They are old enough to think for themselves, regardless of what you would think for them

Hence the need for a 'contract' without the option to leave if they 'change their minds'... ;)

lol

I think as long as peple are not old enough yet to vote and be voted, to drink alcohol, or to do any other "adult" things, they also aren't old enough to serve in any army.

Ummm....the recruits here have to be 18 years of age ( the legal voting age ) to join the armed forces.

In most states of the US the legal drinking age is 21, so I thought....and the army do like to get them young before they have a chance to realise the enormity of what they have signed up for.

---

Reality Internet Personality

They are old enough to think for themselves, regardless of what you would think for them

Hence the need for a 'contract' without the option to leave if they 'change their minds'... ;)

lol

I think as long as peple are not old enough yet to vote and be voted, to drink alcohol, or to do any other "adult" things, they also aren't old enough to serve in any army.

Ummm....the recruits here have to be 18 years of age ( the legal voting age ) to join the armed forces.

In most states of the US the legal drinking age is 21, so I thought....and the army do like to get them young before they have a chance to realise the enormity of what they have signed up for.

Or just hop across the border where the legal drinking age in Mexico is 18.

---

me@rescam.org

They are old enough to think for themselves, regardless of what you would think for them

Hence the need for a 'contract' without the option to leave if they 'change their minds'... ;)

lol

I think as long as peple are not old enough yet to vote and be voted, to drink alcohol, or to do any other "adult" things, they also aren't old enough to serve in any army.

Ummm....the recruits here have to be 18 years of age ( the legal voting age ) to join the armed forces.

In most states of the US the legal drinking age is 21, so I thought....and the army do like to get them young before they have a chance to realise the enormity of what they have signed up for.

Not that I see the correlation...military service is an honor, which can provide a life-long career for said individual and/or the education and skills required to succeed in the private sector...

...bars and alcohol provide none of that, and in fact, can have the exact opposite affect on a person's life.

But there are some states introducing legislation that would lowering the drinking age for military personnel
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-03-20-drinkingage_N.htm

---

military service is an honor

Spoken like a true patriot... In which branch did you serve? ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

military service is an honor

Imo, military is just a necessary evil.

I think serving in the military is not more honorable than working as a police person, as a firefighter, as a streetworker, as a teacher; as a doctor, as a nurse, as a widwife; as an undertaker, as the garbage man, as the mail man, as the salesperson in a shop; as a worker in a factory or on a farm etc... - these are really honorable services -, quite the opposite: I even see military unnessecary as long as the country doesn't need to be protected from others, which is the case nowadays as long as there are no new invasions to be made.
I give more honor to creating, to helping, or to avoiding destruction, than to killing people and destroying stuff.

Military service, even in peace times, is always preparation for war, and war is always nothing but killing and destruction - so where is there something to be honored in that? Is someone who throws a bomb into a school a honorable man? are people who burned children with napalm, who destroy towns, who kill people just on the suspect of being an enemy, really honorable? I doubt it

---

Account frozen...

military service is an honor

Imo, military is just a necessary evil.

I think serving in the military is not more honorable than working as a police person, as a firefighter, as a streetworker, as a teacher; as a doctor, as a nurse, as a widwife; as an undertaker, as the garbage man, as the mail man, as the salesperson in a shop; as a worker in a factory or on a farm etc... - these are really honorable services

Ohferjeebussakes.

Yeah. You're suggesting the most mundane of everyday jobs (except maybe police officers) carries the same amount of "honor" as a position that requires a willingness (and often a necessity) to give one's life to protect the lives of his countrymen?

That dilutes the definition of honor to nearly nothing. "Honor me, for I arrived at work on time this morning, and sold a pair of socks AND some underwear! Honor ME for I have worketh!"

Pfffft.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

military service is an honor

Imo, military is just a necessary evil.

I think serving in the military is not more honorable than working as a police person, as a firefighter, as a streetworker, as a teacher; as a doctor, as a nurse, as a widwife; as an undertaker, as the garbage man, as the mail man, as the salesperson in a shop; as a worker in a factory or on a farm etc... - these are really honorable services

Ohferjeebussakes.

Yeah. You're suggesting the most mundane of everyday jobs (except maybe police officers) carries the same amount of "honor" as a position that requires a willingness (and often a necessity) to give one's life to protect the lives of his countrymen?

If there were a necessity to protect the country nowadays. Iraq has this necessity, since the US and their allies marched in. Against whom does the USA have to protect themselves? Which country is violating which's borders? Who is the aggressor, who is defending?

