Dear History members: In February, 2010, History boards will begin the process of upgrading our community message board software. We are moving to a new community software, KickApps, that will provide greater functionality and ease of use. This transition will take place during the last part of February; the last day that the current boards will be available to you will be Feb. 28, 2010. We realize that many of you have posted great content over the years and might want to save your posts. Please take this time to go back through the boards and save what you want to keep on your own computer. These boards will no longer be accessible after February 28, 2010. If you would like to ask a question about the new boards, click here: http://boards.history.com/forum/Message-Boards-User/108 There will be more details to come as we roll out the new community software. Thank you for your continued patronage. We'll see you on the new, improved boards! Rebecca Cooper AETN Community Manager
|
Posts:
144
From:
Tx
Registered:
4/25/07
|
|
(1 of 53)
Dec 12, 2007 10:32 AM
|
Johnny Gurkha.
Here we are in the 21st century and the British are still luring barefoot peasants from their villages in Nepal to enlist as mercenaries and do their fighting for them. It is only recently that they have been given the same pay as a British soldier. Despite years of litigation in British courts, they do not yet have all the benefits of a regular British soldier. Indeed it is only in the last few years they can apply for British citizenship. Until recently, they were shipped back to Nepal for their retirement pittance with no choice in the matter. Thousands of ex Gurkhas are living in extreme poverty in Nepal and are helped out as charity cases by active duty Gurkhas. Some of their service dates all the way back to WW ll. Is this acceptable in this day and age? Should British men not do their own fighting instead of paying poor people to do it for them?
|
|
|
Posts:
89
From:
Manchester, UK
Registered:
11/13/07
|
|
(2 of 53)
Dec 12, 2007 11:23 AM
|
> Thousands of
> ex Gurkhas are living in extreme poverty in Nepal and
> are helped out as charity cases by active duty
> Gurkhas. Some of their service dates all the way back
> to WW ll. Is this acceptable in this day and age?
Why do i have a feeling that you could not care less about the well being of ex-Gurkhas and are just using this as an excuse to critise the British (for a change).
> Should British men not do their own fighting instead
> of paying poor people to do it for them?
Should US men not do their own fighting instead of [not] paying poor people to do it for them?
"Backed by US bombing, Northern Alliance troops broke through two lines of Taleban trenches north of Kabul on Monday, advancing quickly on the capital."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1654107.stm
--
Wikipedia: Not worth the paper it isn't written on
|
|
|
Posts:
269
Registered:
8/1/05
|
|
|
Posts:
6,753
Registered:
9/12/05
|
|
(4 of 53)
Dec 12, 2007 12:25 PM
|
Well actually, Blackwater is made up mostly of former military personnel.
You do have to wonder why State denied their request to put cameras in their vehicles...
|
|
|
Posts:
1,657
From:
Portland,OR
Registered:
5/25/06
|
|
(5 of 53)
Dec 12, 2007 12:38 PM
|
|
They VOLUNTEER for service. For many it is an honor and a tradition for both the people and the nation.
|
|
|
Posts:
89
From:
Manchester, UK
Registered:
11/13/07
|
|
(6 of 53)
Dec 12, 2007 12:40 PM
|
> Johnny Gurkha.
>
> Here we are in the 21st century and the British are
> still luring barefoot peasants from their villages in
> Nepal to enlist as mercenaries and do their fighting
> for them. It is only recently that they have been
> given the same pay as a British soldier. Despite
> years of litigation in British courts, they do not
> yet have all the benefits of a regular British
> soldier. Indeed it is only in the last few years they
> can apply for British citizenship. Until recently,
> they were shipped back to Nepal for their retirement
> pittance with no choice in the matter. Thousands of
> ex Gurkhas are living in extreme poverty in Nepal and
> are helped out as charity cases by active duty
> Gurkhas. Some of their service dates all the way back
> to WW ll. Is this acceptable in this day and age?
> Should British men not do their own fighting instead
> of paying poor people to do it for them?
At least we did not get 'blowback' from the Ghurkas:
"For nearly a generation, blood and bones were sown into the Afghan dust by the weapons of the superpowers, and now the land bears a harvest of holy war and heroin. The sole field of victory for C.I.A.-backed "freedom fighters" in the 1980's has become an international center for the training and indoctrination of terrorists. The veterans of the jihad have taken their war abroad to Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bosnia, Burma, China, Egypt, India, Morocco, Pakistan, Sudan, Tadzhikistan, Tunisia, Uzbekistan, Yemen -- and the United States."
--
Wikipedia: Not worth the paper it isn't written on
|
|
|
Posts:
144
From:
Tx
Registered:
4/25/07
|
|
(7 of 53)
Dec 12, 2007 12:52 PM
|
> > Thousands of
> > ex Gurkhas are living in extreme poverty in Nepal
> and
> > are helped out as charity cases by active duty
> > Gurkhas. Some of their service dates all the way
> back
> > to WW ll. Is this acceptable in this day and age?
>
> Why do i have a feeling that you could not care less
> about the well being of ex-Gurkhas and are just using
> this as an excuse to critise the British (for a
> change).
>
> > Should British men not do their own fighting
> instead
> > of paying poor people to do it for them?
>
> Should US men not do their own fighting instead of
> [not] paying poor people to do it for them?
>
> "Backed by US bombing, Northern Alliance troops
> broke through two lines of Taleban trenches north of
> Kabul on Monday, advancing quickly on the
> capital."
