Conflict vs. War:

I looked up the official definitions of the two and yet am still having trouble coming to any clear distinction between them. They both seem to involve a prolonged period of violence between two or more parties. I always considered a conflict to be the less severe, but under the guidelines of sheer definitions this does not seem to be the case and certainly not within the context of Vietnam.

I think the fault does not lie upon the person giving the "facts," so long as that is what the person truly believes. The fault lies in those who accept the words of the individual within a position of power and do not look beyond the face value. If the person speaking's motivation is noble, could they still possibly be mistaken in what they say? What are the exact motives behind what that person is telling us and could they have anything to gain by concealing the actual truth?

I was willing to address the issue with Major Catazaro because I was curious what her exact beliefs on the matter were. After having had the discussion, I do not view her as being at fault. I did what I could for my own benefit of knowledge, but was afraid to raise the issue until class was over. I did not want to upset or embarrass my professor.

Those who rule us, in any context, tend to rule with a certain element of fear. If we oppose the government, will we be labeled as anarchists? Communists? What sort of reprisals might we face if we question anything we are told? Because of this fear, society as a whole tends to bow down to the ideology of those in power and not contradict important or viable issues that clearly need addressing. Until we learn to overcome this domination by fear, all mankind will be the worse for it and lay down in submission.