Yes but as PB Brexiters point out, there is no need to stick to what you agreed as a government, as they "renegotiate" the triple lock.
So the Opposition argument is going to be about the “government breaking their promises”, in the face of a once-in-a-century pandemic, rather than a serious counter-proposal?
How about not giving pensioners a real terms cut? That does feel like properly taking the piss.
Who’s suggesting a real-terms cut? No-one, as far as I can tell.
Mr. B, in the Middle Ages, and ancient world, a general approach taken was that surrendering was best done immediately, or not at all.
General such as the Black Prince or Alexander the Great tended to be lenient to those who gave up, but if surrender was offered later then harsh terms at best were imposed (if not slaughter).
That being so, why would the Afghan army, apparently unable to operate its fancy US gear due to lack of support, fight an unwinnable war for the sake of the people who had just abandoned them, in exchange for certain death rather than potentially being able to keep on living?
And why didn't the US consider this?
The idea that one can surrender well after a fight has begun, and expect to have that surrender accepted is (a) very recent and (b) certainly not universally accepted.
Seems to be working ok now. Further to the below, this is another excellent thread, by a Telegraph journalist in fact I think, on the humiliating terms of Trump's original deal :
Indeed. Although it does not absolve Biden of responsibility for its catastrophic execution, the deal looks so one-sided that I'm tempted to wait for confirmation the text of Trump's deal (or Trump/Pompeo) is as shown.
It received some criticism at the time. Though not from our defence secretary. UK Defence Secretary Ben Wallace: "I welcome this small but important step towards the chance for Afghans to live in peace, free from terrorism... We remain absolutely committed to building an Afghanistan that is a strong partner for decades to come"
The US naturally assumed that all its time and effort and $billions would leave behind a security force that could prevent the Taliban from strolling in and taking the keys. So the agreement with the Taliban wasn’t written with that latter scenario in mind.
That’s intellectually dishonest. What was assumed by the Biden government was that the Afghan army would be good little boys and fight and die long enough for the midterms to be out the way, before then falling to the Taliban.
In any event, Biden cut the legs from under the army, by ending air support, and by ending logistical support for the Air Force.
As I recall, though, before Trump no one was even talking about removing the skeleton staff of contractors that made the air force possible, or removing air support. Not Clinton, Obama or Biden - or even figures like Liz Warren and Ted Cruz.
So many more people think it was wrong to go there in the first place (than think the opposite) yet the same is true (by a bigger margin) when people are asked whether UK troops will have to go back there?
Right.
That’s not illogical. If Afghanistan were to become a base for anti-Western terrorism, then our troops would have to return.
You mean American troops would have to return, subject to the whims of the President. Last week established that after a decade of Tory defence cuts, Britain cannot go it alone against the Taliban.
I doubt if there's any point since 1947 when we could have run a substantial military campaign in Afghanistan on our own.
Historically, the UK running lengthy campaigns in Afghanistan has *never* proved to be a good idea.
A junior officer wrote a book about it, in the early 20th cent. Went on to become a journalist and then an MP. IIRC he managed a certain amount of success in politics.
On arrival Afghan refugees will be escorted to Stansted and then flown to our new offshore processing centre at Bagram AFB. Their new Taliban camp hosts will keep them safe from the evil Taliban. "It's been a big success" said a smirking Priti Patel yesterday, "the camp has more capacity so big hearted Britain is prepared to take another 50,000 refugees."
I have little doubt that Biden and Trump are responsible for the chaotic and unacceptable withdrawal process from Afghanistan. Biden will take the bigger hit as it has happened on his watch, but just what did Trump agree with the Taliban, as he was the instigator of this process
Listening to the Taliban yesteday was surreal, as they promised all kinds of things but I just do not believe a word of it and in my opinion it is a clever ruse to pull the wool over people eyes and provide an easier transition over the next few months and then, as the world moves on, recommence their brutality and wholly unacceptable treatment of women and children
However, we are where we are and we do need to offer asylum to many Afghans and 20,000 does not seem to be any where near sufficient, but questions have to be asked of the EU and how many they will accept.
There is a report that Macron is far to the right of Patel on this, and if so that is shocking and I would ask those who so vociferously support the EU join the call for each EU country to accept their share of these displaced and very frightened people
It is clear there is no going back now and the west's intelligence and security agencies will need to be alert to the dangers of terrorism and to answer the question what happens if there is a repeat of 9/11 then I would expect the US and Allies to use targetted air strikes and SAS action, but not to re-enter Afghanistan on the ground
We are living through terrible times with covid still to be beaten, (NZ putting the whole country into lockdown for one case of the delta variant is alarming) floods, fires and extreme climate events, and now this and to those of us who have largely been unaffected we need to realise just how fortunate we are and do everything possible to mitigate the horrors of Afghanistan
So many more people think it was wrong to go there in the first place (than think the opposite) yet the same is true (by a bigger margin) when people are asked whether UK troops will have to go back there?
Right.
That’s not illogical. If Afghanistan were to become a base for anti-Western terrorism, then our troops would have to return.
You mean American troops would have to return, subject to the whims of the President. Last week established that after a decade of Tory defence cuts, Britain cannot go it alone against the Taliban.
I doubt if there's any point since 1947 when we could have run a substantial military campaign in Afghanistan on our own.
I doubt if there's any point when we, or anyone else could have run a substantial military campaign in Afghanistan.
Where's the option for the Afghan government and military?
The public seem to think that we should never have gone in, it was pointless that we did, and that we shouldn't have left. Can't really get my head around that.
Mr. B, in the Middle Ages, and ancient world, a general approach taken was that surrendering was best done immediately, or not at all.
General such as the Black Prince or Alexander the Great tended to be lenient to those who gave up, but if surrender was offered later then harsh terms at best were imposed (if not slaughter).
That being so, why would the Afghan army, apparently unable to operate its fancy US gear due to lack of support, fight an unwinnable war for the sake of the people who had just abandoned them, in exchange for certain death rather than potentially being able to keep on living?
And why didn't the US consider this?
A good question for every administration beginning with Bush. As I said above, the vast amount they've spent in building an army which can't operate independently was an utter waste.
They could have operated independently. They were far better equipped and armed than their opponents whose height of sophistication was a technical. They should have been able to hold off the Taleban almost indefinitely and quite possibly go on the offensive.
That they didn't seems to me to suggest much more fundamental problems. This army simply had no loyalty to or commitment to the Ghani regime which seems to have had no base of support in the country. Payment for non existent staff and equipment that had been sold or given to the Taleban seems to have been endemic. Efforts to create a new nation state of Afghanistan seem to have failed utterly.
The army was not so much defeated as chose not to fight for a regime that no one cared about. The hearts and minds strategists were completely and totally deluded. No doubt lessons will be learned etc.
The basic fact is that Pfizer isn't stemming Delta as effectively on most pandemic measurements as it did with preceding variants. It is also the case that herd immunity is now very unlikely to be achieved.
The rest is a case of watching the data: growing case numbers, serious illness, hospitalisations and deaths ... some of whom will have been double jabbed with Pfizer. In all of those instances more will be affected than would have been the case with preceding variants.
A much simpler way of putting this is that we're heading for trouble this autumn / winter. I wish it weren't so and I wish I could take the Peter Pan approach that some stridently desire. The evidence sadly makes that impossible.
So: Magna Carta not part of Scots law, and chapter 61 not part of Magna Carta since 1216, and chapter 61 did/does not confer any substantive rights anyway
Error upon error upon error
Layers of error mounting so high that you could - well - build a castle on top
She has to maintain her "no refugees by boat" stance to keep the Faragists at bay, while simultaneously 'welcoming' thousands of Afghans.
Unless they arrive by boat...
Yes, because the boats are:
1. Killing people 2. Enabling people smugglers 3. Acting as a draw for people to make long journeys 4. Mostly arriving from a G7, Nato and EU country, which is perfectly safe. 5. Robbing the arrivals of their savings 6. Encouraging economic migration under the guise of asylum.
The UK is taking thousands of Afghan refugees, but will be bringing them into the country from Afghanistan and surrounding areas. Same policy as under Cameron and other governments.
So many more people think it was wrong to go there in the first place (than think the opposite) yet the same is true (by a bigger margin) when people are asked whether UK troops will have to go back there?
Right.
That’s not illogical. If Afghanistan were to become a base for anti-Western terrorism, then our troops would have to return.
You mean American troops would have to return, subject to the whims of the President. Last week established that after a decade of Tory defence cuts, Britain cannot go it alone against the Taliban.
