Election determines fate of nation

I saw this posted on another board. I know Core will dislike the fact I am posting an article  but I think there is something here to ponder.
 

Election determines fate of nation
By Mathew Manweller
Central Washington University political science professor

"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.&n! bsp; 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 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 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 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."

Mathew Manweller

George W. Bush flips a half-hearted salute with a false look of noble contemplation on his face, while the sun sets and a US flag flutters in the distance.


Cut the crap.  Republicans like to make everything one of their presidents does out to be more important than it really is.  "No, no, this is not just a military operation to enrich the corporations who donated to our party, do a favor for our buddies the Saudis, expend a bunch of ordinance to keep the defense contractors busy, and basically demonstrate what big c0cks we have.  NO, this was really all about great high minded values, and WWII determination, and patriotism and stuff like that."  

I think everyone who believes all the rhetoric quoted above should consider for 1 second "WHAT IF everything we\'re doing in Iraq now really is based on lies, and it turns out to be another enormous tub of shit like Vietnam?"  There are some problems in this world we can\'t fix.  There are some people who really would choose a dictatorship over democracy, if that means a loosening of the moral standards of their society.  And there are some countries that our idealistic, myopic, christian/conservative world view cannot effectively change.

And what makes you think all of what you just said is correct Core?

Well, the article seems quite biased but I\'ll go ahead and reply...

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.

Now when has it been said that if Kerry gets elected we will just up and run?  He has stated numerous times that he will finish the job in Iraq, I believe his words were, "we have to".  Spreading liberty around the world is a great idea but there are right and wrong ways to go about it.  I say kick starting it without the support of the whole world behind you is the wrong way to do it.  Nobody here can deny we share a VERY large part of this burden and if anything support from allies is lessening for the war in Iraq.  

As for tackling the war on terroism, Iraq is a good start but are we just going to invade the supposed 60 other countries that harbor terrorists?

Oh wait I forgot, it\'s hard work and it\'ll be done when it\'s done.  :rolleyes:

bah!

ok, heres a question what would you do about the Iraq situation different from either candidate.

I certainly don\'t have an answer to the war in Iraq.  I can just point out what I\'ve come to know and that is it will be years and years before we can get out if we stick with Bush\'s plan.  He doesn\'t deny it so I have no reason to think otherwise.  While we spend our resources in Iraq what about the rest of the world and the growing threats?  We went after Saddam because he supposedly had WMD...well, isn\'t North Korea in possession of several WMD and Iran is in the process of getting nuclear weapons?  Me thinks you don\'t acquire such things unless you intend on and/or are capable of using them.

What about all the domestic issues?  Are we just going to keep pumping money into spreading liberty while our own security needs some major patch work?

As for Kerry\'s plan, I don\'t know what it is but it can\'t be that hard to carry out Bush\'s grand plan if all else fails.

Originally posted by Ginko
As for Kerry\'s plan, I don\'t know what it is . . .

As Kerry says, he has a plan. No one knows what his plan is and it\'s my guess that no one knows what it is is because he does not have one.

Liberals always get their undies in a bunch when articles like this are posted. I guess it hits too damn close to home, eh?

So I take it you think everything is just dandy at the moment?

I\'m of the least informed in this forum when it comes to politics.  It\'s not my job to figure out or be informed as to what needs to be done in order to clean up our mess in Iraq.  I\'m just relaying what I\'ve happened to come across in the debates and neither Bush or Kerry have a solid plan.

Liberals always get their undies in a bunch when articles like this are posted. I guess it hits too damn close to home, eh?

I\'d love it if you could make any sense out of that...

Originally posted by Ginko
So I take it you think everything is just dandy at the moment?

You\'d be wrong in that assessment.

I\'m of the least informed in this forum when it comes to politics.  It\'s not my job to figure out or be informed as to what needs to be done in order to clean up our mess in Iraq.  I\'m just relaying what I\'ve happened to come across in the debates and neither Bush or Kerry have a solid plan.

