Well said, McGrath. Blaming the 'ordinary' soldier on the ground is like blaming the gun for all the deaths it has caused. We need to lay the blame on the people who pull the trigger. Conversely though the gun does not have any real choice, but the soldier does. It is one thing defending yourself when you genuinely believe your life/freedom/family etc is at risk - even by pre-emptive strikes. It is an entirely different kettle of fish to knowingly masacre innocent people.

The whole question of war crimes trials is one of deciding which category the soldier, at whatever level, fits in. Like as not he (or she of course) will not be firmly one or the other as the grey areas always cloud these issues.

I don't have any answers I'm afraid. I would hate to be the one who must decide, to quote Donovan, who's to live and who's to die. I don't know who can decide whether the soldier was just following orders or if he had gone too far. Quoting Mr Leitch once more (sorry - I'm an old 60's folky at heart!) Without him all this killing can't go on.

Remove the weapons and the war-mongers can no longer use them. Simplistic I know but so am I! Doesn't help here either I'm afraid so 'scuse the thread creep - but it is the way I feel.

Cheers

Dave the Gnome