There are plenty of disincentives to tell the truth. Let's take one hypothetical example.
You are due to fly on holiday on Monday. Your carrier needs to see proof of a negative LFT taken within 48 hrs before you can travel.
If you take it and it's positive you can't go away and will face the whole insurance/compensation battle.
Do you take it or not take it and just report a negative test using the serial number on the test. If you do take it and it's positive do you report it as such? Etc.
Yes...that does depend on people being willing to risk committing manslaughter in order to go on holiday. But I know not everyone will see it like that.
No I think it's a pretty safe bet that they won't. Unless you think that 85% of the thousands of people attending the ERP events were willing to commit manslaughter.
Pretty bizarre point of view.
85% tested positive? Edit: oh, you mean 85% hadn't been tested? My comment was only about people who test positive and go and infect people anyway.
And mine was that there is no incentive to take the test.
When people have the flu and go out and about no one has ever previously talked of them being guilty of manslaughter.
Well, you'd agree, I think, that Covid will kill a small proportion of vaccinated people and (unlike flu) a significant proportion of unvaccinated people. It will also cause very serious illness for a larger proportion, without killing them. If you decide to go on holiday while knowing that you're infectious, especially abroad where you probably have little data on the proportion who have been vaccinated, you're willingly taking the risk of killing some of the people you meet.
It doesn't seem at all like going out with flu, more like having AIDS and sleeping with strangers without warning them.
You are talking about numbers. I am talking about principle. The flu will kill someone vulnerable. So will Covid. Covid might kill more.
But the principle is the same. Going out with either is being willing to commit manslaughter or it is not.
16,000 evacuated (edit) in the last 24hrs. (US) military flights evacuated approximately 10,400 people while the coalition flights evacuated another 5,900 people
The Taliban have set us a deadline of 31st August to complete all evacuations.
They have said any US and UK and western military presence in Afghanistan still after that date will provoke a response from them.
So we have a week to complete the process and get all refugees and troops out or face a bloodbath
You tend to be ever so dramatic and we really do not know what would happen if the US and allies remained to secure the evacuation of those in need
There may be threats but I doubt the Taliban would want to be in a firefight at this stage
The Taliban would surely start taking hostages. That's the easiest thing to do, and the hardest thing for us to fight against, or resolve
Just a few hostages gives you enormous leverage, the Taliban could seize thousands.
I would suggest we wait and see how this develops as despite the rhetoric I doubt the Taliban want to undo everything for the sake of a few more days or even a week or two
Mullen is thus far the only senior officer from that period who has publicly admitted that the U.S. policy—and he personally—was deeply mistaken. “It’s hard to deny the evidence in front of you,” Mullen said to me in a phone interview Monday morning.…
The Taliban have set us a deadline of 31st August to complete all evacuations.
They have said any US and UK and western military presence in Afghanistan still after that date will provoke a response from them.
So we have a week to complete the process and get all refugees and troops out or face a bloodbath
You tend to be ever so dramatic and we really do not know what would happen if the US and allies remained to secure the evacuation of those in need
There may be threats but I doubt the Taliban would want to be in a firefight at this stage
The Taliban would surely start taking hostages. That's the easiest thing to do, and the hardest thing for us to fight against, or resolve
Just a few hostages gives you enormous leverage, the Taliban could seize thousands.
I would suggest we wait and see how this develops as despite the rhetoric I doubt the Taliban want to undo everything for the sake of a few more days or even a week or two
The Taliban have set us a deadline of 31st August to complete all evacuations.
They have said any US and UK and western military presence in Afghanistan still after that date will provoke a response from them.
So we have a week to complete the process and get all refugees and troops out or face a bloodbath
You tend to be ever so dramatic and we really do not know what would happen if the US and allies remained to secure the evacuation of those in need
There may be threats but I doubt the Taliban would want to be in a firefight at this stage
The Taliban would surely start taking hostages. That's the easiest thing to do, and the hardest thing for us to fight against, or resolve
Just a few hostages gives you enormous leverage, the Taliban could seize thousands.
I would suggest we wait and see how this develops as despite the rhetoric I doubt the Taliban want to undo everything for the sake of a few more days or even a week or two
There are plenty of disincentives to tell the truth. Let's take one hypothetical example.
You are due to fly on holiday on Monday. Your carrier needs to see proof of a negative LFT taken within 48 hrs before you can travel.
If you take it and it's positive you can't go away and will face the whole insurance/compensation battle.
Do you take it or not take it and just report a negative test using the serial number on the test. If you do take it and it's positive do you report it as such? Etc.
Yes...that does depend on people being willing to risk committing manslaughter in order to go on holiday. But I know not everyone will see it like that.
No I think it's a pretty safe bet that they won't. Unless you think that 85% of the thousands of people attending the ERP events were willing to commit manslaughter.
Pretty bizarre point of view.
85% tested positive? Edit: oh, you mean 85% hadn't been tested? My comment was only about people who test positive and go and infect people anyway.
And mine was that there is no incentive to take the test.
When people have the flu and go out and about no one has ever previously talked of them being guilty of manslaughter.
Well, you'd agree, I think, that Covid will kill a small proportion of vaccinated people and (unlike flu) a significant proportion of unvaccinated people. It will also cause very serious illness for a larger proportion, without killing them. If you decide to go on holiday while knowing that you're infectious, especially abroad where you probably have little data on the proportion who have been vaccinated, you're willingly taking the risk of killing some of the people you meet.
It doesn't seem at all like going out with flu, more like having AIDS and sleeping with strangers without warning them.
You are talking about numbers. I am talking about principle. The flu will kill someone vulnerable. So will Covid. Covid might kill more.
But the principle is the same. Going out with either is being willing to commit manslaughter or it is not.
It depends how infectious and potentially lethal the disease is. The more of both it is, the more like manslaughter it is for you to go out and mix, assuming you know this and you know you have it.
There are plenty of disincentives to tell the truth. Let's take one hypothetical example.
You are due to fly on holiday on Monday. Your carrier needs to see proof of a negative LFT taken within 48 hrs before you can travel.
If you take it and it's positive you can't go away and will face the whole insurance/compensation battle.
Do you take it or not take it and just report a negative test using the serial number on the test. If you do take it and it's positive do you report it as such? Etc.
Yes...that does depend on people being willing to risk committing manslaughter in order to go on holiday. But I know not everyone will see it like that.
No I think it's a pretty safe bet that they won't. Unless you think that 85% of the thousands of people attending the ERP events were willing to commit manslaughter.
Pretty bizarre point of view.
85% tested positive? Edit: oh, you mean 85% hadn't been tested? My comment was only about people who test positive and go and infect people anyway.
And mine was that there is no incentive to take the test.
When people have the flu and go out and about no one has ever previously talked of them being guilty of manslaughter.
Well, you'd agree, I think, that Covid will kill a small proportion of vaccinated people and (unlike flu) a significant proportion of unvaccinated people. It will also cause very serious illness for a larger proportion, without killing them. If you decide to go on holiday while knowing that you're infectious, especially abroad where you probably have little data on the proportion who have been vaccinated, you're willingly taking the risk of killing some of the people you meet.
It doesn't seem at all like going out with flu, more like having AIDS and sleeping with strangers without warning them.
