I don't think you Americans have ever heard about the Ghurhas...

[p_p_man]

but tell me why arseholes, why should men who are amongst the bravet and ferosious fighters in the Commenwealth die because George fucking Bush is a cunt?

You've got no idea have you just how much anger you're building up...

ppmam

 

[Guest]

They're dying because of what people think he is?

How so?

 

[Jimi]

Peeps, you are inebriated...

The Ghurkas are fabulous little chaps - and VERY dangerous...

I'd love to see them "loosed" upon some Serbian "gentlemen", as well as some other supposed "tough guyz"

 

[QuickDuck]

Ghurkas rock and seriously kick arse.

 

[Don K Dyck]

You'd mess with the Ghurkas?? . . . you're mad!! . . . or permanently dead . . . Arguably among the best troops in the world . . . respected by all who have fought with them . . .

 

[TN_Vixen]

....

 

[NorthwestRain]

pp man. You're tripping on the stickiest, most horribly stenchy crud known to man. Gawd blesss ya son!

 

[Problem Child]

but tell me why arseholes, why should men who are amongst the bravet and ferosious fighters in the Commenwealth die because George fucking Bush is a cunt?

You've got no idea have you just how much anger you're building up...

ppmam

I've noticed that the quality of your spelling erodes in direct proportion to your declining sobriety.





(edit..she always forgets to log out..)

 

[Byron In Exile]

ppmam

Dude, you dint highlight the best one!

 

[Problem Child]

Re: Re: I don't think you Americans have ever heard about the Ghurhas...

Dude, you dint highlight the best one!

Jeez, you're right. Good eye.

 

[Guest]

I've noticed that the quality of your spelling erodes in direct proportion to your declining sobriety.





(edit..she always forgets to log out..)

LOL, I was going to quote Vix and ask if PC'd been dictating to her.

 

[miles]

but tell me why arseholes, why should men who are amongst the bravet and ferosious fighters in the Commenwealth die because George fucking Bush is a cunt?

You've got no idea have you just how much anger you're building up...

ppmam

Sloppy drunk.

 

[KillerMuffin]

I suppose it's better than what you Brits tried to do the Ghurkas. Or do you think that the East India Company declaring war on them because they wanted more land was a good move?

 

[patient1]

I was going to shoot Problem Child for his own good . He started a thread about a year ago telling us to shoot him if he ever posted to another p_p_man thread.

But I was in error.
This is a ppmam thread.

 

[p_p_man]

Killer Muffin...

you should have let this thread stay where it was and kept my typing errors secret...

But while the thread's risen from the dead, here's a short history of the beginning of the Ghurka Regiment...

"THE BEGINNING - GURKHAS, NEPAL AND THE EAST INDIA COMPANY

Robert Clive's decisive victory at the Battle of Plassey in 1757 firmly established British supremacy in India thereby opening the door for expansion of the Honourable East India Company. Some 10 years after Plassey the British started to come into contact with a unique and vigorous power on the northern borders of its newly won territories in Bengal and Bihar. This power was the city-state of Gorkha led by its dynamic King Prithwi Narayan Shah. Gorkha was a feudal hill village in what is now western Nepal, the village from which the Gurkha takes its name. Prithwi Narayan Shah and his successors grew so powerful that they overran the whole of the hill country from the Kashmir border in the west to Bhutan in the east. Eventually, as a result of boundary disputes and repeated raids by Gurkha columns into British territory, the Governor General declared war on Nepal in 1814. After two long and bloody campaigns a Peace Treaty was signed at Sugauli in 1816.

During the war a deep feeling of mutual respect and admiration had developed between the British and their adversaries, the British being much impressed by the fighting and other qualities of the Gurkha soldier. Under the terms of the Peace Treaty large numbers of Gurkhas were permitted to volunteer for service in the East India Company's Army. From these volunteers were formed the first regiments of the Gurkha Brigade, and from this time stems Britain's friendship with Nepal, a country which has proved a staunch ally ever since and has become our 'oldest ally' in Asia. Never has the trust that was then placed in the Gurkha soldier ever been in doubt. Alongside his British comrade in arms he has fought in many parts of the world and has proved himself to be of the closest of friends and bravest of allies that Britain has known."



ppman

 

[Cuckolded_BlK_Male]

but tell me why arseholes, why should men who are amongst the bravet and ferosious fighters in the Commenwealth die because George fucking Bush is a cunt?

