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'....

Actually the British Armed Forces main effort is Peacekeeping. People who don't know the military only get to see Iraq and Afghanistan. There are more military personnel in other parts of the world than there are in full on combat zones.

I have been involved in one full on war - Iraq.

I have been involved in Actve Peacekeeping in Northern Ireland, Bosnia & Kosovo (ie patrolling streets, keeping order, issuing aid).
I have fulfilled peacekeeping and humanitarian roles (think floods, fires, strikes, riots etc) in UK, Kenya, Nepal, Cyprus and Turkey.

DH has had pretty much the same experiences, as have most of the people I know.

I don't know anyone that has only worked in Afghan or Iraq. Of course 'new' members may have, but that will no way be all they do during their careers.

I've never had to kill anyone - I've threatened to, I've aimed a rifle at a very bad man who was left in no doubt that I would kill him if he didn't let us go. But I did it for a very good, very sincere reasons and have no problem whatsoever in justifying my actions. If I had shot him I would have been investigated, interrogated, suspended and hopefull exonerated - killing is very much a last resort in most cases, trust me.

DH probably has. He was a tankie and a recce soldier. He saw more action in Iraq than I did and came under fire daily (hourly at some points). I don't ask. It doesn't define him. It doesn't make a difference to the person he is. He's also saved a lot of people.

If DSD or DD wanted to join the forces I'd support them - because it's their life not mine. I'd probably try to encourage them towards the RAF or Navy rather than Army, simply because I think the opportunities are greater. But ultimately its fuck all to do with me what career path they decide on. As long as they work and not doss then I'll support them.

You can join the RAF as a chaplain - no killing (WTF at that comment) - with two grade C GCSE in Maths and English. Just because you live in a disadvantaged area does not mean your opportunities are limited to "cannon fodder" (how offensive can you get) with basic qualifications there are all kinds of positions: logistics, engineering, HR, chef, medical officer, air traffic control... I despair at some of the ignorance on this thread..

Just to give a good example of all round skills the forces can give- there was an article last year regarding 3 Royal Engineers I think who were on Adventurous Training in Canada (that's when you get to do the ski-ing outdoorsy esque things) after a deployment to Afghan. On a night out in the local area they came across the aftermath of a street fight, patient had sucking chest wounds, using their battlefield first aid skills they used bank and store cards to provide seals to the wound. Pretty damn good transferable skills, although used in extreme setting!

The whole purpose of having cadet forces in schools is to recruit to the armed forces. It is an investment with an expected return. It is not alteristic. Yes, the majority probably don't join up, but enough do to make it worthwhile or they wouldn't continue investing the time and the money.

Young people from cadet forces aren't forced to join up, but they encourage them to see joining the forces as a good thing with opportunities and benefits. The idea is recruitment.

People should never be in the situation where their choice is join the forces or have a crap life. People shouldn't be bribed with opportunities, careers and houses to join the forces.

There are not many deprived people at Sandhurst.

In my opinion, there is far far too much time, money, land, prioritisation on the military in this country.

And finally, I would be very sad and disappointment if my children decided to join the forces. I would not be proud they joined. I wouldn't be disappointed if they worked as a plumber or in a care home.

I can't speak for other "forces sceptics" on this thread, but any offence I have given was directed at the governments and military systems that exist in this world, and the way it's set up to "need" armies and military action, not at the individuals who make up the services. Politicians are after all the ones who decide on wars and conflicts, but they themselves are not at the sharp end.

I would be deeply disappointed if any of my kids fancied killing for a living.
My DP doesn't kill for a living. He keeps you sleeping safely at night for a living. I, personally, don't think he should risk his life for the likes of people like you who treat him like scum but oh well, he is proud to be helping and protecting his country.

The whole purpose of having cadet forces in schools is to recruit to the armed forces.

To be frank, that is a lie. Are they hoping that some of them might join the Armed Forces? Probably, but that is not why they are doing it. The expansion was not even the Armed Forces' idea - it was the governments.

People should never be in the situation where their choice is join the forces or have a crap life. People shouldn't be bribed with opportunities, careers and houses to join the forces.

Of course they shouldn't - but why are you blaming the military for the fact that there aren't more alternatives that offer the benefits they are offering? Would you like them to stop offering training and accommodation (it isn't free by the way - just inexpensive)?

Those who would be sad and disappointed if their children joined up would be really pleased to see my son if their house was flooded, or the fire service went on strike (again), or they needed to police another event like the Olympics.

