With all due respect to Anon1, I understand that you are only insinuating a parallel between honor [or lack there of] in the different situations, and although I do agree there is some validity to it on some level, I do not feel it can be a direct parallel in the overall picture.
I don't think it's fair to compare the soldiers in Iraq to those who invaded Tibet in terms of honor, regardless of how misguided they may be in their individual "causes". The deliberate atrocities carried out against Tibetan people during the "take over" and which have continued in some form over the years, particularly toward Buddhist monks and nuns, is nothing to warrant any form of respect or honor. As much as I may question the attack on Iraq and the motivation, most of the innocents killed were not intentional. To me there is no acceptable loss in innocent lives in war, and how they are killed still produces the same result. However there is a difference between the motivations and the way people lost their lives in the different scenarios.
I suppose it boils down to a case of what we deem to be honourable. Without dissecting the possibilities of a soldiers individual definition of what he feels is honourable, in the end medals of honor are bestowed up them according to what those in higher ranks and their culture defines as being honourable. From my perspective, I don't see taking another humans life, regardless, of the outcome and motivation as being honourable. Of course in a situation whereby both parties live by a different code of honor, than mine I could understand it.
Motivations aside for now, and reducing it to a very basic outlook, if you look at the results, I can't see overthrowing Saddam Hussein's leadership as being anywhere close to forcing ( overthrowing the leadership of ) the Dalai Lama into exile.
In essence the actions of a soldier are in the end, his own. The soldiers, no matter what values they have learnt, do have a choice ( free will )
My reply is a little disjointed as I wasn't going to bother replying, but Zogs post prompted me to.
No doubt, it could be said that the US has committed crimes against humanity, but it's a matter of degrees ( some may say that it's more black and white ). I think that if you take into account both the motivation and actions of the Chinese and the US in these cases you may find that they are not directly comparable.
Zog, it's a little hard to address any meaningful difference between democracy and communist leadership as essentially "democracy" allows freedom of expression and individual rights ( relatively speaking ), whereas Communism on many levels stifles spirituality and freedom ( this would depend on your viewpoint of course )
I don't claim to understand all the dynamics by any means, so these are just a few of my thoughts ...
