The Fragile Generation

First topic message reminder :

One day last year, a citizen on a prairie path in the Chicago suburb of Elmhurst came upon a teen boy chopping wood. Not a body. Just some already-fallen branches. Nonetheless, the onlooker called the cops.

Officers interrogated the boy, who said he was trying to build a fort for himself and his friends. A local news site reports the police then "took the tools for safekeeping to be returned to the boy's parents."

Elsewhere in America, preschoolers at the Learning Collaborative in Charlotte, North Carolina, were thrilled to receive a set of gently used playground equipment. But the kids soon found out they would not be allowed to use it, because it was resting on grass, not wood chips. "It's a safety issue," explained a day care spokeswoman. Playing on grass is against local regulations.

And then there was the query that ran in Parents magazine a few years back: "Your child's old enough to stay home briefly, and often does. But is it okay to leave her and her playmate home while you dash to the dry cleaner?" Absolutely not, the magazine averred: "Take the kids with you, or save your errand for another time." After all, "you want to make sure that no one's feelings get too hurt if there's a squabble."

The principle here is simple: This generation of kids must be protected like none other. They can't use tools, they can't play on grass, and they certainly can't be expected to work through a spat with a friend.

And this, it could be argued, is why we have "safe spaces" on college campuses and millennials missing adult milestones today. We told a generation of kids that they can never be too safe—and they believed us.

Safety First

We've had the best of intentions, of course. But efforts to protect our children may be backfiring. When we raise kids unaccustomed to facing anything on their own, including risk, failure, and hurt feelings, our society and even our economy are threatened. Yet modern child-rearing practices and laws seem all but designed to cultivate this lack of preparedness. There's the fear that everything children see, do, eat, hear, and lick could hurt them. And there's a newer belief that has been spreading through higher education that words and ideas themselves can be traumatizing.

How did we come to think a generation of kids can't handle the basic challenges of growing up?

Beginning in the 1980s, American childhood changed. For a variety of reasons—including shifts in parenting norms, new academic expectations, increased regulation, technological advances, and especially a heightened fear of abduction (missing kids on milk cartons made it feel as if this exceedingly rare crime was rampant)—children largely lost the experience of having large swaths of unsupervised time to play, explore, and resolve conflicts on their own. This has left them more fragile, more easily offended, and more reliant on others. They have been taught to seek authority figures to solve their problems and shield them from discomfort, a condition sociologists call "moral dependency."

https://reason.com/archives/2017/10/26/the-fragile-generation

There's a video that goes along with this, if anyone is interested. I have alluded to this on a different thread. Not all young people have issues with life, but I believe that we have expanded the number that do, and we are seeing the results of those well intentioned, but bad decisions in terms of creating adults that can handle life.

Original Quill wrote:

Deano wrote:you don't seem to understand the point of it at al, and I am not surprised as you live in your own ivory tower. The poppy symbolises the sacrifice of all those who died and fought in all wars. Without their sacrifice people like you would not have the ability to denigrate their memory.
It does not glorify war.

Bullshit.  Hitler would have said the same thing today.  The point is, we don't need any wars unless and until someone crosses our borders.  Most of the shit since WWII has been us trying to impose our will on other countries, in their countries.

It's an insult to say they are doing it for me.  If they still think it's for me, I say: STOP.  Knock it off.  I gain nothing from it.  FGS, spend the money on healthcare, not on toys for generals.

every dead american serviceman has done it for you and every other american, whether you like it or not. Freedom has a cost that is often counted in blood.

Fred M wrote:No, Quill, we are not rewarding anyone: We are are raising money actively to mentor, support and alleviate so far as is possible the tragic consequences of war on the people who serve in our armed forces.

I'm not going to argue semantics with you. If the money you are raising is not benefiting anyone, give it back.

The warmongering debate is precisely like the gun debate. If there were no guns, there would be no gun deaths; if there weren't people willing to go into other countries and kill, there would be no killing in other countries.

It's very simple.

You do talk a load of bollocks sometimes Quill !

Original Quill wrote:Fred, you're raising money, rewarding people who kill people.  That can only be justified if they were defending our borders.  

If they were anywhere overseas, they were the transgresses, geographically and morally.

your lack of understanding is only exceeded by your arrogance.

nicko wrote:You do talk a load of bollocks sometimes Quill !

sometimes?

