End Gurkha Recruitment in the British Army

[UK subversive]

this is also an interesting article, ( from Daily Mail, apologies)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-regiment-like-ones-fought-UK-world-wars.html

i suspect the people who find it 'pointless and irrelevant' and say there are other things more important to do are entitled to their opinion. However, it depends on how you see it. using one third world people as cannon fodder to attack another does seem to be an issue. i also find some anarchist and leftist campaigns 'pointless and irrelevant', but dont want to start a flame war.

in my limited experience, how white British people and activists (on the whole, not everybody), and non white activists see it ( not everybody), tends to be different. I get the impression that white british people basically support their army, altho they might not support the wars in the Middle East and intervention. just observations, nothing more implied.

i think Muslims, Black, Asians shouldn't join the british army at all, for reasons that Malcolm X and others gave.

the gurkha and sikh regiments that is apparently planned by MPs open up many issue about race and class.
this is also interesting, an article on the Harki ( Algerians who fought for the French army) by the FLN. calls them 'bulldogs of French Imperialism'.
I guess to call the Gurkhas 'Bulldogs of British imperialism' seems right

https://www.marxists.org/history/algeria/1960/harkis.htm

 

[UK subversive]

Gurkhas and French Foreign legion are mercenaries, according to standard definitions. just the media and politicians don't like using that word.

 

[tim]

They're not mercenaries, actually. They're a part of a regular army within a sovereign State and don't draw any more pay than British soldiers of equivalent rank. They're also subject to Queen's Regulations and military law, the same as any other solider in the British Army. As such, they don't qualify as mercenaries under the UN Mercenary Convention and neither do the French Foreign Legion.

The UN Mercenary Convention is available here: http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/44/a44r034.htm



They know the risks, they make the choice, the same as any serving soldier. It's also their choice to make, not anybody else's to impose on them. The French use the Foreign Legion on the same basis and they're not mercenaries either.

I don't need the UN to tell me what a mercenary is.

As to the "they know the risks " shit, if your poor you're forced to take risks just to ensure your own well-being and that of your family. Anyone in such a situation is being exploited.

 

[Bakunin]

Gurkhas and French Foreign legion are mercenaries, according to standard definitions. just the media and politicians don't like using that word.

I don't need the UN to tell me what a mercenary is.

As to the "they know the risks " shit, if your poor you're forced to take risks just to ensure your own well-being and that of your family. Anyone in such a situation is being exploited.

Well, the UN says otherwise, as do the facts. By the way, if you called a Gurkha a mercenary they would very likely take it as an insult seeing as their willingness to serve is based on more than money. A true mercenary will do anything for anybody as long as there's pay (and possibly plunder) in the offing. Many Gurkhas come from families that have had several generations or more serving in the British Army and see themselves as upholding family tradition.

And they do know the risks and make the choice. Which happens to be their choice and not yours or anybody else's. Just like my own family history. The first Royal Marine in the family was Irish, he enlisted for work, pay, food, housing and to provide for his family. There would have been other work available, but he chose soldiering. My grandfather was a sixth-generation Royal Marine, by which time it was a family tradition as the Corps is a 'father-son' unit where it's not unusual to find families like mine.

You two seem not only ignorant of the facts, but wilfully ignorant at that. You've decided you already know everything so don't have to hear anything other than what you've already decided are the facts of the matter. Which are Tobyjug Facts when compared to objective reality.

Besides, who gave you the right to decide other people's career and life choices for them anyway?

 

[likesfish]

Since they're Nepalese mercenaries employed by the British state, the decision to employ should be taken by the citizens of that state. The decision not whore for Britannia is the one the Nepalese should make.

fortunately bitter wankers like you will never be in a position to make that decision becuase you live in an echo chamber

 

[toggle]

They're hirlings employed by the British government to fight squalid wars. They're poor so they're easily exploitable. They're foreign so whilst Lumley and co are willing tocheer them on, if they die in conflict it's not going to relatives and communities that have the vote here.

i find this a really odd attitude, an understanding that recruitment is economic conscription, but still sneering at people, calling them whores and talking a load of bollocks about their legal status, when they take their own decision to enlist as the least worst option for themselves and their families.

