We have in our past been guilty of recruiting from poor counties and putting them to work in the front line. We all know it was wrong, but when their home country does not have the nerve to fight openly then its citizens will volunteer to fight a just cause.
kill ratio is not a way of assessing who is winning or who is loosing, morale is. It is the unit with the weakest morale that will loose not the one that takes the most casualties, as has been proved through out history.
Ask a US marine who they would rather have backing them up giving a chose of US army or a Gurkha Bn?
Can I join the U.S. Military if I am not an American citizen?
Non-citizens may enlist, but cannot reenlist (extend their enlistment beyond their first term of service) unless they become naturalized U.S. citizens. However, after service of three years, additional residency requirements for citizenship can be waived. The Military does not assist in immigration naturalization process.
For enlistment purposes, the United States includes Guam, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, The Northern Marianas Islands, American Samoa, Federated States of Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands. Citizens of certain countries may require a waiver to enlist. These include citizens of countries considered hostile to the interests of the United States. For more specific information on the current list of hostile countries, or for other specific questions,
And the US had a recruiting office at RAF Lakenheath. I have also spoken on many occasions toe a National Guard tanker serving in the sand pit who is Irish.
He who is without sin cast the first stone.
What land did we steal from the Spanish in north America? We took it from the French, but that’s OK, and from the Dutch, but we have been at war with them for hundreds of years and they are very nice people. We also swapped land with the Dutch (New Holland).
The colonials did not just find it there, “oh look no one is living hire” they took it from people who could not defend it, as has happened throughout history. Guy with the biggest stick makes the rules.
I’ve done no such thing. I have, however, explained to you that the practice is distasteful to Americans, since you brought it up again and pointed at me when you did.
But are Gurkas no longer used by the British military?
Uh huh. I thought you might try to disqualify the facts. BTW, morale makes you more effective because your bullets multiply magically!!! And when playing chess, it matters not that you are down by a rook a queen and a bishop. You have morale! Training and all other things don’t mean a thing if you have morale!!!
Have you ever heard the term Semper Fidelis? It’s a USMC credo. It means “Always Faithful”. That applies to thier nations as well as the corps. No, I am afraid the Marines would prefer Americans, kinda like the British prefer Gurkas. But WTF does that have to do with the practice of using Gurkas? Not a flicken thing. So now you are trying to prove the effectiveness of the Gurkas as if it’s an excuse for the practice of using them? Is that part of the ratioanale for using Gurkas?
So now you want me to believe that the US policies are in some way anything like the practice of sending a secular group of foreigners (Gurkas) into battle for your nation? :shock:
Did I not already state that the land belonged to someone else first? That someone was not Britain either. I guess the ones with the biggest stick are those who came here to live from other countries from the 16th century to the present, when ownership was up in the air in warfare between Spain (yes, Spain) France, and Britain. I guess if you can’t keep it you never owned it.
I could care less how it is rationalized. You know what Americans think of it. Why did you bother bringing it up again?
Tinwalt, do you sit at home thinking of shite to spout?
Gurkhas are still (as you well know) part of the British Army (I’m on a course with one now, I asked him how he felt about your posts, I think I’d be banned if I put all the insults he came out with for you here)
Morale is (as anyone who’s ever actually done it for real) extremely important during battle. Morale took the outnumbered, inferior equipped British to victory in 1982, morale kept the Glorious Glosters in place until they were wiped out at the Imjin in 1952(ish), morale made Russians forget the fact that they were suffering loss ratios of 10:1 and defeat the Whermacht in 1945. Morale meant that a bunch of Vietnamese farmers on bikes with home made machine guns could take on and beat two superpowers in 30 years.
Can’t understand why anyone would rather have Yank behind him than a Brit, unless they wanted to steal his kit?
The rationale for “using” Gurkhas is that they are fucking amazing troops more than willing to die for their adopted country, and with proven bravery and skill in battle. What’s America’s excuse for using Haitan immigrants?
The Gurkhas aren’t secular, they are generally Hindu or Buddhist
Why would we care what Yanks think anyway? When we start asking you lot for the best way to fight a war is the day I sign off from this man’s Army.
