While I support the Armed Forces having to make the best of diabolical political decisions, it's a disgrace that WEE LASSIES are being used in the Gulf!

When you are 17 you can take a bullet for Tony, the USA and Israel but won't be able to have a cigarette because that might kill you.

Armed forces admit mistakes were made, underage personnel deployed. Situation corrected, controls put in place. END OF STORY
As for them being female, irrelevant and I am pretty sure that the women in armed forces would find AJ's comment insulting. They pushed for equality. They feel (and they are) their male comrades’ equal and so I suspect, gladly except the equal risk.

"Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict". Do the islama bama cutthroats abide by those same rules?.......I think not.

17 years eleven months, bad, and 18 years one month, good? What nonsense. 17 year olds are not weans. They have joined up to serve and they should be allowed to do so and given credit for their willingness to serve.

Whether they are young men or young women is irrelevant except to stupid sensationalist jounalists who generally are not worth one per cent of the respect due to our young servicepersons.

And the SNP should be smartly told to feck off from interfering with the military coming to schools to communicate with young people. Rose Gentle, too, should be given less attention than she presently gets. She behaves as if her son was some kind of simpleton instead of a volunteer.

Well someone has to say it!

Tony Blair made sure his eldest son kept well away from the military giving him the inside track to certain universities and getting him cushy intern positions at the Whitehouse. It makes Blair’s military decisions easier when there are no personal and family consequences.

jj #7, are you suggesting that Tony Blair's son was intending to go into the military but his father stopped him? Or are you just full of hot air?

I do wish everybody young and old, no matter how dire their personal economic circumstances, would cease to offer themselves for recruitment by the military. That is the only way to put a stop to the warmongers among our politicians.

And of course when Scotland at last lets go of England's apron strings our post-imperialist neighbours will no longer be able claim the services of our young people to put, as politicians say, the "Great" back in front of Britain.

The illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq in pursuit of dubious and arrogant imperialist goals...

The state sanctioned/sponsored murder of its own Catholic citizenry in Northern Ireland through the setting up and use of fascistic loyalist death squads...

The sending of children into illegal wars...

Rule Britannia?

Wee Joke McConnell would not allow them to buy hamsters; they soon won't be able to buy cigarettes, and they can't drink or vote.

Apart from this sort of PC type nonsense, I can't see what the problem is - other than sending any of our soldiers, under or over 18, to fight in one of Bliar's illegal wars.

On the BBC Radio last month, a leader of the Left of the Labour Party in Westminister confirmed that their agenda still had the lowering of the age to vote to 16. As part of their reasoning, 16 year olds are educated and sophisticated enough to give a informed vote - and that they should not be described as 'children'.

It is a widespread belief of many members of all factions of the Labour Party (and the SNP) in Edinburgh and Westminister, that 16 year olds should be allowed the vote as ADULTS!!!!

Yours,
G/.

During the National Service era, I believe that some of the guys were sent to Cyprus or Korea. All over eighteen and possibly virgins (that was the 1950's). The important point was that they were backed up by regular army personnel. Maybe not the brightest idea to involve youngsters in a war zone, but they would most certainly not be on their own.

During the National Service era, I believe that some of the guys were sent to Cyprus or Korea. All over eighteen and possibly virgins (that was the 1950's). The important point was that they were backed up by regular army personnel. Maybe not the brightest idea, but they would most certainly not be on their own.

I have always advised my children and my brothers' and sisters' kids never to join up.

I'd prefer no one had to.

But they do anyway. If I could fix things, no one under 21 would be allowed to join up ..... and therefore no-one under 25 would be allowed to take part in an armed conflict.

The Army knew full well they were deploying kids in to the war zone (don't try and kid me they didn't) and should be prosecuted for reckless endagerment in a CIVIL court!

So, referring to No 1 Headline, a 17 year-old can, with minimum legal training, be given custody of a vehicle and proceed to kill his mate in a car by disregarding safety equipment at a level crossing.

But it causes a minor diplomatic journalistic incident when trained 17+ soldiers go to do their job, and are apparently (unreported) surviving the experience.

Has anyone asked the subjects?
What has happened to editorial judgement in the Hootsmon?

Maybe 17 year old MPs might be a thought - at least they could not be worse than the present shower of ....
On a slightly more serious note - if a lad/lass becomes part of a section/platoon/troop he/she resents not going with his/her colleagues where ever they might go.

They have plenty experience Stabbing on our streets ,

That a 17-year-old of whatever calibre could consider herself mature enough to decide that it is appropriate to risk her life for the state's political ends in exchange for a dubious career path indicates how reliant is the state on its citizens' ignorance and desperation. World War III in all but name is the best adventure Britain can offer its young people - that's disgusting.

Absolutely disgraceful!

The Iraq War is an ILLEGAL and UNNECESSARY conflict which many commentators consider to be the UK's worst foreign policy disaster since Suez (in the mid 1950s) - or even earlier.

Now we are told that many of the soldiers whom we are sending into harm's way - to face the real possibility of death, crippling injury, and lifelong trauma - are just boys and girls.

Tony Blair has taken the UK back into the Dark Ages, if this is the kind of thing going on.

What a cruel start in life for these youngsters. The "Flowers of the Forest", indeed!

IMPEACH the war-monger Tony Blair, NOW!

Speaking from experience as a 171/2 year old serviceman if my18 year old oppo was sent to a war zone and I was,nt Iwould be pretty pissed off.

#21

Right on, Ailsa!

17 year old girls are worth how many camels get those girls out of there, in fact bring all the troops home,

I don't think under 21's should be allowed to join up. Joining the armed forces is a serious decision which requires some maturity and life experience.

#6 Gnasher....There is a world of difference between sending a highly trained and WELL EQUIPPED army into war and sending kids just oot of school with six months basic training tae be a glorified Policeman in a foreign country.Think about it!!!!

UK guilty of sending 'child soldiers' to Iraq
JAMES KIRKUP POLITICAL EDITOR (jkirkup@scotsman.com)
BRITAIN broke a United Nations treaty banning the use of child soldiers by sending underage troops - including 17-year-old girls - to Iraq, it has been revealed.
Many a times I do not understand, may be because of the forced war in Iraq, the economics and politics of one person and one nation. The person who chooses the soldier is not the nation. It is the ministry of defence. The culprit therefore is the minister. By stating that NATION is wrong, we are including England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland; sorry take the last out,
So UK is the GREAT BRITAIN, ENGLAND, the country of English or all? The chills>>> CHILD>>> it is very bizarre story belongs to who. Welsh, Scottish, English or Irish (oops sorry again)?
It just does not add up.
And what is the age of the CHILD. When is he adult? At the age of 18. Did no one know that the limit of smoking or taking hashish is 18? Or is the fast plane to Iraq at hat upset the age? Or was there a shortage of HE MEN?

