Better yet..who here thinks its crazy to go to war in the 1st place??
it would be one thing to have the cowards that caused the war to be out front in the battle..but for them to sit at home in Washington and get richer off the backs of the military..it is just too much to bear.
2006-07-02 19:03:38
·
answer #1
·
answered by G-Bear 4
·
5⤊
0⤋
ALL OF YOU KIDS WANT OT BE CONSIDERED ADULTS AT 18. MY GENERATION WON YOU THE RIGHT OT VOTE IN THE 60'S AND 70'S. SO NOW THE ONLY THING YOU CANNOT DO AT 18 IS DRINK. DO YOU THINK THAT DRINKING LEGALLY SOMEHOW MAKES YOU MORE ADULT? NOT HARDLY. MOST PEOPLE WHEN DRINKING ACT LIKE FOOLS ANYWAY. LIKE THEY ARE JUST SILLY CHILDREN. IF THIS IS THE TEST OF AN ADULT THEN I WOULD FAIL MISERABLY. FOR MANY YEARS, IN MANY STATES, IT WAS ACCEPTABLE AND LEGAL TO DRINK AT 18. THIS HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE A BAD IDEA. 18 YEAR OLDS ARE NOT MATURE ENOUGH TO HANDLE DRINKING RESPOSIBILITY.
SO NOW WE ARE BACK TO THE REAL GIST HERE. NEED TO BE 21 TO GO TO WAR. YOU ARE A SOLDIER AT 17 OR 18. THERE IS NO DRAFT NOW. YOU VOLUNTEERED TO JOIN AND NOW IT IS A KNOWN FACT THERE IS AN ARMED CONFLICT GOING ON. WHY SHOULD YOU GET SPECIAL TREATMENT, WHEN YOU ARE AN EQUAL IN THE EYES OF ALL OF YOUR MILITARY PEERS? YOU ENLISTED TO FOLLOW THE LAWFUL ORDERS GIVEN YOU. RIGHT WRONG OR INDIFFERENT, YOU ARE CONTRACTUALLY OBLIGATED TO OBEY THE ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT EVEN IF YOU DON'T AGREE.
2006-07-02 19:14:46
·
answer #2
·
answered by BOOMBOOMBILLY 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
It's touching that you care so much, but what does age have to do with anything? I joined the Marine Corps when I was 17. Where do you get the idea that someone is just given a gun, and then, told to shoot? If you had to choose, would you rather have a soldier die in combat, or innocent civilians die going to work in a building? Don't trivialize the training our military receives, as you are not someone with the knowledge to comment. If anything, thank THEM for having the moral conviction to fight for your freedoms.
2006-07-02 19:09:46
·
answer #3
·
answered by dhills23 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I believe that the politicians who decide to start a war (or abdicate their constitutional authority to declare war to another branch of government) should be the only ones who should fight the war.
I remember the anti-war public service message from the 70s which showed two old men in suits (surrounded by everyone else in a circle) duking it out as being the only legitimate form of warfare.
2006-07-02 19:08:49
·
answer #4
·
answered by Raymond C 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think that to be sent to war, you should have to be over 40 and a member of the Congress or the Executive branch. Now THAT would change things, wouldn't it!
2006-07-02 20:28:06
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I agree 21 should be the youngest. If you have to be 21 to drink, shouldn't you need to be 21 to go fight in a war?
Too bad that anyone needs to fight in the war!
2006-07-02 19:02:12
·
answer #6
·
answered by Lisa N 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
I do. Why can't you drink at 18, but you can take a gun and serve the country?
2006-07-02 19:02:33
·
answer #7
·
answered by Krn 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
a person given a right to vote is also capable of making decisions based on his love for his/her country.....
let us not judge persons because of age.. but what is considered an adult should be respected just as well.. heck we have immature kids in their 20's and mature kids in their teens...
2006-07-02 19:01:42
·
answer #8
·
answered by Andrew 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
that's the way its been since army's have been fighting wars but is it any sadder than a thirty year old man getting killed in the war think about it
2006-07-02 19:04:30
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
10 years ago I joined at 17 and I don't know why you would want to tell another adult what he can or can not do for a liveing.
2006-07-03 01:22:19
·
answer #10
·
answered by MP US Army 7
·
0⤊
0⤋