Ironman wrote : I could care less how it is rationalized. You know what Americans think of it. Why did you bother bringing it up again?
Two points.
One, in response to the above, no, we don’t know what Americans think of it.
We know what ONE American, namely you, thinks of it.
Try asking some Americans who have fought alongside them of their opinions.
You do not, I assume, have the arrogance to claim to speak for all Americans?
Two. You are, of course, entitled to your individual and personal opinion of the practice of recruiting the Gurkhas for the British Army.
However, your oft-stated and incorrect claim that they are “sent into battle ahead of white troops”, or that they were " sent into battle in the Falklands while British troops sat playing cards on-board ship" are not opinions.
They are insulting, inaccurate and arguably racist statements, posted as facts, despite your claims of not being anti-British.
Once again I ask you to authenticate these claims with a single shred of evidence, or withdraw them and apologise for them.
P.S. Please check your P.M.'s
(Edited to add P.S.)
This was sarcasm, but over your head, and you would have realised that if you had read the link, but you do not like to look at evidence that may contradict you narrow field of view.
Uh huh. I thought you might try to disqualify the facts.
What fact? That your trouble you do not produce any facts. :evil:
BTW, morale makes you more effective because your bullets multiply magically!!!
Is this sarcasm!! :roll:
And yes good moral does multiply you bullets. Your soldiers fire acuratly as aposed to the low morale troos firing into the air or not aiming or finding some other reason not to shoot. In low morale troops it takes two or more to help an injured soldier. In high morale troops they take the injured soldiers ammo, mark him and carry on with the assault. They both know that they will get help latter.
And when playing chess, it matters not that you are down by a rook a queen and a bishop. You have morale! Training and all other things don’t mean a thing if you have morale!!!
Quite right. I am sure I could very quickly come up with some examples including US forces. The 57th at Alburhira, the Rangers in Somalia, Para at Arnham, Dunkirk, Alamo all fighting great odds and hopeless positions but with the belief in they own ability.
morale
noun [u]
the amount of confidence felt by a person or group of people, especially when in a dangerous or difficult situation:
2nd of foot wrote:
Your own army said Non-citizens may enlist, but cannot reenlist (extend their enlistment beyond their first term of service) unless they become naturalized U.S. citizens.
So now you want me to believe that the US policies are in some way anything like the practice of sending a secular group of foreigners (Gurkas) into battle for your nation?
Bay of Pigs. But no you left them there to die instead of supporting them as you had promised.
Gurkhas are recruited by the British Government in their own land paraphrased
Wrong. They were recruited by an NGO trading company, that was in no way government sponsored the EAST INDIA TRADING COMPANY, partitioned India for its own economic benefit during the opium wars Playing local principalities off against one another in order to secure a favourable political climate - (IRAQ anyone?)
There was no united INDIA prior to our arrival and India has the most stable democratic record of any nation in the 3rd and possibly even 1st world.
It was no more their homeland than it was ours especially if you want to make claims about settlement and government and administration of the region. The only manner in which nepal became a nation was due to its partition by the british in order to better manage and control the flow of opium there.
In 1947, in the peaceful transtion of power to the newly formed democratic Indian Government the Nepali King offered his troops to the UK for use in conflict. The UK having had a long history closely linked to the region accepted this gift from the Nepali Monarchy. We did not abduct, press gang, capitualte or force people to join, neither do we “steal” Nepals finest young men, we cammand the Gurkhali soldiers purely at the behest of the Nepali Monarch, hence the need to ask permission to use Gurkha forces in conflict.
The Nepali King can prevent Gurkhas entering conflict under a British flag, the ultimate decision to commit Gurkha forces is not made by the British but by the head of the Nepali state.[/i]
Now remember, I did not bring it up. All of this hogwash is your doing because I simply agreed with the one who said they found it to be chickensh*t.
Erwin, you have agreed with Erwin over the issue of Gurkhas and expect us to lay off you as a result.
