White House Says Child Soldiers Are Ok, if They Fight Terrorists

I'm glad Republicans pointed out What an evil man Obama is.
If republican's didn't tell me what to think, then I never would've known.

Thanks Republicans. Because you've never done anything wrong. Never, never, never. Not in a thousand years.
Not even hire Osama Bin Laden to aid us in fighting our enemy, by giving him weapons and US support, thus providing him the means to build an army.
And they would never start a war with a country that didn't have WMDs.
I know that there are WMDs in Iraq. Because Republicans said so.

that's because you are only 15 and haven't got a clue about what really happens in war.

and i'd be proud to have you fighting by my side, in a couple of years

We don't stop "it" we cut off military aid to any country that uses child soldiers. Obama decided it was OK for these four countries to have kids for soldiers because it was, within our “national interest, if it’s against terrorists”. Rather unsettling to you tree huggers that your idol would be so ruthless isn't it?

the thing is, obama didnt pick these fights, he inherited them.and it isnt us or our culture that has such a low conscription age.
maybe bush should have taken that into consideration, amongst the bazillion other things he failed to think through.
like what defines victory, or an exit strategy.

then maybe this issue wouldnt even exist.

I was waiting for someone to say something stupid like the phrase "Inherited them". Oh you make this soooo simple.... Just read the article, "The memo instructed Secretary of State Hilary Clinton that it is in our “national interest” to continue extending military aid to those countries, despite their failure to comply with the rules Congress passed and George W. Bush signed in 2008." AND GWB SIGNED INTO LAW. Bush tried to stop it by cutting off military aid (the right thing to do). Obama changes it for four countries, (the Obama thing to do).

No one ever seriously considered ending military aid. Its a feel good law that will be ignored just like all the other human rights violations in the world

as ive said, the left are death worshippers

especially afghanistan

i see you have been overdosing on fox.but it is actualy a matter of depth, not spin.
children soldiers are the product of war torn environments, and bush was a war monger.
how many kids would be used as miay combatants had we never invaded afgahnistan or iraq?
it isnt like the iraqi republican guard was comprised of kids.

we have a hand in this, and that hand belongs to bush.obama can make any declaration he likes, but until he starts a war (or two) this is the situation (the entire situation) he inherited from bush.

yup, thats why we are all about the health care, and taxing junk food.we want you to die from a lethal case of healthy living

That is exactly where they are getting the weapons.

nah... they use cheap chinese knock off's of the Russian ak47

no, the ak is far more reliable than our shit

oh, when did we start making ak's?

And how is providing military aid to these countries, essentially weapons for their child soldiers going to cause this evolutionary effect?

because ignoring a problem, especially a problem holding an ak-47, will not make it go away. by continuing a relationship, setting an example, and continuing to put pressure on them we can, over time, affect change. these countries likely have bad enough problems that they need constant attention. this is not condoning sending children to war. it is dealing with the world as it is, not as we wish it to be. IMHO...

The enemy of my enemy is my friend in other words.

its how ya win in war.doesnt make it ok, just saying

From the article.

The administration stunned human rights groups last month by sidestepping a commitment to help countries curb the military exploitation of children.

Josh Rogin at Foreign Policy reported that President Obama issued a presidential memorandum granting waivers from the Child Soldiers Prevention Act to four countries

He can stop selling them the weapons!

forgive me, that completely slipped my mind, great point

He is comdoning it. Thats the point.

and so did bush by putting them in that situation to begin with.unless you imagine the recruitment of child soldiers is a new developement in the middle east?

Bush discouraged the practice by signing a law that bans military aid to countries that use child soldiers in 2008, THAT'S the law that obama decided was not within our "National interest" where these four countries are concerned, to continue to cut off aid simply because they send 12 year olds into war. After all, it's a sacrifice worth making for the "National interest" if your a heartless tyrannical leader that sees it that way.
*Disclaimer* I am not a Bush or Obama fan. My opinion, right + left = One.

ya know, i think violence is a bad policy.i even wrote it down in my manifesto so no one could mistake my position on the subject matter.then i went ahead and found two majorly weaker people than me, and punched them in the face.
im not pro-violence despite acting in such a manor, cuz in 2008 i said so.

take a break from fox, or you are gunna need xanax to leave the house.

cuz its not news.
like if obama condones the awefull working conditions in china.its a duh statement that is self evident, as we still trade with them.

Ah....but haven't we come farther than that? Shouldn't we expect more than that?

Certainly women's rights/civil rights/gay rights would still have a 'back in the day' mentality if people didn't demand something different.

In some ways and some places we have come further, in other ways and other places absolutly no progress has been made. Yes being 15 and at war is not the optimal envirnment but for some it is better than where they were. Until we elimanate poverty and war all together we cannot eliminate young men from joining. We have child soldiers in America to, exept here we just call them gangs.

The life expectancy in those days was also around 40.

Did you remember to take that into account? I guess not.

who you are at 40 does not define who you are or can be at 15. At 15 you are still 15, you are in the same place emotionally and physically today as they were 1500 years ago, and even further. I honestly think that there may be something to the increasing crime rates and drug abuse in our youth, the lack of a military to join at a young age may be a hole our society has filled with crime. The military used to be where you went when you were too poor to function, now its gangs. Think about it, im not saying we should put a 15 year old in combat but we could be getting him/her ready at 15.

does that negate the innocence of childhood?
where the 15 yr olds of back in the day shaving thier five oclock shadows?
i think not.
the end (death) may change, but the begining doesnt

Right, and at 15, you have no fucking reason to be in a combat zone.

If you think there's some kind of similarity between a gang and a war, you're completely clueless.

Furthermore, gangs are scarcely populated by people around age 15. Gangs take in people from the 18-21 range as well, for the same reasons the military does.

Rome picked up kids to start in their armies because those societies were fucked up because of low life expectancy. People were expected to take on responsibilities well before they were ready.

It didn't make things more cohesive or efficient, it just ended up with a lot of dead and fucked up kids. It's just that no one cared in those days. There was no VA in the Roman world.

No, it doesn't, not at all.

I was just pointing out why it's stupid to compare ancient societies to modern ones.

Back then, your mid-life crisis was at about 20. Just something to think about.

i hear ya, and value systems play a huge role as well.who is to say we start conscription at the appropriate age either.
but regardless if you are talking about today, or last week, the slaying of children, or the subjecting children to potential slaying has been deplorable.
even if midlife is at 15, children are children.

if those who were using child soldiers were also giving land ownership rights,maritial rights, and higher education rights at the same age, it would be indicitive of that societies age standards.but they dont have 15 yr olds starting college, or getting married (unless as part of a deal as a girl) or owning property.

it is exploitive, even by thier standards.

the white house is both republitard and demicrap... why get rid of someone for someone much worse, it makes no sense...

yeah, sure.
bush started two wars, allowed the worst attack on our soil ever, allowed a major cities citizens to die of exposure, as well as deregulate our economy into a depression, and obama is the one who should be impeached.

wanna talk about no confidence, i wouldnt trust bush enough to walk my dog without it resulting in multiple deaths, as that was the end result of a multitude of choice.shit and my dog dont even bite.

arent you canadian?

i live on this planet, as far as i am concerned a problem is a problem it needs fixing. it doesn't matter what country i am in.