Is it morally right to ask 18-25 age group to fight all our battles?

Question

The average age of a infantryman is 19-20 They are fit and more importantly will obey orders without question Politicians use them to impose thier will on others.Is it right for us to train the young to fight our battles (and usually treat them like like second class citizens at other times)

Answer 1

It's their own choice to join the army in most countries so morals don't come into it

Answer 2

No one should be treated like a Second Class citizen. In the last two years I have changed many of my views. I now think that the Draft should be reinstated and all young men and women between the ages of 18 and 26 should be required to serve at least two years unless a physical or mental impariment prevents it. I think the U.S.A. should stop sending our men and women to fight wars in other countries. If the people of other countries want to free themselves from a non-democratic government let them wage the war against their own government. The U.S.A. should just make it clear to all people of the world you leave us alone and we will leave you alone, but if you do anything to harm our country we will not send our men and women to fight a ground war we will send one plane after another until we have bombed your people and your country off the face of the map. We continue to support countries like South Korea and the Philippines with financial aid while their political leaders publicly criticize us and demonstrate they are ungrateful for the help. Everything negative that happens in the Philippines the Opposition Party blames the U.S.A. for it yet we continue to pour money and other forms of aid in to the country. The South Korean people continue to get richer while the U.S.A. protects them from North Korea. Visit South Korea as I have and see how freindly their people are to Americans. Visit Thailand or the Philippines and sit down and have a conversation about America with a few among the thousands that pour in to these countries daily on expensive tours. I have yet to meet one that had something positivie to say about America. While we pay for their defense their young get great educations and early starts in the business world. It is time we begin to practice a little isolation.

Answer 3

Men at that age are even stupider than they will be when they're either younger or older than that age range. I know. I was there very recently (in that age group). Of course I don't know about such stupidity from personal experience, but rather because I was surrounded by it. The best thing we can do is get those aggressive, mindless young men out of the country.

I don't think we should ask them, though, we should allow them to volunteer for it, as in an "all-volunteer Army." This is perfect because then we can kill this useless age-range and let them do their own hanging. They will volunteer to die, we will have no responsibility, and they will be nicely removed from the earth. It's ingenious.

Parties will be better. Whenever I go to parties there is always some dude with shaved hair talking about how he can "take" this gur or that guy. This dude often talks about how easy it is to beat up anyone no matter how large they are, and tells everyone how practiced he is at drinking. He attempts to hit on well-educated girls, threatening to deposit his cracker-spawn vermin semen into a precious, useful female, which is almost as bad as ruining the tone and happiness of every party he enters. He brings a looming sense of menace and aggression even to situations where he was not invited or wanted, under the guise of being a guest.

I was once in the military. All I can say is that Marines like trying to start fights with anyone who is not a Marine, especially with those of other Armed Services who are protecting the same country. If you would do that, one would think that you should be tried for treason, then executed while your family watches. This would not be so much for punishment as it would be for making certain that those types did not procreate.

I don't think it's morally right for us to ask 18-25 year-old men to fight our battles -- but I think it is morally unconscionable if we do not put them SOMEWHERE, just to get rid of them. In a foreign desert seems like a MUCH better place than what I would suggest personally.

Answer 4

goes out the window when you volunteer for the military. Isn't military all about fighting?? Aren't you signing up to defend the country??

I don't agree with it, but to find it morally wrong is wrong in itself.

Also, there are many men and women over the age of 25 dying in the battles too. I'm sure you're aware that many of the people over there have been in the military for more than 1 run.

Answer 5

Depends if you think that war solves anything and that the sacrifice of all those with their lives still ahead of them and the contribution they might have made to the world is worth it. I read somewhere that Britain as a nation was genetically impoverished after World War 1 because the cream of the crop had been slaughtered and the gene pool was that much less dynamic.

Answer 6

Oh come on!!!!!!!!!!

Are you as naive as you paint here, or as.......?

18 - 25 year old males join the Military and are warned, 'You may be put in a position where your life is threatened. Do you want to continue with your training?'

[ or words to that effect - just as they have to now WARN younger people to -

''DO NOT IRON SHIRTS WHILE YOU ARE WEARING THEM'' ]


The majority of those who are injured and die on the streets and roads, from fighting and road traffic accidents, are aged 18 - 25.

Is it any LESS RIGHT for us to expect these 18 - 25 year olds to go out on the street and beat the c*ap out of each other, or to risk their lives performing stupidly for our entertainment on the roads …than from fighting those Others?

Sign up for the Services, 'Take the Kings Shilling,' and you can expect some politician to use what he has at his disposal. Just don't be dumb enough to complain about it when called upon to do 'What Is Expected Of You - as a Soldier.'

The politicians couldn't do it, if 18-25 year old soldiers were not 'signed up' to do their masters bidding.


You wrote, "Politicians use them to impose their will on others."

Ok. So tell us, just whose will would you have soldiers be used for...?

You wrote: 'Is it right for us to train the young to fight our battles (and usually treat them like second class citizens at other times)'

Who do you mean! - who treats them as 2nd Class citizens..?

I'm wondering where your ideas from ....are you stuck reading history books!

Traditionally, soldiers and sailors were lower than 2nd class citizens, especially those who were 'Professionals.' They were (all) treated as "DANGEROUS" by the local populations, because that is often EXACTLY what they were, to everyone. They were dangerous because they 'took what they wanted' - 'when they needed,' because the Government of the day did not take care of them.


After the Falklands, the M.o.D. went into something of a flat spin when it was ‘leaked’ that they 'would not let wounded servicemen take part in the celebrationary march past’ through the City of London at the end of that war.

Now the M.o.D. are refusing to release wounded service personnel’s names, claiming the ‘Data Protection Act,’ to an Ex-Servicemen’s charity who wish to help anyone who needs it.

It is not 'Politicians' who are DANGEROUS, it is the Civil Service and in particular the Ministry of Defence whose role it is.....

“”to Defend the Ministry""
(of "Defence").
------------------


PS: I'm NOT defending Politicians, by the way. I do not approve of any-one who wants to hold Public Office being allowed to do so. They ought to have their heads examined - and be locked away - beforehand.

Sash.

Answer 7

I was there and acquaintances with the rest of the naive young people in the military. I personally tried to get them to read material that was not necessarily favorable to our crooked governments position about the region. I very quickly realized that if the troops on the ground did not believe what they were participating in was right, that would lead to disorder. I'm drunk, I'm going to sleep.

Answer 8

Thats the age when most men are fit. If you ask people who are not fit to fight in a war i.e. dads army you may loose the war. 18-25 is when men are at their peak strenght and stamina.

Answer 9

Better check your ages on the military, quite a few folks in their 30-40's are in combat right now. Remember we don't have a draft, so our army is volunteers. Just because you don't believe in the cause they are fighting in, doesn't mean that they don't. All my friends and family that are in the service believe we are fighting the war on terrorism, and its better to fight it on someone elses soil than our own.

Answer 10

It is the infantrymen that sign up. When they do, they know what they are doing. At least it keeps them of the streets. It's bad enough that most of us 13-20 year olds get targeted as yobs. I'm 19 by the way, and one of the luckier ones.

Answer 11

It is not morally wrong to send 18-25s to fight our battles, we can hardly send the 60-80s. However it is wrong to send troops of any age to fight an immoral war. Iraq,for example.