First, as a point of mere interest, my father is arguably an heir to Tullock Castle near Dingwall - his family owned it before it was stolen from them by the English Crown. He visited Dingwall in 1999 to see it.
Now onward…
When I discover myself to be in error, I owe up to it, and I have always done, and always will. Perhaps that is why you have not seen the retraction you hoped for. Those posts are not in error.
BTW, just because someone is in the military does not mean that their opinion of the usefullness of an antuique weapon is any more valid than another. Obviously. I have seen “professional” photographers who make a living through portraiture but could not properly balance a main to fill light ratio. It is wiser to put stock in the substance of what someone says than to consider their thier vocation an automatic validation of infalability.
Not that crap again. You are contending that Britain has commonwealth nations in 2005? Please, understand what commonwealth meant before claiming that my post was in error.
Please don’t get me quoting all of the ridiculous claims some have made here. Many of them are embarrisingly absurd and totally disproven by historical fact.
If you spent as much energy understanding what I said as you do attmepting to disprove it, you would have also read that I stated that the difference is plain and incomparable:
The foreign-born soldiers in the US military are required to apply for US citizenship and move to the US to live before being allowed to enter the US military. This is not the case with Gurkas. They are not residents of Britain, and are not required to apply for citizenship in Britain. They are merely foreingers to Britain serving in the British military - and they are sent into battle as 1st line offensive soldiers.
Please, read what I have said before attempting to disprove it. Furthermore, I hope now that you see the error of your comment on that matter.
I was only being a mature, responsible aduilt.
If you were to look at that thought more carefully, you would see that virtually all of the name calling, insults, and condescension made in debating with me has been perpetrated by the others. Only after considerable antagonism have I resorted to dioing the same. Your energy would be better spent scolding those who do so freely and with a childish lack of restraint when they encounter an opinion that differs from their own rather than to scold the one who has so many times and so often made an effort not to respond to such childishness in kind.
Under current immigration law, non-citizens must serve in the U.S. military for three years before they are eligible to apply for U.S. citizenship. However, during times of war, a President can issue an executive order, allowing non-citizens on active duty to become eligible for citizenship before completing the three-year service, senior administration officials said.
President Bush issued such an Order in July 2002 that allows certain non-citizens serving honorably in active duty status in the Armed Forces of the U.S. in the war against terrorism to be eligible for expedited naturalization. Expedited naturalizations are permitted under a section of the law that eliminates residence and physical presence requirements under certain conditions. In order to be eligible, a person must have served on active duty status on or since September 11, 2001 in the war against terrorism. The President will set the end date of eligibility, likely when the hostilities end.
GENERAL QUALIFICATIONS
U.S. citizen or permanent resident alien
17-34 years old (17-39 years old for Army Reserve)
Healthy and in good physical condition
In good moral standing
High School or Equivalent Education
Ahem: http://www.thecommonwealth.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=20596
The Commonwealth is alive and well in 2005, and has 53 member countries with 1.8 billion citizens.
The only other valid meaning of Commonwealth with regard to the UK is referring to the short lived English (& Welsh) republic under Cromwell 1649-1660.
When I discover myself to be in error, I owe up to it, and I have always done, and always will. Perhaps that is why you have not seen the retraction you hoped for. Those posts are not in error.
BTW, just because someone is in the military does not mean that their opinion of the usefullness of an antuique weapon is any more valid than another. Obviously. I have seen “professional” photographers who make a living through portraiture but could not properly balance a main to fill light ratio. It is wiser to put stock in the substance of what someone says than to consider their thier vocation an automatic validation of infalability.
Not that crap again. You are contending that Britain has commonwealth nations in 2005? Please, understand what commonwealth meant before claiming that my post was in error.
Please don’t get me quoting all of the ridiculous claims some have made here. Many of them are embarrisingly absurd and totally disproven by historical fact.
If you spent as much energy understanding what I said as you do attmepting to disprove it, you would have also read that I stated that the difference is plain and incomparable:
The foreign-born soldiers in the US military are required to apply for US citizenship and move to the US to live before being allowed to enter the US military. This is not the case with Gurkas. They are not residents of Britain, and are not required to apply for citizenship in Britain. They are merely foreingers to Britain serving in the British military - and they are sent into battle as 1st line offensive soldiers.
