Howdy, Stranger!

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

Most former PMs and govts would love midterm polling like this – politicalbetting.com

12346

Comments

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,223
    edited August 31
    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.

    Completely wrong.

    NATO subdued the Taliban, or rather made them go back to their homes and store their AKs after 9/11.

    NATO then, lead by the US, turned its attention to Iraq.

    And hence allowed the Taliban to manifest themselves once again.

    And when NATO went back into Afghan in 2006 the result was what we have seen over the past few weeks.
    The US withdrew most of its troops from Iraq in 2011, the Taliban did not regain Kabul until this summer.

    Even if there had been no Iraq invasion at all if the US was not prepared to commit to keep troops in Afghanistan permanently as it has in S Korea and Germany, then eventually the Taliban would regain power and jihadi militants would return
    Bingo. But you are blaming Biden and Trump particularly Biden. You are wrong. The Taliban began the takeover process over 15 years ago.
    It was only the US withdrawal which allowed the Taliban to regain Kabul and most of the country, even as recently as 2017 the Taliban only controlled 7 out of 421 districts
    It was inevitable. Either send back in 400,000 soldiers or withdraw.

    They were never going to send in 400,000 more troops hence it was inevitable that we would reach this state sooner or later.
    It did not need 400,000 troops, the Taliban were still kept out of controlling Kabul and most of the country with the few thousand troops that were there
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,223
    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    moonshine said:

    HYUFD said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    YoungTurk said:

    Which is more degrading - criminally starting a war by invading a foreign country, losing it, and then withdrawing, or criminally invading a foreign country on the instructions of a third country, with the same result?

    The issue shouldn't be what this or that former public schoolboy British army veteran is doing (playing up the jut-jawed playing-field meme in time of defeat is so predictable); it should be why on earth Britain should remain a member of NATO or any other kind of military ally of the US, followed by who should go to jail, followed by how large the reparations payments should be.

    Funny how attention can be directed. Jimmy Savile abuses a large number of children over decades? Make it an issue about those favourite Tory targets (at least until recently in the case of the first one) the NHS and the BBC. NATO gets humiliated in its biggest failure ever? Whatever you do, don't mention NATO.

    It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.

    You have therefore got it completely the wrong way around, it is now the US on whom western Europe has relied for its defence that is retreating into isolationism. It is France and the UK, led by Macron and Boris, who are having to fill in the gap, leading intervention in Africa against jihadi militants for example absent US commitment. It is also western Europe which will have to step up its defence spending to the 2% or more of gdp we and the French provide if NATO is going to be able to successfully contain Putin's ambitions in Eastern Europe.

    Taiwan may well have to get nuclear weapons as well if it is to ensure its own defence against Chinese advances given the Biden administration clearly will not lift a finger to defend it
    Us and NATO ought to be considered without prejudgment though. It's a changed world (cf the WW2 settlement and the cold war) and we are now more of a solo player post Brexit.
    On military matters at least the UK and French relationship is stronger than ever, Brexit has not changed that at all.

    Boris and Macron will now be driving NATO for the foreseeable future as the Biden led US retreats into itself
    Johnson and Macron aren't driving shit and have zero strategic autonomy inside NATO. Macron has worked this out, hence his enthusiasm for L'Europe de la défense. Johnson either has not worked it or, more likely, doesn't give a fuck and just prefers to dribble about Global Britain.
    Yes they are, Johnson and Macron will be driving NATO containment of Putin and now taking the lead on jihadis in areas like Africa etc. The UK and France are by far the biggest military powers in NATO after the USA and in the US absence they will take the lead. With William Hague now a candidate to be next NATO Secretary General our influence within NATO would only increase.

    Proposals for an EU rapid response force have still not got off the ground, in part because it would be very reliant on the French military. Absent significant US presence and commitment, which will become less evident under Biden, western European defence relies on the UK as well as France and so cannot be done via the EU alone, it needs NATO too
    It’s all relative HY. All I see is the West as a whole vacating the global stage, to greater or lesser effect. The result being that the values and strength of Western civilisation are being further undermined. It’s a pickle for sure. I’m not sure what’s to be done about it but misplaced trust in Johnson and Macron isn’t it.
    Well somebody has to defend western civilisation.

    With the US administration of Biden and Harris more interested in fighting the unwoke domestically than for western values abroad, it is Macron who has proved more willing to take on jhadis and push against extremists within Islam who are not willing to adhere to western laws and values.

    Boris and Macron are also stronger than Biden at the moment in being able to stand up to Putin and Xi , remember too as well as the Queen Elizabeth, France has sent warships and a nuclear submarine to the South China Sea so it is not just the US Japan and S Korea rely on there to contain Beijing...
    You do talk mince on occasion.

    Taiwan scholar reveals extent of US military operations in South China Sea
    https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4279069
    The Institute for National Defense and Security Research (INDSR) has released its latest “real-time analysis of national defense security,” which features a piece that examines the strategic significance of the waters southwest of Taiwan and the Bashi Strait.

    In the report, titled "U.S. military operations in the South China Sea," INDSR military expert Huang Tsung-ting (黃宗鼎) said that the southwestern corner of Taiwan’s air defense identification zone (ADIZ) is one of the American military’s major areas of operation in the South China Sea. He added that the U.S. has carried out irregular naval voyages, routine military exercises, and reconnaissance missions in the "two lines, one belt" area of the South China Sea.

    Huang defined the first “line” as stretching from the Taixinan Basin to the Pearl River Mouth Basin (PRMB) to the Paracel Islands and all the way down to the Qiongdongnan Basin. He described the second line as stretching from Taiwan Shoal to Shantou in China’s Guangdong Province and ending at the PRMB.

    Meanwhile, Huang said the “belt” spans the Verde Island Passage, the area surrounding Scarborough Shoal, and the waters north of the Spratly Islands.

    The expert noted that the U.S. military has dispatched anti-submarine warfare, early warning, and surveillance aircraft along the first line since U.S.-China tensions increased in June of last year. Additionally, reconnaissance aircraft, anti-submarine aircraft, and early warning aircraft have been conducting missions in the northern part of the South China Sea to detect Chinese submarines, pave a safe path for U.S. military ships, and monitor Chinese military planes entering the southwestern corner of Taiwan’s ADIZ, he said.

    Huang said that American aircraft have flown as close as 87 km from Shantou to monitor nearby Chinese military movements, such as activity at the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) naval base on Stonecutters Island in Hong Kong and at the Xiachuan Island navy base, where China's 52nd submarine detachment is stationed...
    If you believe Biden would send US ships and troops to defend Taiwan after a Chinese invasion you have more confidence in him than me
    After wouldn't be much use.

    And, as usual when a point you make has been rebutted, you shrug off the fact and present your opinion as an alternative fact.
    You have not rebutted the point at all.

    The fact the US is monitoring Chinese movements does not mean the US navy would engage in a naval battle with the Chinese navy if China launched an invasion of Taiwan nor that the US would send troops to Taiwan to defend the island under Biden
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 68,919
    Didn't even realise this stuff was ongoing, I remember the sheer ridiculous brazenness of the company being reported a few years ago.

    Theranos scandal: Who is Elizabeth Holmes and why is she on trial?


    https://www.bbc.com/news/business-58336998
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 31,341
    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.

    Completely wrong.

    NATO subdued the Taliban, or rather made them go back to their homes and store their AKs after 9/11.

    NATO then, lead by the US, turned its attention to Iraq.

    And hence allowed the Taliban to manifest themselves once again.

    And when NATO went back into Afghan in 2006 the result was what we have seen over the past few weeks.
    The US withdrew most of its troops from Iraq in 2011, the Taliban did not regain Kabul until this summer.

    Even if there had been no Iraq invasion at all if the US was not prepared to commit to keep troops in Afghanistan permanently as it has in S Korea and Germany, then eventually the Taliban would regain power and jihadi militants would return
    Bingo. But you are blaming Biden and Trump particularly Biden. You are wrong. The Taliban began the takeover process over 15 years ago.
    It was only the US withdrawal which allowed the Taliban to regain Kabul and most of the country, even as recently as 2017 the Taliban only controlled 7 out of 421 districts
    It was inevitable. Either send back in 400,000 soldiers or withdraw.

    They were never going to send in 400,000 more troops hence it was inevitable that we would reach this state sooner or later.
    It did not need 400,000 troops, the Taliban were still kept out of controlling Kabul and most of the country with the few thousand troops that were there
    Thanks General HYUFD. Good to know this is what it would take.

    They were "kept out" because the expectation was that they would leave. Which they have done.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 18,931
    kle4 said:

    Didn't even realise this stuff was ongoing, I remember the sheer ridiculous brazenness of the company being reported a few years ago.

    Theranos scandal: Who is Elizabeth Holmes and why is she on trial?


    https://www.bbc.com/news/business-58336998

    Read the book "Bad Blood" - brilliant reporting and utterly WTF...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,223

    HYUFD said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    HYUFD said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    YoungTurk said:

    Which is more degrading - criminally starting a war by invading a foreign country, losing it, and then withdrawing, or criminally invading a foreign country on the instructions of a third country, with the same result?

    The issue shouldn't be what this or that former public schoolboy British army veteran is doing (playing up the jut-jawed playing-field meme in time of defeat is so predictable); it should be why on earth Britain should remain a member of NATO or any other kind of military ally of the US, followed by who should go to jail, followed by how large the reparations payments should be.

    Funny how attention can be directed. Jimmy Savile abuses a large number of children over decades? Make it an issue about those favourite Tory targets (at least until recently in the case of the first one) the NHS and the BBC. NATO gets humiliated in its biggest failure ever? Whatever you do, don't mention NATO.

    It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.

    You have therefore got it completely the wrong way around, it is now the US on whom western Europe has relied for its defence that is retreating into isolationism. It is France and the UK, led by Macron and Boris, who are having to fill in the gap, leading intervention in Africa against jihadi militants for example absent US commitment. It is also western Europe which will have to step up its defence spending to the 2% or more of gdp we and the French provide if NATO is going to be able to successfully contain Putin's ambitions in Eastern Europe.

    Taiwan may well have to get nuclear weapons as well if it is to ensure its own defence against Chinese advances given the Biden administration clearly will not lift a finger to defend it
    Us and NATO ought to be considered without prejudgment though. It's a changed world (cf the WW2 settlement and the cold war) and we are now more of a solo player post Brexit.
    On military matters at least the UK and French relationship is stronger than ever, Brexit has not changed that at all.

    Boris and Macron will now be driving NATO for the foreseeable future as the Biden led US retreats into itself
    Johnson and Macron aren't driving shit and have zero strategic autonomy inside NATO. Macron has worked this out, hence his enthusiasm for L'Europe de la défense. Johnson either has not worked it or, more likely, doesn't give a fuck and just prefers to dribble about Global Britain.
    Yes they are, Johnson and Macron will be driving NATO containment of Putin and now taking the lead on jihadis in areas like Africa etc. The UK and France are by far the biggest military powers in NATO after the USA
    Turkey has a larger armed forces than the UK and France combined. And a fine pedigree in fearlessly fighting and killing Russians.
    According to the Global Firepower Index France is the 5th most powerful military with the UK 6th and Turkey only 8th.
    https://www.businessinsider.com/most-powerful-militaries-in-the-world-ranked-2018-2?r=US&IR=T#6-united-kingdom-20

    While Turkey might be helpful in containing Russia, as it was in the Crimean War with France and the UK it is also likely to be rather less so in terms of jihadi militants
    Turkey is not pathologically scared of losing troops which gives it quite a big advantage.
    Over the US at present yes but as I said while that may be useful containing Russia it is of little use containing jihadi militancy, especially as Turkey supported some in the rebellion against Assad in Syria
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 33,330
    TimT said:

    Nigelb said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    HYUFD said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    YoungTurk said:

    Which is more degrading - criminally starting a war by invading a foreign country, losing it, and then withdrawing, or criminally invading a foreign country on the instructions of a third country, with the same result?

    The issue shouldn't be what this or that former public schoolboy British army veteran is doing (playing up the jut-jawed playing-field meme in time of defeat is so predictable); it should be why on earth Britain should remain a member of NATO or any other kind of military ally of the US, followed by who should go to jail, followed by how large the reparations payments should be.

    Funny how attention can be directed. Jimmy Savile abuses a large number of children over decades? Make it an issue about those favourite Tory targets (at least until recently in the case of the first one) the NHS and the BBC. NATO gets humiliated in its biggest failure ever? Whatever you do, don't mention NATO.

    It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.

    You have therefore got it completely the wrong way around, it is now the US on whom western Europe has relied for its defence that is retreating into isolationism. It is France and the UK, led by Macron and Boris, who are having to fill in the gap, leading intervention in Africa against jihadi militants for example absent US commitment. It is also western Europe which will have to step up its defence spending to the 2% or more of gdp we and the French provide if NATO is going to be able to successfully contain Putin's ambitions in Eastern Europe.

    Taiwan may well have to get nuclear weapons as well if it is to ensure its own defence against Chinese advances given the Biden administration clearly will not lift a finger to defend it
    Us and NATO ought to be considered without prejudgment though. It's a changed world (cf the WW2 settlement and the cold war) and we are now more of a solo player post Brexit.
    On military matters at least the UK and French relationship is stronger than ever, Brexit has not changed that at all.

    Boris and Macron will now be driving NATO for the foreseeable future as the Biden led US retreats into itself
    Johnson and Macron aren't driving shit and have zero strategic autonomy inside NATO. Macron has worked this out, hence his enthusiasm for L'Europe de la défense. Johnson either has not worked it or, more likely, doesn't give a fuck and just prefers to dribble about Global Britain.
    Yes they are, Johnson and Macron will be driving NATO containment of Putin and now taking the lead on jihadis in areas like Africa etc. The UK and France are by far the biggest military powers in NATO after the USA and in the US absence they will take the lead. With William Hague now a candidate to be next NATO Secretary General our influence within NATO would only increase.

    Proposals for an EU rapid response force have still not got off the ground, in part because it would be very reliant on the French military. Absent significant US presence and commitment, which will become less evident under Biden, western European defence relies on the UK as well as France and so cannot be done via the EU alone, it needs NATO too
    It’s all relative HY. All I see is the West as a whole vacating the global stage, to greater or lesser effect. The result being that the values and strength of Western civilisation are being further undermined. It’s a pickle for sure. I’m not sure what’s to be done about it but misplaced trust in Johnson and Macron isn’t it.
    We're vacating ourselves without and attacking ourselves within.

    It doesn't take too much of a dive into history to realise the fate of civilisations that start to do that.
    Looking with a long lens, I expect the political future of humanity is some model of fascism / mutualism. We’re on the cusp of becoming properly space faring and who knows, may have invented a god in the box in the coming decades too, which will take away demand for human capital. And that’s without healthcare advances sufficient to enable ultra life spans. Democracy and economics as we’ve known them are likely to be the casualties of these technological revolutions.

    Quite a messy period ahead for homosapiens. Should our friends in the skies wish to give some advice it would be most appreciated.
    Representative democracy is done for, that's for sure. We'll probably wipe ourselves out with environmental collapse or nuclear war before anything else emerges. Saudi, UAE and Myanmar will all have nuclear weapons by the end of the decade. Somebody is going to lob one off by accident sooner or later.
    You auditioning to be the anti-Fukuyama ?
    Since I joined the FCO in 1980, people have been saying Saudi will have nukes within a decade.

    I was in the anti-Fukuyama camp the moment the first book review was published. It was always a ridiculous concept that failed to recognize how culture and context play into how we organize. And there is indeed a logic to Taiwan, Japan, South Korean and Philippines getting nukes to contain China - at least from each individual nation's perspective.

    I am sure the multi-player game theorists will tell us that we'll all die as a result.
    I ought to have been clearer - @Dura_Ace 's comments on this occasion are a convincing as were Fukuyama's.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 29,074
    TOPPING said:

    It was inevitable. Either send back in 400,000 soldiers or withdraw.

    They were never going to send in 400,000 more troops hence it was inevitable that we would reach this state sooner or later.

    It's not either/or. There's a scenario of withdrawing now AND sending in lots of troops later. Quite a likely one.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,223
    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.

    Completely wrong.

    NATO subdued the Taliban, or rather made them go back to their homes and store their AKs after 9/11.

    NATO then, lead by the US, turned its attention to Iraq.

    And hence allowed the Taliban to manifest themselves once again.

    And when NATO went back into Afghan in 2006 the result was what we have seen over the past few weeks.
    The US withdrew most of its troops from Iraq in 2011, the Taliban did not regain Kabul until this summer.

    Even if there had been no Iraq invasion at all if the US was not prepared to commit to keep troops in Afghanistan permanently as it has in S Korea and Germany, then eventually the Taliban would regain power and jihadi militants would return
    Bingo. But you are blaming Biden and Trump particularly Biden. You are wrong. The Taliban began the takeover process over 15 years ago.
    It was only the US withdrawal which allowed the Taliban to regain Kabul and most of the country, even as recently as 2017 the Taliban only controlled 7 out of 421 districts
    It was inevitable. Either send back in 400,000 soldiers or withdraw.

    They were never going to send in 400,000 more troops hence it was inevitable that we would reach this state sooner or later.
    It did not need 400,000 troops, the Taliban were still kept out of controlling Kabul and most of the country with the few thousand troops that were there
    Thanks General HYUFD. Good to know this is what it would take.

