Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes, but why just single out the UK?" It was a question. Other European countries appear to accept refugees more willingly than the UK and the UK Govt appear to prefer that refugees remain in mainland Europe. Why should the UK policy change for Afghanistan? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes, but why just single out the UK? It was a question. Other European countries appear to accept refugees more willingly than the UK and the UK Govt appear to prefer that refugees remain in mainland Europe. Why should the UK policy change for Afghanistan?" The uk took 36,000 from Hong Kong last year and more are coming every day they estimate that it could be as many as 300,000 in the next 5 years i think as a former colony these people should be given priority apart from the afghan interpreters who are coming anyway. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes, but why just single out the UK? It was a question. Other European countries appear to accept refugees more willingly than the UK and the UK Govt appear to prefer that refugees remain in mainland Europe. Why should the UK policy change for Afghanistan?" The UK policy is currently ideologically based and in line with the vision of “tough on immigration.” It could achieve this by having a functioning asylum system and a policy on refugee’s that reflects reality instead of pretending that we can engineer a system to stop refugee’s coming here. If it were not so dehumanising to the people trying to get here, we could say that the current U.K. system is just really rather silly. In fact on the fullness of time it might just be historically chronicled as deadly. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes, but why just single out the UK? It was a question. Other European countries appear to accept refugees more willingly than the UK and the UK Govt appear to prefer that refugees remain in mainland Europe. Why should the UK policy change for Afghanistan? The uk took 36,000 from Hong Kong last year and more are coming every day they estimate that it could be as many as 300,000 in the next 5 years i think as a former colony these people should be given priority apart from the afghan interpreters who are coming anyway. " Which is still a drop in the ocean in comparison with other countries of a similar size and population in Europe. For example, the figures below represent asylum seekers granted asylum in 2020 (alone) by country Germany 128,590 Spain 124,795 France 86,330 Greece 62,155 Italy 40,795 Surely the UK along with other countries who have played a part in Afghanistan have some responsibility for the now displaced people? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not sure where all these figures are coming from but according to UNHCR the UK had 36041 applicants in 2020. Honk Kong isn't in the top 5 list. The other countries figures vary too, here's a link to the article https://www.unhcr.org/uk/asylum-in-the-uk.html" Applicants - not given asylum. This is where I found the figures https://www.statista.com/statistics/293350/asylum-grants-in-europe/ Germany etc. will have had many many more applicants but it surely it is the people who are actually given asylum that are the figures to look at. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes, but why just single out the UK? It was a question. Other European countries appear to accept refugees more willingly than the UK and the UK Govt appear to prefer that refugees remain in mainland Europe. Why should the UK policy change for Afghanistan? The uk took 36,000 from Hong Kong last year and more are coming every day they estimate that it could be as many as 300,000 in the next 5 years i think as a former colony these people should be given priority apart from the afghan interpreters who are coming anyway. Which is still a drop in the ocean in comparison with other countries of a similar size and population in Europe. For example, the figures below represent asylum seekers granted asylum in 2020 (alone) by country Germany 128,590 Spain 124,795 France 86,330 Greece 62,155 Italy 40,795 Surely the UK along with other countries who have played a part in Afghanistan have some responsibility for the now displaced people?" Similar size????? spain 2.1 times bigger than the uk with 1.5 million less people germany 1.5 times bigger 14 million more people france 2.3 times bigger 2.1 million more italy 1.2 bigger 3.5 million less and finally the uk is 2x bigger than greece but with 55 million more people. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not sure where all these figures are coming from but according to UNHCR the UK had 36041 applicants in 2020. Honk Kong isn't in the top 5 list. The other countries figures vary too, here's a link to the article https://www.unhcr.org/uk/asylum-in-the-uk.html Applicants - not given asylum. This is where I found the figures https://www.statista.com/statistics/293350/asylum-grants-in-europe/ Germany etc. will have had many many more applicants but it surely it is the people who are actually given asylum that are the figures to look at." Yeah I can't work Statista out. It says granted but then in the graph is says 'applications'. Something is wrong with that, it has to be one or the other. UNHCR says there were over 130k refugees in the UK in 2020 but 77k were pending applications so not added to the 36k I've already stated. Either way you look at it, the information is somewhat conflicting. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes, but why just single out the UK? It was a question. Other European countries appear to accept refugees more willingly than the UK and the UK Govt appear to prefer that refugees remain in mainland Europe. Why should the UK policy change for Afghanistan? The uk took 36,000 from Hong Kong last year and more are coming every day they estimate that it could be as many as 300,000 in the next 5 years i think as a former colony these people should be given priority apart from the afghan interpreters who are coming anyway. Which is still a drop in the ocean in comparison with other countries of a similar size and population in Europe. For example, the figures below represent asylum seekers granted asylum in 2020 (alone) by country Germany 128,590 Spain 124,795 France 86,330 Greece 62,155 Italy 40,795 Surely the UK along with other countries who have played a part in Afghanistan have some responsibility for the now displaced people?Similar size????? spain 2.1 times bigger than the uk with 1.5 million less people germany 1.5 times bigger 14 million more people france 2.3 times bigger 2.1 million more italy 1.2 bigger 3.5 million less and finally the uk is 2x bigger than greece but with 55 million more people." You are correct and I was wrong to say similar size. The countries are not a similar size. Your figures are closer to the truth. Perhaps refugees should be allocated to countries based on the density of the country (taking into account liveable space rather than just assuming that people can live anywhere) along with some calculation as to the economy of that country being able to support them? Would that be a fairer system? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes, but why just single out the UK? It was a question. Other European countries appear to accept refugees more willingly than the UK and the UK Govt appear to prefer that refugees remain in mainland Europe. Why should the UK policy change for Afghanistan? The uk took 36,000 from Hong Kong last year and more are coming every day they estimate that it could be as many as 300,000 in the next 5 years i think as a former colony these people should be given priority apart from the afghan interpreters who are coming anyway. Which is still a drop in the ocean in comparison with other countries of a similar size and population in Europe. For example, the figures below represent asylum seekers granted asylum in 2020 (alone) by country Germany 128,590 Spain 124,795 France 86,330 Greece 62,155 Italy 40,795 Surely the UK along with other countries who have played a part in Afghanistan have some responsibility for the now displaced people?Similar size????? spain 2.1 times bigger than the uk with 1.5 million less people germany 1.5 times bigger 14 million more people france 2.3 times bigger 2.1 million more italy 1.2 bigger 3.5 million less and finally the uk is 2x bigger than greece but with 55 million more people. You are correct and I was wrong to say similar size. The countries are not a similar size. Your figures are closer to the truth. Perhaps refugees should be allocated to countries based on the density of the country (taking into account liveable space rather than just assuming that people can live anywhere) along with some calculation as to the economy of that country being able to support them? Would that be a fairer system?" I actually think the density of the population has to be taken into account. England is already the 4th most densely populated country in the entire world Where I live is quite rural but the last time I visited London it was horrendously overcrowded and I haven't been back since Even my local town is almost impossible to travel into I realise that it's not an easy thing to tackle but we should be looking at ways to reduce our population and not to keep piling more people into an already overpopulated the country | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That seems pretty fair and France (for example) has a much greater land mass to support refugees however should one country's taxes pay for refugees just because they have a less dense country? There is also the question of what caused the refugee crisis in the 1st place. Should the countries that perhaps gained financially through (for example) arms sales, mineral extraction etc. bot be more responsible than those countries that did nothing (or less) to cause this problem?" Presumably the theory is that those refugees become tax payers themselves and that redresses the balance. In theory As for what caused the refugee crisis we know already. The Taliban caused it. Theres already a willingness to place the blame on western politicians but what would have happened if we had done nothing? We'd be blamed for that as well | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Should the UK accept refugees from Afghanistan?" Not if priti patel and nigel farage have anything to do with it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Should the UK accept refugees from Afghanistan? Not if priti patel and nigel farage have anything to do with it. " I think you'll find they are against illegal immigration...which they believe many 'refugees' are. I'm sure they are correct in that | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Should the UK accept refugees from Afghanistan? Not if priti patel and nigel farage have anything to do with it. I think you'll find they are against illegal immigration...which they believe many 'refugees' are. I'm sure they are correct in that" Pendantry would say all refugees are legal. But asylum seekers (those not yet given refugee status) may be found not to have a right to refugee status. No idea of the numbers. Does anyone ATM ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Should the UK accept refugees from Afghanistan? Not if priti patel and nigel farage have anything to do with it. I think you'll find they are against illegal immigration...which they believe many 'refugees' are. I'm sure they are correct in that" So the refugees who come in must have flown in on a flight before they can be accepted as a refugees? As long as they don’t cross the channel via smugglers? Is that their stance? How hard can that be? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Should the UK accept refugees from Afghanistan? Not if priti patel and nigel farage have anything to do with it. I think you'll find they are against illegal immigration...which they believe many 'refugees' are. I'm sure they are correct in that So the refugees who come in must have flown in on a flight before they can be accepted as a refugees? As long as they don’t cross the channel via smugglers? Is that their stance? How hard can that be? " Many 'refugees' are actually illegal immigrants. The tests they must have must be strict. Perhaps a compromise would be that they return home once conflict stops...if ever ..in their own country. Certainly, we shouldn't accept those who arrived here from a safe country such as France. The alternative...that we just say 'everyone can get on a plane and fly here' would be very widely abused and extremely destabilising for the recipient country. It's a difficult balance to strike bit that doesn't mean that we should just open the borders | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The above leads to : unless you can fly here direct from a war zone, we won't accept you. But we can't do that anyway given we signed up to the refugee convention. And I suspect we can even use the Dublin Regulation to send back to France anymore. " Why should France take the refugees? They have crossed many countries before arriving in France. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Apparently we have UK citizens out there and, yes, we should bring them here. I'm glad that we'll be bringing the interpreters here. As for others, we shouldn't go looking for them but if they find their way here then we have to consider their claims"  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The above leads to : unless you can fly here direct from a war zone, we won't accept you. But we can't do that anyway given we signed up to the refugee convention. And I suspect we can even use the Dublin Regulation to send back to France anymore. Why should France take the refugees? They have crossed many countries before arriving in France. " someone has to eat all those croissants and saussison, obvs!  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The above leads to : unless you can fly here direct from a war zone, we won't accept you. But we can't do that anyway given we signed up to the refugee convention. And I suspect we can even use the Dublin Regulation to send back to France anymore. Why should France take the refugees? They have crossed many countries before arriving in France. " thats the drawback from being in the Schengen scheme i guess. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The above leads to : unless you can fly here direct from a war zone, we won't accept you. But we can't do that anyway given we signed up to the refugee convention. And I suspect we can even use the Dublin Regulation to send back to France anymore. Why should France take the refugees? They have crossed many countries before arriving in France. thats the drawback from being in the Schengen scheme i guess." Yeup. Although refugees generally don't get a permit to allow free travel. I mentioned France as that was the last country they were in before the UK. I've just checked and it's not the last country but the country responsible for reviewing asylum. Not an expert by any means, just read up around brexit time. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The above leads to : unless you can fly here direct from a war zone, we won't accept you. But we can't do that anyway given we signed up to the refugee convention. And I suspect we can even use the Dublin Regulation to send back to France anymore. Why should France take the refugees? They have crossed many countries before arriving in France. thats the drawback from being in the Schengen scheme i guess." France can allow them to go to the UK and, unfortunately, there is not much west of the UK so suddenly, the UK becomes the place where they all end up. Or.. Countries work together to sort the migrant problems. There is no easy way as we are finding out but countries working together to find a solution is better than passing on these poor people from pillar to post. It is easy to say that the EU should take all migrants because the UK is Sovereign or not part of Schengen or some other excuse. Yes the UK (England) had a high population density (Scotland does not) and yes, France had plenty of land which is farmland so could easily be changed to housing estates for refugees but...at what cost? This is a global problem. Developed nations including Britain, France and Spain have caused a lot of the problems with their empires and greed. Now we are seeing some of the repercussions. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Will affluent areas take in Afghans or will it be down to poorer areas of the UK? I think the latter! " of course it will be the poorer areas it always is,you will find most of those who would open the door to everyone tend to live in nice areas without much social housing | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Will affluent areas take in Afghans or will it be down to poorer areas of the UK? I think the latter! " what do you mean by "take in". I'm not sure of you mean housed, or if you mean people actually inviting them to stay with them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Will affluent areas take in Afghans or will it be down to poorer areas of the UK? I think the latter! what do you mean by "take in". I'm not sure of you mean housed, or if you mean people actually inviting them to stay with them. " Lol, housed, when there's a shortage of homes for citizens already here, and i wouldn't be surprised if they'll be prioritised for propaganda purposes., might stir up resentment.! I hope not as it's not the Afghans fault at all, just a continuation of government cock ups | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Will affluent areas take in Afghans or will it be down to poorer areas of the UK? I think the latter! what do you mean by "take in". I'm not sure of you mean housed, or if you mean people actually inviting them to stay with them. Lol, housed, when there's a shortage of homes for citizens already here, and i wouldn't be surprised if they'll be prioritised for propaganda purposes., might stir up resentment.! I hope not as it's not the Afghans fault at all, just a continuation of government cock ups" Yep. It won't be the leafy suburbs/Tory shires these refugees are found places to live. Ironically enough, the right wing press currently insisting that we help them - and even singing their praises - will be the same right wing press crucifying councils for giving them places on their housing lists, when ex-squaddies are homeless. Still, it's a "win-win" for the Tories; they get to be seen to do the right thing and they get to replace their elderly voters, polished off by Covid 19, with people grateful to them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes, but why just single out the UK? It was a question. Other European countries appear to accept refugees more willingly than the UK and the UK Govt appear to prefer that refugees remain in mainland Europe. Why should the UK policy change for Afghanistan? The uk took 36,000 from Hong Kong last year and more are coming every day they estimate that it could be as many as 300,000 in the next 5 years i think as a former colony these people should be given priority apart from the afghan interpreters who are coming anyway. " Should people from any former colony be able to settle in the UK? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Should the UK accept refugees from Afghanistan?" Yes. They also need to provide a route to apply legally. Alternatively, a cheaper and longer lasting alternative is to properly fund resettlement closer Afghanistan. However, in that case it might prove necessary to help those countries to develop economically with something like the targeted use of foreign aid, which we are cutting. Alternatively, we can just let them starve or die. Not our problem, right? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Should Afghanistan provide help to the allies who got hurt trying to help them? Not their problem right? "The Afghans are not really in a position to provide financial support to those that invaded their country, for whatever reason as they are quite poor. Thoae wounded carrying out the orders of their own governments have not been abandoned by the Afghans under a hostile regime as I do not believe they made them any promises. Correct me if I'm wrong with any of those points. So you are happy to leave refugees to their fate I assume without any feeling of responsibility then or should something more positive be done? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I believe not I suppose help those that helped are unwanted soldiers rest no they should stay and fight for there county.its a place we should never have been leave them to there own country if they really won't it back then fight for it be it 2 3 4 million that die least in the long run it's worth it for future generations. " Sure. They chose for us to invade, and then abandon them. Having lived there and fully understanding the situation with respect to lack of pay and government corruption you are perfectly correct to expect people to fight and die. I'm sure that you're happy for 2-4 million of them to make a sacrifice. Judges, MPs, teachers, police officers, journalists. They and their famines should certainly stay to be taken out and shot and beaten. It's a sacrifice that they should make. We can applaud them from here. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Should Afghanistan provide help to the allies who got hurt trying to help them? Not their problem right?
The Afghans are not really in a position to provide financial support to those that invaded their country, for whatever reason as they are quite poor. Thoae wounded carrying out the orders of their own governments have not been abandoned by the Afghans under a hostile regime as I do not believe they made them any promises.
Correct me if I'm wrong with any of those points.
So you are happy to leave refugees to their fate I assume without any feeling of responsibility then or should something more positive be done?"And who's fault is that? if they had invented steam engines or done something constructive but they didn't haven't and hence just want help from empire building western infidels? So they arent going to help then?  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I believe not I suppose help those that helped are unwanted soldiers rest no they should stay and fight for there county.its a place we should never have been leave them to there own country if they really won't it back then fight for it be it 2 3 4 million that die least in the long run it's worth it for future generations. Sure. They chose for us to invade, and then abandon them. Having lived there and fully understanding the situation with respect to lack of pay and government corruption you are perfectly correct to expect people to fight and die. I'm sure that you're happy for 2-4 million of them to make a sacrifice. Judges, MPs, teachers, police officers, journalists. They and their famines should certainly stay to be taken out and shot and beaten. It's a sacrifice that they should make. We can applaud them from here." Abandoned? They were trained and armed... they out numbered the taliban... but somehow failed to stay in control... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Should Afghanistan provide help to the allies who got hurt trying to help them? Not their problem right?
The Afghans are not really in a position to provide financial support to those that invaded their country, for whatever reason as they are quite poor. Thoae wounded carrying out the orders of their own governments have not been abandoned by the Afghans under a hostile regime as I do not believe they made them any promises.
Correct me if I'm wrong with any of those points.
So you are happy to leave refugees to their fate I assume without any feeling of responsibility then or should something more positive be done?
And who's fault is that? if they had invented steam engines or done something constructive but they didn't haven't and hence just want help from empire building western infidels?
So they arent going to help then? "Refugees should not be supported because they didn't invent steam engines? Someone's value as a human is based on their economic output? Living in the country bing continuously occupied and forced over is a good environment for economic and social progress? No, the Afghan people currently under a Taliban government probably are not in a position to help wounded foreign servicemen sent to Afghanistan by their own governments. They are probably more concerned for the lives and safety of themselves and their families just now. What is the point that you are trying to make? What is the equivalence in your head? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I believe not I suppose help those that helped are unwanted soldiers rest no they should stay and fight for there county.its a place we should never have been leave them to there own country if they really won't it back then fight for it be it 2 3 4 million that die least in the long run it's worth it for future generations. Sure. They chose for us to invade, and then abandon them. Having lived there and fully understanding the situation with respect to lack of pay and government corruption you are perfectly correct to expect people to fight and die. I'm sure that you're happy for 2-4 million of them to make a sacrifice. Judges, MPs, teachers, police officers, journalists. They and their famines should certainly stay to be taken out and shot and beaten. It's a sacrifice that they should make. We can applaud them from here. Abandoned? They were trained and armed... they out numbered the taliban... but somehow failed to stay in control... " Did they have any supplies? Were they paid. Dis they believe that they'd be supported if isolated? Did they have faith in their leaders? Are they cowards? Do you hold them in contempt from your sofa in London? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Should Afghanistan provide help to the allies who got hurt trying to help them? Not their problem right?