Erwins friends and countrymen were scared of Gurkhas and thanks to Galtieri’s control of the media has been filled with hatred for this body of men, You on the other hand are an Arsehole (come to arrse please!!!)
You have a free press, free media, generally a good education and yet you are as keen to swallow the shit about Gurkhas being stupid lap dogs for the british military as he is. He is young and impressionable and on the recieving end of a lot os state propoganda what is your excuse?
MORALE
Cold, wet, tired, want to go to bed, wish you had never joined up. = hands in pockets dreaming of Jo Guest, too knackered to clean weapon or look after personal admin, head buried in colour breathing into your jacket ratheer than scanning your fire arc. = Dead soldier.
Warm, clean, cheery, dry, well fed, well supplied, just back from R&R, = organised kit, alert, attentive, comfortable, able to endure more hardship, more confident, more resilient to infection and illness = living soldier.
Again, you can rationalize it anyway you like. I have explained that Americans find the practice distasteful. You can stop trying to prove to me that it isn’t. You can stop bringing it up as well. Then you won’t find yourself trying to defend the practice.
This was sarcasm, but over your head, and you would have realised that if you had read the link, but you do not like to look at evidence that may contradict you narrow field of view.[/quote][/quote]
So they are still used I assume since you would not answer the question.
So morale is the only reason the USMC has the highest battle effectiveness of any fighting force in the world eh? Uh huh.
You are claiming that because the US supplied arms and training to Cubans exiles who intended to invade Cuba, that they were a part of the American military? I suppose Gurkas are just foreigners that go to war everywhere Britain does because they have the same beef with that nation as Britain? I suppose you think Cubans, Central Americans, and those of other nations are all Soviets because they USSR did the same.
Dude, get a freaking clue.
Please, tell me what other country it is that you claim rules the US. We need to hear that one. :lol:
I did not bring it up again. It was thrown at me so I threw it back.[/quote]
Ironman, that’s your own quote.
Again, I reiterate, no we don’t know what Americans think of it.
We know what YOU think of it, unless you claim to speak for all of America now?
I guess the British don’t know much about Americans. Kiddo, I AM an American. Like I said, how do you explain to Brits what it means to be an American?
“The Gurkhas have been on the British frontlines since 1815. More than 200,000 enlisted for the First World War, and a tenth of their number were killed or injured. In the Second World War, 250,000 Gurkhas fought the Germans in famous battles such as Monte Casino and Tobruk and ruthless Japanese soldiers in the Far East, again suffering heavy casualties.
Better to Die than to Be a Coward. That is the motto of the hill men recruited into the British Army. But that system - which plucked thousands of youths from tiny, impoverished villages, trained them and showed them the world - is in crisis. Today there are 300 applicants for every vacancy and some who fail commit suicide rather than face the disgrace they bring upon their families.”
No, you have a big cup of Shut the Fluck Up about the Gurkhas NOT being used as front line soldiers for Britain, as you Brits claim.
It seems that the British not only send them into battle, but they also mistreat them, and this got a whole bunch of prominent people in Nepal to get something legal going with financial support from the Canadians:
World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerence
“Whereas the Kathmandu Declaration adopted by the participants of the International Conference on the Plight of the Gurkhas held in Kathmandu on September 18-20, 1999 details ways in which discrimination by the United Kingdom against the Gurkhas in the British Army has manifested itself.”
It seems also that the Gurkha pensions are nbased on Indian Army pensions, which one can only assume is something notably less than that of British soldiers.
And the stink just gets higher with a sperate issure:
"The claimants, ex-Gurkhas of the British Army accuse the British Government of discrimination and unequal treatment. Nepalese Gurkha soldiers have been recruited into the British Army for almost two hundred years. Many thousands of them lost their lives while fighting on behalf of Britain in many bloody battles in the First and Second World Wars. Since the 1947 Tripartite Agreement between India, Nepal and UK, their recruitment into the British Army has been regulated by that agreement, which linked remuneration of Gurkhas to the Indian Army’s Pay Code, resulting in a significant disparity in the payment of salaries and pensions between British Gurkhas and other British soldiers.
