Interesting...

This was written in the Daily Record (Ellensburg, Washington
paper) on Wed. Oct. 6, 2004. It was written by Mathew Manweller
who is a Central Washington University political science professor.

The title of the article was “Election determines fate of nation.”

"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 its
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 twofold. 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 who 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
grizzly 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 WW 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 WW 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."

My comments: Maybe a little on the chicken little “sky is falling” side, but it does raise one good point. We can BS all we want around here on these forums, but who honestly thinks that Kerry (if elected) is going to step up the war effort the way we need to get some momentum going in the Middle East region. We are metaphorically hanging by a thread in Iraq, when we should have an iron-clad grip in the region by now. I’m thinking that he’s gonna approach the UN, get denied, and then all but withdraw from Iraq the first politically decent chance he gets. Maybe this won’t be the end of the world if it happens, but geez! Making the US look like a pussy is pretty counterproductive to our “War on Terror”, in my opinion. Thoughts anyone?

Joe Lieberman is as hawkish on war in the Middle East as anyone in the current administration if not more so. Why would you expect there to be any discernible difference between the two parties in terms of waging war in the Middle East? All John has done is score points about the war and its excution, he is not going to to try and undo it.

2005 Syria, Iran

2007 Saudi Arabia and beyond if possible

That is a great article and the message is well said. A Poly-Sci Professor from Washington State too! He must be out of place among his peers.

It really is as simple as that. Cave in to fear of Islamic Terrorism or defeat it. Overcome or appease.

bluey:

Anyone who says: “Wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time” is perfectly capable of “undoing it.” Kerry, because of politics also voted down 87 billion dollars needed to fund military equipment for our troops! Please don’t assume that John Kerry will not cut and run from Iraq at the very first opportunity, thus sending a message which the writer above has warned us about.

lothario, great article, thanks for posting it!

Zeb

[quote]bluey wrote:
Joe Lieberman is as hawkish on war in the Middle East as anyone in the current administration if not more so. Why would you expect there to be any discernible difference between the two parties in terms of waging war in the Middle East? [/quote]

Joe Lieberman is a moderate and appears to have some principles. Too bad the dems can’t nominate someone like that (Just making a point, not that I know where Lieberman falls on every issue).

To expect what Mr. which way the wind blows Kerry to bahave the same as Lieberman is to not be paying attention.

Lothario,

That was an excellent article.

I’m comforted by the fact that America will reject the defeatists (modern day Copperheads) on November 2nd.

I wonder if RSU/Roy Batty/tme/Sump-Pump-Lump/Brother Elk/danh will have the maturity to look back at this period and admit that their stance against our actions in Iraq was in error? Do you think the ABB’ers will ever acknowledge that their hatred of W., has blinded them to the geo-political realities of 2004?

Do you suppose Charles Lindbergh/Joe Kennedy looked back to 1940 and regretted their stances?

I’m very interested in the answers to these questions.

Oh well, for now, they can stand tall and accept the Challenge. Bet on Kerry if you love him so much.

JeffR

That article was a steaming pile of monkey crap. About the only thing I agree with is that this is a key point in American history, that this election will be seen as a barometer of American values. Our professor talks of honor, sacrifice and duty. He is confusing them with hubris, barbarity and arrogance. Where’s the honor in dropping bombs on women and children? In burning their faces off with napalm? In lining the pockets of the rich and powerful even more? Honor is bestowed on those who act with decency and virtue.

deano:
Don’t take this the wrong way, but after your post, I couldn’t help but notice that you have a bit of sand in your vagina. Take a deep breath and relax, buddy. I don’t fully agree with everything in the artice either, but you are leading me to believe that we as Americans are acting like nothing but profiteering maniacs who care nothing for human life. We are not dropping bombs on babies on purpose. It’s the same thing with most anti-war folks around here. There’s a couple of y’all who cry out that we are assholes and we’re evil, and look at this picture of a kid who’s missing a leg because of some errant missile strike, and ohmyGod what are we doing over there? Don’t you see pal? The professor in the article devoted an entire paragraph to discuss the people who say things like that. Maybe I’m losing you here for a second. Let’s use an analogy perhaps.