You are talking about numbers. I am talking about principle. The flu will kill someone vulnerable. So will Covid. Covid might kill more.
But the principle is the same. Going out with either is being willing to commit manslaughter or it is not.
It depends how infectious and potentially lethal the disease is. The more of both it is, the more like manslaughter it is for you to go out and mix, assuming you know this and you know you have it.
So what is it if you have the flu and just kill one person? Manslaughter-lite?
I can't see any possibility of the Taliban extending the deadline. Why should they? As it is they are showing the world that the US has surrendered to them, and they can claim, with quite a lot of justification, that they have magnanimously kept to the agreed terms of the American surrender. They have lots of headstrong young men who want to get on with enjoying the sweets of victory, and plenty of scores to settle once the journalists have left. The West has nothing to offer them, or at least nothing that the West will be prepared to offer.
The Taliban have set us a deadline of 31st August to complete all evacuations.
They have said any US and UK and western military presence in Afghanistan still after that date will provoke a response from them.
So we have a week to complete the process and get all refugees and troops out or face a bloodbath
We aren't going to get "all refugees" out. Ben Wallace has conceded this.
This is the most emotionally impacting foreign policy crisis I can remember. What matches it?
Tens of thousands of people at risk from a cruel and evil conqueror. A race to get them out
It's like Dunkirk with Korans
If it was Dunkirk the tens of thousands would be dead already. The conqueror reached the airport over a week ago and is providing airport security now to assist in the evacuation.
I can't see any possibility of the Taliban extending the deadline. Why should they? As it is they are showing the world that the US has surrendered to them, and they can claim, with quite a lot of justification, that they have magnanimously kept to the agreed terms of the American surrender. They have lots of headstrong young men who want to get on with enjoying the sweets of victory, and plenty of scores to settle once the journalists have left. The West has nothing to offer them, or at least nothing that the West will be prepared to offer.
As they live in their heads in the 7th century, who the feck knows what they will do?
The Taliban have set us a deadline of 31st August to complete all evacuations.
They have said any US and UK and western military presence in Afghanistan still after that date will provoke a response from them.
So we have a week to complete the process and get all refugees and troops out or face a bloodbath
We aren't going to get "all refugees" out. Ben Wallace has conceded this.
This is the most emotionally impacting foreign policy crisis I can remember. What matches it?
Tens of thousands of people at risk from a cruel and evil conqueror. A race to get them out
It's like Dunkirk with Korans
If it was Dunkirk the tens of thousands would be dead already. The conqueror reached the airport over a week ago and is providing airport security now to assist in the evacuation.
I can't think what compares.
Similar to Hitler's halt order, which gave some time for the evacuation.
Second like the democratic candidate for California Governor when the recall result hits.
There are thirty Republican candidates on the ballot for governor, and nine democrats.
There is no run off. The highest scoring - of the fifty total - candidate wins, even if they only get 10% of the total vote.
It is entirely possible that the winner will be a Democrat you have never heard of. It’s also possible that Republican Larry Elder wins, and is immediately repealed himself.
The Taliban have set us a deadline of 31st August to complete all evacuations.
They have said any US and UK and western military presence in Afghanistan still after that date will provoke a response from them.
So we have a week to complete the process and get all refugees and troops out or face a bloodbath
I thought you wanted to destroy the Taliban ?
I wanted to stay their permanently yes, Uncle Joe thought differently
Well, I presume you wanted someone else from UK/US to stay there permanently, rather than your good self?
We have a paid professional army for a reason.
The US has had troops in South Korea for 70 years for example, to keep out North Korea
And where is your poll showing support for our forces to stay in Afghanistan indefinitely
You deploy the military because of national security interests if you are an elected government not opinion polls, if voters are that concerned they can vote for the opposition at the next general election
I can't see any possibility of the Taliban extending the deadline. Why should they? As it is they are showing the world that the US has surrendered to them, and they can claim, with quite a lot of justification, that they have magnanimously kept to the agreed terms of the American surrender. They have lots of headstrong young men who want to get on with enjoying the sweets of victory, and plenty of scores to settle once the journalists have left. The West has nothing to offer them, or at least nothing that the West will be prepared to offer.
There's one thing The West is very good at offering. Some things are priceless, for everything else there's Mastercard . . .
It depends upon timescales. The Taliban know they have won and are getting control, they want the Americans gone for good and they don't want a reason for this to turn into a fight. If its a case of a one week extension would get everyone they don't want in the country out of it - and no doubt if there's backhanders going the other way - then I wouldn't rule out the possibility of an extension.
There are plenty of disincentives to tell the truth. Let's take one hypothetical example.
You are due to fly on holiday on Monday. Your carrier needs to see proof of a negative LFT taken within 48 hrs before you can travel.
If you take it and it's positive you can't go away and will face the whole insurance/compensation battle.
Do you take it or not take it and just report a negative test using the serial number on the test. If you do take it and it's positive do you report it as such? Etc.
Yes...that does depend on people being willing to risk committing manslaughter in order to go on holiday. But I know not everyone will see it like that.
No I think it's a pretty safe bet that they won't. Unless you think that 85% of the thousands of people attending the ERP events were willing to commit manslaughter.
Pretty bizarre point of view.
85% tested positive? Edit: oh, you mean 85% hadn't been tested? My comment was only about people who test positive and go and infect people anyway.
And mine was that there is no incentive to take the test.
When people have the flu and go out and about no one has ever previously talked of them being guilty of manslaughter.
Well, you'd agree, I think, that Covid will kill a small proportion of vaccinated people and (unlike flu) a significant proportion of unvaccinated people. It will also cause very serious illness for a larger proportion, without killing them. If you decide to go on holiday while knowing that you're infectious, especially abroad where you probably have little data on the proportion who have been vaccinated, you're willingly taking the risk of killing some of the people you meet.
It doesn't seem at all like going out with flu, more like having AIDS and sleeping with strangers without warning them.
You are talking about numbers. I am talking about principle. The flu will kill someone vulnerable. So will Covid. Covid might kill more.
But the principle is the same. Going out with either is being willing to commit manslaughter or it is not.
It depends how infectious and potentially lethal the disease is. The more of both it is, the more like manslaughter it is for you to go out and mix, assuming you know this and you know you have it.
So what is it if you have the flu and just kill one person? Manslaughter-lite?
Second like the democratic candidate for California Governor when the recall result hits.
There are thirty Republican candidates on the ballot for governor, and nine democrats.
There is no run off. The highest scoring - of the fifty total - candidate wins, even if they only get 10% of the total vote.
It is entirely possible that the winner will be a Democrat you have never heard of. It’s also possible that Republican Larry Elder wins, and is immediately repealed himself.
You'd think one of the two parties would realise that if you only put up one candidate, you would be guaranteed to win.
The Taliban have set us a deadline of 31st August to complete all evacuations.
They have said any US and UK and western military presence in Afghanistan still after that date will provoke a response from them.
So we have a week to complete the process and get all refugees and troops out or face a bloodbath
We aren't going to get "all refugees" out. Ben Wallace has conceded this.
This is the most emotionally impacting foreign policy crisis I can remember. What matches it?
Tens of thousands of people at risk from a cruel and evil conqueror. A race to get them out
It's like Dunkirk with Korans
If it was Dunkirk the tens of thousands would be dead already. The conqueror reached the airport over a week ago and is providing airport security now to assist in the evacuation.