I was not impugning your take on Kerry\'s plan. My point is that Kerry has confused people on all his so called plans because a confused voter is better than informed voter. At least for Kerry.

I\'d love it if you could make any sense out of that...

Frustration.

You\'d be wrong in that assessment.

Yet I haven\'t seen you criticize Bush...perhaps I\'m not in here enough to have witnessed it though.

I was not impugning your take on Kerry\'s plan. My point is that Kerry has confused people on all his so called plans because a confused voter is better than informed voter. At least for Kerry.

Well, I forgot about the summits which are certainly worth a shot.  If they fail then carry out Bush\'s "it\'ll be done when it\'s done."

Frustration.

heh, you don\'t know me at all.  I honestly couldn\'t care less.  Whoever wins this election and whatever happens in Iraq will not influence my outlook on day to day life.  It hasn\'t in the past 3 years since 9/11, or since we declared war on Iraq.  I\'m just along for the ride...oh, and to stir up things in this forum whenever possible.

Originally posted by Ace
As Kerry says, he has a plan. No one knows...

...secure the borders, quickly train Iraqi forces (outside of Iraq if need be), attract more allies physically and monetarily, eat a ham sandwich, begin to withdraw troops in 6 months...

ZZZZzzzzzz

You\'re right though, no one knows his plan.... :rolleyes: He only mentioned it live on tv in front of 40 million viewers.

-Dan

Originally posted by mjps21983
And what makes you think all of what you just said is correct Core?

I do not assume that I am correct about the current status of this war or the future of the war.  I was against it from the beginning because I believed the  Bush administration\'s justifications for it were flimsy.  That belief has been borne out.  Now that we\'re stuck with this war, I honestly don\'t know what will happen next, but I don\'t see it getting better.

I\'m basing my opinion on what I observe, not what I want to be true.  I would like these republican\'s vision of the war to be true.  It would be great if the Iraqi people would train up a huge reliable police force of their own, and take over making their own nation secure, and so forth.  To be perfectly frank, I don\'t see it happening.  The crazy ideology of the Bush administration and several people on this forum is something like the old Vietnam bullshit:  "Inside every gook, there\'s an American waiting to get out."  That\'s what Bush is saying when he says we need to "spread freedom and liberty."  He\'s saying these Iraqis are just waiting for us to bestow our blessing of americanism on them, and they\'ll eat it up like candy.  

Well I have to say that was bullshit then, and it\'s bullshit today.  The world doesn\'t like us.  They don\'t want to be like us.  If we claim to like democracy, then they probably figure there must be something wrong with it.  I think the Iraqis would rather be alive than free.  You can say what a bad place Iraq was under Saddam Hussein, but I\'ll bet it was safer and more stable for most of them than it is now.  And who knows how much worse it will get, especially if some zealous islamic cleric takes over the country?  Their first order of business might be some enormous political cleansing.

I think that is the natural direction the country would go in if we left.  If we don\'t want that to happen, then we have to make the country go in an unnatural direction by force.  That means more resistance, more insurgency, and more lives and dollars spent.  We cannot outlast the insurgents.  They will be there the day after we leave, even if that\'s 100 years in the future.  Why didn\'t we learn that lesson from Vietnam?  Why is everyone here unwilling to see it?

[clips]

Originally posted by Coredweller
I do not assume that I am correct about the current status of this war or the future of the war.  I was against it from the beginning because I believed the  Bush administration\'s justifications for it were flimsy.  That belief has been borne out.  Now that we\'re stuck with this war, I honestly don\'t know what will happen next, but I don\'t see it getting better.

