StarDestroyer.Net BBS

My friend is interning for the UN, specifically working on the children soldier problem and was telling a bunch of friends that they need more support and maybe start a movement to stop their usage.

Granted, the idea of children soldiers horrifies me as well. But, I just ended up shaking my head. What would a "grass-root" movement, or even a strongly worded UN mandate do against an ambitious warlord grabbing kids and giving them guns?

Well, then again.. to me.. I've always taken Heinlein's words to heart about the topic of violence. Violence is in effect, the end of all further discussion. While I think it's important that people are made aware.. I'm doubtful that it will have any effect whatsoever unless someone puts a gun to the warlords head.

Of course you are a cynical jaded bastard. You frequent SD.net.

The only countries that use child soldiers are also the ones that would not respond to any such effort, and so, yes, it is entirely useless. Now, the UN could sanction such countries one supposes, but that would create lots of starving children, and guess where the food usually goes in countries like that? To the army, of course. Which means the starving children might even be willing to join so they could eat. Assuming conditions aren't bad enough that they aren't already in many cases.

The changes required to eliminate such practices in the third world are going to have to be far, far more fundamental than anything that could be solved by popular pressure in the first.

Trytostaydead wrote:
Granted, the idea of children soldiers horrifies me as well. But, I just ended up shaking my head. What would a "grass-root" movement, or even a strongly worded UN mandate do against an ambitious warlord grabbing kids and giving them guns?

Absolutely nothing. When you're at the point that its worthwhile to issue weapons to kids under 16, that's the definition being used by the UN, your not going even remotely give a fuck about sanctions or anything short of someone kicking down the door. Course very few people do in the first place. The UN is only effective when both sides are exhausted or at least one is a highly developed nation anyway. Course in both cases its also unnecessary.

Though the whole issue strikes me as a having a whole load of stupid involved, the first list of nations using "child soldiers" had a mighty total of three entries, one of which was Northern Ireland when the fighting has effectively ceased.

It's another feel-good resolution that will have no real-world practical impact.

These morons are also after us, for using "Child soldiers"...of course, to them
a 17 year old with parental consent enlisting in the US armed forces is
a child solider

MKSheppard wrote:These morons are also after us, for using "Child soldiers"...of course, to them
a 17 year old with parental consent enlisting in the US armed forces is
a child solider

The US is the Great Satan, after all...

"Grass-roots" are pointless unless those roots start in the nation you are trying to affect.

YT300000 wrote:Of course you are a cynical jaded bastard. You frequent SD.net.

You beat me too it. Bastard.

MKSheppard wrote:These morons are also after us, for using "Child soldiers"...of course, to them
a 17 year old with parental consent enlisting in the US armed forces is
a child solider

You can joint the British army at 16. That's one major reason why the UN went with the age of 16 as being the limit.