Just about all the national papers lead on the same story – politicalbetting.com

System

Just about all the national papers lead on the same story – politicalbetting.com

In my view the most poignant front page is from the Daily Mail which reminds us of what Biden said when he announced his pull-out decision.

Read the full story here

adamandcat

1st

Chameleon

As you mentioned the Mail, for once, nails it.

edmundintokyo

Chameleon said:

As you mentioned the Mail, for once, nails it.

The Mail, as ever, is being idiotic. What happened 18 months ago was the Doha Agreement, where the US agreed to leave and in exchange the Taliban agreed to stop shooting at them.

Aslan

theProle said:

Aslan said:

theProle said:

kinabalu said:

Northern_Al said:

rcs1000 said:

SandyRentool said:

DougSeal said:

Question for PBers. Do you have an opinion that would embarrass you in front of the mainstream of the political affiliation you identify with?

Plenty!

1. Wishing to see the extinction of humankind
2. Supporting Brexit
3. Thinking that someone with a cock and balls is a man
4. Being anti-abortion

That's enough for now.

Is anyone actually pro-abortion?

I would have thought most of its supporters regard its legal status as a necessary evil.

I'm pro women's right to choose. I don't think anybody suggests abortion should be obligatory.

Yes, and a harrowing choice it is too in most cases.

If abortion is forbidden or restricted so much as to be effectively forbidden, you are reducing the status of women in a very fundamental way. They are no longer in charge of their own bodies.

This issue goes way beyond the woke wars. It's on another level entirely. You CANNOT be on the left and be wanting to ban abortion. Not for me. Not in 2021.

No. You're totally wrong here

Ignoring rape, incest etc for a moment, when it comes to sex, women do have charge of their own bodies. Pregnancy is not something which just magically happens to a woman.

By having sex, you are accepting that there is some risk of pregnancy (and in this day and age there are lots of options for making that risk very small).

If you aren't happy with this, there is a 100% successful technique for avoiding pregnancy - it's called abstinence. And this is where your autonomy lies. You have a completely free choice as to whether to engage in sexual intercourse or not, and what precautions to take whilst doing so.

Once you have created a child, it's too late to go back and decide actually you didn't want to run the risk, and having the child killed. That's murder, and it's no more justifiable inside the womb than it is outside.

An embryo is not a child and not a sentient life. The idea that destruction of a few cells with no awareness that it exists is equivalent to murder is ridiculous. Unless of course you believe that some magical implantation of a supernatural soul has happened. And of course there is zero evidence for that.

The problem is you have to draw a line somewhere, as to what is a human.

From the point of conception, all the vital stuff is there which gives it it's individual identity as that human. All it needs is to be left alone to grow in the womb, and in due course you have a fully functioning baby.

Most people seem to think killing babies is wrong.

Other than arguing for drawing the line at birth (but that's implausible, given that babies are viable to survive outside the womb weeks before birth) there isn't really any other coherent line to draw.

It's more logical to take the view that once the process of growing a human has been started, then it is a human life, with all the value we attach to that, than to try and define some point in gestation where it suddenly flips from being a bunch of cells to a human.

Just because you need to draw the line somewhere doesn't mean you draw it in the clearest structural break. Particularly when that means causing a huge amount of misery and burden on people. And an embryo doesn't have all the vital stuff to be human. For a start it doesn't have a brain yet. Also being "left alone in a womb" isn't just like leaving something in a petridish. It takes an absolutely massive toll on a woman's body, who needs to provide all of the material for that embryo to actually become a baby.

DecrepiterJohnL

edmundintokyo said:

Chameleon said:

As you mentioned the Mail, for once, nails it.

The Mail, as ever, is being idiotic. What happened 18 months ago was the Doha Agreement, where the US agreed to leave and in exchange the Taliban agreed to stop shooting at them.

Of course, the agreement to pull out was signed by President Trump but whether this detail matters to American voters has yet to be seen. It might also be that these latest deaths are seen as vindication of withdrawal from what must seem to many to be a pointless war.

swing_voter

For some US voters this will vindicate the decision to withdraw and remove US troops from Afghanistan - the argument that having a small US presence on the ground stopped global jihadists in Afg is tenuous at best. Its a bad situation but keeping an understrength military force in the country is not going to solve it.

DecrepiterJohnL

DecrepiterJohnL said:

edmundintokyo said:

Chameleon said:

As you mentioned the Mail, for once, nails it.

The Mail, as ever, is being idiotic. What happened 18 months ago was the Doha Agreement, where the US agreed to leave and in exchange the Taliban agreed to stop shooting at them.

Of course, the agreement to pull out was signed by President Trump but whether this detail matters to American voters has yet to be seen. It might also be that these latest deaths are seen as vindication of withdrawal from what must seem to many to be a pointless war.

It might also be that as President Biden comes to be seen as past his best or even in rapid decline, that this also throws a spotlight on the age of his presumptive challenger, Donald Trump, who will be 78 in 2024 – the same age Biden is today.

DecrepiterJohnL

Australia has taken second spot in the Paralympics medal table, so we are down to third.

Andy_JS

Next US election winner:

Biden 5.1 / 5.3
Trump 6.2 / 6.8
Harris 7.4 / 7.6

https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.176878927

JosiasJessop

An early-morning thought, and one that's probably wrong:

The Taliban's takeover of almost all of Afghanistan was rapid; far more rapid than most expected. Might they have felt that the 'government' was weak, and feared that if they did not take over, other groups such as IS might have had a chance to spread?

In other words, the Taliban took over quickly, not just because they could, but because they felt threatened by the presence of other players on the field?

swing_voter

JosiasJessop said:

An early-morning thought, and one that's probably wrong:

The Taliban's takeover of almost all of Afghanistan was rapid; far more rapid than most expected. Might they have felt that the 'government' was weak, and feared that if they did not take over, other groups such as IS might have had a chance to spread?

In other words, the Taliban took over quickly, not just because they could, but because they felt threatened by the presence of other players on the field?

its probably a consideration, but I have always believed the Taliban consists of many armed groups based on a loose shared ideology, pursuit of power and money, FWIW I think a lot of Taliban are ex Afghan army etc so a lot comes down to opportunities, individual (tribal?) leaders and just crooks... yes they had a strategy but whether ISIS-k (new to me) was part of the consideration I am less sure

MarqueeMark

JosiasJessop said:

An early-morning thought, and one that's probably wrong:

The Taliban's takeover of almost all of Afghanistan was rapid; far more rapid than most expected. Might they have felt that the 'government' was weak, and feared that if they did not take over, other groups such as IS might have had a chance to spread?

In other words, the Taliban took over quickly, not just because they could, but because they felt threatened by the presence of other players on the field?

A follow on from that is whether US intelligence also saw the risk of IS filling the vacuum. More embarrassing to have IS crawling all over Afghanistan once the Americans and other western forces left than the Taliban.

Biden's biggest humiliations may yet be ahead though. If IS starts planning spectaculars outside of Afghanistan from within Afghanistan again, then the past 20 years really will have been for nothing.

I do worry about spectaculars timed for the anniversary of 9-11, with Biden at the same point in his Presidency as George W Bush was - but no appetite or plan to take steps to end that ability.

OldKingCole

swing_voter said:

JosiasJessop said:

An early-morning thought, and one that's probably wrong:

The Taliban's takeover of almost all of Afghanistan was rapid; far more rapid than most expected. Might they have felt that the 'government' was weak, and feared that if they did not take over, other groups such as IS might have had a chance to spread?

In other words, the Taliban took over quickly, not just because they could, but because they felt threatened by the presence of other players on the field?

its probably a consideration, but I have always believed the Taliban consists of many armed groups based on a loose shared ideology, pursuit of power and money, FWIW I think a lot of Taliban are ex Afghan army etc so a lot comes down to opportunities, individual (tribal?) leaders and just crooks... yes they had a strategy but whether ISIS-k (new to me) was part of the consideration I am less sure

Good morning one and all.
Brighter this morning but cooler (it is early, though). Only 11 degC so far.

Mr J, although there was, in the middle of the last century a 'sort' of Afghan government, whether or not it's writ ran far depended, I'm pretty sure, on it's relationship with the local warlords, tribal chiefs or whatever. Yes, 'western civilisation' and modern Muslim values were penetrating, but not necessarily very far.

IshmaelZ

Andy_JS said:

Next US election winner:

Biden 5.1 / 5.3
Trump 6.2 / 6.8
Harris 7.4 / 7.6

https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.176878927

I said he was a lay.

Harris has lengthened too, she was level pegging with Trump yesterday

StuartDickson

DecrepiterJohnL said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

edmundintokyo said:

Chameleon said:

As you mentioned the Mail, for once, nails it.

The Mail, as ever, is being idiotic. What happened 18 months ago was the Doha Agreement, where the US agreed to leave and in exchange the Taliban agreed to stop shooting at them.

Of course, the agreement to pull out was signed by President Trump but whether this detail matters to American voters has yet to be seen. It might also be that these latest deaths are seen as vindication of withdrawal from what must seem to many to be a pointless war.

It might also be that as President Biden comes to be seen as past his best or even in rapid decline, that this also throws a spotlight on the age of his presumptive challenger, Donald Trump, who will be 78 in 2024 – the same age Biden is today.

Very good point.

Surely this will put voters off elderly candidates?

Alistair

Another shadow docket loss for Biden at the Supreme Court.

Eviction monitorium is ended. The Conservitive cowards on the coirt won't even put their name to it.

noneoftheabove

DecrepiterJohnL said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

edmundintokyo said:

Chameleon said:

As you mentioned the Mail, for once, nails it.

The Mail, as ever, is being idiotic. What happened 18 months ago was the Doha Agreement, where the US agreed to leave and in exchange the Taliban agreed to stop shooting at them.

Of course, the agreement to pull out was signed by President Trump but whether this detail matters to American voters has yet to be seen. It might also be that these latest deaths are seen as vindication of withdrawal from what must seem to many to be a pointless war.

It might also be that as President Biden comes to be seen as past his best or even in rapid decline, that this also throws a spotlight on the age of his presumptive challenger, Donald Trump, who will be 78 in 2024 – the same age Biden is today.

Trumpism is a religion, age does not come into it. If he wants it the nomination is his. Biden is likely to be the candidate most likely to defeat him again, so will be needed.

IanB2

edmundintokyo said:

Chameleon said:

As you mentioned the Mail, for once, nails it.

The Mail, as ever, is being idiotic. What happened 18 months ago was the Doha Agreement, where the US agreed to leave and in exchange the Taliban agreed to stop shooting at them.

It is also far from the first ISIS bomb attack in Kabul, and the US troops are clearly at less risk if they aren’t there in the first place.

As Gardner points out on R4, it is remarkable that now the US and Taliban are starting to co-ordinate against ISIS.

IanB2

DecrepiterJohnL said:

edmundintokyo said:

Chameleon said:

As you mentioned the Mail, for once, nails it.

The Mail, as ever, is being idiotic. What happened 18 months ago was the Doha Agreement, where the US agreed to leave and in exchange the Taliban agreed to stop shooting at them.

