Howdy, Stranger!

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

As the days go by the Afghan crisis continues to dominate the front pages – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited August 23 in General
imageAs the days go by the Afghan crisis continues to dominate the front pages – politicalbetting.com

Read the full story here

«134

Comments

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,652
    First. Like Trump if Biden doesn't get a grip of this.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 21,319
    Second like the democratic candidate for California Governor when the recall result hits.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 4,598
    Third rate, like most of my comments
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,523
    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
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 15,524
    HYUFD said:

    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

    And it's a Bank Holiday weekend, too. Dashed unsporting.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 21,879
    HYUFD said:

    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 ?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 46,320
    edited August 23
    HYUFD said:

    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
  • LeonLeon Posts: 13,090

    HYUFD said:

    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.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,837
    HYUFD said:

    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.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 32,027
    fpt

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    .

    TOPPING said:


    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.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,523
    edited August 23
    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.
    Well some will be left behind then and Biden by withdrawing will have left them to their fate at the hands of the Taliban.

    If they are killed then he has responsibility as much as the Taliban
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 34,097
    edited August 23
    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
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,523

    HYUFD said:

    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
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 46,320
    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    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
  • LeonLeon Posts: 13,090
    Nigelb said:

    16,000 evacuated by the US in the last 24hrs.

    That is impressive. Finally
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,523
    edited August 23

    HYUFD said:

    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 effectively made clear today if any western forces are in Kabul after August 31st they will attack them or take hostages
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 46,320
    edited August 23
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    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
    And as does the vast majority of Brits want out
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 32,027
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    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 effectively made clear today if any western forces are in Kabul after August 31st they will attack them
    It's all about face. They were told a date and to have it moved would be a huge loss of face.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,519
    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.
    Tricky to put oneself in the minds of the Taliban. They don't do "western logical thinking".
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,523

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    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
    And as does the vast majority of Brits
    42% of British voters thought the withdrawal was wrong, only 28% thought it was right

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2021/08/16/britons-react-collapse-afghanistan
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 34,097
    Interesting.

    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.…
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 46,320
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    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 effectively made clear today if any western forces are in Kabul after August 31st they will attack them or take hostages
    They said there would be consequences

    They did not say what you are saying

    I listened to the interview
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,523
    edited August 23

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    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
    BigG, this is the Taliban not the Red Cross
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 46,320
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    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
    And as does the vast majority of Brits
    42% of British voters thought the withdrawal was wrong, only 28% thought it was right

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2021/08/16/britons-react-collapse-afghanistan
    As usual you try to argue two very different things

    You are the one for polls, show me a poll where Brits want us to stay indefinitely
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 32,027
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    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
    And as does the vast majority of Brits
    42% of British voters thought the withdrawal was wrong, only 28% thought it was right

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2021/08/16/britons-react-collapse-afghanistan
    This is a big problem for British politicians with any semblance of pragmatism.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 46,320
    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    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
    BigG, this is the Taliban not the Red Cross
    And they have a lot at stake as well

    Maybe wait and see
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,652
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    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?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,030
    edited August 23
    Tonight No10 has released a statement on its aim for the emergency G7 video call tomorrow

    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
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,523
    edited August 23

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    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
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 32,027

    Presumably those planes are going back to Kabul almost empty.

    Very inefficient. But if we filled them with Extinction Rebellion protesters, we'd get much lower average CO2 emissions per passenger.

    One for you Richard. V amusing.

    https://youtu.be/8rAmwMxQ7UY
  • LeonLeon Posts: 13,090
    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    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
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 32,027
    edited August 23
    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.
    Tricky to put oneself in the minds of the Taliban. They don't do "western logical thinking".
    Should be an easy one for several PB contributors.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 46,320
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    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
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,519
    TOPPING said:

    fpt

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    .

    TOPPING said:


    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.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 32,027
    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    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
    Happens often around the world without us turning a hair.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 32,027
    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    .

    TOPPING said:


    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?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 29,186
    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.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,561
    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,652

    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?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,519
    HYUFD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.
    Well some will be left behind then and Biden by withdrawing will have left them to their fate at the hands of the Taliban.

    If they are killed then he has responsibility as much as the Taliban
    Not equal responsibility.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 29,186
    TOPPING said:

    Presumably those planes are going back to Kabul almost empty.

    Very inefficient. But if we filled them with Extinction Rebellion protesters, we'd get much lower average CO2 emissions per passenger.

    One for you Richard. V amusing.

    https://youtu.be/8rAmwMxQ7UY
    Have you tried it? It sounds weird!
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,714

    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,613
    Alistair said:

    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.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,523

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    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
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,561

    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.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,519
    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    .

    TOPPING said:


    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.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,714
    rcs1000 said:

    Alistair said:

    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.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,613
    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.
    That cuts both ways, of course. Pretty much all Afghanistan’s electricity comes from a couple of dams.


  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 32,027

    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 13,866
    Have any Democrats called for Biden's resignation so far?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 32,027
    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    .

    TOPPING said:


    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?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,932
    Alistair said:

    Second like the democratic candidate for California Governor when the recall result hits.

    Yep. Californian politics is glorious in its idiocy sometimes.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,523

    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.
    Suhail Shaheen is not Michel Barnier
  • RogerRoger Posts: 14,946

    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
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 32,027

    TOPPING said:

    Presumably those planes are going back to Kabul almost empty.

    Very inefficient. But if we filled them with Extinction Rebellion protesters, we'd get much lower average CO2 emissions per passenger.

    One for you Richard. V amusing.

    https://youtu.be/8rAmwMxQ7UY
    Have you tried it? It sounds weird!
    No but Guffens-Heynen is a master and I would certainly give it a try. But I might buy his Macon Pierreclos first!
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,561
    edited August 23
    RobD said:

    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    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. 😕
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,932

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    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
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,613

    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.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 34,097

    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.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 13,090
    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    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

    https://twitter.com/ajplus/status/1429921135949406210?s=20

    I agree that the moral argument in Vietnam was much more finely balanced
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,714

    RobD said:

    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 46,320
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    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
    Good job you are not making the decisions then
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 29,186
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Presumably those planes are going back to Kabul almost empty.

    Very inefficient. But if we filled them with Extinction Rebellion protesters, we'd get much lower average CO2 emissions per passenger.

    One for you Richard. V amusing.

    https://youtu.be/8rAmwMxQ7UY
    Have you tried it? It sounds weird!
    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!
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 46,320
    Charles said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    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
    Not for the first time or the last
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 32,027
    edited August 23

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Presumably those planes are going back to Kabul almost empty.

    Very inefficient. But if we filled them with Extinction Rebellion protesters, we'd get much lower average CO2 emissions per passenger.

    One for you Richard. V amusing.

    https://youtu.be/8rAmwMxQ7UY
    Have you tried it? It sounds weird!
    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!
    Thanks for the call up. :smiley:

    Sounds amazing.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,932
    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    .

    TOPPING said:


    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.

    Isn’t that closer to murder?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,523
    Charles said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    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
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 34,097
    rcs1000 said:

    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.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,714

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Presumably those planes are going back to Kabul almost empty.

    Very inefficient. But if we filled them with Extinction Rebellion protesters, we'd get much lower average CO2 emissions per passenger.

    One for you Richard. V amusing.

    https://youtu.be/8rAmwMxQ7UY
    Have you tried it? It sounds weird!
    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? :smile:
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 29,186
    rcs1000 said:

    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.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 32,027
    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    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

    https://twitter.com/ajplus/status/1429921135949406210?s=20

    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.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 17,923

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Presumably those planes are going back to Kabul almost empty.

    Very inefficient. But if we filled them with Extinction Rebellion protesters, we'd get much lower average CO2 emissions per passenger.

    One for you Richard. V amusing.

    https://youtu.be/8rAmwMxQ7UY
    Have you tried it? It sounds weird!
    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?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,561
    RobD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Alistair said:

    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.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,714

    RobD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Alistair said:

    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!
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,932
    rcs1000 said:

    Alistair said:

    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?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 29,186

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Presumably those planes are going back to Kabul almost empty.