Please, read what I have said before attempting to disprove it. Furthermore, I hope now that you see the error of your comment on that matter.
I was only being a mature, responsible aduilt.
If you were to look at that thought more carefully, you would see that virtually all of the name calling, insults, and condescension made in debating with me has been perpetrated by the others. Only after considerable antagonism have I resorted to dioing the same. Your energy would be better spent scolding those who do so freely and with a childish lack of restraint when they encounter an opinion that differs from their own rather than to scold the one who has so many times and so often made an effort not to respond to such childishness in kind.[/quote]
Point of interest, as you say, Dingwall is about 140 miles due north of my home…which isn’t in Indiana.
Britain does not “have” Commonwealth countries in 2005, but the Commonwealth still exists, and HM the Queen is still Head of State of rather substantial parts of it, as has been detailed elsewhere.
However, as you are so fond of pointing out, the forum was WWII, and yes, we most certainly did still have “The British Commonwealth” then.
What was “dissolved”, mainly in the early part of the 20th Century was The British Empire, a different construct entirely.
As I have already said, I didn’t feel qualified to argue on the subject of ballistics or weapon classifications, but please, don’t presume to teach a Brit about the British Commonwealth. (There’s that arrogance showing through again)
I stand ready to be corrected by a clear piece of proof re the foreign citizens serving in your armed forces, however the words are not mine, they are, subject to the newspaper reporter not actually lying, those of your Department of Defence.
The same piece also say that these “Green Card” soldiers (their words again) may apply for accelerated citizenship AFTER volunteering to serve.
Again, the Gurkhas are sent into battle exactly the same way as any other Light Infantry unit.
It might also be worth considering, although off topic, that in WW1 the USA had approximately 9000 men serving in it’s army who weren’t American citizens.
These days they’re known as Native Americans.
As for the sarcasm and condescension I referred to, I refer only, and I mean only, to that you have attempted to employ against me personally.
The others you refer to are big enough and no doubt tough enough to fight their own battles, just as many of them fight and have fought the battles of HM Government.
The M1 Carbine fits all but the selective fire. However, as I have said before, thse criteria did not exist during WWII. They are the result of modern weapons development. Even the Germans (who coined the term “Assault Rifle”) did not see the need to apply such criteria to the weapon. They simply decided what kind of rifle they needed to be competetive with the semi-automatic and fully-automatic weapons of the enemy and designed a weapon that fit the bill. The criteria is of more recent designation. As time has passed the design of such weapons has improved and the standards have been refined.
Attempts to compare a weapon of WWII era design with one of recent design by using modern criteria as the standard is a flawed process. Thinking that a weapon must at least be as powerful as an MP44 to be considered an assault weapon is also flawed. If it were not flawed, then the M1 Garand would not be a rifle simply because the .308 bolt action exists. In the WWII era, those standards did not exist. Let’s not forget that the Avtomat was the first assault rifle in the world, and it used a full rifle cartridge!
Furthermore, in your attempt to declare the M1 Carbine as not being an assult rifle (which, admittedly, it is not by definition because it lacks selective fire) you are omitting the most important factor of all. And this is simply - Does the weapon fit the role? Has it proved itself effective in that role?
The answer to both of thiose questions is a resounding “Yes!”
In the WWII era, and M1 Carbine could without question be considered an assult rifle, for it fit the role quite well. was activley selected for that role and was used in such a role countless times.
If the basis for your thinking that it is not an assult rifle (regardless of the role for which it was designed) is that it could not fire automatic or that it’s round was weak by comparison or that it does not meet the modern standards for an assault rifle, then you have made an error.
Tulloch Castle, the home of the Chiefs of the Clan Davidson, is located on the outskirts of Dingwall, Scotland, in the county of Ross and Cromarty, or Ross-shire. There is a great deal of fascinating history surrounding Dingwall, a little town which has played an important role in the history and leadership of the Highlands.
Tulloch Castle was probably built by Norsemen, but all that remains of the original structure are the southwest corner and its tower. It was first called Tulloch in 1507 from the Gaelic word “Tuich”, which means “hillock”.
