Gurkhas betrayed again!

Without turning this into a Pissing contest, Just because I've been a registered member for a short time does NOT mean I haven't lurked for about 2 years being well aware of the rules.. Also, I have in NO way criticized you or any moderator on this site & have tried to be nothing but civil & polite. If this is how you feel, then I apologize for whatever it is that got you bent . If you require me to complain to the admin of the site, then that's what will be done.
I still don't see the point to all this....

I won't post again....
 
Guys, BFC has a Political Forum for a reason. Most political threads posted here are generally left alone as the mods understand that friendly debate in a forum you are comfortable with is more appealing than being thrown to the partisan wolves of Political.

The cantina is a friendly place. Let's try to play nice. Esav is not a heavy handed mod. He is a friend to HI, and I trust his judgment fully whether or not his moderator status.
 
Guys, I've seen heavy-handed moderating.
What Esav has done in this thread isn't it.

Spark allows Yangdu (and by extension, us) a lot of latitude in the Cantina because it's what was asked for, and the general population of the board doesn't come here. It's so HI people can discuss (potentially controversial) subject amongst people with a similar outlook. Let's not ruin that.

I think he understands that by virtue of the story being about the UK government screwing the Ghurkas, there's going to be some politics involved, but doesn't want it to degenerate into "This [insert derisive description] is responsible." and then "No, dummy, THIS [insert derisive description] is REALLY at fault." Let's keep it to "Yeah, the UK government screwed the Gurkas, and talk about the Ghurkas and what they can do, or maybe how they can be helped. Maybe that's what Esav is after?

Personally, I'd like to see the US step up and say "Since England no longer wants to participate in a generations-old deal, we'd like to invite the Ghurkas and their families to the US." Since generally speaking, we grant foreigners and their family's the right to be here pretty much immediately, retired Ghurkas could take the citizenship classes, and become citizens.

I'd also like to see a US Ghurka regiment. New Ghurkas could have their families come with them right away. The families could take the citizenship classes while the Ghurka served. Once they completed their classes, they'd be citizens, and once the Ghurka completed at least a 4 year stint, he'd be a citizen. Then we'd have a Ranger regiment and a Ghurka regiment. How cool would that be?

I sure wouldn't mind a bunch of Ghurkas retiring to my neighborhood.
Just an FYI, I've been monitoring the weather in Kathmandu for a couple years now on the weather channel. The temperature has been within +/- 5 degrees F, and humidity within +/- 10% of where I live just about every day year-round.

So they might feel right at home 'round here. ;)
 
Cpl Punishment said:
Guys, I've seen heavy-handed moderating.
What Esav has done in this thread isn't it.

Spark allows Yangdu (and by extension, us) a lot of latitude in the Cantina because it's what was asked for, and the general population of the board doesn't come here. It's so HI people can discuss (potentially controversial) subject amongst people with a similar outlook. Let's not ruin that.

I think he understands that by virtue of the story being about the UK government screwing the Ghurkas, there's going to be some politics involved, but doesn't want it to degenerate into "This [insert derisive description] is responsible." and then "No, dummy, THIS [insert derisive description] is REALLY at fault." Let's keep it to "Yeah, the UK government screwed the Gurkas, and talk about the Ghurkas and what they can do, or maybe how they can be helped. Maybe that's what Esav is after?

Personally, I'd like to see the US step up and say "Since England no longer wants to participate in a generations-old deal, we'd like to invite the Ghurkas and their families to the US." Since generally speaking, we grant foreigners and their family's the right to be here pretty much immediately, retired Ghurkas could take the citizenship classes, and become citizens.

I'd also like to see a US Ghurka regiment. New Ghurkas could have their families come with them right away. The families could take the citizenship classes while the Ghurka served. Once they completed their classes, they'd be citizens, and once the Ghurka completed at least a 4 year stint, he'd be a citizen. Then we'd have a Ranger regiment and a Ghurka regiment. How cool would that be?

I sure wouldn't mind a bunch of Ghurkas retiring to my neighborhood.
Just an FYI, I've been monitoring the weather in Kathmandu for a couple years now on the weather channel. The temperature has been within +/- 5 degrees F, and humidity within +/- 10% of where I live just about every day year-round.

So they might feel right at home 'round here. ;)
Click to expand...