I can't think what compares.
It is a shock to many people because we, the West, who are generally right about everything morally and otherwise, have now conclusively lost to the wrong side.
It is so shocking because we all fundamentally think that we are in the right and the Taliban are in the wrong. With Vietnam, for example, there was (quite a strong) case to be made for the Viet Cong.
There are plenty of disincentives to tell the truth. Let's take one hypothetical example.
You are due to fly on holiday on Monday. Your carrier needs to see proof of a negative LFT taken within 48 hrs before you can travel.
If you take it and it's positive you can't go away and will face the whole insurance/compensation battle.
Do you take it or not take it and just report a negative test using the serial number on the test. If you do take it and it's positive do you report it as such? Etc.
Yes...that does depend on people being willing to risk committing manslaughter in order to go on holiday. But I know not everyone will see it like that.
No I think it's a pretty safe bet that they won't. Unless you think that 85% of the thousands of people attending the ERP events were willing to commit manslaughter.
Pretty bizarre point of view.
85% tested positive? Edit: oh, you mean 85% hadn't been tested? My comment was only about people who test positive and go and infect people anyway.
And mine was that there is no incentive to take the test.
When people have the flu and go out and about no one has ever previously talked of them being guilty of manslaughter.
Well, you'd agree, I think, that Covid will kill a small proportion of vaccinated people and (unlike flu) a significant proportion of unvaccinated people. It will also cause very serious illness for a larger proportion, without killing them. If you decide to go on holiday while knowing that you're infectious, especially abroad where you probably have little data on the proportion who have been vaccinated, you're willingly taking the risk of killing some of the people you meet.
It doesn't seem at all like going out with flu, more like having AIDS and sleeping with strangers without warning them.
You are talking about numbers. I am talking about principle. The flu will kill someone vulnerable. So will Covid. Covid might kill more.
But the principle is the same. Going out with either is being willing to commit manslaughter or it is not.
It depends how infectious and potentially lethal the disease is. The more of both it is, the more like manslaughter it is for you to go out and mix, assuming you know this and you know you have it.
So what is it if you have the flu and just kill one person? Manslaughter-lite?
So lite as to be not.
If you have the flu you know that it might kill someone very vulnerable. Or you do now.
Have you, kini, ever, ever had the flu and not gone out because you thought you might kill someone. All those years in the city suffering man flu. You always stayed at home. Or did you tough it out and go to work?
I can't see any possibility of the Taliban extending the deadline. Why should they? As it is they are showing the world that the US has surrendered to them, and they can claim, with quite a lot of justification, that they have magnanimously kept to the agreed terms of the American surrender. They have lots of headstrong young men who want to get on with enjoying the sweets of victory, and plenty of scores to settle once the journalists have left. The West has nothing to offer them, or at least nothing that the West will be prepared to offer.
There's one thing The West is very good at offering. Some things are priceless, for everything else there's Mastercard . . .
It depends upon timescales. The Taliban know they have won and are getting control, they want the Americans gone for good and they don't want a reason for this to turn into a fight. If its a case of a one week extension would get everyone they don't want in the country out of it - and no doubt if there's backhanders going the other way - then I wouldn't rule out the possibility of an extension.
I can't see any possibility of the Taliban extending the deadline. Why should they? As it is they are showing the world that the US has surrendered to them, and they can claim, with quite a lot of justification, that they have magnanimously kept to the agreed terms of the American surrender. They have lots of headstrong young men who want to get on with enjoying the sweets of victory, and plenty of scores to settle once the journalists have left. The West has nothing to offer them, or at least nothing that the West will be prepared to offer.
There's one thing The West is very good at offering. Some things are priceless, for everything else there's Mastercard . . .
It depends upon timescales. The Taliban know they have won and are getting control, they want the Americans gone for good and they don't want a reason for this to turn into a fight. If its a case of a one week extension would get everyone they don't want in the country out of it - and no doubt if there's backhanders going the other way - then I wouldn't rule out the possibility of an extension.
I don't know why the government don't send Harry Kane over to negotiate an extension with the Taliban
The Taliban have set us a deadline of 31st August to complete all evacuations.
They have said any US and UK and western military presence in Afghanistan still after that date will provoke a response from them.
So we have a week to complete the process and get all refugees and troops out or face a bloodbath
We aren't going to get "all refugees" out. Ben Wallace has conceded this.
This is the most emotionally impacting foreign policy crisis I can remember. What matches it?
Tens of thousands of people at risk from a cruel and evil conqueror. A race to get them out
It's like Dunkirk with Korans
If it was Dunkirk the tens of thousands would be dead already. The conqueror reached the airport over a week ago and is providing airport security now to assist in the evacuation.
I can't think what compares.
Similar to Hitler's halt order, which gave some time for the evacuation.
Completely different.
There's extremely little evidence that the halt order was done in order to assist the evacuation. Instead the evidence is generally considered to be that it was to allow the German infantry to catch up, to preserve their Panzers and/or to allow the Luftwaffe to have the opportunity to destroy Dunkirk which is what Goring wanted.
What's happening now is more if the infantry etc had caught up after the halt order, then they resumed movement, got into Dunkirk and then they started assisting the British etc onto the ships instead of seeking to destroy them.
The Taliban aren't on the way to the airport, they're there already and are working side-by-side and even behind British lines to assist in security. Not something Hitler would have done. 😕
The Taliban have set us a deadline of 31st August to complete all evacuations.
They have said any US and UK and western military presence in Afghanistan still after that date will provoke a response from them.
So we have a week to complete the process and get all refugees and troops out or face a bloodbath
You tend to be ever so dramatic and we really do not know what would happen if the US and allies remained to secure the evacuation of those in need
There may be threats but I doubt the Taliban would want to be in a firefight at this stage
The Taliban would surely start taking hostages. That's the easiest thing to do, and the hardest thing for us to fight against, or resolve
Just a few hostages gives you enormous leverage, the Taliban could seize thousands.
I would suggest we wait and see how this develops as despite the rhetoric I doubt the Taliban want to undo everything for the sake of a few more days or even a week or two
They said that soldiers staying beyond Aug 31 would have consequences. This was a response to newspaper stories saying the Americans might stay beyond August 31 to complete the evacuation.
Reality is a long way from @HYUFD’s interpretation
I can't see any possibility of the Taliban extending the deadline. Why should they? As it is they are showing the world that the US has surrendered to them, and they can claim, with quite a lot of justification, that they have magnanimously kept to the agreed terms of the American surrender. They have lots of headstrong young men who want to get on with enjoying the sweets of victory, and plenty of scores to settle once the journalists have left. The West has nothing to offer them, or at least nothing that the West will be prepared to offer.
What utter tosh.
The taliban government needs sanctions lifted and funds unfreezed or there will be hundreds of thousands of starving Afghanis.
I can't see any possibility of the Taliban extending the deadline. Why should they? As it is they are showing the world that the US has surrendered to them, and they can claim, with quite a lot of justification, that they have magnanimously kept to the agreed terms of the American surrender. They have lots of headstrong young men who want to get on with enjoying the sweets of victory, and plenty of scores to settle once the journalists have left. The West has nothing to offer them, or at least nothing that the West will be prepared to offer.