Of course, the agreement to pull out was signed by President Trump but whether this detail matters to American voters has yet to be seen. It might also be that these latest deaths are seen as vindication of withdrawal from what must seem to many to be a pointless war.

It has taken us full circle back to the “we’re gonna get you for this” line from the movies that got us into this mess in the first place.

ydoethur

JosiasJessop said:

An early-morning thought, and one that's probably wrong:

The Taliban's takeover of almost all of Afghanistan was rapid; far more rapid than most expected. Might they have felt that the 'government' was weak, and feared that if they did not take over, other groups such as IS might have had a chance to spread?

In other words, the Taliban took over quickly, not just because they could, but because they felt threatened by the presence of other players on the field?

Or alternatively they already controlled most of Afghanistan and it’s just that we’re now noticing it.

IanB2

JosiasJessop said:

An early-morning thought, and one that's probably wrong:

The Taliban's takeover of almost all of Afghanistan was rapid; far more rapid than most expected. Might they have felt that the 'government' was weak, and feared that if they did not take over, other groups such as IS might have had a chance to spread?

In other words, the Taliban took over quickly, not just because they could, but because they felt threatened by the presence of other players on the field?

More likely to be a further explanation why the Afghan army turned out reluctant to start the bloody civil war that the US forces had scripted and trained them for. When was the last time a civil war led to the installation of a more moderate regime?

OldKingCole

IanB2 said:

edmundintokyo said:

Chameleon said:

As you mentioned the Mail, for once, nails it.

The Mail, as ever, is being idiotic. What happened 18 months ago was the Doha Agreement, where the US agreed to leave and in exchange the Taliban agreed to stop shooting at them.

It is also far from the first ISIS bomb attack in Kabul, and the US troops are clearly at less risk if they aren’t there in the first place.

As Gardner points out on R4, it is remarkable that now the US and Taliban are starting to co-ordinate against ISIS.

It's a sort of bizarre version of my enemy's enemy is my friend, isn't it! ISIS might the US's enemy, but for whatever reason they and the Taliban don't 'get one' so they attack both the US and the Taliban.
What that bit of the Muslim world needs is a respected scholar, or leader who has a somewhat different interpretation of the Koran.

IanB2

OldKingCole said:

IanB2 said:

edmundintokyo said:

Chameleon said:

As you mentioned the Mail, for once, nails it.

The Mail, as ever, is being idiotic. What happened 18 months ago was the Doha Agreement, where the US agreed to leave and in exchange the Taliban agreed to stop shooting at them.

It is also far from the first ISIS bomb attack in Kabul, and the US troops are clearly at less risk if they aren’t there in the first place.

As Gardner points out on R4, it is remarkable that now the US and Taliban are starting to co-ordinate against ISIS.

It's a sort of bizarre version of my enemy's enemy is my friend, isn't it! ISIS might the US's enemy, but for whatever reason they and the Taliban don't 'get one' so they attack both the US and the Taliban.
What that bit of the Muslim world needs is a respected scholar, or leader who has a somewhat different interpretation of the Koran.

I guess it’s like the Labour Party on a bigger stage….

IanB2

OldKingCole said:

swing_voter said:

JosiasJessop said:

An early-morning thought, and one that's probably wrong:

The Taliban's takeover of almost all of Afghanistan was rapid; far more rapid than most expected. Might they have felt that the 'government' was weak, and feared that if they did not take over, other groups such as IS might have had a chance to spread?

In other words, the Taliban took over quickly, not just because they could, but because they felt threatened by the presence of other players on the field?

its probably a consideration, but I have always believed the Taliban consists of many armed groups based on a loose shared ideology, pursuit of power and money, FWIW I think a lot of Taliban are ex Afghan army etc so a lot comes down to opportunities, individual (tribal?) leaders and just crooks... yes they had a strategy but whether ISIS-k (new to me) was part of the consideration I am less sure

Good morning one and all.
Brighter this morning but cooler (it is early, though). Only 11 degC so far.

Mr J, although there was, in the middle of the last century a 'sort' of Afghan government, whether or not it's writ ran far depended, I'm pretty sure, on it's relationship with the local warlords, tribal chiefs or whatever. Yes, 'western civilisation' and modern Muslim values were penetrating, but not necessarily very far.

12.5C and cloudless here. Enjoy this summer’s last hurrah, which looks likely to last for another week or so. Meanwhile Central Europe has a wet low pressure sitting over it, where I am about to head for better weather….

StuartDickson

‘Teachers in Scotland given guidance on decolonising the curriculum’

… The guidance comes after the UK government’s much derided Sewell report – which introduced itself as a response to “negative calls to decolonise the curriculum” – was accused of putting a positive spin on slavery earlier this year.

… Rowena Arshad, professor in multicultural and anti-racist education at Moray House, University of Edinburgh… said she considered the emphasis on decolonising the curriculum “hugely significant”.

“It shows the Scottish government listening to teachers, pupils and parents. The Sewell report was a disgrace and the Scottish government is choosing its own path and looking at decolonising as the beginning of a new approach”.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/aug/26/teachers-in-scotland-given-guidance-on-decolonising-the-curriculum

moonshine

IanB2 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

edmundintokyo said:

Chameleon said:

As you mentioned the Mail, for once, nails it.

The Mail, as ever, is being idiotic. What happened 18 months ago was the Doha Agreement, where the US agreed to leave and in exchange the Taliban agreed to stop shooting at them.

Of course, the agreement to pull out was signed by President Trump but whether this detail matters to American voters has yet to be seen. It might also be that these latest deaths are seen as vindication of withdrawal from what must seem to many to be a pointless war.

It has taken us full circle back to the “we’re gonna get you for this” line from the movies that got us into this mess in the first place.

But what a difference 20 years has made to America’s aura of invincibility. Even after 9/11 noone doubted that the US would be able to seek and destroy those responsible and regain its swagger. That it was a proper superpower.

Now they have an old man shaking his fists and shouting at the local kids for putting a stink bomb through the letter box.

As others have noted, Biden will end up dropping some bombs on some empty tents but the IS attacks will keep coming.

Dura_Ace

noneoftheabove said:

Trumpism is a religion, age does not come into it. If he wants it the nomination is his. Biden is likely to be the candidate most likely to defeat him again, so will be needed.

The perception of age is more important than the actual number. Trump looks utterly ludicrous but not any older or younger than his actual age. Biden is the same age as Mick Jagger but could pass for somebody in his 90s.

IshmaelZ

StuartDickson said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

edmundintokyo said:

Chameleon said:

As you mentioned the Mail, for once, nails it.

The Mail, as ever, is being idiotic. What happened 18 months ago was the Doha Agreement, where the US agreed to leave and in exchange the Taliban agreed to stop shooting at them.

Of course, the agreement to pull out was signed by President Trump but whether this detail matters to American voters has yet to be seen. It might also be that these latest deaths are seen as vindication of withdrawal from what must seem to many to be a pointless war.

It might also be that as President Biden comes to be seen as past his best or even in rapid decline, that this also throws a spotlight on the age of his presumptive challenger, Donald Trump, who will be 78 in 2024 – the same age Biden is today.

Very good point.

Surely this will put voters off elderly candidates?

I don't think so. Not if Trump manages not to look senile. All 3 over 85 year olds I know well have zero mental deterioration, and I'm not now looking at Biden and thinking perhaps they are a bit iffy after all and I've missed it. Why would I?

StuartDickson

IanB2 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

edmundintokyo said:

Chameleon said:

As you mentioned the Mail, for once, nails it.

The Mail, as ever, is being idiotic. What happened 18 months ago was the Doha Agreement, where the US agreed to leave and in exchange the Taliban agreed to stop shooting at them.

Of course, the agreement to pull out was signed by President Trump but whether this detail matters to American voters has yet to be seen. It might also be that these latest deaths are seen as vindication of withdrawal from what must seem to many to be a pointless war.

It has taken us full circle back to the “we’re gonna get you for this” line from the movies that got us into this mess in the first place.

That fundamental error was obvious to a lot of us twenty years ago. Tony Blair really was an appalling leader. That fact becomes more obvious with the passing of time.

DecrepiterJohnL

IanB2 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

edmundintokyo said:

Chameleon said:

As you mentioned the Mail, for once, nails it.

The Mail, as ever, is being idiotic. What happened 18 months ago was the Doha Agreement, where the US agreed to leave and in exchange the Taliban agreed to stop shooting at them.

Of course, the agreement to pull out was signed by President Trump but whether this detail matters to American voters has yet to be seen. It might also be that these latest deaths are seen as vindication of withdrawal from what must seem to many to be a pointless war.

It has taken us full circle back to the “we’re gonna get you for this” line from the movies that got us into this mess in the first place.

It also raises the question of why Britain went along in the first place. Clearly, we needed the United States, which is why we must get out now they are leaving, and they did not need us. It's not just Iraq that Tony Blair got wrong, which will probably deflect attention from the pitiful state of our armed forces after years of cuts.

rcs1000

IshmaelZ said:

Andy_JS said:

Next US election winner:

Biden 5.1 / 5.3
Trump 6.2 / 6.8
Harris 7.4 / 7.6

https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.176878927

I said he was a lay.

Harris has lengthened too, she was level pegging with Trump yesterday

I think she is value here.

If Harris were to become President now, she would be a near cert for Democratic nominee in 2024.

IshmaelZ

StuartDickson said:

IanB2 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

edmundintokyo said:

Chameleon said:

As you mentioned the Mail, for once, nails it.

The Mail, as ever, is being idiotic. What happened 18 months ago was the Doha Agreement, where the US agreed to leave and in exchange the Taliban agreed to stop shooting at them.

Of course, the agreement to pull out was signed by President Trump but whether this detail matters to American voters has yet to be seen. It might also be that these latest deaths are seen as vindication of withdrawal from what must seem to many to be a pointless war.

It has taken us full circle back to the “we’re gonna get you for this” line from the movies that got us into this mess in the first place.

That fundamental error was obvious to a lot of us twenty years ago. Tony Blair really was an appalling leader. That fact becomes more obvious with the passing of time.

But it could have been done right. With the time and money spent by the US it would have been possible to train and arm a proper army. Most wars are fought and won in a quarter of the time.

Scott_xP

UK says no more people will be called forward to the airport for evacuation.
Defence Secretary @BWallaceMP: “It is with deep regret that not everyone has been able to be evacuated during this process”
https://twitter.com/haynesdeborah/status/1431139079350071298

OldKingCole

IanB2 said:

OldKingCole said:

swing_voter said:

JosiasJessop said:

An early-morning thought, and one that's probably wrong:

The Taliban's takeover of almost all of Afghanistan was rapid; far more rapid than most expected. Might they have felt that the 'government' was weak, and feared that if they did not take over, other groups such as IS might have had a chance to spread?

In other words, the Taliban took over quickly, not just because they could, but because they felt threatened by the presence of other players on the field?

its probably a consideration, but I have always believed the Taliban consists of many armed groups based on a loose shared ideology, pursuit of power and money, FWIW I think a lot of Taliban are ex Afghan army etc so a lot comes down to opportunities, individual (tribal?) leaders and just crooks... yes they had a strategy but whether ISIS-k (new to me) was part of the consideration I am less sure

Good morning one and all.
Brighter this morning but cooler (it is early, though). Only 11 degC so far.