I doubt if there's any point since 1947 when we could have run a substantial military campaign in Afghanistan on our own.
Historically, the UK running lengthy campaigns in Afghanistan has *never* proved to be a good idea.
A junior officer wrote a book about it, in the early 20th cent. Went on to become a journalist and then an MP. IIRC he managed a certain amount of success in politics.
Re current covid infections.
Is there a pattern that the highest places are those which have had lowest overall infection during the pandemic - Scotland, Northern Ireland, Cornwall as example - ie an element of 'gap filling' because of the greater transmission of Delta and the end of restrictions ?
Yes but as PB Brexiters point out, there is no need to stick to what you agreed as a government, as they "renegotiate" the triple lock.
What a silly comparison. Manifesto promises are broken all the time and sometimes it will be the right call as things do come up you cannot plan for, or your promise may have been stupid.
The reasonableness and practicality of not going with a manifesto promise is not in the least comparable to the reasonableness and practicality of amending a government agreement with international allies and partners.
Both are possibly right, but the latter is much less likely to be so as the commitment was much firmer on a legal and diplomatic footing.
Yes but as PB Brexiters point out, there is no need to stick to what you agreed as a government, as they "renegotiate" the triple lock.
So the Opposition argument is going to be about the “government breaking their promises”, in the face of a once-in-a-century pandemic, rather than a serious counter-proposal?
How about not giving pensioners a real terms cut? That does feel like properly taking the piss.
Who’s suggesting a real-terms cut? No-one, as far as I can tell.
The quote referred to 'below the rate of inflation'.
She has to maintain her "no refugees by boat" stance to keep the Faragists at bay, while simultaneously 'welcoming' thousands of Afghans.
Unless they arrive by boat...
I don't remember you been outraged when Cameron had exactly this stance re Syria, that the UK would only take refugees from official camps in the border areas and after they had carefully been checked out.
She has to maintain her "no refugees by boat" stance to keep the Faragists at bay, while simultaneously 'welcoming' thousands of Afghans.
Unless they arrive by boat...
Yes, because the boats are:
1. Killing people 2. Enabling people smugglers 3. Acting as a draw for people to make long journeys 4. Mostly arriving from a G7, Nato and EU country, which is perfectly safe. 5. Robbing the arrivals of their savings 6. Encouraging economic migration under the guise of asylum.
The UK is taking thousands of Afghan refugees, but will be bringing them into the country from Afghanistan and surrounding areas. Same policy as under Cameron and other governments.
Won't anyone think of the businesses that the people smugglers are running?
So many more people think it was wrong to go there in the first place (than think the opposite) yet the same is true (by a bigger margin) when people are asked whether UK troops will have to go back there?
Right.
Being pedantic: strictly speaking that's consistent.
You can think it was a mistake to have gone in there in the first place but, having put our hand in the mangler, now feel it's now our responsibility to stabilise the situation and not cut and run.
Yep.
I never believed it was a good idea to go in there in the first place. The history of western involvement in Afghanistan is disastrous.
However, having gone in there and committed so much (including servicemen's lives), to cut and run in such a peremptory fashion, leaving the Taliban to sweep back into power, is an absolute disgrace. A total debacle and a failure of western democracy on an almost unprecedented scale.
Mr. B, in the Middle Ages, and ancient world, a general approach taken was that surrendering was best done immediately, or not at all.
General such as the Black Prince or Alexander the Great tended to be lenient to those who gave up, but if surrender was offered later then harsh terms at best were imposed (if not slaughter).
That being so, why would the Afghan army, apparently unable to operate its fancy US gear due to lack of support, fight an unwinnable war for the sake of the people who had just abandoned them, in exchange for certain death rather than potentially being able to keep on living?
And why didn't the US consider this?
A good question for every administration beginning with Bush. As I said above, the vast amount they've spent in building an army which can't operate independently was an utter waste.
They could have operated independently. They were far better equipped and armed than their opponents whose height of sophistication was a technical. They should have been able to hold off the Taleban almost indefinitely and quite possibly go on the offensive.
That they didn't seems to me to suggest much more fundamental problems. This army simply had no loyalty to or commitment to the Ghani regime which seems to have had no base of support in the country. Payment for non existent staff and equipment that had been sold or given to the Taleban seems to have been endemic. Efforts to create a new nation state of Afghanistan seem to have failed utterly.
The army was not so much defeated as chose not to fight for a regime that no one cared about. The hearts and minds strategists were completely and totally deluded. No doubt lessons will be learned etc.
Plenty of soldiers in the Afghan army have been fighting and dying. In very great numbers in fact. Seems likely that it was an order from above to lay down arms than fight, rather than a spontaneous and universal bout of cowardice.
If we’re going to have large numbers of Afghan refugees here, probably permanently, who is going to pay to build enough houses? And fund school places & doctors surgeries etc?
Or are we just going to pretend it’s all cost free and end up dumping them & their problems on Stoke on Trent etc?
On arrival Afghan refugees will be escorted to Stansted and then flown to our new offshore processing centre at Bagram AFB. Their new Taliban camp hosts will keep them safe from the evil Taliban. "It's been a big success" said a smirking Priti Patel yesterday, "the camp has more capacity so big hearted Britain is prepared to take another 50,000 refugees."
Why bother doing that when you've told us that Scotland will take them all.
When do we get Nicola's announcement confirming that ?
Priti Patel has just said "we can't do this on our own". Why are brexiteers so convinced of the UK's inability to stand up and function as an independent country able to chart our own course in the world? https://twitter.com/fatshez/status/1427893128003039238
I'm not sure what you or the person commenting think is achieved pretending that Brexit meant never again having to interact or work with international partners. No amount of hyperbolic rhetoric from a brexiteer in the context of relations with the EU could be taken to mean serious people thought the UK would never work with partners again. Indeed that cooperation was still needed as friendly nations was surely mentioned in the fluff comments from us and the EU I'm sure.
So: Magna Carta not part of Scots law, and chapter 61 not part of Magna Carta since 1216, and chapter 61 did/does not confer any substantive rights anyway
Error upon error upon error
Layers of error mounting so high that you could - well - build a castle on top
Mr. B, in the Middle Ages, and ancient world, a general approach taken was that surrendering was best done immediately, or not at all.
General such as the Black Prince or Alexander the Great tended to be lenient to those who gave up, but if surrender was offered later then harsh terms at best were imposed (if not slaughter).
That being so, why would the Afghan army, apparently unable to operate its fancy US gear due to lack of support, fight an unwinnable war for the sake of the people who had just abandoned them, in exchange for certain death rather than potentially being able to keep on living?
And why didn't the US consider this?
A good question for every administration beginning with Bush. As I said above, the vast amount they've spent in building an army which can't operate independently was an utter waste.
They could have operated independently. They were far better equipped and armed than their opponents whose height of sophistication was a technical. They should have been able to hold off the Taleban almost indefinitely and quite possibly go on the offensive.
That they didn't seems to me to suggest much more fundamental problems. This army simply had no loyalty to or commitment to the Ghani regime which seems to have had no base of support in the country. Payment for non existent staff and equipment that had been sold or given to the Taleban seems to have been endemic. Efforts to create a new nation state of Afghanistan seem to have failed utterly.
The army was not so much defeated as chose not to fight for a regime that no one cared about. The hearts and minds strategists were completely and totally deluded. No doubt lessons will be learned etc.
Plenty of soldiers in the Afghan army have been fighting and dying. In very great numbers in fact. Seems likely that it was an order from above to lay down arms than fight, rather than a spontaneous and universal bout of cowardice.
I am not suggesting cowardice. The reality was that this army was employed by the US not the Afghan state. It was the former who paid the wages. And it was the former who decided to quit the fight. Why would the army fight in these circumstances? Who for?
She has to maintain her "no refugees by boat" stance to keep the Faragists at bay, while simultaneously 'welcoming' thousands of Afghans.
Unless they arrive by boat...
Yes, because the boats are:
1. Killing people 2. Enabling people smugglers 3. Acting as a draw for people to make long journeys 4. Mostly arriving from a G7, Nato and EU country, which is perfectly safe. 5. Robbing the arrivals of their savings 6. Encouraging economic migration under the guise of asylum.
The UK is taking thousands of Afghan refugees, but will be bringing them into the country from Afghanistan and surrounding areas. Same policy as under Cameron and other governments.
