Howdy, Stranger!

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

Debt of Honour – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited August 16 in General
imageDebt of Honour – politicalbetting.com

Films from the 1960’s and 1970’s show Afghan women dressing and behaving much like women in the West. Not all women, of course. As in many countries, older attitudes were found in rural or isolated communities. Changes are never evenly distributed in a country. The same could be said of Iran. It seemed as if emancipation of women and what this meant for their ability to decide for themselves what to do with their lives was happening in countries far away from the West with very different cultural/historical backgrounds. Human rights were indeed universal. Progress was only going one way. Right? 

Read the full story here

«13456789

Comments

  • LeonLeon Posts: 11,427
    The horror continues


    @AhmadKhan319338

    Scene of three Afghans falling from an American plane
    Locals say the men were hiding in the tires or fuses of the plane, which fell on the roofs of houses near Hamed Karzai International Airport as it took off.
    #ZAWIANEWS #Kabul #SanctionOnPakistan #Afghanistan #Talibans


    https://twitter.com/AhmadKhan319338/status/1427183525682352129?s=20


    It's like a nightmarish mix of 9/11, Saigon and a climate change disaster movie.

    These are searing images, and I just don't see how Biden can polish them away now. They cannot be unseen. But, who knows. Humans move on pretty quickly, probably because we'd go mad if we didn't
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 21,536
    Joe Nixon hides while he pulls out of Vietnamistan
  • LeonLeon Posts: 11,427

    Joe Nixon hides while he pulls out of Vietnamistan

    How can Biden NOT talk to America? Or, indeed, the people of Afghanistan, who he has just thrown to the Gestapo? Beyond belief
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 64,643
    Leon said:

    Joe Nixon hides while he pulls out of Vietnamistan

    How can Biden NOT talk to America? Or, indeed, the people of Afghanistan, who he has just thrown to the Gestapo? Beyond belief
    Because he can't even remember his way to his own front door without taking a detour over the lawn and requires a secret service official to guide him back.
  • DennisBetsDennisBets Posts: 220
    So Jack Straw blaming it all on Trump and his withdrawal from world matters
  • https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1427187599396024323

    Priti Patel really getting the priorities absolutely wrong as usual
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 25,813
    I have a few questions on this situation, which might be important:

    *) Who are the current Taliban leadership?
    *) What relationship(s) do they have with the previous Taliban leadership, pre-2002?
    *) How centralised is their control, particularly over all the provinces? (i.e. if they give orders, will most of the provinces and villages obey, either through loyalty or fear?)
    *) Which countries are the current Taliban's paymasters. Pakistan? Russia? Turkey?
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 21,576
    Leon said:

    The horror continues


    @AhmadKhan319338

    Scene of three Afghans falling from an American plane
    Locals say the men were hiding in the tires or fuses of the plane, which fell on the roofs of houses near Hamed Karzai International Airport as it took off.
    #ZAWIANEWS #Kabul #SanctionOnPakistan #Afghanistan #Talibans


    https://twitter.com/AhmadKhan319338/status/1427183525682352129?s=20


    It's like a nightmarish mix of 9/11, Saigon and a climate change disaster movie.

    These are searing images, and I just don't see how Biden can polish them away now. They cannot be unseen. But, who knows. Humans move on pretty quickly, probably because we'd go mad if we didn't

    Perhaps they should have tried fighting the Taliban when they had the chance.
  • DennisBetsDennisBets Posts: 220

    https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1427187599396024323

    Priti Patel really getting the priorities absolutely wrong as usual

    She is blaming it all on someone else, a familiar tune
  • Of course refugees are going to increase from Afghanistan Priti and we should take as many as possible. I do not see how we can refuse to do so when this is literally what the point of the refugee convention is!
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 17,377
    From the BBC news feed:

    "France has also halted the expulsion of Afghans whose asylum applications have been turned down."

    Well yes, one would hope so. I presume the UK has done the same?
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 12,870
    edited August 16
    My two takeaways from the Afghanistan chaos are

    (1) There is and there was zero American appetite for further investment in Afghanistan, including amongst Biden's most trenchant critics. A Taliban government for all Afghanistan was the inevitable consequence of that choice.

    (2) Everyone, with the possible sole exception of the Taliban themselves, was caught out by the speed of the previous regime's collapse. A lot of the blame-shifting centres on that.

    To @Cyclefree's point. Absolutely. We should do what we can do.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 5,209

    Great thread header, not one word of which I would disagree with. Thanks @Cyclefree.

    I concur.

    The answer to her question is no.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 20,651
    Hamas has congratulated the Taliban - https://twitter.com/khaledabutoameh/status/1426979433542455298?s=21.

    No doubt they'll be hoping to get their hands on some of that US military equipment.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 51,490
    Cyclefree said:

    https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1427187599396024323

    Priti Patel really getting the priorities absolutely wrong as usual

    There was a time - in the 1970's - when Tory governments understood and honoured their debts of honour. To Ugandan Asians. Now we have one as Home Secretary and her policy appears to be delay and prevarication so that it will be too late to help anyone, even if we decided to.

    It is not just in Afghanistan that progress goes into reverse.
    Hang on.

    Hong Kong.
  • eekeek Posts: 14,809

    From the BBC news feed:

    "France has also halted the expulsion of Afghans whose asylum applications have been turned down."

    Well yes, one would hope so. I presume the UK has done the same?

    Have your seen our Home Office? On Saturday we withdrew the visa of all Afghan students coming here.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 17,377

    Great thread header, not one word of which I would disagree with. Thanks @Cyclefree.

    I concur.

    The answer to her question is no.
    Sadly, I fear you are right, and I suspect @Cyclefree does too.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 51,490
    eek said:

    From the BBC news feed:

    "France has also halted the expulsion of Afghans whose asylum applications have been turned down."

    Well yes, one would hope so. I presume the UK has done the same?

    Have your seen our Home Office? On Saturday we withdrew the visa of all Afghan students coming here.
    Since reversed:

    https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1427021966024876037?s=20
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 51,490
    Last civilian flight out of Kabul taking off:

    https://www.flightradar24.com/THY6DT/28cd1eca
  • eekeek Posts: 14,809

    eek said:

    From the BBC news feed:

    "France has also halted the expulsion of Afghans whose asylum applications have been turned down."

    Well yes, one would hope so. I presume the UK has done the same?

    Have your seen our Home Office? On Saturday we withdrew the visa of all Afghan students coming here.
    Since reversed:

    https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1427021966024876037?s=20
    And? The fall of Kabul has been obvious for about a week, the only real question was how quickly it would occur.

  • darkagedarkage Posts: 709

    Leon said:

    The horror continues


    @AhmadKhan319338

    Scene of three Afghans falling from an American plane
    Locals say the men were hiding in the tires or fuses of the plane, which fell on the roofs of houses near Hamed Karzai International Airport as it took off.
    #ZAWIANEWS #Kabul #SanctionOnPakistan #Afghanistan #Talibans


    https://twitter.com/AhmadKhan319338/status/1427183525682352129?s=20


    It's like a nightmarish mix of 9/11, Saigon and a climate change disaster movie.

    These are searing images, and I just don't see how Biden can polish them away now. They cannot be unseen. But, who knows. Humans move on pretty quickly, probably because we'd go mad if we didn't

    Perhaps they should have tried fighting the Taliban when they had the chance.
    Easy enough to say this from an armchair in the south of England. But I agree - knowing what we do about the taliban this was obviously going to be the endgame. The scenes at the airport are reflective of the sad reality of war. The people who were going to fight would either have died by now or changed sides.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 6,557
    FPT

    MacArthur got a lot of criticism when he decided to retain a war criminal, Hirohito, as head of state but in retrospect keeping him and working with the remains of the Japanese central government helped the success of the American occupation of Japan, however hurtful it was to those who had suffered under Japanese militarism in the past.

    The abolition of the Iraqi Army in 2003, instead of making use of it, and the complete failure to find any sort of locally acceptable leadership in Afghanistan were what doomed those operations. Back in 2003 I was quite active on the Slate message board. One particularly enthusiastic poster, when faced with the question of what happened after the fall of Baghdad, said “we go in armed with copies of the Federalist Papers and everything else follows”. It was that kind of naivety that doomed military action in both cases. A lack proper, albeit perhaps even more expensive, occupation and rebuilding was what doomed them.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 5,209

    I have a few questions on this situation, which might be important:

    *) Who are the current Taliban leadership?
    *) What relationship(s) do they have with the previous Taliban leadership, pre-2002?
    *) How centralised is their control, particularly over all the provinces? (i.e. if they give orders, will most of the provinces and villages obey, either through loyalty or fear?)
    *) Which countries are the current Taliban's paymasters. Pakistan? Russia? Turkey?

    Don’t underestimate the amount of cash flowing to the Taliban from OECD members like the United Kingdom, due to demand for drugs (ahem Gove etc).

    ‘Afghanistan: How does the Taliban make money?’ (December 2018)

    The group's annual income from 2011 onwards was estimated to be $400m (£316m). But it is believed to have significantly increased in recent years and could be as high as $1.5bn.

    Afghanistan is the world's largest producer of opium.
    With an estimated annual export value of $1.5-$3bn, the opium poppy is big business, supplying the overwhelming majority of illicit heroin worldwide.

    The head of Afghanistan's Electricity Company told the BBC earlier this year that the Taliban was earning more than $2m a year by billing electricity consumers in different parts of the country.

    The mining industry in Afghanistan is worth at least an estimated $1bn.