Original Quill wrote:

Fred M wrote:No, Quill, we are not rewarding anyone: We are are raising money actively to mentor, support and alleviate so far as is possible the tragic consequences of war on the people who serve in our armed forces.

I'm not going to argue semantics with you.  If the money you are raising is not benefiting anyone, give it back.

The warmongering debate is precisely like the gun debate.  If there were no guns, there would be no gun deaths; if there weren't people willing to go into other countries and kill, there would be no killing in other countries.

It's very simple.

you only want the criminals to have guns, no doubt so you and your lawyer friends can continue to make money off the misery of others.

Original Quill wrote:

Fred M wrote:No, Quill, we are not rewarding anyone: We are are raising money actively to mentor, support and alleviate so far as is possible the tragic consequences of war on the people who serve in our armed forces.

I'm not going to argue semantics with you.  If the money you are raising is not benefiting anyone, give it back.

The warmongering debate is precisely like the gun debate.  If there were no guns, there would be no gun deaths; if there weren't people willing to go into other countries and kill, there would be no killing in other countries.

It's very simple.

are you really that naive and simplistic. you probably think if america gave up its weapons the russians, chinese or north koreans would too.
no you would be a sooty smudge on a smoking wall, or speaking russian or chinese.
In the real world someone has to stand up and be counted so people like you can whine about it.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Bullshit.  Hitler would have said the same thing today.  The point is, we don't need any wars unless and until someone crosses our borders.  Most of the shit since WWII has been us trying to impose our will on other countries, in their countries.

It's an insult to say they are doing it for me.  If they still think it's for me, I say: STOP.  Knock it off.  I gain nothing from it.  FGS, spend the money on healthcare, not on toys for generals.

every dead american serviceman has done it for you and every other american, whether you like it or not. Freedom has a cost that is often counted in blood.

The soldiers gone to Iraq and Afghanistan have done nothing except waste $17-trillion of our money. There were no WMD's, as promised. No reason for going there whatsoever, except for certain individuals to practice the arts of kidnapping, rape, murder and torture...and the art of constructing concentration camps. I feel so good now.

BTW, what is this about Republicans opposing healthcare because it's too expensive? Do you know how much healthcare $17-trillion would have bought?

Republicans are fuckin' crazy! But of course, they've got Trump...and they are just like him.

nicko wrote:You do talk a load of bollocks sometimes Quill !

Say something relevant, next time nicko. You're not contributing this time.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I'm not going to argue semantics with you.  If the money you are raising is not benefiting anyone, give it back.

The warmongering debate is precisely like the gun debate.  If there were no guns, there would be no gun deaths; if there weren't people willing to go into other countries and kill, there would be no killing in other countries.

It's very simple.

are you really that naive and simplistic. you probably think if america gave up its weapons the russians, chinese or north koreans would too.
no you would be a sooty smudge on a smoking wall, or speaking russian or chinese.
In the real world someone has to stand up and be counted so people like you can whine about it.

Don't change the subject.  The issue is starting wars.  Americans are a "sooty smudge and a smoking wall" because they start these wars, and then just as promptly lose them.  It was embarrassing watching the dogs run from Vietnam.

Now it's Iraq and Afghanistan...excuse me, to do what???

Original Quill wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
every dead american serviceman has done it for you and every other american, whether you like it or not. Freedom has a cost that is often counted in blood.

The soldiers gone to Iraq and Afghanistan have done nothing except waste $17-trillion of our money.  There were no WMD's, as promised.  No reason for going there whatsoever, except for certain individuals to practice the arts of kidnapping, rape, murder and torture...and the art of constructing concentration camps.  I feel so good now.

BTW, what is this about Republicans opposing healthcare because it's too expensive?  Do you know how much healthcare $17-trillion would have bought?  

Republicans are fuckin' crazy!  But of course, they've got Trump...and they are just like him.

So now you are blaming the soldiers for the cost?
Not governements?
There was hundreds of thousands of murders under Saddam
That to me is every reason to remove such a genocidal dictator

The point here is that because of wars, you want to begrudge money to people, because they served where many of them suffer mentally through having served combat.
Nobody is forcing you to give anything and its not up to you to decide when others do want to help.
That is just you forcing your views onto others.