The Afghans are not really in a position to provide financial support to those that invaded their country, for whatever reason as they are quite poor. Thoae wounded carrying out the orders of their own governments have not been abandoned by the Afghans under a hostile regime as I do not believe they made them any promises.
Correct me if I'm wrong with any of those points.
So you are happy to leave refugees to their fate I assume without any feeling of responsibility then or should something more positive be done?
And who's fault is that? if they had invented steam engines or done something constructive but they didn't haven't and hence just want help from empire building western infidels?
So they arent going to help then?
Refugees should not be supported because they didn't invent steam engines?
Someone's value as a human is based on their economic output?
Living in the country bing continuously occupied and forced over is a good environment for economic and social progress?
No, the Afghan people currently under a Taliban government probably are not in a position to help wounded foreign servicemen sent to Afghanistan by their own governments. They are probably more concerned for the lives and safety of themselves and their families just now.
What is the point that you are trying to make? What is the equivalence in your head?"Are you a bit dim? I'm saying after 1000s of years not only haven't they invented anything useful, not even a steam engine lol but they still dont treat women right and are killing eachother. Brilliant | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I believe not I suppose help those that helped are unwanted soldiers rest no they should stay and fight for there county.its a place we should never have been leave them to there own country if they really won't it back then fight for it be it 2 3 4 million that die least in the long run it's worth it for future generations. Sure. They chose for us to invade, and then abandon them. Having lived there and fully understanding the situation with respect to lack of pay and government corruption you are perfectly correct to expect people to fight and die. I'm sure that you're happy for 2-4 million of them to make a sacrifice. Judges, MPs, teachers, police officers, journalists. They and their famines should certainly stay to be taken out and shot and beaten. It's a sacrifice that they should make. We can applaud them from here. Abandoned? They were trained and armed... they out numbered the taliban... but somehow failed to stay in control... Did they have any supplies? Were they paid. Dis they believe that they'd be supported if isolated? Did they have faith in their leaders? Are they cowards? Do you hold them in contempt from your sofa in London?" Are you d*unk? On drugs? Are you a coward? Are you howling at the moon? Do you have a sofa? All pointless questions that you could ask lol So are the afghans going to help the brave heroic allies that tried to help their country get rid of taliban? Are they going to refund any of the costs involved? Or are they just going to carry on as they always have? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Should Afghanistan provide help to the allies who got hurt trying to help them? Not their problem right?
The Afghans are not really in a position to provide financial support to those that invaded their country, for whatever reason as they are quite poor. Thoae wounded carrying out the orders of their own governments have not been abandoned by the Afghans under a hostile regime as I do not believe they made them any promises.
Correct me if I'm wrong with any of those points.
So you are happy to leave refugees to their fate I assume without any feeling of responsibility then or should something more positive be done?
And who's fault is that? if they had invented steam engines or done something constructive but they didn't haven't and hence just want help from empire building western infidels?
So they arent going to help then?
Refugees should not be supported because they didn't invent steam engines?
Someone's value as a human is based on their economic output?
Living in the country being continuously occupied and fought over is a good environment for economic and social progress?
No, the Afghan people currently under a Taliban government probably are not in a position to help wounded foreign servicemen sent to Afghanistan by their own governments. They are probably more concerned for the lives and safety of themselves and their families just now.
What is the point that you are trying to make? What is the equivalence in your head?
Are you a bit dim? I'm saying after 1000s of years not only haven't they invented anything useful, not even a steam engine lol but they still dont treat women right and are killing eachother. Brilliant "Ah. The personal insult again. That must mean that you are doing well with your logical argument
So you do think that Afghans have less value as people due to their lack of economic progress.
You also don't think that living in a land in conflict due to external invasion over a thousand years does not have any influence on their ability to advance?
I guess that some people are just better than others. Right?
When was the UK last invaded and its social and economic evolution subjugated to another country? Perhaps the fact that it's happened so frequently to Afghanistan also adds to their inferiority?
Texas just introduced a law restricting abortion rights to 6 weeks, even in the case of r*** and in***t. Before many women even realise.
