Under-18s were deployed to Iraq (BBC) {UK troops}

[eppur_se_muova]

Fifteen 17-year-old British soldiers were inadvertently sent to Iraq despite a UN convention to keep children away from armed conflict, it has emerged.

In a written answer, defence minister Adam Ingram said the deployments took place between June 2003 and July 2005.

He said most soldiers went just before being eligible at 18 or were taken off duties less than a week after arrival.

Lib Dem education spokeswoman Sarah Teather said the government had shown a "shocking level of incompetence".

Mr Ingram said the UK ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict on 24 June 2003 to ensure that under-18s were not deployed to war zones.
***
more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6328771.stm

[JeffR]

1. Thank God they took those 17 year olds out of harm's way

Any civilized - or as the British would say, civilised - society knows that you can only send people 18 years old and over to DIE FOR A BUNCH OF FUCKING LIES.

[Poll_Blind]

2. On relfection I find it kind of bizarre that we will soldier kids as soon...

...as they're old enough to vote. I guess it makes sense in a way. Still, would be nice if you had to wait till you were 20 before risking your face, limbs, body and mind on a battlefield for The Cause de jour. Of course, the potential enlistees might enroll in college, start a family, get a better job than the one they had in high school and think twice about enlisting.

PB

[daleo]

4. And they can't go to a bar until they are 21. n/t

[LeftyMom]

3. Well, thank goodness we evacuated the children of Iraq first. Certainly wouldn't want under 18s in

a warzone now, would we?

:grr: