That may be what your dictionary says, but mine says something else. According to the little dictionary I have here, a democracy is "1. A form of government in which political power resides in all the people and is exercised by them directly or is given to their representatives. 2. A state so governed. 3. The spirit or practice of political, legal, or social equality."

Scratch largely...replace it with ususally...feel better? Good. It is usually fallacious, sometimes not, depending on the context and circumstances.

Washington also referred to this nation as an empire, Joe. So does that mean it is not a republic anymore? You can burn the dictionary, if you like, but it does not alter reality. This is a democratic republic.

Fact: The president is fighting a war. Opinion: What the president is doing is permitted by Congress, obviously, since no one has attempted to impeach him. Remember how many people died in Tiennamen Square? People cannot effectively fight without arms against a totalitarian military dictotarship that has no qualms about slaughtering any and all opposition.

While I do not condemn anyone who chooses to allow himself to be abused, rather than using arms to defend himself, it is clear that the case for non-violence that triumphed in India has not worked at all in other places. You wrote: "Non-violent boycotts against tyranny work a whole lot better than armed rebellions as the despot will eventually show his true colors of inhumanity." But the true colors of tyrants around the globe are showing in the cases of one third of the population of the world that is subjected to totalitarian rule, such as in Cuba, where for 48 years the people have been cruelly oppressed and unable to free themselves. You wrote: "So officially, the US is NOT at war with Iraq..." As far as war's definition, ask the people on the scene whether what they have is a war. I imagine they have a clear picture of what they have. The war is not against Iraq, and never has been. The war against Saddam's regime has ended, which was part of a larger war against the allies of terrorism, and Saddam was certainly one of those. The war goes on, not against Iraq. The US has been reconstructing Iraq, with the collaboration of its citizens.

Archer: Since you choose voluntarily to ignore facts, your responses are irrelevant. You change the subject at the drop of a hat, ignore facts, contort ideas, introduce invalid arguments, false information, and sophism. Therefore, what you have to say is invalid.

Jack: The war is not against Iraq, but it happens to be taking place in Iraq, as well as in other countries. Yes, it is a war.

Reston: All liberty is power, but not all power is liberty.

Your prevarication and sophism are at a peak, Archer. Slander has a specific meaning, which you ignore at will, applying circumstances foreign to the significance of the term. Try and stay rational. You arrogantly assume from a few posts that you have analyzed my belief system, which is a transparently ignorant view. You need to respect yourself a little more and stop showing pride in ignorance. It is ugly.

Whoever enlists for the education, intending not to serve according to the mandates of the government, is committing fraud and grand larceny. Plain and simple. Gandhi also said that one of the greatest crimes ever committed was that of the British Empire, when it denied the use of arms to India. Get your facts straight, Archer, before you preach. Gandhi used the methods he used because he had no others available.

Unfortunately, this is largely fallacious, despite how true we might wish it to be. Repeated lies often convince many that the false statements are true. While a certain degree of toleration is in order for a wide variety of opinion, to tolerate indoctrination of lies, lies intended to undermine a society or a community, or to slander persons and bring about their demise or injury, should not be tolerated.

Nicely put.

It is slander to state "You guys hate yourselves so much (and the rest of us even more)" since it is false, and to insinuate that I belong to a cult like the Branch Davidians is slanderous. We can play this game all night if you really want to. You misconstrue the Scriptures when you say that you cannot serve God and government. Actually the Scriptures indicate that we must serve both, putting preference on God's commands when they contrdict governments. I could refer you to some specific verses to illustrate the point, but that might be like throwing pearls to the swine. ;-)

The war is about one thing or another, depending upon the point of view. For example, the soldier on the ground is fighting to stay alive, to protect himself and his buddies, to serve his nation, or to stay out of jail for desertion. Many soldiers claim to feel proud of the great job they are doing. You can't tell them that they fought only to control the oil. They would rightly think of you as a liar.

The difference between an actual state of war and a legally declared war is, to those on the field of battle, of little import. The overall effect is the same. The legal definition cannot nullify reality. The war against those allied against the free world, in what some call Jihad and others revolution, is not a religious war. If it were, we would be dropping bombs indiscriminately on Moslem countries everywhere. Israel alone has enough nuclear capability to wipe out Islam (along with itself and most everyone else, of course). The enemy is within and without.

Ok, fine, disband and collapse. No problem. I mean, our inevitable collapse has to come about as the result of one or more failures, so why not disband the standing army. Go ahead. You know me, I am just waiting for God's kingdom to come, despite my occasional ranting about one thing or another. I'll tell you the truth, we always looked better on paper than in person ("we" meaning the nation). Some think we exist largely as a temporal protector of Israel, until circumstances unfold for the end-time scenario. I really don't know. But don't forget that the United States of America imports most of the raw materials it uses, for which reason it has maintained a strong naval fleet, to control the sea lanes. Give up your standing military forces, and you had better learn quickly to do without a lot of things. Fine by me.

But like jack Nicholson said in 1992, in the movie "A Few Good Men," "You can't handle the truth!" :-)

Tell me, since I am apparently so misinformed, what would happen one day or one week after the United States disbanded its standing armed forces? Then tell me what you would do to prevent that. I can't help but get the impression that you all would not have any idea of what to do one week after disbanding the standing armed forces.

Have you not noticed that, since the security practices of post-9/11 were implemented, inadequate as they may be, American passenger airliners have stopped falling out of the sky? Before 9/11, it was a regular event to have an airliner fall out of the sky. And have you not noticed the long list of attacks against American personnel around the world, leading up to 9/11? I guess you have not. And who said that the war we are engaged in is against Iraq? We are in Iraq, but we are at war with transnational terrorists. It is clearly a war. That you don't think so is irrelevant.

Disband the standing (federal) armed forces, and see how fast you get standing (state) armed forces. Welcome to the real world. Also, the idea that juries do not judge the law is ludicrous. They may be discouraged from doing so, but they do so.

Freedom of religion is alive and well? That is ridiculous. You can't make abuses disappear by denying them, which is irrational. much of today's science is faith-based philosophy, lacking proof, full of wholes, based on traditional but unprroved assumptions, and often disproved after a couple of generations. Get your facts straight, because you look silly denying facts.

Crime takes place in the contexts of business, politics, education, and even religion. Freedom of religion does not mean the freedom to commit crime under the apron of religion. For example, forcing students to study or attend classes on the pseudo-science that is taught in public schools is a violation of the First Amendment right of freedom of religion, since this pseudo-science is actually more a faith-based philosophy than a science. And while we are at war, which we are, enemy combatants do not qualify to enjoy the habeus corpus rights.

Standing is standing is standing, be it state or federal.

Habeus corpus does not and should not apply to prisoners of war, who should be imprisoned until the war ends, or until there be received a secure promise that they would not continue to participate in the war.

Anonymous: The Patriot Act and my comment have more to do with the quote than your response. Think.