It about time we decided what age people cease to be a 'child'. 16 to get married / ride a moped / leave school, 17 to drive, 18 to watch adult films, 21 to buy alcohol, etc, etc, so which is it? It should be the same age for everything.

ira?

No 24.

You ought to ashamed of yourself. The kids, the girl is not for barter that you put her on the scale and say “Right how many camels do I get for this girl who is under 17 with lots of adjectives like beautiful, blonde slim etc. This is cruelty at all the stages. Child going is not a camel ride. It is vindictiveness.

Young infantry recruits at a passing-out parade rehearsal. A UN protocol says under-18s should not join in hostilities./
Picture: Allan Milligan

Now that we find this. What are we doing????

No 19
Even the youths in the streets have that experience. You are out of your head if you talk of stabbing. You are in the army not on the street of the Brixton.

Britain broke a UN Treaty.

If we have any respect for the UN and Intrnational Law, this would not have happened. Measures should be in place to stop it happening ie nobody under 18 goes abroad to war zones. This was not done.

The Minister of Defence should resign and there should a full top level inquiry presided over by the Prime Minister.

This will not happen, because the members of this government are unaccountable, they have no honour, they are crooks liars and thieves.

Blair's legacy, he made it so.

32 Point being missed .If they are making decisions on streets to stab attack people ,Then they are old enough to die for their country ,I have seen the forms one signs ,

Those responsible couldn't care a damn what the age of their cannon fodder is, as londg as it doesn't include their children ?????????????????

First of all these young people have joined the Army as volunteers, are fully trained and are proud of the fact that they are soldiers. Most probably entered HM forces under what used to be called Junior Leaders courses.
I would be confident that the youngsters themselves would be aware of the regulations and would only require to remind their officers of their age before being assigned to other duties.Presumably they did not do so because they wanted to serve on the front line.
People don't join the forces to square bash and polish brass, they join because the lifestyle attracts them and they want to do the job they are trained to do . i.e. soldiering. Soldiers go to war that's what they do. I doubt if a single one of these youngsters raised a word of protest about about going on an operation, any soldiers I have ever met thrive on danger and the fact that their training has taught them how to cope with it.
Lets admire them for their bravery whatever their age and not whinge on like some of the posters on this thread. The lads and lasses themselves would be disgusted by some of the comments here.

#21, #33. Have you ever served in a front line unit, administrative mistakes happen, 9 out of 10 times they are either sent to a rear base and don't go near the front line until their birthday or fly out shortly after depending on the individual situation. It may be difficult to find a safeish job in the rear with the beer over in Iraq but I doubt that that would matter to the individuals concerned all they want to do is serve with their mates and their unit.

#1 Take your head out your arrse. Many of those "Wee Lassies" as you call them can hold their own in the majority of cases.

I`d like to stick a gun in that Blairs mits and send him to patrol the streets in Iraq.Let`s see then how long it would take before he was pulling out.

I'm sure the MoD will manage to spin their way out of it. Not got enough Jocks anymore-need to replace them with under 18's?

Junior Leaders was a good thing, though. I joined at 16.5 and was nearly 19 when I joined my regiment. Left the army with a qualification ranked higher than a BSc. Believe they scrapped junior entry in 1993.

If it was re-established so that no under 18's could join a regiment then that would solve the controversy and still keep a continuous flow of better trained personnel passing out into senior service and, dare I say it, Iraq.

And you think this just on;y happened, and only to the Army. cast you mind back to 1950 and the Royal Navy.

The original driving force for this UN treaty had nothing to do with 17 year olds who have voluntarily joined the British armed forces, and then only with their parents' written consent, and who are as standard practice kept well away from combat until they are at least 18.

It was more intended to deal with the thousands of much younger children who are abducted into irregular armies in Africa and elsewhere, often after their parents have been murdered and the village burnt.

But of course the commanders of those irregular armies, or guerilla forces, or gangs of bandits, or militias don't pay the slightest attention to what the UN says: they carry on abducting children as before.

On the other hand the UK is a soft target for criticism, because we'll say, oh how terrible, we are sorry Mr UN Transnational Bureaucrat, we'll make sure it never happens again.

When will we learn that signing up to this or that international agreeement "to set a good example" to third world countries is almost always futile and often even counter-productive?

The British Armed forces are like pedophiles - preying on gullible teenagers at the school gates - offering them sweeties to sign up - to become cannon fodder for the cause of UK plc and US plc. Sick doesnt even begin to describe this.

If you're too young to vote you are too young to die in the armed forces.

I have nothing but admiration for those young people,yes 17 does sound a bit young to go to a war zone, so why is it that these people who are complaining, not volounteer themselves, or maybe you have a yellow streak.

What does the country expect from Blair's Labour Government?????????????????

25 I trust your comments apply equally to the loyalist death squads.

38,

My heads no where near my arse! I didn't say the Wee Lassies weren't capable, I'm pointing out the pathetic nature of the current government.

Making illegal warfare and depending on boys and girls to carry out their bidding!

If you think it's OK for the British Govt to break international law concerning the age of frontline troops, then you're one sick hombre!!!

It could only happen in Blair's Britain.....

The sooner we have Blair or Brown's Engand and Salmond's Scotland the better....

It's not time.... It's way past time....

Why don't the Army try recruting in our jails. Over 18s only.

The concept of targetting young people with perhaps less job options/prospects than others say from more well-off background and those who acheived more qualifications from school has been around for decades.

What is new is the sheer scale of the push to replace soldiers who are leaving the army for a variety of reasons. In short the reasons amount to soldiers feeling undervalued and thinking their future is more secure for themselves and their family outside of the army.

Reasons, include security, housing, financial and merging of regiments. Labour have presided over the worst drop in moral of modern times.

They have employed every gimmick to stem the flow of soldiers leaving and a dramatic drop in new recruits signing up. From summer camps where you get a few thousand pounds just for attending a 6 week course (no committment reqd to join at the end), multi-million pound media advertising which has yielded so few recruits, recommend a friend scheme which has an already enlisted soldier standing to gain a few thousand pounds if he persudades someone else to join.

Perhaps the Army chiefs and Labour defence inisters should spend more focus on why so many highly trained soldiers are leaving. Other reasons include war wounded dumped back in the UK at Birmingham hospital to be left in appalling conditions (stories our campaign have had relayed back to us are really depressing). Many soldiers suffer from stress after returning, some are discharged and offered no help to overcome their condition. The list goes on.