Mr J, although there was, in the middle of the last century a 'sort' of Afghan government, whether or not it's writ ran far depended, I'm pretty sure, on it's relationship with the local warlords, tribal chiefs or whatever. Yes, 'western civilisation' and modern Muslim values were penetrating, but not necessarily very far.

12.5C and cloudless here. Enjoy this summer’s last hurrah, which looks likely to last for another week or so. Meanwhile Central Europe has a wet low pressure sitting over it, where I am about to head for better weather….

Hope it does last a bit longer; we've a family party on Monday. Where we hoped to head for better weather, and to see the rest of the family, later this year is now Covid red.
Best of, with your trip.

OldKingCole

DecrepiterJohnL said:

IanB2 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

edmundintokyo said:

Chameleon said:

As you mentioned the Mail, for once, nails it.

The Mail, as ever, is being idiotic. What happened 18 months ago was the Doha Agreement, where the US agreed to leave and in exchange the Taliban agreed to stop shooting at them.

Of course, the agreement to pull out was signed by President Trump but whether this detail matters to American voters has yet to be seen. It might also be that these latest deaths are seen as vindication of withdrawal from what must seem to many to be a pointless war.

It has taken us full circle back to the “we’re gonna get you for this” line from the movies that got us into this mess in the first place.

It also raises the question of why Britain went along in the first place. Clearly, we needed the United States, which is why we must get out now they are leaving, and they did not need us. It's not just Iraq that Tony Blair got wrong, which will probably deflect attention from the pitiful state of our armed forces after years of cuts.

Getting involved in Afghan wars has been a BAD IDEA as far as UK is concerned since about 1840.
And there was no reason to think it would have been any better in 2000, or will be in 2040.

StuartDickson

IshmaelZ said:

StuartDickson said:

IanB2 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

edmundintokyo said:

Chameleon said:

As you mentioned the Mail, for once, nails it.

The Mail, as ever, is being idiotic. What happened 18 months ago was the Doha Agreement, where the US agreed to leave and in exchange the Taliban agreed to stop shooting at them.

Of course, the agreement to pull out was signed by President Trump but whether this detail matters to American voters has yet to be seen. It might also be that these latest deaths are seen as vindication of withdrawal from what must seem to many to be a pointless war.

It has taken us full circle back to the “we’re gonna get you for this” line from the movies that got us into this mess in the first place.

That fundamental error was obvious to a lot of us twenty years ago. Tony Blair really was an appalling leader. That fact becomes more obvious with the passing of time.

But it could have been done right. With the time and money spent by the US it would have been possible to train and arm a proper army. Most wars are fought and won in a quarter of the time.

Winning wars requires more than training and arms. It requires hearts and minds. In fact the hearts and minds bit is a lot harder than the training and arms bit. (Which is why HYUFD’s tank ruse will never work.)

IshmaelZ

13 us troops killed says Telegraph

Also it has a headline "Biden pledges to 'hunt down' suicide bombers." They may not have thought that one through.

StuartDickson

rcs1000 said:

IshmaelZ said:

Andy_JS said:

Next US election winner:

Biden 5.1 / 5.3
Trump 6.2 / 6.8
Harris 7.4 / 7.6

https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.176878927

I said he was a lay.

Harris has lengthened too, she was level pegging with Trump yesterday

I think she is value here.

If Harris were to become President now, she would be a near cert for Democratic nominee in 2024.

Agreed. If Biden really does deteriorate fast, and it looks possible, POTUS Harris would be a great reset.

rottenborough

"Should Biden step down or be removed for his handling of Afghanistan? Yes," said Nikki Haley, the Republican former ambassador to the United Nations. "But that would leave us with Kamala Harris, which would be ten times worse. God help us."

Telegraph

StuartDickson

Scott_xP said:

UK says no more people will be called forward to the airport for evacuation.
Defence Secretary @BWallaceMP: “It is with deep regret that not everyone has been able to be evacuated during this process”
https://twitter.com/haynesdeborah/status/1431139079350071298

Hostages to fortune.

This could dominate news cycles for years to come.

IshmaelZ

StuartDickson said:

IshmaelZ said:

StuartDickson said:

IanB2 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

edmundintokyo said:

Chameleon said:

As you mentioned the Mail, for once, nails it.

The Mail, as ever, is being idiotic. What happened 18 months ago was the Doha Agreement, where the US agreed to leave and in exchange the Taliban agreed to stop shooting at them.

Of course, the agreement to pull out was signed by President Trump but whether this detail matters to American voters has yet to be seen. It might also be that these latest deaths are seen as vindication of withdrawal from what must seem to many to be a pointless war.

It has taken us full circle back to the “we’re gonna get you for this” line from the movies that got us into this mess in the first place.

That fundamental error was obvious to a lot of us twenty years ago. Tony Blair really was an appalling leader. That fact becomes more obvious with the passing of time.

But it could have been done right. With the time and money spent by the US it would have been possible to train and arm a proper army. Most wars are fought and won in a quarter of the time.

Winning wars requires more than training and arms. It requires hearts and minds. In fact the hearts and minds bit is a lot harder than the training and arms bit. (Which is why HYUFD’s tank ruse will never work.)

Yes. Look at the Afghans mobbing Kabul airport, though. I don't think their hearts and minds are with the Taliban. And look for all its faults at British India and the size of the British Indian army. Its a cop out to say that the inscrutable easterner can never be won over to western ways.

StuartDickson

OldKingCole said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

IanB2 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

edmundintokyo said:

Chameleon said:

As you mentioned the Mail, for once, nails it.

The Mail, as ever, is being idiotic. What happened 18 months ago was the Doha Agreement, where the US agreed to leave and in exchange the Taliban agreed to stop shooting at them.

Of course, the agreement to pull out was signed by President Trump but whether this detail matters to American voters has yet to be seen. It might also be that these latest deaths are seen as vindication of withdrawal from what must seem to many to be a pointless war.

It has taken us full circle back to the “we’re gonna get you for this” line from the movies that got us into this mess in the first place.

It also raises the question of why Britain went along in the first place. Clearly, we needed the United States, which is why we must get out now they are leaving, and they did not need us. It's not just Iraq that Tony Blair got wrong, which will probably deflect attention from the pitiful state of our armed forces after years of cuts.

Getting involved in Afghan wars has been a BAD IDEA as far as UK is concerned since about 1840.
And there was no reason to think it would have been any better in 2000, or will be in 2040.

2040. Wouldn’t put it past them.

The colonial mindset never learns.

DecrepiterJohnL

StuartDickson said:

Scott_xP said:

UK says no more people will be called forward to the airport for evacuation.
Defence Secretary @BWallaceMP: “It is with deep regret that not everyone has been able to be evacuated during this process”
https://twitter.com/haynesdeborah/status/1431139079350071298

Hostages to fortune.

This could dominate news cycles for years to come.

Since the fact of withdrawal, if not its execution, has been known since President Trump's Doha deal with the Taliban in February 2020, one has to ask just how much planning the MoD and Foreign Office had done. They appear to have been caught on the hop by an event for which they'd had 18 months' notice.

StuartDickson

IshmaelZ said:

13 us troops killed says Telegraph

Also it has a headline "Biden pledges to 'hunt down' suicide bombers." They may not have thought that one through.

They definitely haven’t thought that one through. Just when you think Americans can’t make an even bigger arse of themselves, they manage it.

RochdalePioneers

What happened yesterday was predictable, as was the Biden response. What specifically does he have in mind - flooding Afghanistan with troops and fighting the Taliban to be able to fight ISIS? Or perhaps a truce with the women-hating Taliban to get access to chase the bigger ISIS enemy?

There are no good options now. Other than to complete the withdrawal with as little death as possible,

IanB2

DecrepiterJohnL said:

IanB2 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

edmundintokyo said:

Chameleon said:

As you mentioned the Mail, for once, nails it.

The Mail, as ever, is being idiotic. What happened 18 months ago was the Doha Agreement, where the US agreed to leave and in exchange the Taliban agreed to stop shooting at them.

Of course, the agreement to pull out was signed by President Trump but whether this detail matters to American voters has yet to be seen. It might also be that these latest deaths are seen as vindication of withdrawal from what must seem to many to be a pointless war.

It has taken us full circle back to the “we’re gonna get you for this” line from the movies that got us into this mess in the first place.

It also raises the question of why Britain went along in the first place. Clearly, we needed the United States, which is why we must get out now they are leaving, and they did not need us. It's not just Iraq that Tony Blair got wrong, which will probably deflect attention from the pitiful state of our armed forces after years of cuts.

If our armed forces are too weak to travel round the world and occupy another country, that is an upside, as well as a massive cost saving.

edmundintokyo

RochdalePioneers said:

What happened yesterday was predictable, as was the Biden response. What specifically does he have in mind - flooding Afghanistan with troops and fighting the Taliban to be able to fight ISIS? Or perhaps a truce with the women-hating Taliban to get access to chase the bigger ISIS enemy?

There are no good options now. Other than to complete the withdrawal with as little death as possible,

It's a revenge thing not a strategic thing so I think they just get some intelligence on where the leadership of the Afghanistan ISIS franchise is and drop a bomb on them from the sky. The Taliban will presumably be helpful with information about where to find the people in question since they're fighting them too.

Grave-looking press conference, grainy satellite footage, big smoking hole in the ground, dead brown people, and hey presto, the media will love Biden again.

Jonathan

IanB2 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

IanB2 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

edmundintokyo said:

Chameleon said:

As you mentioned the Mail, for once, nails it.

The Mail, as ever, is being idiotic. What happened 18 months ago was the Doha Agreement, where the US agreed to leave and in exchange the Taliban agreed to stop shooting at them.

Of course, the agreement to pull out was signed by President Trump but whether this detail matters to American voters has yet to be seen. It might also be that these latest deaths are seen as vindication of withdrawal from what must seem to many to be a pointless war.

It has taken us full circle back to the “we’re gonna get you for this” line from the movies that got us into this mess in the first place.

It also raises the question of why Britain went along in the first place. Clearly, we needed the United States, which is why we must get out now they are leaving, and they did not need us. It's not just Iraq that Tony Blair got wrong, which will probably deflect attention from the pitiful state of our armed forces after years of cuts.

If our armed forces are too weak to travel round the world and occupy another country, that is an upside, as well as a massive cost saving.

Pax Americana 1945-2021

Be careful what you wish for, am not sure what replaces it will be in our national interest..

ydoethur

IshmaelZ said:

13 us troops killed says Telegraph

Also it has a headline "Biden pledges to 'hunt down' suicide bombers." They may not have thought that one through.

Well, at least it should be fairly straightforward. Even for the Americans.

DecrepiterJohnL

OT Covid lateral flow tests for home use – how do you get hold of them? Simply pitch up at a pharmacy and ask or do they need to be ordered in advance?

StuartDickson

IshmaelZ said:

StuartDickson said:

IshmaelZ said:

StuartDickson said:

IanB2 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

edmundintokyo said:

Chameleon said:

As you mentioned the Mail, for once, nails it.