Have you ever seen first-hand what a highway vehicular collision can do to a person not wearing a seat-belt? If not, that’s cool. Pop on over to rotten.com, and you can see all kinds of gruesome aftermath in full 24-bit color. It’s eye-opening, to say the least, if you have never been exposed to such things before. Now, after seeing the horrible effects of “accidents” on the highway as compared to, say, an errant missile strike or misplaced bomb, you might conclude that they are pretty damn similar. And they are. We clean up the mess from these road accidents with a garden hose, because there’s nothing else you can do. So why do we have roads? Why the hell do we drive cars? Have you seen what they can do? A car is a weapon, just like a bomb. Only the roads take 10 times more lives every year than the few misguided missiles or bombs have taken on the Iraqi civilians since we’ve been there.

Face it: People die. Life is cruel and unkind sometimes. But you can’t let timidity stand in the way of paving a brighter future for everyone on this planet. The article is basically saying: “Are we gonna stand by and watch this thing blow itself up, or are we gonna continue to try to DO SOMETHING about it?” Freedom and Democracy are going to save the Middle East from itself. I firmly believe this. But there are people over there who stand to lose A LOT if it should come to pass. So, we are enemies. So, we fight. This is the way of things. If you can’t see that we fight for an honorable and just cause, then that’s fine. We just have differing opinions on how our nation should behave itself.

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:

Freedom and Democracy are going to save the Middle East from itself. I firmly believe this. [/quote]

Extremists may argue with each other but they think the same. Some other hothead is saying:

Islam and Shria are going to save the West from itself. I firmly believe this.

In partial terms what is saving the Middle East from itself going to achieve? If your say stop terror, how is it going to do that?

One thing that it will achieve is send waves of immigrants who’s homes have been destroyed, families killed to your door. Do your really think they are going to like you and treat you well?

Under the current policy of exporting freedom and democracy at the point of a gun exactly how many wars and how many countries do you think will need to be fought and invaded for freedom and democracy to save the middle east?

Afganistan
Iraq
Sryia?
Iran?
Lebannon?
Palestine?
Egypt?
Saudi Arabia?
Yemen?
Sudan?
Algeria?
Morroco?
Pakistan?
Turkey?
Azaribizan?
Turkmenistan?
Uzebesistan?
Kasakistan?
Somalia?

And anyone who gets in the way?
Russia?
France?
China?
EU?

How many lives (on both sides both fighters and civilian) and how much money is too much?

100,000 and a 500 billion?
1,000,000 and a trillion?
10,000,000 and 10 trillion?

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
deano:
but you are leading me to believe that we as Americans are acting like nothing but profiteering maniacs who care nothing for human life. We are not dropping bombs on babies on purpose.

The bombs aren’t being dropped on babies on purpose but they are being dropped on purpose. If they weren’t dropped, no dead babies. Simple. As for the profiteering, well there’s plenty of money being made over there, and not by the local Iraqis, but by Americans.

It’s the same thing with most anti-war folks around here.
There’s a couple of y’all who cry out that we are assholes and we’re evil, and look at this picture of a kid who’s missing a leg because of some errant missile strike, and ohmyGod what are we doing over there?

What are we doing over there? Flexing military muscle. Fixing up family grudges. Making money. Killing thousands. Sowing the seeds of hatred for the future. Creating the next generation of terrorists.

Don’t you see pal? The professor in the article devoted an entire paragraph to discuss the people who say things like that. Maybe I’m losing you here for a second.

Don’t patronize or speak down to me, you asshole.

Let’s use an analogy perhaps.

Have you ever seen first-hand what a highway vehicular collision can do to a person not wearing a seat-belt? If not, that’s cool. Pop on over to rotten.com, and you can see all kinds of gruesome aftermath in full 24-bit color. It’s eye-opening, to say the least, if you have never been exposed to such things before. Now, after seeing the horrible effects of “accidents” on the highway as compared to, say, an errant missile strike or misplaced bomb, you might conclude that they are pretty damn similar. And they are. We clean up the mess from these road accidents with a garden hose, because there’s nothing else you can do. So why do we have roads? Why the hell do we drive cars? Have you seen what they can do? A car is a weapon, just like a bomb. Only the roads take 10 times more lives every year than the few misguided missiles or bombs have taken on the Iraqi civilians since we’ve been there.

A poor analogy and a pretty heartless one. We need to drive. We don’t need to be in Iraq. Like Kerry said ‘Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time.’

Face it: People die. Life is cruel and unkind sometimes. But you can’t let timidity stand in the way of paving a brighter future for everyone on this planet.

You,and the article, seem to state that America is on some kind of divine mission to right all the wrongs in the world, that it’s for the people of Iraq, to give them democracy and freedom. So why hasn’t America stepped in the countless African conflicts of the last decade? In North Korea? Myanmar? Driven China out of Tibet? Why didn’t they stay in Somalia? Why aren’t they in the Sudan now? America chooses where to intervene for its own selfish strategic/economic reasons, not for altruistic ones.