    They were "kept out" because the expectation was that they would leave. Which they have done.
    No, they were kept out because the US led troops were there and the Taliban were not willing to try and retake Kabul until they left
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 33,330
    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.

    Completely wrong.

    NATO subdued the Taliban, or rather made them go back to their homes and store their AKs after 9/11.

    NATO then, lead by the US, turned its attention to Iraq.

    And hence allowed the Taliban to manifest themselves once again.

    And when NATO went back into Afghan in 2006 the result was what we have seen over the past few weeks.
    The US withdrew most of its troops from Iraq in 2011, the Taliban did not regain Kabul until this summer.

    Even if there had been no Iraq invasion at all if the US was not prepared to commit to keep troops in Afghanistan permanently as it has in S Korea and Germany, then eventually the Taliban would regain power and jihadi militants would return
    Bingo. But you are blaming Biden and Trump particularly Biden. You are wrong. The Taliban began the takeover process over 15 years ago.
    It's the comparison of Afghanistan with Germany / S Korea which is rather sillier.
  • kle4 said:

    Didn't even realise this stuff was ongoing, I remember the sheer ridiculous brazenness of the company being reported a few years ago.

    Theranos scandal: Who is Elizabeth Holmes and why is she on trial?


    https://www.bbc.com/news/business-58336998

    There's quite a few of those in the pipeline.

    For example.

    The latest, according to charges brought last week, is Manish Lachwani, 45, founder of an app-testing start-up called HeadSpin.

    Lachwani was arrested on multiple charges of wire fraud. He is accused of making up nearly $60 million (£44 million) in sales, via faked invoices and altered financial records, to convince investors to plough more than $100 million into the company at a valuation that, at its peak, topped $1.1 billion. Backers ranged from LinkedIn chief Jeff Weiner to investment firm Tiger Global.

    Lachwani resigned last year and HeadSpin gave back about $80 million to investors after a whistleblower triggered an investigation of its books. Lachwani faces decades in prison and more than $5 million in fines if convicted.

    His lawyer said: “The government’s complaint makes no reference to the extensive evidence showing that Mr Lachwani acted in good faith throughout his time at HeadSpin. We look forward to presenting a complete and accurate factual picture in court, and to showing that the allegations against Mr Lachwani are wrong.”

    Lachwani’s apprehension just days before the start of the Theranos trial is poignant. Since the $9 billion company collapsed, Silicon Valley has gone to great lengths to distance itself from the debacle. Venture capitalists smugly point out that none of Holmes’s backers, except for prominent investor Tim Draper, were from the venture capital elite. If Holmes, 37, duped investors, they were wealthy outsiders keen to get in on a hot start-up.

    The implication is that sophisticated tech investors were too smart to be drawn in by her. If the charges against Lachwani are proven, they would put the lie to that. Angel investor Jason Calacanis said: “In a gangbusters environment, if you don’t move quickly, if you start asking for diligence, a founder might say: ‘You know what, I’m gonna take money from the person who’s not doing that.’ It sounds crazy, but people move quickly and don’t do audits or checks.”

    Details of how much due diligence HeadSpin’s dozens of backers carried out are unclear. What is clear is that his alleged fraud was not complex. HeadSpin, despite claiming to generate tens of millions in sales, did not employ a finance director, which meant that Lachwani could keep tight control of the finances and record-keeping.

    When he received an invoice, he would often add a digit to the contract’s value, according to court papers. In one case, it is said an invoice for $21,240 became $212,400. He also created fake contracts and booked revenues from clients no longer using HeadSpin, the papers reveal.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/theranos-last-big-scandal-fomo-fools-heads-spinning-elizabeth-holmes-ctjfwmhcz
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 31,341

    TOPPING said:

    It was inevitable. Either send back in 400,000 soldiers or withdraw.

    They were never going to send in 400,000 more troops hence it was inevitable that we would reach this state sooner or later.

    It's not either/or. There's a scenario of withdrawing now AND sending in lots of troops later. Quite a likely one.
    Can't see it. What was that definition of madness again?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 31,341
    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.

    Completely wrong.

    NATO subdued the Taliban, or rather made them go back to their homes and store their AKs after 9/11.

    NATO then, lead by the US, turned its attention to Iraq.

    And hence allowed the Taliban to manifest themselves once again.

    And when NATO went back into Afghan in 2006 the result was what we have seen over the past few weeks.
    The US withdrew most of its troops from Iraq in 2011, the Taliban did not regain Kabul until this summer.

    Even if there had been no Iraq invasion at all if the US was not prepared to commit to keep troops in Afghanistan permanently as it has in S Korea and Germany, then eventually the Taliban would regain power and jihadi militants would return
    Bingo. But you are blaming Biden and Trump particularly Biden. You are wrong. The Taliban began the takeover process over 15 years ago.
    It was only the US withdrawal which allowed the Taliban to regain Kabul and most of the country, even as recently as 2017 the Taliban only controlled 7 out of 421 districts
    It was inevitable. Either send back in 400,000 soldiers or withdraw.

    They were never going to send in 400,000 more troops hence it was inevitable that we would reach this state sooner or later.
    It did not need 400,000 troops, the Taliban were still kept out of controlling Kabul and most of the country with the few thousand troops that were there
    Thanks General HYUFD. Good to know this is what it would take.

    They were "kept out" because the expectation was that they would leave. Which they have done.
    No, they were kept out because the US led troops were there and the Taliban were not willing to try and retake Kabul until they left
    Which they were about to do and the rest of the country fell in advance of Kabul, where were the US troops there?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 18,931

    TOPPING said:

    It was inevitable. Either send back in 400,000 soldiers or withdraw.

    They were never going to send in 400,000 more troops hence it was inevitable that we would reach this state sooner or later.

    It's not either/or. There's a scenario of withdrawing now AND sending in lots of troops later. Quite a likely one.
    It is quite likely that if the support elements had stayed, keeping the Afghan airforce running etc, that the Afghan Government wouldn't have folded. And the Taliban would have kept on doing their thing, out in the countryside.
  • Does anyone know how many badgers the government has culled?

    Preferable with a linky?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 31,341
    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.

    Completely wrong.

    NATO subdued the Taliban, or rather made them go back to their homes and store their AKs after 9/11.

    NATO then, lead by the US, turned its attention to Iraq.

    And hence allowed the Taliban to manifest themselves once again.

    And when NATO went back into Afghan in 2006 the result was what we have seen over the past few weeks.
    The US withdrew most of its troops from Iraq in 2011, the Taliban did not regain Kabul until this summer.

    Even if there had been no Iraq invasion at all if the US was not prepared to commit to keep troops in Afghanistan permanently as it has in S Korea and Germany, then eventually the Taliban would regain power and jihadi militants would return
    Bingo. But you are blaming Biden and Trump particularly Biden. You are wrong. The Taliban began the takeover process over 15 years ago.
    It's the comparison of Afghanistan with Germany / S Korea which is rather sillier.
    I have no idea why I am having a discussion with him about it.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,223
    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.

    Completely wrong.

    NATO subdued the Taliban, or rather made them go back to their homes and store their AKs after 9/11.

    NATO then, lead by the US, turned its attention to Iraq.

    And hence allowed the Taliban to manifest themselves once again.

    And when NATO went back into Afghan in 2006 the result was what we have seen over the past few weeks.
    The US withdrew most of its troops from Iraq in 2011, the Taliban did not regain Kabul until this summer.

    Even if there had been no Iraq invasion at all if the US was not prepared to commit to keep troops in Afghanistan permanently as it has in S Korea and Germany, then eventually the Taliban would regain power and jihadi militants would return
    Bingo. But you are blaming Biden and Trump particularly Biden. You are wrong. The Taliban began the takeover process over 15 years ago.
    It's the comparison of Afghanistan with Germany / S Korea which is rather sillier.
    No it isn't. The US had troops in Germany to keep out Russia, in S Korea to keep out N Korea and in Afghanistan to keep out the Taliban and AQ and other jihadi militants
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 11,481

    kle4 said:

    Didn't even realise this stuff was ongoing, I remember the sheer ridiculous brazenness of the company being reported a few years ago.

    Theranos scandal: Who is Elizabeth Holmes and why is she on trial?


    https://www.bbc.com/news/business-58336998

    There's quite a few of those in the pipeline.

    For example.

    The latest, according to charges brought last week, is Manish Lachwani, 45, founder of an app-testing start-up called HeadSpin.

    Lachwani was arrested on multiple charges of wire fraud. He is accused of making up nearly $60 million (£44 million) in sales, via faked invoices and altered financial records, to convince investors to plough more than $100 million into the company at a valuation that, at its peak, topped $1.1 billion. Backers ranged from LinkedIn chief Jeff Weiner to investment firm Tiger Global.

    Lachwani resigned last year and HeadSpin gave back about $80 million to investors after a whistleblower triggered an investigation of its books. Lachwani faces decades in prison and more than $5 million in fines if convicted.

    His lawyer said: “The government’s complaint makes no reference to the extensive evidence showing that Mr Lachwani acted in good faith throughout his time at HeadSpin. We look forward to presenting a complete and accurate factual picture in court, and to showing that the allegations against Mr Lachwani are wrong.”

    Lachwani’s apprehension just days before the start of the Theranos trial is poignant. Since the $9 billion company collapsed, Silicon Valley has gone to great lengths to distance itself from the debacle. Venture capitalists smugly point out that none of Holmes’s backers, except for prominent investor Tim Draper, were from the venture capital elite. If Holmes, 37, duped investors, they were wealthy outsiders keen to get in on a hot start-up.

    The implication is that sophisticated tech investors were too smart to be drawn in by her. If the charges against Lachwani are proven, they would put the lie to that. Angel investor Jason Calacanis said: “In a gangbusters environment, if you don’t move quickly, if you start asking for diligence, a founder might say: ‘You know what, I’m gonna take money from the person who’s not doing that.’ It sounds crazy, but people move quickly and don’t do audits or checks.”

    Details of how much due diligence HeadSpin’s dozens of backers carried out are unclear. What is clear is that his alleged fraud was not complex. HeadSpin, despite claiming to generate tens of millions in sales, did not employ a finance director, which meant that Lachwani could keep tight control of the finances and record-keeping.

    When he received an invoice, he would often add a digit to the contract’s value, according to court papers. In one case, it is said an invoice for $21,240 became $212,400. He also created fake contracts and booked revenues from clients no longer using HeadSpin, the papers reveal.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/theranos-last-big-scandal-fomo-fools-heads-spinning-elizabeth-holmes-ctjfwmhcz
    It really does make your head spin.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,223
    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.

    Completely wrong.

    NATO subdued the Taliban, or rather made them go back to their homes and store their AKs after 9/11.

    NATO then, lead by the US, turned its attention to Iraq.

    And hence allowed the Taliban to manifest themselves once again.

    And when NATO went back into Afghan in 2006 the result was what we have seen over the past few weeks.
    The US withdrew most of its troops from Iraq in 2011, the Taliban did not regain Kabul until this summer.

    Even if there had been no Iraq invasion at all if the US was not prepared to commit to keep troops in Afghanistan permanently as it has in S Korea and Germany, then eventually the Taliban would regain power and jihadi militants would return
    Bingo. But you are blaming Biden and Trump particularly Biden. You are wrong. The Taliban began the takeover process over 15 years ago.
    It was only the US withdrawal which allowed the Taliban to regain Kabul and most of the country, even as recently as 2017 the Taliban only controlled 7 out of 421 districts
    It was inevitable. Either send back in 400,000 soldiers or withdraw.

    They were never going to send in 400,000 more troops hence it was inevitable that we would reach this state sooner or later.
    It did not need 400,000 troops, the Taliban were still kept out of controlling Kabul and most of the country with the few thousand troops that were there
    Thanks General HYUFD. Good to know this is what it would take.

    They were "kept out" because the expectation was that they would leave. Which they have done.
    No, they were kept out because the US led troops were there and the Taliban were not willing to try and retake Kabul until they left
    Which they were about to do and the rest of the country fell in advance of Kabul, where were the US troops there?
    The Taliban only controlled 7 out of 421 districts in 2017, 16 years after the original invasion.

    Kabul and the country as a whole only fell to the Taliban again once Biden started to withdraw US troops
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 68,046

    Does anyone know how many badgers the government has culled?

    Preferable with a linky?

    I think they moved the goalposts.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 29,074
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    It was inevitable. Either send back in 400,000 soldiers or withdraw.

    They were never going to send in 400,000 more troops hence it was inevitable that we would reach this state sooner or later.

    It's not either/or. There's a scenario of withdrawing now AND sending in lots of troops later. Quite a likely one.
    Can't see it. What was that definition of madness again?
    I think it was something about surrendering when you haven't lost.

    We'll have to see what happens, but I think the possibility of Afghanistan and the adjacent lawless regions of Pakistan becoming the global centre of a very large terrorist/jihad movement, far more dangerous than Al Queda in 2001 and ISIS more recently, is a pretty likely one. Even if the Taliban leadership, or some of them, are sincere in their promises now, they are likely to be overtaken by the momentum which Biden has unleashed.

    And then what does the West do?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 33,330

    TimT said:

    Since I joined the FCO in 1980, people have been saying Saudi will have nukes within a decade.

    I was in the anti-Fukuyama camp the moment the first book review was published. It was always a ridiculous concept that failed to recognize how culture and context play into how we organize. And there is indeed a logic to Taiwan, Japan, South Korean and Philippines getting nukes to contain China - at least from each individual nation's perspective.

    I am sure the multi-player game theorists will tell us that we'll all die as a result.

    I have a friend who works out a lot in Saudi Arabia and knows a few of the many many Princes from the House of Saud.

    His view (and their view) if Iran gets nukes then it's a bit Shi'ite for all concerned in the region as well as the world because the Saudis will need nukes as well ego and national security concerns will demand it.

    So Israel, Iran, and the Saudis all with nukes, and with the reliance on oil ending soon things will be interesting.
    That's a pretty standard analysis - that if Iran goes nuclear then everyone in the neighbourhood will go nuclear.

    A milder version of the same thing is the common wisdom that if Japan goes nuclear then so will nearly everyone else in *that* neck of the woods.
    I think the House of Saud will be able to do outdo the Iranians. I think at best the Iranians will have land based missile nuclear weapons whereas the Saudis could afford submarine and bomber based nuclear weapons as well, the latter two are the Harrods of nuclear weapons.
    Gravity bombs for their various aircraft, maybe.

    Saudi submarines? Ha Ha Ha..... Sorry, haven't laugh liked that in a long time.

    Unless they find someone to build *and run* some subs for them - no chance.
    I believe China, Germany and France have all expressed an interest in recent years.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 5,504
    edited August 31
    rubbish posted
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 31,341

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    It was inevitable. Either send back in 400,000 soldiers or withdraw.

    They were never going to send in 400,000 more troops hence it was inevitable that we would reach this state sooner or later.

    It's not either/or. There's a scenario of withdrawing now AND sending in lots of troops later. Quite a likely one.
    Can't see it. What was that definition of madness again?
    I think it was something about surrendering when you haven't lost.

    We'll have to see what happens, but I think the possibility of Afghanistan and the adjacent lawless regions of Pakistan becoming the global centre of a very large terrorist/jihad movement, far more dangerous than Al Queda in 2001 and ISIS more recently, is a pretty likely one. Even if the Taliban leadership, or some of them, are sincere in their promises now, they are likely to be overtaken by the momentum which Biden has unleashed.

    And then what does the West do?
    The Taliban aren't fools, they are rational players and they don't want such operators in the country.

    But yes we will see.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 33,330
    kle4 said:

    Didn't even realise this stuff was ongoing, I remember the sheer ridiculous brazenness of the company being reported a few years ago.

    Theranos scandal: Who is Elizabeth Holmes and why is she on trial?


    https://www.bbc.com/news/business-58336998

    https://twitter.com/TheOnion/status/1432417975336902657
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 33,330
    TOPPING said:

    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.

    Completely wrong.

    NATO subdued the Taliban, or rather made them go back to their homes and store their AKs after 9/11.

    NATO then, lead by the US, turned its attention to Iraq.

    And hence allowed the Taliban to manifest themselves once again.

    And when NATO went back into Afghan in 2006 the result was what we have seen over the past few weeks.
    The US withdrew most of its troops from Iraq in 2011, the Taliban did not regain Kabul until this summer.

    Even if there had been no Iraq invasion at all if the US was not prepared to commit to keep troops in Afghanistan permanently as it has in S Korea and Germany, then eventually the Taliban would regain power and jihadi militants would return
    Bingo. But you are blaming Biden and Trump particularly Biden. You are wrong. The Taliban began the takeover process over 15 years ago.
    It's the comparison of Afghanistan with Germany / S Korea which is rather sillier.
    I have no idea why I am having a discussion with him about it.
    Passes the time.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 62,858

    algarkirk said:



    A side issue here is that Labour hope to get away without having a coherent post-Brexit policy, since any actual policy will divide their supporters. Their choice is:

    Say nothing/fudge (as now)
    Efta
    EU membership
    New referendum
    Carry on Boris.

