[ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From:
T1:
Date: 10/28/97
Time: 3:59:46 PM
Remote Name: 130.68.92.21
This is my second attempt at a response...I think I lost the first one! These passages had a different impact on me, relative to those that have preceeded it simply because the author is a familiar figure. I haven't concluded if this is beneficial, or detrimental. As a military leader, and potential politician, I have already formed my opinions of Collin Powell. Although I am eager to listen to the perspective of someone whom I would consider a reliable, credible source; I am hesitant to fall into a less objective point of view and accept information as a fact simply because I happen to agree with much of what Powell has to say in general. The first passage deals with perceptions, which is how we have seen the vietnam war thus far, through strickingly different perceptions. So contrasting in fact, that what some consider facts, are not facts at all. What some consider reality, others claim to be completely false. When we discussed the Phoenix debate, ndwhether or not the killing was "discriminate," or "Indiscriminate," the answer obviously differed according to who was doing the perceiving. Powell addresses the issue of kill-or-be-killed combat, and how it numbs or "dulls" one's perceptions of right and wrong. Debating which side was more brutal isn't really a productive solution in determining how it reached that level of brutality. Again, there is room for debate because some would define that brutality (however horrific) as necessary. While others cannot justify its place in history. The larger question this passa ge raises, is whether or not Powell, as a soldier, more specifically a captain, has a broader more realistic grasp of these events. Or does his personal involvement, in fact, cause him to be limited in his scope. Powell doesn't specify any right or wrong in the matter. What he does is raise the blatant moral dilemma that exists.