Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

The latest Ipsos-MORI phone poll where I was part of the sample – politicalbetting.com

12346»

Comments

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    HYUFD said:

    Floater said:

    HYUFD said:

    Floater said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    The problem with the sauve qui peut on the part of the West in Afghanistan is that it will sooner or later have an impact on us. Millions of refugees will head West, and the country will again become a haven for anti-Western terrorist groups.

    NATO forces could never eliminate the Taliban, but they were quite capable of containing them,. HYUFD is right about this.

    Morally yes, but I am not sure Kabul falling .has as much political impact in the US as perhaps it should.
    Until the next US skyscraper falls, which unfortunately it may well soon do as soon as Afghanistan becomes one big training camp for terrorists again
    Does the (always inevitable) fall of Afghanistan somehow magically bypass all the airline security measures brought in since 9/11?
    It only needs them to get through once, with thousands of terrorists back in Afghanistan trying it every day it will happen one day
    I'm curious - do you know how many terror attacks have been carried out by Islamic fundamentalists NOT trained in Afghanistan?
    All combined, fewer US and UK citizens have been killed by them than those killed on 9/11 by some margin
    Is that what I asked you?

    Clue - no it wasn't

    Try again
    Nope it was exactly the point, our citizens were killed, we had to respond.

    It was the biggest postwar terrorist attack on westerners by some margin
    And we responded by chasing them across the border into Pakistan and saying "ok Mission Accomplished, you stay there now and learn your lesson."

    We should have stopped them escaping into Pakistan in the first place and if the War on Terror was meant to be serious we should have followed them into Pakistan and continued the fight there. No refuge for them, no safe harbour. That was kind of the point.

    Instead Bush half arsed it then moved on to Iraq allowing the Taliban and al'Qaeda to survive and rebuild and have decades of training camps.
    Going into Pakistan is not quite as simple as you make it sound
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 8,250
    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    Floater said:

    HYUFD said:

    Floater said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    The problem with the sauve qui peut on the part of the West in Afghanistan is that it will sooner or later have an impact on us. Millions of refugees will head West, and the country will again become a haven for anti-Western terrorist groups.

    NATO forces could never eliminate the Taliban, but they were quite capable of containing them,. HYUFD is right about this.

    Morally yes, but I am not sure Kabul falling .has as much political impact in the US as perhaps it should.
    Until the next US skyscraper falls, which unfortunately it may well soon do as soon as Afghanistan becomes one big training camp for terrorists again
    Does the (always inevitable) fall of Afghanistan somehow magically bypass all the airline security measures brought in since 9/11?
    It only needs them to get through once, with thousands of terrorists back in Afghanistan trying it every day it will happen one day
    I'm curious - do you know how many terror attacks have been carried out by Islamic fundamentalists NOT trained in Afghanistan?
    All combined, fewer US and UK citizens have been killed by them than those killed on 9/11 by some margin
    Is that what I asked you?

    Clue - no it wasn't

    Try again
    Nope it was exactly the point, our citizens were killed, we had to respond.

    It was the biggest postwar terrorist attack on westerners by some margin
    And we responded by chasing them across the border into Pakistan and saying "ok Mission Accomplished, you stay there now and learn your lesson."

    We should have stopped them escaping into Pakistan in the first place and if the War on Terror was meant to be serious we should have followed them into Pakistan and continued the fight there. No refuge for them, no safe harbour. That was kind of the point.

    Instead Bush half arsed it then moved on to Iraq allowing the Taliban and al'Qaeda to survive and rebuild and have decades of training camps.
    Going into Pakistan is not quite as simple as you make it sound
    Defeatist talk. It's only a nuclear armed power with a standing army of a half a million.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Dura_Ace said:

    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    Floater said:

    HYUFD said:

    Floater said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    The problem with the sauve qui peut on the part of the West in Afghanistan is that it will sooner or later have an impact on us. Millions of refugees will head West, and the country will again become a haven for anti-Western terrorist groups.

    NATO forces could never eliminate the Taliban, but they were quite capable of containing them,. HYUFD is right about this.

    Morally yes, but I am not sure Kabul falling .has as much political impact in the US as perhaps it should.
    Until the next US skyscraper falls, which unfortunately it may well soon do as soon as Afghanistan becomes one big training camp for terrorists again
    Does the (always inevitable) fall of Afghanistan somehow magically bypass all the airline security measures brought in since 9/11?
    It only needs them to get through once, with thousands of terrorists back in Afghanistan trying it every day it will happen one day
    I'm curious - do you know how many terror attacks have been carried out by Islamic fundamentalists NOT trained in Afghanistan?
    All combined, fewer US and UK citizens have been killed by them than those killed on 9/11 by some margin
    Is that what I asked you?

    Clue - no it wasn't

    Try again
    Nope it was exactly the point, our citizens were killed, we had to respond.

    It was the biggest postwar terrorist attack on westerners by some margin
    And we responded by chasing them across the border into Pakistan and saying "ok Mission Accomplished, you stay there now and learn your lesson."

    We should have stopped them escaping into Pakistan in the first place and if the War on Terror was meant to be serious we should have followed them into Pakistan and continued the fight there. No refuge for them, no safe harbour. That was kind of the point.

    Instead Bush half arsed it then moved on to Iraq allowing the Taliban and al'Qaeda to survive and rebuild and have decades of training camps.
    Going into Pakistan is not quite as simple as you make it sound
    Defeatist talk. It's only a nuclear armed power with a standing army of a half a million.
    I was thinking about the politics, but you always have to be so brutish 😉
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 21,296
    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Were I an Afghan woman tonight, I would be doing whatever it takes to get out of the country. They - more than any other group - are hugely at risk under Taliban rule. As they were before.

    But my guess is that we will see a lot of male Afghan refugees soon enough and no-one will ask what has happened to the women and girls.

    I think that's wrong - quite a lot of the recent journalism on the country has been about the potential fate of those who have benefitted from a partial emancipation over the last decade.

    But you're right in suggesting that it's likely there'll be little in the way of practical response.
    There is a lot of journalism now about Afghan women. In 6 months when refugees start turning up how many will ask why the majority are young men rather than the women who are most at risk?
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 5,929
    edited August 2021
    Cyclefree said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Were I an Afghan woman tonight, I would be doing whatever it takes to get out of the country. They - more than any other group - are hugely at risk under Taliban rule. As they were before.

    But my guess is that we will see a lot of male Afghan refugees soon enough and no-one will ask what has happened to the women and girls.

    I think that's wrong - quite a lot of the recent journalism on the country has been about the potential fate of those who have benefitted from a partial emancipation over the last decade.

    But you're right in suggesting that it's likely there'll be little in the way of practical response.
    There is a lot of journalism now about Afghan women. In 6 months when refugees start turning up how many will ask why the majority are young men rather than the women who are most at risk?
    Isn't this because it's easier for young men to do the dangerous illegal journey with the intention of bringing the rest of the family later with family reunion visas once they have refugee status?
This discussion has been closed.