LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!

TheBigBean

Jezyboy said:

TheBigBean said:

Jezyboy said:

So far I think my favourite take is that this is basically fine because life isn't "that" bad under the taliban.

I should point out that it's my favourite as it is absolutely nuts.

For some it won't even be a change of lifestyle. The burka shop may be doing a roaring trade now, but it was still in business for the last 20 years.

So it seems pretty disastrous for all young women. Judging by the scenes at Kabul Airport it also seems undesirable for loads of young men. I guess the hope is that this time the taliban don't get themselves caught up in international terrorist organisations, and so long as that's the case, we'll leave them alone.

As for the mountains of physical cash the ex politicians are leaving with...well it is disgusting, but politicians over the world are corrupt and I don't think I have seen an example where the hard-line fanatics posing as alternatives are any better.

Background from wikipedia. The Taliban wasn't that corrupt. It was one of the reasons for its successful rise the first time.

After the U.S. overthrew the Taliban in 2001, corruption, which had been common in pre-Taliban Afghanistan, once again became a major feature of Afghan life, spreading to virtually every branch of the government and even to regional localities.[5] A broad network of political elites tied to President Hamid Karzai positioned themselves as middlemen between Western officials and donors, on the one hand, and ordinary Afghans, on the other, using these positions to divert billions of dollars in foreign aid and investment to their private accounts and those of their allies. This resulted in several high-profile scandals, notably the Kabul Bank crisis in which revelations were made that the largest financial institution in the country had been operating as a Ponzi scheme at the benefit of the elite few tied to Karzai.

How corrupt?

Transparency International's 2017 Corruption Perception Index ranks the country 177th place out of 180 countries.

I think it is easy living in a western country to not understand how badly this affects people. Bribes were needed to get good grades at school, to get jobs in public service, to import things etc.

rjsterry

kingstongraham said:

I'm less convinced by the thought that leaving 2,500 us forces there would have held. No matter what the generals say.

The evacuation should have been more organised, but the choice was to leave or increase forces. The taliban wouldn't have just sat on their hands if the US had ignored the deal they'd struck.

The idea that the Taliban rigorously stuck to their side of the agreement is somewhat of a stretch. Bizarrely, the Afghan government was not a party to the agreement despite one of the conditions being that they (not the US) would exchange 5000 Taliban prisoners for 1000 government troops held by the Taliban. Ghani refused to go ahead with the exchange without the inter-Afghan peace talks starting. They didn't start and the Taliban kept on doing what they were doing.

rjsterry

To bring this vaguely back to the thread title, Raab is so hopelessly out of his depth it's just breathtaking.

elbowloh

rjsterry said:

To bring this vaguely back to the thread title, Raab is so hopelessly out of his depth it's just breathtaking.

Oh, is he still in post. I thought the days and days of radio silence meant he'd left the FO role.

pblakeney

rick_chasey said:

...
I get BB's point that it is all pointless if the alternatives are just in it to loot the country, but I would have thought it incumbent on the invaders, who went in with a lot of chat about protecting Afgans from the taliban that they follow through.
...

I think the error here originates in thinking that there was an end objective plan.

What were we trying to achieve? When would we know that it had been achieved so we could leave?

Mission success - Zero.

kingstongraham

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

I'm less convinced by the thought that leaving 2,500 us forces there would have held. No matter what the generals say.

The evacuation should have been more organised, but the choice was to leave or increase forces. The taliban wouldn't have just sat on their hands if the US had ignored the deal they'd struck.

The idea that the Taliban rigorously stuck to their side of the agreement is somewhat of a stretch. Bizarrely, the Afghan government was not a party to the agreement despite one of the conditions being that they (not the US) would exchange 5000 Taliban prisoners for 1000 government troops held by the Taliban. Ghani refused to go ahead with the exchange without the inter-Afghan peace talks starting. They didn't start and the Taliban kept on doing what they were doing.

They stopped attacking US forces.

laurentian

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

...
I get BB's point that it is all pointless if the alternatives are just in it to loot the country, but I would have thought it incumbent on the invaders, who went in with a lot of chat about protecting Afgans from the taliban that they follow through.
...

I think the error here originates in thinking that there was an end objective plan.

What were we trying to achieve? When would we know that it had been achieved so we could leave?

Mission success - Zero.

Last night I heard a quote from Colin* Powell in reference to the US invasion of Iraq:

". . . if you broke it, you buy it"

They didn't then and they haven't now


*Pronounced "Coelin" for those who don't remember . . .

TheBigBean

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

I'm less convinced by the thought that leaving 2,500 us forces there would have held. No matter what the generals say.

The evacuation should have been more organised, but the choice was to leave or increase forces. The taliban wouldn't have just sat on their hands if the US had ignored the deal they'd struck.

The idea that the Taliban rigorously stuck to their side of the agreement is somewhat of a stretch. Bizarrely, the Afghan government was not a party to the agreement despite one of the conditions being that they (not the US) would exchange 5000 Taliban prisoners for 1000 government troops held by the Taliban. Ghani refused to go ahead with the exchange without the inter-Afghan peace talks starting. They didn't start and the Taliban kept on doing what they were doing.

