Should non-citizens be eligible for Canadian Forces recruitment?

[Machjo]

What do you think? To take an example, wouldn't Afghans be far more qualified to join the Canadian forces than any Canadian soldier? And seeing that we are fighting on their soil, not only qualified, but entitled to be given an equal chance at recruitment?

 

[Tyr]

Our Defence Forces are small enough to definitely need them, but.... No.

In "todays" world, I would be a 'tad leery of their loyalties and intentions.

If an Afghani "non-citizen" in our armed forces was asked to fire upon Afghani's in Afghanistan, I just don't know if that would be a 100% probability.
If I was a "citizen" in the armed forces in Afghanistan and the person who "had my six" was a "non-citizen" Afghani, I just would be that comfortable or confident

It would cause more problems than it would be worth

 

[Machjo]

Our Defence Forces are small enough to definitely need them, but.... No.

In "todays" world, I would be a 'tad leery of their loyalties and intentions.

So they're worthy of our protection, but not of our trust. Have you evr thought that maybe they're just returning our trust, that they are prepared to trust us as much as we trust them? If our soldiers are so standoffish against them, whereby we act as a wise Messiah coming to rescue them, but that they are unworthy of participating in their own rescue, is that not outright racist?

If an Afghani "non-citizen" in our armed forces was asked to fire upon Afghani's in Afghanistan, I just don't know if that would be a 100% probability.
If I was a "citizen" in the armed forces in Afghanistan and the person who "had my six" was a "non-citizen" Afghani, I just would be that comfortable or confident

It would cause more problems than it would be worth

So if the Afghans are not prepared to fire upon other Afghans, then what right have we to do so? And if a soldier coldn't trust the person next to him because that person is an Afghan, then he won't trust the average man on the street either because he's an Afghan too. Does sending such zenophobic soliers to the battlefield really help things? If they really have that much distrust, don't you think th elocals pick up on it, how our soldiers look at them, stay clear of them, etc.?

 

[Machjo]

If our army has a right to be in their country, then their people have a right to be in our army. If their people is unworthy of being treated as human beings equal to us, then why are we there?

 

[Dexter Sinister]

If our army has a right to be in their country, then their people have a right to be in our army.

Yeah, I think that pretty much nails it. Good thought.

 

[Francis2004]

What do you think? To take an example, wouldn't Afghans be far more qualified to join the Canadian forces than any Canadian soldier? And seeing that we are fighting on their soil, not only qualified, but entitled to be given an equal chance at recruitment?

Machjo, why not ? As long as they meet the same conditions as Canadian soldiers.

After all if our Prime Minister does not need to be born in Canada, why should our military need to be as well.

Now I realize our Prime Minister must be Canadian to become PM but he need not be born Canadian. Hence an Afghanistan born Canadian Citizen Conservative/Liberal/NDP leader could become Canada's next PM..

 

[Unforgiven]

Nope. If you want to fight for my country you better be apart of it, not just a guest.

 

[Scott Free]

The nation state is a slave colony, that is, a management system for chattel and a means of controlling those slaves thereby. Make people dependent on a nation and they will be patriotic. If someone wants to fight for that then be my guest. Canada is a big lump of sh!t in my estimation, conquered and stolen land, that claims me by no authority and inflicts laws on me through violence. I cannot own land here without it being subject to taxation and therefore I have to depend on the state, I cannot be independent - so it is not my country. I am being held against my will by hostile forces.

If some silly kid feels compelled to fight for that then my advice is don't, it isn't worth it, your masters mean you only harm.

If some kid in a foreign land wants to help our political elite conquer their lands then I must wonder what worth an army built from such treacherous stock could really have?

Yet since I am not an elite they do not fight for me - so I could care less. Join this army or that - conquer this land or that - I can't care who claims me since all masters are villains no matter how nice they might pretend to be or how much respect for me they might claim to have.

 

[Johnnny]

Recruiting afgans in afganistan to only be used in afganistan is a plausable idea to consider,yes

 

[petros]

No. This is why we have allies.

 

[normbc9]

If they qualify for government aid why not? If they can take the money then they can be eligible to serve after they pass a backgound check. If they can live off the taxpayer why not render service to the country of some kind?

 

[Cannuck]

Why not have an Afghan unit/brigarde/division within the Canadian military. It's pretty much what happened with Canada/England in WWI. If and when the Afghan government wants to take control of it they can.

 

[Tyr]

So if the Afghans are not prepared to fire upon other Afghans, then what right have we to do so? And if a soldier coldn't trust the person next to him because that person is an Afghan, then he won't trust the average man on the street either because he's an Afghan too. Does sending such zenophobic soliers to the battlefield really help things? If they really have that much distrust, don't you think th elocals pick up on it, how our soldiers look at them, stay clear of them, etc.?

So they're worthy of our protection, but not of our trust. Have you evr thought that maybe they're just returning our trust, that they are prepared to trust us as much as we trust them? If our soldiers are so standoffish against them, whereby we act as a wise Messiah coming to rescue them, but that they are unworthy of participating in their own rescue, is that not outright racist?