    Foreign funding: Private citizens from Pakistan and several Gulf countries including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar are considered the largest individual contributors.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-46554097


  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 13,009

    https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1427187599396024323

    Priti Patel really getting the priorities absolutely wrong as usual

    There is a direct answer to Cyclefree's question. What will we do? We will clamp down on these scroungers wanting to come to this country to avoid being raped and enslaved. And repeat the lie that asylum seekers have to seek refuge in the first safe country only.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 56,949
    In the Worst Takes Olympics, a promising medal hopeful steps forward:
    https://twitter.com/Daniel_Sugarman/status/1427188629235974150
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 13,009

    Cyclefree said:

    https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1427187599396024323

    Priti Patel really getting the priorities absolutely wrong as usual

    There was a time - in the 1970's - when Tory governments understood and honoured their debts of honour. To Ugandan Asians. Now we have one as Home Secretary and her policy appears to be delay and prevarication so that it will be too late to help anyone, even if we decided to.

    It is not just in Afghanistan that progress goes into reverse.
    Hang on.

    Hong Kong.
    What about it? We have given the theoretical right for 5.7m people to settle in the UK. As and when they start to come in any numbers Tory/Brexit voters are going to lose their shit.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 5,209

    eek said:

    From the BBC news feed:

    "France has also halted the expulsion of Afghans whose asylum applications have been turned down."

    Well yes, one would hope so. I presume the UK has done the same?

    Have your seen our Home Office? On Saturday we withdrew the visa of all Afghan students coming here.
    Since reversed:

    https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1427021966024876037?s=20
    But it shows the misplaced instincts of The Nasty Party. Whenever they have a choice, they pick the wrong option.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 30,984

    From the BBC news feed:

    "France has also halted the expulsion of Afghans whose asylum applications have been turned down."

    Well yes, one would hope so. I presume the UK has done the same?

    Yes.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 6,557
    eek said:

    From the BBC news feed:

    "France has also halted the expulsion of Afghans whose asylum applications have been turned down."

    Well yes, one would hope so. I presume the UK has done the same?

    Have your seen our Home Office? On Saturday we withdrew the visa of all Afghan students coming here.
    If you ever doubt the occasional value of Twitter, that decision was reversed within 48 hours. I know, I know, small mercies and all that…
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,186

    Last civilian flight out of Kabul taking off:

    https://www.flightradar24.com/THY6DT/28cd1eca

    That looked something of a sporting departure, turning hard as soon as the wheels were up. Well done to everyone involved, hopefully the plane is full.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 5,209
    Yokes said:

    The US is restricting flights out for its Afghan employees to prioritise getting its own citizens out. Not surprising on priority but also suggesting they are somewhat concerned they arent going to get people out before more shit hits the fan.

    As it stands its believed that some US citizens are still in the city, a city occupied by the Taliban so they really are living off the charity of the beards for free passage to assembly points or the airport.

    It looks bad now but it really could go horribly wrong. The Saigon analogy is somewhat apt but there is the danger of another one, Tehran 1980.

    Heads have to roll in UK, US and NATO intelligence. Those boys screwed up big time.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 6,557

    Cyclefree said:

    https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1427187599396024323

    Priti Patel really getting the priorities absolutely wrong as usual

    There was a time - in the 1970's - when Tory governments understood and honoured their debts of honour. To Ugandan Asians. Now we have one as Home Secretary and her policy appears to be delay and prevarication so that it will be too late to help anyone, even if we decided to.

    It is not just in Afghanistan that progress goes into reverse.
    Hang on.

    Hong Kong.
    What about it? We have given the theoretical right for 5.7m people to settle in the UK. As and when they start to come in any numbers Tory/Brexit voters are going to lose their shit.
    @GoodwinMJ
    ·
    Aug 9
    Contrary to tropes about Brexit Britain being an intolerant outlier on the globe stage, the Brits are much less hostile toward immigration than many other developed nations and have become even less so since Brexit

    https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1424719512650371078
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 20,651

    Cyclefree said:

    https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1427187599396024323

    Priti Patel really getting the priorities absolutely wrong as usual

    There was a time - in the 1970's - when Tory governments understood and honoured their debts of honour. To Ugandan Asians. Now we have one as Home Secretary and her policy appears to be delay and prevarication so that it will be too late to help anyone, even if we decided to.

    It is not just in Afghanistan that progress goes into reverse.
    Hang on.

    Hong Kong.
    So why not the same for Afghans, who worked for the army, the British Council, charities, NGO's? Why aren't we doing what Canada is doing? Why the delay - when every hour of delay makes it harder than ever to help, makes it more likely that people will be killed? Why?

    I am so ashamed of my country? There are times when we should just bloody try to do the right thing. This is one of those times.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 88,969
    edited August 16
    The problem is how can we be sure how many of these vast numbers of Afghan refugees will not be former Al Qaeda or militant Jihadi terrorists slipping through the next to launch terror cells in our country and elsewhere? It is a security nightmare.

    The Biden-Harris disaster and capitulation has not only as the article sets out set back womens' rights and freedoms dramatically in Afghanistan it has also reopened a hornets net of potential Jihadi militancy heading for our shores
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 51,490
    China says willing to develop 'friendly relations' with Afghanistan's Taliban

    https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1427192351810887681?s=20
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 13,009
    HYUFD said:

    The problem is how can we be sure how many of these vast numbers of Afghan refugees will not be former Al Qaeda or militant Jihadi terrorists slipping through the next to launch terror cells in our country and elsewhere? It is a security nightmare.

    The Biden-Harris disaster and capitulation has not only as the article sets out set back womens' rights and freedoms dramatically in Afghanistan it has also reopened a hornets net of potential Jihadi militancy heading for our shores

    How can we be sure? We need YOU personally to strap on body armour and get out there. Come on, you frit or what? Man up and do something other than making an embarrassment of yourself with a keyboard.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 88,969
    DougSeal said:

    FPT

    MacArthur got a lot of criticism when he decided to retain a war criminal, Hirohito, as head of state but in retrospect keeping him and working with the remains of the Japanese central government helped the success of the American occupation of Japan, however hurtful it was to those who had suffered under Japanese militarism in the past.

    The abolition of the Iraqi Army in 2003, instead of making use of it, and the complete failure to find any sort of locally acceptable leadership in Afghanistan were what doomed those operations. Back in 2003 I was quite active on the Slate message board. One particularly enthusiastic poster, when faced with the question of what happened after the fall of Baghdad, said “we go in armed with copies of the Federalist Papers and everything else follows”. It was that kind of naivety that doomed military action in both cases. A lack proper, albeit perhaps even more expensive, occupation and rebuilding was what doomed them.

    Iraq is now a democratic government, Saddam is no more however.

  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 21,576

    Of course refugees are going to increase from Afghanistan Priti and we should take as many as possible. I do not see how we can refuse to do so when this is literally what the point of the refugee convention is!

    How many is 'as many as possible' ?

    10k, 100k, a million, more ?

    And how are you going to integrate this multitude from an Islamic fundamentalist failed state into this country ?
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 4,594
    edited August 16
    An excellent thread header. The status of the middle and far east in the 1960's also deserves much more attention in general.

    A slightly more positive sign today is that the Taliban seem quite keen to get international recognition from states like China, Pakistan, and Turkey. There is some streak of pragmatism going on so far that doesn't seem to have been there before. This may be the key reason why they are leaving the foreigners, and others, alone, thus far, and have allowed them to leave peacefully so far.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 18,208
    And here was me thinking we were going to have a quiet August...
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 3,486
    Thanks for the header @Cyclefree agree with all of that and a tragedy indeed. However, @HYUFD does have a valid point, namely that vast numbers of refugees coming in poses a security nightmare and one that I would not trust our security services with which to deal.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 64,643
    GIN1138 said:

    And here was me thinking we were going to have a quiet August...

    Is OGH away?
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 3,486
    HYUFD said:

    The problem is how can we be sure how many of these vast numbers of Afghan refugees will not be former Al Qaeda or militant Jihadi terrorists slipping through the next to launch terror cells in our country and elsewhere? It is a security nightmare.

    The Biden-Harris disaster and capitulation has not only as the article sets out set back womens' rights and freedoms dramatically in Afghanistan it has also reopened a hornets net of potential Jihadi militancy heading for our shores

    Anyone seen AOC or any other members of the Squad talking about what a disaster this is for women's rights? They usually have an opinion on everything.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,124
    Thank you Cyclefree, as always. In one sense it is impossible to disagree -of course. But questions have to be asked about how to make sense of the situation.

    If the majority of Afghans at this moment in fact support some sort of ancient way of running society, including about the nonrights and oppression of women and girls, then it is game over. They have what they want. And we would know, yet again, that the world bears little relation to the BBC's and Guardian's take on it.

    If however a small minority are oppressing a majority, (the standard way of reporting this in the west) then how much longer than 20 years does it take to realise from history that freedoms and liberties are hard won, and have to be defended by massive force of arms and policed by strong civilian forces. No other country is under an obligation to win freedoms for another.

    In the last few days an elected government and state army and police has faced a May 1940 situation, for which they had prior warning and 20 years to organise for. The principle failure belongs there and nowhere else.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 3,486
    Joe might want to update his page after the events in Afghanistan:

    https://joebiden.com/joes-codes/
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 20,651
    HYUFD said:

    The problem is how can we be sure how many of these vast numbers of Afghan refugees will not be former Al Qaeda or militant Jihadi terrorists slipping through the next to launch terror cells in our country and elsewhere? It is a security nightmare.

    The Biden-Harris disaster and capitulation has not only as the article sets out set back womens' rights and freedoms dramatically in Afghanistan it has also reopened a hornets net of potential Jihadi militancy heading for our shores

    If they were good enough to work for the British Army and the British Council and NGO's funded by us , then they are good enough to be rescued.

    Still, congratulations. For the last few threads you've been on and on about how we should have stayed in the country to stop it turning into a haven for terrorists and now without missing a beat you accuse those who were working to turn the country into a civilised non-terrorist state of being potential or actual terrorists.