You've got no idea have you just how much anger you're building up...

ppmam

Little dudes with the Kukri knives.

Many Americans are aware of how dangerous the anti-american sentiment in the world is. Many of us are aware that America's actions have engendered much of this hatred. However, there is a certain kind of loud mouthed American who will never admit that America can be wrong. Unfortunately, our current President seems to be one of these idiots.

 

[p_p_man]

Re: Re: I don't think you Americans have ever heard about the Ghurhas...

Little dudes with the Kukri knives.

That's a great description. Sums them all up...



ppman

 

[mbb308]

I don't know what the Ghurkas service was in the First World War, but I recall reading something years ago which stated that the only troops the Germans feared more than US Marines were the Moroccans, in service with the French. Apparently they just hacked up anything in gray.

 

[p_p_man]

Re: Re: I don't think you Americans have ever heard about the Ghurhas...

Little dudes with the Kukri knives.

"The Origin of the Kukri"

Kukri is the now accepted spelling; “Khukuri” is the strict translation of the Nepali word. Either way the thing itself is the renowned national weapon of Nepal and the Gurkhas.

A Nepali boy is likely to have his own kukri at the age of five or so and necessarily becomes skilful in its use long before his manhood. By the time a Gurkha joins the army, the kukri has become a chopping extension of his dominant arm. This is important, because it is not the weight and edge of the weapon that make it so terrible at close quarters so much as the skilled technique of the stroke; it can claim to be almost impossible to parry."

ppman

 

[p_p_man]

I don't know what the Ghurkas service was in the First World War

"THE FIRST WORLD WAR

At the outbreak of the First World War the whole of the Nepalese Army was placed at the disposal of the British Crown. Over 16,000 Nepalese Troops were subsequently deployed on operations on the North West Frontier and as Garrison Battalions in India to replace troops of the British Indian Army who had gone to fight overseas.

Some one hundred thousand Gurkhas enlisted in Regiments of The Gurkhas Brigade. They fought and died in France and Flanders, Mesopotamia, Persia, Egypt, Gallipoli, Palestine and Salonika. A battalion of the 8th Gurkhas greatly distinguished itself as Loos, fighting to the last, and in the words of the Indian Corps Commander, "found its Valhalla". The 6th Gurkhas gained immortal fame at Gallipoli during the capture from the Turks of the feature later known as "Gurkha Bluff". At Sari Bair they were the only troops in the whole campaign to reach and hold the crest line and look down on the Straits which was the ultimate objective. To quote from Field Marshal Sir William Slim's introduction to the second volume of the 6th Gurkhas' history:

"I first met the 6th Gurkha Rifles in 1915 in Gallipoli. There I was so struck by their bearing in one of the most desperate battles in history that I resolved, should the opportunity come, to try to serve with them. Four years later it came, and I spent many of the happiest, and from a military point of view the most
valuable, years of my life in the Regiment".

ppman

 

[Ham Murabi]

Re: Re: I don't think you Americans have ever heard about the Ghurhas...

Little dudes with the Kukri knives.

Many Americans are aware of how dangerous the anti-american sentiment in the world is. Many of us are aware that America's actions have engendered much of this hatred. However, there is a certain kind of loud mouthed American who will never admit that America can be wrong. Unfortunately, our current President seems to be one of these idiots.

What is dangerous is recognizing a threat and doing nothing about it. Many Americans recognize the threat and choose to ignore it, or sanction its existence. That's the western European model for "dealing" with a problem.
My own guess is that the way to address the problem, a la the President's method, will show a serious inclination on the part of the U.S. to deal with its enemies, and will generate some respect in countries that are, at this point, willing to host, if not actively sponsor, terrorists.
Many people learned on 9/11 that the stakes are high. Others worry about the opinion of others who would be satisfied with doing nothing.
I choose not to worry about what others think. I believe what is right for the U.S. and the safety of its citizens is being addressed in the correct manner.
Ppman hates the U.S. So be it. Really, who cares?

