Submitted by Roven, Oct 31, 2006 17:40

Why is it that the world clings to a 19th century definition of "Declaration of War" when the US hasn't technically 'declared war' since World War II? Today nations 'Declare War' by stating their intentions (via the media) to make war. This much, Ahmedinejad had done in spades. By all modern definitions of the term "Declaration of War", Ahmedinejad's statements fit the bill.

Mr. Rubinstein writes: "Mr. Ahmadinejad does not joke. He has the means to carry out his threat". It disturbs me that this point even needs to be made. While I am extremely glad that Mr. Rubinstein and others repeatedly make this point, the fact that this point consistently needs to be made says something much more profound and much more disturbing about Western perceptions of real and present danger.

When a head of state openly discusses and advocates the destruction of another state (and the annihilation of its people), the question of whether or not 'he is serious' seems not only incredibly glib, but altogether stupid. What is wrong with us?

There has always been a difference between a "Declaration of War" and an "Act of War". By what arcane definition do Ahmedinjad's comments fail to qualify as the former?

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.