They stopped attacking US forces.

They also seem to have negotiated with everyone other than Ghani.

kingstongraham

I find it hard to be too harsh on the Afghan army in the short term. Basically are being told "you would absolutely definitely have lost, but you should have fought for a month or so, rather than give up straight away. And you won't have been paid."

In 20 years, the west has managed to spend billions in constructing an army that was definitely going to lose.

TheBigBean

In keeping with the golden rule about conquering Afghanistan (noting @rjsterry 's complaints about it), it appears the northern alliance is reforming.

surrey_commuter

TheBigBean said:

In keeping with the golden rule about conquering Afghanistan (noting @rjsterry 's complaints about it), it appears the northern alliance is reforming.

The Taliban may sit in the big palace in Kabul but the villages will still be run by the people who have always run them

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

If anything surprises me it is that people are surprised.

That they were caught by surprise by the speed of the taliban advance?

The speed may be surprising but the results were very much predictable.

I'd have been making plans to evacuate when the American started making plans.
I'd have started the procedure when the Americans did. Depending on location any time between 1st May and last week. Certainly once the cities started falling.

I have a friend in Pakistan. They already have emergency bags packed and contingency plans. Have done so since arrival.

PS - I am referring primarily to the Brits there. Any Afghans with the ways and means too. I feel sorry for the innocent general public.

I see it as the forces have been there for 20 years. Absolutely no reason for such a disorderly withdrawal.

they have been withdrawing in an orderly fashion for some time and they seem to have a deal with the Taliban that they can extract their remaining people unharmed.

Even if it had taken the Taliban a month to get to Kabul it would always have ended in an undiginified scramble to the airport

TheBigBean

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

In keeping with the golden rule about conquering Afghanistan (noting @rjsterry 's complaints about it), it appears the northern alliance is reforming.

The Taliban may sit in the big palace in Kabul but the villages will still be run by the people who have always run them

Yes, but the northern alliance is a bit more than a village chief.

ddraver

john80 said:

You cannot win a war against those that don't share your basic beliefs. The Taliban think it is normal to treat women as possession and meet out justice on a whim. You are literally trying to persuade a mentally insane person that they are not insane. They think it is normal to have a justice system that is not far removed from a tribal elders do what they want style of justice. Wife is giving you hassle just say she has been sleeping around and you can join in the stoning and get the next bride from the local elders.

Part of me thinks that given it is women in Afghanistan who will lose most we should have spent the last 20 years arming them to the teeth and training them to be militia instead of training a male army. When everyone's missus is packing heat and is a bit pissed of about their daughter not getting educated or being raped by the local idiot then good luck dealing with that.

As always it is for the local population of a country to sort out their issues and unfortunately this requires sacrifice. The arrogance of nations such as the US and UK to believe that they can affect change on the ground is a lesson that keeps giving.

Bloody hell John, you don't disappoint

rick_chasey

Meanwhile...

Rishi Sunak has come under further pressure to suspend the state pension triple lock after wage figures showed that the chancellor is on course to pay pensioners a rise of more than 8% next year.

8%!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2021/aug/17/pressure-increases-on-rishi-sunak-to-suspend-triple-lock-on-pensions

Dorset_Boy

rick_chasey said:

Meanwhile...

Rishi Sunak has come under further pressure to suspend the state pension triple lock after wage figures showed that the chancellor is on course to pay pensioners a rise of more than 8% next year.

8%!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2021/aug/17/pressure-increases-on-rishi-sunak-to-suspend-triple-lock-on-pensions

Which means either inflation or average earnings are rising by that amount, and it isn't the former.

rick_chasey

OK what was the point of that post?

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

Meanwhile...

Rishi Sunak has come under further pressure to suspend the state pension triple lock after wage figures showed that the chancellor is on course to pay pensioners a rise of more than 8% next year.

8%!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2021/aug/17/pressure-increases-on-rishi-sunak-to-suspend-triple-lock-on-pensions

Could I check whether you and the Guardian are in favour of alleviating poverty amongst some of the most vulnerable members of society?

rick_chasey

I'd like to know what people who are not working are doing to deserve a pay rise almost 4x inflation.

I guess the answer is voting for this current gov't.

rjsterry

Patel claiming we "can't" accept 20,000 Afghan refugees in one go so we'll spread it over 5 years.

Just breathtaking.

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

Patel claiming we "can't" accept 20,000 Afghan refugees in one go so we'll spread it over 5 years.

Just breathtaking.

Hong Kong ones are ok though.

It is better than much of noise coming out of the EU though.

Jezyboy

Would everyone be OK with the triple lock applying to the minimum wage too?

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

I'd like to know what people who are not working are doing to deserve a pay rise almost 4x inflation.

I guess the answer is voting for this current gov't.

obviously I think the triple lock is bowlocks but increasing the value of pensions is very easy to defend

john80

rjsterry said:

Patel claiming we "can't" accept 20,000 Afghan refugees in one go so we'll spread it over 5 years.

Just breathtaking.