 

[KillerMuffin]

I don't read red type, p__ps. It hurts.

However, I'm rather familiar with the origins of the Ghurkas.

Let's see if I've got this right.

Britian and her corporate entities, like the Honourable East India Company, took over as much of the world as they could lay hands on, including India.

When the lands and resources the stole from India weren't quite enough, they arranged a border dispute in Nepal where the Ghurkas reside. After quite a bit of fight, a respect grew between the two sides regarding their fighting prowess.

So, they negotiated a truce, the Ghurkas joined the British military and joined in their world domination activities, and the Honourable East India Company was free to move on in to Nepal and use up the resources and arable land.

We already know why you're peeved at Americans, p__ps, it's because we are exactly like you. After all, we learned international relations from the British "The sun doesn't set on English soil!" Empire. Do have a lovely evening.

 

[p_p_man]

Re: Re: Re: I don't think you Americans have ever heard about the Ghurhas...

What is dangerous is recognizing a threat and doing nothing about it. Many Americans recognize the threat and choose to ignore it, or sanction its existence. That's the western European model for "dealing" with a problem.
My own guess is that the way to address the problem, a la the President's method, will show a serious inclination on the part of the U.S. to deal with its enemies, and will generate some respect in countries that are, at this point, willing to host, if not actively sponsor, terrorists.
Many people learned on 9/11 that the stakes are high. Others worry about the opinion of others who would be satisfied with doing nothing.
I choose not to worry about what others think. I believe what is right for the U.S. and the safety of its citizens is being addressed in the correct manner.
Ppman hates the U.S. So be it. Really, who cares?

I don't think you'll find many people are proposing doing nothing about Saddam. Bush prefers the violent way of disarming him and others prefer the non-violent way.

The non-violent way does probably mean that Saddam would remain in charge, which Bush doesn't want as he's already named the American Overlord of Iraq, but it does mean that hundreds if not thousands of civilians will remain alive.

But the problem is not the method used but the hypocracy and lies of Bush in order to push forward a war which has absolutely no justification.

You say that after 9/11 many people realised the stakes are high. What, precisely has a terrorist attack got to do with disarming Saddam and causing a regime change on the pretence of 'liberating' the people of Iraq. Nothing, except in the rhetoric of Bush and the spin of propaganda.

Step back. Take a long hard look at your own motives for wanting war. I don't mean re-examine Bush's motives, but your own personal ones.

Are you really happy with the killing of women and children when even Blix is saying that Saddam is co-operating? Neither the US nor the UK have produced proof positive that Saddam has hidden anything at the moment or is planning some all out attack on the USA sometime in the mythical future.

Everything to do with this invasion is based on assumption, fiction and Bush's own agenda...

It has nothing to do with liberation, securing America's safety or still to be found weapons of mass destruction.

That's why many of us prefer the non-violent way to controlling Saddam...

After all even without trying we've managed to contain him for 12 years.

And if Bush and Blair are going to harp on about non-compliance of UN Resolutions, they may as well point the finger at other countries around the world. Israel being the most obvious.

And I don't hate the USA...

So there...

ppman

 

[KillerMuffin]

You really don't pay attention, do you?

Non-violent containment? p__ps, the "coalition" or whatever has been dropping missiles all over Iraq for the last 12 years. Even your hero, Clinton, bombed Baghdad.

Where have you been?

There are only two ways to deal with Saddam. One, non-violently. That means that he not only retains power, but does whatever he damned well pleases. Two, with force, that means that he may or may not retain power, but he doesn't get to do whatever he damned well pleases.

You have two options, do you want Saddam to do whatever he damned well pleases or not?

If not, the only method that has ever worked in containing that man is the use of violent force.

Sheesh. I had no idea you were this ignorant.

 

[Guru]

pp_mam should always post in red. It makes it much quicker to blast past it!