I understand the anger (or so it seems to be) from TDG about fighting for something that is not in our own national interest. But, as a soldier (and I was not) what is the reason for doing anything? If you are a soldier your duty, as I understand, is to follow the orders of your superior officer. It is not the duty of the individual soldier to decide what is a worthy cause. Again I ask: If Mr. Clinton is not worthy, as our elected commander-in-chief, to decide where our forces go, then who is? Who is the supreme authority in these cases, and if we have the "right" to question this authority, then who decides anything? The right to vote and voice our opinion on who the leader should be? But isn't that Mr. Clinton? And if less than 50% of the voting public voted for him, then who is to blame? I don't understand the logic of what is the correct path when there is no mandated decision maker. I hope I have expressed my dilemma correctly-I don't have a correct answer I just would like an explanation I can understand.
Staten Island WebŪ Forums Index.