| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Famous mercenaries, adventurers...
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Famous mercenaries, adventurers...

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Famous mercenaries, adventurers...
    Posted: 16 Mar 2012 at 02:56
mer·ce·nar·y
1. Motivated solely by a desire for monetary or material gain.
2. Hired for service in a foreign army.
n. pl. mer·ce·nar·ies
1. One who serves or works merely for monetary gain; a hireling.
2. A professional soldier hired for service in a foreign army.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mercenary



Edited by Buckskins - 16 Mar 2012 at 02:56
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Birddog View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 23 Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 386
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Birddog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Mar 2012 at 19:53
Thomas Cochrane. Although he was a sea going man, his time fighting for the Chilians, Brazilians and Greeks mark him if not as a mercanry, at least as a great adventurer.
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12490
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Mar 2012 at 06:57
The Royal Gurkha Rifles are not mercenaries. They are professional soldiers serving as part of the standing British army.
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Mar 2012 at 06:28
Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

Quote
Quote
Oh do forgive me Graham. Had I known my carelessness would have made you so emotionally charged, I would have course dropped the Mrs.

Doesn't explain why you used it in the first place. Perjhaps you should prefer checking facts to trying to be funny.

I used it in error sir. I'm not in the habit of blowing up irrelevant minutiae to distract from the point in question. 
Note that I had to reformat this again for you. I don't know why you can't get it right.
I gather you're now saying that getting the facts right is unimportant.
Quote
Quote
Quote
It's such a pity the same support she gave your mercenaries never originated with a British Government official.

True.

I find it gratifying that you acknowledge they are mercenaries. You see, we both learned something.
 Whether they are called mercenaries or not has no relevance to anything. The word has all sorts of connotations, under some of which the Gurkhas are mercenaries and under others they are not.
 
That's what you should have learned from this thread.

On a thread with a topic of Mercenaries in part, you can say given the fact that Gurkhas are  Mercenaries( which you acknowledged) is of no relevance. I agree to disagree, now that's the end of it.
It's not a matter of fact, it's a matter of definition. You can call the Gurkhas mercenaries or you can call them not mercenaries. Neither position is 'correct'. Neither position is 'wrong'. That's why it is irrelevant.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Mar 2012 at 04:07
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

Quote
Quote
Oh do forgive me Graham. Had I known my carelessness would have made you so emotionally charged, I would have course dropped the Mrs.

Doesn't explain why you used it in the first place. Perjhaps you should prefer checking facts to trying to be funny.

I used it in error sir. I'm not in the habit of blowing up irrelevant minutiae to distract from the point in question. 
Note that I had to reformat this again for you. I don't know why you can't get it right.
I gather you're now saying that getting the facts right is unimportant.
Quote
Quote
Quote
It's such a pity the same support she gave your mercenaries never originated with a British Government official.

True.

I find it gratifying that you acknowledge they are mercenaries. You see, we both learned something.
 Whether they are called mercenaries or not has no relevance to anything. The word has all sorts of connotations, under some of which the Gurkhas are mercenaries and under others they are not.
 
That's what you should have learned from this thread.

On a thread with a topic of Mercenaries in part, you can say given the fact that Gurkhas are  Mercenaries( which you acknowledged) is of no relevance. I agree to disagree, now that's the end of it.
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Mar 2012 at 21:03
Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

Quote
Quote
Oh do forgive me Graham. Had I known my carelessness would have made you so emotionally charged, I would have course dropped the Mrs.

Doesn't explain why you used it in the first place. Perjhaps you should prefer checking facts to trying to be funny.

I used it in error sir. I'm not in the habit of blowing up irrelevant minutiae to distract from the point in question. 
Note that I had to reformat this again for you. I don't know why you can't get it right.
I gather you're now saying that getting the facts right is unimportant.
Quote
Quote
Quote
It's such a pity the same support she gave your mercenaries never originated with a British Government official.

True.

I find it gratifying that you acknowledge they are mercenaries. You see, we both learned something.
 Whether they are called mercenaries or not has no relevance to anything. The word has all sorts of connotations, under some of which the Gurkhas are mercenaries and under others they are not.
 