Original Quill wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
are you really that naive and simplistic. you probably think if america gave up its weapons the russians, chinese or north koreans would too.
no you would be a sooty smudge on a smoking wall, or speaking russian or chinese.
In the real world someone has to stand up and be counted so people like you can whine about it.

Don't change the subject.  The issue is starting wars.  Americans are a "sooty smudge and a smoking wall" because they start these wars, and then just as promptly lose them.  It was embarrassing watching the dogs run from Vietnam.

Now it's Iraq and Afghanistan...excuse me, to do what???

you presumably would call these 9 men warmongers

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The soldiers gone to Iraq and Afghanistan have done nothing except waste $17-trillion of our money.  There were no WMD's, as promised.  No reason for going there whatsoever, except for certain individuals to practice the arts of kidnapping, rape, murder and torture...and the art of constructing concentration camps.  I feel so good now.

BTW, what is this about Republicans opposing healthcare because it's too expensive?  Do you know how much healthcare $17-trillion would have bought?  

Republicans are fuckin' crazy!  But of course, they've got Trump...and they are just like him.

So now you are blaming the soldiers for the cost?
Not governements?
There was hundreds of thousands of murders under Saddam
That to me is every reason to remove such a genocidal dictator

The point here is that because of wars, you want to begrudge money to people, because they served where many of them suffer mentally through having served combat.

Of course the soldiers are the cost.  So are the equipment, fuel and ordinance.  What do you think we were paying for, warm puppies?

Original Quill wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
are you really that naive and simplistic. you probably think if america gave up its weapons the russians, chinese or north koreans would too.
no you would be a sooty smudge on a smoking wall, or speaking russian or chinese.
In the real world someone has to stand up and be counted so people like you can whine about it.

Don't change the subject.  The issue is starting wars.  Americans are a "sooty smudge and a smoking wall" because they start these wars, and then just as promptly lose them.  It was embarrassing watching the dogs run from Vietnam.

Now it's Iraq and Afghanistan...excuse me, to do what???

I dont understand why people who so obviously hate everything their country stands for continue to live there.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:


So now you are blaming the soldiers for the cost?
Not governements?
There was hundreds of thousands of murders under Saddam
That to me is every reason to remove such a genocidal dictator

The point here is that because of wars, you want to begrudge money to people, because they served where many of them suffer mentally through having served combat.

Of course the soldiers are the cost.  So are the equipment, fuel and ordinance.  What do you think we were paying for, warm puppies?

no one forces men to join the forces in america these days yet thousands still sign up to SERVE their country. Why's that do you think? they all want to kill babies? you seem like just the type to have spat at men returning from war

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Don't change the subject.  The issue is starting wars.  Americans are a "sooty smudge and a smoking wall" because they start these wars, and then just as promptly lose them.  It was embarrassing watching the dogs run from Vietnam.

Now it's Iraq and Afghanistan...excuse me, to do what???

I dont understand why people who so obviously hate everything their country stands for continue to live there.

I would dearly love to take California and the Pacific States and cut the South adrift. But they keep clinging to the welfare they receive from us and New York, Massachusetts and Illinois.

Fook 'em...let them float away and wave bye, bye. They'd be just another banana republic.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:


So now you are blaming the soldiers for the cost?
Not governements?
There was hundreds of thousands of murders under Saddam
That to me is every reason to remove such a genocidal dictator

The point here is that because of wars, you want to begrudge money to people, because they served where many of them suffer mentally through having served combat.

Of course the soldiers are the cost.  So are the equipment, fuel and ordinance.  What do you think we were paying for, warm puppies?

But you are blaming them, for the cost, when they never declared war

The reality is this.

You may not like how people raise money to those who have served and fallen in contless wars.

That is up to you, but don't expect others who want to help and donate to listen to your silly ramblings on this.

Some people actually try to understand how they place their lives in danger, in order to save others. But you never see that. You take a body count and never think of the actual lives that they end up saving.

I mean how many more hundreds of thousands would be dead if Saddam was in power today, with clearly the Arab Spring happenning within Iraq. They had such an uprising after the first Gulf War and the world sat back and did nothing and around 200,000 died. Imagine if Saddam was ousted then?

