The youngest age to be drafted just doesnt make any sense

i know this isnt really a conspiracy but i had no idea were to put this one, maybe they should have a People's Issues thread or something.

But anyway my main argument is that the youngest age that a person would be put into conscription, i believe it is 16, 17 or 18, doesnt make sense with the youth view points of canada and the usa.

(btw i know this only happens in the event of a large war or world war)

lets say the age was 17, so what they are saying is that a 17 year old is not old enough to vote, drink, smoke, watch porn, go into clubs, or even watch R rated movies, but he is old enough to go kill another human being and see the horrors of war, and himself get killed for the politicians he never got to vote for.

So whats everyone view?

reply to post by tankthinker


I definitly agree with you.

I think the whole thing is a crock of s#.




Mod Note: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 16-10-2008 by 12m8keall2c]

There is no draft. There won't be a draft here in Canada. Should some insane politician ever decide to impose such a thing he'll be dealing with me. Because he doesn't have a hope in hell in coming near one of my sons! So what draft where you talking about there?

Its by design.

Young males are easily persuaded to go fight in wars, because its seen as something manly, something they are desperate to be in that age.

Its not until later that you realize how society and the military really works, and what buttons they push to get you to do what they want. Some people never seem to learn.

i was referring to the event of a war/world war that would eventually force a draft, if such a war ever happened which im sure it will

I think its one of the most disgusting things about our culture, that we have just grown comfortable with the fact that we are sending in children.

We might as well just drop the drafting age down to 16 here in the states what difference does it make? However people will look like this and tell me " No caballero 16 is too young, 18 is when boys become men"

No, 18 is when 17 becomes a year older. Only two years ago they were 16 only one year ago they were 17, the "adults" we try to make them out to be are still just kids, they are naive and they are virgin to many areas of life like drinking, so why should we introduce them into childhood with violence, death and decay?

Any war that TPTB construct for the Rothchilds and whatever non humans profit, will have absolutely no support from me or my sons! What they can do, is get off this planet, they're not welcome here anymore.

[edit on 16-10-2008 by mystiq]

Edit to add: War is simple. Don't go. Don't listen to them. Tell them to shove it. Period!

[edit on 16-10-2008 by mystiq]

Originally posted by tankthinker
i was referring to the event of a war/world war that would eventually force a draft, if such a war ever happened which im sure it will

Wars dont just happen, they are planned and engineered for profit. The same people who finance the bombs finance the reconstruction after the war. Tons of money.

They are profiting greatly by people thinking they are fighting "evil" while in reality, they are insignificant pawns working for free to make the bankers money and power.


[edit on 16-10-2008 by Copernicus]

reply to post by Copernicus


i realize this already but i dont know their plans so i have no idea when a war is going to start, but the main point is why so young, i myself am 17 and loathe the idea of having to go fight, i couldnt even vote in the canadian election (even though i wouldnt want to)because my birthday is in december, but if there was a world war,

"heres your gun and your armor, go kill some enemies for us, son"

HAHA brings up a great story.

I'm 17 and I had an Army recruiter come up to me about 2 months ago. He talked about the usual stuff trying to get me to go to the recruitment office and sign up. After a while I asked him "so you want me to go fight in a war, on the other side of the world right?"

He continues on with his BS that i won't be shipped off to Iraq or anything like that.

Than I looked at him and said "Why don't you buy me a beer and we'll talk about it."

He looks at me very surprised haha. Than I told him "Exactly! See how #ed up and unfair the whole thing is!"

It was great he didn't have anything to say after that.

I joined the US Army in 1980 when I was 21 yrs old. I think that is an appropiate age to join. You don't know the meaning of serving at a young age. It is not to kill, it is to kill or be killed to protect your fellow countrymen. I DO NOT agree with the war on Iraq. I think Bush and Rumsfield thought they could get a "base" built there to fight the war on terror. Boy, that was STUPID! But again, the teen years are too young.

reply to post by PammyK


You also volunteered, you were not drafted as he was talking about.

Two very very different things. Also 21 is not 17. You change a lot between that time period. Everybody does.

EDIT: Spelling.

[edit on 16-10-2008 by mkross1983]

I agree with you. I have always thought that it was bull that you could serve your country at 18, but you can't legally have a drink. At least here in the States you have to be 21- not sure about Canada.

Here at 17 you can go to a rated R movie. 18 you can smoke, gamble, and enlist.

But you have to wait until your 21 to have a drink in public. Silly, just silly.

reply to post by mystiq


I agree with you. I have 2 Grandsons that fall into that age group and they would also have to fight me if that day ever comes.

Although I am completely against any kind of draft whatsoever, I see how IF the government does need one for a World War, 17 or 18 year olds would be the best option.

First, boys at this age are basically at their prime in physical condition. War is not about how mature you are, maturity won't save you from a bullet. They must be physically fit in order to survive in some pretty harsh battle conditions.

Second, the older the man (or in some cases women, too) the less likely he will be in wanting to go to war. These boys are at the point in life where they're ready to get out on their own away from their parents; they're in that rebellious stage which, if that energy is focused towards the military, is a great asset. Older, more mature, men have probably already spent years in college trying to get some degree, or years at a job going for that promotion. They are more set in their ways, less adventurous (generally speaking), and more likely to have personal problems that they find more important than wars.

