“You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake.”

This woman could be a child of an American Civil War veteran. I just wonder if she would have preferred we kept our black brethren enslaved for her own lifetime. Morons - all of 'em.

OK, I'll accept her basic premise. But let me be clear--Wars certainly have losers, and the consesquenses are dire.

Her point is profound; however, losing the battle against an agressor is hard to recover from. The American Republic was lost after the War Between the States -- the voluntary and unanimous association of the several sovereign States became the compelled and subservient association with Washington, D.C.. From that point on the Constitution changed tone from a set of rules for the government to a set of rules for the People. The problem with war is that it never ends -- and that is Rankin's point.

What an idiot.

You are shortchanging history Archer. The voluntariness of the states united (as some would have it) as I am sure you must know was never a settled question. Massachusetts had often argued the right of voluntariness to leave the union. The question was settled by the Civil War. Once in you are stuck. If you don't know this histroy that is a shame, if you know it and ignore it to further your own opinion of the matter that is a greater shame. You are correct however that once the question was settled it did change the nature of the Union and the nature of D.C. It seems that wars especially "successful" wars increase the power of the victor even if the victor did not start out to seek power. Maybe the "humble in victory" sentiment requires the victor to pick up the pieces and try to put every thing back together agian.

Waffler, please. If anything Archer is guilty of being too historically accurate and he's being too nice on history-- certainly not shortchanging it. As to your own perception, if you don't understand the philosophical, political, and differentiation of application between a democracy and a republic, you won't have any clue what Archer is talking about. There are several states that even today threaten to succeed from the Union-- and this is their right to do so-- but you don't hear of these issues in our media now, do you? Would it start another war? Because of ignorant people who claim to know history--but who ignore the facts, ideas, philosophies, and ideologies of the founders--it very well might. These ignorants claim the War Between the States (wrongly termed the "Civil War") settled this issue. It did not. Why is America taught that this issue was settled? Because, as you put it, "it seems that wars, especially 'successful' wars, increase the power of the victor even if the victor did not start out to seek power." History is written by the nations who won-- as it has once been said, "History is written by those who have hanged heros." We are taught of the rightness of the North because they won. It is sad that Americans are not only ignorant of their own history, but they argue so fervantly for a history that never existed... What's even more sad is when Americans read a modern textbook and claim to be knowledgable or read on a subject. Philosophy 101 teaches that we cannot possibly learn of yesterday by today's words, phrases, definitions, and meanings. If we want to learn of yesterday, we have to learn how men used language in their own day. If you really want to say you "know" something, then throw away your modern books and become a student of the ancients... As per our discussion with democracy and republics-- in any modern or current textbook or dictionary you will find that republics and democracies are defined as identical, except that a republic specifically refers to a "non-monarchy" (as per the International Political Science terminology goes). This is totally diametric to the definition of our founders. When the founders used the terms "democracy" and "republic" they were even in different usages than what Plato or Machiavelli used. The founders were closer, however, in how they used Plato and Machiavelli's termonology than we are to the founders termonology, because, sadly, the founders weren't as arrogant as we are today and actually sought to learn from the ancients instead of redefining what they meant on their own terms. There IS a reason why such definitions change--it's not dumb luck. The American History taught in our schools today completely redefines the issues, philosophy, ideas, and above all the language of our founders. We forget that Honest Abe didn't really care about freeing the slaves, that the founders hated "democracy," and that a Republic is based on "laws" that exist outside of the majority vote of the people. As I said before, you would first have to know the basic fundamental and philosophical reasons that differentiate an American Republic from an American Democracy, but to do this you would have to unlearn everything the American public schools have taught you and actually LEARN history. Sadly, too many Americans refuse to do this-- this surely is a witness to the paradigm shift in perception that America has gone through over the last 150 years.

i under stand but i want to know what she fears

We're all profound thinkers sitting in front of our computers.. our Forefathers would be so proud. http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&oe=UTF8&msa=0&msid=118135173934136151745.00045bc25ee928a8872d0 Love, Light, and Peace.. your friend david