Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article

from Phoenixkidd Sunday, November 14, 2004 - 09:02 (Agree/Disagree?) I completely disagree with this professor, First of all he forgets the whole democratic functions of America. The president of the United States holds less power than the prime minister positions of England and Japan. We have a multi leveled justice system, we have a very complicated process for the billing and passing of laws in this country. Anyway my point is no one person can spell the doom of America. This country was founded on democratic principles ensuring that no one person can be completely in charge of all factions of government and legislation, therefore no one person can be in charge of all its downfall. America seems to make a comeback after every economic downfall or war, it is superiorly blessed not only geographically but in all levels of economics, resource, population statistics and with an educated populace making this place ripe for economic growth and power. Needless to say America's Baby Boom Generation is definitely not the last, in fact is already been taken over by generation X who is much more technically savvy and absolutely ruthless when it comes to making profit. This professor is obviously an outsider and its very common to look at things through dimmly lit glasses. Much like the media in national newspapers makes other countries economies and conditions of surrounding countries look bad. He needs to understand the resiliency and brilliance of the governing members of this country, MINUS our little president. (reply to this comment)

from steam Saturday, November 13, 2004 - 12:46 (Agree/Disagree?) I for one do not see the logic in "accepting the responsibility to be caretakers of a city on the hill". By electing a trained monkey who when beginning a war that he knows will bring death, pain, and suffering to tens of thousands of innocents (even if he truly believes it is for the greater good in the end) announces the war, and then says "I am feeling really great, bring it on". If you have any concern for your fellow man, it should be with a heavy heart after carefully considering your options that you regret to inform the nation you were forced down a difficult path and you pray for all those who will suffer. This guy is a cowboy who thinks the world is a video game. (reply to this comment)

from banal_commentator Thursday, November 11, 2004 - 07:36 (Agree/Disagree?) "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" Caution is easier then boldness?! Caution is easier then boldness???!!! It is much easier to hastily demolish a country then to use foresight and strategy. Let's not mistake boldness with brashness and caution with wisdom. (reply to this comment)

from Baxter Thursday, November 11, 2004 - 06:55 (Agree/Disagree?) I think professor Manweller's perspective is painfully myopic. He has failed to appreciate the underlying responsibility of being the world's singular superpower. If we consider the perspective that the US is a political island, and as such is exempt and immune to the implications that befall the rest of the world, then his angle makes sense; if and only if. If we think that the opinion of the sigle superpower is the only one that matters for anything, than his perspective is concrete; if and only if. What indirectly motivates every insurgent anti-American force now hurling itself at America, and in retrospect every contradicting force that has ever stood against any major world power, is that this is never the case. If the United States wishes to be the global policeman, then it must first appreciate the implications of that role. The global policeman must be the central force of good in the world. It must pursue a moral standard so unnerringly high that its motivation cannot be blighted. It must be willing to stand alone not simply because it's national sentiments and military power predispose it to, but because its moral directive forces it to, even against extreme adversity. There is no other alternative, else it is the angry usurper and not the beacon of democracy it claims to be. In the end, it's position can only be retained through maintaining a far more difficult path than that which it has presently chosen. Until this is so, it will merely continue to undermine a stance it professes to be reinforcing. It cannot allow itself to apply simplistic responses to complicated problems; it must remain altruistic, and it must accept it's casualties as truly the price of the greater good and not a cause for vengeance. Furthermore, if the American attitude towards the expenditure and application of power remains as it is, that is to say the application of maximum force with minimal coinsideration of consequence, then it will find itself not only depleting it's reserves of power, but it will find that it's battles will multiply to a degree to which even it cannot counter. Unless the United States understands the discretion is in fact the better part of valour it will learn by the painful route the difficult lesson of all it's precedent imperial powers who have tired the same thing. Thirdly, the 'War on Terror' has no real relevance to the conflict in which the United States has found itself enbroiled. In simple terms, literal wars fought with conventional weapons cannot be applied to the defeat of a state of mind. In the context of terror as such a state of mind which must be countered, a far more subtle and relevent method must be adopted. This may not sit well with those who wish to apply violence to violence, but if considerations are not made to underlying objectives, the conflict is in danger of deteriorating into a 'war of terror', rather than a 'war on terror'. this does in no way dismiss the use of military resources, but past experience has demonstrated that mass deployment of conventional military bodies to apply conventional force to a threat that has evolved beyond it is not only a waste of resources, but is ultimately counter-productive. No prior conflict of this nature has deonstrated a contradiciton to this assertion. The units required to fight this war will be smaller, better trained, more highly independent, more highly intelligent, and more adaptive, but will ultimately make less specacular television viewing. If you truly want to defeat a terrorist by understanding his mind, than you will have to adapt beyond your own. I do not think for one moment that this conflict cannot be concluded without bloodshed, nor do I for one moment entertain the thought that relenting will serve any purpose in either the short-term or the long-term; but, in the end, we may find that it is necessary to accept that we may lose the battle in order to win the war. (reply to this comment)

from Tim R Thursday, November 11, 2004 - 00:24 (Agree/Disagree?) I disagree with this guy on a number of his points. Mostly though, I think he fails to understand his enemy, and the strategy they have. Check this link out; it's from a fairly anti-American European who "endorsed" Bush. I don't agree with his views, but I think it may be a good insight into the mentality of the people who want to see the destruction of what they call: "The American Empire". They hate the Democrats as much, or even worse than the Republicans. Key quote: "Bush has one great virtue: sane people hate him..." Http://www.idleworm.com/rnt/plt/gwb/gwb01.shtml BTW, if you read up on the Vietnam War, you find that people like the Professor were trying to sell the same logic then, "We can't pull out of Vietnam! All of Asia will be lost to Communism! Dominoes! Red tide! Better to fight them over there than over here! Etc, etc. (Yes, I'm aware that the Vietnam War was started by a Democrat, and ended by a Republican.) Pete Seeger wrote a song back then that could just as well describe events today: Waist Deep In The Big Muddy by Pete Seeger. It was back in nineteen forty-two, I was a member of a good platoon. We were on maneuvers in-a Loozianna, One night by the light of the moon. The captain told us to ford a river, That's how it all begun. We were -- knee deep in the Big Muddy, But the big fool said to push on. The Sergeant said, "Sir, are you sure, This is the best way back to the base?" "Sergeant, go on! I forded this river 'Bout a mile above this place. It'll be a little soggy but just keep slogging. We'll soon be on dry ground." We were -- waist deep in the Big Muddy And the big fool said to push on. The Sergeant said, "Sir, with all this equipment No man will be able to swim." "Sergeant, don't be a Nervous Nellie," The Captain said to him. "All we need is a little determination; Men, follow me, I'll lead on." We were -- neck deep in the Big Muddy And the big fool said to push on. All at once, the moon clouded over, We heard a gurgling cry. A few seconds later, the captain's helmet Was all that floated by. The Sergeant said, "Turn around men! I'm in charge from now on." And we just made it out of the Big Muddy With the captain dead and gone. We stripped and dived and found his body Stuck in the old quicksand. I guess he didn't know that the water was deeper Than the place he'd once before been. Another stream had joined the Big Muddy 'Bout a half mile from where we'd gone. We were lucky to escape from the Big Muddy When the big fool said to push on. Well, I'm not going to point any moral; I'll leave that for yourself Maybe you're still walking, you're still talking You'd like to keep your health. But every time I read the papers That old feeling comes on; We're -- waist deep in the Big Muddy And the big fool says to push on. Waist deep in the Big Muddy And the big fool says to push on. Waist deep in the Big Muddy And the big fool says to push on. Waist deep! Neck deep! Soon even a Tall man'll be over his head, we're Waist deep in the Big Muddy! And the big fool says to push on! Words and music by Pete Seeger (1967) TRO (c) 1967 Melody Trails, Inc. New York, NY (reply to this comment)