[alphageek31337]

I think you're all making a major mistake in paradigm here. You're laboring under the assumption that any war, ever, has had an absolute good side and an absolute evil side. There are no angels in war, ever. Our forces are not absolutely good, because we do, indeed, kill people who are not fighting against us, whether it is intentional, accidental due to poor planning, or simply an inevitable part of war. Nor is the other side absolutely evil: most ground terrorists are driven either by vengeance for a lost loved one, or they want the right to truly self-govern (to be allowed to choose, not simply choose from a list of "approved" candidates). The idea that there is an absolute good side and an absolute evil side to a war (and the inevitbale follow-up, that we're on the good side) is simply a psychological defense mechanism put into place by the people at home to justify the money and lives pissed away in the war effort. An unfortunate side-effect of this mental construct is that it blinds us to the fact that the only people who truly benefit from war, or at least the people who inevitably benefit most, are the priests and traders. One satisfies his ego (I will use the male pronoun because, lets face it guys, men are behind this shit a high enough percentage of the time to justify rounding up) and spreads the "message of God" to the heretics/infidels/pagans and increasing his own power, wealth and status of the world, and the other simply sells supplies to at least one side (sometimes both) to increase their power, wealth and status. As far as the ground soldiers go, know that most of them did not join the military because they wanted to; usually they join because of a financial need (people who don't *need* to join the military, but do anyway, rarely serve as the grunts). For the most part, these people are not fighting for grand ideals or to save the world. They're fighting because if they don't kill the funny-looking guy with the gun, he's going to kill them or their good friends. This was a mistake the peace movement made in 'Nam: we failed to recognize that the low-ranking soldier is an honorable man doing what he must during extreme times. Even those who committed atrocities in Vietnam and/or Iraq (though somehow I doubt anyone managed to commit atrocities in both wars. If one does exist, I applaud his persistence.) were simply responding to the horrific pressures placed upon them by these times. The peace movement's problem lies not with the common soldier, but with the massive systemic failures that forced the soldiers into combat.

As for the soldiers' protest, I agree with it wholeheartedly. I've agreed with it since we first went to Afghanistan.