Ahhh hah hah. You have fallen prey to the ole’ media liberals slanting things eh? Do you not think for yourself? The USMC has the highest casualty rate because they are the ones put in harm’s way more than any other force because the USMC has the highest battle effectiveness of any military force in the world. If the Army were at the front more, then they would have the highest causalty rate. If it were Brits or Canadians doing most of the dangerous search & destroy, then they would have the highest causalty rate. You let the media think for you that time. 
[/quote]
Ironman, the quote says : Immigrant troops are most visible in the Army and Marines, the services with the highest casualty rates in Iraq
Please read what I post, rather than what you think I post.
Ahhh hah hah. You have fallen prey to the ole’ media liberals slanting things eh? Do you not think for yourself? The USMC has the highest casualty rate because they are the ones put in harm’s way more than any other force because the USMC has the highest battle effectiveness of any military force in the world. If the Army were at the front more, then they would have the highest causalty rate. If it were Brits or Canadians doing most of the dangerous search & destroy, then they would have the highest causalty rate. You let the media think for you that time. [/quote]
Ironman, the quote says : Immigrant troops are most visible in the Army and Marines, the services with the highest casualty rates in Iraq
Please read what I post, rather than what you think I post.[/quote]
I did read it. It was slanted to imply that measurable number of foregners in the US military is the reason for those units having the highest casualty rates, and to imply that the US uses foreigners as cannon fodder by putting them in the forces which are sent in to do the most dangerous fighting. It just didn’t slip past is all. It was rather sneaky though.
Let me bold the quote to make the slant more visible for any who have narrow minds:
Does that make it easier to see why it did not pass? Someone in the press wrote a seemingly harmless “report” and you seemingly harmlessly passed it on here. This is the kind of slithery information games the press has played for many years, and how they try to turn people against whatever it is they want to demean. In this case, it is the war in Iraq, which the media hates almost unilaterally, as they put it on the screen between commercials and make money from it, ofcourse. :roll: You should not play those games here.
No modern military force uses “cannon fodder”! :roll:
was not aware that the British army contains large numbers of foreign personel. Are they allowed to become British citizens? The practice of hiring mercenary forces goes back to early history. The Scots, for example, hired themselves out in quite a few wars in Europe during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, and the Swedes hired Scots as mercenaries when they whipped the Danes and the Germans in the Thirty Years War.
Of course hiring mercenaries is a very old practice what i was ascertaining was that this became a feature of professional armies in the 18th century period. Before that mercenaries would often be hired to make up the shortfall in one’s own armies drawn by levies. The early concept of professional armies, though never realised until the period of the mass armed force (1798-1960), was that they would be made up of exclusively domestic troops therefore ensuring loyalty and whom wouldn’t desert when the money ran out or they didn’t feel like it. However because wars were always unpopular (surprise, surprise) amongst the populace often national armies would often been understrength and made up of the dregs of society. Therefore it became a necessary occurance in professional armies to recruit troops from outside the national borders (mercenaries) in order to keep the army up to strength.
As for ‘foreign’ troops in the Brit. army. They are none per se, they are all with the exception of the Gurkhas, from the commonwealth and as citizens of a commonwealth country have the right of residence in The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (I’m sorry but the title is so impressive it needs to be in bold 
) and having lived and worked in UK for a number of years any commonwealth citizen can be granted British citizenship. The British army does contain large numbers of Irish (southern), Fijians, South Africans, Australisians and other commonwealth countries and welcome additions they are too who benefit our army and are a privilage to serve alongside.
I hope that has cleared up any misunderstandings or doubts.
Student Scaley, KFS, TLA, MIA (bar) CEFO, PRESAR, GLC, FUBAR
With the exception of Gurkhas? That’s not what you guys have been saying. So anyone in Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc. can be granted citizenship, but Gurkas cannot?
Are you sure about all that? student-scaley dissagrees. He says that the British military has a large number of foreigners in it. Right here:
Let’s understand this first. “Commonwealth” citizens ARE NOT British citizens. Now what were you saying? :roll:
He means - as I suspect you well know - that Nepal is not a Commonwealth country.
Gurkhas can be granted citizenship but under different rules to Commonwealth countries which themselves differ between those that retain HMQ as head of state (NZ, Aus, Canada etc) and those that don’t. Oh, and while Ireland (south) is not a commonwealth country it’s citizens have the right to live and work in Britain and vice versa with no passport or immigration controls whatsoever.
All very confusing and based on ties of shared history and loyalty that are incomprehensible to most Americans.