+1 to all of this. I would love to have been able to fight alongside the Ghurkas.
 
Interesting ideas, but keep in mind:

1. The UK needs the Gurkhas at least as much as the Gurkhas need the UK. The tradition is part of what made the nation what it is, and eventually, treating them like this will break that bond. It's not like they don't have anywhere else to go, and this just feeds into the communists of the new government's antipathy to outsiders.

2. The US does not and should not have ethnic military units. Achieving citizenship within our military works because the new soldiers are integrated in all-American units. That avoids the kind of second-class soldier effect the Gurkhas are facing now.

Look how long it took before black veterans were considered real soldiers in the US. We don't need that again.

3. It's a British problem that we can't solve for them and by doing so officially, we would embitter the situation even more than it is now. Of course, any Gurkhas who do want to come here should be as welcome as any allied soldiers.
 
Should any Gurkhas come to America, I'm sure that they would rapidly find something that they'd rather do than join the Army! (I only know one Nepalese person, for example, and she has a food stand at the Farmers' Market on Saturdays.) They're flexible, adaptable human beings, like the rest of us, and it's not as if they're "only good for one thing."
 
Well, Gurkhas are soldiers.
But that's why I also mentioned a 4 year stint int he Army -- it generally confers citizenship, a 20 year career not being a requirement, but there if they want it. Other Nepalis can of course, immigrate to do whatever they want.
 
On 12/13 May 1945 at Taungdaw, Burma (now Myanmar), Rifleman Lachhiman Gurung was manning the most forward post of his platoon which bore the brunt of an attack by at least 300 Japanes army troops. Twice Rifleman Gurung hurled back grenades which had fallen on the lip of his trench, but the third exploded in his right hand, blowing off his fingers, shattering his right arm and severely wounding him in the face, body and right leg. His two comrades were also badly wounded but the rifleman, now alone and disregarding his wounds, loaded and fired his rifle with his left hand for four hours, calmly waiting for each attack which he met with fire at point blank range. After 2 days, when the casualties were counted, it is reported that out of a total of 87 dead Japanese soldiers. Thirty-one of them infront of his trench... rifleman Gurung had killed, with only one arm and temporarily blinded in one eye[1]


Talk about loyalty..that to this day...the younger Gurkhas have in their hearts.
 
Actually, Nepalese have made up a percentage of various contractor groups both in the 'Stan and Iraq. I am aware of a few who helped with PSD work with a few of the big companies.
 
moblues said:
Actually, Nepalese have made up a percentage of various contractor groups both in the 'Stan and Iraq. I am aware of a few who helped with PSD work with a few of the big companies.
Click to expand...

..and your point is?

if you are trying to say that makes gurkhas = mercenaries, do you also believe that because a lot of 'contractors' were american and british, that the british and american elite armed forces units like the marines and special forces are also mercenaries? non sequitur and off topic.
 
I have just watched this thread so far. I have alot to say about mercenaries and all that, but I have noticed that some persons were chided and one banned for expressing theirs.

Can we actually post what we think? Or does it have to be inline with what the moderators agree with?

confused Ben
 
Confused Ben, you haven't been here long enough to know what you're talking about. PLEASE read the FAQ. Ask questions about Bladeforums policy in the Service & Support forum, not here. You may even address moderators directly through visitor messages or email if you like.

The member you refer to as having been banned for expressing his opinion was actually banned for a long series of increasingly coarse and insulting emails to this moderator. This is behavior we will not tolerate online and have no reason to tolerate in private communications either.

No members were chided for expressing their opinions. They were chided for expressing them in the wrong place. We have a Political Arena forum for political discussions. The question of the Gurkhas will be inherently political but need not be partisan. It was the partisan rants that members were told to take elsewhere but two chose to continue here.

The Cantina is one of Bladeforums special forums, dedicated to the friendship of the regular participants of this Himalayan Imports community. I will defend it against outsiders especially jumping in to disrupt it with inappropriate agendas.
 
Now that we've gotten that out of the way, perhaps BushmanBen would care to explain how he has the same IP as the previously banned titus010782, and why I should not ban him as well as a returned troll? Children's games, not welcome here.
 
