Take a few minutes and read this. Then decide where you stand, regardless
of your personal feelings for George W. Bush. Then pass it on to your
"entire" address list, and let them decide where they stand. This man is
right on.
From the Wed 06 Oct 2004 issue of the Ellensburg Daily Record Ellensburg,
Washington)...written 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. 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

Take a few minutes and read this. Then decide where you stand, regardless
of your personal feelings for George W. Bush. Then pass it on to your
"entire" address list, and let them decide where they stand. This man is
right on.
From the Wed 06 Oct 2004 issue of the Ellensburg Daily Record Ellensburg,
Washington)...written 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. 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


What a load of crap

i agree, its a load of crap, cmon, even bushes father has been making those kinda decisions, its not a decision out of frustration from recent events, i mean, its been going on for yyears. bush and his ancestors are jus blood hungry, terrorists who strongly reside to imperialism, they own iraq, afghanistan, parts of vietnam, somalia...hes not out there to protect the citizens of those countries, hes there to protect his wallet, even his dad was like that, wat we see on TV is just the bare minimum, im sure that if u visit one of those countries that were overun by the U.S you would see different side of the story, where was america when millions of people lost there lives in Rwanda a few years ago? it was only weak countries taht were trying to stop the terrorists in rwanda from killing there own people, it was a genocide, and wwhen america was called for some help, there response was "this country is of no value to us, it hold no useful resources" so why, why should we vote for someone who is not out there to "help america" but is more out there to "dominate the world".....oh btw im not in america so i cant vote against bush :mad:

i agree, its a load of crap, cmon, even bushes father has been making those kinda decisions, its not a decision out of frustration from recent events, i mean, its been going on for yyears. bush and his ancestors are jus blood hungry, terrorists who strongly reside to imperialism, they own iraq, afghanistan, parts of vietnam, somalia...hes not out there to protect the citizens of those countries, hes there to protect his wallet, even his dad was like that, wat we see on TV is just the bare minimum, im sure that if u visit one of those countries that were overun by the U.S you would see different side of the story, where was america when millions of people lost there lives in Rwanda a few years ago? it was only weak countries taht were trying to stop the terrorists in rwanda from killing there own people, it was a genocide, and wwhen america was called for some help, there response was "this country is of no value to us, it hold no useful resources" so why, why should we vote for someone who is not out there to "help america" but is more out there to "dominate the world".....oh btw im not in america so i cant vote against bush :mad:


i was wondering, since you seem to know alot about rwanda, do you know who was the president at that time? well lets see, the Rwandan Patriotic Front began a civil war in 1990. (that would have been pappa bush) however...the war, along with several political and economic upheavals, exacerbated ethnic tensions, culminating in April 1994 (bill clintons term) in the genocide of roughly 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus. so it seems that the majority of the intense and mass killing happened on mr. clintons watch. yes there was a civil war going on over there. that war was fueled by a previous overthrow of the Tutsi king in 1959. What happens next is that the children of the tutsi form the Rwandan Patriotic Front. well as stated the civil war started in 1990. however, the killings came later. April 6 1994 Rwandan President Habyarimana and the Burundian President are killed when Habyarimana's plane is shot down near Kigali Airport. Hutu extremists, suspecting that the Rwandan president is finally about to implement the Arusha Peace Accords, are believed to be behind the attack. The killings begin that night.
April 7 The Rwandan Armed Forces (FAR) and Hutu militia (the interahamwe) set up roadblocks and go from house to house killing Tutsis and moderate Hutu politicians. Thousands die on the first day. Some U.N. camps shelter civilians, but most of the U.N. peackeeping forces (UNAMIR--United Nations Assistance Mission in Rwanda) stand by while the slaughter goes on. They are forbidden to intervene, as this would breach their "monitoring" mandate.

On this day, ten Belgian soldiers with UNAMIR, assigned to guard the moderate Hutu Prime Minister, are tricked into giving up their weapons. They are tortured and murdered.

Also on this day, President Clinton issues a statement:

"... shocked and deeply saddened ... horrified that elements of the Rwandan security forces have sought out and murdered Rwandan officials ... extend my condolences ... condemn these actions and I call on all parties to cease any such actions immediately ..."
April 8 The Tutsi Rwandese Patriotic Front (RPF) launches a major offensive to end the killings and rescue 600 of its troops surrounded in Kigali. The troops had been based in the city as part of the Arusha Accords.