We absolutely won't be. The right have weaponised human suffering. There are no refugees remember. They've been told that they have to claim asylum in the first safe country (they don't), that they're here to take all the jobs (when they can't work) and the benefits (which they can't claim) and now that man with beard will blow us up.
The good Brexit Tory voters in the red wall and eastern England are not going to open their communities to accept Afghan refugees. They voted Brexit and Tory to stop such things happening. Which is why that smirking monster Patel is so determined to stop future Patels coming there.
Where's the option for the Afghan government and military?
The public seem to think that we should never have gone in, it was pointless that we did, and that we shouldn't have left. Can't really get my head around that.
Maybe the public thinks
1) We shouldn't have gone in 2) It was pointless 3) Once we were in, we shouldn't have left like this.
end up dumping them & their problems on Stoke on Trent etc?
There's a very funny article about the 50 worst places to live in England as voted for by denizens. Scroll down to the top 10 worst places and enjoy the comments.
So: Magna Carta not part of Scots law, and chapter 61 not part of Magna Carta since 1216, and chapter 61 did/does not confer any substantive rights anyway
Error upon error upon error
Layers of error mounting so high that you could - well - build a castle on top
The basic fact is that Pfizer isn't stemming Delta as effectively on most pandemic measurements as it did with preceding variants. It is also the case that herd immunity is now very unlikely to be achieved.
The rest is a case of watching the data: growing case numbers, serious illness, hospitalisations and deaths ... some of whom will have been double jabbed with Pfizer. In all of those instances more will be affected than would have been the case with preceding variants.
A much simpler way of putting this is that we're heading for trouble this autumn / winter. I wish it weren't so and I wish I could take the Peter Pan approach that some stridently desire. The evidence sadly makes that impossible.
The country is virtually open and a rise in cases was inevitable, but the numbers seem to be stabilising, we have high rates of vaccination, and at some point we have to learn to live with covid
Our son was married three weeks ago and we had the Church service without masks, (though no singing), and the reception with 70 guests without masks, and not one guest has gone down with covid subsequently
And of course Afghanistan has moved it off the agenda
The good Brexit Tory voters in the red wall and eastern England are not going to open their communities to accept Afghan refugees. They voted Brexit and Tory to stop such things happening. Which is why that smirking monster Patel is so determined to stop future Patels coming there.
The British government says it will take in 5,000 Afghan refugees over the next year - and up to 20,000 in the longer term. Women and children will be given priority. It’s being described as ‘one of the most generous resettlement schemes in our country’s history’. https://twitter.com/SimonJonesNews/status/1427853502391492610
It is much less “generous” than resettlement of 11,000 Hungarian refugees in 1956. A lot less “generous” than the resettlement of nearly 30,000 Ugandan Asians in 1972, despite visceral opposition led by Enoch Powell. Both schemes were undertaken by Conservative governments. https://twitter.com/ColinYeo1/status/1427892545502203911
I see the most establishment of the establishment have written to the establishment newspaper (The Times) today arguing for sizeable and ambitious resettlement programme with safe and legal routes for all who need it, and a change to reunion rules so their families can come too. They've sprinkled in a "Global Britain" for good measure.
Presumably these people will not face competition from these arrivals for public housing, health care or school places? As ever, virtue signalling in favour of something that will not affect you but will affect others.
Yes, we should help and accommodate those who helped the UK Mission (in its broad sense) - but suggesting that we automatically accept all those claiming to be Afghan refugees crossing the channel has an obvious flaw...
Mr. B, in the Middle Ages, and ancient world, a general approach taken was that surrendering was best done immediately, or not at all.
General such as the Black Prince or Alexander the Great tended to be lenient to those who gave up, but if surrender was offered later then harsh terms at best were imposed (if not slaughter).
That being so, why would the Afghan army, apparently unable to operate its fancy US gear due to lack of support, fight an unwinnable war for the sake of the people who had just abandoned them, in exchange for certain death rather than potentially being able to keep on living?
And why didn't the US consider this?
The idea that one can surrender well after a fight has begun, and expect to have that surrender accepted is (a) very recent and (b) certainly not universally accepted.
As I understood it, until a practicable breach was made in your walls the besiegers would not expect a surrender. Once that was achieved if no surrender came and a costly storming was necessary then a massacre would ensue, and not just of the military.
I think was certainly the case during the napoleonic wars, eg in the peninsula.
Mr. B, in the Middle Ages, and ancient world, a general approach taken was that surrendering was best done immediately, or not at all.
General such as the Black Prince or Alexander the Great tended to be lenient to those who gave up, but if surrender was offered later then harsh terms at best were imposed (if not slaughter).
That being so, why would the Afghan army, apparently unable to operate its fancy US gear due to lack of support, fight an unwinnable war for the sake of the people who had just abandoned them, in exchange for certain death rather than potentially being able to keep on living?
And why didn't the US consider this?
A good question for every administration beginning with Bush. As I said above, the vast amount they've spent in building an army which can't operate independently was an utter waste.
They could have operated independently. They were far better equipped and armed than their opponents whose height of sophistication was a technical. They should have been able to hold off the Taleban almost indefinitely and quite possibly go on the offensive.
That they didn't seems to me to suggest much more fundamental problems. This army simply had no loyalty to or commitment to the Ghani regime which seems to have had no base of support in the country. Payment for non existent staff and equipment that had been sold or given to the Taleban seems to have been endemic. Efforts to create a new nation state of Afghanistan seem to have failed utterly.
The army was not so much defeated as chose not to fight for a regime that no one cared about. The hearts and minds strategists were completely and totally deluded. No doubt lessons will be learned etc.
Perhaps no one care to fight for Afghanistan because its not even a proper country but rather the left over bits of neighbouring countries.
With the only possible unifying force being religion.
The good Brexit Tory voters in the red wall and eastern England are not going to open their communities to accept Afghan refugees. They voted Brexit and Tory to stop such things happening. Which is why that smirking monster Patel is so determined to stop future Patels coming there.
The British government says it will take in 5,000 Afghan refugees over the next year - and up to 20,000 in the longer term. Women and children will be given priority. It’s being described as ‘one of the most generous resettlement schemes in our country’s history’. https://twitter.com/SimonJonesNews/status/1427853502391492610
It is much less “generous” than resettlement of 11,000 Hungarian refugees in 1956. A lot less “generous” than the resettlement of nearly 30,000 Ugandan Asians in 1972, despite visceral opposition led by Enoch Powell. Both schemes were undertaken by Conservative governments. https://twitter.com/ColinYeo1/status/1427892545502203911
The 5K over the next year is in addition to 5K of Afghan interpreters, families etc.
So many more people think it was wrong to go there in the first place (than think the opposite) yet the same is true (by a bigger margin) when people are asked whether UK troops will have to go back there?
Right.
Being pedantic: strictly speaking that's consistent.
You can think it was a mistake to have gone in there in the first place but, having put our hand in the mangler, now feel it's now our responsibility to stabilise the situation and not cut and run.
Yep.
I never believed it was a good idea to go in there in the first place. The history of western involvement in Afghanistan is disastrous.
However, having gone in there and committed so much (including servicemen's lives), to cut and run in such a peremptory fashion, leaving the Taliban to sweep back into power, is an absolute disgrace. A total debacle and a failure of western democracy on an almost unprecedented scale.
From the speed of the collapse of the Afghan government and its army isn't it obvious that we have literally funded and trained the Taliban? The only way this can collapse so quickly is (as reported) regional warlords have simply switched sides and had their forces change flags.
So any time we left this was going to happen. Which is why we should leave as we no longer serve a purpose. We need to ensure we get people out who are leaving and that is why more troops are going in. The Taliban and their predecessors are firmly in control now and short of slaughtering them and the other people who will rally to their cause as we slaughter them we can do nothing about it.
The international community needs to allow safe resettlement of people fleeing this bearded Gilead and that means the UK taking its fair share for a change.
end up dumping them & their problems on Stoke on Trent etc?
There's a very funny article about the 50 worst places to live in England as voted for by denizens. Scroll down to the top 10 worst places and enjoy the comments.
On arrival Afghan refugees will be escorted to Stansted and then flown to our new offshore processing centre at Bagram AFB. Their new Taliban camp hosts will keep them safe from the evil Taliban. "It's been a big success" said a smirking Priti Patel yesterday, "the camp has more capacity so big hearted Britain is prepared to take another 50,000 refugees."
Why bother doing that when you've told us that Scotland will take them all.
When do we get Nicola's announcement confirming that ?
