Quote Originally Posted by CloudSquallandZidane
Without soldiers some country with soldiers, would walk in and enslave us. That is why every soldier should be honored for their commitment and sacrifice for people they dont even know.
And who thanks the soldiers of the opposite country enslaving the country without soldiers?

My question is, are soldiers defending the interests of the people or the interests of the goverment? As far as I know, the first thing they defend is the interests of the goverment. If the interests of the goverment are the same as the interests of the people- and they should be, in a correct goverment- it depends on the occasion. Some people say this war represents the interests of both the American and Iraqui people. Some say it represents the interests of multinationals. Some say both. In the end, it's a matter of your vision of the situation, but I wouldn't jump to say soldiers always defend the people or that soldiers defend private interests.

Because tell me, in the Spanish Civil War, who defended the people? The Nationals or the Republicans? In the Cuban revolution? The pro Batista or the anti-Batista? In Vietnam, the South or the North? In the Napoleonic wars, the French or the local armies? In the liberation of Greece, the rebels or the Ottoman soldiers? In the current iraqui war, the alliance troops or the resistance troops?

In the end it's all a matter of your views on the whole thing. Sometimes it's one, sometimes the other, sometimes none.