[quote=“reiver”]
(my bold letters)
Now there’s a new claim.
Care to back it up?[/quote]
Go back a few posts and read it. Double-posting your appearent dismay does not cover up those facts.
Indeed. We have seen in other posts quoting you British citizens and the British government that Gurkhas are treated as second-rate people by Britain (often mistreated by british officers) and their pensions are based on those of the soldiers in the Indian Army - a fraction of that of a British national’s pension. And you want to blather about Americans paying our foreign soldiers the same as our native citizens and not being used in an ethnic group as front line troops?
Good gracious. You are spouting one-sided falicy!
“Court nixes Gurkha’s demand for equal pay with British troops”
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0WDQ/is_2002_March_25/ai_84394162
'The Gurkhas were the main force deployed by the British against Indonesian forces who tried to take over Brunei in the early 1960s, fighting off a series of incursions.
'Mr Blair’s gaffe was made worse by the fact that the troops on offer were from the 2nd Bn the Royal Gurkha Rifles, which, as a result of its service, is still funded by the Sultan of Brunei to defend his country.
'The Prime Minister, just back from holiday in Egypt, had hoped to defuse the criticism he faced by not cutting short his break to head Britain’s aid effort and articulate the nation’s feelings about the disaster.'http://www.strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/30-5377.asp
I guess it would have cost more to send British nationals in to do the work, since Gurkhas are paid less?
“Around 300 Gurkha troops are being sent to Ivory Coast to help take Britons fleeing the strife-torn West African country to safety.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1280917/posts
Ahhh! Saving money again? This is a habit.
Shall I post the whole gamut so you will stick your head up your ass in embaressment?[/quote]
STOP STEALTH EDITING!!! It is beneath even you. It is low and despicable.
[Edit: Reference to Sierra Leone removed. I assumed that when IRONMAN referred to Gurkha cannon fodder, he meant Sierra Leone, where there was heavy fighting, not Ivory Coast, where apparently assisting in an evacuation equates with being cannon fodder. Note that this edit has been explained and justified, and there is no attempt to weasel out of it]
You are also being rude and offensive about the Gurkhas. You wouldn’t find me in Arlington, pissing on the graves of US servicemen. So don’t come on here denigrating the fine men of our Gurkha battalions, past and present.
A war dodger like you has no right to impune real fighting men like them. Get a grip of yourself, troll.
How dare I? How dare you! You are blowing smoke. American patriotism is renowned. None compares.
[/quote]
I’m afraid you’ll find similar sentiments expressed in every country in the western world.
I am not “blowing smoke”, simply pointing out the self-evident fact that people love their own countries, and to try to compare one man’s patriotism with another’s is pointless.
By what measure do you say “none compares”?
As for the rest of your post, as I’ve already said to you privately, I’ve seen little if any “anti-Americanism” on this site, although I have seen a lot of anti-Ironman feeling.
Don’t confuse the two.
(my bold letters)
Now there’s a new claim.
Care to back it up?[/quote]
Go back a few posts and read it. Double-posting your appearent dismay does not cover up those facts.[/quote]
Sorry, I can find no reference to “British officers often mistreating Gurkha troops.”
Perhaps you could direct me?
(Edited because I had inadvertently inserted my question in the quote, rather than after it)
Compare and contrast:
Repetition does not change a lie into a truth - FDR, 1939
If I post the same lie repeatedly, then it’s true - Anon, this forum 2005
No kidding. Care to explain yours? :lol:
Then why did you bring up patriotism and complain about America in the same breath? Please, enough with they hypocracy.
Would you care to show me where I did that, except to take exception to your claim that your patriotism is of some other, greater order to mine, or anyone elses?
Yes, using chemical agents flogged to Saddam by none other than Donald Rumsfeld.
Outdated info? You complained that the was was unjust, I simply showed you that Irq had chemical weapons, it has been proven, the UN has achnowledged it, and did nothing to stop it. What are you complaining about now?
