UKC

In reply to Tony the Blade:

Funny looking at that...i stood there about 10 years ago and still reckoned I could do it, then, took my lad last year and didn't like the look of it at all, thats being 47 for sure.

My mates lad completed his training last year, when he went up to norway he told me he went around in a hovercraft....piece of cake...it was all head down and arse up in my day!

In reply to abr1966:

Do they still do it now?

In reply to teflonpete: Aye, on the ML course..

In reply to teflonpete:

I believe it's voluntary now. But there is an expectation you'll do it if going for ML.

It's also called the leap of faith.

In reply to Tony the Blade:

You're thinking of Demo Route, Sennen

In reply to kevp:

Quite possibly

*Not done it

In reply to Stanners: Try and live a bit before making that decision.

In reply to Stanners:

Ever considered joining these guys?

http://www.legion-recrute.com/en/

They tend to get sent into the thick of any action that's going on and at the very least you'll become fluent in French and good at singing.

In reply to Stanners:

I saw the RMC training at Sennen a few years ago. Their racks were impressively tidy, they always had to have two front and two back anchors arranged for the belayer and they climbed in big boots mods, diffs and up to HS. After climbing, they ran with full bergens along the beach through the water, attracting quite a crowd.

I spoke to their sargeant about their training. It went something like this... climbing in cornwall followed by climbing/mountaineering in north wales and Scotland followed by a long spell in Norway - dig your own hole and live in for a week.

Depends what you're looking to get out of joining the forces, but seems like an opportunity too good to miss from a climbers perspective! You sound pretty switched on, so I would echo the advice already given about getting some A levels at least under your belt. If you choose to go to university, there's always the possibility of sponsorship and joining the OTC while there.

In reply to Feeling bold:

Used to teach adventure training at Sennen each year and it always coincided with the first week of the ML climbing phase.

If you fancy getting absolutely fragged in all your kit, running back and forwards along the beach, push ups in the sea, doing demo route in Lowa 4 season boots then come back at night to do it all again because you couldn't climb chair ladder, then apply when you have been in a while! You also get to go to Rjukan to do the ice phase which is less abusive.

Out of the 5 instructors there, the OC, the Aussie and green beret exchange NCOs had all done Everest and 2 of them had done a couple more 8000ers. They were fanatical about climbing.

Work hard, play hard.

In reply to Stanners:

(Disclaimer: I'm an Army type myself).

Bear in mind that if you're attracted to the Marine side of things, but still fancy the Army, that 1 RIFLES are joined to 3 Commando Brigade, and as such you'd have to do the All Arms Commando Course. Army Infantry + Commando badged if the green beret tickles your fancy...

In reply to Stanners: i was in the RAF Regt

if i was back at the AFCO i would go army

feel free to email for info on my experiances

In reply to Stanners:
Whatever you choose, I don't think you can be sent to on combat ops until you're 18 - someone else may confirm this or otherwise.
Get as much educational quals as you can before joining (see previous sentence)and as much trade skills as you can while in. The forces ask a lot from you, make sure you get something back which is of use when you leave. At 16 I thought I was joining the RN for life, I left just over 6 years later but with a trade to take into civvy street.
Good luck.

In reply to drmarten: I will second that, get a trade, civvy street looks kindly on ex forces and you get skills while you are in that you will not get anywhere else. 6 years in the RN, good and bad times but ultimately I would reccomend the forces to anyone. Choose well and aim high is my advice.

In reply to Stanners:


I was in the Royal Engineers for a while, and spent some time building rural flying sites for Harriers and encountered the RAF Regiment there. They had the 'aggressive patrolling bit', mostly trundling around the local area in a CVRT chasing shadows but, if you cut to the chase, they were on guard duty getting bored out of their skulls. I've yet to come across anyone who raves about guard duty as a career choice.

In reply to Stanners:
Thanks again everyone for your advice/comments. Very helpful. I have another careers meeting with the army and royal navy tomorrow.

In reply to drmarten:

Correct.

In reply to Stanners:

Have a serious think about weather you actually want to kill people.

The whole point of soldiers is that they kill when they are told to, without thinking. Is that what you want to do?

Remember that the UK has sent it's troops into unethical, unjust and illegal wars, and that you will be ordered to fight in these.

Also remember that the people who make money out of war are not the ones who fight in them. You are killing people and risking death for a very low salary, while rich assh*les in London and Washington are making fortunes selling absurdly expensive defence equipment, and lobbying their respective governments to start more wars.

In reply to John1923:


Interesting... I suggest you go and talk to some soldiers about this.

In reply to James Jackson:

I have, one officer friend of mine gave me a reasoned argument which I disagree with.

However there is an implied threat in your statement

In reply to John1923:

I think you'll find it's a little more complicated than that, and you're doing a considerable number of men and women a huge disservice.

Putting to one side the many roles the UK armed forces have fulfilled that are beyond doubt legal - and like it or not - the members of supposedly civilised societies need people to carry out uncivilised tasks on their behalf.

In reply to John1923:

Is there bollocks - it's a suggestion that the most enlightening way to find out about the army's attitude can sometimes be to speak to some people who are in the army. If they talk endlessly about ragheads (and some do) then your assertion is supported. If they talk about the use of appropriate force and the difficulty of making the correct choice under pressure then there's probably more to it than killing people unthinkingly, no?

In reply to DNS:

I am not arguing that no country should have an army. I am arguing that like the Israeli army, soldiers should be able to disobey orders if they are not ok with what they are doing ethically.

In the British army failure to follow orders used to carry the death penalty (in the first world war) I am not sure what the punishment is now, but you don't have a choice, you kill when you are told.

In reply to psd: The vast majority of my military experience was being put slap bang in the middle of 2 sets of people who wanted to kill eachother and then being a target for both!

In reply to psd:
If they talk about the use of appropriate force and the difficulty of making the correct choice under pressure then there's probably more to it than killing people unthinkingly, no?

What would you do if you had a mortar, and were ordered to fire on position xxx ?

Debate about proportionate response?

In reply to John1923:
>, soldiers should be able to disobey orders if they are not ok with what they are doing ethically.

In reply to abr1966:

That's how the Israeli army works, and no-one would argue that they can't defend their boarders.

In reply to John1923:

Are you sure about this? It seems comical to me too, and I don't understand how an efficient fighting force can possibly work on such a basis. You can't make snap decisions based on committee decisions.

The Left wing Republicans tried to run their army on this basis in Spain and that's one of the reasons why Franco's Nationalists won the civil war.

In reply to Trangia:

By the time of Barborasa the Red Army had learnt this lesson and disobedience was punishable by death. The Russians executed more of their own soldiers than any other army in WW2, but they still won.

In reply to Stanners:

Have you considered the salvation army,they see lots of active service in my local pubs,with War Cry etc.

In reply to Stanners:

The army are best at what they do.

The RAF Regiment are best at what they do.

What they do is different. The RAF Regiment was created because the army were cr4p at the job. That has resulted in a corps that stands head and shoulders above any remotely equivalent corps in the world.


'Per Ardua'

In reply to Trangia:

A friend who was in the Israeli army described it to me like this.

One of the amplifiers of the Holocaust was that the German solders who disagreed with what they were doing would be court martialed if they refused to round up and execute Jews. When these soldiers were later tried, they relied on the "Nuremberg Defence" of I was following orders, this defence was rejected so that individual perpetrators of the holocaust could be prosecuted.

When the Israeli state formed an army, they couldn't simultaneously reject the Nuremberg Defence, while not allowing their own solders to disobey orders if they disagreed with them.

So if you are an Israeli soldier, and you disagree with what you have been told to do. Then you are removed from front-line duty, and later face a civilian court case, where you justify your actions. People regularly do this, and the court often agrees that their actions were correct, and the former solider goes free.

In reply to Denni:

Just can't imaging doing any HS let alone Demo route in big boots and only scrambled in the dark. Still, I impressed one of the guys when I removed his wedged nut!!

In reply to Jim Fraser:


Except when modern helicopters are used for both moving troops around and close ground attack, quite reasonably the American marine corps controls the soldiers, the ground attack helicopters and the transport helicopters.

In England, the army and RAF fight over helicopters, and have absurd communications difficulties, and refuse to buy vastly superior american helicopters as they fall right on the dividing line between army and RAF control (Or so I am told)

In reply to John1923:

1)Errrrr not everyone in the IDF is in a combat unit. 2)The sharp(er) end of the spear are professionals not concripts.

D

In reply to John1923: you have no idea what you are talking about, none at all.

