Marines

[winchable]

I don‘t think you need UK citizenship to serve in the Royal marines, since Canada is a commonwealth country. There would be restrictions on what trade, but you be able to serve in some capacity.
An even greater capacity if you are a dual citizen of England and Canada, either way you can retain your Canadian citizenship.
As for the US, i can‘t really speak on since I don‘t know the requirements for being a US Marine.

The hassles were probably created to prevent someone from serving without having any ties to the country they serve, other then who puts the paycheque in the bank. I suppose someone is more likely to fight harder and longer if they are serving their own country, hence the patriotic, albeit brief, class in Basic training. If someone serves a foreign army without being a citizen of that country and having the inherent patriotic ties to said country, then they are really no more then mercenaries or auxiliary troops serving a foreign power for a paycheque.
This is simply speculation, but I can see no other reason besides the obvious security reasons which are less philosophical and more tangible.

 

[Spr.Earl]

Originally posted by Enzo:
[qb] Ok, here‘s my beef. What if you aren‘t interested in either UK or US citizenship? I would be open to serving in either country, but I have no desire to give up my citizenship.

I just don‘t understand all of this nonsense. If someone wants to serve, why all of these hassles? [/qb]

Canadian‘s are allowed to serve in the U.K. Force‘s and they still retain Canadian Citizenship.

As I posted above,contact the nearest U.K. Consule for further advice.

 

[Enzo]

Citizenship isn‘t as much of a hassle for the UK. I was primarily thinking of the US. You still have to be in the country for a certain period of time and many trades (that interest me) are unavailable to pers over the age of 26.

As for the mercenary aspect. I dunno, ask that guy from where was it, Micronesia or something like that? He lost an arm and both legs in Iraq fighting for the US. He‘s a citizen now. As for time in the country, a security clearance is a clearance. 6 months, 6 years? If I‘m culturally tied to another country that conflicts with the ideology of the US, then I doubt that there is a statute of limitations on it.

Whatever, rules are rules. They don‘t have to make sense.

 

[Spr.Earl]

Enzo at this time in this world I don‘t know how long it will take you to get a green card for the State‘s.

Here‘s a link with a contact in the U.K. if your interested.

http://www.metafaq.com/action/answer?aref=277162&id=VMP7599NJKU5U2GU3DLFH055S8

Good Luck

 

[Recce41]

Well
Heres the speal. For the British Forces, your have to be: 1. A member born in the Commonwealth or parents born in Britain as I am both. You must live between 3-12 months in the UK. HAVE grade 12 "lvl O" in Britain. Then go down to the British Consolate. OR 2:Marry a Lovely British Lady as my is.OR 3:Be in the Canadian Forces be posted to Germany for 12 months then apply there (Good Luck).
Then sign on for 5,10,or live 25 yr.
I have three cousins in the British military Army/Royal Marines. This is what info they got for me. I was going to apply when I was finished my 20. But my wife changed my mine.
It is harder to get in than you think.
As for the US, I was told, it takes about a yr to apply/paper work. And with the BS now. Why bother. Join the Canadian Army, then try.
But you be better off going with the British Military. :evil: :tank:

 

[Enzo]

Honestly, thanks for the info guys. Personally, I‘m fine here in Canada. I‘m not prepared to relocate to either the UK or the States. I was musing philosophic about the hurdles to overcome. I‘m not a fan of beauracracy in any form, but it‘s a fact of life.

 

[Evan]

i wouldn‘t see why u would want to join the U.S marines (i thought about it) but now that i acxtually live here, well, i would chose canada over the U.S any time ,

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

The only problem with your idea S_Baker is that either we would want to use this combined force for peacekeeping or the US would want it for operations elsewhere. The idea has merit but not while Canada and the US are so far apart politically, I don‘t think it would fly sadly.

 

[L/MCpl_Argyll_ Kurrgan]

What about Mexico?

 

[Bert]

How far does NORAD go in providing that "joint command"?

Given the creation of the EU, countries in Europe are grappling over issues of soverignty (sp), economics, and military and we can see issues between Germany/France and eastern Europe and Britan. The integration of US and Canadian militaries would have some similarities. I won‘t go into the age old "Manifest Destiny" thing.

Yet, Australia and Japan are directly interested in the US missle net/shield and have high integration with US Forces for their own reasons. The thing is the world in 10 or 20 years from now will be different from the Cold War era everyone is used to today. Speculating on the future geo-political situation, should the Canadian military directly integrate with the US Forces?

I‘d like to hear the opinions of Gywnn Dyer and Gloria Stein and then watch them go at it! Academically speaking.

 

[L/MCpl_Argyll_ Kurrgan]

You boys ever been to MEX-EEEEEEEEEEEEEE-CO!!!???!!! YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE-HAAAAAAAAAAAAAW!!!!

