Gezzer

June 04, 2011 at 12:49am

There's a lot of answers to that question I'm afraid.

It could be because they feel supporting the staus quo is the much safer route. Better the devil you know then the one you don't kind of thing.

Or because as often happens in countries with corrupt leadership the corruption is systemic and even the rank and file abuse their power. So if there is a change in leadership all the military might be called to answer for their wrong doings. A scary thought if you've been abusing your power.

As well refusing a direct order can have dire consequences. If it's in time of war or martial law a commanding officer can shoot a soldier then and there if they refuse an order, often with no repercusions.

Lastly the military is a strange beast in some ways. The aim of the training they do is to produce a person that can do what needs to be done when it needs to be done. If winning a battle turns on taking an objective. A commander needs to know the soldiers will act with out hesitation because it could mean the difference between success and failure. For this reason the aim of basic training is to tear a person down to their core and then rebuild them as a soldier. So following orders comes naturally and refusing does not. That's how things like the holocaust could and can happen even today.

Sad ain't it?

szore

June 05, 2011 at 5:05am

That is why we have the right to bear arms.

Gezzer

June 03, 2011 at 12:18pm

Yes an no. It will definitely end badly if everyone puts their collective heads in the sand. But though even the loss of one human life is a tragedy, if the end result is the removal of an oppressive regime then it might be considered worth it.

I wonder if the global reaction to the Libyian slaughter might of helped motivate the citizens of Syria to take to the streets? If so I hope we don't let them down and come to their rescue before more people are murdered by a despot's heavy handed attempt to hold on to power.