Parents bury second son killed in Iraq

OneTimeSBX · #1 08-31-2007, 03:58 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/08/30/ban...raq/index.html

any opinions on the "sole survivor" policy? it basically states that no matter how many kids you lose in a war situation, the last surviving one is not allowed to serve in a war situation. kinda how 4 of 5 brothers died in the movie "Saving Private Ryan"...

Kevin · #2 08-31-2007, 04:13 PM

From an inheritance standpoint, it really makes sense. Generally, parents want to be able to pass on their property to their kids -- not some distant relatives and definitely not to the state. I can think of a lot of good emotional reasons for this rule as well.

OneTimeSBX · #3 08-31-2007, 04:40 PM

is it just me or does it just seem like it doesnt really matter how many kids you have. if you have 8 sons/daughters in iraq and 7 get killed, we'll send the last one home.

and from an inheritance standpoint, what if the remaining child is killed in a car accident, etc. once they get home? then what do the parents do?

OtterXO · #4 08-31-2007, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneTimeSBX

is it just me or does it just seem like it doesnt really matter how many kids you have. if you have 8 sons/daughters in iraq and 7 get killed, we'll send the last one home.

and from an inheritance standpoint, what if the remaining child is killed in a car accident, etc. once they get home? then what do the parents do?

I agree with you, it's just a weird policy. Like the parents would be less upset about losing a child because they have another one left. I've never lost a child (since I don't have any kids) but I really don't think that's how it works. As for inheritance being the reason.....that doesn't really make sense to me at all. Even if the parents don't have a will and/or trust, it's not like your kids are the only people who are considered heirs. That just seems like a ridiculous justification to me.

It seems to me that the rule should be that if a soldier has had anyone in their immediate family killed at war that the whole immediate family should be not allowed to serve in combat. That would be a better rule.

OneTimeSBX · #5 08-31-2007, 04:51 PM

i totally agree. i think that is why i cant stand "saving private ryan" even though its such a good movie. people LOST THEIR LIVES getting that remaining son home. a noble thought i know, but still.

Kevin · #6 08-31-2007, 05:30 PM

Perhaps the rules exists because it's nice to be nice to the nice?

honeychile · #7 09-01-2007, 12:05 AM

If I remember properly, this dates back to when we were mostly an agrarian society. There needed to be at least one son to help save the farm. I think that, once a family loses two sons, they should get the chance to spare at least one.

I know that, when my mother's eldest brother was killed, her remaining brother had to sign all sorts of papers to enlist - including one signed by his parents.

ISUKappa · #8 09-01-2007, 01:35 AM

It dates back to 1948. It is a direct result of the death of the five Sullivan brothers of Waterloo, Iowa, who were all killed when their ship sank during WWII.

Tom Earp · #9 09-01-2007, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ISUKappa

It dates back to 1948. It is a direct result of the death of the five Sullivan brothers of Waterloo, Iowa, who were all killed when their ship sank during WWII.

This is so true. That is why members of the same family will not be sent with the same unit to a war field at the same time. I guess in this case it did not work.

To me, if a family loses a member then the rest should be exempt unless they wish to join on their own.