Amazon.com Widgets

Should children being used in support, rather than combat, positions be considered child soldiers for the purposes of international law?

  • They are dragged into it.

    Yes, children being used in support, rather than combat, positions should be considered child soldiers for the purposes of international law, because they are still being made to help with the war effort. If the child is doing that, rather than going to school and playing, they are a child soldier.

  • Children being used in support positions should still be considered child soldiers

    Children being used in support, rather than combat positions should still be considered child soldiers for the purposes of international law. This is because of the fact that support positions filled by adults in military scenarios are still considered soldiers. If adults used in support positions are still soldiers, than children should be as well.

  • A soldier is a soldier regardless of age.

    The unfortunate face of war is that it knows no age. Bullets don't ask for ID before they're loaded. There is no verification of age before a bomb goes off. War is never clean. Innocent, or guilty, people who no one wants to die do. Others who deserve to die don't. For the purposes of international law, all combatants should be treated as combatants, and support is treated as combatants. The only possible exemption is medical support. Aside from that, enter the battlefield and you are part of the battle.

  • No, children in support positions in foreign military should be considered combatants.

    I believe that any child that is being used in support, rather than combat positions, should be considered as combatants, regardless. I think that a lot of other countries on Earth are using the West's principles to gain an advantage in the battle field by using kids as soldiers. America should treat such tactics as war strategies.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.