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 |
"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67663888" It is reprehensible behaviour from our government. Almost as sickening as the abandonment of the Kurds to Turkey by the withdrawing US. Who will want to help Western forces if this is how we treat allies who risk much for us? At the very least, offer them flights to Rwanda? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"“Gen Sir Richard Barrons, who served the British Army in Afghanistan for over 12 years, told BBC Newsnight that the failure of the UK to relocate these soldiers "is a disgrace, because it reflects that either we're duplicitous as a nation or incompetent". "Neither are acceptable," he said. "It is a betrayal, and the cost of that betrayal will be people who served with us will die or spend their lives in prison." Following the BBC Newsnight investigation, MPs tabled an Urgent Question in the House of Commons on Monday. In 2021, Prime Minister Boris Johnson had told Parliament that the service of these Afghan special forces had been "incredibly important", adding the UK would do "whatever we can" to get "safe passage" for them. The fears for the Afghan commandos come as it was revealed the government also rejected calls from senior British diplomatic and military figures to offer asylum to key Afghan civilian leaders whose lives were in danger.” And yet we are constantly being told by some (inc posters on here) that we did all we could!" Do you know why they were rejected? It would be a good starting point. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"“Gen Sir Richard Barrons, who served the British Army in Afghanistan for over 12 years, told BBC Newsnight that the failure of the UK to relocate these soldiers "is a disgrace, because it reflects that either we're duplicitous as a nation or incompetent". "Neither are acceptable," he said. "It is a betrayal, and the cost of that betrayal will be people who served with us will die or spend their lives in prison." Following the BBC Newsnight investigation, MPs tabled an Urgent Question in the House of Commons on Monday. In 2021, Prime Minister Boris Johnson had told Parliament that the service of these Afghan special forces had been "incredibly important", adding the UK would do "whatever we can" to get "safe passage" for them. The fears for the Afghan commandos come as it was revealed the government also rejected calls from senior British diplomatic and military figures to offer asylum to key Afghan civilian leaders whose lives were in danger.” And yet we are constantly being told by some (inc posters on here) that we did all we could! Do you know why they were rejected? It would be a good starting point." Agreed but we are not given that information which is part of the point. They won’t say why rejected. Have you read the article in full? A further extract... “Gen Sir Richard Barrons said: "I'm personally ashamed because I feel very deeply that we made an obligation to them and we have not fulfilled it. "It's beyond absurd to say they don't qualify and that they should be left behind to a fate at the hands of the Taliban." He said if a governor who worked with UK forces does not qualify, "it makes you wonder whether anybody ever satisfies the rubric of this particular scheme". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"“Gen Sir Richard Barrons, who served the British Army in Afghanistan for over 12 years, told BBC Newsnight that the failure of the UK to relocate these soldiers "is a disgrace, because it reflects that either we're duplicitous as a nation or incompetent". "Neither are acceptable," he said. "It is a betrayal, and the cost of that betrayal will be people who served with us will die or spend their lives in prison." Following the BBC Newsnight investigation, MPs tabled an Urgent Question in the House of Commons on Monday. In 2021, Prime Minister Boris Johnson had told Parliament that the service of these Afghan special forces had been "incredibly important", adding the UK would do "whatever we can" to get "safe passage" for them. The fears for the Afghan commandos come as it was revealed the government also rejected calls from senior British diplomatic and military figures to offer asylum to key Afghan civilian leaders whose lives were in danger.” And yet we are constantly being told by some (inc posters on here) that we did all we could! Do you know why they were rejected? It would be a good starting point. Agreed but we are not given that information which is part of the point. They won’t say why rejected. Have you read the article in full? A further extract... “Gen Sir Richard Barrons said: "I'm personally ashamed because I feel very deeply that we made an obligation to them and we have not fulfilled it. "It's beyond absurd to say they don't qualify and that they should be left behind to a fate at the hands of the Taliban." He said if a governor who worked with UK forces does not qualify, "it makes you wonder whether anybody ever satisfies the rubric of this particular scheme"." The problem is. Many afghan police and army were actually also taliban. We don't know agreed. Some accepted, some rejected, some still waiting. If they were rejected through equity concerns. I have no problem with this. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"“Gen Sir Richard Barrons, who served the British Army in Afghanistan for over 12 years, told BBC Newsnight that the failure of the UK to relocate these soldiers "is a disgrace, because it reflects that either we're duplicitous as a nation or incompetent". "Neither are acceptable," he said. "It is a betrayal, and the cost of that betrayal will be people who served with us will die or spend their lives in prison." Following the BBC Newsnight investigation, MPs tabled an Urgent Question in the House of Commons on Monday. In 2021, Prime Minister Boris Johnson had told Parliament that the service of these Afghan special forces had been "incredibly important", adding the UK would do "whatever we can" to get "safe passage" for them. The fears for the Afghan commandos come as it was revealed the government also rejected calls from senior British diplomatic and military figures to offer asylum to key Afghan civilian leaders whose lives were in danger.” And yet we are constantly being told by some (inc posters on here) that we did all we could! Do you know why they were rejected? It would be a good starting point. Agreed but we are not given that information which is part of the point. They won’t say why rejected. Have you read the article in full? A further extract... “Gen Sir Richard Barrons said: "I'm personally ashamed because I feel very deeply that we made an obligation to them and we have not fulfilled it. "It's beyond absurd to say they don't qualify and that they should be left behind to a fate at the hands of the Taliban." He said if a governor who worked with UK forces does not qualify, "it makes you wonder whether anybody ever satisfies the rubric of this particular scheme". The problem is. Many afghan police and army were actually also taliban. We don't know agreed. Some accepted, some rejected, some still waiting. If they were rejected through equity concerns. I have no problem with this." Equity concerns? What do you mean? I think it interesting that a veteran General is criticising. Also, the recruitment and background checking are far more rigorous for Special Forces as per what is said in article. Seems odd these Afghans were good/loyal/trusted enough to be in Spec Ops but not the case now/since? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ah those afghan soilders we spent years training who melted away as soon as the taliban turned up, wat the fuck was the point training and arming them if they wasnt going to do the job" From the article "In August 2021 as the Afghan state collapsed, one of the few units that held firm was CF333. Along with his colleagues, Ali headed to the Baron Hotel in the capital Kabul to protect British passport holders as they escaped the country. But he was unable to board an evacuation flight himself, and eventually made it to Pakistan by land. Ali assumed his nearly two decades fighting alongside the British would mean he would soon be offered help. He was wrong." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ah those afghan soilders we spent years training who melted away as soon as the taliban turned up, wat the fuck was the point training and arming them if they wasnt going to do the job From the article "In August 2021 as the Afghan state collapsed, one of the few units that held firm was CF333. Along with his colleagues, Ali headed to the Baron Hotel in the capital Kabul to protect British passport holders as they escaped the country. But he was unable to board an evacuation flight himself, and eventually made it to Pakistan by land. Ali assumed his nearly two decades fighting alongside the British would mean he would soon be offered help. He was wrong."" theres a lesson to be learned then, dont listen to the us or uk military, | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"“Gen Sir Richard Barrons, who served the British Army in Afghanistan for over 12 years, told BBC Newsnight that the failure of the UK to relocate these soldiers "is a disgrace, because it reflects that either we're duplicitous as a nation or incompetent". "Neither are acceptable," he said. "It is a betrayal, and the cost of that betrayal will be people who served with us will die or spend their lives in prison." Following the BBC Newsnight investigation, MPs tabled an Urgent Question in the House of Commons on Monday. In 2021, Prime Minister Boris Johnson had told Parliament that the service of these Afghan special forces had been "incredibly important", adding the UK would do "whatever we can" to get "safe passage" for them. The fears for the Afghan commandos come as it was revealed the government also rejected calls from senior British diplomatic and military figures to offer asylum to key Afghan civilian leaders whose lives were in danger.” And yet we are constantly being told by some (inc posters on here) that we did all we could! Do you know why they were rejected? It would be a good starting point. Agreed but we are not given that information which is part of the point. They won’t say why rejected. Have you read the article in full? A further extract... “Gen Sir Richard Barrons said: "I'm personally ashamed because I feel very deeply that we made an obligation to them and we have not fulfilled it. "It's beyond absurd to say they don't qualify and that they should be left behind to a fate at the hands of the Taliban." He said if a governor who worked with UK forces does not qualify, "it makes you wonder whether anybody ever satisfies the rubric of this particular scheme". The problem is. Many afghan police and army were actually also taliban. We don't know agreed. Some accepted, some rejected, some still waiting. If they were rejected through equity concerns. I have no problem with this. Equity concerns? What do you mean? I think it interesting that a veteran General is criticising. Also, the recruitment and background checking are far more rigorous for Special Forces as per what is said in article. Seems odd these Afghans were good/loyal/trusted enough to be in Spec Ops but not the case now/since?" Safety concerns* It was quite common for people in the afghan army to defect. Or just join for security at the time | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"“Gen Sir Richard Barrons, who served the British Army in Afghanistan for over 12 years, told BBC Newsnight that the failure of the UK to relocate these soldiers "is a disgrace, because it reflects that either we're duplicitous as a nation or incompetent". "Neither are acceptable," he said. "It is a betrayal, and the cost of that betrayal will be people who served with us will die or spend their lives in prison." Following the BBC Newsnight investigation, MPs tabled an Urgent Question in the House of Commons on Monday. In 2021, Prime Minister Boris Johnson had told Parliament that the service of these Afghan special forces had been "incredibly important", adding the UK would do "whatever we can" to get "safe passage" for them. The fears for the Afghan commandos come as it was revealed the government also rejected calls from senior British diplomatic and military figures to offer asylum to key Afghan civilian leaders whose lives were in danger.” And yet we are constantly being told by some (inc posters on here) that we did all we could! Do you know why they were rejected? It would be a good starting point. Agreed but we are not given that information which is part of the point. They won’t say why rejected. Have you read the article in full? A further extract... “Gen Sir Richard Barrons said: "I'm personally ashamed because I feel very deeply that we made an obligation to them and we have not fulfilled it. "It's beyond absurd to say they don't qualify and that they should be left behind to a fate at the hands of the Taliban." He said if a governor who worked with UK forces does not qualify, "it makes you wonder whether anybody ever satisfies the rubric of this particular scheme". The problem is. Many afghan police and army were actually also taliban. We don't know agreed. Some accepted, some rejected, some still waiting. If they were rejected through equity concerns. I have no problem with this. Equity concerns? What do you mean? I think it interesting that a veteran General is criticising. Also, the recruitment and background checking are far more rigorous for Special Forces as per what is said in article. Seems odd these Afghans were good/loyal/trusted enough to be in Spec Ops but not the case now/since? Safety concerns* It was quite common for people in the afghan army to defect. Or just join for security at the time " But these were not just standard soldiers. They were Special Ops. The elite. Subject to more stringent vetting and far more rigorous training (by a huge margin). You have read the article haven’t you? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ah those afghan soilders we spent years training who melted away as soon as the taliban turned up, wat the fuck was the point training and arming them if they wasnt going to do the job" I agree completely... unlike the Ukrainians | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ah those afghan soilders we spent years training who melted away as soon as the taliban turned up, wat the fuck was the point training and arming them if they wasnt going to do the job I agree completely... unlike the Ukrainians" problem with the ukies is, they have burnt through there troops and young people and there now onto females and the over 40s being sent off to fight | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ah those afghan soilders we spent years training who melted away as soon as the taliban turned up, wat the fuck was the point training and arming them if they wasnt going to do the job I agree completely... unlike the Ukrainiansproblem with the ukies is, they have burnt through there troops and young people and there now onto females and the over 40s being sent off to fight" And if they fall because the west doesn't have the stomach for the fight? Think the people of the UK, or any other European country, could fight their way out of a paper bag? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"“Gen Sir Richard Barrons, who served the British Army in Afghanistan for over 12 years, told BBC Newsnight that the failure of the UK to relocate these soldiers "is a disgrace, because it reflects that either we're duplicitous as a nation or incompetent". "Neither are acceptable," he said. "It is a betrayal, and the cost of that betrayal will be people who served with us will die or spend their lives in prison." Following the BBC Newsnight investigation, MPs tabled an Urgent Question in the House of Commons on Monday. In 2021, Prime Minister Boris Johnson had told Parliament that the service of these Afghan special forces had been "incredibly important", adding the UK would do "whatever we can" to get "safe passage" for them. The fears for the Afghan commandos come as it was revealed the government also rejected calls from senior British diplomatic and military figures to offer asylum to key Afghan civilian leaders whose lives were in danger.” And yet we are constantly being told by some (inc posters on here) that we did all we could! Do you know why they were rejected? It would be a good starting point. Agreed but we are not given that information which is part of the point. They won’t say why rejected. Have you read the article in full? A further extract... “Gen Sir Richard Barrons said: "I'm personally ashamed because I feel very deeply that we made an obligation to them and we have not fulfilled it. "It's beyond absurd to say they don't qualify and that they should be left behind to a fate at the hands of the Taliban." He said if a governor who worked with UK forces does not qualify, "it makes you wonder whether anybody ever satisfies the rubric of this particular scheme". The problem is. Many afghan police and army were actually also taliban. We don't know agreed. Some accepted, some rejected, some still waiting. If they were rejected through equity concerns. I have no problem with this. Equity concerns? What do you mean? I think it interesting that a veteran General is criticising. Also, the recruitment and background checking are far more rigorous for Special Forces as per what is said in article. Seems odd these Afghans were good/loyal/trusted enough to be in Spec Ops but not the case now/since? Safety concerns* It was quite common for people in the afghan army to defect. Or just join for security at the time But these were not just standard soldiers. They were Special Ops. The elite. Subject to more stringent vetting and far more rigorous training (by a huge margin). You have read the article haven’t you?" I have read the article. Again there are clear concerns about security if they beleive they sent have a right to reside in the uk. Whatbin the article makes you think they are beyond turning? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"“Gen Sir Richard Barrons, who served the British Army in Afghanistan for over 12 years, told BBC Newsnight that the failure of the UK to relocate these soldiers "is a disgrace, because it reflects that either we're duplicitous as a nation or incompetent". "Neither are acceptable," he said. "It is a betrayal, and the cost of that betrayal will be people who served with us will die or spend their lives in prison." Following the BBC Newsnight investigation, MPs tabled an Urgent Question in the House of Commons on Monday. In 2021, Prime Minister Boris Johnson had told Parliament that the service of these Afghan special forces had been "incredibly important", adding the UK would do "whatever we can" to get "safe passage" for them. The fears for the Afghan commandos come as it was revealed the government also rejected calls from senior British diplomatic and military figures to offer asylum to key Afghan civilian leaders whose lives were in danger.” And yet we are constantly being told by some (inc posters on here) that we did all we could! Do you know why they were rejected? It would be a good starting point. Agreed but we are not given that information which is part of the point. They won’t say why rejected. Have you read the article in full? A further extract... “Gen Sir Richard Barrons said: "I'm personally ashamed because I feel very deeply that we made an obligation to them and we have not fulfilled it. "It's beyond absurd to say they don't qualify and that they should be left behind to a fate at the hands of the Taliban." He said if a governor who worked with UK forces does not qualify, "it makes you wonder whether anybody ever satisfies the rubric of this particular scheme". The problem is. Many afghan police and army were actually also taliban. We don't know agreed. Some accepted, some rejected, some still waiting. If they were rejected through equity concerns. I have no problem with this. Equity concerns? What do you mean? I think it interesting that a veteran General is criticising. Also, the recruitment and background checking are far more rigorous for Special Forces as per what is said in article. Seems odd these Afghans were good/loyal/trusted enough to be in Spec Ops but not the case now/since? Safety concerns* It was quite common for people in the afghan army to defect. Or just join for security at the time But these were not just standard soldiers. They were Special Ops. The elite. Subject to more stringent vetting and far more rigorous training (by a huge margin). You have read the article haven’t you? I have read the article. Again there are clear concerns about security if they beleive they sent have a right to reside in the uk. Whatbin the article makes you think they are beyond turning?" Based on that article there is no mention of security concerns (unless I missed it). You are making a leap but based on what? Do you have evidence that says the actual Afghan soldiers in this article were a security risk? I am not saying other Afghan soldiers were seen as a risk. But what about these particular men? As I say, Special Ops. Why would a veteran British General risk his own reputation to call this out? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"“Gen Sir Richard Barrons, who served the British Army in Afghanistan for over 12 years, told BBC Newsnight that the failure of the UK to relocate these soldiers "is a disgrace, because it reflects that either we're duplicitous as a nation or incompetent". "Neither are acceptable," he said. "It is a betrayal, and the cost of that betrayal will be people who served with us will die or spend their lives in prison." Following the BBC Newsnight investigation, MPs tabled an Urgent Question in the House of Commons on Monday. In 2021, Prime Minister Boris Johnson had told Parliament that the service of these Afghan special forces had been "incredibly important", adding the UK would do "whatever we can" to get "safe passage" for them. The fears for the Afghan commandos come as it was revealed the government also rejected calls from senior British diplomatic and military figures to offer asylum to key Afghan civilian leaders whose lives were in danger.” And yet we are constantly being told by some (inc posters on here) that we did all we could! Do you know why they were rejected? It would be a good starting point. Agreed but we are not given that information which is part of the point. They won’t say why rejected. Have you read the article in full? A further extract... “Gen Sir Richard Barrons said: "I'm personally ashamed because I feel very deeply that we made an obligation to them and we have not fulfilled it. "It's beyond absurd to say they don't qualify and that they should be left behind to a fate at the hands of the Taliban." He said if a governor who worked with UK forces does not qualify, "it makes you wonder whether anybody ever satisfies the rubric of this particular scheme". The problem is. Many afghan police and army were actually also taliban. We don't know agreed. Some accepted, some rejected, some still waiting. If they were rejected through equity concerns. I have no problem with this. Equity concerns? What do you mean? I think it interesting that a veteran General is criticising. Also, the recruitment and background checking are far more rigorous for Special Forces as per what is said in article. Seems odd these Afghans were good/loyal/trusted enough to be in Spec Ops but not the case now/since? Safety concerns* It was quite common for people in the afghan army to defect. Or just join for security at the time But these were not just standard soldiers. They were Special Ops. The elite. Subject to more stringent vetting and far more rigorous training (by a huge margin). You have read the article haven’t you? I have read the article. Again there are clear concerns about security if they beleive they sent have a right to reside in the uk. Whatbin the article makes you think they are beyond turning? Based on that article there is no mention of security concerns (unless I missed it). You are making a leap but based on what? Do you have evidence that says the actual Afghan soldiers in this article were a security risk? I am not saying other Afghan soldiers were seen as a risk. But what about these particular men? As I say, Special Ops. Why would a veteran British General risk his own reputation to call this out?" They jave been rejected for a reason. Indont know what those reasons are. Apparently some claimed they employees of the uk state. Of they've bot filled in a form correctly. Then they'll get rejected. I can only make assumption for the reason for rejection. As the articles don't say. I have no problem withnthenrejections while there still isn't clarity. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"“Gen Sir Richard Barrons, who served the British Army in Afghanistan for over 12 years, told BBC Newsnight that the failure of the UK to relocate these soldiers "is a disgrace, because it reflects that either we're duplicitous as a nation or incompetent". "Neither are acceptable," he said. "It is a betrayal, and the cost of that betrayal will be people who served with us will die or spend their lives in prison." Following the BBC Newsnight investigation, MPs tabled an Urgent Question in the House of Commons on Monday. In 2021, Prime Minister Boris Johnson had told Parliament that the service of these Afghan special forces had been "incredibly important", adding the UK would do "whatever we can" to get "safe passage" for them. The fears for the Afghan commandos come as it was revealed the government also rejected calls from senior British diplomatic and military figures to offer asylum to key Afghan civilian leaders whose lives were in danger.” And yet we are constantly being told by some (inc posters on here) that we did all we could! Do you know why they were rejected? It would be a good starting point. Agreed but we are not given that information which is part of the point. They won’t say why rejected. Have you read the article in full? A further extract... “Gen Sir Richard Barrons said: "I'm personally ashamed because I feel very deeply that we made an obligation to them and we have not fulfilled it. "It's beyond absurd to say they don't qualify and that they should be left behind to a fate at the hands of the Taliban." He said if a governor who worked with UK forces does not qualify, "it makes you wonder whether anybody ever satisfies the rubric of this particular scheme". The problem is. Many afghan police and army were actually also taliban. We don't know agreed. Some accepted, some rejected, some still waiting. If they were rejected through equity concerns. I have no problem with this. Equity concerns? What do you mean? I think it interesting that a veteran General is criticising. Also, the recruitment and background checking are far more rigorous for Special Forces as per what is said in article. Seems odd these Afghans were good/loyal/trusted enough to be in Spec Ops but not the case now/since? Safety concerns* It was quite common for people in the afghan army to defect. Or just join for security at the time But these were not just standard soldiers. They were Special Ops. The elite. Subject to more stringent vetting and far more rigorous training (by a huge margin). You have read the article haven’t you? I have read the article. Again there are clear concerns about security if they beleive they sent have a right to reside in the uk. Whatbin the article makes you think they are beyond turning? Based on that article there is no mention of security concerns (unless I missed it). You are making a leap but based on what? Do you have evidence that says the actual Afghan soldiers in this article were a security risk? I am not saying other Afghan soldiers were seen as a risk. But what about these particular men? As I say, Special Ops. Why would a veteran British General risk his own reputation to call this out? They jave been rejected for a reason. Indont know what those reasons are. Apparently some claimed they employees of the uk state. Of they've bot filled in a form correctly. Then they'll get rejected. I can only make assumption for the reason for rejection. As the articles don't say. I have no problem withnthenrejections while there still isn't clarity. " Fair enough. You have faith that the process is fair and they were rejected for legitimate reasons. I say the process appears somewhat suspect if people the British Army considered appropriate to be trained, equipped and operate as Special Ops soldiers are not subsequently considered to be eligible for our ongoing support and protection from our joint enemies. