[massey]

[quote]How valid is that criticism when applied to a soldier?

Mind you I don’t necessarily disagree but the purpose of the military is to follow orders and enact policy of the civilian leaders, not to think critically or create policy themselves.
He was a part of the civilian leadership at the time you mention but that was not his background.
[/quote]

You’re correct, he wasn’t a soldier at the time, so the criticism is entirely valid.

But even if he were still a soldier, he’d still be culpable.

The concept that soldiers are free of consequences for their actions provided that they are following orders from superiors was thrown out in WW2 when german soldiers tried to use it to escape responsibility for their roles in the ethnic cleansing of the jews.

[massey]

[quote]How valid is that criticism when applied to a soldier?

Mind you I don’t necessarily disagree but the purpose of the military is to follow orders and enact policy of the civilian leaders, not to think critically or create policy themselves.
He was a part of the civilian leadership at the time you mention but that was not his background.
[/quote]

You’re correct, he wasn’t a soldier at the time, so the criticism is entirely valid.

But even if he were still a soldier, he’d still be culpable.

The concept that soldiers are free of consequences for their actions provided that they are following orders from superiors was thrown out in WW2 when german soldiers tried to use it to escape responsibility for their roles in the ethnic cleansing of the jews.

[massey]

[quote]How valid is that criticism when applied to a soldier?

Mind you I don’t necessarily disagree but the purpose of the military is to follow orders and enact policy of the civilian leaders, not to think critically or create policy themselves.
He was a part of the civilian leadership at the time you mention but that was not his background.
[/quote]

You’re correct, he wasn’t a soldier at the time, so the criticism is entirely valid.

But even if he were still a soldier, he’d still be culpable.

The concept that soldiers are free of consequences for their actions provided that they are following orders from superiors was thrown out in WW2 when german soldiers tried to use it to escape responsibility for their roles in the ethnic cleansing of the jews.

[massey]

[quote]How valid is that criticism when applied to a soldier?

Mind you I don’t necessarily disagree but the purpose of the military is to follow orders and enact policy of the civilian leaders, not to think critically or create policy themselves.
He was a part of the civilian leadership at the time you mention but that was not his background.
[/quote]

You’re correct, he wasn’t a soldier at the time, so the criticism is entirely valid.

But even if he were still a soldier, he’d still be culpable.

The concept that soldiers are free of consequences for their actions provided that they are following orders from superiors was thrown out in WW2 when german soldiers tried to use it to escape responsibility for their roles in the ethnic cleansing of the jews.

[massey]

[quote]How valid is that criticism when applied to a soldier?

Mind you I don’t necessarily disagree but the purpose of the military is to follow orders and enact policy of the civilian leaders, not to think critically or create policy themselves.
He was a part of the civilian leadership at the time you mention but that was not his background.
[/quote]

You’re correct, he wasn’t a soldier at the time, so the criticism is entirely valid.

But even if he were still a soldier, he’d still be culpable.

The concept that soldiers are free of consequences for their actions provided that they are following orders from superiors was thrown out in WW2 when german soldiers tried to use it to escape responsibility for their roles in the ethnic cleansing of the jews.

[Author]

Posts