In this age of equality, why do we send our young troops to war?

Question

Once upon a time young men were expected to fight and die pointlessly in muddy fields, on beaches or in bloody street battles and were taken out of factories and mines to do their duty.

Now with GPS, an ageing (mainly bigoted, intolerant and often angry) population and car ownership making wars for oil necessary why don't we send our elderly populations off to war?

Not that you'd know from our elderly but in the UK (for example) we have been multicultural for over 200 years but with every generation we hear the same bigoted bullshit that my parents were told from their parents and they were talking crap even then.

People are people, we are all worth the same however the rules of war are changing and now is the time to let our elderly car drivers (we are still fighting for oil aren't we?) into GPS fitted trucks crammed full of gas canisters and put on 15 minute timers.

Military Intelligence can programme the GPS and their grandchildren can have the medals.

Your views plse

Answer 1

Rock on, God. See how many wars would be fought then.

Answer 2

From the dawn of time old men have made the wars in which young men get killed. Cynics used to suggest that that left less competition for the favours of young ladies.

Answer 3

i'm specific the human beings who fought the British during the progressive war have been happy the French desperate to help them out... that replaced right into a important contributing element to our starting to be a rustic. additionally, England, France, Italy, Austria, and a few others... properly, theyr'e specific happy we helped them out throughout WWII... otherwise Hitler could have unfold his kind of hatred throughout Europe. how are you able to be naive sufficient to have faith that there at the instant are not situations in existence once you will desire to stand up for somebody else... to take a stand with them against a basic enemy?

Answer 4

I concur with Mary Roberts Rinehart who said, "I hate those men who would send into war youth to fight and die for them; the pride and cowardice of those old men, making their wars that boys must die."

Answer 5

Just saw on the History Channel how England sent boys of 14, 15, 16 and 17 to war in WW I and how they refused (mostly) to let them out even when their parents proved they were underage. They went off to the front and died in their tens of thousands . . . still little boys, some of them.

So you think the US Administration is any different from Lord Kitchener?

Answer 6

Who would we send off on pieces of floating ice in the ocean of the oldies went to war?

Answer 7

older people and women could serve okay behind the lines but the marines and other shock troops need to be young and gung ho with excessive testosterone that makes them able to charge machine guns and run through mine fields. the older ones will hesitate or refuse. it has always been that way. only a few older ones like clint east wood and john wayne can go in and lead the young ones. need those big ca-hones to confront the enemy head to head.

Answer 8

The geryontoracy don't mind sending kids to war, for selfish reasons. They are molded for birth to look after their parents. As for war, the soldiers are never as old as John Wayne.

Answer 9

We don't just send them, they joined!! There is no draft again yey. But because of Liberals big mouths, we probably will have to start drafting.
Without some wars you wouldn't be free today to speak freely on here. IMHO

Answer 10

To fullfill the egos of corrupt, inept and misguided politicians like Bush and Blair and their associates in large corporations to fulfill their greed for profits and need to satisfy their shareholders.
No other reason.

Answer 11

This is probably the most looney-tunes, inane post I have ever seen in here. And that is saying a lot considering all the idiot liberals and conspiracy theorists that hang out on here.