Can you please explain to me how it would be cheaper to send Gurkhas instead of Great Britain’s nationals. I would like to understand the economics of this.
ironman wrote
I guess it would have cost more to send British nationals in to do the work, since Gurkhas are paid less?
ironman wrote
“Around 300 Gurkha troops are being sent to Ivory Coast to help take Britons fleeing the strife-torn West African country to safety.”
Spearhead Bn on call at time. In 1994 our 2nd Bn sent troops to Rwanda. My Bn sent troops the Brazzaville, to evacuate EU/Great Britain’s national. Belgium also sent troops.
Outdated info?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?[/quote]
you are correct. Iraq used to have chemical weapon, but they have lost the ability to rebuild them after desert storm. Using this outdate info to show iraq have WMD in year 2000-2003 is a joke, and see how much chemical weapon american soldiers are able to find, none.
The Gurkhas are an ethnic group. They are Nepalese, right? The British military has been sending them in as front line troops in every war that Britain has been in since the 1800’s, right? The British govenrment pays them a much smaller pension than native British soldiers, right?
Then why do you guys keep bringing up the Gurkas? Why, when you know it is a subject of ridicule, and when the facts are known by and available to the world, do you bring it up to defend it?
I suggest that you let it go and stop stirring it up.
Outdated info?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?[/quote]
you are correct. Iraq used to have chemical weapon, but they have lost the ability to rebuild them after desert storm. Using this outdate info to show iraq have WMD in year 2000-2003 is a joke, and see how much chemical weapon american soldiers are able to find, none.
and to reiver, no worries, its okay, haha[/quote]
And somehow you expect, knowing the character of Hussein, a muderer, a man who was a thug killer working for the Iraqi regime to intimidate and murder people before overthrowing the then government by murdering all of it’s leaders, a man who has access to billions of dollars in oil revenue, is somehow suddenly a nice guy and would not do it all ovcer again, and more, if he could?
Are you that gullible? Do you not realize the cat-and-mouse games he played with the UN in agreeing to then denying the UN access to his country for inspection, then once inspection began, denying access to numerous key facilitis in Iraq?
Come on man. You sound like some of those in the UN. No wonder the US got tired of thier dilly-dallying for 10 years and took action. The UN allowed him to destroy the evidence, and you are believing it never existed?
2 weeks before the invasion of Kuwait, after all the shite that was happening in Northern Iraq Rumsfeld was still signing consignments of American made armaments (equiptment of a military nature) to Iraq.
The Gurkhas are an ethnic group. They are Nepalese, right? The British military has been sending them in as front line troops in every war that Britain has been in since the 1800’s, right? The British govenrment pays them a much smaller pension than native British soldiers, right?
Then why do you guys keep bringing up the Gurkas? Why, when you know it is a subject of ridicule, and when the facts are known by and available to the world, do you bring it up to defend it?
I suggest that you let it go and stop stirring it up.
The British military are proud of the Gurkhas, as the Gurkhas are of their proud tradition in the British Army. In the days of Empire, the British Army also had Sikh and other Indian regiments. The Indian Army was a seperate entity from the British Army until Indian independence - the Indian Army had abolished some military punishments before the rest of the British Army. Indians served as soldiers and commissioned officers, at a time when “Negroes” were segregated into non-combat arms of the US Army and were never commissioned.
The British Army have never employed “cannon fodder”!
The pension issue makes many of us in the UK angry - it is our wretched government that won’t pay up!
And somehow you expect, knowing the character of Hussein, a muderer, a man who was a thug killer working for the Iraqi regime to intimidate and murder people before overthrowing the then government by murdering all of it’s leaders, a man who has access to billions of dollars in oil revenue, is somehow suddenly a nice guy and would not do it all ovcer again, and more, if he could?
Are you that gullible? Do you not realize the cat-and-mouse games he played with the UN in agreeing to then denying the UN access to his country for inspection, then once inspection began, denying access to numerous key facilitis in Iraq?
Come on man. You sound like some of those in the UN. No wonder the US got tired of thier dilly-dallying for 10 years and took action. The UN allowed him to destroy the evidence, and you are believing it never existed?
Why don’t you join the US Army and take an active part?
George “Dubya” Bush had more ties to Al Qaeda than Saddam Hussein! Saddam had no WMD capability, and had even ditched the weapons that Rumsfeld sold to him!
I worked with the US military prior to the war and heard over a beer or two that the reasons for the (then forthcoming) conflict were to access oil supplies and to get a foothold in the Middle East before being kicked out of Prince Sultan Air Base by the Saudis!
