They aren't even old enough to consent to raping Iraq women.

I guess we'll me seeing the military on the next "To Catch A Predator" Dateline episode.

mediaho, and it just won't be the recruiters this time!

Wow that is such an overblown story. And I'm against the Iraq War...

also against the war, but those recruits are hardly "children"

Children's Crusade to the Middle East: The sequel.

Yeh - big deal.

Probably better to focus on the 120 civilian people who were blown dead yesterday in Iraq.

"There is no way people so young are mentally or emotionally prepared to face bloodshed on the scale seen in Iraq."

And one year makes all the difference? Bullshiat. The only thing that distinguishes a 17 year old from an 18 year old is the ability to view porn legally... maturity doesn't magically appear on their birthdays, nor does the ability to bear having friends blown to bits get granted either.

The United States is a criminal organization.

The United Kingdom is merely incompetent apparently.

Mr Ingram said the "vast majority" were deployed within a week of their 18th birthdays...

That's really a pretty chilling thought, that the difference between outrage and indifference can be just a few days?

I know of more 17 year olds farking than I don't know what, and if you are old enough to fark, you're not a child in my book

Interesting, however hardly damning. Many nations allow enlistment at 17, or upon completion of high school, or other similar "young" standards. Heck, the only reason there aren't 17-year-olds from Canada in Afghanistan is that it takes a full year at least before you are fully trade-qualified as an infantier, and thus deployable. However, it's certainly possible to be in our Navy and in a combat zone, since much of your trade qualification occurs aboard ship. if the ship gets sent, they don't transfer people out because of age.

If the protocol mandates no one under 18, then that should be the recruitment age, otherwise it's logistically a nightmare to prevent "children" from going to war, and this sort of (no doubt honest) error will occur.

Audie Murphy enlisted at 17. I've heard he did rather well in combat. Of course, in those days, you didn't have a hundred journalists, ten lawyers, and 3 members of congress, second guessing your every decision on the battle field.

"There is no way people so young are mentally or emotionally prepared to face bloodshed on the scale seen in Iraq."

At no age, would I have been prepared to face the bloodshed on the scale seen in Iraq. Farked with me 35 years ago and still does.

Terrorists have no problem sending children to fight their wars. They encourage it.

I say fight Pampers with Pampers.

Huh. One of my friends in high school enlisted in the US Army reserve at 17 (allowable with parental permission) and went on several training deployments to Army facillities in Wisconsin to train with his unit of heavy artillery. Another did the same thing with the Illinois National Guard and was assigned to a mortar unit as an infantryman. This was shortly after the first Gulf War, so there was a small but not-insiginicant chance that either of them could have been deployed to Kuwait or Iraq for the operation to protect the Kurds. The cannon-cocker went to West Point a few months later after graduating, then promptly flunked out and got sent to South Korea to finish his 6-year enlistment as a radio repair technician. The mortar maggot I lost touch with, but I think he went into the regular army after graduation.

Yeah, the enlistment age should probably be upped to 18 if there's a treaty banning under-18's from being sent to combat zones. Seems like an invitation to bureaucratic screwups.

CHILDRENS CRUSADE, UNITE!

Old enough to pee is old enough for me!

Any word on the meat and pudding?

/evenin guvnah!

Hell, I doubt 20-year-olds have the mental or emotional maturity, but we send them.

Y'all are right. There's no age where the Wisdom Fairy taps you with her wand and you have the wisdom of the universe (though most teenagers you ask will tell you that happened to them at 15). It's something you get by living your life, and whether 18 years is enough living to earn that is debatable, and it only gets more doubtful as the age goes down.

The fact remains that the line has to be drawn *somewhere*, doesn't it?

/G'night

I was always considered very mature as a teenager, but I know looking back that going to war would have seriously farked me up. And I mean permanently.

My grandfather enlisted in the British Army during WWI when he was 14, because all his older brothers and friends had enlisted and he didn't want to be the little boy left at home. Of course, he lied about his age. They caught him after a year and sent him back to Aberdeen. He then re-enlisted, but when they figured it out he was only a few weeks shy of 16 so they just let him stay. My mom says he didn't talk about the war much but occasionally he would mention things like riding on airplane wings for transport and jumping in and out of fox holes while bombs were dropping/cannon shot. He left home with a head full of red-brown hair and it all turned white.

14 is definitely way too young, but what about all the Iraqi children living in the war zone? They can't exactly get away from it.

Lawrence Fishburne was in combat at 14.

Well, they think that is special, the US has a child LEADING their military.

/discuss

They sent four 17-year-old girls to Iraq? I have never met a girl that young who would be in any way equipt to handle that kind of thing. PC BS has gotten way out of hand.

/not that it's a picnic for the guys either, but geez...

Training != Aging

I've the same message for the education system (Education != Age). If the ape can kill the enemy effectively without undue risk to itself then you hand it a weapon and send it in.

FTFAShe said: "This is an inexcusable blunder by the Government that reveals a shocking level of incompetence. We have rules about sending those under 18 into conflict for a reason.

"There is no way people so young are mentally or emotionally prepared to face bloodshed on the scale seen in Iraq."

Apparently the 18th birthday rituals these days do prepare them mentally and emotionally, to face bloodshed on the scale seen in Iraq."
It's amazing what one day can make

EggSniper:

With most child armies, it's "If you can hold and fire a weapon you're sent in".