 

[tim]

As long as they parade and slaughter in my name and at my expense, I have a right to voice my opinion. The British military do little of real value for the people of this country. I'd happily see them disbanded and the resources they squander including the human ones put to socially more beneficial use.

As to your nostalgia wallow, what is there to be proud of on being descended from several generations of men who have killed in the name of the British monarch?

 

[Bakunin]

i find this a really odd attitude, an understanding that recruitment is economic conscription, but still sneering at people (and talking a load of bollocks about their legal status) who take their own decision to enlist as the least worst option for themselves and their families.

Correct. Not to mention the fact that regular soldiers tend to despise mercenaries as much as anybody else does. Funny, that. Besides, using this ridiculous polemicism suggests that the first of my family to enlist was a mercenary because he was an Irishman serving in a British unit. A British unit in which he happened to be killed on active service and whose grave is somewhere on the Patagonian coast being regularly tidied and looked after, ironically enough, by Argentinians.

Oh and, while I'm on the subject, should the same logic be extended to foreign volunteers who joined militia units and the International Brigades during the Spanish Civil War? Because, using this ridiculous criteria, they'd count as mercenaries as well. Or is that just for people serving in armies and fighting for causes that are deemed politically sound?

 

[toggle]

As long as they parade and slaughter in my name and at my expense, I have a right to voice my opinion. The British military do little of real value for the people of this country. I'd happily see them disbanded and the resources they squander including the human ones put to socially more beneficial use.

As to your nostalgia wallow, what is there to be proud of on being descended from several generations of men who have killed in the name of the British monarch?

i'd be happy to see resources put to better use as well, but what I won't do is engage in blaming the victims of propaganda and economic conscription and spout off a load of crap that doesn't appear to be able to separate unsupported opinion from fact. because i don't want to make myself look like a complete ignorant cunt by doing so. you on the other hand seem to have no such qualms.

 

[Bakunin]

As long as they parade and slaughter in my name and at my expense, I have a right to voice my opinion. The British military do little of real value for the people of this country. I'd happily see them disbanded and the resources they squander including the human ones put to socially more beneficial use.

As to your nostalgia wallow, what is there to be proud of on being descended from several generations of men who have killed in the name of the British monarch?

You have that right, yes. Guarded and guaranteed by the same people you seem to despise so much, I might add. And the armed forces do many other things besides fighting, come to think of it. Peacekeeping, for example, seeing as they're the only people who can actually do that job.

And my family didn't kill for a Monarch, or a flag, or a country. They killed to survive as soldiers do. Would your principles be quite so inviolate if somebody was about to shoot you, for instance, or would you try to shoot them first? Because that's a reality of front-line soldiering. It's them or you, it's that simple. Kill or be killed. The soldier who shoots first lives longest.

By the way, any chance of your actually engaging with little things like international law, national law, dictionary definitions and plain common sense? I can back up my position with hard facts. You seem considerably less willing (and quite possibly unable) to do the same.

 

[tim]

You have that right, yes. Guarded and guaranteed by the same people you seem to despise so much, I might add. And the armed forces do many other things besides fighting, come to think of it. Peacekeeping, for example, seeing as they're the only people who can actually do that job.

And my family didn't kill for a Monarch, or a flag, or a country. They killed to survive as soldiers do. Would your principles be quite so inviolate if somebody was about to shoot you, for instance, or would you try to shoot them first? Because that's a reality of front-line soldiering. It's them or you, it's that simple. Kill or be killed. The soldier who shoots first lives longest.

Well if as you claim they weren't driven by economic necessity, and if they never swallowed the "King and Country" bollocks. I assume they were had no qualms about killing for money - basically, hitmen employed by the state. Is that anything to be proud of?

The kill or be killed stuff is nonesense the solution to the quandry is not to enlist. I'd also like to challenge this noble fromline soldier stuff. It's not just other soldiers who the military kill. In any conflict civillains die at the hands of the armies of either side; rape and sexual abuse become normalised; and the lives of non-Combatants are ruined.

