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

[isitmyturn]

DS1 had a talk by someone from the Navy today. My gut reation is to be horrified with visions of my PFB going off to war.
I had no idea that "careers" advice started so soon and in this form?
He's just into year 8, very academic but worried that he doesn't know what he wants to do career wise. DH and I have tried to tell him not to worry, just work hard for now and he doesn't need to make a career choice until he's older.

It doesn't matter what I think of the Taliban. I don't like the way they behave, but we weren't that much better not very long ago. There are still a lot of things we do as a society that are pretty shit too.

If we think what they do is so unacceptable, how come we are not offering blanket asylum visas to anyone subjected to sharia law? That I would support.

What horrified me was the 'kill or be killed'. No, it's not as simple as that. If that is our attitude and we are not the 'primitive' ones, how the fuck can we expect them to think that their survival does not depend on them attacking us?

And then we are surprised when they commit acts of terrorism

"Do you think that will always be the way? Are wars, massacres and global conflicts inevitable for ever more? What do you think we would have to do to make this not the case, if there is indeed anything we could do?"

I think so, I'm afraid. With the exception of Iceland, those countries you mention are tiny enclaves within other countries in Europe who are (certainly in Monaco's case) protected by their larger neighbours. Iceland is remote country compared to the rest of Europe and it's location provides a natural defence.

If you look at mainland Europe, there have been major wars in every century (again, I'd be happy to stand corrected if anyone knows different) as nations have jostled for power time and again. The map of Europe has been redrawn many times due to war and conquest.

While it's unlikely that, say, Britain and France will ever fight a war against each other in the forseeable future, it's conceivable to see wars between some of the former Russian states in Eastern Europe. The Middle East is very unstable, we know. The desire of a nation to feel secure when it's in a vulnerable position can lead to conflict with neighbours - this can be seen in the stand-off between Israel and Palestine.

Human nature is bellicose and territorial - two vital ingredients in the making of wars.

"If we think what they do is so unacceptable, how come we are not offering blanket asylum visas to anyone subjected to sharia law? That I would support. "

To put it bluntly, the answer to that is politics. Countries other than Afghanistan have Sharia law (Saudi Arabia, for example). The difference is that, in the eyes of the West, SA is happy to leave other countries alone and does not seek the establishment of Sharia law in countries other than its own. The Taliban and other fundamentalist islamic organisations seek the establishment of Sharia law across the whole of the world. Central to that aim is the idea of war to spread Islamic belief.

Of course, not all Islam is concerned with this ideal and I am not trying to tar eveyone with the same brush, I'm trying to draw a line between those of the Islamic faith who see it as possible to co-exist peacfully with non-Islamic faiths and societies and those who see it as neccessary that everyone become subject to Islamic law.

Like any religion, there is a huge spectrum of beliefs across Islam and the Taliban only represent one position on that spectrum. However, they hold a disproportionate amount of influence on our foreign policy because they choose to project their beliefs outside their own borders - they'r currently involved in conflict in Pakistan and have gained control of a sizeable part of the North of that country.

"What horrified me was the 'kill or be killed'. No, it's not as simple as that. If that is our attitude and we are not the 'primitive' ones, how the fuck can we expect them to think that their survival does not depend on them attacking us? "

Our attitude of "kill or be killed" is a direct response to Taliban attitude of "follow us or die". Their belief is that in attacking us, they do God's work because we are infidels and must die or be conquered - how can we reason with that?

well said jcscot.

IB these are terrorists. And more importantly, these are people who are prepared to die in the name of their cause taking innocent people with them. You can't reason with that. You can't reason with someone who will commit suicide for what they believe in because death holds no fear for them. Therefore the "kill or be killed" comment holds true in their case. If we don't kill them first, they will kill themselves and take us with them. And then what?

But Saudi financially supports the imposition of Sharia law elsewhere!

Isn't Osama bin Laden a Saudi? Where do you think hsi money comes from?

"If we think what they do is so unacceptable, how come we are not offering blanket asylum visas to anyone subjected to sharia law? That I would support."

"To put it bluntly, the answer to that is politics. Countries other than Afghanistan have Sharia law (Saudi Arabia, for example). The difference is that, in the eyes of the West, SA is happy to leave other countries alone and does not seek the establishment of Sharia law in countries other than its own. The Taliban and other fundamentalist islamic organisations seek the establishment of Sharia law across the whole of the world."

I don't understand that as an argument against implementing blanket asylum for those oppressed by Sharia law. Surely if Sharia law is the problem, then it doesn't matter if the people fleeing it are from Afghanistan or SA? If they are being oppressed and their human rights are being denied, why does it matter if the nation they are coming from is concerned with establishing Sharia in other countries or not?

