Children Sent To War In Iraq...

[SJRod55]

Children deployed to fight in Iraq
Press Association
Sunday February 4, 2007 4:43 AM


Fifteen children have been deployed to fight in Iraq since June 2003, it has been disclosed.

The figure, given by defence minister Adam Ingram, was described as "shocking" by the Liberal Democrats.

Mr Ingram said the "vast majority" were deployed within a week of their 18th birthdays or were removed from theatre less than a week after arriving.

All were 17 years old, while as many as four were girls.

He said: "Provisional estimates collated from manual records show that no 16-year-old and 15 17-year-old personnel have been deployed to Iraq since the 'Optional Protocol to the Convention on the rights of the child on the involvement of children in armed conflict' was ratified on 24 June 2003. None have been deployed since July 2005."

In a written answer to the House of Commons, Mr Ingram said that new procedures had been introduced to ensure that under-18s were not deployed to war zones.

He added: "Unfortunately, these processes are not infallible and the pressures on units prior to deployment have meant that there have been a small number of instances where soldiers have been inadvertently deployed to Iraq before their 18th birthday."

But Liberal Democrat education spokeswoman Sarah Teather, who requested the information, called on Prime Minister Tony Blair to apologise.

She said: "This is an inexcusable blunder by the Government that reveals a shocking level of incompetence. We have rules about sending those under 18 into conflict for a reason.

"There is no way people so young are mentally or emotionally prepared to face bloodshed on the scale seen in Iraq."

[catholicinsd]

So the Bush & Blair governments put children in harm's way. And people still support this stupid thing?

[Mary's servant]

AMDG+JMJ
So at 17 they are not mentally or emotionally prepared to handle it, but one week later, when they are 18, they are? The Liberal Democrats really need to find an intelligent argument to support their causes. Just one, that's all I'm asksing. I'm only asking that because that will take the investigative teams of the entire party busy until I'm dead, and I'm only 19.

[Nathan]

If you ask me, even 18 is too young for all of that. 18 year-olds today are not the 18 year-olds of the 1930s and 40s; the law in the United States, Canada, and Britain has not recognized this shift, which is the result of immense social and cultural changes in the West since the days of WWII. Quite legally, we really are sending babes over there. This may very well be a major factor to the disastrous situations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Mary-Kathryn]

[quote name='Nathan' post='1184851' date='Feb 4 2007, 08:47 PM']
If you ask me, even 18 is too young for all of that. 18 year-olds today are not the 18 year-olds of the 1930s and 40s; the law in the United States, Canada, and Britain has not recognized this shift, which is the result of immense social and cultural changes in the West since the days of WWII. Quite legally, we really are sending babes over there. This may very well be a major factor to the disastrous situations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
[/quote]

In the US, they may be "babes" when they go to boot camp, but they are not babies by the time they deploy. They are trained military men capable of doing their jobs and ready to do what they [b]voluntarily[/b] signed up for.

[catholicinsd]

[quote name='Mary's servant' post='1184796' date='Feb 4 2007, 05:54 PM']
AMDG+JMJ
So at 17 they are not mentally or emotionally prepared to handle it, but one week later, when they are 18, they are? The Liberal Democrats really need to find an intelligent argument to support their causes. Just one, that's all I'm asksing. I'm only asking that because that will take the investigative teams of the entire party busy until I'm dead, and I'm only 19.
[/quote]

So you support illegal deployment?

[KnightofChrist]

I wonder what the the soldiers in question have to say. I doubt their wineing like "children."

The only purpose a soldier has is to risk his/her life to kill and break things. If this is such a problem with the Brits why do they have 17yr old soldiers in the first place? If their too young for the job, why let them have it in the first place?

Edited February 5, 2007 by KnightofChrist

[Didymus]

[quote name='catholicinsd' post='1184765' date='Feb 4 2007, 04:54 PM']
So the Bush & Blair governments put children in harm's way. And people still support this stupid thing?
[/quote]
why are you bringing Bush into this?

[catholicinsd]

[quote name='Didymus' post='1185135' date='Feb 5 2007, 12:23 AM']
why are you bringing Bush into this?
[/quote]

Because Mr. Blair didn't lead the charge for this War.

[ardillacid]

[quote name='catholicinsd' post='1184765' date='Feb 4 2007, 04:54 PM']
So the Bush & Blair governments put children in harm's way. And people still support this stupid thing?
[/quote]
I really would appreciate you giving a link proving that Bush did this with our soldiers, or edit your post

[catholicinsd]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1185088' date='Feb 4 2007, 11:32 PM']
The only purpose a soldier has is to risk his/her life to kill and break things.
[/quote]

Everyone jumps over me when I call our troops boys and girls, but he can say carp like this?

[Didymus]

[quote name='catholicinsd' post='1185177' date='Feb 5 2007, 01:28 AM']
Because Mr. Blair didn't lead the charge for this War.
[/quote]

This is getting absurd. This war would have been fought no matter what administration. They were all talking about WMDs. Clinton himself said that Saddam had them and that he'll use them. Hilary had said there is no other way to deal with this than regime change. Pellosi the same. Blair, Rumsfeld. They all agreed. And America stood by them because it was the right thing to do. They all led the charge, some just feel all the pressure should go to the leader of them all, which is Bush. I'm still behind my president in this war, because we still live on the same planet that we did on September 12, 2001, when the entire country was behind him.

[catholicinsd]

[quote name='Didymus' post='1185246' date='Feb 5 2007, 08:24 AM']
This is getting absurd. This war would have been fought no matter what administration. They were all talking about WMDs. Clinton himself said that Saddam had them and that he'll use them. Hilary had said there is no other way to deal with this than regime change. Pellosi the same. Blair, Rumsfeld. They all agreed. And America stood by them because it was the right thing to do. They all led the charge, some just feel all the pressure should go to the leader of them all, which is Bush. I'm still behind my president in this war, because we still live on the same planet that we did on September 12, 2001, when the entire country was behind him.
[/quote]

You're getting off topic. The issue is that the UK, led by Mr. Blair, illagally sent children to fight in a war.

[MissScripture]

[quote name='catholicinsd' post='1185273' date='Feb 5 2007, 09:29 AM']
You're getting off topic. The issue is that the UK, led by Mr. Blair, illagally sent children to fight in a war.
[/quote]
You brought Bush into this.

[catholicinsd]

Can we just forget him then? The Government of Britain illegally sent children over to fight.