And somehow you expect, knowing the character of Hussein, a muderer, a man who was a thug killer working for the Iraqi regime to intimidate and murder people before overthrowing the then government
Are you saying that the British have not deployed the Gurkhas as initial troops in all of those wars? I suggest you stop trying to say they aren’t mistreated as an ethnic group.
Hogwash. Are you talking about the political contribution that he did not know where it came from and was managed by his campaing staff? They goofed didn’t they. They thought such a thing would make Americans dislike Bush when the truth came out. It did not. It’s too transperent. Now that you have tried to twist the truth like the pantyasses in the press, you have been given a wedgie like them too.
Ofcouse he did! That’s why he played cat-and-mouse with the UN for 10 years over it. And that’s why the UN passed more than one resolution between 1990 and 2000 to force Iraq to allow weapons inspectors. You know so little about it all but want to blather such trash? You are none too bright, are you?
:lol: You heard over a beer or two? If you believe that the US went to war for oil, which it has never been deprived of and which was not in poor supply for the US at that time, you are as dumb as a stump. Please, go back to that bar for the rest of your education. :lol:
You, are a loser, for trying to slant the truth. You are a punk, for doing it. And you are a dink, for thinking you could get away with it. :lol:
Can you please explain to me how it would be cheaper to send Gurkhas instead of Great Britain’s nationals? I would like to understand the economics of this.
ironman wrote
I guess it would have cost more to send British nationals in to do the work, since Gurkhas are paid less?
Are you saying that the British have not deployed the Gurkhas as initial troops in all of those wars? I suggest you stop trying to say they aren’t mistreated as an ethnic group.
The British Army has always employed Gurkhas in the same way as other troops in the order of battle. There has never been any tradition of sacrificing troops perceived as different or of lesser value. The Gurkhas are not mistreated as an ethnic group as that would be illegal under military law. The pension issue is seperate and the Gurkhas are not the only pensioners discriminated against by the parsimonious UK government.
In difficult sieges that had to be breached (2 centuries or so ago) the British Army would amass a volunteer assault force. They knew that if they succeeded - and lived - they would be promoted and gain substantial glory.
The British Army has an excellent historical record of employing troops such as the Gurkhas. The one blemish on the historical record is the Indian Mutiny of the 1850s, which was later claimed to be due to overt racism (eg forcing Muslim troops to use cartridges greased with pig fat - not true) but which was in fact to do with appalling leadership and administration at the time.
I’d like some information on the US employment of US citizens from ethnic groups - segregation and promotion barriers in WW2, disproportionately drafted as cannon fodder during the Vietnam war etc…
Hogwash. Are you talking about the political contribution that he did not know where it came from and was managed by his campaing staff? They goofed didn’t they.
Yee hah! A direct hit! No, I was talking about the three degrees of seperation that link Bush to Usama Bin Laden. Bush - House of Saud - Bin Laden family. Most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi - why not invade there?
And that’s why the UN passed more than one resolution between 1990 and 2000 to force Iraq to allow weapons inspectors. You know so little about it all but want to blather such trash? You are none too bright, are you?
The weapons inspectors were withdrawn in late 1998 at the behest of the UK and US, prior to Op Desert Fox!
You heard over a beer or two? If you believe that the US went to war for oil, which it has never been deprived of and which was not in poor supply for the US at that time, you are as dumb as a stump
I heard it from someone with a wealth of experience in the US Armed Forces who had a refreshingly cynical view of the whole thing! The US wanted a strategic foothold in the Middle East with access to oil and were considering such an action prior to 9/11.
You, are a loser, for trying to slant the truth. You are a punk, for doing it. And you are a dink, for thinking you could get away with it.
There is no need to slant the truth and hence, no need to think about getting away with it! :twisted: The facts are as presented!
Drop it IRONMAN. I’m tired of a war dodging troll badmouthing people who are actually of use to the world.
An excellent point, and I am sure the National Guard would be delighted to accept Ironman’s enlistment papers. It’s probably better to volunteer before the draft is reinstated! Yee hah! :twisted:
In difficult sieges that had to be breached (2 centuries or so ago) the British Army would amass a volunteer assault force. They knew that if they succeeded - and lived - they would be promoted and gain substantial glory.
So you think you’re up to the challenge? “Duty, Honor, Country” are more than just words to you? Well, there’s only one way to find out if you’ve got what it takes to be a member of an elite team of warriors.
To get all the facts on training in career skills, educational opportunities, adventure, excitement and money in your state, make a selection from the pulldown menu below and fill out the form. This information will only be used by your local recruiter to send information to you. IT DOES NOT OBLIGATE YOU TO JOIN.