Sorry if this is a stupid question, but what do the terrorists actually want? They never talk about that on the news, except to 'destroy our way of life'. Is that really what they want? If it is, why do they want that so much?

"But Saudi financially supports the imposition of Sharia law elsewhere!"

Yes it does, albeit indirectly. Again it comes down to politics - SA walks a rather tight line between not antagonising its neighbours and fellow Islamic states and supporting the West - another country that does the same would be Jordan.

Other countries have done the same. The USA allowed Noraid to campaign for funds for the IRA on USA soil.

"Isn't Osama bin Laden a Saudi? Where do you think hsi money comes from?"

Yes, he is a Saudi national and he comes from a rather influential and wealthy family who have, IIRC, disowned him.

His organisation is funded - like most terrorist organisations - from a variety of sources, some "legitimate" (for want of a better word) in the form of donations from indivduals and organisations and some criminal in nature (illegal arms training and the opium trade being two examples).

It should be remembered that Al Quaeda is not a single distinct group with set aims, but rather an umbrella organistion that covers all kinds of smaller politcal and terrorist groups with simliar but distinct aims. So, funding for one small pressure group can end up in Al Quaeds coffers without that being the direct intention of the donor.

The money trail for Islamic terrorism is one of the most complex and convoluted forensic accounting investigations we've ever seen.

"Sorry if this is a stupid question, but what do the terrorists actually want?"

It isn't a stupid question at all - it's the fundamental question of why we went to war in the first place. In my understanding, there is a strand of Islamic belief that wants to impose Islam and Sharia law across the world - not by gradual conversion of people who are willing and want to be converted but by force. IIRC they talk of this as the Caliphate - the eventual position where we would all be living in an Islamic state. They can see no reason to negotiate with us, or reason with us because what we want - religious and societal freedom - is diametrically opposed to their desires. They're prepared to kill and die in that aim.

Perhaps I'm being simplistic and I am certain that there are other, more complex reasons as well - governements make these decisions, not individuals after all. I'm not certain that we (as only partially-informed citizens) can ever be 100% sure of what the terrorists want.

"I don't understand that as an argument against implementing blanket asylum for those oppressed by Sharia law. Surely if Sharia law is the problem, then it doesn't matter if the people fleeing it are from Afghanistan or SA? If they are being oppressed and their human rights are being denied, why does it matter if the nation they are coming from is concerned with establishing Sharia in other countries or not?"

I'm not sure I put my point across clearly - I was trying to say that politics decides why we interfere with one country and not another, hence my comparing SA with Afghanistan. Why didn't we intervene in Rwanda and why are we not intervening in Darfur? I don't know.

Asylum and the granting of it is a distinctly separate issue to the foreign policy of deciding where we project our military and diplomatic power.

Asylum has always been granted on an individual basis and I don't understand why granting automatic asylum to someone just because they come from a Sharia state would prevent terrorist attacks in the West.

You have some very sensible posts jcscot.

It seems to have moved a long way from the OP.
I can never understand why people can't use what goes on at school as an interesting discussion with their DCs. There seems to be a tremendous fear that 'other people' will indoctrinate our DCs and that our DCs have to believe what we believe.
It starts at 5yrs with people telling them there is a God, when mummy and daddy have already told them there isn't a God (or vice versa)and moves on through other topics.
I certainly don't think the same as my mother, on a lot of things, and luckily she has never expected me to. I can remember having passionate anti views on the military when I was a teenager and having long arguments with my parents on that and all sorts of subjects-they livened up the meal time and were good hearted.I enjoyed them.

I think that you should bring up your DC to think for themselves. My eldest 2 DSs could see lots of advantages to joining the Forces, but my youngest wouldn't even entertain it for a minute.
I think that there should be much more career advice in school with all sorts of people coming into give talks, including the Forces. My DSs never joined, but I know that there are thriving cadet forces in our town and they, like the Scouts and Guides, do all sort of adventurous, life skill type things that are so good for young people. Lots are active members but don't go onto have a career in the Forces.(Therefore if the object was to recruit early on they were a dismal failure and so I doubt whether an short presentation at school is going to hoards flocking to join!)

I have faith in my DSs, that they think for themselves and are not easily led. I don't have any fear of them listening to other views and I don't believe that they have to agree with my views.

(I think that the Forces can offer a way out for disadvantaged youngsters with dead end jobs and no prospects-they can be the making of them).