President Clinton speaks to the press about Rwanda--

"... I mention it only because there are a sizable number of Americans there and it is a very tense situation. And I just want to assure the families of those who are there that we are doing everything we possible can to be on top of the situation to take all the appropriate steps to try to assure the safety of our citizens there."
April 9-10 France and Belgium send troops to rescue their citizens. American civilians are also airlifted out. No Rwandans are rescued, not even Rwandans employed by Western governments in their embassies, consulates, etc.
April 11 The International Red Cross estimates that tens of thousands of Rwandans have been murdered.

At the Don Bosco school, protected by Belgian UNAMIR soldiers, the number of civilians seeking refuge reaches 2,000. That afternoon, the U.N. soldiers are ordered to withdraw to the airport. Most of the civilians they abandon are killed.
April 14 One week after the murder of the ten Belgian soldiers, Belgium withdraws from UNAMIR.
April 21 The U.N. Security Council votes unanimously to withdraw most of the UNAMIR troops, cutting the force from 2,500 to 270.

The International Red Cross estimates that tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of Rwandans are now dead.
April 28 State Department spokeswoman Christine Shelley is asked whether what is happening in Rwanda is a genocide. She responds,

"...the use of the term 'genocide' has a very precise legal meaning, although it's not strictly a legal determination. There are other factors in there as well."

However, a secret intelligence report by the State Department issued as early as the end of April calls the killings a genocide.
April 30 The U.N. Security Council passes a resolution condemning the killing, but omits the word "genocide." Had the term been used, the U.N. would have been legally obliged to act to "prevent and punish" the perpetrators.

Tens of thousands of refugees flee into Tanzania, Burundi and Zaire. In one day, 250,000 Rwandans, mainly Hutus fleeing the advance of the Tutsi RPF, cross the border into Tanzania.

May 1994 The White House starts holding daily confidential briefings on Rwanda with various U.S. government organizations via secure video link.

May 2 Kofi Annan, head of U.N. peacekeeping, testifies before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:

"When the Belgians left it was clear that the U.N. could not implement the mandate it had, and either the mandate had to be changed, or reinforcements introduced ... I do not know what the Council will decide after they have reviewed and reconsidered the situation today. If the council is going to recommend reinforcement, the reinforcement that goes in has to be well equipped, very mobile, and also able to protect itself. If we do not send in that kind of reinforcement ... then I'm not quite sure they'll be able to bring about a sort of law and order ... that will lead to the end of the massacres ... here we are watching people being deprived of the most fundamental of rights, the right to life, and yet we seem a bit helpless ..." (this in my opinion is a cry for help, even though he would not call it genocide)

May 3 Clinton signs a Presidential Decision Directive (PDD 25), created after a review of the nation's peacekeeping policies and programs. PDD 25 aims to limit U.S. military involvement in international peacekeeping operations. (dirtbag)

May 5 Madeline Albright, U.S. Representative to the U.N., testifies at a congressional hearing on funding of U.N. programs:

"But let me just tell you that on the Rwanda thing, it is my sense that to a great extent the Security Council and the U.N. missed the boat. We are now dealing with a situation way beyond anything that anybody expected. And as I mentioned earlier, what happened was that we were on one process where a smaller United Nations force, we felt, could deal with some of the issues in the area, and then all of a sudden with the shootdown of this airplane with the two presidents, it created an avalanche. And so it is hard to judge whether that particular operations started out properly."

Anthony Lake, National Security Advisor, gives a press briefing on PDD 25:

"When I wake up every morning and look at the headlines and the stories and the images on television of these conflicts, I want to work to end every conflict. I want to work to save every child out there. And I know the president does, and I know the American people do. But neither we nor the international community have the resources nor the mandate to do so. So we have to make distinctions. We have to ask the hard questions about where and when we can intervene. And the reality is that we cannot often solve other people's problems; we can never build their nations for them ..."

May 11 At a State Department briefing, Mike McCurry is asked, "Has this government been able to determine whether any of the acts committed in Rwanda since April 6 constitute genocide?" He answers, "I don't know that they've made any legal determination on that."

