pawns

[exastra]

surely, there are many Americanmilitary personnel who are wary about this whole ordeal. if this proves to be an unjust and unwarranted war on Iraq, can and should we distinguish between those issueing orders and those follwoing them? separate the war from those fighting it?
Bush has stated that "just following orders" is not an acceptable defense for Sadam's troops to fight for him. and i agree, but does that standard not also apply to U.S.? I'm thinking YES.

[brian]

I'm not sure how history will have completed it's overview by twenty-thirty years from now - but you can be certain that within weeks the US/UK forces will parade the world's media before a massive stash of chemical and biological weapons.

At that moment the war will have been "justified" to the world. I figure that's what the troops are fighting for - knowledge that no matter what contentions there are domestically, that when this stage of conflict is completed they will feel vindicated.

[exastra]

playing devil's advocate: we also have to consider the fact that the military is a different culture; abiding by different rules of conduct. it is the job of a soldier to obey orders, and trust that they are being used properly... otherwise the military doesn't work.
so under the particular context of their role, perhaps they can be excused? if so, then the same standard should apply to the troops of our enemies.

[Ent witch]

soldiers follow orders because that is what their lives depend on.IF they didn't follow orders they wouldnt be soldiers.

[Elizabeth May]

I don't think it's really possible for the army to work as a democracy. Doesn't it all work on the idea that immediate life or death decisions will sometimes need to be made and they need to be made fast? That's why they need a boss and heirarchy to take the responsibility of those decisions. If you break that heirarchy of responsibility you destroy the very way the army takes orders and how well it can function.