I thought this article was particularly well written and thought provoking and I hope you all will too whether you agree with the sentiment or not.


"Election determines fate of nation"

Published in the Daily Record on Oct. 6

By Mathew Manweller

In that this will be my last column before the presidential election, there will be no sarcasm, no attempts at witty repartee. The topic is too serious, and the stakes are too high.

This November we will vote in the only election during our lifetime that will truly matter. Because America is at a once-in-a-generation crossroads, more than an election hangs in the balance. Down one path lies retreat, abdication and a reign of ambivalence.

Down the other lies a nation that is aware of it's past and accepts the daunting obligation its future demands. If we choose poorly, the consequences will echo through the next 50 years of history. If we, in a spasm of frustration, turn out the current occupant of the White House, the message to the world and ourselves will be two-fold. First, we will reject the notion that America can do big things. Once a nation that tamed a frontier, stood down the Nazis and stood upon the moon, we will announce to the world that bringing democracy to the Middle East is too big of a task for us. But more significantly, we will signal to future presidents that as voters, we are unwilling to tackle difficult challenges, preferring caution to boldness, embracing the mediocrity that has characterized other civilizations.

The defeat of President Bush will send a chilling message to future presidents who may need to make difficult, yet unpopular decisions. America has always been a nation that rises to the demands of history regardless of the costs or appeal. If we turn away from that legacy, we turn away from whom we are.

Second, we inform every terrorist organization on the globe that the lesson of Somalia was well-learned. In Somalia we showed terrorists that you don't need to defeat America on the battlefield when you can defeat them in the newsroom. They learned that a wounded America can become a defeated America. Twenty-four-hour news stations and daily tracing polls will do the heavy lifting, turning a cut into a fatal blow. Except that Iraq is Somalia times 10. The election of John Kerry will serve notice to every terrorist in every cave that the soft underbelly of American power is the timidity of American voters. Terrorists will know that a steady stream of grisly photos for CNN is all you need to break the will of the American people. Our own self-doubt will take it from there. Bin Laden will recognize that he can topple any American administration without setting foot on the homeland.

It is said that America's W.W.II generation is its 'greatest generation'. But my greatest fear is that it will become known as America's 'last generation.' Born in the bleakness of the Great depression and hardened in the fire of W.W. II, they may be the last American generation that understands the meaning of duty, honor and sacrifice. It is difficult to admit, but I know these terms are spoken with only hollow detachment by many (but not all) in my generation. Too many citizens today mistake 'living in America' as 'being an American.' But America has always been more of an idea than a place. When you sign on, you do more than buy real estate. You accept a set of values and responsibilities.

This November, my generation, which has been absent too long, must grasp the obligation that comes with being an American, or fade into the oblivion they may deserve. I believe that 100 years from now historians will look back at the election of 2004 and see it as the decisive election of our century. Depending on the outcome, they will describe it as the moment America joined the ranks of ordinary nations; or they will describe it as the moment the prodigal sons and daughters of the greatest generation accepted their burden as caretakers of the City on the Hill."

Mathew Manweller is a Central Washington University political science professor.



Original article can be found here (http://www.kvnews.com/articles/2004/10/20/manwellercolumn/manwellercolumn.txt)

Posted primarily in response to the article found in this (http://forums.ayonae.ro/showthread.php?t=5834) thread.

I disagree intensely with the sentiment of this article and feel that the difficult, yet unpopular decision that we as a nation have to make in this case *is* turning out George Bush. Doing catastrophically stupid things that fly in the face of reality on the basis of 'faith' is not the same as doing great ones; and in my opinion the greater courage lies in admitting that our collective judgement in this case was in error.

I understand what you are getting at, but the Iraq war isn't the space race, there were no tough decisions involved in taking us to war in WW2 (we were attacked in the case of Japan, and we dragged our feet as long as humanly possible in the case of Europe), and it is my opinion that the author's ideology is interfering with his judgement in this case.

Regards,
Nydia

He lost in the second paragraph, but I read the entire thing anyways.

