Bill wrote:
aemeijers wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

It's always easy to argue against starting a war in the wrong country,
rather than USE (and the worst way for Saddam and the best way for
us) an unsavory dictator to maintain stability in one place while we
deal with the right place (Pakistan). Bush may have a diploma, but he
has no knowledge of history. He's one of many fools who think that
once soldiers begin dying, it makes the cause a noble one, even if
the cause is a complete mistake like Iraq (or Vietnam).

I agree that "noble cause" or the "white man's burden" is sometimes
hard to justify.

But as for soldiers dying, don't give it a thought.

Our soldiers volunteered, knowing the risk of death or injury, for
the chance to kill people and blow things up. Seeking that thrill is
no different from other frightful hobbies: mountain climbing,
sky-diving, tightrope walking, or adultry.

Our warrior class needs a war every decade or so, not only to keep
the tip of the spear sharp, but to garner new recruits. Who would
ever want to be a fireman if there were never any fires?

No, our warriors want to be there, they trained to be there, they
need to be there. And they're willing to take casualties for the
privilege.

I know what it was like - I was once an active warrior. I'll forever
praise Lyndon Johnson for giving me an opportunity and I'll be the
last to deny our current crop of yougsters their dream.


IMHO, an 18-23 year old lacks the life experience to make an informed
rational decision about volunteering for combat duty. They are still
young, horny, and immortal. So old men send young men to die. We
really need to bring back the custom of the generals and
politicans/kings leading the troops into battle.

--
aem sends...
if that is the case then they shouldn't vote or drive or drink.
As to voting, I wish there was a fair way to have a test to see if they
can read and write before they vote. As to drinking and driving- well,
insurance statistics would agree with you. It applies to a slightly
younger age block, but the graduated drivers licenses have cut the
accident rate. And that, of course, is why they changed the drinking age
back to 21 from the 18 it was briefly at.

Yes, I know, kids in other countries drink, but in those countries most
kids can't afford to drive, and drinking is not a social rite of
passage. It is also a hell of a lot harder to get a license, something
this country should probably emulate. (now that I am too old to be
affected, of course.)

Some, even most, kids are quite bright, stable, and trustworthy, at
least most of the time. Too bad the hormone-addled ones ruin it for the
others.

--
aem sends...