You can run a country without an army, but you can't run it with these "most mundane of everyday jobs". These are non-destructive, not killing. They safe lives or make them more comfortable. That's why these are more honorable than military.

Btw: I served my country, too - and I hated it. (the service, not my country)

---

Account frozen...

"Honor me, for I arrived at work on time this morning, and sold a pair of socks AND some underwear! Honor ME for I have worketh!"

Yep, it gets old don't it...

Strange though, you'll never hear phrases like that coming from the mouths of those who actually have worked... ;)

(We're simply too tired to put on dog and pony shows.)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Ohferjeebussakes.

Yeah. You're suggesting the most mundane of everyday jobs (except maybe police officers) carries the same amount of "honor" as a position that requires a willingness (and often a necessity) to give one's life to protect the lives of his countrymen?

If there were a necessity to protect the country nowadays. Iraq has this necessity, since the US and their allies marched in. Against whom does the USA have to protect themselves? Which country is violating which's borders? Who is the aggressor, who is defending?

That really isn't the point. The discussion about whether Iraq was a threat to Western nations is a different discussion from whether there is "honor" in selling socks or picking up trash an putting it into a machine.

Nevertheless, world-wide history has shown and continues to today, that often, whether with or without a standing army, countries are prone to being invaded or attacked.

You can run a country without an army, but you can't run it with these "most mundane of everyday jobs". These are non-destructive, not killing. They safe lives or make them more comfortable. That's why these are more honorable than military.

Which, again illustrates my point, you are diluting the term honor down to be almost meaningless. If every job has "honor" in that context, e.g., selling a pair of socks deserves the same honor as sacrificing one's life, then no jobs have any honor at all--it becomes meaningless.

"Honor me, for I arrived at work on time this morning, and sold a pair of socks AND some underwear! Honor ME for I have worketh!"

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

You can run a country without an army, but you can't run it with these "most mundane of everyday jobs". These are non-destructive, not killing. They safe lives or make them more comfortable. That's why these are more honorable than military.

Does the worker who picks up the garbage have to face bullets or bombs every day? How about the flames of a fire? How about the bullets of a murderer? Should we give the garbage man a 21 gun salute just because he faced the "hazards" to pick up your garbage?

You are absolutely right. All jobs are "honorable" as long as it's an honest job and not a "job" such as selling drugs on the street corner, or ripping off people in business scams, etc. However there are degrees to the honor. The ultimately honorable job requires a person to face death every day to carry out that job. Does the factory worker Rush mentioned face death just to make that pair of socks to go on people's feet? No! Is the job honorable? Yes. It's not robbing people or selling drugs to kids or something. But it doesn't deserve the 21 gun salute and burial in the Arlington National Cemetary for it.

All legitimate jobs are "honorable", but some are more honorable than others. Such as the fireman that faces death racing into a burning building to try to save a life or trying to save someone's property. I'd consider that kind of job a lot more honorable than the factory worker making a pair of socks where the only danger they face is crossing the street to get to work. Or the policeman who has to face down an armed killer and capture them. But the "ultimate honor" is to go to a job where you know that every day you are facing death.
And yes, there are more and less honorable jobs in the military also. The most honorable among these would be the front line "grunt", who is the one actually facing the enemy and getting shot at. The Generals, Captains, supply clerks, etc. that are behind the scenes have "honorable jobs" also, but the ultimate honor goes to the man up there on the front lines willing to give his life for the country he believes in. (Whichever country that may be.)

---

Jim

Some people plan their life out and look back at the wealth they've had.
Others live life day by day and look back at the wealth of experiences and enjoyment they've had.

military service is an honor

Imo, military is just a necessary evil.

I wouldn't call the military evil, but at least we can both agree they are a necessity.

I think serving in the military is not more honorable than working as a police person, as a firefighter, as a streetworker, as a teacher; as a doctor, as a nurse, as a widwife; as an undertaker, as the garbage man, as the mail man, as the salesperson in a shop; as a worker in a factory or on a farm etc... - these are really honorable services -, quite the opposite: I even see military unnessecary as long as the country doesn't need to be protected from others, which is the case nowadays as long as there are no new invasions to be made.

Police officers and firefighters, sure. Their job also requires them to risk their lives for the benefit of others. None of the other occupations you listed meet that criteria.

I give more honor to creating, to helping, or to avoiding destruction, than to killing people and destroying stuff.