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1654107.st
> m
>
................................................
This may shock you. Assisting a country to liberate itself and helping out against the mutual enemy is hardly hiring someone to do your fighting for you. When we came to Europe to liberate it, we did not consider the British our mercenaries. Do you get it yet? It was their fight as much as ours. More so in fact. They had been at it long before we showed up. Kinda like ya'al.
Northern Alliance = Afghans.
Country is question = Afghanistan
Hang with me kid, it’s the best education you could get.
|
|
|
Posts:
144
From:
Tx
Registered:
4/25/07
|
|
|
Posts:
144
From:
Tx
Registered:
4/25/07
|
|
(9 of 53)
Dec 12, 2007 12:59 PM
|
> They VOLUNTEER for service. For many it is an honor
> and a tradition for both the people and the nation.
No argument here. They are the guys that lay the golden eggs at home. Ole Johnny comes home a big shot. If he comes home. He is still a hired merc doing your fighting for you.
|
|
|
Posts:
89
From:
Manchester, UK
Registered:
11/13/07
|
|
(10 of 53)
Dec 12, 2007 1:48 PM
|
> This may shock you. Assisting a country to liberate
> itself and helping out against the mutual enemy is
> hardly hiring someone to do your fighting for you.
It does shock me that the main reason there is conflict in Afghanistan is because the Northern Alliance were trying to liberate their country and the US came by to simply "help out". That's not actually what happened.
The facts:
The conflict is a US conflict because they launched it in 2001.
The US has specific goals in the region, "liberation of the people" is not high up on the list
The US could do 100% of the fighting in their conflict.
The US chooses not to
I'm not sure what part of this you are failing to understand. But keep employing the peasants to storm the trenches while your brave boys fly by in the B-52s.
> Hang with me kid, it’s the best education you could
> get.
Yeah, the US are "helping out" to liberate Afghanistan. Are they handing out candy at the same time?
--
Wikipedia: Not worth the paper it isn't written on
|
|
|
Posts:
269
Registered:
8/1/05
|
|
|
Posts:
2,498
Registered:
5/17/03
|
|
(12 of 53)
Dec 12, 2007 5:49 PM
|
|
Gurkhas are on the permanent establishment of the British army. A mercenary usually refers to a hired combatant such as the Swiss. They are usually temporary and only as loyal as their next pay packet.
|
|
|
Posts:
9,902
Registered:
12/30/03
|
|
(13 of 53)
They were damn good in East Timor
Dec 12, 2007 7:44 PM
|
|
But they do such a good job of it. They were very helpful in restoring order in East Timor as part of the UN mission there. They didn't fire a shot in anger over there. The Indonesians did not want to mess with the Gurkhas and they retreated mostly to West Timor.
|
|
|
Posts:
270
Registered:
1/12/05
|
|
(14 of 53)
Dec 13, 2007 12:59 AM
|
> Gurkhas are on the permanent establishment of the
> British army. A mercenary usually refers to a hired
> combatant such as the Swiss. They are usually
> temporary and only as loyal as their next pay packet.
The Swiss Guards have been on the Pope's payroll for centuries. If you define mercenaries as trained professional soldiers in the service of a country which is not their own, then Ghurkas, French Foreign Legion and Swiss Guards would all be included. Even the Americans who volunteered for the RAF before the USA entered the war could be included - they were paid, even though that wasn't their motivation. The AVG in China were definately mercenaries.
If the private "security" companies are doing jobs that would previously been done by regular troops then they're mercenaries as well.
|
|
|
Posts:
144
From:
Tx
Registered:
4/25/07
|
|
(15 of 53)
Dec 13, 2007 2:37 PM
|
> Blackwater are mercenaries hired by the US government
> to fight in Iraq. If they are under contract to the U
> S military they are mercs.
Utter nonsense.
>
> http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/091005A.shtml
>
> http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Blackwater_
> USA
>
> I know your having trouble keeping soldiers from
> deserting and asking for refugee status in Canada,
> but mercs?
I just happy that that particular gene pool ends up where its more comforable.
>
> President Bush, **A second task we can take on
> together is to design and establish a volunteer
> civilian reserve corps. Such a corps would function
> much like our military reserve. It would ease the
> burden on the Armed Forces by allowing us to hire
> civilians with critical skills to serve on missions
> abroad when America needs them.**
>
> http://www.democracynow.org/2007/1/26/our_mercenaries_
> in_iraq_blackwater_inc
Thanks for making my point again.
>
>
> Montagnards are not Vietnamese. Separate people.
> Hired by the U S usually by the CIA to fight for
> them. American reports call them mercs.
>
> http://www.montagnards.com/Montagnard%20History.htm
montagnards are Vietnamese and have been for decades. If my 4 Grandparents came from Russia that does not make me Russian.
>
> Promised help but abandoned along with the South
> Vietnamese by the Americans in 1973.
This you have correct. Irrelevant, but correct.
>
> http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,941936,00.htm
> l
>
> http://daphne.palomar.edu/scrout/seasiai.htm
>
> http://aircommandoman.tripod.com/id11.html
>
> http://www.lzxray.com/pm1.htm
>
> I am not British but a Canadian, have no known
> British relatives nor ever lived in Britain. I do
> however have many relatives in the U S from the
> mid-west, to the south to the Pacific coast and
> American friends.
You must think yourself very interesting.
I have been easy on you because I try to be kind to residents of our 51st state.
|
|
|
|
|