Ah, ok. So because they can't convert people to their way of thinking they want to kill them all instead. But they must know that's never going to happen because they're not powerful enough, so what are they actually trying to achieve with terrorist attacks? Do they think that slowly but surely they can kill everyone with this method? Or does it have some other aim, like to terrify us into submission? But they must know that this doesn't work- the more we try and terrify them the more they, understandably, stand up against us.

"I'm not certain that we (as only partially-informed citizens) can ever be 100% sure of what the terrorists want."

Why don't we know? Is it covered up? Or do they not say what they want? If we don't know what they want then how do we know it is definitely unreasonable? If it is so unreasonable then why is it not presented conclusively to us? Or is it, and do I just not understand?

"I was trying to say that politics decides why we interfere with one country and not another"
Yes, I understand now. But is granting asylum interfering?

"Asylum and the granting of it is a distinctly separate issue to the foreign policy of deciding where we project our military and diplomatic power."
This might be a simplistic way of looking at it, but lets say we granted asylum to all the oppressed women that wanted it. Their own country wouldn't last very long with no women in it and nobody to oppress, so surely that would be a more effective way of changing things than using military power which alienates the people we are supposed to be helping? So although they are separate, would the use of asylum not in some way negate the need for military action in this case?

If we can go in with bombs and guns, why can't we go in with money and education (or whatever tools they need) to help the oppressed people stand up for themselves? Is that very simplistic?

I do think that if we accept that war is inevitable, then it will be. And if we accept that it is inevitable, then what is the point of trying to stop something that is inevitable?

Totally agree with jscot here. My dh has had a rewarding and exciting career in the RN; he has gained Chartered Engineer status; got his MA; played with some very big and expensive pieces of kit, and has a host of skills that will be readily transferable when he leaves the Navy in 4 years. I should point out that he is leaving as that is the age his rank dictates he retires, not because he wants to.

My Dad joined at 15 as a junior rating back in the 50s and rose to the rank of Lt -Cdr; impressive for someone with 4 O -levels and no social skills. My dh's godfather joined as a boy sailor at 12, and left as an Admiral with massive responsibilities. My fil was in too, and my db is also in. All have enjoyed/ are thoroughly enjoying their careers and receive unsurpassed training and opportunities.

Nobody joins the Forces because they want to kill people for God's sake, although they understand they may have to; or indeed die themselves. They join because the Forces provides them with camaraderie; an esprit de corps; working in tight cohesive units as close knit teams. Expeds and sports are all on tap, as is a full social life. The Forces work hard and play hard. In dh's case he got to work with and design important and technologically advanced kit for his specialisation.

As for the RN doing a presentation in schools to year 8s - so what? We also had prison officers in from HMP Dartmoor to describe a day in the life of a prisoner. Far more frightening I thought than a careers talk. You may also like to consider that Forces families have their own kids, mine is a 13yo boy. He has no intention of joining the RN, and will make his career choice based on the presentations and advice given at school, without undue influence, pressure or knee jerk reactions from me on what would have been an entirely professional and age appropriate presentation.

I have seen as many have said on here, the difference that being in the Forces can make to disaffected young men; many of whom I have taught. I have seen their sense of achievement, pride and purpose and I think it's great.

Yes, some of the RN are out in Afghanistan doing logisitics, medical jobs, intelligence roles, engineering etc, and obviously, those who go and fight on the front line are the Marines (who are RN). However, the RN also do great work in disaster relief, hydrography, inderdicting drug runners, patrols of the West Indies, Antarctic surveys, anti piracy ops off Somalia, patrolling the Persian Gulf, patrols on HM Submarines, search and rescue, they work in NATO and the EU, as do the Army and RAF.

There are all sorts of trades and qualifications - weapon and marine engineering; logistics; pilots (planes and helicopters); navigation; warfare officers; catering; intelligence...the list is wide.

As to the point about child soldiers - they do not fight until they are 18. Compare the UK with the child soldiers in Somalia and Sierra Leone for example - drugged 12 yos armed with machetes, and not much caring who gets in their way, and then criticise.

Last point: the world strikes me as more unstable now than it was during the Cold War. Russia is flexing her muscles again, and if Putin doesn't end up President for life within the next five years, I shall be very surprised. Russia is engaging in a shipbuilding programme (incl submarines) and rearmament. The writing is on the wall there for those who care to look. Russia has already annexed South Ossetia earlier this year, and I know from contacts that the Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians are afraid the same thing will happen to them. These countries are NATO and EU members; if one is attacked we are all attacked, and will have to respond in kind. That is why we need strong, professional and prepared Armed Forces.

