Current Affairs Afghanistan

[Tin-Tin]

So thats why China are playing nice and have an interest

 

[Chris O'Connor]

Yes good post and a lot I agree with. I'll deal with each section independently of one another.

The above paragraph is a nore nuanced and fairer portrayal of what Burgon said. In fairness it was reported by certain right wing websites as he had said he would give reparations to the Taliban. Of course, he made no such promise. He spoke of reparations and support, but clearly and deliberately did not mention the Taliban. Of course there is a reasonable argument (as you have said) that it would inevitably end up with the Taliban. However that is slightly different from making out his position, or the left's position is to hand money to the Taliban, but rather the Afgani people. (As a slight aside, I wouldn't have used the word reparation in the above context).

Now for the nuance. The glib reality, we will already be giving the Taliban money and having conversations about more money. These will not be far left people doing it, but right wing people in government. It's already happening mate.

What I find curious about the UK, is that we do one thing and then almost over compensate to the other degree to prove we are not. I think the official British line is that bo communication was had with Sinn Fein/IRA when it was. You have had top diplomats now acknowledge they essentially promised a free Ireland to them. There is similar here. I think the lack of nuance, from our right wing press really damages our role and judgement on the world stage. We seem to continually want to keep a certain caricatured Britishness up.

Discussions now should be had about giving money to Afganistan as well. Partially because behind closed doors they are happening already, partially because it's the right thing to do (and will save a lot in the long run). Without going into enormous detail, most of Afganistan want peace and investment and were very supportive of the invasion initially for the above hope. The Taliban are not stupid and know people want peace and investment. They are busy trying to get finance from the US on exchange for no terrorism. If we can provide funding, we also have some leverage, and can hopefully use it to argue for a minimum standards on womens rights/access to education and for peace. My concern is we will get bogged down via a combination of no terrorism and control of borders.

It would also be a smart geo-political move. Unfortunately our approach to diplomacy seems to be dominated in this country by the hegemony of a handful of elite schools skewed analysis of WW2 as a continuation of Waterloo narrative. That you can only win respect or influence with the "never never never" approach. In my experience this is just untrue. If you create a financial dependency, both for the Taliban but also the populace you call the shots. The Taliban will accept in the short term as they are seeking big initial wins to cement a precarious position. If we dont offer it, Russia and China will. This discussion has to be had in the political classes without unhelpful distortions of what this means (that it's not about handing the Taliban money).

I've gone on too much so wont go into enormous detail on Bide other than to say I disagree. All I would say is he was dealt an awful hand, initially by Trump agreeing deals with the Taliban and agreeing to leave and secondly the broader picture-that it was a war America were losing. However he played it badly.

I thought his comment about people not wanting to die so why should they a bit chilling. Women and girls in particular are going to die now. That is now very much on the conscience of our government and Bidens administration. 5000 people a year is an insultingly low offer.

I also found his comment about not being interested in nation building, peace keeping or counter insurgency, but merely counter terrorism very alarming. I could go on, but let's leave it there for now.

Whichever way you play this it's undeniable that the USA are a superpower not the UK, what we do is neither here nor there, it's what the USA does that matters.

I find Biden's actions contemptible in the extreme, busy blaming a defeated Afghans for not wanting to die now and face a well motivated superior force, he has no idea. He's now snapping at reporters unable to find any half adequate answers to the obvious resounding criticism. It's not so much the withdrawal being agreed but the way it was carried out with such finality and speed leaving an army without air support, totally overwhelmed and in disarray against by a far more motivated and zealous Taliban.

You can rationalise Burgeons remarks as not meaning what they actually in effect do mean, in reality it's obviously case it's nothing other than than reparations to the murderous Taliban. (Any other financial implications of the current situation are just an attempt to deflect from the obvious absurd proposal).

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

I find Biden's actions contemptible in the extreme, busy blaming a defeated Afghans for not wanting to die now and face a well motivated superior force, he has no idea. He's now snapping at reporters unable to find any half adequate answers to the obvious resounding criticism. It's not so much the withdrawal being agreed but the way it was carried out with such finality and speed leaving an army without air support, totally overwhelmed and in disarray against by a far more motivated and zealous Taliban.

However its domestic politically astute and shuts up his predecessor and it's supporters on a unpopular foreign policy that resonates with many of the electorate.

 

[catcherintherye]

Whichever way you play this it's undeniable that the USA are a superpower not the UK, what we do is neither here nor there, it's what the USA does that matters.