The West might have quite a lot to offer them in the form of continued aid (note we were talking about increasing ours). Without which their economy will crater.
But your probably right about the deadline. Though even after that the majority of those with foreign passports will possibly be OK for a while. If it doesn’t go pear shaped.
The Taliban have set us a deadline of 31st August to complete all evacuations.
They have said any US and UK and western military presence in Afghanistan still after that date will provoke a response from them.
So we have a week to complete the process and get all refugees and troops out or face a bloodbath
We aren't going to get "all refugees" out. Ben Wallace has conceded this.
This is the most emotionally impacting foreign policy crisis I can remember. What matches it?
Tens of thousands of people at risk from a cruel and evil conqueror. A race to get them out
It's like Dunkirk with Korans
If it was Dunkirk the tens of thousands would be dead already. The conqueror reached the airport over a week ago and is providing airport security now to assist in the evacuation.
I can't think what compares.
It is a shock to many people because we, the West, who are generally right about everything morally and otherwise, have now conclusively lost to the wrong side.
It is so shocking because we all fundamentally think that we are in the right and the Taliban are in the wrong. With Vietnam, for example, there was (quite a strong) case to be made for the Viet Cong.
In this case, we are definitely on the right side, despite our many errors. The Taliban are pretty much pure evil
They are now beating women for the crime of walking alone in the street. Once the cameras and troops have gone, they will only get worse. It is their nature
The Taliban have set us a deadline of 31st August to complete all evacuations.
They have said any US and UK and western military presence in Afghanistan still after that date will provoke a response from them.
So we have a week to complete the process and get all refugees and troops out or face a bloodbath
We aren't going to get "all refugees" out. Ben Wallace has conceded this.
This is the most emotionally impacting foreign policy crisis I can remember. What matches it?
Tens of thousands of people at risk from a cruel and evil conqueror. A race to get them out
It's like Dunkirk with Korans
If it was Dunkirk the tens of thousands would be dead already. The conqueror reached the airport over a week ago and is providing airport security now to assist in the evacuation.
I can't think what compares.
Similar to Hitler's halt order, which gave some time for the evacuation.
Completely different.
There's extremely little evidence that the halt order was done in order to assist the evacuation. Instead the evidence is generally considered to be that it was to allow the German infantry to catch up, to preserve their Panzers and/or to allow the Luftwaffe to have the opportunity to destroy Dunkirk which is what Goring wanted.
What's happening now is more if the infantry etc had caught up after the halt order, then they resumed movement, got into Dunkirk and then they started assisting the British etc onto the ships instead of seeking to destroy them.
The Taliban aren't on the way to the airport, they're their and working side-by-side and even behind British lines to assist in security. Not something Hitler would have done. 😕
Yeah, I'm not arguing they are exactly the same. But the Taliban could have overrun the airport if they wanted to, much how Hitler could have overrun the port.
The Taliban have set us a deadline of 31st August to complete all evacuations.
They have said any US and UK and western military presence in Afghanistan still after that date will provoke a response from them.
So we have a week to complete the process and get all refugees and troops out or face a bloodbath
I thought you wanted to destroy the Taliban ?
I wanted to stay their permanently yes, Uncle Joe thought differently
Well, I presume you wanted someone else from UK/US to stay there permanently, rather than your good self?
We have a paid professional army for a reason.
The US has had troops in South Korea for 70 years for example, to keep out North Korea
And where is your poll showing support for our forces to stay in Afghanistan indefinitely
You deploy the military because of national security interests if you are an elected government not opinion polls, if voters are that concerned they can vote for the opposition at the next general election
No but Guffens-Heynen is a master and I would certainly give it a try. But I might buy his Macon Pierreclos first!
Talking of wine, we hosted a Gruaud Larose dinner Chez Nabavi a couple of weeks ago: 2002, 2000, 1999, 1996, 1990, 1986, 1982, 1975, 1973, 1967, 1961. Quite an evening!
The Taliban have set us a deadline of 31st August to complete all evacuations.
They have said any US and UK and western military presence in Afghanistan still after that date will provoke a response from them.
So we have a week to complete the process and get all refugees and troops out or face a bloodbath
You tend to be ever so dramatic and we really do not know what would happen if the US and allies remained to secure the evacuation of those in need
There may be threats but I doubt the Taliban would want to be in a firefight at this stage
The Taliban would surely start taking hostages. That's the easiest thing to do, and the hardest thing for us to fight against, or resolve
Just a few hostages gives you enormous leverage, the Taliban could seize thousands.
I would suggest we wait and see how this develops as despite the rhetoric I doubt the Taliban want to undo everything for the sake of a few more days or even a week or two
They said that soldiers staying beyond Aug 31 would have consequences. This was a response to newspaper stories saying the Americans might stay beyond August 31 to complete the evacuation.
Reality is a long way from @HYUFD’s interpretation
No but Guffens-Heynen is a master and I would certainly give it a try. But I might buy his Macon Pierreclos first!
Talking of wine, we hosted a Gruaud Larose dinner Chez Nabavi a couple of weeks ago: 2002, 2000, 1999, 1996, 1990, 1986, 1982, 1975, 1973, 1967, 1961. Quite an evening!
There are plenty of disincentives to tell the truth. Let's take one hypothetical example.
You are due to fly on holiday on Monday. Your carrier needs to see proof of a negative LFT taken within 48 hrs before you can travel.
If you take it and it's positive you can't go away and will face the whole insurance/compensation battle.
Do you take it or not take it and just report a negative test using the serial number on the test. If you do take it and it's positive do you report it as such? Etc.
Yes...that does depend on people being willing to risk committing manslaughter in order to go on holiday. But I know not everyone will see it like that.
No I think it's a pretty safe bet that they won't. Unless you think that 85% of the thousands of people attending the ERP events were willing to commit manslaughter.
Pretty bizarre point of view.
85% tested positive? Edit: oh, you mean 85% hadn't been tested? My comment was only about people who test positive and go and infect people anyway.
And mine was that there is no incentive to take the test.
When people have the flu and go out and about no one has ever previously talked of them being guilty of manslaughter.
Well, you'd agree, I think, that Covid will kill a small proportion of vaccinated people and (unlike flu) a significant proportion of unvaccinated people. It will also cause very serious illness for a larger proportion, without killing them. If you decide to go on holiday while knowing that you're infectious, especially abroad where you probably have little data on the proportion who have been vaccinated, you're willingly taking the risk of killing some of the people you meet.
It doesn't seem at all like going out with flu, more like having AIDS and sleeping with strangers without warning them.
You are talking about numbers. I am talking about principle. The flu will kill someone vulnerable. So will Covid. Covid might kill more.
But the principle is the same. Going out with either is being willing to commit manslaughter or it is not.
It depends how infectious and potentially lethal the disease is. The more of both it is, the more like manslaughter it is for you to go out and mix, assuming you know this and you know you have it.
But there must be a point it flips.
Let’s say that you knew that going out would definitely infect 1 person and that individual would die.
The Taliban have set us a deadline of 31st August to complete all evacuations.
They have said any US and UK and western military presence in Afghanistan still after that date will provoke a response from them.
