 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Come on. If you sign up for military service, and don't know that
>> military folks gets killed every so often, you definitely need someone
>> to do your thinking for you.
>
> Given the standards of education in this country I wouldn't be at all
> surprised if those joining up think they'll just get to re-load from an
> earlier save-point.
LOL! Nice...
I don't suppose anybody remembers this, but when the whole war in Iraq
thing started up, the UK press made this big deal out of this 16 year
old girl being sent to Iraq. Everybody was all like "OMG! She's only 16!
I don't think they should make her go." And they had an interview with
her mother who was all like "oh, she's my only daughter, this is a
terrible thing to have to happen to her, and I'm really worried about
what will become of her".
WTF? SHE JOINED THE ARMY!!! What did she THINK she was going to be
doing?!? If she didn't want to end up in a warzone, she shouldn't have
joined the army! HELLO?! >_<
Lady, if you didn't want your daughter to die in a war, you shouldn't
have let her join the army!
Sheesh...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook v2 wrote:
> I think soldier could be reasonably classed as an 'at risk' career
> compared to being a civilian.
It depends on the civilian job, really. Remember that soldiers (at least
US
soldiers in the modern era) tend to have lots of armor and weapons to sho
ot
back with. Certainly if you're not in a war zone, you're less likely to g
et
killed as a soldier than as (say) a fireman.
http://crookedtimber.org/2008/12/23/the-future-is-a-shoe-being-thrown-at-
a-human-face-forever/
"""
President of the USA: Five job related deaths since 1789 (assassinations
of
Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, Kennedy, plus death of William Henry Harriso
n
from job-related stress illness). That’s 0.022831 job related fat
alities per
year, in a job that can have only one person doing it at a time. Converti
ng
this to more normal units of occupational fatality for comparison with ot
her
jobs, that’s 2283 deaths per 100,000 President/years. This compar
es to 117
deaths per 100k worker/years for timber-cutters, the most dangerous stand
ard
occupational category.
Soldier, US Army, Iraq war: Up to March 2006, 392 fatalities per 100k
spend all their time in battle zones, so based on reasonable estimates of
fatalities outside combat zones, something around 80 would be more
reasonable, more or less comparable to fishermen (anecdotally, the in-Ira
q
death rate would be comparable to Pacific Northwest crab fishermen, the
single most dangerous occupation anyone could find).
"""
He goes on to list job-related-fatality rates for popes, kings, etc. Pret
ty
amusing.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook v2 wrote:
>>> ...if by "great benefits" you mean "you're going to die very young". :-P
>>> Oddly enough, it doesn't mention that part...
>>>
>> Are you sure soldiers are more likely to die young than civilians?
>
> I think soldier could be reasonably classed as an 'at risk' career
> compared to being a civilian.
>
>> Visiting some places in the world could change your mind about that.
>
> Except they're not talking to civilians already situated in warzones,
> they're talking to us and as such the comparision is between staying in
> the UK (or yes working in Europe/US) and heading off into conflict.
True. I think, though, that marc wasn't referring to warzones. In a
number of poor countries, joining the military is a fairly good career
path. You don't get rich financially, but all needs are taken care of,
and many even after retirement (e.g. housing). In that sense, unless the
country in engaged in much conflict (and perhaps even), going to the
military gives you a longer lifespan than the average person who may not
always get good food, or good medicine.
--
I think animal testing is a terrible idea. They get all nervous and give
the wrong answers.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawaz org<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I don't suppose anybody remembers this, but when the whole war in Iraq
> thing started up, the UK press made this big deal out of this 16 year
> old girl being sent to Iraq. Everybody was all like "OMG! She's only 16!
> I don't think they should make her go." And they had an interview with
> her mother who was all like "oh, she's my only daughter, this is a
> terrible thing to have to happen to her, and I'm really worried about
> what will become of her".
>
> WTF? SHE JOINED THE ARMY!!! What did she THINK she was going to be
> doing?!? If she didn't want to end up in a warzone, she shouldn't have
> joined the army! HELLO?! >_<
>
> Lady, if you didn't want your daughter to die in a war, you shouldn't
> have let her join the army!
