Script embedded in HTML
Recently politicians have been discussing the possibility of changing our archaic labor laws to allow children the freedom to work for punishingly long hours with hardly any pay, since their parents are unable, or unwilling, to do so, in order to compete with other Third World countries. I feel these politicians don't go far enough.
Since our military is so expensive, we need to consider replacing some, or all, of our current soldiers with child soldiers. Not only will this allow us to drastically decrease costs, because we can pay the children with candy, it'll also make it easier for us to fight other countries that use child soldiers. Whereas before it was a psychological strain on our soldiers to kill children, now it will be easy on them, because they'll be children, too!
There are other benefits to consider. Not only do child soldiers eat less, they take up less room in transports and in barracks, allowing us to maximize efficiency and minimize costs. They're also excellent at getting into small spaces, like booby-trapped hiding holes, and their tiny hands are perfect for defusing explosives. Should anything happen to the child soldiers, it's ridiculously easy to make more. (It's even kind of fun!)
Undoubtedly there will be those who say it's cruel to employ children in such dangerous, and even deadly, pursuits. Let's set aside, for the moment, that these noble pursuits culminate in the preservation of the greatest country in the world—America!—and her unique offer of religious freedom, (except for Muslims), equality, (except for homosexuals, African-Americans, Hispanics, etc.), personal liberty, (except for women who want abortions), and the pursuit of happiness, (except for the 99%). It's crass ageism that keeps children stuck inside, staring sadly out the window, while their older brothers and sisters have a chance to fight for Jesus and America.
Some might argue that children, especially the little ones, lack the physical strength to make good soldiers. Obviously the packs that today's soldiers use are far too big for child soldiers but if we need to move an equivalent amount of equipment, surely we can break it down into more numerous smaller loads. We'll just use a higher number of child soldiers than regular soldiers. With a higher number of backpacks, surely our larger number of child soldiers will be able to transport the same amount of equipment. Especially if we yell at them.
Some (horribly discriminatory ageists) might say that children lack the mental acuity to make good soldiers. These people seriously underestimate the intelligence of America's young. Before they're even old enough to stand, American children start hitting with intent to injure. Shortly thereafter, they're giving each other purple nurples, snake-bites, and nuggees. These are glaring indicators of the kind of mental acumen for which we're looking. Slightly older children demonstrate a willingness to engage in more refined attacks such as those found in cyber-bullying; so these children demonstrate the kind of intelligence we often see in sophisticated psychological-operations, while the younger children represent the kind of intelligence often found in guerrilla warfare.
Those who say children aren't smart enough to make good soldiers aren't recognizing the obvious truth: kids are shooting up their classmates all the time. Certainly if these children and other children (who are undoubtedly just as smart but a little less motivated) are given guidance, encouragement, and the proper equipment, they'll be able to kill large numbers of people. [If we transport the children to the right place, some of the large numbers of people they kill will (probably) be the enemy!]
There's another benefit to consider: America spends an exorbitant amount of money on education every year. If fewer children were going to school because they were in the field of combat or (God forbid) dead, then taxpayers would save billions of dollars. Parents would certainly save lots of money on braces. Sure, a decline in the child population would be hard on the circulation of Teen Beat magazine. Anti-acne companies would undoubtedly report loses. But the benefits society would accrue, such as no longer having skateboarders on sidewalks and loiterers standing outside of convenience stores, would certainly outweigh any loses.
Since we've almost abolished abortion, perhaps we can look to the American tradition of going to war as a Christian way to get rid of all the unwanted children our society will soon have. Since it's wrong for us to prevent the births of these unwanted children, we can just keep them in military / prison camps until they're old enough to fight / die and then we can rely on the enemy to cut short their miserable lives or to send them back to us as extremely bitter heroes whom we can then force to instruct other unwanted children in the ways of fighting / dying.
Lastly, since war is such a terrible and depressing business, it's our responsibility to try to change it. Children bring light and levity to every endeavor in which they take part. Therefore, by introducing large numbers of children into armed conflict, we'll bring a spirit of fun and wonder to it!