    Very inefficient. But if we filled them with Extinction Rebellion protesters, we'd get much lower average CO2 emissions per passenger.

    One for you Richard. V amusing.

    https://youtu.be/8rAmwMxQ7UY
    Have you tried it? It sounds weird!
    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).
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,932
    RobD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Alistair said:

    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
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,932
    RobD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Alistair said:

    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
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,523
    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    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

    https://twitter.com/ajplus/status/1429921135949406210?s=20

    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.

  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,561
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,260
    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.
    Well some will be left behind then and Biden by withdrawing will have left them to their fate at the hands of the Taliban.

    If they are killed then he has responsibility as much as the Taliban
    Not equal responsibility.
    Sounds dangerously like lefty pinkoes suggesting that society bears a collective responsibility for the actions of criminals.

    Hug a Talib!
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 46,320
    edited August 23
    HYUFD said:

    Charles said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    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
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,714

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 13,866
    edited August 23
    FPT
    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Canadian polling average, 10 most recent surveys:

    Lib 33.1%
    Con 32.2%
    NDP 19.1%
    BQ 5.8%
    People's 4.5%
    Greens 4.3%
    Others 0.9%

    Changes since 2019 general election:

    Lib nc
    Con -2.1%
    NDP +3.1%
    BQ -1.8%
    People's +2.9%
    Greens -2.2%
    Others nc

    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.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 17,923

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Presumably those planes are going back to Kabul almost empty.

    Very inefficient. But if we filled them with Extinction Rebellion protesters, we'd get much lower average CO2 emissions per passenger.

    One for you Richard. V amusing.

    https://youtu.be/8rAmwMxQ7UY
    Have you tried it? It sounds weird!
    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?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,759
    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    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
    BigG, this is the Taliban not the Red Cross
    Red Crescent there I'd have assumed.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 32,027

    rcs1000 said:

    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.

    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.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 13,090
    Is this the greatest catch in the history of cricket?

    And by a lady, no less

    https://twitter.com/AhmodShadi/status/1414476212018155521?s=20
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    Well, we will know soon enough

    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.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,561
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Alistair said:

    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!
    It depends how many of the nine candidates are credible too though. The 2003 results are certainly amusing to look at. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_California_gubernatorial_recall_election#Results
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,759
    Charles said:

    RobD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Alistair said:

    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.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,561
    Leon said:

    Is this the greatest catch in the history of cricket?

    And by a lady, no less

    https://twitter.com/AhmodShadi/status/1414476212018155521?s=20

    No.

    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.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 29,186

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Presumably those planes are going back to Kabul almost empty.

    Very inefficient. But if we filled them with Extinction Rebellion protesters, we'd get much lower average CO2 emissions per passenger.

    One for you Richard. V amusing.

    https://youtu.be/8rAmwMxQ7UY
    Have you tried it? It sounds weird!
    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!
  • LeonLeon Posts: 13,090

    Leon said:

    Is this the greatest catch in the history of cricket?

    And by a lady, no less

    https://twitter.com/AhmodShadi/status/1414476212018155521?s=20

    No.

    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
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,759
    rcs1000 said:

    Alistair said:

    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.

    PB USA branch to the rescue.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 13,866
    edited August 23
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Is this the greatest catch in the history of cricket?

    And by a lady, no less

    https://twitter.com/AhmodShadi/status/1414476212018155521?s=20

    No.

    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.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 13,090
    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    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

    https://twitter.com/ajplus/status/1429921135949406210?s=20

    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.

    YES
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,759

    Leon said:

    Is this the greatest catch in the history of cricket?

    And by a lady, no less

    https://twitter.com/AhmodShadi/status/1414476212018155521?s=20

    No.

    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.
    Fielding has come a long way.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,561
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Is this the greatest catch in the history of cricket?

    And by a lady, no less

    https://twitter.com/AhmodShadi/status/1414476212018155521?s=20

    No.

    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.
This discussion has been closed.