In reply to John1923: Lay off the bubbles man

In reply to John1923:



Who told you they fall right on the dividing line of control?
Do you know what the current helicopter inventory and roles are for all three services?
They don't fight over helicopters at all, the problem is we don't and will never have enough for any conflict.

In reply to John1923:

Thats the most brain dead post I've seen recently. Do you really think you could take people from any walk of life and turn them into unthinking killing machines?

Defence equipment is a huge and important industry for the UK but it's just as stupid to think wars are being fought to promote the industry.

In reply to Stanners:

Before you go for a combat role, I recommend you find out a bit more about what it is like. Ask yourself: do I really want to choose to go there?
The mass media often make a big thing about the danger our armed forces put themselves is - you might get shot or blown up, you might see your mate get killed or maimed. What is very rarely discussed are the effects of being asked to kill people. This is a big taboo subject. I have spoken to middle-aged men who are still haunted by the violence they carried out twenty or thirty years ago.

Not everyone suffers from these sorts of traumas, just as not everyone gets physically injured in service. But it is worth bearing in mind when you make an informed decision.

If you want to find out more, I recommend the works of Dave Grossman (himself ex-military), for example http://www.amazon.co.uk/Killing-Psychological-Cost-Learning-Society/dp/0316...

In reply to almost sane:
btw, if I wanted to go for an infantry role, and if I had the strength and ability, I would go for the Marines. A greater variety of roles are open to you, if you make the grade.

Eric Newby writes of applying for the Special Boat Squadron during the second world war. The notice on the CO's door read: "If you think you are tough, then get out of here. I need buggers with brains."

Of course they were tough soldiers, but being tough was not enough.

It is worth reading his book "Love and War in the Appennines." I remember his story of an SBS patrol meeting a German patrol at night. Both heavily armed groups looked at each other; paused; and both groups slowly backed away.

In reply to almost sane:

I'll have to take a look at that book, sounds good.

In reply to dan:

http://www.sirnosir.com/

Have a watch of the trailer and decide if you want to go through what they have been through.

In reply to Stanners:

take a gap year and travel before you do anything.

drop by south east asia, the sub-continent, turkey and eastern europe, which isnt hard with flights these days.

different parts of the military go to different places for different reasons.
a bit of travel will always stand you in good steed with such things, and maybe set you apart for some opporunities.

In reply to John1923:
>

I don't think that is unique to the Israeli Army. I think you will find the same applies to British and other military in most civilised countries. The only difference being that they would probably be called before a Court Martial rather than a civillian court to justify the alleged "disbediance". It's a basic principle that no one can be ordered to carry out an act that violates International Law Eg Execution of civilians or POWs.

Where the waters become muddied is where so called collateral casualties occur amongst civilians near a legitimate military target, but then I believe the onus is on the Commanders and their planners to reduce the risk of this occuring. I suspect a pilot tasked with bombing a Taliban postion would be within his/her rights if he/she called the strike off on seeing civilians near the target.

In reply to Trangia:

>I suspect a pilot tasked with bombing a Taliban postion would be within his/her rights if he/she called the strike off on seeing civilians near the target.

Certainly where Afghanistan is concerned, if there are clearly civilians kicking around who are likely to be hurt in the process, it'll be 'you feet, my in-tray' if he/she does drop the bombs.

In reply to Stanners:

Mate, i'm in the RAF Regt, and have served for nearly 13 years, and have nothing but good things to say about my career to date.

There's alot of comments offering arguments both for and against joining the Armed Forces. My biggest advice is not to persuade you to join 1 particular Corps or Force, but to have a look at all the options available to you, and then you can make an informed decision!

There is a Facebook site for the RAF Regiment, with dedicated people to answer any questions that you have, and they can also steer you in the right direction with any queries.

If you have any questions about the RAF Regt, then feel free to ask.

In reply to Denni:

The navy have choppers for radar, because they only had piddly little aircraft carriers that couldn't launch AWACs. Now they've got no aircraft carriers and no chance against a first class opponent. The money that could have gone on proper carriers went on dozens of frigates because the absurd number of naval captains requires a large surface fleet regardless of the ability of those frigates to fight a war. They do have some more sensible helicopters for anti-sub warfare and ferrying small crews about - the reason they have these is neither the army nor air force are involved.

The army have small helicopter gunships to attack people with but these are worse at the job than a jet aircraft. They are, however, under the control of the army and are therefore useful. The other choppers they run are useful for medivac and small insertions, but not bigger stuff. In any case the money has largely gone on tanks, that offer lovely big targets to a proper opponent and absolutely bugger all use in the sort of wars we're currently fighting. The fear in the army is that if they show the aerial route is more sensible, the RAF will take over the helo role.

The bigger, useful, choppers are run by the RAF, who refuse to view themselves as a taxi service and would rather spend the cash on air-to-air fighters that are only now being retro-fitted with ground-attack capabilities (after realising that if they don't, the army might well get some more cash to buy something useful, or more big guns and tanks).

So in short, the reason we have a pisspoor supply of helos is because the navy is too busy buying floating targets (you can put the best radar you want in a frigate, but the world is still round); the army is scared that if they have a useful number they'll be taken away by the flyboys; and the RAF are too busy jerking off to Top Gun to concentrate on useful stuff and condescend to ferry the poor bloody infantry about.

In reply to psd: The RAF Helo situation should be slightly alleviated once the new Chinooks are delivered, and the Puma fleet is upgraded with new engines to give them the required power to operate in Afghanistan.

The Helicopter crews in Afghan earn their money. They are effectively flying bullet magnets, day-in, day-out.

Army, I wish id never left.

In reply to Stanners:

Hi Stanners...there has been a lot written already some good, some bad and some total bullshit. I'm sure you can work out which is which.

I'm Ex-RAF Regt and I would say to you the following based on my own personal experiences.

If I had my chance to do it again I'd probably go for PARA's but that's my personal opinion. If you want to be the best then you have to join the Marines or the PARA's.

There isn't anything wrong with the rest of the infantry though, at the moment you'll get pretty much the same experience in the field with any of the Army Inf regiments. Look to see what you local Regiments have done recently and see which ones are due to deploy onto meaty Ops soon (just after you'd be passing out).

I can honestly say some of the best and the worst soldiers that I've worked with have been RAF Regt, but you get that anywhere (even SF - honest!).

Yes there has been some valid points raised about the RAF Regt, and there is no denying that the RAF Regt is a defensive force so that means there will be less opportunities for mixing it on the front line, but its horses for courses.

You definitely get treated better...like an adult...and you train to the same standard as everyone else. You'll get more opportunities for different (and probably better) postings with the RAF Regt. Some infantry soldiers stay on the same section/platoon their whole career (relative to length of time served), whereas Gunners are posted every 18 to 36 months. I found this gave me great opportunities to gain vastly different types of experience and keep things new and interesting. Example within 5 years you would probably have 2-3 postings, do 3+ tours, could have done a CPS (command post signallers course), became a paratrooper, served as the queens guard and passed a sniper course. This is entirely feasible, my point being the diversity of the role.

I would recommend that whatever you do, specialise in something (sniper/mortars/SF/CPS - try to do more than one if you can, become the master of one, not a jack of all trades though!) as you will become a more rounded soldier and there should be better chance for progression.

Lastly there are two types of soldiers, career soldiers or otherwise. Make sure you do more than three (min 5+ really), but if you don't want to stay in for the long haul have a good exit strategy. You do not want to be a 30something ex-squaddie struggling for a job.

Apologies for the essay, hope it helps.

In reply to jonnylowes:

'bout sums it up perfectly.

In reply to John1923:


Not at all, and I really don't know how you came to that conclusion.

My point is that soldiers are not unthinking killing machines. Illegal orders can (and should) be disobeyed; the political side of things (you mention illegal and unjust wars - a bit subjective and disputable) is out of our control. Soldiers have to be apolitical, not amoral.

In reply to jonnylowes:
Good post and all very true. I was always amazed by how many good courses the RAF Reg guys were able to get on. They definately get treated very well as well. The Marines sat somewhere in the middle whereas my Para mates rarely got on any decent courses and rarely got any free time.

Plenty of good points here, you just need to get as much exposure to the different services and roles as you can blag. Two things I would say;

1: Applications are slow and tedious. Be prepared to stick it out. (Waiting times for some of the popular Navy jobs can be up to 18 months +).

2: There's always the TA (or equivalent). You could always join a local unit and train with them while you do 6th form. TA Inf or RMR would give you some idea what to expect. Not a bad earner either...

In reply to jonnylowes:
thanks, helps a lot.