People in Northern Ireland have been killing each other until very recently. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I believe not I suppose help those that helped are unwanted soldiers rest no they should stay and fight for there county.its a place we should never have been leave them to there own country if they really won't it back then fight for it be it 2 3 4 million that die least in the long run it's worth it for future generations. Sure. They chose for us to invade, and then abandon them. Having lived there and fully understanding the situation with respect to lack of pay and government corruption you are perfectly correct to expect people to fight and die. I'm sure that you're happy for 2-4 million of them to make a sacrifice. Judges, MPs, teachers, police officers, journalists. They and their famines should certainly stay to be taken out and shot and beaten. It's a sacrifice that they should make. We can applaud them from here. Abandoned? They were trained and armed... they out numbered the taliban... but somehow failed to stay in control... Did they have any supplies? Were they paid. Dis they believe that they'd be supported if isolated? Did they have faith in their leaders? Are they cowards? Do you hold them in contempt from your sofa in London? Are you d*unk? On drugs? Are you a coward? Are you howling at the moon? Do you have a sofa? All pointless questions that you could ask lol So are the afghans going to help the brave heroic allies that tried to help their country get rid of taliban? Are they going to refund any of the costs involved? Or are they just going to carry on as they always have? "Again, great touch with the insults. Good oration. Im5not the one howling though. You criticised the Afghan armed forces for not fighting. I'm asking if in your opinion that makes them cowards as you right from your sofa in the UK. Are they cowards. I have told you that the Afghans are not in a position to help anyone. How would they go about it now that we left and the Taliban are in control again? Did the French help the British and Americans and Indians and Nepalese who liberated them? What point are you actually trying to make? I have no idea. Do you? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Should Afghanistan provide help to the allies who got hurt trying to help them? Not their problem right? "Well the war was to "get binladen", after 9/11, committed by saudi nationals the taliban asked for evidence against binladen (another saudai) and the USA decided to just start a war! The taliban might have cooperated, avoiding the war but the USA failed to use war as a last option, killed thousands of innocent civilians , tortured people broke international laws.. The only winners being the arms manufacturers, so to answer is no; it's not Afghanistan's problem | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes, but why just single out the UK? It was a question. Other European countries appear to accept refugees more willingly than the UK and the UK Govt appear to prefer that refugees remain in mainland Europe. Why should the UK policy change for Afghanistan? The uk took 36,000 from Hong Kong last year and more are coming every day they estimate that it could be as many as 300,000 in the next 5 years i think as a former colony these people should be given priority apart from the afghan interpreters who are coming anyway. Which is still a drop in the ocean in comparison with other countries of a similar size and population in Europe. For example, the figures below represent asylum seekers granted asylum in 2020 (alone) by country Germany 128,590 Spain 124,795 France 86,330 Greece 62,155 Italy 40,795 Surely the UK along with other countries who have played a part in Afghanistan have some responsibility for the now displaced people?" Why is France a staging platform for refugees to come here? Why are they so desperate to get to the uk traveling through the country’s you’ve listed? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes, but why just single out the UK? It was a question. Other European countries appear to accept refugees more willingly than the UK and the UK Govt appear to prefer that refugees remain in mainland Europe. Why should the UK policy change for Afghanistan? The uk took 36,000 from Hong Kong last year and more are coming every day they estimate that it could be as many as 300,000 in the next 5 years i think as a former colony these people should be given priority apart from the afghan interpreters who are coming anyway. Which is still a drop in the ocean in comparison with other countries of a similar size and population in Europe. For example, the figures below represent asylum seekers granted asylum in 2020 (alone) by country Germany 128,590 Spain 124,795 France 86,330 Greece 62,155 Italy 40,795 Surely the UK along with other countries who have played a part in Afghanistan have some responsibility for the now displaced people? Why is France a staging platform for refugees to come here? Why are they so desperate to get to the uk traveling through the country’s you’ve listed? " Google: Living conditions in Europe aren't good so hoping its better here, they have someone or have family they know here and speak English. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"i have arranged to have part of my property portfolio made available for afghans who need to be housed before this comming winter through the gov.uk portal under the ARAP scheme. currently sourcing educators to assist with learning needs and occupational therapists under a welsh scheme to assist with cultural resettlement issues. I encourage others to help in any way they can. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Should Afghanistan provide help to the allies who got hurt trying to help them? Not their problem right?
The Afghans are not really in a position to provide financial support to those that invaded their country, for whatever reason as they are quite poor. Thoae wounded carrying out the orders of their own governments have not been abandoned by the Afghans under a hostile regime as I do not believe they made them any promises.
Correct me if I'm wrong with any of those points.
So you are happy to leave refugees to their fate I assume without any feeling of responsibility then or should something more positive be done?