 

[Evan]

[No message]

 

[chrisf]

Originally posted by S_Baker:
[qb] You know, maybe we should have a joint command, call it the North American Armed Forces. Have the Commander Rotate, CDN General one year, US General the next. CDN and US soldiers would train together, then there would be no need to want to join either US or CDN forces. Wear the same uniform, carry the same weapons, same vehicles, etc. Force would be used for Continental defense....What do you think?
[/qb]

As efficient as it would make things, it‘s a terrible idea, it would basically be Canada handing over it‘s soverignty to the US.

 

[chrisf]

Originally posted by S_Baker:
[qb]I don‘t agree with you...by signing international treaties does that mean Canada has given up it‘s Sovereignty? I was under the impression that bilateral and multilateral agreements benefited all parties involved otherwise they wouldn‘t agree? Isn‘t that what former Prime Minister Chretien was always talked about? My proposal was not that US troops would be posted on Canadian soil, I was thinking that maybe some CDN troops could serve in the US (territorial waters/North America) under rotating US/CDN Command. I think it would benefit both our nations military and its interopability and help both nations people and military to understand that there are multiple threats facing all of us. Yeah, I know some CDNs think Canada is not threatened by terrorism.... :blotto: if we leave that out, how about drug & illegal alien smuggling, goods smuggling, fishing and mineral rights, those are just a few I could name.
[/qb]

It would be a giving up of sovereignty by Canada. There‘s a major difference between signing treaties, an creating a combined armed forces.

Co-operation happens now. There are exchange programs already. And I‘m all for that.

The problem happens when you just cut out the middle man, and create a single army.

Take for example Iraq. Canada, as a soverign nation, has the right to say it doesn‘t want to get involved in the conflict. If we were to have a combined armed forces, we‘d have no choice but to get involved. Every time America decided to do somthing that Canada disagreed with, we‘d have to go, no choice in the matter.

What about spending? Per-capita, we spend less then the United States. If we were to have a combined force, the United States would very quickly demand that we spend an equivilent amount. Whether we should or not is irellevent. Canada is a sovereign nation, and as a sovereign nation, WE and ONLY we should have the right to decide what we do.

On the subject of smuggling, illegal fishing, etc, we don‘t handle that anyway. That‘s the responsibility of the RCMP and the Coast Gaurd/Department of Fisheries and Oceans (Both the RCMP and the Coast Gaurd are COMPLETELY seperate from the armed forces).

Yes, we do aid the Coast Gaurd and RCMP from time to time, but enforcement is their responsibility.

On the subject of the same uniforms, it‘s a matter of tradition. Are you suggesting that we get rid of our maple leaves in favor of stars? Or would you be the one to try to convince Americans to get rid of their stars in favor of maple leaves? Somthing we in the Canadian forces are constantly reminded of is to establish our indentity as CANADIAN soldiers, primarily because all the public sees via television is American forces.

 

[chrisf]

Once again, to the uniforms, part of a uniform is tradition, and part of the Canadian tradition is the monarchy. The rank symbol for a warrent officer is quite simply a small crown. You can‘t tell me that you honestly believe the American armed forces would allow ANY references to the monarchy in its uniforms?

On the subject of the coast guard and the RCMP, they‘re no more stretched then any other resources in Canada.

I don‘t recall the coast guard going to meet any French destroyers, just because I don‘t recall it doesn‘t mean it didn‘t happen.

I do recall the coast gaurd arming their vessels over an incident with some spanish fishing vessels over some turbot in the early 90‘s. That being said, Canadian Coast Guard vessels are not armed as part of a standard practice, and they have NO connection to the armed forces (Heck, they‘re unionized).

In any case, any sort of unified forces between United States and Canada would simply be another chip taken out of Canadian sovereignty.

 

[winchable]

Perhaps if it were a seperate body from the Armed forces, with rotating command etc. as discussed above.
And it could use volunteers from both countries, it would be a joint venture solely designed for the defence of the continent without infringing on either nations sovereignty as they would both retain all their original forces on top of the newly established one.
Of course, where the funding would come from is a mystery to me, just an idea I‘m not an accountant by any means.

 

[Danjanou]

Actually it was DFO ships and pers that were "armed"" with .50 cals, at least during the first "Turbot War." CF pers. reg and reserve gave them the necessary wpns training.

Coast Guard Ships are (were?) armed kind of. They used to (still?) carried 84mm Carl Gs with an illuminating round, sort of like a giant para flare. Came across some in CFS St. Johns once, and always thought that they would make a grat house clearing weapon.

 

[chrisf]

I was under the impression that DFO ships WERE coast guard ships... and I believe it was either the CCGS Leonard J. Cowley or the CCGS Sir Wilfred Grenfel. I believe Janes lists both of them as carrying .50cal machine guns, though as far as I know, they don‘t carry them, at least not regularly.

 

[chrisf]

Wow... here‘s an interesting little tid bit... look at the Navy website and their listing for vessels, and then the Coast gaurd site... the coast gaurd lists nearly four times as many named vessels as the navy...

 

[Spr.Earl]

For your info all D.F.O. officer‘s are issued magnum‘s or were at one time but they do have side arm‘s and carry them when on patrol.