Ignoring the fact that he compared Iraq to World war 2 and the Nazi's, which is almost disgusting, there's plenty of other reasons not to vote for bush.

Well written. But not well written enough to save it from it's crappy logic.

Michael Moore does indeed have a counterpart, it appears, in the Republican fold. This was an interesting read, provoking both sighs and chuckles.

As long as we have writers of this caliber and directors of Moore's, we can happily go on our polarized way. Or, we can stop paying attention to those who would lead us like blind lemmings (as Rush would like to believe he still does) and start looking at the big picture and start listening to all sides of the arguments and discussions, and maybe we can find that middle of the road area that does indeed lie out their somewhere at the end of the rainbow:p

Hopefully you don't agree with this!?Next time leave a name and I'll leave an opinion worthy of a rep point.

So losing an election will make it harder for future presidents to make tough decisions then say being assassinated like Lincoln?

Next time leave a name and I'll leave an opinion worthy of a rep point.If someone actually left an anonymous rep point, negative or positive, for simply copying an article for people to read than surely it is time to revisit the whole purpose of this silly rep system. It is pathetic that anonymous shit-shots are sanctioned by the mods, almost as much as anonymous sucking up is allowed. If folks have something to say, have them use their name or not say it.

Ignoring the fact that he compared Iraq to World war 2 and the Nazi's, which is almost disgustingActually the war on terror is exactly like WW2 and the Nazi's. It's also like the cold war. All 3 are/were wars against ideologies that seek to destroy American beliefs and values -- Fascism, Communism, and now Islamic Extremism. Unfortunately many Americans don't comprehend the nature of the threat and treat it as DiscW does. I compare them to the Charles Lindberghs from 1937 and the America First Party. Their willingness to delay the fight against these ideologues (both Fascism and now Islamic Extremism) has and will cost America greatly.

The logic's flawed. We already showed ourselves as pussies in Somalia and to a large extent in Iraq so far. No amount of resolve, even if Bush had it, could wipe the slate of recent history.

http://www.exile.ru/2004-July-08/war_nerd.html
http://www.exile.ru/2004-July-22/war_nerd.html
(Yes, the author is nuts, but in terms of analysis he's on the mark.)

Iraq lived under a murderous dictator for what, a quarter of a century? It could not possibly be pacified (much less turned into a functional democracy, given the ethnic divisions within its colonial-era borders) without a similar capacity for brutality from the occupying forces. We just aren't that vicious - which is a good thing in general, but we entangled ourselves in this occupation which demands far more will to violence to succeed.

The pretense of creating a democracy kept us from putting a sufficiently brutal (and preferably Kurdish) puppet or splintering Iraq into three states. We will run from Iraq regardless of who gets elected because our objectives there are unrealistic. Kerry will simply flee sooner than Bush if he gets elected.

The military aspect of America's hegemony is on the decline. We have the best troops in the world, but incompetent and cowardly politicians send them toward Sisyphean objectives and undermine their efforts with hopelessly ignorant diplomatic actions. What good is a Browning M2 if the guy behind it couldn't operate it to save his life?

One would hope that the mantle of global leadership will pass in some way beyond the entity that is most adept at the use of military force to achieve ends. If our entire claim to be leaders of the free world is based solely on our might, then we do not deserve to have it.