The UK has 60 million people or thereabouts so on the face of it we can accommodate the 20k. Look a bit deeper and we currently have a council in Dover that is refusing unaccompanied minors and putting people up in offices that arrive in boats. The UK population has no will to spread out the Calais migrants never mind 20k from Afghanistan. As ever the only immigration that works well is one where the people incoming are sufficiently low in numbers that they can be integrated properly. Don't get me wrong I think the Afghans has significantly more right to get let in than those that have travelled through a number of safe EU countries mind. Patel might have the mood of the country more correct than the Cakestoppers I am afraid. If you are at the bottom of the country fighting for some safe accommodation then you probably are not that inclined to agree compete with these individuals for what is essentially a fixed resource. As uncomfortable as that is for many sitting in their large houses that is the reality of the situation.

john80

Jezyboy said:

Would everyone be OK with the triple lock applying to the minimum wage too?

Yes I would actually.

rjsterry

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

Patel claiming we "can't" accept 20,000 Afghan refugees in one go so we'll spread it over 5 years.

Just breathtaking.

Hong Kong ones are ok though.

It is better than much of noise coming out of the EU though.

Indeed. Sorry we left you in the s***. If you are still alive in 2026, maybe we can help you out.

surrey_commuter

john80 said:

rjsterry said:

Patel claiming we "can't" accept 20,000 Afghan refugees in one go so we'll spread it over 5 years.

Just breathtaking.

The UK has 60 million people or thereabouts so on the face of it we can accommodate the 20k. Look a bit deeper and we currently have a council in Dover that is refusing unaccompanied minors and putting people up in offices that arrive in boats. The UK population has no will to spread out the Calais migrants never mind 20k from Afghanistan. As ever the only immigration that works well is one where the people incoming are sufficiently low in numbers that they can be integrated properly. Don't get me wrong I think the Afghans has significantly more right to get let in than those that have travelled through a number of safe EU countries mind. Patel might have the mood of the country more correct than the Cakestoppers I am afraid. If you are at the bottom of the country fighting for some safe accommodation then you probably are not that inclined to agree compete with these individuals for what is essentially a fixed resource. As uncomfortable as that is for many sitting in their large houses that is the reality of the situation.

is there not more to swift integration than numbers?

I am guessing that these 20,000 are some of the best educated, English speaking and familiar with western culture so would be easier to integrate than 10,000 uneducated rural poor in Bangladesh/Pakistan who have a relative already in the UK.

Could we at least check to see if any have an HGV licence?

john80

surrey_commuter said:

john80 said:

rjsterry said:

Patel claiming we "can't" accept 20,000 Afghan refugees in one go so we'll spread it over 5 years.

Just breathtaking.

The UK has 60 million people or thereabouts so on the face of it we can accommodate the 20k. Look a bit deeper and we currently have a council in Dover that is refusing unaccompanied minors and putting people up in offices that arrive in boats. The UK population has no will to spread out the Calais migrants never mind 20k from Afghanistan. As ever the only immigration that works well is one where the people incoming are sufficiently low in numbers that they can be integrated properly. Don't get me wrong I think the Afghans has significantly more right to get let in than those that have travelled through a number of safe EU countries mind. Patel might have the mood of the country more correct than the Cakestoppers I am afraid. If you are at the bottom of the country fighting for some safe accommodation then you probably are not that inclined to agree compete with these individuals for what is essentially a fixed resource. As uncomfortable as that is for many sitting in their large houses that is the reality of the situation.

is there not more to swift integration than numbers?

I am guessing that these 20,000 are some of the best educated, English speaking and familiar with western culture so would be easier to integrate than 10,000 uneducated rural poor in Bangladesh/Pakistan who have a relative already in the UK.

Could we at least check to see if any have an HGV licence?

Good luck with your screening process at Kabul airport. I am sure it is a example of serenity and informed decision making. The age old joke about we would be speaking German if only their grandfather had fought a bit harder springs to mind. It seems to me that the Afghans are a lot more tolerant of being ruled by the Taliban than we think they should be. If we had armed all the women and put them in charge of defending the city I think we might have seen a different outcome as lets face it they have the most to lose here.

Playing devils argument where does the 20k argument come from. Surely we should be accepting all people that would be disadvantaged by the Taliban and this likely runs into well over half the population of the country. All women that don't want to dress in a burka, would like a job, choose who the marry. All homosexuals. All those that might suffer a future injustice. If you went into my local council and asked for a single house for a family of 5 you might be surprised by the waiting list for this.

kingstongraham

Didn't see this new argument from john80 in favour of accepting half the population of Afghanistan coming.

rick_chasey

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

I'd like to know what people who are not working are doing to deserve a pay rise almost 4x inflation.

I guess the answer is voting for this current gov't.

obviously I think the triple lock is bowlocks but increasing the value of pensions is very easy to defend

I feel we've switched positions here - i thought you were against fiscal incontinence?

If we accept there is going to be a disastrous pensions problem down the road, and I think we all do, (though judging by the popularity of pension discussions on here, one for a different generation I suspect), I don't really understand why this stuff is acceptable?

It is also substantially more costly than pretty much any other benefit other than free healthcare - which at least is applicable to everyone throughout their entire life.