Today is the day that we spend a little time to remember those who gave their lives in the wars of 1914-1918 and 1939-1949 as well as in the many conflicts that our Soldiers Sailors and Airmen ( and their supporting colleagues) have been involved in since and now. Questions are being asked about the level of support our military personell deserve today. Many query the reason as to why our soldiers etc. are even involved in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq . Those that are there, are there out of choice. Unlike WW1 and WW11, no-one forced them to join up. When they do join up, they are trained in various skills, one of which is warfare. They are trained to fight, they are trained to shoot at people, to kill. They are taught how to minimise the risk of being killed or injured themselves and how to help those who are with them. For this , they are paid, that is their job, a job , may I add, I would not want, these people deserve every penny that they receive. Take a look at two very different scenario's. JIMMY SMITH :- aged 21 Jimmy is a soldier he joined up at 16 and is now serving in Afghanistan. Its Friday, 7 am, his last day of duty before he returned home. It is all he can think about. He steps on a IED and he loses his leg. He returns home and is looked after by the military and is still being paid. JIMMY BROWN :- aged 21 Jimmy is an engineer, he has just completed his apprenticeship that he started at 16, Its Friday 7 am and he is on his way to work. He is thinking about going out with his mates that night. He crosses the road to get a paper, he is knocked down by an uninsured driver, still drunk from the previous night, Jimmy loses a leg. He is looked after by the NHS he is not being paid his wages from work. Is there any real difference between the two cases. Had it been a case that they were killed, is one case more deserving than the other. They are both someones son, brother, boyfriend. Both boys were going about their daily lives, a life they chose IS THERE REALLY A DIFFERENCE?