 

[tim]

i find this a really odd attitude, an understanding that recruitment is economic conscription, but still sneering at people, calling them whores and talking a load of bollocks about their legal status, when they take their own decision to enlist as the least worst option for themselves and their families.

Whoring because this is clearly killing for money not for patriotic myths.

I said nothing, directly, about legal status, but wanted to make the point that Ghurkas are perfect cannon fodder because their families, friends and communities have no political influence here, so their deaths are not going to cause political fall out. A good thing for our politicians, but not for our society

 

[Bakunin]

Well if as you claim they weren't driven by economic necessity, and if they never swallowed the "King and Country" bollocks. I assume they were had no qualms about killing for money - basically, hitmen employed by the state. Is that anything to be proud of?

The kill or be killed stuff is nonesense the solution to the quandry is not to enlist. I'd also like to challenge this noble fromline soldier stuff. It's not just other soldiers who the military kill. In any conflict civillains die at the hands of the armies of either side; rape and sexual abuse become normalised; and the lives of non-Combatants are ruined.

Try telling soldiers (especially dead ones) that 'kill or be killed' is nonsense. There do seem to be an awful lot of graveyards filled with your idea of 'nonsense', now don't there? Try telling their families that, come to think of it. It's a reality, like it or not. In action soldiers kill or die, end of. And people who need to support themselves and their families have a quandary that's equally real, by the way. It's often 'enlist or starve.' Most properly trained, led and disciplined soldiers don't tend towards loot and pillage either, and I'm happy to see those who do being harshly dealt with.

The lives of non-combatants are ruined and destroyed, yes. And I don't like that any more than anyone else. But, while by no means all humanity's problems can or should be resolved with armed force, it also remains a fact that some can't be resolved without it. And I don't like that any more than anyone else, either.

Anyway, I've got better thins to do than try and debate with people who prefer dogma and insults over established fact, so I probably won't bother replying again unless you have some credible, substantial points to make. But I will leave you with one final question:

Even if you did succeed in ending Gurkha recruitment, what would you replace it with and how would you go about doing so? Specifics, not generalities.

 

[tim]

Ending Gurkha recruitment alongside dropping the fantasy of being a nuclear and major world power would play a part of the demilitarisation of British society. A move to being a normal just society whose politicians are not in a position to embark on absurd destructive foreign escapades and where the state uses its resources to benefit its citizens rather than to murder the citizens of its rivals.

Why do we need the army, navy and airforce in its current form?

 

[tim]

What problems have the British military resolved in recent years?

 

[ViolentPanda]

IIRC that was more or less exactly the UK's strategy throughout most of the cold war - at least till Trident entered service. Before then, the number of servicable nukes we could actually wield was always far lower than our supposed/treaty-based capacity.

There was a running joke "back in the day" that of the bombs the V-bombers carried, 1/3 were ready for deployment,1/3 were being repaired, and the other 1/3 were awaiting repair.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Gurkhas and French Foreign legion are mercenaries, according to standard definitions. just the media and politicians don't like using that word.

What "standard definitions"? Ones from dictionaries, or ones from extant international law?
I'm reckoning the former.

 

[UnderOpenSky]

Even if you did succeed in ending Gurkha recruitment, what would you replace it with and how would you go about doing so? Specifics, not generalities.

I imagine more working class British people.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I don't need the UN to tell me what a mercenary is.

On the contrary, you obviously do.

As to the "they know the risks " shit, if your poor you're forced to take risks just to ensure your own well-being and that of your family. Anyone in such a situation is being exploited.

Welcome to the concept of economic conscription.
Do you seriously think that daft cunts like me signed up not knowing the realities of economic conscription? If you do, then you need to challenge your perspective.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Correct. Not to mention the fact that regular soldiers tend to despise mercenaries as much as anybody else does. Funny, that.

Mercenaries have no loyalty beyond their immediate comrades and their payday. No soldier wants to work with people who'll slink off as soon as a situation is no longer financially-advantageous.