As a result of this disparity, serving Gurkhas were paid substantially less than other British soldiers and over 30,000 Gurkhas retired from service in the British Army without an adequate pension and benefits. Moreover, while serving, Gurkhas suffered discrimination in their everyday life. Consequently, Gurkhas started proceedings against the UK government on the basis of several violations of their human rights through applications for judicial review.
The main discrimination case resulted in the Ministry of Defence conceding that all non-financial discrimination must end, apart from accompanied leave rules. Thus discrimination about different rules on weekend leave, accommodation, dress code, religion, food, mess facilities, baggage allowance and other matters has ended. The case concerning pay, pensions and accompanied leave was heard in the High Court from 17-21 February 2003 before Sullivan J.
On 21 February 2003 Sullivan J gave judgment. On accompanied leave he found that the 1947 Tripartite Agreement, between the UK, India and Nepal, does not justify the different treatment of Gurkhas. The UK Government relied on a rule that allowed the Gurkha soldier to be with his family for a maximum of 3 out of 15 years. The judge ruled that the Ministry of Defence bring this policy into line with the rules for British soldiers. However, he refused to give the Gurkhas a declaration that the law did not allow this discrimination. Instead it was left to the discretion of the Ministry of Defence as to how and when to review and change this policy. This aspect of the judgment is to be appealed.
As for pay and pensions, the judge dealt with these as a single issue. The Gurkhas had accepted that it was lawful for there to be some differential between a Gurkha pension and a British soldier pension as the cost of living in Nepal is cheaper, and the majority of Gurkhas retire to Nepal. The judge found that once this was accepted it then became a question of whether the differential was such as to be irrational. The judge found it was not. Further, he said that the Gurkhas were not analogous to British soldiers because they were retiring to Nepal.
Both aspects of this judgment on pay and pensions will be appealed. In relation to the issue of “analogous”, the claimants will say it is self-evident that Gurkhas ought to be compared to British soldiers. They serve in the same army, with loyalty to the British crown. They fight alongside each other, subject to broadly similar terms and conditions, and any differences in these terms and conditions cannot now be relied on by the Ministry of Defence to justify their own discrimination. While it is obvious that a difference arises at the end of service, with most Gurkhas retiring to Nepal and most British to the UK, that is not the end of the matter. Some British go to live in other parts of the world, cheaper than the UK, and some Gurkhas retire in the UK. As for justification, it is self-evident that the Ministry of Defence have never carried out a proper justification exercise to establish what differential in pensions is proportionate.
The point of law arising from this case will have major implications for other human rights and discrimination cases. Post Human Rights Act 1998 it can be argued that where there are violations of human rights, especially in the sensitive areas of race or sex discrimination, the body responsible must now undergo a radical change of approach. Previously, it was enough to satisfy a court, if challenged, that the public body was not behaving rationally. Now the human rights element requires such discrimination to be justified, and to be proportionate. Therefore, it is argued that such a justification exercise should be in writing, especially in a case of this importance and sensitivity, and must be coherent and rational."
"Gurkha Prisoners of War Case
Many ex-Gurkhas were captured by the Japanese during the Second World War. British soldiers have received an ex-gratia payment of £10,000. The UK Government refused to pay the ex-Gurkhas saying that they were not fighting for the British during the Second World War but were in the Indian Army. Our clients noted that white and European officers of the Indian Army, and specifically Gurkha officers, had received the payment and, therefore, their exclusion from this scheme was for reasons of racial discrimination. On 30 November 2002 a judgment of the High Court ruled in favour of our clients. Mr Justice McCombe found that the decision was tainted by racial discrimination and repugnant to the “principle of equality which is at the cornerstone of our system.”
The Ministry of Defence appealed the case but then in a remarkable defeat it withdrew its appeal in the light of new evidence introduced by the PIL team on behalf of our clients. The collapse of the MOD’s case means that the entire compensation scheme will now have to be overhauled and payments made to the three elderly claimants who live in Nepal and to the 343 other Gurkha POWs, previously denied compensation. The High Court decision will be crucial to future discrimination cases."
