Nathan's answer:

No, it is only the object of the prepositional phrase, so the verb may take something else as D.O. (i.e., you could take "Post parvam moram" out of the sentence, and it would still make sense... and I'd suggest it when starting on this bear of a sentence!)

Tony's answer:

No ma'am. The accusative can signify a direct object, but it doesn't have to. In some cases (including this one), it's used because it's attached to a preposition that governs the accusative. (In fact, as I understand it, the main idea of the accusative is motion toward (!).)

Nathan's answer:

The ONLY verb forms that (can) take another word as subject (at this point) are the third person. For the first and second person forms, the subject is tied up in the verb itself, so don't look for another subject for the sentence (or clause).

(When we reach chapter 11 and learn the nominative forms of pronouns, the above will probably not be completely true, but for now I think it'll do.)

Tony's answer:

Remember that the ending of the conjugated verb must match the subject. If "verba" were the subject, the verb would have a third person plural ending. It actually has a first person plural ending, though, and you've hit the nail on the head about that: there is an implied subject "we".

Michael's answer:

"bellum gerere" is a Latin idiom. It means "wage war". The hint comes in the title of the section, "Cicero on the Ethics of Waging War".

"gerere" can have "conduct" as one of its meanings, but it would be more appropriate in "conducting negotiations or business".

As to why "gerere" appears in its infinitive form, see page 37 (6th edition), "Complementary Infinitive".

Michael's answer:

1. translate "debebimus" simply as "we should" or "we ought to"
2. "tum pacem conservare debebimus" is translated as you have it, "then we ought to preserve peace" You're quite right.

Now comes the "how was I supposed to know?" part:

"debebimus" is in the future tense, because it's in a conditional (if . . . then) sentence. The rules of Latin construction, which you are not expected to know at this stage, require that if we have a "Future More Vivid" construction, then both verbs must be in the future tense. Again, another instance of the problem of translating word for word. Translate "debebimus" as if it were in the Present tense, which is the proper construction in English.

Try to translate ideas rather than words. Start with a literal translation, then render it to Caesar (or Churchill) in "good English".

Maryann's answer:

I used lead, as in leading a horse. I'm not sure that's right, but I remember seeing an illustration accompanying the story of the Trojan horse, and the people were pulling the horse by ropes, in a manner similar to someone leading a horse.

Mary's answer:

What about take, or escort, or conduct?

Marilyn's answer:

Here are some meanings of "duco" offered on Perseus: "to lead, conduct, guide, direct, draw, bring, fetch, escort."

I would suggest using "draw" or "bring" in this context.