So we have a week to complete the process and get all refugees and troops out or face a bloodbath
You tend to be ever so dramatic and we really do not know what would happen if the US and allies remained to secure the evacuation of those in need
There may be threats but I doubt the Taliban would want to be in a firefight at this stage
The Taliban would surely start taking hostages. That's the easiest thing to do, and the hardest thing for us to fight against, or resolve
Just a few hostages gives you enormous leverage, the Taliban could seize thousands.
I would suggest we wait and see how this develops as despite the rhetoric I doubt the Taliban want to undo everything for the sake of a few more days or even a week or two
They said that soldiers staying beyond Aug 31 would have consequences. This was a response to newspaper stories saying the Americans might stay beyond August 31 to complete the evacuation.
Reality is a long way from @HYUFD’s interpretation
You may trust the Taliban, I don't.
If US and UK troops are still in Kabul beyond 31st that will be taken by the Taliban as defiance of them and they will respond accordingly, with firepower if needed
I can't see any possibility of the Taliban extending the deadline. Why should they? As it is they are showing the world that the US has surrendered to them, and they can claim, with quite a lot of justification, that they have magnanimously kept to the agreed terms of the American surrender. They have lots of headstrong young men who want to get on with enjoying the sweets of victory, and plenty of scores to settle once the journalists have left. The West has nothing to offer them, or at least nothing that the West will be prepared to offer.
What utter tosh.
The taliban government needs sanctions lifted and funds unfreezed or there will be hundreds of thousands of starving Afghanis.
Against that the Taliban is neither monolithic, nor entirely rational. It could stay stable for quite some time, with slowly increasing repression. Or it could turn into a bloodbath very quickly.
No but Guffens-Heynen is a master and I would certainly give it a try. But I might buy his Macon Pierreclos first!
Talking of wine, we hosted a Gruaud Larose dinner Chez Nabavi a couple of weeks ago: 2002, 2000, 1999, 1996, 1990, 1986, 1982, 1975, 1973, 1967, 1961. Quite an evening!
I hope there was more than four of you at this dinner. If not, what was the situation the following morning?
I can't see any possibility of the Taliban extending the deadline. Why should they? As it is they are showing the world that the US has surrendered to them, and they can claim, with quite a lot of justification, that they have magnanimously kept to the agreed terms of the American surrender. They have lots of headstrong young men who want to get on with enjoying the sweets of victory, and plenty of scores to settle once the journalists have left. The West has nothing to offer them, or at least nothing that the West will be prepared to offer.
What utter tosh.
The taliban government needs sanctions lifted and funds unfreezed or there will be hundreds of thousands of starving Afghanis.
Well, whether or not they agree to a few days' extension, they're not going to get sanctions lifted and funds unfrozen, and they probably don't much care anyway about starving Afghanis anyway.
The Taliban have set us a deadline of 31st August to complete all evacuations.
They have said any US and UK and western military presence in Afghanistan still after that date will provoke a response from them.
So we have a week to complete the process and get all refugees and troops out or face a bloodbath
We aren't going to get "all refugees" out. Ben Wallace has conceded this.
This is the most emotionally impacting foreign policy crisis I can remember. What matches it?
Tens of thousands of people at risk from a cruel and evil conqueror. A race to get them out
It's like Dunkirk with Korans
If it was Dunkirk the tens of thousands would be dead already. The conqueror reached the airport over a week ago and is providing airport security now to assist in the evacuation.
I can't think what compares.
It is a shock to many people because we, the West, who are generally right about everything morally and otherwise, have now conclusively lost to the wrong side.
It is so shocking because we all fundamentally think that we are in the right and the Taliban are in the wrong. With Vietnam, for example, there was (quite a strong) case to be made for the Viet Cong.
In this case, we are definitely on the right side, despite our many errors. The Taliban are pretty much pure evil
They are now beating women for the crime of walking alone in the street. Once the cameras and troops have gone, they will only get worse. It is their nature
I agree that the moral argument in Vietnam was much more finely balanced
What is interesting is the conviction with which you think you are right and are in the right. Not that I disagree but you are like an atheist arguing with someone who believes in God or vice versa. Each side absolutely convinced of the truth of their position.
No but Guffens-Heynen is a master and I would certainly give it a try. But I might buy his Macon Pierreclos first!
Talking of wine, we hosted a Gruaud Larose dinner Chez Nabavi a couple of weeks ago: 2002, 2000, 1999, 1996, 1990, 1986, 1982, 1975, 1973, 1967, 1961. Quite an evening!
Eleven bottles of wine? Christ, how many of you were there?
Second like the democratic candidate for California Governor when the recall result hits.
There are thirty Republican candidates on the ballot for governor, and nine democrats.
There is no run off. The highest scoring - of the fifty total - candidate wins, even if they only get 10% of the total vote.
It is entirely possible that the winner will be a Democrat you have never heard of. It’s also possible that Republican Larry Elder wins, and is immediately repealed himself.
You'd think one of the two parties would realise that if you only put up one candidate, you would be guaranteed to win.
Didn't work in 2003.
In 2003 the Democrats had only one (serious) candidate while the GOP had 2. But the Democrats only serious candidate got 31.5% of the vote and the Governator got 48.6% of it which is enough to win in the States in almost any election anyway due to the propensity for a couple of percentage points to go to third parties or write ins or other oddballs.
Second like the democratic candidate for California Governor when the recall result hits.
There are thirty Republican candidates on the ballot for governor, and nine democrats.
There is no run off. The highest scoring - of the fifty total - candidate wins, even if they only get 10% of the total vote.
It is entirely possible that the winner will be a Democrat you have never heard of. It’s also possible that Republican Larry Elder wins, and is immediately repealed himself.
You'd think one of the two parties would realise that if you only put up one candidate, you would be guaranteed to win.
Didn't work in 2003.
In 2003 the Democrats had only one (serious) candidate while the GOP had 2. But the Democrats only serious candidate got 31.5% of the vote and the Governator got 48.6% of it which is enough to win in the States in almost any election anyway due to the propensity for a couple of percentage points to go to third parties or write ins or other oddballs.
(almost) gauranteed to win, certainly against nine candidates!
Second like the democratic candidate for California Governor when the recall result hits.
There are thirty Republican candidates on the ballot for governor, and nine democrats.
There is no run off. The highest scoring - of the fifty total - candidate wins, even if they only get 10% of the total vote.
It is entirely possible that the winner will be a Democrat you have never heard of. It’s also possible that Republican Larry Elder wins, and is immediately repealed himself.
He’s the one that had to sue the Democrats to be included on the ballot because they deliberately left him off?
No but Guffens-Heynen is a master and I would certainly give it a try. But I might buy his Macon Pierreclos first!
Talking of wine, we hosted a Gruaud Larose dinner Chez Nabavi a couple of weeks ago: 2002, 2000, 1999, 1996, 1990, 1986, 1982, 1975, 1973, 1967, 1961. Quite an evening!
Eleven bottles of wine? Christ, how many of you were there?
Plus a magnum of Champagne and a very nice Rieussec 1999. Twelve of us. It was a long evening.
(Actually not quite as bad as it sounds.. We didn't finish all the bottles).
Second like the democratic candidate for California Governor when the recall result hits.
There are thirty Republican candidates on the ballot for governor, and nine democrats.
There is no run off. The highest scoring - of the fifty total - candidate wins, even if they only get 10% of the total vote.
