If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
No quite, I agree with the above. I suppose I should give this some clarification - it depends essentially on when the decision to enlist is made.
For example: one chooses at a particular time to join up for all the reasons other posters have stated, and along comes a dodgy/reprehensible conflict like the Iraq War - in that case yes, you have to go where you are sent and it is up to the democractic portion of civil society to put its house in order (for what of a more nuanced phrase).
However; if you have someone who sees a conflict, knowing it to be a war of aggression, rather than defence of the nation, and still wants to go just because 'any old war will do' - the point and rationale for why they enter the service would be different from the above, and in my view utterly indefensible.
I have no idea about the prevalence of either example, and indeed I'd expect real world choices to be affected by many more factors than this controlled example - but nonetheless thats what I mean.
Well quite - and close to home too, with the heavy indication that there was a plot to overthrow Harold Wilson in 1974.
Well according to the US Army themselves, in a study looking at recruitment by socio-economic status, they concluded that the recruitment 'Mirrors or exceeds America' - whatever the last bit means
Yet it is not this that has been in question - and I can't find any evidence at present on his archive that he's ever made a serious and sustained point of claiming a demographic shortage - maybe I've missed something.
What I can find, and has been a major issue in the last decade in the US, is evidence of incidents of questionable recruitment practices in the US, especially during the 2005 period when there was to be projected shortfall in recruitment.
There are a ton of articles on his site relating to 'Stop loss' - but they don't relate to social class as primary focus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-loss_policy
Which was also the product of another disasterous and unpopular conflict - Vietnam.
Irish infantry, same as Jocks are the Scots and Taffs are the Welsh
I was assuming that Aladdin was referring to the bit in Michael Moore's Farenheit 9/11 when Moore hints that soliders are recruited only from the poorest areas
Not that I know much about stop-loss, but it actually makes sense to me that you don't have troops leaving part way through a deployment. It also may be tough on those soldiers but it has hit about 1% of soldiers - so I'm not sure it could be classed as questionable recruitment practice
The term economic conscription is a misnomer.
Obviously, joining the army means something different to him, than it would do if you were in his position.
A lot of people are having to take jobs in this recession that they might not normally take.
That is, those who are lucky/able enough to get a job. Never mind people with disabilities, learning difficulties, ex-offenders, or refugees who are struggling just as, if not more than the majority..
Most other jobs don't carry a prison sentence either if one wants to quit before their contract is out.
As I said earlier if one wants to join the army, fine. But it's a decision that IMO should not be taken lightly, and should be given proper thought. I have to wonder how somebody who has chosen to join the army simply because they can't find a job is going to cope if he finds himself in the front line.
The same way as any other soldier in the end; the bad ones will flee and the good ones will stick it for their mates. However, at the end of the day the British army remains that rarity - an long-term all volunteer force, where conscription has always been a last resort
No offense Aladdin, I find what you are saying is patronising towards people in a situation like that guy. I think if he can run his own business, he can make an intelligent and adult descision to join the military, even if the (patronising as Kermit describes, I share that view) article says he was 'forced'.
So far, nobody gets 'forced' in to the army... Let's not make victims of people who make their own choices. People do not enter the army thinking they are going to sit in fields of fluffy bunnies.
I don't think it's 100% independent choice though, consider the amount the forces spend on marketing and recruiting. I'm not saying other careers don't do that, but there are definitely push and pull factors - they don't big up when you're going through the recruitment stages how you might get your leg blown off by an IED and such - they will try to normalise it and make it sound like any other job.
But I guess it depends on your perspective on things, plenty of people think smoking is a choice and some people think if you're addicted and if there's advertising then it's not a choice. Same with fatty foods leading to obesity. I think if anything is true, it's that people don't always make the best decisions, and I think just like the fast food industry, there is no reason the forces would not take advantage of this with regards to their marketing and their recruitment process.
Of course they are not going to 'big up' the risks of going to war, but the media talks about it all the time. Look at the coverage of Afghanistan. It's not like people don't know that there is some risk with joining the army.
And the recruitment campaigns I have seen for the army don't make it seem like "any other job".