    The first is dangerous as it is too important to be silent on.
    Two, three and four make perfect sense for pro Europeans but no-one else
    The fifth is no improvement

    I think we don't need to delight Remainers, just to be less Europhobic than the Government, which is not difficult, Starmer can credibly talk about intelligent cooperation with the EU on a basis of friendly partners and it will sound (and indeed be) genuine, without embracing a new referendum or the like. In practice I suspect that rejoining a single customs area may be quite popular by then to avoid constant hassles for no obvious gain.
    Labour should do something like this:

    https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2021/02/11/brexit-undoing-some-of-the-damage-part-2-from-principles-to-policies/

    (It's slightly out of date now, and more things need to be added, such as recognising CE marks permanently, but the principles are sound I think).
    Which CE marked products don't currently get recognised and for what reason?
    None, which is exactly the point. There is precisely zero reason not to recognise them, yet that is the government's crazy, utterly brain-dead policy, now put off for a year. This utter nonsense of trying to set up our own compulsory alternative (with exactly the same underlying regulations!) needs to be kiboshed permanently so as not to disadvantage UK manufacturers and consumers further for zero gain.
    Why does it need to be kiboshed?

    If it turns out to be the same, then CE mark and UK mark (whatever its called) will be equivalent and people can just stamp whatever they produce with both. CE marks are self-declared anyway, so if UK mark is the same you just print CE mark and UK mark on the product and job done. No disadvantage whatsoever.

    If it turns out not to be the same, then its because we've found a reason its worth diverging, in which case that's a good thing.

    There's no loss in printing both marks, and there's something to gain in being able to diverge.
    Facts don't bend to fit what you want to be true:

    https://www.bsigroup.com/en-SE/our-services/product-testing-and-certification/ukca-mark/frequently-asked-questions-ukca-marking/

    https://www.bbacerts.co.uk/apply-for-ukca-marking/
    The rules for self-declaration of UKCA is currently the same as it was for CE. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/using-the-ukca-marking

    If the rules are the same then conformity can be achieved with a rubber stamp for both.

    If the rules diverge, then its a good job we weren't in CE.

    We have something to gain in having our own CA mark and nothing to lose in doing so.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 21,149
    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.

    Completely wrong.

    NATO subdued the Taliban, or rather made them go back to their homes and store their AKs after 9/11.

    NATO then, lead by the US, turned its attention to Iraq.

    And hence allowed the Taliban to manifest themselves once again.

    And when NATO went back into Afghan in 2006 the result was what we have seen over the past few weeks.
    The US withdrew most of its troops from Iraq in 2011, the Taliban did not regain Kabul until this summer.

    Even if there had been no Iraq invasion at all if the US was not prepared to commit to keep troops in Afghanistan permanently as it has in S Korea and Germany, then eventually the Taliban would regain power and jihadi militants would return
    Bingo. But you are blaming Biden and Trump particularly Biden. You are wrong. The Taliban began the takeover process over 15 years ago.
    It was only the US withdrawal which allowed the Taliban to regain Kabul and most of the country, even as recently as 2017 the Taliban only controlled 7 out of 421 districts
    It was inevitable. Either send back in 400,000 soldiers or withdraw.

    They were never going to send in 400,000 more troops hence it was inevitable that we would reach this state sooner or later.
    It did not need 400,000 troops, the Taliban were still kept out of controlling Kabul and most of the country with the few thousand troops that were there
    Because the Taliban had signed an agreement with the US to not attack them whilst the US withdrew.

    The 2500 troops that were still in the country were barely enough to keep Bagram occupied. They weren't stopping anything.
  • It really does make your head spin.

    Hah.

    NFTs make my headspin.

    It all reminds me of Enron. Vastly overvalued stuff to help look profitable and asset rich.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 21,149
    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.

    Completely wrong.

    NATO subdued the Taliban, or rather made them go back to their homes and store their AKs after 9/11.

    NATO then, lead by the US, turned its attention to Iraq.

    And hence allowed the Taliban to manifest themselves once again.

    And when NATO went back into Afghan in 2006 the result was what we have seen over the past few weeks.
    The US withdrew most of its troops from Iraq in 2011, the Taliban did not regain Kabul until this summer.

    Even if there had been no Iraq invasion at all if the US was not prepared to commit to keep troops in Afghanistan permanently as it has in S Korea and Germany, then eventually the Taliban would regain power and jihadi militants would return
    Bingo. But you are blaming Biden and Trump particularly Biden. You are wrong. The Taliban began the takeover process over 15 years ago.
    It was only the US withdrawal which allowed the Taliban to regain Kabul and most of the country, even as recently as 2017 the Taliban only controlled 7 out of 421 districts
    It was inevitable. Either send back in 400,000 soldiers or withdraw.

    They were never going to send in 400,000 more troops hence it was inevitable that we would reach this state sooner or later.
    It did not need 400,000 troops, the Taliban were still kept out of controlling Kabul and most of the country with the few thousand troops that were there
    Thanks General HYUFD. Good to know this is what it would take.

    They were "kept out" because the expectation was that they would leave. Which they have done.
    No, they were kept out because the US led troops were there and the Taliban were not willing to try and retake Kabul until they left
    Which they were about to do and the rest of the country fell in advance of Kabul, where were the US troops there?
    The Taliban only controlled 7 out of 421 districts in 2017, 16 years after the original invasion.

    Kabul and the country as a whole only fell to the Taliban again once Biden started to withdraw US troops
    And were openly present (i.e. Contesting) 50% of the country.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 33,330
    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.

    Completely wrong.

    NATO subdued the Taliban, or rather made them go back to their homes and store their AKs after 9/11.

    NATO then, lead by the US, turned its attention to Iraq.

    And hence allowed the Taliban to manifest themselves once again.

    And when NATO went back into Afghan in 2006 the result was what we have seen over the past few weeks.
    The US withdrew most of its troops from Iraq in 2011, the Taliban did not regain Kabul until this summer.

    Even if there had been no Iraq invasion at all if the US was not prepared to commit to keep troops in Afghanistan permanently as it has in S Korea and Germany, then eventually the Taliban would regain power and jihadi militants would return
    Bingo. But you are blaming Biden and Trump particularly Biden. You are wrong. The Taliban began the takeover process over 15 years ago.
    It's the comparison of Afghanistan with Germany / S Korea which is rather sillier.
    No it isn't. The US had troops in Germany to keep out Russia, in S Korea to keep out N Korea and in Afghanistan to keep out the Taliban and AQ and other jihadi militants
    At what point in the last two decades did they "keep out" the Taliban ?

    Consider that, and your ridiculous comparison.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 96,702
    edited August 31
    O/T

    If you save the McDonald's logo image to your PC you now own:

    a) a McDonald's franchise

    b) the McDonald's brand

    c) the McDonald's logo

    d) nothing of McDonald's

    Replace McDonald's with NFT
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 62,858
    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.

    Completely wrong.

    NATO subdued the Taliban, or rather made them go back to their homes and store their AKs after 9/11.

    NATO then, lead by the US, turned its attention to Iraq.

    And hence allowed the Taliban to manifest themselves once again.

    And when NATO went back into Afghan in 2006 the result was what we have seen over the past few weeks.
    The US withdrew most of its troops from Iraq in 2011, the Taliban did not regain Kabul until this summer.

    Even if there had been no Iraq invasion at all if the US was not prepared to commit to keep troops in Afghanistan permanently as it has in S Korea and Germany, then eventually the Taliban would regain power and jihadi militants would return
    Bingo. But you are blaming Biden and Trump particularly Biden. You are wrong. The Taliban began the takeover process over 15 years ago.
    It was only the US withdrawal which allowed the Taliban to regain Kabul and most of the country, even as recently as 2017 the Taliban only controlled 7 out of 421 districts
    It was inevitable. Either send back in 400,000 soldiers or withdraw.

    They were never going to send in 400,000 more troops hence it was inevitable that we would reach this state sooner or later.
    It did not need 400,000 troops, the Taliban were still kept out of controlling Kabul and most of the country with the few thousand troops that were there
    Thanks General HYUFD. Good to know this is what it would take.

    They were "kept out" because the expectation was that they would leave. Which they have done.
    No, they were kept out because the US led troops were there and the Taliban were not willing to try and retake Kabul until they left
    No, you are characteristically wrong with that.

    Trump signed a deal with the Taliban saying the US troops would leave. The Taliban stood down their troops then waiting until the US left.

    Trump did that, not Biden. If Biden had reneged on Trump's deal then the Taliban would have picked their arms back up and 'a few thousand troops' would have been useless.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,163
    edited August 31

    algarkirk said:



    A side issue here is that Labour hope to get away without having a coherent post-Brexit policy, since any actual policy will divide their supporters. Their choice is:

    Say nothing/fudge (as now)
    Efta
    EU membership
    New referendum
    Carry on Boris.

    The first is dangerous as it is too important to be silent on.
    Two, three and four make perfect sense for pro Europeans but no-one else
    The fifth is no improvement

    I think we don't need to delight Remainers, just to be less Europhobic than the Government, which is not difficult, Starmer can credibly talk about intelligent cooperation with the EU on a basis of friendly partners and it will sound (and indeed be) genuine, without embracing a new referendum or the like. In practice I suspect that rejoining a single customs area may be quite popular by then to avoid constant hassles for no obvious gain.
    I think the EU will overplay its hand again as soon as there's a Labour Government in power on the basis it will just keel over on the basis of emotional affection for the EU.

    It will be amusing to watch as Starmer would be obliged to play hardball with them as, regardless of his own feelings, negotiating from out is very different from in and real-politik will govern.
    Its a bear trap for all of the progressive parties. The EU is in the past for GB and there isn't a route back any time soon. So the only move has to be forward. The Tories face the opposite bear trap - they cannot move on from brexit because there is no product.

    Sooner or later the current political blockage will erode away, and once it starts to go it will go quickly. The Tories promised much from Brexit and have delivered little - that won't be sustained. But Labour / the LDs / the Greens need to move on and talk up what the post-Brexit product should be.

    It can't be the EU or EFTA or the single market. But it can point out that we need to close the gaps left by our crashing out to 3rd country status, and things like the forthcoming Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V New Zealand deal will only highlight how hollow the CANZUK argument was. Lets do CANZUK culturally, but it isn't an alternative trading plan. Only by trying to find one that fills the gap can parties move the debate on.
    I don't see how we square the NI trading circle without either a) an EFTA or b) a United Ireland/ permanent border in the Irish Sea. Labour, LDs or sensible Tories all have this problem.
    Yes. In particular all parties except the Tories (who face their own problems) have this one: On the big issues people want to vote for parties who have policies they believe in a heartfelt way; they don't just vote for fudge, they vote for visions and ideals and all that. No party (except the Tories possibly) can begin to pretend to a heartfelt and real affirmative support for Brexit and its generation long aftermath.

    But this is the most important new policy of the last 45 years and is relevant to everything for as far ahead as anyone can see. And neither it, nor the island of Ireland, nor Scotland nor the EU are going away.

    As I see it therefore fudge is impossible for any serious party; but policy development if almost impossible too, because of the way that opinions cross party and regional lines.

    And even if Lab/LDs etc fudge an election campaign, if they win they have to actually act and hold positions. What can they possibly be?

  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 21,149
    edited August 31

    TOPPING said:

    It was inevitable. Either send back in 400,000 soldiers or withdraw.

    They were never going to send in 400,000 more troops hence it was inevitable that we would reach this state sooner or later.

    It's not either/or. There's a scenario of withdrawing now AND sending in lots of troops later. Quite a likely one.
    It is quite likely that if the support elements had stayed, keeping the Afghan airforce running etc, that the Afghan Government wouldn't have folded. And the Taliban would have kept on doing their thing, out in the countryside.
    The Afghan Airforce was tiny, it was principally a helicopter taxi service (not that I'm denigrating that as it is essential for moving troops around rapidly in a place like Afghanistan) plus a handful of ground attack planes.

    The Taliban had been running a harassment and assassination campaign against Afghan pilots and ground staff.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 18,931
    Nigelb said:

    TimT said:

    Since I joined the FCO in 1980, people have been saying Saudi will have nukes within a decade.

    I was in the anti-Fukuyama camp the moment the first book review was published. It was always a ridiculous concept that failed to recognize how culture and context play into how we organize. And there is indeed a logic to Taiwan, Japan, South Korean and Philippines getting nukes to contain China - at least from each individual nation's perspective.

    I am sure the multi-player game theorists will tell us that we'll all die as a result.

    I have a friend who works out a lot in Saudi Arabia and knows a few of the many many Princes from the House of Saud.

    His view (and their view) if Iran gets nukes then it's a bit Shi'ite for all concerned in the region as well as the world because the Saudis will need nukes as well ego and national security concerns will demand it.

    So Israel, Iran, and the Saudis all with nukes, and with the reliance on oil ending soon things will be interesting.
    That's a pretty standard analysis - that if Iran goes nuclear then everyone in the neighbourhood will go nuclear.

    A milder version of the same thing is the common wisdom that if Japan goes nuclear then so will nearly everyone else in *that* neck of the woods.
    I think the House of Saud will be able to do outdo the Iranians. I think at best the Iranians will have land based missile nuclear weapons whereas the Saudis could afford submarine and bomber based nuclear weapons as well, the latter two are the Harrods of nuclear weapons.
    Gravity bombs for their various aircraft, maybe.

    Saudi submarines? Ha Ha Ha..... Sorry, haven't laugh liked that in a long time.

    Unless they find someone to build *and run* some subs for them - no chance.
    I believe China, Germany and France have all expressed an interest in recent years.
    Which would leave them with more toys that wouldn't work ten minutes after the contractors left....
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 42,303
    geoffw said:

    rubbish posted

    Very frequently, but it’s never stopped any of us :smiley:
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 30,071
    edited August 31
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    It was inevitable. Either send back in 400,000 soldiers or withdraw.

    They were never going to send in 400,000 more troops hence it was inevitable that we would reach this state sooner or later.

    It's not either/or. There's a scenario of withdrawing now AND sending in lots of troops later. Quite a likely one.
    Can't see it. What was that definition of madness again?
    I think it was something about surrendering when you haven't lost.

    We'll have to see what happens, but I think the possibility of Afghanistan and the adjacent lawless regions of Pakistan becoming the global centre of a very large terrorist/jihad movement, far more dangerous than Al Queda in 2001 and ISIS more recently, is a pretty likely one. Even if the Taliban leadership, or some of them, are sincere in their promises now, they are likely to be overtaken by the momentum which Biden has unleashed.

    And then what does the West do?
    The Taliban aren't fools, they are rational players and they don't want such operators in the country.

    But yes we will see.
    I would not count on their rationality.

    400,000 soldiers were never needed in Afghanistan. Before Doha, the situation was a stalemate, maintained by a fairly small NATO presence.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 15,898

    This utter nonsense of trying to set up our own compulsory alternative (with exactly the same underlying regulations!) needs to be kiboshed permanently so as not to disadvantage UK manufacturers and consumers further for zero gain.

    The entire point of Brexit...
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 21,149
    I see yet another disgraceful smear of Covid wonder drug Invermectin has been published by *checks notes* the makers of Invermectin

    https://twitter.com/MollyJongFast/status/1432453581198745602?s=19
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 30,071

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.

    Completely wrong.

    NATO subdued the Taliban, or rather made them go back to their homes and store their AKs after 9/11.

    NATO then, lead by the US, turned its attention to Iraq.

    And hence allowed the Taliban to manifest themselves once again.

    And when NATO went back into Afghan in 2006 the result was what we have seen over the past few weeks.
    The US withdrew most of its troops from Iraq in 2011, the Taliban did not regain Kabul until this summer.

    Even if there had been no Iraq invasion at all if the US was not prepared to commit to keep troops in Afghanistan permanently as it has in S Korea and Germany, then eventually the Taliban would regain power and jihadi militants would return
    Bingo. But you are blaming Biden and Trump particularly Biden. You are wrong. The Taliban began the takeover process over 15 years ago.
    It was only the US withdrawal which allowed the Taliban to regain Kabul and most of the country, even as recently as 2017 the Taliban only controlled 7 out of 421 districts
    It was inevitable. Either send back in 400,000 soldiers or withdraw.

    They were never going to send in 400,000 more troops hence it was inevitable that we would reach this state sooner or later.
    It did not need 400,000 troops, the Taliban were still kept out of controlling Kabul and most of the country with the few thousand troops that were there
    Thanks General HYUFD. Good to know this is what it would take.

    They were "kept out" because the expectation was that they would leave. Which they have done.
    No, they were kept out because the US led troops were there and the Taliban were not willing to try and retake Kabul until they left
    No, you are characteristically wrong with that.

    Trump signed a deal with the Taliban saying the US troops would leave. The Taliban stood down their troops then waiting until the US left.

    Trump did that, not Biden. If Biden had reneged on Trump's deal then the Taliban would have picked their arms back up and 'a few thousand troops' would have been useless.
    The Taliban did not adhere to the terms of the Doha agreement.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 29,074

    algarkirk said:



    A side issue here is that Labour hope to get away without having a coherent post-Brexit policy, since any actual policy will divide their supporters. Their choice is:

    Say nothing/fudge (as now)
    Efta
    EU membership
    New referendum
    Carry on Boris.

    The first is dangerous as it is too important to be silent on.
    Two, three and four make perfect sense for pro Europeans but no-one else
    The fifth is no improvement

    I think we don't need to delight Remainers, just to be less Europhobic than the Government, which is not difficult, Starmer can credibly talk about intelligent cooperation with the EU on a basis of friendly partners and it will sound (and indeed be) genuine, without embracing a new referendum or the like. In practice I suspect that rejoining a single customs area may be quite popular by then to avoid constant hassles for no obvious gain.
    Labour should do something like this:

    https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2021/02/11/brexit-undoing-some-of-the-damage-part-2-from-principles-to-policies/

    (It's slightly out of date now, and more things need to be added, such as recognising CE marks permanently, but the principles are sound I think).
    Which CE marked products don't currently get recognised and for what reason?
    None, which is exactly the point. There is precisely zero reason not to recognise them, yet that is the government's crazy, utterly brain-dead policy, now put off for a year. This utter nonsense of trying to set up our own compulsory alternative (with exactly the same underlying regulations!) needs to be kiboshed permanently so as not to disadvantage UK manufacturers and consumers further for zero gain.
    Why does it need to be kiboshed?