The US military does not presently accept children that age (although
young men have lied about their ages in order to join up), and won't
take a seventeen-year-old who does not have his/her parents' written
approval (the military has special forms for this).
And knowing the BBC's record of accuracy on all things Bush-related,
it's possible--and given Orchid's comment, a certainty--that something
that bears on the situation was left out of the reporting.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle wrote:
> The US military does not presently accept children that age.
Apparently the UK military does.
> And knowing the BBC's record of accuracy on all things Bush-related,
> it's possible--and given Orchid's comment, a certainty--that something
> that bears on the situation was left out of the reporting.
Maybe. I don't know.
Probably this girl thought it would be fun to go play soldiers with all
the hunky boys, and then freaked out when an actual war happened.
(To be fair, nobody said the girl herself was unhappy about the
situation - just her friends and family.)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> I don't suppose anybody remembers this, but when the whole war in Iraq
> thing started up, the UK press made this big deal out of this 16 year
> old girl being sent to Iraq. Everybody was all like "OMG! She's only 16!
> I don't think they should make her go." And they had an interview with
> her mother who was all like "oh, she's my only daughter, this is a
> terrible thing to have to happen to her, and I'm really worried about
> what will become of her".
I have always found the magical (and completely artificial) 18-years
barrier incomprehensible.
People are more worried about a 16-years old going to war than a
18-years old. Why? What exactly is it in 18 that is so much different
from 16? Why is *exactly* 18 so special?
There's nothing special about 18 years of age. There are 15-years old
people who are more knowledgeable, intelligent, rational (in other words,
are mentally mature) and have more life experience than many 25-years
old people. There are many things where that 15yo person would be a lot
more capable and responsible than those 25yo persons would be.
Of course *usually* a 25yo is more responsible and capable than a 15yo,
sure. However, there is no "18 years mark", which would suddenly make
a person who is not capable of making rational decisions about himself
and others into a person who is. The 18 years mark is completely artificial.
Reaching full mental maturity happens slowly, and the age at which we can
say that a person has reached it changes from person to person. Some people
become mature at 15, others at 25.
One could argue that "most people are mature by 18". This might be true,
but it doesn't say anything about how much earlier some, or even most,
people might become mature.
The concept of the "age of maturity" even varies from country to country,
and from culture to culture. Another "magical" age of maturity is 21 in
many countries (I really don't know where that age has come from). For
example in many western countries 21 is a limit for entrance at certain
places. I don't know if "21 years of age" is in actual law anywhere.
So if people get worried about a 16yo, why aren't they equally worried
about a 18yo? If a 18yo is not "mature enough" to enter certain
establishments, is he mature enough to go to war?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I have always found the magical (and completely artificial) 18-years
> barrier incomprehensible.
>
> People are more worried about a 16-years old going to war than a
> 18-years old. Why? What exactly is it in 18 that is so much different
> from 16? Why is *exactly* 18 so special?
>
> There's nothing special about 18 years of age. There are 15-years old
> people who are more knowledgeable, intelligent, rational (in other words,
> are mentally mature) and have more life experience than many 25-years
> old people. There are many things where that 15yo person would be a lot
> more capable and responsible than those 25yo persons would be.
My flight (Air Force term for a group of about 50 guys) in boot camp
entered the service during the month prior to the usual date of high
school graduation, with the consequence that everyone on the flight had
been out of school, and therefore dealing with the real world, for about
a year. Usually a flight contains a few people with less time in the
real world than that.
Our drill instructors mentioned that we were a pretty mature bunch, as
evidenced by the fact that a fist-fight hadn't broken out in our flight
during our time there. It's something that usually happens by the
fourth week, they said.
Dunno how much this bears on your point, but there it is.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I have always found the magical (and completely artificial) 18-years
> barrier incomprehensible.
>
> People are more worried about a 16-years old going to war than a
> 18-years old. Why? What exactly is it in 18 that is so much different
> from 16? Why is *exactly* 18 so special?
Because it is the best compromise between having to interview millions of
young kids not suitable for war, and missing lots of good people by setting
an age limit like 25 years. It just makes their job simpler, same way as
big companies might throw your CV in the bin on very simple criteria even
though you may have been the best person for the job - they just don't have
enough resources to go through every candidate individually.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