That's what you should have learned from this thread.


Edited by gcle2003 - 12 Mar 2012 at 21:05
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Mar 2012 at 05:56
Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:


 
Quote
 I suspect that many "mercenaries and adventurers", when it comes down to it, would not have been the type one would want to have a beer with. At least Che, I'd wager, would have demanded that all had access to the pub, and all got a beer, even if they were broke.

 If you want to shake the hand, of the hand that shook the hand, of the guy that turned Che's lights out, i'll be in BC toward the end of summer.
 
Thank's for the warning.

 You're most welcome.
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Mar 2012 at 05:53

Quote
Oh do forgive me Graham. Had I known my carelessness would have made you so emotionally charged, I would have course dropped the Mrs.

Doesn't explain why you used it in the first place. Perjhaps you should prefer checking facts to trying to be funny.

I used it in error sir. I'm not in the habit of blowing up irrelevant minutiae to distract from the point in question. 
Quote
It's such a pity the same support she gave your mercenaries never originated with a British Government official.

True.

I find it gratifying that you acknowledge they are mercenaries. You see, we both learned something.
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2153
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Mar 2012 at 05:52
Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:


 
Quote
 I suspect that many "mercenaries and adventurers", when it comes down to it, would not have been the type one would want to have a beer with. At least Che, I'd wager, would have demanded that all had access to the pub, and all got a beer, even if they were broke.

 If you want to shake the hand, of the hand that shook the hand, of the guy that turned Che's lights out, i'll be in BC toward the end of summer.
 
Thank's for the warning.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Mar 2012 at 05:11
Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

Quote
Quote
"The actress, and daughter of Gurkha corps major James Lumley, Joanna Lumley, who had highlighted the treatment of the Gurkhas and campaigned for their rights, commented: "This is the welcome we have always longed to give".[56]
So what? She is still Mrs Barlow, not Mrs Lumley, which is what you called her. As I said you were confused again. It now looks as though you didn't have any idea of who she even is.
I do confess that "Absolutely Fabulous is not on my viewing list. I leave that sort of thing to intellectuals like yourself.
What is it about  Joanna Lumley that has your knickers in a twist sir?
Your blatant disregard of common civility. Her married name is Barlow. If you use the prefix Mrs you follow it with the married name, not the maiden name. Her mother would be Mrs Lumley. She isn't.
 
You're old enough to know better.

Oh do forgive me Graham. Had I known my carelessness would have made you so emotionally charged, I would have course dropped the Mrs.
 
Doesn't explain why you used it in the first place. Perjhaps you should prefer checking facts to trying to be funny.
Quote
It's such a pity the same support she gave your mercenaries never originated with a British Government official.
True.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Mar 2012 at 05:06

 
Quote
 I suspect that many "mercenaries and adventurers", when it comes down to it, would not have been the type one would want to have a beer with. At least Che, I'd wager, would have demanded that all had access to the pub, and all got a beer, even if they were broke.

 If you want to shake the hand, of the hand that shook the hand, of the guy that turned Che's lights out, i'll be in BC toward the end of summer.
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Mar 2012 at 04:59
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

Quote
Quote
"The actress, and daughter of Gurkha corps major James Lumley, Joanna Lumley, who had highlighted the treatment of the Gurkhas and campaigned for their rights, commented: "This is the welcome we have always longed to give".[56]
So what? She is still Mrs Barlow, not Mrs Lumley, which is what you called her. As I said you were confused again. It now looks as though you didn't have any idea of who she even is.
I do confess that "Absolutely Fabulous is not on my viewing list. I leave that sort of thing to intellectuals like yourself.
What is it about  Joanna Lumley that has your knickers in a twist sir?
Your blatant disregard of common civility. Her married name is Barlow. If you use the prefix Mrs you follow it with the married name, not the maiden name. Her mother would be Mrs Lumley. She isn't.
 
You're old enough to know better.