I believe that Adam Ingram, John Reid, Des Browne, Geoff Hoon, Gordon Brown and Tony Blair (all whom have never worn a uniform) have no understanding or committment to the armed forces and therefore treat them like civil servants.

Just another reason why Labour should be kicked out of government.

Read lots of articles on this subject here

www.r-o-a-r.or

What is the problem?

Blair does not have to adhere to any laws of the UN or anyone else; He (thinks) he is God; and to prove it, he acts like it.

This is an example of the real problem which the UN treaty was supposed to address, which is the 300,000 child soldiers around the world, some as young as 7, and most forced into service:

http://theirc.org/resources/drawings-by-former-child.html...

"More than 30,000 children have been kidnapped to serve as soldiers and slaves by the rebel Lord's Resistance Army in its 20-year war against the Ugandan government. Boys in captivity are forced to loot and burn villages and torture and kill neighbors. Abducted girls are routinely raped and become sex slaves or “wives” of rebel commanders."

Not 15 British service personnel aged 17, who all joined as volunteers with the consent of their parents, who are trained and disciplined, but who have been inadvertently posted to Iraq before their 18th birthdays.

And Cherie cried to the cameras when her son went to live in an apartment in Bristol all on his ownsy!

Now he's in America lest his father brings in conscription.

Rant all you like here but who with any influence ever reads these comments. No body with any influence even reads the Scotsman it far to parochial.

#6 Gnasher... spot on with your comments. I read the article and thought huh??? Had the MOD been punting under 16's out to Iraq they might have had a story with this one.

Ever noticed how selective this rag is when it comes to allowing comments!!!

the UN reached agreement on an Optional Protocol to the Convention of the Rights of the Child, raising the minimum age for participation in armed conflict from 15 to 18. The breakthrough was broadly welcomed by the Secretary-General's Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict, Olara A. Otunnu: "This outcome is a victory for children exposed to cynical exploitation in situations of armed conflict. While the new consensus does not go as far as I would have liked, it is an important step towards eliminating the use of children as soldiers and their participation in hostilities. … The one area in which the agreement falls short of the 'straight 18' position that I have advocated is in the area of voluntary enlistment into national armed forces.

The headline states the UK is guilty of sending child soldiers to Iraq, yet the last paragraph of the above statement say other wise "The one area in which the agreement falls short of the 'straight 18' position that I have advocated is in the area of voluntary enlistment into national armed forces".
IMO as in many others it is wrong for an under 18 to be in an area of conflict the UK is not breaking the said treaty.

The stats speak for themselves, these kids are naive and easy game for politicians.
When will Prince Harry (or is it William - I can never remember their irrelevant names, but the one that isn't Prince Charles' son) be off then?

A few people may criticise the Scotsman but it is one of the FEW media outlets available to the public which allows us to post our comments without being moderated first.

The BBC removed this facility for Scotland last year on their websites when it was clear the vast majority of posters were anti-Labour party (hardly surprising) ....

Well done The Scotsman!!

There is a terrible irony about young people being sent to a war zone by politicians they are too young to vote for. I did wonder about the idea expressed above regarding nobody under 25 fighting but it's sensible: theoretically one could be 23 in a conflict zone and never have taken part in the democratic process that decided to go to war in the first place.

61
Do you know something we dont?
Im very curious as to what this comment was prompted by!
No disprespect intended but Im even more amazed that one who can by his own admission not recall wich one is which,could know who their fathers were!
Im not 100% sure who mine was never mind anybody else !
Please enlighten us.This should indeed be interesting!

62
The Scotsman is moderated I can assure you. You might not be aware of it,because you only read the comments which are allowed.I would have thought that was obvious .
How could we ever know what has been removed? Its been removed!

This Labour Government has learnt a lot from the last war.

They have adopted SS Nazi tactics in dawn raids on asylum seekers, snatching children from their home. Treating children as commodoties in alienating them fron their families and adoption without consent. Cutting cost is good but not with the welfare of children

Regardless of the cause, or the conflict.... I just have no respect for anybody who thinks that it is ok to send teenage girls off to do their fighting for them.

"This outcome is a victory for children exposed to cynical exploitation in situations of armed conflict". Hardly, as those who are guilty of abducting young children to serve in their various bands of thugs won't pay a blind bit of attention to any "Optional Protocol to the Convention of the Rights of the Child, raising the minimum age for participation in armed conflict from 15 to 18", while in the developed countries which observe the Protocol the strength of the armed forces may be undermined because they can no longer recruit cadets, even with parental consent. So when people later look at some third world hell hole and say: "Look at how all those poor children are suffering, with militias murdering at will and stealing all the aid we send, we should do something about it" our ability to do anything about it will be reduced because we won't have enough trained and disciplined troops to send in to protect them, even as part of a UN force.

#1 AJ,
Somehow I don't think those "wee lassies' you are referring to would take too kindly to you calling them "wee lassies" especially if they are behind the wheel of a rather large and heavy wagon or sitting behind the joy sticks of a 50 ton tank.

#16 Scaramouche,
Respect your opinion on not wanting people to join the Armed Forces, but can assure you our Armed Forces may not be the best equipped but they are probably the best trained and able to make decisions,think for themselves and when neccessary take control in situations when the pooh hits the fan. British Armed Forces training is envied around the world.

To those who have posted above about Blair's kids not going anywhere near the Services,I think you'll find that he at one time was a member of the CND, that tells me all I need to know about how much care, honour, respect and dignity he affords our troops whether RAF, RN or British Army. Funny, I also seem to recall his missus was a member of that shower of twonks, and as she wears the troosers in that household there's hee haw chance of their kids going into the services.

Just out of curiosity, can anyone here enlighten me as to whether Broon and the rest of the labour diddies were members of the CND, if so that will probably be one of the reasons why our troops are so shoddily treated and under-payed. Of course one of the other reasons that our troops are so ill-equipped is that Broon has neglected to increase the funds available to the Forces even though we are engaged in two wars on different fronts.

Would be really nice to see the labour party leaders in a front line trench, rifle in hand, grenades at the ready waiting for the bogeymen to appear on the horizon. Somehow I don't think they have the balls to even contemplate it.

Wrong armour,wrong vehicles,wrong rifles,not enough recruits.Experienced soldiers leaving in droves.
Not enough respect for the service persons job.
Who to vote for?

