Well, isn't this deeply disturbing?

[gekko]

No, not always. It's not that simple (as you put it, it's hard to view things in such a black-and-white way). I would say that a good soldier would question his or her orders if they were immoral. In the real world, of course, this can't work -- if soldier's question orders, people die and the mission is often compromised.

The U.S. is indeed the aggressor in this war, and you are correct that they should act in a civil manner, but wouldn't waging war be considered to be something other than civil?

Again, not quite that simple. Saddam was a ruthless, brutal dictator and liberating the country was, from that perspective, a "good thing" (NB: I personally was and am against the war, as I believe it had everything to do with oil and little to do with Saddam. But that's a whole nother discussion). The obvious example here is WWII, of course. Going to war was neccessary, and though the costs were high, the alternative was much worse. A responsible nation (or army, if you prefer) would take care, however, that the manner in which it 'liberates' an oppressed country is not worse than the opression being lifted.

gekko