    Let me put a human face to the people I am talking about. Here - a woman, a journalist, a single mother with 2 daughters: https://twitter.com/samirashackle/status/1427039953796665345?s=21.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 67,957

    From the BBC news feed:

    "France has also halted the expulsion of Afghans whose asylum applications have been turned down."

    Well yes, one would hope so. I presume the UK has done the same?

    There's been a material change in circumstance there. I'd expect all asylum applications involving nationals from Afghanistan to be re-examined.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 24,423
    HYUFD said:

    DougSeal said:

    FPT

    MacArthur got a lot of criticism when he decided to retain a war criminal, Hirohito, as head of state but in retrospect keeping him and working with the remains of the Japanese central government helped the success of the American occupation of Japan, however hurtful it was to those who had suffered under Japanese militarism in the past.

    The abolition of the Iraqi Army in 2003, instead of making use of it, and the complete failure to find any sort of locally acceptable leadership in Afghanistan were what doomed those operations. Back in 2003 I was quite active on the Slate message board. One particularly enthusiastic poster, when faced with the question of what happened after the fall of Baghdad, said “we go in armed with copies of the Federalist Papers and everything else follows”. It was that kind of naivety that doomed military action in both cases. A lack proper, albeit perhaps even more expensive, occupation and rebuilding was what doomed them.

    Iraq is now a democratic government, Saddam is no more however.

    Agree, in part. The second part. Do you think Iraq is a now a desirable place to live? Or visit?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 88,969

    HYUFD said:

    The problem is how can we be sure how many of these vast numbers of Afghan refugees will not be former Al Qaeda or militant Jihadi terrorists slipping through the next to launch terror cells in our country and elsewhere? It is a security nightmare.

    The Biden-Harris disaster and capitulation has not only as the article sets out set back womens' rights and freedoms dramatically in Afghanistan it has also reopened a hornets net of potential Jihadi militancy heading for our shores

    How can we be sure? We need YOU personally to strap on body armour and get out there. Come on, you frit or what? Man up and do something other than making an embarrassment of yourself with a keyboard.
    If appeasers like you were in charge Bin Laden would still be alive and the Taliban would never have lost Afghanistan let alone needed to regain it and we would have had 9/11 2 years ago.

    Kudos to Blair and Bush for their swift actions in 2001 in removing the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Just so sad Biden has withdrawn and handed it back to them on a plate and disappointed Boris has not stood up to Biden more on this too
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 709
    The reality of this is as Ben Wallace said. The British will help the people that passed security clearance and worked for us - although this is a few thousand people.

    There is then going to be a very, very large subset of Afghan society who were connected to the regime in some way, amounting to millions of people, who will be subject to kafkaesque vagaries of the international asylum system if they manage to get out. I would guess that these are the people who are stuck at the airport now, or have already got out on some kind of temporary visa. Unless they have access to some kind of significant financial resource, they will be stuck in limbo for many years, and potentially subject to all kinds of nightmareish realities as they try and navigate passage to safe countries whilst being effectively stateless. If you are used to a comfortable middle class life, as we all are, it may well be a fate worse than death. Certainly, life under the taliban might not seem too bad in comparison, if they let you live.

    Reading this website, the same people who are saying that 'we need to sort out the problems in the channel' then react to events like this and declare that we need to immediately grant asylum to X people (artists/human rights activists/ women/ children etc etc). It is an understandable reaction but is one that poses a simple answer to an intractable problem.

    We should recognise that we can't save the world and start to see problem as an essentially intractible one. This way we are more likely to come up with better and more realistic ideas about how to deal with the large numbers of people fleeing war zones and brutal regimes.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 51,490
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1427187599396024323

    Priti Patel really getting the priorities absolutely wrong as usual

    There was a time - in the 1970's - when Tory governments understood and honoured their debts of honour. To Ugandan Asians. Now we have one as Home Secretary and her policy appears to be delay and prevarication so that it will be too late to help anyone, even if we decided to.

    It is not just in Afghanistan that progress goes into reverse.
    Hang on.

    Hong Kong.
    So why not the same for Afghans, who worked for the army, the British Council, charities, NGO's? Why aren't we doing what Canada is doing? Why the delay - when every hour of delay makes it harder than ever to help, makes it more likely that people will be killed? Why?

    I am so ashamed of my country? There are times when we should just bloody try to do the right thing. This is one of those times.
    My point is the record is patchy - some good (Hong Kong), some bad (Gurkhas, now Afghanistan). Rather than "Torees are evillll" - the question is "why"?
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 13,009
    GIN1138 said:

    And here was me thinking we were going to have a quiet August...

    Mrs RP has started work today at her new school and the kids go back to their schools tomorrow. Will be quiet after that...
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 14,551
    edited August 16
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    The problem is how can we be sure how many of these vast numbers of Afghan refugees will not be former Al Qaeda or militant Jihadi terrorists slipping through the next to launch terror cells in our country and elsewhere? It is a security nightmare.

    The Biden-Harris disaster and capitulation has not only as the article sets out set back womens' rights and freedoms dramatically in Afghanistan it has also reopened a hornets net of potential Jihadi militancy heading for our shores

    How can we be sure? We need YOU personally to strap on body armour and get out there. Come on, you frit or what? Man up and do something other than making an embarrassment of yourself with a keyboard.
    If appeasers like you were in charge Bin Laden would still be alive and the Taliban would never have lost Afghanistan let alone needed to regain it and we would have had 9/11 2 years ago.

    Kudos to Blair and Bush for their swift actions in 2001 in removing the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Just so sad Biden has withdrawn and handed it back to them on a plate and disappointed Boris has not stood up to Biden more on this too
    If you think it is Mr Biden's disaster then it is also Mr Johnson's (and Messrs Raab's and Wallace's) disaster. Do you think they should resign?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 20,651

    China says willing to develop 'friendly relations' with Afghanistan's Taliban

    https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1427192351810887681?s=20

    algarkirk said:

    Thank you Cyclefree, as always. In one sense it is impossible to disagree -of course. But questions have to be asked about how to make sense of the situation.

    If the majority of Afghans at this moment in fact support some sort of ancient way of running society, including about the nonrights and oppression of women and girls, then it is game over. They have what they want. And we would know, yet again, that the world bears little relation to the BBC's and Guardian's take on it.

    If however a small minority are oppressing a majority, (the standard way of reporting this in the west) then how much longer than 20 years does it take to realise from history that freedoms and liberties are hard won, and have to be defended by massive force of arms and policed by strong civilian forces. No other country is under an obligation to win freedoms for another.

    In the last few days an elected government and state army and police has faced a May 1940 situation, for which they had prior warning and 20 years to organise for. The principle failure belongs there and nowhere else.

    Agreed. We are fundamentally naive about the strength and attractiveness of theocratic cultures and about how long it took for democracy to develop in the West. We have forgotten our own history and so we keep on making the same mistakes when trying to help other countries.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 5,209
    edited August 16
    HYUFD said:

    Charles said:

    Pope Francis 'wants to hold Mass in Scotland' during COP26 summit in Glasgow

    The report quotes a source saying the Pope would like to say a Mass for Scots.

    “It would have to fit in with his address to the conference and his meetings with the bishops. There is some doubt about whether it can be fitted in, but the Pope says Mass every day and would like to say a Mass for the people of Scotland.“

    https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/pope-francis-wants-hold-mass-24763099.amp

    Why is that news/controversial? I’m sure there will be some logistics in making it COVID compliant but that’s it
    Well, it’s not controversial (does absolutely everything we discuss on here have to be controversial?), but it is most certainly news! Papal visits are extremely rare and have historically been extremely popular events.

    There have only ever been two papal visits to Scotland:

    5th century: conversion of Scotland to Christianity begins
    1982 papal visit
    2010 papal visit
    2021 papal visit

    So, yes Charles, this is news! (Average is about one visit per 500 years.)

    The 1982 visit is imprinted on my childhood memory. It was immense.
    Percentage wise there are more Catholics in Scotland than England, 16% of the population to 10%, so it makes sense for the Pope to go. Scotland is the second most Catholic part of the British isles after Ireland.

    Of course the last Queen of Scotland, Mary Queen of Scots was a Catholic still even when her cousin Elizabeth 1st was a Protestant Queen of England
    With some HY posts one doesn’t really know where to start. I think his strategy is to suck the will to live out of his opponents.

    If we ignore the fact that Scotland currently has a queen, Elizabeth I, then the last queen of an independent Scotland was not Mary I (1542-1567), but Anne (reign 1702-1714).

    And of course Mary, also briefly Queen of France, was a Catholic whereas Elisabeth was a Protestant. The English Reformation was in 1532-34 whereas the Scottish Reformation was much later, 1557-60.

    And the papal visit has zilch to do with how many catholics a country has. The pope visits places where fractions of a percent are catholic and also the opposite extreme.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 20,651
    MrEd said:

    HYUFD said:

    The problem is how can we be sure how many of these vast numbers of Afghan refugees will not be former Al Qaeda or militant Jihadi terrorists slipping through the next to launch terror cells in our country and elsewhere? It is a security nightmare.

    The Biden-Harris disaster and capitulation has not only as the article sets out set back womens' rights and freedoms dramatically in Afghanistan it has also reopened a hornets net of potential Jihadi militancy heading for our shores

    Anyone seen AOC or any other members of the Squad talking about what a disaster this is for women's rights? They usually have an opinion on everything.
    You can enjoy, if that is the mot juste, Varoufakis's take on it here - https://twitter.com/yanisvaroufakis/status/1427012544523296774?s=21.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 88,969
    edited August 16
    HYUFD said:

    Charles said:

    Pope Francis 'wants to hold Mass in Scotland' during COP26 summit in Glasgow

    The report quotes a source saying the Pope would like to say a Mass for Scots.