It's obvious people are seriously all over the fucking shop on this one. We've let down the Afghans but should never have gone in to start with.
There's nothing inconsistent about that position. It's logical, considered and consistent.
What would you do now?
I'd delete my web page, like the Republican Party distancing itself from Trump's deal. Republicans delete webpage celebrating Trump’s deal with Taliban
Mr. B, in the Middle Ages, and ancient world, a general approach taken was that surrendering was best done immediately, or not at all.
General such as the Black Prince or Alexander the Great tended to be lenient to those who gave up, but if surrender was offered later then harsh terms at best were imposed (if not slaughter).
That being so, why would the Afghan army, apparently unable to operate its fancy US gear due to lack of support, fight an unwinnable war for the sake of the people who had just abandoned them, in exchange for certain death rather than potentially being able to keep on living?
And why didn't the US consider this?
A good question for every administration beginning with Bush. As I said above, the vast amount they've spent in building an army which can't operate independently was an utter waste.
They could have operated independently....
Assumes facts not in evidence. Even allowing that hypothetical, that "could have" extends all the way back to their inception. Similarly, Afghanistan could have had an effective government.
I see the most establishment of the establishment have written to the establishment newspaper (The Times) today arguing for sizeable and ambitious resettlement programme with safe and legal routes for all who need it, and a change to reunion rules so their families can come too. They've sprinkled in a "Global Britain" for good measure.
In truth, the Government has little political headroom to be overly generous to Afghanistan asylum seekers given the ongoing crisis in the Channel and changing public opinion, so I expect any programme to be limited in number and qualified to specific categories of Afghanis who directly aided British forces.
Recreating the Hindu Kush in the Pennines allows them to signal their virtue.
Carry on up the Khyber was filmed in Snowdonia, so may be a more familiar spot.
Sounds like following the very sensible Cameron policy in regards to Syrian refugees.
Far less incendiary than Macron's comments yesterday upon which of course Scott is silent.
I have already posted the question of Macron's comments and asked for the EU supporters on this forum to demand each EU country takes their fair share and so far silence
For once, Scott makes a valid point. Why are Parliament assembling to discuss this? It will be a political theatre with no possible solution. For the public, it will be a turn-off, but for the MPs a chance to burnish their non-existent powers of prediction.
It can only be a favour to the journalists who need a story. Any one will do. It will resemble a hard left committee who pass a motion to declare they disapprove of an action they have no say in, or any power to influence.
Something along the lines of "The Bognor Regis citizen's collective declare the Taliban an affront to diversity and demand they disband immediately."
She has to maintain her "no refugees by boat" stance to keep the Faragists at bay, while simultaneously 'welcoming' thousands of Afghans.
Unless they arrive by boat...
Yes, because the boats are:
1. Killing people 2. Enabling people smugglers 3. Acting as a draw for people to make long journeys 4. Mostly arriving from a G7, Nato and EU country, which is perfectly safe. 5. Robbing the arrivals of their savings 6. Encouraging economic migration under the guise of asylum.
The UK is taking thousands of Afghan refugees, but will be bringing them into the country from Afghanistan and surrounding areas. Same policy as under Cameron and other governments.
We absolutely won't be. The right have weaponised human suffering. There are no refugees remember. They've been told that they have to claim asylum in the first safe country (they don't), that they're here to take all the jobs (when they can't work) and the benefits (which they can't claim) and now that man with beard will blow us up.
The good Brexit Tory voters in the red wall and eastern England are not going to open their communities to accept Afghan refugees. They voted Brexit and Tory to stop such things happening. Which is why that smirking monster Patel is so determined to stop future Patels coming there.
Sorry, but that’s total and utter bollocks.
The UK are and will be taking thousands of refugees from Afghanistan, which is the correct thing to do.
The basic fact is that Pfizer isn't stemming Delta as effectively on most pandemic measurements as it did with preceding variants. It is also the case that herd immunity is now very unlikely to be achieved.
The rest is a case of watching the data: growing case numbers, serious illness, hospitalisations and deaths ... some of whom will have been double jabbed with Pfizer. In all of those instances more will be affected than would have been the case with preceding variants.
A much simpler way of putting this is that we're heading for trouble this autumn / winter. I wish it weren't so and I wish I could take the Peter Pan approach that some stridently desire. The evidence sadly makes that impossible.
Did you read the link? I'd suggest to you that Simpson's paradox is a real thing, and this also fits the explanation from out of Israel a few weeks ago about assumptions made in the study. If you read @Foxy's posts you will see he reports that ALL in his ICU/on ventilation are UNVACCINATED (he implies some have good reasons, by which I assume medical reasons, not anti-vax). Certainly Delta has made the situation with cases worse. It looked like the vaccines would suppress the spread of covid pretty well before delta arrived. But the consequences for vaccinated people are for the most part not severe. We will not be able to get zero covid, so must do all we can to live with the virus. A suite of vaccines that reduce its severity to a bad cold (or indeed pretty much anything below hospital admission for most) is enough. The trick now (if trick is the word) is to now NOT count cases. The link of cases to hospital and death is vastly reduced, especially for vaccinated people.
Yes but as PB Brexiters point out, there is no need to stick to what you agreed as a government, as they "renegotiate" the triple lock.
What a silly comparison. Manifesto promises are broken all the time and sometimes it will be the right call as things do come up you cannot plan for, or your promise may have been stupid.
The reasonableness and practicality of not going with a manifesto promise is not in the least comparable to the reasonableness and practicality of amending a government agreement with international allies and partners.
Both are possibly right, but the latter is much less likely to be so as the commitment was much firmer on a legal and diplomatic footing.
You're thinking in terms of government, not politics.
If you're a political animal (and this government is generally brilliant at politics), it goes the other way.
Break a deal with the EU or aid recipients- fine. They don't get a vote in the next election.
Letting down voters, especially voters who are overwhelmingly on your side... That's another matter.
On arrival Afghan refugees will be escorted to Stansted and then flown to our new offshore processing centre at Bagram AFB. Their new Taliban camp hosts will keep them safe from the evil Taliban. "It's been a big success" said a smirking Priti Patel yesterday, "the camp has more capacity so big hearted Britain is prepared to take another 50,000 refugees."
Why bother doing that when you've told us that Scotland will take them all.
When do we get Nicola's announcement confirming that ?
On arrival Afghan refugees will be escorted to Stansted and then flown to our new offshore processing centre at Bagram AFB. Their new Taliban camp hosts will keep them safe from the evil Taliban. "It's been a big success" said a smirking Priti Patel yesterday, "the camp has more capacity so big hearted Britain is prepared to take another 50,000 refugees."
Why bother doing that when you've told us that Scotland will take them all.
When do we get Nicola's announcement confirming that ?
Mr. 64, varies a lot according to time period and commander.
The Black Prince was notorious for having a policy of "surrender to me now or you'll be slaughtered" when it came to sieges.
This could, and sometimes did (Liege, I think) backfire, because if you hold out even a little you might as well die fighting because the alternative is dying but not fighting.
Alexander could be generous but when Tyre defied him he refused to give up despite the island-city's near perfect defences (he did take it, eventually) and when Bactria and Sogdiana (which I think includes part of Afghanistan) rose in rebellion he chastised them through the medium of bloodshed. They did not rebel again.
Caesar, of course, committed genocide against the Thuringii. During peace/migration talks.
For once, Scott makes a valid point. Why are Parliament assembling to discuss this? It will be a political theatre with no possible solution. For the public, it will be a turn-off, but for the MPs a chance to burnish their non-existent powers of prediction.
It can only be a favour to the journalists who need a story. Any one will do. It will resemble a hard left committee who pass a motion to declare they disapprove of an action they have no say in, or any power to influence.
Something along the lines of "The Bognor Regis citizen's collective declare the Taliban an affront to diversity and demand they disband immediately."
Ooh, the burn!
I do agree it will serve no purpose other than excite some journalists and I for one will not be wasting time watching it
For once, Scott makes a valid point. Why are Parliament assembling to discuss this? It will be a political theatre with no possible solution. For the public, it will be a turn-off, but for the MPs a chance to burnish their non-existent powers of prediction.
It can only be a favour to the journalists who need a story. Any one will do. It will resemble a hard left committee who pass a motion to declare they disapprove of an action they have no say in, or any power to influence.
Something along the lines of "The Bognor Regis citizen's collective declare the Taliban an affront to diversity and demand they disband immediately."
Ooh, the burn!