It is entirely possible that the winner will be a Democrat you have never heard of. It’s also possible that Republican Larry Elder wins, and is immediately repealed himself.
You'd think one of the two parties would realise that if you only put up one candidate, you would be guaranteed to win.
Can you imagine the bloodletting as they chose a candidate? And all pointless as anyone can stand and call themselves a democrat or republican
Second like the democratic candidate for California Governor when the recall result hits.
There are thirty Republican candidates on the ballot for governor, and nine democrats.
There is no run off. The highest scoring - of the fifty total - candidate wins, even if they only get 10% of the total vote.
It is entirely possible that the winner will be a Democrat you have never heard of. It’s also possible that Republican Larry Elder wins, and is immediately repealed himself.
You'd think one of the two parties would realise that if you only put up one candidate, you would be guaranteed to win.
Can you imagine the bloodletting as they chose a candidate? And all pointless as anyone can stand and call themselves a democrat or republican
The Taliban have set us a deadline of 31st August to complete all evacuations.
They have said any US and UK and western military presence in Afghanistan still after that date will provoke a response from them.
So we have a week to complete the process and get all refugees and troops out or face a bloodbath
We aren't going to get "all refugees" out. Ben Wallace has conceded this.
This is the most emotionally impacting foreign policy crisis I can remember. What matches it?
Tens of thousands of people at risk from a cruel and evil conqueror. A race to get them out
It's like Dunkirk with Korans
If it was Dunkirk the tens of thousands would be dead already. The conqueror reached the airport over a week ago and is providing airport security now to assist in the evacuation.
I can't think what compares.
It is a shock to many people because we, the West, who are generally right about everything morally and otherwise, have now conclusively lost to the wrong side.
It is so shocking because we all fundamentally think that we are in the right and the Taliban are in the wrong. With Vietnam, for example, there was (quite a strong) case to be made for the Viet Cong.
In this case, we are definitely on the right side, despite our many errors. The Taliban are pretty much pure evil
They are now beating women for the crime of walking alone in the street. Once the cameras and troops have gone, they will only get worse. It is their nature
I agree that the moral argument in Vietnam was much more finely balanced
What is interesting is the conviction with which you think you are right and are in the right. Not that I disagree but you are like an atheist arguing with someone who believes in God or vice versa. Each side absolutely convinced of the truth of their position.
That is why this is so shocking.
The inability of so many westerners now, especially those coming out of western universities, to believe in the values of freedom and liberty and democracy and the achievements of western civilisation and our heritage and to be willing to defend them is precisely why the more ideological communists of China and the jihadis of the Middle East and North Africa and South Asia may get the upper hand.
The Taliban have set us a deadline of 31st August to complete all evacuations.
They have said any US and UK and western military presence in Afghanistan still after that date will provoke a response from them.
So we have a week to complete the process and get all refugees and troops out or face a bloodbath
We aren't going to get "all refugees" out. Ben Wallace has conceded this.
This is the most emotionally impacting foreign policy crisis I can remember. What matches it?
Tens of thousands of people at risk from a cruel and evil conqueror. A race to get them out
It's like Dunkirk with Korans
If it was Dunkirk the tens of thousands would be dead already. The conqueror reached the airport over a week ago and is providing airport security now to assist in the evacuation.
I can't think what compares.
Similar to Hitler's halt order, which gave some time for the evacuation.
Completely different.
There's extremely little evidence that the halt order was done in order to assist the evacuation. Instead the evidence is generally considered to be that it was to allow the German infantry to catch up, to preserve their Panzers and/or to allow the Luftwaffe to have the opportunity to destroy Dunkirk which is what Goring wanted.
What's happening now is more if the infantry etc had caught up after the halt order, then they resumed movement, got into Dunkirk and then they started assisting the British etc onto the ships instead of seeking to destroy them.
The Taliban aren't on the way to the airport, they're their and working side-by-side and even behind British lines to assist in security. Not something Hitler would have done. 😕
Yeah, I'm not arguing they are exactly the same. But the Taliban could have overrun the airport if they wanted to, much how Hitler could have overrun the port.
There's evidence that Hitler didn't realise he could overrun the port though, especially given faulty reporting due to the recent allied attack against the Panzers which had caught them by surprise so local commanders were asking for the halt. That's a very big difference to actually being at the port and not doing so.
The Taliban have set us a deadline of 31st August to complete all evacuations.
They have said any US and UK and western military presence in Afghanistan still after that date will provoke a response from them.
So we have a week to complete the process and get all refugees and troops out or face a bloodbath
You tend to be ever so dramatic and we really do not know what would happen if the US and allies remained to secure the evacuation of those in need
There may be threats but I doubt the Taliban would want to be in a firefight at this stage
The Taliban would surely start taking hostages. That's the easiest thing to do, and the hardest thing for us to fight against, or resolve
Just a few hostages gives you enormous leverage, the Taliban could seize thousands.
I would suggest we wait and see how this develops as despite the rhetoric I doubt the Taliban want to undo everything for the sake of a few more days or even a week or two
They said that soldiers staying beyond Aug 31 would have consequences. This was a response to newspaper stories saying the Americans might stay beyond August 31 to complete the evacuation.
Reality is a long way from @HYUFD’s interpretation
You may trust the Taliban, I don't.
If US and UK troops are still in Kabul beyond 31st that will be taken by the Taliban as defiance of them and they will respond accordingly, with firepower if needed
The good thing in this is that you will not have any input in the negotiations or considerations, thankfully
The Taliban have set us a deadline of 31st August to complete all evacuations.
They have said any US and UK and western military presence in Afghanistan still after that date will provoke a response from them.
So we have a week to complete the process and get all refugees and troops out or face a bloodbath
We aren't going to get "all refugees" out. Ben Wallace has conceded this.
This is the most emotionally impacting foreign policy crisis I can remember. What matches it?
Tens of thousands of people at risk from a cruel and evil conqueror. A race to get them out
It's like Dunkirk with Korans
If it was Dunkirk the tens of thousands would be dead already. The conqueror reached the airport over a week ago and is providing airport security now to assist in the evacuation.
I can't think what compares.
Similar to Hitler's halt order, which gave some time for the evacuation.
Completely different.
There's extremely little evidence that the halt order was done in order to assist the evacuation. Instead the evidence is generally considered to be that it was to allow the German infantry to catch up, to preserve their Panzers and/or to allow the Luftwaffe to have the opportunity to destroy Dunkirk which is what Goring wanted.
What's happening now is more if the infantry etc had caught up after the halt order, then they resumed movement, got into Dunkirk and then they started assisting the British etc onto the ships instead of seeking to destroy them.
The Taliban aren't on the way to the airport, they're their and working side-by-side and even behind British lines to assist in security. Not something Hitler would have done. 😕
Yeah, I'm not arguing they are exactly the same. But the Taliban could have overrun the airport if they wanted to, much how Hitler could have overrun the port.
There's evidence that Hitler didn't realise he could overrun the port though, especially given faulty reporting due to the recent allied attack against the Panzers which had caught them by surprise so local commanders were asking for the halt. That's a very big difference to actually being at the port and not doing so.
Like I said, I'm not arguing they are the exactly same. But there is a similarity there.
