4 ms·

And their are Uk nationals who join the US armed forces

• gadders 11y ago
  Not to mention the French Foreign Legion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Foreign_Legion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Foreign_Legion or the UK's use of Nepalese Ghurkas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurkha https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurkha
  • eveningcoffee 11y ago
    Foreign Legion and The Gurkhas are not private mercenary units. These are regular army units where the enlisted are not native nationals. The first sentence from linked article about French Foreign Legion says that The French Foreign Legion is a military service branch of the French Army established in 1831, unique because it was created for foreign nationals willing to serve in the French Armed Forces. I repeat if it did not sink in: Foreign Legion and The Gurkhas are not private mercenary units, they are not private armies. The main argument of calgoo was that "Private militarizes armies should NEVER be allowed to exist.". This is very far from being "a very nationalistic position". He did not say that foreign nationals should not be enlisted into national armies. So please, could we stop this bullshit now?
    • gadders 11y ago
      I didn't mean to imply that they're mercenaries, merely that they are fighting for a "foreign" army.
      • eveningcoffee 11y ago
        Yes, I understand your position, and I hope that you now understand the difference between calgoo and cm2187 claims and understand the context in what you made your comment.