May 13 The U.N. Security Council prepares to vote on restoring UNAMIR's strength in Rwanda. However, Madeline Albright delays the vote for four days.(*****)

May 17

As the slaughter of the Tutsis continues, the U.N. finally agrees to send 5,500 troops to Rwanda. The Security Council resolution says, "acts of genocide may have been committed." However, the deployment of the mainly African U.N. forces is delayed because of arguments over who will pay the bill and provide the equipment.

Albright testifies at a Capitol Hill hearing on tensions in U.S.-U.N. relations and discusses the Security Council's resolution:

"... The United States has been a driving force in the provision of humanitarian assistance, in condemning the violence and in trying to organize a U.N. mission designed not simply to promise, but to deliver what it promises. Sending a U.N. force into the maelstrom in Rwanda without a sound plan of operations would be folly ... The resolution adopted last night requires the Secretary-General to report back before the next phase of deployment begins ... these choices are not easy ones. Emotions can produce wonderful speeches and stirring op-ed pieces. But emotions alone cannot produce policies that will achieve what they promise. If we do not keep commitments in line with capabilities, we will only further undermine U.N. credibility and support. The actions authorized last night will help. They may save lives. But ultimately, the future of Rwanda is in Rwandan hands." (in otherwords we don't want anything to do with it)

May 19 The U.N. requests the U.S. provide 50 armored personnel carriers (APCs). However, there are arguments between the U.S. and the U.N. over the costs. (i know they were making sure that our economy was sound)

Mid May The International Red Cross estimates 500,000 Rwandans have been killed.

May 25 Mike McCurry, State Department spokesman, is asked at a press briefing, "... Has the administration yet come to any decision on whether it can be described as genocide?"

He answers, "I'll have to confess, I don't know the answer to that. I know that the issue was under very active consideration. I think there was a strong disposition within the department here to view what has happened there; certainly, constituting acts of genocide that have occurred ..."

June 10 At a State Department briefing, spokesperson Christine Shelley is asked, "How many acts of genocide does it take to make genocide?"

"That's just not a question that I'm in a position to answer."

"Well, is it true that you have specific guidance not to use the word 'genocide' in isolation, but always to preface it with these words 'acts of'?"

"I have guidance which I try to use as best as I can. There are formulations that we are using that we are trying to be consistent in our use of. I don't have an absolute categorical prescription against something, but I have the definitions. I have phraseology which has been carefully examined and arrived at as best as we can apply to exactly the situation and the actions which have taken place ... "

June 22 With still no sign of U.N. deployment, the Security Council authorizes the deployment of French forces in south-west Rwanda--"Operation Turquoise." They create a "safe area" in territory controlled by the government. However, killings of Tutsis continue in the safe area.

Mid July 1994 The Tutsi RPF forces capture Kigali. The Hutu government flees to Zaire, followed by a tide of refugees. The French end their mission and are replaced by Ethiopian U.N. troops. The RPF sets up an interim government of national unity in Kigali.

Although disease and more killings claim additional lives in the refugee camps, the genocide is over. An estimated 800,000 Rwandans have been killed in 100 days.

i agree, its a load of crap, cmon, even bushes father has been making those kinda decisions, its not a decision out of frustration from recent events, i mean, its been going on for yyears. bush and his ancestors are jus blood hungry, terrorists who strongly reside to imperialism, they own iraq, afghanistan, parts of vietnam, somalia...hes not out there to protect the citizens of those countries, hes there to protect his wallet, even his dad was like that, wat we see on TV is just the bare minimum, im sure that if u visit one of those countries that were overun by the U.S you would see different side of the story, where was america when millions of people lost there lives in Rwanda a few years ago? it was only weak countries taht were trying to stop the terrorists in rwanda from killing there own people, it was a genocide, and wwhen america was called for some help, there response was "this country is of no value to us, it hold no useful resources" so why, why should we vote for someone who is not out there to "help america" but is more out there to "dominate the world".....oh btw im not in america so i cant vote against bush :mad:


sometimes we need the war hungry in office to keep the peace of the world to this day they are still finding mass graves in iraq. Official Iraqi documents recovered after the fall of Saddam’s regime suggest a staggering 5 million executions were made during Ba’ath era alone. Over 10 million were also imprisoned. They were all Shi’ite save a small percentage of Kurds. It is also very interesting to note that after the 1991 Shi’ite uprising over 300,000 were killed or captured never to be seen again, but there were no injured. This is very odd considering the logical fact that wars result in many more injuries than deaths. Under Saddam, however, people were either killed instantly or killed in mass executions soon after. With slogans such as “After today no more Shi’ites” the army had advanced into the city of Karbala. The killed were killed, the captured were killed, and the injured were killed as well. No one was spared.

and you were talking about rwanda? wmds or not. the right thing has been done.