    “It would have to fit in with his address to the conference and his meetings with the bishops. There is some doubt about whether it can be fitted in, but the Pope says Mass every day and would like to say a Mass for the people of Scotland.“

    https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/pope-francis-wants-hold-mass-24763099.amp

    Why is that news/controversial? I’m sure there will be some logistics in making it COVID compliant but that’s it
    Well, it’s not controversial (does absolutely everything we discuss on here have to be controversial?), but it is most certainly news! Papal visits are extremely rare and have historically been extremely popular events.

    There have only ever been two papal visits to Scotland:

    5th century: conversion of Scotland to Christianity begins
    1982 papal visit
    2010 papal visit
    2021 papal visit

    So, yes Charles, this is news! (Average is about one visit per 500 years.)

    The 1982 visit is imprinted on my childhood memory. It was immense.
    Percentage wise there are more Catholics in Scotland than England, 16% of the population to 10%, so it makes sense for the Pope to go. Scotland is the second most Catholic part of the British isles after Ireland.

    Of course the last Queen of Scotland, Mary Queen of Scots was a Catholic still even when her cousin Elizabeth 1st was a Protestant Queen of England
    'With some HY posts one doesn’t really know where to start. I think his strategy is to suck the will to live out of his opponents.

    If we ignore the fact that Scotland currently has a queen, Elizabeth I, then the last queen of an independent Scotland was not Mary I (1542-1567), but Anne (reign 1702-1714).

    And of course Mary, also briefly Queen of France, was a Catholic whereas Elisabeth was a Protestant. The English Reformation was in 1532-34 whereas the Scottish Reformation was much later, 1557-60.

    And the papal visit has zilch to do with how many catholics a country has. The pope visits places where fractions of a percent are catholic and also the opposite extreme.'

    Anne was Queen of England and Scotland, does not count. Mary Queen of Scots was Queen of Scotland alone (apart from 1 year when she was Queen of France by marriage). I have also not noticed Elizabeth 1st rising from the dead to take the place of our current Queen Elizabeth IInd?

    The Pope obviously makes more visits to majority Catholic areas, hence he makes far more visits to Ireland, Latin America, Poland and the Philippines than he does to Northern Ireland, the southern and Eastern USA, India, Saudi Arabia and Japan
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 24,423
    Listening to the BBC interview with the Taliban's Suhail Shaheen with Yalda Hakim. I wonder how much he can be believed; I suspect in principle, in some parts of Afghanistan, but not universally.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 13,009
    Pulpstar said:

    From the BBC news feed:

    "France has also halted the expulsion of Afghans whose asylum applications have been turned down."

    Well yes, one would hope so. I presume the UK has done the same?

    There's been a material change in circumstance there. I'd expect all asylum applications involving nationals from Afghanistan to be re-examined.
    From the new off-shore internment camp shortly to be opened by a smirking Priti Patel. The Taliban can offer us the use of the Parwan Detention camp at Bagram Airforce Base at a keen price, ticking the box of the "send the forrin away" advocates.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 14,551
    Cyclefree said:

    China says willing to develop 'friendly relations' with Afghanistan's Taliban

    https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1427192351810887681?s=20

    algarkirk said:

    Thank you Cyclefree, as always. In one sense it is impossible to disagree -of course. But questions have to be asked about how to make sense of the situation.

    If the majority of Afghans at this moment in fact support some sort of ancient way of running society, including about the nonrights and oppression of women and girls, then it is game over. They have what they want. And we would know, yet again, that the world bears little relation to the BBC's and Guardian's take on it.

    If however a small minority are oppressing a majority, (the standard way of reporting this in the west) then how much longer than 20 years does it take to realise from history that freedoms and liberties are hard won, and have to be defended by massive force of arms and policed by strong civilian forces. No other country is under an obligation to win freedoms for another.

    In the last few days an elected government and state army and police has faced a May 1940 situation, for which they had prior warning and 20 years to organise for. The principle failure belongs there and nowhere else.

    Agreed. We are fundamentally naive about the strength and attractiveness of theocratic cultures and about how long it took for democracy to develop in the West. We have forgotten our own history and so we keep on making the same mistakes when trying to help other countries.
    Indeed. This reminds me that I was somewhat surprised at general incomprehension in the UK over the Iranian Revolution: but that was because even then I knew something of what had happened in Scotland during and after the Reformation. The combination of a native religious movement and leaders imposed by foreign powers doesn't often go well.
  • TazTaz Posts: 2,004
    Yes, we will. The public will demand it.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 20,651

    Of course refugees are going to increase from Afghanistan Priti and we should take as many as possible. I do not see how we can refuse to do so when this is literally what the point of the refugee convention is!

    How many is 'as many as possible' ?

    10k, 100k, a million, more ?

    And how are you going to integrate this multitude from an Islamic fundamentalist failed state into this country ?
    We cannot take millions. We can try to help those who worked for the British Army, the British Council and other British-run/paid-for institutions. We can try to prioritise women and girls, those most at risk. We can do something for a few. It is better than nothing. It is not that much to ask.

    We keep saying that the reason we don't want fit young men in boats from France is because that stops us helping genuine refugees. Well, now we have a chance to help some of those genuine refugees and once again we hear excuses for why we can't help these ones either.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 11,427
    One tiny story in the ongoing nightmare. A thread

    "To give a small sense of the nightmare unfolding for Afghans: weeks ago, my friend in Kabul, a female TV journalist and single mother of two, asked me to help her find info about legal routes out of the country."

    https://twitter.com/samirashackle/status/1427039953796665345?s=20
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 18,702
    Cyclefree said:

    China says willing to develop 'friendly relations' with Afghanistan's Taliban

    https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1427192351810887681?s=20

    algarkirk said:

    Thank you Cyclefree, as always. In one sense it is impossible to disagree -of course. But questions have to be asked about how to make sense of the situation.

    If the majority of Afghans at this moment in fact support some sort of ancient way of running society, including about the nonrights and oppression of women and girls, then it is game over. They have what they want. And we would know, yet again, that the world bears little relation to the BBC's and Guardian's take on it.

    If however a small minority are oppressing a majority, (the standard way of reporting this in the west) then how much longer than 20 years does it take to realise from history that freedoms and liberties are hard won, and have to be defended by massive force of arms and policed by strong civilian forces. No other country is under an obligation to win freedoms for another.

    In the last few days an elected government and state army and police has faced a May 1940 situation, for which they had prior warning and 20 years to organise for. The principle failure belongs there and nowhere else.

    Agreed. We are fundamentally naive about the strength and attractiveness of theocratic cultures and about how long it took for democracy to develop in the West. We have forgotten our own history and so we keep on making the same mistakes when trying to help other countries.
    For many people, an absolute set of rules to conform to is comforting. Many also find the "randomness" of the scientific universe frightening.

    Hence the very modern, very progressive types reaching for any kind of nonsense they can invest their religious instincts in.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 14,551

    HYUFD said:

    Charles said:

    Pope Francis 'wants to hold Mass in Scotland' during COP26 summit in Glasgow

    The report quotes a source saying the Pope would like to say a Mass for Scots.

    “It would have to fit in with his address to the conference and his meetings with the bishops. There is some doubt about whether it can be fitted in, but the Pope says Mass every day and would like to say a Mass for the people of Scotland.“

    https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/pope-francis-wants-hold-mass-24763099.amp

    Why is that news/controversial? I’m sure there will be some logistics in making it COVID compliant but that’s it
    Well, it’s not controversial (does absolutely everything we discuss on here have to be controversial?), but it is most certainly news! Papal visits are extremely rare and have historically been extremely popular events.

    There have only ever been two papal visits to Scotland:

    5th century: conversion of Scotland to Christianity begins
    1982 papal visit
    2010 papal visit
    2021 papal visit

    So, yes Charles, this is news! (Average is about one visit per 500 years.)

    The 1982 visit is imprinted on my childhood memory. It was immense.
    Percentage wise there are more Catholics in Scotland than England, 16% of the population to 10%, so it makes sense for the Pope to go. Scotland is the second most Catholic part of the British isles after Ireland.

    Of course the last Queen of Scotland, Mary Queen of Scots was a Catholic still even when her cousin Elizabeth 1st was a Protestant Queen of England
    With some HY posts one doesn’t really know where to start. I think his strategy is to suck the will to live out of his opponents.

    If we ignore the fact that Scotland currently has a queen, Elizabeth I, then the last queen of an independent Scotland was not Mary I (1542-1567), but Anne (reign 1702-1714).

    And of course Mary, also briefly Queen of France, was a Catholic whereas Elisabeth was a Protestant. The English Reformation was in 1532-34 whereas the Scottish Reformation was much later, 1557-60.

    And the papal visit has zilch to do with how many catholics a country has. The pope visits places where fractions of a percent are catholic and also the opposite extreme.
    Also, no such thing as HYUFD's "Queen of Scotland". It's Queen of Scots - a quite different thing, and not just terminologically.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 88,969
    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    The problem is how can we be sure how many of these vast numbers of Afghan refugees will not be former Al Qaeda or militant Jihadi terrorists slipping through the next to launch terror cells in our country and elsewhere? It is a security nightmare.

    The Biden-Harris disaster and capitulation has not only as the article sets out set back womens' rights and freedoms dramatically in Afghanistan it has also reopened a hornets net of potential Jihadi militancy heading for our shores

    If they were good enough to work for the British Army and the British Council and NGO's funded by us , then they are good enough to be rescued.

    Still, congratulations. For the last few threads you've been on and on about how we should have stayed in the country to stop it turning into a haven for terrorists and now without missing a beat you accuse those who were working to turn the country into a civilised non-terrorist state of being potential or actual terrorists.