Oh do forgive me Graham. Had I known my carelessness would have made you so emotionally charged, I would have course dropped the Mrs. It's such a pity the same support she gave your mercenaries never originated with a British Government official.
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2153
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Mar 2012 at 13:50
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

GCLE, I didn't find Bahrain specifically mentioned in the article, however our naval bases overseas are often guarded by two rings of forces, similar to those which guard our embassies. There is the host nation police or security forces outside the "fence" marking the agreed area of U.S. control, and internal security forces within that fence. The internal security can consist of a contracted civilian security company at the gates and periphery, and U.S. Marines or Sailors within the controlled areas. I've seen Gurkhas on duty outside the U.S. Embassy in Singapore wearing blue uniforms which i took to be part of a civilian contracted force, but now realize may have been part of the Gurkha contingent of the Singapore Police. I don't know if Bahrain has any Gurkhas, so will presume these have been hired by a private security firm.

As for whether any Gurkhas are mercenaries, that argument will go on forever. Some consider anyone who soldiers for pay to be a mercenary. If that is the criteria, then every non-conscripted soldier is a mercenary. Some insist that only foreigners in another country's service are mercenaries.  That would include the Foreign Legion, and the Gurkhas, as well as the foreign volunteers on both sides of the Spanish Civil War. And the definitions can get murkier. I prefer to view the Gurkhas as professional soldiers, or the honorable remnants of an Empire.

And Captain V, as to Che Guevara's idealism, if a willingness to kill anyone who got in the way of his ideal qualifies as idealism, then indeed he was an idealist. That would put him right up there with Horst Wessel, except the latter was a nationalist and Che an internationalist. His mistake was to pick Bolivia based solely upon geo-political considerations with no real knowledge of its recent revolution or peoples. 


 
"Getting in one's way" is a marvellously flexible phrase that can be adapted to various useage. Many in history have gotten in the way of US foreign policy, for example, and then been dispensed with by figures some, depending on their orientation, would consider iconic, such as the Marines or CIA personnel. Foolish as it may seem when taking a longer and more philosophical view of things, killing those in the way has been done by all authorities at one time or another. The US is no shy wallflower in this regard, either in the past or in the present. Historically, those in the way have at various times included: native Americans, the French, the British government, Canadian colonists, Spain, the Hawaiian royality, Philipine peasants, socialist reformers in Latin America, communists anywhere and everywhere, and lately (and oddly) those that threaten Israel. That's just the short list. Not that other countries don't have lists of their own.
 
 I suspect that many "mercenaries and adventurers", when it comes down to it, would not have been the type one would want to have a beer with. At least Che, I'd wager, would have demanded that all had access to the pub, and all got a beer, even if they were broke.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Mar 2012 at 07:34
Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

Quote
Quote
"The actress, and daughter of Gurkha corps major James Lumley, Joanna Lumley, who had highlighted the treatment of the Gurkhas and campaigned for their rights, commented: "This is the welcome we have always longed to give".[56]
So what? She is still Mrs Barlow, not Mrs Lumley, which is what you called her. As I said you were confused again. It now looks as though you didn't have any idea of who she even is.
I do confess that "Absolutely Fabulous is not on my viewing list. I leave that sort of thing to intellectuals like yourself.
What is it about  Joanna Lumley that has your knickers in a twist sir?
Your blatant disregard of common civility. Her married name is Barlow. If you use the prefix Mrs you follow it with the married name, not the maiden name. Her mother would be Mrs Lumley. She isn't.
 
You're old enough to know better.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Mar 2012 at 06:04

Quote
Agreed in general. In my vocabulary the classic 'mercenaries' are the condottieri of the Italian renaissance and the Free Companies in 14th century France, typified in English histories by Sir John Hawkwood. Have you read Doyle's The White Company?
 
I'd say therefore that a 'mercenary' is someone who serves with a military unit that hires itself out as a whole (commanders and all) to fight on a short-term contract for any employer. The Gurkhas don't meet that specification at all, though those that worked for 'security companies' in, say, Katanga, in the 20th century did.



As a noun, it means a soldier for hire.

The Hessians who fought for the British in the American Revolution were not mercenaries in the modern sense, but conscripts who were sent to fight by the leaders of the Germanic states, who were paid by the British crown.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_meaning_of_mercenary

Nepal was never a part of the British Empire.
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Mar 2012 at 05:51

Quote
That's right Graham, I'm so confused. What the heck does pensions have to do with finance. Silly me. It's fortunate I have you around to keep me right.

What you had wrong was not realising the problem arose because of changes in the terms of service over the years, nothing to do with difference between UK soldiers and Gurkhas. It's the word 'parity' that was wrongly used.

Not where I come from.

Parity Meaning and Definition

  1. (n.) The quality or condition of being equal or equivalent; 
Quote
"The actress, and daughter of Gurkha corps major James Lumley, Joanna Lumley, who had highlighted the treatment of the Gurkhas and campaigned for their rights, commented: "This is the welcome we have always longed to give".[56]
 
Quote
So what? She is still Mrs Barlow, not Mrs Lumley, which is what you called her. As I said you were confused again. It now looks as though you didn't have any idea of who she even is.

I do confess that "Absolutely Fabulous is not on my viewing list. I leave that sort of thing to intellectuals like yourself.
What is it about  Joanna Lumley that has your knickers in a twist sir?

Quote
A charity, the Gurkha Welfare Trust, provides aid to alleviate hardship and distress among Gurkha ex-servicemen.[57]

And plenty of charities help all sorts of unfortunate people. Are you arguing that poor people shouldn't be looked after? Surely even in Texas you have charities for the people whocan't even getjobs at Walmart?

The Gurkahs y'aal dumped and refused residence in the UK, you know, the veterans that did your fighting for you. Were living on handouts from active duty Gurkhas. The Brits deducted that money from their pay.
If Texas residents can't get a job, they get unemployment money. If that runs out(and it has been extended umpteen times) they get Welfare. Welfare includes a Govt credit card for free groceries, free heath care, and of course....money.
They could always be forced by the Government to stack shelves at Tescos sans remuneration. Oh no, how silly of me. That's what happens in the UK.

Quote

Gurkhas to bear brunt of military spending cuts again
The Gurkhas are once again expected to suffer the most when the latest round of Armed Forces redundancies are announced next week. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/defence/9011595/Gurkhas-to-bear-brunt-of-military-spending-cuts-again.html

Do you ever get anything correct.
Quote
But they're cutting the whole army, not just the Gurkhas. I assume they have their own strategic/tactical reasons for deciding who is declared redundant, but there's nothing except speculationo in thatarticle about the Gurkas being cut more than other parts of the army.

What is it about "Gurkhas to bear brunt of military spending cuts again" that has you confused?
 
Quote
The speculation I like in that article is that defence officials are trying to embarrass the government into fewer cuts by playing on popular support for the Gurkhas.  

Graham, you use to be much better at this.


Edited by Buckskins - 11 Mar 2012 at 05:53
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Mar 2012 at 01:59
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

GCLE, I didn't find Bahrain specifically mentioned in the article, however our naval bases overseas are often guarded by two rings of forces, similar to those which guard our embassies.
 
Actually, I thought the oddest thing was they're being employed by the Navy. Pretty obviously it wouldn't be as crew, Ermm, so it would have to be in some shore-based capacity. In the UK it would be marines, but then in the UK the marines are not a separate force.
Quote
....
As for whether any Gurkhas are mercenaries, that argument will go on forever. Some consider anyone who soldiers for pay to be a mercenary. If that is the criteria, then every non-conscripted soldier is a mercenary. Some insist that only foreigners in another country's service are mercenaries.  That would include the Foreign Legion, and the Gurkhas, as well as the foreign volunteers on both sides of the Spanish Civil War. And the definitions can get murkier. I prefer to view the Gurkhas as professional soldiers, or the honorable remnants of an Empire.
Agreed in general. In my vocabulary the classic 'mercenaries' are the condottieri of the Italian renaissance and the Free Companies in 14th century France, typified in English histories by Sir John Hawkwood. Have you read Doyle's The White Company?
 