Four chief families have been especially active in the town of Dingwall and country life. They are the Baynes, (later intermarrying with the Davidsons), the Dingwalls, the MacKenzies, and the Munros.
Bayne (or Bain, MacBain or MacBean) are first recorded as being in Dingwall in the late 15th century. Their origins go back to Donald Bane of Malcolm Canmore’s reign, and James Bayne, Bishop of St. Andrews, crowned King David II at Scone.
The first Bayne of Tulloch was Duncan, who received a charter from King James V in 1541 giving him the lands of Tuich or Oulch (later Tulloch). In 1553 he acquired from Clan Munro the lands of Davochcrate (now Dochcarty) which adjoined Tulloch Hill lands. A road was built between the two castles (Dingwall and Tulloch) but the Dingwall Castle is gone and only Tulloch survives. Another report, giving the Baynes an earlier claim, states that the Baynes lived in Tulloch Castle for two hundred and fifty years, from 1513 to 1752.
Kenneth, the eighth Bayne of Tulloch, sold the estate to his cousin, Henry Davidson, on the 13th of January, 1762. Henry was the Chief of the Clan Dhai from that time on.
Duncan Davidson, 4th laird of Tulloch, was born in 1800 and became Member of Parliament for Cromarty in 1826. He was one of the few lairds of the period to always dress in Highland garb and was a great favorite of Queen Victoria’s whom he used to drive personally on her visits north. In his capacity as Lord Lieutenant of Ross he was her representative in the area. He was known locally as “The Stag”, having had five wives who bore his eighteen children and he had at least thirty illegitimate children around the district. One of his wives was the youngest sister of his daughter in law. One of his daughters was to become the famous Green Lady of Tulloch. He is also remembered for being the subject of one of the famous predictions of the Brahan Seer - “The day will come when there will be a Laird of Tulloch who will kill five wives in succession, but the fifth will kill him.” Interestingly, Duncan died of pneumonia in Edinburgh after attending the famous Wet Review of volunteers by Queen Victoria of 1881, and was survived by his fifth wife. There is also an interesting story about Duncan Davidson and one of the most famous pipers in Scotland John Ban.
The last of the direct line of Davidson at Tulloch was Duncan Davidson who died in 1917. His daughter inherited Tulloch Castle and her son, Colonel Angus Vickers, of Vickers Aircraft, was the last owner of Tulloch lands before they were given to the Highland Regional Council just a few years ago. Since then the Castle served intermittently as a dormitory for Dingwall Academy before converting to its present use as a hotel.
In 1920 the castle, which was falling badly into disrepair, was completely renovated by Mr. and Mrs. Vickers. The roof-line was changed and it was completely modernized. In her later years, Colonel Vickers’ mother did not live at the castle but preferred her smaller apartment at the adjoining farm complex.
Three of the Davidsons of Tulloch served as Provost of the town of Dingwall. They were Henry Davidson in 1779, Duncan Davidson in 1784 and Duncan Davidson in 1840.
Ken and Margaret MacAulay with their family Emma and Kevin purchased Tulloch Castle in August 1996, their mission statement being – To build up Tulloch Castle Hotel into an efficient and profitable business, characterizing the best of Scottish traditional hospitality and food, in a welcoming, family-run business. To preserve the history of the castle and make it accessible to local people as well as visitors.
Don’t see any evidence of it being stolen by the English crown anywhere there - it was in the Bayne family until sold to the Davidsons in 1762. And it seems that, once sold, it remained in the same family until 1996…
[i]Queen Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary) (born 21 April 1926), styled Her Majesty The Queen, is the queen regnant and head of state of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as well as of Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, the Solomon Islands, and Tuvalu.
She is also Head of the Commonwealth, Supreme Governor of the Church of England, Commander-in-Chief of the UK Armed Forces and Lord of Mann; she has reigned in these positions since the death of her father, King George VI on 6 February 1952. She is the longest serving current Head of State in Europe, The Americas, Africa and Australasia, and is the second longest-serving current head of state in the world, after King Rama IX of Thailand.
About 125 million people live in the countries of which she is Head of State. Her reign has seen ten different Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom and numerous Prime Ministers in the other personal union nations of which she is or was Head of State. She is married to Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, and is the mother of the heir-apparent to the British throne, Charles, Prince of Wales.[/i]
For non-Brits, the term “queen regnant” indicates that she rules in her own right, and not as wife of a ruling King, in which case her title would be “queen consort”.
