Ignorant and mean spirited

It seems that the Hendon Times can't be bothered to put the letters they receive on their website any more (standards have dropped since my blog disappeared!). There is a letter in the paper this week which really got my goat up. As I can't post a link, here's what James S. Fluss has to say :-

Gurkha debt is on foreign soil

I disagree with your claim "Fighting talk to support Gurkhas" that the British people owe a 'special debt of gratitude' to Gurka soldiers.

Firstly, almost none of the conflicts in which the British Army has fought since the Second World War have been to defend British people. Instead the British Army has defended the people of Korea,Cyprus, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Kosovo, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

I am sure the Gurkhas fought bravely in all those conflicts, but the beneficiaries if their bravery have been foreigners, not British people. It is those foreigners who owe a debt of gratitude to the British army and Gurkhas.

Secondly, the main reason why Gurkhas have enlisted in the British Army is that alternative well paid work is hard to find in Nepal.

According to the International Monetary Fund, the income per capita for 2007 in Nepal was only $377, making it the 12th poorest Country in the world.

The British Army offers a career which is far more financially rewarding than other possibilities in Nepal.

This is probably the most ignorant and mean spirited letter I've seen in the Times. The British Army fights to support British interests. The reason that the British army is in Afghanistan is because this was the operational hub of Al-Quaida. Sympathisers of this organisation carried out the 7/7 bombings in London. Saddam Hussein was a very dangerous man in a key region of the world. He posed a threat to our oil supplies and our economic prosperity. The rights and wrongs of that conflict are not issues to be debated here, but the army's mission was not humanitarian, it was in support of British interests. The British Army didn't fight a war in Hong Kong, they provided security to a key British economic interest. In Cyprus they supported colonial rule and then provided security to a key military base which allows Great Britain to support it's economic interests in the region and beyond. In Malaysia the army was involved in supporting colonial rule, again maintaining British interests. That leaves Kosovo and Korea. Anyone with a knowledge of history would know that the first world war started in the Balkans. The British army helped to keep a lid on a situation which could have easily escalated. A war in europe would not be good for Great Britain. As for Korea, we were supporting the United Nations in a conflict against a regime and an ideology which was seen as a threat to Britain and British interests.

The British Army's operational strength and the security of Great Britain is enhanced immeasurably by the Gurkhas. I've yet to meet a single military man who has had anything but admiration for the Gurkhas and their contribution. The sheer number of VC's awarded to members of Gurkha regiments speaks volumes for their contribution and our debt. I would be interested to know what James G. Fluss has done with his life to warrant the right to criticise the Gurkhas? Maybe he'd care to show us his campaign medals.

I can think of few groups we have more of a debt to than this fine group of soldiers from a faraway land.