Scott is wrong, as usual. If Parliament was not recalled he'd be screaming and ranting and wailing as to why not. Then he'd probably paste another load of fake Covid figures like he did the other week. He thinks it's been forgotten...
The basic fact is that Pfizer isn't stemming Delta as effectively on most pandemic measurements as it did with preceding variants. It is also the case that herd immunity is now very unlikely to be achieved.
The rest is a case of watching the data: growing case numbers, serious illness, hospitalisations and deaths ... some of whom will have been double jabbed with Pfizer. In all of those instances more will be affected than would have been the case with preceding variants.
A much simpler way of putting this is that we're heading for trouble this autumn / winter. I wish it weren't so and I wish I could take the Peter Pan approach that some stridently desire. The evidence sadly makes that impossible.
As someone who’s double-Pfizered, may I just say thank you for ruining my day Heathener.
So many more people think it was wrong to go there in the first place (than think the opposite) yet the same is true (by a bigger margin) when people are asked whether UK troops will have to go back there?
Right.
Being pedantic: strictly speaking that's consistent.
You can think it was a mistake to have gone in there in the first place but, having put our hand in the mangler, now feel it's now our responsibility to stabilise the situation and not cut and run.
Yep.
I never believed it was a good idea to go in there in the first place. The history of western involvement in Afghanistan is disastrous.
However, having gone in there and committed so much (including servicemen's lives), to cut and run in such a peremptory fashion, leaving the Taliban to sweep back into power, is an absolute disgrace. A total debacle and a failure of western democracy on an almost unprecedented scale.
If you didn't believe it was right to go in then the logical, consistent position is to leave as soon as possible and be happy with that.
We haven't so it turns out altered the dynamic which is that the Taliban is taking over the country. They were then and they are now
Your (and others') logic is the person who bets £2 on an accumulator, the first leg wins giving them, say, £50 going into the second leg. Which loses. The loss is £2, not £50.
So many more people think it was wrong to go there in the first place (than think the opposite) yet the same is true (by a bigger margin) when people are asked whether UK troops will have to go back there?
Right.
That’s not illogical. If Afghanistan were to become a base for anti-Western terrorism, then our troops would have to return.
You mean American troops would have to return, subject to the whims of the President. Last week established that after a decade of Tory defence cuts, Britain cannot go it alone against the Taliban.
I doubt if there's any point since 1947 when we could have run a substantial military campaign in Afghanistan on our own.
So many more people think it was wrong to go there in the first place (than think the opposite) yet the same is true (by a bigger margin) when people are asked whether UK troops will have to go back there?
Right.
That’s not illogical. If Afghanistan were to become a base for anti-Western terrorism, then our troops would have to return.
You mean American troops would have to return, subject to the whims of the President. Last week established that after a decade of Tory defence cuts, Britain cannot go it alone against the Taliban.
I doubt if there's any point since 1947 when we could have run a substantial military campaign in Afghanistan on our own.
Yes, I think decrepitjohnl's point is one of those which is generally fine but overreached. Criticisms of defence cuts may work, but not on the basis that without it we'd have been capable of occupying a country on our own.
The basic fact is that Pfizer isn't stemming Delta as effectively on most pandemic measurements as it did with preceding variants. It is also the case that herd immunity is now very unlikely to be achieved.
The rest is a case of watching the data: growing case numbers, serious illness, hospitalisations and deaths ... some of whom will have been double jabbed with Pfizer. In all of those instances more will be affected than would have been the case with preceding variants.
A much simpler way of putting this is that we're heading for trouble this autumn / winter. I wish it weren't so and I wish I could take the Peter Pan approach that some stridently desire. The evidence sadly makes that impossible.
As someone who’s double-Pfizered, may I just say thank you for ruining my day Heathener.
Just had my second Pfizer 4 minutes ago, so agreed!
For once, Scott makes a valid point. Why are Parliament assembling to discuss this? It will be a political theatre with no possible solution. For the public, it will be a turn-off, but for the MPs a chance to burnish their non-existent powers of prediction.
It can only be a favour to the journalists who need a story. Any one will do. It will resemble a hard left committee who pass a motion to declare they disapprove of an action they have no say in, or any power to influence.
Something along the lines of "The Bognor Regis citizen's collective declare the Taliban an affront to diversity and demand they disband immediately."
Ooh, the burn!
I do agree it will serve no purpose other than excite some journalists and I for one will not be wasting time watching it
I do hope Boris gets his "Labour jabber, Conservatives jab" gag into the debate to lighten the depressing and dispiriting narrative.
He managed it during the exchange over low rates of rape prosecutions, so it is entirely possible.
The basic fact is that Pfizer isn't stemming Delta as effectively on most pandemic measurements as it did with preceding variants. It is also the case that herd immunity is now very unlikely to be achieved.
The rest is a case of watching the data: growing case numbers, serious illness, hospitalisations and deaths ... some of whom will have been double jabbed with Pfizer. In all of those instances more will be affected than would have been the case with preceding variants.
A much simpler way of putting this is that we're heading for trouble this autumn / winter. I wish it weren't so and I wish I could take the Peter Pan approach that some stridently desire. The evidence sadly makes that impossible.
Did you read the link? I'd suggest to you that Simpson's paradox is a real thing, and this also fits the explanation from out of Israel a few weeks ago about assumptions made in the study. If you read @Foxy's posts you will see he reports that ALL in his ICU/on ventilation are UNVACCINATED (he implies some have good reasons, by which I assume medical reasons, not anti-vax). Certainly Delta has made the situation with cases worse. It looked like the vaccines would suppress the spread of covid pretty well before delta arrived. But the consequences for vaccinated people are for the most part not severe. We will not be able to get zero covid, so must do all we can to live with the virus. A suite of vaccines that reduce its severity to a bad cold (or indeed pretty much anything below hospital admission for most) is enough. The trick now (if trick is the word) is to now NOT count cases. The link of cases to hospital and death is vastly reduced, especially for vaccinated people.
It's obvious people are seriously all over the fucking shop on this one. We've let down the Afghans but should never have gone in to start with.
There's nothing inconsistent about that position. It's logical, considered and consistent.
What would you do now?
I'd delete my web page, like the Republican Party distancing itself from Trump's deal. Republicans delete webpage celebrating Trump’s deal with Taliban
For once, Scott makes a valid point. Why are Parliament assembling to discuss this? It will be a political theatre with no possible solution. For the public, it will be a turn-off, but for the MPs a chance to burnish their non-existent powers of prediction.
It can only be a favour to the journalists who need a story. Any one will do. It will resemble a hard left committee who pass a motion to declare they disapprove of an action they have no say in, or any power to influence.
Something along the lines of "The Bognor Regis citizen's collective declare the Taliban an affront to diversity and demand they disband immediately."
Ooh, the burn!
If Parliament was not recalled he'd be screaming and ranting and wailing as to why not.
Quite. As would many others. I don't see anything effective to come from it, but even giving all national politicians the opportunity to flail on our behalf is political engagement.
The basic fact is that Pfizer isn't stemming Delta as effectively on most pandemic measurements as it did with preceding variants. It is also the case that herd immunity is now very unlikely to be achieved.
The rest is a case of watching the data: growing case numbers, serious illness, hospitalisations and deaths ... some of whom will have been double jabbed with Pfizer. In all of those instances more will be affected than would have been the case with preceding variants.
A much simpler way of putting this is that we're heading for trouble this autumn / winter. I wish it weren't so and I wish I could take the Peter Pan approach that some stridently desire. The evidence sadly makes that impossible.
As someone who’s double-Pfizered, may I just say thank you for ruining my day Heathener.
I wouldn't worry - chances are even if you contract covid now, you will have a bad few days at most, and almost certainly won'y need hospital care. @Heathener has a rather doom filled outlook. If he/she was commenting at this time last year, they would have been proven absolutely correct. Now over 90% of adults have some immunity. Well in the UK at least, not sure where you are...
The basic fact is that Pfizer isn't stemming Delta as effectively on most pandemic measurements as it did with preceding variants. It is also the case that herd immunity is now very unlikely to be achieved.
The rest is a case of watching the data: growing case numbers, serious illness, hospitalisations and deaths ... some of whom will have been double jabbed with Pfizer. In all of those instances more will be affected than would have been the case with preceding variants.
A much simpler way of putting this is that we're heading for trouble this autumn / winter. I wish it weren't so and I wish I could take the Peter Pan approach that some stridently desire. The evidence sadly makes that impossible.