Third, 17 and 18 year olds are easily influenced. It is a hell of a lot easier for a sergeant to get a teenage boy to listen and follow orders than it is to tell a 30 year old father of two to drop down and give me 50! The military would go to the crapper if it had a bunch of men who questioned motives or thought too long about whether or not they should follow orders. They want to eliminate as much individuality as possible in order to form a more well-designed, fluid machine.

That said, I just want to note again that I am firmly against the draft. I will under no circumstances kill ANY human being simply because my government thought it was best, especially if I am forced into a war which more than likely started over the greed and corruption of 10 or so old, fat, pompous men smoking Davidoff cigars while swimming in an ocean of money at the expense of everyone "beneath" them.

[edit on 16-10-2008 by Alexander_Supertramp]

I was almost 23 years old before I was able to vote in a presidential election, and had already fulfilled my 6 year military obligation and been a disabled combat veteran for over 3 years. .... I had grown up fast, but I was far from being an adult, though no one could convince me otherwise. .... The military has no interest in people that have had time to learn to question authority or have the ability to weigh out the right or wrong side of issues that wars are fought over.

Originally posted by Alexander_Supertramp
Although I am completely against any kind of draft whatsoever, I see how IF the government does need one for a World War, 17 or 18 year olds would be the best option.

First, boys at this age are basically at their prime in physical condition. War is not about how mature you are, maturity won't save you from a bullet. They must be physically fit in order to survive in some pretty harsh battle conditions.

Actually at this stage we are still growing, i believe that a person stops growing at 19, i would say that the 19/20 year olds would be the best physically. And even if you were right, and they are at their prime at 17/18 wouldnt it be justified to say that they can smoke/drink (although drinking has some maturity implications) since it wouldnt affect them as badly as anyone older or younger.

Second, the older the man (or in some cases women, too) the less likely he will be in wanting to go to war. These boys are at the point in life where they're ready to get out on their own away from their parents; they're in that rebellious stage which, if that energy is focused towards the military, is a great asset. Older, more mature, men have probably already spent years in college trying to get some degree, or years at a job going for that promotion. They are more set in their ways, less adventurous (generally speaking), and more likely to have personal problems that they find more important than wars.

I agree with you on this, but in a forced draft this wouldnt matter anyway, since you are Forced to go to war or to jail.

Third, 17 and 18 year olds are easily influenced. It is a hell of a lot easier for a sergeant to get a teenage boy to listen and follow orders than it is to tell a 30 year old father of two to drop down and give me 50! The military would go to the crapper if it had a bunch of men who questioned motives or thought too long about whether or not they should follow orders. They want to eliminate as much individuality as possible in order to form a more well-designed, fluid machine.

This point also has some merit, but if i was an officer i would rather have 30 year old men, who have experience in life and can hold their own psychologically, who have faced the hard world already, who dont live with their parents and get pampered, who have to support and take care of a family, the some 18 year old show-offs, who will most likely cower in fear and become disoriented and not able to take orders on a battlefield, in addition you always get those hot heads who end up screwing up an order or doing something stupid that puts the whole squad at risk. Older men i think will be more likely to follow orders strait and true so that they can get the war over with as fast as they think they can make it go, and to keep themselves alive so that they can go home.





[edit on 16-10-2008 by tankthinker]

Tank, I agree with you on this post. You make a lot of good points and sound pretty mature for your age. I think you have a good head on your shoulders.

Good luck.

[edit on 16-10-2008 by mkross1983]

Originally posted by tankthinker
Actually at this stage we are still growing, i believe that a person stops growing at 19, i would say that the 19/20 year olds would be the best physically. And even if you were right, and they are at their prime at 17/18 wouldnt it be justified to say that they can smoke/drink (although drinking has some maturity implications) since it wouldnt affect them as badly as anyone older or younger.

19 would be the age I would shoot for as the best, I agree with you there. As far as smoking and drinking, they should legally be able to do both. I don't understand why you could die for your country at 18 but can't drink with your friends. Makes no sense to me.

This point also has some merit, but if i was an officer i would rather have 30 year old men, who have experience in life and can hold their own psychologically, who have faced the hard world already, who dont live with their parents and get pampered, who have to support and take care of a family, the some 18 year old show-offs, who will most likely cower in fear and become disoriented and not able to take orders on a battlefield, in addition you always get those hot heads who end up screwing up an order or doing something stupid that puts the whole squad at risk. Older men i think will be more likely to follow orders strait and true so that they can get the war over with as fast as they think they can make it go, and to keep themselves alive so that they can go home.

This is the only thing I respectfully disagree with you about. While a man with a family to take care of will indeed have alot to fight for, we can't really say that 30 year olds would be more dedicated to do their job than 18 year olds. That would vary too greatly from person to person. Who's to say an 18 year old guy wouldn't want to end the war to come back and see his girlfriend just as much as a man to his family? Very different, but someone's willpower and determination is specific to each, not to a cohort.

As far as older men following orders, I was thinking more along the lines of a father of two having to take orders to shoot an 8 year old child who was "threatening." I would imagine that the man, who could potentially have a child that age, would hesitate just a bit longer than a younger man.

All-in-all, though, it's just terrible that we even need to have wars. The savage greed in humanity should have rotted away long ago.

[edit on 16-10-2008 by Alexander_Supertramp]

Currently there is no draft in the US

If there were a draft they would once again look for 18 year old males. Young men of that age are more easily manipulated into being good soldiers than 40 year old's.

You can get young men to do things that risk life and limb more easily then more mature men.

However, in regard to your post. My position is that if you're old enough to fight then you should legally be considered an adult.




[edit on 16-10-2008 by Wildbob77]