And who's fault is that? if they had invented steam engines or done something constructive but they didn't haven't and hence just want help from empire building western infidels?
So they arent going to help then?
Refugees should not be supported because they didn't invent steam engines?
Someone's value as a human is based on their economic output?
Living in the country being continuously occupied and fought over is a good environment for economic and social progress?
No, the Afghan people currently under a Taliban government probably are not in a position to help wounded foreign servicemen sent to Afghanistan by their own governments. They are probably more concerned for the lives and safety of themselves and their families just now.
What is the point that you are trying to make? What is the equivalence in your head?
Are you a bit dim? I'm saying after 1000s of years not only haven't they invented anything useful, not even a steam engine lol but they still dont treat women right and are killing eachother. Brilliant
Ah. The personal insult again. That must mean that you are doing well with your logical argument
So you do think that Afghans have less value as people due to their lack of economic progress.
You also don't think that living in a land in conflict due to external invasion over a thousand years does not have any influence on their ability to advance?
I guess that some people are just better than others. Right?
When was the UK last invaded and its social and economic evolution subjugated to another country? Perhaps the fact that it's happened so frequently to Afghanistan also adds to their inferiority?
Texas just introduced a law restricting abortion rights to 6 weeks, even in the case of r*** and in***t. Before many women even realise.
People in Northern Ireland have been killing each other until very recently."so no answer just going onto ireland lol that would be a new thread for what abouttery.... and i havent insulted you, i asked the question like you ask questions, pointless ones granted! fact is afghanistan has never sorted its own shit, ever ever ever | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Should Afghanistan provide help to the allies who got hurt trying to help them? Not their problem right?
The Afghans are not really in a position to provide financial support to those that invaded their country, for whatever reason as they are quite poor. Thoae wounded carrying out the orders of their own governments have not been abandoned by the Afghans under a hostile regime as I do not believe they made them any promises.
Correct me if I'm wrong with any of those points.
So you are happy to leave refugees to their fate I assume without any feeling of responsibility then or should something more positive be done?
And who's fault is that? if they had invented steam engines or done something constructive but they didn't haven't and hence just want help from empire building western infidels?
So they arent going to help then?
Refugees should not be supported because they didn't invent steam engines?
Someone's value as a human is based on their economic output?
Living in the country being continuously occupied and fought over is a good environment for economic and social progress?
No, the Afghan people currently under a Taliban government probably are not in a position to help wounded foreign servicemen sent to Afghanistan by their own governments. They are probably more concerned for the lives and safety of themselves and their families just now.
What is the point that you are trying to make? What is the equivalence in your head?
Are you a bit dim? I'm saying after 1000s of years not only haven't they invented anything useful, not even a steam engine lol but they still dont treat women right and are killing eachother. Brilliant
Ah. The personal insult again. That must mean that you are doing well with your logical argument
So you do think that Afghans have less value as people due to their lack of economic progress.
You also don't think that living in a land in conflict due to external invasion over a thousand years does not have any influence on their ability to advance?
I guess that some people are just better than others. Right?
When was the UK last invaded and its social and economic evolution subjugated to another country? Perhaps the fact that it's happened so frequently to Afghanistan also adds to their inferiority?
Texas just introduced a law restricting abortion rights to 6 weeks, even in the case of r*** and in***t. Before many women even realise.
People in Northern Ireland have been killing each other until very recently.
so no answer just going onto ireland lol that would be a new thread for what abouttery....
and i havent insulted you, i asked the question like you ask questions, pointless ones granted! fact is afghanistan has never sorted its own shit, ever ever ever "Years ago, Afghanistan was sorted, until foreign influence started fucking it up for them | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"i disagree. afghanistan has never been sorted in westerm or communist terms. but wether we like it or not, afghans have more control over afghanistan than they have had in over 4 decades. we have to lump it going forward." https://allthatsinteresting.com/1960s-afghanistan | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"i disagree. afghanistan has never been sorted in westerm or communist terms. but wether we like it or not, afghans have more control over afghanistan than they have had in over 4 decades. we have to lump it going forward. https://allthatsinteresting.com/1960s-afghanistan " Lol what a few pics from the 60s! Go back to Alexander the great onwards, Afghanistan a trading cross roads could have owned the world, like Venice or london, but it gets a few years in 1960! Yeah that's a low bar right there, tribes fighting tribes and its still going. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://allthatsinteresting.com/1960s-afghanistan" this op-ed piece has about a time 60-70 years ago has little to do with my assessment over the last 40 years. i had the experience of traveling through the country in 1979 as a 10 year old on our way to the far east. we were quite possibly the last of the uk passport holders to transit the country before the afghan government requested help from the soviets against the anti-capitalist revolutionaries. it was an interesting journey. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Should Afghanistan provide help to the allies who got hurt trying to help them? Not their problem right?