The Mail, as ever, is being idiotic. What happened 18 months ago was the Doha Agreement, where the US agreed to leave and in exchange the Taliban agreed to stop shooting at them.

Of course, the agreement to pull out was signed by President Trump but whether this detail matters to American voters has yet to be seen. It might also be that these latest deaths are seen as vindication of withdrawal from what must seem to many to be a pointless war.

It has taken us full circle back to the “we’re gonna get you for this” line from the movies that got us into this mess in the first place.

That fundamental error was obvious to a lot of us twenty years ago. Tony Blair really was an appalling leader. That fact becomes more obvious with the passing of time.

But it could have been done right. With the time and money spent by the US it would have been possible to train and arm a proper army. Most wars are fought and won in a quarter of the time.

Winning wars requires more than training and arms. It requires hearts and minds. In fact the hearts and minds bit is a lot harder than the training and arms bit. (Which is why HYUFD’s tank ruse will never work.)

Yes. Look at the Afghans mobbing Kabul airport, though. I don't think their hearts and minds are with the Taliban. And look for all its faults at British India and the size of the British Indian army. Its a cop out to say that the inscrutable easterner can never be won over to western ways.

Why do they have to be won over? Variety is the spice of life. I’ve never understood this western urge to make everybody else like us. Far better to work towards genuine mutual respect for peoples with different values.

The same sinister forces are at work within western societies: trying to flatten, uniformise and standardise everything. Why? We are removing a lot of beauty from the world. Just as we cherish the blue whale, the Siberian tiger and the red squirrel, we should appreciate the beauty and intrinsic value of the Gaelic language, shinty and the College of Justice.

DecrepiterJohnL

IanB2 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

IanB2 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

edmundintokyo said:

Chameleon said:

As you mentioned the Mail, for once, nails it.

The Mail, as ever, is being idiotic. What happened 18 months ago was the Doha Agreement, where the US agreed to leave and in exchange the Taliban agreed to stop shooting at them.

Of course, the agreement to pull out was signed by President Trump but whether this detail matters to American voters has yet to be seen. It might also be that these latest deaths are seen as vindication of withdrawal from what must seem to many to be a pointless war.

It has taken us full circle back to the “we’re gonna get you for this” line from the movies that got us into this mess in the first place.

It also raises the question of why Britain went along in the first place. Clearly, we needed the United States, which is why we must get out now they are leaving, and they did not need us. It's not just Iraq that Tony Blair got wrong, which will probably deflect attention from the pitiful state of our armed forces after years of cuts.

If our armed forces are too weak to travel round the world and occupy another country, that is an upside, as well as a massive cost saving.

It is, provided we can rely on NATO, by which I mean the United States, to cover our backs. In light of this week's evidence, we cannot. This just leaves the cost saving.

TOPPING

edmundintokyo said:

RochdalePioneers said:

What happened yesterday was predictable, as was the Biden response. What specifically does he have in mind - flooding Afghanistan with troops and fighting the Taliban to be able to fight ISIS? Or perhaps a truce with the women-hating Taliban to get access to chase the bigger ISIS enemy?

There are no good options now. Other than to complete the withdrawal with as little death as possible,

It's a revenge thing not a strategic thing so I think they just get some intelligence on where the leadership of the Afghanistan ISIS franchise is and drop a bomb on them from the sky. The Taliban will presumably be helpful with information about where to find the people in question since they're fighting them too.

Grave-looking press conference, grainy satellite footage, big smoking hole in the ground, dead brown people, and hey presto, the media will love Biden again.

Or if you're offered to be a guy in a red shirt on an intergalactic space mission.

You forgot that as being one of those jobs you do not want to accept no matter how good the benefits are.

edmundintokyo

Jonathan said:

IanB2 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

IanB2 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

edmundintokyo said:

Chameleon said:

As you mentioned the Mail, for once, nails it.

The Mail, as ever, is being idiotic. What happened 18 months ago was the Doha Agreement, where the US agreed to leave and in exchange the Taliban agreed to stop shooting at them.

Of course, the agreement to pull out was signed by President Trump but whether this detail matters to American voters has yet to be seen. It might also be that these latest deaths are seen as vindication of withdrawal from what must seem to many to be a pointless war.

It has taken us full circle back to the “we’re gonna get you for this” line from the movies that got us into this mess in the first place.

It also raises the question of why Britain went along in the first place. Clearly, we needed the United States, which is why we must get out now they are leaving, and they did not need us. It's not just Iraq that Tony Blair got wrong, which will probably deflect attention from the pitiful state of our armed forces after years of cuts.

If our armed forces are too weak to travel round the world and occupy another country, that is an upside, as well as a massive cost saving.

Pax Americana 1945-2021

Be careful what you wish for, am not sure what replaces it will be in our national interest..

More like Clusterfuckica Bush-Chenica 2001-2021. They're still going to spend ungodly sums of weapon systems and they're still going to bomb things and sponsor coups. They still want to get reelected and as we've seen over the past week, the media still really, really like wars.

IshmaelZ

StuartDickson said:

IshmaelZ said:

StuartDickson said:

IshmaelZ said:

StuartDickson said:

IanB2 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

edmundintokyo said:

Chameleon said:

As you mentioned the Mail, for once, nails it.

The Mail, as ever, is being idiotic. What happened 18 months ago was the Doha Agreement, where the US agreed to leave and in exchange the Taliban agreed to stop shooting at them.

Of course, the agreement to pull out was signed by President Trump but whether this detail matters to American voters has yet to be seen. It might also be that these latest deaths are seen as vindication of withdrawal from what must seem to many to be a pointless war.

It has taken us full circle back to the “we’re gonna get you for this” line from the movies that got us into this mess in the first place.

That fundamental error was obvious to a lot of us twenty years ago. Tony Blair really was an appalling leader. That fact becomes more obvious with the passing of time.

But it could have been done right. With the time and money spent by the US it would have been possible to train and arm a proper army. Most wars are fought and won in a quarter of the time.

Winning wars requires more than training and arms. It requires hearts and minds. In fact the hearts and minds bit is a lot harder than the training and arms bit. (Which is why HYUFD’s tank ruse will never work.)

Yes. Look at the Afghans mobbing Kabul airport, though. I don't think their hearts and minds are with the Taliban. And look for all its faults at British India and the size of the British Indian army. Its a cop out to say that the inscrutable easterner can never be won over to western ways.

Why do they have to be won over? Variety is the spice of life. I’ve never understood this western urge to make everybody else like us. Far better to work towards genuine mutual respect for peoples with different values.

The same sinister forces are at work within western societies: trying to flatten, uniformise and standardise everything. Why? We are removing a lot of beauty from the world. Just as we cherish the blue whale, the Siberian tiger and the red squirrel, we should appreciate the beauty and intrinsic value of the Gaelic language, shinty and the College of Justice.

Sure. Some people like gays to be free to do the gay thang, others think they look better for chucking off a high rise. Spice of life indeed. But I think a lot of those bods at Kabul airport are on my side of the argument.

OldKingCole

DecrepiterJohnL said:

OT Covid lateral flow tests for home use – how do you get hold of them? Simply pitch up at a pharmacy and ask or do they need to be ordered in advance?

We normally ' pitch up at a pharmacy and ask'. Our local pharmacy, part of a smaller chain, always seem to have enough.

rcs1000

OldKingCole said:

IanB2 said:

edmundintokyo said:

Chameleon said:

As you mentioned the Mail, for once, nails it.

The Mail, as ever, is being idiotic. What happened 18 months ago was the Doha Agreement, where the US agreed to leave and in exchange the Taliban agreed to stop shooting at them.

It is also far from the first ISIS bomb attack in Kabul, and the US troops are clearly at less risk if they aren’t there in the first place.

As Gardner points out on R4, it is remarkable that now the US and Taliban are starting to co-ordinate against ISIS.

It's a sort of bizarre version of my enemy's enemy is my friend, isn't it! ISIS might the US's enemy, but for whatever reason they and the Taliban don't 'get one' so they attack both the US and the Taliban.
What that bit of the Muslim world needs is a respected scholar, or leader who has a somewhat different interpretation of the Koran.

You're talking about Lawrence Fox, right?

IshmaelZ

ydoethur said:

IshmaelZ said:

13 us troops killed says Telegraph

Also it has a headline "Biden pledges to 'hunt down' suicide bombers." They may not have thought that one through.

Well, at least it should be fairly straightforward. Even for the Americans.

Not really. Lots of bits, intermingled with lots of other bits.

StuartDickson

DecrepiterJohnL said:

StuartDickson said:

Scott_xP said:

UK says no more people will be called forward to the airport for evacuation.
Defence Secretary @BWallaceMP: “It is with deep regret that not everyone has been able to be evacuated during this process”
https://twitter.com/haynesdeborah/status/1431139079350071298

Hostages to fortune.

This could dominate news cycles for years to come.

Since the fact of withdrawal, if not its execution, has been known since President Trump's Doha deal with the Taliban in February 2020, one has to ask just how much planning the MoD and Foreign Office had done. They appear to have been caught on the hop by an event for which they'd had 18 months' notice.

Rank incompetence in Westminster, Whitehall and the armed forces? Err… not news. Have you never heard of Trident, the white elephant aircraft carrier with no aircraft, or the rape and abuse of hundreds of female personnel?

General Melchett had more credibility than these buffoons.

RochdalePioneers

edmundintokyo said:

RochdalePioneers said:

What happened yesterday was predictable, as was the Biden response. What specifically does he have in mind - flooding Afghanistan with troops and fighting the Taliban to be able to fight ISIS? Or perhaps a truce with the women-hating Taliban to get access to chase the bigger ISIS enemy?

There are no good options now. Other than to complete the withdrawal with as little death as possible,

It's a revenge thing not a strategic thing so I think they just get some intelligence on where the leadership of the Afghanistan ISIS franchise is and drop a bomb on them from the sky. The Taliban will presumably be helpful with information about where to find the people in question since they're fighting them too.

Grave-looking press conference, grainy satellite footage, big smoking hole in the ground, dead brown people, and hey presto, the media will love Biden again.

They'll bomb a wedding again...

TOPPING

I see from FB that Pen Farthing will be doing a live chat later today.

I can tell you that the comments under his Nowzad announcement are many and extremely positive.

IanB2

OldKingCole said:

IanB2 said:

OldKingCole said:

swing_voter said:

JosiasJessop said:

An early-morning thought, and one that's probably wrong:

The Taliban's takeover of almost all of Afghanistan was rapid; far more rapid than most expected. Might they have felt that the 'government' was weak, and feared that if they did not take over, other groups such as IS might have had a chance to spread?

In other words, the Taliban took over quickly, not just because they could, but because they felt threatened by the presence of other players on the field?

its probably a consideration, but I have always believed the Taliban consists of many armed groups based on a loose shared ideology, pursuit of power and money, FWIW I think a lot of Taliban are ex Afghan army etc so a lot comes down to opportunities, individual (tribal?) leaders and just crooks... yes they had a strategy but whether ISIS-k (new to me) was part of the consideration I am less sure

Good morning one and all.
Brighter this morning but cooler (it is early, though). Only 11 degC so far.