    If it turns out to be the same, then CE mark and UK mark (whatever its called) will be equivalent and people can just stamp whatever they produce with both. CE marks are self-declared anyway, so if UK mark is the same you just print CE mark and UK mark on the product and job done. No disadvantage whatsoever.

    If it turns out not to be the same, then its because we've found a reason its worth diverging, in which case that's a good thing.

    There's no loss in printing both marks, and there's something to gain in being able to diverge.
    Facts don't bend to fit what you want to be true:

    https://www.bsigroup.com/en-SE/our-services/product-testing-and-certification/ukca-mark/frequently-asked-questions-ukca-marking/

    https://www.bbacerts.co.uk/apply-for-ukca-marking/
    The rules for self-declaration of UKCA is currently the same as it was for CE. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/using-the-ukca-marking

    If the rules are the same then conformity can be achieved with a rubber stamp for both.

    If the rules diverge, then its a good job we weren't in CE.

    We have something to gain in having our own CA mark and nothing to lose in doing so.
    Well the loony government you blindly support doesn't seem to agree, given that they've just realised that it's impossible to meet the Dec 31st deadline they'd previously set. If it's so painless, why was that necessary, why are foreign suppliers staying away in droves from UKCA certification, why was every relevant industry body pointing out that this is a major burden, could not be done on time, and would cost a fortune?

    And no, it's not just about harmless self-certification.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 68,046
    edited August 31
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    It was inevitable. Either send back in 400,000 soldiers or withdraw.

    They were never going to send in 400,000 more troops hence it was inevitable that we would reach this state sooner or later.

    It's not either/or. There's a scenario of withdrawing now AND sending in lots of troops later. Quite a likely one.
    Can't see it. What was that definition of madness again?
    Seems like one man has breathlessly pivoted from his previous withdrawal stance to reintervention.

    Guess who :sweat_smile:

    Trump tells the US to invade and 'bomb the hell' out of Afghanistan again if the Taliban doesn't return billions in US weapons and equipment

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9940953/Trump-tells-bomb-hell-Afghanistan-Taliban-doesnt-return-weapons.html?ito=social-twitter_mailonline
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 30,071

    kle4 said:

    Only in Britain - where our misanthropy means we need pets as a proxy to express our repressed feelings - would this ridiculously trivial story become news.
    I'm somewhat at a loss how dear Geronimo attracted so many defenders. Yes Llamas are fluffy creatures, but many animals are cute.
    The Peruvians I know find the whole thing a bit weird. Apparently tons of llamas got the chop there in various anti-TB campaigns.
    I remember the producer of Flight of the Condor got death threats, when he was filmed eating a guinea pig in Peru.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 31,341
    Sean_F said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    It was inevitable. Either send back in 400,000 soldiers or withdraw.

    They were never going to send in 400,000 more troops hence it was inevitable that we would reach this state sooner or later.

    It's not either/or. There's a scenario of withdrawing now AND sending in lots of troops later. Quite a likely one.
    Can't see it. What was that definition of madness again?
    I think it was something about surrendering when you haven't lost.

    We'll have to see what happens, but I think the possibility of Afghanistan and the adjacent lawless regions of Pakistan becoming the global centre of a very large terrorist/jihad movement, far more dangerous than Al Queda in 2001 and ISIS more recently, is a pretty likely one. Even if the Taliban leadership, or some of them, are sincere in their promises now, they are likely to be overtaken by the momentum which Biden has unleashed.

    And then what does the West do?
    The Taliban aren't fools, they are rational players and they don't want such operators in the country.

    But yes we will see.
    I would not count on their rationality.

    400,000 soldiers were never needed in Afghanistan. Before Doha, the situation was a stalemate, maintained by a fairly small NATO presence.
    It depends. The Taliban are a bit like Switzerland (!) in that it is a citizens' army.

    They go and fight and then go home afterwards. If it so minds them to fight they will fight.

    If the US wants to make and keep the peace, defined as expunging the Taliban, if such a concept is taken seriously (it is not a serious concept) it would take hundreds of thousands of troops.

    As this was never going to happen then the Taliban simply worked around whatever foreign intruders are in their country at whatever time.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,223
    edited August 31

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.

    Completely wrong.

    NATO subdued the Taliban, or rather made them go back to their homes and store their AKs after 9/11.

    NATO then, lead by the US, turned its attention to Iraq.

    And hence allowed the Taliban to manifest themselves once again.

    And when NATO went back into Afghan in 2006 the result was what we have seen over the past few weeks.
    The US withdrew most of its troops from Iraq in 2011, the Taliban did not regain Kabul until this summer.

    Even if there had been no Iraq invasion at all if the US was not prepared to commit to keep troops in Afghanistan permanently as it has in S Korea and Germany, then eventually the Taliban would regain power and jihadi militants would return
    Bingo. But you are blaming Biden and Trump particularly Biden. You are wrong. The Taliban began the takeover process over 15 years ago.
    It was only the US withdrawal which allowed the Taliban to regain Kabul and most of the country, even as recently as 2017 the Taliban only controlled 7 out of 421 districts
    It was inevitable. Either send back in 400,000 soldiers or withdraw.

    They were never going to send in 400,000 more troops hence it was inevitable that we would reach this state sooner or later.
    It did not need 400,000 troops, the Taliban were still kept out of controlling Kabul and most of the country with the few thousand troops that were there
    Thanks General HYUFD. Good to know this is what it would take.

    They were "kept out" because the expectation was that they would leave. Which they have done.
    No, they were kept out because the US led troops were there and the Taliban were not willing to try and retake Kabul until they left
    No, you are characteristically wrong with that.

    Trump signed a deal with the Taliban saying the US troops would leave. The Taliban stood down their troops then waiting until the US left.

    Trump did that, not Biden. If Biden had reneged on Trump's deal then the Taliban would have picked their arms back up and 'a few thousand troops' would have been useless.
    I never excused Trump from blame either, it was the US withdrawal by both of them that let the Taliban back.

    John McCain was right and would have been a far better President than both Trump and Biden promising to keep US troops in Afghanistan permanently if needed
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,223
    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.

    Completely wrong.

    NATO subdued the Taliban, or rather made them go back to their homes and store their AKs after 9/11.

    NATO then, lead by the US, turned its attention to Iraq.

    And hence allowed the Taliban to manifest themselves once again.

    And when NATO went back into Afghan in 2006 the result was what we have seen over the past few weeks.
    The US withdrew most of its troops from Iraq in 2011, the Taliban did not regain Kabul until this summer.

    Even if there had been no Iraq invasion at all if the US was not prepared to commit to keep troops in Afghanistan permanently as it has in S Korea and Germany, then eventually the Taliban would regain power and jihadi militants would return
    Bingo. But you are blaming Biden and Trump particularly Biden. You are wrong. The Taliban began the takeover process over 15 years ago.
    It's the comparison of Afghanistan with Germany / S Korea which is rather sillier.
    No it isn't. The US had troops in Germany to keep out Russia, in S Korea to keep out N Korea and in Afghanistan to keep out the Taliban and AQ and other jihadi militants
    At what point in the last two decades did they "keep out" the Taliban ?

    Consider that, and your ridiculous comparison.
    Most of Afghanistan was not under Taliban rule and Afghanistan had an elected government in Kabul for 20 years
  • sarissasarissa Posts: 1,322

    Seems correct.

    From Ex + sequi ("to follow out")
    I wonder what its ex-editor thinks of the 'execution' of hundreds of deer on his Highland estate?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 62,858
    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.

    Completely wrong.

    NATO subdued the Taliban, or rather made them go back to their homes and store their AKs after 9/11.

    NATO then, lead by the US, turned its attention to Iraq.

    And hence allowed the Taliban to manifest themselves once again.

    And when NATO went back into Afghan in 2006 the result was what we have seen over the past few weeks.
    The US withdrew most of its troops from Iraq in 2011, the Taliban did not regain Kabul until this summer.

    Even if there had been no Iraq invasion at all if the US was not prepared to commit to keep troops in Afghanistan permanently as it has in S Korea and Germany, then eventually the Taliban would regain power and jihadi militants would return
    Bingo. But you are blaming Biden and Trump particularly Biden. You are wrong. The Taliban began the takeover process over 15 years ago.
    It was only the US withdrawal which allowed the Taliban to regain Kabul and most of the country, even as recently as 2017 the Taliban only controlled 7 out of 421 districts
    It was inevitable. Either send back in 400,000 soldiers or withdraw.

    They were never going to send in 400,000 more troops hence it was inevitable that we would reach this state sooner or later.
    It did not need 400,000 troops, the Taliban were still kept out of controlling Kabul and most of the country with the few thousand troops that were there
    Thanks General HYUFD. Good to know this is what it would take.

    They were "kept out" because the expectation was that they would leave. Which they have done.
    No, they were kept out because the US led troops were there and the Taliban were not willing to try and retake Kabul until they left
    No, you are characteristically wrong with that.

    Trump signed a deal with the Taliban saying the US troops would leave. The Taliban stood down their troops then waiting until the US left.

    Trump did that, not Biden. If Biden had reneged on Trump's deal then the Taliban would have picked their arms back up and 'a few thousand troops' would have been useless.
    The Taliban did not adhere to the terms of the Doha agreement.
    Not 100% no they didn't, but they were quite deliberately not fighting the US troops. They were doing what they could get away with.

    Had Biden cancelled the Doha agreement then 'a few thousand troops' would have really struggled. Realistically they would have been overwhelmed by the Taliban, it would have required a new 'surge' of troops to get Afghanistan back under control.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 2,620

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.

    Completely wrong.

    NATO subdued the Taliban, or rather made them go back to their homes and store their AKs after 9/11.

    NATO then, lead by the US, turned its attention to Iraq.

    And hence allowed the Taliban to manifest themselves once again.

    And when NATO went back into Afghan in 2006 the result was what we have seen over the past few weeks.
    The US withdrew most of its troops from Iraq in 2011, the Taliban did not regain Kabul until this summer.

    Even if there had been no Iraq invasion at all if the US was not prepared to commit to keep troops in Afghanistan permanently as it has in S Korea and Germany, then eventually the Taliban would regain power and jihadi militants would return
    Bingo. But you are blaming Biden and Trump particularly Biden. You are wrong. The Taliban began the takeover process over 15 years ago.
    It was only the US withdrawal which allowed the Taliban to regain Kabul and most of the country, even as recently as 2017 the Taliban only controlled 7 out of 421 districts
    It was inevitable. Either send back in 400,000 soldiers or withdraw.

    They were never going to send in 400,000 more troops hence it was inevitable that we would reach this state sooner or later.
    It did not need 400,000 troops, the Taliban were still kept out of controlling Kabul and most of the country with the few thousand troops that were there
    Thanks General HYUFD. Good to know this is what it would take.

    They were "kept out" because the expectation was that they would leave. Which they have done.
    No, they were kept out because the US led troops were there and the Taliban were not willing to try and retake Kabul until they left
    No, you are characteristically wrong with that.

    Trump signed a deal with the Taliban saying the US troops would leave. The Taliban stood down their troops then waiting until the US left.

    Trump did that, not Biden. If Biden had reneged on Trump's deal then the Taliban would have picked their arms back up and 'a few thousand troops' would have been useless.
    It’s pretty plain that Terry Taliban has only advanced because he got the thumbs up from his sponsors to do so. They would likely not have received the thumbs up if the US had maintained a command and control, training and air support presence in Afghanistan. It’s also facile to say US casualties only receded because of the Doha deal. It’s because the war had been fought to a stalemate in the provinces and the US has been largely able to step back from frontline operations.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 14,826
    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Only in Britain - where our misanthropy means we need pets as a proxy to express our repressed feelings - would this ridiculously trivial story become news.
    I'm somewhat at a loss how dear Geronimo attracted so many defenders. Yes Llamas are fluffy creatures, but many animals are cute.
    The Peruvians I know find the whole thing a bit weird. Apparently tons of llamas got the chop there in various anti-TB campaigns.
    I remember the producer of Flight of the Condor got death threats, when he was filmed eating a guinea pig in Peru.
    One country's cute and cuddly pet is another's tasty main course.
    Should have seen the faces of my Taiwanese students when I innocently let slip I'd eaten and enjoyed rabbit.
    I was transformed into Hannibal Lecter.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 62,858

    algarkirk said:



    A side issue here is that Labour hope to get away without having a coherent post-Brexit policy, since any actual policy will divide their supporters. Their choice is:

    Say nothing/fudge (as now)
    Efta
    EU membership
    New referendum
    Carry on Boris.

    The first is dangerous as it is too important to be silent on.
    Two, three and four make perfect sense for pro Europeans but no-one else
    The fifth is no improvement

    I think we don't need to delight Remainers, just to be less Europhobic than the Government, which is not difficult, Starmer can credibly talk about intelligent cooperation with the EU on a basis of friendly partners and it will sound (and indeed be) genuine, without embracing a new referendum or the like. In practice I suspect that rejoining a single customs area may be quite popular by then to avoid constant hassles for no obvious gain.
    Labour should do something like this:

    https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2021/02/11/brexit-undoing-some-of-the-damage-part-2-from-principles-to-policies/

    (It's slightly out of date now, and more things need to be added, such as recognising CE marks permanently, but the principles are sound I think).
    Which CE marked products don't currently get recognised and for what reason?
    None, which is exactly the point. There is precisely zero reason not to recognise them, yet that is the government's crazy, utterly brain-dead policy, now put off for a year. This utter nonsense of trying to set up our own compulsory alternative (with exactly the same underlying regulations!) needs to be kiboshed permanently so as not to disadvantage UK manufacturers and consumers further for zero gain.
    Why does it need to be kiboshed?

    If it turns out to be the same, then CE mark and UK mark (whatever its called) will be equivalent and people can just stamp whatever they produce with both. CE marks are self-declared anyway, so if UK mark is the same you just print CE mark and UK mark on the product and job done. No disadvantage whatsoever.

    If it turns out not to be the same, then its because we've found a reason its worth diverging, in which case that's a good thing.

    There's no loss in printing both marks, and there's something to gain in being able to diverge.
    Facts don't bend to fit what you want to be true:

    https://www.bsigroup.com/en-SE/our-services/product-testing-and-certification/ukca-mark/frequently-asked-questions-ukca-marking/

    https://www.bbacerts.co.uk/apply-for-ukca-marking/
    The rules for self-declaration of UKCA is currently the same as it was for CE. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/using-the-ukca-marking

    If the rules are the same then conformity can be achieved with a rubber stamp for both.

    If the rules diverge, then its a good job we weren't in CE.

    We have something to gain in having our own CA mark and nothing to lose in doing so.
    Well the loony government you blindly support doesn't seem to agree, given that they've just realised that it's impossible to meet the Dec 31st deadline they'd previously set. If it's so painless, why was that necessary, why are foreign suppliers staying away in droves from UKCA certification, why was every relevant industry body pointing out that this is a major burden, could not be done on time, and would cost a fortune?

    And no, it's not just about harmless self-certification.
    Possibly because there's been disruption via the pandemic and these deadlines are pretty artificial and flexible now. If it takes a bit longer to get it right, then taking a bit longer is the right thing to do and quite different to being "loony" is it not?

    Had they been truly loony they'd have proceeded with the original date for the heck of it rather than doing it on a timeline that works.

    My Laptop currently has many marks printed on it. CE, FCC and many more. No doubt in the future UKCA will be another one added onto the list. I'm sure manufacturers will cope adding one more stamp into their design.

    If we want our standards to diverge, then we need our own marks. If they don't diverge, then verifying they meet both marks is a rubber stamp exercise.
  • Can't believe it has been 24 years.

    On this day in 1997. Diana, Princess of Wales and her partner Dodi Fayed died when their car was involved in a fatal crash in Paris, France. RIP.


  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 2,503
    Alistair said:

    I see yet another disgraceful smear of Covid wonder drug Invermectin has been published by *checks notes* the makers of Invermectin

    https://twitter.com/MollyJongFast/status/1432453581198745602?s=19

    Have you seen this, from the States:
    https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/08/judges-order-requiring-hospital-to-give-covid-patient-ivermectin-called-unethical/

    It's quite bizarre. I don't see how you can compel a person to do something to someone that that person believes will harm them (nevermind medical ethics).
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 24,528
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.

    Completely wrong.

    NATO subdued the Taliban, or rather made them go back to their homes and store their AKs after 9/11.

    NATO then, lead by the US, turned its attention to Iraq.

    And hence allowed the Taliban to manifest themselves once again.

    And when NATO went back into Afghan in 2006 the result was what we have seen over the past few weeks.
    The US withdrew most of its troops from Iraq in 2011, the Taliban did not regain Kabul until this summer.

