[Closed] Vote Lumley!

So you were right then mikertroid, the difference between a Gurkha and a mercenary is indeed subtle - basically down to pretty minor technical details such as whether they have a dedicated regiment and a pension scheme.

However, presumably in most respects (including the all important 'moral' ones) there is [i]no[/i] difference between a Gurkha and any other mercenary. That is, they are prepared to fight for a country which has nothing to do with them, in wars which have nothing to do with them, for money.

Whilst natural justice clearly dictates that the right of former Gurkhas to settle in the UK is simply indisputable, perhaps the long term solution should be that Britain, as the world's 5th richest nation, and with an indigenous population of over 60 million, stops relying on mercenaries from a tiny impoverished third world country.

After all, as every tabloid reader in the country knows, the British soldier is the best in the world, and it's only really the superior and unique training which they recieve within the British army, that makes the Gurkhas such a formidable fighting force.

.

Having said that, there are as we speak, 19,000 former Maoist guerrillas languishing in UN camps in Nepal waiting to be incorporated into the Nepalese army, bearing in mind that they basically thrashed the Nepalese army, perhaps they could be incorporated into the British army ?

Why, even their women seem a bit scary 😯

[img] [/img]

Gus, the essential difference between a Mercenary and a Gurkha, both morally and legally, is that they have sworn an oath of allegiance to the country for which they are fighting.

When it comes to Citizenship - I'm totally with the concept brought about in the works of Robert Heinlein - Service ([i]not only military[/i]) Guarantees Citizenship.

I also think that the underlying ethos brought about within the FF Legion, that someone becomes "Français par le sang versé" is entirely respectable, and once that we should look at building onto our own criteria.

Ratty - I think that you have completely failed to understand the purpose of the French Foreign Legion.

The French being French, understand that it is the right of every man in the world to fight and die
in some god-forsaken distant foreign land, after being jilted by their lover.

Oh, God, not Heinlein! Doesn't the existence of the French Foreign Legion alongside a compulsory military force somewhat undermine your argument?

the essential difference between a Mercenary and a Gurkha, both morally and legally, is that they have sworn an oath of allegiance to the country for which they are fighting.

(Terrible French spelling all over the magasin here)

Dang, if it wasnt for the pesky Psoriasis keeping me out then you'd be rid of me Gus 😀

Kona -
i) No conscription in france any more (plus the Legion recruits primarily non native, people who would not be eligible to become citizens without service)
ii) I would say that Gurkha history more than proves the substance that they accept their oath of allegiance as something deeper than a "few words".

Z-11

Spot on.

Grizzlygus- you've not appreciated the fact that MOST Ghurkas DO have residency rights , just not all; that's what's wrong.

They're not mercenaries by any stretch

i) yeah, conscription went in 2001, but that's not when the Foreign Legion came into existence! if military service and citizenship were such great bedfellows, then you wouldn't need to recruit foreigners because there would be so many locals wanting to go professional and the civilian population would be incredibly civic-minded and cohesive - which isn't (and wasn't) France as she is.

ii) I would say that Gurkha history more than proves the substance that they accept their oath of allegiance as something deeper than a "few words".

Well, that's precisely my point - the difference between mercenaries and Gurkhas isn't mumbling a few words, it's substance and law and a bunch of other things.

Grizzlygus- you've not appreciated the fact that MOST Ghurkas DO have residency rights , just not all; that's what's wrong.

They're not mercenaries by any stretch

I think [i]I do[/i] appreciate that many Gurkhas have residency rights in the UK. But I'm also aware that one of the pre-97 conditions is 20 years of service to qualify for residency, which in effect only applies to officers, as the rank and file Gurkhas (which is 98% of Gurkhas) are only allowed to serve for 15 years. Nice to see that good old British class distinction is still alive and kicking in Her Majesty's armed forces.

"[i]They're not mercenaries by any stretch[/i] "

😀 You really don't have to 'stretch' your imagination very far to figure out that anyone who is prepared to fight in wars for purely financial reward is in essence, a 'mercenary'.