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The important parts of this story are missing: Were the troops trained as part of a home grown support strategy, that was building Afghan capabilities? Why would a General be promising outcomes that couldn’t be delivered or be considered? That is the most bewildering part.. However, If the troops were part of an Afghan training scheme that was being built to support their country, they wouldn’t have any rights to come to the UK and what they were deployed to work on is then irrelevant. If however the UK government employed them to work specifically in the interests of the UK, with no forward plans of integration into Afghan armed forces, that might be a very different situation, depending on contract. " They outnumbered the Taliban 2-1 and were given superior arms and training over a 12 year period. The one thing that couldn't be given is the balls to fight. Unlike the Ukrainian people | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The important parts of this story are missing: Were the troops trained as part of a home grown support strategy, that was building Afghan capabilities? Why would a General be promising outcomes that couldn’t be delivered or be considered? That is the most bewildering part.. However, If the troops were part of an Afghan training scheme that was being built to support their country, they wouldn’t have any rights to come to the UK and what they were deployed to work on is then irrelevant. If however the UK government employed them to work specifically in the interests of the UK, with no forward plans of integration into Afghan armed forces, that might be a very different situation, depending on contract. They outnumbered the Taliban 2-1 and were given superior arms and training over a 12 year period. The one thing that couldn't be given is the balls to fight. Unlike the Ukrainian people " Doesn’t seem to apply to the specific men in question if you read the article. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The important parts of this story are missing: Were the troops trained as part of a home grown support strategy, that was building Afghan capabilities? Why would a General be promising outcomes that couldn’t be delivered or be considered? That is the most bewildering part.. However, If the troops were part of an Afghan training scheme that was being built to support their country, they wouldn’t have any rights to come to the UK and what they were deployed to work on is then irrelevant. If however the UK government employed them to work specifically in the interests of the UK, with no forward plans of integration into Afghan armed forces, that might be a very different situation, depending on contract. They outnumbered the Taliban 2-1 and were given superior arms and training over a 12 year period. The one thing that couldn't be given is the balls to fight. Unlike the Ukrainian people Doesn’t seem to apply to the specific men in question if you read the article." This does seem to be the case, however I'm still unsure what the long term goal was for these men. I have a feeling they were expected to be part of the Afghan military and the near instant collapse of the Afghan military has left them in this situation. Pakistan's decision to send them back to Afghanistan seems to be flying under the radar unchallenged too. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The important parts of this story are missing: Were the troops trained as part of a home grown support strategy, that was building Afghan capabilities? Why would a General be promising outcomes that couldn’t be delivered or be considered? That is the most bewildering part.. However, If the troops were part of an Afghan training scheme that was being built to support their country, they wouldn’t have any rights to come to the UK and what they were deployed to work on is then irrelevant. If however the UK government employed them to work specifically in the interests of the UK, with no forward plans of integration into Afghan armed forces, that might be a very different situation, depending on contract. They outnumbered the Taliban 2-1 and were given superior arms and training over a 12 year period. The one thing that couldn't be given is the balls to fight. Unlike the Ukrainian people Doesn’t seem to apply to the specific men in question if you read the article. This does seem to be the case, however I'm still unsure what the long term goal was for these men. I have a feeling they were expected to be part of the Afghan military and the near instant collapse of the Afghan military has left them in this situation. Pakistan's decision to send them back to Afghanistan seems to be flying under the radar unchallenged too." I have no doubt they were trained to be part of a long term Afghan (anti-Taliban) army. But a couple of Companies (c.200 men) cannot win a war and the rest of the Afghan military soon stood down. So do we abandon them? “Them’s the breaks lads see ya!” They face almost certain execution by the Taliban. Don’t we care? The optics are terrible. Wherever the next British intervention is, the locals will think twice before trusting what the Brits say as they know when the chips are down we don’t have their back! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The important parts of this story are missing: Were the troops trained as part of a home grown support strategy, that was building Afghan capabilities? Why would a General be promising outcomes that couldn’t be delivered or be considered? That is the most bewildering part.. However, If the troops were part of an Afghan training scheme that was being built to support their country, they wouldn’t have any rights to come to the UK and what they were deployed to work on is then irrelevant. If however the UK government employed them to work specifically in the interests of the UK, with no forward plans of integration into Afghan armed forces, that might be a very different situation, depending on contract. They outnumbered the Taliban 2-1 and were given superior arms and training over a 12 year period. The one thing that couldn't be given is the balls to fight. Unlike the Ukrainian people Doesn’t seem to apply to the specific men in question if you read the article. This does seem to be the case, however I'm still unsure what the long term goal was for these men. I have a feeling they were expected to be part of the Afghan military and the near instant collapse of the Afghan military has left them in this situation. Pakistan's decision to send them back to Afghanistan seems to be flying under the radar unchallenged too. I have no doubt they were trained to be part of a long term Afghan (anti-Taliban) army. But a couple of Companies (c.200 men) cannot win a war and the rest of the Afghan military soon stood down. So do we abandon them? “Them’s the breaks lads see ya!” They face almost certain execution by the Taliban. Don’t we care? The optics are terrible. Wherever the next British intervention is, the locals will think twice before trusting what the Brits say as they know when the chips are down we don’t have their back!" If it was the case that they were the long term future of Afghanistan, I have a different view to you and I put the accountability on the Afghan government and military that collapsed. It is also interesting that you see the training of foreign troops as a never ending responsibility for the UK and have not mentioned the Pakistan government who are the guilty party here, wouldn't you agree? They could decide not to deport them and they would not be in this is situation. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The important parts of this story are missing: Were the troops trained as part of a home grown support strategy, that was building Afghan capabilities? Why would a General be promising outcomes that couldn’t be delivered or be considered? That is the most bewildering part.. However, If the troops were part of an Afghan training scheme that was being built to support their country, they wouldn’t have any rights to come to the UK and what they were deployed to work on is then irrelevant. If however the UK government employed them to work specifically in the interests of the UK, with no forward plans of integration into Afghan armed forces, that might be a very different situation, depending on contract. They outnumbered the Taliban 2-1 and were given superior arms and training over a 12 year period. The one thing that couldn't be given is the balls to fight. Unlike the Ukrainian people Doesn’t seem to apply to the specific men in question if you read the article. This does seem to be the case, however I'm still unsure what the long term goal was for these men. I have a feeling they were expected to be part of the Afghan military and the near instant collapse of the Afghan military has left them in this situation. Pakistan's decision to send them back to Afghanistan seems to be flying under the radar unchallenged too. I have no doubt they were trained to be part of a long term Afghan (anti-Taliban) army. But a couple of Companies (c.200 men) cannot win a war and the rest of the Afghan military soon stood down. So do we abandon them? “Them’s the breaks lads see ya!” They face almost certain execution by the Taliban. Don’t we care? The optics are terrible. Wherever the next British intervention is, the locals will think twice before trusting what the Brits say as they know when the chips are down we don’t have their back!" your carrying on as if its the first time we have fucked people over, we left plenty behind in iraq who had helped us, after the 2nd world war we left the polish all on there own to, why anyone would trust what a uk goverment is telling them is beyond me | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The important parts of this story are missing: Were the troops trained as part of a home grown support strategy, that was building Afghan capabilities? Why would a General be promising outcomes that couldn’t be delivered or be considered? That is the most bewildering part.. However, If the troops were part of an Afghan training scheme that was being built to support their country, they wouldn’t have any rights to come to the UK and what they were deployed to work on is then irrelevant. If however the UK government employed them to work specifically in the interests of the UK, with no forward plans of integration into Afghan armed forces, that might be a very different situation, depending on contract. They outnumbered the Taliban 2-1 and were given superior arms and training over a 12 year period. The one thing that couldn't be given is the balls to fight. Unlike the Ukrainian people Doesn’t seem to apply to the specific men in question if you read the article. This does seem to be the case, however I'm still unsure what the long term goal was for these men. I have a feeling they were expected to be part of the Afghan military and the near instant collapse of the Afghan military has left them in this situation. Pakistan's decision to send them back to Afghanistan seems to be flying under the radar unchallenged too. I have no doubt they were trained to be part of a long term Afghan (anti-Taliban) army. But a couple of Companies (c.200 men) cannot win a war and the rest of the Afghan military soon stood down. So do we abandon them? “Them’s the breaks lads see ya!” They face almost certain execution by the Taliban. Don’t we care? The optics are terrible. Wherever the next British intervention is, the locals will think twice before trusting what the Brits say as they know when the chips are down we don’t have their back! If it was the case that they were the long term future of Afghanistan, I have a different view to you and I put the accountability on the Afghan government and military that collapsed. It is also interesting that you see the training of foreign troops as a never ending responsibility for the UK and have not mentioned the Pakistan government who are the guilty party here, wouldn't you agree? They could decide not to deport them and they would not be in this is situation. " The UK decided to go into Afghanistan. We attempted, alongside the USA, to try and establish a (Western style?) democracy and all the necessary functions that sit around/support that, including recruiting, equipping, and training the military. This wasn’t a purely altruistic gesture as there were objectives and downstream benefits associated with the UK and USA being in Afghanistan. That also indicated long term commitment and support. From what I have read (and there may be much more to this story I am not sighted on), the UK had a moral duty to these men. The only reason they became Pakistan’s problem was they were seemingly abandoned by the UK. Did they enter Pakistan legally or simply flee across the border? Wasn’t Pakistan the “first safe country” they reached? Aren’t we always being told refugees or asylum seekers should stop in first safe country and apply from there to the UK? Doesn’t this highlight that argument is often a nonsense? Some people often say asylum seekers coming to the UK should not be our problem. Why is it Pakistan’s problem? Were they militarily active in Afghanistan? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The important parts of this story are missing: Were the troops trained as part of a home grown support strategy, that was building Afghan capabilities? Why would a General be promising outcomes that couldn’t be delivered or be considered? That is the most bewildering part.. However, If the troops were part of an Afghan training scheme that was being built to support their country, they wouldn’t have any rights to come to the UK and what they were deployed to work on is then irrelevant. If however the UK government employed them to work specifically in the interests of the UK, with no forward plans of integration into Afghan armed forces, that might be a very different situation, depending on contract. They outnumbered the Taliban 2-1 and were given superior arms and training over a 12 year period. The one thing that couldn't be given is the balls to fight. Unlike the Ukrainian people Doesn’t seem to apply to the specific men in question if you read the article. This does seem to be the case, however I'm still unsure what the long term goal was for these men. I have a feeling they were expected to be part of the Afghan military and the near instant collapse of the Afghan military has left them in this situation. Pakistan's decision to send them back to Afghanistan seems to be flying under the radar unchallenged too. I have no doubt they were trained to be part of a long term Afghan (anti-Taliban) army. But a couple of Companies (c.200 men) cannot win a war and the rest of the Afghan military soon stood down. So do we abandon them? “Them’s the breaks lads see ya!” They face almost certain execution by the Taliban. Don’t we care? The optics are terrible. Wherever the next British intervention is, the locals will think twice before trusting what the Brits say as they know when the chips are down we don’t have their back! If it was the case that they were the long term future of Afghanistan, I have a different view to you and I put the accountability on the Afghan government and military that collapsed. It is also interesting that you see the training of foreign troops as a never ending responsibility for the UK and have not mentioned the Pakistan government who are the guilty party here, wouldn't you agree? They could decide not to deport them and they would not be in this is situation. The UK decided to go into Afghanistan. We attempted, alongside the USA, to try and establish a (Western style?) democracy and all the necessary functions that sit around/support that, including recruiting, equipping, and training the military. This wasn’t a purely altruistic gesture as there were objectives and downstream benefits associated with the UK and USA being in Afghanistan. That also indicated long term commitment and support. From what I have read (and there may be much more to this story I am not sighted on), the UK had a moral duty to these men. The only reason they became Pakistan’s problem was they were seemingly abandoned by the UK. Did they enter Pakistan legally or simply flee across the border? Wasn’t Pakistan the “first safe country” they reached? Aren’t we always being told refugees or asylum seekers should stop in first safe country and apply from there to the UK? Doesn’t this highlight that argument is often a nonsense? Some people often say asylum seekers coming to the UK should not be our problem. Why is it Pakistan’s problem? Were they militarily active in Afghanistan?" You are sending out a confusing message. If they are in a safe place Pakistan, we should be considering why Pakistan has decided to remove them and put them in danger. I suspect you could be avoiding that question as it brings with it so many complexities, and yet I read here often the UK should take people crossing the channel illegally and house them look after them, what is different here? Training an army does not make the country providing that training responsible for the future welfare of those troops, it the government of the country the troops are serving. That is unless the UK made explicit guarantees that provided support and a home in the UK for the troops it was training, which is in doubt or we would not be reading about this now. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The important parts of this story are missing: Were the troops trained as part of a home grown support strategy, that was building Afghan capabilities? Why would a General be promising outcomes that couldn’t be delivered or be considered? That is the most bewildering part.. However, If the troops were part of an Afghan training scheme that was being built to support their country, they wouldn’t have any rights to come to the UK and what they were deployed to work on is then irrelevant. If however the UK government employed them to work specifically in the interests of the UK, with no forward plans of integration into Afghan armed forces, that might be a very different situation, depending on contract. They outnumbered the Taliban 2-1 and were given superior arms and training over a 12 year period. The one thing that couldn't be given is the balls to fight. Unlike the Ukrainian people Doesn’t seem to apply to the specific men in question if you read the article. This does seem to be the case, however I'm still unsure what the long term goal was for these men. I have a feeling they were expected to be part of the Afghan military and the near instant collapse of the Afghan military has left them in this situation. Pakistan's decision to send them back to Afghanistan seems to be flying under the radar unchallenged too. I have no doubt they were trained to be part of a long term Afghan (anti-Taliban) army. But a couple of Companies (c.200 men) cannot win a war and the rest of the Afghan military soon stood down. So do we abandon them? “Them’s the breaks lads see ya!” They face almost certain execution by the Taliban. Don’t we care? The optics are terrible. Wherever the next British intervention is, the locals will think twice before trusting what the Brits say as they know when the chips are down we don’t have their back! If it was the case that they were the long term future of Afghanistan, I have a different view to you and I put the accountability on the Afghan government and military that collapsed. It is also interesting that you see the training of foreign troops as a never ending responsibility for the UK and have not mentioned the Pakistan government who are the guilty party here, wouldn't you agree? They could decide not to deport them and they would not be in this is situation. The UK decided to go into Afghanistan. We attempted, alongside the USA, to try and establish a (Western style?) democracy and all the necessary functions that sit around/support that, including recruiting, equipping, and training the military. This wasn’t a purely altruistic gesture as there were objectives and downstream benefits associated with the UK and USA being in Afghanistan. That also indicated long term commitment and support. From what I have read (and there may be much more to this story I am not sighted on), the UK had a moral duty to these men. The only reason they became Pakistan’s problem was they were seemingly abandoned by the UK. Did they enter Pakistan legally or simply flee across the border? Wasn’t Pakistan the “first safe country” they reached? Aren’t we always being told refugees or asylum seekers should stop in first safe country and apply from there to the UK? Doesn’t this highlight that argument is often a nonsense? Some people often say asylum seekers coming to the UK should not be our problem. Why is it Pakistan’s problem? Were they militarily active in Afghanistan? You are sending out a confusing message. If they are in a safe place Pakistan, we should be considering why Pakistan has decided to remove them and put them in danger. I suspect you could be avoiding that question as it brings with it so many complexities, and yet I read here often the UK should take people crossing the channel illegally and house them look after them, what is different here? Training an army does not make the country providing that training responsible for the future welfare of those troops, it the government of the country the troops are serving. That is unless the UK made explicit guarantees that provided support and a home in the UK for the troops it was training, which is in doubt or we would not be reading about this now. " Re Pakistan, not avoiding at all I just don’t know any detail here as not in the article. However, the general question remains, why are these men Pakistan’s responsibility? On your other points we will just have to disagree. I believe the UK had a moral duty to these men and abandoned them leaving them no option other than to flee to Pakistan. What are your views on the French and Polish soldiers/pilots who arrived in the UK early in WWII to escape the Germans? Should we have turned them away and sent them back to carry on the fight? I don’t see much difference here really! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The important parts of this story are missing: Were the troops trained as part of a home grown support strategy, that was building Afghan capabilities? Why would a General be promising outcomes that couldn’t be delivered or be considered? That is the most bewildering part.. However, If the troops were part of an Afghan training scheme that was being built to support their country, they wouldn’t have any rights to come to the UK and what they were deployed to work on is then irrelevant. If however the UK government employed them to work specifically in the interests of the UK, with no forward plans of integration into Afghan armed forces, that might be a very different situation, depending on contract. They outnumbered the Taliban 2-1 and were given superior arms and training over a 12 year period. The one thing that couldn't be given is the balls to fight. Unlike the Ukrainian people Doesn’t seem to apply to the specific men in question if you read the article. This does seem to be the case, however I'm still unsure what the long term goal was for these men. I have a feeling they were expected to be part of the Afghan military and the near instant collapse of the Afghan military has left them in this situation. Pakistan's decision to send them back to Afghanistan seems to be flying under the radar unchallenged too. I have no doubt they were trained to be part of a long term Afghan (anti-Taliban) army. But a couple of Companies (c.200 men) cannot win a war and the rest of the Afghan military soon stood down. So do we abandon them? “Them’s the breaks lads see ya!” They face almost certain execution by the Taliban. Don’t we care? The optics are terrible. Wherever the next British intervention is, the locals will think twice before trusting what the Brits say as they know when the chips are down we don’t have their back! If it was the case that they were the long term future of Afghanistan, I have a different view to you and I put the accountability on the Afghan government and military that collapsed. It is also interesting that you see the training of foreign troops as a never ending responsibility for the UK and have not mentioned the Pakistan government who are the guilty party here, wouldn't you agree? They could decide not to deport them and they would not be in this is situation. The UK decided to go into Afghanistan. We attempted, alongside the USA, to try and establish a (Western style?) democracy and all the necessary functions that sit around/support that, including recruiting, equipping, and training the military. This wasn’t a purely altruistic gesture as there were objectives and downstream benefits associated with the UK and USA being in Afghanistan. That also indicated long term commitment and support. From what I have read (and there may be much more to this story I am not sighted on), the UK had a moral duty to these men. The only reason they became Pakistan’s problem was they were seemingly abandoned by the UK. Did they enter Pakistan legally or simply flee across the border? Wasn’t Pakistan the “first safe country” they reached? Aren’t we always being told refugees or asylum seekers should stop in first safe country and apply from there to the UK? Doesn’t this highlight that argument is often a nonsense? Some people often say asylum seekers coming to the UK should not be our problem. Why is it Pakistan’s problem? Were they militarily active in Afghanistan? You are sending out a confusing message. If they are in a safe place Pakistan, we should be considering why Pakistan has decided to remove them and put them in danger. I suspect you could be avoiding that question as it brings with it so many complexities, and yet I read here often the UK should take people crossing the channel illegally and house them look after them, what is different here? Training an army does not make the country providing that training responsible for the future welfare of those troops, it the government of the country the troops are serving. That is unless the UK made explicit guarantees that provided support and a home in the UK for the troops it was training, which is in doubt or we would not be reading about this now. " Why doesn't the same laws that stopped the UK from sending people to Rwanda for fear they will be sent back into danger, apply to Pakistan. Is the human rights people not involved or does Pakistan not come under them? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The important parts of this story are missing: Were the troops trained as part of a home grown support strategy, that was building Afghan capabilities? Why would a General be promising outcomes that couldn’t be delivered or be considered? That is the most bewildering part.. However, If the troops were part of an Afghan training scheme that was being built to support their country, they wouldn’t have any rights to come to the UK and what they were deployed to work on is then irrelevant. If however the UK government employed them to work specifically in the interests of the UK, with no forward plans of integration into Afghan armed forces, that might be a very different situation, depending on contract. They outnumbered the Taliban 2-1 and were given superior arms and training over a 12 year period. The one thing that couldn't be given is the balls to fight. Unlike the Ukrainian people Doesn’t seem to apply to the specific men in question if you read the article. This does seem to be the case, however I'm still unsure what the long term goal was for these men. I have a feeling they were expected to be part of the Afghan military and the near instant collapse of the Afghan military has left them in this situation. Pakistan's decision to send them back to Afghanistan seems to be flying under the radar unchallenged too. I have no doubt they were trained to be part of a long term Afghan (anti-Taliban) army. But a couple of Companies (c.200 men) cannot win a war and the rest of the Afghan military soon stood down. So do we abandon them? “Them’s the breaks lads see ya!” They face almost certain execution by the Taliban. Don’t we care? The optics are terrible. Wherever the next British intervention is, the locals will think twice before trusting what the Brits say as they know when the chips are down we don’t have their back! If it was the case that they were the long term future of Afghanistan, I have a different view to you and I put the accountability on the Afghan government and military that collapsed. It is also interesting that you see the training of foreign troops as a never ending responsibility for the UK and have not mentioned the Pakistan government who are the guilty party here, wouldn't you agree? They could decide not to deport them and they would not be in this is situation. The UK decided to go into Afghanistan. We attempted, alongside the USA, to try and establish a (Western style?) democracy and all the necessary functions that sit around/support that, including recruiting, equipping, and training the military. This wasn’t a purely altruistic gesture as there were objectives and downstream benefits associated with the UK and USA being in Afghanistan. That also indicated long term commitment and support. From what I have read (and there may be much more to this story I am not sighted on), the UK had a moral duty to these men. The only reason they became Pakistan’s problem was they were seemingly abandoned by the UK. Did they enter Pakistan legally or simply flee across the border? Wasn’t Pakistan the “first safe country” they reached? Aren’t we always being told refugees or asylum seekers should stop in first safe country and apply from there to the UK? Doesn’t this highlight that argument is often a nonsense? Some people often say asylum seekers coming to the UK should not be our problem. Why is it Pakistan’s problem? Were they militarily active in Afghanistan? You are sending out a confusing message. If they are in a safe place Pakistan, we should be considering why Pakistan has decided to remove them and put them in danger. I suspect you could be avoiding that question as it brings with it so many complexities, and yet I read here often the UK should take people crossing the channel illegally and house them look after them, what is different here? Training an army does not make the country providing that training responsible for the future welfare of those troops, it the government of the country the troops are serving. That is unless the UK made explicit guarantees that provided support and a home in the UK for the troops it was training, which is in doubt or we would not be reading about this now. Why doesn't the same laws that stopped the UK from sending people to Rwanda for fear they will be sent back into danger, apply to Pakistan. Is the human rights people not involved or does Pakistan not come under them?" I’ve no idea, there are to many holes in the story. Which is my point, the sudden jump to the UK should be looking after them is based on very little evidence to back that up, and probably why they’ve not been granted access. Emotive subject clearly, and I find it interesting that people say the government must be at fault when they don’t know the full facts. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The important parts of this story are missing: Were the troops trained as part of a home grown support strategy, that was building Afghan capabilities? Why would a General be promising outcomes that couldn’t be delivered or be considered? That is the most bewildering part.. However, If the troops were part of an Afghan training scheme that was being built to support their country, they wouldn’t have any rights to come to the UK and what they were deployed to work on is then irrelevant. If however the UK government employed them to work specifically in the interests of the UK, with no forward plans of integration into Afghan armed forces, that might be a very different situation, depending on contract. They outnumbered the Taliban 2-1 and were given superior arms and training over a 12 year period. The one thing that couldn't be given is the balls to fight. Unlike the Ukrainian people Doesn’t seem to apply to the specific men in question if you read the article. This does seem to be the case, however I'm still unsure what the long term goal was for these men. I have a feeling they were expected to be part of the Afghan military and the near instant collapse of the Afghan military has left them in this situation. Pakistan's decision to send them back to Afghanistan seems to be flying under the radar unchallenged too. I have no doubt they were trained to be part of a long term Afghan (anti-Taliban) army. But a couple of Companies (c.200 men) cannot win a war and the rest of the Afghan military soon stood down. So do we abandon them? “Them’s the breaks lads see ya!” They face almost certain execution by the Taliban. Don’t we care? The optics are terrible. Wherever the next British intervention is, the locals will think twice before trusting what the Brits say as they know when the chips are down we don’t have their back! If it was the case that they were the long term future of Afghanistan, I have a different view to you and I put the accountability on the Afghan government and military that collapsed. It is also interesting that you see the training of foreign troops as a never ending responsibility for the UK and have not mentioned the Pakistan government who are the guilty party here, wouldn't you agree? They could decide not to deport them and they would not be in this is situation. The UK decided to go into Afghanistan. We attempted, alongside the USA, to try and establish a (Western style?) democracy and all the necessary functions that sit around/support that, including recruiting, equipping, and training the military. This wasn’t a purely altruistic gesture as there were objectives and downstream benefits associated with the UK and USA being in Afghanistan. That also indicated long term commitment and support. From what I have read (and there may be much more to this story I am not sighted on), the UK had a moral duty to these men. The only reason they became Pakistan’s problem was they were seemingly abandoned by the UK. Did they enter Pakistan legally or simply flee across the border? Wasn’t Pakistan the “first safe country” they reached? Aren’t we always being told refugees or asylum seekers should stop in first safe country and apply from there to the UK? Doesn’t this highlight that argument is often a nonsense? Some people often say asylum seekers coming to the UK should not be our problem. Why is it Pakistan’s problem? Were they militarily active in Afghanistan? You are sending out a confusing message. If they are in a safe place Pakistan, we should be considering why Pakistan has decided to remove them and put them in danger. I suspect you could be avoiding that question as it brings with it so many complexities, and yet I read here often the UK should take people crossing the channel illegally and house them look after them, what is different here? Training an army does not make the country providing that training responsible for the future welfare of those troops, it the government of the country the troops are serving. That is unless the UK made explicit guarantees that provided support and a home in the UK for the troops it was training, which is in doubt or we would not be reading about this now. Why doesn't the same laws that stopped the UK from sending people to Rwanda for fear they will be sent back into danger, apply to Pakistan. Is the human rights people not involved or does Pakistan not come under them?" shirt answer, no. they haven't signed up to the refugee convention and I suspect don't have local laws prohibiting it either. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The important parts of this story are missing: Were the troops trained as part of a home grown support strategy, that was building Afghan capabilities? Why would a General be promising outcomes that couldn’t be delivered or be considered? That is the most bewildering part.. However, If the troops were part of an Afghan training scheme that was being built to support their country, they wouldn’t have any rights to come to the UK and what they were deployed to work on is then irrelevant. If however the UK government employed them to work specifically in the interests of the UK, with no forward plans of integration into Afghan armed forces, that might be a very different situation, depending on contract. They outnumbered the Taliban 2-1 and were given superior arms and training over a 12 year period. The one thing that couldn't be given is the balls to fight. Unlike the Ukrainian people Doesn’t seem to apply to the specific men in question if you read the article. This does seem to be the case, however I'm still unsure what the long term goal was for these men. I have a feeling they were expected to be part of the Afghan military and the near instant collapse of the Afghan military has left them in this situation. Pakistan's decision to send them back to Afghanistan seems to be flying under the radar unchallenged too. I have no doubt they were trained to be part of a long term Afghan (anti-Taliban) army. But a couple of Companies (c.200 men) cannot win a war and the rest of the Afghan military soon stood down. So do we abandon them? “Them’s the breaks lads see ya!” They face almost certain execution by the Taliban. Don’t we care? The optics are terrible. Wherever the next British intervention is, the locals will think twice before trusting what the Brits say as they know when the chips are down we don’t have their back! If it was the case that they were the long term future of Afghanistan, I have a different view to you and I put the accountability on the Afghan government and military that collapsed. It is also interesting that you see the training of foreign troops as a never ending responsibility for the UK and have not mentioned the Pakistan government who are the guilty party here, wouldn't you agree? They could decide not to deport them and they would not be in this is situation. The UK decided to go into Afghanistan. We attempted, alongside the USA, to try and establish a (Western style?) democracy and all the necessary functions that sit around/support that, including recruiting, equipping, and training the military. This wasn’t a purely altruistic gesture as there were objectives and downstream benefits associated with the UK and USA being in Afghanistan. That also indicated long term commitment and support. From what I have read (and there may be much more to this story I am not sighted on), the UK had a moral duty to these men. The only reason they became Pakistan’s problem was they were seemingly abandoned by the UK. Did they enter Pakistan legally or simply flee across the border? Wasn’t Pakistan the “first safe country” they reached? Aren’t we always being told refugees or asylum seekers should stop in first safe country and apply from there to the UK? Doesn’t this highlight that argument is often a nonsense? Some people often say asylum seekers coming to the UK should not be our problem. Why is it Pakistan’s problem? Were they militarily active in Afghanistan? You are sending out a confusing message. If they are in a safe place Pakistan, we should be considering why Pakistan has decided to remove them and put them in danger. I suspect you could be avoiding that question as it brings with it so many complexities, and yet I read here often the UK should take people crossing the channel illegally and house them look after them, what is different here? Training an army does not make the country providing that training responsible for the future welfare of those troops, it the government of the country the troops are serving. That is unless the UK made explicit guarantees that provided support and a home in the UK for the troops it was training, which is in doubt or we would not be reading about this now. Why doesn't the same laws that stopped the UK from sending people to Rwanda for fear they will be sent back into danger, apply to Pakistan. Is the human rights people not involved or does Pakistan not come under them?" TAFKA provided an answer but what I find odd is people who advocate for the UK to be able to send to Rwanda are seemingly criticising Pakistan on this? Aren’t Pakistan just behaving the way they want to UK to behave? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The important parts of this story are missing: Were the troops trained as part of a home grown support strategy, that was building Afghan capabilities? Why would a General be promising outcomes that couldn’t be delivered or be considered? That is the most bewildering part.. However, If the troops were part of an Afghan training scheme that was being built to support their country, they wouldn’t have any rights to come to the UK and what they were deployed to work on is then irrelevant. If however the UK government employed them to work specifically in the interests of the UK, with no forward plans of integration into Afghan armed forces, that might be a very different situation, depending on contract. They outnumbered the Taliban 2-1 and were given superior arms and training over a 12 year period. The one thing that couldn't be given is the balls to fight. Unlike the Ukrainian people Doesn’t seem to apply to the specific men in question if you read the article. This does seem to be the case, however I'm still unsure what the long term goal was for these men. I have a feeling they were expected to be part of the Afghan military and the near instant collapse of the Afghan military has left them in this situation. Pakistan's decision to send them back to Afghanistan seems to be flying under the radar unchallenged too. I have no doubt they were trained to be part of a long term Afghan (anti-Taliban) army. But a couple of Companies (c.200 men) cannot win a war and the rest of the Afghan military soon stood down. So do we abandon them? “Them’s the breaks lads see ya!” They face almost certain execution by the Taliban. Don’t we care? The optics are terrible. Wherever the next British intervention is, the locals will think twice before trusting what the Brits say as they know when the chips are down we don’t have their back! If it was the case that they were the long term future of Afghanistan, I have a different view to you and I put the accountability on the Afghan government and military that collapsed. It is also interesting that you see the training of foreign troops as a never ending responsibility for the UK and have not mentioned the Pakistan government who are the guilty party here, wouldn't you agree? They could decide not to deport them and they would not be in this is situation. The UK decided to go into Afghanistan. We attempted, alongside the USA, to try and establish a (Western style?) democracy and all the necessary functions that sit around/support that, including recruiting, equipping, and training the military. This wasn’t a purely altruistic gesture as there were objectives and downstream benefits associated with the UK and USA being in Afghanistan. That also indicated long term commitment and support. From what I have read (and there may be much more to this story I am not sighted on), the UK had a moral duty to these men. The only reason they became Pakistan’s problem was they were seemingly abandoned by the UK. Did they enter Pakistan legally or simply flee across the border? Wasn’t Pakistan the “first safe country” they reached? Aren’t we always being told refugees or asylum seekers should stop in first safe country and apply from there to the UK? Doesn’t this highlight that argument is often a nonsense? Some people often say asylum seekers coming to the UK should not be our problem. Why is it Pakistan’s problem? Were they militarily active in Afghanistan? You are sending out a confusing message. If they are in a safe place Pakistan, we should be considering why Pakistan has decided to remove them and put them in danger. I suspect you could be avoiding that question as it brings with it so many complexities, and yet I read here often the UK should take people crossing the channel illegally and house them look after them, what is different here? Training an army does not make the country providing that training responsible for the future welfare of those troops, it the government of the country the troops are serving. That is unless the UK made explicit guarantees that provided support and a home in the UK for the troops it was training, which is in doubt or we would not be reading about this now. Why doesn't the same laws that stopped the UK from sending people to Rwanda for fear they will be sent back into danger, apply to Pakistan. Is the human rights people not involved or does Pakistan not come under them? TAFKA provided an answer but what I find odd is people who advocate for the UK to be able to send to Rwanda are seemingly criticising Pakistan on this? Aren’t Pakistan just behaving the way they want to UK to behave?" If people is me? I’ve not advocated anything, questioning and not filling in the gaps with emotion, can often be seen as supporting the very thing others are opposed to. Questions, I have questions, in the absence of facts | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The important parts of this story are missing: Were the troops trained as part of a home grown support strategy, that was building Afghan capabilities? Why would a General be promising outcomes that couldn’t be delivered or be considered? That is the most bewildering part.. However, If the troops were part of an Afghan training scheme that was being built to support their country, they wouldn’t have any rights to come to the UK and what they were deployed to work on is then irrelevant. If however the UK government employed them to work specifically in the interests of the UK, with no forward plans of integration into Afghan armed forces, that might be a very different situation, depending on contract. They outnumbered the Taliban 2-1 and were given superior arms and training over a 12 year period. The one thing that couldn't be given is the balls to fight. Unlike the Ukrainian people Doesn’t seem to apply to the specific men in question if you read the article. This does seem to be the case, however I'm still unsure what the long term goal was for these men. I have a feeling they were expected to be part of the Afghan military and the near instant collapse of the Afghan military has left them in this situation. Pakistan's decision to send them back to Afghanistan seems to be flying under the radar unchallenged too. I have no doubt they were trained to be part of a long term Afghan (anti-Taliban) army. But a couple of Companies (c.200 men) cannot win a war and the rest of the Afghan military soon stood down. So do we abandon them? “Them’s the breaks lads see ya!” They face almost certain execution by the Taliban. Don’t we care? The optics are terrible. Wherever the next British intervention is, the locals will think twice before trusting what the Brits say as they know when the chips are down we don’t have their back! If it was the case that they were the long term future of Afghanistan, I have a different view to you and I put the accountability on the Afghan government and military that collapsed. It is also interesting that you see the training of foreign troops as a never ending responsibility for the UK and have not mentioned the Pakistan government who are the guilty party here, wouldn't you agree? They could decide not to deport them and they would not be in this is situation. The UK decided to go into Afghanistan. We attempted, alongside the USA, to try and establish a (Western style?) democracy and all the necessary functions that sit around/support that, including recruiting, equipping, and training the military. This wasn’t a purely altruistic gesture as there were objectives and downstream benefits associated with the UK and USA being in Afghanistan. That also indicated long term commitment and support. From what I have read (and there may be much more to this story I am not sighted on), the UK had a moral duty to these men. The only reason they became Pakistan’s problem was they were seemingly abandoned by the UK. Did they enter Pakistan legally or simply flee across the border? Wasn’t Pakistan the “first safe country” they reached? Aren’t we always being told refugees or asylum seekers should stop in first safe country and apply from there to the UK? Doesn’t this highlight that argument is often a nonsense? Some people often say asylum seekers coming to the UK should not be our problem. Why is it Pakistan’s problem? Were they militarily active in Afghanistan? You are sending out a confusing message. If they are in a safe place Pakistan, we should be considering why Pakistan has decided to remove them and put them in danger. I suspect you could be avoiding that question as it brings with it so many complexities, and yet I read here often the UK should take people crossing the channel illegally and house them look after them, what is different here? Training an army does not make the country providing that training responsible for the future welfare of those troops, it the government of the country the troops are serving. That is unless the UK made explicit guarantees that provided support and a home in the UK for the troops it was training, which is in doubt or we would not be reading about this now. Why doesn't the same laws that stopped the UK from sending people to Rwanda for fear they will be sent back into danger, apply to Pakistan. Is the human rights people not involved or does Pakistan not come under them? TAFKA provided an answer but what I find odd is people who advocate for the UK to be able to send to Rwanda are seemingly criticising Pakistan on this? Aren’t Pakistan just behaving the way they want to UK to behave? If people is me? I’ve not advocated anything, questioning and not filling in the gaps with emotion, can often be seen as supporting the very thing others are opposed to. Questions, I have questions, in the absence of facts" No NotMe NotYou (see what I did there). There are people (inc posters on these forums) who are supportive of the UK acting in the same way as Pakistan with regards to immigrants who crossed their borders without permission. Of course we need more info but I suspect we won’t get it. Based on the article and the General’s comments, I feel something is wrong with how the UK has handled things for these specific men. Until I see evidence to the contrary, I will still think it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The important parts of this story are missing: Were the troops trained as part of a home grown support strategy, that was building Afghan capabilities? Why would a General be promising outcomes that couldn’t be delivered or be considered? That is the most bewildering part.. However, If the troops were part of an Afghan training scheme that was being built to support their country, they wouldn’t have any rights to come to the UK and what they were deployed to work on is then irrelevant. If however the UK government employed them to work specifically in the interests of the UK, with no forward plans of integration into Afghan armed forces, that might be a very different situation, depending on contract. They outnumbered the Taliban 2-1 and were given superior arms and training over a 12 year period. The one thing that couldn't be given is the balls to fight. Unlike the Ukrainian people Doesn’t seem to apply to the specific men in question if you read the article. This does seem to be the case, however I'm still unsure what the long term goal was for these men. I have a feeling they were expected to be part of the Afghan military and the near instant collapse of the Afghan military has left them in this situation. Pakistan's decision to send them back to Afghanistan seems to be flying under the radar unchallenged too. I have no doubt they were trained to be part of a long term Afghan (anti-Taliban) army. But a couple of Companies (c.200 men) cannot win a war and the rest of the Afghan military soon stood down. So do we abandon them? “Them’s the breaks lads see ya!” They face almost certain execution by the Taliban. Don’t we care? The optics are terrible. Wherever the next British intervention is, the locals will think twice before trusting what the Brits say as they know when the chips are down we don’t have their back! If it was the case that they were the long term future of Afghanistan, I have a different view to you and I put the accountability on the Afghan government and military that collapsed. It is also interesting that you see the training of foreign troops as a never ending responsibility for the UK and have not mentioned the Pakistan government who are the guilty party here, wouldn't you agree? They could decide not to deport them and they would not be in this is situation. The UK decided to go into Afghanistan. We attempted, alongside the USA, to try and establish a (Western style?) democracy and all the necessary functions that sit around/support that, including recruiting, equipping, and training the military. This wasn’t a purely altruistic gesture as there were objectives and downstream benefits associated with the UK and USA being in Afghanistan. That also indicated long term commitment and support. From what I have read (and there may be much more to this story I am not sighted on), the UK had a moral duty to these men. The only reason they became Pakistan’s problem was they were seemingly abandoned by the UK. Did they enter Pakistan legally or simply flee across the border? Wasn’t Pakistan the “first safe country” they reached? Aren’t we always being told refugees or asylum seekers should stop in first safe country and apply from there to the UK? Doesn’t this highlight that argument is often a nonsense? Some people often say asylum seekers coming to the UK should not be our problem. Why is it Pakistan’s problem? Were they militarily active in Afghanistan? You are sending out a confusing message. If they are in a safe place Pakistan, we should be considering why Pakistan has decided to remove them and put them in danger. I suspect you could be avoiding that question as it brings with it so many complexities, and yet I read here often the UK should take people crossing the channel illegally and house them look after them, what is different here? Training an army does not make the country providing that training responsible for the future welfare of those troops, it the government of the country the troops are serving. That is unless the UK made explicit guarantees that provided support and a home in the UK for the troops it was training, which is in doubt or we would not be reading about this now. Why doesn't the same laws that stopped the UK from sending people to Rwanda for fear they will be sent back into danger, apply to Pakistan. Is the human rights people not involved or does Pakistan not come under them? TAFKA provided an answer but what I find odd is people who advocate for the UK to be able to send to Rwanda are seemingly criticising Pakistan on this? Aren’t Pakistan just behaving the way they want to UK to behave? If people is me? I’ve not advocated anything, questioning and not filling in the gaps with emotion, can often be seen as supporting the very thing others are opposed to. Questions, I have questions, in the absence of facts No NotMe NotYou (see what I did there). There are people (inc posters on these forums) who are supportive of the UK acting in the same way as Pakistan with regards to immigrants who crossed their borders without permission. Of course we need more info but I suspect we won’t get it. Based on the article and the General’s comments, I feel something is wrong with how the UK has handled things for these specific men. Until I see evidence to the contrary, I will still think it." Sorry, not read every post. I agree totally, there is something off with this story, and if I there was agreements to allow these soldiers to come to the UK and we have reneged on this, this needs resolving now. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The important parts of this story are missing: Were the troops trained as part of a home grown support strategy, that was building Afghan capabilities? Why would a General be promising outcomes that couldn’t be delivered or be considered? That is the most bewildering part.. However, If the troops were part of an Afghan training scheme that was being built to support their country, they wouldn’t have any rights to come to the UK and what they were deployed to work on is then irrelevant. If however the UK government employed them to work specifically in the interests of the UK, with no forward plans of integration into Afghan armed forces, that might be a very different situation, depending on contract. They outnumbered the Taliban 2-1 and were given superior arms and training over a 12 year period. The one thing that couldn't be given is the balls to fight. Unlike the Ukrainian people Doesn’t seem to apply to the specific men in question if you read the article. This does seem to be the case, however I'm still unsure what the long term goal was for these men. I have a feeling they were expected to be part of the Afghan military and the near instant collapse of the Afghan military has left them in this situation. Pakistan's decision to send them back to Afghanistan seems to be flying under the radar unchallenged too. I have no doubt they were trained to be part of a long term Afghan (anti-Taliban) army. But a couple of Companies (c.200 men) cannot win a war and the rest of the Afghan military soon stood down. So do we abandon them? “Them’s the breaks lads see ya!” They face almost certain execution by the Taliban. Don’t we care? The optics are terrible. Wherever the next British intervention is, the locals will think twice before trusting what the Brits say as they know when the chips are down we don’t have their back! If it was the case that they were the long term future of Afghanistan, I have a different view to you and I put the accountability on the Afghan government and military that collapsed. It is also interesting that you see the training of foreign troops as a never ending responsibility for the UK and have not mentioned the Pakistan government who are the guilty party here, wouldn't you agree? They could decide not to deport them and they would not be in this is situation. The UK decided to go into Afghanistan. We attempted, alongside the USA, to try and establish a (Western style?) democracy and all the necessary functions that sit around/support that, including recruiting, equipping, and training the military. This wasn’t a purely altruistic gesture as there were objectives and downstream benefits associated with the UK and USA being in Afghanistan. That also indicated long term commitment and support. From what I have read (and there may be much more to this story I am not sighted on), the UK had a moral duty to these men. The only reason they became Pakistan’s problem was they were seemingly abandoned by the UK. Did they enter Pakistan legally or simply flee across the border? Wasn’t Pakistan the “first safe country” they reached? Aren’t we always being told refugees or asylum seekers should stop in first safe country and apply from there to the UK? Doesn’t this highlight that argument is often a nonsense? Some people often say asylum seekers coming to the UK should not be our problem. Why is it Pakistan’s problem? Were they militarily active in Afghanistan? You are sending out a confusing message. If they are in a safe place Pakistan, we should be considering why Pakistan has decided to remove them and put them in danger. I suspect you could be avoiding that question as it brings with it so many complexities, and yet I read here often the UK should take people crossing the channel illegally and house them look after them, what is different here? Training an army does not make the country providing that training responsible for the future welfare of those troops, it the government of the country the troops are serving. That is unless the UK made explicit guarantees that provided support and a home in the UK for the troops it was training, which is in doubt or we would not be reading about this now. Why doesn't the same laws that stopped the UK from sending people to Rwanda for fear they will be sent back into danger, apply to Pakistan. Is the human rights people not involved or does Pakistan not come under them? TAFKA provided an answer but what I find odd is people who advocate for the UK to be able to send to Rwanda are seemingly criticising Pakistan on this? Aren’t Pakistan just behaving the way they want to UK to behave?" He did kindly provide an answer and also Said it was not a great answer. Although I don't class myself as one of these 'people' I don't understand the comparison of Pakistan to the UK and Rwanda scheme. Pakistan are sending the people back in the full knowledge of what awaits them. Where as the UK proposes to send people to Rwanda where they don't face such dangers and have committed to not sending the people back to their original country. I know the courts don't believe them but don't see how the two are comparable | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The important parts of this story are missing: Were the troops trained as part of a home grown support strategy, that was building Afghan capabilities? Why would a General be promising outcomes that couldn’t be delivered or be considered? That is the most bewildering part.. However, If the troops were part of an Afghan training scheme that was being built to support their country, they wouldn’t have any rights to come to the UK and what they were deployed to work on is then irrelevant. If however the UK government employed them to work specifically in the interests of the UK, with no forward plans of integration into Afghan armed forces, that might be a very different situation, depending on contract. They outnumbered the Taliban 2-1 and were given superior arms and training over a 12 year period. The one thing that couldn't be given is the balls to fight. Unlike the Ukrainian people Doesn’t seem to apply to the specific men in question if you read the article. This does seem to be the case, however I'm still unsure what the long term goal was for these men. I have a feeling they were expected to be part of the Afghan military and the near instant collapse of the Afghan military has left them in this situation. Pakistan's decision to send them back to Afghanistan seems to be flying under the radar unchallenged too. I have no doubt they were trained to be part of a long term Afghan (anti-Taliban) army. But a couple of Companies (c.200 men) cannot win a war and the rest of the Afghan military soon stood down. So do we abandon them? “Them’s the breaks lads see ya!” They face almost certain execution by the Taliban. Don’t we care? The optics are terrible. Wherever the next British intervention is, the locals will think twice before trusting what the Brits say as they know when the chips are down we don’t have their back! If it was the case that they were the long term future of Afghanistan, I have a different view to you and I put the accountability on the Afghan government and military that collapsed. It is also interesting that you see the training of foreign troops as a never ending responsibility for the UK and have not mentioned the Pakistan government who are the guilty party here, wouldn't you agree? They could decide not to deport them and they would not be in this is situation. The UK decided to go into Afghanistan. We attempted, alongside the USA, to try and establish a (Western style?) democracy and all the necessary functions that sit around/support that, including recruiting, equipping, and training the military. This wasn’t a purely altruistic gesture as there were objectives and downstream benefits associated with the UK and USA being in Afghanistan. That also indicated long term commitment and support. From what I have read (and there may be much more to this story I am not sighted on), the UK had a moral duty to these men. The only reason they became Pakistan’s problem was they were seemingly abandoned by the UK. Did they enter Pakistan legally or simply flee across the border? Wasn’t Pakistan the “first safe country” they reached? Aren’t we always being told refugees or asylum seekers should stop in first safe country and apply from there to the UK? Doesn’t this highlight that argument is often a nonsense? Some people often say asylum seekers coming to the UK should not be our problem. Why is it Pakistan’s problem? Were they militarily active in Afghanistan? You are sending out a confusing message. If they are in a safe place Pakistan, we should be considering why Pakistan has decided to remove them and put them in danger. I suspect you could be avoiding that question as it brings with it so many complexities, and yet I read here often the UK should take people crossing the channel illegally and house them look after them, what is different here? Training an army does not make the country providing that training responsible for the future welfare of those troops, it the government of the country the troops are serving. That is unless the UK made explicit guarantees that provided support and a home in the UK for the troops it was training, which is in doubt or we would not be reading about this now. Why doesn't the same laws that stopped the UK from sending people to Rwanda for fear they will be sent back into danger, apply to Pakistan. Is the human rights people not involved or does Pakistan not come under them? TAFKA provided an answer but what I find odd is people who advocate for the UK to be able to send to Rwanda are seemingly criticising Pakistan on this? Aren’t Pakistan just behaving the way they want to UK to behave? He did kindly provide an answer and also Said it was not a great answer. Although I don't class myself as one of these 'people' I don't understand the comparison of Pakistan to the UK and Rwanda scheme. Pakistan are sending the people back in the full knowledge of what awaits them. Where as the UK proposes to send people to Rwanda where they don't face such dangers and have committed to not sending the people back to their original country. I know the courts don't believe them but don't see how the two are comparable" It isn’t a direct comparison, it is all about acting tough on certain types of immigrants and sending them away which is what people want. I would be prepared to bet there are some on here who would happily send them straight back where they came from. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The important parts of this story are missing: Were the troops trained as part of a home grown support strategy, that was building Afghan capabilities? Why would a General be promising outcomes that couldn’t be delivered or be considered? That is the most bewildering part.. However, If the troops were part of an Afghan training scheme that was being built to support their country, they wouldn’t have any rights to come to the UK and what they were deployed to work on is then irrelevant. If however the UK government employed them to work specifically in the interests of the UK, with no forward plans of integration into Afghan armed forces, that might be a very different situation, depending on contract. They outnumbered the Taliban 2-1 and were given superior arms and training over a 12 year period. The one thing that couldn't be given is the balls to fight. Unlike the Ukrainian people Doesn’t seem to apply to the specific men in question if you read the article. This does seem to be the case, however I'm still unsure what the long term goal was for these men. I have a feeling they were expected to be part of the Afghan military and the near instant collapse of the Afghan military has left them in this situation. Pakistan's decision to send them back to Afghanistan seems to be flying under the radar unchallenged too. I have no doubt they were trained to be part of a long term Afghan (anti-Taliban) army. But a couple of Companies (c.200 men) cannot win a war and the rest of the Afghan military soon stood down. So do we abandon them? “Them’s the breaks lads see ya!” They face almost certain execution by the Taliban. Don’t we care? The optics are terrible. Wherever the next British intervention is, the locals will think twice before trusting what the Brits say as they know when the chips are down we don’t have their back! If it was the case that they were the long term future of Afghanistan, I have a different view to you and I put the accountability on the Afghan government and military that collapsed. It is also interesting that you see the training of foreign troops as a never ending responsibility for the UK and have not mentioned the Pakistan government who are the guilty party here, wouldn't you agree? They could decide not to deport them and they would not be in this is situation. The UK decided to go into Afghanistan. We attempted, alongside the USA, to try and establish a (Western style?) democracy and all the necessary functions that sit around/support that, including recruiting, equipping, and training the military. This wasn’t a purely altruistic gesture as there were objectives and downstream benefits associated with the UK and USA being in Afghanistan. That also indicated long term commitment and support. From what I have read (and there may be much more to this story I am not sighted on), the UK had a moral duty to these men. The only reason they became Pakistan’s problem was they were seemingly abandoned by the UK. Did they enter Pakistan legally or simply flee across the border? Wasn’t Pakistan the “first safe country” they reached? Aren’t we always being told refugees or asylum seekers should stop in first safe country and apply from there to the UK? Doesn’t this highlight that argument is often a nonsense? Some people often say asylum seekers coming to the UK should not be our problem. Why is it Pakistan’s problem? Were they militarily active in Afghanistan? You are sending out a confusing message. If they are in a safe place Pakistan, we