    Even if there had been no Iraq invasion at all if the US was not prepared to commit to keep troops in Afghanistan permanently as it has in S Korea and Germany, then eventually the Taliban would regain power and jihadi militants would return
    Bingo. But you are blaming Biden and Trump particularly Biden. You are wrong. The Taliban began the takeover process over 15 years ago.
    It was only the US withdrawal which allowed the Taliban to regain Kabul and most of the country, even as recently as 2017 the Taliban only controlled 7 out of 421 districts
    It was inevitable. Either send back in 400,000 soldiers or withdraw.

    They were never going to send in 400,000 more troops hence it was inevitable that we would reach this state sooner or later.
    It did not need 400,000 troops, the Taliban were still kept out of controlling Kabul and most of the country with the few thousand troops that were there
    Thanks General HYUFD. Good to know this is what it would take.

    They were "kept out" because the expectation was that they would leave. Which they have done.
    No, they were kept out because the US led troops were there and the Taliban were not willing to try and retake Kabul until they left
    No, you are characteristically wrong with that.

    Trump signed a deal with the Taliban saying the US troops would leave. The Taliban stood down their troops then waiting until the US left.

    Trump did that, not Biden. If Biden had reneged on Trump's deal then the Taliban would have picked their arms back up and 'a few thousand troops' would have been useless.
    I never excused Trump from blame either, it was the US withdrawal by both of them that let the Taliban back.

    John McCain was right and would have been a far better President than both Trump and Biden promising to keep US troops in Afghanistan permanently if needed
    What about Mitt Romney?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 62,858
    dixiedean said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Only in Britain - where our misanthropy means we need pets as a proxy to express our repressed feelings - would this ridiculously trivial story become news.
    I'm somewhat at a loss how dear Geronimo attracted so many defenders. Yes Llamas are fluffy creatures, but many animals are cute.
    The Peruvians I know find the whole thing a bit weird. Apparently tons of llamas got the chop there in various anti-TB campaigns.
    I remember the producer of Flight of the Condor got death threats, when he was filmed eating a guinea pig in Peru.
    One country's cute and cuddly pet is another's tasty main course.
    Should have seen the faces of my Taiwanese students when I innocently let slip I'd eaten and enjoyed rabbit.
    I was transformed into Hannibal Lecter.
    I love meat and will try any but I can't eat rabbit since I had pet rabbits.

    Its like eating puppies to me now.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 26,893
    Pulpstar said:

    moonshine said:

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    (Snip)

    It is futile to pretend that there are no complications and uncertainties about the vaccine, over the long term, it is not clear that it is the solution to COVID that we once thought it was.

    That line is interesting.

    Back in April 2020, I was telling people that we'd get a vaccine in six months. I was out by a few months. In saying this, I was expecting about 50% efficacy against illness (which I think was the WHO minimum for a workable vaccine), and only one working vaccine.

    In the end, we have had several workable vaccines at a much higher efficacy. Delta's been a bi*ch, but the vaccines are still working.

    As such, the vaccines have far surpassed my expectations. Even sinovac/sinopharm are probably better than not getting vaccinated. The only one I think is worthless is Sputnik, but that's because of apparent poor quality control.

    We've been blessed.

    I also don't see any reasonable uncertainties about the health effect of the vaccines in the medium or long-term. Particularly when compared to Invermectin...
    I cannot pretend to be an expert on this subject. I am not an anti vaxxer, I've had both of my jabs.

    I find the discussion about vaccines to be hysterical and irrational. They certainly save lives and it is probably in your self interest to take them. But - unless someone can persuade me otherwise - they don't seem to prevent infection or transmission of the virus. So the only significant advantage of getting a large proportion of the population vaccinated is to reduce the pressure on the health care system.

    I cannot understand why this could amount to a justification for Covid passports, whilst still allowing people to smoke, ride motorcycles, do all sorts of dangerous sports, eat terrible food, drive at 30 mph along residential streets, etc.

    If someone wants to try and persuade me otherwise I am genuinely open to arguments to the contrary.
    Pre Delta it looked like the vaccines did prevent spread. Governments are slow and stupid and have still not changed course with the new info in hand.
    There's less spread in vaccinated populations.

    If vaccines didn't prevent spread, the case split in the UK would mirror the vaccinated/unvaccinated proportions almost exactly. Unvaccinated people are still disproportionately likely to be a covid case compared to the population. Hence vaccination must have an effect on spread.
    Conceivably not, though I think that you are correct.

    It is quite possible that the unvaxxed are genuinely more likely to be exposed, due to age, ethnicity, occupation, recklessness etc.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 31,341

    dixiedean said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Only in Britain - where our misanthropy means we need pets as a proxy to express our repressed feelings - would this ridiculously trivial story become news.
    I'm somewhat at a loss how dear Geronimo attracted so many defenders. Yes Llamas are fluffy creatures, but many animals are cute.
    The Peruvians I know find the whole thing a bit weird. Apparently tons of llamas got the chop there in various anti-TB campaigns.
    I remember the producer of Flight of the Condor got death threats, when he was filmed eating a guinea pig in Peru.
    One country's cute and cuddly pet is another's tasty main course.
    Should have seen the faces of my Taiwanese students when I innocently let slip I'd eaten and enjoyed rabbit.
    I was transformed into Hannibal Lecter.
    I love meat and will try any but I can't eat rabbit since I had pet rabbits.

    Its like eating puppies to me now.
    That American film can't remember which one had the protagonists pull up to a place out of the way that had a "Rabbits for Sale" sign outside.

    "Pets or meat" they were asked.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,223
    edited August 31
    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.

    Completely wrong.

    NATO subdued the Taliban, or rather made them go back to their homes and store their AKs after 9/11.

    NATO then, lead by the US, turned its attention to Iraq.

    And hence allowed the Taliban to manifest themselves once again.

    And when NATO went back into Afghan in 2006 the result was what we have seen over the past few weeks.
    The US withdrew most of its troops from Iraq in 2011, the Taliban did not regain Kabul until this summer.

    Even if there had been no Iraq invasion at all if the US was not prepared to commit to keep troops in Afghanistan permanently as it has in S Korea and Germany, then eventually the Taliban would regain power and jihadi militants would return
    Bingo. But you are blaming Biden and Trump particularly Biden. You are wrong. The Taliban began the takeover process over 15 years ago.
    It was only the US withdrawal which allowed the Taliban to regain Kabul and most of the country, even as recently as 2017 the Taliban only controlled 7 out of 421 districts
    It was inevitable. Either send back in 400,000 soldiers or withdraw.

    They were never going to send in 400,000 more troops hence it was inevitable that we would reach this state sooner or later.
    It did not need 400,000 troops, the Taliban were still kept out of controlling Kabul and most of the country with the few thousand troops that were there
    Thanks General HYUFD. Good to know this is what it would take.

    They were "kept out" because the expectation was that they would leave. Which they have done.
    No, they were kept out because the US led troops were there and the Taliban were not willing to try and retake Kabul until they left
    No, you are characteristically wrong with that.

    Trump signed a deal with the Taliban saying the US troops would leave. The Taliban stood down their troops then waiting until the US left.

    Trump did that, not Biden. If Biden had reneged on Trump's deal then the Taliban would have picked their arms back up and 'a few thousand troops' would have been useless.
    I never excused Trump from blame either, it was the US withdrawal by both of them that let the Taliban back.

    John McCain was right and would have been a far better President than both Trump and Biden promising to keep US troops in Afghanistan permanently if needed
    What about Mitt Romney?
    He also would have been better and I very much hope he runs again in 2024, he is the strong, articulate and sharp President the US desperately needs.

    Neither associated with the Trump wing of the GOP nor the current weak Democratic administration
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 42,303

    Can't believe it has been 24 years.

    On this day in 1997. Diana, Princess of Wales and her partner Dodi Fayed died when their car was involved in a fatal crash in Paris, France. RIP.


    Well, DUI anyway.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 42,303
    edited August 31
    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.

    Completely wrong.

    NATO subdued the Taliban, or rather made them go back to their homes and store their AKs after 9/11.

    NATO then, lead by the US, turned its attention to Iraq.

    And hence allowed the Taliban to manifest themselves once again.

    And when NATO went back into Afghan in 2006 the result was what we have seen over the past few weeks.
    The US withdrew most of its troops from Iraq in 2011, the Taliban did not regain Kabul until this summer.

    Even if there had been no Iraq invasion at all if the US was not prepared to commit to keep troops in Afghanistan permanently as it has in S Korea and Germany, then eventually the Taliban would regain power and jihadi militants would return
    Bingo. But you are blaming Biden and Trump particularly Biden. You are wrong. The Taliban began the takeover process over 15 years ago.
    It was only the US withdrawal which allowed the Taliban to regain Kabul and most of the country, even as recently as 2017 the Taliban only controlled 7 out of 421 districts
    It was inevitable. Either send back in 400,000 soldiers or withdraw.

    They were never going to send in 400,000 more troops hence it was inevitable that we would reach this state sooner or later.
    It did not need 400,000 troops, the Taliban were still kept out of controlling Kabul and most of the country with the few thousand troops that were there
    Thanks General HYUFD. Good to know this is what it would take.

    They were "kept out" because the expectation was that they would leave. Which they have done.
    No, they were kept out because the US led troops were there and the Taliban were not willing to try and retake Kabul until they left
    No, you are characteristically wrong with that.

    Trump signed a deal with the Taliban saying the US troops would leave. The Taliban stood down their troops then waiting until the US left.

    Trump did that, not Biden. If Biden had reneged on Trump's deal then the Taliban would have picked their arms back up and 'a few thousand troops' would have been useless.
    I never excused Trump from blame either, it was the US withdrawal by both of them that let the Taliban back.

    John McCain was right and would have been a far better President than both Trump and Biden promising to keep US troops in Afghanistan permanently if needed
    What about Mitt Romney?
    He also would have been better and I very much hope he runs again in 2024, he is the strong, articulate and sharp President the US desperately needs.

    Neither associated with the Trump wing of the GOP nor the current weak Democratic administration
    And 77 in 2024.

    The US would benefit from having a candidate who isn’t old enough to remember the Korean War.

    In any case, he’s not a Trumper so there’s no point in him running.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 68,046
    edited August 31

    dixiedean said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Only in Britain - where our misanthropy means we need pets as a proxy to express our repressed feelings - would this ridiculously trivial story become news.
    I'm somewhat at a loss how dear Geronimo attracted so many defenders. Yes Llamas are fluffy creatures, but many animals are cute.
    The Peruvians I know find the whole thing a bit weird. Apparently tons of llamas got the chop there in various anti-TB campaigns.
    I remember the producer of Flight of the Condor got death threats, when he was filmed eating a guinea pig in Peru.
    One country's cute and cuddly pet is another's tasty main course.
    Should have seen the faces of my Taiwanese students when I innocently let slip I'd eaten and enjoyed rabbit.
    I was transformed into Hannibal Lecter.
    I love meat and will try any but I can't eat rabbit since I had pet rabbits.

    Its like eating puppies to me now.
    I've got pet rabbits too, I wouldn't eat rabbit because of that reason though - more the conditions they're kept in for meat consumption tend to be very poor, I'd only consume if I know it had been hunted in the wild and dispatched quickly (That's not the case with rabbits for consumption). One of our cats has caught & killed about 10 wild rabbits this summer mind.
    Our relationship with animals isn't a simple one.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 26,893
    TOPPING said:

    dixiedean said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Only in Britain - where our misanthropy means we need pets as a proxy to express our repressed feelings - would this ridiculously trivial story become news.
    I'm somewhat at a loss how dear Geronimo attracted so many defenders. Yes Llamas are fluffy creatures, but many animals are cute.
    The Peruvians I know find the whole thing a bit weird. Apparently tons of llamas got the chop there in various anti-TB campaigns.
    I remember the producer of Flight of the Condor got death threats, when he was filmed eating a guinea pig in Peru.
    One country's cute and cuddly pet is another's tasty main course.
    Should have seen the faces of my Taiwanese students when I innocently let slip I'd eaten and enjoyed rabbit.
    I was transformed into Hannibal Lecter.
    I love meat and will try any but I can't eat rabbit since I had pet rabbits.

    Its like eating puppies to me now.
    That American film can't remember which one had the protagonists pull up to a place out of the way that had a "Rabbits for Sale" sign outside.

    "Pets or meat" they were asked.
    Roger and Me, I think.

    Michael Moores film about his hometown of Flint.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 31,341
    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.

    Completely wrong.

    NATO subdued the Taliban, or rather made them go back to their homes and store their AKs after 9/11.

    NATO then, lead by the US, turned its attention to Iraq.

    And hence allowed the Taliban to manifest themselves once again.

    And when NATO went back into Afghan in 2006 the result was what we have seen over the past few weeks.
    The US withdrew most of its troops from Iraq in 2011, the Taliban did not regain Kabul until this summer.

    Even if there had been no Iraq invasion at all if the US was not prepared to commit to keep troops in Afghanistan permanently as it has in S Korea and Germany, then eventually the Taliban would regain power and jihadi militants would return
    Bingo. But you are blaming Biden and Trump particularly Biden. You are wrong. The Taliban began the takeover process over 15 years ago.
    It's the comparison of Afghanistan with Germany / S Korea which is rather sillier.
    No it isn't. The US had troops in Germany to keep out Russia, in S Korea to keep out N Korea and in Afghanistan to keep out the Taliban and AQ and other jihadi militants
    OK last chance. HYUFD your starter for 10. What is the difference between the US troops in Germany, Sth Korea and Afghanistan?

    No conferring.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 40,902
    edited August 31
    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.

    Completely wrong.

    NATO subdued the Taliban, or rather made them go back to their homes and store their AKs after 9/11.

    NATO then, lead by the US, turned its attention to Iraq.

    And hence allowed the Taliban to manifest themselves once again.

    And when NATO went back into Afghan in 2006 the result was what we have seen over the past few weeks.
    The US withdrew most of its troops from Iraq in 2011, the Taliban did not regain Kabul until this summer.

    Even if there had been no Iraq invasion at all if the US was not prepared to commit to keep troops in Afghanistan permanently as it has in S Korea and Germany, then eventually the Taliban would regain power and jihadi militants would return
    Bingo. But you are blaming Biden and Trump particularly Biden. You are wrong. The Taliban began the takeover process over 15 years ago.
    It's the comparison of Afghanistan with Germany / S Korea which is rather sillier.
    No it isn't. The US had troops in Germany to keep out Russia, in S Korea to keep out N Korea and in Afghanistan to keep out the Taliban and AQ and other jihadi militants
    Quite right @HYUFD, the purpose of the US troops in Germany was to prevent the Nazi werewolves from regaining control of the country after World War 2 - something they achieved brilliantly.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 29,074


    Possibly because there's been disruption via the pandemic and these deadlines are pretty artificial and flexible now. If it takes a bit longer to get it right, then taking a bit longer is the right thing to do and quite different to being "loony" is it not?

    Had they been truly loony they'd have proceeded with the original date for the heck of it rather than doing it on a timeline that works.

    My Laptop currently has many marks printed on it. CE, FCC and many more. No doubt in the future UKCA will be another one added onto the list. I'm sure manufacturers will cope adding one more stamp into their design.

    If we want our standards to diverge, then we need our own marks. If they don't diverge, then verifying they meet both marks is a rubber stamp exercise.

    What you don't seem to be able to understand is that it's a rubber-stamp exercise that costs money, potentially a lot of money, and we are far too small a market for many manufacturers to bother with it, given that CE marks give them access to the entire EU, EFTA, Turkey, and via reciprocal agreements often the US, Japan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Israel. Of course large companies will be able to afford to put UKCA marks on their major lines, but they won't necessarily bother with minor products, and smaller suppliers will just stay away from the UK market. So increased costs and reduced choice for consumers, duplicated costs for UK manufacturers, and potentially real headaches for UK manufacturers who can't persuade their foreign suppliers to waste money and effort on getting UKCA certification for parts in their supply chains. And all for what? I've asked before - what are these dangerous legitimately CE-marked products we're trying to keep out? Can you point to a single one?

    As for diverging standards, most of these standards are international, so it's largely irrelevant. But if we did ever want to keep out one or two specific CE-marked product categories, it's still possible to do that without throwing the whole system in the bin, as other jurisdictions do.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,223
    edited August 31
    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.

    Completely wrong.

    NATO subdued the Taliban, or rather made them go back to their homes and store their AKs after 9/11.

    NATO then, lead by the US, turned its attention to Iraq.

    And hence allowed the Taliban to manifest themselves once again.

    And when NATO went back into Afghan in 2006 the result was what we have seen over the past few weeks.
    The US withdrew most of its troops from Iraq in 2011, the Taliban did not regain Kabul until this summer.

    Even if there had been no Iraq invasion at all if the US was not prepared to commit to keep troops in Afghanistan permanently as it has in S Korea and Germany, then eventually the Taliban would regain power and jihadi militants would return
    Bingo. But you are blaming Biden and Trump particularly Biden. You are wrong. The Taliban began the takeover process over 15 years ago.
    It's the comparison of Afghanistan with Germany / S Korea which is rather sillier.
    No it isn't. The US had troops in Germany to keep out Russia, in S Korea to keep out N Korea and in Afghanistan to keep out the Taliban and AQ and other jihadi militants
    OK last chance. HYUFD your starter for 10. What is the difference between the US troops in Germany, Sth Korea and Afghanistan?