Looks like Trudeau's gamble to win a majority will fail to pay off but the Liberals should still win most seats.
Even if the Conservatives won a plurality again they would need about 36% of the vote to win most seats
It's interesting to see Maxine Berner's Canadian People's Party doing so well in the polls compared to the 1%-2% the party was on until recently. If the Conservatives could convince most of those voters to vote for them, they could get close to that 36% figure.
No but Guffens-Heynen is a master and I would certainly give it a try. But I might buy his Macon Pierreclos first!
Talking of wine, we hosted a Gruaud Larose dinner Chez Nabavi a couple of weeks ago: 2002, 2000, 1999, 1996, 1990, 1986, 1982, 1975, 1973, 1967, 1961. Quite an evening!
Eleven bottles of wine? Christ, how many of you were there?
Plus a magnum of Champagne and a very nice Rieussec 1999. Twelve of us. It was a long evening.
(Actually not quite as bad as it sounds.. We didn't finish all the bottles).
What's the form in such a vertical tasting - oldest to youngest?
The Taliban have set us a deadline of 31st August to complete all evacuations.
They have said any US and UK and western military presence in Afghanistan still after that date will provoke a response from them.
So we have a week to complete the process and get all refugees and troops out or face a bloodbath
You tend to be ever so dramatic and we really do not know what would happen if the US and allies remained to secure the evacuation of those in need
There may be threats but I doubt the Taliban would want to be in a firefight at this stage
The Taliban would surely start taking hostages. That's the easiest thing to do, and the hardest thing for us to fight against, or resolve
Just a few hostages gives you enormous leverage, the Taliban could seize thousands.
I would suggest we wait and see how this develops as despite the rhetoric I doubt the Taliban want to undo everything for the sake of a few more days or even a week or two
I can't see any possibility of the Taliban extending the deadline. Why should they? As it is they are showing the world that the US has surrendered to them, and they can claim, with quite a lot of justification, that they have magnanimously kept to the agreed terms of the American surrender. They have lots of headstrong young men who want to get on with enjoying the sweets of victory, and plenty of scores to settle once the journalists have left. The West has nothing to offer them, or at least nothing that the West will be prepared to offer.
What utter tosh.
The taliban government needs sanctions lifted and funds unfreezed or there will be hundreds of thousands of starving Afghanis.
Well, whether or not they agree to a few days' extension, they're not going to get sanctions lifted and funds unfrozen, and they probably don't much care anyway about starving Afghanis anyway.
Robert is arguing from a Western standpoint.
There is a book going around at the moment which I am going to add to my ever growing reading list.
It deals with just the phenomenon I am talking about.
US military advises the White House a decision must be made Tuesday on extending the August 31 deadline, in order to have enough time for a withdrawal of the US 5,800 troops & their equipment currently present in Kabul, @barbarastarrcnn reports.
Second like the democratic candidate for California Governor when the recall result hits.
There are thirty Republican candidates on the ballot for governor, and nine democrats.
There is no run off. The highest scoring - of the fifty total - candidate wins, even if they only get 10% of the total vote.
It is entirely possible that the winner will be a Democrat you have never heard of. It’s also possible that Republican Larry Elder wins, and is immediately repealed himself.
You'd think one of the two parties would realise that if you only put up one candidate, you would be guaranteed to win.
Didn't work in 2003.
In 2003 the Democrats had only one (serious) candidate while the GOP had 2. But the Democrats only serious candidate got 31.5% of the vote and the Governator got 48.6% of it which is enough to win in the States in almost any election anyway due to the propensity for a couple of percentage points to go to third parties or write ins or other oddballs.
(almost) gauranteed to win, certainly against nine candidates!
Second like the democratic candidate for California Governor when the recall result hits.
There are thirty Republican candidates on the ballot for governor, and nine democrats.
There is no run off. The highest scoring - of the fifty total - candidate wins, even if they only get 10% of the total vote.
It is entirely possible that the winner will be a Democrat you have never heard of. It’s also possible that Republican Larry Elder wins, and is immediately repealed himself.
You'd think one of the two parties would realise that if you only put up one candidate, you would be guaranteed to win.
Can you imagine the bloodletting as they chose a candidate? And all pointless as anyone can stand and call themselves a democrat or republican
Sounds crazy. No official party backing needed?
I vaguely recall a story about some election where some Republicans registered as Democrats, or vice versa, as part of some weird dispute and one lot wouldn't stand.
Whilst we don't even get the joybofvthe Literal Democrats to confuse things.
Its a stunning catch, that style is always stunning, but that style of catch is actually much more common than you'd expect. Seen a fair few of them this year alone.
No but Guffens-Heynen is a master and I would certainly give it a try. But I might buy his Macon Pierreclos first!
Talking of wine, we hosted a Gruaud Larose dinner Chez Nabavi a couple of weeks ago: 2002, 2000, 1999, 1996, 1990, 1986, 1982, 1975, 1973, 1967, 1961. Quite an evening!
Eleven bottles of wine? Christ, how many of you were there?
Plus a magnum of Champagne and a very nice Rieussec 1999. Twelve of us. It was a long evening.
(Actually not quite as bad as it sounds.. We didn't finish all the bottles).
What's the form in such a vertical tasting - oldest to youngest?
Usually youngest to oldest, but it's not a hard and fast rule. In this case I decide to serve them in pairs which I thought would be of similar quality and not too different in age. We started with the 1967 and 1973, because those weren't very good years and I was expecting them to be well past it (as it happens they were surprisingly still drinkable).
We ended up, with the cheese course, comparing the 1982 and 1961, two very great vintages. Jolly good they were too!
Its a stunning catch, that style is always stunning, but that style of catch is actually much more common than you'd expect. Seen a fair few of them this year alone.
Fair enough. I've never seen it before. Looks brilliant
Second like the democratic candidate for California Governor when the recall result hits.
There are thirty Republican candidates on the ballot for governor, and nine democrats.
There is no run off. The highest scoring - of the fifty total - candidate wins, even if they only get 10% of the total vote.
It is entirely possible that the winner will be a Democrat you have never heard of. It’s also possible that Republican Larry Elder wins, and is immediately repealed himself.
That is so silly its brilliant. There needs to be a header laying out the whole saga, Californian recall rules, and likely outcomes.
Its a stunning catch, that style is always stunning, but that style of catch is actually much more common than you'd expect. Seen a fair few of them this year alone.
Fair enough. I've never seen it before. Looks brilliant
I've watched it a few times and I'm sceptical about whether she got her foot off the ground outside the boundary in time before touching the ball again. Look at 20 secs.
The Taliban have set us a deadline of 31st August to complete all evacuations.
They have said any US and UK and western military presence in Afghanistan still after that date will provoke a response from them.
So we have a week to complete the process and get all refugees and troops out or face a bloodbath
We aren't going to get "all refugees" out. Ben Wallace has conceded this.
This is the most emotionally impacting foreign policy crisis I can remember. What matches it?
Tens of thousands of people at risk from a cruel and evil conqueror. A race to get them out
It's like Dunkirk with Korans
If it was Dunkirk the tens of thousands would be dead already. The conqueror reached the airport over a week ago and is providing airport security now to assist in the evacuation.
I can't think what compares.
It is a shock to many people because we, the West, who are generally right about everything morally and otherwise, have now conclusively lost to the wrong side.
