should the minimum age for enlistment to the armed forces be raised to 21 or possibly even higher?

Originally posted by The_Zomar


Thankfully not even a minute of my life wasted on such a dead end "career"

unfortunately 20+ of my closest friends are serving and let me know what happens.

And not all of them get killed; more of them commit suicide.

edit on 28-1-2011 by The_Zomar because: (no reason given)

I call BS. I doubt you have even 1 friend who actually served. As for the suicide issue, those are tragic beyond measure but again I think you are just pulling said associations totally out of Uranus.

reply to post by lewman


These 18 year old adults grow up real quick in the military. If they aren't emotionally evolved yet when they enter, they quickly become emotionally evolved. I only met two people while I was in the military that I knew did not belong there. One was half-mentally handicapped and I'm sure he got kicked out in tech school and the other was discharged when his 4 years were up.

reply to post by lewman



S&F.

I met some really sharp 18 year old enlisted in the service, and some really goofy 21, 30, and 40 year olds and up.

Not even gonna speak about the way the graph goes up and down among the officer class. Don't get me wrong I loved it, but there are some goofballs and head cases at all ranks and ages. Most though are A1 and do their job well.

That said, if someone is good enough to serve this country at any age, they better damned well have the right to vote, and to have someone buy them a drink.

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776

Originally posted by The_Zomar


Thankfully not even a minute of my life wasted on such a dead end "career"

unfortunately 20+ of my closest friends are serving and let me know what happens.

And not all of them get killed; more of them commit suicide.

edit on 28-1-2011 by The_Zomar because: (no reason given)

I call BS. I doubt you have even 1 friend who actually served. As for the suicide issue, those are tragic beyond measure but again I think you are just pulling said associations totally out of Uranus.

Don't think I know anyone that served?
Try half my damn family. And as I said 20+ friends.

It's not hard to join the military... in fact it's quite easy.

reply to post by The_Zomar


I came from a tiny county in Virginia; One senior high school and my graduating class was than 120. More than half us joined up because other than farming and fishing there were just no jobs. Some of us got some college in, some went straight in.

I believe you because I keep in contact more than 20 of them who were right good friends.

I will contradict you on one thing though: the military is not a dead end career. A person can retire, then get a status-required job with the feds and double-dip on retirements, then sometimes go to a private contractor and triple dip in you are in the right field.

reply to post by mydarkpassenger


i see your point here, and find that perfectly understandable. the worrying thing i find though is that an 18 year old with a goofball squadron leader is not going to learn what is morally right and wrong in a war situation.
this also means that with a mature and ethical minded squadron leader, it could be a good experience for the teenager, but that is unless he gets an unfortunate bit of luck and gets killed, injured, sees a freind injured or accidently kills an innocent.

but i could be wrong, i have never been in the army but have flat feet and cfs so i couldnt if i wanted to, but i do have respect for the intentions that some have when joining the armed forces even if they have been led to believe things that may not be true, but that is something to take up with the politicians, generals and msm and not with the common soldier.

reply to post by lewman


The hazards go with the job. I don't know any age at which someone is prepared watch a friend killed, disfigured or harm a noncombatant, whether through their own errors or their commanding office or noncom.

If you could take the terror out of combat, us damned fool humans would probably resort to it even more than we have in all of history. Lousy record at that.

As is, you have a civilian structure that orders troops and sailors in harms way, and then goes back home, snug in their beds with their families, a nice dinner in the bellies, while the folks in uniform salute and hang their asses out over precipice. And bleed.

The last people on earth who want war are not the ones giving the orders or setting the policies.

Well, as an aussie, I disagree this should happen here. While in training I met recruits 17 - 56 who all basically signed up for the same things. To blow # up, to travel, money, the older folks did it to see if they "still had it" (which they did) while ofcourse camoflaguing these desires "officially" under patriotism.

There is really no difference. If you want to do military-related things, you will. I've matured quite a bit since my enlistment and I still enjoy doing the work even though my priorities have been put in a blender. In fact, I believe military training actually forces the kids to "mature" intellectually. Most of the kids I signed up with a few years ago (17, 18, like me) behaved akin to men in their 30s. So either middle-age men are becoming more immature, or military training really did up these kids maturity levels.