It comes to this.
There was in the 1500s a man named Thomas Hobbes. The bulk of his life was spent living during a time of anarchy and lawlessness in the duration of the English Civil War. As a result he formented a philosophy that reflected his concerns. The Hobbesian view says that man without a strong dictatorlike controlling force lives in what is known as mans "state of nature", that is the environment that man will revert to without a overarching order forcing him into an unnatural state, that of being governed. Hobbes wrote that life in this state of nature is "Poor, nasty, brutish and short", and the only right that the individual has is to use any means availble to avoid a violent death.
This is a crucial point. Hobbes throws out reason for justification for actions because reason is faulty, and morality comes solely from ones point of view. For example, it would morally acceptable for me to stab a person next to me to death if I thought he was going to harm me. The fact that person was merely yawning or stretching is unimportant, I acted in the moment and was thus justified. Pre-emption according to Hobbes is critical for survial in this world without a central order.
Hobbes has laid out the misery that this "state of nature" presents to man. He goes on to say that man will enter a social contract with a ruler in order to avoid this state. He will give up the entirety of his rights to one ruler, who in turn will protect him from a violent death, the most one can realistically hope for in this life.
Has the preemptive actions of the Bush administration and its utter rejection of UN guidance brought about the view internationally that this state of nature exists on the international level? We find that there are no WMDs, but because we thought Saddam might be a threat, it was okay to attack. We reject, minimize and make irrelevant the authority of the UN as a neutral arbitor.
From an American viewpoint, this isnt that bad of a deal, we are the strongest and have the strongest allies. To inflict our will at whim serves our needs in a very convient way. However, what course does that leave other nations not allied with the United States? Have we justified all actions of a party based on perception of threat and supposition? Have we thrown down the moral mantle we have worn and destroyed the high ground we built through prudence of action and the strength of will though restraint? Can we hope to lead a world through the dictum of "Do as I say, not as I do"? It seems to me that policies of the Bush administration ignore the massive responsibilites of hegemony in favor of individualistic pursuit of short term goals.

It bothers me alot that Bush and his supporters are trying to equate bush support with patriotism. Implying that if you support Kerry, you are unpatriotic. Kerry fought in vietnam, and bush fought in texas. Now who is patriotic?


Bush repeats over and over that we are bringing freedom to the people of Afghanistan and Iraq. Someone please tell me what freedom for Iraqis has to do with justification for preemptive war being a national security issue? Did we go to war to disarm Saddam or to bring democracy to Iraq? Lets not confuse the two. How do Bush supporters justify the death of 1100 soldiers, and 10,000(0) Iraqi civilians? Do Bush supporters have no respect for the lives of others? Would it help them to understand if those bodies were all piled on their lawn?

This war has become what the first one was. A bloodless video game that is waged on television and the internet. Noone sees the horrors of 30 iraqi national guard recruits blown up on the street, or 8 americans blown up on the side of the road. Maybe they should show caskets of dead soldiers unloaded from the planes. Then maybe people would be shaken out of their reality vacuums.

Phelonius

Someone please tell me what freedom for Iraqis has to do with justification for preemptive war being a national security issue?Substitute French for Iraqis in your sentence and change the date to 1940. That help clear it up for you? Different ideologues and a different time but same issue.

'Actually the war on terror is exactly like WW2 and the Nazi's. It's also like the cold war. All 3 are/were wars against ideologies that seek to destroy American beliefs and values -- Fascism, Communism, and now Islamic Extremism. Unfortunately many Americans don't comprehend the nature of the threat and treat it as DiscW does. I compare them to the Charles Lindberghs from 1937 and the America First Party. Their willingness to delay the fight against these ideologues (both Fascism and now Islamic Extremism) has and will cost America greatly.'

- I'm sorry, I'm confused.

How is the Iraq mess at all connected to Islamic Extremism? I thought it was about those WMD stockpikes that haven't turned up, and about - as most of you seem to think - Saddam and his regime being responsible for 9/11.
But then, why would you, or those like you, rememeber that? After all, they're just details. Details, details, details.

If another person compares the occupation of Iraq with the D-Day landings or fighting against the Nazi's in any way, I'll cry.

It is said that America's W.W.II generation is its 'greatest generation'. But my greatest fear is that it will become known as America's 'last generation.' Born in the bleakness of the Great depression and hardened in the fire of W.W. II, they may be the last American generation that understands the meaning of duty, honor and sacrifice
Yeah, because the folks who fought in Vietnam and the Gulf War don't know a damn thing about duty, honor and sacrifice.

Because "The Greatest Generation" are all collecting their Social Security, and my generation can count on getting dollar zero from a fund we've been paying into since we've been old enough to work- they understand sacrifice and we don't.

This article made all of my hair fall out, and now I'm bald. Thanks alot, MUKAZ.