Many of those people would still be alive. Its doubtful the sectarian violence would have gained any traction, as if the Allies had of supported the uprising. It would have been self made and seen as ther allies helping a people topple a dictator

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Of course the soldiers are the cost.  So are the equipment, fuel and ordinance.  What do you think we were paying for, warm puppies?

no one forces men to join the forces in america these days yet thousands still sign up to SERVE their country. Why's that do you think? they all want to kill babies? you seem like just the type to have spat at men returning from war

Most of them signed up for the reserves...steady weekend job, with no real danger. Imagine the shock when Bush and Cheney lied, and provoked a war. All of their leg injuries, their neck and back injuries, lost arms and legs, can be laid right at the doorstep of lyin' Republicans, who could give a shit about them.

Didge wrote:But you are blaming them, for the cost, when they never declared war

A mere technicality.  If everyone put down their weapons, and refused to use them, all wars would stop.  Then we could sort things out as to which ae just wars, and which are frivolous ego trips for old, white men.  

After all, I'm not a pacifist...just an advocate for common sense.

Gotta go.  USC v. Colorado is on TV.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:But you are blaming them, for the cost, when they never declared war

A mere technicality.  If everyone put down their weapons, and refused to use them, all wars would stop.  Then we could sort things out as to which ae just wars, and which are frivolous ego trips for old, white men.  

After all, I'm not a pacifist...just an advocate for common sense.

Gotta go.  USC v. Colorado is on TV.

Which shows you emphatically do not understand humans or evolution

Wars will only stop when the world sees we need each other more than our own selfish needs

That is not going to happen anytime soon and who is to say that we do not have a threat that is not ffrom this world in the future?

Enjoy the game

Wars will only stop when
A) Countries can no longer afford them.
B) People refuse to join the forces.
C( Leaders stop enjoying them .
D) The advocates of war stop making vast sums of money from.them.

Angry Andy wrote:Wars will only stop when
A) Countries can no longer afford them.
B)  People refuse to join the forces.
C( Leaders stop enjoying them .
D) The advocates of war stop making vast sums of money from.them.

Then how did wars occur before there was money Andy?

The rich stole goods and land from the poor. The poor fought back.
It has been the same for thousands of years. And still applies now.

Angry Andy wrote:The rich stole goods and land from the poor. The poor fought back.
It has been the same for thousands of years. And still applies now.

So as stated to Quill, your four points are ineffective to stop wars.

As it fails to understand humans.

Most wars are based on poor beliefs.

That is where you must first challenge.

Poor ideas and ideologies

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Don't change the subject.  The issue is starting wars.  Americans are a "sooty smudge and a smoking wall" because they start these wars, and then just as promptly lose them.  It was embarrassing watching the dogs run from Vietnam.

Now it's Iraq and Afghanistan...excuse me, to do what???

I dont understand why people who so obviously hate everything their country stands for continue to live there.

So  !!!

That's why head doesn't live in Britain..

He hates the place so much  !   Explains a lot..

Didge wrote:Which shows you emphatically do not understand humans or evolution

Didge wrote:So as stated to Quill, your four points are ineffective to stop wars.

You're getting a bit grandiose.  I'm not looking to stop wars, but to make sense.  After all, a nation has got to protect it's own borders.

We've lost sight of our borders.  We invade other nations on all sorts of ideological grounds, when they have done nothing, and could do nothing to us.

It's called the Department of Defense.  Nobody is defending anything.  They are all overseas killing other peoples' babies.

Wolfie, the reason head left was to live with the woman he loves because she couldn't move here.!

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:Which shows you emphatically do not understand humans or evolution

Didge wrote:So as stated to Quill, your four points are ineffective to stop wars.

You're getting a bit grandiose.  I'm not looking to stop wars, but to make sense.  After all, a nation has got to protect it's own borders.

We've lost sight of our borders.  We invade other nations on all sorts of ideological grounds, when they have done nothing, and could do nothing to us.

It's called the Department of Defense.  Nobody is defending anything.  They are all overseas killing other peoples' babies.

I thought they were to busy sitting back watching millions of babies starve, die of Illnesses that some could be treated and many murdered. 

