[Closed] PTSD Action Man

Soldiers are not permitted to go on operations until they are 18.
Your age and financial status have zero relevance to what regiment or corps you join (believe me, I'd know).
In short, it's just not true.

At 16 it's not only voluntary but also requires parental consent.

What's wrong with that?

bloody hippies without a clue website. don't care if it's "veterans" for peace.. It's been put together by hippies.

I think you will find there was a few 17 year olds killed during the Falklands War.

cheekyboy.. yes and boy soldiers killed in WW2.. - however current law is no under 18s serve on operational tours.

Jeff

I think you will find there was a few 17 year olds killed during the Falklands War.

At 16 it's not only voluntary but also requires parental consent.

What's wrong with that?

I'm not even going to bother looking at the website, I just find it a bit sickening that people think that its perfectly acceptable for those under the age of 18 to join up.

I'm not even going to bother looking at the website, I just find it a bit sickening that people think that its perfectly acceptable for those under the age of 18 to join up.

Well no offence intended but I find it a bit bizarre that you would wish to restrict a young persons ambitions and justify it with your own sensitivities,

I just find it a bit sickening that people think that its perfectly acceptable for those under the age of 18 to join up.

I was in bosnia at 17 my sgt told the oc i was too young and he said id be old enough by the time i came back 🙂 glad tho as id have been gutted to miss out and wasnt happy with my sgt. I was not too impressed with the further 2 tours i did there tho as it was crap by then

Well no offence intended but I find it a bit bizarre that you would wish to restrict a young persons ambitions

To restrict their ambitions to go and kill people? Doesn't seem bizarre to me

Nice response from the village idiot. People join the forces for lots of reasons. Those that want to join to kill are often rejected during recruitment.

Well no offence intended but I find it a bit bizarre that you would wish to restrict a young persons ambitions and justify it with your own sensitivities,

Not allowed to vote, not allowed to consume alcohol 😉 yet allowed to join the armed forces. And as for ambition, I see nothing wrong with allowing them to train as engineers, medics, or one of the many roles in the armed forces that has a use in the civvy world.

Just leave the pointy shooty bit until they are adults?

Nice response from the village idiot. People join the forces for lots of reasons. Those that want to join to kill are often rejected during recruitment.

All are trained in combat but doesn't mean they have an ambition to go and kill people.

EDIT: They wanted to be social workers they just got bad career advice 😉
Want may be to strong a description what about prepared to then?

Original :Whilst he makes the point crudely the raison d'etre of the army is to kill people. An army that doe snot kill is a bit pointless.
Doctors join to save lives and treat pointless not to
Coppers to arrest people pointless not to
Teachers to educate pointless not to

I realise they spin it as protect and serve but all those weapons kind of give away what they mainly do.

Not meaning that to be a pro or an anti thing it is pretty much what the armed forces do.

But no ambition to go and kill people. I joined up and had no ambitions to kill, learn a trade and see something other than my home town yes. Strangely no one I served with wanted to go kill people either. Maybe Nickjb and his vast experience of the forces knows better or just sweet FA.

learn a trade and see something other than my home town yes.

Nice response from the village idiot. People join the forces for lots of reasons. Those that want to join to kill are often rejected during recruitment.

Post of the day!

🙂

It was the 'often' that worried me most 🙂

the raison d'etre of the Army is not to go Kill at all you fool, It's defense which for most parts of the time is to stand there** looking a bit scary to ward people off. Been there done it.

As for young lads, alot of you kids will get a chance to go through the Army foundation college which will give them a higher level of education, whilst also developing their interpersonal skills, as well as others.

There are some proper idiots in this world with utopian views which are completely incompatible with current life.

edit **thats RAF Reg, others do actual work.

It's defense which for most parts of the time is to stand there looking a bit scary to ward people off.

Would you say an army that had no weapons and will not kill has lost some of its effectiveness?

Its useless. Its ceremonial. Its pointless.

I get the point being made though as I am sure you get mine

Would you say an army that had no weapons and will not kill has lost some of its effectiveness?