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/gay16.jpg

hmm....interesting...i dont know much about rwanda, i jus had a romeo dallaire? come in to our scool and talk to us about it...i guess when ur president and u have taht militray power, itd be hard to think about ur fellow citizens and worry about killing other people in countrie

sometimes we need the war hungry in office to keep the peace of the world to this day they are still finding mass graves in iraq. Official Iraqi documents recovered after the fall of Saddam’s regime suggest a staggering 5 million executions were made during Ba’ath era alone. Over 10 million were also imprisoned. They were all Shi’ite save a small percentage of Kurds. It is also very interesting to note that after the 1991 Shi’ite uprising over 300,000 were killed or captured never to be seen again, but there were no injured. This is very odd considering the logical fact that wars result in many more injuries than deaths. Under Saddam, however, people were either killed instantly or killed in mass executions soon after. With slogans such as “After today no more Shi’ites” the army had advanced into the city of Karbala. The killed were killed, the captured were killed, and the injured were killed as well. No one was spared.

and you were talking about rwanda? wmds or not. the right thing has been done.




....Save it Pappy, when have the facts ever been part of the liberal turd agenda? If you look at the libs on this board there are a couple of older guys(X hippies, parents loved the kennedy's, ****, northerners, big sisters gave them their values, or whatever). The majority are uniformed 20 something idiots. They listen to some jagoff and take it as gospel and don't investigate the facts of anything at all.

The poblem is, Americans in general are fickle as hell. Most have the ideology "what have you done for me lately?" I would like to ask them, "what have you done for yourself lately?" This middle east thing isnt as complex as some people make it out to be. If we sacrafice a little now, it will pay big dividens later. The middle East needs to be treated like a group of half witted bullies. You go after the "Leader" (or the one with the most UN violations so to speak), and you break him in two. Then you lend a hand in building a democratic style government. A few years down the road, people aren't sitting in a mosque for 8 hours a day training to kill americans. They will be too busy working to buy the things most people in the free world have,like cars, tvs, homes, etc. If this happens in Iraq,and I think it will. It will send a signal that Muslim people in the middle east can have freedom. Other middle east countries will want that same freedom, and it will spred.

The poblem is, Americans in general are fickle as hell. Most have the ideology "what have you done for me lately?" I would like to ask them, "what have you done for yourself lately?" This middle east thing isnt as complex as some people make it out to be. If we sacrafice a little now, it will pay big dividens later. The middle East needs to be treated like a group of half witted bullies. You go after the "Leader" (or the one with the most UN violations so to speak), and you break him in two. Then you lend a hand in building a democratic style government. A few years down the road, people aren't sitting in a mosque for 8 hours a day training to kill americans. They will be too busy working to buy the things most people in the free world have,like cars, tvs, homes, etc. If this happens in Iraq,and I think it will. It will send a signal that Muslim people in the middle east can have freedom. Other middle east countries will want that same freedom, and it will spred.



....Karma for you my friend!!

The poblem is, Americans in general are fickle as hell. Most have the ideology "what have you done for me lately?" I would like to ask them, "what have you done for yourself lately?" This middle east thing isnt as complex as some people make it out to be. If we sacrafice a little now, it will pay big dividens later. The middle East needs to be treated like a group of half witted bullies. You go after the "Leader" (or the one with the most UN violations so to speak), and you break him in two. Then you lend a hand in building a democratic style government. A few years down the road, people aren't sitting in a mosque for 8 hours a day training to kill americans. They will be too busy working to buy the things most people in the free world have,like cars, tvs, homes, etc. If this happens in Iraq,and I think it will. It will send a signal that Muslim people in the middle east can have freedom. Other middle east countries will want that same freedom, and it will spred.

amen brother.