xTYBALTx

Alternatively, a government's standing army could be full of mercenaries.

The Foreign Legion, for instance, is certainly a standing army force, is it not?

__________________
A policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy. -F.A. Hayek

CingularDuality

Hmmm.... Yes, I think it would. They're a full time, professional army.

__________________

Become a supporting member!

Buy a Tactical Duck!
Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

BaneII

I'm using the definition of the word as defined in an English dictionary. The entry is thus:

standing army 
- a permanently organized military force maintained by a nation.
Origin 1595-1605
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary

Now there are other definitions like:

n. A permanent army maintained in time of peace and war.
&
n. : a permanent army of paid soldiers

I wouldnt use Wikipedia as a source for definitions since it is hard to tell if it is someone's opinion or they researched the word's usage and origin. This whole discussion centers around the definition of the term "standing army." The question is, what makes this term different from the word "army"?

army
–noun, plural -mies.
1. the military forces of a nation, exclusive of the navy and in some countries the air force.
2. (in large military land forces) a unit consisting typically of two or more corps and a headquarters.
3. a large body of persons trained and armed for war.
Origin 1350-1400
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary

We already have the word "army". I think people some folks are switching the usage of the two terms.

__________________
-33rd- BaneII
Smokers & Jokers

CingularDuality

OK: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/standing%20army

__________________

Become a supporting member!

Buy a Tactical Duck!
Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

Steeler

More to the point, why is this distinction particularly important at the moment?

__________________

perry

Because of this thread.

__________________

jepzilla

Ah yes, but next time look up the definition of 'nation'. It does not mean what you think it means.

Everybody in this discussion keeps confusing 'nation' for 'state'. A state is a political entity, a nation is a group identity. You could argue both that Lebanon does not qualify as a true state due to the existence of Hezbollah (and thus the Lebanese Army is not a true standing army) and that Hezbollah is standing army.

Steeler

So Hezbollah could be a national identity which extends over multiple states which are also nations?

Ow, now my brain hurts.

__________________

leejo

My Muslim coworker refers to the Islamic nation (NOT the Nation of Islam ). To use this definition, he sees himself primarily as a member of the Muslim nation, and a resident of one state or another.

I told him talk like that kinda scares the crap out of the rest of us.

But Hezbollah would still not qualify as a standing army would they? Do they wear uniforms and is being a soldier their full-time job?

xTYBALTx

Well I'm sure that some do wear uniforms and that some work as soldiers full time.

Hezbollah just doesn't seem like a standing army though.

__________________
A policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy. -F.A. Hayek

Root

Are you also scared of Jews too? Aren't all Jews members of the nation of Israel, but often living in other states?

__________________

Steeler

Or Christians who belong to the Kingdom of God first, but live in the US?

__________________

leejo

yeah pretty much.

The context was our chat about the 67 war between Israel, Egypt, etc. He said that King Hussein of Jordan betrayed his nation with his secret meetings with Israel. I asked him to clarify what he meant by nation and he said the nation of Muslims. In his mind King Hussein has a greater duty to Muslims as a coherent nation than to Muslims who live in Jordan, I guess. He also spoke of Khaddafi's plan that Saudi Arabian oil should belong to the Nation. I said that would certainly be my argument if I were Khaddafi.

I'm not a big fan of Jews who live in the US and spy for Israel, and I'm not a big fan of Christrians who consider themselves above the law because they answer to a "higher calling". It's pathological and dangerous, IMO. I'm pretty much a slack Christian, but I understand that I express my devotion to God by being, among other things, a good neighbor. If, in my mind, my duty lies more with people in Bookabookaland because we use the same word for "God" than with the people who live in my neighborhood and with whom my children play...well I just don't get that.

I also think it's a little antithetical to promoting a society that enjoys religious freedom.

This may all be semantics, but I guess for me being a Christian is a personal self-identifier. I don't get mad at Christians in Belgium who don't support the US in Iraq because I don't see Christianity as a coherent political entity. But my friend gets mad at King Hussein for not fully supporting Egypts efforts to destroy Israel and is on Khaddafi's side in asserting that Saudi Arabian oil money should be shared with all Muslims everywhere (but not of course with any Jews or Hindu or Christians 'cause we're not "family"). I think clearly he imagines Islam as a single political force. I like him a lot, but that freaks me out a bit.