Mr J, although there was, in the middle of the last century a 'sort' of Afghan government, whether or not it's writ ran far depended, I'm pretty sure, on it's relationship with the local warlords, tribal chiefs or whatever. Yes, 'western civilisation' and modern Muslim values were penetrating, but not necessarily very far.

12.5C and cloudless here. Enjoy this summer’s last hurrah, which looks likely to last for another week or so. Meanwhile Central Europe has a wet low pressure sitting over it, where I am about to head for better weather….

Hope it does last a bit longer; we've a family party on Monday. Where we hoped to head for better weather, and to see the rest of the family, later this year is now Covid red.
Best of, with your trip.

I am ready with my

- new passport
- animal health certificate (all thirteen pages!)
- full animal vaccination record
- green card
- vehicle log book
- sworn declaration for France
- EU advance passenger registration form
- German low emission sticker
- Swiss motorway vignette
- Austrian motorway virtual vignette
- pre-departure covid testing pack
- day 2 covid testing pack
- NHS covid pass
- NHS translations in French and Italian
- completed Eurotunnel API

All ready to go! (apart from any actual luggage)

IshmaelZ

TOPPING said:

I see from FB that Pen Farthing will be doing a live chat later today.

I can tell you that the comments under his Nowzad announcement are many and extremely positive.

Heartwarming

DecrepiterJohnL

StuartDickson said:

IshmaelZ said:

StuartDickson said:

IshmaelZ said:

StuartDickson said:

IanB2 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

edmundintokyo said:

Chameleon said:

As you mentioned the Mail, for once, nails it.

The Mail, as ever, is being idiotic. What happened 18 months ago was the Doha Agreement, where the US agreed to leave and in exchange the Taliban agreed to stop shooting at them.

Of course, the agreement to pull out was signed by President Trump but whether this detail matters to American voters has yet to be seen. It might also be that these latest deaths are seen as vindication of withdrawal from what must seem to many to be a pointless war.

It has taken us full circle back to the “we’re gonna get you for this” line from the movies that got us into this mess in the first place.

That fundamental error was obvious to a lot of us twenty years ago. Tony Blair really was an appalling leader. That fact becomes more obvious with the passing of time.

But it could have been done right. With the time and money spent by the US it would have been possible to train and arm a proper army. Most wars are fought and won in a quarter of the time.

Winning wars requires more than training and arms. It requires hearts and minds. In fact the hearts and minds bit is a lot harder than the training and arms bit. (Which is why HYUFD’s tank ruse will never work.)

Yes. Look at the Afghans mobbing Kabul airport, though. I don't think their hearts and minds are with the Taliban. And look for all its faults at British India and the size of the British Indian army. Its a cop out to say that the inscrutable easterner can never be won over to western ways.

Why do they have to be won over? Variety is the spice of life. I’ve never understood this western urge to make everybody else like us. Far better to work towards genuine mutual respect for peoples with different values.

The same sinister forces are at work within western societies: trying to flatten, uniformise and standardise everything. Why? We are removing a lot of beauty from the world. Just as we cherish the blue whale, the Siberian tiger and the red squirrel, we should appreciate the beauty and intrinsic value of the Gaelic language, shinty and the College of Justice.

What must be borne in mind is that urban Afghanistan used to be relatively Westernised and secular. The Taliban imposing their crude and unenlightened version of Islam is just as much a takeover as those you would condemn, and probably more so.

TOPPING

DecrepiterJohnL said:

OT Covid lateral flow tests for home use – how do you get hold of them? Simply pitch up at a pharmacy and ask or do they need to be ordered in advance?

Order them online from gov.uk. It's pretty efficient.

rcs1000

rottenborough said:

"Should Biden step down or be removed for his handling of Afghanistan? Yes," said Nikki Haley, the Republican former ambassador to the United Nations. "But that would leave us with Kamala Harris, which would be ten times worse. God help us."

Telegraph

Harris is a charisma void. A prosecutor who changes direction according to the direction of the wind. A conviction free zone.

But she's not an idiot. You don't rise to the top of the prosecution ladder in California by being a shrinking violet, you do it by being efficient at putting people behind bars, and claiming credit for it.

Harris, with the post covid boom in her pocket and being able to blame problems in Afghanistan on her predecessor, would be in a pretty good position.

OldKingCole

IshmaelZ said:

StuartDickson said:

IshmaelZ said:

StuartDickson said:

IshmaelZ said:

StuartDickson said:

IanB2 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

edmundintokyo said:

Chameleon said:

As you mentioned the Mail, for once, nails it.

The Mail, as ever, is being idiotic. What happened 18 months ago was the Doha Agreement, where the US agreed to leave and in exchange the Taliban agreed to stop shooting at them.

Of course, the agreement to pull out was signed by President Trump but whether this detail matters to American voters has yet to be seen. It might also be that these latest deaths are seen as vindication of withdrawal from what must seem to many to be a pointless war.

It has taken us full circle back to the “we’re gonna get you for this” line from the movies that got us into this mess in the first place.

That fundamental error was obvious to a lot of us twenty years ago. Tony Blair really was an appalling leader. That fact becomes more obvious with the passing of time.

But it could have been done right. With the time and money spent by the US it would have been possible to train and arm a proper army. Most wars are fought and won in a quarter of the time.

Winning wars requires more than training and arms. It requires hearts and minds. In fact the hearts and minds bit is a lot harder than the training and arms bit. (Which is why HYUFD’s tank ruse will never work.)

Yes. Look at the Afghans mobbing Kabul airport, though. I don't think their hearts and minds are with the Taliban. And look for all its faults at British India and the size of the British Indian army. Its a cop out to say that the inscrutable easterner can never be won over to western ways.

Why do they have to be won over? Variety is the spice of life. I’ve never understood this western urge to make everybody else like us. Far better to work towards genuine mutual respect for peoples with different values.

The same sinister forces are at work within western societies: trying to flatten, uniformise and standardise everything. Why? We are removing a lot of beauty from the world. Just as we cherish the blue whale, the Siberian tiger and the red squirrel, we should appreciate the beauty and intrinsic value of the Gaelic language, shinty and the College of Justice.

Sure. Some people like gays to be free to do the gay thang, others think they look better for chucking off a high rise. Spice of life indeed. But I think a lot of those bods at Kabul airport are on my side of the argument.

I think they probably are. Some will have decided to work with the West for money, some because they want a new, better Afghanistan. So they want to leave. Some have, perhaps, other reasons for leaving a Taliban regime.

Jonathan

edmundintokyo said:

Jonathan said:

IanB2 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

IanB2 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

edmundintokyo said:

Chameleon said:

As you mentioned the Mail, for once, nails it.

The Mail, as ever, is being idiotic. What happened 18 months ago was the Doha Agreement, where the US agreed to leave and in exchange the Taliban agreed to stop shooting at them.

Of course, the agreement to pull out was signed by President Trump but whether this detail matters to American voters has yet to be seen. It might also be that these latest deaths are seen as vindication of withdrawal from what must seem to many to be a pointless war.

It has taken us full circle back to the “we’re gonna get you for this” line from the movies that got us into this mess in the first place.

It also raises the question of why Britain went along in the first place. Clearly, we needed the United States, which is why we must get out now they are leaving, and they did not need us. It's not just Iraq that Tony Blair got wrong, which will probably deflect attention from the pitiful state of our armed forces after years of cuts.

If our armed forces are too weak to travel round the world and occupy another country, that is an upside, as well as a massive cost saving.

Pax Americana 1945-2021

Be careful what you wish for, am not sure what replaces it will be in our national interest..

More like Clusterfuckica Bush-Chenica 2001-2021. They're still going to spend ungodly sums of weapon systems and they're still going to bomb things and sponsor coups. They still want to get reelected and as we've seen over the past week, the media still really, really like wars.

My feeling is that we have to be careful and keep our eyes open to how the world develops. Our generation has taken security and the benefits of a dominant position for granted. As America retreats this may no longer be the case. New instability and risks may well emerge.

IanB2

DecrepiterJohnL said:

OT Covid lateral flow tests for home use – how do you get hold of them? Simply pitch up at a pharmacy and ask or do they need to be ordered in advance?

A lot of pharmacies have them to give away. I also saw a note to that effect in a local shop yesterday. Or you can order a pack from gov.uk

StuartDickson

RochdalePioneers said:

What happened yesterday was predictable, as was the Biden response. What specifically does he have in mind - flooding Afghanistan with troops and fighting the Taliban to be able to fight ISIS? Or perhaps a truce with the women-hating Taliban to get access to chase the bigger ISIS enemy?

There are no good options now. Other than to complete the withdrawal with as little death as possible,

Suez Crisis:
Israel: 172 killed 817 wounded 1 captured
United Kingdom: 16 killed 96 wounded
France: 10 killed 33 wounded

Kabul Crisis, so far:
United States: 13 killed, ?, ?
United Kingdom: ?, ?, ?
Germany: ?, ?, ?
Denmark: ?, ?, ?
the list is long

TOPPING

IanB2 said:

OldKingCole said:

IanB2 said:

OldKingCole said:

swing_voter said:

JosiasJessop said:

An early-morning thought, and one that's probably wrong:

The Taliban's takeover of almost all of Afghanistan was rapid; far more rapid than most expected. Might they have felt that the 'government' was weak, and feared that if they did not take over, other groups such as IS might have had a chance to spread?

In other words, the Taliban took over quickly, not just because they could, but because they felt threatened by the presence of other players on the field?

its probably a consideration, but I have always believed the Taliban consists of many armed groups based on a loose shared ideology, pursuit of power and money, FWIW I think a lot of Taliban are ex Afghan army etc so a lot comes down to opportunities, individual (tribal?) leaders and just crooks... yes they had a strategy but whether ISIS-k (new to me) was part of the consideration I am less sure

Good morning one and all.
Brighter this morning but cooler (it is early, though). Only 11 degC so far.

Mr J, although there was, in the middle of the last century a 'sort' of Afghan government, whether or not it's writ ran far depended, I'm pretty sure, on it's relationship with the local warlords, tribal chiefs or whatever. Yes, 'western civilisation' and modern Muslim values were penetrating, but not necessarily very far.

12.5C and cloudless here. Enjoy this summer’s last hurrah, which looks likely to last for another week or so. Meanwhile Central Europe has a wet low pressure sitting over it, where I am about to head for better weather….

Hope it does last a bit longer; we've a family party on Monday. Where we hoped to head for better weather, and to see the rest of the family, later this year is now Covid red.
Best of, with your trip.

I am ready with my

- new passport
- animal health certificate (all thirteen pages!)
- full animal vaccination record
- green card
- vehicle log book
- sworn declaration for France
- EU advance passenger registration form
- German low emission sticker
- Swiss motorway vignette
- Austrian motorway virtual vignette
- pre-departure covid testing pack
- day 2 covid testing pack
- NHS covid pass
- NHS translations in French and Italian
- completed Eurotunnel API

All ready to go! (apart from any actual luggage)

You'll probably forget the dog after all that.