should be considering why Pakistan has decided to remove them and put them in danger. I suspect you could be avoiding that question as it brings with it so many complexities, and yet I read here often the UK should take people crossing the channel illegally and house them look after them, what is different here? Training an army does not make the country providing that training responsible for the future welfare of those troops, it the government of the country the troops are serving. That is unless the UK made explicit guarantees that provided support and a home in the UK for the troops it was training, which is in doubt or we would not be reading about this now. Why doesn't the same laws that stopped the UK from sending people to Rwanda for fear they will be sent back into danger, apply to Pakistan. Is the human rights people not involved or does Pakistan not come under them? TAFKA provided an answer but what I find odd is people who advocate for the UK to be able to send to Rwanda are seemingly criticising Pakistan on this? Aren’t Pakistan just behaving the way they want to UK to behave? He did kindly provide an answer and also Said it was not a great answer. Although I don't class myself as one of these 'people' I don't understand the comparison of Pakistan to the UK and Rwanda scheme. Pakistan are sending the people back in the full knowledge of what awaits them. Where as the UK proposes to send people to Rwanda where they don't face such dangers and have committed to not sending the people back to their original country. I know the courts don't believe them but don't see how the two are comparable It isn’t a direct comparison, it is all about acting tough on certain types of immigrants and sending them away which is what people want. I would be prepared to bet there are some on here who would happily send them straight back where they came from." There may well be people like that on here but you specifically said the 'people who advocate the UK sending people to Rwanda' not 'people who would send them straight back where they come from'. Two very different situations though some may like to muddy the water between the two | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The important parts of this story are missing: Were the troops trained as part of a home grown support strategy, that was building Afghan capabilities? Why would a General be promising outcomes that couldn’t be delivered or be considered? That is the most bewildering part.. However, If the troops were part of an Afghan training scheme that was being built to support their country, they wouldn’t have any rights to come to the UK and what they were deployed to work on is then irrelevant. If however the UK government employed them to work specifically in the interests of the UK, with no forward plans of integration into Afghan armed forces, that might be a very different situation, depending on contract. They outnumbered the Taliban 2-1 and were given superior arms and training over a 12 year period. The one thing that couldn't be given is the balls to fight. Unlike the Ukrainian people Doesn’t seem to apply to the specific men in question if you read the article. This does seem to be the case, however I'm still unsure what the long term goal was for these men. I have a feeling they were expected to be part of the Afghan military and the near instant collapse of the Afghan military has left them in this situation. Pakistan's decision to send them back to Afghanistan seems to be flying under the radar unchallenged too. I have no doubt they were trained to be part of a long term Afghan (anti-Taliban) army. But a couple of Companies (c.200 men) cannot win a war and the rest of the Afghan military soon stood down. So do we abandon them? “Them’s the breaks lads see ya!” They face almost certain execution by the Taliban. Don’t we care? The optics are terrible. Wherever the next British intervention is, the locals will think twice before trusting what the Brits say as they know when the chips are down we don’t have their back! If it was the case that they were the long term future of Afghanistan, I have a different view to you and I put the accountability on the Afghan government and military that collapsed. It is also interesting that you see the training of foreign troops as a never ending responsibility for the UK and have not mentioned the Pakistan government who are the guilty party here, wouldn't you agree? They could decide not to deport them and they would not be in this is situation. The UK decided to go into Afghanistan. We attempted, alongside the USA, to try and establish a (Western style?) democracy and all the necessary functions that sit around/support that, including recruiting, equipping, and training the military. This wasn’t a purely altruistic gesture as there were objectives and downstream benefits associated with the UK and USA being in Afghanistan. That also indicated long term commitment and support. From what I have read (and there may be much more to this story I am not sighted on), the UK had a moral duty to these men. The only reason they became Pakistan’s problem was they were seemingly abandoned by the UK. Did they enter Pakistan legally or simply flee across the border? Wasn’t Pakistan the “first safe country” they reached? Aren’t we always being told refugees or asylum seekers should stop in first safe country and apply from there to the UK? Doesn’t this highlight that argument is often a nonsense? Some people often say asylum seekers coming to the UK should not be our problem. Why is it Pakistan’s problem? Were they militarily active in Afghanistan? You are sending out a confusing message. If they are in a safe place Pakistan, we should be considering why Pakistan has decided to remove them and put them in danger. I suspect you could be avoiding that question as it brings with it so many complexities, and yet I read here often the UK should take people crossing the channel illegally and house them look after them, what is different here? Training an army does not make the country providing that training responsible for the future welfare of those troops, it the government of the country the troops are serving. That is unless the UK made explicit guarantees that provided support and a home in the UK for the troops it was training, which is in doubt or we would not be reading about this now. Why doesn't the same laws that stopped the UK from sending people to Rwanda for fear they will be sent back into danger, apply to Pakistan. Is the human rights people not involved or does Pakistan not come under them? TAFKA provided an answer but what I find odd is people who advocate for the UK to be able to send to Rwanda are seemingly criticising Pakistan on this? Aren’t Pakistan just behaving the way they want to UK to behave? He did kindly provide an answer and also Said it was not a great answer. Although I don't class myself as one of these 'people' I don't understand the comparison of Pakistan to the UK and Rwanda scheme. Pakistan are sending the people back in the full knowledge of what awaits them. Where as the UK proposes to send people to Rwanda where they don't face such dangers and have committed to not sending the people back to their original country. I know the courts don't believe them but don't see how the two are comparable It isn’t a direct comparison, it is all about acting tough on certain types of immigrants and sending them away which is what people want. I would be prepared to bet there are some on here who would happily send them straight back where they came from. There may well be people like that on here but you specifically said the 'people who advocate the UK sending people to Rwanda' not 'people who would send them straight back where they come from'. Two very different situations though some may like to muddy the water between the two " I think you are either too literal or I am not being clear. My point is when the UK acts tough on unauthorised immigration there are people on here who laud it yet when Pakistan acts tough on unauthorised immigration they criticise them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The important parts of this story are missing: Were the troops trained as part of a home grown support strategy, that was building Afghan capabilities? Why would a General be promising outcomes that couldn’t be delivered or be considered? That is the most bewildering part.. However, If the troops were part of an Afghan training scheme that was being built to support their country, they wouldn’t have any rights to come to the UK and what they were deployed to work on is then irrelevant. If however the UK government employed them to work specifically in the interests of the UK, with no forward plans of integration into Afghan armed forces, that might be a very different situation, depending on contract. They outnumbered the Taliban 2-1 and were given superior arms and training over a 12 year period. The one thing that couldn't be given is the balls to fight. Unlike the Ukrainian people Doesn’t seem to apply to the specific men in question if you read the article. This does seem to be the case, however I'm still unsure what the long term goal was for these men. I have a feeling they were expected to be part of the Afghan military and the near instant collapse of the Afghan military has left them in this situation. Pakistan's decision to send them back to Afghanistan seems to be flying under the radar unchallenged too. I have no doubt they were trained to be part of a long term Afghan (anti-Taliban) army. But a couple of Companies (c.200 men) cannot win a war and the rest of the Afghan military soon stood down. So do we abandon them? “Them’s the breaks lads see ya!” They face almost certain execution by the Taliban. Don’t we care? The optics are terrible. Wherever the next British intervention is, the locals will think twice before trusting what the Brits say as they know when the chips are down we don’t have their back! If it was the case that they were the long term future of Afghanistan, I have a different view to you and I put the accountability on the Afghan government and military that collapsed. It is also interesting that you see the training of foreign troops as a never ending responsibility for the UK and have not mentioned the Pakistan government who are the guilty party here, wouldn't you agree? They could decide not to deport them and they would not be in this is situation. The UK decided to go into Afghanistan. We attempted, alongside the USA, to try and establish a (Western style?) democracy and all the necessary functions that sit around/support that, including recruiting, equipping, and training the military. This wasn’t a purely altruistic gesture as there were objectives and downstream benefits associated with the UK and USA being in Afghanistan. That also indicated long term commitment and support. From what I have read (and there may be much more to this story I am not sighted on), the UK had a moral duty to these men. The only reason they became Pakistan’s problem was they were seemingly abandoned by the UK. Did they enter Pakistan legally or simply flee across the border? Wasn’t Pakistan the “first safe country” they reached? Aren’t we always being told refugees or asylum seekers should stop in first safe country and apply from there to the UK? Doesn’t this highlight that argument is often a nonsense? Some people often say asylum seekers coming to the UK should not be our problem. Why is it Pakistan’s problem? Were they militarily active in Afghanistan? You are sending out a confusing message. If they are in a safe place Pakistan, we should be considering why Pakistan has decided to remove them and put them in danger. I suspect you could be avoiding that question as it brings with it so many complexities, and yet I read here often the UK should take people crossing the channel illegally and house them look after them, what is different here? Training an army does not make the country providing that training responsible for the future welfare of those troops, it the government of the country the troops are serving. That is unless the UK made explicit guarantees that provided support and a home in the UK for the troops it was training, which is in doubt or we would not be reading about this now. Why doesn't the same laws that stopped the UK from sending people to Rwanda for fear they will be sent back into danger, apply to Pakistan. Is the human rights people not involved or does Pakistan not come under them? TAFKA provided an answer but what I find odd is people who advocate for the UK to be able to send to Rwanda are seemingly criticising Pakistan on this? Aren’t Pakistan just behaving the way they want to UK to behave? He did kindly provide an answer and also Said it was not a great answer. Although I don't class myself as one of these 'people' I don't understand the comparison of Pakistan to the UK and Rwanda scheme. Pakistan are sending the people back in the full knowledge of what awaits them. Where as the UK proposes to send people to Rwanda where they don't face such dangers and have committed to not sending the people back to their original country. I know the courts don't believe them but don't see how the two are comparable It isn’t a direct comparison, it is all about acting tough on certain types of immigrants and sending them away which is what people want. I would be prepared to bet there are some on here who would happily send them straight back where they came from. There may well be people like that on here but you specifically said the 'people who advocate the UK sending people to Rwanda' not 'people who would send them straight back where they come from'. Two very different situations though some may like to muddy the water between the two I think you are either too literal or I am not being clear. My point is when the UK acts tough on unauthorised immigration there are people on here who laud it yet when Pakistan acts tough on unauthorised immigration they criticise them. " Now that statement makes more sense to me. The first one did not as it referenced Rwanda but thank you for clarifying | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