I'd say therefore that a 'mercenary' is someone who serves with a military unit that hires itself out as a whole (commanders and all) to fight on a short-term contract for any employer. The Gurkhas don't meet that specification at all, though those that worked for 'security companies' in, say, Katanga, in the 20th century did.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Mar 2012 at 00:38
GCLE, I didn't find Bahrain specifically mentioned in the article, however our naval bases overseas are often guarded by two rings of forces, similar to those which guard our embassies. There is the host nation police or security forces outside the "fence" marking the agreed area of U.S. control, and internal security forces within that fence. The internal security can consist of a contracted civilian security company at the gates and periphery, and U.S. Marines or Sailors within the controlled areas. I've seen Gurkhas on duty outside the U.S. Embassy in Singapore wearing blue uniforms which i took to be part of a civilian contracted force, but now realize may have been part of the Gurkha contingent of the Singapore Police. I don't know if Bahrain has any Gurkhas, so will presume these have been hired by a private security firm.

As for whether any Gurkhas are mercenaries, that argument will go on forever. Some consider anyone who soldiers for pay to be a mercenary. If that is the criteria, then every non-conscripted soldier is a mercenary. Some insist that only foreigners in another country's service are mercenaries.  That would include the Foreign Legion, and the Gurkhas, as well as the foreign volunteers on both sides of the Spanish Civil War. And the definitions can get murkier. I prefer to view the Gurkhas as professional soldiers, or the honorable remnants of an Empire.

And Captain V, as to Che Guevara's idealism, if a willingness to kill anyone who got in the way of his ideal qualifies as idealism, then indeed he was an idealist. That would put him right up there with Horst Wessel, except the latter was a nationalist and Che an internationalist. His mistake was to pick Bolivia based solely upon geo-political considerations with no real knowledge of its recent revolution or peoples. 




Edited by lirelou - 11 Mar 2012 at 00:42
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2153
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Mar 2012 at 09:53
Che Guevara- an adventurer, and mercenary for idealism rather than money. Too idealistic, as it turned out, human nature was not up to speed.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Mar 2012 at 06:47
Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

Quote
I assume when you mention 'near financial parity' you are getting confused with recent UK legislation making all Gurkhas entitled to pensions and UK citizenship on leaving, whereas before (as a consequence of the 1976 nationaity act) there were differing regulations for different groups.

Yeah, and they can thank Mrs lumley for that much.
Quote
I assume you mean Mrs Barlow. I notice you accept you were confused about the 'financial parity' too, as well as the absolutely fabulous Joanna.
That's right Graham, I'm so confused. What the heck does pensions have to do with finance. Silly me. It's fortunate I have you around to keep me right.
What you had wrong was not realising the problem arose because of changes in the terms of service over the years, nothing to do with difference between UK soldiers and Gurkhas. It's the word 'parity' that was wrongly used.
Quote
"The actress, and daughter of Gurkha corps major James Lumley, Joanna Lumley, who had highlighted the treatment of the Gurkhas and campaigned for their rights, commented: "This is the welcome we have always longed to give".[56]
 
So what? She is still Mrs Barlow, not Mrs Lumley, which is what you called her. As I said you were confused again. It now looks as though you didn't have any idea of who she even is.
Quote
A charity, the Gurkha Welfare Trust, provides aid to alleviate hardship and distress among Gurkha ex-servicemen.[57]

And plenty of charities help all sorts of unfortunate people. Are you arguing that poor people shouldn't be looked after? Surely even in Texas you have charities for the people whocan't even getjobs at Walmart?

Quote
Gurkhas changing? where are getting all these red herrings. They are nothing but hired mercenaries. Nothing more and nothing less.  If it walks like a Duck, and squawks like a Duck. Guess what?

You didn't read the post you're replying too. I said there was no sign of the use of Gurkhas changing because of the UK, not no sign of the Gurkhas changing. You were the one that said the UK was getting ready to dump them.
Of course they're hired. No-one disputes that. It's everything else you said that was woefully wrong.
Quote

Gurkhas to bear brunt of military spending cuts again
The Gurkhas are once again expected to suffer the most when the latest round of Armed Forces redundancies are announced next week. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/defence/9011595/Gurkhas-to-bear-brunt-of-military-spending-cuts-again.html

Do you ever get anything correct.

But they're cutting the whole army, not just the Gurkhas. I assume they have their own strategic/tactical reasons for deciding who is declared redundant, but there's nothing except speculationo in thatarticle about the Gurkas being cut more than other parts of the army.
 
