Will you send your son or daughter to a war to kill or be killed? Of course not. Then you might ask why would a leader of a country send other people's children to war? The following picture shows the number of US soldiers killed in Iraq since the March 2003 invasion
More than 509 soldiers killed in Iraq were 21 years old. That’s more that 13% of the total death casualty.
The number for higher ages drops sharply after that. In addition, more than 60% of those killed are less than 26 years old. It means that the young are put are at higher risk in this five-year old occupation.
If basics training start at 18 years old, why doesn’t the military allow the young soldiers to learn more about fighting before putting them in harm’s way? Couldn't it send the more experienced and older ones to the front first.
Long time ago, in many countries, wars never affected the rich people. Even when their name appeared in the lists of people to be drafted, there were laws that allowed them to pay a poor young man to go to war instead of themselves. This happened in Spain for example.
Today it is a little different. Education, which is the only for the poor people to lift themselves out of poverty, has become too expensive. Only a few people are able to pay for their children’s education, sometimes through loans and debts.
When the US Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, and the National Guards offer educational incentives supports, their goal is to lure poor people into their ranks. Many are told they will not be send to Iraq or Afghanistan, only to find themselves being shipped there within a year after their enlistment.
If you have not seen Michael Moore's movie Fahrenheit 911, you need to rent it (it only costs 50 cents at Family Video) to see how military recruiters go to shopping malls to search for poor high school students who have very little chance of attending college.
Henri Ford once said that "they want war because they make money out of such conflict — out of the human misery that wars bring."
I don’t believe all this talk about fight for freedom. If it were true, wouldn't the rich people and their children take part in this war. Why is it only the young and uneducated people who do most of fighting? And if there is honor to die for freedom, how come the congressmen, congresswomen, senators, and the executive branch officials don’t send their children to get this honor before sending other people’s children.
How come the names of the soldiers who die in these two wars are not those of famous and rich people? The names of who die are those you never heard of. It is never the names of the local, state, and nation officials. It is never the children of the Hollywood stars, those of the well-known musicians – The famous people in America. Those who die are the little people and the poor people, and the one who are less-privileged. It is never the over-privileged.
Yet, newspapers paint their death with a superficial word called “heroes”. How come rich (over-privileged) people don’t seek the honor of becoming a hero?
The number for higher ages drops sharply after that. In addition, more than 60% of those killed are less than 26 years old. It means that the young are put are at higher risk in this five-year old occupation.
If basics training start at 18 years old, why doesn’t the military allow the young soldiers to learn more about fighting before putting them in harm’s way? Couldn't it send the more experienced and older ones to the front first.
Long time ago, in many countries, wars never affected the rich people. Even when their name appeared in the lists of people to be drafted, there were laws that allowed them to pay a poor young man to go to war instead of themselves. This happened in Spain for example.
Today it is a little different. Education, which is the only for the poor people to lift themselves out of poverty, has become too expensive. Only a few people are able to pay for their children’s education, sometimes through loans and debts.
When the US Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, and the National Guards offer educational incentives supports, their goal is to lure poor people into their ranks. Many are told they will not be send to Iraq or Afghanistan, only to find themselves being shipped there within a year after their enlistment.
If you have not seen Michael Moore's movie Fahrenheit 911, you need to rent it (it only costs 50 cents at Family Video) to see how military recruiters go to shopping malls to search for poor high school students who have very little chance of attending college.
Henri Ford once said that "they want war because they make money out of such conflict — out of the human misery that wars bring."
I don’t believe all this talk about fight for freedom. If it were true, wouldn't the rich people and their children take part in this war. Why is it only the young and uneducated people who do most of fighting? And if there is honor to die for freedom, how come the congressmen, congresswomen, senators, and the executive branch officials don’t send their children to get this honor before sending other people’s children.
How come the names of the soldiers who die in these two wars are not those of famous and rich people? The names of who die are those you never heard of. It is never the names of the local, state, and nation officials. It is never the children of the Hollywood stars, those of the well-known musicians – The famous people in America. Those who die are the little people and the poor people, and the one who are less-privileged. It is never the over-privileged.
Yet, newspapers paint their death with a superficial word called “heroes”. How come rich (over-privileged) people don’t seek the honor of becoming a hero?
RSS Feed
