Classical Drug users.

[Digit]

So unless the pay in the Dutch armed forces is abysmal, or the benefit paid to the unemployed is fantastic, any Dutch national who joins the armed forces to improve his finances/life style must be a mercenary.

Three platoons of western Marines could easily unseat Robert Mugabe's government and take over entire Zimbabwe.

They could probably do the same to Holland, but I don't quite get the relevance of your point.

Roy.

[Rokcet Scientist]

So unless the pay in the Dutch armed forces is abysmal, or the benefit paid to the unemployed is fantastic, any Dutch national who joins the armed forces to improve his finances/life style must be a mercenary.

No any Dutch national who joins foreign armed forces to improve his finances/life style is a mercenary.
A Dutch national who joins Dutch armed forces is a patriot. Not a mercenary. He will never get rich (I know: my father was a high-ranking career Navy officer).

Three platoons of western Marines could easily unseat Robert Mugabe's government and take over entire Zimbabwe.

They could probably do the same to Holland

I very much doubt that. And if so, the UK runs the same risk...

but I don't quite get the relevance of your point.

The point is that mercenaries do it to get rich. That can be destructively expensive for the commissioner (of the operation/coup/war). Unless you only need a few. Which they do, in Africa. Because Africans are totally useless as disciplined soldiers. Whence western mercenary forces in Africa are always very small, but highly effective.

[Digit]

Well I'll simply refer you once again to the Geneva Convention.
I would also observe that many who served in the British armed forces during WW2 were also patriots. How else do you explain American pilots who lost financially to serve in the RAF?
What of your countrymen who served in the Wehrmacht? What did they gain?

Roy.

[Rokcet Scientist]

Well I'll simply refer you once again to the Geneva Convention.

Then I'll have ask you to read it again. It applies the fat politicians' standards of what 'excessive' is. Again: for a Gurkha it is a fortune.
This clearly demonstrates how ill-fitting the Geneva convention is. It direly needs an update.

I would also observe that many who served in the British armed forces during WW2 were also patriots. How else do you explain American pilots who lost financially to serve in the RAF?

They were patriots fighting in the British forces for their own countries, because in most cases they couldn't in their own armies as there wasn't one anymore. Overrun by the Wehrmacht. Americans fought in the British armed forces to try and keep the Nazis away from the USA as far as possible. So they didn't do it for Britain, they did it for America.

What of your countrymen who served in the Wehrmacht? What did they gain?

In the end they only lost of course, but they did it initially because they agreed politically with the Nazis, and were convinced the Nazis would win the war, or they did it out of pure opportunism.
But none got rich! Quite the contrary: most lost everything they had. Including years of their life in incarceration.

[Digit]

Then I'll have ask you to read it again. It applies the fat politicians' standards of what 'excessive' is. Again: for a Gurkha it is a fortune.
This clearly demonstrates how ill-fitting the Geneva convention is. It direly needs an update.

None the less it is the act under which they serve, whether you like it or not.

But none got rich!

So by your earlier definition they were patriots, as I recall your government thought otherwise.
What of Nelson Mandela, George Washinton, Sukarno etc. Uni would probably make a good case for Hitler being a great Patriot. They all got rich.
One man's patriot another man's traitor.

Roy.

[Rokcet Scientist]

Then I'll have ask you to read it again. It applies the fat politicians' standards of what 'excessive' is. Again: for a Gurkha it is a fortune.
This clearly demonstrates how ill-fitting the Geneva convention is. It direly needs an update.

None the less it is the act under which they serve, whether you like it or not.

Absolutely.

But none got rich!

So by your earlier definition they were patriots, as I recall your government thought otherwise.

I think you need to read 'my' definition again then. Because Dutch serving in the Wehrmacht were foreign nationals to that Wehrmacht. But never got 'excessive' pay. So they weren't mercenaries. Neither to the Germans/Nazis, nor to the Dutch.
To the Dutch they were traitors. Who automatically forfeited their Dutch citizenship and nationality upon entering a foreign country's military service (it's on page 1 of the Dutch passport; has been for 162 years). Many got 'm back after having been tried, but served long sentences.
Maybe Nazis could consider them a kind of strange German patriots, but Dutch could certainly not consider them Dutch patriots.

What of Nelson Mandela, George Washinton, Sukarno etc.

What about them? Were they a) soldiers? And b) were they getting rich in another country's army?

Uni would probably make a good case for Hitler being a great Patriot.

That he was. Deutschland über alles! And mad.

They all got rich.

...but not from a) soldiering, in b) another country's army.

[Digit]

What about them? Were they a) soldiers? And b) were they getting rich in another country's army?

The point is they wern't fighting in their country's army they, like your countryman, were considered as traitors. My point being, as I said, one man's patriot is another man's traitor, and money does not enter into it, a fact recognised by the Convention.
Had we lost WW2 the American's who served in the RAF would have been executed by the Germans, winners write the rules.
Back to drugs, I asked you what Cannabis G Washington grew, you seemed to infer it was herbal cannabis rather than Hemp?

