I respectfully believe you are undereducated in this area ...
Again, I understand what you're saying. What I'm saying, and what my analogy is meant to demonstrate, is that how a government actually works is far different than how it's supposed to work.
This statement is correct:
Shareholders elect Board of Directors. Board of Directors tells Corporation what to do.
This statement is not (in addition to ascribing Public/Private to these statements, since again, a corporation can be either public or private):
The People elect Representatives. Representatives tell Government what to do.
If you pay attention to the stock market, and I'm sure you do, you'll see that the shareholders are the most important thing to a company. If shareholders aren't seeing a profitable bottom line, the company will bend over backwards to ensure that their stock price holds. People will get laid off, plants will get closed, all for the sake of the shareholders.
When's the last time you've seen a government bend over backwards for The People?
That's why shareholders ≠ The People. In an ideal world, yes, your analogy would be correct. But it doesn't actually work that way.
I don't care if something is broken, just like the victim of a Pitbull Terrier attack doesn't care about the circumstances that led to the attack. The responsibility falls on the owner.
Yes, assuming that The People can be considered as the owner of the government. But they cannot.
In the pit example, if an owner has demonstrated due diligence, they will not and should not be held responsible. What can The People do as their due diligence? Vote, be active. But let's say, for example, that I did my part. I fulfilled my duties, and voted against Bush. Why then should I- the individual- be held responsible for the Iraq War?
If you pay a dollar in tax to your government, you are the owner.
1) I go to the grocery store.
2) I buy a soda with a dollar.
By that logic, I am now the owner of the grocery store?
Furthermore, my tax dollars are taken from me. They are not given.
The German People paid reparations for the actions of their government for over 60 years after WW2.
Presumably because the rest of the world held the German People responsible for the actions of their government.
The rest of the world made them do the same thing after WW1, too. It ended up being a contributing factor to WW2.
Just because something happened doesn't make it a good idea.
Just like guns ... You don't blame the gun ... You blame the owner, the person who is supposed to be in control/responsible for it.
Do you think Governments just leap out of their holsters on their own? 
:
Alright, so you're using the "don't blame the gun, blame the criminal" defense that firearm advocates use (which I don't disagree with): a gun is a tool and should be used properly. If it is not, the blame does not lie with the tool, but instead with the person wielding the tool.
How does a government enforce its will, its crimes? Law enforcement, military, etc. These are the tools that the government uses. But like you said, don't blame the tool (military), blame the person wielding the tool (government).
But your original premise holds that the military
should be held responsible for their actions, yes? Which is why you keep bringing up WW2 Germany and how they were held responsible?
So which is it? Should the tool be held responsible or should it not? Your proof of concept is contradicting the original argument.
