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...

So it's your opinion they lack life experience, darn, it's
time to take away their right to vote. You see what it got
us.

TDD