Quote:
Originally Posted by jambutty
Do get my name right Aleks – it’s jambutty.
Maybe my phrase of ‘active duty’ was not the right one. What I meant was sent to fight, which I accept is different to active duty. Any serviceman on the completion of the initial training is on active duty thereafter. Armed forces under the age of 18 are not sent into a situation where they could get killed by enemy fire.
So what you are saying is that because a person is under 18 it doesn’t count if he is killed? What do they do? Bring him back to life and wait for his 18th birthday?
I think that you are getting ‘man’s’ time and ‘boy’ time mixed up with fighting time. Any serviceman or woman who joins up for a set period of time aged younger than 18, their ‘time’ does not start until their 18th birthday. I joined the Royal Navy aged 16 years, 11 months, 3 weeks and 2 days for a 12 years engagement. My 12 years did not start until my 18th birthday. Yet at 17 I was on active duty at Kranji Wireless in Singapore. But then it wasn’t a war zone.
During the Falklands conflict and the Middle East debacle any sailor under the age of 18 was drafted off the ships that went to the south Atlantic or Persian Gulf before they set sail. Much to the chagrin of some of them but not their parents.
It was the same with soldiers. Under 18’s did not ship out with their regiment. Likewise with the RAF and certainly the Marines.
Maybe the modern forces have changed but somehow I doubt it. Public opinion would not allow minors into a war zone.
Why should I trust you? I don’t know you.
|
or if you cant spell jambutty aleks...cobra will do....Ray