    Let me put a human face to the people I am talking about. Here - a woman, a journalist, a single mother with 2 daughters: https://twitter.com/samirashackle/status/1427039953796665345?s=21.
    Fine but now Biden has let Afghanistan collapse into a terrorist state again sadly they will not all be innocents like them wanting to come here, it will be a very difficult job to identify who is genuine and who is not
  • CiceroCicero Posts: 808
    HYUFD said:

    DougSeal said:

    FPT

    MacArthur got a lot of criticism when he decided to retain a war criminal, Hirohito, as head of state but in retrospect keeping him and working with the remains of the Japanese central government helped the success of the American occupation of Japan, however hurtful it was to those who had suffered under Japanese militarism in the past.

    The abolition of the Iraqi Army in 2003, instead of making use of it, and the complete failure to find any sort of locally acceptable leadership in Afghanistan were what doomed those operations. Back in 2003 I was quite active on the Slate message board. One particularly enthusiastic poster, when faced with the question of what happened after the fall of Baghdad, said “we go in armed with copies of the Federalist Papers and everything else follows”. It was that kind of naivety that doomed military action in both cases. A lack proper, albeit perhaps even more expensive, occupation and rebuilding was what doomed them.

    Iraq is now a democratic government, Saddam is no more however.

    "Democratic".... Iraq is rated "Not Free" by Freedom House. https://freedomhouse.org/country/iraq

  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,186
    Cyclefree said:

    Of course refugees are going to increase from Afghanistan Priti and we should take as many as possible. I do not see how we can refuse to do so when this is literally what the point of the refugee convention is!

    How many is 'as many as possible' ?

    10k, 100k, a million, more ?

    And how are you going to integrate this multitude from an Islamic fundamentalist failed state into this country ?
    We cannot take millions. We can try to help those who worked for the British Army, the British Council and other British-run/paid-for institutions. We can try to prioritise women and girls, those most at risk. We can do something for a few. It is better than nothing. It is not that much to ask.

    We keep saying that the reason we don't want fit young men in boats from France is because that stops us helping genuine refugees. Well, now we have a chance to help some of those genuine refugees and once again we hear excuses for why we can't help these ones either.
    Well, this guy at least has gone up in my estimation

    https://order-order.com/2021/08/16/watch-ben-wallace-reduced-to-tears-over-afghanistan/
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 21,576
    Cyclefree said:

    Of course refugees are going to increase from Afghanistan Priti and we should take as many as possible. I do not see how we can refuse to do so when this is literally what the point of the refugee convention is!

    How many is 'as many as possible' ?

    10k, 100k, a million, more ?

    And how are you going to integrate this multitude from an Islamic fundamentalist failed state into this country ?
    We cannot take millions. We can try to help those who worked for the British Army, the British Council and other British-run/paid-for institutions. We can try to prioritise women and girls, those most at risk. We can do something for a few. It is better than nothing. It is not that much to ask.

    We keep saying that the reason we don't want fit young men in boats from France is because that stops us helping genuine refugees. Well, now we have a chance to help some of those genuine refugees and once again we hear excuses for why we can't help these ones either.
    I'm happy to take people who have worked for the British government but you're being incredibly naive if you think it would stop there.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 4,594
    edited August 16
    Carnyx said:

    Cyclefree said:

    China says willing to develop 'friendly relations' with Afghanistan's Taliban

    https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1427192351810887681?s=20

    algarkirk said:

    Thank you Cyclefree, as always. In one sense it is impossible to disagree -of course. But questions have to be asked about how to make sense of the situation.

    If the majority of Afghans at this moment in fact support some sort of ancient way of running society, including about the nonrights and oppression of women and girls, then it is game over. They have what they want. And we would know, yet again, that the world bears little relation to the BBC's and Guardian's take on it.

    If however a small minority are oppressing a majority, (the standard way of reporting this in the west) then how much longer than 20 years does it take to realise from history that freedoms and liberties are hard won, and have to be defended by massive force of arms and policed by strong civilian forces. No other country is under an obligation to win freedoms for another.

    In the last few days an elected government and state army and police has faced a May 1940 situation, for which they had prior warning and 20 years to organise for. The principle failure belongs there and nowhere else.

    Agreed. We are fundamentally naive about the strength and attractiveness of theocratic cultures and about how long it took for democracy to develop in the West. We have forgotten our own history and so we keep on making the same mistakes when trying to help other countries.
    Indeed. This reminds me that I was somewhat surprised at general incomprehension in the UK over the Iranian Revolution: but that was because even then I knew something of what had happened in Scotland during and after the Reformation. The combination of a native religious movement and leaders imposed by foreign powers doesn't often go well.
    We mustn't forget that Khomeini also manipulated a large leftist movement, with long and understandable grievances against British and American interference, to his own advantage, though. Many educated Tehranis of the 1970s era, who had participated in student protests against the Shah in the late 1970s, found themselves bemused to be living in a religious autocracy by the early 1980s. In part it was the gradual loss of confidence of the left worldwide from the late 1970's, with others filling the vacuum.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 13,009
    Taz said:

    Yes, we will. The public will demand it.

    The public are demanding that we deport bogus refugees to off-shore detention centres like the one at Bagram AFB. Perhaps we could ask the Taliban to just bus them from Kabul to save the hassle of flying them to London and back.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 14,551

    Carnyx said:

    Cyclefree said:

    China says willing to develop 'friendly relations' with Afghanistan's Taliban

    https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1427192351810887681?s=20

    algarkirk said:

    Thank you Cyclefree, as always. In one sense it is impossible to disagree -of course. But questions have to be asked about how to make sense of the situation.

    If the majority of Afghans at this moment in fact support some sort of ancient way of running society, including about the nonrights and oppression of women and girls, then it is game over. They have what they want. And we would know, yet again, that the world bears little relation to the BBC's and Guardian's take on it.

    If however a small minority are oppressing a majority, (the standard way of reporting this in the west) then how much longer than 20 years does it take to realise from history that freedoms and liberties are hard won, and have to be defended by massive force of arms and policed by strong civilian forces. No other country is under an obligation to win freedoms for another.

    In the last few days an elected government and state army and police has faced a May 1940 situation, for which they had prior warning and 20 years to organise for. The principle failure belongs there and nowhere else.

    Agreed. We are fundamentally naive about the strength and attractiveness of theocratic cultures and about how long it took for democracy to develop in the West. We have forgotten our own history and so we keep on making the same mistakes when trying to help other countries.
    Indeed. This reminds me that I was somewhat surprised at general incomprehension in the UK over the Iranian Revolution: but that was because even then I knew something of what had happened in Scotland during and after the Reformation. The combination of a native religious movement and leaders imposed by foreign powers doesn't often go well.
    We mustn't forget that Khomeini also manipulated a large leftist movement to his own advantage, though. Many educated Tehranis of the 1970s era, who had participated in student protests against the Shah in the late 1970's, found themselves bemused to be living in a religious autocracy by the early 1980's. In part it was the gradual loss of confidence of the left worldwide from the late 1970's.
    Quite so. I wouldn't be claiming a complete analogy - just that it backed up Cyclefree's general point.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,124
    Cyclefree said:

    China says willing to develop 'friendly relations' with Afghanistan's Taliban

    https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1427192351810887681?s=20

    algarkirk said:

    Thank you Cyclefree, as always. In one sense it is impossible to disagree -of course. But questions have to be asked about how to make sense of the situation.

    If the majority of Afghans at this moment in fact support some sort of ancient way of running society, including about the nonrights and oppression of women and girls, then it is game over. They have what they want. And we would know, yet again, that the world bears little relation to the BBC's and Guardian's take on it.

    If however a small minority are oppressing a majority, (the standard way of reporting this in the west) then how much longer than 20 years does it take to realise from history that freedoms and liberties are hard won, and have to be defended by massive force of arms and policed by strong civilian forces. No other country is under an obligation to win freedoms for another.

    In the last few days an elected government and state army and police has faced a May 1940 situation, for which they had prior warning and 20 years to organise for. The principle failure belongs there and nowhere else.

    Agreed. We are fundamentally naive about the strength and attractiveness of theocratic cultures and about how long it took for democracy to develop in the West. We have forgotten our own history and so we keep on making the same mistakes when trying to help other countries.
    Yes. BTW among the worst of cultures in recent times have been non theocratic ones, Nazi Germany, China, USSR. Theocracy as in Iran, Saudi etc seem to me to be less about God (especially the sort of God revealed in the lives of the great gurus and mystics) and more about using the word 'God' as a cover for extremely ungodly human ambitions.

    It's a pretty long road from Guru Nanak or Julian of Norwich to chucking your opponents off a cliff.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 88,969
    Cicero said:

    HYUFD said:

    DougSeal said:

    FPT

    MacArthur got a lot of criticism when he decided to retain a war criminal, Hirohito, as head of state but in retrospect keeping him and working with the remains of the Japanese central government helped the success of the American occupation of Japan, however hurtful it was to those who had suffered under Japanese militarism in the past.

    The abolition of the Iraqi Army in 2003, instead of making use of it, and the complete failure to find any sort of locally acceptable leadership in Afghanistan were what doomed those operations. Back in 2003 I was quite active on the Slate message board. One particularly enthusiastic poster, when faced with the question of what happened after the fall of Baghdad, said “we go in armed with copies of the Federalist Papers and everything else follows”. It was that kind of naivety that doomed military action in both cases. A lack proper, albeit perhaps even more expensive, occupation and rebuilding was what doomed them.

    Iraq is now a democratic government, Saddam is no more however.