The world needs to scrap the imaginary barriers that divide people

Proving again my point on the complete selfish nature of humans.

Like I say, you need to understand humans, that you are failing to do

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:



You're getting a bit grandiose.  I'm not looking to stop wars, but to make sense.  After all, a nation has got to protect it's own borders.

We've lost sight of our borders.  We invade other nations on all sorts of ideological grounds, when they have done nothing, and could do nothing to us.

It's called the Department of Defense.  Nobody is defending anything.  They are all overseas killing other peoples' babies.

I thought they were to busy sitting back watching millions of babies starve, die of Illnesses that some could be treated and many murdered. 

The world needs to scrap the imaginary barriers that divide people

Proving again my point on the complete selfish nature of humans.

Like I say, you need to understand humans, that you are failing to do

I don't think so. If you are saying that you understand humans to be a congenitally warring species, the answer is simple. Set aside some territory where people can go and exhaust their warring proclivities, then declare war off-limits in other areas of the world. I suggest Brazil, and lots 'n lots of Anchor Fencing.

If war is a part of human nature then, like shitting, set aside some restrooms for that. The point is, we can institutionalize anything we think is innate and thereby control it.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:


I thought they were to busy sitting back watching millions of babies starve, die of Illnesses that some could be treated and many murdered. 

The world needs to scrap the imaginary barriers that divide people

Proving again my point on the complete selfish nature of humans.

Like I say, you need to understand humans, that you are failing to do

I don't think so.  If you are saying that you understand humans to be a congenitally warring species, the answer is simple.  Set aside some territory where people can go and exhaust their warring proclivities, then declare war off-limits in other areas of the world.  I suggest Brazil, and lots 'n lots of Anchor Fencing.

If war is a part of human nature then, like shitting, set aside some restrooms for that.  The point is, we can institutionalize anything we think is innate and thereby control it.

Never claimed it is a part of human nature, further proving you do not understand humans

You think territory is the bases for many wars?

Boy, do you not understand many have been fought over religions and ideologies

I love your last point further proving what a totalitarian you are.

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I don't think so.  If you are saying that you understand humans to be a congenitally warring species, the answer is simple.  Set aside some territory where people can go and exhaust their warring proclivities, then declare war off-limits in other areas of the world.  I suggest Brazil, and lots 'n lots of Anchor Fencing.

If war is a part of human nature then, like shitting, set aside some restrooms for that.  The point is, we can institutionalize anything we think is innate and thereby control it.

Never claimed it is a part of human nature, further proving you do not understand humans

You never really said anything, leaving us to speculate on your meaning.

Didge wrote:You think territory is the bases for many wars?

Not at all. But territory can be used to separate off those with warring proclivities, leaving the rest of the world for peaceful human existence. It solves the refugee issue right off. And that's something I know you are constantly concerned about.

Didge wrote:Boy, do you not understand many have been fought over religions and ideologies

It's not about me. Since you change the subject, I assume you concede the point.

Didge wrote:I love your last point further proving what a totalitarian you are.

And you would rather have war? Those who continually hype war as a lifestyle, are equally totalitarian. After all, war doesn't hold doors and help women with their coats. War is an all-consuming occupation in which anyone with any other concerns--even morality--is elbowed out of the way.

All I'm suggesting is that we organize such that there can be other activities along side of, but at a distance from war.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:


Never claimed it is a part of human nature, further proving you do not understand humans

You never really said anything, leaving us to speculate on your meaning.

Didge wrote:Clearly I did, as you still have no comprehension of humans

Not at all.  But territory can be used to separate off those with warring proclivities, leaving the rest of the world for peaceful human existence.  It solves the refugee issue right off.  And that's something I know you are constantly concerned about.

Didge wrote:So you want to create a giant prison, basically what was tried once before in history with penal colonies

It never worked

It's not about me.  Since you change the subject, I assume you concede the point.

Didge wrote:Concede? More like proving hpw the left is very Totalitarian in its views. To ethnically cleanse a number of people from society, based on a perceived view of simply not liking them off a perception they are warlike, is very much Totalitarian

And you would rather have war?  Those who continually hype war as a lifestyle, are equally totalitarian.  After all, war doesn't hold doors and help women with their coats.  War is an all-consuming occupation in which anyone with any other concerns--even morality--is elbowed out of the way.