Actually the war on terror is exactly like WW2 and the Nazi's. It's also like the cold war. All 3 are/were wars against ideologies that seek to destroy American beliefs and values -- Fascism, Communism, and now Islamic Extremism. Unfortunately many Americans don't comprehend the nature of the threat and treat it as DiscW does. I compare them to the Charles Lindberghs from 1937 and the America First Party. Their willingness to delay the fight against these ideologues (both Fascism and now Islamic Extremism) has and will cost America greatly.

Please point out where I said anything relating to Islamic Extremism not being a threat? hmmm? Oh! Whoops! You were full of shit!

I totally agree that we need to deal with those ideologues, as you put it. Iraq wasn't related to that though. Duh? Attacking Iraq is almost comparable to attacking mexico in WW2. It hurt us in the fight against terror, not help. That's why comparing it to fighting to nazi's is rediculous to me.

If someone actually left an anonymous rep point, negative or positive, for simply copying an article for people to read than surely it is time to revisit the whole purpose of this silly rep system. It is pathetic that anonymous shit-shots are sanctioned by the mods, almost as much as anonymous sucking up is allowed. If folks have something to say, have them use their name or not say it.

...wait wait...

You actually think this is something new?

In other rep news, it seems some random anon pussie doesn't like John Lennon lyrics.

How do Bush supporters justify the death of 1100 soldiers

Easy. They're in the military. It's on the job hazard list. The reason I'm pursuing a job selling books rather then a job in the military is that I don't want to get shot.

Maybe I don't care because it's not my kid in the military, but if my kid wanted to join the military I'd tell him he's a fucking idiot and deserves to be shot when and if he does get shot.

I'd still mourn his passing, but I'd blame my son/daughter for being an idiot rather then Bush.

Anyways, I really don't care what the rest of this thread is about. I'm just sick and tired about people whining about people in the military dying. They could have gone to college. They could have gotten a job parking cars. They VOLUNTARILY took a job FIRING GUNS AT PEOPLE. If they get shot back...tough shit. 60,000+ people die every year because they have fatal reactions to drugs given to them in hospitals, nobody gives a shit. 1100 people with guns shooting at other people with guns die, we're shocked.

Yeah, if the people putting their lives on the line to defend us die, who gives a damn, right?

Actually Iraq is one of the central points regarding the war on terror. Has been since the 90s. Much like Northern Africa was one of the central points on the war on Fascism. Try again.

'Actually Iraq is one of the central points regarding the war on terror. Has been since the 90s. Much like Northern Africa was one of the central points on the war on Fascism. Try again.'

- Uhm, no.
The guy we removed from power used a hard iron fist to crush any islamic extremism, he even launched in to his brutal 8 year war with Iran over fears of the islamic revolutionist attitude that had been vibrating from Iran across the middle east.
Now, well, is a different story. Now we've created a vaccum for "insurgents", or if this were a Mel Gibson movie, "Freedom Fighters", to use kidnapping and other terror tactics to harass the occupying armies.
The only evidence of terrorism was Saddam's subsides to idiot suicide bombers in the Holy Land (and what harm does a little funding do every now and then, eh? Ireland?) and about 2 meetings with al-qaede.

It's about as pathetic as all of those WoMD stockpikes.

Iraq was one of very few soverign nations in the middle east that did not allow islamic extremism to rule either its streets or its foreign policy. It was neither a place for terrorists to train and seek aid, or a manufacturing giant for WMD programmes and stockpiles. Unless, of course, your evidence lies with two, 20 year old, shells from the Iran/Iraq war that failed to do any damage as they were so old.

Come on you fucking cretin, I'm gonna have me some fun. Like a redneck at a Bush rally.

It's still sad in that, "Oh shit, people died" sad way, but it shouldn't exactly be the suprising shock that it seems to be.

Anyways, my response was to 'justifying' military deaths. It's my position that, you don't have to. When you sign up, you're saying to the government, "I no longer value my life over whatever you feel is necessary."

100+ firefighters died last year in...guess what...fires! omg! Shocker! As sad as that is, if they didn't want to die in a fire, they should have taken up knitting.