<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Case for the Gurkhas</title>
	<atom:link href="http://baldysblog.co.uk/2009/04/30/the-case-for-the-gurkhas/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://baldysblog.co.uk/2009/04/30/the-case-for-the-gurkhas/</link>
	<description>Mainly Political, Right of Centre and Personal, not Party Political</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2012 16:31:48 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: m.sher</title>
		<link>http://baldysblog.co.uk/2009/04/30/the-case-for-the-gurkhas/comment-page-1/#comment-1803</link>
		<dc:creator>m.sher</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 May 2009 22:11:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://baldysblog.co.uk/?p=943#comment-1803</guid>
		<description>This was what I wrote on Dan Hannan’s post relating to Lumley and the Gurhkas.

Some thoughts and questions from across the pond about the Gurkhas.  Would appreciate any education, lectures, scoldings or whatever anyone wants to give me.
 
Isn’t the British military (with some question as to the last few years) among the 3 best in the world?  Wouldn’t any study of the British army would include the Gurkhas as an integral and indispensible part thereof?

As a person who has posted many anti-immigration rants on Daniel’s blogs, I have made it clear that I am not racist:  I am against a religious ideology (Islam) that seeks to destroy Western freedoms.  That has nothing to do with race.  Am I correct that few, if any, of the Gurkhas are Muslim or hold any ideology which would seek to destroy Britain as a country with Western freedoms?  (Yes, I know, there may be a handful of Maoists among them or their families today.  But is it a significant number?) Isn’t opposing residency or citizenship for Gurkhas who have fought for your way of life, who pose no threat to your laws and freedoms actual, true, real-deal racism?

Speaking of a now-Maoist country, do you really want a whole bunch of now perhaps very bitter, highly trained ex-soldiers running around the part of the world that includes India, Pakistan and Afghanistan?  They are presumably not Maoist – but highly-trained ex soldiers have been known to do funny things when the world they have known goes to hell-in-a-handbasket.

Is it not true that even that most self-serving of European countries – the French – gives citizenship to members of the French Foreign Legion?  

There would be a large number of Gurkha immigrants.  But Britain needs immigrants because of your aging population.  These are at least immigrants who have fought for you, are hardworking and innovative and can fit into British life.  Aren’t these the immigrants that you should welcome (and throw the on-welfare radical Islamists out)?

I understand the history: You had a deal that everybody was OK with; circumstances changed in 1997 and you changed the deal for soldiers serving after then  Now the old guys are angry and want the new deal – even though that’s not what they bargained for.  But their circumstances changed too.  They fought in the name of freedom; they have gone home to a Maoist government (and they’re angry they didn’t get the new deal). Rectifying this creates issues for you:  cost, issue with Nepal’s now Maoist government, possibility of no future Gurkha regiment.  The answer to the last two is easy:  make the British Army attractive enough to attract sufficient recruits (and hey, I understand that a number of Brits are going into the French Foreign Legion – maybe you could even retain those individuals - or the ones you want, if pay in the British military is high enough).  In fact, make that Britain’s stimulus package – decent pay for a big military.  Brown would be happy – he could spend lots of money on something the Tories wouldn’t hate too much.  No, I’m being facetious.  But I understand you trusted Gurkhas to protect Prince Harry in Afghanistan (Whether his being there was a waste of manpower is another question.) and they are fighting there now.  So looking at this story from across the pond, it doesn’t appear to be Britain’s finest hour.	