    "Democratic".... Iraq is rated "Not Free" by Freedom House. https://freedomhouse.org/country/iraq

    It has a score of 29 now, far better than it had under Saddam and now better than Iran on 16, Saudi on 7, Syria on 1 and even better than Russia on 20
    https://freedomhouse.org/countries/freedom-world/scores
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 18,702

    Carnyx said:

    Cyclefree said:

    China says willing to develop 'friendly relations' with Afghanistan's Taliban

    https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1427192351810887681?s=20

    algarkirk said:

    Thank you Cyclefree, as always. In one sense it is impossible to disagree -of course. But questions have to be asked about how to make sense of the situation.

    If the majority of Afghans at this moment in fact support some sort of ancient way of running society, including about the nonrights and oppression of women and girls, then it is game over. They have what they want. And we would know, yet again, that the world bears little relation to the BBC's and Guardian's take on it.

    If however a small minority are oppressing a majority, (the standard way of reporting this in the west) then how much longer than 20 years does it take to realise from history that freedoms and liberties are hard won, and have to be defended by massive force of arms and policed by strong civilian forces. No other country is under an obligation to win freedoms for another.

    In the last few days an elected government and state army and police has faced a May 1940 situation, for which they had prior warning and 20 years to organise for. The principle failure belongs there and nowhere else.

    Agreed. We are fundamentally naive about the strength and attractiveness of theocratic cultures and about how long it took for democracy to develop in the West. We have forgotten our own history and so we keep on making the same mistakes when trying to help other countries.
    Indeed. This reminds me that I was somewhat surprised at general incomprehension in the UK over the Iranian Revolution: but that was because even then I knew something of what had happened in Scotland during and after the Reformation. The combination of a native religious movement and leaders imposed by foreign powers doesn't often go well.
    We mustn't forget that Khomeini also manipulated a large leftist movement to his own advantage, though. Many educated Tehranis of the 1970s era, who had participated in student protests against the Shah in the late 1970s, found themselves bemused to be living in a religious autocracy in the early 1980s. In part it was the gradual loss of confidence of the left worldwide from the later 1970's, with others filling the vacuum.
    It's an old, sick joke that a big chunk of the left wanted to join the "Death to The West" types - because they hated the West as well.

    They were rather upset to be told that they (the leftists) were counted as part of "The West"
  • eekeek Posts: 14,809

    Cyclefree said:

    Of course refugees are going to increase from Afghanistan Priti and we should take as many as possible. I do not see how we can refuse to do so when this is literally what the point of the refugee convention is!

    How many is 'as many as possible' ?

    10k, 100k, a million, more ?

    And how are you going to integrate this multitude from an Islamic fundamentalist failed state into this country ?
    We cannot take millions. We can try to help those who worked for the British Army, the British Council and other British-run/paid-for institutions. We can try to prioritise women and girls, those most at risk. We can do something for a few. It is better than nothing. It is not that much to ask.

    We keep saying that the reason we don't want fit young men in boats from France is because that stops us helping genuine refugees. Well, now we have a chance to help some of those genuine refugees and once again we hear excuses for why we can't help these ones either.
    I'm happy to take people who have worked for the British government but you're being incredibly naive if you think it would stop there.
    Why do I suspect your definition of worked for the British Government is going to be way more stricter than mine.

    Most of the people we used were employed by third parties - in my world, given their jobs I believe they should be brought into the UK, but I suspect you would use that technicality to rule them out.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 17,377
    edited August 16
    HYUFD said:


    HYUFD said:

    Charles said:

    Pope Francis 'wants to hold Mass in Scotland' during COP26 summit in Glasgow

    The report quotes a source saying the Pope would like to say a Mass for Scots.

    “It would have to fit in with his address to the conference and his meetings with the bishops. There is some doubt about whether it can be fitted in, but the Pope says Mass every day and would like to say a Mass for the people of Scotland.“

    https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/pope-francis-wants-hold-mass-24763099.amp

    Why is that news/controversial? I’m sure there will be some logistics in making it COVID compliant but that’s it
    Well, it’s not controversial (does absolutely everything we discuss on here have to be controversial?), but it is most certainly news! Papal visits are extremely rare and have historically been extremely popular events.

    There have only ever been two papal visits to Scotland:

    5th century: conversion of Scotland to Christianity begins
    1982 papal visit
    2010 papal visit
    2021 papal visit

    So, yes Charles, this is news! (Average is about one visit per 500 years.)

    The 1982 visit is imprinted on my childhood memory. It was immense.
    Percentage wise there are more Catholics in Scotland than England, 16% of the population to 10%, so it makes sense for the Pope to go. Scotland is the second most Catholic part of the British isles after Ireland.

    Of course the last Queen of Scotland, Mary Queen of Scots was a Catholic still even when her cousin Elizabeth 1st was a Protestant Queen of England
    'With some HY posts one doesn’t really know where to start. I think his strategy is to suck the will to live out of his opponents.

    If we ignore the fact that Scotland currently has a queen, Elizabeth I, then the last queen of an independent Scotland was not Mary I (1542-1567), but Anne (reign 1702-1714).

    And of course Mary, also briefly Queen of France, was a Catholic whereas Elisabeth was a Protestant. The English Reformation was in 1532-34 whereas the Scottish Reformation was much later, 1557-60.

    And the papal visit has zilch to do with how many catholics a country has. The pope visits places where fractions of a percent are catholic and also the opposite extreme.'

    Anne was Queen of England and Scotland, does not count. Mary Queen of Scots was Queen of Scotland alone. I have also not noticed Elizabeth 1st rising from the dead to take the place of our current Queen Elizabeth IInd?

    The Pope obviously makes more visits to majority Catholic areas, hence he makes far more visits to Ireland, Latin America, Poland and the Philippines than he does to Northern Ireland, the USA, India and Japan
    @HYUFD now arguing with himself lol!
  • TazTaz Posts: 2,004

    Taz said:

    Yes, we will. The public will demand it.

    The public are demanding that we deport bogus refugees to off-shore detention centres like the one at Bagram AFB. Perhaps we could ask the Taliban to just bus them from Kabul to save the hassle of flying them to London and back.
    Have a day off mate.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 18,702
    algarkirk said:

    Cyclefree said:

    China says willing to develop 'friendly relations' with Afghanistan's Taliban

    https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1427192351810887681?s=20

    algarkirk said:

    Thank you Cyclefree, as always. In one sense it is impossible to disagree -of course. But questions have to be asked about how to make sense of the situation.

    If the majority of Afghans at this moment in fact support some sort of ancient way of running society, including about the nonrights and oppression of women and girls, then it is game over. They have what they want. And we would know, yet again, that the world bears little relation to the BBC's and Guardian's take on it.

    If however a small minority are oppressing a majority, (the standard way of reporting this in the west) then how much longer than 20 years does it take to realise from history that freedoms and liberties are hard won, and have to be defended by massive force of arms and policed by strong civilian forces. No other country is under an obligation to win freedoms for another.

    In the last few days an elected government and state army and police has faced a May 1940 situation, for which they had prior warning and 20 years to organise for. The principle failure belongs there and nowhere else.

    Agreed. We are fundamentally naive about the strength and attractiveness of theocratic cultures and about how long it took for democracy to develop in the West. We have forgotten our own history and so we keep on making the same mistakes when trying to help other countries.
    Yes. BTW among the worst of cultures in recent times have been non theocratic ones, Nazi Germany, China, USSR. Theocracy as in Iran, Saudi etc seem to me to be less about God (especially the sort of God revealed in the lives of the great gurus and mystics) and more about using the word 'God' as a cover for extremely ungodly human ambitions.

    It's a pretty long road from Guru Nanak or Julian of Norwich to chucking your opponents off a cliff.

    Though it is quite arguable that the totalitarian states created new religions.

    Incidentally, it has generally been quite a short road from "Be nice to other people" to "Set all the heretics on fire"
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 21,576
    algarkirk said:

    Thank you Cyclefree, as always. In one sense it is impossible to disagree -of course. But questions have to be asked about how to make sense of the situation.

    If the majority of Afghans at this moment in fact support some sort of ancient way of running society, including about the nonrights and oppression of women and girls, then it is game over. They have what they want. And we would know, yet again, that the world bears little relation to the BBC's and Guardian's take on it.

    If however a small minority are oppressing a majority, (the standard way of reporting this in the west) then how much longer than 20 years does it take to realise from history that freedoms and liberties are hard won, and have to be defended by massive force of arms and policed by strong civilian forces. No other country is under an obligation to win freedoms for another.

    In the last few days an elected government and state army and police has faced a May 1940 situation, for which they had prior warning and 20 years to organise for. The principle failure belongs there and nowhere else.

    Indeed.

    Though to compare the Taliban to the Wehrmacht is rather unfair on von Rundstedt etc.

    How many 'proper' soldiers would have been required to stop the Taliban ?

    Somewhere between 10k and 100k at a guess.

    But I doubt the Afghan 'army' has as many as 1k.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 24,423
    Deleted
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 13,009
    Floater said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Of course refugees are going to increase from Afghanistan Priti and we should take as many as possible. I do not see how we can refuse to do so when this is literally what the point of the refugee convention is!

    How many is 'as many as possible' ?

    10k, 100k, a million, more ?

    And how are you going to integrate this multitude from an Islamic fundamentalist failed state into this country ?
    We cannot take millions. We can try to help those who worked for the British Army, the British Council and other British-run/paid-for institutions. We can try to prioritise women and girls, those most at risk. We can do something for a few. It is better than nothing. It is not that much to ask.

    We keep saying that the reason we don't want fit young men in boats from France is because that stops us helping genuine refugees. Well, now we have a chance to help some of those genuine refugees and once again we hear excuses for why we can't help these ones either.
    Well, this guy at least has gone up in my estimation

    https://order-order.com/2021/08/16/watch-ben-wallace-reduced-to-tears-over-afghanistan/
    And then you read the comments :( My two-birds with one stone solution would appeal to them. Rent Bagram off the Taliban, operate it as our off-shore gulag for refugees, that way Brexit supporters don't have to fear men with beards. Perhaps the Taliban could bus them direct from Kabul for us.

