Heartland

Should the Army be allowed to make School visits?

Yes, fight for your country and be proud

I'm with the "f**k no" camp on this one.

They not only make school visits, over here, but some formerly-"regular" high schools are now doing double-duty as mini military academies, as well. There's one right across the street from me, as a matter of fact. I think it's appalling.

boudicca wrote:I'm with the "f**k no" camp on this one.

Why B?

scotty wrote:Should the Army be allowed to make School visits?

And there was me thinking that the government were introducing a scheme to soften up school children to become cannon fodder for future *cough* Wars

Wars - in this case being the unlawful invasion's of other countrys for material gain

Or is that what is the question is about

Andy TG wrote:
Or is that what is the question is about

Nope.

What then?

I do feel it glamourises the experience, Libs. I don't see how it can be any other way - if the army are going to recruit they want to make a sales pitch, it would be hard for them not to play down the more grim aspects of the job.
There are enough men who come back from conflict psychologically damaged to suggest that a lot of them really don't go in with their eyes wide open

We had a cadet force in our school -- I wasn't in it, but plenty of my friends were.

My £0.02:
Soldiering is a job I know I couldn't do (being shot at by people would terrify me) but I have a great deal of respect for those that do.

On the other hand, on some level, they are just hired killers...

True, so maybe they should only be allowed in on career convention events or something, though for some people it can really be worthwhile joining (I am thinking of someone in particular that I know).

My 18 Year Old Nephew is waiting to be accepted in the army here in the UK. I suggested the navy or air force instead. Why? - Much less likely to be shot at or blown up etc.

For some, the lucky ones who don't get injured or traumatized by war, I have no doubt it can be a "character-building" experience - sure, a lot of young men could do with the discipline it instills in them. But I don't like the way they play to the adventurous spirit that guys (and girls) of that age have. It's not all a big gap year...

Why the f**k not, I say.

weebleswobble wrote:Why the f**k not, I say.

I agree

I was an Army Cadet for two years through my College. I was also offered a bursary for an engineering degree by the Royal Navy in exchange for a four-year tour as a Lieutenant (WEO), which I came within a gnat's wing of accepting.

I was old enough to understand the dangers, and the Cadet Corps instilled a deep understanding in me as well. I'd accept an Army recruitment program through schools, with the proviso that it was offered to Sixth-Formers - High School graduates I believe are the US equivalent - who are legally allowed to make their own decisions. boudicca makes a good point about the horrors of War, but imagine arguing someone out of the profession of Paramedic - which is probably just as mentally demanding, if not more so. I suspect it comes down more to your own personal opinion of War.

From what I've heard, the US Army and Marine Corps offer a High School AND College scholarship program, don't they sinsister?

If soldiers were given the counselling they need by the government after returning from battle with PTSD;
if the soldiers' job was to defend this country and not to be disrespectfully used as political tools in a fight for oil;
if soldiers were given the proper equipment they need to stay alive, rather than being left without due to cost-cutting;
if a quarter of ex-soldiers didn't end up homeless because of lack of government help in returning to civilian life...

if all of the above, then yes. But while these problems remain I don't think it's right to entice children into joining up.

@ Tim: I really don't know what they offer. Sorry I can't be of more help.

I blame it on the lack of teaching classics in schools. If children still learned Latin then they would understand Dulce et decorum est, pro patria mori (lit. it is right and fitting to die for your country).

I'm with the school of thought that says that the army should be allowed to present their case at a careers fair along with any other local company that is looking to recruit. It is a job, and in an ideal situation it is a career. While it's not something that I would ever want to do, I have a great deal of respect for the professional soldiers I know.

The problem comes when kids are encouraged to join, seduced by the kinds of adverts that they used to have in England, showing squaddies ski-ing in Germany, parasailing in Belize, all that mullarkey. Oddly it never showed anyone with their guts blown all over the street, or xrays of what happens to your legs when someone detonates an IED under your armoured vehicle in Belfast.

The problem is that while the professionals generally have a very clear idea of what they're getting into (often they're from miltary families, so there's no question of them not having the information), it's the amateurs who join up because it's better than what they have now, or because they think that they'll get money for college or job training. If you look at a lot of the kids being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, they're predominantly from small towns where there's not a whole lot on offer for a high-school graduate who can't afford college. They're being shipped out to a warzone with no real idea of what's going to happen to them, no preparation, and Abu Ghraib and such things are the natural result of their reaction to their environment.