Whoa there kronckew. Unknot the panties. The point was that Nepalese folks often made outstanding contractors from everything from driving trucks to working security details. At no point did I use the ugly word "mercenary" because it didn't apply. Hard for anyone from poorer countries to turn down the kind of wages some contractor companies (Brit & US) were offering. Nothing wrong with that, especially if members were former Ghurka regiment members with sizable combat training and experience. With the dedication and tenacity, I'd want them to serve with PSD details.

We okay now?
 
moblues, yup, we're OK; i was a bit gunshy after some of the previous altercations. my neighbor's daughter is married to a nepali (doctor) & they are good people, so i can be a bit defensive. sorry for any misconceived impressions.

to further the discussion, joanna lumley met with the PM, gordon brown, a short synopsis:

Lumley 'trusts' Brown on Gurkhas

Ms Lumley said she was very hopeful agreement could be reached

Joanna Lumley has said she trusts Gordon Brown to do the "right thing" for the Gurkhas after meeting with the prime minister to discuss the issue.

Ms Lumley said Mr Brown had taken the matter "into his own hands" and would come up with a "solution" to the issue of residency rights by the end of May.

The actress has long campaigned for all Gurkhas and their families to be given the right to settle in the UK.

No 10 said the prime minister was considering Ms Lumley's arguments.

The Lib Dems said the government must "act quickly" to give the Gurkhas what they wanted, saying the UK had a "simple moral obligation" towards them.

And Keith Vaz, the Labour MP who chairs the Home Affairs Committee, has written to Mr Brown asking him to clarify whether the government's position has changed following the meeting with Ms Lumley.
Click to expand...

still positive, but the political jargon, "considering", "will come up with a solution" still leaves the outcome a bit unclear, as keith vaz notes.

apparently the 1500-odd applications from gurkhas in the UK now are also being 'expedited' for the end of may, again, they have not indicated either way as to the results, tho one govt. spin doctor is still making noises about costs being a factor in the changes to the regs.
 
Last edited:
It's always funny when a government makes noises about costs, as if this is generally a factor in their calculations. We know how carefully they spend money ... a billion here, a billion there.

I wouldn't be surprised to see current applications expedited with no resolution of the question of similar applications being approved routinely in the future.
 
let the weaseling commence: govt. rejects 4 of 5 test cases AFTER the earlier parliamentary vote to let them in.

Page last updated at 16:01 GMT, Thursday, 7 May 2009 17:01 UK

Lumley meets minister on Gurkhas


Phil Woolas has sought to "reassure" Joanna Lumley that rulings rejecting former Gurkha soldiers' rights to settle in the UK will be reconsidered.

The immigration minister held a hasty meeting with the actress and Gurkha campaigner in the BBC's Westminster office to discuss the verdicts.

The UK Border Agency rejected four out of five residency test cases, a move Ms Lumley said was an "enormous shock".
Click to expand...

it's OK tho, they won't be deported until after the govt. 'reconsiders' their policy at the end of the month at which point the cases will be 'reconsidered'. the minister said he was sure the people would be pleased at the new policy. i of course believe they will do the right thing. and i believe in the tooth fairy, and look - there goes a flying pig!
swineflu.png


what part of parliament voting to let them all in did they not understand?


p.s.- the piggy pic will do for 'swine flu' puns as well :D
 
Last edited:
Esav Benyamin said:
Now that we've gotten that out of the way, perhaps BushmanBen would care to explain how he has the same IP as the previously banned titus010782, and why I should not ban him as well as a returned troll? Children's games, not welcome here.
Click to expand...


Whoa!!! Wait. This may come as a suprise to you but more of a suprise to me.

I have gone through the posts now. I know exactly who you are talking about and he is going to be VERY embarrassed.
This is my mates PC and I only get to come online once in a while.

I need to get my own to avoid being hailed a troll right?

Banned for anti-semitism, who would have thought.
Btw, he is not Jewish and furthermore, his name is not titus.
I will use the Icafe next time I log on here to avoid confusion.
I think I will get a free one out of this.
 
You will notice I did not ban you, suspicions or not.

He was not banned for antisemitism, although I might have made a case for it with his obvious clumsy lying. He was banned for trolling: disruptive behavior including disrespect to a moderator.

He is entitled to use any name he chooses as long as it's not excessively, overtly offensive in itself. If he wants to call himself titus010782 online, he can, no one minds. But there are limits to what he gets to call other people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top