If the young man was allowed to enlist at age 17, he could not be deployed until he was 18; so he will wait until he is 18 when he doesn’t require anyone’s permission and he will pursue his dream.  Meanwhile, the Judge is an idiot — our number one unlimited resource.  Our crisis is simply that we haven’t found a market for them (yet).

Woody confuses anti-war with anti U.S.

I happen to be against the war and would never allow any of my children to enlist while this war is on. I oppose the war strictly for patriotic reasons: it weakens the U.S., harms national security, weakens civil liberties and squanders military resources.

It's telling that rather than attempt to rebut arguments against the war, people like Woody simply label them "anti-U.S." as if his personal opinion defines what the entire country has to think.

And--

That this kid is a foster child should have absolutely no relevance. His legal guardians still have to take responsibility for his actions. And I don't blame them one bit for forcing him to cool down before making such a big decision. Soon enough he'll be free to decide on his own.

McL... while the judge has every right to deny the child the ability to enlist, that doesn't make it right, or make her pro or anti-US.  What it does do is tell this young man who "wants to serve his country" that because SHE disagrees with the war, her will trumps his.  She makes no argument as to what HIS claim is.  That makes her decision wrong on the face of it.

You have stated that you would not allow your children to enlist.  I would assume that if they are 18, you might argue against it, but you also know that you couldn't stop it. 

I would also hope, that everyone that thinks recruiters are only filling a quota would know that that is so much BS on its face.  Recruters are typically career troops and love their service and service to their country.  The fellow that recruited me back in 1969 may have wanted to make a quota, but MY decision was that I would rather join and do 3 years of what I wanted than get drafted and do 2 years of what the army wanted.  I could have cared less if he wanted to make a quota or not because I came from a long line of career servicemen and I wanted to do the same.  It didn't work out that way but that was MY intent and that was the only thing that counted.

The judge had no argument against the 17 almost 18 year old joining other than she could make the decision based on her personal choices, not based on any rational argument.  That makes her WRONG!

MacLovin:  Woody confuses anti-war with anti U.S.

I never used the term "anti-war."  I used the terms "military hating."

"Military Hating" and "anti-U.S." adequately describes a lot of people on the left, from the citizens of Berkeley, CA to this judge, who appear to decide issues based upon the sides rather than rationale.

If I might —perhaps you should consider adding a few images. I don’t mean to disrespect what you’ve said ; its very enlightening, indeed. However, I think would respond to it more positively if they could be something tangible to your ideas عالم الجوالات