The speculation I like in that article is that defence officials are trying to embarrass the government into fewer cuts by playing on popular support for the Gurkhas.  


Edited by gcle2003 - 10 Mar 2012 at 06:50
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Mar 2012 at 06:30
Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

GCLE: Gurkhas in the U.S. Navy?  I believe you have erred. The Navy once had a program to recruit Filipino Mess Stewards, which I believe is no longer in existence. But Gurkhas? Any person admitted to the U.S. for purposes of immigration has the right to join the U.S. Armed Forces, and is subject to the Draft when such is in effect. You'll find a lot of foreigners wearing a U.S. uniform, though native born Americans outnumber them.

Hey, I was surprised to find it too. As I understand it they are/were employed to guard the naval bases at Bahrain.
and indeed passim on the web.


Can you believe this guy.
If you can't, show me some evidence that what I said wasn't true.
Quote
We even hire civilians to guard our bases here in CONUS. Are you calling them Mercenaries. You hire the little bad assed Nepalese to do your fighting for you because they are good, and cheap.
I'd call them mercenaries if (a) they carry arms and (b) they are aliens, or at least not 'US persons' as the IRS calls them.
 
The Nepales are hired (as I poionted out by several armies, not just the UK) because they are good, certainly. However they don't come cheap. Compared to UK soldiers anyway - US troops are paid so much more than anyone else that I wouldn't be surprised if Gurkhas weren't cheap compared to them.  
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Mar 2012 at 04:02
Quote
I assume when you mention 'near financial parity' you are getting confused with recent UK legislation making all Gurkhas entitled to pensions and UK citizenship on leaving, whereas before (as a consequence of the 1976 nationaity act) there were differing regulations for different groups.

Yeah, and they can thank Mrs lumley for that much.
Quote
I assume you mean Mrs Barlow. I notice you accept you were confused about the 'financial parity' too, as well as the absolutely fabulous Joanna.
That's right Graham, I'm so confused. What the heck does pensions have to do with finance. Silly me. It's fortunate I have you around to keep me right.
"The actress, and daughter of Gurkha corps major James Lumley, Joanna Lumley, who had highlighted the treatment of the Gurkhas and campaigned for their rights, commented: "This is the welcome we have always longed to give".[56]

A charity, the Gurkha Welfare Trust, provides aid to alleviate hardship and distress among Gurkha ex-servicemen.[57]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurkha



Quote
Gurkhas changing? where are getting all these red herrings. They are nothing but hired mercenaries. Nothing more and nothing less.  If it walks like a Duck, and squawks like a Duck. Guess what?

You didn't read the post you're replying too. I said there was no sign of the use of Gurkhas changing because of the UK, not no sign of the Gurkhas changing. You were the one that said the UK was getting ready to dump them.
Of course they're hired. No-one disputes that. It's everything else you said that was woefully wrong.

Gurkhas to bear brunt of military spending cuts again
The Gurkhas are once again expected to suffer the most when the latest round of Armed Forces redundancies are announced next week. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/defence/9011595/Gurkhas-to-bear-brunt-of-military-spending-cuts-again.html

Do you ever get anything correct.




Edited by Buckskins - 10 Mar 2012 at 04:09
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Mar 2012 at 03:46
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

GCLE: Gurkhas in the U.S. Navy?  I believe you have erred. The Navy once had a program to recruit Filipino Mess Stewards, which I believe is no longer in existence. But Gurkhas? Any person admitted to the U.S. for purposes of immigration has the right to join the U.S. Armed Forces, and is subject to the Draft when such is in effect. You'll find a lot of foreigners wearing a U.S. uniform, though native born Americans outnumber them.

Hey, I was surprised to find it too. As I understand it they are/were employed to guard the naval bases at Bahrain.
and indeed passim on the web.


Can you believe this guy. We even hire civilians to guard our bases here in CONUS. Are you calling them Mercenaries. You hire the little bad assed Nepalese to do your fighting for you because they are good, and cheap.
 
Quote
If they weren't employed in the US I don't know what effect that would have on immigration status.

None, they are not eligible.

