Colin Powell

[gmc]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/...html?gusrc=rss


"The best that can be said about Mr Powell is that he disagreed. The worst is that he did nothing significant about it ... Mr Powell came into office with enormous public support and popularity. The tragedy is that he left pretty much the same way. He should have used his immense standing to oppose a war he knew was unwise and was being fought in ways he knew were wrong. He was, paradoxically, in violation of his own doctrine: caught in a quagmire with no exit strategy."

I read Colin Powell's autobiography, could see why he would join bush I think, (american internal poitics are baffling), but could not understand why he supported the war in iraq, did seem to conflict with what he said in his book and what was his approach was in the first gulf war, some of the insights were quite startling.

[Hawke]

In my opinion, Powell had no choice but to go to war. Consider the following:
Powell has been said to be against the war in the first place, but yet the world saw him present the United States' case to go to war before the UN. I think Powell deserves praise for this. Going to war may not have been the best solution for problems in Iraq, but Powell knew that protesting Bush's decision would lead to two things:
1) The appearance that the United States was fraught with internal governmental discord.
2) A feeling of disunity amongst the citizenry (and although there was much discord in the nation when we went to war - it could have been far, far worse if the President seemed to not have the support of his advisors).

Powell had to fight a moral battle. He was intelligent enough to realize the divisions and discord that arise were he to fight the President. So he took the opposite course, and gave his support for the action, which lended credence and strength to the government.

Any government hangs by the thinnest of threads; if the constituency disagrees enough with the policies and morals of its government they can tear it down. I think Powell acted to prevent this from happening.

Now, let me point out that I am not pro-war or pro-agression. I am pro-order, pro-survival. I do not want to see my country descend into anarchy. I may not be happy with some of the policies or actions of my government, but I will support those whom we elect to govern us.

[gmc]

fyrehawke
Powell had to fight a moral battle. He was intelligent enough to realize the divisions and discord that arise were he to fight the President. So he took the opposite course, and gave his support for the action, which lended credence and strength to the government.

Classis moral dilemma, do you support an action you may consider wrong for the greater good. It's an arguement used offentimes by leaders to lead others in to doing something they think is a bad idea. maybe he just changed his mind since he wrote the book.

[koan]

Now, let me point out that I am not pro-war or pro-agression. I am pro-order, pro-survival. I do not want to see my country descend into anarchy. I may not be happy with some of the policies or actions of my government, but I will support those whom we elect to govern us.

Please note that anarchy does not mean chaos. There can be anarchy with social order. Living with our choices is responsible but continuing with choices that result in wrongfulness is, perhaps, irresponsible. (Not a comment on you personally)

Is it a good thing if people are forced to act against their better judgement for the continuation and support of a system that has more power unto itself than as a reflection of the will of the people?