The article is basically saying: “Are we gonna stand by and watch this thing blow itself up, or are we gonna continue to try to DO SOMETHING about it?” Freedom and Democracy are going to save the Middle East from itself. .[/quote]

Well I partly agree. The Middle East does have some backward and oppressive traditions and governments. In most of the Middle East, though, freedom and democracy was (yes albeit) slowly evolving. But this war is damaging this movement, not helping it. Are you going to want to take up the traditions and beliefs of your occupier? The people who (purposefully or not) have killed members of your family? You’re going to grow up and hate them. The war in Iraq is a fucking mess. The popular support America received from some Iraqis has all but eroded to be replaced with hatred and resentment. Ironically although Saddam was a brutal tyrant the average Iraqi 2 years ago lived a , by world standards, reasonable middle class life and was not tolerant of terrorism. Now more Iraqis support and are engaged in that behavior than ever before. At the moment you’re trying to foster change on a people who don’t want it and don’t want you there.
Education and economic growth would have changed the Middle East over time to the democratic free model you so hope for. Yes, it would have been a slow and painful process. But it would have happened. Look at China. What’s going to happen from in Iraq from here? Things are not improving, and Bush can go on about ‘Hard work’ as much as he wants. And, if you really think it’s all about democracy and freedom anyway, you’re naive.

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
deano:
Don’t take this the wrong way, but after your post, I couldn’t help but notice that you have a bit of sand in your vagina. [/quote]

I have sand in my vagina? And I have a vagina? So I am a pussy? And I’m not supposed to take that the wrong way? You insult someone and tell them not to take it the wrong way? Suck me.

bluey: You make me laugh. Thank you. That is the first time I think anybody has ever called me an extremist. Listen pooky, if there was any other way besides than violence, don’t you think we would be doing it? This is all those people know. They have been killing each other for something like 3000 years. The only periods of peace occurred when a powerful man would conquer a decent sized-chunk of land, and rule it with an iron fist. Then he would eventually die. Then they would start killing each other again.

The cycle has to stop, bluey. The people who live in the Middle East have NEVER known what it is like to have the power of self-determination, to feel what it is like to have real freedom, or a say in their government. You want to talk about barbarism? The leaders of those countries are more scared of the idea of women learning to read, and daring to try to make themselves their equals than any gun or bomb. This is not about money, bluey, but it IS about power and control. And we are trying to give the Iraqi people that power, and that control. It’s called democracy, boo-boo. Try it sometime.

Please disregard what I wrote. I try to stay away from the politics forum but sometimes I can’t help myself.

I did not mean to call you and extremist (I phased it very badly) what I meant to illustrate is that your attitude towards Arabs, Muslims and the Middle East is similar to the attitude that many of them have towards us. IMHO neither is very productive.

deano:
At least we can agree on one thing… I AM an asshole. But I didn’t mean to be patronizing to you, as I saved that for bluey. Anyway, I don’t think that the invasion was ONLY about democracy and freedom. But do you think it was ONLY about corruption and money? If so, then you are naive as well.

P.S. My analogy, BTW, kicked ass. Did you look at rotten.com? Have you smelled what it’s like after an auto wreck like that? I see it all the time at work, man. There is nothing heartless or cruel about my analogy at all. The damage is very similar. You say “we have to drive”, but the victims I see of the car wrecks are just as innocent as the unlucky Iraqi caught by one of our supposedly “smart bombs”. No bomb = no death, and you’re right about that, too. Just like no car = no death. But we get into them anyway, don’t we? Pack our kids in there, too. Driving a car is probably the most dangerous thing that we do. But, like you said, it’s necessary. Just like we are in Iraq. No one else is going to be able to help them help themselves.

I imagine that it takes a catastrophic event like 9/11 to motivate the “average American” to stop thinking about TV and focus more on international events. Widespread support is necessary in our kind of society, and we can argue to each other until we’re blue in the face about this (and a bunch of us still are), but I believe that we were justified in invading Iraq for many reasons besides a rose-colored glasses idealism. Until we got in there, we had to assume he had WMD’s. He sure acted like he had them… he blocked the UN inspectors – they couldn’t help, so it left us no choice but to enforce the UN resolutions ourselves. So we oust this asshole, and now we need a reason to stick around. I think that giving the Iraqi people a taste of freedom is reason enough.