MikeSmithson

DecrepiterJohnL said:

OT Covid lateral flow tests for home use – how do you get hold of them? Simply pitch up at a pharmacy and ask or do they need to be ordered in advance?

We get ours from the local library

CD13

Mr Tokyo,

"Grave-looking press conference, grainy satellite footage, big smoking hole in the ground, dead brown people, and hey presto, the media will love Biden again."

The press don't work like that. There's always collateral damage to highlight and it becomes a 'war crime'.

Did I read Mr Dickson correctly? "Rowena Arshad, professor in multicultural and anti-racist education at Moray House, University of Edinburgh… said she considered the emphasis on decolonising the curriculum “hugely significant”. We now have a Chair for 'decolonising the curriculum' ? WTF.

Will she decide that it's essential we leave the Taliban alone and support their attempt to prevent women being educated, for example?

IanB2

IshmaelZ said:

StuartDickson said:

IshmaelZ said:

StuartDickson said:

IanB2 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

edmundintokyo said:

Chameleon said:

As you mentioned the Mail, for once, nails it.

The Mail, as ever, is being idiotic. What happened 18 months ago was the Doha Agreement, where the US agreed to leave and in exchange the Taliban agreed to stop shooting at them.

Of course, the agreement to pull out was signed by President Trump but whether this detail matters to American voters has yet to be seen. It might also be that these latest deaths are seen as vindication of withdrawal from what must seem to many to be a pointless war.

It has taken us full circle back to the “we’re gonna get you for this” line from the movies that got us into this mess in the first place.

That fundamental error was obvious to a lot of us twenty years ago. Tony Blair really was an appalling leader. That fact becomes more obvious with the passing of time.

But it could have been done right. With the time and money spent by the US it would have been possible to train and arm a proper army. Most wars are fought and won in a quarter of the time.

Winning wars requires more than training and arms. It requires hearts and minds. In fact the hearts and minds bit is a lot harder than the training and arms bit. (Which is why HYUFD’s tank ruse will never work.)

Yes. Look at the Afghans mobbing Kabul airport, though. I don't think their hearts and minds are with the Taliban. And look for all its faults at British India and the size of the British Indian army. Its a cop out to say that the inscrutable easterner can never be won over to western ways.

History suggests that a good batch of people eager to leave the country after an extended foreign occupation isn't necessarily evidence of the views of the wider population. Just saying.

IanB2

TOPPING said:

IanB2 said:

OldKingCole said:

IanB2 said:

OldKingCole said:

swing_voter said:

JosiasJessop said:

An early-morning thought, and one that's probably wrong:

The Taliban's takeover of almost all of Afghanistan was rapid; far more rapid than most expected. Might they have felt that the 'government' was weak, and feared that if they did not take over, other groups such as IS might have had a chance to spread?

In other words, the Taliban took over quickly, not just because they could, but because they felt threatened by the presence of other players on the field?

its probably a consideration, but I have always believed the Taliban consists of many armed groups based on a loose shared ideology, pursuit of power and money, FWIW I think a lot of Taliban are ex Afghan army etc so a lot comes down to opportunities, individual (tribal?) leaders and just crooks... yes they had a strategy but whether ISIS-k (new to me) was part of the consideration I am less sure

Good morning one and all.
Brighter this morning but cooler (it is early, though). Only 11 degC so far.

Mr J, although there was, in the middle of the last century a 'sort' of Afghan government, whether or not it's writ ran far depended, I'm pretty sure, on it's relationship with the local warlords, tribal chiefs or whatever. Yes, 'western civilisation' and modern Muslim values were penetrating, but not necessarily very far.

12.5C and cloudless here. Enjoy this summer’s last hurrah, which looks likely to last for another week or so. Meanwhile Central Europe has a wet low pressure sitting over it, where I am about to head for better weather….

Hope it does last a bit longer; we've a family party on Monday. Where we hoped to head for better weather, and to see the rest of the family, later this year is now Covid red.
Best of, with your trip.

I am ready with my

- new passport
- animal health certificate (all thirteen pages!)
- full animal vaccination record
- green card
- vehicle log book
- sworn declaration for France
- EU advance passenger registration form
- German low emission sticker
- Swiss motorway vignette
- Austrian motorway virtual vignette
- pre-departure covid testing pack
- day 2 covid testing pack
- NHS covid pass
- NHS translations in French and Italian
- completed Eurotunnel API

All ready to go! (apart from any actual luggage)

You'll probably forget the dog after all that.

The dog's bed is normally the item I have to drive back for...

Gallowgate

IanB2 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

OT Covid lateral flow tests for home use – how do you get hold of them? Simply pitch up at a pharmacy and ask or do they need to be ordered in advance?

A lot of pharmacies have them to give away. I also saw a note to that effect in a local shop yesterday. Or you can order a pack from gov.uk

Aye Boots will just hand them over from behind the counter

MikeSmithson

rcs1000 said:

rottenborough said:

"Should Biden step down or be removed for his handling of Afghanistan? Yes," said Nikki Haley, the Republican former ambassador to the United Nations. "But that would leave us with Kamala Harris, which would be ten times worse. God help us."

Telegraph

Harris is a charisma void. A prosecutor who changes direction according to the direction of the wind. A conviction free zone.

But she's not an idiot. You don't rise to the top of the prosecution ladder in California by being a shrinking violet, you do it by being efficient at putting people behind bars, and claiming credit for it.

Harris, with the post covid boom in her pocket and being able to blame problems in Afghanistan on her predecessor, would be in a pretty good position.

Except she is crap in the run up to the primaries - quitting last time before even the first one took place

TOPPING

IanB2 said:

IshmaelZ said:

StuartDickson said:

IshmaelZ said:

StuartDickson said:

IanB2 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

edmundintokyo said:

Chameleon said:

As you mentioned the Mail, for once, nails it.

The Mail, as ever, is being idiotic. What happened 18 months ago was the Doha Agreement, where the US agreed to leave and in exchange the Taliban agreed to stop shooting at them.

Of course, the agreement to pull out was signed by President Trump but whether this detail matters to American voters has yet to be seen. It might also be that these latest deaths are seen as vindication of withdrawal from what must seem to many to be a pointless war.

It has taken us full circle back to the “we’re gonna get you for this” line from the movies that got us into this mess in the first place.

That fundamental error was obvious to a lot of us twenty years ago. Tony Blair really was an appalling leader. That fact becomes more obvious with the passing of time.

But it could have been done right. With the time and money spent by the US it would have been possible to train and arm a proper army. Most wars are fought and won in a quarter of the time.

Winning wars requires more than training and arms. It requires hearts and minds. In fact the hearts and minds bit is a lot harder than the training and arms bit. (Which is why HYUFD’s tank ruse will never work.)

Yes. Look at the Afghans mobbing Kabul airport, though. I don't think their hearts and minds are with the Taliban. And look for all its faults at British India and the size of the British Indian army. Its a cop out to say that the inscrutable easterner can never be won over to western ways.

History suggests that a good batch of people eager to leave the country after an extended foreign occupation isn't necessarily evidence of the views of the wider population. Just saying.

Yes after reading @Ishmael_Z's comment I googled population of Afghanistan.

39m.

Plenty of Afghanis I'm sure oblivious to what's happening at Kabul.

BlancheLivermore

Mildly interesting tweet, given recent posts on supermarkets..

Samuel Jenkinson
@samueljenkinson
Meat and fish in British supermarkets is actually better than in Belgium. Not just by price, but also choice. It’s actually enraging me walking around how much more I pay for everything and what just isn’t available.
4:14 PM · Aug 26, 2021 from Hull, England·Twitter for iPhone
https://twitter.com/samueljenkinson/status/1430911583073538048

YBarddCwsc

MikeSmithson said:

rcs1000 said:

rottenborough said:

"Should Biden step down or be removed for his handling of Afghanistan? Yes," said Nikki Haley, the Republican former ambassador to the United Nations. "But that would leave us with Kamala Harris, which would be ten times worse. God help us."

Telegraph

Harris is a charisma void. A prosecutor who changes direction according to the direction of the wind. A conviction free zone.

But she's not an idiot. You don't rise to the top of the prosecution ladder in California by being a shrinking violet, you do it by being efficient at putting people behind bars, and claiming credit for it.

Harris, with the post covid boom in her pocket and being able to blame problems in Afghanistan on her predecessor, would be in a pretty good position.

Except she is crap in the run up to the primaries - quitting last time before even the first one took place

She played it perfectly right, no?

She ended up as Veep, and could well be Prez soon.

There are more ways to win than going through the struggle of actually winning.

TOPPING

DecrepiterJohnL said:

StuartDickson said:

IshmaelZ said:

StuartDickson said:

IshmaelZ said:

StuartDickson said:

IanB2 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

edmundintokyo said:

Chameleon said:

As you mentioned the Mail, for once, nails it.

The Mail, as ever, is being idiotic. What happened 18 months ago was the Doha Agreement, where the US agreed to leave and in exchange the Taliban agreed to stop shooting at them.

Of course, the agreement to pull out was signed by President Trump but whether this detail matters to American voters has yet to be seen. It might also be that these latest deaths are seen as vindication of withdrawal from what must seem to many to be a pointless war.

It has taken us full circle back to the “we’re gonna get you for this” line from the movies that got us into this mess in the first place.

That fundamental error was obvious to a lot of us twenty years ago. Tony Blair really was an appalling leader. That fact becomes more obvious with the passing of time.

But it could have been done right. With the time and money spent by the US it would have been possible to train and arm a proper army. Most wars are fought and won in a quarter of the time.

Winning wars requires more than training and arms. It requires hearts and minds. In fact the hearts and minds bit is a lot harder than the training and arms bit. (Which is why HYUFD’s tank ruse will never work.)

Yes. Look at the Afghans mobbing Kabul airport, though. I don't think their hearts and minds are with the Taliban. And look for all its faults at British India and the size of the British Indian army. Its a cop out to say that the inscrutable easterner can never be won over to western ways.

Why do they have to be won over? Variety is the spice of life. I’ve never understood this western urge to make everybody else like us. Far better to work towards genuine mutual respect for peoples with different values.

The same sinister forces are at work within western societies: trying to flatten, uniformise and standardise everything. Why? We are removing a lot of beauty from the world. Just as we cherish the blue whale, the Siberian tiger and the red squirrel, we should appreciate the beauty and intrinsic value of the Gaelic language, shinty and the College of Justice.

What must be borne in mind is that urban Afghanistan used to be relatively Westernised and secular. The Taliban imposing their crude and unenlightened version of Islam is just as much a takeover as those you would condemn, and probably more so.

The first chapter of Little America, the book I referenced the other day is required reading to get some rudimentary understanding of the recent (1950-60s) history of America's intervention in and the state at the time of Afghan.

IshmaelZ

TOPPING said:

IanB2 said:

IshmaelZ said:

StuartDickson said:

IshmaelZ said:

StuartDickson said:

IanB2 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

edmundintokyo said:

Chameleon said:

As you mentioned the Mail, for once, nails it.

The Mail, as ever, is being idiotic. What happened 18 months ago was the Doha Agreement, where the US agreed to leave and in exchange the Taliban agreed to stop shooting at them.