In reply to Denni:


You must be a very contended man

In reply to Stanners:

Did you know that the Army do 'Look at Life' courses; a couple of days visit to a regiment for those considering joining. Your AFCO will be able to sort one of these out if you wanted.

In reply to Stanners: I've served under a couple of different cap badges and my advice if I was advising my son, would be to go in the Army and get a good trade in the REME or Royal Signals. This way you can have the best of both worlds and move on to Airborne, Commando, or UKSF if that floats your boat. You also might decide in your basic training that you don't enjoy soldiering, but at least being in a Corps you wont do much Soldiering anyway unless you choose to move on, and you still have a trade to fall back on. IMO the RAF Regt is hampered by being part of the RAF.

In reply to Stanners:

Always worth getting a girlfriend from a country we've once bombed or obliterated (Germany, Japan, Vietnam, Korea were all options for me, with no shortage of beautiful women). Then consider if you could you kill either them, or your offspring.

That sorted out my lust for front line service.

In reply to David Martin:

The people who were trying to kill me 25 years ago were easily accessible by ferry and I would happily have returned the favour if they had stood still long enough. There was no lust involved.

The suggestion to get a girlfriend cannot be faulted though.

In reply to DNS:

Rob,
Have sent you a long, rambling hopefully understandable email!
Den

In reply to drunken monkey:





Good point. Did workshop training with them in mesolithic times. They are brilliant.

First in, last out.

In reply to drunken monkey:

and they have both 9 Para Sqn and 59 Commando units

In reply to Jim Fraser: Sorry Jim

In reply to Removed User: Yeah, forgot about that. Apologies. Top lads the RE guys. As for the RLC...........well.....

In reply to drunken monkey:
Top lads the RE guys. As for the RLC...........well.....

That'll be the unit that Olaf Schmid served in?
And your point is?
Before my son joins up I'd like him to have as much info about the places and positions that he's likely to end up in.
While I can't claim to have served in Afghanistan I don't fancy my child stomping around until he's blown up - what do they call those(exceedingly brave) guys - searchers or some such?
Front line service sounds glamorous at 16 but I fear the reality is far different - however I guess we all feel invunerable at that age.
One point to bear in mind is that if you score too highly on the entrance tests you'll be steered away from the infantry into a support role - I wonder why that is?

pmc

In reply to Stanners: You could always join up as an RAF Armourer they are know to be amongst the toughest combat troops in the world!!!

In reply to Stanners:

You have to remember, though, that the toughest course in the army is is the cook's course for the catering corps......


...'cos no f**ker has ever passed it

In reply to stumc: that was me..we were well hard

In reply to Stanners:

My brother is a veteran. He doesn't think highly of it... along with the majority of his fellow officers. Many of them, including my brother, have PTSD. My brother is a cripple, he has lost his left leg below the knee to a 51mm mortar round. He has phantom leg syndrome and will have phantom pain for the rest of his life.

I also have a mate who is in the Royal Marines, he assures me that their guys are the 'smartest' & most professional of the forces. Physically & mentally, he's tough as nails. But I can tell you what he has admitted to me about Afghanistan & Iraq; as an officer he knows his men pretty well, him and the men try pretty hard not think too much about the justifications of the wars they're fighting or the loss of civilian life because it can affect them to a degree where they become ineffective soldiers, ie bad at killing and following orders. This is an indisputable hard fact about humans - they can't kill people without being mentally affected by it, and the fairness of the fight has a LOT to do with it, unless psychopathic unemotional tendencies are present within a person in the first place. What he likes is the hardware, the team comraderie, and the adrenaline, and he is trained to focus on those positive aspects, and he does his utmost to concentrate on those rather than looking at the 'bigger picture' as he calls it. He's "just a soldier, not a politician".

I know 3 other people who joined the armed forces because they weren't good at doing anything else. Ended up being 'grunts', spurred on by family and friends because they kept getting into trouble and failing college etc. I know that a support or officer role is more 'interesting', however the armed forces are not overflowing with sharp minds.... I'm sorry, knowing that some people will predictably take offence, but this fact unfortunately I didn't have to make up.

Every country needs to be able to defend itself, but all we're seeing is the British armed forces being used to wage wars of aggression which if you ignore the barefaced lies, are completely & utterly unjustifiable by ethical, moral, legal, and humanist standards. Then there's the upcoming war of aggression with Iran...

Why people want to make a career out if this, I really can't understand. I've spoken to new recruits and some existing armed forces people, and I'm truly astonished at the lack of awareness of geopolitical issues, and even simple things like PTSD and the bullying that goes on. I've been threatened with violence on a few occasions for simply bringing this up!! They don't want to hear about it, and violently reject the reality of it. This has motivated me to learn more about the human psyche and I've come to understand a bit more. From my experience, recruits buy into an idealised romantic & macho image of the armed soldier, and really desire this, risk is part of it, but they won't know the extent of it until later. Bloody testosterone!

You can seek strength, power, teamwork, comraderie, visiting new places, technical skills, etc etc, in other lines of work... except for the skill of murdering people for the state without legal consequences.

Ask yourself WHY you'd do it & learn more about humanity, geopolitics, and history before taking up arms. War is not romantic.

In reply to baron: Yes Olaf Schmid was in the RLC. Your point being?

The army needs tradesmen as well as grunts. It would be madness for them not to steer someone academically gifted towards a technical job.

In reply to Stanners: raf regiment, you cant fly a spitfire in the army!!

In reply to higher.alpine: To be fair though, your post is slanted to Iraq and Afghanistan. These will be things of the past for UK's Armed Forces in the not too distant future. There are plenty of operations we have been involved in that could not be more different, take the Balkans for over 15 years, or Sierra Leone. We will always be deployed somewhere on operations, we will not always be warfighting, and non-warfighting operations are less murky in terms of legality and justice. Someone who joins in a couple of years from now will not go to war in Afghanistan or Iraq.

In reply to Tony the Blade:

9. Learn how to surrender. Argentines, Iranian Navy, whatever.

In reply to higher.alpine: Excellent post; sorry about your brother.

In reply to baron:

Part of a heritage going all the way back to James Langley Dalton.

In reply to drunken monkey: You made a reference to the RE being good and followed it up with what I took to be a denegration of the RLC - maybe I was mistaken but I don't think so.
My point was that some of the finest soldiers I know served in the RCT, RAOC, etc and some had transferred from infantry regiments having served in conflicts around the world.
You took a cheap shot I replied.

pmc

In reply to nickinscottishmountains:

I'm stumped by your obtuse comment that Iraq & Afghanistan will be 'things of the past'. That is incredibly & utterly insulting, firstly to the people of those countries who have been treated like cannon fodder, their countries totally destroyed, and their future repeatedly meddled with by Britain and other military powers, and secondly to the British people who have been sold these wars with utterly fabricated lies & propaganda and who are still under the effect of careful perception management.

With these wars of aggression having been fought using troops from UK/NATO/US, the very fact that given the large numbers troops involved, tens of thousands of conscientious objectors are not crawling out of the militaries quicker than they could even be court-martialled for decades to come is a chilling sign of the empty self-obsessed neoliberal society that the West has become. People seek contentment in their life and their jobs (eg, being a soldier), comfort, security, and wealth, but don't recognise & enforce the right to the same things for people in faraway lands. And please don't mention that the wars were fought for Iraqi people etc... protecting civilians has *never* been a war aim in these theaters. And even if you believe these wars were good for Iraqi/Libyan/Afghan people, the very fact that the outcome of these conflicts hasn't provided any of these life values in any solid way should wake them up.

If they don't fight in Afghanistan/Iraq anymore, they'll probably get to fight in Iran, where they will no doubt get sucked into a long & drawn out land based conflict despite the propaganda re-assuring surgical strikes, another country will be destroyed, millions displaced and tens of thousands of completely innocent people will die. And the country will be bombed until it can't repair itself again.

What's more, given Britain's imperialist past, in a world where rationality should be enforced through thoughtful morality, it has no right to play world police when it's historical conduct through this day has been majorly destructive to many foreign nations. After all, a handful of positive outcomes doesn't make numerous destructive military endeavours a reason to hold the armed forces & their actions in any sort of esteem. Yes they are well trained & organised, but that is beside the point.

In reply to Stanners:

I have no idea whether the RAF regiment is superior to Army or Marines. I know some very nice marines, however.

But I do think that a 16 year old wanting to get into combat is a dubious proposition (apologies Stanners - I don't know you and I'm perhaps making too big a leap here) that it might be good to consider long and hard before encouraging. OK - I know that princes went into battle in the past at 13 but at this moment in time I would seriously question a 16 yr old who wants 'to see combat'.