Ahhh hah hah. You have fallen prey to the ole’ media liberals slanting things eh? Do you not think for yourself? The USMC has the highest casualty rate because they are the ones put in harm’s way more than any other force because the USMC has the highest battle effectiveness of any military force in the world. If the Army were at the front more, then they would have the highest causalty rate. If it were Brits or Canadians doing most of the dangerous search & destroy, then they would have the highest causalty rate. You let the media think for you that time. [/quote]
Ironman, the quote says : Immigrant troops are most visible in the Army and Marines, the services with the highest casualty rates in Iraq
Please read what I post, rather than what you think I post.[/quote]
I did read it. It was slanted to imply that measurable number of foregners in the US military is the reason for those units having the highest casualty rates, and to imply that the US uses foreigners as cannon fodder by putting them in the forces which are sent in to do the most dangerous fighting. It just didn’t slip past is all. It was rather sneaky though.
Let me bold the quote to make the slant more visible for any who have narrow minds:
Does that make it easier to see why it did not pass? Someone in the press wrote a seemingly harmless “report” and you seemingly harmlessly passed it on here. This is the kind of slithery information games the press has played for many years, and how they try to turn people against whatever it is they want to demean. In this case, it is the war in Iraq, which the media hates almost unilaterally, as they put it on the screen between commercials and make money from it, ofcourse. :roll: You should not play those games here.[/quote]
Again, taken entirely out of context as you are well aware.
The post is taken from an American newspaper, and was nothing to do with how you used immigrant troops.
It was in reply to your constant assertions that the US military did not use ANY non-US citizens in it’s forces.
Ever.
Under any circumstances.
And that the President would have to resign if it did.
Unlike you, I simply used the full paragraph, rather than quote selectively.
Yet again ironman you drag down an interesting topic that is of concern to old and serving soldiers and people who have an interest in current affairs, just to serve your warped mind and lets you believe you score points.
In fact every one thinks you are an idiot and are an embarrassment to your fellow countryman who have to suffer your stupidity and the knowledge, that what you say will reflect badly on them.
The topic is about the increased use of PMCs, their unaccountability, and affects that that may have on your and our foreign policy and how it deploys it armed forces.
If you have nothing to contribute that will move the topic on or have a valid question, then go forth an multiply.
I totally agree i don’t like Ironman distorting my posts. I’ve posted two longish post about mercenaries and the simliarities between the 18th C system and todays and all he’s done is turn it into another slagging match about Gurkhas and Brits using commonwealth troops as cannon fodder. NOW STOP BEING A MASSIVE C*CK
[/img]
Let’s recap.
Right.
As for a sence of loyalty, you are completely ignorant about Americans. Your ignorance allows you to believe that Americans do not have the uniquely highest sence of loyalty in the world. And we do. If you were an American, you’d see how utterly ignorant your statement is. You have no idea what loyalty is. Your citizens blather angrily and hatefully at your own Parlaiment and Prime Minister. The most similar expressions one might find in the US is satire. What a comparison. :lol:
The US military is a volenteer force of hundreds of thousands of members, almost all of which are native-borne Americans, and every one of them volenteered because they love the US, believe in the ideals of the US, and want to serve their country. Ha! You are indeed the ignorant one.
Appearently you think your twisted self-supporting reasoning will sway my understanding that you used a slanted press article to slant the subject.
what about those who leave US to canada because they do not want to fight in vietnam, afghanistan, and iraq? i believe they love their country as well, but they just dont want to join the injustice war.
Someone else brought this subject up. You are pissing into the wind. If you don’t want to be ridiculed for such a thing, don’t bring it up with an American. :lol:
Such people exist in every country, and there are a lot more of them in yours than mine! I believe you refer to the 2 or 3 people that refused to serve in Iraq that the liberal panty press tried to turn into a media circus? Good gracious dude. Listen to yourself.
The unjust war? Dearl Lord, another utter hypocrite. Should you not be bitching at your own government, because Britain is in there with us. What a pathetic hypocrite. I’d say you’re an inch or two from being one of those dissenters. 8)
and don´t foreget EU citizens, who can also live and work in the UK without visa, and vice versa…
Jan
Such people exist in every country, and there are a lot more of them in yours than mine! I believe you refer to the 2 or 3 people that refused to serve in Iraq that the liberal panty press tried to turn into a media circus? Good gracious dude. Listen to yourself.
The unjust war? Dearl Lord, another utter hypocrite. Should you not be bitching at your own government, because Britain is in there with us. What a pathetic hypocrite. I’d say you’re an inch or two from being one of those dissenters. 8)[/quote]
actually i am from canada, and about 70% of canadian oppose to the war, of course that alone would not make the war injustice. American bypass the entire UN to start the war against Iraq, this alone is already illegal. How about those chemical weapon americans can find so far, none, this prove the US government is just lying about the evidence they have found before the war. Are the Iraqis having a better life in iraq in the post war, not really, the unemployment rate is still very high after 2 years. Okay, lets talk about the budget, cost 800 billion dollars that could have used in health care, and many social programs. Only americans use war to cover their own economic problem.