    Yes its absurd, but so is the whole concept of an offshore gulag. Yet it has supporters on here. So why not Afghanistan? A purpose built facility has just become available, and it is right next to a long runway.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 709
    Cyclefree said:

    Of course refugees are going to increase from Afghanistan Priti and we should take as many as possible. I do not see how we can refuse to do so when this is literally what the point of the refugee convention is!

    How many is 'as many as possible' ?

    10k, 100k, a million, more ?

    And how are you going to integrate this multitude from an Islamic fundamentalist failed state into this country ?
    We cannot take millions. We can try to help those who worked for the British Army, the British Council and other British-run/paid-for institutions. We can try to prioritise women and girls, those most at risk. We can do something for a few. It is better than nothing. It is not that much to ask.

    We keep saying that the reason we don't want fit young men in boats from France is because that stops us helping genuine refugees. Well, now we have a chance to help some of those genuine refugees and once again we hear excuses for why we can't help these ones either.
    But this solution is not really solving the problem. It is taking in a few thousand (or tens of thousands) to make us feel a bit better, whilst abandoning millions more. Multiply that over and over again for every conflict/brutal regime around the world. And it isn't just taking them in. Once they are here they have to be housed, fed etc. And supported to a point where they can achieve self sustaining employment.

    I had some knowledge of a large family of wealthy and educated Syrians who were put in to vacant public housing in an idyllic Scandinavian fishing village a few years ago. They quickly got frustrated with the lot they had been dealt with and refused to do the low paid jobs they were offered. They were eventually despised by the local community - They hung around spitting at the bus stop. Its just a few steps from that to radicalisation, particularly amongst the younger generation.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 17,377
    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    The sudden disintegration (collapse is too weak a word) of the Ghani Government is an object lesson in the notion you can give anyone the means to fight and defend their homeland but what they have to provide is the will.

    Have mistakes been made? Yes, though it's worth re-iterating it was the Trump Administration which instigated talks with the Taliban and the Trump Administration which signed the Doha Treaty and committed to a 14-month withdrawal from Afghanistan.

    Still, much easier to kick the current occupant of the White House especially by those for whom it must have been really hard to see Biden and the Democrats win last November.

    None of this matters.

    The salient questions are how and why did a seemingly well-equipped army simply fall apart? Cities like Jalalabad, Mazar-E-Sharif and even Kabul fell without a shot fired in their defence. The Afghan Air Force seems to have been non-existent. For what reason were the supporters of Ghani completely incapable of defending their State?

    The truth is we failed to inculcate any sense of legitimacy in and support for the Karzai and Ghani Governments. Both were, I strongly suspect, riddled with corruption and I suspect those leaders fleeing the country didn't go empty handed. As happened in South Vietnam, we propped up an endemically venal Government and once it came to a fight, those with the money and means ran to their pre-prepared exile and left the people to face the tender mercies of the Taliban.

    We must have known of the corruption and presumably we tolerated it. We also know Afghanistan's relevance to the world in terms of the supply of drugs but our "war" against drugs is, it seems, as riddled with failure as our attempts to keep the Taliban out of Kabul.

    And yet it's so much easier to kick Joe Biden (with a few snide digs at Kamala Harris) than to address twenty years of endemic, systemic and cultural failure.

    Very good post - spot on!
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,124

    algarkirk said:

    Cyclefree said:

    China says willing to develop 'friendly relations' with Afghanistan's Taliban

    https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1427192351810887681?s=20

    algarkirk said:

    Thank you Cyclefree, as always. In one sense it is impossible to disagree -of course. But questions have to be asked about how to make sense of the situation.

    If the majority of Afghans at this moment in fact support some sort of ancient way of running society, including about the nonrights and oppression of women and girls, then it is game over. They have what they want. And we would know, yet again, that the world bears little relation to the BBC's and Guardian's take on it.

    If however a small minority are oppressing a majority, (the standard way of reporting this in the west) then how much longer than 20 years does it take to realise from history that freedoms and liberties are hard won, and have to be defended by massive force of arms and policed by strong civilian forces. No other country is under an obligation to win freedoms for another.

    In the last few days an elected government and state army and police has faced a May 1940 situation, for which they had prior warning and 20 years to organise for. The principle failure belongs there and nowhere else.

    Agreed. We are fundamentally naive about the strength and attractiveness of theocratic cultures and about how long it took for democracy to develop in the West. We have forgotten our own history and so we keep on making the same mistakes when trying to help other countries.
    Yes. BTW among the worst of cultures in recent times have been non theocratic ones, Nazi Germany, China, USSR. Theocracy as in Iran, Saudi etc seem to me to be less about God (especially the sort of God revealed in the lives of the great gurus and mystics) and more about using the word 'God' as a cover for extremely ungodly human ambitions.

    It's a pretty long road from Guru Nanak or Julian of Norwich to chucking your opponents off a cliff.

    Though it is quite arguable that the totalitarian states created new religions.

    Incidentally, it has generally been quite a short road from "Be nice to other people" to "Set all the heretics on fire"
    Of course. And it is convenient to some to define everything they don't like in religious terms, as convenient for some to dethrone from religion everything they don't like.

    As to the length of the road; disagree. The number of people in my town who think you should be nice to other people is disproportionately large in comparison with the number of the same group who set fire to heretics.

  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 13,009
    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    Yes, we will. The public will demand it.

    The public are demanding that we deport bogus refugees to off-shore detention centres like the one at Bagram AFB. Perhaps we could ask the Taliban to just bus them from Kabul to save the hassle of flying them to London and back.
    Have a day off mate.
    I assume you support the off-shore gulag idea then. Why not Afghanistan? Other warzones like Sierra Leone have been seriously suggested - what does it matter where we send them as long as it isn't here?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 18,702
    darkage said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Of course refugees are going to increase from Afghanistan Priti and we should take as many as possible. I do not see how we can refuse to do so when this is literally what the point of the refugee convention is!

    How many is 'as many as possible' ?

    10k, 100k, a million, more ?

    And how are you going to integrate this multitude from an Islamic fundamentalist failed state into this country ?
    We cannot take millions. We can try to help those who worked for the British Army, the British Council and other British-run/paid-for institutions. We can try to prioritise women and girls, those most at risk. We can do something for a few. It is better than nothing. It is not that much to ask.

    We keep saying that the reason we don't want fit young men in boats from France is because that stops us helping genuine refugees. Well, now we have a chance to help some of those genuine refugees and once again we hear excuses for why we can't help these ones either.
    But this solution is not really solving the problem. It is taking in a few thousand (or tens of thousands) to make us feel a bit better, whilst abandoning millions more. Multiply that over and over again for every conflict/brutal regime around the world. And it isn't just taking them in. Once they are here they have to be housed, fed etc. And supported to a point where they can achieve self sustaining employment.

    I had some knowledge of a large family of wealthy and educated Syrians who were put in to vacant public housing in an idyllic Scandinavian fishing village a few years ago. They quickly got frustrated with the lot they had been dealt with and refused to do the low paid jobs they were offered. They were eventually despised by the local community - They hung around spitting at the bus stop. Its just a few steps from that to radicalisation, particularly amongst the younger generation.
    There was a rather interesting study done about Afghan refugees and integration into German society, a while back.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 5,892
    Ms Cyclefree,

    As usual, a good and sensible header. But you feel the result was always predictable in Afghanistan. Imperialism is a dirty word but surely the relevant one when you try to change the mindset of another country to suit your own liberal beliefs?

    Exactly what the Victorians tried to do in Africa, when conditions were different. And that was a sin only when you disagreed with the Victorian's old-fashioned views.

    When I was a lad, the hard left used to accuse the Americans of trying to be the 'policemen of the world', exporting their culture and ideas globally. This was despite the communists doing exactly that. Are the liberals now becoming the bullies? I would support Afghanistan becoming a more liberal society, but I don't live there. In the end, they will decide. As Mr Algarkirk says, and a yellowbelly must be correct, no other country is under any obligation to win 'freedom' for another.

    PS Yellowbelly refers to Algarkirk.

  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 18,702

    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    Yes, we will. The public will demand it.

    The public are demanding that we deport bogus refugees to off-shore detention centres like the one at Bagram AFB. Perhaps we could ask the Taliban to just bus them from Kabul to save the hassle of flying them to London and back.
    Have a day off mate.
    I assume you support the off-shore gulag idea then. Why not Afghanistan? Other warzones like Sierra Leone have been seriously suggested - what does it matter where we send them as long as it isn't here?
    Sierra Leone isn't a war zone and hasn't been for rather a long time - decades.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 88,969
    edited August 16
    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    The sudden disintegration (collapse is too weak a word) of the Ghani Government is an object lesson in the notion you can give anyone the means to fight and defend their homeland but what they have to provide is the will.

    Have mistakes been made? Yes, though it's worth re-iterating it was the Trump Administration which instigated talks with the Taliban and the Trump Administration which signed the Doha Treaty and committed to a 14-month withdrawal from Afghanistan.

    Still, much easier to kick the current occupant of the White House especially by those for whom it must have been really hard to see Biden and the Democrats win last November.

    None of this matters.

    The salient questions are how and why did a seemingly well-equipped army simply fall apart? Cities like Jalalabad, Mazar-E-Sharif and even Kabul fell without a shot fired in their defence. The Afghan Air Force seems to have been non-existent. For what reason were the supporters of Ghani completely incapable of defending their State?

    The truth is we failed to inculcate any sense of legitimacy in and support for the Karzai and Ghani Governments. Both were, I strongly suspect, riddled with corruption and I suspect those leaders fleeing the country didn't go empty handed. As happened in South Vietnam, we propped up an endemically venal Government and once it came to a fight, those with the money and means ran to their pre-prepared exile and left the people to face the tender mercies of the Taliban.

