are the only Good Cop left standing with, God forbid, an actual military?

We've had nothing to say to Castro for 5 decades and that has worked out just fine as a policy. We have nothing to say to Chavez either.  Sometimes  quaranteeing the world's most dangerous creeps makes good sense, something that the EU hasn't the spine to do.

I. Like it or not, the North Korean, Cuban and Iranian governments are the recognised and legitimate (in the Westphalian sense) representatives of their respective states. And at present there are no other parties inside or out of these states better suited to direct and unconditional negotiation.

II. Indeed, freedom and equality are contradictory and must be balanced. Even more confusing are the aims of the République française, as fraternité counters the freedom to be separate.

III. One does not necessarily require talent, skills and drive to be acquired. Indeed, many with these attributes are not wealthy.

IV. One cannot ignore the impact of socio-economic disparity on politics. And socialism was no more corrupt than laissez-faire capitalism.

V. The Bush administration's foreign policy has exacerbated tensions in Western Europe as well as for Russian national security.

VI. When sound policies outweigh victory over the White race, Mugabe and the ZANU-PF will be no more...

Have no fear.. the racist Marxist Obama will not win the election.