Appearently you think your twisted self-supporting reasoning will sway my understanding that you used a slanted press article to slant the subject.[/quote]
“Twisted self-supporting reasoning” hmm?
Ok, here’s what I orginally posted:
Latinos comprise more than a third of the 41,000 foreign citizens in the U.S. fighting force, according to the Defense Department, with the largest number – 8,539 – from California. Immigrant troops are most visible in the Army and Marines, the services with the highest casualty rates in Iraq, but barely present in the Navy and Air Force, Pentagon records show.
(My bold letters)
This was posted in a thread which was a carry-over, as every regular poster here knows, from a thread in which you had repeatedly said, quote: If the United States started using such cheezy antics if it were able to, there would be a filthy stink about it here in the US. The American people would be appaled by such a thing. It would cause the president of the US to lose his next election, or worse. There would be huge protests and the US Congress would be under forced by popular opinion to change it.
…and again : In Afghanistan right now, there are tens of thousands of US soldiers. None of those wearing a US uniform are foreigners. Not one.
…and again : Sorry my misguided friend. You are wrong on all counts. I have already explained to you that the US does not employ foreign soldiers, but your head is so filled with liberal rag press that you actually believe that we do. The US has never sent a foreign soldier overseas to fight for the US. Never.
…and again : Firstly, US law requires that you must be a citizen of the US or a citizen applicant imigrant to be allowed to join the US military
(Again, my bold letters)
Now, leaving aside the totally unfounded accusations of cowardice that were mixed in with this, it led to a point where the Mods locked the thread.
A new thread was started, by you, to continue to denigrate the Britsh Forces, and to continue to spew your innacurate venom over the use of the Gurkha Regiments of the British Army, a subject about which you obviously know nothing.
You then went on to say :
Imagine if the US were to use people who were all black, or all Muslim, or all Semitic, or all Caucasian (then other ethnic groups would scream, “You are excluding us purposely!”) as a fighting force, even if they were not sent into battle as 1st installments, and even if they were not American citizens, there would be a huge uproar. In fact, it could not happen to begin with. Such practices cannot happen in the US, and Americans find such practices to be completely unacceptable.
No need to imagine it, that was Army policy up until the early 1950’s.
My post, listed above, was in reply to a post by General Sandworm.
You remember him? My alter ego, according to you.
It was posted as shown above.
Nothing to do with using hispanics as cannon fodder, or anything else.
It was posted to show that the American Army, including the Marine Corps, does indeed have non-US-citizens in it’s ranks.
That’s all.
You were the one who claimed that the only reasons for the casualties were that the troops concerned were in the Marines, and Marines were front line troops…quote : [i]If the Army were at the front more, then they would have the highest causalty rate./i
I then pointed out that the post actually said Army and Marines.
Again, that’s all.
Now, you can highlight it until you turn blue to attempt to show some bias, slant, or agenda if you like.
I’m afraid that your frantic search for left-wing bias where none was intended (I speak for myself only, I have no idea of the political agenda of the newspaper in question) says more about your paranoia, than my attempt to slant anything.
and don´t foreget EU citizens, who can also live and work in the UK without visa, and vice versa…
Jan[/quote]
However EU citizens are covered by different treaties and are not allowed to serve in the Armed Forces other than in exceptional circumstances they are also subject to passport control (although it is often waived, the UK is not a Schengen signatory) which the Irish are not.
Ironman wrote :
As for a sence of loyalty, you are completely ignorant about Americans. Your ignorance allows you to believe that Americans do not have the uniquely highest sence of loyalty in the world. And we do. If you were an American, you’d see how utterly ignorant your statement is. You have no idea what loyalty is. Your citizens blather angrily and hatefully at your own Parlaiment and Prime Minister. The most similar expressions one might find in the US is satire. What a comparison
How dare you arrogate to yourself a sense of national loyalty any higher than that of a Brit, Canadian, Indian, Italian, Portuguese. German, Japanese, Egyptian or any other nationality?
What arrogant, self righteous, self-centred, self-opinionated, blinkered self-love.
Thank God that you are far from typical of most Americans I have met.
Yes, we criticise fiercely our leaders when we believe them to be wrong.
It’s called free-speech. You should know about it. It’s laid down in your Constitution.
It should also be pointed out that the Government and Parliament are merely administrators and are in no way deserving of, or entitled to, the loyalty of the British people. No-one in Britain owes any sort of fealty to the government as anything other than its function as representatives of the Crown and Parliment though the Commons choose to forget sometimes is the servant of the people.