The Legal Drinking Age

[SirSaxa]

A little fact check.

18, 19 and 20 year olds are considered "kids" by a great many people, including people of that age, and probably by most of the posters on this board if they are honest.

Regardless of how they got there, some of these "kids" are in the US Military.
They are being sent overseas.
And they are getting killed.

[thebin]

Aug 20, 2008 16:53:34 GMT -5 SirSaxa said:

A little fact check.

18, 19 and 20 year olds are considered "kids" by a great many people, including people of that age, and probably by most of the posters on this board if they are honest.

Regardless of how they got there, some of these "kids" are in the US Military.
They are being sent overseas.
And they are getting killed.

You know full well that the implication of "kids being SENT to war" is that they played no role in the decision as was literally the case in Vietnam where the phrase comes from in popular parlance. Today's "kids" are in fact legal adults who joined the military voluntarily rather than being drafted into it and then sent to Iraq. It's highly loaded language SirSaxa to say the least.

Or if you prefer, the fact that they are sent not by federal govt mandate straight out of high school graduation (vietnam) but rather they are sent by their bosses at a job they applied for many largely because they might get to fight for their country one day- makes quite a hefty difference, does it not?

The difference say between being sent to Mexico City for a business trip by your company and being deported back there. Both are "sent" i guess.

[SirSaxa]

Two points TheBin.

One is that the original point was about drinking. If one is old enough to be sent to a place where they get killed.... regardless of the rest... then they are old enough to drink.

Now if you want to take it to the next step about being in a volunteer military... that does not absolve the government of the responsibility to exercise every means to ensure that only in the most dire circumstances, only as a last resort, should troops be sent into harm's way...whether they volunteered or not.

Finally, I was one who benefitted from the end of the draft. I had a low number and would have surely gone.

Nonetheless, when I hear a conservative, decorated VietNam vet like Sen. Chuck Hagel and a liberal NY congressman like Charles Rangel both saying we should consider reinstating the draft -- because the military would be more representative of a wide cross section of America and therefore we would be much more careful about sending them into harm's way? Well, I still don't like the draft, but that is a very valid point of view.

[TBird41]

Aug 20, 2008 18:03:51 GMT -5 SirSaxa said:

Two points TheBin.

One is that the original point was about drinking. If one is old enough to be sent to a place where they get killed.... regardless of the rest... then they are old enough to drink.

Now if you want to take it to the next step about being in a volunteer military... that does not absolve the government of the responsibility to exercise every means to ensure that only in the most dire circumstances, only as a last resort, should troops be sent into harm's way...whether they volunteered or not.

Finally, I was one who benefitted from the end of the draft. I had a low number and would have surely gone.

Nonetheless, when I hear a conservative, decorated VietNam vet like Sen. Chuck Hagel and a liberal NY congressman like Charles Rangel both saying we should consider reinstating the draft -- because the military would be more representative of a wide cross section of America and therefore we would be much more careful about sending them into harm's way? Well, I still don't like the draft, but that is a very valid point of view.

And every military leader will argue that reinstating the draft will lead to a less effective military due to low morale and worse training which means more Americans will die when the military is needed. Really, the question is which you view as more important--an effective military, or a representative one? Personally, I'd rather have a more effective one. If you have problems with how its used, then the problem lies on the civilian front, not with its effectiveness.

[SFHoya99]

It seems to me that a society where people who want to be in the military are in the military and those who don't aren't is a pretty good one.

I understand a draft when absolutely necessary, but if people are talking freedoms, that a big leap to instituting a draft.

Then again, I'm not going to argue that people wouldn't come out of it better people in many cases (of course, some come out dead in other times) and with a greater appreciation for freedoms, but that's different that what's effective and what's right.

[hoyatables]

Aug 20, 2008 15:14:54 GMT -5 thebin said:

"let me ask you this, thebin -- does your take on the importance of the expansion of liberties also extend to my right to say whatever I want in public? To burn the American flag? To perform scientific research on stem cells? To get an abortion? To have access to an attorney? To be protected from unlawful searches and seizures?"

As far as I'm concerned, the right to buy a bottle of Jack Daniels at 18 is meaningless in the grand scheme of "expansion of liberties" unless I am free to then douse the American flag in it and light it on fire. "

------


I'm not remotely sure what you are spazzing on about, but I support your and my right to do ALL of those things. I'm not remotely interested by the way in an imposition of rights that you think are more important than others. I'll take all of them all of the time.

No, that's cool -- I'm not nearly as libertarian as you are, but there's an intellectual honesty to your position and I can completely respect that, even if I don't agree.