As someone who’s double-Pfizered, may I just say thank you for ruining my day Heathener.
I wouldn't worry - chances are even if you contract covid now, you will have a bad few days at most, and almost certainly won'y need hospital care. @Heathener has a rather doom filled outlook. If he/she was commenting at this time last year, they would have been proven absolutely correct. Now over 90% of adults have some immunity. Well in the UK at least, not sure where you are...
Sweden - the land of numbers that used to enthuse the COVID Twatterati....
The basic fact is that Pfizer isn't stemming Delta as effectively on most pandemic measurements as it did with preceding variants. It is also the case that herd immunity is now very unlikely to be achieved.
The rest is a case of watching the data: growing case numbers, serious illness, hospitalisations and deaths ... some of whom will have been double jabbed with Pfizer. In all of those instances more will be affected than would have been the case with preceding variants.
A much simpler way of putting this is that we're heading for trouble this autumn / winter. I wish it weren't so and I wish I could take the Peter Pan approach that some stridently desire. The evidence sadly makes that impossible.
As someone who’s double-Pfizered, may I just say thank you for ruining my day Heathener.
I wouldn't worry - chances are even if you contract covid now, you will have a bad few days at most, and almost certainly won'y need hospital care. @Heathener has a rather doom filled outlook. If he/she was commenting at this time last year, they would have been proven absolutely correct. Now over 90% of adults have some immunity. Well in the UK at least, not sure where you are...
And of course the most vulnerable will start getting their boosters in a couple of weeks.
On the broader picture, Johnson will struggle to paint a picture which refutes the sense of acute British and Western decline.
Biden is clearly pursuing America First. Our chief ally has basically said it's not interested. But there is no European alliance to fall back on, because we have spent the last five years destroying that relationship.
That is a very profound moment and one which the prime minister will struggle to conceal.
Yes but as PB Brexiters point out, there is no need to stick to what you agreed as a government, as they "renegotiate" the triple lock.
So the Opposition argument is going to be about the “government breaking their promises”, in the face of a once-in-a-century pandemic, rather than a serious counter-proposal?
Rather than just tossing it out of the window, why not say that in the exceptional circumstances they will apply the same rules, but make the standard of comparison the year before last rather than last year (obviously squaring the 1.025 minimum). Surely that wouldn't look so bad.
Yes but as PB Brexiters point out, there is no need to stick to what you agreed as a government, as they "renegotiate" the triple lock.
What a silly comparison. Manifesto promises are broken all the time and sometimes it will be the right call as things do come up you cannot plan for, or your promise may have been stupid.
The reasonableness and practicality of not going with a manifesto promise is not in the least comparable to the reasonableness and practicality of amending a government agreement with international allies and partners.
Both are possibly right, but the latter is much less likely to be so as the commitment was much firmer on a legal and diplomatic footing.
You're thinking in terms of government, not politics.
If you're a political animal (and this government is generally brilliant at politics), it goes the other way.
Break a deal with the EU or aid recipients- fine. They don't get a vote in the next election.
Letting down voters, especially voters who are overwhelmingly on your side... That's another matter.
Oh I agree, but foxy's post appeared to just be a dig at breaking 'promises' generically, presumably to mock the referenced Brexiteers, not assessing the political merit in this potential break.
Simple truth is promises are broken all the time, and sometimes it's for the better. That's why each one needs assessing on it's own merits. I didn't think the case was made on the aid cut for instance.
On the broader picture, Johnson will struggle to paint a picture which refutes the sense of acute British and Western decline.
Biden is clearly pursuing America First. Our chief ally has basically said it's not interested. But there is no European alliance to fall back on, because we have spent the last five years destroying that relationship.
That is a very profound moment and one which the prime minister will struggle to conceal.
Not being in the EU has not helped, but I'm cynical as to whether there would have been any agreement of response beyond platitudes and mitigation regardless.
Also I thought both we and the EU were committed to being friends and allies, not destroying our relationship despite the change.
The basic fact is that Pfizer isn't stemming Delta as effectively on most pandemic measurements as it did with preceding variants. It is also the case that herd immunity is now very unlikely to be achieved.
The rest is a case of watching the data: growing case numbers, serious illness, hospitalisations and deaths ... some of whom will have been double jabbed with Pfizer. In all of those instances more will be affected than would have been the case with preceding variants.
A much simpler way of putting this is that we're heading for trouble this autumn / winter. I wish it weren't so and I wish I could take the Peter Pan approach that some stridently desire. The evidence sadly makes that impossible.
As someone who’s double-Pfizered, may I just say thank you for ruining my day Heathener.
Just had my second Pfizer 4 minutes ago, so agreed!
Remember it doesn't become effective for at least a week.
So wear a proper mask if you have one - you don't want to be a 'casualty at the end of a battle' if you can help it.
The basic fact is that Pfizer isn't stemming Delta as effectively on most pandemic measurements as it did with preceding variants. It is also the case that herd immunity is now very unlikely to be achieved.
The rest is a case of watching the data: growing case numbers, serious illness, hospitalisations and deaths ... some of whom will have been double jabbed with Pfizer. In all of those instances more will be affected than would have been the case with preceding variants.
A much simpler way of putting this is that we're heading for trouble this autumn / winter. I wish it weren't so and I wish I could take the Peter Pan approach that some stridently desire. The evidence sadly makes that impossible.
Did you read the link? I'd suggest to you that Simpson's paradox is a real thing, and this also fits the explanation from out of Israel a few weeks ago about assumptions made in the study. If you read @Foxy's posts you will see he reports that ALL in his ICU/on ventilation are UNVACCINATED (he implies some have good reasons, by which I assume medical reasons, not anti-vax). Certainly Delta has made the situation with cases worse. It looked like the vaccines would suppress the spread of covid pretty well before delta arrived. But the consequences for vaccinated people are for the most part not severe. We will not be able to get zero covid, so must do all we can to live with the virus. A suite of vaccines that reduce its severity to a bad cold (or indeed pretty much anything below hospital admission for most) is enough. The trick now (if trick is the word) is to now NOT count cases. The link of cases to hospital and death is vastly reduced, especially for vaccinated people.
And don't forget that there are some confounding factors in the Israeli data. Those vaccinated earliest will have been the elderly and most vulnerable, so if it is the case that immunity fades over time, that is especially true for that group (immune persistence is much less in the elderly), and they are the most likely to experience serious Covid. All of which might tend to reinforce your point.
end up dumping them & their problems on Stoke on Trent etc?
There's a very funny article about the 50 worst places to live in England as voted for by denizens. Scroll down to the top 10 worst places and enjoy the comments.
Despite being in the north nowhere in Cumbria even makes the top 50. A shameful lack of effort on the part of Maryport, Workington, Barrow, Carlisle, Millom, Whitehaven, Dalton etc.
The basic fact is that Pfizer isn't stemming Delta as effectively on most pandemic measurements as it did with preceding variants. It is also the case that herd immunity is now very unlikely to be achieved.
The rest is a case of watching the data: growing case numbers, serious illness, hospitalisations and deaths ... some of whom will have been double jabbed with Pfizer. In all of those instances more will be affected than would have been the case with preceding variants.
A much simpler way of putting this is that we're heading for trouble this autumn / winter. I wish it weren't so and I wish I could take the Peter Pan approach that some stridently desire. The evidence sadly makes that impossible.
As someone who’s double-Pfizered, may I just say thank you for ruining my day Heathener.
I wouldn't worry - chances are even if you contract covid now, you will have a bad few days at most, and almost certainly won't need hospital care. @Heathener has a rather doom filled outlook. If he/she was commenting at this time last year, they would have been proven absolutely correct. Now over 90% of adults have some immunity. Well in the UK at least, not sure where you are...
Anecdata... my double vaccinated sixtysomething plumber spent a week in hospital on oxygen after getting it. Outliers do exist.
On arrival Afghan refugees will be escorted to Stansted and then flown to our new offshore processing centre at Bagram AFB. Their new Taliban camp hosts will keep them safe from the evil Taliban. "It's been a big success" said a smirking Priti Patel yesterday, "the camp has more capacity so big hearted Britain is prepared to take another 50,000 refugees."
Why bother doing that when you've told us that Scotland will take them all.
When do we get Nicola's announcement confirming that ?
