Of course you can't. You are an ivory tower intellectual. You have no concept, or ability to understand how the real world works. That is why you lose most of these discussions. While your ideal is admirable, in the real world it doesn't work.

The first premise I would offer is based on my experiences. Most of the members of the Armed Forces of the various nations that I served alongside were decent and honorable men and women who felt as though they were defending free society, as well as the values they chose to live under. When I say most, I am saying in excess of 90%. These people were not torturers, nor would they tolerate torture. They were not abusers of civilians, in fact would defend civilians that were being abused. These statements are from experience, GUEST, not from sitting in a University Library and pointing out what you think is wrong with the world.

The second premise is that what makes the service honorable is that decent people trying to do what is right are forced by circumstances we are placed in to do these horrible things, and still remain human. This is a very tough thing to do. At times, in the worst of it, one must hold on to a vision of their life, their hopes, and their dreams, just to stay human. And if one ever feels like they are doing this for anything other than what they believe is the right thing to do, they need to get out. Or they will turn into what you have described.

Which brings us to Iraq. Very tough to justify why we went in, but I would respect the opinions of stigweard, GUEST, and others much more if I had heard the outrage they aim at the US and Great Britain now, when Saddam was torturing, murdering, and using horrible tactics on the Iraqui's. While I don't believe that we needed to do what we have done, I note that I never hear this from the anti-military folks. Which is why I have a very cynical view of GUEST and her opinions.

Peter T. is the most reasoned voice in this debate, IMO, and that is the norm with him. For a person who has never experienced war first hand, he has a wisdom that is refreshing. I note, admittedly a cynical notation, that GUEST is trying to suck up to him even to the extent that she almost contradicts herself in the absence of disagreement.

The one thing that I will absolutely agree with, and I am on record as having said this many times in this forum. Old men need to examine very closely the cost before sending young men to war. They need to approach invasions such as these as if it were going to happen in their homes. Only then can they appreciate the terrible cost. Perhaps if they were made to feel what it would be like if it happened to those that they love, they would not be so quick to inflict it on others.

One last thing, in order that I may address what this thread, at least ostensibly, was about. I know men who were unwilling to torture or kill innocents or prisoners. These men were willing to sacrifice their careers before allowing it. They felt, as I do, that if the line was crossed, then the men responsible all the way up the line, must be punished to the maximum extent possible.

Mick