I'm reminded of 'Alice's Restaurant' where Arlo Guthrie - to convince the army psychiatrist that he is mentally unfit to join the army says (and I misquote from memory):

'Shrink. I wanna kill. I mean...I wanna kill. I wanna see dead burned babies. I wanna. Kill'.

I think he gets passed as fit for service?

In reply to nickinscottishmountains:






Northern Ireland already seems forgotten,and I think most forget how bad NI was in the 70s and 80s. I had 5 stints over there in a 9 year period and was glad to see the back of it.

In reply to higher.alpine: Mate, I'm stumped at how badly you've misunderstood me.

I meant that one day, the Army won't be there. Fact. Just because I stated it as a fact, it does not mean I view it as void of meaning, or that I am in anyway callously ignoring everything you mention. I meant it in no way to suggest that we walk away, it's history, forget it, let's pretend we didn't do a lot of harm there, let's pretend the lies didn't happen, let's pretend the UK's armed forces weren't duped by the politicians etc etc. People who join at that time - once, thank f%^&, we have left those places - could be anywhere with the UK's forces, and that with a track record of interventionist ops like Sierra Leone and Balkans, they could easily find themselves in peacekeeping roles.

All I meant was that at some time, the British Army will be fully out of Iraq and Afghanistan; when that is the case, we should not assume our soldiers will be deployed to kill. They may well be deployed to protect - like in places like the Balkans.

In reply to jonnylowes: What did you end up doing when you came out?

In reply to Ian Black: I was based in Bessbrook Mill and being in bandit wasn't exactly my idea of seeing the world, none the less, i would not swap my experience of serving in the armed forces at all.

It made me who I am today!

In reply to stumc: Are you taking the piss.

In reply to Stanners:



Forget the infantry "per se", I served as an airbourne gunner, doing my initial basic training at the then 17th Training regt RA based in Woolwich, after failing my driver training (apparently). I decided to go airbourne it was the best decision of my life as a serving soldier I worked alongside many soldiers from different walks of life.

One of the best was experiences serving in Canada whilst carrying out my Canadian jumps course with multi national troops mainly serving within UK/Nato/US forces. A great experience however on the other side of the coin the training you did was the eventual purpose of defending ones country and of course you do that without question or so I thought.

Whilst the first Gulf War was a shocking experience to a young 19 year old lad (myself). There was one particular soldier who didn't wholly agree with it, which had an effect on some of us asking the question why was the person doing this.

He had trained with us for such an event and when you go into theatre of war nothing is worse than that of a soldiers moral being betrayed by another soldier and of course the British press using it as proganda.

A few of the many men and women I served alongside went through difficult times, some of course went through the later described Gulf War syndrome. It can be a harrowing experience but you can also learn as I have that it just the way it is.

Go for it if you want to but remember this friends you have now from school will go friends you make in the forces, will guard your life with theirs and there is no greater sacrifice than that.

In reply to andyathome: Andy, the guy wants to join the military in a combat roll, he would not see active service until he is 18, yes that might still be strikingly young but there is a big difference.

In comparison, you are after all, just talking about a 18min monologue.

In reply to halo:

Concisely; a degree in Construction Management, worked for a couple of Main Contractors and now have my own Freelance Construction Management Consultancy.

In reply to jonnylowes: Great news Jonny unfortunately some become homeless myself included. However I got the hell out of London swallowed my pride eventually then began teaching outdoors. Haven't looked backed since.

In reply to higher.alpine:

I have every respect for your brother as I know first hand how those exact injuries effect every aspect of our loved ones lives.

You have passed comment on more than one issue that I have absolute disdain for. Some of your choice words:

the British armed forces being used to wage wars of aggression which if you ignore the barefaced lies, are completely & utterly unjustifiable by ethical, moral, legal, and humanist standards. Then there's the upcoming war of aggression with Iran...
I've spoken to new recruits and some existing armed forces people, and I'm truly astonished at the lack of awareness of geopolitical issues, and even simple things like PTSD and the bullying that goes on.
You can seek strength, power, teamwork, comraderie, visiting new places, technical skills, etc etc, in other lines of work... except for the skill of murdering people for the state without legal consequences.
With these wars of aggression having been fought using troops from UK/NATO/US, the very fact that given the large numbers troops involved, tens of thousands of conscientious objectors are not crawling out of the militaries quicker than they could even be court-martialled for decades to come is a chilling sign of the empty self-obsessed neoliberal society that the West has become.
And please don't mention that the wars were fought for Iraqi people etc... protecting civilians has *never* been a war aim in these theaters. And even if you believe these wars were good for Iraqi/Libyan/Afghan people, the very fact that the outcome of these conflicts hasn't provided any of these life values in any solid way should wake them up.
If they don't fight in Afghanistan/Iraq anymore, they'll probably get to fight in Iran, where they will no doubt get sucked into a long & drawn out land based conflict despite the propaganda re-assuring surgical strikes, another country will be destroyed, millions displaced and tens of thousands of completely innocent people will die. And the country will be bombed until it can't repair itself again.
What's more, given Britain's imperialist past, in a world where rationality should be enforced through thoughtful morality, it has no right to play world police when it's historical conduct through this day has been majorly destructive to many foreign nations. After all, a handful of positive outcomes doesn't make numerous destructive military endeavours a reason to hold the armed forces & their actions in any sort of esteem. Yes they are well trained & organised, but that is beside the point.


>
>

I could not disagree with everything you have said there more whole heartedly. I am mortified that a fellow countryman could talk so negatively, incorrectly and abhorrently about UK policies and our Armed Forces.

What's more how you relive your 'officers friend's' career is shameful.

Lastly you air of superiority is completely ungrounded, you wouldn't last past week six of basic soldier training.

I would suggest your most positive contribution would be to focus these energies with your family. They are after all who need you most.

In reply to halo: yhm

In reply to halo: Is your username a reflection on your previous occupation?

In reply to halo:






If I had my time again I would do exactly the same. I spent lots of time in XMG and have bad memories of trying to get my head down in bessbrook but the noise from all the air traffic was horrendous...Agree about making you who you are today. Thats why at 51 I'm still setting endurance goals.

In reply to jonnylowes:
Jonny, Not sure how you can have 'disdain' for 'issues'. Is that what you meant to say? You sure you didn't meant to say you feel disdain for 'rockstoned's comments on those issues?

You may feel mortified about the attitudes expressed with regard to the way that the UK armed forces are currently being used. Afraid you're going to have to live with it as they are widely shared by many 'fellow countrymen'. I'm also ashamed of what is being done 'in my name'; whilst I have much sympathy with friends who are engaged in theatre I, and many of they, recognise that the war they are waging is pointless and illegitimate.

And can we just sack the non-argument that 'you can't comment 'cos you wouldn't get through basic training'. A - you don't know. B - An ability to complete basic training gives no assurance about intelligence C - If you have a strong, informed opinion on these issues you're pretty damn unlikely to present for basic training anyway.

In reply to jonnylowes:

Your little tirade is typical of a large part of any countries indoctrinated population. If you thought for yourself and got rid of your dangerous sense of national hubris you would come to the same realisations that I and many more like me have come to. It's irrational and just plain delusional to feel pride in serving in a war of AGGRESSION waged just for the access to natural resources, geopolitical manipulation and the financial benefit of private corporations, with the deaths of hunderds of thousands of completely innocent people completely ignored & marginalised, "we don't do bodycounts". There's nothing more immoral, wake up people!! I'm not alone in expressing this - anyone who is serious about educating themselves and is honest converges on the same truth. How can being in a force that takes part in unjust aggression become a source of pride? If you want to continue your mindset, you are delusional.

Additionally, I have my intellect, an open mind, a willingness to expand my understanding of the world, and most importantly my ability to have empathy for all peoples, NOT just people who are on my bloody 'team'. So screw your basic training!! Shooting weapons, doing pressups and drills does not make you a flippin man, your humanity does. Grow up!

And what andyathome said.

This reply is to most of you, with a few exceptions.

The character of a person who says something has no bearing on how correct what they say is. It doesn't matter if rockstoned couldn't pass week six of basic training, has an air of superiority, or looks down on soldiers. (I would say a lot of civvies look down on soldiers)

The only thing that matters in a debate between intelligent people is how correct the facts, and analysis are. So, I am willing to concede my points about the Israeli army, and helicopters. However I would ask a simple question.

Morally, why is it ok to kill people, when you don't know why you are doing it?

On a side note, I suspect that rockstoned has a lot of guts, as telling a solider that you disagree with everything he stands for is not easy.