    We must have known of the corruption and presumably we tolerated it. We also know Afghanistan's relevance to the world in terms of the supply of drugs but our "war" against drugs is, it seems, as riddled with failure as our attempts to keep the Taliban out of Kabul.

    And yet it's so much easier to kick Joe Biden (with a few snide digs at Kamala Harris) than to address twenty years of endemic, systemic and cultural failure.

    We have actually had 20 years of no major terrorist attack on a western city on the scale of 9/11 with 1000s of dead.

    Personally I would have kept troops in Afghanistan indefinitely, it was always too risky to believe the elected Afghan government would be able and strong enough to defend itself alone.

    As it is Biden-Harris have capitulated and withdrawn with their tails between their legs and they will be responsible if terrorists return en masse to Afghanistan and 9/11 2 happens on their watch.

    That does not mean I have much time for Trump on this either, as I said Bush, McCain and indeed Romney were far better on this
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 5,209
    HYUFD said:



    HYUFD said:

    Pope Francis 'wants to hold Mass in Scotland' during COP26 summit in Glasgow

    The report quotes a source saying the Pope would like to say a Mass for Scots.

    “It would have to fit in with his address to the conference and his meetings with the bishops. There is some doubt about whether it can be fitted in, but the Pope says Mass every day and would like to say a Mass for the people of Scotland.“

    https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/pope-francis-wants-hold-mass-24763099

    Percentage wise there are more Catholics in Scotland than England, 16% of the population to 10%, so it makes sense for the Pope to go. Scotland is the second most Catholic part of the British isles after Ireland.

    Of course the last Queen of Scotland, Mary Queen of Scots was a Catholic still even when her cousin Elizabeth 1st was a Protestant Queen of England
    'With some HY posts one doesn’t really know where to start. I think his strategy is to suck the will to live out of his opponents.

    If we ignore the fact that Scotland currently has a queen, Elizabeth I, then the last queen of an independent Scotland was not Mary I (1542-1567), but Anne (reign 1702-1714).

    And of course Mary, also briefly Queen of France, was a Catholic whereas Elisabeth was a Protestant. The English Reformation was in 1532-34 whereas the Scottish Reformation was much later, 1557-60.

    And the papal visit has zilch to do with how many catholics a country has. The pope visits places where fractions of a percent are catholic and also the opposite extreme.'
    Anne was Queen of England and Scotland, does not count. Mary Queen of Scots was Queen of Scotland alone (apart from 1 year when she was Queen of France by marriage). I have also not noticed Elizabeth 1st rising from the dead to take the place of our current Queen Elizabeth IInd?
    Oh dear. Where to start?

    Firstly, Anne, was by the Grace of God, Queen of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, etc.

    How does being a monarch over several countries not make you monarch of one of them? Was Cnut the Great somehow not King of England, just because he was also King of Denmark and Norway?

    There have been hundreds of personal unions in Europe. Being monarch of more than one place doesn’t invalidate your title. Ask HM Elisabeth I.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_union

    And Scotland has only ever had one Queen Elisabeth, the current one.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 3,707
    Cyclefree's post is a fine one. I would dissent about "credal societies". Any kind of society can have no faith in democracy, if it doesn't deliver. Even in the West, young people screwed by the post-GFC consensus are losing faith in democracy. And it seems that the occupation-backed government in Afghanistan was miserably poor.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 21,576
    eek said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Of course refugees are going to increase from Afghanistan Priti and we should take as many as possible. I do not see how we can refuse to do so when this is literally what the point of the refugee convention is!

    How many is 'as many as possible' ?

    10k, 100k, a million, more ?

    And how are you going to integrate this multitude from an Islamic fundamentalist failed state into this country ?
    We cannot take millions. We can try to help those who worked for the British Army, the British Council and other British-run/paid-for institutions. We can try to prioritise women and girls, those most at risk. We can do something for a few. It is better than nothing. It is not that much to ask.

    We keep saying that the reason we don't want fit young men in boats from France is because that stops us helping genuine refugees. Well, now we have a chance to help some of those genuine refugees and once again we hear excuses for why we can't help these ones either.
    I'm happy to take people who have worked for the British government but you're being incredibly naive if you think it would stop there.
    Why do I suspect your definition of worked for the British Government is going to be way more stricter than mine.

    Most of the people we used were employed by third parties - in my world, given their jobs I believe they should be brought into the UK, but I suspect you would use that technicality to rule them out.
    Well we need numbers and definitions,

    Does someone who worked for the British Council for a few weeks a decade ago count as being worthy of asylum ?

    How about someone who worked many years for the British embassy but has now defected to the Taliban - do they have a right to asylum in the UK ?

    Do we set definitions or numbers or whatever ?

    Its easy to say take 'as many as possible' on the internet but real life is different.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 18,702
    algarkirk said:

    algarkirk said:

    Cyclefree said:

    China says willing to develop 'friendly relations' with Afghanistan's Taliban

    https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1427192351810887681?s=20

    algarkirk said:

    Thank you Cyclefree, as always. In one sense it is impossible to disagree -of course. But questions have to be asked about how to make sense of the situation.

    If the majority of Afghans at this moment in fact support some sort of ancient way of running society, including about the nonrights and oppression of women and girls, then it is game over. They have what they want. And we would know, yet again, that the world bears little relation to the BBC's and Guardian's take on it.

    If however a small minority are oppressing a majority, (the standard way of reporting this in the west) then how much longer than 20 years does it take to realise from history that freedoms and liberties are hard won, and have to be defended by massive force of arms and policed by strong civilian forces. No other country is under an obligation to win freedoms for another.

    In the last few days an elected government and state army and police has faced a May 1940 situation, for which they had prior warning and 20 years to organise for. The principle failure belongs there and nowhere else.

    Agreed. We are fundamentally naive about the strength and attractiveness of theocratic cultures and about how long it took for democracy to develop in the West. We have forgotten our own history and so we keep on making the same mistakes when trying to help other countries.
    Yes. BTW among the worst of cultures in recent times have been non theocratic ones, Nazi Germany, China, USSR. Theocracy as in Iran, Saudi etc seem to me to be less about God (especially the sort of God revealed in the lives of the great gurus and mystics) and more about using the word 'God' as a cover for extremely ungodly human ambitions.

    It's a pretty long road from Guru Nanak or Julian of Norwich to chucking your opponents off a cliff.

    Though it is quite arguable that the totalitarian states created new religions.

    Incidentally, it has generally been quite a short road from "Be nice to other people" to "Set all the heretics on fire"
    Of course. And it is convenient to some to define everything they don't like in religious terms, as convenient for some to dethrone from religion everything they don't like.

    As to the length of the road; disagree. The number of people in my town who think you should be nice to other people is disproportionately large in comparison with the number of the same group who set fire to heretics.

    "The number of people in my town who think you should be nice to other people is disproportionately large in comparison with the number of the same group who set fire to heretics.:"

    This is because of the long process of creating a liberal, social democratic society. This took hundreds of years and involved alot of dead people along the way. And a vast expenditure of treasure.

    Freedom isn't Free, as they said in Team America.

    The idea of such tolerance is unthinkable and unfathomable to many in this world.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 5,209

    HYUFD said:


    HYUFD said:

    Charles said:

    Pope Francis 'wants to hold Mass in Scotland' during COP26 summit in Glasgow

    The report quotes a source saying the Pope would like to say a Mass for Scots.

    “It would have to fit in with his address to the conference and his meetings with the bishops. There is some doubt about whether it can be fitted in, but the Pope says Mass every day and would like to say a Mass for the people of Scotland.“

    https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/pope-francis-wants-hold-mass-24763099.amp

    Why is that news/controversial? I’m sure there will be some logistics in making it COVID compliant but that’s it
    Well, it’s not controversial (does absolutely everything we discuss on here have to be controversial?), but it is most certainly news! Papal visits are extremely rare and have historically been extremely popular events.

    There have only ever been two papal visits to Scotland:

    5th century: conversion of Scotland to Christianity begins
    1982 papal visit
    2010 papal visit
    2021 papal visit

    So, yes Charles, this is news! (Average is about one visit per 500 years.)

    The 1982 visit is imprinted on my childhood memory. It was immense.
    Percentage wise there are more Catholics in Scotland than England, 16% of the population to 10%, so it makes sense for the Pope to go. Scotland is the second most Catholic part of the British isles after Ireland.

    Of course the last Queen of Scotland, Mary Queen of Scots was a Catholic still even when her cousin Elizabeth 1st was a Protestant Queen of England
    'With some HY posts one doesn’t really know where to start. I think his strategy is to suck the will to live out of his opponents.

    If we ignore the fact that Scotland currently has a queen, Elizabeth I, then the last queen of an independent Scotland was not Mary I (1542-1567), but Anne (reign 1702-1714).

    And of course Mary, also briefly Queen of France, was a Catholic whereas Elisabeth was a Protestant. The English Reformation was in 1532-34 whereas the Scottish Reformation was much later, 1557-60.

    And the papal visit has zilch to do with how many catholics a country has. The pope visits places where fractions of a percent are catholic and also the opposite extreme.'

    Anne was Queen of England and Scotland, does not count. Mary Queen of Scots was Queen of Scotland alone. I have also not noticed Elizabeth 1st rising from the dead to take the place of our current Queen Elizabeth IInd?

    The Pope obviously makes more visits to majority Catholic areas, hence he makes far more visits to Ireland, Latin America, Poland and the Philippines than he does to Northern Ireland, the USA, India and Japan
    @HYUFD now arguing with himself lol!
    It would certainly save us the bother. Is that boy quite right in the head?
This discussion has been closed.