Militaries that send children into war don't care if they die as long as they kill one enemy soldier before doing so.

"There is no way people so young are mentally or emotionally prepared to face bloodshed on the scale seen in Iraq."

Hell, 18 year olds are allowed to see violent movies. Why not wait untill a kid turns 18 to hand him a gun and tell him to go shoot some people.

kraut7

He wasn't 18 when they were filming it. His black ass lied to Coppola.

DanThe1Man: They aren't even old enough to consent to raping Iraq women.

It's okay: I'm sure they'll live up to our expectations.

My father was 19 years old when he was shipped to Pearl Harbor, two weeks before the attack. He was ill prepared for what happened when the Japanese attacked. He was in Schofield Barracks which was adjacent to Wheeler Field & saw his best friend killed by the Japanese. He ended up with PTSD, what they called battle fatigue back then.

Saying that an 18 year old is more prepared for combat than a 17 year old is patently ridiculous.

That being said, what about all the Iraqi children forced to live in a war zone on a daily basis? What kind of emotional & mental preparation did they receive?

Anyone have a direct line? I wish to complain.

I don't see the problem here.

All of the youngsters were from Liverpool. They would have disarmed all of the car/truck bombers within a week by stealing their wheels and replacing them with piles of bricks.

Yet another cunning plan ruined by the liberal media.

/sorry yanks, you wouldn't understand

Here to echo the "17 years and 364 days old is too young, but 18 years old is fine" being assinine posts.

not to be a complete troll, but wasn't this what Hitler started doing at the end of his campaign?

/start throwing troll comments
//is ready with fark away shield

Hear this, people and fellow farkers. If the Army Infantry will have me, I will go. Get me a recruiter. Now. I will pack my shiate right now. No joke. All of you dumbasses that sit there waging this verbal war against your breatheren (sp)... step up. You want to sit there and talk shiat about why we should or why we should not be in Iraq? Doesn't farking matter anymore, does it? We are there. Deal with it. You get me a recruiter. I will gladly go. To Iraq. No shiat. Right farking now. Ask me for details...

I was in the British armed forces. I was 16 the first (and only) time I was sent into action with a loaded gun against the IRA, in 1970. The people I was sent to fight could easily have been the same age. I thought I was Rambo back then - indestructible. I expect the kids being sent to fight now think the same. I doubt if any objected to being posted to Iraq. Quite the opposite.

Ask me for details? That is odd... is it not?

frostyservant: Lawrence Fishburne was in combat at 14.


Big deal. The Brits sent underagers Melvin Gibson and his buddy to die in the Gallipoli meatgrinder without batting an eye.

Calvin Graham thinks you all need to STFU or he'll shove his Bronze Star and Purple Heart up your ass.

As long as they're volunteers, I don't see the problem. Iraq is dangerous, but I can think of quite a few neighborhoods back home that are far worse, and nobody's looked into where these kids came from originally. Iraq could actually be a step up.

When you think about it, we have like 133K people serving in Iraq at any given time, and less than 1K die per year. So a random person has a 97% chance of survival over a 4-year posting. That's really quite good.

"There is no way people so young are mentally or emotionally prepared to face bloodshed on the scale seen in Iraq."

I agree. All the people who brought us this war should go. Bush. Hillary. Kerry. Cheney. Rumsfeld. FoxNews. Fleisher. Colin Powell. etc.

j0ndas

I can think of quite a few neighborhoods back home that are far worse, and nobody's looked into where these kids came from originally. Iraq could actually be a step up.

I'll second that - esp. as I see you're talking about US neighborhoods. Its scary what we're allowing to happen to children in the US, let alone Iraq.

All the people who brought us this war should go. Bush. Hillary. Kerry. Cheney. Rumsfeld. FoxNews. Fleisher. Colin Powell. etc.

I don't even know where to begin with this one

Nobody should ever be sent to fight on behalf of a government they're not even old enough to vote for.

chrisdmid
The fact remains that the line has to be drawn *somewhere*, doesn't it?
Nope.
What is it with most people and drawing lines? Why must you constantly take any issue, draw a line "somewhere" and then proclaim that all things involved in the issue must be on one side or the other of this newly created line?
How about we judge every individual on their merit ability to perform the tasks they are engaging in? Why don't we do that?
Instead of a line, make a scale. Not even a scale with lines on it, but a beautiful gradient, with multiple axises. Why not say "We need soldiers to do this" and then evaluate your people to see who fits the bill and approve those people.

GAH. Stupid lines.

Common Private Simpson!

you're no good to us cranky!

They aren't children they are soldiers. They have the same training and probably just as able as older soldiers. So why aren't they allowed to go with their mates. Must be kinda **** to be left at home.

Aevum:
How about we judge every individual on their merit ability to perform the tasks they are engaging in? Why don't we do that?

How about unless you've had a legitimate chance to influence your government, they shouldn't be allowed to risk your life in support of their policies.

How about we judge every individual on their merit ability to perform the tasks they are engaging in? Why don't we do that?

We don't let 17 year olds vote or sign legal contracts - if society has drawn those lines and decided that they are not mature, responsible or sensible enough to decide for themselves and act as full citizens with all rights and duties, how can we allow them to sacrifice their lives for us?