(I do not pretend to claim that America always does the right thing either.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This was what I wrote on Dan Hannan’s post relating to Lumley and the Gurhkas.</p>
<p>Some thoughts and questions from across the pond about the Gurkhas.  Would appreciate any education, lectures, scoldings or whatever anyone wants to give me.</p>
<p>Isn’t the British military (with some question as to the last few years) among the 3 best in the world?  Wouldn’t any study of the British army would include the Gurkhas as an integral and indispensible part thereof?</p>
<p>As a person who has posted many anti-immigration rants on Daniel’s blogs, I have made it clear that I am not racist:  I am against a religious ideology (Islam) that seeks to destroy Western freedoms.  That has nothing to do with race.  Am I correct that few, if any, of the Gurkhas are Muslim or hold any ideology which would seek to destroy Britain as a country with Western freedoms?  (Yes, I know, there may be a handful of Maoists among them or their families today.  But is it a significant number?) Isn’t opposing residency or citizenship for Gurkhas who have fought for your way of life, who pose no threat to your laws and freedoms actual, true, real-deal racism?</p>
<p>Speaking of a now-Maoist country, do you really want a whole bunch of now perhaps very bitter, highly trained ex-soldiers running around the part of the world that includes India, Pakistan and Afghanistan?  They are presumably not Maoist – but highly-trained ex soldiers have been known to do funny things when the world they have known goes to hell-in-a-handbasket.</p>
<p>Is it not true that even that most self-serving of European countries – the French – gives citizenship to members of the French Foreign Legion?  </p>
<p>There would be a large number of Gurkha immigrants.  But Britain needs immigrants because of your aging population.  These are at least immigrants who have fought for you, are hardworking and innovative and can fit into British life.  Aren’t these the immigrants that you should welcome (and throw the on-welfare radical Islamists out)?</p>
<p>I understand the history: You had a deal that everybody was OK with; circumstances changed in 1997 and you changed the deal for soldiers serving after then  Now the old guys are angry and want the new deal – even though that’s not what they bargained for.  But their circumstances changed too.  They fought in the name of freedom; they have gone home to a Maoist government (and they’re angry they didn’t get the new deal). Rectifying this creates issues for you:  cost, issue with Nepal’s now Maoist government, possibility of no future Gurkha regiment.  The answer to the last two is easy:  make the British Army attractive enough to attract sufficient recruits (and hey, I understand that a number of Brits are going into the French Foreign Legion – maybe you could even retain those individuals &#8211; or the ones you want, if pay in the British military is high enough).  In fact, make that Britain’s stimulus package – decent pay for a big military.  Brown would be happy – he could spend lots of money on something the Tories wouldn’t hate too much.  No, I’m being facetious.  But I understand you trusted Gurkhas to protect Prince Harry in Afghanistan (Whether his being there was a waste of manpower is another question.) and they are fighting there now.  So looking at this story from across the pond, it doesn’t appear to be Britain’s finest hour.	</p>
<p>(I do not pretend to claim that America always does the right thing either.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: baldy</title>
		<link>http://baldysblog.co.uk/2009/04/30/the-case-for-the-gurkhas/comment-page-1/#comment-1798</link>
		<dc:creator>baldy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 May 2009 20:22:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://baldysblog.co.uk/?p=943#comment-1798</guid>
		<description>To be fair the issue is as follows:

&quot;Financially, the majority of former Gurkhas would likely live in greater style in Nepal on their now enhanced Army Pensions and if more work had been done by the Government on the Widows and others without a pension in Nepal, the pressure to come to the UK might be less.&quot;

To be honest it is less the circumstances that we are talking about, rather more the expectations from being prepared to die for a Country, whatever Country. Gordon Brown is quite happy to pose for cameras &quot;in theatre&quot; with British Troops he has deployed but not equipped properly. He has been happy to deprive them and their families of the means of doing the job so that they could come home alive.

To be quite frank, if Gordon Brown went north of the border, they crucified him and set light to him and his carcase, I am not too sure that anybody would really give a fart about it or him and that is really sad, he needs to go now.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To be fair the issue is as follows:</p>
<p>&#8220;Financially, the majority of former Gurkhas would likely live in greater style in Nepal on their now enhanced Army Pensions and if more work had been done by the Government on the Widows and others without a pension in Nepal, the pressure to come to the UK might be less.&#8221;</p>
<p>To be honest it is less the circumstances that we are talking about, rather more the expectations from being prepared to die for a Country, whatever Country. Gordon Brown is quite happy to pose for cameras &#8220;in theatre&#8221; with British Troops he has deployed but not equipped properly. He has been happy to deprive them and their families of the means of doing the job so that they could come home alive.</p>
<p>To be quite frank, if Gordon Brown went north of the border, they crucified him and set light to him and his carcase, I am not too sure that anybody would really give a fart about it or him and that is really sad, he needs to go now.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: niall_sullivan</title>
		<link>http://baldysblog.co.uk/2009/04/30/the-case-for-the-gurkhas/comment-page-1/#comment-1796</link>
		<dc:creator>niall_sullivan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 May 2009 17:20:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://baldysblog.co.uk/?p=943#comment-1796</guid>
		<description>Given the tenor of this blog, perhaps the ideal solution is to bring in as many Gurkhas as possible, and employ them at ports etc. to prevent illegal aliens entering the country. The Gurkhas have already proven their ability to defend Britain&#039;s borders against all comers.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Given the tenor of this blog, perhaps the ideal solution is to bring in as many Gurkhas as possible, and employ them at ports etc. to prevent illegal aliens entering the country. The Gurkhas have already proven their ability to defend Britain&#8217;s borders against all comers.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

