actually, soldiers do question, do argue, do dissent. One of the greatest challenges we face is to work on the dissent amongst the army, the majority of which have no desire to attack Iraq.

most people in this world want peace, it is their ignorance that leads to bad choices, who should we blame for that?

This is a gross insult to many people, including soldiers, yourself and the peace movement in general, who I would hope to be less bigoted. You may call this kind of bigotry 'principle' but to me it is utterly pathetic and no better than the most simple forms of racism.

Soldiers can be a very powerful force for good as well as doing the bidding of leaders. Whilst walking in the march on Saturday, I heard one man with a loudhaler talking about the genocide in the 'Democratic' Republic of Congo. One of my repeated requests to various members of the government is to install, with some urgency, a peacekeeping force - obviously made up of soldiers, to protect Congolese citizens from this brutality.

Also, whilst I would restrain from saying 'if it weren't for soldiers we'd all be speaking German', in a sense we all have cause to be grateful to soldiers, who at points in history have protected us and other peoples with their lives.

I suppose my central point is 'don't be so flippant and show some respect'.

Thanks.

Maybe some peole have some confused mind. If they were no soldier we were speaking German? What kind of statement is? When Germany attacked (?) Europe, we didn't find children, women, and old people going to war. Soldiers were sent. Soldiers angainst soldiers that were suppose to be, instead we find soldiers against people in general. Look in Iraq, Serbia, etc. Strange civilians are still dying in any war.
Soldiers are mercenaries. These people are not forced to be soldiers (draft), they decided (for whatever reason) to be so. It is not racist to be against soldiers, they do not represent in our eyes freedom but slavery.
The difference from the past and now (except in few countries, like in Italy were there is still the draft)soldiers are paid to be just that. In the past people were forced to believe we were fighting freedom, so many voluntiered in going to war others were forced.
But governments who declared war they never went to war. Hitler, Churchill, Rosevell etc. were sleeping under thier own warm beds.

If you re-read my comment, you'll find I said 'whilst I would restrain from saying...'. This is something I had parrotted at me as a child and if you claim never to have heard it before, well, frankly, I'd say you were either lying or had a serious lack of inter-generation communication in your family. If you're an orphan then I forgive you.

As a teenager, I frequently argued against the existence of the armed forces, much along the same lines as you are now. My parents and grandparents consistently argued otherwise, (which is not surprising as I come from a forces family), and whilst I now do not accept their arguments wholesale I have come to understand the essential need for an army which peaceloving nations have. There are many 'domestic' conflicts in the world which actively and urgently require a non-partisan peacekeeping force in order to protect civilian populations who are most at risk. How are we to fulfill these moral obligations without an army? We don't come close to proper use of our army principally because it is too small. (Please see page 21 of War Plan Iraq by Milan Rai).

It would be naive to suggest that soldiers don't make mistakes as this is part and parcel of the human condition. It would also be inaccurate to argue that gross abuse of power never takes place. Again, this happens in all walks of life but is particularly abhorrent when it occurs in the army. However, armies are a necessity and tight control coupled with comeback for disobediance are essential to prevent factions developing.

Soldiers are not mecenaries in this country. They are trained professionals earning a living. This may be distasteful to some, but British soldiers are not mercenaries, they do not fight for the highest bidder but for the government of this country. To define them as such because we can choose to join the army in this country is ignorant. The main reasons people join the army are: to 'be a tough guy'; to see the world; to get girls. I know not a single person who has joined the army thinking 'Yay! now I'm going to be able to kill for the sheer fun of it!'. Mercenaries are mercenaries.

It is crucial to recognise this if you want anyone with any power to take you seriously. Otherwise I'm afraid your positive arguments will lose out to the one ill thought out premise. Obviously everyone is entitled to their own opinions and freedom of speech, which is just one of the really good things about this country, but believe me when I say I speak from experience.

I am not going to make any more posts here, because I find the initial statement and the previous comment narrow minded regarding the issue of soldiers' motives and bravery, and would assert that the authors either don't know any, or very few members of the armed forces.