Afghan crisis debate in parliament about to begin. Was due to finish at 2.30pm but am told by govt sources now likely to go on until 5pm after David Davis tabled amendment to business of house motion https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1427911810112495616
The good Brexit Tory voters in the red wall and eastern England are not going to open their communities to accept Afghan refugees. They voted Brexit and Tory to stop such things happening. Which is why that smirking monster Patel is so determined to stop future Patels coming there.
The British government says it will take in 5,000 Afghan refugees over the next year - and up to 20,000 in the longer term. Women and children will be given priority. It’s being described as ‘one of the most generous resettlement schemes in our country’s history’. https://twitter.com/SimonJonesNews/status/1427853502391492610
It is much less “generous” than resettlement of 11,000 Hungarian refugees in 1956. A lot less “generous” than the resettlement of nearly 30,000 Ugandan Asians in 1972, despite visceral opposition led by Enoch Powell. Both schemes were undertaken by Conservative governments. https://twitter.com/ColinYeo1/status/1427892545502203911
My recollection is that Powell supported the Ugandan resettlement - said something like "I think it's undesirable, but Britain gave its word and not breaking our word is paramount."
On arrival Afghan refugees will be escorted to Stansted and then flown to our new offshore processing centre at Bagram AFB. Their new Taliban camp hosts will keep them safe from the evil Taliban. "It's been a big success" said a smirking Priti Patel yesterday, "the camp has more capacity so big hearted Britain is prepared to take another 50,000 refugees."
Why bother doing that when you've told us that Scotland will take them all.
When do we get Nicola's announcement confirming that ?
Amazing how virtue signalling so quickly turns into "I'd like to help but I'm sorry I'm not allowed".
Like all the celebs who say they will house refugees in their own homes.....
And also a few politicians.
Nicola Sturgeon and Yvette Cooper among them.
In fact it should be easier for politicians to personally house refugees - they tend to own multiple houses.
Even when Gary Lineker took a young gentleman in, they only lasted a couple of weeks. I presume they couldn't put up with his 24/7 moralising.and asked to go back to a hostel for some peace and quiet.
Mr. 64, varies a lot according to time period and commander.
The Black Prince was notorious for having a policy of "surrender to me now or you'll be slaughtered" when it came to sieges.
This could, and sometimes did (Liege, I think) backfire, because if you hold out even a little you might as well die fighting because the alternative is dying but not fighting.
Alexander could be generous but when Tyre defied him he refused to give up despite the island-city's near perfect defences (he did take it, eventually) and when Bactria and Sogdiana (which I think includes part of Afghanistan) rose in rebellion he chastised them through the medium of bloodshed. They did not rebel again.
Caesar, of course, committed genocide against the Thuringii. During peace/migration talks.
Ghengis Khan and Timurlane were rather unforgiving to those that opposed them, even when they surrendered.
I'm not opposed to the government suspending the manifesto triple lock promise due to the exceptional circumstances brought about by Covid.
But I suspect Tories tend to pick and choose which manifesto promises are breakable. For example, would Tories support it if the Chancellor said: "Due to the exceptional circumstances brought about by Covid, I'm sorry to announce that our manifesto pledge not to raise income tax will have to be suspended. We will be raising income tax rates for those who can most afford to pay more"?
King Cole, Tamerlane (I think his name has almost as many variants as Gaddafi) was an absolute sod. Very clever, but utterly brutal.
He saved Byzantium from falling to the Ottomans half a century earlier than it did, by sweeping into Turkish lands and reducing their sultan to a footstool.
I don't think this is quite accurate: Reaching ignition means getting a fusion yield that's greater than the 1.9 MJ put in by the laser... While there was no net energy gain, nuclear 'ignition' was actually achieved. That is a very significant step.
Afghan crisis debate in parliament about to begin. Was due to finish at 2.30pm but am told by govt sources now likely to go on until 5pm after David Davis tabled amendment to business of house motion https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1427911810112495616
Amendment accepted by government. Johnson on his feet.
The basic fact is that Pfizer isn't stemming Delta as effectively on most pandemic measurements as it did with preceding variants. It is also the case that herd immunity is now very unlikely to be achieved.
The rest is a case of watching the data: growing case numbers, serious illness, hospitalisations and deaths ... some of whom will have been double jabbed with Pfizer. In all of those instances more will be affected than would have been the case with preceding variants.
A much simpler way of putting this is that we're heading for trouble this autumn / winter. I wish it weren't so and I wish I could take the Peter Pan approach that some stridently desire. The evidence sadly makes that impossible.
As someone who’s double-Pfizered, may I just say thank you for ruining my day Heathener.
I wouldn't worry - chances are even if you contract covid now, you will have a bad few days at most, and almost certainly won't need hospital care. @Heathener has a rather doom filled outlook. If he/she was commenting at this time last year, they would have been proven absolutely correct. Now over 90% of adults have some immunity. Well in the UK at least, not sure where you are...
Anecdata... my double vaccinated sixtysomething plumber spent a week in hospital on oxygen after getting it. Outliers do exist.
Is there any data to suggest if you catch it a second time it shouldn't be worse than the first time?
I'm not opposed to the government suspending the manifesto triple lock promise due to the exceptional circumstances brought about by Covid.
But I suspect Tories tend to pick and choose which manifesto promises are breakable. For example, would Tories support it if the Chancellor said: "Due to the exceptional circumstances brought about by Covid, I'm sorry to announce that our manifesto pledge not to raise income tax will have to be suspended. We will be raising income tax rates for those who can most afford to pay more"?
NEW: Gap between income and spending in Scotland rocketed to £36.3bn (22.4% of GDP) in 2020-21 after the pandemic hit, Scot Gov's Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland report shows. In 2019-20, gap was £15.1bn (8.6% of GDP). Figures incl geographical share of North Sea oil
The basic fact is that Pfizer isn't stemming Delta as effectively on most pandemic measurements as it did with preceding variants. It is also the case that herd immunity is now very unlikely to be achieved.
The rest is a case of watching the data: growing case numbers, serious illness, hospitalisations and deaths ... some of whom will have been double jabbed with Pfizer. In all of those instances more will be affected than would have been the case with preceding variants.
A much simpler way of putting this is that we're heading for trouble this autumn / winter. I wish it weren't so and I wish I could take the Peter Pan approach that some stridently desire. The evidence sadly makes that impossible.
As someone who’s double-Pfizered, may I just say thank you for ruining my day Heathener.
I wouldn't worry - chances are even if you contract covid now, you will have a bad few days at most, and almost certainly won't need hospital care. @Heathener has a rather doom filled outlook. If he/she was commenting at this time last year, they would have been proven absolutely correct. Now over 90% of adults have some immunity. Well in the UK at least, not sure where you are...
Anecdata... my double vaccinated sixtysomething plumber spent a week in hospital on oxygen after getting it. Outliers do exist.
Is there any data to suggest if you catch it a second time it shouldn't be worse than the first time?
Yes....ONS had data based on reinfections and regardless of severity of first time, second time it was all at the very mild range (except one or two outliers). I don't have the chart they did, but they charted severity / viral load for first and second infections and it was absolutely clear the shift across the board down to low viral load / mild symptoms.
Comments
I flew my first OEF Afghanistan mission on 8th October 2001 and then another 60 in the following 70 days!
Mullah Omar: My Part in his Downfall
A junior officer wrote a book about it, in the early 20th cent. Went on to become a journalist and then an MP. IIRC he managed a certain amount of success in politics.
I have little doubt that Biden and Trump are responsible for the chaotic and unacceptable withdrawal process from Afghanistan. Biden will take the bigger hit as it has happened on his watch, but just what did Trump agree with the Taliban, as he was the instigator of this process
Listening to the Taliban yesteday was surreal, as they promised all kinds of things but I just do not believe a word of it and in my opinion it is a clever ruse to pull the wool over people eyes and provide an easier transition over the next few months and then, as the world moves on, recommence their brutality and wholly unacceptable treatment of women and children
However, we are where we are and we do need to offer asylum to many Afghans and 20,000 does not seem to be any where near sufficient, but questions have to be asked of the EU and how many they will accept.
There is a report that Macron is far to the right of Patel on this, and if so that is shocking and I would ask those who so vociferously support the EU join the call for each EU country to accept their share of these displaced and very frightened people
It is clear there is no going back now and the west's intelligence and security agencies will need to be alert to the dangers of terrorism and to answer the question what happens if there is a repeat of 9/11 then I would expect the US and Allies to use targetted air strikes and SAS action, but not to re-enter Afghanistan on the ground
We are living through terrible times with covid still to be beaten, (NZ putting the whole country into lockdown for one case of the delta variant is alarming) floods, fires and extreme climate events, and now this and to those of us who have largely been unaffected we need to realise just how fortunate we are and do everything possible to mitigate the horrors of Afghanistan
Fixed it.