Let me see.....I know who not to vote for.

ok lemmings - everybody head to the nearest cliff, bridge, or tall building. What did you do ? You fell for the media twisting a story AGAIN. The media would like you to believe that the military is running around the country looking for 17 year olds and forcing them to enlist.
here's a big story for you - ther are teenagers out there who actually LIE about their age. I know - a difficult concept to get through a thick skull - but it's the truth.
Want another one ? It's not a new phenomenon. Take a look back through history and you will find kids much younger than 17 lying about their age to get into the military.
The military is not "GUILTY" of anything other than believing that a kid is older than 17.
The MEDIA, on the other hand, is guilty of subversive propaganda designed to embarrass a political leader who is not in their camp.
Go back to square one - Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait - was beaten back and he signed surrender papers. He then did everything he could to stop the limp wristed UN from keeping him to those surrender agreements. Fast forward 12 years and it became necessary to force his hand.
Now the media will not do what is right and tell the truth about the situation. They would rather make up ridiculous stories and lies.

I pity the world when most of you lot get finished. We will be bowing to Mecca and praying they use a lube next time they ram it home. Maybe I will move to Manchuria.
To young? The reports of all the children haveing babies shows they arent to young at all to have a bit of fun. And they dont care. But fighting for the cause is different then fighting over a pint.

#65

Often comments are removed AFTER they have been posted but normally as someone has clicked on the 'report as unsuitable' link.

I have posted a lot of controversial stuff and not once had anything removed. Normally the posts are reactively moderated - i.e. anything can get posted but it is only if a post is libelous or offensive etc it is removed.

What kind of comments are being removed?

Send the auld men who start these wars. Bush from the Air National Guard. Cheney with all his deferrments during Vietnam.Since they send young women maybe the Bush twins can go

Which is better -Out on the streets without a worthwhile income and no hope of improvement of pride in their accomplishments or in the army providing rear echelon support in all probability,learning a trade,having disposable income and infused with pride
Perhaps all school leavers should have the choice- school or compulsory service time

I hope they don,t loose their heads.

To #71 Yes there may be some kids lieing about there age,but don't you think that the recruters should check on the birth lines of these misslead
kids prior to then putting there name to paper,and before they know it they are fighting over seas for WHAT the control of OIL.
OPEN you eyes read between the lines,not what you read in the papers, It's all bull crap.
Mother and Fathers Brothers & sisters are crying daily for there loved ones lost, in a world of power and greed.
So my friend please think about what you say prior to any more reply, The military are guilty of NOT doing there job,by recruting kids UNDER AGE !!!!!!!

It is a shame anyone went to this war. If the gov. didn't want anyone under 18 to go then maybe they shouldn't have let them join until then.

I also agree that if those politicians want to get into a pissing match then send them in the ring together and not have our families fight for them.

Don't get me wrong, I would fight if there was a cause to be worthy of. I believe that we are supporting a war that is causing civil unrest. We are sturring up more hatred and that will only cause retaliation. We are not fighting uniformed soldiers but people dressed in civilian clothing. God speed to the troops.

I enlisted at 16, was at my best between 18-20, and over the hill at 25. Never regretted a minute. A lot of soldiers quit in their latter 20s, but by then you’ve seen it, done it, are ready to move on to something new. The military isn’t perfect, but for many young people it’s a good career choice.

Are these articles misleading and controversial by design or is it just jounalistic sensationalism-There are two (or more) aspects to a fair story.Both should be expressed for an unbiased accurate newsworth article.

#79 MacG.

What do you think of re-introducing National Service of some sort?

#79

A good career choice? Yeah, great, learn to shoot guns and be killed, great choice. At least it'll save a few pensions. Maybe the aging population can be off-set by teenagers getting murdered abroad by pointless wars that have nothing to do with defending our country. Pathetic

I wish I was 17 years of age and could join the military. There would be the difference in learning gun use in a crime, or have a gun used against me on the streets of Scotland than being in the military to understand gun use and how to protect myself.
The liberals tried to strip me of any sense of male pride that they could muster, Fortunatly, what ever was inside me resisted. For that, I am a stable well adjusted, un-medicated, debt free, and told quite good looking. I'm able to make contributions to my country. The only draw back to being this well adjusted, theres too many of the ones that are dependent on the state( crown ).
We need to provide the tools for males to develop and help each other, and stop playing with mother nature.

Well...if one can judge by the vicious crimes some of our "wee lassies" of 17 commit,here in
Canada..THEY WILL MAKE EXELLENT SOLDIERS!

After reading through this thread I am appalled at the attitude of several of the posters who seem to think that it is perfectly acceptable for our youngsters to be sent to fight a in an illegal war and to fight a people who did nothing to deserve this war other than to be ruled by a vicious tyrant who was supported for much of his time in power by western powers and their backers in the private banking cartels.
To comment 19 from Eric who seems to think that "They have plenty experience Stabbing on our streets ," I suggest that he gets out more often. Most youngsters do not run around with knives tucked into their belts.
This whole sham of a "War On Terror" is based on the terrible events of 911...and until there are satisfactory answers to exactly what happened we will never know why British troops are now fighting two different peoples in two countries.
The refusal by the Bush administration to allow any real public enquiry must raise questions, just as the refusal of our own gernment's refusal to allow a public enquiry into the tragedy of the July 7th bombings. To be treated as children and told in both cases that "national security" is reason enough is simply not acceptable. How can we trust this "reasoning" from a government who have been caught out in their lies time and time again?
Because of the lies about WMD in Iraq we are now being led towards a "Big Brother" police state where everything we do is monitored, from where we go in our cars to what we buy in the local shop.
We have a mainstream media who report muslims arrested for any offense...usually released without charge or the charges severely reduced. But of course the arrest is page one headlines...the release..if reported...is hidden away somewhere in the inside pages.
It was reported in several smaller independant media outlets on 13.9.2006 that the biggest weapons haul ever made in the UK was made in dartford, Engl

Anyone who joins the army is an idiot no matter what age or nationality they are. If you do join expect to pay idiot tax.

whats the big deal with servicemen aged 17 serving in an armed conflict? being older makes them harder to kill? if a solider joins the army its to fight for his country, if the war is legal or not is completely irrelevant, as is his age, race and faith.

another headline full of crap

it was not britain that sent our troops to iraq.the order came from england.if we had been independant our scottish troops would not be there now and would not have been there at the start.We sent our under 18s back from NI as it was deemed then that they were to young for armed conflict.the govt will do anything for cannon fodder as they have run out of soldiers mainly because they have neglected them, sent them to war ill equiped,dont pay them.we told them when they ruined our scottish regimental system the army would die.we are beginning to see this now.the penalty for not listening to us.It is nice to see that they dont have much longer in power.it has been 10 years of labour misery and hopefully we are about to witness scotland going it alone with our own scottish national party.NEMO ME IMPUNE LACESSIT.

#86. What an insult to those of us who served. But your name says it all.

88 Shivago
Scottish mercenaries soldiering in Germany,France,and other countries around the world for the last 4oo years would disagree with your conclusion RE Scottish independence and noninvolvement in foreign wars.
"You'll tak the highroad and I'll tak the lowroad etc"

Bit of a (sick) laugh isn't it!

For centuries Scots fought against domination by London/English crown heads, but the cause was eventually lost ... and then Scottish regiments got used as mercenaries for expanding the London-based empire.

Lads from the Gorbals could and did join such regiments as the KOSBs, so as to escape from the poverty and neglect of imperial rule from London ... and so as to quite likely die in pursuit of expanding the London/English Crown Empire anywhere in the rest of the world. So much for relief from poverty! Even if a lad returned as a war-hero, he was quickly forgotten, whilst those who sent him into combat got rich on the spoils of war.

I don't give a fig about how young boy (and girl) soldiers are, because it is widely known that the younger a person is, the more likely it is that he/she will take risks ... and the more likely it is that he/she will be exploited.

When I was young all I wanted to do was join the RAF, or else the "British Army" ... and I did at least the latter, but have since grown up enough to know that I was volunteering to throw my life away for people who stay well-away from actually fighting their own battles, e.g. Tony the bLiar and the freak who became the head of the Washington Empire ... yep the one on which "the Sun never sets".

The US military is nearly everywhere. Coke, KFC and Hollywood ARE everywhere.

Idiots comment in the Scotsman blog that it is good to "join the army".

Excuse me, but what for?

Excuse me that I am a bit disjointed - because I have had a dram too many - but wdf are you Scots (and others) going on about, when effectively glorifying war in the name of the London and Washington empires?

Wdf if even 6-year-olds get provided with weapons to kill?

The essential point is that naive people - of any age - are being exploited to fight wars which do not advance them at all.

They just advance the inter

The article said "these processes are not infallible and the pressures on units prior to deployment have meant that there has been a small number of instances where soldiers have been inadvertently deployed to Iraq "

Tell me how this could happen? Does the military not know the ages of their soldiers? Did they not know that it was not allowed to send 17 year-olds? Lastly, could these boy and girl-soldiers not open their mouths and tell someone they were too young to be sent? Or perhaps the age thing was not brought to their attention during their training?

post 88;
totaly agree, In order to stem national upsurge scotland was given a devolved parliament in Edinburgh that has,nt got the power,s to boil a kettle everything that a parliament needs to improve and advance a country was withheld within westminster control Holyrood has no say in the matter of scotland,s regiment,s deployment to anywhere in the world the only country in the world in this position. A damned disgrace. Currenbt recruitment is at an all time low owing to bliar and his scottish merceneries. Roll on 3rd of may I hope the people make the choice and not allow our sons to go on being murdered for any more lies.

The one area in which the agreement falls short of the 'straight 18' position is in the area of voluntary enlistment into national armed forces.
(from # 60)
This means that although the military very rarely send soldiers between 17 1/2 and 18 years of age into war zones it does not mean they cannot as these soldiers are volunteers.
As for #88 I have some bad news for you, The British government sits in London and it was the British government that sent the troops to war and since the Scots that serve in the army are British soldiers then they as British soldiers serve the British crown and follow the orders given by the British government.

I would love to see some requirement that the children or other family members of world leaders had to serve in the military on active duty. I would also like to see a requirement that their children be sent into areas of conflict if said leaders decided to start a war. Not because I am hateful towards the children of world leaders, but it would be a nice safeguard against "frivolous" conflicts. If you are making a decision that could me life or death to YOUR child, you are a little more discerning than if you are making a decision that could be life or death for someone elses child.
Also, I agree with the poster who said they need to stop recruiting teens, period. Taking advantage of the fact that teenagers cannot fully comprehend the long term consequences of their actions combined with a natural desire to be out on their own and employed is opportunism at its lowest IMHO.
Someone suggested letting criminals go to Iraq, and thats not a half bad idea. Maybe they could offer the option of commuting the sentances of non-violent criminals in exchange for a tour of duty. The discipline of the military might be good for them, they could repay the country for their transgressions, and they would be employed and not be tossed out of prison at the end of their sentance with no job and a high liklihood of re-offending.
If they were kept as a special unit and not mixed with the regular troops they could be supervised more closely so they cant engage in criminal behaviour while they are there. Anyway, it was a decent idea, and I think it could bear looking into. It might be a nice way to address two problems at once.

#3 employer, I am certain that cowardly men are far more willing to give 17 year old girls a front line position on a battlefield than they are to give an older woman a position in a corporation as a CEO, or in a profession as design, medical or legal Partner. If they kill the women first they do not have to face the risk the latter. The good news for women these days is that being excluded from this corrupt world is better than being included in it. Just wait until Condosleaza Rice takes her fall and puts the idea of woman in power to shame ... or was she designed for that purpose?

Silly person Illusionsaregrander.

The US military recruits from at least the potentially criminal class of deprived US citizens.

That is why a 14-year-old girl got gang-raped, set on fire and her entire family killed, in Iraq.

That is why genocide continues day to day in Iraq.

You are a very dangerous silly person Illusionsaregrander ... seriously illusioned and part of aq global problem of millions who basically support the VERY sick world that's represented by the bLiar and Dubya particularly.

#96 socialmedic. Condy Rice is what we in the US call a twofer==two for the price of one. As a black and a female she is supposed to represent Bush's sincere approach to equality for both blacks and women. He's fooling no one. In fact, she is indeed designed to become a fall 'guy' and so prove that blacks and women aren't up to 'the job," whatever that might be.

17 or 18 there still only weans.

9. William of Liberton “ …..I do wish everybody young and old, no matter how dire their personal economic circumstances, would cease to offer themselves for recruitment by the military. That is the only way to put a stop to the warmongers among our politicians.”
16. Scaramouche:…”……never to join up….”
http://www.brownielocks.com/universalsoldierWAVE.html

21. Ailsa Craig, …“The "Flowers of the Forest",.
http://www.greatwar.nl/frames/default-mcbride.html
Scroll down, play and weep.

#79>.....it's a good career choice!
I suppose that's the reason why the wealthy always head the queue to offer their services to participate in the killing and dying machine!

Good on you Gnasher!! you are right someone had to say it 'and you did.

Very few people sign up to the armed forces to kill or be killed although that is the reality of it. The other reality behind recruitment is the same as in civilian life - the company offers this and that in the way of benefits etc.

Civilian companies like 25 year olds if they have previous experience but few people sign up to the military at 25 because they don't have previous experience, are more mature and less likely to be easily trained. At 25 in the army you should be disappointed if you are not a sergeant.

Di di dit 19 was the average age of the American soldier killed in Vietnam, as the song goes. Average.

However, every country produces career service personnel and have done since professional armies have been around. And not by conscription.

I make no judgement regarding the age of combat service personnel as I am an ex soldier and not a politician or moraliser.

The yobs that are attacking ambulance crews and firemen could be mustered into service, they could maybe serve as instructors for bayonette training.

Sambo. Or mabe as dummies for bayonet training?

The thing that surprises me most is the lack of interference from the Health and Safety spokesperson in the report. Assault courses have to made safe now, if I believe all I read in the Hootsman over the years.

Method statement on how to make safe? Keep penpushers out in peace and shoot them in war.

"3. employer, Glasgow / 1:12am 3 Feb 2007 Armed forces admit mistakes were made, underage personnel deployed. Situation corrected, controls put in place. END OF STORY
As for them being female, irrelevant and I am pretty sure that the women in armed forces would find AJ's comment insulting. They pushed for equality. They feel (and they are) their male comrades’ equal and so I suspect, gladly except the equal risk."

Tally ho, pip pip, over the top chaps (Y)

#52

Ingram used to march with the Orange Lodge! Which is probably where he learned to not speak properly to people, he is an overpromoted balloon.

I agree with #6 Nasher
yes as a serviceman I too wish that the SNP and rose gentle would disapear this grouping has made themselves the enemy of the armed forces I dont know about going after the taliban but i think osema and the taliban are our friends compared to the SNP
and rosey, we also resent them trying to speak for us we dont need them we will come home when the job is done not when they say, all this group does is try to score political points ans super inflate thier egos on the backs of british service men just to score political points and not one of them understand the way and thinking of us

They enlisted, they were not pressed into service and to quote the old cartoon, 'you knew the job was dangerous when you took it'. Some people are of a more militaristic nature than others, they feel 'right' for the military just as some people are drawn towards the medical, art, techno etc fields.

I'm against war in general and feel our leaders should learn to solve conflict in other ways, until that happens (I should live to see it!) if no one enlisted we'd have national service back requiring ALL to be part of the war machine.

You sign-up, you serve, if your country is so ungrateful that it won't let you vote or have a drink at age 17 yrs, well you knew that going in. If the 17 yr olds didn't want to go they could have pointed out thier age, i suspect most were willing to go, maybe afraid to be seen as malingering? but that is what you take on when you sign up. Besides, get them young, they are fearless & willing to do ANYTHING! And ain't that what you want? It worked so well in 1914-18 + 1939-45.

104 The yobs are ready to go, no training required, preferably for a 5 year hitch, survivors to be colonists in Iraq, worked for the Roman Legions for several centuries.

I've deliberately stayed out of this debate all day.

The 'war' (if ever there was a misnomer!....) is lost, and for all the bluster, we ALL know it. It won't be too long (I hope) before all our young people (of whatever age) are brought home. There will of course be a spin along the lines of - 'we've done our bit, things are better for our intervention, they are now able to fend for themselves etc.' but essentialy it will be a route, and we'll come home with our tails between our legs.

It should never have started. It was for a lie and nothing else.

If those leading troops into battle (sorry sending OTHERS into battle from the comforts of home) are unable to remember to hold back the under-age, who knows what other major tactical errors they might make?
If they were in charge of a sweetie shop or an off-license, and sold tobacco or booze to under-age kids, they'd be in court. What does the army propose to do about the incompetents responsible for this?

Seems we have them join the Army to take them off our street corners, only to have them stand on Iraqi ones instead. A damn sight more dangerous

It's odd that the people who are saying seventeen, or seventeen and a half isn't that much different than eighteen, are the same ones who are the "law and order" "follow the rules" types. Except when the govt. is concerned.

The point is not how close the age is, but the age-old problem of "slippery slope." Once seventeen is okay, someone with a war to fight will say "why not sixteen?" Then fifteen. Then fourteen. There always has to be a boundary - a dividing line. Otherwise there is no sense to having any laws at all.

The amazing hypocrisy is they are not proscuting African leaders for their own slippery slope. Either put Tony Blair in the dock at the Hague or let the African leaders go. Dead kids are dead kids. And there is nothing glorious about dying for Oil.

The Army has recruitment by the wrong end of the stick. If it's so damn important that Britain hold hands with the Yanks in Iraq then let Tony Blair be first in line, followed by his cabinet cronies and the captains of industry. Bring back National Service but set the lower age limit at 55 and give priority to those who hold shares in energy and weapons.

116. Jim Mooney, US /Well said pal.

I am disgusted with the decision to send 17 year olds to Iraq. We are the only country in Europe to enlist under the age of 18 and deploy them in a war zone as support. by doing this the Government are also showing double standards. Under the Every Child Matters agenda which covers children and young people aged 0 - 19years one of the 5 outcomes is Staying Safe, safe from physical harm and abuse so surely by deploying under 18s in Iraq becomes a child protection issue

Daniels Trust is supporting a call for the enlistment age to be raised to 18. and would like to see armed forces recruitment staff not being allowed into schools giving career advice. The young people they see are aged 15 and are vunerable to the stories of excitment and adventure, they are not told the bottom line If you join the army you have to go to war if needed and may be killed.

I have worked with young recruits who have enlisted at the age of 16 and have faced huge problems in training when they realise what it is they have signed up for. Some have their entire lives ruined

Hopefully with the government looking at raising the school age to 18 would put a stop to enlisting under this age

My son Daniel died in the army aged 18 whilst serving at Caterick
Lynn Farr
http://embark.to/DANIEL

I have worked with young recruits who have enlisted at the age of 16 and have faced huge problems in training when they realise what it is they have signed up for. Some have their entire lives ruined

Why have their whole life's been ruined if they joined at 16 then they are cadets and can leave at any time.
Any one who is under the age of 18 can leave the forces they do not have to stay in if they do not want to, their minimum contract does not come into effect until they are 18.

116 - Jim, 117 - Pender - Agree totally with your posts. Thanks for proving yet again that our friends across the water are not all right wing Yehaaa rednecks, and Pender, age limits slightly wrong, reasons as given, absolutely spot on.

119 - Lynn - with you totally, good luck with your project. And if you have a God, may he go with you. :*(

120
Walter they are not cadets at the age of 16 now they are soldiers and there is only a short period of weeks in which they can request to be discharged.