I'm not in favour of the war in Afghanistan. I don't think we have any reason to be there.

They are "worthy" of "participating in their own rescue(? - they need to be rescued? From what? Us?)", they just don't need us to do that

So if the Afghans are not prepared to fire upon other Afghans, then what right have we to do so? And if a soldier coldn't trust the person next to him because that person is an Afghan, then he won't trust the average man on the street either because he's an Afghan too.

big difference. the guy on the street doesn't have a rifle and is not providing fire support for him.

Does sending such zenophobic soliers to the battlefield really help things?

Who said the troops are zenophobic? That's your opinion and conclusion. How did you arrive at that?

If they really have that much distrust, don't you think th elocals pick up on it, how our soldiers look at them, stay clear of them, etc.?

They trust us as far as they can throw us. That changes by the hour and by the day

 

[Spade]

The game of modern warfare.
Let's see; I have a 195-sided coin with a different country on each side. I am about to flip the coin to see which two countries are, hypothetically, about to go to war.
Flip.....
The United States of America
Flip.....
The United Kingdom (Yes, I looked it up. There is such a country!)
Rule #1
Each country must have a standing army comprised only of its own nationals. Hmmmm...close enough!
Rule #2
Each country in turn picks, from a randomly shuffled deck, cards indicating how many of their own army are :"killed" in action by the "foe."
Example: The UK draws first, and discovers a "shock and awe" attack (as popularly broadcast on CNN and Fox) has killed 15 000 British soldiers. Immediately, the UK kills 15 000 of its own soldiers.
The USA draws second. The card reads: "17 500 American ground forces have been killed in a tactical nuclear attack." Immediately, the USA kills 17 500 of its own soldiers.
Rule #3
The country that has all its men killed loses.

You may think this is crazy. But, modern warfare is no less stupid! And, at least there would be no civilian or infrastructure damage,


PS
Canada should not fill its forces deficit with foreign nationals. Politicians would be more likely to play the war card if their own nationals are not in jeopardy.

 

[bobnoorduyn]

Interesting question indeed, especially when you consider a few things, eg. we have Americans serving in our forces, although not many. Far more Canadians have served, and continue to serve in the US military, many of whom are MicMaq' or other indiginous peoples. Many Canadians also serve in Her Majesty's forces. A lot of these folks join foreign services, especially the Air Forces because Canada gives preference to fancophones when it comes to promotions, (our dirty little secret which is well known but not well advertised) and anglophones feel slighted, rightly so.

But you can also think of people like Mohandas Karamchand (Mahatma) Gandhi who proudly served with the British forces in many parts of Africa. So why not have Afghans serve in the Canadian, American, British, etc. forces, especially in their own country?

 

[Machjo]

Nope. If you want to fight for my country you better be apart of it, not just a guest.

But what happens when my country is a guest in your country? Or when my country is not fighting for itself, but for your country? Gets confusing, doesn't it?

 

[Machjo]

If we're fighting for Canada and not Afghanistan in Afghanistan, then why are we still in Afghanistsn? Get Bin Laden as the UN mandate suggests, and get the hell out.

 

[Machjo]

They are "worthy" of "participating in their own rescue(? - they need to be rescued? From what? Us?)", they just don't need us to do that

Well, if people insist on being there, then clearly they believe the Afghans need rescue from... themselves? Their inferior culture, to be civilized by the great all-knowing west? I don't know.


Who said the troops are zenophobic? That's your opinion and conclusion. How did you arrive at that?

I was responding to a previous comment that Canadian soldiers would have a hard time trusting Afghans in their units. Does this not imply that Canadian soldiers are zenophobic? That's not necessarily what I believe, but clearly if one believes that Canadian soldiers would fear fighting side by side with Afghans in Afghanistan, then that says that he believes Canadian soldiers to be zenophobic.

They trust us as far as they can throw us. That changes by the hour and by the day

So how can we stabilize this trust?

 

[Scott Free]

What kind of scumbag would join a foreign army to fight against his own people?

Canadians are stupid enough to believe the propaganda BS about Afghanistan, no doubt, as were the Russians etc, but to turn against ones own people!?!

Such a scum should be shot by either army.

 

[Machjo]

What kind of scumbag would join a foreign army to fight against his own people?

Canadians are stupid enough to believe the propaganda BS about Afghanistan, no doubt, as were the Russians etc, but to turn against ones own people!?!

Such a scum should be shot by either army.

Hasegawa Teru fought on the Chinese side against Japan. Willy Brandt was co-operating with Sweden in WWII against the Nazis. Not all treason is out of personal interest. Insome cases, it comes down to a choice between treason against your country vs. treason to against your principles. In such a case, staying faithful to your principles might have to come at the cost of treason against your country. Some will make that choice if their principles are that strong.

As for whether Afghans would join a forign force against their own people, that would depend on their beliefs and principles. If they should perceive ours as a just cause, they might. Now if none of them joins, then that would be a good indication to us that maybe we're on the wrong side in this war.