UKH

I can't be bothered to reiterate what's been said in the other thread ( https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/expedition+alpine/bolts_and_ladders_on_k2... ), but this is probably a more appropriate place to continue arguing about it.

There has been a long tradition of foreigners enrolling in and fighting with the US armed forces.

I struggle to see the viewpoint being given on the other thread that these people are being exploited.  If there were allegations of “mis-selling” I would reconsider, but as it stands I think these lads know what they’re getting in to - and the UK is not the only country to recruit soldiers from their population.

More like white saviourism to me. Like he knows far better than the proud Nepalese that choose to fight and get paid well to do so, how sad that they are forced by us into exploitation, they must need a white mans help. 

Maybe it is because it is the armed services, I suspect the same people would be less bothered if they were recruited to the NHS, it may also be the case in reverse.

It all adds colour to our melting pot of a country, I don’t know any Gurkhas, but I do know many Fijians due to a significant population of in my town attracted by Rugby League connections and largely facilitated by the British Army.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/24613617

What about the boys from the Mersey and the Thames and the Tyne? Is it ok to exploit them because they are our homegrown cannon fodder? 

Given their success at turning wayward youths into respectable and productive members of society, I can only hope we continue exploiting the boys of the Tyne for a long time longer!

I don't mind people having a different opinion to me but when they trot out the exploitation bollocks without even taking a moment to google the facts that irritates me.

Of all the places I have visited Nepal near the top. If I could afford it I would go back there in an instant. I have friends who have served in the Ghurkas, friends who have worked in the export business and the trekking business and friends who have left and gone to America. I have friends out there now helping to re-build infrastructure following the earthquake in 2016. 

I worry more that the growing trend to avoid flying will have a more negative impact on the ecconomy than them going off to fight for the British.

As a country they are poor compared to us and going there gave me my first really view of abject poverty. But that aside the average Nepali lives reasonably well because living is cheap. They also one of the people with the strongest work ethic I've known. That's a generalisation obviously, but then when talking of an entire people it is hard not to talk in general terms.

That's rather a negative and classist view there.  You might or might not be correct but why is that different from foreigners?  Wouldn't it be better for us to have an army who want to be there?  

I honestly can't work out which side of the argument you're on. For the avoidance of doubt, I'm firmly for the Gurkhas as you'll be able to read on the other thread. I also come from a firmly working class background, and went to a particularly crap school filled with the aforementioned wayward types. I've seen first hand the positive influence serving in the Armed Forces has had on the lives of people who'd otherwise probably have been constantly in and out of prison for petty crime, and I've seen how the lives panned out of many of those who continued as adults how they grew up as kids instead.

I can't help but feel that serving in the Armed Forces can be a massive positive influence to the 'boys from the Mersey/Thames/Tyne' who are supposedly being exploited. If that's your argument.

Right,  so if it's such a good thing for them, why is it exploitative?  

If it isn't exploitation for them them it isn't exploiting Gurkas either.  

I don't think it's exploitative in the slightest, in either case.

My apologies.  I have managed to get quite mixed up.  I confused you as the OP on this thread, as starting the conversation on the other thread, (also has an m in the name).   

I don't have anything to add to the debate but I enjoyed your Oliver's Army reference. 

Indeed, going from their view point on the thread.  Although there’s a strong case that targeting foreign recruitment to the NHS has a strongly detrimental effect on the health service in some developing nations - whereas Gurkha recruitment is much smaller scale.

Continuing with logic of the argument about exploitation (from the other thread), it could be argued that if drawing health care workers away from poorer nations is a bad thing, then taking soldier types away is a good thing(?)

Then of course there's always been  Brits (and Gurkhas) in the French Foreign Legion and the Spanish Foreign Legion.