Not happy my 13 year 's class old had recruitment presentation from armed forces today

"What saddens me more is what happens when they leave the army and how we treat them then. Shamefully."

It has to be said that improvements are being made - unfortunately the government is (shamefully, IMO) rather stingy with its funding for such and issue but there are some excellent military charities that do wonderful and valuable work.

Well said jcscot

Of course it's complicated, hottiebear. In an ideal world, there would be no wars, no murder, no cruel and unjust behaviour.

Unfotunately, human nature is complicated and when the human nature becomes tied up with power and government and ideology, then fundamental goodness and morality can get lost in the mix - hence wars and massacres and global conflicts.

I wish we were more enlightened and I wish that there were no need for military power but it is an inescapable part of the the human condition.

'is that the Armed Forces target their recruitment talks - they go for schools in areas of high unemployment and deprivation. So incredibly cynical.'

ANd for many of those young men joining the Forces could be the best thing that ever happens to them, not withstanding Afghanistan. For some of them it could be the first time there's ever been anyone properly guiding them.

What saddens me more is what happens when they leave the army and how we treat them then. Shamefully.

I'd say it is hottiebear. Of course no one wants there to be any wars or killing, nobody wants that. But if, as a country, we werent't prepared to do that, we'd be pretty weak in our defence and a big target for terrorism and invasion. There are too many evil people in the world who are power mad for there to never be wars (the taliban,that pyscho in Korea who keeps testing nuclear weapons etc )

"Would you be happy to have your child in the forces then?"

Absolutely. This isn't based, you understand, solely on what I think the Army/Forces might be like or on some "Dulce et decorum est.." type patriotism but on personal experience.

I met my husband at Uni and was engaged to him as he went through his MSc and his training at RMAS. We've now been married for ten years and I've seen him develop from an intelligent and confident young man into an assured, intelligent and deeply professional soldier and officer. It has been the making of him and shows that he is exactly where he should be in life.

He has a sense of duty and responsibility towards others - those under his command and those outwith it. He puts others before himself always and firmly believes in the Sandhurst motto "Serve to Lead". He has moral and physical courage, personal and professional integrity and a strong conviction that he does a very necessary and vital job.

How could I not admire a man like that?

And, I'm happy to say, he is not the exception. In my time as an Army wife, I've met many men and women from all ranks who are cut from the same cloth as my husband. Of course, there are people who are not like that, and there are people who are not as capable or as committed - everyone is different after all.

All I'm saying is that my husband measures himself as a man by the job he does and how well he does it. It's provided us with a secure and strong community within which to raise our sons and given us plenty of opportunities in life.

Of course the job has its unpleasant aspects and the nature of the Armed Foces is to defend and attack in the interests of the country. I have no wish to gloss over that side of things and I am fully aware of some of the things my husband and men like him have seen and done. We've been at the funerals of friends who died in Afghanistan and Iraq and I live with the knowledge that until my husband comes home from his current operational tour, the next knock on the door could be to tell me that he's badly wounded or killed.

Weighing all that in the balance, I would still say that the Forces are a good career for someone with the right personailty and temperament and I would be happy for either of my two sons to serve.

Very good point ib.

I can't get over the fact that killing someone intentionally is murder, I genuinely don't understand why it isn't murder during war.

I also don't understand why we bother bringing our kids up to believe that violence is not the way to solve conflicts when violence seems to be the major way we do solve conflicts (on an international scale).

Whenever I ask people this they say it is much more complicated than this. Is it?

But ib your talking as though the army is the only part of the armed forces- it isn't. The army, raf and navy are not just a 'killing machine' but the very core of our countries defence system and play a part in preventing terrorist attacks and other national crisis. They also come to the rescue if there is a disaster, natural or otherwise. What about mountain and air sea rescue? Most people in the armed forces will never be directly responsible for killing people- this is the job of our regiments and they know full well what the job requires before they go into it.The taliban are a very real threat to our society too, so I don't think they are in Afghan for no reason.
Most of the other trades in the forces are very transferable to civilian life once they leave such as admin,medics,air ops,intelligence- these people aren't on the frontline!

No, if this was WW2 I would enlist, to be honest.

But joining the army professionally means giving up your right to make a moral judgement on the particular conflict you are going to fight in. You are agreeing to do what you are told, where you are told, when you are told regardless of your views on the morality of the situation.

And if you refuse you are considered a traitor. What if Hitler is in your own country? Would you be happy to have your child in the forces then?

Not read whole thread but just wanted to point out that children can join the Cadets (of all 3 services) at age 12/year 8. Probably why such presentations begin at this age?

I don't think children are going to be brainwashed into the army - I am aware that it is not a cult.

My problem is with the glossing over the real purpose of an army. It is not a benevolent institution set up with the sole purpose of training young people for trades, or putting them through university or allowing them to see the world or go water-skiing. It is a complex machine for killing people. If people join up with their eyes wide open, then it is, of course their choice. But many don't. And recruitment drives targetted at areas of high unemployment and deprivation are cynical in the extreme.

Wannabe's 10.24 post says it all IMO. I totally agree.

ib - would you feel better if there were no armed forces then?

I find it amazing that people are happy for their children to go off to university at eighteen, without supervision, where drinking and drugs are the norm, yet are not happy for them to potentially go into a career where they will receive plenty of training and guidance and will come out with a decent job at the end of it.