I find Biden's actions contemptible in the extreme, busy blaming a defeated Afghans for not wanting to die now and face a well motivated superior force, he has no idea. He's now snapping at reporters unable to find any half adequate answers to the obvious resounding criticism. It's not so much the withdrawal being agreed but the way it was carried out with such finality and speed leaving an army without air support, totally overwhelmed and in disarray against by a far more motivated and zealous Taliban.

You can rationalise Burgeons remarks as not meaning what they actually in effect do mean, in reality it's obviously case it's nothing other than than reparations to the murderous Taliban. (Any other financial implications of the current situation are just an attempt to deflect from the obvious absurd proposal).

I mean I dont think anyone has claimed we are a super power. I'm not sure the relevance though. We still have agencies. We still have a government talking about having a role on the global stage. We still have options. We dont have to follow Bidens fairly inadequate course of action and try to hide behind a defence that they have a bigger budget than us. Tobias Ellwood has even acknowledged this.

As for Burgon, I'm not trying to rationalise anything. I'm just politely pointing out to you he did not say what you accuse him of. He has literally not said what you accused him of, so I merely set the record straight.

It's a bit disappointing to see you refusing to engage with the reality of the situation and accuse me of "deflecting" by pointing out the wider context. You are woefully misrepresenting the reality of the discussion here which is disingenuous.

I'll opt for more lay terms. The Conservatives are actually negotiations payments for the Taliban. These will continue. Burgon and I are suggesting, given these are already happening, we may as well try to maximise our leverage in these talks and have an honest conversation about what we can get out of them. I'm really not sure how this is "deflecting". It is the opposite. Im trying to tackle head on the reality of the situation and discuss from there, including what Burgon has said. I'm unsure why its nuts when Burgon suggests it, but not when a government effectively does it.

 

[Chris O'Connor]

However its domestic politically astute and shuts up his predecessor and it's supporters on a policy that resonates with many of the electorate.

You're just repeating the point I made earlier in this thread.

 

[Chris O'Connor]

I mean I dont think anyone has claimed we are a super power. I'm not sure the relevance though. We still have agencies. We still have a government talking about having a role on the global stage. We still have options. We dont have to follow Bidens fairly inadequate course of action and try to hide behind a defence that they have a bigger budget than us. Tobias Ellwood has even acknowledged this.

As for Burgon, I'm not trying to rationalise anything. I'm just politely pointing out to you he did not say what you accuse him of. He has literally not said what you accused him of, so I merely set the record straight.

It's a bit disappointing to see you refusing to engage with the reality of the situation and accuse me of "deflecting" by pointing out the wider context. You are woefully misrepresenting the reality of the discussion here which is disingenuous.

I'll opt for more lay terms. The Conservatives are actually negotiations payments for the Taliban. These will continue. Burgon and I are suggesting, given these are already happening, we may as well try to maximise our leverage in these talks and have an honest conversation about what we can get out of them. I'm really not sure how this is "deflecting". It is the opposite. Im trying to tackle head on the reality of the situation and discuss from there, including what Burgon has said. I'm unsure why its nuts when Burgon suggests it, but not when a government effectively does it

Tbh I'm not surprised by anything Burgon says these days, I think he lost touch with reality a very long time ago.

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

You're just repeating the point I made earlier in this thread.

Its worth repeating, It's evident Biden thing is climate and his foreign policy chips are in that game.

 

[edge]

Of course. And if you want to go back further, Britain whipped up the fury of Islamic nationalism in India to try to undermine them having democratic control and freedom from colonialism. Thats a large part of what led to the creation of an Islamic state in that area.

Britain whipped up Islamic nationalism really it didnt excist before 1946?
The British newly elected government stated aim was for a withdrawal from India and the formation of a United country,
something which had never existed before,
The country was made up of 600 separate , kingdoms ect, some that were never under under direct British rule , even in Empire days.
It wasnt and is still not some happy mixing pot of happy religious harmony .
The Indian Congress wanted a united country.
The Muslim league wanted thier own country , and jinner after months of talks called for direct action by it people setting off the violence the eventual led to participation.
There had been many Hindu , Muslim, wars going back Hundreds of years , it didnt need the British to be stirring a pot that was already boiling anyway.
From a Muslim perspective they would have been replacing one ruler with another, they didnt see themselves as Indian as that national identity didnt excist in its modern form.
Being and Indian was on par with us being European.
Even prior to the war Congress had said they wouldn't
fight on the allied side unless they got independence, Bose one of its leaders actually set up an organisation to fight agaist us.
Most of the congress leaders were jailed and the visroy of India declared war.
The Muslim leaders supported the war effort so a split in leadership can be seen at that stage
It still shows today in Kashmir and the other disputed areas, whose leaders didnt want to go either to Pakistan or Indian hence the trouble now as the both sides claim ownership
Britain can be blamed for a lot but saying it fanned a situation of Muslim/Hindu division that already existed is pushing it a bit.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

…


Thats fine then. They said they would take 20,000…..