The UK Armed Forces have the reputation of being not the biggest, but the best. That is why so many other nations send their officer cadre to our training establishments like BRNC Dartmouth and RMAC Sandhurst; to RNEC Manadon (before it became a housing estate), and to the Defence Academy at Shrivenham to learn from us. If we do not project that we can defend ourselves then we are in for trouble. If we let our guard down we are screwed. To enable the UK to be protected we need the Armed Forces. Simples.

Great post -scaryteacher.

"So because they can't convert people to their way of thinking they want to kill them all instead. But they must know that's never going to happen because they're not powerful enough, so what are they actually trying to achieve with terrorist attacks? Do they think that slowly but surely they can kill everyone with this method? Or does it have some other aim, like to terrify us into submission? But they must know that this doesn't work- the more we try and terrify them the more they, understandably, stand up against us."

I honestly don't know - I think they see the acts of terrorism as punishment for our decadent ways and they see us as a threat to their plans for domintaion - even if those plans have little likelihood of succeeding. You're right that the more the act against us, the more we are likely to stand up to them - as they do to us. I'm not sure there is an easy answer.

"Why don't we know? Is it covered up? Or do they not say what they want? If we don't know what they want then how do we know it is definitely unreasonable? If it is so unreasonable then why is it not presented conclusively to us? Or is it, and do I just not understand?"

I think it's a mix of things. Firstly, their aims are wholly unreasonable. When a terrorist is on a video saying that we will pay for what we have done and that as infidels we must die until Allah is supreme etc etc etc, it's hard to find a coherent policy in that statement! Equally, there are other factors at play - other governments involved indirectly with these terrorist groups so there are considerations that those in government might be privy to that we simply don't know about. I'm not sure I understand the terrorist reasoning either - the idea that eveyone should live the way I do, simply because I say it should be so seems incredibly irrational to me.

"This might be a simplistic way of looking at it, but lets say we granted asylum to all the oppressed women that wanted it. Their own country wouldn't last very long with no women in it and nobody to oppress, so surely that would be a more effective way of changing things than using military power which alienates the people we are supposed to be helping? So although they are separate, would the use of asylum not in some way negate the need for military action in this case?"

I think that is a bit simplistic, yes, even if it seems sensible to you and I. I suppose it wouldn't work because not every woman would claim asylum, because we, as a country, simply can't afford that level of financial committment to help people settle in here and become valued citizens. Granting a sylum is a good thing but is it useful to woman who can't leave her home without her husband's permission, far less leave the country? It's a good idea, but a reductive one.

"If we can go in with bombs and guns, why can't we go in with money and education (or whatever tools they need) to help the oppressed people stand up for themselves? Is that very simplistic?"

That isn't a simplistic argument at all and it's one that goes hand in hand with the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Alongside the actual battles, there are soldiers who are building schools and hospitals, providing medical care, protecting power supplies and generally trying to make the day to day life of civilians better. They're training the Afghan army, so that, ultimately, the Afghan people will be responsible for policing their own country. Working alongside them are a number of aid agencies, charities and governments. So far, so good.

Unfortunately, the Taliban in Afghanistan bow up the schools and disrupt and attack the aid convoys and have tried to blow up dams and power stations - they don't want the ordinary people to be grateful to troops from other countries. Basically, for the money and education to work, we need the guns and bombs alongside them. Sometimes it is possible to give aid to a country without it being tied up to military power, but it's not always possible and it isn't posssible in the case of Afghanistan.

As for your point about inevitability - I don't know. I think we have to accept that the existence and maintainance of a standing Army, Navy and Air Force is an inevitable part of our country's foreign, defence and internal policy. However, I don't think that the use of those Forces is always inevitable - we as a country have a choice in whom we vote for and what their foreign policy aims are. I think it's disgraceful that the government can go to war (as it did in Iraq) without a vote in Parliament and I think that ought to change. I think that war as an abstract concept is an inevitable part of our lives but I think that some wars are avoidable and some are not.

I must apologise to the OP for the turn this thread has taken - far from your original question, I'm sure!

I don't think that it is unreasonable to be worried about the possibility of your child joining up, but I think that a presentation from the Armed Forces in a school is still a valuable thing. After all, look how far this debate has ranged and wouldn't it be wonderful if all our children were exposed to such debate?

I am supportive of the Forces as a career and I make no apolgy for that - it has been an excellent career for my husband and has provided a great life for us. I am very supportive of that Armed Forces role in public life.

However, I would never stifle debate or take refuge behind blind patriotism - democracy is all about the informed and responsible use of power by both the elected and the voter and debate is an important part of that process.

