“This topic brings me to that worst outcrop of the herd nature, the military system, which I abhor. That a man can take pleasure in marching in formation to the strains of a band is enough to make me despise him. He has only been given his big brain by mistake; a backbone was all he needed. This plague-spot of civilization ought to be abolished with all possible speed. Heroism by order, senseless violence, and all the pestilent nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism — how I hate them! War seems to me a mean, contemptible thing: I would rather be hacked in pieces than take part in such an abominable business.”

The main points I want to address are that, in my opinion, the victory no longer protect Britain or America, they protect the interests of our government abroad. I think that’s an important difference and one that should be remembered.

My grandfather fought in WWII, as did every generation in my family on my father’s side preceding that. I believe in honour and I believe in the past the military have protected our freedom. However, in my lifetime they military have not. The government have not. The government seems to seek only to control and restrict my freedom to make their job at policing the country easier and to increase their own power.

As pointed out above I don’t think that the actions of the protestors were the best but in a democracy people should and do have the right to protest, no matter how ill-informed they may be.

Not everyone wants power. Not everyone demands their lifestyle to be the same as they have. I don’t drive a car. I don’t watch TV. I would rather my income be halved and the poor fed and the innocent civilians in other countries need not fear “collateral damage” any longer.

There are evil people in every country. The difference is that, through our actions, we are being viewed as spoilt, evil tyrants who disregard the opinion of other countries to simply advance our own agenda. As long as we continue to do so we will increase the advance of terrorism throughout the world and justify the rogue states of this world in feeling they can violate UN resolutions, as we have done the same.

First, if there were not weapons of mass destruction on Iraq, why Saddan don’t allowed the UN inspectors in first place?

Second, rule of international law, what is this? Tell the Sudanese in Darfur. They will not wait for international law, they are dying right now.

Third, I see some individuals can commit atrocities, not only in the military, but doctors and policeman, will you judge all of them because of some?

Most deaths after invasion were from acts from terrorism, they don’t respect anyone, children, women. After they commit these crimes, they blame the soldiers, this is disgusting. Think who is controlling these people, what they want to do in Iraq if all troops jump out right now.

Torment in El Garib? I have seen a video in which the baby son of a enemy of Sadan is being throw in a bag full of savage cats… This is real torment… How many DEATHS were in El Garib?

Let’s think in perspective, we live relatively good lives, we so think for granted, but imagine the persons who want to form a new Iran in Iraq ruled in Britain, USA or Canada; what would be your rights?

The question is, we have the right to interfere? We want to? The UN simple does not function. The security council can’t do nothing without the approval of communist China or Russia’s king Putin. For my shame, even Brazil was contrary to intervention in Sudan.

I’m sorry, I can read english, but write is much more difficult.

Its mostly a question of whether you can blame individual soldiers for enabling the violence by actually supporting and carrying it out. As a tax-paying American I also enable the violence. I probably have the least sympathy for a Boeing worker or similar, since they make good money profiting on destruction whereas the soldier can actually be seen as a victim of our violent culture and certainly isn’t making much money. But when you get right down to it its a fault of our society as a whole.

You won’t see me cheering returning soldiers since that just strengthens the militaristic culture, I certainly wouldn’t protest. A group around here protests at the post office, that makes it pretty clear you’re protesting the government and not the people (since obviously we don’t have anything against postal employees).

You cannot blame the whole army for the violent acts some soldier and officers. But the problem is they protect these kind of soldiers until it leaks out on the press what they did and the protests increases. Yes this is the main problem with the armies. They dont intent to clean the army form this kind of soldiers.

Do you remember the El Garib prison? You you remember the torments. Do you think it was individual acts of some “evil” soldier? Or it was now by some “higher officers”? They didn’t care whats happening until the photos leaked out to the press world wide.

My be some of US, UK, Israel government members and High military officers don’t see the died civilians as human beings. So they dont care what some of their soldier do until its leaks out.

Yes, yes, yes, and yes. Even racial pejoratives should be just fine legally (though of course context matters with all of the above).

Not that someone with the Canadian and European perception of what ‘free speech’ means would understand that… where it ends when its gets really annoying.

Where have you been the past 5 years? lol.

So I would just say when you think about the military, keep together in your head the difference between policy makers (the politicians, leaders, senior military leadership and yes, the people) and the instruments of policy, the actual “boots on the ground”. You can protest the soldiers all you want but that won’t change anything, and it wasn’t their fault.

And I will say that any military where junior personnel routinely disobey orders based on perceived legality will soon cease to be a functioning military. American servicemembers, both officer and enlisted, are charged with following only “lawful orders” but it’s also not generally in the purview of a Lieutenant to decide that merely being in a country is unlawful. After all, the Allied invasion of Normandy in World War II could hardly have been construed to be “legal”, but no one complained because it was quite understood that Nazi Germany and the UK were belligerents. On the other hand, a servicemember who shot a prisoner of war in cold blood on orders would probably be in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, along with the officer who ordered it.

So although I sympathize with what you say about more servicemembers repeating what Flight Lt. Kendall-Smith did, what you really want is more military officers in a position to dictate/implement policy to do that, not for junior personnel to do that.

They were better off under Saddam. Hurts to say it, but you have to look at the facts.