I\'m basing my opinion on what I observe, not what I want to be true.  I would like these republican\'s vision of the war to be true.  It would be great if the Iraqi people would train up a huge reliable police force of their own, and take over making their own nation secure, and so forth.  To be perfectly frank, I don\'t see it happening.  The crazy ideology of the Bush administration and several people on this forum is something like the old Vietnam bullshit:  "Inside every gook, there\'s an American waiting to get out."  That\'s what Bush is saying when he says we need to "spread freedom and liberty."  He\'s saying these Iraqis are just waiting for us to bestow our blessing of americanism on them, and they\'ll eat it up like candy.  

Well I have to say that was bullshit then, and it\'s bullshit today.  The world doesn\'t like us.  They don\'t want to be like us.  If we claim to like democracy, then they probably figure there must be something wrong with it.  I think the Iraqis would rather be alive than free.  You can say what a bad place Iraq was under Saddam Hussein, but I\'ll bet it was safer and more stable for most of them than it is now.  And who knows how much worse it will get, especially if some zealous islamic cleric takes over the country?  Their first order of business might be some enormous political cleansing.

I think that is the natural direction the country would go in if we left.  If we don\'t want that to happen, then we have to make the country go in an unnatural direction by force.  That means more resistance, more insurgency, and more lives and dollars spent.  We cannot outlast the insurgents.  They will be there the day after we leave, even if that\'s 100 years in the future.  Why didn\'t we learn that lesson from Vietnam?  Why is everyone here unwilling to see it?

superb post core..i agree 100%...

Originally posted by Coredweller
I do not assume that I am correct about the current status of this war or the future of the war.  I was against it from the beginning because I believed the  Bush administration\'s justifications for it were flimsy.  That belief has been borne out.  Now that we\'re stuck with this war, I honestly don\'t know what will happen next, but I don\'t see it getting better.

I\'m basing my opinion on what I observe, not what I want to be true.  I would like these republican\'s vision of the war to be true.  It would be great if the Iraqi people would train up a huge reliable police force of their own, and take over making their own nation secure, and so forth.  To be perfectly frank, I don\'t see it happening.  The crazy ideology of the Bush administration and several people on this forum is something like the old Vietnam bullshit:  "Inside every gook, there\'s an American waiting to get out."  That\'s what Bush is saying when he says we need to "spread freedom and liberty."  He\'s saying these Iraqis are just waiting for us to bestow our blessing of americanism on them, and they\'ll eat it up like candy.  

Well I have to say that was bullshit then, and it\'s bullshit today.  The world doesn\'t like us.  They don\'t want to be like us.  If we claim to like democracy, then they probably figure there must be something wrong with it.  I think the Iraqis would rather be alive than free.  You can say what a bad place Iraq was under Saddam Hussein, but I\'ll bet it was safer and more stable for most of them than it is now.  And who knows how much worse it will get, especially if some zealous islamic cleric takes over the country?  Their first order of business might be some enormous political cleansing.

I think that is the natural direction the country would go in if we left.  If we don\'t want that to happen, then we have to make the country go in an unnatural direction by force.  That means more resistance, more insurgency, and more lives and dollars spent.  We cannot outlast the insurgents.  They will be there the day after we leave, even if that\'s 100 years in the future.  Why didn\'t we learn that lesson from Vietnam?  Why is everyone here unwilling to see it?

You gotta love a man who watches Full Metal Jacket and pulls quotes from it and uses them to justify a really big point.  In fact, it\'s on right now on HBO on the west coast.  Been watching it for the past 45 minutes.

Originally posted by Eiksirf
...secure the borders, quickly train Iraqi forces (outside of Iraq if need be), attract more allies physically and monetarily, eat a ham sandwich, begin to withdraw troops in 6 months...

ZZZZzzzzzz

You\'re right though, no one knows his plan.... :rolleyes: He only mentioned it live on tv in front of 40 million viewers.

-Dan

OK,

I have a plan too. My plan is to jump from my backyard to the moon and then back. Pretty cool plan, eh? Ask me how I\'m gonna do it.

*How ya gonna do it Ace?*

Let\'s just say that I have a plan. :rolleyes: