Afghanistan

[FromtheGlos]

Alright lads.

Anyone got any clue on how long the RM's will be in afghanistan?

The other thing is how long is this intensity of fighting going to keep up?

Thanks,

Sam

 

[Dodger]

No real way to tell fella. 42 are going in August I think? not heard of anything like that.

One of my mates in the Army has been told that he will be deployed there in 2010 ( he has just got back from Iraq) so I am guessing that as a country we are expecting it to last years. . .

 

[lord_carl]

welll for the next 30 years defoo like the TV show says ppl who are yet to be born will find themselfs in afganistan

 

[Ninja_Stoker]

Truly there's no way of telling.

When I grew up, Northern Ireland was the constant active service deployment.

Then there was the Falklands, 14 months after joining. Then the ongoing Iran/Iraq war (Armilla Patrol), then the Lebanon, then Bosnia/kosovo, then Iraq/Kuwait, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, Iraq again, Afghanistan again and so it continues.

Seem to remember being told that 1967 was the only year in the Corps history that they were not actively deployed.

Believe it or not Ofsted are actually inspecting the AFCO's to check we tell the applicants they "might" see action & there is a danger to life.

Fourteen months in & even me (a bone fide coward) was fighting fires & dealing with carnage whilst being shot at & bombed. Whoopsie, did I forget to tell someone that the Armed Forces are dangerous?

 

[FromtheGlos]

Thats all good for me to be honest. No one 'likes' war, but i'm not signing up to fanny about. Nows the time to be joining the corp i think, with such a high chance of getting deployed. It would be unreal to go straight from training

 

[Ninja_Stoker]

Fact is, if you're over 18, you may well be deployed on active service immediately after training.

If under 18 you have to wait.

It's surprising the amount of under 18s that leave the Corps because they cannot deploy immediately with their friends they joined-up with.