And at thirteen children are more likely to be starting binge drinking and having sex than seriously contemplating joining the army.

I take it that you would have been quite happy for Hitler to have taken over the country ib, and would have stood back while he killed all Jews, homosexuals and gypsies?

There does seem to be a prevailing view that children are empty vessels who will take what people say as gospel, without a thought for themselves-and that they have to be programmed by mum.

God, what a military sycophantic thread.

I would be horrified if a school my ds went to did this without my consent - unless they followed it by a very vivid documentary every case of abuse perpetrated by armed forces the world over.

Quite happy for them to do the same after a banking presentation, by the way.

13 is a very vulnerable age and targetting children at that age seems predatory to me.

I went to a 'Forces wedding' in the summer.There was a guard of honour outside the church -all in uniform-all lovely young men. At my uncle's funeral I spoke to his grandson-a dog handler in RAF; one of DS1's friends joined the army as a dentist. (that is his job in the army). There is a whole wealth of opportunities and I think that while people have their mind set on 'children' having guns and shooting people it is a very good idea for the Forces to give career talks at school and give the whole picture.
I think that any of the young people that I have met recently would have laughed at the idea that they were brainwashed-to me they seem more independently minded than average.
I don't think we do our 16yr olds any good by infantilising them and assuming that they can't make decisions about their own futures-based on facts and relevant information.

People have a very nimby approach to the forces. If our country were ever under threat (and it's worth bearing in mind that without an army that could well happen), people would be wanting the forces to protect them, just as long as it isn't their own bfp doing it ey? it's ok for someone else to die for their country - just not your child.

Personally i think that recruiting in areas of vast unemployment is a fantastic idea. in fact I would go so far as to say that the army should have a greater involvement in young offenders institutions and with troubled teens. My cousin was just such a troubled teen, in trouble at school, then got into trouble and did time for gbh. When he came out he joined the army and has completely turned his life around.

I don't get the negative attitude towards the forces in this country - I really don't. People should be proud that there are soldiers out there who want to join the army, proud that there are people out there who are prepared to put others before themselves. When I was in the US recently I went to see a show at seaworld, and before it started, they asked that members of the armed forces stand, not just the US armed forces, but the UK armed forces and all other allies, and the crowd applauded them. They have pride not only in their own forces, but have recognission for others too. And yet we cannot see fit to even recognize the work of our own soldiers. shocking.

if a 16 year old can make a decision to smoke or create babies then why the hell not join the army? my dad who is still in the army joined as a boy soldier at 16 with no education and is now a Major. i think each to their own.

My middle DS left school at 16yrs (he was actually 15yr because of his late birthday). He had to make sensible decisions for his future. He had to be treated like an adult-he is the one who knows what suits him-I only know what suits me and what I think suits him. Many a DC gets forced into a sensible career choice by the parent and then is very unhappy and throws it all over in mid life and does what they wanted to do in the first place. He wanted an apprenticeship and a trade-the Forces were a very sensible route to take. He didn't in the end-even if he had gone further down the recruitment line he might have decided it wasn't for him.
Even if a DC is staying on at school to do A'levels they need to be making adult decisions about which ones.
My Uncle joined the Navy without telling his mother-he was the one that was right and his future was much brighter than the narrow, small town, safe one his mother had mapped out.
The 18 yr old girl that I spoke to with her heart set on an army career was a lovely mature girl, any mother would have been proud of her. She had thought it out.
There are too many parents who only allow their DC freedom of choice if they fall in line with the parent. I didn't want my DSs to join the Forces but I would have given my full support if they had.
The army isn't giving an impressionable 16yr old a gun and ordering them 'over the top' to shoot the enemy!

I can't see the problem. Career advice should be given from the age of 13 and joining the armed forces is a valid career option.

I know they recruit adults too, that's hardly the point. The point is that children are allowed to make a massive decision about something that will affect their life in years to come. That is rather different from allowing a youngster to baby-sit for an evening. If you know my usual posting record, you will know that I usually speak out very strongly against any attempt to baby children. But this is not the norm even in countries where there is far less babying of children than in the UK, it is an area where Britain stands out in what seems to me a very dubious way and it has attracted a lot of international criticism. I do no think that 16yos should be treated like babies. But I do not think they should be treated like adults either.

The Forces have moved on slug and the recruiter would have been able to give you a whole list of jobs these days.

The young man that was disturbed by his Afganistan experience was leaving the army in a couple of months and had a training course and change of career lined up. I can't see that the army would have sent him back against his will-he would have been a danger to his fellow soldiers. (I think some people are set in a WW1 mindset.)

Nooka, you just reminded me of when we had the army presentation at my school. I remember the recruiter describing all the exciting options and the marvellous opportunities. He then reeled off a list of positions, with "women need not apply" at the end of most. I put up my hand and pointed out that essentially all women were allowed to do were be typists and caterers according to his list. He looked a bit annoyed at me, told me off and the entire female student contingent as a person stood up and walked out.

They breed them stroppy where I caome from.

Anyone who leaves the Army (i'm not sure about the Navy and RAF has to give six month's notice. The only time they are not allowed to put in their notice is if they've already been informed that they are being deployed on operations.

Certain trades/skills carry a longer minimum length of service because of the cost of training someone to do that job.

The Forces, believe me, do not wish to keep hold of people who do not want to do the job.