All I'm suggesting is that we organize such that there can be other activities along side of, but at a distance from war.

War?

Soldiering is a lifestyle, where many sign up to protect and serve others.
Many go into this to defend those from aggressors
Its why the IDF has been so successful in continually defeating the Arab nation aggressors

Again showing you do not understand humans

Didge wrote:Soldiering is a lifestyle, where many sign up to protect and serve others.

Then why don't they go in with warm water and washcloths, soap and skittles?  No...they go in with projectile weapons that are designed to abruptly interrupt bodily functions.  Some service!

Soldiers are killers.  You're suffering from the same disease that says War is Peace. The World Health Organization goes in to protect and serve.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:Soldiering is a lifestyle, where many sign up to protect and serve others.

Then why don't they go in with warm water and washcloths, soap and skittles?  No...they go in with projectile weapons that are designed to abruptly interrupt bodily functions.  Some service!

Soldiers are killers.  You're suffering from the same disease that says War is Peace.

So you want them to be suicidal, when they are out to protect each other from harm, going in to take out weapons designed to murder civillians?

You really have an odd way to defend people

Maybe you think they should also wear blindfolds.

Soldiers are trained to kill, but there main purpose is to protect

Are so you get personal as you clearly have no understanding of humans

Didge wrote:Soldiers are trained to kill, but there main purpose is to protect

Is that what the Stormtroopers did? Is that what ISIS does? Protect?

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:Soldiers are trained to kill, but there main purpose is to protect

Is that what the Stormtroopers did?  Is that what ISIS does?  Protect?

Ah that is a fine example of aggressors who back hateful ideologies

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Is that what the Stormtroopers did?  Is that what ISIS does?  Protect?

Ah that is a fine example of aggressors who back hateful ideologies

So, not all soldiers are there to protect. How do you tell the difference? Our's are good and their's are bad?

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:

Ah that is a fine example of aggressors who back hateful ideologies

So, not all soldiers are there to protect.  How do you tell the difference?  Our's are good and their's are bad?  

I did say the main purpose did I not?

Some clearly are seduced by hate

Its not rocket science..

Love the poor arguments you are making and even more how you still fail to understand humans

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

So, not all soldiers are there to protect.  How do you tell the difference?  Our's are good and their's are bad?  

I did say the main purpose did I not?

Some clearly are seduced by hate

Its not rocket science..

And is the main purpose of ISIS to protect? How does one know the difference?

Didge wrote:Love the poor arguments you are making and even more how you still fail to understand humans

You're changing the subject. Is this a concession?

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:


I did say the main purpose did I not?

Some clearly are seduced by hate

Its not rocket science..

And is the main purpose of ISIS to protect?  How does one know the difference?

Didge wrote:Oh so now you change to things I never said?

Did I say the main purpose of soldiers?
Then what else did I say?

Take your time

You're changing the subject.  Is this a concession?

Oh dear, someone is tired

I'll take that as a 'yes'. Off to check other threads...

Sort of relevant when discussing a "fragile" generation, I suspect, but...

Been watching the fine WW1 film "All the King's Men" starring that superb actor David Jason.

Now I appreciate that these days, practically anything that appears on TV from soft porn to Gigglebiz on kids' tele is obliged to carry a warning that some viewers might be "offended", "upset", "frightened" or worried by flashing lights, but the Yesterday Channel screening of this classic and thought-provoking film warns in serious tones: "...contains scenes of battle and wounded soldiers."

Er, it's a war film....

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:


So now you are blaming the soldiers for the cost?
Not governements?
There was hundreds of thousands of murders under Saddam
That to me is every reason to remove such a genocidal dictator

The point here is that because of wars, you want to begrudge money to people, because they served where many of them suffer mentally through having served combat.

Of course the soldiers are the cost.  So are the equipment, fuel and ordinance.  What do you think we were paying for, warm puppies?

no one forces men to join the forces in america these days yet thousands still sign up to SERVE their country. Why's that do you think? they all want to kill babies? you seem like just the type to have spat at men returning from war

hmm not really true
80% join for access to education that more civilized societies like Australia and New Zealand (even less civilized ones like the UK ) supply for a much lower prices with gov't backed low interest loans.