Quote The real point is that the Irish, and many others in foreign service, were either serving causes of their own, or exiled and engaged in the only profession they could find employment in. They were neither mercenaries nor true adventurers.
 I don't see why it being a refuge from unemployment would stop them being called mercenaries. Anyway the point with the Gurkhas was largely that they had no decent prospects at home.
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Mar 2012 at 01:26
Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:


Quote  
The Gurkhas are not a phenomenon of 'this day and age'. And they weren't and aren't hired by the British to 'do their fighting for them' but as specialists with their own complementary skills. The same is true of their use currently by the Indian Army, the Malaysian Army, and the US Navy. 
Awe get off it Graham. I don't care how long you have been hiring them. Yeah they are specialists alright. Like severing the heads of dead Afghans. They are with the Indian army because the Brits dumped them. Just like the lot you have left will also be dumped with the upcoming cuts of whats left of your military.
At independence, the serving Gurkhas were asked whether they wanted to serve with the British army or the Indian army. The majority of them chose the Indian army and the rest stayed with Britain. Either the Indian army or the British army would happily have taken all of them. No-one 'dumped' anyone.
Quote  
Quote
I assume when you mention 'near financial parity' you are getting confused with recent UK legislation making all Gurkhas entitled to pensions and UK citizenship on leaving, whereas before (as a consequence of the 1976 nationaity act) there were differing regulations for different groups.
Yeah, and they can thank Mrs lumley for that much.
I assume you mean Mrs Barlow. I notice you accept you were confused about the 'financial parity' too, as well as the absolutely fabulous Joanna.
 
Quote
Quote
But there's no real sign of the use of Gurkhas changing due to UK action. In fact nowadays even Gurkha women have a place in the Army (though not combat units).  However it isn't clear whether the new Communist regime in Nepal will continue to allow Nepalese to serve in other armies.
Gurkhas changing? where are getting all these red herrings. They are nothing but hired mercenaries. Nothing more and nothing less.  If it walks like a Duck, and squawks like a Duck. Guess what?
You didn't read the post you're replying too. I said there was no sign of the use of Gurkhas changing because of the UK, not no sign of the Gurkhas changing. You were the one that said the UK was getting ready to dump them.
Of course they're hired. No-one disputes that. It's everything else you said that was woefully wrong.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Mar 2012 at 01:16
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

GCLE: Gurkhas in the U.S. Navy?  I believe you have erred. The Navy once had a program to recruit Filipino Mess Stewards, which I believe is no longer in existence. But Gurkhas? Any person admitted to the U.S. for purposes of immigration has the right to join the U.S. Armed Forces, and is subject to the Draft when such is in effect. You'll find a lot of foreigners wearing a U.S. uniform, though native born Americans outnumber them.
Hey, I was surprised to find it too. As I understand it they are/were employed to guard the naval bases at Bahrain.
and indeed passim on the web.
 
If they weren't employed in the US I don't know what effect that would have on immigration status.

Quote The real point is that the Irish, and many others in foreign service, were either serving causes of their own, or exiled and engaged in the only profession they could find employment in. They were neither mercenaries nor true adventurers.
 I don't see why it being a refuge from unemployment would stop them being called mercenaries. Anyway the point with the Gurkhas was largely that they had no decent prospects at home.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Mar 2012 at 09:30
GCLE: Gurkhas in the U.S. Navy?  I believe you have erred. The Navy once had a program to recruit Filipino Mess Stewards, which I believe is no longer in existence. But Gurkhas? Any person admitted to the U.S. for purposes of immigration has the right to join the U.S. Armed Forces, and is subject to the Draft when such is in effect. You'll find a lot of foreigners wearing a U.S. uniform, though native born Americans outnumber them.