It is so shocking because we all fundamentally think that we are in the right and the Taliban are in the wrong. With Vietnam, for example, there was (quite a strong) case to be made for the Viet Cong.
In this case, we are definitely on the right side, despite our many errors. The Taliban are pretty much pure evil
They are now beating women for the crime of walking alone in the street. Once the cameras and troops have gone, they will only get worse. It is their nature
I agree that the moral argument in Vietnam was much more finely balanced
What is interesting is the conviction with which you think you are right and are in the right. Not that I disagree but you are like an atheist arguing with someone who believes in God or vice versa. Each side absolutely convinced of the truth of their position.
That is why this is so shocking.
The inability of so many westerners now, especially those coming out of western universities, to believe in the values of freedom and liberty and democracy and the achievements of western civilisation and our heritage and to be willing to defend them is precisely why the more ideological communists of China and the jihadis of the Middle East and North Africa and South Asia may get the upper hand.
Its a stunning catch, that style is always stunning, but that style of catch is actually much more common than you'd expect. Seen a fair few of them this year alone.
Its a stunning catch, that style is always stunning, but that style of catch is actually much more common than you'd expect. Seen a fair few of them this year alone.
Fair enough. I've never seen it before. Looks brilliant
Yeah it does.
That's one of the strange things about Cricket. You can get so many absolutely incredible catches like that, while far too often see some absolute dollies get dropped.
Comments
They have said any US and UK and western military presence in Afghanistan still after that date will provoke a response from them.
So we have a week to complete the process and get all refugees and troops out or face a bloodbath
There may be threats but I doubt the Taliban would want to be in a firefight at this stage
Just a few hostages gives you enormous leverage, the Taliban could seize thousands.
But the principle is the same. Going out with either is being willing to commit manslaughter or it is not.
If they are killed then he has responsibility as much as the Taliban
(US) military flights evacuated approximately 10,400 people while the coalition flights evacuated another 5,900 people
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2021/08/16/britons-react-collapse-afghanistan
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/08/mike-mullen-afghanistan-biden-right-surge-concession.html
Retired Adm. Mike Mullen, the top U.S. military officer under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, who strongly supported the “nation-building” war policy in Afghanistan, now says we should have pulled out our troops a decade ago, soon after Osama bin Laden was killed.
Mullen is thus far the only senior officer from that period who has publicly admitted that the U.S. policy—and he personally—was deeply mistaken. “It’s hard to deny the evidence in front of you,” Mullen said to me in a phone interview Monday morning.…
They did not say what you are saying
I listened to the interview
Very inefficient. But if we filled them with Extinction Rebellion protesters, we'd get much lower average CO2 emissions per passenger.
You are the one for polls, show me a poll where Brits want us to stay indefinitely
Maybe wait and see
Extending the deadline for US withdrawal is not an explicit aim of the mini-summit, this PR announcement would suggest
Pessimism growing, not least because of fears Taliban wd reissue….
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1429919943605301252?s=20
The US has had troops in South Korea for 70 years for example, to keep out North Korea
https://youtu.be/8rAmwMxQ7UY
Tens of thousands of people at risk from a cruel and evil conqueror. A race to get them out
It's like Dunkirk with Korans
I can't think what compares.
There is no run off. The highest scoring - of the fifty total - candidate wins, even if they only get 10% of the total vote.
It is entirely possible that the winner will be a Democrat you have never heard of. It’s also possible that Republican Larry Elder wins, and is immediately repealed himself.
It depends upon timescales. The Taliban know they have won and are getting control, they want the Americans gone for good and they don't want a reason for this to turn into a fight. If its a case of a one week extension would get everyone they don't want in the country out of it - and no doubt if there's backhanders going the other way - then I wouldn't rule out the possibility of an extension.
It is so shocking because we all fundamentally think that we are in the right and the Taliban are in the wrong. With Vietnam, for example, there was (quite a strong) case to be made for the Viet Cong.
Have you, kini, ever, ever had the flu and not gone out because you thought you might kill someone. All those years in the city suffering man flu. You always stayed at home. Or did you tough it out and go to work?
There's extremely little evidence that the halt order was done in order to assist the evacuation. Instead the evidence is generally considered to be that it was to allow the German infantry to catch up, to preserve their Panzers and/or to allow the Luftwaffe to have the opportunity to destroy Dunkirk which is what Goring wanted.
What's happening now is more if the infantry etc had caught up after the halt order, then they resumed movement, got into Dunkirk and then they started assisting the British etc onto the ships instead of seeking to destroy them.
The Taliban aren't on the way to the airport, they're there already and are working side-by-side and even behind British lines to assist in security. Not something Hitler would have done. 😕
Reality is a long way from @HYUFD’s interpretation
The taliban government needs sanctions lifted and funds unfreezed or there will be hundreds of thousands of starving Afghanis.
Without which their economy will crater.
But your probably right about the deadline.
Though even after that the majority of those with foreign passports will possibly be OK for a while. If it doesn’t go pear shaped.
They are now beating women for the crime of walking alone in the street. Once the cameras and troops have gone, they will only get worse. It is their nature
https://twitter.com/ajplus/status/1429921135949406210?s=20
I agree that the moral argument in Vietnam was much more finely balanced
Sounds amazing.
Let’s say that you knew that going out would definitely infect 1 person and that individual would die.
Isn’t that closer to murder?
If US and UK troops are still in Kabul beyond 31st that will be taken by the Taliban as defiance of them and they will respond accordingly, with firepower if needed
It could stay stable for quite some time, with slowly increasing repression. Or it could turn into a bloodbath very quickly.
That is why this is so shocking.
In 2003 the Democrats had only one (serious) candidate while the GOP had 2. But the Democrats only serious candidate got 31.5% of the vote and the Governator got 48.6% of it which is enough to win in the States in almost any election anyway due to the propensity for a couple of percentage points to go to third parties or write ins or other oddballs.
(Actually not quite as bad as it sounds.. We didn't finish all the bottles).
Hug a Talib!
There is a book going around at the moment which I am going to add to my ever growing reading list.
It deals with just the phenomenon I am talking about.
https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Do_Muslim_Women_Need_Saving.html?id=zZ_3AAAAQBAJ&source=kp_book_description&redir_esc=y
And on that note, bon nuit tout le monde.
And by a lady, no less
https://twitter.com/AhmodShadi/status/1414476212018155521?s=20
https://twitter.com/Archer83Able/status/1429918810283388932
US military advises the White House a decision must be made Tuesday on extending the August 31 deadline, in order to have enough time for a withdrawal of the US 5,800 troops & their equipment currently present in Kabul,
@barbarastarrcnn
reports.
I vaguely recall a story about some election where some Republicans registered as Democrats, or vice versa, as part of some weird dispute and one lot wouldn't stand.
Whilst we don't even get the joybofvthe Literal Democrats to confuse things.
Its a stunning catch, that style is always stunning, but that style of catch is actually much more common than you'd expect. Seen a fair few of them this year alone.
We ended up, with the cheese course, comparing the 1982 and 1961, two very great vintages. Jolly good they were too!
PB USA branch to the rescue.
That's one of the strange things about Cricket. You can get so many absolutely incredible catches like that, while far too often see some absolute dollies get dropped.