Please, drop the Gurkha topic before I paste a bunch of stuff from international sources in a post you don’t want to read about how they have been treated. I suggest that you take this opportunity to stop carrying on about it and change the subject.
Well, they are paid a pension that is a fraction of that of a british-borne soldier for starters.[/quote]
But why would it be cheaper to send them instead of other troops?
Yes, you are talking about the political contribution. You shot your load too soon. It does nothing to make Bush guilty of anything, and that is the opinion of the American people. Yehaaaa!
Let’s not have the weapons inpectors put in the line of danger from a military action shall we? Do you ever use your brain?
What you heard was made for small minds like yours. Tiny, little-bity I-can’t-think-for-myself minds. And you swalloed it hook, line, and sinker.
Lies never acheive anything for a liar except to belittle them.
Well, they are paid a pension that is a fraction of that of a british-borne soldier for starters.[/quote]
But why would it be cheaper to send them instead of other troops?[/quote]
Well, they are paid a pension that is a fraction of that of a british-borne soldier for starters.
Well, they are paid a pension that is a fraction of that of a british-borne soldier for starters.[/quote]
But why would it be cheaper to send them instead of other troops?[/quote]
Well, they are paid a pension that is a fraction of that of a british-borne soldier for starters.[/quote]
but why is it cheaper to send Gurkhas then sending other soldiers
Well, they are paid a pension that is a fraction of that of a british-borne soldier for starters.[/quote]
But why would it be cheaper to send them instead of other troops?[/quote]
Well, they are paid a pension that is a fraction of that of a british-borne soldier for starters.[/quote]
but why is it cheaper to send Gurkhas then sending other soldiers[/quote]
Well, they are paid a pension that is a fraction of that of a british-borne soldier for starters.
But therefore it is more economical to get non-Gurkha soldiers killed as their pensions and pay, if they survive to collect them, will cost more.
[quote=“Bladensburg”]
But therefore it is more economical to get non-Gurkha soldiers killed as their pensions and pay, if they survive to collect them, will cost more.[/quote]
Go back to English class and math class too. Think first, talks second from now on.
What are you on about, you patronising pillock? Forty years worth of Gurkha pension at TPA rates will cost the exchequer considerably less than forty years UK pension so it is cheaper in the long run to lose a UK citizen.
In any case this is irrelevent in relation to the question which was: “Why is it cheaper to send Gurkhas on operations than other soldiers?”
Now stop twisting and answer the bloody question.
(Where’s Paxman when you need him? :roll: )
You, more than any other poster on site, would do well to heed your own advice.
You, more than any other poster on site, would do well to heed your own advice.[/quote]
:roll:
Does one pension cost the British government amount to the same? Is this anything like the one jet engine weighing about the same as another 10 times it’s size claim someone made? :lol:
Ironman Please state your military provenence for quoting orbat of Gurkha Bat’s. As I’m sure many members will agree a web search for a given topic will provide both fact and fiction on any given subject just as PC game play is not a basis for real experience.
As you are obviously both a patriot and supporter of your countries military, why did’nt you join the armed forces like your dad.
When you post against both serving and ex serving members you are to quote oppenhimer, standing on the shoulders of giants so you best have your facts strait and I mean real provable facts not cyber waffle.
To be honest having read all of your posts including the many that you have back edited you come across as a bit of a Rush limbargh ( poss miss spell), you know that chickenhawk,war dodging,pill-popping,paranoid talk radio host/arrse who never lets the facts get in the way of a pompous rant.
If the sum total of your military experience is books,PC games ,documentaries and movies then STFU.
As a dog lover and owner of a particularly intelligent and loveble cocker spaniel(Peppo) I’m sorry for your loss.
I did not bring up the Gurkhas, so why do you keep trying to convince me it’s a good thing? The resources I posted are from press in Britain, the members of your Parlaiment, and the press in Nepal. If you don’t like them, call them up. Trying to create the impression that information is not widely available from the press, your own government ect. is impossible in light of the volume of info about it that is available.
Better yet, stop talking to me about Gurkhas and I’ll stop backing up my opinion with sources. I really have no interest in the subject, never did, and I was not the one that vrought it up in the other thread or this one either.
What you heard was made for small minds like yours. Tiny, little-bity I-can’t-think-for-myself minds. And you swalloed it hook, line, and sinker.
Lies never acheive anything for a liar except to belittle them.
So:
Where are the WMDs?
Where is Usama Bin Laden?
How safe is the world now?
So put your money where your mouth is!
http://www.1800goguard.com/home.html
You could always do a Dubya and join the Air National Guard and sit out the draft…
If they take the likes of Lynndie England, you might have a chance! :twisted:
Oh the silly hypocricy. Call Blair and tell him you want Britain to wossie out on it’s participation in Iraq instead of blathering hypocritical trash at another country. For crying out loud, get a clue. 
Go on…join!
I was in the reserves and liked it so much I joined up full-time. The National Guard might even make that decision for you!
The view in Britain on the Iraq war is clear - 2million marched through London in an anti-war protest and 50 of Blair’s members of parliament recently found themselves unemployed.
Well, they are paid a pension that is a fraction of that of a british-borne soldier for starters.[/quote]
But why would it be cheaper to send them instead of other troops?[/quote]
Well, they are paid a pension that is a fraction of that of a british-borne soldier for starters.[/quote]
but why is it cheaper to send Gurkhas then sending other soldiers[/quote]
Well, they are paid a pension that is a fraction of that of a british-borne soldier for starters.[/quote]
It would appear from your statement that you think soldiers come in little boxes and only get paid when they are on operation. If this was the case them your stupid statement would be correct. In fact the wide spread use by the US government of the NG in Iraq would prove your point excellently. How many NG Divisions/units are being used to save money? But as the MOD only uses limited numbers of part time soldiers your statement is off again. As Great Britain’s soldiers are fulltime and paid 24 hours a day, 365 days a year your statement it like most of your word, total drivel. There is no saving by sending Gurkhas in place of any other of Great Britain’s line regts as they are paid whether working, sleeping, eating, down the pub or rogering the local barmaid.
Don’t forget to get your soldiers out of the box ready for the next adventure.
I want an answer Ironman, why didn’t you join up? You battle-dodging nappy wearing nancy boy. If it was for medical reasons then fair play i will hound you no longer. If it was that you are a pie-eater and a phys-dodger then you’re a good for nothing slack mofo who’s an utter disgrace and a waste of your father’s ejaculation.
GIVE US AN ANSWER!!!
(editted because I have now calmed down a little)
You, more than any other poster on site, would do well to heed your own advice.[/quote]
:roll:
[/quote]
Ah, what a Fonda-like reaction, “The rules I advocate are for others, not me !”
Can you find any posts in which I have made a proven lie ?
By the way, proof and opinion are not mutually exchangeable words.