Where's the option for the Afghan government and military?
The public seem to think that we should never have gone in, it was pointless that we did, and that we shouldn't have left. Can't really get my head around that.
That they didn't seems to me to suggest much more fundamental problems. This army simply had no loyalty to or commitment to the Ghani regime which seems to have had no base of support in the country. Payment for non existent staff and equipment that had been sold or given to the Taleban seems to have been endemic. Efforts to create a new nation state of Afghanistan seem to have failed utterly.
The army was not so much defeated as chose not to fight for a regime that no one cared about. The hearts and minds strategists were completely and totally deluded. No doubt lessons will be learned etc.
The basic fact is that Pfizer isn't stemming Delta as effectively on most pandemic measurements as it did with preceding variants. It is also the case that herd immunity is now very unlikely to be achieved.
The rest is a case of watching the data: growing case numbers, serious illness, hospitalisations and deaths ... some of whom will have been double jabbed with Pfizer. In all of those instances more will be affected than would have been the case with preceding variants.
A much simpler way of putting this is that we're heading for trouble this autumn / winter. I wish it weren't so and I wish I could take the Peter Pan approach that some stridently desire. The evidence sadly makes that impossible.
Error upon error upon error
Layers of error mounting so high that you could - well - build a castle on top
https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1427899636006670339?s=20
1. Killing people
2. Enabling people smugglers
3. Acting as a draw for people to make long journeys
4. Mostly arriving from a G7, Nato and EU country, which is perfectly safe.
5. Robbing the arrivals of their savings
6. Encouraging economic migration under the guise of asylum.
The UK is taking thousands of Afghan refugees, but will be bringing them into the country from Afghanistan and surrounding areas. Same policy as under Cameron and other governments.
Is there a pattern that the highest places are those which have had lowest overall infection during the pandemic - Scotland, Northern Ireland, Cornwall as example - ie an element of 'gap filling' because of the greater transmission of Delta and the end of restrictions ?
How can we let the Taliban rule, the brutes/it's up to them
Next up: Tony Blair was right all along to invade Iraq for human rights/CT purposes.
The reasonableness and practicality of not going with a manifesto promise is not in the least comparable to the reasonableness and practicality of amending a government agreement with international allies and partners.
Both are possibly right, but the latter is much less likely to be so as the commitment was much firmer on a legal and diplomatic footing.
I never believed it was a good idea to go in there in the first place. The history of western involvement in Afghanistan is disastrous.
However, having gone in there and committed so much (including servicemen's lives), to cut and run in such a peremptory fashion, leaving the Taliban to sweep back into power, is an absolute disgrace. A total debacle and a failure of western democracy on an almost unprecedented scale.
Or are we just going to pretend it’s all cost free and end up dumping them & their problems on Stoke on Trent etc?
When do we get Nicola's announcement confirming that ?
The good Brexit Tory voters in the red wall and eastern England are not going to open their communities to accept Afghan refugees. They voted Brexit and Tory to stop such things happening. Which is why that smirking monster Patel is so determined to stop future Patels coming there.
1) We shouldn't have gone in
2) It was pointless
3) Once we were in, we shouldn't have left like this.
https://www.ilivehere.co.uk/top-50-worst-places-to-live-in-england-2021
Our son was married three weeks ago and we had the Church service without masks, (though no singing), and the reception with 70 guests without masks, and not one guest has gone down with covid subsequently
And of course Afghanistan has moved it off the agenda
https://twitter.com/SimonJonesNews/status/1427853502391492610
It is much less “generous” than resettlement of 11,000 Hungarian refugees in 1956. A lot less “generous” than the resettlement of nearly 30,000 Ugandan Asians in 1972, despite visceral opposition led by Enoch Powell. Both schemes were undertaken by Conservative governments.
https://twitter.com/ColinYeo1/status/1427892545502203911
Yes, we should help and accommodate those who helped the UK Mission (in its broad sense) - but suggesting that we automatically accept all those claiming to be Afghan refugees crossing the channel has an obvious flaw...
I think was certainly the case during the napoleonic wars, eg in the peninsula.
With the only possible unifying force being religion.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58250211
To break one lock may be regarded as a misfortune ...
So any time we left this was going to happen. Which is why we should leave as we no longer serve a purpose. We need to ensure we get people out who are leaving and that is why more troops are going in. The Taliban and their predecessors are firmly in control now and short of slaughtering them and the other people who will rally to their cause as we slaughter them we can do nothing about it.
The international community needs to allow safe resettlement of people fleeing this bearded Gilead and that means the UK taking its fair share for a change.
Captain Lisa Head
Republicans delete webpage celebrating Trump’s deal with Taliban
Page touting former president’s ‘historic peace agreement’ disappeared over the weekend
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/rnc-trump-kabul-taliban-deal-b1903364.html
Even allowing that hypothetical, that "could have" extends all the way back to their inception. Similarly, Afghanistan could have had an effective government.
It can only be a favour to the journalists who need a story. Any one will do. It will resemble a hard left committee who pass a motion to declare they disapprove of an action they have no say in, or any power to influence.
Something along the lines of "The Bognor Regis citizen's collective declare the Taliban an affront to diversity and demand they disband immediately."
Ooh, the burn!
The UK are and will be taking thousands of refugees from Afghanistan, which is the correct thing to do.
The trick now (if trick is the word) is to now NOT count cases. The link of cases to hospital and death is vastly reduced, especially for vaccinated people.
If you're a political animal (and this government is generally brilliant at politics), it goes the other way.
Break a deal with the EU or aid recipients- fine. They don't get a vote in the next election.
Letting down voters, especially voters who are overwhelmingly on your side... That's another matter.
Starmer having handled this crisis appallingly badly at 26% is also interesting.
Ben Wallace by blubbing seems to have captured the zeitgeist.
So in summary, what a stupid poll.
The Black Prince was notorious for having a policy of "surrender to me now or you'll be slaughtered" when it came to sieges.
This could, and sometimes did (Liege, I think) backfire, because if you hold out even a little you might as well die fighting because the alternative is dying but not fighting.
Alexander could be generous but when Tyre defied him he refused to give up despite the island-city's near perfect defences (he did take it, eventually) and when Bactria and Sogdiana (which I think includes part of Afghanistan) rose in rebellion he chastised them through the medium of bloodshed. They did not rebel again.
Caesar, of course, committed genocide against the Thuringii. During peace/migration talks.
We haven't so it turns out altered the dynamic which is that the Taliban is taking over the country. They were then and they are now
Your (and others') logic is the person who bets £2 on an accumulator, the first leg wins giving them, say, £50 going into the second leg. Which loses. The loss is £2, not £50.
He managed it during the exchange over low rates of rape prosecutions, so it is entirely possible.
Biden is clearly pursuing America First. Our chief ally has basically said it's not interested. But there is no European alliance to fall back on, because we have spent the last five years destroying that relationship.
That is a very profound moment and one which the prime minister will struggle to conceal.
https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1427909154597916672
How would that compare with what's been leaked?
Simple truth is promises are broken all the time, and sometimes it's for the better. That's why each one needs assessing on it's own merits. I didn't think the case was made on the aid cut for instance.
Also I thought both we and the EU were committed to being friends and allies, not destroying our relationship despite the change.
So wear a proper mask if you have one - you don't want to be a 'casualty at the end of a battle' if you can help it.
All of which might tend to reinforce your point.
Nicola Sturgeon and Yvette Cooper among them.
In fact it should be easier for politicians to personally house refugees - they tend to own multiple houses.
https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1427911810112495616
But I suspect Tories tend to pick and choose which manifesto promises are breakable. For example, would Tories support it if the Chancellor said: "Due to the exceptional circumstances brought about by Covid, I'm sorry to announce that our manifesto pledge not to raise income tax will have to be suspended. We will be raising income tax rates for those who can most afford to pay more"?
He saved Byzantium from falling to the Ottomans half a century earlier than it did, by sweeping into Turkish lands and reducing their sultan to a footstool.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58252784
I don't think this is quite accurate:
Reaching ignition means getting a fusion yield that's greater than the 1.9 MJ put in by the laser...
While there was no net energy gain, nuclear 'ignition' was actually achieved. That is a very significant step.
https://twitter.com/ChrisMusson/status/1427912194138812418?s=20