As for Parnell's Irish and Scots, I hesitate to qualify them as mercenaries. The O'Niell wars sent them to a Continent whose kingdoms had yet to forge an nationalist identity. The majority of French infantry of the period was foreign: Swiss (the oldest serving foreigners in French service), Scots (1 Regiment), Irish (3 Regiments, The Dillons, were later given to Spain), Germans (to include Bavarians, the 94th Infantry Regiment (Royal Bavaria) is an example), Poles, etc. Spain was a bit more careful. Their Tercios (later regiments) were either Spanish (to include Spanish from the Americas, such as Garcilaso de la Vega, "El Inca", or made up of subjects to Spanish Kings from outside Spain (Italians, Dutch, Germans, or Austrians). When the Irish lords arrived in Spain, their men were formed into two regiments, with the Dillon later making up the third. While these troops are often referred to as 'mercenary', the term is somewhat simplistic. The Irish in both Spain and France intended to fight the British in some future war. And their presence ensured an Irish option would always be considered when conflict came. Of course, as they intermarried with the locals, many drifted into the population as civilians leaving only an Irish family name as evidence of their presence. El Morro castle in San Juan, Puerto Rico, was largely built by Irish Engineer, Colonel Tomas O'Daly, whose son, Field Marshall Demetrio O'Daly de la Puente, served in Spain in the late 18th early 19th Century, and later lived in exile in nearby St. Thomas, VI. Irish descendants in Nantes, France became involved in the slave trade, and some Franco-Irish later showed up in Indochina. Among the first naval officers killed in Indochina in 1946 was Naval Lieutenant Dugue-MacCarthy, born in Bien Hoa, Vietnam.  

The real point is that the Irish, and many others in foreign service, were either serving causes of their own, or exiled and engaged in the only profession they could find employment in. They were neither mercenaries nor true adventurers.


Edited by lirelou - 09 Mar 2012 at 09:32
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Mar 2012 at 07:21

Quote  
The Gurkhas are not a phenomenon of 'this day and age'. And they weren't and aren't hired by the British to 'do their fighting for them' but as specialists with their own complementary skills. The same is true of their use currently by the Indian Army, the Malaysian Army, and the US Navy. 
Awe get off it Graham. I don't care how long you have been hiring them. Yeah they are specialists alright. Like severing the heads of dead Afghans. They are with the Indian army because the Brits dumped them. Just like the lot you have left will also be dumped with the upcoming cuts of whats left of your military.
Quote  
I assume when you mention 'near financial parity' you are getting confused with recent UK legislation making all Gurkhas entitled to pensions and UK citizenship on leaving, whereas before (as a consequence of the 1976 nationaity act) there were differing regulations for different groups.
Yeah, and they can thank Mrs lumley for that much.
 
Quote
But there's no real sign of the use of Gurkhas changing due to UK action. In fact nowadays even Gurkha women have a place in the Army (though not combat units).  However it isn't clear whether the new Communist regime in Nepal will continue to allow Nepalese to serve in other armies.
Gurkhas changing? where are getting all these red herrings. They are nothing but hired mercenaries. Nothing more and nothing less.  If it walks like a Duck, and squawks like a Duck. Guess what?

May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Mar 2012 at 00:04
Talk about them all you like, but at least try for some historical accuracy.
 
The Gurkhas are not a phenomenon of 'this day and age'. And they weren't and aren't hired by the British to 'do their fighting for them' but as specialists with their own complementary skills. The same is true of their use currently by the Indian Army, the Malaysian Army, and the US Navy. 
 
I assume when you mention 'near financial parity' you are getting confused with recent UK legislation making all Gurkhas entitled to pensions and UK citizenship on leaving, whereas before (as a consequence of the 1976 nationaity act) there were differing regulations for different groups.
 
But there's no real sign of the use of Gurkhas changing due to UK action. In fact nowadays even Gurkha women have a place in the Army (though not combat units).  However it isn't clear whether the new Communist regime in Nepal will continue to allow Nepalese to serve in other armies.  
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Mar 2012 at 08:42
Should we talk about the Elephant in the room? You know, the Gurkha. The British mercenaries from Nepal that in this day and age are hired by the British to do their fighting for them. Of course now that they have near financial parity with a Brit soldier, his days are numbered.
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
Harburs View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Chieftain

Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3144
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Harburs Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Dec 2009 at 05:00
Sinbad-e-Bahri is a famous medieval Middle Eastern adventurer.< id="gwProxy" ="">< ="jsCall;" id="jsProxy" ="">
"Turn yourself not away from three best things: Good Thought, Good Word, and Good Deed" Zoroaster.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.156 seconds.