So right you are. My error. However, it remains my opinion and always will, that the British actively recruiting foreigners from poor third-world nations to be their front line soldiers in highly distassteful to me and to many others. If the US were to do the same, I would find that distasteful as well! But then, the US does not send in groups of Mexicans to do their fighting for them, before American citizens go into the fight. You have not changed the distastefulness of it or the manner of Britain’s actions in that matter.
Ironman, you seem to have picked up on an innacurate remark by, I think Tex Willer, to the effect that the Gurkhas are sent in as cannon fodder before other British troops.
I’m sorry, but this is simply not true.
The Gurkhas are deployed, as I’ve said before, in the Light Infantry role as any other British Unit.
They have gone in after, before and (mainly) alongside other Regiments since their inception and continue to do so.
Ahem: http://www.thecommonwealth.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=20596
The Commonwealth is alive and well in 2005, and has 53 member countries with 1.8 billion citizens.
The only other valid meaning of Commonwealth with regard to the UK is referring to the short lived English (& Welsh) republic under Cromwell 1649-1660.[/quote]
Sorry, but the “Commonwealth” as it existed and came to be known in it’s true nature no longer exists. Just like the Queen is a figurehead only, and Canada, Aurstalia, and New Zealand have an “alliance” to the “Crown” which is a pleasantry only. None of those states are under British rule. They are independant nations, politically and economically.
We only accept Gurkhas from Nepal, while citizens of commonwealth nations who have been legally residing in the UK for 5 years prior to entry may also join.
I won’t bother explaining why nobody else (least of all the Nepalese) have any moral qualms about them serving with British forces - it’s been done to death already.
Ahem: http://www.thecommonwealth.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=20596
The Commonwealth is alive and well in 2005, and has 53 member countries with 1.8 billion citizens.
The only other valid meaning of Commonwealth with regard to the UK is referring to the short lived English (& Welsh) republic under Cromwell 1649-1660.[/quote]
Sorry, but the “Commonwealth” as it existed and came to be known in it’s true nature no longer exists. Just like the Queen is a figurehead only, and Canada, Aurstalia, and New Zealand have an “alliance” to the “Crown” which is a pleasantry only. None of those states are under British rule. They are independant nations, politically and economically.[/quote]
Absolutely correct, with regard to the independence of these countries.
But you still confuse the Empire, when we RULED these countries, with the Commonwealth, which has ALWAYS been a coalition, to use a popular word these days, of nations with allegiances to the Crown, whom several still recognise as Head of State.
No Ironman, you seemed to think I was General Sandworm, listed in his profile as living in Indiana.
No condescension or insult intended on my part, but a degree of paranoia showing on yours.
And naughty naughty, selective eyesight?
You read the rest of the post too, didn’t you?
Now quote and disprove the rest of it.
OK. So that is supposed to make me think it’s a good thing to actively recuuit foreigners from third-world nations and send them into battle ahead of British citizens in groups?
Dude, it’s distasteful. Any way you slice it. Please don’t go about yourself like Britain is the only reighchous nation. But let’s not do the historical thing here, ok?
Which is the f***ing meaning of “Commonwealth”!!! :evil:
What you are referring to is the British Empire, back when Australia, Canada and the like were British Dominions. Kindly consult any dictionary, history book or encyclopedia of your choice and you will find this to be the case. I even gave you a link to the website of the Commonwealth and you claim it doesn’t exist!!!
The first mention of the word “Commonwealth” was in the 1926 Balfour report, “which defined the Dominions as autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate to one another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.”
In 1949 the word “British” was dropped from the title, and the reference to alleigence to the crown was removed (to accomodate the fact that India wished to be a member but was a Republic).
Note that there were only ever 6 members of the “British Commonwealth of Nations” (Canada, Newfoundland, Eire, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand), and that the modern Commonwealth has 53. Also, prior to WW2 most people still think of it as the British Empire and the Dominions - the Commonwealth didn’t really mean anything until after the dissolution of Empire.
It is wiser to put stock in the substance of what someone says than to consider their thier vocation an automatic validation of infalability.