Pin Drop. I recently an e-mail (in red) about Collin Powell and a certain Archbishop of Canterbury. Emails like this piss me off because they are riddled with half-truths and are usually taken out of context. I had heard this story before and am taking it upon myself to spread the TRUTH about this incident because I find that the truth, in this case, has FAR greater meaning than what was in this measly email. Please read what I found at http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl-colin-powell.htm. You don't actually have to go there though because I thought that this would make a great addition to my blog. :) God bless the USA!
See? Now THAT'S the Colin Powell I know. :)When in England, at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of empire building' by George Bush. He answered by saying, 'Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return.
[Although U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell did utter words similar to the above, he was not in England at the time, nor was he addressing the current Archbishop of Canterbury, nor was he responding to a question about "empire building."
The actual occasion was an address to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland on January 26, 2003, wherein Powell defended the U.S. government's position that the use of military force against Saddam Hussein, unilateral or otherwise, was not only justified but necessary if the complete disarmament of Iraq could not be achieved by other means.
In a question-and-answer session afterwards (during which the phrase "empire building" was never mentioned, incidentally), the secretary of state was asked by former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey if he felt the U.S and its allies had given due consideration to the use of "soft power" — promulgating moral and democratic values as a means of achieving progress towards international peace and stability, basically — versus the "hard power" of military force.]
[There is nothing in American experience or in American political life or in our culture that suggests we want to use hard power. But what we have found over the decades is that unless you do have hard power — and here I think you're referring to military power — then sometimes you are faced with situations that you can't deal with.
I mean, it was not soft power that freed Europe. It was hard power. And what followed immediately after hard power? Did the United States ask for dominion over a single nation in Europe? No. Soft power came in the Marshall Plan. Soft power came with American GI's who put their weapons down once the war was over and helped all those nations rebuild. We did the same thing in Japan.
So our record of living our values and letting our values be an inspiration to others I think is clear. And I don't think I have anything to be ashamed of or apologize for with respect to what America has done for the world.
We have gone forth from our shores repeatedly over the last hundred years and we’ve done this as recently as the last year in Afghanistan and put wonderful young men and women at risk, many of whom have lost their lives, and we have asked for nothing except enough ground to bury them in, and otherwise we have returned home to seek our own, you know, to seek our own lives in peace, to live our own lives in peace. But there comes a time when soft power or talking with evil will not work where, unfortunately, hard power is the only thing that works.]