Let the army recruit in competition with other companies, sure - but make them show both sides of the coin. "We're going to feed you, clothe you, house you, train you, and pay you. In return you will do exactly what we tell you when we tell you to do it, which may involve going to a place you couldn't find on a map and can't pronounce in order to support your government's foreign policy objectives. If you think that at some point you might disagree with these objectives, then you should think very carefully about whether you want to join up. Here are some of the people of your age from this school who joined in the last 5 years - look, this one is now making $30,000 a year as a master-sargeant, and this one recently became a platoon leader. But these two guys - you might remember them, they captained the football and lacrosse teams. Well, they were in Basra last month and...well, put it this way, after the ambush we couldn't find enough of either of them to fill a ziploc baggie. Now make your decision whether soldiering is for you."

They're looking for gullible fodder - it should not be allowed.
Generally, I would like to see the recruiting age raised to at least 25, especially in armies such as of the UK or USA where impressionable teenagers who often are children still are sent to die for someone else's profit after having been brainwashed by ruthless bastards.

If we glance over in America's section...oh the horror! *glances back*
If we glance over here in the Netherlands and surrounding countries like Belgium etc and see that the kids of today are carrying weapons in schools, some guns but manly knives where there have been deaths to religious views or irritations, I would say any army in a school for protection of the children within as the teachers etc. should be okay if called for.

Don't start putting armies in schools where there is nothing wrong.

In general I hate weapons as they kill and in the real world this is a fact of life but if there were no weapons it gets more savage in killing each other.

It's all the governments fault in most countries as politicians are like boys with toys who like to throw bombs now ain't it?

Hmmmm - I can understand why armies have to exist but for myself I'm a pacifist/anarchist/objector type, so the idea isn't too appealing to me.

Andy TG wrote: I suggested the navy or air force instead. Why? - Much less likely to be shot at or blown up etc.

Remember HMS Antilope?
There is no safe place in combat.
Actually, back in WW II the battlefields were safer for the individual soldier than flying in a bomber.
Nowadays, armies are a reality, and unfortunately necessity. As my father was member of the German air force (post war, of course) and nearly made it to the pilot's seat of fighter jets I was pretty keen on getting an army career myself in my early teens. Just for the splendour and thrill that seemed to offer. It's that picture the "headhunters" (for the lack of a better name for their work) sell to the kids. It's plainly wrong. Do they tell the kids "Yupp, well, the bullets that may hit you are real, and they don't just kill, they occasionally just remove your limbs and leave you as a cripple."?-They don't.
That's why they shouldn't.
The serious decision to choose that a military career should be made conciously and objectively. There are enough objectively correct reasons for a person to make it, and that decision should not get watered. Knowing what I know now, I guess I myself would have been rather wise to apply with the Bundeswehr. For very different reasons I had back then.

SINsister wrote:@ Tim: I really don't know what they offer. Sorry I can't be of more help.

Not a problem, just curious.

I know a lot of people argue about the politics in modern conflict. Afraid it will only get worse, as we begin to squabble over resources more and more...
But what is an Army if it is not a tool of foreign policy? Would you rather it was an ad-hoc police force? Indeed, why not the outcry about people joining the police? With the rise of domestic terrorism, the danger to the Thin Blue Line is going to end up equaling that of a contemporary modern battlefield! Not to mention the 'standard' risks of stabbings, shootings, assault, undercover-work-gone-wrong...

Again, I think people are projecting their personal dislikes onto a career in the Armed Forces. Whilst I agree that from your P.O.V., risking your life on a sand dune in Nowherestan might not seem worth the effort, from a tactical and strategic objective, your Unit is making a hell of a difference. This is the kind of thinking the Forces attempt to communicate to recruits.

Please note, my opinions do not apply to any particular conflicts, real, simulated, or bugfuck insane.

timsinister wrote:
From what I've heard, the US Army and Marine Corps offer a High School AND College scholarship program, don't they sinsister?

High school is paid for by the government here, but they do offer a number of college scholarship programs (this probably goes for the Navy and Air Force as well).

edit: It might be worth adding that time spent in a modern military will provide an enormous amount of technical education, if one is so inclined--engineering, computer science, trigonometry, etc. People don't necessarily realize it, but to serve in a modern military, such as that in the US or UK, requires quite a bit of brainpower. Simply put, everything is enormously hi-tech today, even the instruments being used in day-to-day foot patrol combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

EvilBastard wrote:I blame it on the lack of teaching classics in schools. If children still learned Latin then they would understand Dulce et decorum est, pro patria mori (lit. it is right and fitting to die for your country).

Ain't that the truth. I've been drafted into a committee to try and establish a classic liberal arts core at one of the colleges I teach at, but I suspect nothing will come of it. How do you convince accountants that life is enriched by reading Plutarch?