...and we initiated the War on Terror to bring a halt to the senseless murder and destruction perpetrated by terrorists.

Funny, you don't give the impression of paying honor...

Military service, even in peace times, is always preparation for war, and war is always nothing but killing and destruction - so where is there something to be honored in that? Is someone who throws a bomb into a school a honorable man? are people who burned children with napalm, who destroy towns, who kill people just on the suspect of being an enemy, really honorable? I doubt it

That's why we've made every effort to minimize causalities. Notice the lack of nuclear weapons, carpet bombing, chemical and biological weapons, etc. etc. etc.

---

I wouldn't call the military evil

I would... But then again, I actually know what evil is and I've actually witnessed it with my own eyes... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

The most honorable among these would be the front line "grunt"

Also the most lowest paid and least respected among them would be the front line 'grunt'... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

I wouldn't call the military evil

I would... But then again, I actually know what evil is and I've actually witnessed it with my own eyes... ;)

I never, ever, thought I would agree with anything BrainSmashR said. For once he is right. That is insofar as the fact that the prime purpose of any government is to defend the citizenry of its nation. The problem with the military is always that either the military hierarchy or the government itself may be useless in maintaining proper discipline or decision-making.

Did the US politicians want the rampant indiscipline of the My Lai massacre or the total lack of military "intelligence" in the Abu Ghraib atrocity? Did their policies lead directly to these abominations or were they just embarrassed that the truth of these and other events eventually came out? The victims of both events were casualties of war in the truest possible sense.

Good leadership of good soldiers, sailors and airmen are vital to ensure that men and women with guns, poison gas and bombs do not get out of control.

As it is, geographical disasters and other events frequently depend on the military's existence and expertise to sort things out. It has to be said that the Chinese military are doing a superb job in their earthquake while the Burmese military are simply a liability to their people in dealing with the outcome of the typhoon there.

Good military training, good equipment and expert logistical initiative are necessities in both war and peace.

---

The problem with the military is always that either the military hierarchy or the government itself may be useless in maintaining proper discipline or decision-making.

You may believe they are that dysfunctional, but I most certainly do not... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Excuse me, BUT, any and all action taken by American forces in Bosnia and Serbia were taken under the direction of the NATO commander on the ground. At that time, the NATO commander was not an American.

As for the present situation in Iraq, and speaking from the position of having served in the US Army and seeing action in a few hotspots (granted, I still have no clue as to why in the hell we were even there) I feel that the invasion of Iraq was unwarranted. Saddam never supported Bin Ladin or his followers, no weapons of mass destruction were found, all labs for the making of chemical weapons had been taken apart and no longer in existence.

Therefore, the invasion was based on a formulation of lies by the Bush Administration, and as such, the administration should be held accountable under the Geneva and Hague Conventions on war and international law.

The present situation has landed the United States in a tactical problem similar to Vietnam, we have no clue as to who the enemy is, where he is, and when he is gonna blow our heads off. Regardless of what anyone says, there is a guerrilla war going on, and in such a war, there is no clear way to defeat the enemy, unless you decide to carpet bomb the entire country. (and i can think of a number of people who would do just that)

At this time, it is no longer a question of the invasion, or the presence of troops in the country, but how does the world remedy the situation. One of the plans for the 'liberation' of Iraq was to rebuild the infrastructure... it hasnt happened.

Schools, hospitals, power plants, water treatment plants still lay in ruins, raw sewage is still in the streets, and there has been cases of cholera, typhus and even a couple of cases of plague among the Iraqi civilians.

Go ahead and honor the men and women who have fallen, for they deserve no less, but in the same breath, hold the men who sent them into harm's way accountable.

In ancient times, it was said that the souls of the fallen would haunt a ruler who sent them into battle unjustly, which, if true, there are people who will be haunted for eternity.

If there were a necessity to protect the country nowadays. Iraq has this necessity, since the US and their allies marched in. Against whom does the USA have to protect themselves? Which country is violating which's borders? Who is the aggressor, who is defending?[/quote]
That really isn't the point. The discussion about whether Iraq was a threat to Western nations is a different discussion from whether there is "honor" in selling socks or picking up trash an putting it into a machine.






here is why usa went to iraq

WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

---

"Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exist elsewhere in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us."
Calvin to the Hobbes

Not that I see the correlation...military service is an honor, which can provide a life-long career for said individual and/or the education and skills required to succeed in the private sector...

did you serve in army?
( i served so i am honorable man)

---

"Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exist elsewhere in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us."
Calvin to the Hobbes