Or do you have a quaint little image of a simple and yet fiercely loyal people, who's only motivation is to serve the Great White Queen ?

I'll remind you that considerably more Nepalese are in the Gurkhas of the Indian army - are they similarly motivated by a deep loyalty to India ?

Furthermore I suspect that if the Nepalese felt such a strong affinity with Britain, Nepal would still be a British territory, in the same way as Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands still are.

IMO the motivation of young Nepalese men who are desperate to join the British Gurkhas (98% of whom are rejected) is really rather clear. Also pretty damn clear are the motives of Britain, a rich and wealthy country which exploits desperately poor people to fight in it's sometimes highly unpopular military adventures.

"anyone who is prepared to fight in wars for purely financial reward is in essence, a 'mercenary'."

This is just arseburgers: by the same argument, UK recruits are mercenaries in the UK army because they only do it for money. And that means either the Gurkhas aren't mercenaries because other squaddies aren't, or that both Gurkhas and squaddies are mercenaries, which dilutes the meaning of the word "mercenary" to the point where it's meaningless.

A mercenary is a person who takes part in an armed conflict, who is not a national or a party to the conflict, and is "motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party

^from Wiki (so no idea how accurate it is)

top points to note are...
[b]who is not a national or a party to the conflict[/b]
kona bunny, i think its pretty obvious that squadies cannot be mercenaries for their own country 🙄

[b]compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party[/b]
Ive no idea how much the Gurkahs get, but i doubt its more that a similar level squadie, so i dont know if you can actually call them mercenaries. Perhaps a better word would be "foreign volunteer" [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercenary ](wiki link)[/url]

Stato's link is (I think) the Geneva Conventioon definition. It matters, because mercenaries are not entitled to Geneva Cnvention protection as prisoners of war.

Ghurkas serving in the British army are not (technically) mercenaries under that definition because they do not fail the test of receiving "compensation substantially in excess", they are paid less or the same as a British soldier. If of course we looked at it in terms of "is there anything else they could be doing in Nepal that would net them more money than fighting in the British army?" we would (I suspect) conclude that "private gain" was quite an important motivation for them, although I am sure that, like soldiers in most places, they are also happy to do what they do.

I do not understand the position of, say, British and american civilian contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan under this definition though. Although motivated by finaincial gain and paid 10 times as much as regular troops they are nationals of countires involved. I suppose thw answer is that they are not combatants, either because there is no state of war or because (theoreticallly) say, convoy guards or whatever are not taking part in hostilities.

[i]we would (I suspect) conclude that "private gain" was quite an important motivation for them[/i]

[url= http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6251988.ece ]Thousands join Army to escape recession[/url] 😀

Even given the "special contracted, er, mercenaries" argument, I fail to see why Ghurkas should not be extended the same rights and privileges as Commonwealth troops. Ghurka vets should at least have the right to settle here, if they so choose. The attitude of *successive administrations was neatly encapsulated by the suggestion (in court) that a soldier holding the VC had not demonstrated sufficient "connection" to this country. Others may do a better job of raising citizen armies, but [i]nobody[/i] does mealy-mouthed doublespeak better than us Brits!

I do not understand the position of, say, British and american civilian contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan under this definition though. Although motivated by finaincial gain and paid 10 times as much as regular troops they are nationals of countires involved.

kona bunny, i think its pretty obvious that squadies cannot be mercenaries for their own country

Yeah konabunny, I try to carefully choose my words, hence the use of the term [i]'in essence'[/i] and the use of apostrophes in 'mercenary'.

Because I was fully aware that an 'arseburger' might come along and explain how 'technically' they weren't strictly 'mercenaries'.

However of course anyone who is prepared to fight in wars for purely financial reward is in essence, a 'mercenary'

:rolls eyes:

I'm back; what did I miss................? 😆

Well if its of no consequence

Possible career move could be to the dark mercenary side.

Won't be expecting any rights for anything 😉