In reply to Submit to Gravity:






7 RHA low level dangler

In reply to higher.alpine: Understandably, you're obviously emotionally involved by what has happened to your brother. I don't think you will find many that have been in a conflict to have a gung ho, if it moves shoot it attitude. War is indeed a very messy business both physically and psychologically and my personal experiences are the ones that glorify it are the ones that have only ever read about it and have no first hand experiences. Soldiers will always be pawns in the political game and many young soldiers have no concept of 'why'. Nevertheless when in the heat of battle you fight for your oppos and your family and certainly none of this 'queen and country' bollocks.

In reply to Ian Black: Fantastic post.

In reply to nomadman:

Why a 'fantastic post'?

Ian Black is merely stating the obviously human. Sorry but he doesn't have a leg to stand on... much like my brother. I mean, to feel "emotional" about death, and especially that of hapless innocent people whose lives are ended or made harder, en mass, and under very unfair circumstances, is a normal reaction, at least by anyone with a working sense of empathy and unmarginalised morality. I'm pretty conscious that what I'm saying on this subject is articulated, I'm not just spewing emotions at random, thank you Ian Black. Anyway...

In reply to Ian Black:

"I don't think you will find many that have been in a conflict to have a gung ho, if it moves shoot it attitude. "
Ok, why then do people associated with the armed forces always jump in to give advice to others without referring back to the true nature of todays wars? Are they sleeping? That to me is "gung ho".

And, if:

"War is indeed a very messy business both physically and psychologically <snip>"

and:

"Soldiers will always be pawns in the political game and many young soldiers have no concept of 'why'."

...then why don't more people having experience/understood the nature of wars of aggression give advice to *prevent* others from joining the armed forces, when their sense of morality should help enlighten them to the fact that they have no business being involved in a "messy business" which involves state sanctioned murder? (even if it's not on purpose and collateral damage). In the West, the death of a person under questionable circumstances is a serious affair which takes up front pages and public attention, yet deaths totalling six figures+ in Iraq doesn't move you to wake up? As a person not directly involved in the war, it should be alarming and inspire you to put personal energy into societal/gov'tal change. As a soldier involved in the theater that has so much human cost, it should be utterly DEVASTATING and make you change your priorities. Think about it...

If "soldiers will always be pawns", and you armed forces people somehow accept that, then you don't fully realise that it doesn't rationally add up... I can't say to you much more apart from, your sense of rationality, morality, humanity, and culture is skewed and marginalised.

As you were.

In reply to andyathome:


While I'm not in soldier basic training, I think this comment is very questionable. All my peers and I certainly have very strong, informed opinions on these issues, and we're all there.

In reply to James Jackson:

But,

informed opinions + understanding these opinions + your humanity = leaving the forces

So... what gives? Explain to me why people like yourself get on with it, when your very presence in the forces plays a role in, even if small, the recent foreign interventions since Afghanistan, all of them being fought for the wrong reasons and sold to the public and you soldiers with utter barefaced lies? Saddam had no WMDs, now millions of Iraqis are dead or displaced. The Taliban were not a threat to anyone, that 'intervention' leaves another wartorn country and a devastated population. Pakistan & Yemen are sovereign countries and they too get attacked and their population murdered remotely. And Ghaddafi... let's not get into that. Which other sovereign country is next? Iran, of course. You guys will help destroy another land and kill more people. And for what? I'm not going to get into that one again. While thousands of troops have died in these conflicts having joined up of their own will, I still feel sorry for them & their families, because most of them jumped into these conflicts with the ignorance that world unconsciousness brings.

In reply to higher.alpine:

informed opinions + understanding these opinions + your humanity = leaving the forces

I agree. If we were facing an invading army, then I would sign up without hesitation. However British soldiers are being asked to fight completely unjust wars, and you should all just stop killing people because you have been told to.

You are not victims of foreign policy, you are it's instruments.

In reply to John1923:

I think you and rockstoned are viewing this in some idealised yet ill informed way and certinly with arrogance and assumption about what other peoles thoughts and judgements are.

I'll use myself as an example. I served my time and am not in the military now, however, when I was the vast majority of my time was in peacekeeping and protecting civilians from violence being committed by people who didn't give a toss about civilians. Part of this also included protection of people not from war but from some of the mosy inhumane acts you could ever believe. I was there to prevent/protect and occasionally try and bring these people to justice. I did so by putting my neck on the line.....which is no easy thing to do.

So, hearing your arrogant opinion isn't comfortable for me (I do actually agree with some of he things you say). I'm really proud of some of the things i've been involved in and more so to have been with people doing the same as others in my troop but also brave civilians and charity workers etc.

What i did was as part of UK forces....it wasn't being gung ho, it was about using presence and force to contain and curtail violence.

Your assumption that anybody not thinking like yourselves is somehow irrational or ill considered is arrogant.

In reply to abr1966:

Seems like you are perceiving the world viewed through your personal microscope of experience. If it was otherwise then you wouldn't come out with your kneejerk and pretty standard response from a soldier/ex-soldier. You don't have a leg to stand on either in defence of having military power which is being used as tool in f*cking over half a dozen countries, and all sold through lies. You are deceived, and the propaganda and targeted perception management *does* work, like it has on yourself.

Learn to think past yourself. You are isolating your own micro experience and projecting it onto something much bigger that you might be better off trying to understand. Your pride in your conduct is an isolated & individualistic emotion, I'm talking about the fate of other nations here and the problems the wars of aggression have made for millions of people, and you're talking about your sense of personal pride, which is insignificantly paled by it. This is *exactly* what this neoliberal individualistic culture does to people. See past yourself.

There's no substance to what you have posted, there's no intellectual/moral argument or articulated dispute. It's always the same from guys like you "we did good, held back the bad evil terrorist guys" "we are proud" "arrogant people don't understand" etc etc ad nauseum. Get real.

In reply to abr1966: Want to add that without a well conceived ideology *none* of the freedoms you enjoy today would have been possible. If it's ideological to want a fairer world and more conscious citizens, than I am so. Again, to have a stab at someone with ideals you are hinting at what is rife among our culture, not having enough ideals and selling out to your own personal contentment. Whatever.

In reply to Stanners: Per Ardua

In reply to John1923:


Poetic.

In reply to higher.alpine:

That is exactly why I prefaced my comment as an example...you clearly did not understand this.
If it was otherwise then you wouldn't come out with your kneejerk and pretty standard response from a soldier/ex-soldier.

A fine example of your arrogance, my response is not 'kneejerk' or whatever you constitute as a 'standard' response, it is considered based upon real experience of the matters at hand....something I suspect you have little experience of.

You are deceived, and the propaganda and targeted perception management *does* work, like it has on yourself.

Further arrogance, your assumptions are incorrect, however I'm clear that you believe you are absolutely right so do not like to tolerate that you do not know my motivation or volition.

And your assumption that I do not understand is based on what...explicitly?


Pure rhetoric. No intellectual/moral arguement? My post gave example and reality about what actually has happened...maybe you could read something about what happened in the Balkans and the role of UK troops there.


As I stated in my previous post there are some features of what you say that I don't actually disagree with, such as the current war in Afghanistan. However, some other threads on this forum relating to Afghanistan detail the complexity of the situation from an experience based perspective, I haven't read anything on here from yourself suggesting you understand this complexity.

Can I ask you....do you believe as a country we actually need an armed service, and if yes, which of the operations it has been involved with post 1945 do you believe to be 'morally or intellectually' appropriate?












It's always the same from guys like you "we did good, held back the bad evil terrorist guys" "we are proud" "arrogant people don't understand" etc etc ad nauseum. Get real.

In reply to higher.alpine:

Wanker!

I'll leave it to the intellectuals to explain why, I really cannot be arsed.


*willing to be banned for this childish and simplistic response as an obvious intelligent post

In reply to andyathome:

Thanks for attempting to correct my grammar, obviously you feel the need to give yourself a superior arc to gain intellectual high ground before you deliver your pre-packaged Starbucks peace loving zealous sermon.

What I said was:
You have passed comment on more than one issue that I have absolute disdain for.

Meaning our friend's comments on several issues that I have absolute disdain for.

dis·dain/dis&#712;d&#257;n/
Verb:
Consider to be unworthy of one's consideration.
Noun:
The feeling that someone or something is unworthy of one's consideration or respect; contempt.
Synonyms:
verb. despise - scorn - contemn - slight - misprize - disregard
noun. contempt - scorn - disregard

I accept that many people feel the way you do, but I do think you are completely ignorant of the strategic, operational and geo-political situation. Can you explain to me how they are pointless and illegitimate?

Why are we there, for oil and to kill babies right?

A- I am in a better position to comment than you.
B- Not relevant, didn't argue that that was the case.
C- Kinda answers A anyway doesn't it.

In reply to higher.alpine:

Your boring, ill informed tree hugging hairy legged lesbianism is suffocating. I for one do think for myself, but let me drink from your cup of wisdom; please enlighten me to your high state of concious great one.

In my last post I highlighted some of this knowledge, handed down from yourself. What total trash. Where are the facts?

Everything I have posted has been based on my personal experiences.

Let me put this to you. You have a neighbour that is raped, beaten and robbed. You are in a position to help, so what do you do?

Based on your comments I will assume you will do nothing, but criticise the police and social services for their lack of understanding and brutality.

Natural resources, weapons of mass destruction, multi-national corporations who make millions or billions of dollars through war. It's all bull-shit.

When I turned up into theatre I saw poverty, crime and deprivation. I saw the left-overs of a brutal regime that killed University lectures, students and doctors. I met the relatives of tortured, raped and murdered 'free thinkers' or political activists. I met the parents of an army general who was shot on the lawn of his family home, his family were charged for the rounds used to execute him.

In that environment my friend, we wouldn't be having this little debate.

Our policy may have been lacking in the intervening period between invasion and hand-over, but you nor I will be the judge of this. The history books will be. Democracy or otherwise.

By the way, when I saw that, that's when I grew up.

In reply to higher.alpine:
>
>You are deceived, and the propaganda and targeted perception management *does* work, like it has on yourself.
>
>This is *exactly* what this neoliberal individualistic culture does to people. See past yourself.
>
>Get real.

I'd just like to interject at this point with three words. Kettle. Pot. Black?

In reply to higher.alpine:

So this ideology thing you speak of, which of the regimes in any of your other posts would this be possible?
Hussein?
Taliban?
Gaddafi?

In reply to higher.alpine:

Just for absolute clarity, which bit was that? I think I missed it.

In reply to Stanners:

Firstly, are you prepared to die or get very seriously wounded? If not, don't join a front-line regiment.

Are you happy with the ethics (or otherwise) of what our forces are currently doing? If not, don't join at all.

How long do you plan on joining up for? Long enough to see you to a pension? If not make sure you get a trade / qualifications that will be useful in civy street. In fact do that anyway, what you plan and what actually happens can be two completely different things.

If you are thinking of making a career out of it, are you happy to live the peripatetic life that's involved, which makes family life far harder than for us civilian types?

Remember there is a significant percentage of ex-servicemen who are on the streets for various reasons, from all ranks. Partly it's that life inside the forces is very different to life outside and service men and women can become institutionalised, partly it's lack of useful skills on leaving, for some it can be PTSD and of course there are many other reasons.

In reply to higher.alpine:


Well, clearly not. The forces have many intelligent, well informed, humble people, and they're not all leaving. Something must give...


Because your view is not necessarily shared or correct. You have a particular subjective outlook on recent events, and that would result in you not joining up. I however have a different subjective view, which is radically different to yours.


It must be 'Let's insult a soldier day.'; I don't think your postings could get any more condescending. Very, very few are ignorant of world events and politics.

In reply to Stanners:
I am a 70 year old ex serviceman who served in the navy and after reading all that has been said on this sight,I feel sorry for Stanner. Most of you have not offered the young man any useful directions in what he is requesting. You have gone at each other's beliefs like going to war. Stop & think for one minute why you can do this today so freely. nIt is because 70 years ago a generation of people world wide went to war to tyranny in Europe from spreading & won the freedom you have today. These same arguments were carried out in the thirties & we almost lost our freedoms. The young man asked for some insight to different options, so give it to him & leave your retoric for another day.

In reply to Tony the Blade:

Now that is poetic

In reply to Ridge:

Sorry, I just get bored of people pumping out ill conceived drivel. If I'm in the pub and comments like that come out, I'll call them a wanker, so I just thought I'd do the same on here.

*and I was a bit pissed

In reply to jonnylowes:


I would argue that violence is acceptable your example. However your example is very different to being a soldier. In your example, your friend was wronged, and you CHOSE to use violence to protect them.

When you are a solider you don't make the decision. (This has been confirmed by other people's posts above.) Instead soldiers kill because they are told, without really knowing why. You don't know what is going through the politician's minds when they send you to war. Instead you trust that they have made a good decision, and that they know what they are doing.

I think it is phenomenally naive to trust politicians to make sensible decisions, and then say that you are willing to kill and die, REGARDLESS of what you personally think about their decisions.

You are ultimately responsible for your actions, not your commanding officer. Interestingly in the case of Lynndie England, she followed her orders exactly, however in 2005 the full scale of the abuse at Guantanamo wasn't known and the judge didn't believe that she would be ordered to do such things, so she was sentenced for 4-6 years.

In reply to Stanners:

Howdy mate,

My 2 pence worth.

I've not read all the above so may be repeating.

I'm Army and been in Afghan for 3 years now.

RAF Reg. As I think has been said they are mainly used for airfield defense.In and around Bastion etc They also provide force protection on MERT (causuality evac helos). There are also a few other roles they are used for that I won't go into, some units form part of the special forces support group.

Being RAF they are very well supported and seem to be better looked after than army and royal marine units. Stand by for a fair ammount of slagging though as they are fairly universaly disliked, probably because they are well looked after, any fool can rough it though!

Army. If you are desperate to join a frontline infantry unit then go for it, however if its just the frontline bit you are after then I would think seriously about The Royal Engineers, REME, Royal Signals, even a Royal Logistics Corps driver, some of these lads are out as much as the infantry get a trade out of it. If you're that keen most of these have airbourne units.

Royal Marines. Most of they're units have just finished Herrick 14, they are good lads, nails! I've worked with them on three tours and loved it. Its a hard life though, they are Navy and don't seem to be as well looked as the other two services. Outside of the obvious deployment at the moment they do get some pretty good gigs hunting drug runners in the Carribean and pirates of the east coast of Africa. The lads i've spoke to love these postings.

If you really want infantry go for it, however I would advise anybody to go in and get a trade.

In reply to John1923:


I was likening it to British foreign policy, rather than being a soldier. The point being, if terrible human rights atrocities were happening in another country (Iraq, Afghan, Libya) then why as a Nation should we bury our heads in the sand and ignore these. Is it not the right thing to do to intervene in some way for the good of innocent civilians?

As a soldier however, I rationalised my role there as a small piece in a large machine. I could only do the job I was meant to be doing, patrolling, stagging on etc etc. The role of the Allied military was to create conditions where there could be democratic elections, peace and stability.

With such a wide fudal, tribal, religious and social differences between different groups and factions it was blindingly obvious (in hindsight) that there would be different agendas driven to the fore by the most powerful individuals. In the case of Iraq, the power vacuum that ensued ruthlessness was the order of the day. In Afghan, most of the country (Helmand being the most notable exception) was relatively peaceful, it was brining the South West under control where we met with the main resistance. We will wait and see what has been learned in Libya.

I am interested still in how you refer to these interventions are seen as illegitimate?
Please refer to UN Security Council Resolutions 1373, 1377, 1386, 1390, 1401, 1409, 1441, 1456, 1500, 1566 and 1920

Well thats clear then- sheff utd are pigs and the owls rock

the royal marines are a bunch of hat pussies and the paras kick their ass

ok not that complex eh?

In reply to Removed User: paaaaaaarp!

In reply to Removed User:





Lets not mention going belly up to a bunch of Iranian Sailors...Nuff said

In reply to Nellie: Lets not forget the RAF Regt along with 1 para and the RM make up the SFSG. I don't see any vacancies there for Chippie outfits...

In reply to Ian Black: Sshhh!
Don't mention the iPod...

In reply to Ridge:





The cockleshell heroes would have been turning in their graves...

In reply to Removed User: Anyway where has SUSAT gone? Has he reinvented himself under a native American name

youtube.com/watch?v=rb4aRv16R-E&

In reply to Submit to Gravity: It's actually a nickname I picked up off a particualr game, I couldn't leave alone for over 17hrs 22mins 35 secs. ;-p

I still play it now with my younger brother!

In reply to Ian Black:

Naaaa. wasn't he a hat?

In reply to Stanners: im an army sniper and have completed several tours of afghanistan inc Sangin 2009/2010. join the RAF mate, trust me.

In reply to Removed User:




Or a Bootie

In reply to Ian Black:

I'm just mortified that you thought I was him.