. the raison d'etre of the Army is not to go Kill at all you fool, It's defense

So when we were invading iraq & afgan, all the while bombing the shit out of the place and killing loads of brown people, that was defence?

Funny dictionary you own, I think my dictionary would have a different description of the word defend.

Always amazed by the sanctimonious oh-so sensitive types who instantly assume that anyone who joins up is hell bent on killing, grow up ffs, the primary purpose of the Armed Forces is to defend, the fact that politicians tend to use it nowadays to interfere is not because of the ambitions of young people who join, [list]you cannot see that because you choose not to[/list], you`d rather spout cheap student Gwant type comments in the hope of gaining some kind of objectionable (pseudo) intellectual notoriety.

Ah as ever with stw somr splendid bellendery on display

you fool

I hope you did learn a trade, because it didn't teach you to argue without insulting people.

There are some proper idiots in this world with utopian views which are completely incompatible with current life.

The current life where the UK joins in with the USA in illegal wars?

It's defense which for most parts of the time is to stand there looking a bit [s]scary[/s] bored

, you`d rather spout cheap student Gwant type comments in the hope of gaining some kind of objectionable (pseudo) intellectual notoriety.

Being a pacifist or espousing anti-military feeling isn't exactly new or especially intellectual - pseudo or otherwise. It's also not particularly objectionable. It's just an opinion as valid as any other.

Mystic Northwind predicts this thread goes mostly downhill, despite its very low starting point

the raison d'etre of the Army is not to go Kill at all you fool, It's defense

And the last time the British military was used in combat to provide defense was when?

The last time the British military entered combat as the aggressor on behalf of the government was?

because it didn't teach you to argue without insulting people.

+1

A gun is a good way to settle an argument though, wouldn't you think? 🙂

It's just an opinion as valid as any other.

Of course, I agree, in my opinion the objection to any conflict must first be made to those who directed the action, name me a conflict involving UK armed forces in the last 100 years that was initiated by the military, politicians start wars !

politicians start wars

Yep. And they use trained killers to win them.

e a conflict involving UK armed forces in the last 100 years that was initiated by the military, politicians start wars !

I totally agree!

Only obeying orders. Good defense.

Good points in terms of army not being about killing people and there being no such thing as 'poor people' cannon fodder regiments.

What concerns me more now is that what science tells us now that science had not told us in the 40's is that young men's brains are not finished until into their early twenties. by this i mean neurologically speaking the connections that form through adolescence, and this means often very significant differences in risk taking, decision making and emotional regulation compared to men of say 24 and over. (Similar case for ladies but most science types think their brains are finished at a slightly earlier age).
In this light i am not so suprised to reas comments on this thread and in the link that younger soldiers are more likely to be killed in combat compared to similarly trained older colleagues. And in this light I reliase we have an armed forces to run, but do wonder how much better we would run it in terms of casualties and lives lost if we could keep all other things (training, pay, equipment, numbers etc) equal but simply raise the age of joining up, or perhaps more pertiniently the age you are sent out to combat.

Yep. And they use trained killers to win them.

Who else could they use ?

Only obeying orders. Good defense.

Predictable sort of comment.

EDIT: I never knew how well they taught you to side step and ignore the point being made.
Original :

politicians start wars !

there are plenty of operations on going which are defense only, only of other nations which have non-aggression bias. At any one time the British Army has people in advisory roles all over the world advising on defense, so by defacto the last time is now.. its just that you don't get to hear about these things as they're not considered news worthy.

Yep. And they use trained killers to win them.

but it's unhelpful language which suggests that they are a bunch or murderers

If you think it suggests that...

I, however, suggested no such thing.

This would be somewhat hard to do with out people prepared to go and kill at there behest.

Well its the politicians who decide to spend the hard earned tax payers cash in maintaining an armed force, or do you know of a self funded army ready to answer the call ?

self funded army ready to answer the call ?

Don't they do bob-a-job anymore?