    No conferring.
    None, they are all there or were there to preserve western values and freedom and protect our national security
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,532
    This is hilarious. The Johnson administration is so incompetent that they can't even figure out how to rig the interview process to get Paul Dacre installed at Ofcom. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/aug/31/ministers-struggle-to-find-people-to-interview-paul-dacre-for-ofcom-job
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 31,341
    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    dixiedean said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Only in Britain - where our misanthropy means we need pets as a proxy to express our repressed feelings - would this ridiculously trivial story become news.
    I'm somewhat at a loss how dear Geronimo attracted so many defenders. Yes Llamas are fluffy creatures, but many animals are cute.
    The Peruvians I know find the whole thing a bit weird. Apparently tons of llamas got the chop there in various anti-TB campaigns.
    I remember the producer of Flight of the Condor got death threats, when he was filmed eating a guinea pig in Peru.
    One country's cute and cuddly pet is another's tasty main course.
    Should have seen the faces of my Taiwanese students when I innocently let slip I'd eaten and enjoyed rabbit.
    I was transformed into Hannibal Lecter.
    I love meat and will try any but I can't eat rabbit since I had pet rabbits.

    Its like eating puppies to me now.
    That American film can't remember which one had the protagonists pull up to a place out of the way that had a "Rabbits for Sale" sign outside.

    "Pets or meat" they were asked.
    Roger and Me, I think.

    Michael Moores film about his hometown of Flint.
    Ah yes. That's it.

    Good opportunity to mention Netflix's Flint Town, a great reality show about that town's police force which gives colour to the concept of defunding the police.

    Also there is a great documentary about Claressa Shields (also from Flint) on one of the streaming services, or was.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,223
    edited August 31
    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.

    Completely wrong.

    NATO subdued the Taliban, or rather made them go back to their homes and store their AKs after 9/11.

    NATO then, lead by the US, turned its attention to Iraq.

    And hence allowed the Taliban to manifest themselves once again.

    And when NATO went back into Afghan in 2006 the result was what we have seen over the past few weeks.
    The US withdrew most of its troops from Iraq in 2011, the Taliban did not regain Kabul until this summer.

    Even if there had been no Iraq invasion at all if the US was not prepared to commit to keep troops in Afghanistan permanently as it has in S Korea and Germany, then eventually the Taliban would regain power and jihadi militants would return
    Bingo. But you are blaming Biden and Trump particularly Biden. You are wrong. The Taliban began the takeover process over 15 years ago.
    It was only the US withdrawal which allowed the Taliban to regain Kabul and most of the country, even as recently as 2017 the Taliban only controlled 7 out of 421 districts
    It was inevitable. Either send back in 400,000 soldiers or withdraw.

    They were never going to send in 400,000 more troops hence it was inevitable that we would reach this state sooner or later.
    It did not need 400,000 troops, the Taliban were still kept out of controlling Kabul and most of the country with the few thousand troops that were there
    Thanks General HYUFD. Good to know this is what it would take.

    They were "kept out" because the expectation was that they would leave. Which they have done.
    No, they were kept out because the US led troops were there and the Taliban were not willing to try and retake Kabul until they left
    No, you are characteristically wrong with that.

    Trump signed a deal with the Taliban saying the US troops would leave. The Taliban stood down their troops then waiting until the US left.

    Trump did that, not Biden. If Biden had reneged on Trump's deal then the Taliban would have picked their arms back up and 'a few thousand troops' would have been useless.
    I never excused Trump from blame either, it was the US withdrawal by both of them that let the Taliban back.

    John McCain was right and would have been a far better President than both Trump and Biden promising to keep US troops in Afghanistan permanently if needed
    What about Mitt Romney?
    He also would have been better and I very much hope he runs again in 2024, he is the strong, articulate and sharp President the US desperately needs.

    Neither associated with the Trump wing of the GOP nor the current weak Democratic administration
    And 77 in 2024.

    The US would benefit from having a candidate who isn’t old enough to remember the Korean War.

    In any case, he’s not a Trumper so there’s no point in him running.
    Depends, if there is another big terrorist attack on US soil and national security rockets up the agenda again or if Putin invades Ukraine or China captures Taiwan he would be a candidate for that crisis.

    He won the GOP nomination in 2012 of course so under the right circumstances could do so again
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 40,902

    algarkirk said:



    A side issue here is that Labour hope to get away without having a coherent post-Brexit policy, since any actual policy will divide their supporters. Their choice is:

    Say nothing/fudge (as now)
    Efta
    EU membership
    New referendum
    Carry on Boris.

    The first is dangerous as it is too important to be silent on.
    Two, three and four make perfect sense for pro Europeans but no-one else
    The fifth is no improvement

    I think we don't need to delight Remainers, just to be less Europhobic than the Government, which is not difficult, Starmer can credibly talk about intelligent cooperation with the EU on a basis of friendly partners and it will sound (and indeed be) genuine, without embracing a new referendum or the like. In practice I suspect that rejoining a single customs area may be quite popular by then to avoid constant hassles for no obvious gain.
    Labour should do something like this:

    https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2021/02/11/brexit-undoing-some-of-the-damage-part-2-from-principles-to-policies/

    (It's slightly out of date now, and more things need to be added, such as recognising CE marks permanently, but the principles are sound I think).
    Which CE marked products don't currently get recognised and for what reason?
    None, which is exactly the point. There is precisely zero reason not to recognise them, yet that is the government's crazy, utterly brain-dead policy, now put off for a year. This utter nonsense of trying to set up our own compulsory alternative (with exactly the same underlying regulations!) needs to be kiboshed permanently so as not to disadvantage UK manufacturers and consumers further for zero gain.
    Why does it need to be kiboshed?

    If it turns out to be the same, then CE mark and UK mark (whatever its called) will be equivalent and people can just stamp whatever they produce with both. CE marks are self-declared anyway, so if UK mark is the same you just print CE mark and UK mark on the product and job done. No disadvantage whatsoever.

    If it turns out not to be the same, then its because we've found a reason its worth diverging, in which case that's a good thing.

    There's no loss in printing both marks, and there's something to gain in being able to diverge.
    Facts don't bend to fit what you want to be true:

    https://www.bsigroup.com/en-SE/our-services/product-testing-and-certification/ukca-mark/frequently-asked-questions-ukca-marking/

    https://www.bbacerts.co.uk/apply-for-ukca-marking/
    The rules for self-declaration of UKCA is currently the same as it was for CE. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/using-the-ukca-marking

    If the rules are the same then conformity can be achieved with a rubber stamp for both.

    If the rules diverge, then its a good job we weren't in CE.

    We have something to gain in having our own CA mark and nothing to lose in doing so.
    Well the loony government you blindly support doesn't seem to agree, given that they've just realised that it's impossible to meet the Dec 31st deadline they'd previously set. If it's so painless, why was that necessary, why are foreign suppliers staying away in droves from UKCA certification, why was every relevant industry body pointing out that this is a major burden, could not be done on time, and would cost a fortune?

    And no, it's not just about harmless self-certification.
    Possibly because there's been disruption via the pandemic and these deadlines are pretty artificial and flexible now. If it takes a bit longer to get it right, then taking a bit longer is the right thing to do and quite different to being "loony" is it not?

    Had they been truly loony they'd have proceeded with the original date for the heck of it rather than doing it on a timeline that works.

    My Laptop currently has many marks printed on it. CE, FCC and many more. No doubt in the future UKCA will be another one added onto the list. I'm sure manufacturers will cope adding one more stamp into their design.

    If we want our standards to diverge, then we need our own marks. If they don't diverge, then verifying they meet both marks is a rubber stamp exercise.
    It is worth noting that - even in America - it is impossible up purchase electronics that are not CE certified.

    And I'd be staggered if anything sold in the EU was not FCC and UL certified (both US standards bodies).

    So the question becomes: will UK certification be a subset of other peoples' standards (in which case everyone will just stick the label on it, and no one will care), or does it contain additional requirements (in which case it's adding cost to manufacturers that want to sell into the UK).
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 31,341
    edited August 31
    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.

    Completely wrong.

    NATO subdued the Taliban, or rather made them go back to their homes and store their AKs after 9/11.

    NATO then, lead by the US, turned its attention to Iraq.

    And hence allowed the Taliban to manifest themselves once again.

    And when NATO went back into Afghan in 2006 the result was what we have seen over the past few weeks.
    The US withdrew most of its troops from Iraq in 2011, the Taliban did not regain Kabul until this summer.

    Even if there had been no Iraq invasion at all if the US was not prepared to commit to keep troops in Afghanistan permanently as it has in S Korea and Germany, then eventually the Taliban would regain power and jihadi militants would return
    Bingo. But you are blaming Biden and Trump particularly Biden. You are wrong. The Taliban began the takeover process over 15 years ago.
    It's the comparison of Afghanistan with Germany / S Korea which is rather sillier.
    No it isn't. The US had troops in Germany to keep out Russia, in S Korea to keep out N Korea and in Afghanistan to keep out the Taliban and AQ and other jihadi militants
    OK last chance. HYUFD your starter for 10. What is the difference between the US troops in Germany, Sth Korea and Afghanistan?

    No conferring.
    None, they are all there or were there to preserve western values and freedom and protect our national security
    LOL dear god man.

    Okay here's your clue: in only ONE of those places were/are the US troops combatants. Does that help bring it all to life for you and the differences between those examples?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 42,303
    rpjs said:

    This is hilarious. The Johnson administration is so incompetent that they can't even figure out how to rig the interview process to get Paul Dacre installed at Ofcom. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/aug/31/ministers-struggle-to-find-people-to-interview-paul-dacre-for-ofcom-job

    Well, at least they are interviewing him. With Spielman, Dick and Harding they didn’t even bother to do that.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,532
    TOPPING said:

    dixiedean said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Only in Britain - where our misanthropy means we need pets as a proxy to express our repressed feelings - would this ridiculously trivial story become news.
    I'm somewhat at a loss how dear Geronimo attracted so many defenders. Yes Llamas are fluffy creatures, but many animals are cute.
    The Peruvians I know find the whole thing a bit weird. Apparently tons of llamas got the chop there in various anti-TB campaigns.
    I remember the producer of Flight of the Condor got death threats, when he was filmed eating a guinea pig in Peru.
    One country's cute and cuddly pet is another's tasty main course.
    Should have seen the faces of my Taiwanese students when I innocently let slip I'd eaten and enjoyed rabbit.
    I was transformed into Hannibal Lecter.
    I love meat and will try any but I can't eat rabbit since I had pet rabbits.

    Its like eating puppies to me now.
    That American film can't remember which one had the protagonists pull up to a place out of the way that had a "Rabbits for Sale" sign outside.

    "Pets or meat" they were asked.
    My wife likes to tell the story of her father growing up in rural Rhode Island. The family had some rabbits in hutches, and his chore was to look after them, and as far as he knew, they were pets. One day he went to the hutches and his favourite rabbit was missing. He asked his parents where it was, and they told him it had been last night's dinner.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 40,902

    dixiedean said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Only in Britain - where our misanthropy means we need pets as a proxy to express our repressed feelings - would this ridiculously trivial story become news.
    I'm somewhat at a loss how dear Geronimo attracted so many defenders. Yes Llamas are fluffy creatures, but many animals are cute.
    The Peruvians I know find the whole thing a bit weird. Apparently tons of llamas got the chop there in various anti-TB campaigns.
    I remember the producer of Flight of the Condor got death threats, when he was filmed eating a guinea pig in Peru.
    One country's cute and cuddly pet is another's tasty main course.
    Should have seen the faces of my Taiwanese students when I innocently let slip I'd eaten and enjoyed rabbit.
    I was transformed into Hannibal Lecter.
    I love meat and will try any but I can't eat rabbit since I had pet rabbits.

    Its like eating puppies to me now.
    Ah, I remember the sign at the Butchers:

    Watership Down
    You've seen the movie
    You've read the book
    Now, eat the rabbits
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 8,737

    dixiedean said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Only in Britain - where our misanthropy means we need pets as a proxy to express our repressed feelings - would this ridiculously trivial story become news.
    I'm somewhat at a loss how dear Geronimo attracted so many defenders. Yes Llamas are fluffy creatures, but many animals are cute.
    The Peruvians I know find the whole thing a bit weird. Apparently tons of llamas got the chop there in various anti-TB campaigns.
    I remember the producer of Flight of the Condor got death threats, when he was filmed eating a guinea pig in Peru.
    One country's cute and cuddly pet is another's tasty main course.
    Should have seen the faces of my Taiwanese students when I innocently let slip I'd eaten and enjoyed rabbit.
    I was transformed into Hannibal Lecter.
    I love meat and will try any but I can't eat rabbit since I had pet rabbits.

    Its like eating puppies to me now.
    Read the first chapter of Good Behaviour by Molly Keane if you really want to be put off rabbit.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 24,527
    dixiedean said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Only in Britain - where our misanthropy means we need pets as a proxy to express our repressed feelings - would this ridiculously trivial story become news.
    I'm somewhat at a loss how dear Geronimo attracted so many defenders. Yes Llamas are fluffy creatures, but many animals are cute.
    The Peruvians I know find the whole thing a bit weird. Apparently tons of llamas got the chop there in various anti-TB campaigns.
    I remember the producer of Flight of the Condor got death threats, when he was filmed eating a guinea pig in Peru.
    One country's cute and cuddly pet is another's tasty main course.
    Should have seen the faces of my Taiwanese students when I innocently let slip I'd eaten and enjoyed rabbit.
    I was transformed into Hannibal Lecter.
    Couple of years ago I was stopped in the street by a couple of very attractive young girls who were, apparently, campaigning for some animal charity.
    "Cat or dog" they asked, apparently meaning which pet did I prefer.
    "Rabbit" I replied.
    "Why rabbit"
    "'Cos you can eat it!"
    They recoiled in horror and left.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,223
    edited August 31
    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.

    Completely wrong.

    NATO subdued the Taliban, or rather made them go back to their homes and store their AKs after 9/11.

    NATO then, lead by the US, turned its attention to Iraq.

    And hence allowed the Taliban to manifest themselves once again.

    And when NATO went back into Afghan in 2006 the result was what we have seen over the past few weeks.
    The US withdrew most of its troops from Iraq in 2011, the Taliban did not regain Kabul until this summer.

    Even if there had been no Iraq invasion at all if the US was not prepared to commit to keep troops in Afghanistan permanently as it has in S Korea and Germany, then eventually the Taliban would regain power and jihadi militants would return
    Bingo. But you are blaming Biden and Trump particularly Biden. You are wrong. The Taliban began the takeover process over 15 years ago.
    It's the comparison of Afghanistan with Germany / S Korea which is rather sillier.
    No it isn't. The US had troops in Germany to keep out Russia, in S Korea to keep out N Korea and in Afghanistan to keep out the Taliban and AQ and other jihadi militants
    OK last chance. HYUFD your starter for 10. What is the difference between the US troops in Germany, Sth Korea and Afghanistan?

    No conferring.
    None, they are all there or were there to preserve western values and freedom and protect our national security
    LOL dear god man.

    Okay here's your clue: in only ONE of those places were/are the US troops combatants. Does that help bring it all to life for you and the differences between those examples?
    Wrong, US troops were combatants in South Korea when North Korea invaded and stayed to keep them out.

    US troops were also combatants in Germany to remove the Nazis then stayed to keep the Soviets advancing into West Germany from East Germany
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 7,115
    rpjs said:

    This is hilarious. The Johnson administration is so incompetent that they can't even figure out how to rig the interview process to get Paul Dacre installed at Ofcom. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/aug/31/ministers-struggle-to-find-people-to-interview-paul-dacre-for-ofcom-job

    Quite extraordinary. Boris's regime is so obsessed with War on Woke that it's prepared to appoint the guy who had a man crush on Gordon Brown.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 2,620
    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.

    Completely wrong.

    NATO subdued the Taliban, or rather made them go back to their homes and store their AKs after 9/11.

    NATO then, lead by the US, turned its attention to Iraq.

    And hence allowed the Taliban to manifest themselves once again.

    And when NATO went back into Afghan in 2006 the result was what we have seen over the past few weeks.
    The US withdrew most of its troops from Iraq in 2011, the Taliban did not regain Kabul until this summer.

    Even if there had been no Iraq invasion at all if the US was not prepared to commit to keep troops in Afghanistan permanently as it has in S Korea and Germany, then eventually the Taliban would regain power and jihadi militants would return
    Bingo. But you are blaming Biden and Trump particularly Biden. You are wrong. The Taliban began the takeover process over 15 years ago.
    It's the comparison of Afghanistan with Germany / S Korea which is rather sillier.
    No it isn't. The US had troops in Germany to keep out Russia, in S Korea to keep out N Korea and in Afghanistan to keep out the Taliban and AQ and other jihadi militants
    OK last chance. HYUFD your starter for 10. What is the difference between the US troops in Germany, Sth Korea and Afghanistan?

    No conferring.
    None, they are all there or were there to preserve western values and freedom and protect our national security
    LOL dear god man.

    Okay here's your clue: in only ONE of those places were/are the US troops combatants. Does that help bring it all to life for you and the differences between those examples?
    Wrong, US troops were combatants in South Korea when North Korea invaded and stayed to keep them out.

    US troops were also combatants in Germany to remove the Nazis then stayed to keep the Soviets advancing into West Germany from East Germany
    Life for US troops in Afghanistan after 20 years was a lot spicier than life was in either South Korea or Germany after 20 years. But I think you are correct with your broad point. Afghanistan was a multi generational project whereas the rebuilding of civil society in the others were complete within two decades.