Mad as a box of spanners

In reply to Removed User: Aye he did find anything non Airborne to be a tad distasteful

In reply to jonnylowes:

That was a very reasoned argument, however the problem with liberal intervention is that we don't actually help. We can demonstrate this robustly for Iraq.

In Iraq there were 600,000 people (2.5% of the population) who died, that would not have died under Saddam. This was worked out by comparing pre-invasion death rates with post invasion death rates, and published in one of the UK's most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals.

http://web.mit.edu/CIS/pdf/Human_Cost_of_War.pdf

Therefore our Iraqi invasion killed about 600,000 people by 2006.

This kind of death rate occurs after every intervention. We bombed Libya to protect Benghazi from a massacre, but the war to overthrow Gaddafi has been a massacare (I can find numbers ranging 10,000 to 50,000 but there is no accurate figure). Also according to Amnesty international the new goverment already has a poor human rights record.

amnesty.org/en/for-media/press-releases/new-libya-%E2%80%99stained%E2%80%99-detainee-abuse-2011-10-13

To summarise, our interventions kill more people than they protect.

As for the legality of the war, none of the resolutions give a mandate for regime change, they say vague things about using force to check Saddam's weapons stockpiles. Although Legally dubious may be more accurate than Illegal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War


The other issue is one of human rights abuses,

You argue that we go to war to prevent human rights abuses. Iraqi forces are still torturing Iraqis http://www.scribd.com/doc/49939420/Amnesty-Int-Torture-in-Iraq

So we failed to stop the human rights abuses.



Our interventions make things worse, so we should stop intervening.

In reply to Ian Black:

Nah it's all arms now as long as you've also done p coy or the aacc. Then of course you have to pass the sfsg selection, which is presumably nails.

In reply to Removed User:



Bring back GT's and the rat pit!

In reply to John1923:

That's a sweeping generalisation based on a selective look at the recent (and emotive) interventions, don't you think? What happened in Bosnia? Kosovo? Sierra Leone? etc...

In reply to Denni:







It was definitely full of sophisticated cliental that were tolerant to all...

In reply to Ian Black:

Perhaps we should canvass their opinion on this thread

In reply to Removed User:






I would think most could engage in debate with some of the Fluffies without causing offence

In reply to Ian Black:


5's wine bar (a candidate for breach of the trades descriptions act if ever there was one) might have had a few more sensitive souls

In reply to Removed User:

Was in the Traf the other day, not like years ago...

In reply to Denni:

Don't think I could go back. They've even knocked down my old pads quarters at smellymanka

In reply to Denni: The Horse and Groom was a regular haunt. Is Bunters night club still on the go?

In reply to Removed User: I think I'd only go back to visit Johnny Gurkhas. Best Curries by a mile. Mind you I didn't care much for the dried garlic onions in the Gurkha Rat Packs...

In reply to Removed User:

Good old smellymanca!

When was the last time you were there? Last time I was there when it was 5AB was 99, then went to Collie. Went back for my last 3 of years in 06, totally different but still a Pegasus on the "you are now entering Aldershot" sign.

Don't miss any of it especially being in 23 PFA, more ally than any of the regiments!

In reply to Stanners: Mate forget all the guys on here bigging their own unit up or playing other units down!!!!

Go to the careers office look at all three, navy RAF and Army.

Be aware its really no longer a fact that its easy to get in if theres nothing else going, there are long waiting lists for the forces and they are picking and choosing who they want.

and just to cover one load of s**t i read earlier, Paras are not all lunatics, but we are good fighters, with no history of surrender!!!!

In reply to payney1973:






I read most of that to be banter and not vindictive or elitist. One of the fittest blokes I served with was Ex RCT cross country Skiier. There is indeed good and bad individuals in all units.

In reply to Ian Black:

Not in mine pongo! ;-}

In reply to abr1966:




Ha ha. I was always glad of the Booties to brew up

In reply to Ian Black: Aye...in the galley of course!

In reply to abr1966:

BZ to that

In reply to payney1973: Arnhem?

pmc

In reply to baron: We took 10, 000 to Arnhem and were dropped behind enemy lines to hold the bridge for 48 hours.

We ended up fighting for 8 days until every round had been fired and men were still fighting with their bare hands.

The relieving unit sat a few miles off Arnhem and did nothing, only just over 2000 men made it back!!!

This the one you're on about?? Lol disgraceful

In reply to Stanners: Also there was never a formal surrender at Arnhem paratroopers in small bands continued the fight, Hense FM montgomerys speech " one day it will be a proud thing to say you fought at Arnhem!!!"

Now that is all clear, I was just advising the person to look at all three services see what suits them??

In reply to payney1973: Just to clear I have no dramas with royal, a good unit, male or female if you wanna be a commando, GO for it!!!!!!

In reply to payney1973:

And before we return to the point of the thread, may I just use this diversion to demonstrate to the OP that fine military contributions come from all manner of directions.

The greatest losses at Arnhem, in proportion to their numbers, were those of the Air Despatchers of the Royal Army Service Corps. Honi soit qui mal y pense, one might say.

In reply to Jim Fraser: correct as you can see i didnt specify parachute regt, just any soldier from any part of our fine military that happened to fight there!!

As i said before to the poor guy who started with a simple question, and i originally gave a simple answer, think hard about what you REALLY want out of it, look at all three services and make an informed decision, SIMPLES!!!!!

In reply to Jim Fraser: MATE!! gen is that your point??? so if there was one and he died their losses were 100%, to declare losses in proportion to numbers is a bit misleading!!!

The fact is between the 17th -25th Sept 1944 10-000 men of all cap badges fought and only approx 2000 saw home again.

In reply to Stanners:

At a guess I'd say there are far more hot girls in the RAF.

In reply to needvert:
A good point, well made, and ignored by every other poster so far.

In reply to almost sane:

Yes. We really should be ashamed of ourselves. That is a shocking omission.

In reply to needvert: "At a guess I'd say there are far more fat girls in the RAF"

Fixed it for you

In reply to drunken monkey: "And at least as many fat armourers!"

In reply to drunken monkey:

I see. Arse,combat,XXXL is actually issue kit in the AGC and not actually attached to the lass wearing it.

In reply to almost sane:

That is a very good point! In my day there were very few lasses....and of those there were..they were pretty large!(but always worth fair consideration)!

In reply to abr1966: I never got my waffass in almost 6 years! Its do-able. Some of us are acceptable...

In reply to jules699: Apologies for any offence! I spent most of my time in Norway...we saw very few women!!

In reply to abr1966: No offence - I'm civvie now anyway....

In reply to abr1966:






But there was always a game Sailor for entertainment

In reply to abr1966:






Very shallow Andy

In reply to Ian Black:

It's dark in Norway Ian! You know how easy it would be to mistake certain units by their 'expressive' underwear!

In reply to abr1966: Relax lad its just the roll of the Ship

In reply to higher.alpine:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=ie7&q=phantom+limb%2C+mirrors&a...

If your brother doesn't know about mirror therapy for phantom limb syndrome, I thought this might be of use for him.

Hope it might help.

Tim

In reply to Stanners: Boy oh boy did you open up a can of worms here! Both have positives and negatives.

RAF Regiment: More a defense force than anything else. Good at their job but not really "infantry". Get looked after better (RAF).

Army Infantry: Offensive force as opposed to anything else. Real Infantry. Don't get looked after as well.

I think that is the broad summation of it.

What about the Royal Marines?

I'm sorry, but this thread has become stupid. One lad asked a simple question because he felt like he wanted to join a front line service and was asking peoples opinions on what each of these services are like to be in and it has transformed into a bunch of idiots slating the UK's armed forces for being either - thick, arrogant, gung-ho, pawns, aggressive and many other things.

The guy asked a question and some people have gone so far off topic it is unreal. If this is the way you feel, why not open up another thread rather than trolling on someone with a genuine question?

As for the rest of the crap you're talking:

May be everything the Armed Forces has done hasn't been either legal or just, but no one deserves being run-down by a bunch of people that seriously haven't got a clue what being in the military is all about. You're the type of people that think going into Iraq and Libya was all about oil - complete nonsense - and somehow think that Afghan has a large reserve of oil too. We are there to help a group of people that are oppressed by a regime that was forced upon them, so that they are not frightened to stand up and not frightened to come forward and demand a change.

I'd bet a fair wedge that the majority of you trolls haven't even been in a conflict never mind at the sharp edge of it, these people have an incredibly difficult job to do, making split second decisions based on intelligence pictures that could be hazy and gut feelings. Not everyone can be as intelligent as you and sit there preaching to all of those beneath them to lay down their arms and just hug the world better. What planet do you seriously come from to think that this would be any better? Who do you think you are, the re-incarnation of Gandhi? Because I completely agree that terrorists would stop bombing our country if we just adopted the lay-down-arms-and-hug-them approach.