'If we can go in with bombs and guns, why can't we go in with money and education (or whatever tools they need) to help the oppressed people stand up for themselves? Is that very simplistic?'

Very simplistic. Yes, send teachers like me to Afghanistan and see how long we last. The Taliban would not accept female teachers for a start. They would not accept what we would want to teach, (a modern curriculum) and they would not accept the education of girls full stop. Those who wanted to be taught would be dissuaded, subtly or not, from attending. We will be there years militarily. We would need a century to educate them.

The terrorists hold life cheap and the suicide bombers see themselves as martyrs, assured of their place in paradise. They do not wish to make their demands explicit, as they have none; just a desire to wipe out the unbelievers. How do we, in the 21st Century engage in debate with those stuck in a 14th century mindset? We can't.

Given the rise of the sharia courts in the UK, and the fact that their judgments can be enforced by the County Courts and Crown Courts in the UK, I think it's out of the frying pan and into the fire, especially with the increase of honour killings in the UK, for women who would flee sharia. Personally, I would like Sharia courts if they have to be here, to be like the Jewish Beth Din and deal only with food laws and religious divorces. All criminal and civil matters should be left to the British justice system.

It is far too simplistic to suggest that we give asylum to any woman who lives in a country that practices sharia law. It would also be completely unworkable.

For one, how many women are there in all the sharia law-practicing countries across the world? Even if we wanted to, britain simply does not have the capasity to accommodate all of them - or even a signifficant number of them.

Secondly, there is no blanket policy of giving asylum to anyone at the moment - every case is judged on its merrits, so to offer a blanket asylum policy purely to the women of certain countries would open the whole system up to abuse. After all, not all women living in muslim countries are oppressed, or even consider themselves to be oppressed But with a blanket asylum policy any woman wanting to come and live here could simply state that she was being oppressed under sharia law and she would be granted asylum here.

Thirdly, on the whole it is not up to us to decide how other countries should be run, unless the running of that country impacts on us directly. If we do not approve of the way a country is run we may choose to try to pressure that country into changing, but it is not ultimately down to us to decide which country's policies are right and wrong. For instance, when apartheid was still lawful in South Africa many countries imposed sanctions in order to try to get them to change their laws. But to invade the country and overthrow the government would simply not have been an option. But in the case of Afghanistan, they A believe that sharia law should be imposed across the world, and B, are responsible for the recruitment and training of many of the terrorists responsible for perpitrating acts of terrorism across the west, and it is therefore appropriate that we go in and attempt to bring about a change, as the regime currently in power is a direct threat to our own country.

HB although the terrorists obviously must realize that they cannot kill all the non believers, they continue to try because they see themselves as tools for the cause. And because these terrorists are suicide bombers, they die for the cause they believe in and thus (so they believe) secure their own place in paradise, because they have rid the world of some non-believers. That sounds a bit simplistic but that's how I've heard it said before..

How did this turn into a debate about the military

If the armed forces are recruiting 13 year olds, this is not a good thing. If was more of a chat about what they do on a day to day basis, then think this is absolutely fine, along the same lines that students should have wide exposure to a range of professions.

Of course they are not recruiting 13 year olds fgs; what would they do with them?

It will have been a presentation about what the RN does and the variety of trades/specialisations available therein. Much the same as the Police and the Fire service would do.

God I wish people would read a thread properly!

I think that OP thinks her DS is too young to make any career choice-it just happened to be the navy -but she probably wouldn't have liked the local bank either.
I think that schools fall down badly on career advice, the choice these days is so vast that DCs don't know that some jobs exist-they only see the obvious ones like, teacher, doctor, fireman etc.
I think that schools should get lots of people in, to give talks-from all walks of life. They are never too young-reception children can have talks from 'people who help us'.

Absolutely Pisces.

hf -- isn't it acceptable to respond to the OP, or am I supposed to read the whole thread?

I think Hf's point was that the answer to your question about how this turned into a debate about the military would be answered if you read the thread.

Did we get an answer re was this part of a series of talks on career options or was it the school letting the navy in because they had asked?

That would make all teh difference to me

My objection would not be to career talks in general. I would object to the Services having privileged access to a school - whatever age the students were. And I would object very strongly to any glamorized description of the Services as a sort of glorified youth club with excellent training facilities.

Why? Part of the remit of the RN presentation team is to raise the profile of the RN, and to explain what they do to the community.

They don't want 13 yo boys honest. Dh has trouble enough with ds as it is...let alone loads of them. There's not a need for powder monkeys or cabin boys any more; and the Midshipmen are 18 when they join. 13yo boys need not apply.