    With about half the country now under the age of 20, it actually may not have taken as long as some feared for the changes in society to have been stickier. Another 10-20 years and we may have had a relatively stable country at the core, with unstable border regions thanks to external actors.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 68,919
    edited August 31
    rcs1000 said:

    dixiedean said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Only in Britain - where our misanthropy means we need pets as a proxy to express our repressed feelings - would this ridiculously trivial story become news.
    I'm somewhat at a loss how dear Geronimo attracted so many defenders. Yes Llamas are fluffy creatures, but many animals are cute.
    The Peruvians I know find the whole thing a bit weird. Apparently tons of llamas got the chop there in various anti-TB campaigns.
    I remember the producer of Flight of the Condor got death threats, when he was filmed eating a guinea pig in Peru.
    One country's cute and cuddly pet is another's tasty main course.
    Should have seen the faces of my Taiwanese students when I innocently let slip I'd eaten and enjoyed rabbit.
    I was transformed into Hannibal Lecter.
    I love meat and will try any but I can't eat rabbit since I had pet rabbits.

    Its like eating puppies to me now.
    Ah, I remember the sign at the Butchers:

    Watership Down
    You've seen the movie
    You've read the book
    Now, eat the rabbits
    Effective. The rabbits are so accepting of a world out to kill them, it being part of their mythology, and engaged in some truly vicious fighting including escaping rabbit North Korea that eating them seems like a sweet relief.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 33,330
    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.

    Completely wrong.

    NATO subdued the Taliban, or rather made them go back to their homes and store their AKs after 9/11.

    NATO then, lead by the US, turned its attention to Iraq.

    And hence allowed the Taliban to manifest themselves once again.

    And when NATO went back into Afghan in 2006 the result was what we have seen over the past few weeks.
    The US withdrew most of its troops from Iraq in 2011, the Taliban did not regain Kabul until this summer.

    Even if there had been no Iraq invasion at all if the US was not prepared to commit to keep troops in Afghanistan permanently as it has in S Korea and Germany, then eventually the Taliban would regain power and jihadi militants would return
    Bingo. But you are blaming Biden and Trump particularly Biden. You are wrong. The Taliban began the takeover process over 15 years ago.
    It's the comparison of Afghanistan with Germany / S Korea which is rather sillier.
    No it isn't. The US had troops in Germany to keep out Russia, in S Korea to keep out N Korea and in Afghanistan to keep out the Taliban and AQ and other jihadi militants
    OK last chance. HYUFD your starter for 10. What is the difference between the US troops in Germany, Sth Korea and Afghanistan?

    No conferring.
    None, they are all there or were there to preserve western values and freedom and protect our national security
    LOL dear god man.

    Okay here's your clue: in only ONE of those places were/are the US troops combatants. Does that help bring it all to life for you and the differences between those examples?
    Wrong, US troops were combatants in South Korea when North Korea invaded and stayed to keep them out.

    US troops were also combatants in Germany to remove the Nazis then stayed to keep the Soviets advancing into West Germany from East Germany
    Generally not in combat against the inhabitants of the country, though.

    The closer comparison, which you are avoiding either our of sheer stubbornness or ignorance, is Vietnam.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 42,303

    dixiedean said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Only in Britain - where our misanthropy means we need pets as a proxy to express our repressed feelings - would this ridiculously trivial story become news.
    I'm somewhat at a loss how dear Geronimo attracted so many defenders. Yes Llamas are fluffy creatures, but many animals are cute.
    The Peruvians I know find the whole thing a bit weird. Apparently tons of llamas got the chop there in various anti-TB campaigns.
    I remember the producer of Flight of the Condor got death threats, when he was filmed eating a guinea pig in Peru.
    One country's cute and cuddly pet is another's tasty main course.
    Should have seen the faces of my Taiwanese students when I innocently let slip I'd eaten and enjoyed rabbit.
    I was transformed into Hannibal Lecter.
    Couple of years ago I was stopped in the street by a couple of very attractive young girls who were, apparently, campaigning for some animal charity.
    "Cat or dog" they asked, apparently meaning which pet did I prefer.
    "Rabbit" I replied.
    "Why rabbit"
    "'Cos you can eat it!"
    They recoiled in horror and left.
    You can eat rabbit?

    Roger that…
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 29,074
    My then 4-year-old nephew was so inspired by the Beatrix Potter books and Mr McGregor threatening to eat Peter Rabbit that he asked his mother to cook rabbit for him. I already knew this, when he told me about it himself:

    "Uncle Richard, have you ever eaten rabbit?"

    "Yes, George, lots of times."

    pause

    "I wanted to try rabbit, so I ordered some for my supper."
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 62,858


    Possibly because there's been disruption via the pandemic and these deadlines are pretty artificial and flexible now. If it takes a bit longer to get it right, then taking a bit longer is the right thing to do and quite different to being "loony" is it not?

    Had they been truly loony they'd have proceeded with the original date for the heck of it rather than doing it on a timeline that works.

    My Laptop currently has many marks printed on it. CE, FCC and many more. No doubt in the future UKCA will be another one added onto the list. I'm sure manufacturers will cope adding one more stamp into their design.

    If we want our standards to diverge, then we need our own marks. If they don't diverge, then verifying they meet both marks is a rubber stamp exercise.

    What you don't seem to be able to understand is that it's a rubber-stamp exercise that costs money, potentially a lot of money, and we are far too small a market for many manufacturers to bother with it, given that CE marks give them access to the entire EU, EFTA, Turkey, and via reciprocal agreements often the US, Japan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Israel. Of course large companies will be able to afford to put UKCA marks on their major lines, but they won't necessarily bother with minor products, and smaller suppliers will just stay away from the UK market. So increased costs and reduced choice for consumers, duplicated costs for UK manufacturers, and potentially real headaches for UK manufacturers who can't persuade their foreign suppliers to waste money and effort on getting UKCA certification for parts in their supply chains. And all for what? I've asked before - what are these dangerous legitimately CE-marked products we're trying to keep out? Can you point to a single one?

    As for diverging standards, most of these standards are international, so it's largely irrelevant. But if we did ever want to keep out one or two specific CE-marked product categories, it's still possible to do that without throwing the whole system in the bin, as other jurisdictions do.
    The UK is not a small market, it is one of the largest economies in the world, so if businesses want to bother with it they will.

    I expect almost everything will end up dual-stamped CE and UKCA (just as so many things are already dual-stamped CE and FCC).

    As for what for, its so we can choose what standards we want. Sometimes that could be a case of demanding higher standards than the EU has, whether that be for environmental or other reasons. Other times it could be because we want to permit something the EU doesn't. That's all about choice.

    For those standards that are international, then UKCA will no doubt mirror the international rules and be yet another stamp alongside CE, FCC and others that already appears on products.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 31,341
    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.

    Completely wrong.

    NATO subdued the Taliban, or rather made them go back to their homes and store their AKs after 9/11.

    NATO then, lead by the US, turned its attention to Iraq.

    And hence allowed the Taliban to manifest themselves once again.

    And when NATO went back into Afghan in 2006 the result was what we have seen over the past few weeks.
    The US withdrew most of its troops from Iraq in 2011, the Taliban did not regain Kabul until this summer.

    Even if there had been no Iraq invasion at all if the US was not prepared to commit to keep troops in Afghanistan permanently as it has in S Korea and Germany, then eventually the Taliban would regain power and jihadi militants would return
    Bingo. But you are blaming Biden and Trump particularly Biden. You are wrong. The Taliban began the takeover process over 15 years ago.
    It's the comparison of Afghanistan with Germany / S Korea which is rather sillier.
    No it isn't. The US had troops in Germany to keep out Russia, in S Korea to keep out N Korea and in Afghanistan to keep out the Taliban and AQ and other jihadi militants
    OK last chance. HYUFD your starter for 10. What is the difference between the US troops in Germany, Sth Korea and Afghanistan?

    No conferring.
    None, they are all there or were there to preserve western values and freedom and protect our national security
    LOL dear god man.

    Okay here's your clue: in only ONE of those places were/are the US troops combatants. Does that help bring it all to life for you and the differences between those examples?
    Wrong, US troops were combatants in South Korea when North Korea invaded and stayed to keep them out.

    US troops were also combatants in Germany to remove the Nazis then stayed to keep the Soviets advancing into West Germany from East Germany
    Gah. US troops are now combatants in Afghan and hence they are the direct target of the Taliban. This is not the case in South Korea or Germany or indeed the UK.

    If US troops were to stay in Afghan then the Taliban would have resumed killing them and Biden would have had either to pull out completely or ramp up the war to protect them.

    But look, if you can't see this, then that's fine. You wouldn't be the only one.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,970
    Sean_F said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    It was inevitable. Either send back in 400,000 soldiers or withdraw.

    They were never going to send in 400,000 more troops hence it was inevitable that we would reach this state sooner or later.

    It's not either/or. There's a scenario of withdrawing now AND sending in lots of troops later. Quite a likely one.
    Can't see it. What was that definition of madness again?
    I think it was something about surrendering when you haven't lost.

    We'll have to see what happens, but I think the possibility of Afghanistan and the adjacent lawless regions of Pakistan becoming the global centre of a very large terrorist/jihad movement, far more dangerous than Al Queda in 2001 and ISIS more recently, is a pretty likely one. Even if the Taliban leadership, or some of them, are sincere in their promises now, they are likely to be overtaken by the momentum which Biden has unleashed.

    And then what does the West do?
    The Taliban aren't fools, they are rational players and they don't want such operators in the country.

    But yes we will see.
    I would not count on their rationality.

    400,000 soldiers were never needed in Afghanistan. Before Doha, the situation was a stalemate, maintained by a fairly small NATO presence.
    This is where Blair had a point about the imbecility of the rhetoric around ending the "forever war".

    There are lots of places in the world that still have modest garrisons after decade, despite the kinetics being very-low - like Cyprus and NI.

    You don't just pull the plug.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 40,902
    moonshine said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.

    Completely wrong.

    NATO subdued the Taliban, or rather made them go back to their homes and store their AKs after 9/11.

    NATO then, lead by the US, turned its attention to Iraq.

    And hence allowed the Taliban to manifest themselves once again.

    And when NATO went back into Afghan in 2006 the result was what we have seen over the past few weeks.
    The US withdrew most of its troops from Iraq in 2011, the Taliban did not regain Kabul until this summer.

    Even if there had been no Iraq invasion at all if the US was not prepared to commit to keep troops in Afghanistan permanently as it has in S Korea and Germany, then eventually the Taliban would regain power and jihadi militants would return
    Bingo. But you are blaming Biden and Trump particularly Biden. You are wrong. The Taliban began the takeover process over 15 years ago.
    It's the comparison of Afghanistan with Germany / S Korea which is rather sillier.
    No it isn't. The US had troops in Germany to keep out Russia, in S Korea to keep out N Korea and in Afghanistan to keep out the Taliban and AQ and other jihadi militants
    OK last chance. HYUFD your starter for 10. What is the difference between the US troops in Germany, Sth Korea and Afghanistan?

    No conferring.
    None, they are all there or were there to preserve western values and freedom and protect our national security
    LOL dear god man.

    Okay here's your clue: in only ONE of those places were/are the US troops combatants. Does that help bring it all to life for you and the differences between those examples?
    Wrong, US troops were combatants in South Korea when North Korea invaded and stayed to keep them out.

    US troops were also combatants in Germany to remove the Nazis then stayed to keep the Soviets advancing into West Germany from East Germany
    Life for US troops in Afghanistan after 20 years was a lot spicier than life was in either South Korea or Germany after 20 years. But I think you are correct with your broad point. Afghanistan was a multi generational project whereas the rebuilding of civil society in the others were complete within two decades.

    With about half the country now under the age of 20, it actually may not have taken as long as some feared for the changes in society to have been stickier. Another 10-20 years and we may have had a relatively stable country at the core, with unstable border regions thanks to external actors.
    Hmmm: the areas with the higher birth rates were the rural ones, where the remit of the central government was a lot weaker.

  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,970
    rcs1000 said:

    moonshine said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.

    Completely wrong.

    NATO subdued the Taliban, or rather made them go back to their homes and store their AKs after 9/11.

    NATO then, lead by the US, turned its attention to Iraq.

    And hence allowed the Taliban to manifest themselves once again.

    And when NATO went back into Afghan in 2006 the result was what we have seen over the past few weeks.
    The US withdrew most of its troops from Iraq in 2011, the Taliban did not regain Kabul until this summer.

    Even if there had been no Iraq invasion at all if the US was not prepared to commit to keep troops in Afghanistan permanently as it has in S Korea and Germany, then eventually the Taliban would regain power and jihadi militants would return
    Bingo. But you are blaming Biden and Trump particularly Biden. You are wrong. The Taliban began the takeover process over 15 years ago.
    It's the comparison of Afghanistan with Germany / S Korea which is rather sillier.
    No it isn't. The US had troops in Germany to keep out Russia, in S Korea to keep out N Korea and in Afghanistan to keep out the Taliban and AQ and other jihadi militants
    OK last chance. HYUFD your starter for 10. What is the difference between the US troops in Germany, Sth Korea and Afghanistan?

    No conferring.
    None, they are all there or were there to preserve western values and freedom and protect our national security
    LOL dear god man.

    Okay here's your clue: in only ONE of those places were/are the US troops combatants. Does that help bring it all to life for you and the differences between those examples?
    Wrong, US troops were combatants in South Korea when North Korea invaded and stayed to keep them out.

    US troops were also combatants in Germany to remove the Nazis then stayed to keep the Soviets advancing into West Germany from East Germany
    Life for US troops in Afghanistan after 20 years was a lot spicier than life was in either South Korea or Germany after 20 years. But I think you are correct with your broad point. Afghanistan was a multi generational project whereas the rebuilding of civil society in the others were complete within two decades.

    With about half the country now under the age of 20, it actually may not have taken as long as some feared for the changes in society to have been stickier. Another 10-20 years and we may have had a relatively stable country at the core, with unstable border regions thanks to external actors.
    Hmmm: the areas with the higher birth rates were the rural ones, where the remit of the central government was a lot weaker.

    All about how many babies you have, innit?

    Maybe the West should adopt policies that encourage us to breed like rabbits.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 40,902

    rcs1000 said:

    moonshine said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.

    Completely wrong.

    NATO subdued the Taliban, or rather made them go back to their homes and store their AKs after 9/11.

    NATO then, lead by the US, turned its attention to Iraq.

    And hence allowed the Taliban to manifest themselves once again.

    And when NATO went back into Afghan in 2006 the result was what we have seen over the past few weeks.
    The US withdrew most of its troops from Iraq in 2011, the Taliban did not regain Kabul until this summer.

    Even if there had been no Iraq invasion at all if the US was not prepared to commit to keep troops in Afghanistan permanently as it has in S Korea and Germany, then eventually the Taliban would regain power and jihadi militants would return
    Bingo. But you are blaming Biden and Trump particularly Biden. You are wrong. The Taliban began the takeover process over 15 years ago.
    It's the comparison of Afghanistan with Germany / S Korea which is rather sillier.
    No it isn't. The US had troops in Germany to keep out Russia, in S Korea to keep out N Korea and in Afghanistan to keep out the Taliban and AQ and other jihadi militants
    OK last chance. HYUFD your starter for 10. What is the difference between the US troops in Germany, Sth Korea and Afghanistan?

    No conferring.
    None, they are all there or were there to preserve western values and freedom and protect our national security
    LOL dear god man.

    Okay here's your clue: in only ONE of those places were/are the US troops combatants. Does that help bring it all to life for you and the differences between those examples?
    Wrong, US troops were combatants in South Korea when North Korea invaded and stayed to keep them out.

    US troops were also combatants in Germany to remove the Nazis then stayed to keep the Soviets advancing into West Germany from East Germany
    Life for US troops in Afghanistan after 20 years was a lot spicier than life was in either South Korea or Germany after 20 years. But I think you are correct with your broad point. Afghanistan was a multi generational project whereas the rebuilding of civil society in the others were complete within two decades.

    With about half the country now under the age of 20, it actually may not have taken as long as some feared for the changes in society to have been stickier. Another 10-20 years and we may have had a relatively stable country at the core, with unstable border regions thanks to external actors.
    Hmmm: the areas with the higher birth rates were the rural ones, where the remit of the central government was a lot weaker.

    All about how many babies you have, innit?

    Maybe the West should adopt policies that encourage us to breed like rabbits.
    Very good - you managed to bring the two "threads" together in a single comment :smile:

    The French (very sensibly) have such policies. Have a baby, and get to add their tax thresholds to your own. It means that someone who earns €70,000 per year is actually better off after having a child than they were before. It subsidies people with jobs having children, but not those who do not.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 62,858

    rcs1000 said:

    moonshine said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.

    Completely wrong.

    NATO subdued the Taliban, or rather made them go back to their homes and store their AKs after 9/11.

    NATO then, lead by the US, turned its attention to Iraq.

    And hence allowed the Taliban to manifest themselves once again.

    And when NATO went back into Afghan in 2006 the result was what we have seen over the past few weeks.
    The US withdrew most of its troops from Iraq in 2011, the Taliban did not regain Kabul until this summer.

    Even if there had been no Iraq invasion at all if the US was not prepared to commit to keep troops in Afghanistan permanently as it has in S Korea and Germany, then eventually the Taliban would regain power and jihadi militants would return
    Bingo. But you are blaming Biden and Trump particularly Biden. You are wrong. The Taliban began the takeover process over 15 years ago.
    It's the comparison of Afghanistan with Germany / S Korea which is rather sillier.
    No it isn't. The US had troops in Germany to keep out Russia, in S Korea to keep out N Korea and in Afghanistan to keep out the Taliban and AQ and other jihadi militants
    OK last chance. HYUFD your starter for 10. What is the difference between the US troops in Germany, Sth Korea and Afghanistan?

