Quote:
Originally Posted by Cybersprings
From your cited website: " TAKING ALL FEASIBLE MEASURES TO ENSURE MARINES UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE DO NOT TAKE PART IN HOSTILITIES SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO UNDULY INTERFERE WITH THE COMMANDER'S PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY OF MISSION ACCOMPLISHMENT."
|
You have to read it all to see the context of what you strategically quoted as your "proof" that I make things up.
THIS PROTOCAL STATES PARTIES SHALL
TAKE ALL FEASIBLE MEASURES TO ENSURE THAT MEMBERS OF THEIR ARMED
FORCES WHO HAVE NOT ATTAINED THE AGE OF 18 YEARS DO NOT TAKE A
DIRECT PART IN HOSTILITIES.
THE COMMANDER SHOULD WEIGH THE MISSION REQUIREMENTS AGAINST
THE PRACTICABILITY OF DIVERTING 17 YEAR OLD MARINES FROM COMBAT.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER MAY INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO: THE
TACTICAL SITUATION; THE MANPOWER NEEDS OF THE UNIT; THE DANGER TO
THE SERVICEMEMBER; THE IMPACT ON UNIT COHESION IF THE SERVICEMEMBER
WERE TO BE REMOVED FROM THE UNIT; THE REASONABLE ABILITY OF THE UNIT
TO EXCLUDE THE 17 YEAR OLD MARINE FROM TAKING DIRECT PART IN
HOSTILITES; AND ANY OTHER RELEVANT CRITERION.
so only in very defined circumstances would a 17 year old be allowed in combat. I suspect if they are only 17, they aren't even sent to combat zones to avoid such a situation but I have no proof of that.