No doubt you'd be quite happy for DS1 to be infront of you should there be a terrorist attack, too!

Fairy Exactly!

"My house is flooded!!"
"Well here come the army to sort you out"
"NOOOO!! Not those brainwashed baby murderers!!!!"

Said no person. Ever.

All of Newcastle isn't deprived, to start with.

And I have three sons mad on CCF, they are at Eton... I'm fairly sure the second eldest will end up in the forces after school rather than uni, he adores the cadets and is more sporty than academic.

You should have been on MN when the riots happened MyBread. All the army haters were shouting from the rooftops for them to be brought out to sort it out!

No doubt you'd be quite happy for DS1 to be infront of you should there be a terrorist attack, too!
Couldn't be more accurate. People also seem to forget that there are armed forces constantly working in counter-terrorism and the likes and actively saving lives every day behind the scenes.

Fairy I was busy being trained how to kill children and blow up people's houses in Afghanistan during the riots....no time for MN

It would be good if there was a job like the army, and doing all the positive things that the army do that have been mentioned on this thread, but without the possibility of having to go to war and conflict zones. This is in no way meant to be sarcastic btw. It sounds brilliant and something I would probably quite like to do and would encourage my dc to do, if it wasn't for that possibility of having to be involved in war. And yes I do already know there's a lot more to it than just war, but I could not risk being involved in that, because it's against my principles, and also I'd be terrified tbh.

whatdoIget so going to a country where civilians are being murdered by a militia that's trying to overthrow the government, and ensuring those civilians have a safe place to live and raise their children is against your principles?
I'm sorry, but anti-war people really get my back up. All you seem to see is the killing part of war. We don't go to these places just blatting off rounds willy-nilly at anyone who looks remotely dodgy you know

Then surely you should just be grateful that there's people willing to do what you are scared of?

Army wankers huh?
That'll be my Dad who fought in the second world war so you could be free to insult him?

I don't think that you do kill people for fun (although there have undoubtedly been cases of this within the military haven't there?)
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.

mybread my snorting at your post re 'rescue refusal' has just brought the attention of majority of our canteen to me, love that example- almost exactly what my DH said when he was called a baby-killer by some prat!

And one of my granddads was a pilot during ww2 and undoubtedly killed lots of people. Not sure if the exact details. I think the people who fought in ww2 thought they were doing if so future generations would never have to fight a war again didn't they? This unfortunately hasn't happened

I think the people who fought in ww2 thought they were doing if so future generations would never have to fight a war again didn't they?
I think they thought they wanted to get rid of Hitler and stop the war more than anything. They would have been incredibly naive if they did think that.

Fuck me! The absolute idiocy and ignorance on this thread is bloody shocking.

The reason you're on this fucking forum able to spout your shot about "army wankers" and "cannon fidder" is because sone of those army wankers fought for your idiotic freedom of speech.

Even in Afghan and Iraq, so much humanitarian work was carried out by our forces.

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.

Cleaty: The private schools with cadet forces are recruiting officers. The cadet forces in disadvantaged areas are recruiting cannon fodder.

I cannot begin to say how many things are wrong with that statement.

1. We've established that schools are not a 'recruitment centre' for the military
2. It's clear that officers also fight on the front line and (sometimes) incur serious injuries, just as non-officer personnel do. The reason fewer officers are reported injured or killed in the press is simply because there are fewer officers.
3. The phrase 'cannon fodder' is insensitive and offensive: it implies that serving members of the armed forces are homogenous dupes incapable of thinking from themselves or having any agency whatsoever. It also suggests that all serving military are there for is to engage in combat, without taking into account their role in safeguarding, peacekeeping etc.
4. Not all officers are from private school, not all infantrymen come from state school. These generalisations stem from before WW2, and they weren't even completely true then.

It's perfectly possible to argue effectively in favour of pacifism or against any military presence in schools (even cadet schemes) without resorting to ungrounded, offensive, sensationalist statements like this one.

"I don't think that you do kill people for fun (although there have undoubtedly been cases of this within the military haven't there?)"

And many civilians convicted of murder too. Not sure why this is relevant. You will be prosecuted whether uniformed or not.

"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"

Yes, it would be good. How would you deal with those who don't buy in to the same theory? A current example would be IS, say when they were capturing cities against the will of most of the residents and imposing their laws and standards?

Dam auto correct