Of course, the agreement to pull out was signed by President Trump but whether this detail matters to American voters has yet to be seen. It might also be that these latest deaths are seen as vindication of withdrawal from what must seem to many to be a pointless war.

It has taken us full circle back to the “we’re gonna get you for this” line from the movies that got us into this mess in the first place.

That fundamental error was obvious to a lot of us twenty years ago. Tony Blair really was an appalling leader. That fact becomes more obvious with the passing of time.

But it could have been done right. With the time and money spent by the US it would have been possible to train and arm a proper army. Most wars are fought and won in a quarter of the time.

Winning wars requires more than training and arms. It requires hearts and minds. In fact the hearts and minds bit is a lot harder than the training and arms bit. (Which is why HYUFD’s tank ruse will never work.)

Yes. Look at the Afghans mobbing Kabul airport, though. I don't think their hearts and minds are with the Taliban. And look for all its faults at British India and the size of the British Indian army. Its a cop out to say that the inscrutable easterner can never be won over to western ways.

History suggests that a good batch of people eager to leave the country after an extended foreign occupation isn't necessarily evidence of the views of the wider population. Just saying.

Yes after reading @Ishmael_Z's comment I googled population of Afghanistan.

39m.

Plenty of Afghanis I'm sure oblivious to what's happening at Kabul.

1. They have internet

2. Taliban control all 34 provinces of Afghanistan. If you are gay or have taught in a girls school or served in the army or are related to anyone who has, you are going to be at least a little bit interested.

DecrepiterJohnL

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Australia has taken second spot in the Paralympics medal table, so we are down to third.

Kadeena Cox's gold takes us back into second place behind China.

kjh

@IanB2

You were correct in your post the other day.  What I thought was a case of Simpson's paradox wasn't as you pointed out, it was just basic misuse of data. I read up on it again today and can see why Robert thought it might be. My apologies for getting this wrong, in my defence it was new to me and looks very, very similar, but it is far far more subtle.

I tried thinking of other ways to explain what HYUFD was getting wrong to him. I thought of an example of replacing schools and pupils with bags containing marbles (some large, some small) in two boxes. One box where the bags are a mix of marbles and one where the large marbles are all put in one bag and the other bags have the small ones. But he will just say it is another hypothetical and not understand that once you prove it fails in one hypothetical you have proved what you are doing is flawed for all situations (proof by contradiction). I even used a variable for the number of large and small marbles so it wasn't specific and could be used for any mix. Then decided 'what is the point'.

I thought of other really silly examples; eg by comparing co-ed with non co-ed or by demonstrating that the more extreme you make the selection the more the results change without any changes in anything else i.e. nonsense.
What puzzles me is why HYUFD doesn't sit back and think why are so many people on here telling me I am wrong and not go and check. 

Also how does he not get that once you use a stat out of context its use is no longer factual. It was an obvious comparing apples with pears scenario or comparing a pre-selected subset of data from one sample to the whole set of another.

He thinks a stat used out of contest is a fact when it isn't, yet a proof by contradiction he doesn't see is a fact when it is. He doesn't know what a fact is!

Also I don't get the obsession of dismissing the use of maths and logic as being just a smart-arse as if it is something that should only be used in some academic circle and not real life. A bit like we have had enough of experts.

Of course there are valid arguments that can be put in favour of Grammar schools, after all I am only expressing an opinion (not a fact).

NerysHughes and his hospital face mask argument springs to mind as another example of a stat being completely misapplied and him not getting it when pointed out by so many on here.

moonshine

edmundintokyo said:

Jonathan said:

IanB2 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

IanB2 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

edmundintokyo said:

Chameleon said:

As you mentioned the Mail, for once, nails it.

The Mail, as ever, is being idiotic. What happened 18 months ago was the Doha Agreement, where the US agreed to leave and in exchange the Taliban agreed to stop shooting at them.

Of course, the agreement to pull out was signed by President Trump but whether this detail matters to American voters has yet to be seen. It might also be that these latest deaths are seen as vindication of withdrawal from what must seem to many to be a pointless war.

It has taken us full circle back to the “we’re gonna get you for this” line from the movies that got us into this mess in the first place.

It also raises the question of why Britain went along in the first place. Clearly, we needed the United States, which is why we must get out now they are leaving, and they did not need us. It's not just Iraq that Tony Blair got wrong, which will probably deflect attention from the pitiful state of our armed forces after years of cuts.

If our armed forces are too weak to travel round the world and occupy another country, that is an upside, as well as a massive cost saving.

Pax Americana 1945-2021

Be careful what you wish for, am not sure what replaces it will be in our national interest..

More like Clusterfuckica Bush-Chenica 2001-2021. They're still going to spend ungodly sums of weapon systems and they're still going to bomb things and sponsor coups. They still want to get reelected and as we've seen over the past week, the media still really, really like wars.

Do you think Western civilisation is something worth protecting, nurturing and if possible extending? If so, how do you propose to do that? By building a big wall to keep out the barbarians? Or by taking the fight to them? Or waiting until you’re attacked and doing something then? What about when the barbarians are already through your gates, insidiously undermining your values? This goes for all of Islamist extremists, communist China and nationalist Russia.

This isn’t a new question of course. It’s as old as civilisation and is a complex one to answer. Glib statements about war mongering don’t really add much.

OldKingCole

moonshine said:

edmundintokyo said:

Jonathan said:

IanB2 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

IanB2 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

edmundintokyo said:

Chameleon said:

As you mentioned the Mail, for once, nails it.

The Mail, as ever, is being idiotic. What happened 18 months ago was the Doha Agreement, where the US agreed to leave and in exchange the Taliban agreed to stop shooting at them.

Of course, the agreement to pull out was signed by President Trump but whether this detail matters to American voters has yet to be seen. It might also be that these latest deaths are seen as vindication of withdrawal from what must seem to many to be a pointless war.

It has taken us full circle back to the “we’re gonna get you for this” line from the movies that got us into this mess in the first place.

It also raises the question of why Britain went along in the first place. Clearly, we needed the United States, which is why we must get out now they are leaving, and they did not need us. It's not just Iraq that Tony Blair got wrong, which will probably deflect attention from the pitiful state of our armed forces after years of cuts.

If our armed forces are too weak to travel round the world and occupy another country, that is an upside, as well as a massive cost saving.

Pax Americana 1945-2021

Be careful what you wish for, am not sure what replaces it will be in our national interest..

More like Clusterfuckica Bush-Chenica 2001-2021. They're still going to spend ungodly sums of weapon systems and they're still going to bomb things and sponsor coups. They still want to get reelected and as we've seen over the past week, the media still really, really like wars.

Do you think Western civilisation is something worth protecting, nurturing and if possible extending? If so, how do you propose to do that? By building a big wall to keep out the barbarians? Or by taking the fight to them? Or waiting until you’re attacked and doing something then? What about when the barbarians are already through your gates, insidiously undermining your values? This goes for all of Islamist extremists, communist China and nationalist Russia.

This isn’t a new question of course. It’s as old as civilisation and is a complex one to answer. Glib statements about war mongering don’t really add much.

TBH, I don't think that people can be bombed into being civilised.

rcs1000

MikeSmithson said:

rcs1000 said:

rottenborough said:

"Should Biden step down or be removed for his handling of Afghanistan? Yes," said Nikki Haley, the Republican former ambassador to the United Nations. "But that would leave us with Kamala Harris, which would be ten times worse. God help us."

Telegraph

Harris is a charisma void. A prosecutor who changes direction according to the direction of the wind. A conviction free zone.

But she's not an idiot. You don't rise to the top of the prosecution ladder in California by being a shrinking violet, you do it by being efficient at putting people behind bars, and claiming credit for it.

Harris, with the post covid boom in her pocket and being able to blame problems in Afghanistan on her predecessor, would be in a pretty good position.

Except she is crap in the run up to the primaries - quitting last time before even the first one took place

Well yes.

She did a very poor job, and was outshined by Buttigieg, among others.

But she wasn't the sitting President.

DavidL

O/T really interesting, if somewhat long, piece on climate change in the American west: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/08/summer-2021-climate-change-records/619887/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=atlantic-daily-newsletter&utm_content=20210826&silverid=%%RECIPIENT_ID%%&utm_term=The Atlantic Daily

Basically, the heatwave in the western US this year was statistically impossible: it was simply beyond the parameters of any of the models. The knock on effects in wildfires, drought, loss of energy production and excess deaths caused by heat are all combining with each other in highly alarming ways. Climate change is not a future risk, its a current reality in an area of the US which still have a fast growing population.

OnlyLivingBoy

DecrepiterJohnL said:

StuartDickson said:

IshmaelZ said:

StuartDickson said:

IshmaelZ said:

StuartDickson said:

IanB2 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

edmundintokyo said:

Chameleon said:

As you mentioned the Mail, for once, nails it.

The Mail, as ever, is being idiotic. What happened 18 months ago was the Doha Agreement, where the US agreed to leave and in exchange the Taliban agreed to stop shooting at them.

Of course, the agreement to pull out was signed by President Trump but whether this detail matters to American voters has yet to be seen. It might also be that these latest deaths are seen as vindication of withdrawal from what must seem to many to be a pointless war.

It has taken us full circle back to the “we’re gonna get you for this” line from the movies that got us into this mess in the first place.

That fundamental error was obvious to a lot of us twenty years ago. Tony Blair really was an appalling leader. That fact becomes more obvious with the passing of time.

But it could have been done right. With the time and money spent by the US it would have been possible to train and arm a proper army. Most wars are fought and won in a quarter of the time.

Winning wars requires more than training and arms. It requires hearts and minds. In fact the hearts and minds bit is a lot harder than the training and arms bit. (Which is why HYUFD’s tank ruse will never work.)

Yes. Look at the Afghans mobbing Kabul airport, though. I don't think their hearts and minds are with the Taliban. And look for all its faults at British India and the size of the British Indian army. Its a cop out to say that the inscrutable easterner can never be won over to western ways.

Why do they have to be won over? Variety is the spice of life. I’ve never understood this western urge to make everybody else like us. Far better to work towards genuine mutual respect for peoples with different values.

The same sinister forces are at work within western societies: trying to flatten, uniformise and standardise everything. Why? We are removing a lot of beauty from the world. Just as we cherish the blue whale, the Siberian tiger and the red squirrel, we should appreciate the beauty and intrinsic value of the Gaelic language, shinty and the College of Justice.

What must be borne in mind is that urban Afghanistan used to be relatively Westernised and secular. The Taliban imposing their crude and unenlightened version of Islam is just as much a takeover as those you would condemn, and probably more so.

Vote Taliban - Take Back Control. Give the Kabul Metropolitan Liberal Elite a good kicking. Restore traditional values. Read all about it in the Afghan Daily Mail.

moonshine

OldKingCole said:

moonshine said:

edmundintokyo said:

Jonathan said:

IanB2 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

IanB2 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

edmundintokyo said:

Chameleon said:

As you mentioned the Mail, for once, nails it.