Roy.

[Rokcet Scientist]

I asked you what Cannabis G Washington grew, you seemed to infer it was herbal cannabis rather than Hemp?

It is now in American history, from today's perspective!, inferred that the first president of the United States of America grew cannabis for industrial purposes/applications. Cloths and paper, etc. Hence it is referred to as hemp (when it is mentioned at all), because that has a more innocent/earthy ring to it. It looks good in a first president's resume. It's good P.R.
But I'm not aware that that has scientifically been confirmed either way. Hence I use the scientific name cannabis which should have no connotation either way.

Take the Pilgrim Fathers! Revered as the founding fathers of a free America, when all they were was a group of Christian fundamentalist nuts who ostracised themselves, went into voluntary exile, from their home country's communities, because they really didn't fit in with their fundamentalist way of life. Like the Amish do today.

If you consider that, then the odds could be that the Reverend Jim Jones and his 900 followers who exiled themselves as religious fundamentalists to the Guyanan jungle and committed en masse suicide there, will, in two or three centuries, be revered as something or other as well. While they were of course mad as a hatter.

With the exception of that mass suicide the 'Pilgrim Fathers' were exactly the same kind of religious nutters...

[Digit]

Although there may be a tendency to 'white wash' the history of Cannabis in the US today there was no such tendency till it became illegal, therefore, unless every record of its use prior to that date has been expunged I have to take the record of history referring to Hemp as meaning Hemp!
As I am not into conspiracy theories I look at the facts as presented.
When Britain lost its American colonies it lost its major supplier of timbers for masts and spars, a shortfall made up from Scandanavia as 'deal'! Hulls began to built from Teak, one of our early Iron Clads having 2 ft of Teak inside the iron!
Likewise the Americans lost many supplies that had previously been obtained from Europe, a ship requiring many tons of hempen ropes and cordage, plus netting, sacks and paper, and so they grew it.

Roy.

[Rokcet Scientist]

Although there may be a tendency to 'white wash' the history of Cannabis in the US today there was no such tendency till it became illegal, therefore, unless every record of its use prior to that date has been expunged I have to take the record of history referring to Hemp as meaning Hemp!
As I am not into conspiracy theories I look at the facts as presented.

Unfortunately there haven't been any scientific facts presented about GW and his cannabis, afaik. Only a few written snippets, which usually are misinterpreted, especially when it's convenient to do so, and which reflect the contemporary, but usually later, recordist's opinion anyway. Not current scientific facts.

[Digit]

But for one small problem. The amount of THC in Hemp is minute, about the only way to get a high from hemp is to put a noose on the end.
The drug cultivars, AFAIK, have fibres that are too short for rope making, and as the Americans needed Hemp, that's presumably what they grew.
Life isn't always complicated and historians do sometimes record facts.

Roy.

[Rokcet Scientist]

But for one small problem. The amount of THC in Hemp is minute, about the only way to get a high from hemp is to put a noose on the end.
The drug cultivars, AFAIK, have fibres that are too short for rope making, and as the Americans needed Hemp, that's presumably what they grew.

Why assume that it must have been only this or only that? That's a bit simplistic. I'll bet it was all true!

Life isn't always complicated

...yeah that's what fundies say too.

and historians do sometimes record facts.

'Sometimes' is not very scientifical...

[Digit]

Why assume that it must have been only this or only that?

I'm not making any assumptions, I'm sticking to what has been reported. I'll consider alternatives when someone produces evidence in support of those alternatives.

'Sometimes' is not very scientifical...

Neither is asking me to make assumptions

Roy.

[Rokcet Scientist]

Why assume that it must have been only this or only that?

I'm not making any assumptions, I'm sticking to what has been reported. I'll consider alternatives when someone produces evidence in support of those alternatives.

'Sometimes' is not very scientifical...

Neither is asking me to make assumptions

I'm not asking you to make assumptions. Quite the contrary: I'm asking you to allow for all possibilities, to keep an open mind, until scientifically proven otherwise.

[Digit]

If you wish me to go against what is known and take into account all that might be possible then I would have to make assumptions that have no backing.
If I consider all possibilities they are as follows.
The colonists grew Cannabis for drug taking.
They didn't grow Cannabis.
They imported Cannabis for drug taking.
They produced special cultivars for the drug.
They were not aware of THC.
Without some evidence how do I decide which is correct, or which are correct?
I keep an open mind to the idea that further evidence to contradict what is currently known may arise and a willingness to accept fresh evidence, but an open mind does not mean a willingness to start accepting ideas simply because they might be fashionable or preferred to historical facts.
To do that leads us down Uni's path of refusal to accept uncomfortable facts about the Nazis.

Roy.