So pissed off at tories putting military youth groups into deprived area schools

[trashcanjunkie]

We live in Newcastle. Yes it's a deprived area. I feel aghast at the fact the only half decent comprehensive school in our area has a cadet group based at school, with fucking army wankers there recruiting kids. The whole army campaign to get them young and 'make them better people' boils my fucking piss. They're cannon fodder who will likely get shipped out to oil wars, and left up shit creek without a paddle, wanting for basic kit etc. Then they either get blown to pieces, die, or come home horrifically injured or psychologically shattered. Now the government are rolling out another military type program and are putting money into sending them into schools in deprived areas.

Fwiw I've nothing against youngsters learning discipline or survival skills etc. I just have an issue with recruiting cannon fodder from 'us plebs'....

The people who fought in ww1 and ww2 didn't have a choice. There was a magical thing called conscription.
And as someone said up thread - if people didn't choose to join today's military and do a job they enjoy, then we wouldn't have a military and national service would have to come back. And then you wouldn't have any choice in whether or not your precious angels who are to good for the military, went to war or not.

Ketchup for that giant chip, OP?
Firstly, cadets is hardly a press gang. Secondly, it was a Labour policy so perhaps check your politics before attempting to be political. And thirdly- all the moaning about cannon fodder suggests that you might perhaps be watching too much television.

What's wrong with a constructive, disciplined activity that teaches young people useful skills?! I went to a school that had CCF. It no more forced me into the army than the fact our school had a football team forced me into the premier league. You are being VVVU, in addition to being, frankly, ignorant and offensive. You have the freedom now to spout your ill-informed opinions thanks to hard work and sacrifice from previous 'army wankers', after all....

Seriously when I read threads like this I wish our forces had the choice to say "it's ok Dave, I'll sit this one out" - when asked to ferry you or your loved ones you hospital in an ambulance strike or rescue you from your flooded home.
It makes me sad and disappointed that these are the people that DP and many others sacrifice things for to protect. I wonder how many army haters would opt out of army protection if it was possible. Not many I bet.

I wouldn't want to be part of a system that perpetuates the idea that military action and aggression is inevitable and impossible to change. If everyone keeps fighting, then the fight will never end. And I think most people would be scared of facing bombs and bullets tbh. It's a complicated situation. Fewer people being killed in the world would be good.

I don't think anyone would disagree with you there whatdo including those who have served/are serving.

But as long as we live in a world where girls get shot in the head for daring to go to school and groups drop nail bombs in schoolyards and on hospitals there will be a need for military response. It doesn't make it right, or be something to strive for, but to suggest that we sit back and do nothing is naive and unhumanitarian.

So much has been said about what the armed forces ACTUALLY do, that people aren't listening to! My DH and I are both in, and neither of us have ever killed anyone.

And nobody likes war, but ask a girl who's been raped on mt sinjar whether she wants RAF tornado air Strikes to continue to kill her perpatriators (ISIS) and if she still wants RAF aid drops, providing vital medicine, blankets and food.

Ask an afghan girl who now goes to school when under taliban control she would've been killed.

War isn't the answer, but war is an extension of political dialogue. You should exhaust all soft diplomacy before going 'kinetic'. We're all taught this in our basic training.

Yes I agree Unmentioned. It's impossible to not have an army I suppose.
Wrt many civilians have murdered people, yes they have. They don't usually have the power and weaponry that soldiers have though, thankfully.
I think it should be OK to discuss this without people taking it as a personal attack. I know you will now say that I have the freedom to discuss it thanks to you/your son/your Dh etc.

All the good work that the army do is great and a real contribution to society both here and in other countries. What I don't get is why is it the army who has to do this? Why can't people be employed to just do the positive stuff and no obligation to fight or go to war?

Who would pay for that whatdo ?

The military are there, paid for and with the capability, training and equipment to take on tasks like this...

I mean humanitarian, civil aid and "soft" jobs like evacuating typhoon victims, building flood defences or building schools.

As someone else said - countries that are living under a decent government, with good infrastructure, education and healthcare don't need humanitarian aid all that often.
The countries that need it, are usually ones without the things listed above. When civilians go to deliver aid (which is an amazingly selfless thing to do) things go wrong. Take poor Mr Alan Henning as prime example. He went to deliver aid to Syria, and was executed by those animals (I refuse to acknowledge any name. Give themselves). He had no means or training to protect himself from such a thing. Military personnel do.

"What I don't get is why is it the army who has to do this? Why can't people be employed to just do the positive stuff and no obligation to fight or go to war?"

OK, what would that force look like? How would it train and maintain units which can deploy in fixed (and short) amounts of time? And which tasks are you specifically thinking of moving away from the military?

Because I think they'd be quite glad of the removal of a number of the MACP (military aid to civil powers) stuff.

Funds could be diverted from the military? Or there could be an option for people joining up to opt out of active service and be guaranteed only the humanitarian tasks?

Eton also has a CCF...

whatdoIget would you want to deliver aid to Syria without carrying a weapon to protect yourself?? Because I sure as hell wouldn't.

The country wouldn't be able to afford people to do all the work the forces do, whatdo. They're exempt from the minimum wage, they work when and where they're told. There's no overtime payments.

It's ok to discuss things, it's not ok to call them "baby murdrers" or "hired killers" or "fancied killing for a living" imo.

"I mean humanitarian, civil aid and "soft" jobs like evacuating typhoon victims, building flood defences or building schools."

Civilian organisations (check the activities of the big charities) usually do these when the environment is permissive. No military input either required or happening.

When the environment is non-permissive (ie you might be attacked/killed) are you really proposing to send unarmed civilians? This, plus certain emergencies in UK, is where the British forces do the humanitarian work.

You've obviously identified me as someone who doesn't know what she's talking about really Unidentified. I'd like to live in a worked without conflict. I realise this is just a pipe dream. It's shit. I haven't developed a proposal about which tasks I would like removed from the army.
If armies continue to exist, wars will continue.

"Or there could be an option for people joining up to opt out of active service and be guaranteed only the humanitarian tasks?"

That exists: it's called not joining the military, and choosing to work for an aid agency instead.

I think you've misinterpreted my message elephant I was trying to demonstrate how there isn't an alternative to the military as there is no other organisation that is equipped to do these things. In any way. Permissive environment or not.

It's ok to discuss things, it's not ok to call them "baby murdrers" or "hired killers" or "fancied killing for a living"

Just for the record I have never called them any of those things and never would do, nor would I ever think it!!

"If aggressors continue to exist, wars will continue."

And if there are no armies to oppose them, the agressors will rule the world.

How much territory would Daesh now be holding if there were no airstrikes and the Iraqi army did not exist? Would that make the world a better place? Because at some stage, when they held all the territory they wanted, war would indeed stop. But the extreme brutal regime would still be slaughtering civilians by the hundreds (see the videos, if you can stomach them)

I didn't say you had. I was just referring to things that the armed forces get called on this thread and MN all the time.

And for the record it's not armies that cause wars. We could all get rid of our armies, it wouldn't get rid of the wars and conflict.

The CCF started in 1948 when Labour were in power. Don't let that stand in the way of a good anti-tory rant though.

I have several family members that have been in the forces, a couple of lifers and a few shorter termers and they to a man (and woman) loved it. Gave them fantastic skills for post for forces life.