I agree with you that their contract does not come into effect until they are 18 and any time served before that does not count. But if they miss the window for being discharged early on in training there is a heck of a job for them to get out

like, who cares, the Europeans are so busy sucking up to the US(apart from Spain, Italy and France of course) even they couldn't be bothered buying into this one.Or is this a ploy by the politically correct hoping that someone will pick up on it. Normally the European Commission for thought control in Britain would have started an enquiry by now. And all the Scottish Nationalists should remember that if Scotland splits from England, the Euro suckup to the US cartel have already decided that Scotland won't be allowed into the EU, while letting every three towns and a US missile base ex-Eastern Bloc country into it.

THIS USE OF CHILD SOLDIERS HAS JUST COME TO LIGHT, HOWEVER, ENGLAND HAS BEEN BLEEDING SCOTLAND FOR 300 YEARS...FIGHTING ENGLAND'S WARS...USING SCOTS FOR "CANNON FODDER"...THEIR OWN "ENGLISH" YOUTH LEAD A MORE PRIVILEGED LIFE. SCOTLAND NEEDS TO BE FREE OF ENGLAND LIKE IRELAND AND MAYBE CANADA.

AND YES, GEORGE BUSH (aka PRESIDENT STUPID) WILLINGLY SENDS YOUR CHILDREN TO WAR BUT SENDS "HIS TWINS" TO PARTY AROUND THE WORLD...BUT NEVER TO A WAR ZONE. BUT THEN, PRESIDENT DUM-YAH WAS SMART ENOUGH TO RUN FROM VIET NAM AND TO KEEP HIS PRECIOUS TWINS AWAY FROM COMBAT. TO PARAPHRASE PRESIDENT STUPID: "Send more Scots, please."

This story is redundant. It is far from what I would term 'news'. Regardless of age, the more we stay away from the army, war, and oppose politics which continue to cripple us, the better we will live.

Bill, Dunblane...do I know you? If so, Auchterarder could be our common connection.

So... 17 year olds in a theatre of War... a mere ingrown hair on a body politic corrupted with leprosy. A preoccupation with such "niggling" details is akin to a passenger on the Titanic considering the dire condition of his manicure. There are so many larger and more present issues, and more to come before this fearful period in Human History--the last chapter for some of us--is at an end. Here's the "skinny," the lean, mean, fat-free reality--before the chill of Indifference finally penetrates my brain stem, and I succumb to a Spiritual, Emotional, Intellectual, Ethical and Moral "Hypothermia": The Second and Third World will; by starvation, disease, warfare, et cetera; be cleared of the flesh "overburden" to liberate the resource base beneath (think of Africa). Social upheaval, wroth by the infiltration of Western Materialism/Consumerism and Military presence; will instigate the collapse of Indigenous Culture/Infrastructure, sustained by internecine conflict (think of Iraq), and abetted by the Western First World with a ready supply of "guns and butter" -- to better exploit the resultant cheap labor base required (think of China) as First World Labor Forces are disenfranchised and finally neutralized (think of the US and Briton) and the First World wage scale "seeks" its lowest level globally. Military Service will, for disenfranchised First Worlders, become the "necessary" option; providing ample cannon fodder to implement Global "Police" actions (think of the War on Terror); and a country-by-country justification for a shift of Governmental priorities from social welfare for its Citizenry, to Military Capability for the World. Time Marches on... In the First World some--a select few--will move up to fill "managerial" positions in the global Corporate Nexus, while most will move down to join the ranks of a Global work force--much reduced in number--at the literal

#127, one can understand that the world has tolerated the idea of child labor in the third world for more than a decade now, this is how low our civilization had sunk, here is another mile-marker into our treck bacwards as an advanced civilization. I am not sure exactly how far backwards we are at this point, at least pre-1750. Do forgive those who mark the degree of our regress. With no hope in the future, at least they are keeping occupied.

I enlisted as a 'boy soldier' in the old Infantry Junior Leaders Bn in the early 1960s, I slipped in, due to a clerical error, at the age of 14 knowing full well I was under age. By the age of 17 I had been trained to command up to platoon level, use ground and cover and all platoon weapons to close with and kill the enemy. At 17 1/2 I was in my first combat tour, back in the 1960s 17 year olds fighting in Britain's small wars was not unusual.

Then came the 1970s and Ulster, three young men from the Royal Highland Fusiliers, two of them under 18, were lured to their deaths - brutally executed by the IRA. Following the public outcry it became Army policy not to allow under 18s in combat areas, which we assiduously upheld. Even though I had served in combat as a 17 year old I wholeheartedly agreed with the decision. 17 is too young. Shame on the army for not abiding by their policy.
That said, there'll always be young men (and women) with a thirst for adventure willing to test themselves in combat. I'd do it all again!

What's the big deal?

Back in the 1960's when I was 16 I was driving a Bofors 40mm, a twin 20mm Oerlikon, was proficient in the use, maintenance and operation of all then current small arms (GPMG, LMG, SLR, SMG + Browning Pistol), plus grenades, scare charges and demolition charges, explosive minesweeping wire-cutters ..... as the Gunner's Mate on a minesweeper and had the keys to and total access to and control of the entire 'shebang' of such items in the magazine, ready-use lockers and gun lockers.

And I was pretty damned good with all of them, so much so that during my first live fire anti-aircraft excersise at sea, as the first to take a shot at the passsing aerial target, I managed to scuttle the excersise for the entire squadron of 8 minesweepers by blasting the target towed behind the jet out of the sky with the first burst of four rounds from the 40mm Bofors.

Don't feed me this crap that the young in an organized and disciplined military or naval force (like any of the UK forces) can't be trusted to have responsibilty and perform exceptionally - bollocks!

You are mixing apples and oranges here, for the 'real' issue of 'young' solders has to do with tinpot third-world piece of crap 'nations' run by little tyrants, or wanna be tyrants, drug dealers, etc. Not the RN, RAF, British Army, or RM.

Fight the real enemy - non-democratic 'states' and terrorists and leave our forces alone.

Most of you commenting are not worthy to lick the boots of the average British serviceman or woman.

So, get a clue to idiot paranoid haters of all things decent and traditional.

131. Conan, Here

There is nothing wrong with youngsters learning all the things and doing al the things such as you mentioned above.

But there is everything wrong with sending teenage boys and girls into war, especially before they have reached their majority of 18.

The Army broke UN treaties, International Law and its own rules. Those responsible for sending those kids to Iraq should be held to account.