The Afghans are not really in a position to provide financial support to those that invaded their country, for whatever reason as they are quite poor. Thoae wounded carrying out the orders of their own governments have not been abandoned by the Afghans under a hostile regime as I do not believe they made them any promises.
Correct me if I'm wrong with any of those points.
So you are happy to leave refugees to their fate I assume without any feeling of responsibility then or should something more positive be done?
And who's fault is that? if they had invented steam engines or done something constructive but they didn't haven't and hence just want help from empire building western infidels?
So they arent going to help then?
Refugees should not be supported because they didn't invent steam engines?
Someone's value as a human is based on their economic output?
Living in the country being continuously occupied and fought over is a good environment for economic and social progress?
No, the Afghan people currently under a Taliban government probably are not in a position to help wounded foreign servicemen sent to Afghanistan by their own governments. They are probably more concerned for the lives and safety of themselves and their families just now.
What is the point that you are trying to make? What is the equivalence in your head?
Are you a bit dim? I'm saying after 1000s of years not only haven't they invented anything useful, not even a steam engine lol but they still dont treat women right and are killing eachother. Brilliant
Ah. The personal insult again. That must mean that you are doing well with your logical argument
So you do think that Afghans have less value as people due to their lack of economic progress.
You also don't think that living in a land in conflict due to external invasion over a thousand years does not have any influence on their ability to advance?
I guess that some people are just better than others. Right?
When was the UK last invaded and its social and economic evolution subjugated to another country? Perhaps the fact that it's happened so frequently to Afghanistan also adds to their inferiority?
Texas just introduced a law restricting abortion rights to 6 weeks, even in the case of r*** and in***t. Before many women even realise.
People in Northern Ireland have been killing each other until very recently.
so no answer just going onto ireland lol that would be a new thread for what abouttery....
and i havent insulted you, i asked the question like you ask questions, pointless ones granted! fact is afghanistan has never sorted its own shit, ever ever ever "Oh, right. You don't actually realise when you are being rude. That explains the lack of empathy. I actually answered all of your questions directly,and you still don't seem to ha e explained what point you are making. If you cannot see the direct parallel between your "questions" and some of my supplementary responses then I cannot hell you any further. I'll leave you to it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://allthatsinteresting.com/1960s-afghanistan this op-ed piece has about a time 60-70 years ago has little to do with my assessment over the last 40 years. i had the experience of traveling through the country in 1979 as a 10 year old on our way to the far east. we were quite possibly the last of the uk passport holders to transit the country before the afghan government requested help from the soviets against the anti-capitalist revolutionaries. it was an interesting journey. "Ah right, past 40 yesrs you said never been sorted. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"i disagree. afghanistan has never been sorted in westerm or communist terms. but wether we like it or not, afghans have more control over afghanistan than they have had in over 4 decades. we have to lump it going forward. https://allthatsinteresting.com/1960s-afghanistan Lol what a few pics from the 60s! Go back to Alexander the great onwards, Afghanistan a trading cross roads could have owned the world, like Venice or london, but it gets a few years in 1960! Yeah that's a low bar right there, tribes fighting tribes and its still going. "Just pointing out there wad peace before foreign meddling | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"i disagree. afghanistan has never been sorted in westerm or communist terms. but wether we like it or not, afghans have more control over afghanistan than they have had in over 4 decades. we have to lump it going forward. https://allthatsinteresting.com/1960s-afghanistan Lol what a few pics from the 60s! Go back to Alexander the great onwards, Afghanistan a trading cross roads could have owned the world, like Venice or london, but it gets a few years in 1960! Yeah that's a low bar right there, tribes fighting tribes and its still going.
Just pointing out there wad peace before foreign meddling "Even boxers sit down for a minute between rounds! As a whole it's not good. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"i disagree. afghanistan has never been sorted in westerm or communist terms. but wether we like it or not, afghans have more control over afghanistan than they have had in over 4 decades. we have to lump it going forward. https://allthatsinteresting.com/1960s-afghanistan Lol what a few pics from the 60s! Go back to Alexander the great onwards, Afghanistan a trading cross roads could have owned the world, like Venice or london, but it gets a few years in 1960! Yeah that's a low bar right there, tribes fighting tribes and its still going.
Just pointing out there wad peace before foreign meddling
Even boxers sit down for a minute between rounds! As a whole it's not good. "Too right it's been an unmitigated catastrophe. The Americans are as powerful as they are stupid.
Lots of refugees may never see family ever again. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