The Mail, as ever, is being idiotic. What happened 18 months ago was the Doha Agreement, where the US agreed to leave and in exchange the Taliban agreed to stop shooting at them.

Of course, the agreement to pull out was signed by President Trump but whether this detail matters to American voters has yet to be seen. It might also be that these latest deaths are seen as vindication of withdrawal from what must seem to many to be a pointless war.

It has taken us full circle back to the “we’re gonna get you for this” line from the movies that got us into this mess in the first place.

It also raises the question of why Britain went along in the first place. Clearly, we needed the United States, which is why we must get out now they are leaving, and they did not need us. It's not just Iraq that Tony Blair got wrong, which will probably deflect attention from the pitiful state of our armed forces after years of cuts.

If our armed forces are too weak to travel round the world and occupy another country, that is an upside, as well as a massive cost saving.

Pax Americana 1945-2021

Be careful what you wish for, am not sure what replaces it will be in our national interest..

More like Clusterfuckica Bush-Chenica 2001-2021. They're still going to spend ungodly sums of weapon systems and they're still going to bomb things and sponsor coups. They still want to get reelected and as we've seen over the past week, the media still really, really like wars.

Do you think Western civilisation is something worth protecting, nurturing and if possible extending? If so, how do you propose to do that? By building a big wall to keep out the barbarians? Or by taking the fight to them? Or waiting until you’re attacked and doing something then? What about when the barbarians are already through your gates, insidiously undermining your values? This goes for all of Islamist extremists, communist China and nationalist Russia.

This isn’t a new question of course. It’s as old as civilisation and is a complex one to answer. Glib statements about war mongering don’t really add much.

TBH, I don't think that people can be bombed into being civilised.

The objective of bombing someone isn’t to civilise them, it is to kill them.

geoffw

YBarddCwsc said:

MikeSmithson said:

rcs1000 said:

rottenborough said:

"Should Biden step down or be removed for his handling of Afghanistan? Yes," said Nikki Haley, the Republican former ambassador to the United Nations. "But that would leave us with Kamala Harris, which would be ten times worse. God help us."

Telegraph

Harris is a charisma void. A prosecutor who changes direction according to the direction of the wind. A conviction free zone.

But she's not an idiot. You don't rise to the top of the prosecution ladder in California by being a shrinking violet, you do it by being efficient at putting people behind bars, and claiming credit for it.

Harris, with the post covid boom in her pocket and being able to blame problems in Afghanistan on her predecessor, would be in a pretty good position.

Except she is crap in the run up to the primaries - quitting last time before even the first one took place

She played it perfectly right, no?

She ended up as Veep, and could well be Prez soon.

There are more ways to win than going through the struggle of actually winning.

The Widmerpudlian rise without trace. Somewhat reminiscent of Theresa May.

DougSeal

I’ll say this for the Soviet Union - it had a better idea of how to withdraw from Afghanistan than the US or the U.K.

MarqueeMark

RochdalePioneers said:

edmundintokyo said:

RochdalePioneers said:

What happened yesterday was predictable, as was the Biden response. What specifically does he have in mind - flooding Afghanistan with troops and fighting the Taliban to be able to fight ISIS? Or perhaps a truce with the women-hating Taliban to get access to chase the bigger ISIS enemy?

There are no good options now. Other than to complete the withdrawal with as little death as possible,

It's a revenge thing not a strategic thing so I think they just get some intelligence on where the leadership of the Afghanistan ISIS franchise is and drop a bomb on them from the sky. The Taliban will presumably be helpful with information about where to find the people in question since they're fighting them too.

Grave-looking press conference, grainy satellite footage, big smoking hole in the ground, dead brown people, and hey presto, the media will love Biden again.

They'll bomb a wedding again...

Probably worth the opprobrium. I imagine some weddings are perfect cover for a meet up of the great and good in terrorism. Chosen as a venue for that very reason.

"They wouldn't da -"

Boom.

kjh

BlancheLivermore said:

Mildly interesting tweet, given recent posts on supermarkets..

Samuel Jenkinson
@samueljenkinson
Meat and fish in British supermarkets is actually better than in Belgium. Not just by price, but also choice. It’s actually enraging me walking around how much more I pay for everything and what just isn’t available.
4:14 PM · Aug 26, 2021 from Hull, England·Twitter for iPhone
https://twitter.com/samueljenkinson/status/1430911583073538048

I guess everywhere is different. In French supermarkets you get a great choice of French and Dutch cheese, but never any British cheese which seems odd. And live crabs and fishing bait (which really seems weird to me) which doesn't happen here. Different customs and expectations I guess.

DavidL

StuartDickson said:

‘Teachers in Scotland given guidance on decolonising the curriculum’

… The guidance comes after the UK government’s much derided Sewell report – which introduced itself as a response to “negative calls to decolonise the curriculum” – was accused of putting a positive spin on slavery earlier this year.

… Rowena Arshad, professor in multicultural and anti-racist education at Moray House, University of Edinburgh… said she considered the emphasis on decolonising the curriculum “hugely significant”.

“It shows the Scottish government listening to teachers, pupils and parents. The Sewell report was a disgrace and the Scottish government is choosing its own path and looking at decolonising as the beginning of a new approach”.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/aug/26/teachers-in-scotland-given-guidance-on-decolonising-the-curriculum

Professor in Multicultural and anti-racist education. Jeez.

BlancheLivermore

MarqueeMark said:

RochdalePioneers said:

edmundintokyo said:

RochdalePioneers said:

What happened yesterday was predictable, as was the Biden response. What specifically does he have in mind - flooding Afghanistan with troops and fighting the Taliban to be able to fight ISIS? Or perhaps a truce with the women-hating Taliban to get access to chase the bigger ISIS enemy?

There are no good options now. Other than to complete the withdrawal with as little death as possible,

It's a revenge thing not a strategic thing so I think they just get some intelligence on where the leadership of the Afghanistan ISIS franchise is and drop a bomb on them from the sky. The Taliban will presumably be helpful with information about where to find the people in question since they're fighting them too.

Grave-looking press conference, grainy satellite footage, big smoking hole in the ground, dead brown people, and hey presto, the media will love Biden again.

They'll bomb a wedding again...

Probably worth the opprobrium. I imagine some weddings are perfect cover for a meet up of the great and good in terrorism. Chosen as a venue for that very reason.

"They wouldn't da -"

Boom.

I was looking at google maps of Kabul the other day (just for fun/interest seeing the restaurants there now) and was quite surprised by the sheer number of wedding venues marked on the map. They outnumber the listed restaurants by about 4 to 1.

OldKingCole

moonshine said:

OldKingCole said:

moonshine said:

edmundintokyo said:

Jonathan said:

IanB2 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

IanB2 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

edmundintokyo said:

Chameleon said:

As you mentioned the Mail, for once, nails it.

The Mail, as ever, is being idiotic. What happened 18 months ago was the Doha Agreement, where the US agreed to leave and in exchange the Taliban agreed to stop shooting at them.

Of course, the agreement to pull out was signed by President Trump but whether this detail matters to American voters has yet to be seen. It might also be that these latest deaths are seen as vindication of withdrawal from what must seem to many to be a pointless war.

It has taken us full circle back to the “we’re gonna get you for this” line from the movies that got us into this mess in the first place.

It also raises the question of why Britain went along in the first place. Clearly, we needed the United States, which is why we must get out now they are leaving, and they did not need us. It's not just Iraq that Tony Blair got wrong, which will probably deflect attention from the pitiful state of our armed forces after years of cuts.

If our armed forces are too weak to travel round the world and occupy another country, that is an upside, as well as a massive cost saving.

Pax Americana 1945-2021

Be careful what you wish for, am not sure what replaces it will be in our national interest..

More like Clusterfuckica Bush-Chenica 2001-2021. They're still going to spend ungodly sums of weapon systems and they're still going to bomb things and sponsor coups. They still want to get reelected and as we've seen over the past week, the media still really, really like wars.

Do you think Western civilisation is something worth protecting, nurturing and if possible extending? If so, how do you propose to do that? By building a big wall to keep out the barbarians? Or by taking the fight to them? Or waiting until you’re attacked and doing something then? What about when the barbarians are already through your gates, insidiously undermining your values? This goes for all of Islamist extremists, communist China and nationalist Russia.

This isn’t a new question of course. It’s as old as civilisation and is a complex one to answer. Glib statements about war mongering don’t really add much.

TBH, I don't think that people can be bombed into being civilised.

The objective of bombing someone isn’t to civilise them, it is to kill them.

Or, as we used to say when arguing about National Service.
'Join the Army. Travel to different, exotic places. Meet interesting people with different backgrounds. And kill them!'

MattW

MikeSmithson said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

OT Covid lateral flow tests for home use – how do you get hold of them? Simply pitch up at a pharmacy and ask or do they need to be ordered in advance?

We get ours from the local library

Ordered mine from here:
https://www.gov.uk/order-coronavirus-rapid-lateral-flow-tests

DavidL

BlancheLivermore said:

MarqueeMark said:

RochdalePioneers said:

edmundintokyo said:

RochdalePioneers said:

What happened yesterday was predictable, as was the Biden response. What specifically does he have in mind - flooding Afghanistan with troops and fighting the Taliban to be able to fight ISIS? Or perhaps a truce with the women-hating Taliban to get access to chase the bigger ISIS enemy?

There are no good options now. Other than to complete the withdrawal with as little death as possible,

It's a revenge thing not a strategic thing so I think they just get some intelligence on where the leadership of the Afghanistan ISIS franchise is and drop a bomb on them from the sky. The Taliban will presumably be helpful with information about where to find the people in question since they're fighting them too.

Grave-looking press conference, grainy satellite footage, big smoking hole in the ground, dead brown people, and hey presto, the media will love Biden again.

They'll bomb a wedding again...

Probably worth the opprobrium. I imagine some weddings are perfect cover for a meet up of the great and good in terrorism. Chosen as a venue for that very reason.

"They wouldn't da -"

Boom.

I was looking at google maps of Kabul the other day (just for fun/interest seeing the restaurants there now) and was quite surprised by the sheer number of wedding venues marked on the map. They outnumber the listed restaurants by about 4 to 1.

Possibly indicative of the very young population caused by an almost doubling of population over only 20 years. Also probably not too many pubs on that map!

BlancheLivermore

kjh said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Mildly interesting tweet, given recent posts on supermarkets..

Samuel Jenkinson
@samueljenkinson
Meat and fish in British supermarkets is actually better than in Belgium. Not just by price, but also choice. It’s actually enraging me walking around how much more I pay for everything and what just isn’t available.
4:14 PM · Aug 26, 2021 from Hull, England·Twitter for iPhone
https://twitter.com/samueljenkinson/status/1430911583073538048

I guess everywhere is different. In French supermarkets you get a great choice of French and Dutch cheese, but never any British cheese which seems odd. And live crabs and fishing bait (which really seems weird to me) which doesn't happen here. Different customs and expectations I guess.

Oh sure, I just thought it slightly amusing that a Brussels resident visiting Hull is astonished by the choice in the Hull supermarket, while we're in the middle of the worst food shortages in recorded history (or whatever it is that Scott tweets about)