Is it time for a debate on Iraq? :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: Oh, go on! Let’s put the boot into Dubya! :twisted:
Now I like Americans. They are among the world’s most hospitable and polite people. At their best, that is. At their worst, they are shrill, aggressive and self-justifying in a manner no other nation can match! Thankfully most of the Americans I have known (in and out of uniform) fall into the former category. The latter types I have mainly encountered on the Internet.
I’ve never said anything negative about the Gurkhas. I have however, posted plenty of information from British government officials who point out that they are treated as 2nd class soldiers by the British military and paid a paultry pension compared to British soldiers born in britain.
I’ve never said anything negative about the Gurkhas. I have however, posted plenty of information from British government officials who point out that they are treated as 2nd class soldiers by the British military and paid a paultry pension compared to British soldiers born in Britain.
It is you few Brits who keep bringin the subjet up to try to defend it. Why do that when you know it is ridiculed?
http://www.army.mod.uk/brigade_of_gurkhas/gurkha_employment/tpa/index.htm
http://www.army.mod.uk/brigade_of_gurkhas/gurkha_employment/tacos/index.htm
IRONMAN - here’s some information on the terms and conditions of service of the Gurkhas. I tried to PM them to you, but it seems I can’t send other than to admins.
Indeed. We have seen in other posts quoting you British citizens and the British government that Gurkhas are treated as second-rate people by Britain (often mistreated by british officers) and their pensions are based on those of the soldiers in the Indian Army - a fraction of that of a British national’s pension. And you want to blather about Americans paying our foreign soldiers the same as our native citizens and not being used in an ethnic group as front line troops?[/quote]
The above was posted in alleged reply to one of mine, pointing out that the American military used foreign, non-US-citizens as troops.
My post made no mention of Gurkhas, no comment, slanted or otherwise, as to the use of such troops (non-citizen) in the US military, no comments about pay.
It was a simple statment.
Who is bringing up the subject of Gurkhas again?
Were you were using one of your other accounts to do it? A new one? One that has only posted on the few threads that I have recently posted in? The newest, most heated threads? :lol:
As for this:
Like I have told you. America has outgrown such things. Britain appearently has not, since they still use the Gurkhas like the US uses USMC and pays them a fraction of the regular British pension.
OK IRONMAN, you’ve caught us out. We are all the same person, and we are all here merely to pick on you. In fact, this site was set up purposely to get at you. It seems you aren’t paranoid after all, everybody IS out to get you.
The thread was “Gurkhas used as cannon fodder”. but the thread has been deleted to save you from embaressment. Just use your friendly neighborhood search engine. You’ll find plenty of people talking about it.
You thought it would slide, didn’t you? :lol:
[quote=“IRONMAN”]
Were you were using one of your other accounts to do it? A new one? One that has only posted on the few threads that I have recently posted in? The newest, most heated threads? :lol: .[/quote]
I’m sorry, Ironman, I’ll attribute this post to temporary insanity, brought on by grief at the death of your dog, on which I commiserate you.
I have no idea what your words quoted above means.
Like I have told you. America has outgrown such things. Britain appearently has not, since they still use the Gurkhas like the US uses USMC and pays them a fraction of the regular British pension
The Gurkha pay and pension dates back to an agreement with the Indian government made after independence. All in the UK military feel that Gurkhas who wish to remain in the UK should receive exactly what non-Gurkha soldiers receive. The stumbling block is the UK government - the same government that has its nose so far up Dubya’s rear. Gurkhas have never been used as cannon fodder, and the British Army does not have such a tradition for any race or creed.
In defence of my fine nation:
The UK does not have full-time soldiers claiming welfare.
You thought it would slide, didn’t you? :lol:[/quote]
On the contrary, I was hoping you’d respond. Please continue quoting person A as evidence that person B said something. In fact, you could even misquote them by truncating sentences without indicating that ou have done so. This lends weight to your arguments.
The thread was “Gurkhas used as cannon fodder”. but the thread has been deleted to save you from embaressment. Just use your friendly neighborhood search engine. You’ll find plenty of people talking about it.[/quote]
The thread hasn’t been deleted, dear boy, and I still can’t find any reference to your claim on there.