I'll ask this one simple question -

Who the hell are you to judge?

In reply to Richiehill:

Is it not quite acceptable to indicate to the lad in question that there may be reasons why a life in the military should be reconsidered?


Hmmm, I would have thought the military having undertaken duties that were neither "legal or just" should more than deserve being "run-down" by anyone who wishes to....especially as they are public services which we have to pay for. Bankers get it. The police get it. In fact most of the public sector gets it. What makes the military immune?


Sadly, I think oil and similar issues have much more to do with us being in Iraq and Libya than oppressed people. We've done fvck all to help oppressed people and in many ways made their predicaments worse. Have a long history of doing just that.


I'm not a cop, nor a banker, doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to pass judgement on issues of their ethics or morality. If you think the military has the sole right to comment on military affairs then we might as well live in a military dictatorship.

Who the hell are you to judge? You see very willing to right-off all the negative that our military involvement has brought to Iraq and Afghanistan - negatives acknowledged by segments of our own armed forces. We'll wait to see what glories the "rebels" in Libya bring to the country, I suspect as long as there is money to be made by the UK and France we'll turn a blind eye to any Gaddafi-style horrors they decide to perpetrate.

In reply to needvert:
good enough for me RAF it is. thanks everyone again for there comments. even the not so relevant ones have provided some entertaining read.

In reply to mountain musher: WAF Lover

In reply to David Martin:
>

The guy is asking for advice in one general area, not a "what should I do with my Job" he has made his mind up with what he would like to do and it is not other peoples place to question his motives or patronise him on his thought process. Who are you his mother?


I wasn't saying that things that have been done were illegal, but the "just" argument is completely down to an individual point of view rather than something based on facts. Besides, as I had previously stated, this is the wrong thread for this kind of debate.


Happily, you're completely mistaken and misguided. A pessimistic viewpoint like that will get you nowhere and unless you are willing to back it up with any form of hard fact readily ignored. Again, posted in the wrong thread for someone with a genuine interest in serving his country in the armed forces.


That's correct, you can. Just not in a thread that is completely irrelevant to your viewpoint or whatever judgment you may wish to pass. If you do wish to make your viewpoint or judgment known to others then may I suggest that you justify it correctly and thoroughly providing a reason why you feel it is wrong rather than stating it is like some fact plucked from where your thong is obviously so twisted.


Are these the same Gaddafi-style horrors that we have just spent the best part of 9 months fighting against for the freedom of the Libyan people? So that they may have freedom of speech and other liberties that you and I take for granted on a day to day basis?

Of course there are negatives to have come out of the military involvement in those situations, the loss of life is the main one no matter which side it comes from. Then there is the short-term economic disruption, of course this is a negative effect. But if you look past your own short sightedness you will see that Iraq's economy for instance is growing year on year, growing from around $10bn in 1997 to over $82bn in 2010. That is in no small part down to the efforts that the military intervention there made, if you wish to see more, look at Afghanistan where, whilst the numbers aren't so impressive, how the economy has grown is. Moving from an economy that's major contributer was the sale of Heroin in 2001 at just under $2.5bn it has been weened off this onto other money makers and, as of 2008, it stands at just under $12bn.

But of course you are correct in your non-fact based irrational statements, just because you feel them to be true.

In reply to Richiehill:


So you actually believe that Nato(USA)care so much about civilians ? and thats why we invade and bomb f*ck out of places ?


You make your starting point when that country was under the most brutal economic sanctions (from the US and us)that any country has ever endured ,that devestated the country and caused the deaths of 1/2 a million children under 5 years of age.

Can you justify this or the hundreds of thousands of children,women and men who were slaughtered in the proceeding illegal war ?

Of whom remember 90% of all casualties were civilian.

Or do you believe Powell and the other imperialist warmongers were right about WMD to ?

How about if we had sanctions imposed on the UK that seen at least 500,000 toddlers and babies die from preventable diseases ,what if it was your kid ?we knew what was going on but kept it going.

At least 500,000 !!!
Children !

What is this nonsense about Heroin production in Afghanistan ?

Under US/nato occupation opium production has been much greater than at ANYTIME under the Taliban !$4 billion in 2007 !

You talk of 2001 which was one of the most dramatically successful anti drug operations ever seen in which the Taliban effectively banned it causing the production to fall by 91% from 2000.

In reply to Stanners:

Well done for getting something from this list of distractions.

Now be ready to queue to get in. Email me for more.


Per Ardua

In reply to Stanners:

(uninformed comment/view of the world, btw

As a general rule around the world air force PT requirements are lower than army, but that's no reason to aim low.

My word of advice is to set yourself to a higher standard, I always looked to the USMC requirements for a perfect PT test score:
20 pullups, 100 crunches [120 seconds], 3 mile run [18 minutes]

And pushups are great. Being able to do 75-100 will serve you well, especially when you're around the kind of people who make you do 20 every time you make a mistake.

Pay attention to form otherwise they won't count em.

Look at the selection course requirements for some of the more difficult 'jobs', they'll probably involve aside from pushups/pullups/running, a whole lot of pack marching and sleep deprivation. So throwing some weight on your back and walking up hills is a good training plan.

Of course, I'm lazy and advocate training prior to make life easier.

Having said all that, I see plenty of fat people in the air force and navy. Plenty of smokers too. Depressing.


Oh, one last thing:
Don't ever give up.

In reply to workingclasslass:

So is that a vote for RAF regiment or Army infantry?

In reply to workingclasslass: Open a new thread and we'll talk.

In reply to Richiehill:

If you have something to say or reply then i would have thought you would be the one who has something to say or reply.

In reply to workingclasslass:

I think he's nothing against replying, but want's to continue on a different thread?

In reply to Timmd:I ment wants.

In reply to workingclasslass:






She seems quite a feisty wee rascal and very opinionated...

In reply to Richiehill:

Good lord, I don't know where to start with you. Looking at your last paragraph alone...


Couldn't have anything to do with billions of foreign investment and an end to sanctions could it? Iraq never had an opportunity to grow prior to our invasion but that was as much due to our own policies as it had anything to do with Saddam's.

As for Afghanistan, the country is as much a mess now as it was when we went in. Again, billions have been invested for no real gain. You seem to forget the West was only too happy to deal with the Taliban and gave the NA massive support.


You're not making sense there. Opium output has flourished since the invasion.

I have no idea where you are getting you 'facts' from but I imagine if you were American you'd be telling me the US won the Vietnam war too, bringing peace and prosperity to the country.

In reply to Stanners: To all of you saying that those debating about the disgusting actions carried out by the British government (via the Armed Forces) in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya shouldn't be discussed on here, I would say to you this:

There is a young man who is most likely about to embark in a career that may end up with him being killed, killing those hostile to him, or killing innocent civillians.

Now there is no doubt that the Armed Forces do good works, at times providing vital protection to populaces. BUT, the failure of most of you on this thread (perhaps understandably given what you all have/had invested) to address these three conflicts and your part in them is not giving an honest representation of what Stanners may be letting himself in for.

In reply to needvert:




Based on the paperwork I've seen recently, ordinary fitness tests are pretty much the same across the British armed services.

Additionally, specialist Corps have specialist tests.


Regiment Operational Fitness Assessment (ROFA)

Day One.
10 km carrying 34.5kg total, squaded, 1h40 to 1h45, most of which must not be on paved surfaces. Often it will be on airfield grassed areas [normally these are smooth only in Suffolk ].

Day Two.
3 km speed march carrying 20.7 Kg, 25 mins (?). Periods of double and quick march.
Drag 75kg dummy 50m in 40s.
Lift 25kg bergen unto truck (1.45m?) and back down again.
Carry 2 x 20 kg jerrycan 50m in 30s.

In reply to Removed User:

The original question wasn't should I join the forces.



The points you and others refer to are not solely for potential recruits but are for all of us, who should care more care with who we vote for.

In reply to Jim Fraser: Not solely for recruits, but rather important for recruits.

Irag, Afghanistan and Libya have occurred under the full spectrum of UK political parties.

In reply to Removed User:

Your spectrum is clearly narrower then mine.

In reply to Jim Fraser: Well with defence not likely to be devolved any time soon, i would say the yes, full spectrum that is relevant in terms of decision making

In reply to Stanners:I would suggest paying a visit to 'Vets for Peace' who are now camped outside St.Paul's in London. You'll find about 20 or so individuals who have served in Afghanistan and Iraq.You may hear some sound advice.