As for why we didn’t go to Tibet, or Africa, etc.: You can say that it’s because they don’t have oil, or whatever. But these are weird times. There is no clear-cut document like the UN resolution violations to justify the invasion of Tibet, etc. Why haven’t we gone to N Korea or Iran? They’re dangerous, right? Something tells me that when we get Iraq situated, then something’s gonna happen there, too. Hopefully it won’t be another dang war.

Anyway, thanks for posting on my thread. I enjoy debating with you. Even if I’m a condescending asshole. :slight_smile:

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
They have been killing each other for something like 3000 years.

[/quote]

The people (i.e. they) of the Middle East only came to the region a little over 1000 years ago (about 1500 for the Arabs, 1200 for the Turks). Since you know so much about their history you must know what they are really like and what they want?

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:

The cycle has to stop, bluey. The people who live in the Middle East have NEVER known what it is like to have the power of self-determination, to feel what it is like to have real freedom, or a say in their government. You want to talk about barbarism? The leaders of those countries are more scared of the idea of women learning to read, and daring to try to make themselves their equals than any gun or bomb. This is not about money, bluey, but it IS about power and control. And we are trying to give the Iraqi people that power, and that control. It’s called democracy, boo-boo. Try it sometime.

[/quote]

Do you really believe that? It?s all about freedom and democracy?

Iran is a democracy (maybe not a good one but still a democracy). Yet it is an Axis of Evil member?

Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Pakistan etc are not democracies. Yet are friendly countries?

The same with women?s rights and minority rights. For example women and Christians were much safer and better looked after under Sadam in Iraq than they are in Saudi Arabia today?

What it is about is compliant regimes that are pro-oil interest, pro-American and pro-israelii. Whether they be democracies or dictatorships does not really matter.

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:

This is not about money

[/quote]

I was not saying it was I was just asking how many wars, invasions, deaths, and injuries, dollars you are worth it? Is it worth 10 more wars to bring freedom and democracy at gun point to the middle east?

Anyway I will try and stay away from the politics forum from now on.

one more deano: I just noticed your reference to my “sand in your vagina” comment. Relax, it’s a phrase like “take a chill pill”. You don’t actually take a friggin’ pill. And as for sucking you, well… you said you don’t have a vagina, so I guess you’re shit outta luck! :slight_smile:

bluey: Okay 1000 years. Sue me. :slight_smile:

Are you really gonna take off on us, then? Damn, scared off another one. Sorry I was heckling you, dude. Didn’t mean any harm.

And as for what you meant by your post and the money thing, my bad. But the answer to your question, you must realize, can’t be answered. You asked a rhetorical question designed to make an emotional point to me. There’s no real way to know what it will take until it’s over. But these hard decisions to make are what the article I posted was about. The question remains: Are we, as Americans, up to this?

Loth whats up buddy! :wink: Hows it feel to be a middle of the road moderate and still be too far to the right for our liberal friends here. I have made the same argument about automobiles on previous posts and have never had a solid response to it, it’s always, well they are necessary. And so 50% or so of our country think the war in iraq is necessary also. But of course we are wrong and they are right. lol

Dean, you say the war in iraq is a fucking mess? tell me one war that has been “Less Messy”… You cant, why? because this has been the single best military action in terms of casualties and collateral damage in the history of the world!!! If you don’t understand that than you don’t really understand what war is. War is when two sides want to kill eachother. In this case, we went to war with the regime in Iraq, Not the country of iraq. Now we are not at war, we are policing. We are welcomed into Iraq as peacekeepers but the now leaders of Iraq. These by the way are leaders who support democracy and freedom, they support peace and abhor terrorism. So fing what if we appointed them. I’d say we have about as much knowledge of who would be good at supporting those ideals I listed above as anyone. Certainly these are credible choices to institute a government of peace.

Dean, Lets take a look at the US Civil War. Why did it start? Because the southern states had differing views than the northern states. That is all, they wanted thier own country so they could do things thier own way. Do you think we would be better of if we allowed them to leave? No one really knows for sure, but i’m guessing we would be two weak little countries if we had split.

War is war, it is a brutal and bloody way to achieve something. Sometimes the intentions are good, that makes it a good war, sometimes the intentions are bad, that makes it a bad war. Vietnam was a good war, we just fought it badly. we are fighting this war very well and in 50 years it will be a huge victory and praised by all.

Vegita ~ Prince of all Sayajins

Bravo! Great message in this article. You lefty-libs better buck up, because the world is judging our strength and perseverance. If President Bush loses this election, the entire country loses.