20,000 people over 5 years Pete. What will the 16,000 do that aren't being accepted now? Are they not in danger until we say so?

The Kindertransport managed 10,000 people in 9 months in the middle of a war with the operations handled by volunteers.

Ffs, Raab's father was among them, yet this useless shower of [Poor language removed] are putting such a measly, mealy mouthed offering together. They shame us.

 

[catcherintherye]

Britain whipped up Islamic nationalism really it didnt excist before 1946?
The British newly elected government stated aim was for a withdrawal from India and the formation of a United country,
something which had never existed before,
The country was made up of 600 separate , kingdoms ect, some that were never under under direct British rule , even in Empire days.
It wasnt and is still not some happy mixing pot of happy religious harmony .
The indian Congress wanted a united country.
The Muslim league wanted thier own country , and jinner after months of talks called for direct action by it people setting off the violence the eventual led to participation.
There had been many Hindu , Muslim, wars going back Hundreds of years , it didnt need the British to be stirring a pot that was already boiling anyway.
From a Muslim perspective they would have been replacing one ruler with another, they didnt see themselves as Indian as that national identity didnt excist in its modern form.
Being and Indian was on par with us being European.
Even prior to the war Congress had said they wouldn't
fight on the allied side unless they got independence, Bose one of its leaders actually set up an organisation to fight agaist us.
Most of the congress leaders were jailed and the visroy of India declared war.
The Muslim leaders supported the war effort so a split in leadership can be seen at that stage
It still shows today in Kashmir and the other disputed areas, whose leaders didnt want to go either to Pakistan or Indian hence the trouble now as the both sides claim ownership
Britain can be blamed for a lot but saying it fanned a situation of Muslim/Hindu division that already existed is pushing it a bit.

Theres 2 issues here. The first is whether ethnic tensions existed secondly whether Britain inflamed the situation, for it's own ends.

It's very hard to argue both are untrue. Britain wanted an Islamic state and gave tacit support for the project. The ruling elites tended to view Muslims are more reliable and maluable than Hindus, who they didn't really understand. Britain was central to the creation of Pakistan as a concept, then as a state.

 

[edge]

20,000 people over 5 years Pete. What will the 16,000 do that aren't being accepted now? Are they not in danger until we say so?

The Kindertransport managed 10,000 people in 9 months in the middle of a war with the operations handled by volunteers.

Ffs, Raab's father was among them, yet this useless shower of [Poor language removed] are putting such a measly, mealy mouthed offering together. They shame us.

Just a point I was thinking off today, I have already said I would take anyone that had worked for us and their families so not getting involved in your thing with Pete.
But on a practical side how are they going to manage the refugees from Afghanistan as it's on the red list, they would all have to go into isolation, how would they manage this?
I havnt heard anything by anybody on the subject.
It's nothing in the grand scale of things

 

[edge]

Theres 2 issues here. The first is whether ethnic tensions existed secondly whether Britain inflamed the situation, for it's own ends.

It's very hard to argue both are untrue. Britain wanted an Islamic state and gave tacit support for the project. The ruling elites tended to view Muslims are more reliable and maluable than Hindus, who they didn't really understand. Britain was central to the creation of Pakistan as a concept, then as a state.

There were rumours of a deal between the British and the Muslim leaders prior to war for support of a separate nation in return for cooperation in the war effort , no strikes ect that were going on across the country.
But even then it suggests that the leadership had already decided to go that way , without British intervention.
Like most things it not black and white.?

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Just a point I was thinking off today, I have already said I would take anyone that had worked for us and their families so not getting involved in your thing with Pete.
But on a practical side how are they going to manage the refugees from Afghanistan as it's on the red list, they would all have to go into isolation, how would they manage this?
I havnt heard anything by anybody on the subject.
It's nothing in the grand scale of things

Given the way the Home Office usually behaves, I'm sure they'll do so as inhumanely as possible.

 

[Paulie]

I haven't kept up with the last few pages yet. Is there any evidence the ANA basically retreated and joined the Northern Alliance?

 

[Tin-Tin]

For those Trump/Boris fanboys blaming Biden, see below. Biden can be blamed for the lack of evacuation planning though, thats all on him.