    No conferring.
    None, they are all there or were there to preserve western values and freedom and protect our national security
    LOL dear god man.

    Okay here's your clue: in only ONE of those places were/are the US troops combatants. Does that help bring it all to life for you and the differences between those examples?
    Wrong, US troops were combatants in South Korea when North Korea invaded and stayed to keep them out.

    US troops were also combatants in Germany to remove the Nazis then stayed to keep the Soviets advancing into West Germany from East Germany
    Life for US troops in Afghanistan after 20 years was a lot spicier than life was in either South Korea or Germany after 20 years. But I think you are correct with your broad point. Afghanistan was a multi generational project whereas the rebuilding of civil society in the others were complete within two decades.

    With about half the country now under the age of 20, it actually may not have taken as long as some feared for the changes in society to have been stickier. Another 10-20 years and we may have had a relatively stable country at the core, with unstable border regions thanks to external actors.
    Hmmm: the areas with the higher birth rates were the rural ones, where the remit of the central government was a lot weaker.

    All about how many babies you have, innit?

    Maybe the West should adopt policies that encourage us to breed like rabbits.
    For BBQs? 😋
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,223
    edited August 31

    rcs1000 said:

    moonshine said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.

    Completely wrong.

    NATO subdued the Taliban, or rather made them go back to their homes and store their AKs after 9/11.

    NATO then, lead by the US, turned its attention to Iraq.

    And hence allowed the Taliban to manifest themselves once again.

    And when NATO went back into Afghan in 2006 the result was what we have seen over the past few weeks.
    The US withdrew most of its troops from Iraq in 2011, the Taliban did not regain Kabul until this summer.

    Even if there had been no Iraq invasion at all if the US was not prepared to commit to keep troops in Afghanistan permanently as it has in S Korea and Germany, then eventually the Taliban would regain power and jihadi militants would return
    Bingo. But you are blaming Biden and Trump particularly Biden. You are wrong. The Taliban began the takeover process over 15 years ago.
    It's the comparison of Afghanistan with Germany / S Korea which is rather sillier.
    No it isn't. The US had troops in Germany to keep out Russia, in S Korea to keep out N Korea and in Afghanistan to keep out the Taliban and AQ and other jihadi militants
    OK last chance. HYUFD your starter for 10. What is the difference between the US troops in Germany, Sth Korea and Afghanistan?

    No conferring.
    None, they are all there or were there to preserve western values and freedom and protect our national security
    LOL dear god man.

    Okay here's your clue: in only ONE of those places were/are the US troops combatants. Does that help bring it all to life for you and the differences between those examples?
    Wrong, US troops were combatants in South Korea when North Korea invaded and stayed to keep them out.

    US troops were also combatants in Germany to remove the Nazis then stayed to keep the Soviets advancing into West Germany from East Germany
    Life for US troops in Afghanistan after 20 years was a lot spicier than life was in either South Korea or Germany after 20 years. But I think you are correct with your broad point. Afghanistan was a multi generational project whereas the rebuilding of civil society in the others were complete within two decades.

    With about half the country now under the age of 20, it actually may not have taken as long as some feared for the changes in society to have been stickier. Another 10-20 years and we may have had a relatively stable country at the core, with unstable border regions thanks to external actors.
    Hmmm: the areas with the higher birth rates were the rural ones, where the remit of the central government was a lot weaker.

    All about how many babies you have, innit?

    Maybe the West should adopt policies that encourage us to breed like rabbits.
    That would require more religion, the more you are a strict Christian, Muslim or Jewish family the more likely you are to have lots of children. Hence the highest birthrates in the world now are in Africa, South Asia, the Middle East and amongst Orthodox Jews, especially in Israel
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 33,330
    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.

    Completely wrong.

    NATO subdued the Taliban, or rather made them go back to their homes and store their AKs after 9/11.

    NATO then, lead by the US, turned its attention to Iraq.

    And hence allowed the Taliban to manifest themselves once again.

    And when NATO went back into Afghan in 2006 the result was what we have seen over the past few weeks.
    The US withdrew most of its troops from Iraq in 2011, the Taliban did not regain Kabul until this summer.

    Even if there had been no Iraq invasion at all if the US was not prepared to commit to keep troops in Afghanistan permanently as it has in S Korea and Germany, then eventually the Taliban would regain power and jihadi militants would return
    Bingo. But you are blaming Biden and Trump particularly Biden. You are wrong. The Taliban began the takeover process over 15 years ago.
    It's the comparison of Afghanistan with Germany / S Korea which is rather sillier.
    No it isn't. The US had troops in Germany to keep out Russia, in S Korea to keep out N Korea and in Afghanistan to keep out the Taliban and AQ and other jihadi militants
    OK last chance. HYUFD your starter for 10. What is the difference between the US troops in Germany, Sth Korea and Afghanistan?

    No conferring.
    None, they are all there or were there to preserve western values and freedom and protect our national security
    LOL dear god man.

    Okay here's your clue: in only ONE of those places were/are the US troops combatants. Does that help bring it all to life for you and the differences between those examples?
    Wrong, US troops were combatants in South Korea when North Korea invaded and stayed to keep them out.

    US troops were also combatants in Germany to remove the Nazis then stayed to keep the Soviets advancing into West Germany from East Germany
    Gah. US troops are now combatants in Afghan and hence they are the direct target of the Taliban. This is not the case in South Korea or Germany or indeed the UK.

    If US troops were to stay in Afghan then the Taliban would have resumed killing them and Biden would have had either to pull out completely or ramp up the war to protect them.

    But look, if you can't see this, then that's fine. You wouldn't be the only one.
    It's a little remembered fact that the US general who defeated the North Koreans - Matt Ridgway - strongly opposed US involvement in Vietnam for similar reasons.
    One of the very best of the WWII generation.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 24,527
    edited August 31
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    moonshine said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.

    Completely wrong.

    NATO subdued the Taliban, or rather made them go back to their homes and store their AKs after 9/11.

    NATO then, lead by the US, turned its attention to Iraq.

    And hence allowed the Taliban to manifest themselves once again.

    And when NATO went back into Afghan in 2006 the result was what we have seen over the past few weeks.
    The US withdrew most of its troops from Iraq in 2011, the Taliban did not regain Kabul until this summer.

    Even if there had been no Iraq invasion at all if the US was not prepared to commit to keep troops in Afghanistan permanently as it has in S Korea and Germany, then eventually the Taliban would regain power and jihadi militants would return
    Bingo. But you are blaming Biden and Trump particularly Biden. You are wrong. The Taliban began the takeover process over 15 years ago.
    It's the comparison of Afghanistan with Germany / S Korea which is rather sillier.
    No it isn't. The US had troops in Germany to keep out Russia, in S Korea to keep out N Korea and in Afghanistan to keep out the Taliban and AQ and other jihadi militants
    OK last chance. HYUFD your starter for 10. What is the difference between the US troops in Germany, Sth Korea and Afghanistan?

    No conferring.
    None, they are all there or were there to preserve western values and freedom and protect our national security
    LOL dear god man.

    Okay here's your clue: in only ONE of those places were/are the US troops combatants. Does that help bring it all to life for you and the differences between those examples?
    Wrong, US troops were combatants in South Korea when North Korea invaded and stayed to keep them out.

    US troops were also combatants in Germany to remove the Nazis then stayed to keep the Soviets advancing into West Germany from East Germany
    Life for US troops in Afghanistan after 20 years was a lot spicier than life was in either South Korea or Germany after 20 years. But I think you are correct with your broad point. Afghanistan was a multi generational project whereas the rebuilding of civil society in the others were complete within two decades.

    With about half the country now under the age of 20, it actually may not have taken as long as some feared for the changes in society to have been stickier. Another 10-20 years and we may have had a relatively stable country at the core, with unstable border regions thanks to external actors.
    Hmmm: the areas with the higher birth rates were the rural ones, where the remit of the central government was a lot weaker.

    All about how many babies you have, innit?

    Maybe the West should adopt policies that encourage us to breed like rabbits.
    That would require more religion, the more you are a strict Christian, Muslim or Jewish family the more likely you are to have lots of children. Hence the highest birthrates in the world now are in Africa, South Asia, the Middle East and amongst Orthodox Jews, especially in Israel
    That engenders a few frightening thoughts.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 40,902
    edited August 31
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    moonshine said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.

    Completely wrong.

    NATO subdued the Taliban, or rather made them go back to their homes and store their AKs after 9/11.

    NATO then, lead by the US, turned its attention to Iraq.

    And hence allowed the Taliban to manifest themselves once again.

    And when NATO went back into Afghan in 2006 the result was what we have seen over the past few weeks.
    The US withdrew most of its troops from Iraq in 2011, the Taliban did not regain Kabul until this summer.

    Even if there had been no Iraq invasion at all if the US was not prepared to commit to keep troops in Afghanistan permanently as it has in S Korea and Germany, then eventually the Taliban would regain power and jihadi militants would return
    Bingo. But you are blaming Biden and Trump particularly Biden. You are wrong. The Taliban began the takeover process over 15 years ago.
    It's the comparison of Afghanistan with Germany / S Korea which is rather sillier.
    No it isn't. The US had troops in Germany to keep out Russia, in S Korea to keep out N Korea and in Afghanistan to keep out the Taliban and AQ and other jihadi militants
    OK last chance. HYUFD your starter for 10. What is the difference between the US troops in Germany, Sth Korea and Afghanistan?

    No conferring.
    None, they are all there or were there to preserve western values and freedom and protect our national security
    LOL dear god man.

    Okay here's your clue: in only ONE of those places were/are the US troops combatants. Does that help bring it all to life for you and the differences between those examples?
    Wrong, US troops were combatants in South Korea when North Korea invaded and stayed to keep them out.

    US troops were also combatants in Germany to remove the Nazis then stayed to keep the Soviets advancing into West Germany from East Germany
    Life for US troops in Afghanistan after 20 years was a lot spicier than life was in either South Korea or Germany after 20 years. But I think you are correct with your broad point. Afghanistan was a multi generational project whereas the rebuilding of civil society in the others were complete within two decades.

    With about half the country now under the age of 20, it actually may not have taken as long as some feared for the changes in society to have been stickier. Another 10-20 years and we may have had a relatively stable country at the core, with unstable border regions thanks to external actors.
    Hmmm: the areas with the higher birth rates were the rural ones, where the remit of the central government was a lot weaker.

    All about how many babies you have, innit?

    Maybe the West should adopt policies that encourage us to breed like rabbits.
    That would require more religion, the more you are a strict Christian, Muslim or Jewish family the more likely you are to have lots of children. Hence the highest birthrates in the world now are in Africa, South Asia, the Middle East and amongst Orthodox Jews, especially in Israel
    Yet in Europe, the countries with higher religosity scores (Spain, Italy) actually have lower birth rates than countries with more atheists (Sweden, UK).

    But feel free to give me some reason why the data is wrong and you are right.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,223
    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.

    Completely wrong.

    NATO subdued the Taliban, or rather made them go back to their homes and store their AKs after 9/11.

    NATO then, lead by the US, turned its attention to Iraq.

    And hence allowed the Taliban to manifest themselves once again.

    And when NATO went back into Afghan in 2006 the result was what we have seen over the past few weeks.
    The US withdrew most of its troops from Iraq in 2011, the Taliban did not regain Kabul until this summer.

    Even if there had been no Iraq invasion at all if the US was not prepared to commit to keep troops in Afghanistan permanently as it has in S Korea and Germany, then eventually the Taliban would regain power and jihadi militants would return
    Bingo. But you are blaming Biden and Trump particularly Biden. You are wrong. The Taliban began the takeover process over 15 years ago.
    It's the comparison of Afghanistan with Germany / S Korea which is rather sillier.
    No it isn't. The US had troops in Germany to keep out Russia, in S Korea to keep out N Korea and in Afghanistan to keep out the Taliban and AQ and other jihadi militants
    OK last chance. HYUFD your starter for 10. What is the difference between the US troops in Germany, Sth Korea and Afghanistan?

    No conferring.
    None, they are all there or were there to preserve western values and freedom and protect our national security
    LOL dear god man.

    Okay here's your clue: in only ONE of those places were/are the US troops combatants. Does that help bring it all to life for you and the differences between those examples?
    Wrong, US troops were combatants in South Korea when North Korea invaded and stayed to keep them out.

    US troops were also combatants in Germany to remove the Nazis then stayed to keep the Soviets advancing into West Germany from East Germany
    Generally not in combat against the inhabitants of the country, though.

    The closer comparison, which you are avoiding either our of sheer stubbornness or ignorance, is Vietnam.
    Vietnam was closer to Korea than Afghanistan ie North Vietnam was only able to capure South Vietnam once the US withdrew troops.

    However the same principle applies, if US troops were still in South Vietnam it would probably be much like South Korea is today
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 5,894
    We kept pet rabbits when I was a child. We ate them too.

    They were just as delicious when you knew their names.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,223
    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.

    Completely wrong.

    NATO subdued the Taliban, or rather made them go back to their homes and store their AKs after 9/11.

    NATO then, lead by the US, turned its attention to Iraq.

    And hence allowed the Taliban to manifest themselves once again.

    And when NATO went back into Afghan in 2006 the result was what we have seen over the past few weeks.
    The US withdrew most of its troops from Iraq in 2011, the Taliban did not regain Kabul until this summer.

    Even if there had been no Iraq invasion at all if the US was not prepared to commit to keep troops in Afghanistan permanently as it has in S Korea and Germany, then eventually the Taliban would regain power and jihadi militants would return
    Bingo. But you are blaming Biden and Trump particularly Biden. You are wrong. The Taliban began the takeover process over 15 years ago.
    It's the comparison of Afghanistan with Germany / S Korea which is rather sillier.
    No it isn't. The US had troops in Germany to keep out Russia, in S Korea to keep out N Korea and in Afghanistan to keep out the Taliban and AQ and other jihadi militants
    OK last chance. HYUFD your starter for 10. What is the difference between the US troops in Germany, Sth Korea and Afghanistan?

    No conferring.
    None, they are all there or were there to preserve western values and freedom and protect our national security
    LOL dear god man.

    Okay here's your clue: in only ONE of those places were/are the US troops combatants. Does that help bring it all to life for you and the differences between those examples?
    Wrong, US troops were combatants in South Korea when North Korea invaded and stayed to keep them out.

    US troops were also combatants in Germany to remove the Nazis then stayed to keep the Soviets advancing into West Germany from East Germany
    Gah. US troops are now combatants in Afghan and hence they are the direct target of the Taliban. This is not the case in South Korea or Germany or indeed the UK.

    If US troops were to stay in Afghan then the Taliban would have resumed killing them and Biden would have had either to pull out completely or ramp up the war to protect them.

    But look, if you can't see this, then that's fine. You wouldn't be the only one.
    So what, Afghanistan would still have an elected government not the Taliban in charge and jihadi militants would not be setting up bases across the country again as they will now
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 31,341
    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.

    Completely wrong.

    NATO subdued the Taliban, or rather made them go back to their homes and store their AKs after 9/11.

    NATO then, lead by the US, turned its attention to Iraq.

    And hence allowed the Taliban to manifest themselves once again.

    And when NATO went back into Afghan in 2006 the result was what we have seen over the past few weeks.
    The US withdrew most of its troops from Iraq in 2011, the Taliban did not regain Kabul until this summer.

    Even if there had been no Iraq invasion at all if the US was not prepared to commit to keep troops in Afghanistan permanently as it has in S Korea and Germany, then eventually the Taliban would regain power and jihadi militants would return
    Bingo. But you are blaming Biden and Trump particularly Biden. You are wrong. The Taliban began the takeover process over 15 years ago.
    It's the comparison of Afghanistan with Germany / S Korea which is rather sillier.
    No it isn't. The US had troops in Germany to keep out Russia, in S Korea to keep out N Korea and in Afghanistan to keep out the Taliban and AQ and other jihadi militants
    OK last chance. HYUFD your starter for 10. What is the difference between the US troops in Germany, Sth Korea and Afghanistan?

    No conferring.
    None, they are all there or were there to preserve western values and freedom and protect our national security
    LOL dear god man.

    Okay here's your clue: in only ONE of those places were/are the US troops combatants. Does that help bring it all to life for you and the differences between those examples?
    Wrong, US troops were combatants in South Korea when North Korea invaded and stayed to keep them out.

    US troops were also combatants in Germany to remove the Nazis then stayed to keep the Soviets advancing into West Germany from East Germany
    Gah. US troops are now combatants in Afghan and hence they are the direct target of the Taliban. This is not the case in South Korea or Germany or indeed the UK.

    If US troops were to stay in Afghan then the Taliban would have resumed killing them and Biden would have had either to pull out completely or ramp up the war to protect them.

    But look, if you can't see this, then that's fine. You wouldn't be the only one.
    It's a little remembered fact that the US general who defeated the North Koreans - Matt Ridgway - strongly opposed US involvement in Vietnam for similar reasons.
    One of the very best of the WWII generation.
    Yes indeed. But I suppose there are publics to satisfy both one way and the other. We are a fickle, capricious lot.

    And I will leave you to "discuss" with HYUFD about all this as I find that what strength I had has now evaporated.
This discussion has been closed.