Besides, using this ridiculous polemicism suggests that the first of my family to enlist was a mercenary because he was an Irishman serving in a British unit. A British unit in which he happened to be killed on active service and whose grave is somewhere on the Patagonian coast being regularly tidied and looked after, ironically enough, by Argentinians.

Oh and, while I'm on the subject, should the same logic be extended to foreign volunteers who joined militia units and the International Brigades during the Spanish Civil War? Because, using this ridiculous criteria, they'd count as mercenaries as well. Or is that just for people serving in armies and fighting for causes that are deemed politically sound?

People do tend to pick and choose targets on the basis of emotion rather than on the basis of clear thinking.

 

[ViolentPanda]

As long as they parade and slaughter in my name and at my expense, I have a right to voice my opinion. The British military do little of real value for the people of this country. I'd happily see them disbanded and the resources they squander including the human ones put to socially more beneficial use.

As to your nostalgia wallow, what is there to be proud of on being descended from several generations of men who have killed in the name of the British monarch?

I'm proud to be descended from several generations of men who've defended their homeland. Are you ashamed of your ancestors who did the same?

 

[Gromit]

Mercenaries have no loyalty beyond their immediate comrades and their payday.

Most soldiers will tell you once you are in the shit their comrades are all that matters. The reason for the war etc becomes all irrelevant bullshit. You do the mission but get it done so that you and your comrades are entitled to get home safe. The army actually dileberately engineers this through their training programs as Band of Brothers mentality is useful to them.

Mercs might be more motivated to complete the mission as money is higher on their priorities and completing the mission successfully is how they get their payday so important.

 

[Casually Red]

What problems have the British military resolved in recent years?

They sorted this chap out

 

[toggle]

Whoring because this is clearly killing for money not for patriotic myths.

I said nothing, directly, about legal status, but wanted to make the point that Ghurkas are perfect cannon fodder because their families, friends and communities have no political influence here, so their deaths are not going to cause political fall out. A good thing for our politicians, but not for our society

and yes, you made a claim about their legal status when you called them mercenaries. your claim was incorrect, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you. dosen't seem to stop you, as though repeating it enough times will make it true. that isn't the case by the way, it makes you look like an idiot.


whoring, because you want to spout off some shit. and denigrate the very people who you are claiming to be campaigning for. but lets face it, someone who does that isn't really interested in the lives or rights of the Gurkhas, are they. not being discussed here as people, capable of making decisions for themselves, with their own agency and as actual human individuals with different set of shitty choices.

spout off with the name calling, label them as other and they become nothing more than a convenient soapbox to stand on.

I happen to agree with a lot of the points you've made about military spending, but I'm not prepared to stand on other people's backs to make those points.

you lack empathy, you lack understanding.

 

[sihhi]

Q: Does the campaign also apply to Irish soldiers or just Nepalese soldiers?
I think the CIRA had some sort of campaign against it in Ireland, around 100 Irish citizens without British citizenship join the British Army every year.

 

[peterkro]

Q: Does the campaign also apply to Irish soldiers or just Nepalese soldiers?
I think the CIRA had some sort of campaign against it in Ireland, around 100 Irish citizens without British citizenship join the British Army every year.

Fijians as well.

 

[toggle]

quick look told me there's 7k commonwealth soldiers in the british army

 

[ViolentPanda]

quick look told me there's 7k commonwealth soldiers in the british army

And growing, in order to make up the "recruitment gap" in the UK.

 

[Bakunin]

And growing, in order to make up the "recruitment gap" in the UK.

Makes a change from the days when magistrates could 'encourage' the less enthusiastic recruits by offering crooks enlistment or the gallows.

 

[Idris2002]

Q: Does the campaign also apply to Irish soldiers or just Nepalese soldiers?
I think the CIRA had some sort of campaign against it in Ireland, around 100 Irish citizens without British citizenship join the British Army every year.

At least some of that Irish recruitment happens in families that had a tradition of signing up in khaki from back before Irish independence. Or at least it did. . .maybe not today, though?