The issue isn't the age limitbut who is mighty.The weak have no voices,no choices.Durring the WorlWar II the british ran to Africa for forces to help them fight their opponets @ a cheap cost. The olds aretoo worried of their famlies at home.The word "INFANT" means baby so let them go ahead.A father who doesn't nind of his child sents him.................

Bill - what do you call sailing around atop 5 tons of explosives, sweeping live WW2 mines, and being ready at any monent to get blown to hell by the first Soviet (then) missile that comes your way.

Man, you need to take another look at your motivations and objectivity - both seem a bit befuddled for my liking.

You don't address the issue of the fact that our forces are really, measurably different from the likes of the Lord's Liberation Army, the armed gangs in Liberia, etc. Are you really comparing our forces to the likes of them?

You do the British serviceman and woman a dis-service by lumping all 'young soldiers' together.

As I say, fight the real enemy - lets not tussle among ourselves just to make some academic point.

Anyway, what is this crap that at 17 you're a child? When our modern forces were first organized in the last few centuries at 13 (for girls) and 14 (for boys) you could marry, at 17 you were very likely out there working - including being in the Navy or the Army, and today at 16 you can have a homosexual fling and get AIDS.

This notion that you're a child at 17-18 is bogus and a crutch, and is just another tool of the anti-traditionalist who re hell-bent of destroying what took centuries to build. Be careful what you wish for - is all I can tell you.

BTW, the UN, that bastion of democracy, I mean demogogary, has absolutely no credibility on this issue. Most of its third-world scum membership is not worth the powder to blow them away, they treat their real children to disease, malnutrition, tyranny, persecution, propaganda in lieu of education, genocide, etc., etc. You know this is true!

And, in my opinion this is a more pressing issue than worrying if some VOLUNTEER in our forces is 17 years & 1-11 months old, or 18 when they get VOLUNTARILY deploy to the likes of Iraq, Afganistan, to Sea, or anywhere else. Generally, the older hands look out for the younger ones anyway and they typically DO

134. Conan, Here

I'm not "mouthing off about how I 'feel'".

They flat shouldn't have been in Iraq, and that is all there is to it.

When I lived in Ayrshire pre- war, those who were
part time soldiers were more or less *despised* by their locals. Some used to go to a training camp in Devon during the summer and on returning home, had to conceal their uniform; very few ever saw them adorned in their khaki attire. My late mother's youngest brother was totally immersed in militarism and she used to humiliate him when ever the opportunity arose.
He fought from 1939 until the war ended winning the military medal for some *heroic* deed in Italy, but to my mother's dying day, she never forgave him for his military allegiance to the killing and dying process. He was a much respected person locally until he died himself.
Having served myself during the Second World War and witnessed its sheer brutality which in most cases rarely, if ever, the wealthy class who were mainly directly or indirectly responsible for, were ALWAYS notably absent from the horror of the ACTUAL futile killing and dying process. Not much has changed?
How many children of the wealthy class queue up to offer their short lives to fight wars?

136. JimmyRibsh1te, Livingston

Thanks for that.

I knew the Army was short-handed, but I'm glad to know that our kids won't be sent to war now.

#139.>Partly correct! You suggest I have a *wee* chip on my shoulder, might I correct you ?
The *wee* chip is larger than you describe.
I meant what I implied, and not those such as the two characters you chose, I expect randomly.
When and where did Churchill EVER see an angry shot fired? And what politicians do you know ever offered their lives to fight for the country, or any other country.
Churchill appeared briefly on the Western Front during World War One as a high ranking officer plastered with gold braid; not with a rifle and bayonet as part of his kit. His presence was solely for propaganda reasons at the time, as volunteers had become few and far between in offering their young lives as a sacrifice. Hence the reason for the state compelling youngsters to join in the slaughter by introducing conscription.
Churchill appeared with the Royal Scots Fusiliers, in which my late father served and in the process, was wounded twice or three times during the carnage. Later, he was transferred to the Seaforth Highlanders and I believe, fought at Passchendaele from which he survived. I am sorry you were unfortunate to see conflict as a service man. But, many children in England saw more conflict during the blitzing off their towns and cities than many UK service men during the PHONEY WAR. And my late wife at the age off 16 was buried alive for 24 hours alongside her dead mother and elder decapitated sister. And guess what? 99.9% of the victims were from ordinary families who never had the option too flee the city, which the wealthy had, and did. I am also a Second World War veteran and like millions more who survived, pledged never to allow any off my family to be sacrificed to make the country a safe place for the protection off culprits who are the primary cause of such conflicts.

It's always the working people's kids who fight the wars. There is only one person in the entire US Congress who has a child fighting in Iraq. I'd like to see the Bush twins eating sand and taking fire but nooooo....they're busying themselves shopping and getting their nails done. And one more thing...it's shameful here in the US that the only ones making sacrifices in this hideous war are the soldiers....it's apparently not bothering anybody in the shopping malls. Ask us average people to make some sacrifices for the war effort and it would end quick.

94 WALTER I WAS BORN IN DUNFERMLINE,I SPENT 40 YEARS IN THE BLACK WATCH,I HAVE NEVER SAID IN MY LIFE THAT I COME FROM BRITAIN OR WAS IN THE BRITISH ARMY.IHAVE ALWAYS SAID THAT I AM A SCOTSMAN AND THAT I WAS IN A HIGHLAND REGIMENT IN THE ARMY IN SCOTLAND.MY BIRTH CERT SAYS I WAS BORN A SCOT IN SCOTLAND AND I WILL NEVER BE ANYTHING ELSE.WHAT SOUNDS BETTER-A PROUD SCOT OR A FUZZY BRITISHMAN.THATS WHAT MAKES SCOTMEN SO SPECIAL.NEMO ME IMPUNE LACESSIT

Dear Jimmy Whatever: Your tendency to fallback on insult rather than polite discourse is exceeded only by your amazing talent for missing the point. The point being: our countries are fighting in Iraq with soldiers who come primarily from working class backgrounds. When only one member of the US congress (435 in the House and 100 in the senate) has a child fighting in Iraq as opposed to about every 4th household in my town who have children of the age to serve, something is badly out of adjustment. Our congress votes our kids off to war and they don't send their own. Can't wait to hear the latest insult so if that makes you feel better, blast away.

I have read various comments about 'children sent to Iraq', but none about these 'children' how they felt about being RTU. Is it not about time that the TERM CHILD is legally definied. Ie you can drive a car at 17 and kill somebody but not serve your country, in uniform, and be prepaired to, if necessary to die.
I am an ex serviceman who was sent to ADEN in 1967 (01-10). My DOB is **/07/1949. I was proud to wear the uniform and do my duty. I think that perhaps on reflection that some of the children of today will never GROW up.