Just putting that out there from my experience. I am not going to dismiss the fact that there are quite a few morons in the military. I remember this one guy, he was in late 30s. He used to behave like a damn spoiled child that was in high-school.

reply to post by lewman


They should raise the minimum age to 21. 21 year olds are still noobs though and should be put through a lot of training. Beyond the fact that younger people have not lived their precious little lives or are delectably not mature enough just the fact that they lack the skills alone makes it kind of a waste of time unless you're talking cannon fodder. I believe that is what goes through some people's minds when they agree with sending the young wiper snappers in.

I know young 18 year olds in that business and I think they have what it takes and are mature enough for the job. Now is it necessary? Also it's weird that they have recruiters at the schools. Whatever, it's not that big of a deal. But I do think they should give soldiers more rights, like the right to leave if they want. I see no need to trap people over there for years. If they leave so what, maybe the war is not worth fighting.

Good question. I think it's ridiculous to allow a 17 yr old, 18 yr old, heck even a 19, 20 yr old to make that decision. From my own personal experience, I decided to do it at the age of 17 and went to basic at 18. What did I know? Nothing, I wanted to get out of the house and that was the quickest way out. I would guess that is part of the reason so many low income and minorities join, too. I say 21 should be the age to decide. And by the way, I didn't last a year.

reply to post by lewman


No.

The draft should be universal no deferments two years service minimum age 17.

reply to post by G.A.G.


I agree, but I would expect the age would never be raised to 21. Kids are very impressionable, if you give them time to mature they may weigh their choices and choose not to join. It makes it much more easier for the military to recruit students while at school rather than wait for someone to walk in and register at a recruitment office. I would bet enlistment would drastically decline.

reply to post by lewman


18 is a good minimum age for most folks in most cases.

Under 18 should be considered if the young person wants to join and is just waiting to be old enough.

Permission from a parent or local offical other than a military recruiter is part of the process for someone

who will be better off in the service than waiting around after they have decided to join.

Extensive training should be considered for the youngest troops to keep them from overseas combat

for some period of time beyond the first year of service.

Becomming part of unit takes time, folks over 21 are less adaptable to basic training and are more likely

to become or cause casualitys in combat.

Famous people who want to join should be assigned to support, special services units to reduce the hazzard to

everyone.

Serving at 18 is fine by me. At that age coming out of high school many don't have the money to go to college, don't want to work a pud job and some don't want to go to college and want to serve their country. They become highly trained, are led by role models and learn respect, discipline and life skills. You can then go to college while in the service through the GI bill, make it a career etc. Of course you can get shot too. All this can't drink until your 21 is kind of ridiculous. Hell you want a beer it aint too hard to find one.

I was going to join the Marines out of high school but decided to give college a try. After a couple years the money dried up and I wasn't getting anything out of it anyway so joined the army.

The age of enlistment should be raised to 65
You must where a suit
and you must be elected to public office.
you must also have enough money to buy your own body armour.

If you are female you must be
65 years of age
rich
ugly
and snide...

or else you can't enlist.
sorry charlie

reply to post by lewman


I'm aloud to go off into forigion lands and fight and get killed but I can't drink alcohol tell I'm 21

Originally posted by lewman
reply to post by DrumsRfun

 

so i suppose the voting age would need to be lowered too.

Under twenty one voting should only be for people in the military.

Oh, yeah.

There are a lot of reasons for that statement.

reply to post by badgerprints


more votes for the military minded candidates?

Originally posted by lewman
another idea would be to let them join the army but not let them go to the front lines until they are atleast 21, but i suppose the us and uk armies are so despised around the world that any situation regarding our forces in another nation can very quickly turn into a battle ground.

that's the answer i was thinking of...
sure a 15-20 year old...male or female, could join the military... they would be trained
for non combat support positions and even be barred from being stationed in combat-zones...

but once they hit 21... the gloves come off and they could be redeployed to Afghan/Pakistan
or wherever the declining empire needs their specialties in the forever expanding war front

so, a 15 year old could go in the military, learn a trade or possibly a skill for 6 years min
enlistment & go out into the economy with a start at self reliance. & not have been taught
or experienced the bipolar aspects of war...

a 20 year old would only have 1 year enlistment without the threat of combat ... but they would
sweat out the next 5 years of being restationed into a combat situation.


i think that would be a level headed approach to youth enlistments