Police Force vs. Police State (Page 2): Your correct. I joined at 16 with parental consent. Delayed entry. Was 17 and a month when enlistment began 1965.

missinglink Loc: Tralfamadore

Your correct. I joined at 16 with parental consent. Delayed entry. Was 17 and a month when enlistment began 1965.

alex wrote:

if you went into the military at 17 you were not drafted you enlisted on your own with your parents consent

LAPhil Loc: Los Angeles, CA

CarolSeer2016 wrote:

So she becomes unaware that that same caring can have disastrous consequences.

This is true on a national level as well. It's pretty much what's wrong with a lot of this country today.

moldyoldy

alex wrote:

if you went into the military at 17 you were not drafted you enlisted on your own with your parents consent

Yes, I did, but I was not allowed to be a part of the political decisions, that controlled my fate. I took the test at 16 and waited until I was old enough.

J Anthony Loc: Connecticut

CarolSeer2016 wrote:

I t***hfully believe 18-19-20 year old's should no... (show quote)

J Anthony Loc: Connecticut

CarolSeer2016 wrote:

I t***hfully believe 18-19-20 year old's should no... (show quote)

Wow, if that if isn't the most narrow view of young people I've read yet...
By your own definition, we already are a corporate police-state. Looks like things do need to change. But we'll leave women and young folks out of it,right?

MrEd Loc: Georgia

moldyoldy wrote:

I was 17 when I went into the military, during the Vietnam war. Could not v**e, could not drink, but I could die.

That was the reasoning given to give them the v**e. Young men were dieing for their country, yet they could not v**e and that was wrong. What is wrong with this thinking is that most people at age 17 to 20 are NOT going to go in the military unless they are drafted. Women especially will not go in the military and will not fight for our country. Sure there are a few that will, but most simply want other things then fighting and possibly dieing and the military life is not for most of them.

Now this is going to draw some flak from women, but most go in the military because they are from small towns and do not have a very large population of men to choose from and/or the jobs in that area are dead end jobs that lead nowhere.

Most women get married for money (security) and will not stay in an area where there is no (to them) future. 50% of the women get married for security and that equates to more money, where only 5% get married for love. On the other hand, men are suckers. About 50% get married for love and only find out that their wife never did love them after they were married, IF they ever do find out. Most don't.

What this boils down to is, most people at that age are interested in getting married, not fighting for their country, whereas in 1776 things were MUCH different. Life as a whole was much harder back then and people grew up much faster then they do now living in their protected lives. We no longer have to worry about Indians k*****g us, sickness, dirty water and towns, no doctors to speak of and not very much knowledge in that profession anyway, shorter life spans and a slew of other things that led to them growing up faster then we do today.

Their education system was MUCH different too and they learned the facts of life right from their own homes instead of hearing about it in history books like we do. They learned to read using the Bible, not some fancy reader like we use now and we also learned about religion DIRECTLY from the Bible and churches unlike now where most people NEVER read the Bible. Sure they go to church and learn about it there, but that is not the same as reading it for themselves.

In short, our lives are much different then it was back then.............

moldyoldy

Taxation without representation. Most young people don't v**e. But it only became a problem with Obama because he motivated many young people to get involved. They may not be ready now, but it is g***ming them for the future. They will be better prepared by getting exposed to politics earlier in life.

moldyoldy

MrEd wrote:

That was the reasoning given to give them the v**e. Young men were dieing for their country, yet they could not v**e and that was wrong. What is wrong with this thinking is that most people at age 17 to 20 are NOT going to go in the military unless they are drafted. Women especially will not go in the military and will not fight for our country. Sure there are a few that will, but most simply want other things then fighting and possibly dieing and the military life is not for most of them.

Now this is going to draw some flak from women, but most go in the military because they are from small towns and do not have a very large population of men to choose from and/or the jobs in that area are dead end jobs that lead nowhere.

Most women get married for money (security) and will not stay in an area where there is no (to them) future. 50% of the women get married for security and that equates to more money, where only 5% get married for love. On the other hand, men are suckers. About 50% get married for love and only find out that their wife never did love them after they were married, IF they ever do find out. Most don't.

What this boils down to is, most people at that age are interested in getting married, not fighting for their country, whereas in 1776 things were MUCH different. Life as a whole was much harder back then and people grew up much faster then they do now living in their protected lives. We no longer have to worry about Indians k*****g us, sickness, dirty water and towns, no doctors to speak of and not very much knowledge in that profession anyway, shorter life spans and a slew of other things that led to them growing up faster then we do today.

Their education system was MUCH different too and they learned the facts of life right from their own homes instead of hearing about it in history books like we do. They learned to read using the Bible, not some fancy reader like we use now and we also learned about religion DIRECTLY from the Bible and churches unlike now where most people NEVER read the Bible. Sure they go to church and learn about it there, but that is not the same as reading it for themselves.

In short, our lives are much different then it was back then.............

That was the reasoning given to give them the v**e... (show quote)

You sound like you are still living in 1776.

CarolSeer2016

moldyoldy wrote:

Yes, I did, but I was not allowed to be a part of the political decisions, that controlled my fate. I took the test at 16 and waited until I was old enough.

Perhaps you were too young to make a rational decision. That's why parents, one of them, must sign for you.

That's how my husband entered the military as well. But that was before Vietnam.

CarolSeer2016

J Anthony wrote:

Wow, if that if isn't the most narrow view of young people I've read yet...
By your own definition, we already are a corporate police-state. Looks like things do need to change. But we'll leave women and young folks out of it,right?

Well, how do you think we are that close to becoming a police state? Do you suppose it has snowballed, accelerated, since the young were given the v**e?

Jeez, did you even read my post, Anthony? Or having read it, did you understand it?

CarolSeer2016

Boy, do I love to stimulate thinking!!!

moldyoldy

CarolSeer2016 wrote:

Perhaps you were too young to make a rational decision. That's why parents, one of them, must sign for you.

That's how my husband entered the military as well. But that was before Vietnam.

I think it had more to do with liability

CarolSeer2016

LAPhil wrote:

This is true on a national level as well. It's pretty much what's wrong with a lot of this country today.

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

CarolSeer2016

moldyoldy wrote:

I think it had more to do with liability

You mean that the government is not liable to the 17 year-old's parents in case of his death? I'm having trouble with that statement.

moldyoldy

CarolSeer2016 wrote:

You mean that the government is not liable to the 17 year-old's parents in case of his death? I'm having trouble with that statement.

I am sure there would be increased liability without parental consent. My death was worth about 5000, at that time.