Appearently, there are a lot of people who think that using Gurkhas is not only distasteful, but sad because the British themselves won’t even treat them the same as they do native Brits.
So um, there you have it.
“Secondly, Nepal was and is a poor country. This, combined with the fact that Nepal had (and retains some remnants of) a caste system, made any opportunity to make one’s way in the world quite desirable. The Gurkhas were essentially recruited from every caste, so as a result, hundreds (or even thousands) of young Nepalese men apply to join the Gurkhas for every slot available in the Brigade of Gurkhas (something on the order of 28,000 applicants for 200 openings). This was due not only to the prospect of obtaining a pension and good standards of pay, the 10 month basic training of Gurkhas also included education in some skills, such as language and manners expected of the crown’s soldiers. This may not sound like much, but for some aspiring Gurkhas a century or more ago, it may have been their only chance at formal schooling.”
"The GAESO delegation includes Captain Pahalman Gurung, 82, and Hukum Singh Pun, 85, who were both imprisoned by the Japanese. “I was kept as a PoW by the Japanese for four and a half years,” Pun said. “We fought against the Japanese bravely with our Khukuris (Nepali knives) but our battalion was finally overcome by them and we were taken as prisoners of war between 1941 and 1945. “In the battle, many Japanese and our brothers were killed,” he said.
“But after the war, the British government sent us back without pay or pension.” "
Now, I can understand Britain wanting excellent soldiers, and I do not doubt that the Gurkhas are that, But the idea of some British General sitting at a table saying…
“Hey, lets figure out who some of the fiercest fighters in the third-world world are, then go over there and offer them a paltry salary to fight for us. It could save British lives!”
…is simply unpaletable to Americans.
As you enjoy your steeming hot mug of Shut the Fluck Up, allow yourself to smell the bullsh*t you blathered about how the US has a similar singular foreign source of foreign tribesmen as it’s front line fodder.
Ironman wrote : I guess the British don’t know much about Americans. Kiddo, I AM an American. Like I said, how do you explain to Brits what it means to be an American?
Firstly, I am definitely not a kiddo, with or without a capital.
Yes, we rather assumed you were American.
I still doubt that you speak for them all.
Well, you are the man who went out of your way to tell us Brits what the Commonwealth was…the British Commonwealth that is.
I have an American sister-in-law, and two essentially American nephews, so I do know a little about what it means to be an American.
I assume from the tone of your post that you can’t find anything to back your earlier remarks, and therefore have changed the subject?
If, as you have been invited many times, you were to visit ARRSE, you would find many serving, and ex-serving soldiers who feel strongly about the difference between Gurkha pensions, and British Army pensions.
It is, however, a complicated issue, and one in which the Nepali Government also has a say.
However, it still doesn’t answer the question you were asked, now does it?
I could respond in kind with questionable actions taken by the American military, at various times, but that would descend into playground stupidity.
Please advise the source for your contentions re the British using Gurkhas as human shields, or as alternative troops while ours played cards.
What? Where the feck has anyone on here said that we don’t use Gurkhas in the front line, apart from you just now? We deploy them as any other light infantry, as we have said repeatedly. This one’s going in the big book of words in mouths.
No, you have a big cup of Shut the Fluck Up about the Gurkhas NOT being used as front line soldiers for Britain, as you Brits claim.
Please point to any one who has said they are not used on the front line. Produce facts to show that they are sent into action in front of other troops. Take your time, no rush, it will be a long wait.
I doubt the rest of the world has much regard for the British using the Gurkhas as cannon fodder.
The Commonwealth includes Gurkhas.
Then you would know that Americans dislike the isea of anyone doing their fighting for them. Hence, the US Marine Corps are always the 1st in when America goes to war. We don’t train and arm poor third-world peoples to go in and take the heat for us.
And the nepalese government does not want Britain to equal the pensions? Do you need another cup of Shut the Fluck up?
Dingbat,
“The Gurkhas have been on the British frontlines since 1815.”
You do realize that the amount of information on this is piled high, don’t you? Stop trying to deny what the whole freaking world knows and have another cup.
